Tag Archives: BBC

July 11, 2020 · 00:16

Presidents are us

Yup, the fight for the White House is intensifying. The BBC gives us ‘Biden challenges Trump with ‘Buy American’ economic plan’. Well that is a step we saw coming, in a stage where any corona virus hit nations will rely not merely on the export of goods, but on the locally required spending consumer base. With the FAANG group in its own world, the US democrats have decided on ‘Buy American’. It makes sense, although the claimed $700bn plan is likely to cost close to twice that amount and will only truly be a win if US export does not collapse whilst the US population will rely on US goods instead of importing. If those two parts are met then Joe Biden does have an optional working plan. The current president says that this plan will fail, but in light of all his claims, does anyone care what he thinks? So whilst the BBC gives us “Many voters are concerned by the Trump administration’s handling of the pandemic. His divisive approach to the country’s recent wave of anti-racism protests has also come under sharp scrutiny” and they are correct, even as there are a few more issues surrounding Trump, there is a larger concern on his presidency and as the foundation of the Republican group are in a stage where they are doubting his presidency can show any positive impact for the Republicans, the idea that a Democratic win for them at present is better than the current White House occupant is also a larger concern as the elections draws near. Even as we see “Analysts have urged caution in over-interpreting the polls, but Mr Biden’s lead is far greater than that of Mr Trump’s 2016 opponent Hillary Clinton at the same point in the campaign” the analysts do have to some degree a point, the American population has NEVER EVER been this polarised before and as some see it, there is a much larger white power population, Al Jazeera showed ‘An Al Jazeera investigation identified some 120 pages belonging to bands with openly white supremacist and racist views’, which adds up to another issue that Mark Zuckerberg and his book of faces has been unable to deal with. And these pages tend to flow towards Trump, not Biden. (at https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/07/exclusive-facebook-extensively-spread-neo-nazi-music-200710075507831.html) and that is merely the tip of the iceberg that is optionally the reason that the US Titanic will be sinking in unknown waters. The articles also gives us the PDF and “The 89-page report by civil rights experts heavily criticised Facebook, saying it needs to do more about anti-Muslim, anti-Jewish and other hate speech.” In this the article is important when we get to Chapter 6 (Algorithmic Bias), there we see “algorithms used to screen resumes to identify qualified candidates may only perpetuate existing gender or racial disparities if the data used to train the model on what a qualified candidate looks like is based on who chose to apply in the past and who the employer hired; in the case of Amazon the algorithm “learned” that references to being a woman (e.g., attending an all-female college, or membership in a women’s club) was a reason to downgrade the candidate.” Yet the same model could optionally be used to misinform (or disinform) the person through links that have ‘altered headlines’ One party could use it to flame to larger base of the other party and no matter what claims Facebook makes, the PDF report shows that they are seemingly clueless on how to stop it. You see, even if Facebook decides to block politics, it does not stop one account from posting an image, and even as the image might not be political, it can still impact the political base with the misinformation it spreads and Facebook would be largely unable to stop it until it was too late and as it optionally stops one side, the other side can make it worse, so here we see the application of Shareholder, Stakeholder and Sponsors, the S3 equation of big business. 

So even as the news was that the FAANG group saw $58 billion wiped after Trump slammed the ‘immense power’ of big tech (Business Insider), we seem to forget that that same group saw their stocks rise in excess of of $637 billion, so they still made decently well over half a trillion dollars. When you consider that, who do you think that the FAANG group wants as the next president? In all this the entire China matter remains an issue as the US goes towards the polling booths, yet in the end, there is absolutely no guarantee that President Trump is a one term president, yes there is the wishful thinking group, but the issues seen in the economy and the soaring profits that the FAANG group is making is a much larger concern, especially as their voices are a lot more powerful than anyone realises. In all this, the final touch is that so far I have shown again and again that the media is massively sensitive to the needs of the S3 group they dance for, in all this, do you expect to get any neutral news? Consider this week the insincerity of Fox News with ‘Fox News apologises for cropping Trump out of Epstein and Maxwell photo’ and whilst the Guardian reports on this, not many did, and when we realise the byline “Network says it mistakenly eliminated Donald Trump from photo with Maxwell and Epstein at Mar-a-Lago in February 2000” take a moment to consider the choice of words ‘mistakenly eliminated’, which is bias, it is (in my personal view) a form of censoring, which is interesting as it is the media that are all in arms on ‘censoring’ which was shown by Lord Justice Leveson through a novel that exceeds War and Peace (an apt analogy), even as the media reflected on it like it was the horror story fo the century, we see that the media has no issues to ‘mistakenly eliminate’, optionally hoping that no one will notice and there is every chance that a lot of people remained unaware. So in light of all this, there is no way to predict the winner. Even as we hope that Joe Biden will be supported to a much larger degree and that it will be a fair fight, I am not so sure about either premise in this equation.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

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

July 10, 2020 · 02:23

Let’s call a spade a spade

It is an old expression, lets call a spade a spade, the pot calling the kettle black and so forth. It is (when I grew up) the expressions that refer to let’s call it what it is, let’s label it directly, let’s not beat around the bush. So when the BBC gives us ‘Loot boxes: I blew my university savings gaming on Fifa’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/business-53337020), we see the story of an idiot, an idiot named Jonathan Peniket, who basically is voicing whatever excuse he has for the simple reason that he is (as I personally see it) indeed an idiot. So when we see “Better players give you an advantage, and there is a virtual currency and market where these cards are traded. You can buy packs containing a random selection of cards. The idea that it was gambling seemed ridiculous to me at the time. I understood that the chances of ‘packing’ my favourite players were low. I spent the money, opened my packs, got lucky a couple of times, and tried to be positive, despite being left feeling slightly underwhelmed. ‘If I could just spend another £15…’, I thought. Four years followed of spending more and more money on player packs – each time seeking that buzz that would only occasionally come.” We see here the driven and almost educated response of a crack whore trying to get someone else to pay for her addiction, a little bitch looking for the 3600 cards and a person who wants the 1200 cards in month one. I know it sounds ominous and even offensive, but that is life. So when he was a teenager, like two years before his first card (at 17), he got inflicted with the Pokemon vibe (gotta have them all), that empty feeling was transferred to FIFA and when we see “How one teenager spent nearly £3,000” we see a person who is too stupid for his own good. The game is a mere £55, so how stupid do you need to be to spend 60 times that amount? The BBC writers Felicity Hannah and Jane Andrews are quick to dismiss in a short term the truth of the matter behind “They say Fifa Ultimate Team can be played without spending any money and that purchases are entirely optional”, it is a truth, I play NHL, I get 3 packs a day, free of charge, the packs add up that in a month you can save up pack points to get to specula bronze packs, two silver packs and two gold packs. In addition, every pack comes with virtual money to buy other cards online (bid for them), in the second months, I had all 30 arena’s, close to all home and away jerseys for all the NHL teams and most of the goalie masks. After 6 months, I had close to 800 hockey players, a few legendary, and several really rare cards, the game also unlocks upgraded players as you play more and reach milestones (game achievements) you unlock even more players and upgraded legendary players. I cannot answer for FIFA, but it seems that this approach has been mimicked over all the EA sport games, as such I have all that and NEVER paid a cent, showing you just how stupid this boy Jonathan Peniket really is, but the BBC writers are happy to convey “I accept responsibility for what happened. The decisions I made to spend that money were made by me”, yet the little tough guy was eager to state that he “was addicted to the buzz of chance when I bought packs” and “I was spending £30 at a time, then £40, then £50. By the time my card began to block my transactions, I was throwing £80 into the game four or five times a night”, so that the statement “video game packs and loot boxes [a general term for in-game purchases involving chance] are a form of gambling”, yes you can go that way, but when a junk is taking drugs, he isn’t really medicating is he, so what he states it is is merely a form to avoid as much guilt for his stupidity as possible. Loot boxes are not now, not ever gambling, so until we see one of these packs give us the 15 cards all stating ‘Thank You’ it can never be gambling. You get cards, there is always one rare in EVERY PACK, and you can always try to trade it. Consider that there are 3600 cards, 1200 are rare, meaning that you have a 1/1200 chance of getting Neymar, Mbappe, van Dijk, De Bruyne, Lewandowski, Ronaldo or Messi. That is the simplest top-line stage and people with the intelligence of porridge (Jonathan Peniket) decided to spend £3,000 and optionally still hasn’t learned that lesson.

In all honesty, I am no fan of Electronic Arts, they made a few errors on several levels and the loot box stage is optionally too exploited, yet it is not gambling. I remain firm on that part. The fact that some are too stupid to be allowed near a Credit Card does not mean that it becomes the fault of Electronic Arts, and if someone state that Electronic Arts needs to do more to temper per person spending that I would not disagree, but it doesn’t make loot boxes gambling. Only when there is a chance that you lose all, that there is no reward at all, then it becomes gambling. 

Gambling to most is “the wagering of money or something of value on an event with an uncertain outcome, with the primary intent of winning money or material goods.” Yet the operative part in gambling is ‘uncertain outcome’, here the outcome is always the same: 1 Rare, 3 Uncommon and the rest are common cards. And when you realise just how big FIFA is, you need to realise from the start that you can never have them all. In most CCG games the games are at best 400-500 cards (without expansions). FIFA has over 6000 players, as such, your ultimate team will always be limited, you need to make the best of this and lets not forget “Better players give you an advantage”, that is true, but only in the field where both gamers are equal and with a person like Jonathan Peniket that is not a given, it is extremely doubtful. You see if he was a true gamer, then he would get the UEFA cup with West Ham United F.C. (if that was his local team) wouldn’t he? In all this posturing we forgot about the gamer involved, didn’t we? Now, I’ll be honest regarding FIFA, I (pretty much) suck at it, I do not like Soccer too much and that is fine, others love it and that is fine too. I loved the 98 edition on the N64, I played FIFA to some extent on an earlier version on the Playstation (the first one) and it was OK, yet I am not into Soccer, NHL is my game and there I see great things, I love the games, I play my dekes (and fail at times too) and I get beat a lot by kids in the US, Canada and Sweden as they live for hockey. I can live with that, they play it 6 hours a day as such, I expect to get beaten and no matter who is in my ultimate team, I am not going to win. It is simple math and the math shows the truth. I still love the game as I am a hockey man, the NHL game grew and over 18 years I have had my share of it. I loved the original version that came with my PS2, I loved NHL03 on Gamecube and so on, I still love my PS4 version of NHL19. I never had to spend $1 on any pack, so I am not complaining (not much for the Ultimate league anyway).

I have a nice collection of cards and I am happy to report that I got all the NHL jerseys and all the arena’s. Yes there is more to the game and I never stopped enjoying the game, I reckon that the same applies to those loving FIFA and apart from the few who cannot fathom limits, everyone is seemingly happy, oh and the fact that Felicity Hannah and Jane Andrews never gave you a list of all the packs you can get for free on a daily basis is also something you need to take notice of, they are all about headlining ‘EA’s response’ and the ramblings of a shopaholic junkie are equally issues that need to be seen. So as we see the article end with “Fifa was approached for comment, but has not yet responded.” We see the little nags that they reflect to be. What was that, a remark towards laying blame on FIFA for allowing for this? The fact that there is concern on what constitutes gambling should be seen as a first, all whilst there is absolutely no guarantee that under Covid-19, there is no way of telling who at FIFA are aware of this. It is seemingly an issue yet The worlds of Electronic Arts “the well-being of players is paramount – and all their games, including Fifa, have the ability to use parental controls provided by gaming platforms to cap or prohibit spend” are underplayed, so we see here that there was a option to ‘cap or prohibit spend’ and when we realise that this was a mere approach to give a vocal stage to someone who should be given lessened consideration as a junkie is setting the stage? Gimme a break!

In the end, yes EA could have optionally done a little more, but how long until we forget the initial setting that the consumer needs to accept responsibility for their actions and stop nagging like a little brat? He was there spending money on pack after pack and that was on him, not on EA. The part of the act was mentioned, yet focussed on the amounts, not the stupidity of the person spending. 

This is merely my view and you are (of course) welcome to disagree. 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Gaming, Media

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

July 8, 2020 · 02:56

Casing the BS

I get it at times, as, I reckon a lot of others, the case when we read something, we are driven (whether justified or not) to the thought that we are getting fed a case of utter bullshit. Now, this comes from a BBC article and the state I am in is not reflecting on the writer of the article, or the BBC, but in light of all this, the grub smells too foul to accept.

So it all started with ‘Deutsche Bank faces $150m fine for Jeffrey Epstein ties’, So, in light of all we have seen in the last few days and in light of what CNN revealed we see “Deutsche Bank has been hit with a $150m fine for failing to properly monitor its relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein”. And it goes downhill from there. In light of the last few days we need to set a proper timeline. Joker JE died on August 10th 2019, he got planted (was buried) after that and the cases we are seeing is the one he did 13 months for in 2008 and he was arrested again on July 2019. So, when we see “the bank had suffered ‘significant compliance failures’, processing hundreds of transactions for the late financier”, we see the quote and we see the hiding of damage, but the largest failure is with the both the regulators and the people scanning all this, for the mere reason that Epstein had a cleared path for well over 10 years, the entire Maxwell situation, and her financial tracks as CNN discovered it gives rise to a lot more. I wonder who checked EVERY account and transaction here, more important, who approved the creation of these accounts and who monitored certain stages of hiding funds, when we consider that these people are optionally equally guilty of endangering of lives of hundreds of children. You missed that part did you not?

So when DB comes with the excuse “It had spend almost $1bn to improve its training and controls and expand its anti-financial crime team to more than 1,500 people”, I wonder who investigated the exact amounts that added up to $1bn, I reckon that the spin people at DB earned their keep that day. How much was exactly spend on training? How much on procedures to identify wealthy people spending money on underaged vagina’s? I reckon that we will hear that this is not the banks job, but the CNN facts giving us “Prosecutors also detailed transfers they said Maxwell made between her own accounts. Since 2016, prosecutors say, Maxwell has held more than 15 bank accounts that have totalled between several hundred thousand dollars and more than $20 million. During that time period and as recently as 2019, prosecutors allege she moved hundreds of thousands of dollars at a time between her accounts: In March 2019, $500,000 from one of her accounts to another; four months later, more than $300,000 from one account to another. As recently as last year, prosecutors say she held at least one foreign bank account containing more than $1 million.” I wonder how many accounts were created by DB, in addition, when we look at the accounts and we see who and where each and every account was made, we might see an additional picture emerge. So why were regulators so eager to get this settled for DB now, instead of when we see the court case finalise with several, questions answered, I reckon that the friends of these regulators are not that eager to see certain revelations in court, the cost could be a lot higher than $150m. Yet, that is merely my point of view of the matter. I wonder what else Shan Wu (the CNN analyst) is optionally sitting on. 

The BBC also gives us “In an internal memo, Deutsche Bank chief executive Christian Sewing said it had been a “critical mistake” to accept Epstein as a client and acknowledged past lapses in the lender’s oversight. “We all have to help ensure that this kind of thing does not happen again,” he said.” So when did this happen, and when we look at the 2008 case and a few other matters, would it be inappropriate to ask whether Christian Sewing has any daughters? Is anyone else interested in the date of the internal memo #JustAsking?

Yet I digress from the one part that is revealing “We acknowledge our error of onboarding Epstein in 2013 and the weaknesses in our processes, and have learnt from our mistakes and shortcomings,” as such there were 6.5 years for damage to continue and in all this we see no revelation regarding how much shuffling was done for Ghislaine Maxwell. I do understand that the accused has rights to privacy, I get that there are laws and they should not be broken, yet the Deutsche Bank has broken compliance again and again and they can make a lot more than the $150m fine in mere hours. As such, will kids ever be safe again with banks the way they are in America, or is that the right setting? Deutsche Bank is global, so how many kids are in danger?

So I wonder, when someone investigates all these accounts that Ghislaine Maxwell was using, when we take transaction after transaction apart and check every terminal this went through, what else will we find, and if the Deutsche Bank is found in error of compliance again, will regulators set proper fines and limitations to banks involved, or will we see a half baked notification in the news with the added message ‘Oops!’ Just asking what is coming our way, and in my case it is not that drastic, yet there are plenty of mama’s and papa’s around to feel slightly different and a lot more stressed. 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

July 6, 2020 · 20:44

Presenting facts towards oblivion

There is a saying, if you shout it often enough, people will start to believe. The BBC gives us two headlines in this regard. The first is ‘Coronavirus: FDA chief refuses to back Trump’s vaccine prediction’ and the second one is ‘Indian scientists say the August vaccine deadline – set by the country’s medical council – is unrealistic’ all this, whilst a clear message was given in January 2020, a vaccine could take up to 18 months (and that if we get lucky), as such we see the unrealistic side that governments are bombastically advertising. We understand that the IQ of the man in the White House is nothing to be proud of, yet the Indian government should know better, their country has even higher problems than the US is faced with, as such they should know better and the news of an early vaccine ANYWHERE on the planet is a stretch, as such, can we even trust any government to be on par with its population? 

And this is not all, we get the following via Reuters ‘Hundreds of scientists say coronavirus is airborne, ask WHO to revise recommendations: NYT’, the article (at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-airborne/hundreds-of-scientists-say-coronavirus-is-airborne-ask-who-to-revise-recommendations-nyt-idUSKBN2460O7) also gives us “Hundreds of scientists say there is evidence that the novel coronavirus in smaller particles in the air can infect people and are calling for the World Health Organization to revise recommendations, the New York Times reported on Saturday” this is huge, it also gives rise to my predictions months ago (not weeks but months) should leave us wondering what the governments are about, other than the creation of discourse. I stated in ‘Vindication is like Maple Syrup’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/06/18/vindication-is-like-maple-syrup/) that the numbers did not add up, I saw that part as early as February 2020, yet the numbers became more defined in June. The setting was direct, the numbers could not be correct, there was more in play. I was not making a claim that I had the answers, but what was presented to us did not make sense and I have to admit that the part of ‘coronavirus is airborne’ is a scary part, but could be part of the explanation. As such the problems we face are a lot larger and if the airborne is proven, at that point these right-wing nuts we see in the US could optionally be prosecuted for manslaughter. So these people without masks infecting others could be seen as “the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or in circumstances not amounting to murder.” yes, in this case “without malice aforethought” and “stupid ignorance” could be seen as one and the same. There is every chance that the light of vaccine time and the White House claim “We are unleashing our nation’s scientific brilliance and we’ll likely have a therapeutic and/or vaccine solution long before the end of the year.” Might be seen as damaging as those with the lack of foresight and deleting the need of a face mask. Consider the fact that an airborne and a non airborne vaccine might require a different track (an assumption on my side) adds to all this and now that we are given ‘China bubonic plague: Inner Mongolia takes precautions after case’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-53303457) adds to all this. A deadly flue and the black death in one and the same stage? That has got to be new and certainly is news. I am not blaming anyone, I am setting the stage that we need real answers and not positively charged speculations to make the financial people happy. We seemingly have a massive problem and in all this, the evolution of our systems will take a massive hit, it is no longer about, will the economy survive, it will be will internal government systems survive what is thrown at them? Whilst some hide behind ‘German healthcare market rich with potential for app developers’ others give us ‘How Covid-19 exposed cracks in France’s cherished healthcare system’, it is not a stage of who is right and who is wrong, they are both right, but until there is an ACTUAL solution on treating patients on a global stage, every ‘potential’ stage is merely a stage that stops people from getting treatment and to be quite honest, there is no way to predict what healthcare needs in 2021 and 2022, there might not be enough people alive to consider an app, or a quick solution. At that point it will be about the quality of care, and anyone disagreeing with me on that is allowed to do so, but the facts are out and about. Even as some swallowed the corona news as it was a vitamin drink, we have now seen several examples that a larger amount of news never added up and those entering carefully phrased denials will be receiving public questions and will be demanded to answer, when they give us ‘we were wrongly informed’ they can either be punished themselves or be required to give their sources of information. 

For some it will be a whole new day in the field of accountability. We have not choice, the people have been led astray from the facts for far too long, the media will hide behind the ‘facilitation’ option, but the people can demand that the stake holders seek another path and that the share holders dump the shares at that point the advertisers will seek safer shores. It will be a brand new day soon enough. Of course that is before we realise that the mortality rate is optionally a lot above 5%, when that becomes fact, the people will see another path and violence through stress and loss will be the handling powers. It has happened before and it will happen again. 

We can present the facts into oblivion, but at some point the people will demand straight answers,  for them loss is a massive motivator to get them and governments hiding facts will see another danger heading their way. I will let them figure that one out.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

July 3, 2020 · 07:25

The FBI Snooze button

Don’t you just love your snooze button? I do, there are these moments that I have to be up at 07:01, but not always, and the idea of the snooze button that I remain under the warm blankets just a little longer in a half awake and half not stage is pretty addictive, intoxicatingly addictive. I reckon that there are loads of people who feel that way, even the FBI, even though one could argue that their snooze button is set to an annual option.

To see this we need to take a look at the Law and Crime site (at https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/anonymous-individuals-fight-possible-unsealing-of-details-related-to-alleged-epstein-sex-ring/) where we see on March 20th 2019 the following “The Second Circuit Court of Appeals is deciding whether or not to unseal documents from a lawsuit against a woman accused of running a sex trafficking ring with billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Judges had given parties 15 days to argue why documents in a lawsuit brought against Epstein’s former partner Ghislaine Maxwell should not be unsealed.”, you know what, it might be longer than an annual snooze. The court records indicate that the FBI could have done a hell of a lot more to do something about the Maxwell factor in paedophelia. The BBC reported (at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53268218) that she was arrested with ‘Jeffrey Epstein ex-girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell arrested by FBI’, yet the setting does not match up, I had initial questions when I saw the affidavit in January 2015 and that was 9 years later. OK, I will say now there was no link to Ghislaine Maxwell at that point, yet the stage seemed delimited. You see the affidavit shows on pages 16 and 17 6 censured names, we cannot see the names, but if you consider the affidavit, the stage was larger, and that size was already visible in 2006, almost 14 years ago, so why did it take the FBI that long to get any traction? And let’s face it, it did not happen until AFTER Epstein allegedly committed suicide. And the affidavit describes events from almost a year before that date, the issue was larger!

Now that Maxwell has been arrested, the question is not what will she get, the question becomes who else is part of all this and what remains hidden as such, because the events that are criminal and part of sealed court documents whilst others remain untouched is as I see it a new low in American jurisprudence. There is actually a lot more in the BBC article. We see “Prosecutors allege that between 1994 and 1997 Ms Maxwell helped Epstein groom girls as young as 14. The charges say she would build a rapport with them – including by taking them shopping or to the movies – and would later coax them into giving Epstein massages during which they were sexually abused.” Yet when we see the timeline we see that optionally these girls who were still in high school, some would have been exposed to Ghislaine Maxwell and there is no clear trail how. If we look at it from a distance, grooming requires identifying, prepping the stage where they will have a conversation with an unknown person like Ghislaine Maxwell, and that is after you realise that this had been going on since 1994, 26 years is a long time to create a clientele, so there is every chance that she was not merely setting the stage for Epstein. If we consider the stage of Ghislaine Maxwell, a socialite, we need to consider the stage. A socialite is (according to the dictionary “a person who is well known in fashionable society and is fond of social activities and entertainment”, it is a title that also limits her activities, one failure and she is exposed. As such we ca argue that she had a system, a system with co-conspirators. And let’s face it, how often do you see a socialite scouring high school? Especially when the socialite is well over 50 (OK, she was half her age in those days). The stage does not match the activities, she had serious help, I see no other way there.

Even if we casually dismiss “claimed that Maxwell recruited her to be a “masseuse” for Epstein when she worked at Mar-a-Lago, the Florida club owned by President Donald Trump.” We see places (one that former president Clinton visited), a stage where security is a lot larger then normal, as such others wee in the know, camera’s that would have set the stage where people too young to be allowed were let in, the stage does not add up, when you start reading the affidavits, the documents and the connected briefs, there is a much larger stage to be seen. Do you think that a place like the Mar-a-Lago gets by with below par security? Several people avoided the boat with “In return, prosecutors declined to bring federal charges.” It was not about Epstein, in that phase a lot more would be brought to light, I have absolutely zero doubt about that. That part is partially visible when we consider “The agreement, which was offered by prosecutors working under then-federal prosecutor Alexander Acosta (President Trump’s current U.S. Labor Secretary), was made without informing any of the alleged victims in the case.” In addition, we see several people now in a stage where they are at the top of the legal profession, among them Kenneth Star and Alexander Acosta. So when we see “The appellate court ruled that the district court “failed to conduct the requisite particularized review when ordering the sealing of the materials at issue.” So what else did the district court fail to conduct?

And this has been out and about for close to a decade, so do we like the FBI snooze button at present? The fact that in all this federal players were left in the dark seems completely impossible to me, as such we need to include that there is every chance that Ghislaine Maxwell is part of something much larger, involving other players too, this is not the stage of a socialite, this is the optional stage of a facilitator. If this deviant behaviour is possible in 6% of the clergy, how many rich people would optionally be driven by similar illegal needs? If we accept that there are a little over 5 million multimillionaires in the USA, the 6% mark hands us that Ghislaine Maxwell might have had access to (or being sought by) up to 300,000 very wealthy people requiring her services. Now let’s be fair, they do not all know Ghislaine Maxwell, but see might and that makes this issue a lot larger than we previously considered. And it brings forth the issue of the FBI snooze button, perhaps I am wrong and they were very awake, and it took this long to get a group of people subpoenaed, but consider what I stated and the evidence as it was out and about, and in the media no less.

How many looked away whilst some of this was happening under their very noses?

 

1 Comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

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

July 1, 2020 · 16:36

The enemy is us

It is not a new setting, yet thee setting is more complete. We are being duped and misinformed by a player who has no evidence, it merely is in a stage where it has become Oliver Twist stating ‘Please Sir, can I have some more’ (as I made mention to yesterday. Yet so far they have never produced ANY evidence that their statements hold any value, any facts or any truths. The best we can get are speculations and even as we will not dismiss speculations, the evidence is not on their side, their side is a collapse of economic prowess and a complete shutdown of the dollar, their greed got them that way. So when we we see the BBC give us ‘Ministers signal switch in policy over 5G policy’ we see nothing immediately wrong until we see: “He added he wanted Samsung and NEC to become 5G network kit providers”. So Digital Secretary Oliver Dowden, a person that has now firmly set his personal intent towards American confirmations by giving the handle to two providers, one with close to zero 5G IP powers? 

Lets look at the state of things, in the first, I am a capitalist, there is nothing wrong with being a capitalist, yet I have never stepped away from accountability, and I will demand that we all demand complete accountability for those making these steps, including the warrants for treason against people like Oliver Dowden for betraying the economic station of the commonwealth. The UK and other nations needed the Huawei goods for that, but the corrupt republic of the United States is stopping this because it would end their greed driven needs that will not be stopped until we are all under the foot of Wall Street and no one is waking up.

Now, if the US (that place with stupid people) has actually presented factual and direct evidence of Huawei equipment being and actual danger, the situations would be different, but that has not happened has it? To see this we can point to the Verge (at https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/17/18264283/huawei-security-threat-experts-china-spying-5g) and a few other sources. They give us “Is Huawei a security threat? There is no hard evidence to support this notion, and some of the reasons put forward for this notion are weak. For example, the background of the chairmen of Huawei. Huawei founder Mr. Ren Zhengfei once served in the People’s Liberation Army. As we know, serving in the army was one way of getting out of poverty for people in the countryside, which is where Mr. Ren is from. His time in the army was a short one and he was not in any important position.” There was no hiding these facts and as far as I can tell, they never did, yet the US has hidden the flaws of Cisco equipment for well over a year, even as these devices gave criminals access to global networks, so who is at fault? Then there is the point of view of Senator Warner (Democrat from Virginia) “There is ample evidence to suggest that no major Chinese company is independent of the Chinese government and Communist Party — and Huawei, which China’s government and military tout as a “national champion,” is no exception. Allowing Huawei’s inclusion in our 5G infrastructure could seriously jeopardize our national security and put critical supply chains at risk. It could also undermine U.S. competitiveness at a time when China is already attempting to surpass the U.S. technologically and economically through the use of state-directed and state-supported technology transfers.” This is quite. Clearly a point of view and he is allowed to have it, more importantly he should be allowed to have it to influence AMERICAN positions, no one denies this, yet take consideration of ‘at a time when China is already attempting to surpass the U.S. technologically and economically’, which is an issue for them, especially when you realise that Huawei is 3-5 years ahead of America, the patents are pretty precise about that, Huawei focused on 5G when almost no one else did and now that 5G is here, the US is blatantly backwards to that side of the equation, hiding behind marketing like 5G evolution, which is at best 4G with a different label, the press gave light to that small part. We can go on about this, but I feel it is important to give light to Francis Dinha, CEO OF OpenVPN. He gives us “The US is right to treat Huawei as a security threat, but I don’t believe any ban on any equipment is the right solution. No matter what equipment we use for 5G, there will be security risks. With such an exponentially higher amount of data, there will inherently be an exponentially higher risk. But taking a competitor out of the market could lead other companies to get complacent, which would mean US innovation and development could be slowed — which presents an even more severe security risk overall. Rather than relying on our network to be secure, we ought to seriously consider building an overlay secure virtual network across the 5G infrastructure that could provide end-to-end security, controlled and managed by the 5G network operators. We need guidelines to improve network security, and we need to push to make software for this equipment open-source. Open-source means transparency and security, which is exactly what we need as we move to 5G. Huawei is a risk, certainly — but there are other ways besides a ban to mitigate that risk. No matter who is making our 5G equipment, we need to be proactive about cybersecurity.” I do not completely agree with him, yet he states that the US should be allowed to see Huawei, a Chinese producer as a threat, I cannot deny them that right. What is important is ‘could lead other companies to get complacent’ I believe that he intentionally omitted the word ‘American’ from that part and this is exactly how Huawei got to get ahead in the game in the first place, so let’s call that a checked item, shall we? And then he gives the diamond in the rough, with ‘Open-source means transparency and security, which is exactly what we need as we move to 5G.’ We see the larger frame, Huawei offered 1-2 months ago, to sell their technology allowing others to catch up, but it was basically rejected out of hand, why? I personally see it as the fact that Huawei would still have ended up with a massive chunk of cash (off course) and that is where the so called American bankrupt state is in danger, it needs all the cash it can get and it needs to set the stage where Chinese corporations ends with close to none, their stage of equilibrium is what Wall Street dictates and the 25 trillion market its only viable when the US gets 75%, not 25% and China with 75%, that is the larger issue and the US (Europe too) are too far behind Huawei at present, if the 5G war is decided between 2022-2024, Huawei has basically won and the US has nothing, that is the stage we are aligning to. So as the BBC gave us “Ministers approved Huawei’s involvement in January, but some senior Tories want to prevent that because of concerns over security” we would love to know which senior politicians and what EVIDENCE they have,. But we will not get an answer to either part there will we? And as we are given “In principle, controlling the tech at the heart of these networks could give Huawei the capacity to spy or disrupt communications during any future dispute. This is important, as more things – from self-driving cars to fridges, baby monitors and fire alarms become connected to the internet.” There is the issue of evidence and the fact that America has that same ability, and let’s not deny the fact that we have seen that America will lie to everyone else when it serves THEIR purpose, so how is this any different? The maker of the BBC text did go all out to mention ‘baby monitors’, so far there is a much larger concern when they are connected to the internet, the fact that the CISCO equipment there is making it already an option, so we do not need to wait for either China or Huawei, and the BBC article does not bear that out, does it? 

At what point did we disregard the need for evidence? I meed it because I am not writing some pro China article, if there is ACTUAL evidence it needs to be out in the open so that we can make an informed decision, the decision makers seemingly do not want that to happen as there is no evidence, there is only the emotional stage, or as Mark Rubio Republican for Florida voiced it “Huawei is a Chinese state-directed telecom company with a singular goal: undermine foreign competition by stealing trade secrets and intellectual property, and through artificially low prices backed by the Chinese government”, which is interesting as there is all kind of evidence that opposes ‘a Chinese state-directed telecom company’, as well as ‘stealing trade secrets and intellectual property’, the second one is interesting as that is not the function of Huawei and moreover, Huawei is 5 years ahead of any American competition and well over 3 years ahead of the mainstream competition, so why steal the IP of someone who is intellectually backwards? I fail to see the point, do you?

By adhering to greed driven agenda’s we have become our own worst enemy and I will be around to see this explode in our faces and for the most, I will get to ridicule the media for adhering to the need for misinformation and to let those who championed false information get away with a fat wallet whilst destroying the Commonwealth economy, because that is still up for debate, there is no alternative, these people can emigrate to America and never be allowed back into the Commonwealth until they are prosecuted in open court with no allowance to hide behind ‘national security interests’, I reckon it would be their greatest fear, to be held to account for their actions, it usually is.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics, Science

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

June 29, 2020 · 19:58

The inferring line

We all see the news, we see what is implied and we wonder on what it means, at least that is what some of us do and the news is always sided to the part they want to illuminate, there is no evil or bad intentions there, it is the way the writer thinks, or the view that the writer has. We might agree, we might disagree, but the writer is entitled to the view they have, at least that is what I think, so when I see ‘Technology of Business’ in the BBC, I wonder about the ‘Business of Technology’, it is not merely the reversal of a phrase, behind it lingers the fact that a formula and solution are reversible, or in Market Research there is the unwritten law (well, perhaps, seemingly unwritten), that it cannot be reversed, as such when the factorial analyses goes in one direction, the opposite would be a discriminant analyses, if the factor is proven, the discriminant analyses should always fail, no exclusions to that, if both make it there is a connecting factor in play, not really a covariant. When you realise this, there is a much larger truth to be seen. SO in this I do not oppose ‘Have we become too reliant on Big Tech firms?’,
I merely wonder about the elements behind this. When I was working in the 90’s in IT, on the edge of IT, there was an unwritten law to steer clear of one another in Big tech, so to not get in each others fairway and maximise profits, as such we see the advantage that players like Google and Amazon have. They researched their part and they went their own way. I am merely looking at these two because Microsoft, IBM, Sun and a few others were overlapping and they had their own way of setting the stage. So there might be truth in “Big Tech firms have been getting even bigger during the pandemic and their success means they have plenty of funds to snap up other businesses”, yet the involved stage is a little larger than projected. So I do not disagree with people like Sandeep Vaheesan when they give us “All of them will be in the M&A [mergers and acquisitions] game if they’re not already. Start-ups are more likely to sell out during the pandemic when they might struggle to meet their obligations and the buyout looks especially attractive – the pandemic is speeding up the buyout date in some cases”, I am merely seeing that this stage was in play for much longer and now we might focus on what the larger players are gobbling up, yet this is not any difference from what has been going on for 20 years.

It is the way business works, the larger fish eats the smaller one. Adobe ate Macromedia (I still believe it is the other way round), Novel got wordperfect, Microsoft ate entire shoals of software makers and so on. And yes, the pandemic has an impact that is much larger and that is not on the buyer, also not on the seller.  Some were surprised to see Microsoft acquire the game Minecraft for $2,500,000,000. The seller was mostly not unhappy, he went from mama basement software developer, to nerd to multi billionaire.   It is the game developers dream to get that done and his game was addictive as hell (I know, because I have it on every console). Microsoft grew it even further with the direct ear of over 200,000,000 ears of needy gamers. It is marketing heaven for Microsoft, and that is before you realise just how much money is linked to the optional micro transactions.

At some point these firms need to rely on merging and acquisition to grow, it is merely the way it is, and sometimes nature hands these players a windfall (like the pandemic). I believe that we are not too reliant on big tech, I believe that we are in a holding pattern due to a lack of innovation, the innovators are out there yet they are not getting the visibility they need to push it along and that is a larger stage than we realise. You merely need to search ‘innovation’ on Google to realise that it is marketed and it is labelled, yet true innovation is the one element that defies labels and marketing, because I saw and learned that what a firm does not understand (in 1997) cannot be marketed, it cannot be sold, because its leaders are drawn to memo’s with bullet points and that is when you see firsthand how true innovation defies labels. It is a conclusion we have seen too often and lately a lot more often than we considered it.

Even when we see some brands giving a platform to the real innovators, it relies on someone recognising it and I agree that it is not a bad idea, but I also realise that if I do not see everything, then someone else is likely not to see it either. It is not a good thing, not a bad thing, it merely is and there big tech has its first problem, how to recognise it soon enough. Not everyone is a Steve Jobs, who was able to recognise 9innovation when it walked through its doors, Jeff Bezos et al is a different stock, a different breed, they made THEIR innovation, it does not mean that they can recognise it when it hits and there the true innovators have the challenge, on how to set their IP in a safe space where it can be recognised without them needing to set the stage of losing a lot of money hoping others will see it. It is the inferring line that they face and all innovators must face it, for the most they will rely on big tech who can afford to squander a purse of coins and not worry on how it hits them, it makes the game harder for innovators, but not impossible, they have options and on a global stage it does imply that these players will seek the largest beneficiary. When we see Huawei against Nokia and Ericsson we see that the two Scandinavian players have to set a wager holding a dead man’s hand, When we see Amazon, who is seen against its competitors Google Play, Apple play and so on, yet is it not interesting on how Alibaba and Ozone are not mentioned in plenty of places? Ozone particularly is not as big, but it is still a contender and in the stage of IP, where that patent is more important than most think it is. In this Alibaba has a larger benefit as it also delivers into Russia. The inferred line is thinner than we realise and there are more players, even as some ‘market’ them away into obscurity, you see when these players get the IP, they grow on a global scale and that is what is feared in the west and also by a player like Amazon, you see, they are the largest player and will remain so, but what happens when the dollar collapses? The way that this US administration goes about it, that setting is a lot more realistic than some are willing to admit and when the dollar goes, the Euro and the Yen will take massive hits, losses of 35% would be a good day.

Should you out that consider that the Financial Times (at https://www.ft.com/content/dbe16ce4-f154-4985-a210-279fa1f53e24, and them alone) gave almost 5 hour ago “Millions of digital banking customers unable to access their money after German group falls into insolvency”, consider that an impact like this should make the front page on pretty much EVERY paper in the west, yet the Guardian has NOTHING, and others are like that, something that hits millions is left unreported. So when we see a repetition of the Sony 2012 events (the Guardian was the reporter there), how much on innovation and how much innovation impact will not be reported on when it ends up in the hands of Alibaba and/or Ozone? How much marketing shielding will Amazon receive? The inferred line is something else as well, it shows where we are told not to look, when does true innovation actually do that? 

A line that is ignored by plenty of players is a line that might show actual danger, especially when its impacts our lives.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Science

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

June 28, 2020 · 14:42

Where are we at?

That is the question I am throwing out there and as I am sitting in a mall enjoying a large cappuccino, I see the phrase “your safety is our concern” pass by, yet is that so? I am not opposing it, yet in the same stage the phrase “Our safety is your concern” is equally valid. We might ignore it, we might oppose it and for the most, the pussies in the field are all about ignoring the safety of others, their ego’s are all about setting the stage of what THEY need, whilst disregarding the simplest safety. I get it, it is not. Normal flu, but the realisation needs to be on the foreground of EVERY person around, and it is not, it there is one certainty, then it was seen in the scenes I personally witnessed yesterday. Th world moves on and whilst we see another clambake article on the hardships of Yemen, we need to realise that the Coronavirus will hit there a lot harder, it is not merely the stage of “5 yeas of hunger, 5 years of war” that the BBC gives us (they make no false claims there), we see that Saudi Arabia is trying to raise $2.41 billion in aid. In all this we see that the European support is dwindling down, support after support project is shutting down, the money is gone and pleads from the UN is seemingly falling on deaf ears. And the noise the people like Andrew Smith are making does not help anyone, even less the Yemeni people. So whilst we are given partial parts on Scotland by the Campaign Against Arms Trade, we simply ignore the massive support that the Houthis are giving by Iran. Do you think that this was was going on if Iran was not involved? If anything we could give out the considerations that the Yemeni war is going on because of Andrew Smith and his band of rascals. We see the accusations on both sides and we can draw a parallel to our own Corona issues, the  entire matter is in a stage of imbalance and the Yemeni people are paying the price. And it is important to see that this was not due to the Saudi intervention, they were asked by the rightfully elected government, a small titbit that is set not mentioned often enough, and now that the Houthis after 3 years are getting better in shooting their missiles, the mess will escalate faster and larger. The problem is not whether the Saudi government gets the support they need, it becomes the question on why full support was not given 3 years ago, now that the Yemeni children are dying left, right and centre, we are all in a stage of “Awwww!”, yet this has been going on for years and for the longest time no one cared, there is merely the presented concerns on these ‘dastardly Saudi’s and their guns’, whilst our concern should have been on ending the blatant disregard fo lives that Iran was ensuing (and ensuring). As I see it, the Saudi coalition had the high ground and even as the media is now calling it the Saudi Arabian led intervention, the Saudi coalition does include Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Sudan, and it also used to include Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan, and Morocco. This thing was always a lot bigger then we thought it was whilst the sources are clear to ignore the Iranian involvement and setting the stage of opposition to a revolutionary committee, the Houthi forces and the pro Sales Houthi. Did you think that this stage would still exist without Iran? We ignore the larger stage and we help it coming of age, killing thousands of children, we have due to our inactions blood on our hands and we are in a stage of ignoring that part.

Just like the corona virus, we seemingly push the responsibility onto others, whilst our actions did matter all along, but feel free to ignore that part and when you see more people die in Yemen. On TV tonight, feel free to switch to Big Brother, hoping to see one of the girls taking a shower, your life almost seem perfect, so enjoy the nightmares you have from prolonging a war that could have ended in 90 days, and consider that someone is feeding the houthi forces ballistic missiles, especially in light that thee isn’t a building left standing to produce these bad boys in the first place. Materials that the Houthi forces could not own or afford, they have them by the dozen (cheaper that way), in a stage where they have no economy, they have spend more on weapons, missiles and drones than a nation like Sweden could afford, did no one realise that part of the equation? A setting of imbalance that players like the CAAT is fuelling and no one takes notice.

When the children of Yemen start chanting “Our safety is your concern”, which excuse will a person like Andrew Smith offer? He’ll probably know someone to blame, but the fault is in us all. Iran should have been dealt with well over 10 years ago, but we were all fooled by a mediocre puppet all whilst the battle hardened IRGC was ignored, in that regard our inaction should pave an interesting highway to hell.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Military, Politics

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

June 27, 2020 · 23:32

When it is about something else

We all have those moments, we see one thing, yet when we look at the news, it was seemingly about something else. This of course goes both ways, what we see is not always what we think it is and in this case I might well be wrong, yet I am willing to yet you decide.

It all started 10.3 minutes ago (roughly), I was munching down on a bag of ‘veggie straws’ I never had those before and they were on special (50% off) so I decided to take a walk on the Wilde side, so there I was munching on savoury goods whilst listening to Jordi Savall playing Matrimonio di Francesca Borgia, I remember the procession (I saw the Blu-ray on the Borgias), it was a lovely wedding and she copulated in public, the good old days where a wedding was only valid when they did it on the wedding day, all that before there was VHS and we got the best porn in the city. Ah well, as we see one thing we see another, so when the BBC showed me ‘Coca-cola suspends social media advertising despite Facebook changes’ I feel that we are shown something else. At present it sucks to be Coca Cola, let’s face it, when I was in the supermarket I got myself 2 bottles of Vanilla Coke, yet no advertisement would have spurned me, I know the stuff, it is 20% off and for a lot of people it is that way. Coca Cola has sent a truckload of cash in the right directions (Olympics, Sport events, public events, but Covid-19 is stopping it all from happening, so for players like Coca Cola there is no benefit, if there were pubic events, oh no, these are cancelled as well, apparently only a chosen few can have sex at 1.5 metres apart (names redacted for national security reasons). So, I understand the setting where all these firms are blaming Marky Mark of the Zuckerberg clan, yet that is so short sighted. We want to blame the for everything, yet this problem is a lot larger, it is drenched in fear and drenched in opposition to things we cannot control. We cannot control the flu, so when we get some slick politician making claims that big tech is to blame, whilst their own records cannot be properly vetted (the paying dead people issue) all whilst their internal systems are dodgy as hell, I wonder how large the issue is. It is not merely America, the failings in Europe are not small either and it is laced in technology. As these slick individuals took the cheap options, we now see how cheap is letting all kinds of people shout whatever they want, it brings fear to all.

So whilst we see brand after brand relabel their products as to avoid the backlashes, we see that there is a larger issue in play and the media is doing whatever it can to avoid them as to not anger their advertisers, they need all the advertisers they can as you can see.

It is even more dastardly than you think. The BBC also reported on shaadi.com, an Asian dating site that they were removing skin tone filters. Consider that this was done, do you think that they inserted the skin filter automatically, or was it done to appease their members? Do you think that a dating site, or any site will auto filter the look of a member without permission? How liable would they be? Consider the fact that the filter was created, do you think it was to make the programmer happy? He might not have cared, I reckon that if w get actual statistics on the site on who used it (numbers that optionally would suddenly be accidentally deleted), how many women (or men) used it? They would have started their optional relationship based on a lie. So when we see in the article “Priya (name has been changed) found her husband on the site after being rejected by others for her skin colour. “I am dark-skinned and saw the skin colour question on there (shaadi.com) and answered it the best I could,” she tells BBC Asian Network.

“I remember selecting ‘wheat-ish’ – whatever that means.””, so this person hid behind ‘whatever it means’, and I do not care, but we see two versions of deception and I get that she girl made a choice, hoping it would work out, but lets not deceive each other. There is a larger stage and it is founded on racism, you get better breaks (so they say) when you are caucasian and I will not fault anyone to get the better deal, yet the advertisement issue is a lot larger and is drenched in lost revenue due to ineffective advertisements (a Covid cancelled Olympics event for example) and it seems that it could go on for another 60 days and as such the people involved will stop advertising, especially if you already have visibility going up the kazoo (like Coca Cola, HP, IBM, Microsoft, Netflix, Google, and a few Unilever brands), I get the idea that these people are watching the dimes they spend, but lets not call it #StopHateForProfit when it is about margins of profit, it is actually that simple as I see it.

We can push all we can, but it is the fellow man and woman next to us that needs to change, to stop giving in to hate and fear, we get it, it is overwhelming, and when you are African American in the good old KKK of SA, there are larger concerns and it is a lot more serious there, even as the Business Insider gave (two weeks ago) a list with 25 charts that show that racism is serious in the US, lets think about that, so in 2020 we see clear numbers on racism, so why is the US not acting? Do you still think it is that simple? (at https://www.businessinsider.com.au/us-systemic-racism-in-charts-graphs-data-2020-6?r=US&IR=T), so when we are in a stage of #BlackLivesMatter and #AllLivesMatter, consider that corporate America has not acted for well over a decade, the numbers give that much, even as the situation is seemingly going better, there is too much that needs to be done and government does seemingly not care, only 10% is non-caucasian there, look at the Business Insider for that part, so it is about something else and we need to consider that part, we need to consider that a lot faster then we think, because if this explodes, we see a much larger issue, especially when you consider that the pay gap is supposedly between 59% and 62%, and take in consideration the Fair Employment Act 1941, Civil Rights At 1991, Equal Pay Act 1963, and 4 amendments to the Constitution of the United States, so where was corporate America all these years? Let’s call the issue by its name, and let’s take a look at the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act 2009, which directly impacts the case Ledbetter v Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company (2007). So when you are done with all that, consider that Coca Cola issue again and consider how many companies are in a shady place at present. None of it has anything to do with Marky Mark of the Facebook tribe, and a lot more with the bottom dollar as Wall Street needs it to be for at least another 30 years (at present).

 

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Politics

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

June 26, 2020 · 16:12

Changing my name

So, I have found a new way to get rich fast (and I mean really fast), I am changing my name from Lawrence to Laurent more precisely to Laurent Rothschild. At that point the people at Bilderberg will take my call, Google’s own Papa Smurf will meet with me (Sergey Brin’s nickname) and so on, names make a difference (or so they say) the was the first thing that went through my head when I saw the BBC article on how ‘US Country band Dixie Chicks drop the Dixie from their name’. There I was slightly (only slightly) puzzled. Why would that one word matter? You see, the Dixie Chicks have earned their name, they have earned their reputation as a good band with great music and they have their own identity. 

I personally see nothing negative ab out dixie, I truly do not. If we actually want to dig we will see that the Oxford dictionary calls the references ons cure, well there was nothing obscure about the Dixie chicks, There is also a derivation from Jeremiah Dixon, the person who surveyed the Mason – /Dixon line, it is the separating border between Maryland and Pennsylvania (something I did not know).

There are of course more references and still there is nothing negative in the name Dixie chicks, and there is nothing negative about their music, if anything they are optionally a driving force for other woman to make it on their own. In this US civil war towards black lives matter, there is now a growing concern that the war is turning into a marketing clambake of quick sale towards people to steer away from negativity all whilst the implied negativity is between their ears.

The actions by the Dixie chicks does nothing to racial inequality (as I personally see it), fighting racial inequality does and to forget that there ever was racial inequality is one way to lie to yourself and lie to the world around you. There are large stages of racial inequality, in the US, seemingly in Canada, in Australia, in large parts of Europe, Africa and the Middle East. Inequality comes from considering yourself above all others and certainly certain people. Its not like we are discriminating against Xbox Users, every Playstation user knows that they are less and that is where we forget that it was never about the system, it was about the joy of playing a game, whether your skin is Xbox green, Playstation blue of Nintendo red, it is not about the silicon brain in your head of the screen that makes your eyes, it is about the acceptance of difference and to be honest, I personally fail to see the change of the name of a band, more likely I forget to buy their music because the Dixie Chicks are no longer under the ‘D’ of Duh!

Yet, if the powers in the US can be marketed in this way, I can look forward to a decent amount of work stress and an income that is close to a hundred times better (than what I am currently making) by being Laurent Rothschild.

So if you learn next week that I was not eating all over New York like a cast member of Billions in Katz’s, Sushi Nakazawa, or Vaucluse at that point you might consider that my solution was not really a working one, so here’s hoping the I will enjoy a Pastrami sandwich at Katz’s really really soon.

This is the view I have and until someone proves to me that these Dixie chicks chose their name in a wave of racism, I refuse to consider that they did so and it is just a lovely southern name and I will enjoy and tap my feet to the music of ‘Sin Wagon’, and I will not be waiting time on the views that some people might have on the reference to Dixie. Consider that the great Satchmo (Louis Armstrong) played Dixieland, I enjoyed his music and still do, why would I think negatively on the reference to Dixie? And let’s be honest can a person be blamed for thinking naughty thoughts whilst listening to ‘Sin Wagon’ seeing Emily Robinson? Many thoughts come to mind, not one of them is racial. 

It is time to solve issues, not losing too much time by trying to marketing them away in name changes. Too bad, I think that Laurent Rothschild could be a great change and I do like the idea of  a large Pastrami sandwich like only Katz can make it.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media

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