Tag Archives: Netherlands

July 6, 2014 · 15:23

The hungry Journalist games

Another day and another article on Sky News!

This all started a long time ago, but it seems that this article (at http://news.sky.com/story/1293651/internet-firms-take-legal-action-against-gchq), opens up new avenues to explore, aqs it already had taken the cake as one might say. There are issues for certain, they are on both sides, but what is this about?

The seven countries involved are the UK, the US, Germany, the Netherlands, South Korea and Zimbabwe. Let’s start by stating that this is an interesting group of nations to begin with. It was an article in Der Spiegel that set them off. Most sources seem to have copied and pasted the same message (Reuters Journalism as I tend to call it), one source also had this: “Their complaint follows in the wake of articles about mass surveillance published in the Guardian based on material released by Snowden“.

So again this could be a ‘Snowden’ story, but I want to take a look at another side and the quote by Eric King spokesperson (deputy director) of Privacy International who stated “It completely cripples our confidence in the internet economy and threatens the rights of all those who use it. These unlawful activities, run jointly by GCHQ and the NSA, must come to an end immediately”

Is that the truth, or should the correct quote be “It completely undermines our support of optional criminal activities and threatens the opportunity of economic abuse for all who desire it. Their unlawful activities, run jointly by GCHQ and the NSA, must come to an end immediately, so that we may again focus on possibly deniable illicit profit”

That is quite the change, isn’t it? Consider the following two issues. First the prices, for example ‘Greenhost’ offers the following:

Webhosting 120 GB storage and 1.2 TB data traffic for 132.75 euro’s a month and virtual data servers containing 50 GB storage and 1 TB bandwidth a month for 215 euro’s a month. Basically, just one account would fit the web space for most the ENTIRE Forbes top 50, not just one or two.

So, in light of recent events, I thought I had something here, the Dutch provider fits the bill, but then I got to Riseup, which no longer seemed to be active and the Chaos Computer Club (CCC) which seemed highly ideologically to me. More important, it did not fit the bill either. So am I barking up the wrong tree? (I have been wrong before you know!)

I still believe that the ISP’s are all about not complying as it is not about freedom, but about bandwidth (which directly translates into revenue), which seemed to fit the first part, but the others are not about that, which makes me wonder what is in play. Do you actually think that the NSA and GCHQ are about wasting time? So, is the Chaos Computer Club a waste of time? No, as far as I can tell, they are not. Are they a threat? Well, that remains the issue. They are hackers after all. Is it that farfetched that some people would want to keep track of some of these members? Let’s not forget that someone is feeding organised crime the knowledge that they need to avoid prosecution, when considering the power that both the Triades and the Russian Mafia have in the digital age area, looking into the CCC to some extent seems to be a given. However, knowing their skills, doing it in the way it is implied to have been done seems a little over the top as most of these hackers are pretty proud of themselves and they are for the most not in hiding. Let us not forget, they voice themselves to be about the freedom of the German people and the utter privilege of their data remaining private.

The fact is that this is an implied mess involving 7 countries, the next valid question becomes: ‘are they linked (beyond the accusation), or are they just a collection of elements?’

That question bares scrutiny, but should also indicate the view I have had of Snowden from the very beginning. I believe him to be a joke (and a bad one at that). Now, most of you will not believe this, but let us take a look at the EVIDENCE. I am not talking about some claim, but actual evidence partially on the common sense you and me hopefully tend to have.

1. The claims that he has made involves massive levels of access. Not the access a hacker will ever have, but the information from top level sources in the CIA, NSA and GCHQ. So were talking hacking into over dozens of top level secured servers, servers which are monitored 24/7. He, some hacker no one had ever heard from, did all that. These people behind the screens do NOT EVER give out passwords, do not give access, yet he had all the information and walked out of one of the most secure buildings in the world with all THAT data? This is a quote found in sources like ‘the Verge’ and ‘Wired’. I think we can agree that wired is a reputable source in regards to technology (at http://www.wired.com/2013/06/snowden-thumb-drive/) “‘There are people who need to use a thumb drive and they have special permission,’ an unnamed, ex-NSA official told the LA Times. ‘But when you use one, people always look at you funny.’” This is not unlike the view I have had for a year now. Let’s not forget, the NSA is the place where SELinux was developed, it was designed to keep close tabs on access control, specifically, who, where, how and with what. So ‘some’ technician, with the USB drive in the most secure server space on the planet is just not going to fly. The question I had from the very beginning is not how he did it, but what was actually at play here? The next part is assumption! Was it to give Booz Allan Hamilton more profit? That was my alleged first thought. If data was going to get ported to non-government institutions, this small caper could give BAH and whoever was getting oversight an easy and clean billion a year in revenue. That tactic, still ethically wrong, would have made perfect sense to me.

Here is how I see it and this is PURE assumption (I will get back to evidence in a minute for my next issue), consider the Microsoft disappointment with data collection plans for the Xbox One. We see some of the changes (at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/23/us/politics/house-votes-to-limit-nsas-collection-of-phone-data.html). The following quotes are essential here. The first one was from Jim Sensenbrenner, Republican of Wisconsin, “The N.S.A. might still be watching us, he added, but now we can be watching them“. It is a bold statement, but is it true; moreover, should they be watched? Yes, any intelligence operation needs oversight, which is fair enough in a democratic way of life, but how many should overlook this? Are the people in oversight not granted well above average powers and is it fair to any opposition party that they should have it?

2. What lies beneath this access is the amount of involvement. Prism is one of the named projects with supported links to Australia, the UK and the Netherlands, with Microsoft as a commercial partner. Really? One nation, known for clogs, cheeses, Hans Brinker and soccer is placed next to the NSA and the Commonwealth? It is a technological hub, no doubt about that, but it is the size of Maryland. So, this is just the first of several projects, involving secrecies that would be limited to the very top, most of it would not be written down and Snowden had it (as in having in past tense, details follow). The mention of projects like XKeyscore, Tempora, Project 6, Stateroom, Lustre and Muscular. They are not only different projects, but they are a scope of projects that would not ever be in one location to begin with. So, what is implied as ‘the top’ of data gathering and one IT person has it all? Is no one asking the questions the PRESS should have asked and openly doubted from the very beginning to begin with (a part that is not voiced in any way).

The funny part is that stateroom seems to be no more than the legal collection of information as EVERY government tends to collect diplomatic data and in his claim he made them ALL bitches to the NSA, they just do not know it. There is also a reference to Echelon, there are several references, but the one that matters is not named. A covert niche within the NSA and the name of the source is: Tom Clancy!

Is anyone starting to wake up now?

This is not about anything but the warped imagination that is not even close to a reality. Consider that every government has embassies and consulates, the Dutch have them, the Australians have them, so do the Brits and the Germans, not to mention the French and they have them too. Consulates and Embassies represent their governments. Consulates tend to be specific for people and companies, so that they have backups. Like getting home when your passport is stolen, or to help a company with a list of people they should talk to for starting to do business. Trade will always remain important anywhere. Embassies are more about ‘governing’ opportunities as I see them. The Dutch want to get first dibs on building a reliable bridge, so their ambassador talks the great talk. People skills is what it is all about and talking to the right people. There are other sides too, they try to resolve issues, like a Dutchman committing a crime in Melbourne (for example) and the Embassy tries to ‘help’ the Dutch person to get home again, or to assist local government with their investigation if need be. These people do work that they sometimes like and sometimes hate, it is a job that needs to be done. To get the best results some things need to remain confidential and secret and as such whether through encrypted ways or through other ways messages go back and front between a government and its local representatives and that needs a little more security. Some is as simple as a message of a first insight as to build a bridge; to keep the advantage this goes encrypted. It is the cost of business, plain and simple. There is no hidden agenda (other than national pride in trying to score the job). So, they do they do their job and they are not the NSA bitch in the process.

It is simple approach and the lie hidden within a truth was stated as “They are covert, and their true mission is not known by the majority of the diplomatic staff at the facility where they are assigned” Part of the truth is that the encryption specialist is usually not known, it is not a secret either, he used to be the person, who had one extra book with cyphers, he opened each page and set the encryption box and transmitted the information, often a NCO of communication (often has NATO duty reference A00x0). That person had two extra tasks and most in the diplomatic staff might not know, or better stated, they absolutely do not care.

When we saw the statements by certain key people in Australia or the UK they spoke the absolute truth. The small explanation I gave is done by all, the DSD (AUS), GCHQ (UK) and as I said it the Dutch have it too. It is a simple legally valid and required job that needs to be done, nothing secret about it, it is the cost of doing business and sometimes, to keep a lead profitable it sometimes gets handed over more secured, just like they do it at Microsoft (they just get heaps better equipment).

Another issue is the XKeyscore reference. Does such a thing exist, most likely! Now consider the implications of the following, there are mentions of 700 servers in 150 locations. The fact that it needs to intercept without visibility and analyse at the same time as a person does many things at the same time. Even if the best of the best was used (which likely is the case), then we are looking at a very select group trying to get a handle on perhaps no more than the most dangerous 2000 people on the planet. Does anyone believe that a system like this remains a secret if 4 Australian bases are involved? The next part can also be taken as a fact. Can anyone even guess the amount of bandwidth this takes? Most routers nearby the monitored person will truly get a beating, so whatever this is, it will show up. It is the scope that is claimed that makes no sense. Some in the NSA might find it nice if it was true, but the weak link in all this is the actual internet.

The last part of this is the kicker in this joke. If his life depends on it all, do you actually think he would ever part with the information? This came from the NY Times from October 2013 (at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/18/world/snowden-says-he-took-no-secret-files-to-russia.html) “Mr Snowden said he gave all of the classified documents he had obtained to journalists he met in Hong Kong, before flying to Moscow, and did not keep any copies for himself“, so his life depends on a journalist, who now has the thousands of documents?

Perhaps we should look at a much more likely explanation, the man has no value, the press is stretching the value of events, as they would and Snowden has played his part, I still think that the Chinese saw in him what I saw from the very beginning, a simple joke! They walked away and he had to flee to Russia who is keeping him around for entertainment and to piss of the Yanks (which they also regard as good entertainment). My issue is not him, but the fact that I see more wasted time and energy on laughable cases that keep us all away from actually moving forward. In this economy, as we are so stretched thin, rebuilding an economy is a first need, not waste time on some feigned attack on the ‘confidence in the internet economy‘ as Eric King puts it.

And for the love of whomever, let’s not compare Snowden and Assange, I completely oppose Assange and his view, but at least he seemed to believe in that what he did was a just cause and acted accordingly.

In the end this is just my view, but no one seems to be asking the questions the press are supposed to be asking. The Guardian and Der Spiegel seem to get a ‘free’ hand in boasting tons of data and a simple stamp ‘Snowden said it was so’ seems enough for people to just accept it.

4 Comments

Filed under IT, Law, Military, Politics

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

July 1, 2014 · 11:44

Cleaning house!

This issue has been in the back of my head for some time. It was 2011 when this happened. The ruling hit the news (and the most colourful version was in the Daily Mail as per usual), where a rapist could not get deported because he was entitled to a family life. The article angered me and to some extent, I was then and I am still now on the side of the Daily Mail approach.

Why are criminals granted a lot more freedoms then their victims?

The more preposterous part is: “This is despite him not having a wife, long-term partner or children in the UK“, so what family life? He could try to get one in Nigeria for all I care.

The convention can be found here: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

The actual text: “ARTICLE 8 Right to respect for private and family life, 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

It sounds nice enough, but it is time for some tough love, so I recommend adding the following:

“3. In case of conviction of a serious crime, that nation can decide to ignore rule 1, providing a connection to a long term partner and the existence of biological off spring, born in that nation, not criminally conceived has been established.”

So, we got rid of the rapist, if the mother is a pro-life woman, that will not protect him and moreover, he cannot hide behind an adoption either. Whether this is altered for the UK or it is accepted within the EEC as a whole is of course the crux. It is also time to stop tailoring from a weak point of view. Yes, at this point, a Human Rights point of view is a weak view (I accept that many disagree here)!

Let’s be clear here. I am all for human rights, but these rights also come with responsibilities and accountability, without these two rights pretty much go out of the window. It should also be clear that if a nation independently decides to not enforce paragraph 3, then this is fine too as I added “that nation can decide“, I am all for the right to choose and Like some should not judge the UK, the UK should not judge France, Germany or the Netherlands.

We are not done yet. There is still Article 12 to consider. We can’t have criminals ‘suddenly’ fall in love and get hitched and therefor avoid deportation (where applicable), hence the following would change

“ARTICLE 12 Right to marry, Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right“.

Would change into:

“ARTICLE 12 Right to marry,
1. Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right
2. The right to marry is temporary postponed if one or both persons have been deprived of his/her liberty by arrest or detention, until 6 months after release and was not been deported because of these events
3. Paragraph 2 will not be valid, if a court has ordered the release of the involved parties due to non-lawful detention“.

We keep number three there, as there is always a chance a person was convicted innocently and as such; we must definitely protect their rights too, as I stated we will give all quarter to those who abided by law as we should.

So, it took me almost 45 minutes to get to these conclusions after going over certain papers. The question becomes why these steps had not been made before? Well, let’s take a look at the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/dec/22/britain-european-court-human-rights). Here we see another view when we consider the following paragraph:

“Grayling said last week the ECHR did not ‘make this country a better place’. David Cameron has said the court risks becoming a glorified ‘small claims court’ buried under a mountain of ‘trivial’ claims , and suggested Britain could withdraw from the convention to ‘keep our country safe’. The home secretary, Theresa May, has pledged the party’s next manifesto will promise to scrap the Human Rights Act, which makes the convention enforceable in Britain”

I am not sure I can agree with the Home Secretary there. I see her point, but it took me only 45 minutes to alter the convention into something a lot less hassle, without actually changing that much. Those who come to Europe, fighting for a better life, not resorting to crime can still do that. My issue is that the rape victim, who was 13 at the time seems to have fallen of the view of the world (which might be good for her), yet in the dozens upon dozens of documents trying to protect the rapist, how much concern was given to the victim of his crime?

This is at the heart of my reasoning. Some judges talk a good talk, but then they seem to refuse to walk the walk (if it pleases the court and with all due respect). Consider the paper ‘Women in an unsecure world‘ (at http://www.unicef.org/emerg/files/women_insecure_world.pdf). A paper edited by Marie Vlachova and Lea Biason. If we are TRULY going to do anything to make their future safe, then we must begin in our own country. By making the consequence of transgression so high, that considering it will no longer be an option, that is the point where we all move forward and we can slowly start to actually eradicate the violence against women. I will not and cannot state that I have a true solution there, or that my solution will work. The issues are not overly complex, but it is a problem that is massively larger than most realise (including me), I just believe that if we send a strong signal that those transgressors will never be opted any life in any land of opportunity, we might, just might start to turn the tide a little. Is that not at the heart of Humanitarian rights too? If not, then what is Article 14 doing in the ECHR in the first place.

The only part that is laughable in the earlier mentioned PDF is the following statement “The Russian Government estimates that 14,000 women were killed by their partners or relatives in 1999, yet the country still has no law specifically addressing domestic violence“, the ‘comical‘ side there is that the UK did not have a serious option until the ‘Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004’, I am not ignoring the ‘Family Law Act 1996’, yet the issue remains if we see the data (at http://www.womensaid.org.uk/domestic_violence_topic.asp?section=0001000100220041) that apparently the UK faces 1 call on domestic violence every minute. So, it is not just a Russian issue, the more data I see, the more that part should be stated as a global problem, with the Russian terminal numbers being a mere outlier in this entire debacle.

If we accept that not all women call for help, then there is a massive problem and governments all over the Commonwealth will need to make some clear, visible and drastic changes. When we start seeing newscasts on how immigrants have been evicted because of violence against women, how long until the local male population starts to realise that their number is up too?

This view is only amplified after seeing this article (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/08/police-fear-rise-domestic-violence-world-cup), is this for real? I wonder if a name and shame option would work. You know, we take his picture and place poster sized pictures close to ‘his’ watering holes. I wonder how happy such a person would feel in the local pub when they all knew what he was (apart from being an absolute wanker).

In several regards Theresa May was correct, the ECHR is a problem, but she was in my humble opinion incorrect to think that this issue was just in the UK, the Netherlands has numbers that indicate that violence against women is a lot higher there, or is it? Research seemed to indicate that Dutch women are more likely to report these crimes with the police, which makes the violence against women in the UK a lot higher than expected (at http://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nieuws/binnenland/geweld-tegen-vrouwen-nederland-een-stuk-hoger-dan-eu). Is that last part true? Without better data I cannot tell, but the chance that 4 out of 10 women are under direct threat of violence sickens me to my stomach, which makes the ECHR a larger joke then we are willing to admit to.

I think altering (best), or rejecting it (not that great an option) could be the next step, however, not doing anything should no longer be any option, not in the UK and not anywhere in the EEC, or anywhere else for that matter. Should we go after immigrants first? That is of course a valid question too. I think it is, as stated before, when these transgressors realise that crime gets you deported, a clear signal is given and not just in the UK either. I believe that once these events start, the signal is given all over Europe that a person is welcome as long as they abide by the law. There is of course the question where to add the bite we need. If too much is added to the ECHR, the bigger the chance that we create loopholes because of it and that makes any act or law bill toothless. The strongest bite is found in simplicity (as I see it). In that regard I would like to add something to Article 3 of the ECHR, changing it into:

“ARTICLE 3, Prohibition of torture
1. No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
2. Domestic violence will be regarded as inhuman and degrading treatment of a person and is as such subject to local criminal law.“

So, now that Domestic Violence is set on the same scope as torture. How soon until the local population realises that the ‘game’ is up and this kind of violence will get them into jail, out of house and home, an automatic granted divorce to the victim with all rights given to the victim, hence the victim gets the house, the children and what else and those who regarded domestic violence as an option would get the short end of every stick. I am willing to bet that the face of domestic violence is changed within a year after the courts start handing out these verdicts.

It would be nice to see such a change in mentality and I will (again) humbly accept my knighthood and cottage (especially as I concocted a solution after breakfast and before lunch).

I do agree that the solution is not that simple, but giving these victims additional protection with real teeth is likely a much better approach then has been attempted this far. Knowing that the other approach has not worked, is it not time to start opting for a more direct approach?

 

1 Comment

Filed under Law, Politics

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

May 3, 2014 · 14:18

Lessons not learned

As I look back at the end of a lifetime and I wonder whether I am just nuts (which is always a fair assumption), or that others are just unwilling to see the implied fact that we have stopped evolving. Many lives are basically based upon bread and games, a term that goes back to the Roman Empire and seems to be at the very core of what is happening at present in many areas when we compare ourselves to people in the Ukraine. The ‘free’ west seems to be focused on sustenance (a basic need for surviving) and TV. The TV is even showing some gladiatorial show, where people do some kinetic steeplechase for the glory of fame and fortune. I have nothing against the game. I have seen it; it was fun to watch up to a point; and when we switch to some cable channel we are likely to see a TV series that we saw before, a series that is rerun again and again, whilst not showing the latest seasons, but leaving us 2 or more seasons short (depending on the station and the series). We get to see those episodes, whilst the rerun is not giving us the last 3 seasons of NCIS, the last 4 seasons of the Big Bang Theory and so on (it is a very long list).

The top of this consumer pyramid scheme (politicians, board of directors and so on) goes on planning for additional wealth, whilst the rest is getting outdated TV and they are just trying to make due.

That view is getting stronger and stronger as we are confronted with the escalations in the Ukraine. There are two sides that propagated these thoughts. The first was something President Obama stated when he addressed the press. The quote “this week to implement the IMF plan to stabalise the Ukrainian economy“. That part got to me. The US is getting all huffy and puffy about more and more sanctions and actions to get the Ukrainian ball rolling, so that the IMF can spend billions upon billions in some way. WHY?

Chancellor Merkel, like many European spokespeople are trying a softer approach. This is not about which method is better, but about the fact that this is more about the IMF and that what we might laughingly regard as the Ukrainian economy then about anything else. Does anyone remember a place called Syria, where even today people die by the dozen in a civil massacre between the forces of President Assad and their opponents? The ‘crossed‘ red line, even after the second chemical attack is not getting too much visibility is it? Did the powers that want to control forget about those events?

Even more important, the fact that the separatists took out 2 helicopters with missiles (not clear which exactly), is not a reason for stronger concern? I am not accusing Russia at present, but where did these separatists get the weapons to shoot down two helicopters? As I see it, pushing billions into an area that has no stability is just a really bad idea. It seems to me that these issues are not really focussed on. In addition, the NOS news showed us small video bytes of news moments where we see members of US Congress, where they seem to advocate stronger measures and stronger responses. More sanctions, against whom? It seems that the people outside of that circus are ignoring an economical and political play which could hinder their own futures for at least another decade. The fact that Europe will go for another round of dealings for cheap Russian gas seems to elude many people. The US might really like the idea that Russia Gas is turned off, it will give the US the economic option of selling gas to Europe, which will hike the power costs of Europeans by a likely 15%-20%, did the people on both sides of the Atlantic River realise that these events could have long lasting consequences.

Getting back to the Ukrainian issue, I have stated before that the Crimean people were the pushing power to the annexation of Crimea back to Russia. In my mind the Ukrainian government only had itself to blame there. This view is not one I have when we look at the issues in Eastern Ukraine. I cannot deny that Russia is playing a game here, but what game are they playing? Whoever is playing out these events in Eastern Ukraine is doing so on a few levels. First, these are not just all Russians or Pro-Russian separatists. There is equipment, there are droves of people in their support and the events in Kharkov (where a mayor got shot and we see a change of those in charge) also imply that there are levels of orchestration in play, but those behind the screens are not shown.

So why is it so important to get the IMF in there at this point? I am not stating that the Ukraine should not get support, but the EEC and the IMF are so busy getting in there as quick as they could, that we should consider the history on Greece and Cyprus as well. The IMF came in after the fact (which is fair enough). It seems to me that the Ukraine is about something more then ‘just’ the Ukraine and as such questions should be asked. This will all take several other cycles of information crunching when we see that Serbia is also voicing on their upcoming EEC membership. How is Serbia’s economy and how are their balance books?

Is this all about the economy or are the political power controllers in the US not telling us all (the use of political controllers was intentional for those who missed out on a few events). I have stated in the past that from my viewpoint, the US is past its point of bankruptcy (but what do I know), the link here is that the analysts and power brokers downplayed UKIP in the UK and Front Nationale in France. This economic nightmare that Wall Street said could not happen is currently no longer that unthinkable, which makes me wonder why those analysts are on a high 6 figure income. The Farage party is still a strong contender at present and Front Nationale has already made a first sweep in France and the party under President Hollande is now seriously worried. When these two do achieve the drastic change they want, the bang that will sweep the European economy will have a massive impact on the US as well. Perhaps they want to add Ukraine and a few others as soon as possible to soften the blow and to keep alive what will then soon thereafter be known as a puppet currency, which requires the IMF to step in, in as many places it can, so that whatever crash the economy makes then, it will be supervised by one voice that is not the US, the IMF (with the US having the most powerful voice within it).

So in my view, these events are not directly linked, but they have bearing on each other. Is this why Eastern Ukraine is so adamant about no longer being part of the Ukraine? That last part is pure speculation on my side as I have not read any quality reading on why the Easters Ukraine is so militant at present, but it is not just about someone else running Kiev parliament. The reasons are far too militantly played for that. This does not mean that Russia is innocent here, but considering just how much intelligence is gathered on several levels for so many years and on how ‘silent’ the CIA and other players are in that regard. We see the news and we see all those references to keyhole satellites and even as we all knew that Syria was such a powder keg, no one saw anything in Syria. Now we see these escalations in regards to Eastern Ukraine and again, no one seems to see anything here either. So what are those keyhole satellites doing and why are they staying silent. Did no one consider asking that 143 billion dollar funding question?

So why do I care so much about this?

If the Commonwealth is to remain a top economic player, then we must see, acknowledge and consider the options we have and as the UK was never part of the Euro, their currency is safe, but their economic position less so. The UK cannot keep on paying these outrageous amounts, whilst for the most; the EEC members do not keep their budgets in order (they overspend close to 600 billion too much in 2013 alone, this is including the UK). When the Euro tumbles and the Dollar gets the pounding of a lifetime, we must consider what is right, correct and the best for us. Within the Commonwealth those options might be limited to some extent. I always believed that if we as Commonwealth nations (Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand and the United Kingdom) as the top economic nations of the Commonwealth pull together, we can weather all these economic storms and help ourselves to a larger and faster recovery to something better then it is at present. Should Nigel Farage pull of the referendum the way he wants it to end, these levels of cooperation would become vital to the UK. I speculated in the past that the crumbling of the US as a super power would instigate a new coalition of perhaps Russia, China and India (purely speculative on my side), then the Commonwealth link would become even more important. These events go further then just some super power game. The US remains so eager to push the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership), in there the changes they were considering to Patent Law and Intellectual Properties in general are a concern to many. The face that Australia seems to have blindly accepted it, whilst New Zealand asked the questions and had the reservations both should have had to begin with are also a fact. America fears the abilities that India now has in Generic medication. India sits on a goldmine in an age of faltering health care and the overwhelming need for lower cost solutions in an ageing population. The US pharmacy was dormant for too long, new solutions are delayed again and again. Not unlike the IT where American superiority was boasted and whilst the American Industry embraced iterative evolution, was equalled and now to some extent even surpassed by Asian engineers, the Pharmacy field is in a similar, but not the same predicament. So whilst they focussed on the erectile need of Wall Street, India grew its generic enabling markets. Now America has a problem and the 14 year patent edge will no longer suffice and in the time several players went for the greed driven iterative plan, now slowly are finding themselves on the outside looking in.

This is exactly why the US is in such a state to drive these issues. I reckon that they never expected to be so linked to the Euro and their consequences. I personally feel that not keeping their financial house in order was at the centre of these reasons and like Crimea, it returning to the Russian fold is the worry of the US as the Euro could ‘collapse’ when nations decide to reject the Euro and return to their original local coin. The UK kept the Pound, but when France moves back to the French Franc, the currency that is no longer supported by two major economies will entice others to follow suit. The Dutch PVV has had several investigations to dump the Euro and return to the Dutch Guilder, when that happens party of Geert Wilders (even though the Dutch economy is small in comparison to the large four), the German corner could end up panicking and could move out to preserve itself, is that all such a long leap of faith?

This all will hurt the US in many ways. Now, it no longer aligns it’s maximum borrowing power to one currency, but to well over half a dozen, which should collapse their spending spree for at least two decades, more if the US defaults on even one loan. Consider in the second degree what happens when S&P will have to return to the comparison approach it employed before the Euro was adapted by many European nations, the impact could be massive.

So as the bulk of the people are asleep, relying on bread and games, the powers that would like to remain in control are playing high stakes poker as it is others peoples money and they will not pay the bill when the deal goes sour. We all must do what is best for us. The UK, the Netherlands, the Ukraine and the US. They all have to make their own decisions, whether they are valid for others or not. That is what many forgot as they all were trying to play a game on a global scale, with them all having themselves in focus. Crimea did what they consider to be best for Crimea. Most people forgot about that part, even Kiev forgot about that side of the equation, which makes the entire escalation part even sadder. So, should you consider my view to be invalid (which might be fair enough), consider the amount of actions, many debatable on both sides of the Ukrainian aspect. Consider the amount of NON-actions that were taken during 3 years of Syrian slaughter (on both sides). In my view, just focussing on one part of getting chemicals out of Syria (which is essential), whilst a second chemical attack took place (which had almost no coverage) looks like a joke to me.

Even now today (less then an hour ago), we see Ukrainians acting out against Ukrainian tanks, does that remind you of other similar events?

What lessons are we not learning?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Military, Politics

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

April 19, 2014 · 10:11

Limitations of the law?

It is an interesting, yet disgusting twist on the laws that involve freedom of speech. In Europe, the commonwealth as well as America, most of the nations in these groups have always championed freedom of speech. Yet, should there be a limit to that? Some argue that this should not be the case. The Netherlands has seen a first limit as it should exist in my mind. Those who have studied the law might be familiar with the Grudge Informer. It was one of my first law essay topics. Should unjust laws be accepted? This was at the heart of the matter, but what does this have to do with the freedom of speech?

In the Netherlands a case had proceeded through the courts involving what some call the freedom of speech, but what should be regarded as the dangers that is represented to children. The case went from court to the highest court, the Dutch equivalent of the UK Court of Appeal (US Supreme court). In there it was decided yesterday that the organisation ‘martijn’ is to be dissolved. (NOS News, April 18th 2014).

So what is the issue? Even though the case went on in regards to ‘freedom of speech’ and even though Mr Jon Schilder, Professor of Dutch constitutional law (Hoogleraar staatsrecht) is speaking academically that this is a dangerous development, the issue is that the organisation was about the protection of paedophiles. I did not go and utterly refuse to visit the site; I will not mention the location here either. The parents who took on this task after their child of three had been sexually abused have won the case after 4 years. They were appalled that the organisation had a website which, as it was stated that glorified paedophilia as well as handed insights into avoidance of prosecution as well as instruction on how to minimise a person’s forensic footprint.

I cannot fathom the issues that play in regards to the freedom of speech as it casually endangers children. This goes far beyond the issues of accountability that I have always championed. The fact that a national constitution has such a draconian level of freedom that anything goes is beyond my comprehension. (at http://nos.nl/artikel/637394-advocaat-van-martijn-teleurgesteld.html) The words from Lawyer Bart Swier are even more unsettling “Mijn bezwaar is dat er slechts sprake is van een denkbeeldig theoretisch risico, en niet van enig concreet gevaar. Dat zou eigenlijk de maatstaf moeten zijn voor een dergelijke vergaande inbreuk op de vrijheid van meningsuiting” translated: “My objection is that there is only an imaginative theorhetical risk and there is no concrete danger. This should be the measure for such an intense breach on the freedom of speech“.

I understand that Mr Swier is representing his customer, but can anyone even consider any level of ‘rights‘ when the foundation of such rights are a direct danger to the health and welfare of children?

When we look at the article at http://nos.nl/op3/artikel/637506-pedofielenvereniging-nu-echt-verboden-wie-vindt-wat.html, where we see the following: “Een groep van 49 wetenschappers, acteurs, schrijvers en andere bekende gezichten deed twee dagen geleden in de Volkskrant een oproep om Martijn niet te verbieden” translated: “A group of 49 scientists, actors, writers and other well known faces made a plea in the Volkskrant (a Dutch Newspaper) to not make the organisation illegal“.

Even if I could agree to the Freedom of Speech to the extent that the Dutch would like it to be, this organisation is for people with a sexual preference for children. In my mind it is the most horrific crime possible. It goes beyond anti-Semitism or Genocide. This is about the mental and physical destruction of a young life, which has no defence and will continue through life physically damaged, mentally broken and often far worse than both. It is utterly unacceptable in my mind. Although I have a good grip on the need for a freedom of speech, any act, consideration or even contemplation that can be regarded as a danger to children should not just be disallowed, those involved should be prosecuted beyond what we consider ‘correct’. Be mindful that I phrased ‘can be regarded as‘. Any danger to any child is not to be allowed EVER! If this world is to continue in any way, then this can only humanely happen if the safety of any child is set above all others.

Any law that endangers a child should be seen as unjust and therefore should not be abided to, which was at the centre of the Grudge informers. In a similar light, we should consider the US with their Jessica’s law, a law that had been championed by Bill O’Reilly to be passed into law. The official version is ‘The Jessica Lunsford Act’, (H.R. 1505 of the 109th Congress). It was never voted on and the law did not pass. There was some opposition and controversy, yet at the heart this act was to protect children under 12, by setting a massive verdict on any adult who sexually engaged with a child under 12. In my view Mr O’Reilly had the right sentiment and the 109th US Congress who had led this slide should reconsider their point of view as they failed to better protect children. I will admit that there are likely legal issues that are true issues to resolve, yet the foundation is that this was about protecting children. Like the Dutch verdict which showed a rarely seen danger in regards to the freedom of speech. It is more fitting that this concerns both Civil Law and Common Law. How can the law be so ‘tolerant’ towards the dangers to a child?

A legal failing to a group so unable to defend itself is a failing to the Justice system as a whole; there is my link to the Grudge Informer. The question becomes whether the law has failed, or is failing the protection of children. It is a hard verdict, but from these two points, that failing is a yes, however, there are two sides to this. On one side, I feel uncertain to additionally act against a Paedophile with new laws, as this would complicate the entire prosecution under the Mental Health Act, as this is dealt with through the DSM-V (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). And my reasoning is that I would not like to introduce some weird loophole giving them additional legal escape routes. Yet, this should not stop the legal groups to add additional protection to the child as well. If we consider the Dutch case, then the existence of the organisation, gives a clear view that there is premeditation, which in itself should allow for additional protection of the child. Even though the organisation is now illegal (as per yesterday’s verdict), these people will find other ways and it is almost a certainty that they will ‘connect’ online. This should give the law makers a direction where the ‘hunt’ should start. Although hunt is an incorrect legal word (the sentiment is however very correct), the need for a shield that protect children on a global level is an essential one and should be regarded as a first priority for lawmakers everywhere. Consider in that part the article (at http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42108748/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/massive-online-pedophile-ring-busted-cops/), there was no date given in that article, but the fact that this involved 70,000 members is something that should scare lawmakers and parents alike.

We as adults all have a sacred duty to keep all children; no matter who’s they are safe from the dangers of such predators. In my personal humble opinion, in regards to the Dutch sentiment on the freedom of speech in this particular case, I hereby state: ‘freedom of speech be damned!‘

The protection of a child should always be first!

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Politics

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

April 7, 2014 · 20:06

Should governments provide?

This is the question I had after watching the Dutch newscast at the NOS. The issue is that the Dutch are lagging more and more behind the Germans (except for soccer). Now part of that statement is a joke as Germany is 850% the size of the Netherlands. In addition, Germany has large deposits of ores. They are regarded as one of the world’s foremost producers of iron, steel, coal, cement, chemicals, machinery, vehicles, machine tools, electronics, food and beverages, shipbuilding and textiles. So why is this comparison even an issue?

Ineke Dezentjé Hamming, president of the FME (an organisation for the Dutch technological industry) stated “Wij verliezen onze positie als exportland als we niet snel vernieuwen en mee-ontwikkelen met de Duitsers” (translated as) “We are losing our position as an export nation if we do not renew and develop our technologies with the Germans“. In addition there is the statement that Germany is now in its fourth cycle of industries, where factories and ICT are completely integrated (at http://nos.nl/artikel/632638-nl-raakt-achter-op-duitsland.html).

An example could be the New VDL Nedcar factory, which allows for 24 hours a day production. The NOS newscast implies in my view (they did not state) that the approach of the FME is that the government should be handing over the funds to allow for this. In opposition of my own words, I must state that her statement in the Hannover Messe does not imply that at all (at http://www.hannovermesse.de/en/exhibition/partner-country/ineke-dezentje-hammink-blue.xhtml). Yet, the changes in infrastructure will require massive funds and there is plenty of clarity that the industry corners do not seem to have it.

I am still in awe that the Dutch want to get on equal footing with the Germans on an industrial ground. It almost reads like David stating towards Goliath ‘where are the other eleven?‘ which make me wonder, why is this even an issue?

Yes, as the article stated, the Dutch have for too long relied on services, which was not the best choice, yet, what are the options? The Dutch have no mining options, they have an excellence in ship building, yet that market is not doing too well. Let us not forget that the Dutch did have an excellence in services too. They had the East India Company, which should be regarded as the first and largest multinational ever, starting in 1602 lasting almost 200 years, which is a much better track record then IBM can proud itself on.

But in this day and age, after a multiple joke echelon of services based organisations (from the late 90’s), relying on selling concepts, the age of services is dwindling down. Even now, when we see the Business Industry relying on services and selling them, we see a decline as many customers selected (sometimes forced) to find internal solutions. Many corporations had to wise up fast. This is at the heart of the issue I have with the thoughts of Ineke Dezentjé Hamming-Bluemink. She is correct in the thoughts she phrases, yet again, when compared to the Germans, the Dutch had let these options slide for too long. An integrated ICT means that ICT skills are essential to these companies. If not, then those services will explode in costing’s as the ICT will suddenly rise in value, in an unbalanced way, which created a news hype bubble and there is no way that this is a good thing. This is where the shoes become too tight for the dance of industry. To get this all in motion, training and adaptation should have started two years ago. If the entire track is started now, we will see a wildfire of services and needs, which will drown common sense and pragmatism, which in turn will only hurt industries further.

So, why am I writing this?

The issue is that Ineke Dezentjé Hamming-Bluemink brings up an issue that is at the centre for not just the Netherlands, but the situation also applies to the United Kingdom and Australia. This industry 4.0 as they call it might be needed, but that need goes far beyond just high tech industry. The NHS is just one of many service based organisations where the need for strong and correct integration is required (which seems to be a mess). The ICT integration has been a requirement since the late 90’s. Yet, greed got in the way and as these firms all hunkered down on selling concepts and ‘solutions’, the ICT developers got lazy and many decided to forsake on created products and they all walked down to the path of some 80% readied toolbox with additional training and consultancy.

It was extremely counterproductive.

The Dutch have seen in the last three years how ‘Deutche Grundligkeit’ has taken foothold and it gives way to additional growth in Germany. So, the Dutch want to get on this 4.0 horse as some might see it, but why and for whom? The Netherlands does have an industry, however when we get past the breweries and Nutricia, what is left? Unilever, Akzo-Nobel and perhaps Philips? So, in this smaller list, why is industry 4.0 such a story?

That is the puzzling part, which gets me to the (by me) implied need for government ‘subsidies’. This I see as another approach to overspending, by those who should be keeping their wallets closed (the unfortunate consequence of being in debt for almost 500 billion dollars).

Is industry 4.0 anymore then the latest hype?

This is a question that is a lot harder to answer. Yes, it is hype, but the issue with ‘hype’ that this word also implies that its need tends to be overstated to some degree. This is where I tend to side with the need for it. If all parties need to cut costs, then Industry 4.0 is a definite need, but getting there will require spending and is this truly an option for some?

Here we need to see the words of Journalist Frank Gersdorf from the ‘Financieele Dagblad’ (Financial Paper) “De toekomstvisie wordt in Duitsland met zoveel geweld gepusht, zoals met een overheidstoelage van € 200 mln en promotiefilmpjes, dat je bijna gelooft dat dit echt de toekomst is en dat wij in Nederland de boot missen“, translated it states “The futuristic vision is getting pushed in Germany with such ferocity, like with the subsidy of € 200 million and promotion films, that it is implied that this is the real future and that the Dutch are missing the opportunity” (at http://duitslandnieuws.nl/archief/2014/02/frank-gersdorf-industrie-4-0-misschien-een-hype-maar-heeft-wel-toekomst/)

These words give strength to my implied acts from Ineke Dezentjé Hamming-Bluemink seeing them as an attempt to shake the governmental money tree to see what might drop down. it makes perfect sense that she was doing this as it is her job to get what she can to work for and fight for her interest group. This is all fair enough and we cannot fault her for that. I just wonder if the Dutch and several other groups are even ready for this. Germany has always believed in unity (their version of it) and as such, they had set out a path, which has been in motion since 2004 (at http://www.din.de/sixcms_upload/media/2896/DNS_english%5B1%5D.pdf).

This shows that Germany has been on the industrial choices for a decade; the Dutch cannot just step in and ‘proclaim’ that we should get there too just overnight. This I can proclaim as I was there in the late 70’s and 80’s as the Rotterdam harbours were in a transitional need for upgrading. Take 3 large harbour barons and you got 7 opinions, 14 options and no solution. I reckon that Anthony Veder was the last of the true famous harbour barons. As I witnessed the sales fight between IBM, Hewlett Packard (mainframes) and Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC), things were never standard in any way. For the record, my voice was always with DEC with VAX/VMS, which showed true paths of open standardisation. There is only so many times you can stomach the ‘answer‘ “we are IBM” as it was an actual answer to a question. This is however not about IBM, this is about the needs for industry 4.0 and as such a new form of true standard ‘plug and produce’ solutions. There is no commitment to a path, too many players want the door to remain open so that they might get a shot at this and at the same instance, nothing gets done and no one will decide. So it is not just about the advantage Germany is building, it is about the increased distance it is creating by actually going for any solution.

The Germans do have a massive advantage. When the need was there almost 5 years ago, Germany did tighten the belt, the rest (Netherlands, UK, France and Italy) played their ‘fair weather’ games and as such they are now in additional hardships, which is likely disabling that money tree to be shaken. At least, until there is a clear shown path for an ROI for the Dutch taxpayer. This is however not just about the Dutch; the Commonwealth is in a similar situation. In the magazine Industrial Technology of January 2014 (at http://www.gambica.org.uk/app/images/documents/articles/Industrial_Technology_Jan2014.pdf) where we see the following quote at the end: “Industry 4.0 could be the reason why the UK is ultimately successful in redefining itself as a manufacturing economy“. This I can agree with, just as I did not disagree with the statements given by Ineke Dezentjé Hamming-Bluemink. The issue of funds will remain, no matter how needed it might be and if this is good for business, why should the government fund it? Consider the statement “we could be profitable if the tax office foots the bill“. That is what this current Industry 4.0 situation amounts to. This does not mean that it should not happen, but what is the Return On Investment? If it takes longer than that, is it a good deal to put money in something whilst the main objective for the Netherlands and the UK should be to lower their debts.

The issue is already getting the consultants to crawl out of the woodwork (like Roland Berger), where we can read (at http://www.rolandberger.com/press_releases/Industry_4_0_opportunities_for_European_industry.html)

“The Roland Berger experts explain what companies and politics should do to support the development of Industry 4.0 and leverage this opportunity for Europe“. It seems to me that this is another one sided step to get the cards shoved into the hands of politics to spend, spend, spend. They also illuminated a second side to this all. The second quote gives us the cake with toppings “This is where politics needs to support the process by initiating research and development programs at the European level“. Why? Why can this not be instigated by IBM, Oracle or by Hewlett Packard? If it makes business sense, then these three will hop on that horse right quick. Why must tax Euros be used one way or another? They made billions, which means that sponsoring should not really be a prerequisite.

In my view, I find that new technologies are usually a step forward, yet when we consider on how people jump on and off funding horses with the greatest of easy within their political terms, should we allow certain corporate evolutions at the expense of the government coffers?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Politics, Science

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

March 4, 2014 · 15:13

Israel stands alone

I wish I had better news, but the situation as it deteriorates in the Middle East, might in the next immediate period give more pressure and dangers to the state of Israel then anyone realises. Is it more than Israel thinks it is? That is a little harder to see, but I feel certain that their bad case scenario had included options even worse than I would be able to foresee.

This is not just on the issues raised by the USA, or EU as published (at http://news.sky.com/story/1217922/us-and-eu-urged-to-halt-weapon-sales-to-israel), it is also the issues which will hit Israel as we see a deteriorating war theatre in Syria. When we see “Amnesty International criticises what it calls Israel’s ‘callous disregard for human life’ in its handling of Palestinian protests against occupation“. Is that the actual truth? Over 4000 attacks from Palestine missiles and mortars in the last 5 years against Israeli civilian targets, making almost 70 attacks a month for 5 years, so basically a little over two attacks a day, every day for 5 years (even more in the 5 years before that). These were almost all fired at civilian targets, which makes the Amnesty International report a coloured one. I am not just writing this from the back of the room. I have been there, I have seen the consequences and people that I know of have been in direct danger because of the acts of Hamas, Hezbollah and the groups acting in the Sinai. So, this is not just a far away from my bed situation (Dutch expression). When even today in 2014 see that the Palestine’s are stating “The Palestinian Authority adamantly rejects Israel’s right to exist” on a daily basis and the fact that this is still shown and proven at every turn. Is it a surprise that the tensions are not and will not be broken any day soon?

The second issue comes from State Secretary John Kerry, as mentioned by Sky News (at http://news.sky.com/story/1205342/israel-boycott-warning-dismissed-by-netanyahu),where we see the quote  “US Secretary of State John Kerry had suggested that a failure of peace talks with the Palestinians would accelerate calls for a ‘de-legitimisation campaign’ against the Jewish state”

Is that so? The issue, as it has been known for decades is all about Israel’s right to exist. NOT ONE government has been able to swing this in favour of Israel EVER! So Mr Kerry, are you sure you want to be the one that is known as the person who acquired the label ‘the failed superpower USA‘ as we see not just the issues in Israel, but also the failings of campaigns involving Afghanistan, Syria and now the Ukraine? I am not stating that the last two should have been about military intervention, but diplomacy did not work. As the Syrian issues keep on escalating, the dangers that escalations move south of the Syrian border is not out of the question, when that happens the dangers for Israel will quickly increase. Even though many parties do not want the Syrian government to completely fall and left in the hands of several smaller extreme hands, the dangers, even if Syria moves on without President Assad will mean that pressures towards Lebanon will mean that the extremists now attacking Israel on a regular basis will end up with a lot more resources then they have at present. As we look at the mentioning of economic sanctions, the handling of it as we see in the newspapers about economic sanctions have for the most never ever worked.

Cuba is still there, even though it has been under massive economic pressure since 1962, the economic pressures against North Korea since 1950 also failed. They are still there; these two have nowhere near the resources of Russia, so how will the sanctions against Russia ever work? In addition, Russians are acquiring businesses all over Europe; the acquisition of Siebel in the Netherlands is one of the most visible ones lately. How will sanctions work in these cases?

This is all linked to Israel, let me get to that.

As we see the power of government (the US in particular) fall back because it has no power to stop businesses in many ways, we will see that governments are slowly losing power on a global scale (so not just the US). To some degree it will all be about the business and the local religion they depend upon, this evidence is seen as we see watch where big business remains and how it can deliver its projected forecast. This has been fact since the early 90’s. Now, as Europe needs and desires to do business all over the Middle-East, they will unite their view according to the need of their business. This does not make Muslims or Christians anti-Semites, yet the acts of individuals have been, especially when lacking moral and cultural insight, anti-Semite in nature. As long as the business makes that they need to achieve, they can get away with most acts of pro-profits. This places Israel, with a unique national religion in a dangerous place. When we see the article at http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jews-reluctantly-abandon-swedish-city-amid-growing-anti-semitism-1.301276, in addition the news at http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4456356,00.html shows another side of one of the most liberal nations in the world. This is not a statement against Sweden, but the fact that this level of hatred goes on, even today, in several nations gives rise to the acts of Israel. Until the ‘right to exist’ is met by all its neighbours, and the Middle-East at large, this will go on and on. If anyone wants to make a statement on how it was ‘theirs’ in the past, then remember that the tribes of Israel were not just in Israel, they held parts of Palestine as well as a sizeable chunk of Syria as well. As this place became ‘slave shopping central‘ for both the Egyptians and the Romans, that area went from all to naught within 5 generations. So what is a solution? Well, as for the issues at hand, we could request two payments one from Egypt for 25 trillion and one from Italy for almost 50 trillion, not to mention the damage the Jewish population suffered from fanatical German acts. I am certain that Israel will make a deal to some extent. So if we go back long enough the issue could be settled, but the involved parties have nowhere near the funds to make restitution. In the end, is there a solution? It seems that there is, but not a peaceful one, not until the involved parties are willing to sit down and actually talk. In that regard, the US intervention has little or no power to hold any of it up. It is, especially at present, willing to sit at any table for economic reasons (not that this is a bad thing), but Israel knows that whatever deal will be gotten, it will not end good for Israel, the US knows this, it has always known this and at present, in their economic state of destitution they cannot afford to care about it. This is partially why the entire Iran situation will not be accepted by Israel, nor should it be by many nations. Be aware, I am not speaking out against Iran in this matter, but the issues as former president Ahmadinejad escalated them can easily happen again. Iran is the third largest nation in terms of oil reserves and this is why many parties are so adamant to make a deal with Iran (at http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/31/us-china-iran-zhenrong-idUSBRE9BU03020131231), as China is making new deals for oil, Iran will get an additional incentive of well over 80 billion, which the US is now missing out on. In an age of cash is king, the US is demoted from king to a mere tiny Earl and this is more than upsetting to these high and mighty US oil barons. Their business is wavering. So, as they will push for more and more business, the dangers Israel faces are also increasing. This is not about Hassan Rouhani, who so far is showing and proving to be an international diplomat. Israel fears what comes next in 2021. There is no indication that Hassan Rouhani is anything but a moderate, however the next one might not be like that and anyone who follows and is one step closer to a new Ahmedinejad will give the state of Israel a direct nuclear threat to deal with. They cannot allow for such a dangerous situation. It is all good and nice the things that John Kerry (as State Secretary) claims now, but when things go wrong, he will sit from a distance negotiating for talks whilst Tel Aviv partially glows in the dark. At that point those poor poor Iranians will be willing to talk (after the fact). When, at that point Israel stops existing, the Mediterranean is no longer a viable place and the fallout dangers to the eco systems of Greece, Italy and Spain will be regarded, by the US administration, as unfortunate. When a nation has no options, every step is one too many. Is my assumption a fair one? Consider the acts of former Iranian president Ahmadinejad; consider the acts of Hamas, Hezbollah as well as the Al-Qaeda groups currently in the Sinai. Mohamed Morsi was only just in office when Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood started staging anti-Israel rallies in Cairo.

I feel certain that John Kerry has been aware of all these dangers, as have the members of the state departments all over the world. So, if any solution is ever to exist, then getting the ‘right to exist’ for Israel, will be a mandatory first step.

So when I stated that Israel stands alone, I was not kidding. For those who are eager to deal with the oil states, will have to deal with many who are opposed to the existence of the State of Israel (avoiding stating the term anti-Semitism here). In this era of government bankruptcies, the Cash is King approach is painfully visible and there is no clear solution in sight any day soon.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Military, Politics

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

February 11, 2014 · 10:39

Watership Drown for Mr Smith

There is no denying it. If you are in the UK, you are likely drenched, flooded or drowning. It is the worst hardship that any person could ever face. Even though such a situation unheard of in Australia, I grew up in the Netherlands and as such, rainy conditions are not unknown to the Dutch, the flooding they are facing however has not been seen to THAT degree ever. Yes, if you were living by the Maas, there some have had their skirmishes with floods; also the Australians have had their own versions of ‘enlarged’ swimming pools. The flood that has hit Somerset is however one of the few moments where ‘biblical’ is the only word that covers the hardship these people face.

It goes beyond Somerset, as per tonight, anyone who is living around the Themes is likely to be in dire need for higher ground. I agree with certain people when they state that this is not the time for the blame game. (at http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/10/uk-floods-cameron-ministers-flooding). I myself do not have any intentions to blame Lord Smith of Finsbury at present. I saw how people seem to blame him for this, but why?

Dredging? The news that hit the Daily Mail less than 12 hours ago (at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2555667/Environment-Agency-bosses-spent-2-4million-PR-refused-1-7million-dredging-key-Somerset-rivers-stopped-flooding.html), which shows us how their story is not a useful example.

No matter how correct their numbers are. You see, numbers do not lie; the writer who uses these numbers like in the quote “but refused £1.7million dredging of key Somerset rivers that could have stopped flooding” is at the very centre of the entire deception.

No amount of dredging would have saved Somerset, whatever experts will tell you in cautious words, the issue is not just the rain, but the amount of days that the rain continued. The soil is saturated for many hundreds of square miles. You see, rivers do help getting water away, but the soil soaks up most of the water. Consider a simple experiment. You take two buckets, one filled with dry dirt, one empty. You add 2 gallons of water to both, put a lid with a few small holes on both and after 15 minutes you empty the bucket again through the holes into the 2 gallon measure. You will see that the bucket without soil returns 99.322% (roughly), the other one will yield less than 60%. This is what Somerset and others face. Water that has nowhere to go, it remains afloat upon the land. I watched as an old lady on sky news proclaimed that she had never seen anything like this in her 43 years living in that area. That should be a first indication that England is not facing anything they have faced before. Weeks of rain and more rain to come for at least 2 weeks (as presently indicated), dredging would not have had the smallest of influence, there is too much water to deal with.

Additional consideration was the image they placed (at http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/02/10/article-2555667-1B5A5F2E00000578-651_634x446.jpg), take the small blue lines as the rivers and consider the red areas as flooded. Now consider that all the red area water is at least 3 inches, which would make it billions of gallons. How are rivers to deal with that? Dredging would not have made a difference at all. Now, important is that I am not against dredging, but in this case it would not have been the solution people claim it to be.

In support we can see the following at the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/10/uk-floods-cameron-ministers-flooding), where the following was stated by former environment minister Richard Benyon “A lot of people are becoming very fed up with the way in which this debate is being reduced to a binary choice about whether rivers should be dredged or not. I have to point out floods are caused by rain not silt“, the additional fact that we can find in that story is that the Brits haven’t seen these amounts of rain since 1760. Consider that most of the affected areas had been uninhabited in those days strengthens that this event to this degree is a first.

The second misuse of ‘facts’ by the Daily Mail is “The Environment Agency spent £2.4million on PR activities“. The Environment Agency is not there just for floods. On their website they state “regulation of major industry, flood and coastal risk management, water quality and resources, waste regulation, climate change, fisheries, contaminated land, conservation and ecology, navigation“, so basically it is a big bucket of events that is covered. Keeping track of pollution is a big one as many (not at present) can agree to.

Looking through the articles, there is an interesting one by Colin Thorne from Nottingham University (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/10/britain-floods-chief-scientist-sewage-coastal-defences). It shows that not only is the UK facing hardship, it will soon be facing a really hard choice on how to deal with these events. Sir David King had mentioned the need for radical change a decade ago. The quote “Sustainable flood management actually involves a lot less flood management and a lot more managed flooding” might give an indication on how drastically the changes need to be. If we use the Netherlands as an example, the UK will soon face the discussion on spending. This is because in the Netherlands managing too much water has been a massive part of its national budget for over half a century. Take a look at the map of the Netherlands, and consider that the lowest dry spot in the Netherlands is 7 meters BELOW sea level! Let’s not forget that the Netherlands did not get to this point easily or free of hurt. The fight against the sea began in all earnest after the storm of Sunday February 1st 1953, which killed almost 1800 people. This storm changed the face of the Netherlands in more than one way. Such a project is not feasible in the UK, but we will see some projects start, which will start debates on many levels. As people realise that the future in Somerset could start to revolve around managed flooding, we will see new levels of anger. It is only natural that this happens. We are not talking about flooding residential areas, but consider that areas, surrounded by dikes doubling as roads will create places where all the water can go to, who owns these lands? More important, what happens when it is not enough? They are all valid questions and the least favourite part of this will decide on some of the choices, because all of it will cost money and it will take loads of money to get something done decently. In addition, the land lost will impact on land prices and land value. So when Sir David King spoke about hard choices he was not kidding and I wonder if people realise just how hard these changes could be.

The final thought I leave you with is this. ‘This had not happened to this degree for a little over 250 years!‘ How unsafe do the people feel there and how far will the government go to take a stand against what has happened? Lord Smith of Finsbury stated a good point when he mentioned the 5000 houses that did get hit and the 1.1 million houses that remained safe. It is a good point and we need to focus on that part before the parties in the UK start pushing out ‘wild’ programs on visibility against floods.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

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

January 14, 2014 · 15:40

Frack off?

Fracking, it has been a large issue in the Netherlands, now it is starting to get grounds on several levels in the UK. Some of the shown issues can be found at http://news.sky.com/story/1194087/fracking-cameron-offers-councils-drill-money. The first paragraph gives us two of several issues connected to this, as is stated “David Cameron has announced £1.7m for councils which agree to drill for shale gas sparking angry protests from campaigners who say it amounts to little more than bribery.”

The issue is whether the environmental issues are dealt with. The incentive is a powerful one, and the complication is that this is now business against the future, not the consequences set against the present.

Why am I stating this?

One part of that evidence is coming from the Netherlands. The NOS stated “De gaswinning in Groningen leidde dit jaar tot een recordaantal aardbevingen.Gemiddeld twee keer per week: in totaal 127 keer. ” [Translated: the gathering of shale gas through fracking has led to a record amount of earthquakes. At present they are hit with two earthquakes a week, a total of 127 quakes]. The fracking as it is happening under direction of the Dutch NAM is having serious consequences. The quakes have been as high as a 3.7 on the Richter scale. The political field is still all open on finding some way to make this all continue in the Netherlands, which amounts to a strong devaluation of a unique architectural form in the Netherlands. In addition, on November 1st 2013 the following was also quoted by the NOS. “de Nederlandse aardoliemaatschappij NAM zo’n 900 miljoen euro voor compensatie moeten uittrekken.” [Translated: the NAM would have to pay 900 million euro in compensations, dealing with these damages].

[Addition] One reader had issues with the translation as mentioned earlier. In the literal sense, the commenter was correct, yet the information the commenter had not been aware of was (at http://www.nam.nl/nl/technology-and-innovation/optimization-natural-gas/fracking.html). There is however another issue I add to this (25th January 2014). The quote “De techniek wordt al sinds de jaren ’50 regelmatig en succesvol toegepast in Nederland.” [Translated: The technique has been used regularly and succesfully since the 50’s.] The latter part is important for two reasons. First is that fracking had been used a lot longer and in addition, when I grew up there were no earthquakes in the Netherlands (at least none that I was aware of). So what other factors are part of the escalations in the Netherlands? Just more drilling?

Has David Cameron (and his advisers) taken these costs into account? Let’s not forget that Groningen is one of the lesser populated counties in the Netherlands. We are talking about a county with just over 510,000 people, compared to the national population of almost 17 million. Consider these numbers when fracking will commence all over Britain, especially in the southern parts the UK.

Now, the UK does not have the soft ground that is found in the Netherlands, yet the dangers will not be any less. When we look at the quote that Sky News gave us in the earlier mentioned article “The Government estimates the industry could attract £3.7bn a year in investment and support 74,000 jobs.” ‘Could’ is not a given, neither is the damage that the Netherlands are currently facing. I do however wonder about the short sighted look on 3.7 billion, when the UK is dealing with a 1 trillion debt. Now, as I mention this, you will think that this is all a good thing to have something that lowers the total debt and I would agree. However, consider the next quote, also from Sky News “A Local Government Association spokesman said: ‘Given the significant tax breaks being proposed to drive forward the development of shale gas and the impact drilling will have on local communities, these areas should not be short-changed by fracking schemes.’”

So, these companies get even more tax breaks? Remember the old days? A company was visionary and had a good idea. There was no tax break and the tax paying people did not have to pay for their short-sightedness, once it reared its ugly head. Now, the topic of ‘tax break’ seems to be the introduction to any investment conversation. It is better than gambling as it is legally permitted. If it goes wrong they have no worry as no taxes are due, if they win they avoid massive taxation, a slightly rigged game, so to speak.

There are additional issues. Some of the environmentalists talk about the contamination of ground water as well as depletion of fresh water. It is hard to comment on those two claims as I am no expert on it. In one part, groundwater contamination could be avoided if it is properly investigated, yet the 1.7 million pound handout as mentioned in the very beginning could be cause to less vigorous investigation. If so, when the cost of living goes up for those drinking bottled water from 70 pence to lets say 125 pence per 1,5 liter, the issue will then become a colossal one, at which time it will be too late to do anything about it.

In the end, we must acknowledge that these risks have not been proven and as such the calamities the Netherlands are currently facing in Groningen should be investigated in regards to the risks that could exist for the UK. The latest statement by David Cameron “David Cameron said the Government was ‘going all out for shale’” does not qualify as evidence in either direction, but the economic state as it is faced by both Cameron and Osborne implies that they do not seem to be moving in a cautious direction.

The next quote to look at is “Mr Cameron’s announcement comes as the French energy giant Total has announced it will invest millions with a 40% interest in two shale gas exploration licences in the UK.” It is interesting how much France would like to get into this field in the UK, yet they suspended three gas exploration permits in France (exploration is just looking, not active drilling on a production level). There is something to be said for the expression not soiling one’s own bed. Other reports states that fracking would be at the centre of all kinds of water pollution issues. I reckon that being on an island, hazarding once water supply is just not advisable.

If we look at the BBC news (at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25705550) we see the final quote. “Councils that back fracking will get to keep more money in tax revenue“. Sky News mentioned the same thing, yet when we look at the tax breaks offered and the possible damages that someone has to pay for, in the end, how much of all that diminished cash will end up in the coffers of the British Empire?

There are loads of considerations and I have strong feelings that only the spread sheet boys have looked at this picture. I wonder how much positivity remains once the fixers, engineers and water boys have taken a deep look at the consequences of this entire endeavour.

Fracking is bad and sees to have dangerous very long term consequences. There is no doubt that there are a few places in the UK where this could be done without harmful consequence. Yet, the French view (pre French super debt date) has been cautious as they have a lot to lose. That cautious approach should have been taken for the Netherlands and the UK should follow along that same path. The realist in me also knows that under these heavy economic pressured the environment will most likely lose, it remains doubtful whether the population will ever get to see a clear and complete picture in regards to the cost of doing business in this regard and fracking could become the most expensive form of business we ever knew.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

December 26, 2013 · 21:55

What Syrian option is there?

It all started with the Tweet from Janet Royall, who is the current UK Labour leader in the House of Lords. The tweet was a link towards this article (at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/no-room-at-the-inn-britain-says-no-to-syrias-refugees-9025265.html).

I do not agree!

We know that something must be done, but this is not the solution. Which of the 10,000 would the UK help when the numbers of refugees are up there in the 2 million at this point! A solution must be found. Yes, I do agree that it always looks good when politicians are seen with those few people (especially children), when those people are truly happy to get out of harm’s way. It looks at times like the impoverished approach in getting votes (sorry for the cynicism).

The issue is a lot larger and a lot more drastic then many realise. At UNHCR (at http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php) we see that the number is well over 2.2 million, so when we see that the Netherlands was not about accepting refugees, but to send aid in all forms, then they would be right and the UK should do the same thing.

The massive dangers at present are Jordan with 569K refugees and Lebanon with 851K refugees. You see, they are now danger places as resources are dwindling down over there. If something is to be done, then it will be imperative that as soon as possible an additional 20 containers measuring 40′ filled with food and medication goes tho these two places EACH DAY! (Not sure how much is send at this time) In addition, Jordan has always had a water shortage to some degree and another 569 thousand thirsty throats (which is an additional 10% of the population) are not helping any. This for the simple reason because if you think that things are bad now, wait until the local population notices the drop in fresh water. Then gooses will be cooked on several borders. So as the independent is happily voicing Shadow Home secretary Yvette Cooper, they did mention in a blasé one-liner “Ministers say the UK is helping more than one million of the estimated 2.4 million refugees in what the UN views as the biggest emergency in its history.” But it was all about the Labour side (as I read it).

The Conservative’s way is exactly the approach that is needed from several nations and the UK is seeing financial support from the Netherlands. More funds will be needed!

So this is not just about where refugees go, but where can support and aid be given the best? To move these people to Europe is not really a solution (perhaps just a short term one). We heard the US talking tough, but at present they seem to remain in the distance in regards to achieving anything to resolve the situation. It must however be said that they did send aid which seems to be well over $100 million at present, so they are doing their bit in this instance, but as the big power, a solution should have been found ending this bloody civil war a long time ago, which is not the case.

This is not the fault of the US, because Russia is part of this entire caper and as such, Russia has been less than forthcoming in any solution. I do not think any refugees made it to Russia to begin with (not the best climate to go to either).

Even the Israeli’s have been sending aid, support and medical assistance!

No matter how we turn the dice, a choice must be made, one that other nations can consider, or even accept. So what could we do? No matter what solution we choose, it should include moving people away from both Lebanon and Jordan before this all escalates further and we end up with not one, but three countries that will be in dire need of aid and support. My first choice would be Egypt, this because there is so much space beyond Cairo and Alexandria. If these refugees can start building something for themselves in the meantime, like farms and work them, they will have means and perhaps even options for a future. There are even optional possibilities when we see part of the Sinai desert, especially when we consider how Sharm-El-Sheik has grown into a tourist haven, perhaps it can grow into something more?

Perhaps that will not work, it might just be a real bad idea I am having, but in my mind, moving a population of this magnitude will not work, splitting them up over nations might seem like a short term solution, but in the end it will cost and cost and never be the solution it need to be, so finding a middle-eastern solution and making sure that essential resources make it there might work and it would help many more than just a few thousand getting placed in the UK.

What is the best option? Not sure, but the UNHCR currently seems to be at a loss as well and they are supposed to be the experts in this field.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

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

December 23, 2013 · 22:44

Questions at this time

I have been fighting with myself in regards to certain issues that have been rising in this day and age. When we look at the definition of treason we see this statement “In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more extreme acts against one’s sovereign or nation.”

The question is not just in regards to a nation as is the case with Edward Snowden, but what about the acts against the people? If we accept the following statement as an acceptable fact “Republicanism is the ideology of governing a society or state as a republic, where the head of state is a representative of the people who hold popular sovereignty rather than the people being subjects of the head of state.”

So, if that is true, then should we consider the acts or even the absence of acts that stops dangers to the people as an act of treason? I have written about some of these parts for some time now, as per 5 days ago the guardian is now a little more vocal about it (at http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/dec/18/rich-countries-money-laundering-tax-evasion-oecd)

It seems that governments are FINALLY getting on the horse of action (as seen at http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/20/us-usa-tax-fatca-idUSBRE9BI13J20131220). Yet it seems that larger tax holes are still in existence in Ireland (at http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/15/us-ireland-tax-idUSBRE99E0PD20131015)

So should tax evasion be seen as a form of treason? I am not talking about the people left right and centre trying to find every possible tax hole. I am talking about the large corporations and their boards of directors (at http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/7/15/social-media/looking-beyond-apples-tax-evasion-tactics). If we accept the quote “Taxed at 0.004 per cent“, then how un-national (or in this case un-American) should these people be regarded? And it goes far beyond that part. This is shown in http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-23/yahoo-dell-swell-netherlands-13-trillion-tax-haven.html as we see a glimpse of the size of evasion. It is nice to see that the Netherlands are getting of the tax evasion horse, but consider this article from the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/oct/19/tax-avoidance-in-netherlands-becomes-focus-of-campaigners) shows that this horse had a very comfortable 3 years. Simon Goodley and Dan Milmo from The Guardian reported all this in October 2011, if we consider that then the words of President Obama sound even more hollow when we read “President Barack Obama presented a series of proposals in 2009 to curb offshore tax benefits“. Hollow? Yes, because only now at the end of his second reign is he making an effort, making it clear that keeping rich friends near you is all about re-election. So, when the hard times hit in the next term he can point the finger at the Republicans. The idea that we hold large corporation’s tax accountable does not seem such an option for either administration (Democrats and Republicans alike).

So, after all these years, as the US is getting in a financial state more and more desperate actions are finally taken, which in my view is well over half a decade too late. The issue remains, as people are hit harder and harder for taxation, not just in the US, big business seems to escape their share of taxation, giving them a massive advantage. In addition, in what I would call the ‘incestual’ relationship between a board of directors and their ‘ability’ to avoid taxation on a borderline of actual fraud (example HSBC to name but one). The game does change when we read that governments themselves start to offer assistance in this field (at http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jim-love-canadian-mint-chairman-helped-run-offshore-tax-avoidance-scheme-for-clients-1.2441347)

So, as we go towards Christmas and those high and mighty people do their ‘charity’ thing, then also consider that it is not impossible that they have been paying less taxation (like in +18% less), how very adult adults!

So if you want to cheer for anyone, cheer for that 60+ person, who after getting cut on life, living standards and retirement funds, this person is still doing over 20 hours a week in a community centre getting it all done for the people in their neighbourhood, because that is true charity and one more noble then I could actually muster at present.

If we get back to Republicanism, if it was all about ‘representing the people’ and consider that the fat cats are the chosen few (like 100,000 in a nation of 325,000,000), are these acts of non-accounting a form of treason too? Especially as tax evasion leaves a nation in a state of destitution? America seems to be clear evidence of that as its total debt will be roughly $60,680,485,000,000 on Christmas evening. Still think delaying acts against tax evasion was ever a good idea?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

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