Saudi Arabia stands alone

I have seen hypocrisy in my time, people selling others down the river for the mere pleasure to afford their share of cocaine and hookers, or as they state it themselves, extra bonus for a family house. The benefit of selling whatever needs be short to afford a lifestyle their ego demands yet, it is a style usually preserved for CEO’s and higher.

It is not always the case, not 100%, sometimes people get ahead because they know someone; they have friends in housing, perhaps a police commissioner who gives them the goods in advance. These things happen. That is not corruption; that is at times merely a small advantage and we can agree that no hard was done, these things just are.

I have always believed that we need to do something when something wrong is done. Yet, what happens if we get played? What happens when there are too many questions and we see governments act on half-baked information? That is at the core of it all. This all started three days ago when I decided to write (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2019/03/28/because-skills-lacked/) ‘Because skills lacked?‘, It was all about the arms embargo for Saudi Arabia, enforced by Germany making both the UK and France uneasy. Yesterday (at https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-extends-saudi-arms-embargo-with-concessions-to-allies/) we saw that it was extended by six months, even as concessions have been given to UK and France, the issue is actually much larger and it is time to call for evidence.

In the first, my emotional response to issues is the question whether Agnes Callamard knew what she was doing. You see, Al Jazeera (at https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/02/rapporteur-khashoggi-murder-perpetrated-saudi-officials-190207171824211.html) gave us a few things, issues repeated by many news casters. First there is “her three-member team had access to part of “chilling and gruesome audio material” of the murder obtained by Turkish intelligence agencies“, it is important we see no establishment of identity, we see no mention on authentication as that is unlikely to happen. Then there is “Woefully inadequate time and access was granted to Turkish investigators to conduct a professional and effective crime-scene examination and search required by international standards for investigation“, as well as “US intelligence agencies believe Prince Mohammed ordered the assassination“, and finally there is “His body has yet to be found“.

Her report might end up being more likely than not a failure (I have not read the full report as I have not been able to obtain it at present, and I might not be able to until the presentation this upcoming June. The initial issues seen at present are (with a lot more when we dig deeper):

  1. The authenticity of the tapes have not been verified, Turkey has been facilitating to Iran to the largest degree (who is in a proxy war with Saudi Arabia), in addition several published quotes give a different light of the activities of Turkey (see previous blogs on the matter).
  2. As I mentioned, there is an issue on Turkey and Iran, making Saudi Arabia a little hesitant to give any credibility to Turkey. In addition to all this, the Consulate is Saudi grounds, It is Saudi territory, as such Turkey has no rights on those grounds. Three weeks after the event refused to share all Khashoggi evidence with Saudi Arabia. If it was actual evidence sharing it would not have impacted the evidence, the fact that it was not shared implies optionally that it did not exist. In effect the Saudi prosecutor did not have access to all evidence.
  3. Are those the same US intelligence agencies that vowed that there were WMD’s in Iraq? What evidence did the US intelligence submit? When we consider the Washington Post, we get: “the CIA examined multiple sources of intelligence, including a phone call that the prince’s brother Khalid bin Salman, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, had with Khashoggi, according to the people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the intelligence. Khalid told Khashoggi, a contributing columnist to The Washington Post, that he should go to the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul to retrieve the documents and gave him assurances that it would be safe to do so. It is not clear if Khalid knew that Khashoggi would be killed, but he made the call at his brother’s direction, according to the people familiar with the call, which was intercepted by U.S. intelligence.” I am not stating that this is false or inaccurate, yet the parts ‘according to the people familiar with the matter‘, as well as ‘he made the call at his brother’s direction, according to the people familiar with the call’; these two parts call doubt into the complete stage.
  4. The absence of a cadaver also implies that there is no forensic evidence of any kind (at present or ever).

These four parts do not make Saudi Arabia innocent, yet the guilt cannot be established to any definite degree. I am not trying to twist anything, anyone on a jury in a capital crime knows that the establishment is ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ and that cannot be proven, even manslaughter cannot be proven at present. Consider that there was a beating, perhaps interrogation with a heavy hand; can we see evidence that this was the case? The audio is not evidence by itself, the simplicity is that we do not know whether the tape is a fake, is there any way to tell that the person in discomfort was Jamal Khashoggi? I have not heard the tape, I cannot tell, how was Agnes Callamard able to tell? In addition, if Turkish intelligence is so good, how did they get the body away and out of sight? The fact that the Turkish intelligence remained clueless should be an answer by itself. The newscasters go all out to contain people on their page, so when the Daily Mail gives us (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GD06WLJH3Wk) ‘Khashoggi’s body parts carried into Saudi Arabia’s consul residence‘, what evidence is there that it was what they claim it to be? I cannot even tell whether they are carrying trash or books, let alone optionally part of a cadaver. CNN at least used the optional word ‘may’, there have been so many speculations, that and the fact that the Turkish government seemingly did not share all the evidence makes this a lost case.

And now for Germany

So in a stage where something went optionally wrong, yet no way to tell how far it actually goes, the Germans started an embargo on a non-event. There is no conviction, there has been no court on the matter, but for Germany it was enough to set the stage for the embargo. For me it is great, I need a second income and I will happily sell any weapon system to Saudi Arabia if that pays the rent. I see no problem to sell any weapon system to the Saudi government that I can lay my hands on. It is the simple application of American entrepreneurship: Ca$h is king!

So when I see: ‘Riyadh denies the powerful prince had any involvement, alleging “rogue” Saudi elements acted on their own accord‘, I am not willing to dismiss it, the optional evidence does not allow me to do so. In addition, “A confidential report prepared by Kroll, a large private security firm, for the Saudi public prosecutor found that none of the WhatsApp messages exchanged between Prince Mohammed and his top aide, Saud al-Qahtani” I see the reinforcement of that part. I wonder if the actual people who optionally caused the passing of Jamal Khashoggi will ever be found, the media made that close to impossible and Turkish posturing helped in the event, the fact that they have the most incarcerated journalists in the world does not help their attempts for the limelight and the Turkish use of the New Zealand tragedy is further evidence still that the Turkish government cannot see the difference to posturing and doing the right thing, making all the evidence they present even less valued and requiring more and more scrutiny to optionally see it as valid and not tainted.

It is the simple application of the Evidence Act 1995. When we look towards Ellis v Wallsend District Hospital 17 NSWLR 553, we see that it was: ‘open to a Court to disbelieve evidence tainted by hindsight‘, it is not about the case, but on the state of the evidence and there is a massive wave of actions giving a large rise to the fact that evidence is optionally tainted. I use the word optional as it would be to a judge to state it to be so, but the quotes and the application of what is not presented makes it optionally so. Time is the tainting factor on all the evidence. The Washington Post adds to this when the readers are treated to: “The accepted position is that there is no way this happened without him being aware or involved“, ‘Accepted position‘? By what standard, what definition and on what premise and applied evidence is that? The overall usage of ‘people familiar with the matter’ makes the issue worse. The stage of manslaughter and higher requires ‘beyond all reasonable doubt‘, whilst in the current state it is becoming less and less likely that the Torts premise of ‘is it more likely than not‘ would be reached.

And that is the foundation of Germany to stage an embargo? Well, if that is to be the case, than for the next 6 months I will try to find a way to supply weapons to Saudi Arabia. I have rent to pay, taxes to pay and I need a wardrobe as well as a new desktop (and iPad), all these things cost money and I have no issues to sell to most governments if the opportunity arrives.

As the media is showing us how Saudi Arabia stands alone, all whilst they seem to overlook the Iranian actions, they are ready to pound others whilst there is a lack of evidence, seems odd does it not? Although, according to the Hollywood Reporter, people in Saudi Arabia have nothing better to do than hack the phone of some Amazon CEO and gives us: “Our investigators and several experts concluded with high confidence that the Saudis had access to Bezos’ phone, and gained private information. As of today, it is unclear to what degree, if any, AMI was aware of the details” less than a day ago (at https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/jeff-bezos-investigator-claims-saudi-arabia-behind-leaked-texts-1198348). I have absolutely no idea where that came from, it is not like that guy Jeff Bezos is a famous person, is he?

So is it about that optional famous person, the event, the leak, or is it about the new application of ‘several experts concluded with high confidence‘, exactly like the CIA used. It is a claim that cannot be vouched for; cannot be proven (or disproven) and no evidence is there, but the finger needs to be pointed at someone and the FBI learned the hard way on how blaming North Korea on Sony events was a bad idea. It is basically the Dutch building fraud example of: ‘Dat meen ik mij niet te herinneren‘, which means ‘I don’t think I can remember that‘, the trained response of a politician facing governmental scrutiny in a commission. That is the one sentence they had down perfectly (the Dutch denial version of a 5th amendment), and we see it applied in too many fields. So especially as it impacts larger government concerns, it seems that we need to take a look at the application of evidence towards assigning blame and guilt. Although, if this gets me my retirement fund of $24,445,000, so that I have a golden parachute. I would personally like to thank the German government, as well as the participating media for being this short sighted.

Saudi Arabia does not stand alone, there is always a person willing to facilitate to any government. It was the basic lesson Mossack Fonseca left the people on a minimum income, when a firm is facilitating within the confines of legal structures for 45 years, do you think that governments did NOT know? Give me a break, they merely played the flustered emotional card to keep the people at peace, in the end nothing changes and a new player takes over from the previous one.

The EU grave train provides one way or another, yet in the end it will provide and not to the people the taxpayers believe it does, on the larger international scale, especially in light if so much evidence failure, it was up to all of us to ask the hard questions but the media prevented it, the emotional curve are all the shareholders and stake holders required.

I think I will start Chapman Calibre Ballistics (CCB) and offer my services to the Saudi Arabian Defence Forces procurement division, so that others will readily confuse my acronym it all with either Child Care Benefit or China Construction Bank, giving the media more things to blame China for, because that is apparently how the game is supposed to be played.

 

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military, Politics, Science

It is still a man’s world

It has always been a man’s world; it will remain a man’s world. If that upsets you, then so be it. We see all these pro-women events and so called pro-women options, but it seems like a scam and three days ago I was proven correct. The Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/mar/25/nasa-all-female-spacewalk-canceled-women-spacesuits), here we see some so called excuse: ‘Nasa cancels all-female spacewalk, citing lack of spacesuit in right size‘, the very first though (optionally a wrong one) would be the idea that there is either one spacesuit for every crew-member, or that there are suits that fit any crew-member. The idea that we see: “Nasa said its plans had changed, “in part” due to a shortage of outerwear. McClain had “learned during her first spacewalk that a medium-size hard upper torso – essentially the shirt of the spacesuit – fits her best.” Only one such top can be made by Friday, the agency said, and it will go to Koch“.

Frustrated to the max

In part my frustration goes to Anne McClain, especially when the NASA spokeswoman states: “Anne trained in ‘M’ and ‘L’ and thought she could use a large but decided after [last] Friday’s spacewalk a medium fits better“. At this I would initially argue ‘Are you out of your flaming head? It is not a fashion parade, suck it up!‘ In addition, the issue that the suits were not ready is perhaps a larger issue still. So even as some proclaim: “An all-woman spacewalk WILL eventually happen“, we could optionally go with the response of: “well, you had your chance; you get another one in 2057“. You see, you cannot get a quicker deal than the time sequence of African American actors winning an academy award that would just be too unfair. You see, there was Sydney Poitier in 1963 and then we get Denzel Washington in 2001, so you cannot get a quicker deal, just one at the same length at best.

The entire mess of space suits gets me going into another direction too. Perhaps some may realise that ships have lifeboats, you see, in 1912 there was this dinghy called Titanic and the events lead to an extreme evolution of strict requirements to keep as many people alive as possible, should the requirement be any less in space? Even if that spaceship gets hit by a pebble, I saw the movie Gravity, I know that if we all give them a suit, they could ‘swim’ (read: spacewalk) to the nearest space station. The fact that they have to toss a coin on who is allowed to swim to safety seems a little too far-fetched for comfort.

This all seems like a rant and it seems to be told in anger and that is true. The fact that NASA was not ready in this day and age for an all women event is one part, the setting that in that same stage an all-male event was possible makes it the largest of failures to the human condition. Of all the progressive places on the planet it is NASA that failed the equality test, making them nothing more than a political red tape convention player at present.

How wrong am I?

The fact that there was more than one woman on that event and the situation that for whatever reason only women were left and it was up to them to save the day, NASA did not account for that? A situation that would have been a given, as it is coming from the one place that is known for having up to three redundancies for every condition? That place did not anticipate a situation where the women had to carry the ball to a required solution? I am not buying that story, so in this I wonder if NASA spokeswoman Stephanie Schierholz can live with herself having to sell the world the story that there was a lack of right sized spacesuits. The Titanic taught us what happens when we run out of lifeboats, in addition if we accept the definition: “Space suits are often worn inside spacecraft as a safety precaution in case of loss of cabin pressure, and are necessary for extravehicular activity (EVA), work done outside spacecraft“, so if we accept: ‘as a safety precaution in case of loss of cabin pressure‘, can we assume that NASA was operating this flight with an additional risk towards loss of life?

Are men so afraid that they can no longer compete on skill levels, so that they have to tilt the seesaw of achievement towards their gender giving limitations to the other side? I am actually baffled that this is seemingly so readily accepted. In all the news we see all kinds of contemplated news on how acceptable this event was, in all the news pretty much only Stephen Colbert and a few true news cover people gave NASA a run for its money. For the most nearly all failed to spot the utter failure of their contemplated issue on what is supposed to be required. None of the redundant spokespeople seemed to have noticed the flaw either.

That is perhaps the saddest part of news in all this.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Science

Because skills lacked?

You have heard it, you have read it (in trashy novels), the lady waiting for an orgasm lets the plumber have a go because her man just can’t get it up, or comes before her oven warms up, so the croissant tastes as natural as it can be, like wet dough and tastes like nothing you would ever want to try.

But there is the plumber and he has loads of lead in his pencil so the problem is solved. Yet, what happens when it is not merely a domestic inconvenience?

That is the part we see in Politico a mere 4 hours ago. When we see ‘German divisions over Saudi arms embargo upset EU allies‘, the article (at https://www.politico.eu/article/german-divisions-over-saudi-arms-embargo-upsets-eu-allies/), here we see the foundation with: “Germany imposed an embargo in October after the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi but the measure has annoyed France and Britain, whose giant arms makers require German components that are now banned“. The issue is not that Jamal Khashoggi is still alive. He optionally left with a headache and was lost somewhere. The problem is that there is no evidence, not evidence that holds up in court and the players all know this. Moreover, there is no evidence (other than circumstantial) that it was done on orders of a government, in this case the Saudi Royal family. That is at the crux, so the entire ban is on other merits. We could argue that America likes to push, with an optional setting of growth of billions as Germany stopped the processing of commerce. If there was actual evidence, it would be a different matter. The fact that an ally of Iran who is in a proxy war with Saudi Arabia has been taking the limelight with accusations and innuendo, but this has not been met with evidence. The fact that most players know this and continue on the present path is a much larger concern.

It becomes even more of an issue when we see: “whether to extend or lift its ban on arms’ exports to the Middle Eastern country, which is also a leading participant in the war in Yemen” we see even more issues. Even as we saw a few hours ago ‘Saudi Airstrike Said to Hit Yemeni Hospital as War Enters Year 5‘, the people to a much larger degree are kept in the dark on ‘Yemen’s Houthi say ready to strike Riyadh, Abu Dhabi if coalition moves on Hodeidah‘, ‘Yemenis rally in support of Houthi to mark war anniversary‘, as well as ‘Arab coalition neutralize Iranian officers, dozens Houthis in Yemen‘, outside of a few select reporting sources as well as Reuters, the people are kept in the dark regarding these events. The fact that the news has been this one sided for well over a year is more than despicable. It is a stage where the players are all stopped form resolving the issues. The fact that Houthis have been delaying talk after talk and not committing to any resolution option, stopping humanitarian aid is at the heart of the problem and that is the overwhelming evidence that Iran is directly involved, including Iranian officer, currently posing as cadavers.

Yet these same players are eagerly lining up to see commerce (read: profit) go to their places of residence as 5G, construction as well as consultancy projects are raking in billion after billion. For example the intrusion detection market (the market that opposes people engaged in discrete entry and removal operations) was a mere $3 billion last year and is expected to be at $5 billion in 2020. In this light, whilst they are vying for a slice of that cake against the Netherlands, Australia, France and Canada, why is Germany optionally allowed a piece of that cake? If they cannot act on evidence, how could their intrusion system seen as reliable? When did you last buy an intrusion detection system that gave the alarm on the foundation of ‘hunch expected‘?

It would be a different setting if clear evidence and clear evidence beyond all reasonable doubt was delivered. The CIA gave a mere ‘highly likely’ that Saudi Royals were involved, highly likely? They gave much more certainty on WMD in Iraq and none were ever found, so at this point I think it is important to see that there is a much larger play being made against certain players, whilst their opponent (Iran) is given the clear marks in too many places; it is more than buttering the bread of opportunity, it is the core foundation of staging deception against certain people on a global scale.

  1. You can fool some people all of the time.
  2. You can fool all people some of the time.
  3. You cannot fool all people all of the time.

Several players have moved between stages 2 and 3, trying to set the surroundings so that they can try to get option three in play and it is important for us all to realise that this should not be catered to and we need to make certain that those trying this approach are pushed into the limelight, showing us their faces and their identities.

Even as the deadline to lift the ban does not come until Sunday, we need to see that there needs to be an account with markers on both sides of the balance and we should be told on the names of those involved. The embargo in its initial stage is an issue, but to some degree it makes sense, or better stated we understand that it happened. Yet at this stage as there is clear no evidence, at that point impede any government of tools for their defence is an issue and it also shows that Saudi Arabia is well placed to grow their own defence systems. Personally I should advice the KSA to consider buying Remington arms as it is up for sale cheap and it would also give them a global export item (not the worst idea to have), from there on, as Saudi Arabia grows more options we will suddenly see players like Germany suddenly do a 180 degree on their own actions and try to ‘smooth things over’, yet at the core of that form of diplomacy, could any player have any faith in their value as an ally, especially as the foundation was not set on something called ‘clear evidence’?

Politico gives one more gem that has larger implications. With: “both countries signed the Treaty of Aachen in January in which they agreed “to develop a common approach for arms’ exports” that applies to all joint defense projects” we see a larger issue, even as the stage was set on common sense, the polarisation in the EU at present shows that what was common sense is now stopping nations to do proceed on their common sense and value of commerce. If the evidence was clear it might have been a topic of debate, now without that it is a cinder block of discontent on two (read: four) players with skin in the game. Germany by itself, up against the commerce needs of the UK and France and Saudi Arabia as a victim of wrongful applied leverage through a treaty that did not require proper evidence to support the openly given embargo. At what point was that not clearly looked at?

You see, it goes beyond the openly seen parts. The fact that in all this the questionable part of Turkey in all this was kept below the surface and the fact that the EU players have been catering to the ‘needs’ of Turkey in all this plays a much bigger part, giving a stage of selective discrimination for the needs of the businesses of the EU in a much larger degree. It is seen in in one way (to some extent) in the Jerusalem Post, a paper that is decently obvious in their anti-Iran writing. Yet the stage we see with: ‘Germany Refuses To Disclose Iranian Attempts To Buy Nuclear, Missile Technology‘, it almost reads like ‘where there is smoke, there is a huge fire‘ which is obviously not the case, yet the stage where Germany is unwilling to disclose the materials optionally releasing Iran from blame is still a larger issue. If proven that it was the case, it would show the German government as hypocrite in their embargo of goods for Saudi Arabia, all whilst there is a clear proven case that Iran is involved in a proxy war with Saudi Arabia, it is actively engaged in support of Houthi fighters in Yemen and foundational acts that Iran is not allowed to make are being made. These elements alone should be evidence to ban Germany from all Saudi Projects (an exaggerated move mind you), but the fact that this is not out in the open, proves to some extent the points of view that I am giving here. The article (at https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Germany-refuses-to-disclose-Iranian-attempts-to-buy-nuclear-missile-technology-584512) also gives us: “FoxNews.com reported on Germany’s concealment of important data that could establish Iranian regime violations of the 2015 nuclear deal – formally called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – and sanctions targeting the Islamic Republic’s missile program“, the fact that we see the EU keeping out of the light the evidence of an optionally failed JCPOA as well as the face that the EU is still protecting a stage that has failed is voice to even more issues (like the gravy train for those on the JCPOA committee), the fact that the media is not taking this into the light (proving or disproving) is a much larger issue still.

It almost reads like the story of a man who could not get his business done, so he hopes that the other interested party has a desire to read William Shakespeare and markets all the attention and optional needs in that direction, so that the actual issue can be ignored. The analogy fits to the extent that whatever there is, it is not a marriage, it is not a relationship, merely a sliding acquaintance, and that is the foundation for less and less. In finality getting back to the Iran situation, the mere setting of “The Post reviewed a German intelligence report from 2018 that wrote, “Iran continued to undertake, as did Pakistan and Syria, efforts to obtain goods and know-how to be used for the development of weapons of mass destruction and to optimize corresponding missile delivery systems.”” has nothing to do with the actual embargo and the reasoning, yet as the reasoning of the embargo is not set on evidence, the continued support and protection of Iran makes even less sense and as such we see embargo’s, accusation all linked to evidence that is not there.

It becomes even worse soon enough. It is a side that no one has looked at, but got some illumination only 15 minutes go. It is a book by Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum called ‘A Lot of People Are Saying‘, it is a book about conspiracism targeting democratic foundations. We might think it is a laughing matter, but it is not. The problem is not that people think that there is a conspiracy, the actions of the media themselves are partly to blame, the sides I exposed today. Issues that can be easily provided for through merely seeking the web and reading the newspapers, is a stage that shows the unbalance, the discrimination of one and the hiding of another party in all this, the media is part of it. Merely digging into the events that surround American Big-Pharma, the events on Khashoggi, the ‘protection’ of Turkey and Iran, the non-reported acts of Hezbollah in Yemen, as well as the issues shown in the last few days regarding Huawei. There is a much larger play based on commerce, profit and greed and the media is merely a tool to be exploited, whether the party has the word ‘news’ in its name or not.

We need to start looking without blinkers and see the whole playing field, not one that is merely being reported on for the need of emotion, lacking clear information. If certain ways are not amended, the matter will only get worse.

We can make it a tale of adultery, or a tail of incompetency, yet the foundation remains, we set in place core values and then reset the stage through presentations and require the presentation to be accepted on face value innuendo, ignoring the originally required evidence levels to be adhered to, and the media? Well, in one specific Dutch case, the event involving Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel in Nice got the front page, yet when White extremists attacked a Mosque; it was all about a racer taking a selfie, on the front page, which should be evidence enough and make my case for me. How much longer until the people are given the factuality of the world, not the perception the media gives us by making sure there is no space left to report on 50 kills and 50 non-fatal injuries. And it goes further than that; we could argue that Google is supporting that point of view. Consider the two mentioned events. Google represents the two events in a very different light, diminishing the danger of one and embossing the other, the media and digital media has gone that far out of balance, was it merely because skills lacked, or because they want the lacking skills shown so that perception shifts, I will let you decide that part.

 

 

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military, Politics, Religion

When the numbers are…..

So what happens when the numbers are up for reporting? Samsung now joins Apple with the setting of: “Samsung has issued a surprise profit warning, blaming a slump in memory chip prices and slowing demand for display panels. It is the latest sign that technology firms are facing tougher times amid a global economic slowdown“. The article (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/mar/26/samsung-surprises-market-with-first-quarter-profit-warning) is all about image and not incorrect mind you, yet has anyone considered the stage where they are both losing massively against Huawei? There is a reason why a Samsung $1899 and an Apple $2365 lose against the Huawei Nova 3i ($499). Yes, technologically they both are slightly more advanced, yet with a difference of $1400 and $1900 the technological difference is way too small to take the expensive option. The phone was strikingly advanced on many levels. From my less than a day P7, I have moved to a 2 day battery Huawei Nova 3i and I am loving the speed and added options, options that might have been a little luxurious to the basic user, yet as my P7 passed away due to a dead battery and a 24:7 service that almost lasted 4 years (a missed target by 6 weeks). I had no option but to find the cheapest realistic solution and only Huawei catered to that. With the previous phone over proving its value there was no competition. So when I see ‘technology firms are facing tougher times amid a global economic slowdown‘, we see the impact of ‘overpriced’ in a time of dire budgeting that is missed in several plays and fields. We do not have that much to spend nowadays. Even now, working casual hours I hope that I will have a nice birthday (in 5 weeks) by treating myself to a yummy Nintendo Switch for my birthday, my one little treat in almost 2 years. It is the reality for many people and the number of people having to move into such a budget push s increasing, so even as all of them (including Huawei) are moving to 5G foldable phones, he pricing will make them not an option for close to 60$ of the people, or it is done under hefty locked down telecom contracts. Samsung had that benefit 1-2 years ago when a wave of people needed a new phone. Now we see that the bulk of these people are unwilling to make another $1900 jump, it cools down to a phone bill and a $79 extra a month to look cool and the people are realising that realism and pragmatism is the only way forward in mobile land, especially as the empire of 5G is coming and the next wave of phones will not support both 4G and 5G, that is the reality.

We might give light to: “Weaker smartphone sales and fewer orders from data-centred companies such as Amazon and Google have led to a glut of memory chips and sent prices sliding“, yet we forget the impending changes, changes that are noticeable in patent land. Even as they are all walking the walk, we see that the patent changes are pushing towards generic hardware and the distinguished changes that will be pushed through by using specifically designed software. It sounds weird, but part of it was introduced through software and video games. As a game was sold, we see that people could buy an additional season pass for all the additional gaming parts, yet in more than one case we learned that the ‘added’ software was already on the software but required a code to unlock and mobile phones are moving into this changed atmosphere at this very moment. I believe that all manufacturers will be changing the setup by not having 4 models, but one model that has the 4 elements unlocked through codes. It makes sense in a few ways. Having one hardware option is easier and cheaper and having the software set and staged to unlock the ability buy a code has been the corner stone with places like IBM for the longest of times. GEOINT software solutions have had them as well for close to a decade and telecom devices are up for that very same change in the near future.

I also believe that this will be the final push to amend international patent laws to make software a patentable item as well. So even as we are given “Samsung was forecast to make a 7.2tn won (£4.66bn) operating profit between January and March, less than half the 15.6tn won a year ago. Sales were expected to fall to 53.7tn won from 60.6tn won a year ago“, we see that the push for generic hardware to be a lot more generic soon enough. In addition, there is a danger of a cartel push as Apple and Samsung have elements both needs (displays with one and software with the other), we see that those who were riding that wave will have added value soon enough. Huawei is on that same wave, especially in 5G and now that the alpha will be containing the Huawei OS, we see a first stage where Android will be losing some market share. I wonder if Samsung will make a deal to kick Google in the nuts (for Android bolts only), yet that stage is now in view with some clarity. There is no way that this is a given, but the stage is open for it and that puts the light in a different setting. Everyone is making some speech on how ‘Smart Switch’ is all about on transferring files, yet the entire setting could equally apply to set the stage of moving Android devices towards iOS, and even as there are a few videos on it, we see a lack of IT places looking deeper at this. Some make fun, some are quirky, yet there is an undeniable stage that there is a push both externally and internally to make Samsung an iOS solution, whether straight out of the box, or conversion, Android will be under attack from more than one direction in the next few years.

It is up to Samsung to decide what path they want to be on and it is their right. Yet in this, when we see the long term options, as well as the optional changes that are coming, is another scenario still an option. when we realise ‘patent protection can be obtained, for example, for inventions implemented by computer programs‘ in places that originally denied software patents, is a larger change. It sets the stage for generic telecom hardware faster and more direct, whilst with the stage of software setting the device to its options, unlocks a much larger field, upgrading of hardware, opening options on hardware will all become commercial tracks holding customers under corporate grasp for a much longer period of time. In addition, switching out of a contract could come with additional costs and an optional cost of switching, and element consumers are not ready for, or better stated, the cost of doing business will be lacking larger size of awareness in all this. Even as I foresaw that change 3 years ago, I am still amazed that they got here so fast. I had expected this move in 2-3 years, yet as it seemingly shows, there is every indication that the next wave of phones might have some of these solutions already in place.

It also implies that there is an optional danger of phones and bricking, or jacking. As people want to get things cheap, they will at times rely on ‘friends’ having a solution that gives them options they never paid for and in the process their phone will be jacked in other ways too. When they find out the cost of doing business too late, they end up with a brick and have to buy new hardware, or factory reset at a cost.

All that from a mere loss of revenue tale?

No, not really, the numbers have been out for a while, yet the dependency of Samsung on their displays, and the income warnings will open the field to make the shifts that were in the wind a lot sooner and to appease shareholders, we will optionally see that hardware move faster. The US trade wars made it essential for Huawei not to be caught with their pants down, so they have been working on their own OS for a year, with a much stronger push in the last 6 months. In addition, the parts I casually mentioned yesterday, we now see (source: The Guardian) give us: “a financial app claiming to be “the most significant change in the credit card industry for 50 years”, and also extended sections on an app that will curate the best of international magazines, and a new range of video games“, this is a form of financial facilitation that goes beyond normal facilitation. In addition we see the shaky fields of data information that an American firm like Apple has never had any access to, as such the people signing up for it with a few baubles (read: perks) will find that their financial history and future will be up for scrutiny by all kind of sources that they are not aware of at present or in the immediate future. A change that will impact finances on a global scale, so whilst we see nations with encryption bills and all kinds of ‘national security’ poohaa, we see the people just signing over their data like it is Facebook day zero. As Apple sweetens the deal by linking options as streaming and gaming, we see new levels of facilitation that we had not seen before and all that intersects with new mobile modes and new stages of generic device hardware now depending on device software in the near future.

So whilst we all seem to think that this is a ‘great’ idea, some might not have noticed “the use of the Apple TV app for navigating and curating content from theoretically rival streamers, including Amazon Prime, HBO, Showtime, and, strikingly for UK viewers, BritBox, the planned new BBC/ITV product“. The younglings might not catch on, but this is a new level of localisation. Just like Netflix does not globally release events, we see levels of localisation (Europe, America, Asia, and Australia) and in the other part we will see this more localised. the foundation is a return to a local, national release of issues, an issue we have been aggravated by in the past when movies had a local release date, so like America had Star Wars Episode one, the Dutch population had to wait well over 26 weeks to see that movie, now we see a danger to return to an optimised marketing driven releases on Gaming, TV shows, movies and services as digital marketing prepares algorithm that optimises the value of whatever is released, wherever the market took them. That stage is not a given, but the elements give rise to the danger of it and even when we get some memo through any shady media corporation (Sony 2012), the outcome is less clear when there was a seeming miscommunication. The fact that none of them gave light to the fact that the Terms of Service is a legal binding contract and a memo is a piece of paper that can be rewritten at any given moment.

And as it is all to be patented, the larger corporations will now do whatever they like and open markets will be niched or denied entry. So even as we are given: “While both companies have blamed China’s slowdown, Apple and Samsung are also facing fierce competition from numerous rivals around the world, including firms in China that can match their hardware quality and produce cheaper phones“, we might notice that he name Huawei (and Oppo) are not specifically mentioned. As I personally see it, it will not be about restraining their access, it will be to deny the smaller firms as start-up contenders, when they cannot compete in any way, those markets will be pushed towards other players and for now both Samsung and Apple will be dependent on what Huawei has for the next 3 years, after that the bigger ones will have caught on. And that part is not sitting still either, Forbes revealed three days ago: ‘Samsung Suddenly Launches Galaxy S10 Ultimate Edition‘, where one of the important quotes is: “the Galaxy S10 5G delivers key upgrades in almost every area and for a significantly lower price than expected“, the Key Note?

It was not suddenly, or ill conceived, the partial plan that Huawei was too much of a danger was a given a year ago. I believe that it was never about: ‘surprises market with first-quarter profit warning‘, it was not about the profit warning, it was about knowingly taking a hit. The entire “for a significantly lower price than expected” is a hit, a hit taken to lower the advantage of Huawei and the setting for a stage for a much longer time. It is a brilliant move and Samsung knows and has seen the impact of taking a loss in the teeth now to gain the upper hand in the long term play and it is well played. The elements are clearly in the field, yet we see very little reporting on that and as the commitment is give, the long term profit is there.

There is a second part to this. The Verge (at https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/26/18282700/apple-vs-qualcomm-patent-infringement-iphone-import-ban) implies it (does not say it is so), yet when we see: “A US trade judge has found Apple guilty of infringing on two Qualcomm patents related to power management and data download speeds. As a result, the judge — International Trade Commission Judge MaryJoan McNamara — says some iPhone models containing competing Intel modems might be blocked from shipping from China, where they’re manufactured, to the US“, we will soon see a very different situation, when the hardware/software part is distilled and separated, we see a setting where a generic device could not be hindered and until software evidence is given linking the two, we see the setting where the verdict would be quite different indeed. the second part is given through: “The two companies previously had an exclusive licensing arrangement for the iPhone to use Qualcomm-made modems that are integral to bringing mobile devices online. In recent years, Apple has brought Intel into the fold as a modem supplier, and it appears that decision has had cascading effects that have led to today’s complex web of lawsuits. Qualcomm has also made the blockbuster claim that Apple effectively stole its technology and gave it to Intel, violating its patents in the process” the statement is not new, we have seen it, yet the tactic of generic device that is patented software driven would make for a much harder case for any player like Qualcomm to win. Depending on the hardware and the links to Samsung, QUALCOMM would be in a much tougher position, in addition the contracts would be dangerously precise, so either there would be an 800% increase in contracts, or a smaller amount of messy ones, which would reveal massive holes making the contract a lot less effective.

Contract Shmontract

Part of this is not seen, but a speculated change that Cnet reported almost two weeks ago. With “The Japan Fair Trade Commission this week cancelled a cease-and-desist order from 2009 that affected Qualcomm licensing in Japan, effectively declaring that Qualcomm wasn’t guilty of the charges against it. JFTC officials said the decision is “unusual,” according to a report from Nippon, and that this is the first time it’s revoked a cease-and-desist order since 2012“. I believe that the change that I speculated on is part of this. The larger layers are stopping to bicker over crumbs. In the stage of the generic device solution, we see a setting where Samsung and QUALCOMM would be the cornerstone of EVERY device produced lowering the cost of making and therefore driving overall profits for all of them. These contacts and cases are just in the way, so expect to see a lot more ‘amiable’ solutions to be posted in the news broadcasters in the near future. Yet the partial danger is missed, when 5 players set the 80% stage, what innovations will we miss out on? More important, what levels or which amount of choices will be denied to consumers?

The numbers as we see them are merely the start of much larger changes. Players like Huawei are not out of the race as their power is in another angle and they can still hold a much larger slice of cake in all this, with their victory in Europe they are still in the race, especially as the US has never been able to prove any issue of national security, so as the US is going that part alone (for the most) we will see more shifts towards protectionist solutions like the Generic software locked devices making that solution a much larger stage for profits for those players. So even as we laugh at people like Randall Stephenson (AT&T CEO) giving us: “Huawei is not allowing interoperability to 5G — meaning if you are 4G, you are stuck with Huawei for 5G,” he said during the speech. “When the Europeans say we got a problem — that’s their problem. They really don’t have an option to go to somebody else” a person who is flogging 4G LTE as 5G Evolution is telling us about a stage that players like IBM have played for decades, so he is calling a Chinese firm to be the same as players like IBM? How was that news? Yet when he is asked on why 5G Evolution is not, he is seemingly dragging his feet. Or perhaps he has already addressed the Verge giving us: ‘Study confirms AT&T’s fake 5G E network is no faster than Verizon, T-Mobile or Sprint 4G

Why does THAT matter?

Well that is the hindsight of all this. you see when the switch is complete we will get new issues on hardware versions bought and how the software will employ the wrong connection symbol, because that too is the impact of what you buy, the issue of profit will come with additional dangers of miscommunication of your own device. That too will be a future impact we all face, so there are intentional and unintentional (cause and effect) issues in play soon hereafter. The impact rises a lot faster, even now we might think that Samsung is on top with at present 1166 patents, yet when we see China where ZTE and Huawei combine 1629 patents, we see a trailing 794 patents and QUALCOMM with a mere 730 patents, this now optionally indicates (optionally as it remains to be seen where the crunch is) that QUALCOMM requires a solution that opens the market, not close it off, in one side the Japanese change opens their options and their larger need to be part of the generic devices becomes an essential step for them and now we see the predicament for Apple, they do not get mentioned in that part at all. So either Apple is already on another horse (the generic solution), or we see that Apple is in a lot more upcoming hardship than we realise and these are December 2018 numbers. the fact that Inter Digital Technology Corp (18 patents) is on that list and Apple is not makes for a much larger issue and so the previous Apple marketing noise of preferring to trail on 5G could be seen in a very different sight. And when we accept previous news from Apple Insider: ‘A 5G iPhone will cost Apple about $21 in licensing fees to Nokia, Qualcomm, and others‘, implies that Apple waited for much too long and now they are dependent on the other players making a much larger case for the future of Apple to be towards the generic devices, where they optionally will hold the software patents. It is speculative, yet based on the insight of the information that is for the most readily available, so when the numbers are up, they are not on the rise, they are merely up for review and scrutiny and in that light, we see that the first impact of a decrease of 50% from the trillion dollar value they held was not even close to the most negative view the people can hold.

There will be a larger scrutiny over the next three years, what is definitely up for the bulk is that the power of 5G will be Asian to a much larger degree, the fact that the US has faltered in this field shows that there is a lot more hardship on the horizon in the future. That part is seen when we consider Forbes giving us: “Our telecommunication industry never arrived at a single competitive standard for 5G technology, and our efforts to get allies like Britain and Germany to reconsider their support for Huawei, have been ineffectual. At the Mobile World Congress last month, the efforts were pathetic“, which now opens the doors on why on earth America remained complacent in the international needs for this long a time, perhaps hiring capable engineers might have been a first step. It is too late on several steps and the comment ‘leadership from the Trump administration will be essential from Forbes should be regarded as a statement from a most prestigious BS department, Trump did not fail, the failure started before the Obama administration and their lack of success in that department merely increased the losses that America will face.

The information is not that hard to come by, most of it can be to some degree distilled form the patent waves, waves lacking in the US and that lack now shows the downturn in an age where activity would have been everything, which is good for Sweden with their Ericsson as well as Finland with their Nokia, so let’s end this article with:

Nokia 5G -yhteydellä on tieto tulevaisuus (it would have been too easy in English or Swedish)

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Military, Politics, Science

The TV as a weapon

There is an old saying and there are alternatives to it. In Australia we say:

Q: Do you know the difference between ABC and Channel 7?
A: ABC shows you how bad things are in the world, Channel 7 shows you how screwed up your TV life is.

In the Netherlands it used to be NOS versus SBS6, and every nation has its own version. So what happens, when we see the millions of smart TV’s and Apple enters the race opposing Netflix? The New Daily gives the quote: “Spielberg who appeared live, touted the revival of his Amazing Stories anthology, while Reese Witherspoon, Jennifer Aniston, and Steve Carrell then took the stage to discuss another Apple original, The Morning Show” with the added: “a range of new streaming entertainment services, as well as financial products, at a star-studded event Tuesday morning“. the message was apparently clearly brought and when we get to see: “Apple is expected to spend US$2 billion this year on original content to challenge established steaming players Netflix, Hulu, Amazon and the forthcoming Disney+ service“, we need to realise that Apple has an optional goldmine in the making. In addition we see: “Hot on the heels of the Google game streaming service, Stadia, Apple launched Apple Arcade in a bid to grab a slice of the multi-billion dollar gaming market“, which will be fun to watch as Apple has shown a keen interest in negating the need of gamers (which is not all their fault in all honesty), will they figure it out this time? At least with the established Android gaming platform size, Google does have a huge advantage for now. OK, apple does have a gaming community on IOS and I was not short selling that (yes, I was). Yet the overall view I have seen in the past gives a better light of gaming to gamers on the android, than the Apple (a mere personal view on the matter).

So here we are watching two streams being created. First is the Netflix drain by Apple and as soon as they realise that 2 billion is a mere stack of money, to get the TV series that get the people to sign up, even besides Netflix will requires series that surpass The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina, The Haunting of Hill House, Bird Box and a few other gems, Netflix has the writers, will Apple have them? We all know that Game of Thrones will enter their final season, so there are plenty of needy watchers to pick up after that conclusion, yet if Apple does not have the IP, they are not going anywhere. Even with the added Spielberg Amazing Stories anthology, which was actually quite decent when it was initially released on VHS, they will still have quite the task at hand. More important, even if they have all the ducks in a row, they will still having to deal with the market shares of Hulu, Stan, Amazon and the forthcoming Disney + service as well (and a few local others). Do they have the IP when that goes online? I can see half a dozen series that could be hits, and I am not the only one. Plenty of dedicated story tellers will have a list. Yet, does the Apple executive (whomever Tim Cook handed this hot potato to), does that person have a clue? The difference between a good presentation and an actual good idea comes with a gap that can fit the Grand Canyon and many Apple executives are a little lost when they face that gap.

It goes further, having a great idea is not enough and most visionaries have that in mind. to see that part we need to reflect on: “Apple, which became the world’s first trillion-dollar company in August last year, had been dropping cryptic hints about the launch event for weeks, sending the internet rumour-mill into overdrive“, yet since then Apple lost well over 20% of its value and the next few ‘slam bam’ misers will dent that even further. The next part is interesting as it impacts gaming and TV.

To get a great product you need at the very least (before marketing gets to have a go):

  1. A script, a story that will compel the reader to go on. Loading it with sex and graphics will only hold a small percentage for some time. A great example of a near perfect script was I Claudius by Robert Graves.
  2. A cast that works well together, each good actors, but together they become ambrosia, wine and nitro-glycerine, all at the same time. Again I Claudius became the golden standard. With Derek Jacobi, George Baker, Siân Phillips, Brian Blessed, James Faulkner, John Hurt, Patrick Steward, Ian Ogilvy, John Castle, and John Rhys-Davies we got something unheard of. They were already good actors, yet together they created greatness, they are now globally celebrities, but in 1976 that was not a given, they were iron rods and the director shaped them into high tempered steel increasing their mark close to tenfold.
  3. The director. Not merely the man implying 3, 2, 1, action! No, he is the person that becomes the visual visionary and Herbert Wise delivered. The evidence is seen in his work. As a director he has 91 marks on his career rod and when we look at it all, it is all decent work, insightful work, yet I Claudius is a 180 cm person walking in Indonesia (where the average height is 152cm), it stood out tall above all others. So, even as we accept that I Claudius could not have been done without the cast, it equally required the right director to make it work.
  4. The Producer (in this case the BBC), who had to put up the dough with a need of blind faith and no idea how much they were going to lose. These four required to be completely in sync and they were as such I Claudius is still seen as the best BBC drama ever produced, even now, 43 years later we see that new TV series merely hope to equal this achievement, thinking that it can be surpassed is mere folly (yet optionally not impossible).

This is the setting that Apple is trying to get into and throwing 2 billion at it thinking that it will be easy by presenting a few famous people is as reliable as getting rich by spending what you have on blow and hookers. It looks pretty, yet it is an absolute non-winner 100% of the time. Finding the right people will be the task for Apple and as they are all competing for the same pig through increasing the value of good scriptwriters, yet they too are starting to look critical at the offers, because they lose value with every failure and often enough, they do not get to blame the director of the production company, they get to be the scapegoat. So they will require their optional bosses to set an income and levels of freedom and commitment to a much higher degree.

As for gaming

Gaming has a similar setting. It will be about getting the gamers on board and that requires a great product, in an age where Apple has been all about marketed iteration, they are vying for innovation? In a market they do not seem to really comprehend? I am slightly puzzled.

There the director is the project director; the cast are the graphic designers and the scripters and coders. The art and stage might have similar issues, but finding these parts to intertwine and interconnect is where good coders are required. Then there is the learning curve of the game. And it gets to be worse fast when it becomes a product relying on micro transactions. Ubisoft, Bethesda too never quite worked it out and the first screw up will diminish the value of the event overnight. Apple will have to steer clear of micro transactions in the first year by a certainty of 100% and in the subsequent 2-3 years for 90%. Can they afford that game? Their essential path will be the RPG games that call the horn of attendance for gamers on a global scale, if not, than this becomes a long term project that will not end up becoming a winner. In that they have additional competition form makers like Nintendo, their Switch is still gaining momentum and the games I have seen lined up for that system shows that Nintendo is taking this momentum extremely serious. I wonder if Apple has thought this through beyond their return on investment expectations from executives who rely in spreadsheets and lack essential data skills other than identifying their ROI and bonus column. Once that goes south Apple will take a few hits in short succession and they will be painful. If it goes wrong (I am not stating or indication that this is the case), they could face the hits where their total value is a mere 50% of what it was on September 16th 2018.

Yes, Apple could rise high with streaming on TV and consoles, but in the end they require the golden eggs to get there and I am not convinced that they have what it takes to get there. For the most it is an art, I have been involved in gaming since 1984 and I still miss elements in all it. It is both science and an art, the moment you separate the two is the moment you lose. That has been an essential given for close to two decades. Ubisoft got it wrong more than once, Bethesda took massive hits with miscalculations and they are dedicated experts in that field, I doubt Apple has seen that shortfall at present.

To illustrate that we need to look at a game called the Division 2, an Ubisoft product. Important fact, it is seen as a really good game, better than the first version and steps forward, at times leaps forward, some reviewers have stated that is sets a new bar of online gaming and that is awesome to learn. Now add the two headlines: ‘Ubisoft Patches Annoying ‘The Division 2’ Skills Bug‘, as well as ‘The Division 2 PC players report a 100% CPU usage issue, Ubisoft is investigating‘, on games this size this will always happen and the fact that it is looked at and fixed this early is really good, so this is not about pulling Division 2 down. This is what happens on games this big depending on online elements, which is besides server down times. A consequence of online gaming and in this Apple is as I expect it not ready to see gaming to the higher levels it needs to see it.

If they see these two elements as a method to use the TV as a weapon, a data weapon for additional wealth, we see a company that is about to get hit really hard. That is in the foundation of it all. I believe that they are making the same mistake that Microsoft made. Microsoft is talking a good talk, yet the people all over the world are seeing the impact, the most powerful console in the world is being surpassed by the weakest of the three. Their setting of always online, their bullying tactics, their essential inability to listen to gamers (or ignoring what they are being told) is what is dragging down Microsoft and Apple will experience that lesson in a very hard way soon enough if they walk that same silly line.

Just like Microsoft, we see a company that more likely than not does not comprehend gamers and will falter because of corporate ROI needs soon enough. They see the two as connected to grow better, but these are two separate entities (TV and Gaming) representing 6 dimensions that can go in any direction, when these executives learn that lesson the hard way and they are looking what to do next, I will offer Tim Cook my last $99 for the company (Apple, a fruit of the loom division).

Could I be massively wrong?

Absolutely, yet the Apple marketing need of the hype and their viral needs seem to be on my side, as the gaming industry as a whole tends to be as gossipy as any old tea lady, so word would have circulated into my inner core of contacts much earlier, as such I think that Apple is not ready, nowhere near ready, personally I do hope to be proven wrong. I would love to see more contenders in the gaming world, more choice, more innovation and better games is the consequence from that war, and I do love playing good games.

I will keep you all posted on what happens next.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, movies, Science

A political Chucky

I love cricket, I played it and loved it. That is as long as I was not bowling. There is no point in handing 10 overs to the opposition when Chucky (me) is bowling and I am happy that I am not considered outside of the field or batting. Some things should not happen, so, what do you do when your own party (the conservatives) considers chucking as a valid tactic in a game where it has been an illegal action?

That is what the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/24/tory-islamophobia-row-15-suspended-councillors-quietly-reinstated) informs us on in ‘Tory Islamophobia row: 15 suspended councillors quietly reinstated‘, and the fact that it is openly and ‘quietly’ done implies that my own party does not seem to grasp the educational need of the matter. We have all made ‘questionable’ considerations. I have on occasion noticed a lady who had an amazing * (assterix). I did not state that out loud, but optionally whispered it as softly ass possible (pun intended). It gets us to the old situation ‘If you are alone in a forest and no woman can hear you, are you still wrong?

So, when we see: “More than a dozen Conservative councillors who were suspended over posting Islamophobic or racist content online – with some describing Saudis as “sand peasants” and sharing material comparing Asian people to dogs“, when we see this, this is not whispering. This is loudly proclaiming, shouting even as it happened online. This is stupidity of a whole new level and there needs to be an investigation. It is not merely for the norm of the PC of it all. This has business impact. We can consider that the Middle East will be funding hundreds of billions in business decisions and the UK would want as much of it as possible. And in that is Mohammed Amin wrong? When we see the chairman of the Conservative Muslim Forum for the publication of set of formal disciplinary processes that far off? When discrimination is condoned to the degree that it is, should we not expect a much larger impact? When we see Islamophobia and anti-Semitic issues, we need to remember that there is a larger impact. If parties are rejected from consideration, it shows that political players are dismissing optional best solutions from the political arena because they are wearing filtering glasses, implying that the cost of doing business is optionally increased due to unacceptable practices and as the article implies that it has transpired 15 times, we see a systemic failure of a political engine that besides doing things wrong is optionally transgressing into the field of criminal acts. So even as James Cleverly claims that that swift investigations was made, the stage of quietly adding them back to the party gives light of more than Islamophobia, it gives light to the acceptance of racism within the party and that is not a good thing.

There is no doubt that there is a lot of emotion regarding the Middle East, yet anti-Semitism and Islamophobia will never solve it, it merely polarises issues beyond repair. I wonder what happens when Huawei and Saudi Arabia complete their initial setting and Saudi Arabia becomes a 5G powerbroker? Some analysts made the claim that there will be 30 million subscriptions in the Middle East by 2024. I believe that to be wrong, Huawei is not the only player and Ericsson is showing to be almost as capable as Huawei (driving competition and innovation), giving Saudi Arabia an option to drive partnerships to nations including the UAE, Oman and Egypt. OK, we admit that Egypt is Africa, yet the light that Saudi Arabia could grow subscriptions towards 60 million upwards when they get to include Egypt, and set the stage for Telecom growth a lot wider than that. A speculative step is seen in the Arab News on March 4th. When I looked at the complete language regarding Saudi Arabia’s Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Adel Al-Jubeir, I noticed that the statements were precise (read: too precise). So when I saw: “ruled out restoring diplomatic relations with Syria or reinstating Damascus to the Arab League without progress on a political process to end the eight-year-old war“, as well as: “Riyadh will also not take part in any reconstruction efforts until stability is restored in Syria“. Yet in this, 5G and creating options for communication is not reconstruction, or political progress. Yet it facilitates for both when the innovative players are allowed for a push towards global 5G considerations and it is my believe that Adel Al-Jubeir could use it to set an increasingly larger stage for the KSA.  I admit that my speculation is based on text (and interpretation) that is super thin, you could not skate on it, but you might lie down on it and cautiously create forward momentum. In light of the optional growth all over the Middle East and Africa, Saudi Arabia (read: Huawei business partners) are all gaining an advantage that allows for multiple conversations on a much larger board. The direct impact being that the setback for American corporations will increase larger and faster.

The 5G push would also allow options towards Jordan and now we see that Saudi Arabia (via Huawei and Ericsson) has created a much larger bond for future options for all these players. Now we see an optional line through Saudi Arabia to Oman, Egypt, Jordan, the UAE and optionally Yemen to follow. A big chunk of the Arab league, basically the big 5 all connected in 5G together making one voice more and more powerful. And with every victory there, the US gets pushed into becoming less and less relevant in 5G in that same wave. In that stage, when we see these steps unfold, do you really think that keeping racist and Islamophobic politicians is serving anyone’s purpose other than fear mongering and extremism?

So when we see the Guardian quote: “When CCHQ has been made aware of the small number of such cases we have acted swiftly, suspending members and launching immediate investigations, in sharp contrast to other parties” my issue here is that it is the exact party line that James Cleverly gave us. It sounds like a Microsoft sound byte, a claim made when they cannot solve a problem and they need it to be put into a drawer for well over a full upgrade. The fact that the Guardian treats us to: ‘quietly reinstated‘ gives rise to a systemic failure, one that can cost the UK many opportunities down the line and should we allow for that?

The Middle East is currently actively investing funds in excess of £1.4 trillion (not billion) on numerous projects in constructions, ICT, telecommunications and infrastructure, do you think that the UK has a chance of scoring any jobs when these contractors ask for a clarification on the application of ‘sand peasants‘? I also wonder what we will find when we read the transcripts and investigation papers regarding the 15 members that had been ‘quietly reinstated‘. How loud are we allowed to be when we look into this? The UK has enough worries with new Brexit fear mongering and a non-accountable ECB as Europe is about to get several trillions deeper in debt (because they found a miracle formula that explains it all. source: Bloomberg), digging our own graves by not acting against racism and discriminating phobias seems to be a problem we can avoid from the start.

When one of these Middle Easters investors asks feedback from Miqdaad Versi of the Muslim Council of Britain, what would these people hear? Quietly allowing chuckies to be set up as bowlers whilst we know that they will (through inadequacy, insensitivity and lack of professionalism) optionally knowingly instigate an illegal play is not common sense at all.

Any cricket captain should know better than to allow any chucky to bowl, but that is exactly what is seemingly happening right now.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Military, Politics, Science

Go cry me a river

OK, at times it is important to keep a moral foundation towards the actions we take. Some people (the non-Germans) were hesitant to be named a recipient by Adolf Hitler. There are Africans that did not consider accepting any honours from Idi Amin Dada; there was opposition by some towards the grants from Muammar Al Gadhafi, even if he looked like Jeffrey Ross. Many have been in a place where question marks are held high. Yet I think that we have taken the left to a whole new level (of stupidity) when we see: ‘Austerity forcing arts institutions to accept gifts from billionaires‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2019/mar/22/austerity-forcing-arts-institutions-to-accept-gifts-from-billionaires). The setting here is: “More than £100m of government cuts to annual arts funding has forced the nation’s top art galleries, theatres and opera houses to accept gifts from billionaires, including the controversial Sackler family, which made a fortune from the deadly opioid painkiller crisis“, I am not in a financial happy place, so when the Sackler family gives me a £5 million grant, I will bow, smile and say “Thank you very much!” You see, the question is not what their morality allowed for, the question becomes, were criminal acts done?

It is important to take another look at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/21/sackler-family-500-cities-counties-and-tribes-sue-oxycontin-maker, where we are introduced to: ‘Massive lawsuit says Sackler family broke laws to profit from opioids‘, even as we see the word ‘lawsuit’, that does not imply that the law was broken. There we see: “accusing members of the Sackler family, who own the maker of the opioid painkiller OxyContin, of helping to create “the worst drug crisis in American history”“. I am also very aware of the state of accusation that is given with: “Court documents accuse the eight family members of purposely playing down the dangers of the prescription painkiller OxyContin, which is more potent than heroin or morphine. They are accused of deceiving doctors and patients and directing sales and marketing techniques that drove huge over-prescribing and ever stronger doses for many patients who should never have been prescribed the pills in the first place“. In that text the two words that matter are swept under the carpet. The part ‘prescription painkiller‘ is at the centre of that part and there we see a clear shift. In this he first issue becomes the GP, or medical professional that prescribed the painkiller in the first place. Then we get the FDA (the US Food and Drug Administration) who should have put an initial stop to the issue if there was one. Was this done? As we now see the claims like ‘House Democrats Want More Information On Sackler Family’s Role In Opioid Epidemic‘, and a whole range of other accusations, we need to take a larger look. The FDA gives the direct part: “Get emergency help right away if you take too much OXYCONTIN (overdose). When you first start taking OXYCONTIN, when your dose is changed, or if you take too much (overdose), serious or life-threatening breathing problems that can lead to death may occur. Never give anyone else your OXYCONTIN. They could die from taking it. Store OXYCONTIN away from children and in a safe place to prevent stealing or abuse. Selling or giving away OXYCONTIN is against the law.

In addition we find information like: “Oxycodone is used for managing moderate to severe acute or chronic pain when other treatments are not sufficient.” again we see ‘when other treatments are not sufficient‘, now we see the crying of a collection of bitches whilst the direct investigation on these patients has optionally not been done. When we look at the history of these people and to what was initially prescribed we are likely to find a whole range of crying whiners who shouted and screamed for the strongest painkillers neglecting other alternatives, I feel certain that with all the data I would be able to find well over 10% failing the case from the very start. There is documentation on OxyContin going back to 1996, and NOW we see an optional case? 22 years later? I believe that there is a much larger issue in play. I believe that responsible parties have given in towards whining patients for decades, so is the Sackler family to blame for any of that? I do not believe that to be the case.

In addition we see: “Among the eight Native American tribes suing the Sacklers are parts of the Cherokee, the Chippewa and the Sioux, the Oneida Nation and the Blackfeet. Drug overdoses now kill more than 72,000 people in the US a year, according to government figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and 49,000 of those are caused by opioids.” We see the facts, yet who prescribed these drugs? The direct and simplest of questions and none of the articles give a correct or decent answer, the direct application of the failing of the Unites States through lawsuits that will not go anywhere ever. I am decently certain that when the doctors are called to testify and they describe the harassing and badgering patients that needed more and more and stronger painkillers, we will see a prescription failure to a much larger degree. In this light it is important to take the Native American Tribes into view as well. From my point of view there is a whole different range into the need of medication between rural (Native American or not) and metropolitan medication needs. That too must be taken into account. In addition, such an overload of opioids also puts the pharmacies into view. They have a duty to report such an increase of prescribed of opioids, as well as the physicians prescribing them. I will give you one better, the TV show Lou Grant (1978-1982) actually had one episode focused on that issue, an issue before OxyContin was in existence. A systemic failure brought into the limelight by a TV series and well over 13 years before there was OxyContin, so at this point, is there a clear directive to take a much larger view before you merely throw your lawsuit needy fingers towards the Sackler family?

And the clear part is that I am not stating that they are innocent, I am showing that there are at least three iterations of optionally guilty parties and involved players that should find themselves defending their actions in the courts before there is even a remote chance to have a go at the Sackler family and the FDA might be in court long before the Sackler members are.

So whilst you want to have a go at la dottore Raymond Sackler, be aware that those trying to make that jump will lose funds and cash by not doing their homework form day one and it took me a mere 187 seconds to realise that after these two articles were read. The biggest part is seen with: “This nation is facing an unprecedented opioid addiction epidemic that was initiated and perpetuated by the Sackler defendants for their own financial gain, to the detriment of each of the plaintiffs and their residents. The ‘Sackler defendants’ include Richard Sackler, Beverly Sackler, David Sackler, Ilene Sackler Lefcourt, Jonathan Sackler, Kathe Sackler, Mortimer DA Sackler, and Theresa Sackler,” this week’s lawsuit states“, no mention of the FDA approval, no list of hundreds of physicians prescribing the substance and no mention of a properly investigated medical history of the victims, all that got the limelight from the mere mention of ‘prescription painkiller‘. The fact that a TV Series like Lou Grant took an episode to show the failing of some physicians in such a situation was merely the icing on the cake called: “Laughingly created Court failure“.

As stated, I am not stating that they are guilty, not merely as they are presumed innocent, especially in light of the failed required elements in all this, the fact that some articles are loaded with emotion absent of 22 years of evidence that never required to await the court date is the added bonus that makes this all an optional failure, the application of common sense wins again!

In addition, consider the quote: “Court documents accuse the eight family members of purposely playing down the dangers of the prescription painkiller OxyContin, which is more potent than heroin or morphine“, yet I see no mention or any accusations towards the FDA, are they not the authority that people should turn to? Where were they in all this? Where are the approving physicians in all this? All direct questions, all without any answers. So when we consider the statement: “Drug overdoses now kill more than 72,000 people in the US a year, according to government figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and 49,000 of those are caused by opioids.” How many of those are merely junkies looking for a fix? How many were due to illegally obtained drugs and painkillers? I wonder what remains of these numbers when we take a deeper look at that part of the data cake sliced on those influencing factors. When we do that those numbers might dwindle down for up to 80% making this a non-case and a non-event from the very beginning.

Good luck to those who shout: ‘prosecute’ whilst ignoring common sense of the matter at hand.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics, Science