Tag Archives: Brodie Fenlon

Is it reality?

That is the question I am faced with as I saw the article at CBC which I cannot continue as CBC screwed up its site giving us advertisements every inch of the article, as such Brodie Fenlon clean up your freaking site, and fire the idiot responsible for this. Yet the BBC came to the rescue and gives us (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2v37z333lo) ‘Trump deep sea mining order violates law, China says’ in earnest, that article is three days old and I preferred the CBC article as it shows a little more clearly how desperate America has become for funds. I reckon that the interest on 36 trillion of debt is gnawing on the bones of America, more prevalent that gnawing has gone beyond the bones as it is starting on the bowels of America. The BBC article gives us “Donald Trump has signed a controversial executive order aimed at stepping up deep-sea mining within US and in international waters. The move to allow exploration outside its national waters has been met by condemnation from China which said it “violates” international law.” I tend to agree with China, but merely as it allows a setting where the desperate poor countries who cannot counter America and these nations are left with baubles. A setting they learned from the slave traders around 1768. You have to hand it to trump. He is giving the old scriptures a chance to prove themselves. The issue I partially have a problem with is “The administration estimates that deep-sea mining could boost the country’s GDP by $300bn (£225bn) over 10 years and create 100,000 jobs”, in the first there is no clear setting for the $300,000,000,000 revenue. If they ‘mine’ in a few wrong sports, the price if mining and the revenue of staff will cost them an easy $50,000,000,000 which implies a lost revenue base of 16%, the second part is that these jobs are mostly given to people they just evicted. Only the higher levels will get a nice dime, the rest will be done by Americans who didn’t want the job anyway and that breeds errors and often mistakes. A non-committed employee screws up the daily routine a lot more than you are happy with and that will be dozens of people. The part that I never gave the right attention is seen in ““The harm caused by deep-sea mining isn’t restricted to the ocean floor: it will impact the entire water column, top to bottom, and everyone and everything relying on it,” he added in a statement released on Friday.” The he in that quote is Jeff Watters of Ocean Conservancy, a US-based environmental group. The fact that Jeff merely got one quote implies that he has a whole lot more to say and I wonder if we will ever see that part of the equation. The larger setting is that America is now ready to start bullying its way through international waters. So what will they call those who want to intervene on their waters (or too close to it), will they suddenly be branded pirates? A larger setting that America has lost the plot and I warned for this a decade ago. Deal with your debt unless it deals with you and that seemingly seems to be happening now. It also opens a new setting. These little nations will now be ready to side with China, which is another headache for America. And that setting will give China (as a protector or these nations) an options to scuttle these miners. So $300 billion largely lost and American lives lost (at present no one cares about those). Now we get the added cost of these mining platforms and as such America gets into deeper waters. 

So the end of the BBC article gives us “A recent paper published by the Natural History Museum and the National Oceanography Centre looked at the long term impacts of deep sea mining from a test carried out in the 1970s. It concluded that some sediment-dwelling creatures were able to recolonise the site and recover from the test, but larger animals appeared not to have returned.

The scientists concluded this could have been because there were no more nodules for them to live on. The polymetallic nodules where the minerals are found take millions of years to form and therefore cannot easily be replaced.” As such we have a (non proven) stage for the desperation of Americans. This was shown half a century ago. And the fact that America is willing to ignore “larger animals appeared not to have returned” as well as “polymetallic nodules where the minerals are found take millions of years to form and therefore cannot easily be replaced”. As I personally see it, to ignore these two facts implies that America doesn’t care (or cares less) about marine life and that it will act like a carrion eater in regards to the ocean floor and take now what needs millions of years to form whispers (to me) that America is decently beyond broke and it falls to President Trump to default the larger part of 36 trillion of debt. I’m pretty sure that I made mention of that chance in the past and as I am likely proven right yet again, the question becomes why didn’t economics signal clear levels of dangers? The news now, as the Times writer (and American economist) Irwin Stelzer gives us that the economy of America is in rather good shape. So is it really? Please give us the goods on how America is doing well? It might be that the America Economy is seemingly hanging tough, but they lost billions of revenue all over the field from retail to defense contracts. They might be in denial, bit as I see it only two years ago we would never have seen ‘Italian defence and aerospace giant Leonardo has signed a new Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’ a mere three months old. So how much did America lose here? I cannot set the valuer of that contract, but the quote “multiple areas of collaboration to include space industry, airframe MRO (Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul), localisation of electronic warfare systems and radars and assembly of helicopters, a focus on Combat Air and Cross-Domain Integration fields, industrialisation processes and human capital development, national supply chain in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the country’s role for Leonardo in the region as well as the global value chain.” (Source: www.leonardo.com) leaves me to believe that it is a serious amount of money, now add the new European slices and with the tariffs the loss of America is now on a threshold to fuel a larger recession than ever speculated on before, the larger players (read: Bloomberg) set this chance at the moment at 40%, as America scuttled their own retail houses (like Walmart) of cheaper goods, they need to continue without the goods, you might think it is nothing, yet 1% of the American population works there, now take out the thousands of shoppers (read: immigrants) and that 2025 revenue of US$680.99 billion will topple by at least 10%, 30% if they are not careful and what remains of that Net revenue of US$19.436 billion? You see, they either fire a whole lot of them or lose close to 40% of their business. These are personally considered numbers, so I might be wrong here to the amount of loss, but not the intention of loss and this is merely Walmart. There are several other chains facing this setting. So how good is that shape of the economy? 

I wrote a few years ago that we need to see where all these bonds are, no serious journalist ever looked into that matter it was the time around the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank in 2023. I wondered how the could have happened and it was a much bigger thing. The acquisition of Credit Suisse by UBS gave me pause to ponder, I figured that several banks had over swallowed on bonds which left them not dissolvent, but left their funds largely frozen as such I speculated that Credit Suisse and SVB had too many bonds and at that time the loss of value of these bonds were crippling them. At present no one really looked at this, even to debunk my train of thought and now we also see some are selling their debt of the US. The BBC touched on that on April 10th (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yrr0e7499o), so feel free to think I am crazy (always a decent stance to have) but there is ruffling in the economic oceans and the stage that the economic times are decently horrendous is not a bad thing. 

I just thought of something, did America rename the Gulf of Mexico for mining purposes? Now a bad stance, if it not for the tiny fact that the Bermuda Triangle is there too, as such how many mining platforms will operate in that region and what remains a few weeks later is anyones guess. Just me having fun with the situation. 😛

Have a great day and feel free to enjoy a coffee, it leaves you with a warmer feeling than a US bond at present will. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics, Science

Is it me?

This is a question we must all ask ourselves. In this case, it might be me. You see, I have issues with the CBC article (at https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-ontario-cities-aoda-1.7054848) where we see ‘Ontario cities need help — and cash — to meet 2025 accessibility deadline, advocates say’. There is (as I personally see it) a lot missing. The first thing I missed was ‘by 2025’, is that January 1st or December 31st? It is a serious question, the article does not bare that out (or was that bear that out)?

The second part is a partial setting. So when was this all agreed upon? Pre or post Covid. It might be well known, but the article should have given us that in stead of trying to find it. You see, pre Covid issues will have delays all off them (at least 90% off them) will face delays because the world has never faced covid before and Canada had a trucker issue as well. 

So when we get to “The city’s latest report on its accessibility progress listed 56 out of 63 of its accessibility goals as complete as of the end of 2022” I might not be up to speed on a few matters (as I am a little distant from Canada, yet in this 56 out of 63 is a decent achievement. The problem is that we see no timeline. So what timeframe were these 56 achievements gotten by? If it is one year it is awesome, when it has taken 10 years not that much greatness. But the article does not bare that out, does it? 

Then we get “In September, the TTC acknowledged 13 out of its 70 subway stations won’t meet the standards outlined in the AODA by 2025” I personally say that those without nuance will always slam, and advocates are really good at slamming, especially when they can ignore nuance. The other way around they are all about nuance, so go figure. There is also the missing part on why the TTC that 13 of its subway stations are missing these outlines standards. A list would have been helpful.

AODA
Now we need to look at a side of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA). I have nothing against it, I am all for such a setting even though it does not aid or help me. I recognise the stage it should protect. The fact is that I am a numbers man (data, not excel). So these 13 subway stations. What is missing and what size of ontarians are hurt because of it? It is a simple enough question. Now, this is not some kind of trivialisation. The numbers I am seeing are “The recent approximations show that there are estimated to be 382,700 deaf and 3,827,000 hard of hearing people in Canada (CAD, n.d., Malkowski, 2021). Out of these numbers, there are approximately 144,990 deaf and 1,449,000 hard of hearing Ontarians (Malkowski, 2021).” These are serious numbers. So how many blind? How many with mobility issues? More important what could be fixed? That 13 stations are missing out is one thing, how much they are missing out of is another and that too is not given to us. You see there are two kinds of people, the one whinges about everything, the other one tries to fix as much as possible and there is also a snag. Too much information is missing, the article does not bare out what could be fixed and how much more time is required? 

This is not an attack, but these are questions that should have been on the front of the mind of the chief editor of the CBC (I think that would be Brodie Fenlon), a mere simple setting we need to address. It is also a case that some subway stations have other constructions nearby which might have made issues more complex and Toronto is filled with construction tape and construction inhibitors all over the city. The final part is seen under a photograph. It is “The city of Toronto, along with other Ontario cities, needs more cash to help reach its accessibility goals faster” a simple setting that doesn’t get the attention it needs to have. So was it a budgeting issue, was it due to other factors? The more I look at the article, the more questions it raises and the first batch of questions goes straight to the CBC. Too much was missing here and the missing parts weren’t for a follow up. They should have placed it in this article.

This is how I see it and here I might be wrong. Too many people claiming to be journalists are blatantly dim on simple top-line graphics and numbers (or tables and charts) giving clarity where there clearly is none. So why was that?

Just a thought for Ontarians as they get through Sunday. Here it is Monday, so they could call me and ask what will happen tomorrow? A simply joke but it has me in stitches every time. In support of that, should I come to Toronto, I will be time travelling ;-).

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Look back in anger

We all face moments when we sort of lose it. I had that yesterday when I saw an article by the CBC. I learned a long time ago that I should not write from a setting of anger (it never ends well for the writer), so I parked the article until now and now is the time. I am still angry, but a lot less so, as such I feel certain I can give the little bastard tit-for-tat.

The article (at https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-war-us-cluster-bombs-1.6940961) gives us ‘U.S. provided Ukraine with cluster bombs to fight Russia. Survivors say they should never be used’ as a sentiment I cannot disagree, yet in this case Nick Logan (the bastard in question) is giving us a very one-sided non-informing setting. One view given to us is “Russian use has been extensive while Ukrainian use has been more limited. Neither Russia nor Ukraine are signatories of the of the 2008 convention limiting the use of cluster munitions”, and that is not all.

Another source gives us “Although the Russian side denies accusations of using cluster munitions in residential areas, international and non-governmental organisations have reported such attacks. By the beginning of April, Ukrainian law enforcement agencies were reporting cluster munition shelling in Kharkiv, Sumy, Kyiv, Donetsk, Odesa, Kherson and Mykolaiv regions. By July 1, Cluster Munition Coalition reports shelling in Dnipropetrovsk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, Luhansk, Mykolaiv, Odesa, Sumy, Kharkiv, Kherson and Chernihiv regions. Testimony from independent weapons experts confirmed that a number of cluster rounds were dropped on residential buildings and civilian infrastructure.” This comes as an amalgamation of sources which includes the Wall Street Journal, BBC News, the Guardian and the Monitor. As such, why is (what I regard to be a little shit like) Nick Logan diminishing the actions by Russia and mentioning Russia 16 times, but extremely often as a ‘victim’ all whilst Russia demolished most of the Ukraine, including Dnipropetrovsk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, Luhansk, Mykolaiv, Odesa, Sumy, Kharkiv, Kherson and Chernihiv regions and pretty much all of these regions whilst utilising cluster munition. Why is the article by Nick Logan falling short there? Russia is getting what it has served the citizens of Ukraine and that is the first thing that Nick Logan should have reported on. I get the sentiment that cluster munitions are horrible. War is horrible, yet the Ukraine did not start this and having someone making nice with Russia to THIS degree has no business being a reporter for CBC or a reporter for any Commonwealth nation for that matter. So when I look back in anger, I look towards the facilitation of a terrorist state by too many media sources. For that matter, how many corporations are still doing business with Russia? How many are Canadian (or Commonwealth for that matter) and how much longer will we allow people like Nick Logan making BS reports whilst facilitating for some terrorist state? According to several sources (see above) the Russians started using cluster munition in 2014. It was in July 2023 when we got told “John Kirby confirmed later on Thursday that Ukrainians forces have begun using the munitions.” That is almost 9 years later, but the CBC did not give us that, did they? They merely gave us “Police look at fragments of Russian rockets, including cluster rounds, that hit the Ukrainian city of Kharkiv on Dec. 3, 2022. In July, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Russia had a ‘sufficient stockpile’ of cluster munitions, warning it ‘reserves the right to take reciprocal action’ if Ukraine uses the controversial weapons provided by the U.S.” So, how deceptive was that part? How much reporting do we see that Russia used these cluster munitions from 2014 onwards? 

As such the next part is for Brodie Fenlon (editor of CBC). Brodie you have some fixing to do. This level of reporting is unacceptable. I expected the CBC to be better than this and it is up to you to fix this, no one else. It was allowed on your watch, you get to fix your watch (and your watchdogs). A massive injustice was done to the Ukraine and to your readers by allowing this hatchet job to become mainstream news. 

I think I got the anger out of my system, after I let it wind down a little. I let you decide to see if I was wrong or not. 

Enjoy the last day of the weekend.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics