Tag Archives: CNN

Speculation versus reality

That is what I am facing now. Yes, this article has massive speculations, that I will tell you upfront. The setting we usually see is that the media (with better sources than me) will give a more realistic view and that is how it USED to be. Yet in this day and age, the media has (as I personally see it) become the play tool of stakeholders and that means we do not get the news, we get filtered information, but filtered in what way? 

This setting started yesterday when I got confronted with ‘A source close to the family of Saad al-Jabri reveals to CNN the details of the settlement with Mohammed bin Salman’ (at https://www.dubaiweek.ae/a-source-close-to-the-family-of-saad-al-jabri-reveals-to-cnn-the-details-of-the-settlement-with-mohammed-bin-salman/) the weird part is that this is the Dubai Week, CNN has NOTHING. This is about Saad bin Khalid Al Jabri. In addition we are given “in a statement to CNN, said the White House Arranges for the meeting The meeting between US President Joe Biden and the Saudi prince is likely to take place next month. He pointed out that attempts to organise the meeting came amid a number of controversies, such as the assassination of Jamal Kashoki and the al-Jafri case. Sources said al-Jabri had recently told the White House that he would settle all legal and financial disputes with Saudi Arabia if he returned his two sons.” As such I wonder what is real. The Dubai Times gives us “US President Joe Biden” instead of US President Biden. As well as “the Saudi prince”, which prince exactly? Then we see “assassination of Jamal Kashoki” instead of ‘alleged assassination of Jamal Khashoggi’? You might remember the columnist no one cares about, his name was Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi. My first question becomes, who is this clown Bill Dittman? What gave the editor of this magazine the idea that this was journalism? Then we get “the al-Jafri case” named after Saad bin Khalid Al Jabri, when we try to name our expected traitors and alleged thieves, can we at least get some part right?

So far the Dubai Times is not impressing anyone with minimal fact requirements. Then the use of the CNN logo and the mention of CNN the way they did gives a massive question on the quality of news people are exposed to and as we see one paragraph of what ails the media, we also need to consider the fact that CNN did not allegedly state anything against this article. 

And I almost fell for it, I almost fell for the fact that this is not journalism, so how many do fall for it and how many who read the Dubai Times and do not have the knowledge of multiple languages. How many will fall for fake news? And then we have “he would settle all legal and financial disputes with Saudi Arabia if he returned his two sons.” Apart form the bad English, the setting is larger. He is accused of stealing a lot more than $990,000,000 (exact amount unknown to me). More important the US government (CIA) has been protecting him, they went so far to play the national security card to avoid evidence being shown. This is one of the larger amount of issues that President Biden is facing. He wants cheap oil, but his administration keeps on messing with the basic rights of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as well as give shelter to expected traitors and alleged thieves. At what point does he expect to have a chance in this? 

We have all kinds of options, but they are drawn to the facts and what we believe, when the media plays these games what is fact becomes debatable and the amount of options that we trust and expect diminish into nothing. Don’t get me wrong there is no way that the Dubai Times is alone in this, yet the others are more subtle, more careful. They filter what we see and make the filtering smaller until only one side remains. It is a game that has been played for the longest of times, yet in this day and age, in the age where digital media is the choice of many and industrials are setting the digital voice, that stage becomes overwhelmingly large and at some point no one will be able to differentiate between the sources. That is how I see it. So in this case, how far did speculation, presumption and reality get transgressed on?

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

As the swarm settles

It has been hours since the Netflix scare. And a few hours after that, less then 10 hours after I wrote the previous article, we get to see ‘CNN streaming service to shut a month after launch’ the article (source: BBC) also gives us “Warner Bros Discovery (WBD) says it will issue refunds to subscribers after the service is shut down on 30 April. The head of CNN+ has resigned and hundreds more workers could be at risk of losing their jobs. CNN+ was launched on 29 March in an attempt to bring in revenues from news streaming subscriptions”, we can see this in a few ways. Yet in this I personally believe that saturation is part of the issue and it will not go away. The others will feel the brunt. Netflix will bounce in part back, Disney will take a hit, but these two are too big to fail drastically, the smaller ones will take larger hits as CNN+ is doing and some of them will not survive. What I stated some time ago is now coming to pass. I wonder if I was right in the thought that smaller could survive if they would merge. The idea that smaller would combine their channels and subscriptions is a little bit extreme, but it beats being dead, does it not?

Yet there is more underfoot. There is ‘Cinedigm’s DMR Unveils Cinehouse – A Curated Lineup of Free Streaming Channels for Superfans’ (Source: Accesswire) where we see “Digital media and entertainment company DMR, is letting fans stream their favourite niche channels with the launch of Cinehouse. A wholly-owned subsidiary of Cinedigm (NASDAQ:CIDM), DMR is unveiling this new free ad-supported streaming television (FAST) service to super-serve enthusiast fan bases across several popular genres.” You can take these thoughts in many ways but when I see “Cinehouse is dedicated to bringing fans the best movies and TV shows from around the world – from ancient mysteries and heart-stopping action, to classic anime, comedy, gaming, K-pop and more.” I personally believe that some are dropping small channels with ‘free’ materials to subvert the populations requiring free options to make them unavailable. A bait to get rid of the smaller fish and clean the pond, decrease saturation levels by getting rid of the opposition. It is a personal believe and I might be wrong, but we see new free channels after the drowning of CNN+?

The swarms seem to settle and some are playing the free card to take out the competition. It is one thought and my thought could be way off and massively wrong, but when you see one source that can verify the setting that the rest ‘seems’ to overlook, my wandering lobe starts to take a look at the information others leave lying round and this is where it got me. Is it me, or not?

I will let you decide.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media

Ding, ding, prices are going up

After I wrote ‘A symphony in only two parts?’ (At https://lawlordtobe.com/2022/03/16/a-symphony-in-only-two-parts/) two articles appeared (might have been more, but these two lighted up). The first one is from a place called oilprice dot com. The article (at https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Saudi-Arabia-Considers-Ditching-The-Dollar-For-Chinese-Oil-Sales.html) gives us ‘Saudi Arabia Considers Ditching The Dollar For Chinese Oil Sales’ with the added “According to the report, the talks with China over yuan-priced oil contracts have been off and on for six years but have accelerated this year as the Saudis have grown increasingly unhappy with decades-old U.S. security commitments to defend the kingdom.” OK, that is fine, but I reckon the way Crown prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud has been treated by some will not have helped. Moreover if China sets the barricades of pushing forward and aiding SAMI in getting the internal growth desired these pushes might come to fruition. We are also given “China buys more than 25% of the oil that Saudi Arabia exports, and if priced in yuan, those sales would boost the standing of China’s currency, and set the Chinese currency on a path to becoming a global petroyuan reserve currency.” I feel uncertain to answer that part, but consider that there is a limit to oil, consider that China will request not the 25% they get now, but 30%, with an overcapacity of amount X, now consider that Saudi Arabia (ARAMCO) does that and therefor the US (and west) will now receive 5% minus X less. Prices will skyrocket. More importantly in the last hours we saw ‘Boris Johnson Visits U.A.E., Saudi Arabia, Seeking More Oil’ and here too we see the British PM go home without any commitments, CNN even gives us ‘Biden demands faster drop in gas prices as oil tumbles’, so where is he going to demand that from? Russia? Venezuela? UAE? Saudi Arabia? The man who was desperately outspoken about making Crown prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud a pariah is now telling that same person to drop prices? Man does karma suck and then some? We see the stage of painful karma in article one, but why article two? That is seen as we contemplate the title ‘Saudi Arabia’s Oil-For-Yuan Bid Won’t Threaten the Dollar’ (at https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-03-16/saudi-arabia-s-oil-for-yuan-proposal-won-t-threaten-the-dollar) it is a good and decent piece, but an opinion piece none the less. There we get “Is there a situation more absurd than two of the world’s most dollar-dependent economies promising to free themselves from the exorbitant burden of the dollar?” I believe that a few gaps are there. This is no longer a ‘too big too fail’ market. The US has a debt surpassing $30,000,000,000,000 and that debt is growing by billions a day. In addition in this economy that is picking itself up fuel prices could (could being the operative word) go up by 20% before October and then winter comes. You all watched the income of dreaded winter in Game of Thrones, now you get to see it in your neighbourhood (if you are north enough to see it for yourself). So the quote “it’s inevitable that the perennial chatter about the yuan challenging the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency should be revived. Such talk has always been fanciful — but it’s even more unlikely right now.” The man is not incorrect, but these talks have been going on for 6 years and in that time the largest one has surpassed a point of no return point in debts, and number two and three (EU and Japan) are not that far behind, they will take extensive damage if the dollar topples. Yes, we all here that noise “It will never happen” but really? How much debt will that take and when it happens, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will have to do whatever is best for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The writer then gives us “The yuan punches far below its weight in terms of foreign exchange transactions, and the dollar punches above its weight” which to some degree gives us that Saudi Arabia might consider it and when the oil shortages start adding up, that move of Saudi Arabia solidifying longer and stronger walls with China the stage is partially set. Life in the US and EU will become unbearably hard. Even now Japan is trying to set up new stimulus packages and we saw how great that was for the EU, trillions in added debt and no restarted economy. Ad there is a direct link in support between the US, EU and Japan. So when these support structures collapse we see a sort of house of cards impact and that affects the global economy, no matter how you want to present that picture. Consider the simple stage of California. In Los Angeles fuel costs $5.876, now consider adding 20% to that, all whilst life in Los Angeles (all over California) is as expensive as it ever was. With the shortage of drivers and deliveries that market will sure to set a few more stages. In 11 districts in California fuel prices are (presently) the highest ever, so add 20% to that? You think it is impossible? Think again. The Middle East has given NO guarantees that there will be more fuel, it basically has no interest to do that, or to lower prices and around the corner is China enjoying the commercial stage the US (EU too) pushed themselves in and they get to direct the fallout of that setting. 

Now, there needs the be a clear message. “I could be wrong” an educated guess remains a guess, yet what I found is coming from decent sources and because the writers do not want to look into the dark corner does not mean that dark corner goes away, it merely means that whatever comes from there will come less expected and hits the people squarely on the jaw. And the setting that we see now has been growing month after month for about 2-3 years. So the people in that corner WANT this to happen. Like myself they are hoping for that fat bonus and some of them have received guarantees (I did not) So the people pushing this have an interest to push this. I do not care that much unless the 3.75% bonus comes my way. At that point I would state ‘Push all you want’ because that too is the result of a commerce based world and now the inhumane setting of that becomes clear. The US never cared when they got to call the shots, but that is now no longer the case is it? So when we see a president giving CNN ‘Biden demands faster drop in gas prices as oil tumbles’, they seemingly forget that oil prices were dropping when there was still supply at a higher price and there is a decent chance that these prices will go back up before those reserves are completely gone. And when they are gone oil volatility will hit American households all over (EU too). The dream of every family it own car will be to live in a stage of perpetual work at home because the people cannot afford to go to the office and then reality comes calling double quick. So perhaps yes, I do hope I get my bonus, if only to retire with a will to live and I am not alone in that setting. There are millions like me all over the world. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

And so it begins

We all have sides, and we all have sides we tend to look less at. There is no exclusion, no even me. I try to always take the bigger picture in view, but at times I too fail to do that and today might be such a time. So if you have objections, you might be right. It all started a little over an hour ago when I took notice of ‘CNN denies Australians access to its Facebook pages, cites defamation risk’ (at https://www.reuters.com/technology/cnn-quits-facebook-australia-citing-defamation-risk-2021-09-29/), on one side I am in a state of ‘Who the fuck cares?’, on the other side I am wondering why someone would take the stage to this degree? You see, we take notice of “after a court ruled that publishers can be liable for defamation in public comment sections and the social media firm refused to help it disable comments in the country”, so what happens when the public comments commence in http://www.cnn.com? The newsagent does have a website and lets face it, social media is not a place for news, it is a place for flames to bolster engagement, as such the part of “the social media firm refused to help it disable comments in the country” makes perfect sense. News leads to flames, flames leads to engagement and engagement leads to additional advertisement revenue which is the bread and butter of Facebook. I for one do not consider Facebook any kind of place for news, and if there is any, it is not place to comment there, I have a blog that does that and if there is a real reason to directly offer issues, they have an editorial and they have an email address (which tends to lead to the circular archive system). Flames are not now and mostly not ever useful, it only propagates the limelight of ones own ego.

So as we take notice of “defamation lawyers accusing Australia of not keeping up with technological change and noting the contrast with the United States and Britain where laws largely protect publishers from any fallout from comments posted online”, my issue here is that the posters of comments are also absent of accountability and there is a problem there. With “Australia is currently reviewing its defamation laws but in the meantime, other global news organisations, especially those that feel they can easily live without an Australian Facebook audience” we do see a truth, there is no need for ANY newsagent to be on Facebook, but that stifles the revenue of Facebook, does it not? And it is true, the world does not need the 25,000,000 people in Australia. Facebook has close to 3,000,000,000 members (read; near active accounts), so 25 million are not much of a dent, but it is a beginning. There is an upside for all newspapers to move away from Facebook, there is a downside as well. You see one place to flame all is a setting that rarely ever will lead to anything positive, but the newsagents all tend to think that it leads to revenue and for a few at times it might but there is a reason why I check WWW.BBC.CO.UK, theguardian.com, www.ft.com, www.reuters.com, www.aljazeera.com on a nearly daily basis and there are a few more (ABC, SBS, Arab News), you see the papers are still in levels of problems, the papers have to deal with bias, political siding, stakeholders and a few more and as I see the same article on a few sites I get a better view of the issue (that is when they do not directly copy and paste from Reuters). But I digress, it is about CNN and here we see that Reuters have two more gems to offer. The first is “We are disappointed that Facebook, once again, has failed to ensure its platform is a place for credible journalism and productive dialogue around current events among its users,” this from my point of view two issues, one is that Facebook is not a place for credible journalism, no matter how you slice it. Too many are in a stage to get traction and visitor revenue through flaming and through the incitement of flaming. And the second part is ‘productive dialogue’, there is no way in my mind that ANYTHING on Facebook will lead to that unless it is a closed circle of personal friends and family. The second gem is “defamation lawyers accusing Australia of not keeping up with technological change and noting the contrast with the United States and Britain”. It is a gem because it raises a few issues. It is not about technological change, it is about accountability. And we see close to nothing on that front from either the USA or the UK for that matter. There is also a larger stage that adhering to this on a much larger stage is a problem. Even though I will oppose the news mummy (Rupert Murdoch) on nearly every front, because I believe that he lost the plot on news and he is too much about flames and revenue (which is not entirely wrong for him). In this, the danger of flames depending issues and people, the danger becomes the house catches fire and that is not a good thing (newspapers burn really well). 

Until there is a real stage where the people on social media get hauled towards accountability this stage will not change and Facebook does not want change. The newspapers are close to zero in their consideration. It is about engagement to sell advertisement and so far Facebook has the upper hand. This is not meant good or bad, it is their business model and it works for them, yet over the years we see media look at places like Facebook and they all wonder if they can tap into this, First Google search, now Facebook and soon they will move beyond Twitter. Where next? Who can tell. Yet the Murdochs and Murdoch wannabe’s will continue because their newspapers are founded on the need to entice the people to flame, they have been at it for a long time in many places. So when Australia held Facebook liable Facebook closed the tap and they are entitled doing so. As such it is not “Facebook, once again, has failed to ensure its platform is a place for credible journalism and productive dialogue”, it is “Posters need to be held accountable for what they post, including posters of comments” and the law in many many nations are not ready or prepared to do that. Too many places rely on flames of all kinds. It is time to recognise that part of the equation.

In this consider a UK setting. In the first we see a statement (wiki) “The Daily Mirror, founded in 1903, is a British national daily tabloid-sized newspaper that is considered to be engaged in tabloid-style journalism”, here we see two parts ‘newspaper’, as well as ‘engaged in tabloid-style journalism’. Yet in another source we see “largely sensationalist journalism (usually dramatised and sometimes unverifiable or even blatantly false)” and it is a stage we see far too often. So in addition we have an image.

With the text “Big Brother’s Grace and Mikey expecting fourth child and say people think they are mad”, so it is a story about people, a woman who willingly received a penis into her vagina with a long term gift (36 weeks later). Now, I am happy for her, but is it news? This is not royalty, or people with global impact. And this is on the FRONT PAGE of the Daily Mirror (website), this is news? And here the problem starts, we agree that CNN is real news but the ledge that separates them from a place like the Daily Mirror is too small, moreover on places like Facebook too many people cannot tell the difference. In all this the one element (not) overlooked is the need for (actual) Newspapers to find ways to grow revenue, I do not oppose that, the problem is that other ways need to be found and in This they will find a better venue talking to places like Google then Facebook and that is before we see a new social media side in Amazon, because that option is mere inches away. 

When the people start realising that Facebook lost the edge is had, when they realise that true social media comes from places like https://cocoon.com Facebook will get hit after hit and there the people will be able to set a stage for what some spokespeople call ‘productive dialogue’, Google might have shut down its plus side, but it opens the realm for Amazon 

So it begins and it did not start in Australia, it did not start in censorship it started with the realisation that there is nothing to be gotten from flaming, there almost never was and that realisation will cause the loss of revenue in plenty of places.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Politics

When perception is the brand

Yes, this sounds confusing, but it actually is not. It started with a simple article on the BBC, the article ‘Chloe Khan and Jodie Marsh rapped by watchdog’ caught me by surprise. The idea was given to me “The Advertising Standards Authority has named and shamed four influencers it said repeatedly failed to disclose when their Instagram posts were actually advertisements”, now I do not are about influencers, I tend to stay away from them and I do not use instagram. But the people that do follow these influencer tend to do so for very specific reasons. It comes to blows (to coin a phrase) when we compare this to Twitter. So when we see these two tweets, we do see the ‘promoted’ mention at the VERY bottom and these pages go towards photo’s and text surrounded by massive amounts of advertisement, some of these providers will try to get one photo per page with a next mention and the next page will show you even more advertisements. So is this not deceptive? What is the setting of the Advertising Standards Authority at that point? Is the creation of what I call ‘click bitches’ not deceptive? This has been going on for years, the in game advertisements on Android, and iOS devices have all kinds of deceptions, what have they achieved there? 

And now we get to the first part, when is perception the brand. What is the perception? Are the tweets safe? Is the word ‘promoted’ enough? When we look at “Promoted Tweets are ideal when you want to increase your Twitter audience reach and engagement. When you have a big announcement, a new blog post, a marketing campaign, or an upcoming event you’d like to reach more people than you would organically, Promoted Tweets is the better strategy. This is because your Promoted Tweets will appear in users’ live feeds and search results” we see and accept that, yet when we see promotion emphasised by large breasts, is it advertisement, or deceptive conduct? Some people might not be able to tell the difference, and I believe that it becomes more and more about the ambiguity of perception. So, as such is the ‘shaming of people like Chloe Khan and Jodie Marsh warranted? As the Advertising Standards Authority is failing people, millions of people on Twitter, on iOS and Android games, is going after smaller players not merely hypocritical? As such, is the advertisement of 23 camping pictures deceptive? Perhaps the overload of advertisements is merely a side effect? As such, does the inability to act against Twitter, Facebook and Mobiles games not merely make the act against the influencers slightly overkill? And all this is before we take notice of “The ASA was responding to the #filterdrop campaign that called for it to be compulsory for influencers to state when they use a beauty filter to promote skincare or cosmetics”, this is what magazines have been doing for years, where was the Advertising Standards Authority then? 

It all takes another turn when we take a look at the freedom of speech, this is shown in the last tweet. 

First of all, the person gives the names and they are seemingly correct, but it is “Given that anti-rationality, anti civil rights (anti-woke) channel GB News is losing major advertisers already, due to the crap they are peddling, suggest some alternative advertisers” that makes me wonder. You see filtered information is handed to us by the bulk of the news channels. The evasion of news regarding Houthi missile and drone attacks against Saudi civilian targets is the most visible one, but not the only one. If the left filters to the left, is the right not allowed to filter to the right? And so far I saw three GB news articles on Youtube there was a view I might not agree with, but should they be attacked as such? So when we are given “I’m excited to tackle difficult subjects with voices you haven’t heard before”, so what is the problem here? And GB News matters, you see perception comes in two sizes, the perception we see and detect and the one that sneaks up unnoticed, but they are both filter forms that aid the perception that the transmitter wants to give us, so where these advertisers leaving through peer pressure, or is there a case of actual evidence? Consider that Andrew Neil has been working as a journalist since 1973, meaning he optionally has more experience than the sum of some news channel cast members. In addition, when we see “due to the crap they are peddling”, do you think that other breakfast TV shows are not peddling crap? Is one side better than the other? No, I do not think so, but there is a chance that if both exist I might get a decent balanced central view. In the end this is not merely about the news, you see if it was about the news, people would simply not watch it and if no one watches it the channel dies, but there is a larger need, the need for advertisers and there is the crux, saturation demands that advertisers choose where they are and they are wherever the masses are, the Express gives us “Despite the complaints from some viewers regarding the sound, the show pulled in thousands of viewers as according to BARB data, 164,500 people tuned in to watch between 7pm and 11pm on Sunday night”, which accompanies ‘Launch show beats BBC and Sky despite ‘technical difficulties’’ and that would scare any news channel, the fact that there might be a market for GB News and that is where these advertisers are soon to be, where do I get the best reach? It is a business decision and that decision is what other media fear, Fox grew to greatness and the news channels are scared of that, and whilst they TOO adhere to shareholders, stake holders and advertisers. The bulk of the advertisers can only afford one place, not all places and that is the fear of filtered information. The news is too much on shareholders and stake holders, all whilst the advertisers play (at times) a dubious role in this setup. Am I a fan of GB News? I do not know, I have not been able to make up my mind yet. I get it, a 24 hour channel needs it human interest stories, but when I see news of a cremated cat, I wonder who will cover the Yemen events. Consider that the BBC gave us on the 8th of March “The UN says the war has caused created the world’s worst humanitarian crisis and caused an estimated 233,000 deaths”, yet the UN gave us on December 1st 2020 “UN humanitarian office puts Yemen war dead at 233,000”, so do you think that in 4 months in slaughterhouse Yemen ZERO deaths occurred over a period of 4 months, or is someone not doing their job? And when we realise the answer to that, do you really think I give a toss on the premise of a cremated cat from either GB News, Fox News, CNN, BBC, Channel 7, Channel 9, Sky News, ITV, CNN, Euronews, or CNBC? You have got to be joking. Does it make GB News bad, lousy or useless? No, but they are slightly to the right and the left does not tolerate any channel on that side of the aisle, they thought that Fox News was enough, but if Andrew Neil gets his way, the European channels will get nervous soon enough and no matter what the advertisers do, when someone bails ship others will try to get a slightly sweeter deal, when that comes out GB News will get its share of advertisers, I have no doubt, what remains is the perception created and it takes a little more time to see how GB News will fare and how the people will perceive it.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

In speculation

It is a weird day, for me it started on Friday when the news on several grounds reached me, it is a version that we are our own worst enemy and now in a stage of polarisation, as well as the call from bullies, the USA now faces a unique situation, in this stage the end of the Republican Party comes soon and a lot faster than you think. It will not end the Republican thinking, I myself am a republican in mind and body. But the party committed suicide, it did so in the most stupid way possible. It followed a false prophet (Donald Trump) and decided to block the DC Riot investigations. 

What comes next?
That is a question that is a lot more interesting than you would guess. You see the true Republican mind is not gone, it is still there in people like Mitt Romney and Liz Cheney. It will only take these two to start to create an independent party, something like ‘True Republicans’ and the field is set. The GOP would lose no less than 14% and it could go initially as high as 38%, that first stage will deprive the GOP of winning again for decades to come and as people anger over the riots, and the seemingly involvement of a man who should be seen as a sore loser (Donald Trump) and was unable to face the words he spoke so often “You’re Fired!”, that person is the focal point of stupid allegiance. A person that has staged the blocking of his own tax returns, who made typo after typo, a person who cannot stand levels of criticism (The room where it happened), that person was the ‘golden boy’ of the extreme right and now the invoice is due. 

Liz Cheney

So when we look at meme after meme on 35 republicans, who voted against the January 6th commission, they are the cause of Republican anger and they will end the GOP. Even as CNN gave us two days ago ‘McConnell doubles down to pressure Republicans, asking for ‘a personal favor’ to block January 6 commission’, we see the first setting where the GOP has lost it. If True Republicans hold a stage and get the other 6 to join them, the GOP is pretty much done for. 

It is a stage where the media will bash the 35 republicans again and again, all whilst these dissenting views are up against thousands of images showing that this was not some tourist thing, it was a stampede where the protecting stampede walked into DC, seemingly ‘non-violent’ relying on the strength of threat and the imposing pressure of a mass. The GOP did the most stupid thing possible, they grouped behind a false prophet, didn’t their bibles teach them anything? Matthew 7:15 should have given them “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves”, and that is what we have seen in one sitting of Donald Trump, ho is now silently ending the GOP, optionally to blame them for it all. Yet those with true Republican feelings should not despair, should the forming of True Republicans become a reality, we will see that there is time to stop some nanny state change, there is time to replace 35 senators who gave away civil duty and common sense and at that moment people like Mitch McConnell will need funds to start an Uber franchise or a barber shop. They will be done in politics and with him people like Rubio, Scott, Sullivan, and Tillis can write their resume all hoping to score the same ‘expert voice’ in some talk show. It does make for an interesting stage, this would be the optional setting where Liz Cheney becomes the first Female President in 2028 (2024 is nice, but not realistic), so not a democratic president, but a republican one will be the first woman in the highest office on the planet. She got their by holding onto the true values of a republican, which also requires decency and common sense to step in.

I am not writing off Mitch Romney, but with Liz Cheney the women’s vote becomes a larger support pillar and that matters. So when we consider the independent parties, only John Tyler (10th) was initially Whigg (Democratic opposers), and became unaffiliated, the only other one is one you might remember, it was the first president George Washington who was not aligned to either side, optionally because he was the first. And now we see that optionally the 47th president might be not just a female president, but an unaffiliated one. Yes, this is all speculation, but it is an option, and the media is flaming the DC riots at any stage they can, as such the Republicans and its 35 idiots are fighting an uphill battle and the people with a true republican mindset have seen enough stupidity to last them a lifetime.

Am I right, am I wrong? Time will tell, and I reckon it will be sooner rather than later.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

The lies we are told

You might get it (you might not). The media lies to us, they lie pretty much all the time, but they have engaged in an act whilst they hide behind the truth, is showing a one sided coin more or less of a lie than implying it to be valid currency? This is more clearly seen 6 days ago when Al Jazeera, the LA Times and AP News gave us 6 days ago a clear issue I saw 10 days ago, they created a wave and for 4 days they let it simmer, and now they have the sheep they needed, but I reckon that it will soon backfire. I gave 10 days ago in the article ‘Silent Screamers’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/05/16/silent-screamers/), so am I so much more intelligent that I saw clear questions arrive FOUR DAYS before so called journalists? I know I am in many ways more intelligent, but am I more clever, wiser? I do not think so, but it is not for me to say, self monitored wisdom is not too clever and often extremely unreliable. 

So when we look at the article (at https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-05-20/hamas-amass-arsenal-rockets-strike-israel) we see the clear headline ‘How Hamas amassed thousands of rockets to strike at Israel’, there we see “In the fourth war between Israel and Gaza’s Hamas rulers, the Islamic militant group has fired more than 4,000 rockets at Israel, some hitting deeper inside Israeli territory and with greater accuracy than ever before”, I find the stage of ‘with greater accuracy’ a bit debatable, but that is merely me. So whilst we get a nuanced history lesson that is useless, we get in the end “Today, most of the rockets we’re seeing are domestically built, often with creative techniques”, the ultimate lie. Now, I am not debating that this happens to some degree, but 4,000 missiles requires a large created factory, it needs a massive electronic stage as well as the ground resources for explosives for 4,000 missiles and precisely created tubing, are you catching on? So whilst Al Jazeera gives us ‘Palestinian solidarity rallies around the world’, it is done by people who are not told the whole truth, the media decided on that. Over the last weeks whole ranges of media was eager to emphasise on the Israeli (IDF) strikes, and trivialise the response and the initial startup act of missiles. But the math is (decently) clear 4,000 missiles is around 30 forty foot containers filled to the brink of missiles. You think that the ‘most of the rockets we’re seeing are domestically built, often with creative techniques’ statement holds value? So whilst Andy Rain gives us an image with “Supporters of Palestine attend a demonstration in central London, UK”, did anyone truly look at the elements? Did you actually believe that Palestine has the space and the infrastructure to build 4,000 missiles? Was it suddenly more digestible through ‘with greater accuracy’? Consider the elements.

In the first the media avoided looking into the missiles and more important trivialised rockets fired.

In the second, a blogger (me) got there 4 days ahead of these so called super intelligent papers?

In the third, when we see the LA Times give us “Hamas has unveiled new weapons, including attack drones, unmanned submarine drones dispatched into the sea and an unguided rocket called Ayyash with a 155-mile range”, a stage where Hamas has a weapons research infrastructure? How much more do you need to see that Hamas is merely the puppet of Iran? How much more destabilisation will we globally see and witness before the lazy fat assed overpaid politicians will make ACTUAL moves? Consider these questions and seek out answers. I am not telling you to believe my word, seek out the evidence and make up your own mind. YouTube, the internet gives you most of the evidence. The BBC, Al Jazeera, LA Times, Washington Post, CNN, NY Times and Boston Globe will complete the package. A stage we allowed for, a stage we catered to and now we sleep with the stage we avoided to look into.

Have a great day!

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics

When anger wins

We all have that moment, some call it ‘enough is enough’, others refer to ‘the straw that broke the camels back’, we have all kind of expressions, but in reality anger took the forefront of the debate and emotions run high, so whilst we get the view (by Al Jazeera) ‘Houthis say they attacked Aramco, Patriot targets in Saudi Arabia’, all whilst CNN, BBC, and a whole range of sources are quiet, in a stage where we get the news from merely Al Jazeera and Bloomberg. The other players were not that quiet when it concerned a journalist no one cares about, they were all screaming then. So this was my moment of anger, if news has to be filtered to this degree, it is time to set the  premise to a different scope. This first weapon system I designed (to sink the Iranian navy) is now public domain and in the hands of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the next step will be a new weapon that can meltdown the Iranian nuclear reactors. The hack that (allegedly) Mossad did was nice, but soon Iran will figure out how to set the nuclear reactors to closed systems with two separate systems with people at both ends and that ends the hack option, but I am still here, so a weapon (based on a novelty snow globe), should (in theory) create a nice and solemn Chernobyl reactor setting and it should work on most reactors, well at least the Russian reactors. I am nothing if not creative and I personally do not think anyone had considered that approach, so my science teacher in secondary school was right, I will not grow up to be any good, but I was preceded in this by most media and most politicians, so I am apparently in good company if I get to hell. 

At times anger gets to win, there is no other way, it brings to mind an old saying ‘Change is valuable, it lets the oppressed be tyrants’ and most of us have had enough of the current tyrants, even if we live in a golden cage. Yet I see no other option but the make matters worse, perhaps it will wake up the media and as they have to explain the essential need of share holders and stake holders, take notice of ‘their’ essential need. We wanted the news, we wanted all the news, but the share holders and stake holders did not agree, so I decided to pave the way for them to take the front seat in the limelight. It is not subtle, it is not a decent approach, but it was the only one left to me. 

You might oppose and that is fine, but consider all the actions that Iran was behind in the last two years and the amount of actions that somehow never reached many of the western media, now also take into consideration all the transgression Houthi forces did in Yemen, whilst we got one sided news on the actions of Saudi Arabia, how long do we tolerate a corrupt media circus? That is how I see it, filtered news is a form of corruption. I personally see no other way to interpret this.

It is my view and optionally my flaw as well, but as I said, as some point anger takes over and in that stage anything can happen, the media banked on that premise too often, but did they ever consider the fact what happens when that premise goes into another direction?

So, my weekend will be a weird one, but an essential one.

Have a great weekend.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Science

Pirates of a feather

For me this is a little new ground, until recently I was not aware of the ability to speak ‘Parler’, as I see it, they refined it from Parley, which comes from the French ‘Parler’ meaning ‘to speak’. The event was set to “a discussion or conference, especially one designed to end an argument or hostilities between two groups of people”, as such I was aware of the term, but not the setting that President Trump uses. CNN (at https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/15/media/rebekah-mercer-parler/index.html) gave us a little while ago ‘Meet Rebekah Mercer, the deep-pocketed co-founder of Parler, a controversial conservative social network’, and the co-founder to Cambridge Analytica and a few others, so when I saw the Cambridge link, I wondered what data Parler is capturing. This is added in other ways too, but let’s keep to the CNN story for now. And when the article start with the quote “John and I started Parler to provide a neutral platform for free speech, as our founders intended, and also to create a social media environment that would protect data privacy”, all whilst another source gives us “journalists and users have criticised the service for content policies that are more restrictive than the company portrays and sometimes more restrictive than those of its competitors” (source: Washington Post July 2020), and it basically goes from bad to worse. That is given with the quote “The ever increasing tyranny and hubris of our tech overlords demands that someone lead the fight against data mining, and for the protection of free speech online. That someone is Parler, a beacon to all who value their liberty, free speech, and personal privacy.”” And let not forget that this comes from the co-founder of Cambridge Analytica. I still wonder what Parler was capturing, especially with the restrictive rules in place. And if these restrictions were limited to the stage of “But Parler is quickly discovering the limits of free expression. On June 30, Matze used Parler to explain its house rules, apparently frustrated with some of Parler’s new users testing the limits of its free-expression motto by posting pornographic images and obscenities”, I believe that this is up for debate. So even as I take notice of “Wernick wrote a Fox News opinion piece in support of Parler this month, saying Twitter and Facebook are using “technology intended to liberate, instead to subjugate”, I wonder what we will learn when we make a cross section of those on Parler AND on 4Chan, I even wonder if the FBI is not already on this. You see, there is a problem with ‘philanthropists’, the true philanthropist not, but the stage we see “Robert Mercer, who helped oversee Renaissance Technologies hedge fund, and his wife Diane, donated more than $23 million to groups that backed conservative candidates, according to a tally by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics”, in light of Cambridge Analytica, I am still in the personal opinion, that these people would not set $23,000,000 out in the open, unless they can bank at least double that, and with them owning Renaissance Technologies hedge fund, I feel certain I am right. The power of $110,000,000,000 reaches far and too many want scraps from that table of plenty. In this I wonder if Parler is a way to identify and unify the scattered right, it is not a bad plan, if they succeed they have the means to oppose the Democratic side of things to a much larger extent than anyone is willing to give them credit for.

Even as the Wall Street Journal (at https://www.wsj.com/articles/parler-backed-by-mercer-family-makes-play-for-conservatives-mad-at-facebook-twitter-11605382430) gives us ‘Parler Makes Play for Conservatives Mad at Facebook, Twitter’, I believe this goes deeper. Even as the blinker are attached with “After The Wall Street Journal reported on the Mercers’ ties with Parler, Chief Executive John Matze confirmed that Ms. Mercer was the lead investor in the company at its outset and said that her backing was dependent on the platform allowing users to control what they see”, the seting given to us in the beginning, gives us a different tory, and when ‘allowing users to control what they see’ falls away, the one important part remains is identity, when you look in the past, no one has tried to unify the extreme right, there is every chance that the Mercer family see the power and the massive amount of gains that this optionally brings. It took me less than a day to figure out the parts that the media was so eager not to mention, I wonder who else is on tht train, actually, I believe that they all are, even big tech. I expect that they too want the bucket of gold at the and of that nightmare rainbow, and Mercer might have gotten way more than double the investment on that 23 million dollar train, if he unites the right wing and far right wing, the democrats have much to be worried about, they have been used to a scattered opponent in the last 25 years, a unified one is an opponent that they haven’t faced before. And as I see it, the Mercer family is at the speculated centre of all that. 

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Politics

Choice, can you choose?

Yes, we have that. Can we choose, can we not? It is not really our fault, until there was streaming we had it all (to some degree) and now, in the streaming universe, can we actually make that decision? Netflix, Disney Plus, Apple TV, Google TV, Sony Core, Canal Plus, HBO, Stan, if we chose them all, we are looking at around $100 per month, the bulk of all people cannot afford that, so they must chose. In that setting it pretty much sets the global population to Netflix and/or Disney Plus. That was before the price hike, there is every indication that we alternate the subscription or choose one, optionally two out of the eight. In all this Google TV is the odd duck,. It is a pricey $65 a month, making it immediately unaffordable for a lot of people at present, yet for that price you get 65 channels including CNN, ESPN and Nickelodeon. It basically becomes a global contender to Canal Plus and that is not all. If Google takes the quick road as Sky Channel did around 1989 in the Netherlands, they could get a much better solution. The Dutch (read: Rotterdam) were all charged via their energy bill but for a mere $5 a month, but that gave the people 12 channels overnight, and when you hand the solution over to a million subscribers you have wiggle space. Yet in that setting where will Netflix, Disney Plus and the others fall? It could change streaming overnight and the partnership that Google TV has with Sony implies that Google TV will be in too many houses with a Sony TV soon enough. So as 2021 will shake the streaming industry to its foundation, I wonder what will happen to Netflix at that point as it has invested well over $100 billion in its services. This is by no setting the end of Netflix, it’s pricing is affordable as long as there is one and Netflix does have a lot more, but what happens when Disney Strikes a deal with Google TV as well? That is a setting that Netflix is not ready for and they do not have the capital to change the venue as they currently have it. 

I cannot give you answers, I d not have any, but there is clarity that there will be a larger first strike streaming war, and as I see it, Stan does not have much of a chance to survive it, Canal Plus will take a massive hit as well, they have the benefit that they are cheaper, but only half the amount of channels, when they add the 5 movie channels the price is almost even. Yes, I reckon that 2021 will be a slaughterfest on streaming players and there is no real winner in sight, or perhaps better stated, there are too many unknown variables for me at present too make a definite conclusion, but when we see that the largest part of 300 million Americans cannot meet their payments, add to that 700 million Europeans, 68 million Brits and 1 billion Indians, we can safely assume that there will be a slaughterfest, with Netflix and Disney Plus being the most likely survivors, but this is set on shaky grounds, there is a lot that can happen, but the union of Google TV and Sony Core gives us the stage that there will be wounded all over this battlefield, and as I see it, a stage with original materials is needed, for me it means that someone might take a liking to 2 movies, and optionally 2 TV series as well, for me it does not matter, I am focussed on my 5G IP. Yet I reckon that even there there will be streaming intersections on nearly every level and as such Google TV has the option to have a cheap solution for those who cannot afford the full price, but that comes with advertisements. An affordable streaming stage with advertisements, a stage where the value of a player like Google could optionally skyrocket, but to what level remains a mystery for now. 

1 Comment

Filed under Media, Science