Category Archives: Politics

October 1, 2013 · 16:46

Biased Journalism on USA shutdown?

We have seen reports of all forms. We see information management in what I have called bad news managing. This has happened in the Netherlands. Is it Biased Journalism, or is this journalism based upon the information handed to them?

The second part would be fair enough, because the journalist is dealing with what is handed to them. However, when we look at the canons of Journalism and their codes of ethics some questions come to the front of the lines. Truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity are three of the elements and there are more than just these three. I am not willing to attack truthfulness. It is in my view an empty gesture to do so. This is all based upon information that the Journalist gets handed. Accuracy might be an issue. They might have passed on the exact information they were handed, yet how accurate was it? Was the information tested in any way? Then there is objectivity. I am not sure if that is a valid point. Let us face the fact that objectivity is in the eyes of the beholder and as such there is more than one viewpoint. In all honesty, any article would need to be viewed from more than one side and the news as we usually watch it on TV is actually not that equipped to do just that. Newspapers are!

I have illustrated in earlier blogs that some of the mentioned information seemed inaccurate to me. This happens, I do not claim to be correct, but it seemed too upbeat to me and as such I questioned it. I was not alone, but not too many public contributors were, and in more than one occasion my view was the correct one. So when I saw the NOS news today, more questions rose in my mind and it is time to ask a few more and some other questions.

The most questionable part was the news on the US Shutdown as that danger approaches within the next 24 hours. What I saw as an issue was the way some parties were illustrated. First of all, it is important to know that I am leaning strongly towards the republican view. Not stating so beforehand would be wrong in my mind. The issue I had was with the NOS newscast of the US shutdown. It was not incorrect, but there were issues that have not been mentioned, which were at the centre of it all.

I see this all as the republican move to stop the abundant of irresponsible spending by a democratic party run government. Yes, we know that this is not about the fiscal cliff this time, but the government budget is directly linked to this. The democrats have taken the debt out of acceptable proportions.

Let us not forget that the US has a 17,000 BILLION dollar debt, this comes down to 340 billion dollars per state. In addition, if we look back to the Californian change in 2003, when Arnold Schwarzenegger became governor, former governor Gray Davis was confronted with a recall because the state shortfall was only 10% of the 340 Billion. That was directly due to the dot com boom collapse and a large group of companies were suddenly in a position no longer able to pay taxation, which meant that California, one of the richest states was suddenly without cash. Now the simple logic that follows, if one of the richest states cannot pay 10% of the outstanding debt, how can the others pay at all? This is the big cake that gets layers after layer of icing. With each layer it is presented as something that can be dealt with, but both democrat and republicans have no real solution. This is at the core of it all. So it is not just about the government budget, it is the issue that the budget is not realistic and that it is only adding to the debt. So when I see the part where Democrat Nita Lowey is talking about a compromise, then I end up splitting my guts with laughter. For two administrations there has not been any decent level of compromise. The republican view is that spending MUST go down by a lot. We could view the state by state comparison, especially against the Netherlands. Most states are larger than the Netherlands and none have a realistic approach to dealing with a 340 billion dollar debt. Now compare that to the Netherlands having to cut 6 billion and the view is almost complete. We all have to tighten the belt and within the USA this would last for no less three generations. The view I am proclaiming to be correct does have issues as well. It is however the view I behold. After Detroit, which already has gone bust, almost two dozen cities are facing the same problem in the US. Fresno, Compton and Oakland are three of them and they are all in California (one of the three rich states). If we would take a deeper look at the 50+ largest cities, then we see healthcare and retirement cost issues that make Detroit look like a joke. It is the healthcare part that is at the centre of it all. The Republicans are utterly convinced that Obama Care will not solve it at all. It will just add to the massive debts. What has been propagated as a solution to all, is in the realistic view of many a non-solution that will push forward debts and invoices that cannot be paid for in the end and as such people will face even more hardship down the line. Not to mention the fact that healthcare professionals might end up seeking greener pastures outside of the US.

The budget shortage is not new. This has been going on since 1995 (at least), however, in those days former president Clinton had two advantages. The first was that the government coffers had a cash surplus. Second was that the dot com boom was going nice. Consultancy firms were going strong, the incomes were really nice and consultants were making loads of cash by selling concepts. So, people were buying ideas and not an existing product. No matter what the reason was (like 9/11), it was the spending that the Bush administration started which gave the treasury such a negative jolt. It was nowhere near the spending that President Obama did, but he did not start this, so let us be fair about it. Against the current administration it must be stated that the no true legislation has been passed stopping Wall street the way it should, so there is no evidence that this will not happen again. And we are all aware that the economic thrashing started all with the Wall Street Clam bake ‘lets go hedge funds’ that was a huge part of the predicament we have now.

The question from the NOS ‘Is there no talking with the Republicans?‘ is not the only question and the one sided part of it is not correct. The linked question is ‘Can US overspending not be contained?‘ is the side the Republicans are dealing with. That part does not seem to be addressed by anyone. We see that side when we look at all the other places, including the Netherlands, the UK and Australia. They all have their own budget ghosts to deal with.

The Dutch government has its own cross to bear trying to find solutions to a 6 billion cutting spree. Too much talking and for too long no results. If we take all these sides (in all the talked about nations), then perhaps another method should be found. The first part is to cut ALL political incomes by 20% and no overtime payment at all (not sure if they get that to begin with). That should make a decent cut in the cost to the national treasuries and might make for quicker decisions. In my view I see no solution in any way to lower taxation. I think that this approach is an unrealistic one. What might be a solution is to change it all to a two tiered tax system with only 27% and 39%. That might work, but only if ALL tax deductibility’s are removed. This has two benefits. The system becomes simpler, and over all, with no deductibility’s left it becomes a clear approach. In addition there is a need to make all commerce taxable at the point of sale (the location of the purchaser’s keyboard). This must be where the buyer physically is. This is to take a stance on that Google, Amazon, et al approach, where on-line companies seem to be selling it all from an empty office in Ireland at taxation levels which should be regarded as a joke.

The system has to be changed. We have heard so many voices that a solution can be made, whilst ZERO results have been achieved for close to a decade. When we see administrations of entire cities go bust, it is time to just end whining about a solution that remains no more than a concept.

By the way, when we look at spending it all, what has been the end result? The fact that the US, the bulk of the Commonwealth and the Netherlands are spending way too much (compared to what is coming in though taxation) is out of proportions. That is why the republicans are putting their foot down and so far there is no evidence that they are holding the wrong position.

What is the right position? That is the question and I do not know whether the Republican position will be the correct one either. Yet, staying with the Democratic view whilst we have almost a decade of evidence that it is not working seems to be a flawed point of view. That view is reinforced by the Heritage foundation where it was quoted “While federal revenues are recovering from the recent recession, spending is growing sharply, resulting in four consecutive years of deficits exceeding $1 trillion.”

So the US government has been spending more than a trillion more then it received. Consider that in 2011 the total revenue was set at 2.3 trillion, spending 43% more then you get each year is not a good idea. Consider that the recession is not done by a long-shot; overspending 40% annually will have long term consequences.

If we accept that a government is not a profit based organisation then we could consider that a government would collect taxation at 105%-110% of what it needs. When you spend money and then only collect 71% you are going to need guarantees that things will go wrong. So when I stated that it will take 3 generations to get rid of the debt I was not kidding. In addition, the 17 trillion was just the national debt. The total debt is set at 60 trillion (roughly). This means that every state in the US would have to come up with 1.2 trillion dollars to deal with it. (I know it is not fair, but I need to show an example).

If we consider the three richest states and considering the 2012 numbers (from http://www.census.gov/govs/statetax) we see the following:

The collected taxation from California was 112.3, New York 71.5 and Texas 48.5, all in billions of dollars. So whether we use either the 340 billion or the larger 1.2 trillion, only 3 of the 50 states have any chance of paying it to any effect. Viewing these numbers, do the math and we see that things must change (by a lot). The Heritage foundation is also showing that current entitlements are double the defence budget. How does this relate to Obama care? Will the info they state gives us that the additional costs by 2019 which was set at 100 billion, which is a little over 12% of all collected annual taxes. So, another 100 billion needed whilst there is no income against that. The slide states “Obama care imposes numerous tax hikes which total more than $500 billion over 10 years. Obama care’s higher tax rates on income and investment will slow economic growth, leaving hardworking American families and businesses worse off.”

These are the issues that the republicans are fighting. We have seen enough ‘evidence’ to know that most economic recovery for Europe will not commence until 2015. So, as the GOP (Republican Party) is watching these developments, whilst they are watching the additional entitlement costs go up even further, costs, which are pushing their sense of humour all the way to the basement of Congress. This means that there are additional issues stopping the America from regaining its status of ‘economic superpower’. So these are some of the elements that are not too ‘illuminated’ as the US government squabble goes on. The only bonus I see at present, is that when the government shuts down, they should consider not paying any of the elected Democrats and Republicans for these days either. It might at least save the treasury a few dollars.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as Arnold Schwarzenegger, California, Democrat Nita Lowey, GOP, government, Gray Davis, Heritage Foundation, Journalism, Netherlands, Nita Lowey, NOS, Obama Care, President Obama, Republican party, the Netherlands, US Shutdown, US taxation

September 29, 2013 · 21:06

More than just Syria

The news has started to illustrate the issue I expected. I stated in my blog on September 20th “What we know about AQ is that they are about them and their needs“. That part is now coming to fruition. As ISIL they are now the third party in a civil war between two parties. My initial personal view is for President Assad and his opposition to come to an agreement and unite in a hunt for the members of ISIL/AQ, paving the way to some form of a seize fire.

Not doing so, will escalate this civil war in a plain hunt for lives who did not agree with the sharia convictions of ISIL/AQ. As Sky News now broadcasts how the victims of Syrian events are smuggled into Israeli Military Hospital where these victims are receiving lifesaving first aid and operations. A Samaritan act that will never be voiced by the victims they saved in fear of deadly reprisals. (At: http://news.sky.com/story/1147748/wounded-syrians-left-bleeding-with-the-enemy).

Isn’t it interesting that these so called Muslim ‘warriors’ are there just to ‘support’ one very specific version of Muslim faith. More important, the acts give weight to actually start open military intervention. In response to the article by the BBC (at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23925037), which stand point I do support. We are now faced with their tactical blunder which we should exploit. This does however require the support of President Assad. My initial assessment is gaining weight, which was more on the side of the Russian stance that Assad was not the one firing the chemical weapons. As I had stated in my earlier blog, it would make sense that an AQ attack to draw America and Israel into this conflict was the fuse to a powder keg. As the initial attack did not happen, ISIL is now actively attacking ‘their’ enemies. When we consider the September 19th report by Reuters (at http://www.reuters.com/article/2013_/09/19/us-syria-crisis-turkey-idUSBRE98I0C120130919)

This ‘game’ had been about de-stabilisation from the very start. As stated by me “AQ only cares for AQ” and as such, any diplomatic option towards AQ should be classified as null and void.

Yet this will take orchestration of some size, yet as AQ made the mistake of getting too close to the Turkish border, the issues could change if any attack on Turkey commences. At that point the NATO members have no option but to come to the aid of Turkey, also, the Turkish President Abdullah Gul would gain massive support and popularity should it get forced into a direct conflict with AQ forces, now trying to overrun Syrian areas. These events also change the game in other ways. AQ has zero support from Russia (in light of their Chechnyan ‘friends’) and at this point the turning table exists for Iran. If they decide not to get involved, which would be fair enough, the end result remains the same; AQ would have to go it alone, with their former temporary friends as well as the Government forces of President Assad at their throats. The bottle neck comes as NATO/Turkey slam down the box in the final side. AQ will cause massive amounts of damage. That is unlikely to be prevented. This is also where I do not completely support the Guardian article by Sarah Margon (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/20/sarin-gas-syria-icc). The quote “Opposition forces have also committed serious abuses, increasingly resorting to executions and indiscriminate shelling of government-held areas.” might not be incorrect, but it might be incomplete. If AQ is part of the opposition, then we must see whether this was an actual act by what is called the ‘moderate’ opposition forces, or are these events the work of AQ and AQ minded opposition forces. So Syria is now clearly less clear cut. It is a civil war with three parties, each with their own agenda.

As such the question grows, why should we get involved? No matter how the Syrian civil war goes. If AQ is not dealt with, they will flame out wreaking havoc on both Jordan and Israel. In addition, AQ is pushing forward with pressures against Egyptian forces as well as attacks on Israel. Reuters reported yesterday the Sinai attack (at http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/28/us-egypt-sinai-idUSBRE98R09220130928). It will take massive amounts of discipline for Israel to keep their cool for now. Should the IDF face these attacks on the north side, as well as attacks on the Sinai Eilat side, then we, successful or not, will have to face the consequences. There are also financial repercussions. In a BBC newscast, from last November “This still means that as of Saturday night Israel had spent roughly $29m on interceptor missiles in three days.” The IDF has an Iron Dome presence, yet how much financial pressure is it under at present?

There is a linked view, which comes from the Heritage foundation, an American Think-tank. The article was by Baker Spring and Michaela Dodge. Baker is a Research Fellow in National Security Policy and Michaela is a Research Assistant for Missile Defense and Foreign Policy, so they do know their missiles. Their quote “Each Iron Dome Tamir interceptor costs more than $100,000 to produce. This is many times the cost of a Grad, Qassam, Katyusha-style rockets. But there is more to assessing the cost effectiveness of a defensive system such as Iron Dome than a simple calculation of the cost of an additional defensive interceptor compared to the cost of an additional offensive rockets.” is on target. Their assessment makes the issues not as clear cut, but what is clear is no matter which approach AQ is taking, Israel will feel tremendous pressures as these events drag on and they are not the only one.

Jordan is facing massive pressures through the Syrian refugees. The Guardian reported some of this (at http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jul/25/syrian-refugee-crisis-in-numbers-updated). This article is focussed on the numbers. It does mention the fact that Syria is short on roughly $2B to get anything done. What is less shown is that Jordan was never known for an abundance of resources, especially water. With an additional 3 million mouths to fill those resources will dwindle down to nil quite quickly. Consider that it will need an additional 2 million gallons of water a day, an amount that will run Jordan dry really fast. You can see how Jordan’s goose gets dry cooked. If these numbers mean little, then consider that with a water scarcity in place, their population due to refugees has grown by 50%, all because of the Syrian civil war. A possible solution would be if we could find some solution in Aqaba. It is not a quick solution, yet the option of running a pipeline from the Sinai through Eilat to Aqaba, giving all parties relief might be an option. As that part of the Sinai is in MFO buffer zone C, and if both Egypt and Israel would agree on it, then there would be an accessible place that is in ‘neutral’ space for now, allowing relief to both Israel and Jordan as they are trying to deal with water shortages for the Syrian refugees. This option might also allow for some agricultural solutions, which would deal with the long term issues that will pop up. The AQ would have to be hunted out of the Sinai, but in that regard both Israel and Egypt agree.

Why there? If that region is to have any future, then anything we start now; any action that allows for a growth of tourism in that region, like a second Sharm-El-Sheik, but next to (or close to) Eilat, could in time be the financial infuse that could grow that region to some level of prosperity. Europe and America are now in a low curve, but it will not stay that way. In addition, as tourism grows business. This option has all the makings for finding a long term peaceful solution. It could become an option which will always be a better one than non-stop flooding the region with money and goods.

In my mind (oversimplified, I admit), I see this as a solution. The Dutch are massive experts in Greenhouses. Consider that these are build close to a water plant in the Sinai, Around Eilat, Israel and close to Aqaba, Jordan. So if we can get the water there, in some form, but likely via tankers, there could be an actual push for peaceful reform. We need to get food there in several ways. Finding a way to grow some of it will down the track be the cheapest and it would start real change.

Even though this Powder keg known as the Middle East has been lit and AQ is the fuse, would it not be the master of all Ironies if Al-Qaeda becomes the glue that actually sets in place some lasting form of peace? As, whoever is running Al Qaeda, faces a possible future where a peaceful Middle Eastern alliance develops with Israel as an accepted partner by all and it was thanks to AQ. Would the howling laughter of people not drive him (or her) insane?

Graveyards and politicians both love irony in equal measure, let’s make it so!

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Military, Politics, Science

Tagged as America, AQ, Aqaba, Baker Spring, BBC, Chechnya, Dutch Greenhouses, Eilat, Grad rocket, Guardian, Heritage Foundation, IDF, Iron Dome, ISIL, ISIS, Israel, Jordan, Katyusha-style, MFO, Michaela Dodge, NATO, President Abdullah Gul, President Assad, Qassam rocket, reuters, Sarah Margon, seize fire, Sinai, Sky News, tactical blunder, Tamir Interceptor, Turkey, www bbc co uk

September 27, 2013 · 17:37

Billion Euro Fine

It seems that the Dutch government has painted itself in a corner. The parties involved are now back into all levels of talks to find a situation where a majority can be found that can live with the situation. This means that there is every chance that the 6 Billion Euro in cut backs will not be met. This means that an additional Billion Euro in fines will go to the Dutch treasury. So, is this a continuing level of evidence that the Dutch administration had been handing out funds it could not pay for in the end?

There is no excuse that can validly be used.

In the first degree, there is no excuse to use the economy or the recession. There are in my mind clear levels of visibility that there had been levels of ‘bad news management’. I had voiced my concerns on several occasions that the economy was nowhere near what was ‘predicted’ by the CBS. I was proven correct on more than one occasion and that whilst I have no advanced mathematics degree. It makes one wonder how those high priced calculators get to their numbers, doesn’t it?

When Germany started to tighten its belt from 2009 onwards, too many were on that horse of optimism where many stated that such rigorous cut backs were not needed. Now, four years later the cutbacks required are a lot more then would have been and that bill cannot be paid. On all sides minorities cry out that the cut backs on one side and/or tax increases on the other side are not proportional and that these actions will not benefit the economy.

I expect one more jolt of bad news and certain parties will stand up opening the retirement funds for the benefit of now. Which means that the economy will now need to rely on a jolt of ‘annexed funds’! Why am I stating this? I see these funds as the ownership of those now working. Whether you start or whether you are at the end of your working life. The funds of you and me are used to steer away from the actual issue of a parliament not able to control its spending. There are additional issues linked to this.

A Dutch blogsite called http://huizenmarkt.blog.nl from Juul Dijkhuis stated “De huizenprijzen zijn inderdaad kunstmatig hoog gehouden, maar mede hierdoor zijn de economische zorgen in Nederland ook kleiner dan bij de ons omringende landen. De gevolgen van een flinke daling kunnen namelijk groot zijn.”

“[translated]: The house prices are indeed kept high through artificial means, because of this the economic worries are not as high as those for the surrounding nations. The consequences of a sizeable reduction in value could be severe”

This is just the first one I found and this statement does not stand alone in this matter. This article came from 2011, after the crash and in the timespan when bad news management (as I see it) was already in place. So consider the issue that the Dutch are not dealing with one issue on economy, but on additional issues in that same year we see SNS Reaal Property Finance, which is no longer here, was already dealing with minus a quarter of a billion for 2011. The Dutch site Calcasa (www.calcasa.nl), which is an independent technology firm, specialised in property value assessment reported in 2012 that in 2011 Dutch property value went down by 17 billion. As stated residential (-1.3%), offices (-1.9%), shops (-5.9%) en corporate spaces (-3.5%)
(At: http://www.calcasa.nl/nl/over-calcasa/nieuws/detail/kwartaalbericht-waarde-nederlands-vastgoed-met-17-miljard-afgenomen-in-2011/105).

So was this just another form of ‘bad news’ management? There is a lack of clarity here, yet consider that already in 2011 we see that different separate branches are trying to keep the good view, and from all indications the government did not intervene, did not (so it seems) openly correct the events. As stated, events that would have impacted the Dutch population in more than one way.

In support we see issues that are linked, but from another side altogether. If we look back to 2011 and if we look at the minister of Education, culture and Science, the honourable Mariëtte Bussemaker We see the following:

“In de brief aan de Tweede Kamer «Meer dan kwaliteit: een nieuwe visie op cultuurbeleid» van 10 juni 2011 (Kamerstuk 32 820, nr. 1) wordt aangekondigd dat het kabinet wil onderzoeken of het mogelijk en wenselijk is het eigendom van de gebouwen van de rijksmusea aan deze instellingen over te dragen.”

“[Paraphrased] House document 32 820 nr 1, Parliament will investigate whether it is possible and desirable to transfer ownership of states museums could be transferred to the institutions that occupy them” This is fair enough, yet in that same document the next part gives us part of the light.

“DTZ Zadelhoff heeft voor het vastgoed van de vier door Deloitte onderzochte Rijksmusea de taxatiewaarde onafhankelijk vastgesteld (waarde in het vrije economisch verkeer). Daaruit blijkt dat er een aanzienlijk verschil bestaat tussen de (hogere) boekwaarde van de vier musea op de balans van de Rgd enerzijds en de (lagere) marktwaarde van het vastgoed anderzijds (circa 25%). Dit verschil, dat voor een belangrijk deel kan worden verklaard door bewuste keuzes in het verleden voor maatschappelijke investeringen in een stabiele museale omgeving, kan zich openbaren wanneer er besloten wordt tot overdracht van het eigendom aan de Rijksmusea.”

“[Paraphrased] Zadelhoff has ascertained an independent value of four the investigated state museums by Deloitte. From there we found that there is a difference approaching 25% between the free economic value and the value in the books. The booked value is a lot higher than the actual market value. The difference, which can be explained through choices in the past of social inclined investments, could become visible when these properties are transferred.”

So when we look at the links, then we see a government that is already visibly aware that there is, what I deem to be a surreal over valuation of properties. It could be that the values are actually a lot lower than what the books incline them to be. How far does this stretch? Because, if that is true and it had been known, then certain measure would have had to be taken long before July 2012. If actions were not made, then we see that the economy, linked to the value of a nation gives us a different percentage. So which additional levels of management are in play? (I actually do not know). But it seems to me that the more issues are linked, the more the evidence indicates that non-acts are beyond acceptable. Those parties now bickering over scraps to avoid hunger are either ignoring or not mentioning that the scraps will not make up for a meal to begin with. So instead of finding solutions, we witness debates (read bickering), where the result of the conversation will not be solution no matter how much a party gives in, which means that the only treasure left are the retirement funds, or more aptly put, the family silver!

That will result in the situation where all are left with less, whilst the political parties seem to remain in cycles of ‘bad news management’. When we look at the annual reports of some of these museums we see the text “De stichting beoordeelt op iedere balansdatum of er aanwijzingen zijn dat een De stichting beoordeelt op iedere balansdatum of er aanwijzingen zijn dat een vast actief aan een bijzondere waardevermindering onderhevig kan zijn.”

“[Paraphrased] the foundation decides on every balance date, whether indications exist that a fixed-asset is linked to a value decrease” so was it? From the parliamentary paper we saw mention that at least 4 have this issue. Was this indicated, or are we now dealing with a time zone issue where the moments of report and ‘enlightenment’ of value reduction seem to miss one another?”

Again, I actually do not know, yet we do not see too much information in this regard. So the active question of linked values are an issue not to ignore, especially if the value had gone too far down, the consequence is that cutting back 6 billion, an amount they are not able to manage now, would not have been enough. This is important to know, because there are two elements not illustrated. The Dutch government place its economy in the European rankings in the top 5 (I reckon it is within the top 10) (at http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/nieuws/2013/03/26/nederland-in-top-5-slimste-economieen-van-europa.html), in addition, the Dutch Newspaper ‘Trouw’ stated last February (at http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4504/Economie/article/detail/3399005/2013/02/23/Triple-A-natie-Nederland-vergeleken-met-Groot-Brittannie-het-land-zonder-AAA.dhtml) that the Dutch economy is in a decent place, yet it also illustrates that the debt would rise until 2018, whilst at that point the UK debt would already be lowering. So why is this important?

Well, if this is about a percentage of the GDP, then the Dutch treasures, which includes its Gross investment and ‘net additions to capital assets’ plus ‘investments in inventories’. So, what happens then the net additions to Capital assets becomes an increasing negative number? Net fixed capital formation is linked to depreciation (and loss of value). It seems to me that if the net value of its treasures become increasingly large, then the mentioned 25% lowering would be disastrous. Especially when we see that investments toward these areas do nothing to increase net value that is linked to the GDP. The view is heavily coloured as the initial paper was only on 4 buildings, yet if we see and accept the levels of bad news management that has been in play, what else is intervening with the correct value of the GDP?

So as this (for now) is about the realistic upcoming 1.2 billion Euro additional fine the Dutch will face if they cannot keep their budget (at http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4500/Politiek/article/detail/3516791/2013/09/26/Moet-Nederland-straks-echt-1-2-miljard-in-Brussel-afrekenen.dhtml), what other information is currently missing?

What if the Dutch need to face a revaluation of their GDP and of the elements of information that are now being ‘managed’, what will the consequence be of such a new valuation? Will the Dutch cutbacks be as severe, or worse in 2014?

What ‘managed’ information will people learn about after the retirement funds are drained?

The views I gave are important beyond the Dutch borders as well. It is a ‘sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander’ approach. From my point of view Dutch parliament is not evil, or corrupt, or criminal (there is a massive spot called grey area though). So, when these issues are detected with the Dutch, then it is important to know that others might be doing exactly the same, to some degree. The UK opposition system makes this situation unlikely but not impossible. The underlying similar dangers would then be coming from both France AND Italy (both in the economic top 5 and higher than the Netherlands). We all know that the waters of the Euro are murky. These matters might illustrate that they are also a lot less safe than we imagined them and if we accept that whatever happens in each of these nations hits all of them as it impacts the Euro, we could see this as a sign that the European economic troubles are far from over. When we have to take into account issues that were non-issues before, once this all comes out, how much damage will the Euro suffer?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as advanced mathematics, Calcasa, CBS, Deloitte, DTZ Zadelhoff, Euro, GDP, huizenmarkt, Juul Dijkhuis, Kamerstuk 32 820 nr. 1, Mariëtte Bussemaker, Parliament, SNS Reaal Property Finance, Trouw

September 23, 2013 · 13:31

What lies beneath!

Today is the day we get to take a look at those who get and those who did not receive an Emmy. This is a remarkable year for it. Not because of the winners and non-winners, but from my personal view on the quality of TV shows. There was little way for me to predict the winners in this year. This is not a year where there is a clear winner. They were so many amazing shows and some of them blew away their own fans. So whether we cheer for 30 Rock, Louis, Nurse Jackie or Glee, or even all of them. 2013 shows that the audience won in a very big way. If the bad economy brings out creativity then no one can afford to miss the 2014 Emmy’s as true creativity is just around the corner.

Talking about the economy, is there any news? Well, today, not unlike the Emmy’s the UK is facing issues like vetting the spending by labour, Ed Milliband does not tolerate backstabbing and George Osborne is facing Scepticism over the multi-billion pound sale of Lloyds Banking Group.

So as we are in the sphere of the Emmy, considering that soon there will be the Tony for theatre and the BAFTA and Academy awards for the cinema, here is the Churchill Award. This golden statue shows us Churchill in a thick winter coat and a cigar. Like the image we had of this great man during WW2. We should not confuse the statue with a Hitchcock or any other drama figure. Here we ‘award’ the politician.

So in good standing, the Churchill award for political events goes to (wait for it)……

Nigel Farage of UKIP!

Surprised? Angry?

Let me elaborate. I am not on his side. I remain for now a conservative. Yet, when we watch the news in triviality, where not unlike the issues in Australia Labour seems to be in power struggle after power struggle we wonder why we should support a party where the bickering of being in control takes so much energy and time of a party. Now I am all in favour of a Milliband labour with the bedroom tax gone. Yet, how will certain measures be made with a trillion plus in deficits? Similar warning in regards to the squabbling was reported by BBC’s Justin Parkinson as he recouped the words by Dave Prentis.

The second player, ‘my’ preferred side David Cameron was accused of bringing back more of the ‘nasty’. That is not a bad thing (still highly uncomfortable). I agree that costs have to be cut, yet for now he has not gotten a hold on their spending. In addition his peer in parliament George Gideon Oliver Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer did not help much. Yes, on his watch the economy is slightly better. However, if we give weight to the Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/sep/22/first-signs-recovery-despite-austerity-george-osborne) it was not his victory. William Keegan has his ducks more than just in a row and as such this article has weight. Still, the UK could have done a lot worse. Heavily against the conservatives is the Welfare Reform Act 2012 (aka bedroom tax). I always thought of this as a bad move. Especially, in a time and age, where the UK housing shortage is massive and no one can afford to move or change apartment. Nailing these people to their empty bedroom (or cupboard with bed) is just not the way cricket should be played.

So we see the winner Nigel Farage. I consider this man to be dangerous. His ideas are out there and the consequences of moving away from Europe will hurt the UK economy in ways we still cannot foresee. Still the idea of a flat tax approach has merit. When we consider the Stemcor’s of the world (or in this case, just the UK) the umbrella options and other small little twinkles that give the wealth more deductibility’s then the average welfare person many wonder. The fact that he gets stigmatised on matters seem to work positive for him as well.

Still, the plays he plans should he ever get to number 10 will hurt the UK in ways many of his voter will not realise until it is too late. He speaks to those losing much, to those in economic hardship, ever willing to blame anyone else, even if no one (bankers excluded) is to blame.

The man has the charisma and he has the drive, people react to that and in the end, all sheep plenty and few will follow the herder that gives them the best music (even if he is sitting next to a blowing volcano). If the others do not change their ways then my initial prediction from my previous blog (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2013/05/04/ukip-or-u-k-i-p-ur-kiddin-i-presume) will come to be true. Labour and Conservatives on the same opposition side of the isle. That would be one hell of a show to get tickets to.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as BBC, Bedroom Tax, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Churchill, Conservatives, Dave Prentis, David Cameron, Ed Milliband, Emmy Awards, George Osborne, Justin Parkinson, Labour, Lloyds Banking Group, Nigel Farage, Number 10, Stemcor, UKIP, Welfare Reform Act 2012, William Keegan

September 22, 2013 · 19:04

NSA linked to corporate dangers?

The Netherlands are facing a new issue, one that they had not bargained for. It is my personal view that the matter at hand seems to be getting misrepresented, so I need to do something about it.

First let us take a look at the reported facts.

On Saturday 21st September the Dutch NOS reported on TV and on their website on how the Dutch are opening their doors to the NSA (at http://nos.nl/artikel/553680-nederland-opent-deur-voor-nsa.html) The issue is that on business grounds the Amsterdam Internet Exchange is considering opening an office in the US, which would under the FISA all their servers open to investigation by the NSA. In that scenario all of the Dutch internet traffic can at that point be monitored by the NSA.

The first question that comes to mind is what the exact benefit is to open an American office. I wonder why that step is so essential. That reason might be very valid, I just do not know.

The danger is not ‘privacy‘ as such. So many people keep on blabbing on how their privacy is so much in danger. I think that remains to be grossly exaggerated. The additional issue raised by the NOS on their Saturday broadcast (which was not on their website) is a different matter. In there the mention was made by Nico van Eijk from the University of Amsterdam, where British executives from an online gambling site, something that is perfectly legal in England, is not legal in the US and when these executives were in the US on business for other ventures, they got themselves arrested. This info can be found at http://www.cato.org/blog/uk-gambling-ceo-arrested-us-airport. The important quote here is “the U.S. has exploited those treaties to effectively kidnap British citizens who broke no British laws, and extradite them to the U.S. for trial on charges of violating U.S. law“. There is of course another legal side to this. Did David Carruthers actually enable these transgressions of law? Connected to this is the Mark Emery case, which involved a Canadian ‘evangelist’ for medical Marijuana. Did either enable US business?

A quote from the UK’s Daily Mail gave us “Investment bankers Goldman Sachs says that the clampdown by the American authorities could mean ‘that the US could cease to be a viable market for online gaming companies.’ That would be tantamount to destroying the earnings of the main firms since 70% of them originate from the United States.”

The two sides here are that in the first degree these companies do rely on their American market. Knowing that the events were illegal, going to the place looking out for you was not really that bright was it? The second was that the statement came from Goldman Sachs. Bringers of the popular gambling option ‘soon, because of our bad judgement, you no longer own a house‘. Seems a little warped doesn’t it?

We could of course come to the notion that the NSA executive is riddled with spineless paperbacks, not a hardcover amongst them! But the reality is not that clear. In actuality, the game they could end up playing is a lot less appealing for those outside of the US.

For that part we need to take a look at the NSA website (certain parts of it) and to start we need to look at a document that came from the Defense Technical Information Center in Fort Belvoir Virginia. This document called “2009 National Intelligence, A Consumer’s Guide“, where at page 52 it states “The Act specifies that OIA shall be responsible for the receipt, analysis, collation, and dissemination of foreign intelligence and foreign counter-intelligence information related to the operation and responsibilities of the Department of the Treasury.”

Now add the information on the mission statement from the treasury as displayed by the white house. “Support the Department of the Treasury’s mission to promote economic prosperity and the financial security of the United States” this is only part of that mission statement, but by itself it is just as valid. The two now give them additional possibilities through the NSA.

That part is seen on the actual website of the NSA and specifically a department called the ‘Information Assurance Business Affairs Office‘ (at http://www.nsa.gov/ia/business_research/ia_bao/index.shtml), here we see the following parts:

1. The IA Business Affairs Office (BAO) is the focal point for IA partnerships with industry. It also provides guidance to vendors and the NSA workforce in establishing IA business relationships and cultivates partnerships with commercial industry through demonstrations and technical exchanges.

2. The benefits of working with the BAO are (two of them):

Increased product marketability
Assistance in the development of next generation solutions

These are only part of the mission. They do a lot more. So in the upcoming age where the world will revolve on big data and parsing information, US businesses might get the option to get access to Exabyte sized data, marketable, distributable and sell-able. The intelligence side of the US was never the problem. The corporate side, for which I have tried on several occasions to warn others about (like ‘the Google’ and ‘the Facebook’) will get access to information and innovation on a global scale.

When we consider the utter inability by the US government to get their own spending under control (not just them mind you). As they are now closer and closer on the edge of bankruptcy (17 trillion in national debt will do that to anyone), their own treasury will only need to receive just one mandate ‘to grow and assure the continuation of the United States and its economy‘, which is already part of the treasuries mission statement. In the age where the current president is so polarised against his opposition, where he is adamant that spending is the only option, he will not hesitate to speak these words (can’t really blame him, can I?). It is decently likely that this would give specifically assigned parts of corporate America the option to market Petabytes of data. Outside of the US, the industrial age would then collapse in a way you cannot even imagine. They could globally sell lists on scales no one can compete with. Consider the future to have one provider in data; the ripple effect in the industry would be devastating. However bad you think you have it is nothing compared to what happens if the thought I am having is a reality. Consider the data files people created. The issue I was confronted with yesterday is that someone saw a nice design on a 3d printer and he wanted to use it, but it was not his design. The help file contained the info I expected it to have. All files from that program were to be considered shareware/freeware and could be used and distributed freely. The software maker had done this to avoid liabilities. It made perfect sense. He made a program he wanted people to use, he did not charge anyone for it and to avoid people coming after him for being nice, he made it all freeware. But whoever designs in that program, those data files are freeware too. So anyone can use it. How many programs do you think are out there built on that principle? Now consider those artistic idea’s, traded freely and there is nothing you can do about it.

That was part of the fear I had and as almost EVERYONE gave away their rights on social media, who profits? It seems to me, not the creator!

But then those in social media opted for that, however those on corporate networks and business internet connections did not opt for such futures. The question is, how protected are they from misuse of their data?

So how long until it is no longer about finding terrorists?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Daily Mail, David Carruthers, Defense Technical Information Center, FISA, Fort Belvoir, Information Assurance Business Affairs Office, internet, Mark Emery, Nico van Eijk, NOS, NSA, technology, University of Amsterdam

September 20, 2013 · 14:06

The empty stage

That was the view I had at 05:00 when I woke up switching on Sky News. As I was still dealing with painkillers it was all there was to do. Until the painkillers kick in, whatever I try to focus on will not be successful. It is an anchor weighing me down and in my entire life I have never taken that much chemicals. I will go further in stating that the amount of painkillers used in the last two weeks outstrips the sum of all painkillers used in the past 50 year. My life sucks for now!

Now Secretary of State John Kerry enters the stage.

His speech is focussing on the fact that we all have our own opinions, yet we do not all have our own facts. It is about the evidence of Sarin. The UN report confirms that this was the case. We knew all that. His report is now on the view that it was all the fault of Assad. This is all an emotional speech on how it is all the fault of Assad.

I need another painkiller!

The UN report, as reported by others are all about the fact that Sarin was used, yet the UN report as stated by others did not state WHO was the one that fired these missiles. Am I watching another spin report, all about emotion and posturing? This should still be about removing the chemical weapons, which I agree with is a needed thing. Yet, the theatre unfolding now is about other things. It is about the binding resolution! Should I now see this as a secretary of state throwing the equivalent of a tantrum?

No it is not! Apparently the US side parties involved want to bind this under Chapter 7 so that the resolution is binding. And again China and Russia are possible standing as a barricade in these times that require solutions. It seems that Russia is still playing politics (as a politician would), but this is about a lot more than just the chemical weapons I reckon. Like a chess player President Putin is moving his pieces little by little. Is he keeping his ‘friend’ out of harm’s way, or is he trying to guarantee a multi-billion dollar deal with President Assad? If that is so, he could end up with a 3.75% commission (which is the average commission for a junior salesperson), adding up to an easy $5 million, which is not a bad day’s work. Can I please get a spokesperson position at $250,000 a year?
I need the income!

So we are looking at a play to set the binding resolution through application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII. This part contains Articles 39 to 51. This is the part that Assad would not like. The binding resolution means that President Assad could be taken towards a time line, if ignored, or if stall tactics are shown then a military option opens up as can be read in Article 45 ‘In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.‘

Why am I on the fence? The simple truth is that the Russian claim that the attack was a provocation, fired by the opposition forces is not that unreal. There is supporting evidence of two kinds.

The first is that the locations of the chemical weapon stacks are not all known. For all we know the opposition have been by chemical location for some time. The second part is that I have had my reservations why Al-Qaeda would get involved in a situation where they are on the same side as America. That never made sense. What we know about AQ is that they are about them and their needs. Since when was their position ever on the side of ‘another’ population (read the Syrian people)? I cannot claim mastery of knowledge here, I could be wrong. Yet the tactical position they have to find weapons against Israel and America would be too appealing. The fact that AQ provoked an act that gets America in another war, possible drawing Israel in as well was not that bad a strategy. It seems to have worked. So is the Sarin the baton that is getting passed on and on? Let’s not forget that the AQ is a party of interest in all of this, so whatever we think is going on is less clear then most suspect.

If we know that the Syrian forces had certain equipment, is it a possibility that they had been captured? The part I have an issue with is that with all those satellites, no one is watching the events in Syria, if so, then where is that footage? John Kerry made the quote “There is no indication, none, that the opposition is in possession, or has launched a CW variant of these rockets” it seems to be a reflection on the 122mm improvised rocket. The fact that he speaks of ‘indication‘ means that either he has no INTEL on this (or was handed it), or no one was able to record this. With all those satellites in orbit, this is an issue that I have a problem with.

I reckon that the satellite views do exist, but there is likely not enough information proving which party instigated these fireworks. If so, then it would be out with the press and all to see and judge. It is nice to play this game, but you need evidence, and that is what is lacking on the US side. Yes, Sarin was used, but by who? It is the question that haunting us all and we see again a polarisation of views Russia on the side of their buddy President Assad and the US taking up the other side.

The only positive of all of this is that another nation is joining a non-chemical weapons group, although it is a little late to that party. The only issue remains is whether AQ got access to the CW missiles and if so were they able to syphon any of them to other locations? This is what has Russia spooked most of all. The reason is that there are links going back well over half a decade that AQ has links to Chechnya terror groups. If they end up with only one missile, then the cooking mixture for utter panic in the streets of Moscow will be not far behind. Chechnya fighters have several options for entering Russia and getting close to Moscow.

If there is validity in my approach to these events, then this could mean that Russia will only be ‘cooperative’ for as long as it takes to know whether AQ has access to the missiles and whether they are sending a few on to their ‘friends’. After that Russia is likely to return to a stance that the US would classify as ‘their un-cooperative selves’. These all link together as we the people have been numbed by spin, misdirection and stories of all kind by several sources, many with their own agenda. We are numbed like a patient on too many painkillers. The longer this lasts, the more emotional political presentations get, up to the moment that this approach becomes utterly counterproductive.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as Al-Qaeda, Chapter VII, Chechnya, John Kerry, politics, President Assad, President Putin, Sarin, Sky News, Syria, UN

September 18, 2013 · 21:13

Bankrupt or failed? It’s all the same!

This topic applies to two events that are hitting two groups. The first one is about one of the final nails that are getting hammered into the coffin that is laughingly called the US economy.

Yet, what is actually in play? On one hand there are the mentions that the US economy is on the rise, so why is the debt limit such a strong issue?

The second issue is one that is playing in the UK, but about that later.

For these issues we need to consider a few chess pieces, that had been ignored in the past and there is only so much you can do before those ‘forgotten’ pieces rear their ugly head. Yes, I agree that there are signs that the US economy is again slightly on the rise. More jobs are offered, people are getting back onto the horse of labouring enterprises. There is however the other side. The government seems to ignore the need to get their budget in order, they ignore that there is a consequence to non-stop borrowing. Excuse upon excuse, story upon story and where does this lead?

The issues got visibility after Sky News reported on a story that involved the interview with Treasury Secretary Jack Lew. Reuters quoted him stating “We cannot afford for Congress to gamble with the full faith and credit of the United States,” Lew told the Economic Club of Washington, a business forum. Yes, he is correct in that, yet the strong story to hunker down on excessive spending is not loudly voiced. That same situation is what the Dutch government is currently facing. The story there was that it will never be like is was ever again is the story in the Dutch case. The pre 2008 life style is gone and likely gone forever. It will take a small nation like the Netherlands 5-10 years to get their spending under control, but it will never be as good as it was before. Why mention the Netherlands? With 16 million people they are at 5% of the American population. Their debt is around 430 billion. This is less than 2% of the national debt the US has and they have now announced austerity measures to reduce their deficit. The measures will be a helping of bitter fruit to nearly all Dutch. The total US debt is said to be around 60 trillion dollars, which boils down to $9000 for every person on the planet. Basically, the annual US Currency degradation is larger than the total debt of the Netherlands and the Dutch are looking at the next 10-15 years of financial hardship, and then only if the economy has picked up to the smallest extent by the end of 2015. If not, then those 15 years might not be enough. So the summary ‘the good times are gone forever’ seems amply put. More important, as the US debt devaluates quicker than the annual interest payments, is there any way out left for the US but bankruptcy?

The RABO bank director had made a comment that ‘all will have to tighten the belt’. Sounds nice, but let’s not forget that financial institutions playing fast and loose with other people’s money was cause to most of these issues. The second link is that he is not just mentioning the massive debt, yet a small mention on how the Dutch have such a good retirement treasury. It is another first attempt to get their fingers on the one place that was supposed to keep a population safe. (at http://nos.nl/audio/552545-directeur-rabobank-we-moeten-met-zn-allen-de-broekriem-aanhalen.html)

The US seems to ignore again and again that there is a limit to spending, so the lesson the Dutch are learning the hard way is one that American is currently not ready to face. They might say yes, there is a limit, but then state that they are nowhere near these limits. I disagree! I reckon that the point of no return was reached in 2011. The outstanding debts are now a matter of more than just multiple generations. The fact that we are given stories about returning economies are one thing, the part on how taxation must be paid (and is not) is silenced again and again. the rich move away their fortunes to the Bahamas or other places that will keep it ‘safe’, in addition corporate America is doing the very same thing by moving their ventures to places like Ireland, which allowed several corporations to pay less than 0.2% in taxation. How can the US survive when people without jobs cannot pay taxation and the super-rich move outside of the reach of the US treasury so they do not have to? These steps are socially undesirable and in my mind it is a form of treason. How can a company hide behind the US as a shield stating they have rights and then move away as they shun their own duties? These ignored elements are part of the problem that is likely to soon leave the US in a state of bankruptcy.

The US claims to be a nation of laws, which is fair enough. I think that they forgot that when greed calls the shots, the law becomes a shield for criminals, whilst becoming an anchor for those they are supposed to protect. It is a topsy-turvy world indeed.

So as we move towards the next 8 weeks of uncertainty, as the Democrats and Republicans are moved into a space that is more polarised then sunglasses, we will see that some will get a few coins from the jittery movement of the markets. Also take notice on how some of these people proclaim on how this is all so much unfair and how spending just a little more will save the people. No! It will not. It has not been a solution for almost 2 administrations. It is time to look for an actual solution, instead of prolonging an absolute failure.

So time to take a look at the UK now!

They have their own deficit, but more importantly, they do have a different set of problems. The NHS was at some point to have some kind of system that would record some forms of information. (Or so it would seem).

The NHS IT system is a failure. So much so, that it is the biggest failure in UK history. I reckon it is big enough to be the biggest failure in European history, but that seems too much like splitting hairs. The program had cost 10 billion pound, which makes it a 0.5% of the total British debt. That takes some doing to be such a failure.

Why are these two events connected?

Apart from the usual suspect that both involved politicians, it seems to me that both situations require a clear vision of what needs to be done. In both places they are lacking. It actually goes further than that, however for that part, let us take a look at the NHS laptop.

The Guardian is giving it some attention at (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/18/nhs-records-system-10bn)

To do this, we will need to look at a few quotes that were made in this regard.

“MPs on the public accounts committee said final costs are expected to increase beyond the existing £9.8bn because new regional IT systems for the NHS, introduced to replace the National Programme for IT, are also being poorly managed and are riven with their own contractual wrangles.” This is one of the stronger quotes. We are looking at three distinct parts.

1. ‘Own contractual wrangles’ looks to me that the wrong people were involved in the contractual parts. Too much baggage or too little know-how, no matter how you twist this, when the contract is about ‘disputes‘ the people are not linked to a contract, but driven apart though paper (not unlike less successful marriages). This all makes for a nasty ‘separation’.

2. ‘new regional IT systems‘ and ‘being poorly managed‘ means that this is again a track of issues that are set to how good one’s PowerPoint presentation looks, not on how well an infrastructure can be managed. It is a fatal flaw in any IT project.

3. ‘Final costs are expected to increase beyond the existing £9.8bn‘ Like that is a surprise? This means that the costing’s were never properly done. Even in an age where the UK had a 3 year bad run with the economy, it seems to me that proper setting out a charter was never done. No charter, no limits and no results. It is again the same story we see too often when interested parties see the government not as a customer, but as a gravy train with no end in sight.

The IT is no different from any other business, when they see a governmental place where the gravy train just runs through it and they hope they are the station the train will stop. In my mind I see these places as a spot with too many managers and not enough workers. This is often the situation in many organisations. When it is in a commercial organisation it is a nuisance, and if they do not bring home the bacon, they are often let go at some point. With governmental organisations it is a different thing, more important, when it is done on regional area’s where they all want to be ‘in charge’ it adds up to nothing less than a death sentence to any structure that does not have commercial goals. It will collapse onto itself.

Here is the comparison with the US government. Like the NHS both are spending huge amounts they do not have to reflect upon. Not unlike the US their incomes are going down fast as tax havens take away the annual incomes the UK/US used to have. So in all, we are a looking at an engine that is supposed to run whilst we allowed the fuel tank to be external and no longer attached to the car. How stupid is that approach?

Richard Bacon, who had co-written a book on failing government projects, said that the NHS’s particular problems stem from the original contracts signed before 2002. It comes from a book he wrote with Christopher Hope called Conundrum. I am not disputing his view; it does however show that 10 years later a situation is holding the UK back. Perhaps a better contract team is/was needed? This all reads like my first item I mentioned. Nice that someone from Norfolk can see the issue that the London bigwig’s can’t be bothered to identify on a good day.

The issue I see is that the contracts might have been OK or acceptable at that time, but government situations require a different scope, and signing something that is holding back the UK 10 years later is really a bad contract (from the NHS point of view). So people were hired who lacked that same insight. It is not just on what they were instructed to do, I am questioning whether the right people were ever asked to question the outstanding approach to the long term extent it was needed to be looked at.

Too many are trying the same approach to other scenario’s, which is fair enough, yet those who should be in charge are NOT thinking this through. The mind is lazy, when something works, use it again, I get that! In this case it was not a solution and neither is it when it comes down to spending again and again to shove forward an economy that requires $10 for a return of $0.10. It is bad business through and through.

The one quote from the Guardian article is the crux ‘The government was keen to distance itself from the problem.‘

That is just not an option. Moreover, if it wanted that, it should have never gone near this issue to begin with. If we look at the BBC in 2011 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15014288) the following quote comes forward “Health Secretary Andrew Lansley will say: “Labour’s IT programme let down the NHS and wasted taxpayers’ money by imposing a top-down IT system on the local NHS, which didn’t fit their needs. We will be moving to an innovative new system driven by local decision-making.”

Whilst in July 2010 the issue stated by the BBC (at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10557996) was: “Mr Lansley also announced he expected all NHS trusts, which run hospitals and mental health units, to get foundation status by 2013.” So what did get done? More important, it states nothing about abandoning this ‘new’ system at the moment of release.

It all gets a little more hairy when you consider the quote in that very same article ‘Professor Chris Ham, chief executive of the King’s Fund think-tank, said: “It is a very radical programme. We have never seen anything like this since the inception of the NHS in 1948.“‘

It seems to me that this was another PowerPoint approach by those who talk nice but have no idea where the keyboard is stored. Certain quality questions should be asked from those who can only think in election terms. These systems are supposed to outlast them all. This is an issue which has, not once been properly dealt with in either the US or the UK.

How much more tax money will be spent on trains that lead to a place called nowhere?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics

Tagged as Andrew Lansley, Conundrum, Dutch government, economic club of washington, Guardian, Jack Lew, NHS, Professor Chris Ham, RABO, Richard Bacon, Richard Hope, Sky News, treasury secretary, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, UK

September 12, 2013 · 03:13

Foreign and Domestic

America is under attack. The question becomes whether this is a new one, or one that has been ongoing. There are several thoughts and they all, too some extent link together.

FOREIGN
The foreign groups ‘attacking’ America include both China and Russia. They are both using to some extent their own puppets. Let us call them Syria and Iran for now. Russia’s pulling the strings of Iran. No matter how the strings are pulled, no matter how acts are ‘begotten’, the issue is that Iran has been given the one carrot it cannot ignore. It is the support to get a nuclear power plant placed within Iran. Russia gets a string of benefits; this includes making America look bad, making their claims fall short, which according to the speakers in the Kremlin will look pretty good on the front page of Izvestiya (Известия). China is now giving support to Syria as Syria in a last moment of desperation plays the ‘oversight on my Chemical Romance stockpile’ card. The question becomes, whether it is just last minute, or certain cards were offered during the G20 to be played, because any of this, must seemingly be cast on making the US President to not look bad (the view projected after the fact will be an entirely different issue).

To support certain new options goes decently further than just the ad-hoc statement by United States Secretary of State John Kerry. These issues have been playing for some time and most issues started to accelerate as we all saw in the news. Many of the top tier papers reported these events. So how come that these events are still seen as a foreign attack?

That would be a fair question!

China and Russia had been blocking many of the events needed to make any stance against the indecent slaughter of the people of Syria (on both sides). I could cleverly state that Russia and China removed the ‘s’ and used laughter to block the US and other nations to get anything done there. The fact that the Bushehr plant is announced to get a new baby brother as reported by Polina Garaev “Putin will present Rohani with new deal worth $800 million for new batch of S-300, construction of new nuclear reactor at Bushehr” gives additional weight on the Iranian ‘support voice’ in regards to the Syrian question. Whether this will become the Alice Cooper nightmare remains to be seen, it is however clear that the S-300 additions do mean that they fear the response by Israel towards this new billion dollar baby. Trust me when I say that there will be well beyond $200 million in additional fees for consultancy, education and other requirements. The one part I do like about this all is that Iran seems to not trust their own propaganda on the ‘advanced’ Mershad from 2010 and prefers to rely on solid Russian technology as it was developed in 1978 (sometimes life throws you a nice juicy steak to blog about). Still, if Israel cannot get there via the air, I think I have found a way to super charge the fuel rods to melt them down all by themselves (pretty much stopping both reactors from ever working again). It should take only three elements and I got the idea from a snow globe, go figure!

All four players in this parade are anti-American; their union is not because they like one another, but because of their individual needs united in non-American likes. That does not make for an attack. That does not mean they are attacking America. That part had been shown in http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23845800, which is only one of many newscasts on that topic. In addition there is http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/world/middleeast/new-us-envoy-to-un-strongly-condemns-russia.html. This could be seen as a first level of evidence that the United Nation Security Council (UNSC) was nothing more than a political tool to stop any kind of condemnation and the lowest forms of support for the victims of the chemical attack.

Are there doubts?

Yes, even though some claims came that there was ‘evidence’, I am still having certain doubts in regards to the actual attacker. When a State secretary goes on a world tour visiting heads of state showing ‘secret’ evidence, parts are not right. It is shown to a group that is too large. Instead of giving it all to the media letting EVERYONE publish it would have been a much better policy, it could have had the result that the UK would have been in favour of actions. The delays, the Intel that WOULD have been there from those big boxes high in the sky, (commonly known as satellites), could have shown much of the evidence. Yet, personally, I am not completely convinced that they were attacks ordered by Assad (directly or indirectly), which I admit is a personal view and based on gut feeling more then anything else. Is it possible that some misguided Assad supporter did this? Yes, that is a definite possibility. I dealt with these thoughts in a previous blog called ‘tactical choices of inactivity‘. I have always believed that Al-Qaeda is only about Al-Qaeda and their goals. It was never about Syria for them (I personally believe this). The theatre of war in play gives them ample opportunity to get to USA and Israel. There is a chance that the number of military opposition leaders, who knew about chemical caches seems larger than most considered, which means that others knew too. This entire new play is as I see it is not about the fear from Syria AND Russia that unwanted elements might want to get things going out of hand. It is likely that this is already the case and a USA offensive would stop any chance of that part getting a certain level of control. It could be that this danger is in play, meaning that both Russia and Syria want to get out of the way fast, allowing the new diplomatic play to proceed, whist the US gets left holding the bag.

No matter how this plays out in any diplomatic way. We will see soon enough that Syrian victims will get overly victimised soon enough with added by-lines on how America never intervened.

DOMESTIC
In my view, I see that the domestic enemy of America seems to fit into three distinct categories. First of all, this is not about lone wolf terrorists, or any terrorist groups, they fall in the foreign enemy group. No, the Americans do not get to be that lucky as such.

The first enemy group are those libertarians hiding behind ‘freedom of information‘. This group is for the most the direct one we see, receiving all kinds of media support and protection. They do not need to fear the House of Lords and some Leveson report, but they do ‘fear’ what the NSA had been doing. The electronic Frontier foundation did instigate a case which they won. Sky News covered this at http://www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=905204. My issue is the quote “as part of the agency’s effort to track potential terror plots”

In my mind, when (not if) the next attack on America succeeds, then the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) should MANDATORY in the light of ‘freedom of information’ reveal the names of all their supporters in this case to the family members of the victims the next attack has. There will be no carefully phrased denials; there will be no talk about ‘we so sorry’. I want to see those names clearly shown on-line. In addition, the EFF board members John Perry Barlow, Brian Behlendorf, John Buckman et al will have to visit all the funerals of those victims and look the survivors and family members of the deceased straight in the eyes. I wonder how ‘ideological’ they will feel at that time. Interesting that they (as far as I could tell) have not been too active in protecting people from places like Microsoft and others when we see articles like http://rt.com/usa/yahoo-microsoft-campaign-political-862/

That is another matter, which is ALL about personal gain (by those corporations) and not about keeping the American people safe. Another article is http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/06/13/gamers-fear-microsofts-xbox-one-could-be-future-of-prism-after-nsa-revelations, I do not agree with that article. That is not about some PRISM project, it is about Microsoft making sure that Microsoft gets more and others less. That is about greed and spawning INACTIVITY to the future new developers (unless it is in the hands of Microsoft). With gaming as a hundred billion dollar market, and as the gamers market surpassed the porn industry as a revenue group, did you expect these events not to happen?

I personally see the EFF as a sanctimonious group at best, of course others have their own view which are quite opposite of mine and as such they are very welcome to have that view, because I do believe in freedom of speech. I do have an issue with it when you endanger the safety of a nation.

The second group are the economic leprechauns (‘leper cons’ might be a better term). These are not the good and fiddledy diddledy types walking around with a cauldron of 100 gold coins. These are greed driven monsters in need of more and more at the expense of everything and everyone. They will enable their voice to whatever keeps them playing the game. The attack on Syria would have meant that their profits go down, so they would do whatever they could to stop it by forcing a diplomatic solution view. It seems such a humane view, yet, they will avoid taxation by moving funds offshore, they avoid taxation by becoming a virtual entity and they will prolong their game by removing your rights and your future. I personally believe that in many cases banks are on that side too. Did you forget on how in the lowest moments over 3.5% of mortgages are added to the foreclosure listings? Why are THEY a domestic enemy of America? Are sound business strategies suddenly outlawed? No, they are not, yet there have been too much personal and corporate gain preferences in the past and war is usually bad for business, unless you sell ammunition. In that regard my words might seem to be empty in the view of certain people, yet consider that America is an ideal by the people and for the people. How come that those views are so often drowned out by corporate greed, to give view to what is good for corporations and their stakeholders?

The third group is the most dangerous of all, it is a wild-card called ‘the self-centred person’. They are traitors, manipulators, journalists and/or politicians. The reader could even see me as one of these types of people. This group is dangerous as they could also be members of the first or second group. Yet, whilst wearing one of the other two cloaks they are only in it for the good of self. Edward Snowden falls in this group. Too much ‘evidence’ showed that he was all in it for himself. This was never about freedom of information or the security of America, it was about his life style, his future, his fortune and he was so willing to sell America down the drain in the process. The evidence? If that was truly about some level of honour, he would never have gone to Hong Kong or Russia. Several countries do not have an extradition treatment with USA, the fact that he ran to nations who are direct opposed to the American way of life should be seen in that light. Bradley Manning basically does not fit this group very well. There is a valid concern that he was misguided in his choices, when the choice was there he just gave it all away to Wiki-Leaks. In the smallest of defence of Manning, it seems that he at least was never out for personal gain; his ideology was, as I see it utterly misguided, which makes him the odd duck out. The recipients were however very willing to push his buttons for what they believed was a ‘righteous cause’, manipulative steps to say the least.

The problem with my own view (I will admit to that), is that my view has evolved from information given to me from journalistic and other sources, whilst I know that many in this ‘game’ have their own agenda to maintain. That means that it is about a target they have. The time of truly neutral journalism has been over for some time and I fear it will never return, which makes for an interesting view of the first amendment. The freedom of speech would become the freedom of representation of those we service, because the board of directors in a media group are often linked to other endeavours, making their freedom of speech a lesser item.

America is in my humble opinion under attack, and Syria is just the new stage where the American chess pieces are about to be moved, whilst some of them will be removed. I wonder where we all stand on the 1st of January 2014. That date will be soon upon us and that view might partially depend on the steps the growing New World Order coalition of Russia, China and India will take.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics, Science

Tagged as Al-Qaeda, BBC, Bradley Manning, Brian Behlendorf, Bushehr, China, Известия, Edward Snowden, EFF, India, Iran, Israel, Izvestiya, John Buckman, John Kerry, John Perry Barlow, Manning, Mershad, Middle East, NSA, nuclear power plant, Polina Garaev, politics, Putin, Rohani, Russia, S-300, Syria, syria and iran, tactical choices of inactivity, United Nation Security Council, United States Secretary of State, UNSC, USSR

September 1, 2013 · 22:44

Politically phrased budgets

I don’t get to take a jab at the Guardian too often, so when that day does come (like today), then I like to enjoy every moment of it (overall it is still the best paper though). In this case it is an article by Lenore Taylor on the article ‘Rising cost of living, just an illusion‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/30/household-bills-australia-wages-rising)

The new ‘analyses’ show that the average household was better off by $5300 compared to 2008. Are you for real Miss Taylor?

Let’s look at some numbers. I have lived in the same place since 2008, I will even add to that that most of what I have is from around that time, and according to Energy Australia I am regarded to be a stable user, which means that my usage has not changed that much over the years. Yet, in 2007 my average bill was $160, in 2012 it was $275 and now it is $375. So in 6 years my electricity bill went up with a whopping 134%. the bills in 2013 have been less than $2 apart per bill so it seems that overall my usage remains the same.

Her reference to the ‘Natsem modelling’ is there, and apparently it claims that the annual increased cost of living is 1.7%. My train ticket had gone up by 8% (which was better than the NSW projected 10%) and my rent in the last 2 years had risen by 15%, the last step was a 7% increase. As the last two costs are costs we all see regular like clockwork, it seems to be that her article is only slightly weirder then just plain bogus, but that might just be my view on it!

Consider that many people have not seen decent raises in the last few years as some companies had hit hard times; it seems that I was reading a story with the missing bang of realism.

So the question becomes, is she just quoting a source, or is she missing the ball by a lot?

I leave that to you the reader!

There are other sides. Yes, groceries have gone up, yet the milk from my supermarket seemed to have been the same for a long time. In these times, even though I feel for the farmer, the fact that milk remains affordable is a good thing for me, as many other things go up. So even though the groceries, which is a chunk out of anyone’s budget seems remain almost stable, the overall cost of living did go up.

The second increase is the cost of one’s credit card. Most people, if they have a job, they tend to have a credit card. When I got mine, it came with an awesome 9.9%. And for a time it stayed there. It is now a little over 13%. This means a plus 3% rise, I am not blaming the banks (even though I would love to do that). When we consider rent, travel and credit cards, three of the most common items used, is seems that the 1.7% annual increase is just a tale, for the simple reason that most of the other stuff we daily need did not get cheaper and our regular cost of living went up by a lot more than 1.7%

So who did she write the article for?

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

Tagged as Banks, credit rates, electricity bill, electricity bills, energy australia, Groceries, Guardian, household bills, Lenore Taylor, rent, train ticket

August 30, 2013 · 14:23

Tactical choices of inactivity

I reckon that many are awaiting the events as they are unfolding currently in Syria. Will we be investing in Boeing Defence stock, should these missiles be used? (At $1.2M a pop that would mean a nice increase of revenue for Boeing). Will we change our investments in oil and gas as the Syrian situation continues?

These are the questions that matter. The hundreds of deaths because of a chemical attack do not seem to matter.

Are you wondering why I have that opinion?

Then read the BBC quote in regards to these attacks. “The United Nations Security Council said it was necessary to clarify what happened in the alleged attack, but stopped short of demanding an investigation by a UN team currently in Damascus, following an emergency meeting on Wednesday evening.” This was published on August 21st. So there was a chemical attack and the UNSC did NOT demand the immediate investigation in regards to chemical attack deaths. The worse matter was that the bulk of the casualties were all civilians.

But where is the case of what matters?

If we look at the UNSC charter we see the following “The UN Charter established six main organs of the United Nations, including the Security Council. It gives primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security to the Security Council, which may meet whenever peace is threatened.”

So clinically we see that they are not an issue. Peace was not an issue in Syria at all. It stopped existing well over two years earlier. The UNSC is set in a charter. They are called the “Provisional rules of procedure of the Security Council” (at http://www.un.org/en/sc/inc/pages/pdf/rules.pdf). They actually do not help that much, only to illustrate certain steps. Yet, this is about the procedures of the UNSC, this will not help at all. So where is their decision making tree? For that we need to take a look at the charter of the United Nations. I took a specific look at Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression.

The premeditated crux is set in Article 45 which states: “In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.”

So we need to look at Article 43, which actually does not help us that much. That part is about making available troops “in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security“. I think we can agree that that part is at least two years late, and nothing here gives us a pass to start anything AFTER chemical attacks.

Yet we see in that same chapter that Article 51 (partially shown) states: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations” This is all very nice, but Syria is not a member state, which makes this all a little moot. In addition, this is a civil (local) war, so other member states are not in question.

So let’s take a look at ‘Customary International Humanitarian Law Volume I: Rules‘ (at http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/customary-international-humanitarian-law-i-icrc-eng.pdf).

Rule 11 states “Rule 11. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited.” Ah! Now we are getting somewhere. Even the rules of war have some level of distinction, yet for the most; this is all based on the previous Article 51, as is quoted “The prohibition of indiscriminate attacks is set forth in Article 51(4) of Additional Protocol I.” Darn! I am caught in some sort of looped program. It reminds me of my very first program I wrote on the Commodore VIC-20 in 1983.

10 PRINT “You are crazy!”
20 GOTO 10
RUN

Ah! The simple old days, how I miss them at times.

The same book lists an interesting part on page 38. “several States invoked the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks in their assessment of whether an attack with nuclear weapons would violate international humanitarian law.⁹ When the ICRC appealed to the parties to the conflict in the Middle East in October 1973, i.e., before the adoption of Additional Protocol I, to respect the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks, the States concerned (Egypt, Iraq, Israel and Syria) replied favourably.¹⁰”

⁹ See. e.g., the pleadings of Australia (ibid., § 65), India (ibid., § 77), Mexico (ibid., § 85), New Zealand (ibid., § 86) and United States (ibid., § 99).
¹⁰ See ICRC, The International Committee’s Action in the Middle East (ibid., § 139).

Yes, I agree that a chemical attack is not a nuclear attack, yet when I was taught the elements of NBC (in army days long ago), we tended to count the Nuclear and the Chemical similar to some extent. The Biological element is one that might be considered to be one worse than that as it can continue its damage and even transcend borders.

So we can now add a look at additional protocol I, especially as Syria was one of the parties who replied favourably. As such, we could see Syria as a party that accepted these rules (to some extent).

You see, these parts underline the part as set in Rule 13 (from the IHL), which states “Rule 13. Attacks by bombardment by any method or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects are prohibited.”

This my dear readers includes ANY level of chemical attack, as that form of attack that is utterly indiscriminate as well as encompassing the area as one military objective.

Taking into account these elements, why did at that point did the UNSC, as stated by the BBC in the first mentioned article “but stopped short of demanding“. The stopped short in these elements were utterly unwarranted, in my humble opinion.

Now we all watch a political runaway train disaster where politicians stop short of acting in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany and France await ‘evidence’ which they can deal on. The one cowboy state (the United States) would be at present the only hope the Syrian population has for now. Are these nations correct in holding of? Well, they do have a case there. However, the evidence as UN investigators were delayed, the possible evidence on how the chemical spread started. If we take the elements we have, then we need to consider the firing mechanism. That part had been made near impossible with 5 days of bombings. Yet, in all honesty, did Assad do this? The question is important for two reasons.

1. If he did not do this, was it an intentional act?
2. What other intelligence has Assad silenced?

The two are related, because the earlier fear the US had is now truly coming to fruition. If these missiles were inadvertently fired by the opposition forces, the theory I have is that as they lack military expertise, they might have known and partially learned how to fire a SCUD, but did they know about the payload? Let us not forget that many fighters are anything but military trained. Even those who had training, it is possible that they had too limited knowledge on how to work and identify these types of equipment.

The danger is that they might have found chemical payloads, so here is the danger. Al-Qaeda is currently helping the opposition forces. We now have a trained AQ with support from people lacking knowledge, and they gave AQ access to a chemical storage area. Here is where it becomes dicey! Assad knows the assets lost, he is playing high stakes poker by keeping these locations a secret. For him it is a win-win. If the opposition figures it out they have a time-bomb they cannot use. AQ will use it no matter what and preferably on Israel. Whichever of those steps happened (when they do), the world would have no option but to remove his enemy for him.

Proving that Assad did the actual firing is almost non-provable. The evidence is scattered and at best we can see that NBC components were used, but by whom is less of an option which will leave doubt.

Time is on the side of Assad and elements stopping activities to attack, whether justified or not will only strengthen Assad’s position. I can side with the politicians when they claim that they do not want another Iraq, yet when we look at the initial quote from the BBC “but stopped short of demanding an investigation by a UN team” we must more actively wonder what it would take for them to get anything done. It should be seen as tactical inactivity of the very worst kind!

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Military, Politics

Tagged as Al-Qaeda, AQ, Assad, BBC, charter of the united nations, Chemical attacks, Chemical warfare, Customary International Humanitarian Law Volume I: Rules, Damascus, ICRC, Middle East, politics, Provisional rules of procedure of the Security Council, Syria, UN, United Nations, United Nations Security Council, UNSC, VIC-20

Category Archives: Politics

Recent Posts

Archives