August 30, 2014 · 11:03

The Sanctimonious pretender

I saw a smaller headline this morning. It was not a text, but a video from the Guardian. The headline read ‘Why is the United Arab Emirates secretly bombing Libya?’ (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/aug/29/why-is-the-united-arab-emirates-secretly-bombing-libya-video). The text below the video is “The United Arab Emirates, a small wealthy Gulf state, has been secretly bombing targets in Libya, from bases in Egypt without the knowledge of the US. We explain how the raids reflect new rivalries in the region and are likely to trigger new strains between the west and its increasingly assertive Arab allies“.

There are several sides to this, but let’s start with the obvious ones “without the knowledge of the US“. Since when do we need to tell the US everything? If allies share all information, then can Washington please be so kind to send a 100% backup of their collected NSA data? You see, when we look at the word ally, the Oxford dictionary gives us “A state formally cooperating with another for a military or other purpose“, but the one that is perhaps more apt is “A person or organization that cooperates with or helps another in a particular activity“. So helps or cooperates in a particular activity, not all activities.

There are two questions linked to all this. The first is “how much of an ally is America?” I do not mean this in a negative light. The reality is that as it stands, USA is no longer a super power. They are limited in their actions and as the Democratic administration has given away nearly all power to banks and debt holders, in addition, there is an increasing visibility on just how dependent USA is on their need for oil. The article shapes another side that might have been unintended. It states “they were once united in their fear of Iran“, the fact that USA has been trying to get a dialogue with Iran is unsettling to many. In addition their slow response to the threat ISIS is also seen in a more negative light. The Iranian change has left the impression that USA will talk with all, this left an uneasy taste in the mouths of the conservative gulf monarchies. For if America is willing to take the ‘easy’ path to their oil, as well as the implied move of America to move away more and more out of the middle east is showing them the question, who should be THEIR ally? This could be the economic prosperous situation that the Commonwealth needs, yet would it be prosperous and moreover, how much of an ally will the Commonwealth nations need to become?

This is part of the view that I have had in other areas as well. Big Business seems to regard any nation with a monarchy as a non-positive area. Big Business is all about their powerbase which allows for a more secure hold on any location where politicians are the powerbase for their profit needs, it allows for changes and settings that are beneficial to large corporations. It seems to me that they cannot get the power foundation they so desire. Although phrased in opposition, KPMG made notion (at http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2012/10/big_firms_consider_leaving_the.php) of this. They stated in the headline ‘Big firms consider leaving the Netherlands, says KPMG report‘, the quote “Some of the Netherlands’ biggest companies are considering leaving the country because of the worsening climate for entrepreneurs, according to a new report by consultants group KPMG“. It is my view that this is not the actual ‘truth’. As I see it, it should read “Some of the Netherlands’ biggest companies are considering leaving the country because of the required freedom of exploitation that is denied to them“. This is of course my personal view, but considering the tax responsibilities firms have and for now, the pressures on both companies and people for tax accountability in the Netherlands. A board of directors have no national allegiance, just an allegiance for profit. I feel that honest values of accountability have for the most been the best preserved in monarchical states. Which includes the UK, the Netherlands, Sweden, and of course the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Qatar. So is there another factor why there is growing uneasy between these states? It seems to me that both Saudi Arabia and Qatar have absolutely nothing to gain in the long term to support ISIS, so where are these accusations as well as the implied evidence coming from that they seem to support these Islamic fighters?

The fact that Turkey and Qatar are stated to support Islamic movements is a call for more scrutinies investigations, as that implies that Turkey is now in opposition to its allies US and UK, so what quality evidence is there?

This is in the back of my mind when we look at the evidence. Is it truly the nations, or the larger players in these nations? If large corporations are indeed fuelling political needs of change by giving access to Islamic change, then we have an entirely new game in play. If we consider parts of ‘The Mobilization of Political Islam in Turkey‘ by Banu Eligür, we see another supporting side. It is the endorsing view by Jack Goldstone from George Mason University that gives us “Eligur shows how Islamists took advantage of the military’s obsession with the left and thus the military’s willingness to ally with them against leftist parties, the growth of a Saudi-supported Islamic business elite, and rapid urbanization, to create expanded networks and opportunities for electoral gains“. This is the side that is only one part. We tend to consider the side of on how Saudi Arabia and Qatar are involved, but we forgot the ‘western part’ in all this. Who exactly are the Saudi-supported Islamic business elite? These people, are they members of the house of Saud or are they exactly the opposite, Islamic members preparing to overthrow the house of Saud and turn a monarchy into whatever comes next. If that ever happens, then we get an entirely new situation. You see, whomever is in charge next can decide on who is allowed into Mecca, I have absolutely no idea what the consequence will be to that city, however I guarantee you that it might be the one spark to set a massive new strain of wars into motion, a destabilisation ISIS has been aiming for, for some time now.

Even though Jordan states to be ready to counter the radical threat, we see a view of widening support for ISIS among Jordanian Islamist fundamentalists inspired by its recent advances in countries neighbouring Jordan, which is a view that many are for now ignoring (likely until it is too late). This would force a massive military change for Israel and Israeli support as it will then be in a worse situation then it was in 1973, almost exactly 41 years ago.

The question becomes, how are they connected? They are not directly connected as events, yet the destabilisation will give a massive boost to the needs of ISIS as the younger population acts and reacts out, not in favour of ISIS, but against Israel due to a multi generation lecture of hatred (read non-acceptance), of the state of Israel. This might become the act tipping the scales in both Saudi Arabia and Oman. For ISIS it would be a win-win premise, if these two nations act out against Israel to appease its population, ISIS would claim to be the Islamic leader against Israel, if these nations hold off, they would create additional discord within the populations of both Saudi Arabia and Oman, which would only push the ISIS agenda forward more strongly.

So who is the Sanctimonious pretender?

As far as I can tell, they are the members of the boards of directors, in several cases just the man at the top who is pushing through support for certain extreme agenda’s so that a long term profit game can be played. The question would become would ISIS keep their word, or will they divide and exterminate this ‘infidel’ based support later on, for if we regard the meaning of infidel as ‘those who doubt or reject the central tenets of one’s own religion‘, are these people not digging their own graves?

Here is an Islamic view on greed: “Watch out for greed because the people before you perished from it. Greed led them to be miserly so they became misers. Greed led them to break the ties (of kinship) so they broke it. Greed led them to sins so they committed sins. (Abu Dawud)“, a view that was created almost a century before Christians went on the Crusades. Even then, Islamic view opposed the utter destruction that greed embraces.

If we do not start acting (read more than planning) for any solution that stops extremism, we might be left without options and the only oil America gets is whatever they can buy from Venezuela, Canada or Russia, which might make for a very uncomfortable oil price and a future we should all enthusiastically avoid.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics

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

August 28, 2014 · 21:28

Cancer for everyone?

Something set me off today. It was not Melissa Doyle, she looked lovely as ever. Perhaps it was her casual report on how red meat seemed to be linked to cancer. Actually, it was not her at all. It was another research with data linking red meat to cancer. There were two parts that seemed to be an issue. The first one is “People who eat a lot of these meats” the second one I will get to later.

From this I decided to take a trip into US data. The first place we get is Hereford, Texas, which is the beef capital of the world, or so they say. I am not stating that this is not true and it is true that Texas is one of the 5 states responsible for over 50% of all produced beef from cattle and calves. Yet, my mother was from Buenos Aires and you have not tasted true beef until you have tasted a steak from an Argentinian charcoal grill. I am not leaving the subject here, because we have two places were beef rules supremely.

So how is their health?

Dr Karen Humphries seems to know what she was doing and the approach sounded well enough, so what is the issue? Well, when I take an initial look at the statistics the CDC has for Colorectal (Colon) Cancer (at http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorectal/statistics/), the data (as incomplete as it is), shows no spike for these 5 states, because there is a valid thought, that outside the metropolitan area’s the home state might be the cheapest place to get steaks, consider that these places are not in possession of a vegetarian explosion (or is it a population explosion of vegetarians?), the overall spike of cancer, should stand out there (read slightly spike).

So, what is the other option?

Perhaps these people do not eat loads of red meat? Are you kidding me? Have you seen the sizes of steaks in them states, they are huge! I can eat a lot but I need to bring my A-game of hunger to these places to finish my plate. So is Dr Humphries wrong?

No, I do not believe this to be the case. She is by the way not the only one on this meaty horse. A 2008 article form Harvard Medical School (at http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/Red-meat-and-colon-cancer.shtml) shows a similar conclusion on the data that they have. So why am I questioning this?

I am not questioning these issues perse. Perhaps there is another factor that is not being considered. So am I just on a windmill chase, like a Don Quixote seeking the next windmill? I am not arguing that those who think this are wrong, but consider the next piece of information, which was found at http://authoritynutrition.com/is-red-meat-bad-for-you-or-good/.

The title ‘Is Red Meat Bad For You, or Good? An Objective Look‘ seems appealing enough, however is it therefor true?

They are giving us the following thoughts which some had considered a long time ago. The thought is set in the following quote “However, the meat we eat today is vastly different from the meat our ancestors ate. Back in the day, animals roamed free and ate grass, insects or whatever was natural to them. Picture a wild cow on a field 10.000 years ago, roaming free and chewing on grass and various other edible plants. The meat from this animal is completely different from the meat derived from a cow that was born and raised in a factory, fed grain-based feed, then pumped full of antibiotics and hormones to make it grow faster“.

Here is the question that is raised within me: “Is this research the first evidence of antibiotics and hormones on consumption beef?”

That is not really the question people seem to be looking at. So is this a windmill I am chasing, or are we asked to look away? This is not against Dr Karen Humphries, who was investigating the red meat on the people. To be honest, with the amount of red meat offered, I would have loved to have been a volunteer there (I could never refuse a good steak). The information and ‘evidence’ as well as my train of thought took less than 5 minutes to clear, then about 25 minutes to get through the readings and the CDC data tables.  If we look at the Guardian article (at http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jan/24/worldwide-cancer-rates-uk-rate-drops). The issue here is that Cancer is seen in a generic term, which means all kinds of cancer and still Argentina, a massive beef consumer (and yummy it is too) is only on the 46th position, so have I made a case that it is not just about red beef, but are there other elements in play? Which is the second part to all this.

Without more data, the case I am making would only be supposition, yet is this a start? Are there other factors that reduce the dangers in the USA and Argentina? Is there now a valid case against certain hormones and antibiotics? There is no way to tell without a lot more data and more (and better) in depth research. If that is indeed the track we must walk, how should this proceed? You see, in any research there is a goal and a counter goal. You can bet your bottom dollar that pharmaceuticals would not want quick results. If you doubt that, then remember the ‘investigation’ in Syria that we saw in early 2014. The question ‘were chemical weapons used’ (which seemed like a joke) and ‘who did it’ was completely set aside. So here we face a possible approach to it in the way of ‘Could antibiotics be a cause of an increased presence of colon cancer causing bacteria?‘ and ‘Could hormones be a cause of an increased presence of colon cancer causing bacteria?‘ getting the research set up, the data collected and then the actual reporting done might be taking an intense amount of time, but should we therefore not get this done?

I do not pretend to have the answer, yet I do have the questions that were casually not asked in the Channel-7 news. Questions, which are at a first glance seemingly assumed, to some extent by Authority Nutrition, a site that is the child of Kris Gunnars, a medical student. He is also not the man just claiming and assuming issues. His site had an entire tab on evidence, filled with charts that seemed to have been made with proper analytical tools (I did not dig into that data though).

There is another side to all this. Kris voiced it really nice in his article “the meat we eat today is vastly different from the meat our ancestors ate“. We all (including me) seemed to have forgotten about that. As we go forward, what other parts had not been properly looked at? For example, the article ‘History of diethylstilbestrol use in cattle‘ (at https://www.asas.org/docs/publications/raunhist.pdf) gives several answers, but also leaves us with questions. Did anyone look at the evolution of meat as the ‘victim’ (also known as Mr or Mrs soon to be steak) had been treated by these hormones? Let us not forget that this game has been pushed through generation upon generation of hormones. Is the idea so far-fetched that we have changed to context of the BBQ target? Does this amount to poisoning the well? I truly do not know, but it seems that the latest results, in conjunction with the data that Harvard and several other sources have collected, contribute to a new train of thought that we need to take a very serious look at the meat and the cattle as well as their DNA in regards to our beefy food supply. It is the earlier mentioned paper by A. P. Raun and R. L. Preston that leads to two quotes linked to all this. In the beginning “The removal of DES from the market led to the development of a number of other growth stimulation products for cattle” and at the end “If diethylstilbestrol had not been removed, these same resources could have been directed toward the discovery, development, and approval of other technologies for the cattle industry“.

Yet, are we losing sight to the long term effects of these growth stimulants and hormones? If these bowel cancer numbers are linked in any way to these developments, what links are we yet to discover and at what price had beef profit been maximised? The last one is not a blame game moment. At some point hard choices had to be made, consider that Gartners meat in Portland Oregon gets us a Rib Eye for just under $15 (16 oz.), with this the fact that at present beef is at an all-time high according to Reuters (at http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/25/usa-agriculture-inflation-idUSL1N0QV0J620140825). What happens when the beef rises above the option to buy as a food source? This is not just the drought or disease which is the latest reasons for the price hike. Consider that 318 million American residents need their dinner, current statistics place the vegetarian population (those who hate plants more than animals) at roughly 10%, which means just over 280 million of meat pieces are needed EVERY DAY! Now, many do not have steak on a daily basis, so the need for beef is not at a deadly level, but…..

What did I just say?

There is the crux, have we been so into the need to get more food that eagerness was too quickly satisfied, but we now see a long term consequence.

LET ME BE CLEAR!

This last part is all conjecture, but is it being looked at? If not, why not? There is a foundation of concern and evidence that the effects of beef on our health seems to have changed, the question becomes how much? Questions I do not have answers to, but I was surprised not to see anyone in the press ask the question and deliver the results, just as is!

That itself is worth a question or two too.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Science

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

August 27, 2014 · 11:10

Which coin?

This morning I was confronted with my own thoughts of the last few days. I am not stating anything new (at least I hope so). The American issues, the overly visible multi-billion dollar deals and a few other notions. It started earlier this week when I heard that a friend was made redundant. These things happen. It happened to me, it will happen to others too. The issue I had is that for a decent long time we have known that companies for the most are not too bothered with loyalty, for them it is about the bottom dollar, what is interesting is that they tend to DEMAND loyalty to a fault until they cut away the people who loyally served them, in some cases for decades, only to replace them with ignorant junior staff members often costing them less than 50% of whatever they are paying now. This is not new, this had been going on for some time and they do it nice and legal, at times segregating a staff member in a niche position, waiting a year, if that person had been around a long time even two year and then closing down that department, which saves them years of due income in settlements.

Weirdly enough, yesterday’s story about the bankruptcy of America is linked to all that. You see, this entire issue can be reduced to two coins. One coin is the government, on one side we see the view they have of companies and the other side is how companies really are. The second coin is how we see companies and the other side is how companies turn out to be. They are not the same coin, they are an entirely different currency all together!

That is the view the older generation does not seem to comprehend and what the younger generation takes for granted. However, the long term consequence is that companies will end up having the short stick in all this (but about that side more a little later).

Let us take a look at coin number one. The government coin!

Companies, for the most have considered themselves nationalistic, it gives them an identity and also the protection of the government branch should that ever be needed. There is Woolworths, the Australian place to get your Groceries; there is General Motors, an American Company, British Telecom a British company and so on. These are actually the old times, we and with us our governments have had this image. To some extent, an Ambassador still to some degree acts as an intermediary between cooperative businesses to promote trade. So companies get the support of a government enabling them to have easier access to business opportunities. Their importance goes back to the Italian renaissance, more notably when Vittore Carpaccio painted the ‘Legend of Saint Ursula‘ series; they are called Arrival of the Ambassadors, The Departure of the Ambassadors and The Return of the Ambassadors. Ambassadors were the dream of business as they opened doors for trade to commence and increase.

Today this is no longer the case, business has no affiliation to any government when times are good (when times are bad they whine for money and tax breaks), actually they always whine for tax breaks. You see, a company as many can see have only allegiance to their board of directors and the bottom line that they worship in a spread sheet. Today’s corporations are not linked to a nation or a location. Google seems to be the only honest one in that regard. They do not call themselves an American company, but a Global company. Their concept of location is fluid, it shapes to the need of tax relief and where the fastest servers are to acquire the data handed to them by well over a billion people on a daily basis. Yet, this is not about Google! This is about the way business is allowed to be done. In my view it has something to do with spineless politicians (not just in America by the way). As companies were allowed too many degrees of freedom, they opted personal need and gain instead of the greater good. This is not wrong or illegal, yet they use the facilities offered for them with all the freedom, which by the way is as it should be for the most and at the same time these companies syphoned billion through a multitude of tax shelter constructions, all perfectly legal. Did you know that hundreds of millions of people buy their downloads in Ireland?

An option to promote trade has for the better part of almost two decades been used to avoid taxation, not to improve trade and/or long term economic benefits (well they are, but only for the board of directors). The greed economy had been turned against the governments, most not willing to change in fear that they will walk away. This is one of the main reasons why America is basically bankrupt and not just America. Many of the commonwealth nations, amongst them Australia, United Kingdom and Canada who are feeling the effects of people buying online and these governments end up getting $0.00 in any form of taxation whilst the stores are shutting down one by one. HMV and the Virgin Megastores were likely two of the most visible victims of online retail changes, yet the online purchases ended up not having taxation of any kind, which does mean that a nation’s government is losing out.

My initial solution was to make a change that made any online purchase taxable in the land of the buyer, an idea that was never adopted, some thinking they ended up with more perhaps? But all lost out, as the e-Giants remained in tax sheltered nations. Particularly the US and UK missed out on hundreds of millions of tax dollars/pounds.

“Tax administrators face greater difficulties in enforcing tax laws and maintaining their community’s legitimate revenue base when dealing with international rather than domestic transactions, particularly when dealing with a jurisdiction that combines tax haven status with bank secrecy. Increasingly, tax haven regimes with bank secrecy laws in place are accessible to almost anyone with a modem and a computer“, which comes from Mr Carmody, Commissioner of Taxation. It was an Australian Taxation Office Media Release on November 11th 1997. So, this issue has been known for over FIFTEEN YEARS! Who else is late to the party? Well, that would be the United States of America, the United Kingdom, as far as I can tell Canada (not confirmed, due to a lack of knowledge of Canadian tax laws), Australia and this prestigious list goes on for a little while longer. Yes, we were getting played in a most auspicious way by whining, crying small minded board of director members on a global scale.

There is one more side to the first coin (source: http://www.internationaltaxreview.com/Article/3252311/VAT-considerations-for-e-commerce.html). The article subtitles drew me in ‘Nehal Radia considers the VAT implications of e-commerce and how taxpayers can take advantage‘. The article has a few good sides and they are worth reading about, but for me it helps illustrate another side, partially the fact that a view given here is not as I see it to be ‘the correct one’, which by the way, thuy were never debating.

Consider your own financial situation, you the reader. If you have a job, it is more than likely that you have not been getting too many job raises since 2012, yet overall, your rent, your food, your electricity and food bills did go up, in some cases by a sizeable amount. Now consider the quote “According to Forrester Research Inc., US e-commerce spending will increase by 13.4 % to US $262 billion this year, with an expected continuation in growth to $370 billion in 2017. In Western Europe, it is estimated that 2013 e-commerce spending will reach €128 billion ($165.5 billion), up by 14.3% from last year and with expectations of €191 billion ($247 billion) by 2017)“. Really? Do YOU have that much more to spend?

I do not think that this is the case at all, yet, I know Forrester and it is likely that these are indeed the numbers (if they did not make a weighting error). What seems to be happening is that e-Commerce is growing stronger and stronger as this group is avoiding VAT payments more and more, which means that shops are getting shut down as e-Commerce is passing onto you part of the VAT savings. Consider that VAT in the Netherlands is 21% and in Sweden 25%, how can a shop compete when these savings are to some extent passed onto the customer by the e-shop, whilst they can avoid VAT and they do not need a location with rent and electricity. Business views have skewed the market and governments are now losing out massively, whilst their own economy is also suffering under unfair competition practices.

If this is the first coin, I would call this currency ‘slow and asleep at the wheel’.

We are the second coin. Our view has for the most been to work hard, to get the job done and to bring home the bacon. It is a simple view, as we aim to be the ‘return on investment’; we create a comfortable pillow where we rest. Not because we are lazy, or because we do not do our part, but because we know that as long as we get it all done, our boss needs us. He had paid us a decent amount and as we are the cause for more income then we cost, we should all be in a great position. Guess what! We were stupid! Today’s management or better stated, whoever makes the coin decision tends not to be stupid, but to some extent short sighted. You see, he can get the same person in India, or that one person just leaving University, to do almost the same at half the price. Whatever ‘loyalty’ you think your boss has had towards you is no longer there, as we are no longer people we are just part of a spread sheet, as we cost more we get replaced to cost less as to not affect THEIR bottom line, which is usually their profit (read commission). There is of course an issue we should not forget, the economy is still bad, and yes, we have to accept that trimming the fat (the most costly employees) will also happen as some companies are drowning. They are now relying on image, without the revenue to support it. Yet, this is not about that side. The coin is on how we perceive on the company and how the company really is does matter, not how they do business. Is that so?

Is their corporate soul not depending on exactly how they do business?

It is hard to stay on this without getting into the debate on how companies sometimes make hard choices to stay afloat. It is more about the changed spirit of the business soul and how they hope that youthful ignorance might get them these 1-2 deals that keep them going. Yet there is a side which we seem to ignore. It is ‘interpretation’ of business.

Consider the Corporate Image Awards 2014 (something that was brought by the Frontier Consulting Group), a company that is actually an Indonesian company. In their ‘Corporate Image Survey Methodology 2014‘ they actually had a nice twist to this story. They stated for their fourth dimension called ‘attractiveness‘ two parameters, one was called ‘Dream workplace company‘ and the second one was labelled ‘Company with high quality employees‘. Here we see the crux. What is a high quality employee? One that looks dynamic (read 22-25), fast (read slim lined) and get the job done, which reads like within six hours and however many hours of unpaid time they need to finish the job before the deadline, or the veteran can actually get it all done in 6 hours. It is ‘the’ unspoken question that is here and is loudly ignored by those not willing to answer honestly and those who are very unwilling to admit the question, is actually a massive issue. ‘What is a high quality employee?’

I am left with two coins and a question. Are we, both the people and the government too slow to change, or are companies driving us to change in too inhumane ways to protect ‘their’ profit? I feel uncertain to answer it, there are unspoken sides that have not been dealt with and there is the need for greed by board members on a global scale which is yet to be properly scaled back, even in these uncertain financial times.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Politics

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

August 26, 2014 · 12:03

About America, chapter 11

This is a short story; it is not part of a novel where you have seen the first 10 chapters. This is in all seriousness an issue when we consider Code of Laws of the United States, United States Code, number 11 deals with bankruptcy.

So why take my word for this? Why am I right, when every journalist, every economist claims that this is not the case? How diluted am I to think this?

These are all valid question. Now consider the facts. The US treasury (from various sources) had collected in 2013 around 2,700 billion dollars. This seems like a lot, yet the budget as President Obama stipulated in 2012, the budget had spending set to around 3,800 billion dollar, so the US is already 1 trillion short. If we consider the total US debt at 18 trillion, meaning 18,000 billion, then the total debt would need 100% of all taxation for 6 years, an act that is totally unrealistic.

Now take this to your own homestead. I remember that I could never get a loan for a mortgage for more than 4 annual incomes. Now, this is like comparing apples to oranges, but is my train of thought so far out of bounds? It is my view that these seemingly ‘clever’ economists have been rolling their gambling dice in several ways for too long.

Consider the Dow Jones Index. We get fed the line that the economy is good, because 30 companies are doing ‘well’. Ever since the ‘dip’ it took in 2009 to 6547 (at http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/historical/djia1900.html), the Dow has ‘restored’ itself to 16743 (as per now). So, in the time when all was well, before the first economic collapse in 2004, when the Dow was 11722, and until the second collapse in 2008 when the Dow went from 14164 to 6547 in 2009, we now are in a time when many in the US are down on their luck and finances, when many all over the world are feeling the brunt of recession and other financial calamities, the almighty Dow is at 16743.

Is anyone considering the notion on how dislodged the entire Dow Jones concept is in regards to the reality of life?

Consider the following information:

– Amazon is buying Twitch for a billion Dollars in cash (at http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/25/6066509/why-it-makes-sense-for-amazon-to-buy-twitch)

– Roche to buy U.S. biotech firm InterMune for $8.3 billion in cash (at http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/24/us-intermune-roche-idUSKBN0GO0PI20140824)

These are two of several (read dozens) of large shopping sprees, throwing cash around like it is nothing and as these billions come into the other parties’ hands, what taxation ends up getting paid? This is at the heart of the founding issue that should keep our minds busy ‘Is America Bankrupt?’

There are two sides. First there is the Sovereign Default. No matter how you twist or turn it, if a nation cannot pay its debt, it will default and should be seen bankrupt. A good example is Greece. After Europe bailed out a nation with 11 million people, by ‘giving’ it well over 300 billion, it is still complaining. The reality is that it should have been allowed to go under in bankruptcy. Not because I like it, or because I have anything against Greece (in all honesty, Crete is one of the loveliest places I ever saw). The natural cycle of economy has been ‘arranged’ (I would call it mismanaged) into cycles of only good news. You talk to any farmer, they will all tell you that no field can survive on spring and summer alone, nature is all about balance and as we threw away balance, we started to undo our own prosperity.

It is said that a business is stated as ‘insolvent’ when its debts exceed its assets.

Is that not the case here? I have stated in the past that I have reservations about the true value of LIBOR.

If we continue the question: “How much money they need to borrow from their peers to plug any holes in their balance sheets and if they have an excess of available cash, how much they can afford to lend“, which is at the heart of LIBOR (at http://citywire.co.uk/money/qanda-what-is-libor-and-what-did-barclays-do-to-it/a600479), considering that the margins had been played with in the last two years, is the idea that the total valued amount has also been tweaked?

This is all based upon an availability of actual existing Cash. But the entire system is based upon a certain value of assets and goods, as I personally see it, I do not trust that list as it is dependent on the ego of honest bankers, which seems an impossible concept and no one can produce at any given moment an exact list of it. So what value exists in all reality (not in the eager mind of a commission driven banker)?

We now get back to the Dow Jones Index. If we consider the past (when life appeared good) and the now where most of have lost a lot (if not all), then is that index not artificially driven upwards? This is not just my view; several parties, including USA Today (at http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/03/04/federal-reserve–quantitative-easing/1963539/) are showing us a view that shows an economic system that is driven upwards in artificial ways. So we now get a different view. Are all these mergers and multi-billion dollar deals we see regularly now on TV about growth, or about the top of the US industry that seems to leave the sinking ships before the system collapses.

This is at the centre of a few issues, where the US is rallying for ‘support’ whilst not showing one iota of accountability to get its budget under control. The last part is at the heart of the need to call the USA bankrupt (not because I desire it). It will cost many a lot, but is growth not depending on the downfall of others? If we consider that all together we are 100%, does our growth not depend on the need that someone else does less? That intertwining, where we ignore basic foundations that growth is not eternal, we see that there is a consequence to overinflating (yes, this also applies to my ego).

Yet, economists have time and time again stated that there is more here and there (whilst they point to virtual spaces). Now we see the heart of the problem, who has the actual 18 trillion that the US is down for? If we look at the oil links, should USA perhaps mean ‘Unionized Saudi Arabia‘? If we consider the real wealth, are they not the ones holding the oil reserves (one of the big four) and as such, the outstanding debt? I know it is not that simple, it never is, but when we ask a summary of where the debt lies; we will get some clever list from a highly educated economist and some excuse ‘that it is all a lot more complex then it looks‘.

He is not incorrect, but he is also not telling you who hold the 18 trillion the US had been spending in one way or another and as such, the realisation should now be upon you. If America is bankrupt, then what will happen next? Japan will pretty much be permanently out of commission and I reckon the UK will be in very deep waters, but we the Commonwealth must find a way to go it together if we are to survive.

It seems to me that America never realised that lesson, like several others, they all used to max out a credit card in virtual space whilst the actual, supporting currency is not there, so why has America not been declared bankrupt?

I reckon soon enough we will get more and more long winded talks, but in the end no one is sayng anything because those who will be making the speeches are at the heart of what went wrong and no one wants to hold on to that guilt when those left without their house ask them the question ‘where are my savings?‘.

 

2 Comments

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

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

August 23, 2014 · 11:26

A spooky situation

It is another day and another article from the Guardian graces us. The headline ‘Isis beheading video brings calls for rethink of UK domestic terrorism fight‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/21/james-foley-isis-beheading-uk-counterterrorist-fight-in-crisis), was what called my attention. If ISIS events are now making Twitter change its policy, then I definitely need to take another look at the other articles. Yet, what is the Guardian article actually about? The article goes into several events, but has two parts that do matter. The first one is “The UK government was under pressure to rethink its approach to tackling domestic extremism as security services, led by MI5“, which is only part of an ’emotional sentence’ to rile the public. The second one was “Some 500 Britons are believed to have gone to Syria and Iraq and joined Islamist groups fighting there. Some 200 are estimated to have returned to the UK“, the rest are nice titbits, but the meat is there, now for the funny part. I already highlighted that need and that issue on June 8th 2013 in my blog ‘Privacy and (fake) fears‘, where I wrote:

They need these abilities to fight the existing and growing threat called ‘the lone wolf terrorist’. These people are guided by sources like ‘Inspire’ magazine, which is created by AQAP (al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula). It is however not that simple. The real lone wolves get their ‘guidance’ remotely from sources most do not know and all that under the eyes of the Intelligence Community. To have a grip on stopping these people, monitoring the internet is essential to keeping us the common people safe.

This is why all these false ‘privacy’ driven issues. I personally still believe that a fair bit is scared to be caught out as they are doing the girl in the office, the neighbour’s wife of have a few dodgy fake investments lined up. Lust and Greed tend to be excellent bringers of worries.

I did like this quote “Former officers from MI6, the UK’s foreign intelligence service, have downplayed the threat to British security, while MI5 and the police have emphasised the threat“. I think they are both right, let me explain. ISIS has other fish to fry, for the most it wants to extent through Jordan into Sinai, when they have three sides pushing Israel and mounting up pressure to Egypt, possible hoping to radicalise the members of the Muslim Brotherhood that are in hiding now. That would be their first interest in setting off the ‘tinderbox of agony’ (sorry, I was playing Diablo 3 last night). So, that proves MI6, but what about MI5? Well, the 200 returned soldiers are still in the UK and it is very likely that part of that group is more in league with the vision of ISIS then the safety and comfort that the UK had offered them as they grew up in the UK. These people can convey messages, set up new ways to deliver news (like trough private channels in a MMORPG game in Facebook or freely downloaded, which is impossible to monitor) and recruit new people who have not left the UK, which would be a disadvantage to MI5. Now it is important to know that this is all speculation on my side. I cannot prove that this is happening, but is it not more likely than not that an extremist would like to propel his ‘rightness’ onto others? In that regards it might be nice to read ‘Avoiding the Traps of Extremism‘ by Samuel López De Victoria, Ph.D (at http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2011/10/07/avoiding-the-traps-of-extremism/). It is a decent piece, it is easy to read and it gives you a view that many can easily relate to. It also highlights on the dangers why extremism would be too easily brought to the hearts of the younger followers. No matter how much better life is in the UK, people there have had a very hard decade and only now, slowly is there the chance, not the assurance of economic relief. These recruiters are here in the twilight of a recession recruiting those who are at the end of their patience and that is what MI5 can clearly see (and with them a few others).

So they are both right, but there is a third part to this. This is again pure speculation, but from the events, when proven true, we could come to the conclusion that ISIS is playing a different game again. It is almost like someone took a look at American football and we see that they do not have one tactician in charge but two. Almost like offense and defence, but in the case of ISIS it is the daytime war commander for armies and open warfare and a night-time tactician, who is setting up the play for the lone wolf tactics. Perhaps the death of Osama Bin Laden taught them to not leave it all with one man and if that is true, what other changes did they make?

This is where I agree and disagree with Dr Erin Saltman who stated that the best way to identify the lone wolf is that if this person makes a mistake and tells one family member then they might call the police. I reckon that Erin is on the same train I am on. My disagreement is because I think that the chance of that is extremely unlikely and if we want to stop these lone wolves, we need an entirely new playbook, because the current approach is unlikely to work. I still believe that in the end it will be GCHQ that will need to bring forth the innovation that will allow MI5 to complete its mission, because message traffic has forever been the only weak link in any war that required communication.

A few come to mind, but none will be revealed here. Good hunting!

 

1 Comment

Filed under Military, Science

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

August 22, 2014 · 18:31

Censoring – Censor out?

It is 18:11 and my assignments are done. I get one day of rest until the next batch off assignments start to twitch at the corner of my desk. No rest for the weary, so off to the Guardian I went a moment ago only to see an interesting article by James Ball. It is about Twitter. The headline ‘Twitter: from free speech champion to selective censor?‘ pretty much states it all (at http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/21/twitter-free-speech-champion-selective-censor).

It starts with a quote that sounds good, but is actually a statement of quicksand “The social network’s decision to remove all links to the horrific footage showing the apparent beheading of the photojournalist James Foley is one that most of its users, reasonably, support“.
I actually do not support it, but I understand the action. Why not?

Well, this is all about emotion, which is fair enough, but Twitter had given themselves a precedent of censoring. Now, let us be honest, I have nothing against the censoring, but they created a position for themselves that will drain resources in many way.

Why? What about the next beheading or execution that comes next? Other video smut we can all do without. Where will it stop and how can it be managed?

James Ball actually words an interesting view I had not considered when he states “the New York Post and New York Daily News’ decision to use graphic stills from the footage as their front-page splashes. Here begin the problems for Twitter: the network decided not to ban or suspend either outlet for sharing the images – despite banning other users for doing the same“, which constitutes discrimination. So, as I stated, Twitter entered a pool of quicksand and it will get them deeper into trouble sooner then they realise. That is shown with the quote “Twitter is absolved of legal responsibility for most of the content of tweets. But by making what is in essence an editorial decision not to host a certain type of content, Twitter is rapidly blurring that line“.

So under Common Law, Twitter got themselves in quicksand and hot water all at the same time (aren’t they the efficient Eager Beavers?).

If I go by the NSW Defamation Act 2005, we see a nice escalation in section 32, where it states:

Section 32   Defence of innocent dissemination

(1)  It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that:
(a)  the defendant published the matter merely in the capacity, or as an employee or agent, of a subordinate distributor, and
(b)  the defendant neither knew, nor ought reasonably to have known, that the matter was defamatory, and
(c)  the defendant’s lack of knowledge was not due to any negligence on the part of the defendant.

(2)  For the purposes of subsection (1), a person is a subordinate distributor of defamatory matter if the person:
(a)  was not the first or primary distributor of the matter, and
(b)  was not the author or originator of the matter, and
(c)  did not have any capacity to exercise editorial control over the content of the matter (or over the publication of the matter) before it was first published.

Until now, they had gotten a clean pass and would remain to have one until they made the change they did. Because whomever starts any defamation case, will have cause to show the beheading censoring instance of James Foley and by Twitter acting, they gave away the defence: ‘did not have any capacity to exercise editorial control over the content of the matter‘, because they just did that exact thing, which now gives them cause to see Defence of innocent dissemination melt away like snow in the sunshine.

As James Ball points out, the issue that I had taken offense to last year were the threats against Caroline Criado-Perez, who thought it would be a great idea if Jane Austen became the new face of the 10 pound note. I personally thought it was a brilliant idea. Some small minded people did not and as such, she got a dose of abuse and threats that were completely beyond belief. It is only one of many cases of bullying, trolling and harassment via Twitter. The quote we see in the Guardian is: “Twitter’s strongest, perhaps only, justification for its sluggish and minimal response was that it could only act through its harassment channels, and could not become a curator or editor of content on its site“, which in itself is perfectly acceptable, yet now, they have given that option away by acting and soon, Twitter might be confronted with other abuse and threat victims and as such their goose gets to be decently cooked (and broiled).

So, either Twitter takes a step back, which would be fair enough, or it becomes a policing entity, which might not be the worst, yet the issues from this choice will haunt them for a long time to come. That in itself seems unfair, but just moving to the plate (not arguing how justified it is), will leave them with bruises and scars. I get the issue that it is a consequence of choice, which I do not attack, but how consistent can they actually do this and more important, what issues will they open when they censored something that was lost in translation, how will they fix those mistakes at that point?

I think that they should state that the beheading intervention was a once off and not interfere again. Not because I want it, but because Twitter seems safer by remaining on the side of innocent dissemination, a side that they might not be regarded as ever again (speaking juridical), simply because the action has already taken place.

So is the censor in for censoring?

That is a question that only Twitter can answer, yet the emotional decision to intervene in this case was morally right, emotionally correct and decently good, this jurisprudential mouse will however end up having a slightly too long tail, I wonder whether Twitter considered that option, especially in regards to victims like Caroline Criado-Perez who did not get the intervening attention they rightfully deserved.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

August 21, 2014 · 11:17

A time to breath

I am just now taking a few minutes (roughly 32.4) break from my UNI assignment. I have way to go and I should be OK to get it all done in time. These are also the moments when a person, no matter how driven to get the assignment done, will start worrying about the proper tense of it all. I procrastinate, he procrastinates, she procrastinates, we all look at Facebook, the Guardian, YouTube and whatever other non-University virtual place we can think of.

I do it every two hours to keep my mind slightly more alert than usual. Assignments can be dull dreary and often nerve wrecking and if we do not take a little look out of the window, we go bonkers (for Americans: that means ‘loony tunes’).

The topic of news are the beheading of a US reporter by ISIS, air strikes batter Hamas and something about Sainsbury and credit card fraud. If you do not know that ISIS is a massive threat, then feel free to hide back under your rock, if you think that there can be peace between Hamas and Israel, then please say hi to Professor Minerva McGonagall from me when you get back to Hogwarts and enjoy the ‘reality’ of magic, muggles and feast over the death of he-who-should-not-be-named.

The Sainsbury issue is however a massively different slice of pie, and I will take a bite out of that one. It is yesterday’s pie, but it seems to have the good taste of ‘are you for real?‘ whilst having a glass of ‘someone better start waking up soon there‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/aug/20/sainsburys-bank-security-fraud-transfer-credit-limit).

The first quote that I have an issue with is almost at the end of that article, where it states “Sainsbury’s, which has run its own banking operation since 2013, might now want to look at its security measures“. How about “Dear Sainsbury bank, in light of the information we currently have, we will feel a sense of utter joy to permanently shut you down in 48 hours if you do not wake the flip up and get your hat on straight! Kind regards the office of common sense and persecutors of dumb, dumber and the flatulently moronic”

This is not 2001 or 2003, it is 2013 and the dangers of cybercrime, identity fraud and other mismanaged works by those who acquire that what others own, has been in operation since the late 90’s and the article, if correct has all the makings of a new season of ‘the Office‘.

The quote “At no time was I asked the further security questions that only I could answer“, which implies that the security of ones birthdate is as dangerous as it is futile. Many people seem to hand over that information to Facebook (that open message and personal detail place which was created in 2004). The fact that the automation and security process of commonwealth welfare is stellar-sized more advanced above the implied security of the Sainsbury bank should give credit to levels of Howling laughter from Edinburgh (random place to the north), which the people in London would hear.

So, that’s enough rant for a few minutes!

The issue remains how ‘a bank’ had not been vetted beyond the points of common cyber sense, as well as allow certain changes (like increasing credit limit) other than in person to the place where the credit was offered in the first place. I must stress out here, that I am going by the Guardian article, so if their information is incomplete, then so will be the info you read here. Yet, if we see some place called ‘the northern echo’ (at http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/8423732.Sainsbury___s_hit_by_credit_card_scam/), then we see more issues with Sainsbury and well before 2013, which means that there is at least one watchdog that seems to be asleep at the helm. A quote from the echo is “The court heard that the scam was costing Sainsbury’s £12,000 a week in the North- East alone“, which implies that it is costing them a bundle, so we should take a step back and wonder how asleep some of these people are.

There is however WestpacSlota larger issue that is not being addressed. We have seen that ATM’s have been the target of several options. In Australia, Westpac came with a novel idea that prevents someone adding a skimming slot in front of the card reader of an ATM that is quite ingenious (see pic),

but overall the ATM has not been too overly developed. There was a time when I saw that the AMEX cards had a hologram, but the newer systems which are all about waving in front of a scanner open up many other criminal endeavours of exploitation of your bank account. The fact that seems to be implied is that Sainsbury, even today, remains a decade behind is cause for massive concern. This all will give rise to the question on how long it will take, before insurance companies take enough offense and no longer pay banks for their shortcomings, then what?

Here is see instant fortune for the one innovator that can truly show us a new way on digital transactions that allow for a new (or upgraded) system that is about safety and security, not about speed of transaction. Consider that golden idea that will keep trillions of transactions safe. Even if you only get $0.01 per transaction, you would end up wealthier then Bill Gates in less than two years (greed tends to be a great motivator).

Is there anything we can do? Well, the Sainsbury issue is a little extreme, but overall banks are getting better at upgrading security, yet there are a few things you can do. First of all, limit the location of your card, so that you can only use it national. Yes, it looks so cool that you can use it all over Europe, but if you are stuck in Stratford-upon-Avon and you have yet to write your first book, then it is highly likely that you cannot afford distant travels, which means that your card only needs to work in the UK (or whatever country you live in). Second, cyber criminals tend to spy on your computer if they can. So, when you are not using your computer, shut it down. It seems so cool to have it ready at a moment’s notice, yet that thing actually uses a fair bit of electricity and when you are not using your computer at night, it could be used to see if you have passwords and account details somewhere. Not the thing you want to leave unattended. Today, people leaving their smartphone unattended (I mean no pin or password), which is even more reckless nowadays. Even having more ‘renowned’ apps are getting to be more and more questionable (reference to my ‘No Press, No Facebook!‘ blog of August 10th), how long until someone slips in an app, to piggy onto some banks wave and pay app (a way to pay using the mobile phone by waving it in front of a scanner)? These are technologies that are possible today (whilst Sainsbury is an implied decade behind).

So, we should all take a moment to breath (except Sainsbury who apparently need to update their security) and consider the financial links we now have and when we last checked them for correctness of transactions, more important, what other card options do you have where people can too easily take your cash for a ride? I am referring to possible fuel cards, book club cards and other cards where you do not get the invoice immediately, so you might get a nasty sting when you open ‘that’ letter next week wondering when you had that complementary 50 pound dinner as a new member. It is the unspoken danger of having too much info on open social media, some banks seem not to have been updated and likely other providers could well be lacking in security procedures too.

Did you take time to breath?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Science

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

August 18, 2014 · 11:44

Hiding behind the bully

Again it is the Guardian the illuminates an issue that seems to hit the UK (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/aug/17/sainsburys-removes-kosher-food-anti-israel-protesters). The header ‘Sainsbury’s removes kosher food from shelves amid fears over protesters‘. Let’s take a look at the sanity of this. First, about Kosher foods, if we accept this explanation: “Kosher food is food prepared in accordance with Jewish Dietary Laws“, which makes the act of Sainsbury an act of discrimination. These same protesters were actually quite busy ignoring events as Hamas was sending thousands of rockets into Israel; in addition, they seemed not to care about the acts of Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine against Israel. No one seems to be asking the question how missiles weighing well over a ton (FAJR-5), and also not the cheapest of ordinance makes it into Gaza. The option where we suddenly see, but no serious questions are asked on how Iranian hardware gets there, in an age when there is a block on all things Iranian. It seems that big business has more than just a small hand in keeping the imbalance going. Yet, ‘these bullies’, is that even correct?

You see, Sainsbury acted preventively. There were protesters and I do believe in free speech, so there is nothing against protesters, as long as they respect the choices of others. There will always be the bullies in these places, who by their acts will escalate an issue into something more. It still makes the act of Sainsbury a discriminatory one and as such, there could be legal ramifications for Sainsbury.

The quote “Louise Mensch, the former Tory MP, accused Sainsbury’s of racism” is not incorrect, yet the information is slightly off the boil. I should also add the quote from Sainsbury “A spokesperson for Sainsbury’s said it was ‘an absolutely non-political organisation’ and said the food was returned to the shelves ‘as soon as was practically possible’“. This has a ring of truth, so basically, we can argue that the store manager in question had made a bad call, but that is something for Sainsbury to address.

So why are we looking into the issue of hiding behind the bully. There is a sound to it, that links to it, that corrupts the nature of acts, which is not a good thing either. We act according to our values, our insights and often by our direction. It makes the act of the branch manager of the store in Holborn questionable, but not necessarily wrong, evil or racist. We are confronted with dilemmas in the face of a crisis and we all at times make not the best choice, which is not saying that we made the wrong choice.

And as we look through the coloured glasses we see a pattern, coloured by the bullies. In this case the accusation by Louise Mensch, the former Tory MP and Facebook user Gavin Platman who had a much more down to earth pragmatic response. He voiced a view that “move blurred the line between a political statement and a hate crime” was that so? Perhaps the store owner feared the consequence of vandalism with possible added dangers to his customers. As stated, the act remained questionable, but there is enough evidence that this was not an act of Malice, but simple fear and worry, enough doubt to state it was absent of political issues and absent of hate.

I have my views in the matter of Gaza, some formed whilst I was there in 1982, some formed by the news and some by other information. It is also important to show another side. Even though I have spoken out against journalists often enough, there is a view you must know about. There is a headline “Journalist quits Australian newspaper after suspension over ‘offensive’ response to Gaza column complaints“, this is because of the article the journalist wrote (at http://www.smh.com.au/comment/israels-rank-and-rotten-fruit-is-being-called-fascism-20140724-zwd2t.html).

I do not agree with some of his views, but they ARE HIS views and he is entitled to them, plain and simple. The quote “Yes, Hamas is also trying to kill Israeli civilians, with a barrage of rockets and guerrilla border attacks. It, too, is guilty of terror and grave war crimes. But Israeli citizens and their homes and towns have been effectively shielded by the nation’s Iron Dome defence system, and so far only three of its civilians have died in this latest conflict” is one of the quotes I do not agree to. His facts are straight, yet this system was designed in 2005 and it had been in service since 2011. Yet, before that already hundreds of mortars and missiles had been fired upon Israel. The issue I raised in ‘Puppet on a string‘ on June 30th and in a few blogs before that. Consider the amount of missiles fired, who is supporting Hamas, because this entire mess is escalating because some people behind the screen are funding all this, the article NEVER goes into that. My issue is that the writer seems to rely on a missile defence system that is 3 years old, whilst the Israeli people had been under attack for decades. It seems that to the lesser extent, hatred for the Jews has never stopped, not since WW2. What we see now is a nation that has been under attack and in fear of extinction for 4 decades. The writer does touch on some of the events and also is adamant in calling both sides guilty, which is fair enough. The other quote is do not completely agree with is “The Israeli response has been out of all proportion, a monstrous distortion of the much-vaunted right of self-defence“, yes, from the directness of what happens now he is stating the truth, yet decades of missiles has made Israel angry and perhaps worried and in fear. More than 1300 missiles were fired upon Israel last year. Someone with a massive fat wallet is funding Hamas, yet the Iron Dome also requires funds every shell Hamas fires requires another $25.000. How long until the funds runs out for Israel? These sides are not shown or talked about. He ends in “That is why the killing and the dying goes on. Ad nauseam, ad infinitum. And the rest of the world, not caring, looks away“. That I can partially agree with. The issue is still, until funding runs out for one of them. A side no journalist seems to be looking at. It is a simple view in any analytical premise. So is there a bully here?

Yes, I speak out against certain journalism, or better stated lack thereof. Mr Carlton was ‘judged’ as we see the quote “An Australian newspaper columnist has resigned after being suspended for telling people abusing him over a column on Gaza to ‘f*** off’” Is that reason enough? How was he wrong? Have you seen some of the trolls we see in social media? So he tells an abuser to (F word omitted) off. How does that even closely justify suspension? I might not agree with the view Mr Carlton had (at least partially), yet he had a right to his view. I might counter it, but I will not abuse him for it. Here it seems that the Sydney Morning Herald was hiding behind the Bully. The question becomes, who was that bully? The fact that Mr Carlton responded to the abuse was also not the greatest idea, but it was HIS RIGHT to do so, it seems that this side was also ignored, especially as we look at the weeks of suspension result.

So as we look for the bullies and look for the result of their acts, we should also realise that we all react to some extent here, not all in the greatest way, sometimes we think it was not important, sometimes to not rock the boat and sometimes because it seems like to only act available to us. But whether we give in to the bully, or hide behind the bully, we gave the bully that what he wanted and never deserved, so does the bully have an identity? To the Palestinians it is Israel, to the Israeli’s it is Hamas, and to Hamas they are the Jews. And as the vicious circle grows we see more players pointing towards their own demons, whilst the actual bully points towards his or her own ignorance and fears.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media

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

August 16, 2014 · 11:15

The cradle of Whiskey

There is a matter that is of interest to the commonwealth at large. As time progresses we see more and more in regards to the Commonwealth upcoming baby brother Scotland. For now still part of the motherland of the British Empire, our baby sibling is about to stretch its own feet. The need for junior to become its independent member is one that has been voiced (especially by the local population) for a long time. I in all honestly remain on the fence. I have nothing against this change, but as I state before, the timing is not right. However, in all fairness, it is likely never to be a great timing is it?

Yet, the Guardian will give us our daily ‘need’ for information. There are however a few issues that also rise at those events. Let’s take a look.

The first one is in regards to yesterday’s news with former PM Gordon Brown (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/15/gordon-brown-independent-Scotland-neocolonial-ties-uk).

Here it is stated “An independent Scotland that kept the pound would have a neo-colonial relationship with the rest of the UK because it would have no say over key economic and monetary decisions, Gordon Brown said on Friday“. I find it had to disagree with that. And let us be fair, would we want this? Absolutely not! Yet, will Scotland start its own currency? It is the statement from Professor Ronald McDonald (yes, the economist, not the clown) which is the strongest voice “Professor Ronald MacDonald, a currency expert who advises the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank, said the Scottish government’s plans to use sterling after a yes vote were fundamentally flawed, even if Alex Salmond’s proposals for a currency union were accepted by the UK. The Scottish economy would shrink by up to £100bn by 2023, MacDonald said” (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/14/independent-Scotland-economy-crash-sterling-ronald-macdonald).

It is in opposition to this quote “During ill-tempered exchanges in the Scottish parliament, Salmond cited evidence from Sir Donald MacKay, a former economic adviser to the UK government, that a currency union was ‘perfectly possible’ and was in the UK’s long-term interests” I am not sure how Sir Donald got to this, and his history in economy is a lot stronger than mine (my economic education level is ZERO). Yet, as an analyst I foresee several issues, logistics being the strongest but not the biggest one. If any currency union was to occur, then it can only happen as Scotland and the UK are 100% open about ALL economic events. How about (even if we ignore little issues like ego), that the chance of this happening is absolutely 0%?

There is also the small notion that independence is about, being by yourself, a currency union is not that. So I tend to agree with Gordon Brown. There are other issues where unions are to be maintained to some degree, so is there true independence or a new ‘state’ of autonomy?

This is on the front of my mind. I am pretty sure that Mr McDonald, or to take the image of the bad food clown away let us call him the Behavioural Equilibrium Exchange Rate Model Expert (BEERME for short, I need to avoid becoming too serious here), then there are several other issues that I have not even begun to comprehend and are likely secondary reasons on this man’s mind.

logUsScotland

If the professor is even half right, then a 50 billion shrinkage of Scotland’s economy would sink it, which is also extremely counterproductive, so what can Scotland do?

 

Delay for another few years? Even though this is the most likely event, Scotland would not be Scotland if it stopped without a massive fight, considering that one Scotsman tends to toss a log that requires 10 US Marines to carry is not a nation that whinges at the first hurdle.

So what if it uses the UK coin for now? Is that such a large issue, as Scotland grows its independent economic power? Consider this final quote from the article “They were already different, he said. Excluding oil revenues, Scotland had an average trade deficit of 11% over the last 15 years, which became a trade surplus of 2.7% if a geographic share of North Sea oil was included”. So the grace of Scotland is their oil reserves and what happens afterwards? This needs to be tackled first, because if Scotland is to avoid falling apart in the first setback (oil issues being just that when it happens), then Scotland must take care of its 11% deficit. In my view, that deficit must be turned to a 3% surplus (without oil) for Scotland to be a contender at the Commonwealth table, so how to go about it?

First it needs to change its political look on matters (not change its politicians). I will admit that the next part will sound a little dicey, but please hear me out. The headline “Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson: ‘I’m quite a cussed person’” (at http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2014/aug/15/ruth-davidson-interview-Scotland-tories-leader) reads nice, but there is a massive issue when we read the first part “Ruth Davidson is 35, a working-class Glaswegian, a kick boxer and a lesbian. Are these unlikely credentials just what the party needs to rescue it from 25 years of stagnation?” Why was there a reference to her Lesbianism? I personally do not care what her life’s choices are, truly I do not. But is this a political lesbian or a lesbian politician? Why could she not have been just a conservative? Did we see a headline on “Gordon Brown is a 63, working class sport less hetero sexual” Did we ever see that headline?

It seems that Ruth Davidson has supported state-funded Roman Catholic schooling in Scotland, and she also seems to believe (as far as I could tell) that the Church of Scotland should open its own faith schools as well, which seems a decently pragmatic approach to the ‘dangerous’ controversy called ‘Churches in the UK and Scotland’.

Because she is only 35, her most important events and achievements are still in front of her. She could be the inspiration the Scots need. Time will tell whether this is so. Yet there are issue with this article, there is little on her stance in regards to Scottish independence. If that is next on the agenda, should Scottish Tories not be outspoken about her views in that future? It seems to me that the journalist doing that interview kept the interview way too shallow, especially in this day and age.

There are a few other issues, like Ferguson, the last of the Scottish shipbuilders to shut down, so where are the economic options for Scotland, when we ignore oil. You see, I have nothing against the oil, yet the fact that a new nation will be totally dependent on only ONE product, such a place would need to have several alternatives if something went wrong there, so that is why it should not rely on the oil industry.

As a solution, I still believe that India has options here. As the Indian generic pharmaceutical industry grows for Europe, it will need alternatives for both manufacturing, shipping (read distribution) and perhaps to a smaller extent research. Whilst everyone seems to stare blindly to London area’s where prices are through the roof, Edinburgh offers a much cheaper and no less sturdy solution. Its harbour would allow for direct access to the Netherlands (Rotterdam), which would then grant access to Germany and Eastern Europe, there is access to Scandinavia as well as the option to nurture South American trade routes. All of them are markets that India could become the main supplier to.

It could change the Scottish deficit from 11%, to less than 3% in one blow, once the South American routes are a given, the deficit would turn to surplus. The stronger the growing need for generic medication, the more powerful this branch will grow in Scotland. After that, the tax breaks this industry could have would turn the UK into a much stronger market making for an entirely new dynamic in the pharmaceutical economy. Am I overly optimistic? Perhaps a little, yet so far, my predictions have held up and the current course is not getting us anywhere. It only takes one innovator to truly change the game, Scotland is roaring to be its own wielder of futures and India is roaring to be master of generic medication. Two innovators, a match, which is definitely not made in heaven, but as both want to make it work, the created future could be one that stands long and tall.

But is that with or without an independent Scotland? This is where the shoe starts getting a little tight for the dance floor. I personally do believe that this is not the best moment to become independent. I do believe that for now ‘better together‘ is the way to go. Consider the despair when Scotland does go it alone and within 24 months, both Japan in full and US in part become insolvent? I still believe that the US course is one that will sink its future, especially as the mention of well over 500 billion in undocumented spending in healthcare could set America well over the 18 trillion mark (the fact whether the healthcare billions were part of the deficit could not be confirmed), which makes for a dangerously unstable situation. So whether these facts stop Scotland from going independent is to be determined, yet that should not stop Scotland to become a lot more autonomic in growing its economy into the strong version it requires when the Scotland becomes one independent nation under this sky within our large Commonwealth.

Whether in the end there is a yes or no to independence, the fair question remains how to grow the Scottish economy, which will be a good thing for the entire Commonwealth.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

August 13, 2014 · 14:15

We lost a giant

I was hit with waves of sadness yesterday. We lost Robin Williams. I do not claim or pretend to know too much about him. When I was young, I loved watching ‘Mork and Mindy’. I saw him in the movies and lately his star ascended again in the advertisement comedy ‘the Crazy ones‘. The thought most on my mind was ‘How can Sarah Michelle Gellar ever keep a straight face around him?’
Yesterday and today there are no happy faces, we lost a giant. I am not the only one thinking this. Twitter was buzzing with news and condolences from the famous and non-famous alike. The Guardian had a story (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/12/russell-brand-robin-williams-divine-madness-broken-world). It is an article by Russell Brand, and seeing him outside of comedy or from the stage of the social aware was reason to take a look at this. The article shows two clear things. The first is that there is a lot more to Russell Brand then I thought there was. He is brilliant in his own way and he is asking out loud certain questions we do not tend to ask. Basically I saw more journalism in Russell Brand in one article then several have showed this year (if you, the reading journalist are the exception, then I apologise for my generalising directness).
There is a quote at the end that gives pause to wonder “What I might do is watch Mrs Doubtfire. Or Dead Poets Society or Good Will Hunting and I might be nice to people, mindful today how fragile we all are, how delicate we are, even when fizzing with divine madness that seems like it will never expire“.
If we are all so fragile, how can we cope? If we are all sane, how can we give support to those with mental health issues? It I however this quote which strikes a nerve “Hidden behind his beard and kindness and compliments was a kind of awkwardness, like he was in the wrong context or element, a fallen bird on a hard floor. It seems that Robin Williams could not find a context. Is that what drug use is? An attempt to anaesthetise against a reality that constantly knocks against your nerves, like tinfoil on an old school filling, the pang an urgent message to a dormant, truer you“.
I am not sure if the thought is correct as such (from my point of view). It might apply to Robin Williams, Russell had met the man, I never had, so why my opposition to this?
Well, is drug use just that? I was fortunate to stay away from drugs, yet is it an anaesthetic against reality or a way to see a better reality as these users think it will, a more appealing one? You see, if Russell is right, then every famous comedian would become a drug user, I find that thought too depressing. Robin Williams once stated “Reality is just a crutch for people who can’t handle drugs“, it is just a comedy statement, but there is also the statement from another giant, a musical one who stated “When you smoke the herb, it reveals you to yourself“. The man was Bob Marley!
Before I continue, I need to add another article. It was written by Dean Burnett (at http://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2014/aug/12/robin-williams-suicide-and-depression-are-not-selfish). Here he writes something particularly strong and interesting: “to say taking your own life because of such an illness is a ‘selfish’ act does nothing but insult the deceased, potentially cause more harm and reveal a staggering ignorance of mental health problems“.
Russell and Dean are both hitting one side of the same coin. My worry is not: ‘why this is happening to Robin Williams’, but why are we seeing it only now? Is Robin Williams the moment we start to wake up and realise that we have a massive issue which a ton of people have been hiding under the rug because it was too uncomfortable?
Dean goes on for a bit longer, but then he doesn’t just hit the nail on the head, he makes a case why the nail was never guilty and did not deserved to get hammered.
“That doesn’t mean those with reduced likelihood of exposure to hardships or tragic events are immune. Smoking may be a major cause of lung cancer, but non-smokers can end up with it. And a person’s lifestyle doesn’t automatically reduce their suffering. Depression doesn’t work like that. And even if it did, where’s the cut-off point? Who would we consider ‘too successful’ to be ill?”
I myself had that very same thought. ‘Why would a man this successful, having a beautiful daughter who is starting to have her own successful career, a massive success in his field be depressed?‘
It is a side I never really considered when having to read ‘Crime and Mental Health Law in New South Wales‘ by D. Howard. Those who try to give aid in one way or another, being it through legal aid, through psychological aid or through medical aid might have unintentionally missed a side we never considered. Russell voices it as “Is it melancholy to think that a world that he can’t live in must be broken?” But from my view the world is not broken (it is just in control by those filled with greed). The physician might note that this world can be lived in (it is just severely polluted and food is getting more and more expensive) lastly the psychiatrist wanted to talk about it but he had no sense of humour, apparently he was German.
The powerful statement Russell made in the beginning “Is it melancholy to think that a world that he can’t live in must be broken?” is now slightly changed (by me). “Is the world making me too sad to consider remaining here for another day?” I feel so sad because I lost an idol of comedy. I am certain I will get over it, but I know I am not alone, many with me remember the man who was the Genie, voicing the life of Donald Trump ‘PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWERS!!! … Itty-bitty living space‘.
We will soon enough remember again and again the famous moments that made us laugh or be silent. Yet, the issues on depression remain, not for just those Robin left behind, but for those who are still fighting this battle. A battle that is not just uphill, but for many it is a losing uphill battle and that is how they feel from the beginning of the journey they walk.
It is not new; depression has been around for at least 3 centuries, it has had many names. It was called Melancholy and Charlotte Smith wrote a sonnet to it in 1785. She wrote:

O Melancholy!–such thy magic power,

That to the soul these dreams are often sweet,

And sooth the pensive visionary mind!

Which might be better phrased as:

Oh dark dread, stopper of heart and reason

in my dreams I yearn to end

so that in my next life, I find a friend

Did the sonnet turn people away from depression as it was not a real condition?

I think that too many have never seen it for the dangerous affliction it truly is. Dean goes on and writes in his article in regards to ‘a’ selfish act “The ‘selfish’ accusation also often implies that there are other options the sufferer has, but has chosen suicide“. Was suicide even a choice? Are those on this track choosing at all? I have seen my share of people under Section 20 and Section 21 of the mental health act. Those who are hospitalised through them without and with their consent. There has been enough documentation that these people never seemed to have any choice in the matter. From their one sided view, there was only one path and only when services were too late lives were lost.

So, the medical branch seems to know the dangers, the legal branch has the knowledge that resulted in the existence of a section 20 and a section 21 of the mental health act, but these two are only 0.001% of a population, wouldn’t it be great if the other 99% catches on, on how dangerous and lethal depression really is?
Russell also wakes up to a revelation in the quote “When someone gets to 63 I imagined, hoped, I suppose, that maturity would grant an immunity to adolescent notions of suicide but today I read that suicide isn’t exclusively a young man’s game“, depression is timeless and it is ageless. We are bound to endure its dangers quite literally from the cradle to the grave, we can only hope for true friends around us to be there when it overwhelms any of us.

There is one more article that must be mentioned. It is again in the Guardian, but now it is Simon Jenkins (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/12/robin-williams-sadness-clown-addiction-mental-illness) that writes his view, but then he makes one ‘mistake’, perhaps it is just the observation he makes, but I disagree completely and for that I must lash out. He wrote “Therapists wander the scene like surgeons on a medieval battlefield, at a loss for what to do“.

I do not think that this is the case; it has not been the case for some time. Yet, some physicians and some psychiatrists seem to have inherited a former treatment for this, ‘have a pill, sit in a corner until the moment passes‘. There is enough evidence that this is no longer the approach and the current generation is still fixing the mess the previous generation made; but even today many are learning on how long the path to a cure is. Perhaps it is never cured, but in some cases it could be managed, as long as the patient does not do it alone. It is a personal view I have. I might be very wrong indeed and if someone lashes out to me for that same reason, then so be it.

I do know that in many places it is getting more and more the visibility it should have had, but let us not forget that depression was not generally accepted and published in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) until the 3rd edition in 1980. The documentation that is openly out there shows that depression was a debilitating disease long before it was made a sonnet in 1785, so people had known about it for well over 300 years, which means the adoption only 30 years ago is still a questionable issue. So, it seems that therapist are not at a loss for what to do, but there seems to be a lacking clarity of what will truly work. It does seem that medication alone will not ever be a solution.
It is clear that we are not there yet. If you think other whiles then consider that for the DSM-V the following is currently set: “DSM – V proposed (not yet adopted) anxiety symptoms that may indicate depression: irrational worry, preoccupation with unpleasant worries, trouble relaxing, feeling tense, fear that something awful might happen.”

Proposed, but not yet adopted!

We are not there yet and there is a long way to go. We can only hope that this road will have the resources needed to get there. I reckon we need to keep a view on the events that have shaped our view of the world and of those in it, for some of them will need our help. We might not be physicians or psychiatrists, but we can all do a little bit, so that they can do what must be done to find a solution for those who need help. If we keep to the cold statistics then we see that in the USA alone, 10% have it, this means that in one nation alone 30 million people are afflicted with depression, the reality is much higher because many do not seek help and some around them do not realise that depression is very near to them. Healthline (provider of health information) also reported the following: “60%-80% of all depression cases can be effectively treated with brief, structured forms of psychotherapy and antidepressant medication“.

I find absolutely nothing true in that statement, if it was then depression would have been successfully treated in so many cases and I would not have lost an idol. I think that it is time to take another true look at this without caring about budget cuts and ego’s.

If we get Keating involved, as Robin played him in Dead Poet’s Society, I would state “Thank you for playing anyway. Because we are food for worms, lads. Because, believe it or not, each and every one of us in this room is one day going to stop breathing, turn cold and die“, is that, what we, with our ‘generic’ view of mental health condemn these people to?
So I hope that politicians will take this event to sit down and proclaim that they will ‘take another true look at today’s mental health issues‘.

I will have a reason to smile, but I will say “Son of a bitch! They stole my line!“

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics, Science

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