Tag Archives: Adolf Hitler

The ice and the icing

Ah, it is the environment that was taking a hit yesterday. The Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/18/arctic-permafrost-canada-science-climate-crisis) is giving us: ‘Scientists shocked by Arctic permafrost thawing 70 years sooner than predicted‘, and at this point, we can all agree that we have a really serious problem. I know, the people at Wall Street would more likely than not be in a stage to dismiss and debunk the news, yet this is not about merely melting ice, this is about permafrost melting. This is no small matter; you see the Arctic and Antarctic both have places where the ice never melts, that ‘never melting’ ice is now actually melting. Consider if you can, a piece of ice on Antarctic, twice the size of the state of Texas, close to half a mile high, that is now becoming water (which in Antarctic terms does not seem much). Now we also know that ice loses volume when it melts, yet it is only 10%, so over the foreseeable future we end up with a water mass 800 meter high and the size of Texas being added to the oceans. Water levels will rise and to a decent amount, in all this, there is also the arctic to consider, it is not land, it is all water and they too will add levels of water to it all.

Then there is a new development, which we see at (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/19/himalayan-glacier-melting-doubled-since-2000-scientists-reveal), the problem is are we have been sold for too long and too often a package of goods? Is it such a stretch that the media ‘suddenly’ has a whole range of ‘revelations’? I am not stating that these are fabricated, but the timing is an issue. As I personally see it the people have been ‘handled’ for far too long, giving less and less reliability on what we see. Even as we see ‘Himalayan glacier melting doubled since 2000, spy satellites show‘, more important, why did it require a spy satellite? Yes, I get it when we see “more than a quarter of all ice lost over the last four decades, scientists have revealed“, so when was that revealed? It gets to be worse when we see: “This is the clearest picture yet of how fast Himalayan glaciers are melting since 1975, and why“. Fair enough the work ‘Acceleration of ice loss across the Himalayas over the past 40 years‘ published in Science Advances 19 Jun 2019: Vol. 5, no. 6, eaav7266; DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aav7266 is seemingly an academic work by J. M. Maurer, J. M. Schaefer, S. Rupper and A. Corley might be good and it might all be top notch work, but the timing of it all gives it a little bit of a bitter taste. Now, this is not some hidden attack, the work looks really good (at https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/6/eaav7266), it has uncertainty assessments, how it was dealt with, how the data was captured, this is a real piece of academic work with references and all (a lot of references), yet timing is everything we know that and it still feels like we are being handled. Part of me is speculating that this game is not by the scientists, but that certain previous white house players have been suppressing or delaying certain reports. It is highly speculative and I have no evidence, but that is what it feels like, the more the political player gets into bed with big business, the less environmental consideration we tend to see.

The entire matter increases when we consider: “The analysis shows that 8bn tonnes of ice are being lost every year and not replaced by snow, with the lower level glaciers shrinking in height by 5 meters annually” this implies another part which we see in the National Geographic (at https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/sea-level-rise/). When we see: “Rising seas is one of those climate change effects. Average sea levels have swelled over 8 inches (about 23 cm) since 1880, with about three of those inches gained in the last 25 years. Every year, the sea rises another .13 inches (3.2 mm)“, we see the other part of the coin, so how about your beachfront property in 2045?

We can go long on the yay and nay sayers, but in all this, the media needs to stop facilitating to their shareholders, their stake holders and their advertisers, because the bulk of them are clearly in denial of environmental changes, as well as clearly opposing change. In 2012, the Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/30/companies-block-action-climate-change) gave us: “An analysis of 28 Standard & Poor 500 publicly traded companies by researchers from the Union of Concerned Scientists exposed a sharp disconnect in some cases between PR message and less visible activities, with companies quietly lobbying against climate policy or funding groups which work to discredit climate science“, I believe that this is still going on, however these companies have become more clever in their actions and acting indirectly. In 2014 we see a Journalist names Mark Green giving us (at https://www.api.org/news-policy-and-issues/blog/2014/10/21/americas-oil-and-natural-gas-industry-be) “97 percent of all oil and natural gas company stock – held by millions of Americans across the country. These include retirees and middle-class Americans saving for retirement“, it is now less about the opposition it is that being ‘in favour’ is dooming the middle class a reversed reverse psychology if you will.

Do you still think that shareholders and stake holders are a stretch? How many financial institution advertisement have YOU seen in the last week alone? And when it comes to the sceptical and the 197 excuses they have, let me add utterly bogus excuse 198: “Women warm the hearts of men and with 4 billion men one woman can raise the planetary temperature by at least 1 degree, so what about the other 99 in the hot 100 (graphic evidence added)?” We see lists of excuses yet to overall need to take a serious look at the matter and give serious airtime to those trying to warn us is also a topic for debate.

When we pass over that episode and we add to the matter (Antarctica, Himalaya, Arctic, Greenland) there is a stage where we have surpassed essential milestones, milestones that can no longer be undone (not within the next two generations). Me, I am still all in favour of culling the human population by 85%, and fortunately for me this time around, the politicians are actually helping me.

It’s the Icing

When it is about the icing we can go in two directions, in the first it is about the topping of a cake, we all have tried it, yummy chocolate icing, marzipan topping, our sweet tooth desires a scrumptious load of icing and the larger your slice of the cake, the better the sugar rush. The second direction is mostly for Canadians (LOL), it is seen in hockey when a player shoots the puck from behind the centre red line, across the opposing team’s goal line, whilst the puck remains untouched. It is a rule to oppose a quick win, netball has a similar option; you need to win by being the better player in each segment of the field. It nullifies a play like Matt Prater of the Denver Broncos achieved in 2013 by kicking that piece of air filled leather for 64 yards, an achievement for sure, but at that point the game becomes about the kickers and it becomes less about the full game. An icing stops this option, making it about the game and this matters as we see in: ‘Diplomatic offensive aims to dissuade Tehran from breaching uranium limits‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/19/uk-france-germany-last-ditch-effort-save-iran-deal), you see I am slightly less convinced that they are not their yet (or disgracefully close to it). When I see: ““We want to unify our efforts so there is a de-escalation process that starts,” Le Drian said. “There is still time and we hope all the actors show more calm. There is still time, but only a little time.”” to be honest I wonder what drugs Jean-Yves Le Drian is on (and can I have some please?) The idea that Iran adheres to any kind of agreement is short sold to begin with, the entire Hezbollah proxy war counts as evidence in that matter.

So when I see: “We need to de-escalate through dialogue. It is a time of ‘diplomacy first’ and that’s what we are committed to” I merely wonder who is fooling who. It is seen when the most stupid of all actions is given with: “If Iran did breach the uranium limits, the deal, known as the joint comprehensive plan of action, gives both sides time to go into a disputes mechanism before it is declared void“, is it really that bad, after the ‘breach’ Europe still wants to talk? Did you learn nothing from the Adolph Hitler European tour of 1939-1945? We could ask the State of Israel with its 15 million votes, oh sorry, there are apparently 6 million absentee ballots, they can no longer vote; does anyone remember that little fact in the entire equation?

If it is slightly too crude, then it is intentional. We have facilitated for tea parties and long winded talks going nowhere for too often and for far too long. It is now time to act before it is too late, or merely accept the culling that comes afterwards, which will be good for the environment as well.

Ice and Icing, all events linking to intentional violations to norms, to boundaries and to standards of life and living, how many more violations will we endure until we are given the sad reality our children and grand children face soon enough, we have left them nothing and for too long we would not adhere to that reality until it was too late for the next generation. We are shown too much pieces of evidence that we are doing this, whilst denying the facts presented. This might be the best evidence that we are bad parents and that we are unworthy of titles of parent and custodian, the evidence is all out there in colour, in black and white, on all levels including the academic one.

If this was a match, then it would be the face-off between the two Global Hockey teams: the Bogusses versus the Professinators, the problem is that no matter who wins, the people lose, this game has been on for too long and time is a luxury we actually no longer have and the media have been all about getting the limelight and the time to let all the voices be heard letting exploitation reign (aka circulation and clicks). The Great Barrier Reef with over 50% now bleached to death (source: National Geographic), is merely one casualty of all talk and no actions, I wonder how many more needs to be lost for people to finally force actions against politicians and corporations. In opposition we see the New York post giving us (at https://nypost.com/2018/09/12/the-great-barrier-reef-was-never-dead/) “Australia’s Great Barrier Reef is “showing signs of recovery,” a new study shows, after massive bleaching events in 2016 and 2017 threatened the world’s largest living structure”. It is time to properly vet the media for what they publish and cater to on a much larger scale, because in this age of strife they win, as do their advertisers. We could of course accept the second option and allow for the culling, it will solve both matters at hand as it means that there are too few left to advertise to.

6 of one, half a dozen of the other is a term we see, and we think that it is the same, yet we are too often not told that it was no longer about apples or oranges, it was relabeled as an issue about fruit, now we get to deal with fruit whilst our individual preference of apples and oranges is no longer an option to cater to, did you realise that small part of the equation as well?

 

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics, Science

Das altes Deutschland

Yesterday, the Guardian gave us an article that is a dangerous one. The Guardian did nothing wrong, they are reporting the news, yet this news is reporting on a change. Now, the foundation of the change is good, you see, the title does not bear this out. With ‘Germany approves plans to fine social media firms up to €50m‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/30/germany-approves-plans-to-fine-social-media-firms-up-to-50m), we get to see another issue. It is shown in “The measure requires social media platforms to remove obviously illegal hate speech and other postings within 24 hours after receiving a notification or complaint, and to block other offensive content within seven days“, this is the beginning of a new age of censoring and it is dangerous. The terms ‘and other postings‘ as well as ‘a notification or complaint‘ are central in the chaos that might unfurl. So the people who gave us Kristalnacht, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime are now pushing this against social media.

Now, lets be clear, removing hate speech is fine. No one would oppose that. It is the ‘and other postings‘ where things get tricky opening up levels of ambiguity that we have never seen before. In addition, what validates ‘a notification or complaint‘? Heiko Maas, the German Justice minister is a little more clear when we see: “Freedom of speech ends where the criminal law begins” when we consider that the number of hate crimes in Germany increased by more than 300% in the last two years, we see why this step is becoming essential. Yet, now we get to the situation that Germany has laws that are a lot tougher than most other European nations and as such how will they implement this on a global system? Well, we could state that Germany has an official language called German, so if it is not in German on Twitter, would Germany be powerless at that point? Can Germany force direction of social media on other nations? These mere two small footnotes give rise to the problems of the implementation that Germany is about to make. Heiko Maas seems to smile for the camera in the article, yet will he be laughing when he is powerless to do anything voiced in Dutch, Flemish, Swedish or Spanish?

The second quote is “Aside from the hefty fine for companies, the law also provides for fines of up to €5m for the person each company designates to deal with the complaints procedure if it doesn’t meet requirements“, so what are the requirements? We can all agree on the repetitive mention of ‘obviously illegal hate speech’, we can all agree. Yet consider the following ‘mentions’

  • All gays are softies.
  • All lesbians wear comfortable shoes.
  • All Blacks suck at rugby (it’s an Australian thing).
  • The only good communist is a dead one.
  • Bundeskanzler Siegfried von Schweinestein hat entschieden, dass das Schweineknistern in München aufgrund der Hautknappheit in den Verbrennungseinheiten des Krankenhauses nicht verkauft werden kann.

So which of these are obvious mentions of hate speech? Where will the borders be drawn? The problem is not the need to deal with obvious hate speech, it is how the systems that were never designed for that reason be policed and monitored? You see, it is not the social media that is at fault, it is national legislation that failed the victims, so now, like an army of hungry swamp rats, the politicians will now push the onus onto the social media. It is a flawed approach to a non-working solution. So we have a flawed solution (as per day -1), there is no view on the procedures that are required to be in place and the issue will push into all directions no one wants to go in on the best of days soon thereafter. In all this another voice gives us ““Jews are exposed to anti-Semitic hatred in social networks on a daily basis,” the Central Council of Jews said. “Since all voluntary agreements with platform operators produced almost no result, this law is the logical consequence to effectively limit hate speech.”“. OK yet, this is as I personally see it still a failure of legislation and public prosecutions. You see, the biggest issue is that security on social media is laughable at the best of times, so we cannot even learn who the ACTUAL poster is. So on one evening I get nude pictures from Jennifer Lawrence with the request if I wanna stay the night. The next morning sitting in a lounge on LAX, I learn that her mobile was hacked (that did not really happen to me, but you get the idea). Non-repudiation is not there so prosecution is next to impossible. This is the failure that the EU is looking at and someone got the Germans to pick up the baton and run like a guppy towards a hook line and sinker that are merely a mirage. So I get it, we need to stop hate crimes, yet until AMERICAN legislation changes and makes Facebook, Twitter and others give over ALL ACCOUNT DETAILS to the prosecuting instances, there will be no resolve and the members of the EU, they all know that because they are supposed to be more intelligence than me (me with 3 University degrees). Oh and the next quote is funny when we read: “The nationalist Alternative for Germany party, which has frequently been accused of whipping up sentiments against immigrants and minorities, said it is considering challenging the law in Germany’s highest court“, so is there a link to ‘whipping up sentiments‘ and ‘challenging the law in Germany’s highest court‘, or are they seeing from the very beginning that this is a lot more than just a slippery slope. Any case opposed, any issue that goes to court will lock judges and court rooms for months, even years. Perhaps Heiko Maas would like to consider small legal phrases like ‘evidence’, ‘facilitation’ and ‘literary meaning’. The last one is also important. Because, as given in the example earlier, ‘All Blacks‘ is the New Zealand national Rugby team. You see ‘Fick I‘ could be German for ‘Fuck me‘, yet in Swedish it means ‘Got in‘, so what happens when the perpetrators start getting a little savvy and use languages in a phonetic way to spread hate speech? Perhaps you have heard of this product, for people who unlike me do not speak half a dozen languages. They get to use Google Translate, so are we still in any level of delusion that there is an easy solution to this underestimated problem? There is not, because the US does not want certain legal changes, they are abusing the system as much as anyone and they need the data to flow. They need social media to propel forward so that the largest players in the US can remain in denial of other issues hitting their shores. An emotional population is an exploitable and manipulative one. Many (also in the EU) know that and as such there is no resolve. In addition, the US will not like large fines to go to the EU, because as I see it, they are too bankrupt to afford to lose too much cash into any other directions.

And Free speech?

Well, that is just it, there will be an impact on Free speech, yet personally when it comes to hate crime, hate crime is no speech, it is not even free speech, it is intentional abuse and as such there is no real place of that in this day and age. Many agree and see that there is no real way to solve it or to dissolve it. Hate speech comes from fear, from inequality and from hardship. The EU forgot about that as it was facilitating to large corporations and gravy trains. The people have not had a decent quality of life for well over a decade and it is starting to show and it is starting to show in an increased amount of places to more and more people. Frustration, irritation, aggravation, hate speech, and hate crime. It is a slippery slope, yet the one part we see is that basically the data intelligence of origin of hate speech is also the first marker in hopefully finding a solution and more hopeful in preventing hate speech to erupt into hate crimes. For some extreme groups this can never be prevented so the intelligence should be used to see where it is coming from so that the extreme values can be dealt with. Yet in all this, in a decade of events, the politicians have no solutions, because they never set any budget for it. As their credit cards are now maximum withdraws (France, Germany and Italy), they are now faced with the situation that there is nothing left to work with on prevention. That is the hardest sell of all, they no longer have the level of funds needed to combat this all, as there is no real economy. It will return, but no one can tell anyone when and those who speculate on ‘next year’ have been wishful thinking the wrong numbers for half a decade. It was their choice of non-free speech and allowed for speculated non anticipation to grease the cogs of the gravy train and facilitate to large corporations. So what is this actually about? They know that their case is shallow as I see it.

As I see it, it is becoming a pattern, the Apple, Google and now social media are getting pushed. The EU is seeing that they are in deep water and they need to push others to start investing into Europe, Greece is not the only one in deep water, Greece is merely the most visible one. Now we see the three elemental players in this field that have actual wealth and actual levels of power. This is how I saw the Google push since the moment that ridiculous fine was brought to light. It is not merely about ‘wealth distribution‘ it is about ‘technology distribution‘ as well. As large European players sat on their hands waiting for the money to come in so that they could be with other alternative ‘bedroom’ consorts, the water tap started to give less and less, technology passed them by. Translators found that 50% of the work was gone because Google Translate can get a lot done, Market research is fusing more and more and as all the small players are gone, they realise that there are no alternatives for a lot of them. now as data streams into the two larger players Azure and Google clouds, the others are now in a stage of being fearful, the largest technology pillar has only a few large players and none of them are European, this is already a worry and even as Europe still has large pharmaceuticals, yet what happens in the next decade, or better what happens 2029 as large batches of patents will be at the end and generic medication gets a free hand in tripling their market share?

Forbes gives us (at https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/06/26/how-technology-will-change-over-the-next-decade/#23427f3f3d84) a link here. There is the quote “What could a self-driving Salesforce look like? On the sales rep side, input of activity could happen automatically. The system may source and prioritize leads that have high likelihood of closing, automatically draft correspondence for these leads, and then reach out to them in the most appropriate channels (chat, email, etc). Then it’ll go back and forth with these leads to drive them down the funnel. A human may get involved when the machine is uncertain or when it’s time for the sales rep to take the potential customers out to dinner“, now consider the issues that Joanne Chen, Partner at Foundation Capital makes.

  • A data set that is truly unique. I believe unique data sets are increasingly rare.
  • The scale of data is proprietary. For example, LinkedIn has one of the largest resume books in the world. Is each profile individually unique? Not necessarily, but the scale is proprietary
  • The weight of data network relationships is proprietary, the links between the relations are everything.

Social media is on all three here, the LinkedIn example is pretty unique here, but 2 and 3 are showing you why the EU is going after Google, its PageRank is unique, when visionaries should have been active, they decided to fill their pockets as fast as they could. Now, after 20 years Google’s strategy is paying off, they are in charge and even as the patent will run out soon, it will be a trillion dollar company before that happens, which means that the EU has no chances of growing its economic industry to the degree it desperately needs. Three might merely be Facebook, but the Internet of things will be really about relationships and 5G is coming, it sets the EU back by a lot, whilst places like Facebook and Google will merely accelerate the business they have. The first one is indicative of the visibility that unique datasets are so rare; most of us will see the bulk of data as a repetition of products, X, Y and Z, or a combination thereof.

The solution I designed to solve the NHS issue is merely a solution to issues show in the mid 80’s, I merely recognised that in regards to the NHS, all horses are currently pointing in the wrong direction.

In all this, free speech and hate crimes are merely elements in a much larger pie. For sure, the hate speech needs to be resolved, yet the path the Germans are on seems to be merely presentational, a non-sensational way of trying to beat some people over the heads with the message: ‘do this or else‘, we have waited long enough. The ‘14 months of discussion with major social media companies had made no significant progress‘ is evidence of that.

Still on the larger perspective how much hate speech is there? Is the mention: ‘You a slag and a whore and I is going to get you‘ hate speech? Yes, likely, yet now the perspective as this is a 17 year old girl who lost her boyfriend to the other girl, is it still actual hate speech? As my degrees do not involve psychology, I will refrain from stating a sound ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ in this case. So could Twitter of Facebook? Now consider that this happens to tens of thousands of girls (and boys) on a nearly daily basis. How will these procedures be implemented or enforced and more important, have we crossed the free speech line too far? I cannot say, because I feel uncertain and I know that people a lot more intelligent and expert in that field are exactly where I am as well. The algorithm that can spot this will be worth billions and as Google has a Google translate, they might have something in the works at some stage I reckon (speculative remark).

So as we see Germany in action over hate speech, we need to consider not that they are wrong, but we need to consider why they could not be right. The world is already ta little too complex on a national level, so considering this more global is almost a non-issue because it lacks certain levels of realistic application. It is not the 20 rules that apply; it will be drowned by the 25,000 exceptions to every rule. It is linguistically the issue of language one having 25,000 rules and 20 exceptions, whilst language 2 has 20 rules and 25,000 exceptions. The mere realisation of this with only 2 languages, whilst Europe has more than a dozen official languages, that is just the first stepping stone. Germany, and specifically Heiko Maas knew this from the very beginning.

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics, Science

The comeback that should not be

That is the consideration I was contemplating this morning. This is all about former Defence Minister Ehud Barak and his outspoken views. The issue all over the papers are that Israel had not proceeded three times to attack the Iranian nuclear facilities.

So is this freedom of speech, is this treason or is this something else? You see, as a former Defence Minister he has certain duties. One of them is defending and keep safe the state of Israel. So was this a ‘military men and cowardly politician’ scenario as some people report? Without all the facts it would be poor judgement on my side to continue some view. Yet, my view, like that of some others who matter. I have been there, I saw Israel in July 1982. I saw Israel on other occasions and I saw on TV, like many others how Sbarro became the place of slaughter. The Israeli army has been ever vigilant in keeping Israel safe. So, why was Iran not attacked?

It could be a simple as the tactical setback that an attack would bring, it would be a direct problem for any Israeli to get anything done in the UN building and at that time, there was not enough evidence that the enrichment of Uranium was a clear and present danger at that particular moment in time.

These are all issues that matter, as former Defence Minister, Ehud Barak knows this. If he does not, he should never have been elected into that position. But that is a mess Mossad can take a look at. You see I remember them from 1984. Nahum Admoni was someone to bring the deadly chill of fear into your heart. I do not know anything about Tamir Pardo, but I feel decently certain that he has a more relaxed job and he is watching both the Syrian and Iranian areas with due diligence on an hourly basis. So is this just about another comeback of Ehud Barak? That is what I suspect. Of course Ehud Barak making these claims just after the rocket attacks from Syria is only one side to it. If attacks are now coming from there, there is every chance that more attacks will also come from Gaza. I cannot state for certain that one means the other, but there is every chance that Israel could face attacks form Sinai, which would make Eilat vulnerable, whilst attacks happen to the north at equal pace. This is what I feared all along. I illustrated this in ‘ISIS is coming to town!‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2014/06/23/isis-is-coming-to-town/). Yes, the article is a year old, but in my defence there was no clear reliable information on how strong ISIS was, what they had planned and what time line they used. So is there still a danger? Yes, there is and there always was. The issue is that pre-emptive actions will not make any difference, if anything, it could fuel extremist support. It could be for this very reason that the military held off. The main reason will remain that Israel is not committed to war, it is committed to peace and the defence of the state of Israel. Do you not think that Rafael Advanced Defence Systems could have come up with something a lot more offensive if war was on Israel’s mind? It has been the cornerstone of every issue playing. Israel only wants to stay safe, as such it has always been the Hamas covenant to eradicate the Jews that have been the foundation of the Gaza issues. After Adolf Hitler had his European tour 1939-1945, did you think that the Jewish people would ever accept such attack on their existence ever again? Think again, I say!

SO in that light, should Ehud Barak be regarded as a very dangerous man? A man who is willing to play fast and loose with the state of Israel, just to get one more comeback?

That is the part I am uncertain about without a lot more information, but consider the following quotes “For years, both he and Netanyahu issued veiled threats to attack if the world did not take action. Those threats, while often dismissed by commentators as bluster, were widely seen as a key factor in rallying international sanctions against Iran“. I was always in favour of an attack, should there be actual evidence that weapons grade Uranium was produced, but I was also adamant that Israel should not be the one doing the attack. In my view that would be the tinderbox that was not allowed to light the fuse. America yes (preferable no) and the EEC (or NATO) absolutely yes. The friends of Iran would have to see that the amount of nations willing to step in would make them reconsider alliances. The second quote is “Barak told his interviewer that both he and Netanyahu favoured an attack in 2010, but the military chief of staff at the time, Gabi Ashkenazi, said Israel did not have the operational capability“, which is very likely. You see in 2010, the Gaza area remained a growing concern, only an idiot starts a war on more than one front, so the assessment of Gabi Ashkenazi seems to have been the prudent one. Considering the growing attacks of missiles in 2010, 2011 and 2012 only gives additional evidence that not attacking seems to have been the wisest course of action. That view has not changed. As the dangers for Israel diversify, Israel needs to make changes to the policies they make, as such, any attack on Iran would have destroyed these options. Whatever aide might come from the NATO members after the missile launches from Syria, none of those would be an option if Israel had made any act of aggression against Iran. So in these views alone, I show the vision and deliberation Ehud Barak seems to lack even before he makes any headway towards a comeback, an issue I need not consider as I was never an Israeli elected official.

So if a non-Israeli can see this, even one who supports the total defence of Israel, what else is Ehud Barak not seeing and is that not the greater cause for concern?

It is the final quote in one article (Yahoo News) that gives us the heart of what should not matter “Barak ‘wants to remind people where he was, what he did, how important he was, how rational he was,’ said Reuven Hazan, a political scientist at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. ‘When Ashkenazi starts doing the political lecture circuit, Barak wants to be able to create and raise as many obstacles as possible.’” You see, as defence minister he was not that important, if push comes to shove, as a short term Prime Minister either Benjamin Netanyahu or Ariel Sharon would have surpassed him, as a defence minister he was passable, but in that light, both Meir Dagan and Tamir Pardo could have done his job too. Although in that light, Meir Dagan should have (if I noticed it correctly) gone slightly lighter on the pastries, he is likely to become his own worst enemy. I am willing to accept that this is the consequence of having a quick meeting at Gal’s bakery in Haifa every now and then.

In all this, the centre remains, Ehud Barak has been in a fortunate position, he was not unimportant for Israel. He was a civil servant, surpassed by many in their dedication to the defence of the state of Israel, in all this former Defence Minister Ehud Barak forgot that his biggest enemy was his own ego, a mistake that the media will take advantage of in the happiest method possible. The people of Israel and of other nations need to consider that Iran is, was and shall remain a danger to Israel. Knowing this is the most important detail here. What the press ignored is that possible aggressive actions would have been considered. Any nation, with any level of defence will ALWAYS consider an aggressive option, it is the quality of both its military and politicians at large to decide when such actions can no longer be avoided. As we see in the past, Israel never had to result to an all-out attack on Iran, which does not mean that this will not happen, it only means that when it does happen, no other alternative remained available. This is exactly why NATO must consider its actions in Northern Israel, for the mere reason to keep any offensive alternative at bay.

What a shame former Defence Minister Ehud Barak never realised this.

Leave a comment

Filed under Military, Politics

Last Clooney of the year

My idea of stopping my writing until the new year has truly been bombarded into a sense of that what is not meant to be, so back to the keyboard I go. One reason is the article ‘‘Nobody stood up’: George Clooney attacks media and Hollywood over Sony hack fallout’ (at http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/dec/19/george-clooney-sony-pictures-hack-the-interview), which I missed until this morning. So has the actor from ER become this outspoken because of his marriage to Human rights lawyer Amal Alamuddin? Nah! That would be incorrect, he has been the champion of major causes for a long time, outspoken, thinking through and definitely a clever cookie with a passion for Nespresso!

The article kicks off with a massive strike towards to goal of any opponent “George Clooney has spoken of his frustrations with the press and his Hollywood peers at failing to contain the scandal around The Interview, which Sony has pulled from cinema release as well as home-video formats“. It goes a lot deeper then he spoke it does, perhaps he fathomed the same issues I have had for some time now, some mentioned in my previous blog ‘When movies fall short‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2014/12/15/when-movies-fall-short/), two weeks ago.

I will take it one-step further, several players (not just Sony) have been skating at the edge of competence for some time now, as I see it, they preferred contribution (revenue minus costs) regarding issues of security. It remains debatable whether this was intentional or just plain short-sightedness, that call requires levels of evidence I have no access to.

By the way, Mr. Clooney, you do realise that this topic has the making of an excellent movie, not unlike the largely unnoticed gem ‘Margin Call‘ with Kevin Spacey, Paul Bettany and Zachary Quinto.

The one quote I object to (to some extent) is “With just a little bit of work, you could have found out that it wasn’t just probably North Korea; it was North Korea … It’s a serious moment in time that needs to be addressed seriously, as opposed to frivolously”. You see, the inside job is a much more likely part. Yes, perhaps it was North Korea (requiring evidence), yet this would still not be the success they proclaim it to be without the inside information from disgruntled (or greedy) employees. In addition to the faltering security Sony has needed to ‘apologise’ for twice now (the Sony PSN hack of 2011), none of which was correctly covered by the press regarding this instance either. There was the press gap of November 2013, so we have at least two events where the press catered with silence, but at the price (read: reward) of….?

Yet the part: “He joins others who voiced their dismay at Sony’s decision, including Stephen King, Judd Apatow and Aaron Sorkin. Rob Lowe, who has a small role in The Interview, compared Sony to British prime minister Neville Chamberlain and his capitulation to Nazi Germany before the second world war“, is more than just a simple truth, it shows a fear of venue, cater to the profit. Chamberlain was from the old era and he failed to perceive the evil that Adolf Hitler always was. That view was partially shown by Maggie Smith in ‘Tea with Mussolini‘ too, yet the opposite was strongly shown in Remains of the Day, when Christopher Reeve as Jack Lewis states: “You are, all of you, amateurs. And international affairs should never be run by gentlemen amateurs. Do you have any idea of what sort of place the world is becoming all around you? The days when you could just act out of your noble instincts, are over. Europe has become the arena of realpolitik, the politics of reality. If you like: real politics. What you need is not gentlemen politicians, but real ones. You need professionals to run your affairs, or you’re headed for disaster!

This hits the Sony issue straight on the head. Not that the Gigabytes of data are gone, but that they got access to this data at all. IT requires a new level of professionals and innovator, a lesson that is yet to be learned by those having collected Exabyte’s of data. It is a currency that is up for the taking with the current wave of executives that seem to lack comprehension of this currency. Almost like the 75-year-old banker who is introduced to a bitcoin, wondering where the gold equivalent is kept. The new order will be about IP, Data and keeping both safe. So, it is very much like the old Chamberlain and Hitler equation, we can see Chamberlain, but we cannot identify the new Hitler because he/she is a virtual presentation of an identity somewhere else. Likely, a person in multiple locations, a new concept not yet defined in Criminal Law either, so these people will get away with it for some time to come.

Yet the final part also has bearing “Clooney was one of the Hollywood stars embarrassed by emails being leaked as part of the hack. Conversations between him and Sony executives showed his anxiety over the middling reception for his film The Monuments Men, with Clooney writing: “I fear I’ve let you all down. Not my intention. I apologize. I’ve just lost touch … Who knew? Sorry. I won’t do it again.”“, personally he had no reason to be embarrassed, when your boss spills the beans (unable to prevent security), do you blame the man or the system that is this flawed?

Why has it bearing? Simple, he shows to be a man who fights and sometimes fails. He states to do better, just as any real sincere person would be, a real man! By the way, since 2011 Sony still has to show such levels of improvement. A lacking view from the people George Clooney served in a project, so we should not ignore the need to look at those behind the screens and the press should take a real hard look at what they report and on where their sources are, that same press that has not scrutinised its sources for some time. When was the last time we asked the press to vouch for ‘sources told us‘?

Consider the quote “We cannot be told we can’t see something by Kim Jong-un, of all fucking people … we have allowed North Korea to dictate content, and that is just insane“. As I mentioned in the previous blog, with the bulk of the intelligence community keeping their eyes on North Korea, why is there no clear evidence that North Korea did this? Not just the US both United Kingdom and France have access to an impressive digital arsenal, none have revealed any evidence. Consider that the École polytechnique under supervision of French defence is rumoured to be as savvy as GCHQ, can anyone explain how those three cannot see clearly how North Korea did this? So, either, North Korea is innocent and just surfing the waves of visibility, or the quote by George Clooney in the Guardian “the world just changed on your watch, and you weren’t even paying attention” would be incorrect. The quote would be “the world just changed on your watch, and those in charge do not comprehend the change“. In my view of Occam’s razor, the insider part is much more apt, the other option is just way to scary, especially as the IT field is one field where North Korea should be lacking on several fronts.

I will let you decide, have a wonderful New Year’s eve!

Leave a comment

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

Is it offensive?

It is Saturday evening and I am about to chase up a different side. It all started with the Guardian article (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/30/angela-lafranchi-who-links-abortion-and-cancer-stars-at-families-congress) and as a non-medical scientist I took great offense to it. Not just that, I found much of the article offensive to some degree. Why you might ask?

Well, that is as ever a fair question. I remain a Christian. I have a Jewish background and the one element (my maternal grandmother) is the one unknown. If she is Jewish, then so am I. My father was a Catholic and I grew up with Catholic links. Yet at some point I turned slightly Anglican. This is all relevant! You see, the Jewish background of my grandfather was kept a secret. I never knew (until 2003), after that I went digging a little and it seemed that my grandfather had a proud heritage, his family, the Lazarus family has links that go back to the pre-Victorian setting of Exeter (UK) going back at least to the mid-18th  century. That is a pretty good achievement, so why keep it a secret?

I grew up being a Catholic boy, but I was never that religious, I had my dark moments and like many youthful man, I so loved my neighbours wife (especially when she was sunbathing) as I was only 17. So, I was pretty much a kid like many others. I turned Anglican, like some others when I learned of the child abuse issues and moreover the way the Catholic Church (in several nations) dealt with it. It made me sick to see such injustice. How does it all link together? Well, there are two sides, the first one is how I react to some information the other is how I want to regard this information.

Part of this article reflects like it is a gathering of loons, which is in part offensive because the average Christian is not a loon, yet they are painted in that corner. It becomes even more offensive when their ‘star’ speaker is Angela Lanfranchi, who links abortions to breast cancer. This is not only wrong; this discredited view should be regarded as psychic assault against Christian women. The American Cancer Society (at http://www.cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/moreinformation/is-abortion-linked-to-breast-cancer) and several other highly reputable sources all over the world state the following “Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women (aside from skin cancer), and it’s the second leading cancer killer in women. Because it can be a deadly disease, it’s one that many women fear” the information then gives us “A 2013 Danish study of over 25,000 women who had at least one full-term pregnancy found no link between induced abortion and breast cancer risk over 12 years of follow-up” this is just one of many studies, yet enough evidence has been given to give proper claim that this link does not exist, so I wonder why Angela Lanfranchi is currently not being investigated and prosecuted for possible psychic assault, I regard the act of scaring women into a pro-life stance is just plain criminal.

This is the most visible, but not the only part that I found offensive. There was more and this part falls to Fred Nile, leader of the NSW Christian Democrats stating “All this softening up of legislation is because we don’t have committed Christians there“. I disagree, we have plenty of committed Christians, but we also have a separation of state and church. I have nothing against any leader who at times as a Christian has moral stances, which he should be allowed to state. Yet, the vast majority of our population has made certain choices in life and these values have been democratically adopted.

He then speaks of a view “A drug-free society. A pro-life society. No pornography or prostitution. A society with wholesome public entertainment. A God-honouring, Christ-centred Christian nation“, I do not agree with it, I oppose it, but I also refuse to personally attack him for it. He has a right to his view as we all allow for a freedom of speech, but I will address this in a moment.

We agree that there are courts, there is rule of law and there is freedom of religion, so why do we see the quote “Catch the Fire pastor Daniel Nalliah founded the anti-Islamic political party Rise Up Australia and famously blamed the Black Saturday bushfires on Victoria’s abortion laws” laws do not set fires, people do, Islam has a peaceful foundation whilst the Catholic church has eradicated at least 17 civilisations, yet they would state that these 17 civilisations were all led by the devil (an assumption on my side).

The article ends with one of the vilest of proclamations “He said 90% of all the world’s poverty was caused by the breakdown of the family unit“, so who is not in poverty? Would that not be those in their Ivory towers (like New York), how many of them are Christians? How many are Atheists and more important, how many of them have a family? Family breakdown did not cause poverty, yet exploitation and greed caused poverty which led to family breakdowns all over the world.

This is all so offensive because the bulk of the Christians are people like me and many of you readers. We have a firm foundation of rational, so why are the loons always so linked to Christianity?

It seems like a self-answering question but it is not.

In regards to my view of abortions I remain on the fence. Pro-life wants to set it to zero, which is just wrong, but the fact that it is so openly available is also not right. There are cases of rape and incest where a woman does not want it, it should be her right to remove that what was forced upon her. The other side is also not acceptable, the Christian woman who kept the baby, is her right, yet the criminal father cannot rely on any chance to be given citizenship. That is exactly what seems to have happened in the UK, the man as the bleeding heart refugee lawyer won the argument that “his right to family life would be violated if he were removed to Nigeria“; the Strasbourg court seems to have little regards for the victims of violent crimes. Can anyone blame the position of Theresa May and her goal to remove the Human Rights Act?

Yes, this is still all about the Christians!

I personally am all for a drug free society, I am not against a pro-life society, but I feel that 100% pro-life is not acceptable either. So what is wholesome public entertainment? This is shown in the next quote “Without God they get filled with they get filled with pornography or terror or computer games“, well the bulk of all people are not violent, even if they have video games. Many are not in league with terror, yet Christians have annihilated the bulk of all non-Christian civilisations, so how are Christians allowed to exist? As for pornography, or better stated ‘erotic art’, the Catholic Church has founded a whole cadre of them. One of the more renowned masters of the erotic arts is Agostino Carracci, who is also responsible for “The Last Communion of St. Jerome” (not the Botticelli edition). So what would you do? Burn those paintings too?

Perhaps these Christians want to take a look at their own past. In early 1497, a priest named Girolamo Savonarola started a few bonfires, this event would later be known as the bonfires of the vanity. Hundreds upon hundreds of paintings and writings were destroyed as they were regarded sinful and immoral. The only person to go to these lengths lately was Adolf Hitler (Kristallnacht), so yes, that is a group of people we all should relate to (you do understand that this is a sarcastic remark?)

In my view such people of visibility have always used religion and the church to proclaim a new era whilst basically bullying behind scriptures. When we look at Savonarola we see “while Savonarola intervened with the king, the Florentines expelled the ruling Medici and, at the friar’s urging, established a popular republic. Declaring that Florence would be the New Jerusalem, the world centre of Christianity and ‘richer, more powerful, more glorious than ever’“, so a seat for the promise of power, something we have never seen before. That last quote came from ‘Savonarola The Rise and Fall of a Renaissance Prophet‘, which gives us another message of a want-to-be-a-prophet-through-violence.

Yet, this is not the church, this is not Christianity. I have seen it in several ways. The mother and her two daughters working every Friday a morning as a volunteer, doing not just good deeds, but simple acts of goodness that are pivotal in making this a better world. Those who speak in kindness even as junks lash out in verbal abuse. There is much wrong in this world and true Christians try hard to make it a better world. They are not visible as speakers or in a forum. They volunteer for the SES, help with houses in need, they are with organisations like Marine Rescue; they work weekends for the heart foundation and the cancer council. They are not in the limelight, yet they are all true Christians. Some are Anglican, some are Catholics and for the most none have any anti-Islamic sentiments.

So here is my opposition to the entire article, whatever they call a ‘family congress’ seems to be a collection of religious loons. God did not speak there, because this message as we read it is about a military tactic. It read that their approach is about segregation, isolation and extermination. None of these tactics are god’s words, they are the words of man and the power hungry drive behind it. After all this one perfectly valid question remains. Why do they call this a ‘World Congress of Families conference’? Isn’t every family made of the children of other families and are they not made from individuals? If the smallest element in an equation is ignored, how can the formula make sense, or even more, be valid to begin with?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Gaming, Law, Media, Politics