Tag Archives: New York Post

December 10, 2025 · 13:16

Outside of my comfort zone

This morning I got news passing me by and it left me with questions. Now most of us have heard of the Muslim Brotherhood and as far as I can tell rightfully so, it is branded a terrorist organisation. But the CBC (at https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/florida-cair-muslim-brotherhood-declaration-9.7008351) gives us ‘Florida declares Council for American-Islamic Relations a terrorist organization’ and I was a little surprised. I had never heard of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), now this is not a complete surprise as I am not American and I am not Muslim, as such many who can make this claim are likely to escape that notion. And the most laughable setting is “The directive against the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) comes in an executive order DeSantis posted on X.” So what does Florida’s Governor Ron DeSantis fear more? Terrorists or the actual and factual media? What makes any organisation a terrorist organisation? Some say:

An organization becomes a terrorist group when it engages in, plans, or fosters violent, criminal acts for ideological (political, religious, etc.) goals, often by intimidating populations, with governments officially listing them for engaging in terrorist acts or advocating for them, making membership, support, or funding illegal. Key factors include intent to cause harm, use of violence, advancing an ideology, and official designation by a government body. 

In that case the setting is likely also met by MAGA America and we might get the same idea when we see “intent to cause harm, use of violence, advancing an ideology, and official designation by a government body” towards the settings of ICE, but that might be a stretch. So what makes CAIR a danger? And lets be clear, America seemingly set the premise of CAIR from its infancy in June 1994 to about 25 chapters all over America and we are given “Following the attack, Muslim-Americans were subjected to an upsurge in harassment and discrimination, including a rise in hate crimes nationally; 222 hate crimes against Muslims nationwide were reported in the days immediately following the bombing. The bombing gave CAIR national stature for their efforts to educate the public about Islam and religious bias in America”, as such, since when does education give any organisation a terrorist stature? And I get it, we get this from the person who went to war with a mouse. And we get more at TRT (at https://www.trtworld.com/article/19f5c755f766) where we see ‘Why CAIR’s advocacy has spooked pro-Israel American politicians’ it gives me a second jolt, you see, why does a pro Israel make that person anti Muslim and vice versa? I never got that part. So when we are given “While the federal government does not classify CAIR as a terrorist group, these state-level actions underscore an effort to silence one of the most prominent Muslim-American voices advocating for Palestinian rights and reflect growing unease among pro-Israel politicians over CAIR’s push for justice and accountability in US policy toward Israel.” Would it be that simple? An organisation is branded terrorist as it tries to stand for Palestinian rights? I have nothing against that, but it does require the eradication of Hamas and that is the linked unease. These people are all about coloring whatever they can, but they will not act for the common good of Palestine and as I personally see it, that requires the eradication of Hamas. Hamas has shown again and again that it is unwilling to make any deal, We see images of destroyed baby food and hidden caches of food and miraculously. These images are gone within hours. And we are left with “Hamas hid tons of baby formula and nutritional shakes meant for kids inside a warehouse to allow Gazans to starve and further its claims of widespread famine to undermine Israel, a US-based Palestinian activist claimed. Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib, an anti-Hamas activist, accused the terror group of hoarding food meant for infants and young children to purposefully increase starvation in Gaza and damage the public perception of Israel.”

This sets the larger setting against organisations like CAIR and the seemingly good they do in America. I state ‘seemingly’ as it is about perceptions and kinda like CAIR, I have absolutely no idea where Governor Ron DeSantis gets his wisdom, but I fear the worst if he merely gives this to X. And the previous ‘facts’ were released on the New York Post, as such there is limited credibility as there isn’t more in the media. And the actions of Hamas have been going on for months (at least from late September), but the overarching issue is WHY is CAIR a terrorist organisation? I fail to see any evidence of that. There is merely the setting that the Florida Governor gives, whilst there is nothing in any of the other location which gives us Washington DC, Maryland, North Carolina, Alabama, Arizona, Los Angeles, Sacramento Valley, San Diego, San Francisco, Connecticut, Georgia, Chicago, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Columbus, Cleveland, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, Austin, Houston, Seattle and of course the Florida Chapter in Tampa. So where is the evidence that DeSantis has making the CAIR a terrorist organisation? And for that matter, how come in all these chapters, there is nothing else? 

Something does not make sense, although this man went to war with a mouse, so I reckon that there is likely another reason hiding in the tall grass. 

So whilst the Florida Phoenix (at https://floridaphoenix.com/2025/12/09/gov-desantis-welcomes-lawsuit-challenging-cairs-terrorist-designation/) gives us ‘Gov. DeSantis welcomes lawsuit challenging CAIR’s terrorist designation’ where we see “Monday, DeSantis declared via executive order that the Muslim Brotherhood and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) are foreign terrorist organizations. CAIR promised a lawsuit, alleging defamation and that the order is unconstitutional.” And it comes with the only response that likely matters “Muslim-rights group replies: ‘See you in court.’”

Is that the only place that matters, the place where he can talk freely, A court? It would be a sad life he has if that would be the case, but after the Disney court setting, it might be his only option for now and praying on the fear of others is (speculatively) the only option left to him, because there is every chance that his previous ‘win’ of 59.37% is likely his last because there is every chance that he will lose Osceola County, Tampa (surprise), Palm Beach County and optionally Seminole County (where apparently some Disney workers reside) and if this is true, the CAIR following is al that is stopping from Florida to become a Democratic state on November 6th 2026. I reckon that the CAIR is the nail on his coffin because he is unlikely to get any support from President Trump, making this state in a state to change colours from red to blue. Won’t that make his heart blue in the process? And there is some setting for this, there are according to some numbers 127,172 Muslims in Florida and in for at least one electoral location that is all that is needed to throw over the numbers. And as I see it the chance that 0% Muslims will vote for Ron DeSantis is close to 100%. 

It is all up for debate, but there are settings that matter, but what they are and how they matter will seemingly be a new case for the courts of Florida. Have a great day

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

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

July 26, 2025 · 03:18

Is there a downturn?

That was the secondary view I was given. The first was a quote by that (me giggling) astrophysical Neil deGrasse Tyson. No disrespect, he states settings well and with massive clarity. But the one quote he gave us was “knowing enough about a subject to think you’re right, but not enough about the subject to know you’re wrong”. That took me, not by surprise, but it had impact. I reported on America tourism through media clues given. Tourism is something that I know little about (my last vacation was 2002). My main reaction was indolence of Canada, as such as they are shunning America, I stand with them. That will teach most of these 51st State Theologians (they are always praying to god for places they can’t have) a lesson and as a Commonwealthian (aka Australian) I have to stand with my Canadian brethren (sisters too). 

So I reported on these fall backs. Then I noticed a few items and my setting slightly changed. There is a rumbling of adjusted data and it doesn’t spell good news. As I see it Google is involved and I for one have massively supported their points of view. As such the quote from that space expressionist (nothing negative) comes to mind. “knowing enough about a subject to think you’re right, but not enough about the subject to know you’re wrong” it is important. Is this me? It could be, I know am not a expert on tourism, I think I still know how to be one and that is it. But data, data is my rap and I have worked with data for decades. So I am spouting here the setting of what I see and perhaps you will also see the issue that arises. Because it is not merely the subject, it is the knowing that the facts do not add up. Even if you accept that the media tends to slice and dice data to give the view they need to have to power the view they want to instill on the readers. Yet, here is the hidden clue. When you look at the slices, the picture feels wrong. The part cannot be seen as the whole. That is the hidden feature of media, that is seemingly their strength. Yet when you have enough slices and partial view, the whole picture tends to make sense. Here it does not, and to illuminate these settings I put several of them here, you can see for yourself what you can make of it. I still think something is off. Lets start off by quoting everyones favourite delusional view (AI) and in this case Googles.

You can see the setting it ‘gives’ us. 

The first is given to us (at https://www.ctol.digital/news/us-tourism-slump-retail-impact-july-24/) by ctol digital solutions with ‘Tourism Downturn Threatens $20 Billion US Retail Spending Crisis’ now, we can rant about this but the overall downturn for 2025 is set to $29 billion. And this is now set to a larger premise of $20 billion (retail), there is no reason to fight the numbers, yet as I see it, the ‘gemini’ view is that this merely constitutes $2600 billion, raking in $585 billion in tax dollars. As I see it, this merely constitutes slightly less then 1%, is that a crises, or an overreaction? I could see it as panic writing. 

Then we get the New York Post giving us 6 hours ago ‘Foreign tourism to NYC expected to see ‘devastating’ $4B drop this year according to industry experts’ (at https://nypost.com/2025/07/25/us-news/foreign-tourism-to-nyc-expected-to-see-devastating-4b-drop-this-year-according-to-industry-experts/) where we see “The drop — which could be as much as 14% — will have a brutal effect on the New York economy, as foreign tourists usually spend big, according to NYC Tourism + Conventions, which did the study. “Although international visitors make up 20% of total visitation, they account for approximately 50% of all visitor spending, making them essential to New York City’s economy,” group CEO Julie Coker said in a statement.” Really? As I see it $4B is merely 0.25%, but we are looking at the whole picture, for New York 14% and the international visitations being up to 20% is a lot, but when you see it against the ‘Gemini’ (aka Google) numbers, something is starting not to add up. 

Then we shift focus to Travel And Tour World (TTW), who gave us a mere 20 hours ago ‘Retailers in Major US Cities Like New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago Face Twenty Billion USD Decline in Sales as International Tourist Spending Slows’ (at https://www.travelandtourworld.com/news/article/retailers-in-major-us-cities-like-new-york-los-angeles-and-chicago-face-twenty-billion-usd-decline-in-sales-as-international-tourist-spending-slows/) where we see “Retailers in major US cities like New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago are feeling the impact of a significant shift in consumer behaviour as foreign tourist spending decline, twenty billion USD. These iconic cities have long depended on the influx of international visitors, who often contribute substantially to retail sales, especially in luxury goods and high-end fashion. However, as travel patterns change and tourists adjust their spending habits, many retailers are seeing fewer footfalls in their stores, directly affecting their bottom lines.” From this we can take two settings. The first is the setting that we are getting closer to the $29 billion and that Los Angeles and Chicago represent 75% of the loss. I have an issue with that. I get that New York is losing money, but to see this as a mere 25% of what Los Angeles and Chicago represent? That doesn’t make sense. I get that Los Angeles is big, as would California as a whole but the percentages are off, especially against the numbers that Google AI gives us. It seems to be a mere storm in a cup of water. And I can recite a whole range of additional articles, but the point should be coming across now. So, is there a bigger picture? Yes, there is and I have stated this again and again. Verification is essential for any data to be set and here I am getting to the stage that Google has altered numbers, or at least limitations of what their (so called) AI is spouting at us. The sources of these data stages are debatable. It is like the old market research settings we can (at times) see that the opposition of any stance might be 69%, but it is the ’N’ that makes the cake and if it is 256 people it is seen as trivial, only if we have 8,263,000 (estimated population of New York) will it become an actual crises issue and these articles give us percentages, but the ’N’ is absent, making the whole setting debatable at best. 

To complete the setting I have one additional source. It is the Travel (at https://www.thetravel.com/american-airlines-passengers-concerned-hundreds-of-us-domestic-flights-cancelled-august/) giving us ‘American Airlines Has Passengers Concerned With Hundreds Of U.S. Domestic Flights Cancelled As Of August’ where we see “AA’s domestic U.S. flights. It appears that American Airlines is scaling back significantly, with hundreds of cancellations scheduled to take place as of August. AA has made these changes for several reasons. One of them involves current trends” Now, this might be fine as we are also given “while the other is due to an ongoing dispute with a specific U.S. airport” is that reason to cancel hundreds of flights? It might be, I just don’t know. But the overall news as we saw it in the last few weeks implies that passengers are seemingly absent and that makes the setting of the Google AI debatable at best. The numbers do not add up in several directions and personally I have an issue with that. I am not stating that I am above the quote that Neil deGrasse Tyson gave us all. I am saying that I merely know enough about data that there are issues and most likely in several settings. Personally I am with the setting that Canadian are shunning America (mostly due to the 51st state notion) and we have seen several settings towards view. And even as Canada is merely one nation, the tourism setting seems wrong. Especially as the media is allegedly creating a perfect storm in a teacup, because that is what is implied and the numbers do not bear out that view. 

Am I right, am I wrong? I let you consider that for yourself but when you see the ‘AI’ view, it doesn’t add up to the views that the media are giving us. So few free to disagree, feel free to adjust your views too, but something is off. Have a great day today.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics, Science, Tourism

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

February 4, 2022 · 14:57

Talk about something in a boring way?

Yes, that is one way to put it, you see we can drone all we like, but until certain players wake up, smell the coffee and realise that they are aiding Iran through silence, we will never get anywhere. It started yesterday (actually a few days earlier) and I did mention an event before that. But yesterday it started as Reuters gave us ‘UAE says it blocked drone attack, shadowy group claims responsibility’ (at https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/uae-says-it-destroyed-3-drones-that-penetrated-its-airspace-wednesday-2022-02-02/) there we see “The first three assaults, including a missile attack on Monday during a visit by Israel’s president, were launched by Yemen’s Iran-aligned Houthis in an escalation with a military coalition led by Saudi Arabia and which includes the UAE.” In this we are also given “Wednesday’s drone attack was claimed by little-known “True Promise Brigades”, citing UAE interference in Yemen and Iraq as justification, according to U.S.-based SITE Intelligence Group, which follows militant websites”, which I personally reckon is one of two players. The article does give us “the group, which is unknown to Iraqi intelligence or security officials, is actually active or capable of such attacks, or if it is a front for Iran-allied militias”, but that is not all. I get the setting we see here. Yet when we consider the gathered intel from Saudi Spokesperson Turki Al-Maliki who gave is last month and showed us all video that not only is Iran actively involved in Yemen, but so is Hezbollah and there is no mention of Hezbollah at present is there? More important, the western media shunned any mention of Iran and Hezbollah in Yemen ACTIVELY attacking the UAE and Saudi Arabia. There is not the question whether it has happened. The attacks on Aramco (14 September 2019) could not have ben done by Houthi forces, or Hezbollah for that matter. The attacks and the precision clearly implies an attack by Iran, but that as never properly investigated by the west was it? So I decided to design a weapon system to stealthily sink their navy and I gave it to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (as well as put it online), the idea of melting down their reactor I put online. It needs to be clear that if no one will deal with Iran, I will (I needed a hobby anyway).

But this is not about me. This is about Iran and this is about the UAE attack. So the second article comes from Arab News (at https://www.arabnews.com/node/2017681/middle-east) there we see ‘UAE foreign minister condemns Houthi attacks in call with Iranian counterpart’, I personally wonder what UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed actually told Iran, but I think it is clear that these attacks are not the result from Houthi forces. I am also amazed that the drones got that far. There is more in this and the technology required to get that far implies clearly that it is Iranian hardware, definitely training by Iran or Houthi forces and the reach of the hardware implies stronger measures have been delivered to Houthi forces and only one source is the delivery agent. It was Iran, whether they went via Hezbollah is another matter. Yet the text “the UAE’s air defences intercepted and destroyed three drones on Wednesday before they had reached residential areas” the question becomes was the target military or civilian? That is not easily answered, but the setting requires a much larger response from the west, If they want any credibility at all. Yet there is a larger station to consider. Why is the west (aka US Navy) unable to stop Iranian (or Hezbollah) smugglers? This setting is already beyond 7 drones, the hardware required is not a simple setting. There needs to be at least three teams or more advanced cluster Drone control and the second part implies a lot more training and a lot more knowledge that previously expected and there is no way that this advanced expertise of drones is in the hard of Houthi forces or Hezbollah. 

The second part is drone control, there are at least 3 stations available. Whether we track or hack, something needs to be done and so far the failures of the blocking navy (US, UK) is out there and more questions are out there on smugglers making it though. I might pull a rabbit with a solution out of my hat, but I got nothing (at present) yet the Americans and Brits out there are not getting it done either so something new is required and if I create a new IP on taking out Iranian interest I will put them here, but at present smugglers are the problem and so far no one has anything to stop them and the one that got caught is not enough, the weapons might count, but drones and drone control is making it through and that needs to stop. It needs to stop because soon the stage becomes that the UAE and Saudi Arabia are forced to set the tone to open warfare with Iran. The flaccid politicians (Us and EU) will be too late then and no one will give them any consideration, at that point we can no longer be neutral and as I personally see it, the commonwealth will have to openly support the UAE and then what? You see at that point we are at a point of no return and we had the option to stop it earlier, if only politicians and their stakeholders had a clear solution to avoid the point of no return and as we can see it will soon be too late for that. At least I offered at least two parts in stopping Iran, more needs to be done and the west is not doing it. The Wall Street Journal gave u 17 hours ago ‘U.S. Sees Iran’s Nuclear Program as Too Advanced to Restore Key Goal of 2015 Pact’, the Jerusalem Post only 11 hours ago gives us ‘The US is negotiating a shorter, weaker Iran Deal’, and I wrote on November 19th 2021 ‘Uranium, Iranas, Iran it again’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/11/19/uranium-iranas-iran-it-again/). There I stated (almost three months ago) “the first dose of reality is only a week away, when we see the absence of strong media representation, the absence of strong language and the absence of clear shot time lines, I feel that my point will be made and I only need to see one of the three to be proven correct. This has been going on for 7 years, enough is enough I say”, and that is all after the stories going back to July 2020, there has been that much inaction from the west, and equally that little achieved. 

It is clear that Iran is using flaccid western politicians and western stakeholders to get their message and levels of inactivity out. So as the New York Post now gives the people ‘New Iran deal wouldn’t stop production of nuclear bomb: White House’, so as the gloves come off, the stage of either support Saudi Arabia or face the chaos that will ensure for decades to come will pass through inaction, or through actions done too late. Inactions will have pushed the Middle East to a brink of chaos and we are all in part to blame, we have seen a year of inactions and filtered news so any journalist now making claims that they were caught unaware can go screw themselves. This has been out there for years and we are soon in a stage where we could face the ordeal of letting it all get out of control. 

We can drone all we want, but we forgot that there was a larger stage and not calling that one out was on the plate of all these so called reporters, yet they didn’t do that, did they?

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Military, Politics, Science

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

November 21, 2019 · 11:31

The Prince Andrew debacle

It is seen as it is, yet what is to be seen? There were failures all over the board, yet where are they to be found? It is that part that takes the light out as well, even as we do not realise it. To see that we need to take the camera back, we need to do this, because we can see now, we can hear now, but years ago it was different, it was different as the media you see this goes back to 2005, way before 2005. Even then we see: “He served almost 13 months in custody, but with extensive work release” (source: 2009 quote), even then the media and a lot of people were connected to Jeffrey Epstein; a lot of voices were drowning out what was really happening. I was confronted with it in January 2015 ‘As we judge morality‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2015/01/07/as-we-judge-morality/), I added a copy of the affidavit, the Palm Beach records at that point. Because of the Daily Mail headlines I added: “When someone is on a case for this long, is this distinguished (80 commendations), you might want to consider being an actual journalist and look into the matter, especially when it is about a member of the Royal family” They also relied on “Prince Andrew’s billionaire paedophile friend given permission to land private jet at RAF base for visit Sandringham” which was an event that happened in 2000, yet in 2000 there was very little on the events in Jeffrey Epstein’s life, the media was (optionally knowingly) unaware of what Jeffrey Epstein was up to, the events did not come to blows until March 2005. We get from sources: “In March 2005, a woman contacted Florida’s Palm Beach Police Department and alleged that her 14-year-old stepdaughter had been taken to Epstein’s mansion by an older girl. There she was allegedly paid $300 (equivalent to $380 in 2018) to strip and massage Epstein.” After that filing it wold take the Police 13 months to get anywhere, that included a search of his home. It would take a long time before the police had anything at all, In 2006 the Smoking Gun had ‘Billionaire In Palm Beach Sex Scandal‘, yet the American Hypocrite media had very little to say, it was bad business to advocate issues, we have seen that, in all this we see Prince Andrew is getting slapped around, yet his media centre, the one that should have been protective of him, where were they? I am not telling, I am asking!

There are very little records available to me. The New York Times gave us (in 2019) ‘How a Ring of Women Allegedly Recruited Girls for Jeffrey Epstein‘, yet what was out in the open in 2005? Well we see the involvement of Haley Robson, the 2006 smoking gun gives us the Police Case which states (as in image) and is basically part of the affidavit that I added later on. “Several of the victims were recruited by and brought to the residence by Haley Robson to perform massages for Epstein” and apart from the New York Post, there is very little we are aware of when the clock moves to August 2006, Even then we see “But a bitter rift between Palm Beach cops and prosecutors over how to handle the case has put Epstein at risk of more serious charges. The FBI is weighing whether to investigate his alleged contacts with underage girls“, I know that this is a media Bonanza, but as we read ‘The FBI is weighing whether to investigate his alleged contacts with underage girls‘ we read levels of non-determination, or even levels of doubt on a paedophile and this is American ‘justice’ the issues is not even European at this point, even as the affidavit gave way to a larger issue going back to September 2004, and the fact that Robson was included for two years in all this was seemingly not taken into account by the glamour news articles, the papers made very little sense either. The Miami Herald (at https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article221404845.html) gives “2005 March: A 14-year-old girl and her parents report that Jeffrey Epstein molested her at a mansion in Palm Beach“, yet the affidavit goes back to September 2004 in the mention and this article is from November 2018, so why is the OFFICIAL AFFIDAVIT ignored?

In October 2006 we get (from the Miami Herald in this case: “With the non-prosecution agreement still being debated, Acosta meets with Epstein lawyer Jay Lefkowitz at the West Palm Beach Marriott on Okeechobee Boulevard to discuss finalizing a deal. Among the terms agreed upon: that the victims would not be notified, that the deal would be kept under seal and all grand jury subpoenas would be cancelled“, so that was the stage 12 years ago, There was a legal deal, one that gives him in the end a 13 month in this Alexander Acosta who would later end up being United States Secretary of Labor after he was Dean of the Florida International University College of Law and before that he was United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida (when he gave the deal), that is the level of protection that Jeffrey Epstein enjoyed, the Miami Herald gives us at that point: “the non-prosecution agreement “essentially shut down an ongoing FBI probe into whether there were more victims and other powerful people who took part in Epstein’s sex crimes”. At the time, this halted the investigation and sealed the indictment. The Miami Herald said: “Acosta agreed, despite a federal law to the contrary, that the deal would be kept from the victims“, so before people go after HRH Prince Andrew, we need to see the real protection that was out there, and the media had a role to play as well, there were no investigative journalists out there in 2005 and 2006 thinking that this might be a larger story that goes all the way to the White House, Epstein was protected, a billionaire optionally flexing his multi-billion dollar wallet. So when we read: “he was sentenced to 18 months in prison. While most convicted sex offenders in Florida are sent to state prison, Epstein was instead housed in a private wing of the Palm Beach County Stockade and, according to the sheriff’s office, was after ​3.5 months allowed to leave the jail on “work release” for up to 12 hours a day, 6 days a week” which was in opposition of “The sheriff’s own policies requiring a maximum remaining sentence of 10 months and making sex offenders ineligible for the privilege. He was allowed to come and go outside of specified release hours” we see an optional different story, he got to (optionally) tell all around him “I am innocent, they flexed the rules, but a real convicted child molestor doesn’t get these options” and the media would not attack those rules, the freedoms given to a billionaire child molester, why not? The person who was at the centre of this deal (Alexander Acosta) would not be persecuted for his part until 2019, and he stepped down as Secretary of Labor in July 2019. We see that Jeffrey Epstein house manager was arrested in 2010 (for obstructing justice) he had a journal giving rise to additional victims, and material witnesses. The events in France did not come out until August 23, 2019 when the prosecutor’s office in Paris, France opened a preliminary investigation into Epstein. He was already dead then.

So in all this mess it is Prince Andrew who gets to be the next victim, the victim of media that is, after all the debatable amount of exposure (none to say the least) the media now sees stuff for circulation, that is the actual crime isn’t it? Papers need to circulate and finding a famous man with a dead girl or a live boy is the best (a live abused girl is pretty OK too). So when we get to the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/20/prince-andrew-jeffrey-epstein-and-newsnight-anatomy-of-a-pr-disaster), we need to have the right mindset, my initial focal point is not the prince, it is his PR and media group (or person). It is not “Andrew had already lost the services of Jason Stein, the spin doctor hired in September to restore his reputation. Stein had reportedly advised Andrew against the whole thing, preferring a longer-term strategy that included a great deal of charity work and interviews with print outlets to mark his birthday“, where were the clear voices to break off any connection that Prince Andrew had with Jeffrey Epstein in 2007 onwards (we could argue 2006, but American Law can be confusing at best)?

And when we see “The unravelling of the strategy began almost immediately after the interview ended. Andrew appeared pleased with his performance, even giving the Newsnight team a tour of the palace afterwards. But when lines from the interview began reaching journalists’ inboxes early on Friday evening, they were astonished by what they read“, who the hell advised him on proper approach to this tinder fest of sulphur laced journalism? In the article Jo Swinson of the LibDems states it best: “how somebody could be talking about their relationship with [Epstein] without recognising, or understanding, or discussing, how he felt about those victims. And I felt they should have been much more at the centre of that discussion“, even as I have issues with “Andrew was facing calls to speak to the FBI from lawyers representing 10 of the Epstein’s victims“, there is a larger issue and the media was part of it, as it is feeling exposure towards the ‘protection’ of the image of Jeffrey Epstein, they are going after a royal like there is no tomorrow, so as we see ‘without recognising, or understanding, or discussing, how he felt about those victims‘, we need to realise that the media gave very little of that in the days that Jeffrey Epstein was alive, why was that?

the New York Post gave us in 2008 “Jeffrey Herman, who’s representing two other alleged victims, said, “The guilty plea is a very positive development for the civil cases,” and “is some measure of justice for these girls.”” I wonder how much recognising, understanding and discussion is going on in that sentence.

Yes, the Prince’s interview was an absolute horror, yet I wonder where the priorities of those who were supposed to have the back of the prince were, was there anyone on his side before he was thrown to the wolves? Oh and before I forget, When I search ‘“BBC” “Jeffrey Epstein”‘ I get 8 results and they are all on the interview, how much digging did the BBC do in the 2006-2012 era? We see all the attacks on Prince Andrew who knew a man that was indecently not researched by law officials all over the world and especially in America, whilst that man was given non-prosecuting options that most of us dream of when we commit murder. Yes the interview was a Prince Andrew debacle, but let’s face it, the media was part of that debacle long before they interviewed Prince Andrew, that evidence is all over the field and clearly readable, but that is the one part that the media does not want you to do, they do not want you to figure out that they were at the centre of letting a billionaire off the hook, especially as that person is now dead.

There is a larger play in all this, I wonder if you can figure it out.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

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

June 20, 2019 · 12:52

The ice and the icing

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s the Icing

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics, Science

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

May 5, 2019 · 14:10

Will there be any Ivy League left?

I always understood that a decent education was essential in getting a good job, nowadays that is not a given, with several graduate degrees and a master, I am finding that at some point age discrimination is pretty overwhelmingly everything in the commonwealth. So when we get the juice on what makes for a good university, the LA Times article (at https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-college-admissions-scandal-target-letters-20190503-story.html) are some universities actually as good as they are cracked up to be? When they admit students through bribery and other means, does that not give a clear case that the overall result of these students imply that they no longer have the best?

The accusation: “The 33 parents charged in the scandal so far are accused of paying $15,000 to $75,000 per child for rigged college entrance exams, and $100,000 to $400,000 per child for an athletics recruiting scam.” is a two edged blade. To what extent was the university part of the admittance? The second part is which deserving student was there for removed from consideration? There is a third, mainly how much additional funds will be shoved into some directions for these students to actually graduate?

The third one is a consideration that is set on very thin ice. Beyond the admittance part, there is actually no evidence of any kind that wrongdoing was done, and when we consider the amount of people trying to get into Stanford, Harvard, Yale, MIT and the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, the case could be made that beside a very small greed driven group within the universities, there is a mere showing at best that this merely involved a few rotten apples at best, but how can we be certain?

You see, there is more to “Federal prosecutors have sent a letter to Yusi Zhao, whose parents paid $6.5 million to the consultant at the heart of the college admissions scandal, informing the former Stanford student she is a possible target of their investigation, a person familiar with the matter said“, we can accept that there is a clear case of timing that is to be played, but it goes beyond that, the fact that “Neither Zhao nor her parents have been charged in the case that has ensnared 50 people, including Hollywood actresses and financiers“, I personally would argue (based on not having seen any evidence) that them either not being investigated, or having avoided the trap in the first place implies (emphases on implies) that they have had clear intent of not getting caught, the innocent always get trapped initially, only the aware avoid all set traps. Yusi Zhao is the daughter of Chinese billionaire Tao Zhao and the implied fatherly side was seen in the New York Post (at https://nypost.com/2019/05/03/meet-the-posh-billionaire-family-entangled-in-admissions-scam/) only two days ago. To be honest, I would be able to relate to “But Yusi “Molly” Zhao’s pharma tycoon dad once bragged that he has no time for rich kids who “don’t rely on their own abilities.”“. Yes, the amount of stupid rich kids that squandered the family fortune, there are plenty of examples and an exponential more examples in the Hollywood film script department. You want to give your kids a leg up by getting them a good education, yet there are more good educators beyond the Ivy league, There are excellent universities in Illinois, California (Berkeley to name one), Columbia, Indiana and Florida. Plenty have highly desired degrees, so why would someone spend $6.5 million when $125K does it; merely because Mark Zuckerberg attended Stanford? People can’t be that dim can they? Well, they can but they end up not being billionaires that is the short and sweet of it.

The problem is not merely the kids of the 33 parents; the issue is that the overall value of the universities involved would find an impact down the line. Will there be the impact when they graduate on the papers that they publish? Will academia go with the statement that as the position was fraudulently acquired, whatever they publish would be scrutinised as non-valued? You might laugh at that, but that is a much bigger issue than we think. Anyone who had to present and upload there papers for grading, having it checked for plagiarism, we all sweated when the number get above a certain point.

  • Did we make a mistake?
  • Are all our references correctly in place?
  • Did someone copy our work?

We get the weirdest fears, often all undeserving, but every university has forever been hammering down on plagiarism, so when one of their papers ends up being a tad too high on the checking software scale, will the thought be they got into the university fraudulently? So they might go with the old stage of having more likely than not copied other work. It sounds crazy, but is it?

It is that much of a leap? If a non-sailor can get into a sailing position with help of a fund supported coach (John Vandemoer), staged as a competitive sailor, what else could have happened? I was (to some degree) a sailor myself, yet I could not hold a candle to some real sailors and she gets in under the radar with full sails unfurled? I believe that this should be regarded as a signal that more was going on.

The news is spreading like wildfire and as we get most of the information we saw in the Washington Post (at https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/05/03/she-paid-college-consultant-million-get-her-daughter-into-stanford-she-said-she-was-tricked/)

Here too we see the emphasis on “No members of the Zhao family have been charged, and they are not mentioned in court papers. But when U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling announced the arrests in March, he said one family had paid $6.5 million. The Los Angeles Times first reported that it was the Zhao family that had paid the seven-figure sum — far more than anyone else charged in the scheme“, I personally still have the feeling that someone who has been able to avoid all mention has worked much more with intent than the others, now I could be wrong, but the old truth that to avoid a trap you need to know one is there seems to be central in all this, more important. Yet the reference that the LA Times had was missing, how it all started (at https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-morrie-tobin-college-admissions-scandal-20190331-story.html), how Morrie Tobin, regarded to be a crooked Finance exec, and when Andrew Lelling gave the media “Our first lead in this came during interviews with a target of an entirely separate investigation, who gave us a tip that this activity might be going on,” we get to see “The tip led investigators to a soccer coach at Yale University, who, in turn, pointed them to William “Rick” Singer, the college admissions consultant who would confess to being the mastermind of the admissions racket. With Singer’s cooperation, FBI agents set about building cases against dozens of the wealthy parents on his client list as well as people at universities across the country Singer allegedly paid to help students cheat their way into school.” within the short time that follows, we see 33 parents and 17 others to be the target of a court case that will impact several Ivy League Universities and even as this was from one tip, the rest will be squawking like goose to get away with as little damage as possible, as such we cannot tell how far this will go, but it will hit others, I have very little doubt on that front.

My reasoning is this, this has been going on for a while, and the way that the amount of money has been moved around implies that the people involved are not on their first milk run. The ABC quote: “Prosecutors said Huffman, 56, made a $15,000 contribution to Singer’s foundation in exchange for having an associate of Singer’s in 2017 secretly correct her daughter’s answers on a college entrance exam at a test centre Singer controlled” gives rise to that. Not merely the fact that she did it, but somehow she was contacted or she contacted a party involved, the fact that the SAT scores were ‘corrected’ in the window available implies that the system is larger spread and available to a larger worried audience (read: parents in fear that their kids will not be good enough). The term ‘associate of Singer‘ also implies that this man had fingers in many American Pie’s and to keep it a secret to the degree it was requires cooperation on certain levels, secrets like these tend to get out in the civil world, the fact it did not is an implication by itself.

There is optionally the fact that this kid went to a test centre that Singer controlled is up for debate whether that was merely fortunate for Huffman. If there is one issue, than it is the issue that there is every change that the kids will now walk with a mark on their life, a mark they optionally did not want, require or ask for.

God help us from overprotective parents at times.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media

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

June 23, 2015 · 15:51

Dumping costs

I saw the news two days ago, but I left it on the side as I was looking at other issues (like Euro leaders enabling Greece and so on). Yet, the article ‘Taylor Swift criticises ‘shocking, disappointing’ Apple Music‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/21/taylor-swift-criticises-shocking-disappointing-apple-music) is a lot more important than you think. I was unaware for two reasons. One, I do not use streaming services. I go to the shop and buy those silver coloured circular contraptions. I think that they are called CD’s. For all the ‘security’ claimed to be, I do not trust online providers. If someone ever wipes their records, whatever I owned will be gone. There are other reasons, but they do not matter at this moment. What is the real price now is the light that Taylor Swift throws on big business.

You see the quote “Swift has joined independent labels in attacking Apple’s plans not to pay royalties during the three-month free trial of its new Apple Music streaming service” is pretty important. The richest corporation in the world decided to attempt a new business model. So this corporation, the wealthiest one in the world basically will not pay royalties to new and starving artists (the 99.9999943% who are not Taylor Swift or successful).

How come, it takes one artist to open her mouth whilst the media and so many others remain quiet? One artist speaks up and suddenly we become aware. Can anyone explain to me how it is possible that Rolling Stone Magazine (at http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/apple-introduces-apple-music-streaming-service-24-7-radio-20150608) did not lead with this fact when the article was published on June 8th 2015?

It is also very interesting how Taylor Swift opened the door for everyone to suddenly give voice, where none were saying anything at all (in this I am referring to the larger news outlets, not the smaller and small digital reviewers who seem to have been asking questions as early as the first week of June, perhaps even longer.

The sheer audacity that a third party seems to have to pay for the cost of a trial business model is plenty of reasons to ask Apple some questions, especially as they are already using tax havens to a planetary maximum. In all this we also see the Wall Street Journal where they (at http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/06/15/apple-to-pay-common-royalty-rates-for-music-service/) that initially the quote “Apple is offering a three-month free trial from June 30. During that period, Apple won’t pay music owners anything for songs that are streamed” (on June 15th), whilst the people at the Wall Street Journal seem to be devoid of opinion in that article. Consider that this is the Wall Street Journal, and the used business model, a clear model of exploitation is not raising any clear questions on an editorial level is even more astounding.

I am on the fence for two reasons, as I will concede that I might have missed it until it came to the Guardian or BBC, the fact that pages of newspapers in online searches are only now catching on is equally disturbing to me. Why did this issue remain below the radar for so long? I have mentioned before that too many newspapers seem to ‘appease’ (read cater to) their advertising base (read large corporations), this event only seems to enforce the unacceptable trend.

The WWDC2015 did not seem to have any information at all (June 8th). I understand that Apple might have steered clear from mentioning it, yet that others had not considered these events is equally questionable. The last part is visible in the Guardian article at http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/08/apple-streaming-music-regulators-beats-music-spotify. This was on May 8th, where we see that several questions are being asked, yet not the royalties part, moreover, when we consider those involved, we must take a look at the quote ““Apple has been using its considerable power in the music industry to stop the music labels from renewing Spotify’s license to stream music through its free tier,” claimed its report, which also alleged that Apple had offered to pay major label Universal Music a fee “if the label stopped allowing its songs on YouTube”“, whilst the royalties part was overlooked. Now, it is very valid that royalties issue is initially overlooked, yet consider that Dr Dre (Beats Music) is gunning for Spotify, was he also unaware, if so, keeping many in the dark from that date onwards, does that not point towards another set of questions? Even though the competition Commission was taking a look (at http://nypost.com/2015/04/01/competition-commission-probing-music-streaming-services/), where we see “a probe of Apple and other premium music-streaming services to see if they are working with music labels to unfairly squash no-fee streaming services” yet the fact that Apple in addition would not pay royalties for the first three months is an additional worry, was it not?

So in light of all this, The Wall Street Journal article does not ask questions regarding that business mode and Rolling Stone Magazine, seen as the one place for performers and music lovers refrained from illuminating that issue, so why are questions not asked, more important, why are the bulk of reporters only now shouting their articles regarding all of this? At least as a non-journalist (that be me), who focusses on non-musical issues has a decent excuse, what about all the others? All this illuminates a silent acceptance of events, just like the people seem to respond to FIFA. In that light it seems that the legal field who should be all about justice and social legality should have been a lot more protective against these large corporations a lot sooner, where were they?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media

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