Tag Archives: the Guardian

August 28, 2014 · 21:28

Cancer for everyone?

Something set me off today. It was not Melissa Doyle, she looked lovely as ever. Perhaps it was her casual report on how red meat seemed to be linked to cancer. Actually, it was not her at all. It was another research with data linking red meat to cancer. There were two parts that seemed to be an issue. The first one is “People who eat a lot of these meats” the second one I will get to later.

From this I decided to take a trip into US data. The first place we get is Hereford, Texas, which is the beef capital of the world, or so they say. I am not stating that this is not true and it is true that Texas is one of the 5 states responsible for over 50% of all produced beef from cattle and calves. Yet, my mother was from Buenos Aires and you have not tasted true beef until you have tasted a steak from an Argentinian charcoal grill. I am not leaving the subject here, because we have two places were beef rules supremely.

So how is their health?

Dr Karen Humphries seems to know what she was doing and the approach sounded well enough, so what is the issue? Well, when I take an initial look at the statistics the CDC has for Colorectal (Colon) Cancer (at http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorectal/statistics/), the data (as incomplete as it is), shows no spike for these 5 states, because there is a valid thought, that outside the metropolitan area’s the home state might be the cheapest place to get steaks, consider that these places are not in possession of a vegetarian explosion (or is it a population explosion of vegetarians?), the overall spike of cancer, should stand out there (read slightly spike).

So, what is the other option?

Perhaps these people do not eat loads of red meat? Are you kidding me? Have you seen the sizes of steaks in them states, they are huge! I can eat a lot but I need to bring my A-game of hunger to these places to finish my plate. So is Dr Humphries wrong?

No, I do not believe this to be the case. She is by the way not the only one on this meaty horse. A 2008 article form Harvard Medical School (at http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/Red-meat-and-colon-cancer.shtml) shows a similar conclusion on the data that they have. So why am I questioning this?

I am not questioning these issues perse. Perhaps there is another factor that is not being considered. So am I just on a windmill chase, like a Don Quixote seeking the next windmill? I am not arguing that those who think this are wrong, but consider the next piece of information, which was found at http://authoritynutrition.com/is-red-meat-bad-for-you-or-good/.

The title ‘Is Red Meat Bad For You, or Good? An Objective Look‘ seems appealing enough, however is it therefor true?

They are giving us the following thoughts which some had considered a long time ago. The thought is set in the following quote “However, the meat we eat today is vastly different from the meat our ancestors ate. Back in the day, animals roamed free and ate grass, insects or whatever was natural to them. Picture a wild cow on a field 10.000 years ago, roaming free and chewing on grass and various other edible plants. The meat from this animal is completely different from the meat derived from a cow that was born and raised in a factory, fed grain-based feed, then pumped full of antibiotics and hormones to make it grow faster“.

Here is the question that is raised within me: “Is this research the first evidence of antibiotics and hormones on consumption beef?”

That is not really the question people seem to be looking at. So is this a windmill I am chasing, or are we asked to look away? This is not against Dr Karen Humphries, who was investigating the red meat on the people. To be honest, with the amount of red meat offered, I would have loved to have been a volunteer there (I could never refuse a good steak). The information and ‘evidence’ as well as my train of thought took less than 5 minutes to clear, then about 25 minutes to get through the readings and the CDC data tables. If we look at the Guardian article (at http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jan/24/worldwide-cancer-rates-uk-rate-drops). The issue here is that Cancer is seen in a generic term, which means all kinds of cancer and still Argentina, a massive beef consumer (and yummy it is too) is only on the 46^th position, so have I made a case that it is not just about red beef, but are there other elements in play? Which is the second part to all this.

Without more data, the case I am making would only be supposition, yet is this a start? Are there other factors that reduce the dangers in the USA and Argentina? Is there now a valid case against certain hormones and antibiotics? There is no way to tell without a lot more data and more (and better) in depth research. If that is indeed the track we must walk, how should this proceed? You see, in any research there is a goal and a counter goal. You can bet your bottom dollar that pharmaceuticals would not want quick results. If you doubt that, then remember the ‘investigation’ in Syria that we saw in early 2014. The question ‘were chemical weapons used’ (which seemed like a joke) and ‘who did it’ was completely set aside. So here we face a possible approach to it in the way of ‘Could antibiotics be a cause of an increased presence of colon cancer causing bacteria?‘ and ‘Could hormones be a cause of an increased presence of colon cancer causing bacteria?‘ getting the research set up, the data collected and then the actual reporting done might be taking an intense amount of time, but should we therefore not get this done?

I do not pretend to have the answer, yet I do have the questions that were casually not asked in the Channel-7 news. Questions, which are at a first glance seemingly assumed, to some extent by Authority Nutrition, a site that is the child of Kris Gunnars, a medical student. He is also not the man just claiming and assuming issues. His site had an entire tab on evidence, filled with charts that seemed to have been made with proper analytical tools (I did not dig into that data though).

There is another side to all this. Kris voiced it really nice in his article “the meat we eat today is vastly different from the meat our ancestors ate“. We all (including me) seemed to have forgotten about that. As we go forward, what other parts had not been properly looked at? For example, the article ‘History of diethylstilbestrol use in cattle‘ (at https://www.asas.org/docs/publications/raunhist.pdf) gives several answers, but also leaves us with questions. Did anyone look at the evolution of meat as the ‘victim’ (also known as Mr or Mrs soon to be steak) had been treated by these hormones? Let us not forget that this game has been pushed through generation upon generation of hormones. Is the idea so far-fetched that we have changed to context of the BBQ target? Does this amount to poisoning the well? I truly do not know, but it seems that the latest results, in conjunction with the data that Harvard and several other sources have collected, contribute to a new train of thought that we need to take a very serious look at the meat and the cattle as well as their DNA in regards to our beefy food supply. It is the earlier mentioned paper by A. P. Raun and R. L. Preston that leads to two quotes linked to all this. In the beginning “The removal of DES from the market led to the development of a number of other growth stimulation products for cattle” and at the end “If diethylstilbestrol had not been removed, these same resources could have been directed toward the discovery, development, and approval of other technologies for the cattle industry“.

Yet, are we losing sight to the long term effects of these growth stimulants and hormones? If these bowel cancer numbers are linked in any way to these developments, what links are we yet to discover and at what price had beef profit been maximised? The last one is not a blame game moment. At some point hard choices had to be made, consider that Gartners meat in Portland Oregon gets us a Rib Eye for just under $15 (16 oz.), with this the fact that at present beef is at an all-time high according to Reuters (at http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/25/usa-agriculture-inflation-idUSL1N0QV0J620140825). What happens when the beef rises above the option to buy as a food source? This is not just the drought or disease which is the latest reasons for the price hike. Consider that 318 million American residents need their dinner, current statistics place the vegetarian population (those who hate plants more than animals) at roughly 10%, which means just over 280 million of meat pieces are needed EVERY DAY! Now, many do not have steak on a daily basis, so the need for beef is not at a deadly level, but…..

What did I just say?

There is the crux, have we been so into the need to get more food that eagerness was too quickly satisfied, but we now see a long term consequence.

LET ME BE CLEAR!

This last part is all conjecture, but is it being looked at? If not, why not? There is a foundation of concern and evidence that the effects of beef on our health seems to have changed, the question becomes how much? Questions I do not have answers to, but I was surprised not to see anyone in the press ask the question and deliver the results, just as is!

That itself is worth a question or two too.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Science

Tagged as A. P. Raun, ADSA, American Society of Animal Science, antibiotics, Argentina, ASAS and CSAS, authority nutrition, Beef, Bowel cancer, Cancer, CDC, Channel 7, colon cancer, diethylstilbestrol, Dr Karen Humphries, Gartners meat, Harvard, Harvard Medical School, hormones, Kris Gunnars, R. L. Preston, red meat, reuters, Texas, the Guardian

August 23, 2014 · 11:26

A spooky situation

It is another day and another article from the Guardian graces us. The headline ‘Isis beheading video brings calls for rethink of UK domestic terrorism fight‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/21/james-foley-isis-beheading-uk-counterterrorist-fight-in-crisis), was what called my attention. If ISIS events are now making Twitter change its policy, then I definitely need to take another look at the other articles. Yet, what is the Guardian article actually about? The article goes into several events, but has two parts that do matter. The first one is “The UK government was under pressure to rethink its approach to tackling domestic extremism as security services, led by MI5“, which is only part of an ’emotional sentence’ to rile the public. The second one was “Some 500 Britons are believed to have gone to Syria and Iraq and joined Islamist groups fighting there. Some 200 are estimated to have returned to the UK“, the rest are nice titbits, but the meat is there, now for the funny part. I already highlighted that need and that issue on June 8^th 2013 in my blog ‘Privacy and (fake) fears‘, where I wrote:

They need these abilities to fight the existing and growing threat called ‘the lone wolf terrorist’. These people are guided by sources like ‘Inspire’ magazine, which is created by AQAP (al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula). It is however not that simple. The real lone wolves get their ‘guidance’ remotely from sources most do not know and all that under the eyes of the Intelligence Community. To have a grip on stopping these people, monitoring the internet is essential to keeping us the common people safe.

This is why all these false ‘privacy’ driven issues. I personally still believe that a fair bit is scared to be caught out as they are doing the girl in the office, the neighbour’s wife of have a few dodgy fake investments lined up. Lust and Greed tend to be excellent bringers of worries.

I did like this quote “Former officers from MI6, the UK’s foreign intelligence service, have downplayed the threat to British security, while MI5 and the police have emphasised the threat“. I think they are both right, let me explain. ISIS has other fish to fry, for the most it wants to extent through Jordan into Sinai, when they have three sides pushing Israel and mounting up pressure to Egypt, possible hoping to radicalise the members of the Muslim Brotherhood that are in hiding now. That would be their first interest in setting off the ‘tinderbox of agony’ (sorry, I was playing Diablo 3 last night). So, that proves MI6, but what about MI5? Well, the 200 returned soldiers are still in the UK and it is very likely that part of that group is more in league with the vision of ISIS then the safety and comfort that the UK had offered them as they grew up in the UK. These people can convey messages, set up new ways to deliver news (like trough private channels in a MMORPG game in Facebook or freely downloaded, which is impossible to monitor) and recruit new people who have not left the UK, which would be a disadvantage to MI5. Now it is important to know that this is all speculation on my side. I cannot prove that this is happening, but is it not more likely than not that an extremist would like to propel his ‘rightness’ onto others? In that regards it might be nice to read ‘Avoiding the Traps of Extremism‘ by Samuel López De Victoria, Ph.D (at http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2011/10/07/avoiding-the-traps-of-extremism/). It is a decent piece, it is easy to read and it gives you a view that many can easily relate to. It also highlights on the dangers why extremism would be too easily brought to the hearts of the younger followers. No matter how much better life is in the UK, people there have had a very hard decade and only now, slowly is there the chance, not the assurance of economic relief. These recruiters are here in the twilight of a recession recruiting those who are at the end of their patience and that is what MI5 can clearly see (and with them a few others).

So they are both right, but there is a third part to this. This is again pure speculation, but from the events, when proven true, we could come to the conclusion that ISIS is playing a different game again. It is almost like someone took a look at American football and we see that they do not have one tactician in charge but two. Almost like offense and defence, but in the case of ISIS it is the daytime war commander for armies and open warfare and a night-time tactician, who is setting up the play for the lone wolf tactics. Perhaps the death of Osama Bin Laden taught them to not leave it all with one man and if that is true, what other changes did they make?

This is where I agree and disagree with Dr Erin Saltman who stated that the best way to identify the lone wolf is that if this person makes a mistake and tells one family member then they might call the police. I reckon that Erin is on the same train I am on. My disagreement is because I think that the chance of that is extremely unlikely and if we want to stop these lone wolves, we need an entirely new playbook, because the current approach is unlikely to work. I still believe that in the end it will be GCHQ that will need to bring forth the innovation that will allow MI5 to complete its mission, because message traffic has forever been the only weak link in any war that required communication.

A few come to mind, but none will be revealed here. Good hunting!

1 Comment

Filed under Military, Science

Tagged as Avoiding the Traps of Extremism, Erin Saltman, GCHQ, ISIS, MI5, MI6, Osama Bin Laden, psychcentral.com, Samuel López De Victoria, the Guardian, UK

August 22, 2014 · 18:31

Censoring – Censor out?

It is 18:11 and my assignments are done. I get one day of rest until the next batch off assignments start to twitch at the corner of my desk. No rest for the weary, so off to the Guardian I went a moment ago only to see an interesting article by James Ball. It is about Twitter. The headline ‘Twitter: from free speech champion to selective censor?‘ pretty much states it all (at http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/21/twitter-free-speech-champion-selective-censor).

It starts with a quote that sounds good, but is actually a statement of quicksand “The social network’s decision to remove all links to the horrific footage showing the apparent beheading of the photojournalist James Foley is one that most of its users, reasonably, support“.
I actually do not support it, but I understand the action. Why not?

Well, this is all about emotion, which is fair enough, but Twitter had given themselves a precedent of censoring. Now, let us be honest, I have nothing against the censoring, but they created a position for themselves that will drain resources in many way.

Why? What about the next beheading or execution that comes next? Other video smut we can all do without. Where will it stop and how can it be managed?

James Ball actually words an interesting view I had not considered when he states “the New York Post and New York Daily News’ decision to use graphic stills from the footage as their front-page splashes. Here begin the problems for Twitter: the network decided not to ban or suspend either outlet for sharing the images – despite banning other users for doing the same“, which constitutes discrimination. So, as I stated, Twitter entered a pool of quicksand and it will get them deeper into trouble sooner then they realise. That is shown with the quote “Twitter is absolved of legal responsibility for most of the content of tweets. But by making what is in essence an editorial decision not to host a certain type of content, Twitter is rapidly blurring that line“.

So under Common Law, Twitter got themselves in quicksand and hot water all at the same time (aren’t they the efficient Eager Beavers?).

If I go by the NSW Defamation Act 2005, we see a nice escalation in section 32, where it states:

Section 32 Defence of innocent dissemination

(1) It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that:
(a) the defendant published the matter merely in the capacity, or as an employee or agent, of a subordinate distributor, and
(b) the defendant neither knew, nor ought reasonably to have known, that the matter was defamatory, and
(c) the defendant’s lack of knowledge was not due to any negligence on the part of the defendant.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person is a subordinate distributor of defamatory matter if the person:
(a) was not the first or primary distributor of the matter, and
(b) was not the author or originator of the matter, and
(c) did not have any capacity to exercise editorial control over the content of the matter (or over the publication of the matter) before it was first published.

Until now, they had gotten a clean pass and would remain to have one until they made the change they did. Because whomever starts any defamation case, will have cause to show the beheading censoring instance of James Foley and by Twitter acting, they gave away the defence: ‘did not have any capacity to exercise editorial control over the content of the matter‘, because they just did that exact thing, which now gives them cause to see Defence of innocent dissemination melt away like snow in the sunshine.

As James Ball points out, the issue that I had taken offense to last year were the threats against Caroline Criado-Perez, who thought it would be a great idea if Jane Austen became the new face of the 10 pound note. I personally thought it was a brilliant idea. Some small minded people did not and as such, she got a dose of abuse and threats that were completely beyond belief. It is only one of many cases of bullying, trolling and harassment via Twitter. The quote we see in the Guardian is: “Twitter’s strongest, perhaps only, justification for its sluggish and minimal response was that it could only act through its harassment channels, and could not become a curator or editor of content on its site“, which in itself is perfectly acceptable, yet now, they have given that option away by acting and soon, Twitter might be confronted with other abuse and threat victims and as such their goose gets to be decently cooked (and broiled).

So, either Twitter takes a step back, which would be fair enough, or it becomes a policing entity, which might not be the worst, yet the issues from this choice will haunt them for a long time to come. That in itself seems unfair, but just moving to the plate (not arguing how justified it is), will leave them with bruises and scars. I get the issue that it is a consequence of choice, which I do not attack, but how consistent can they actually do this and more important, what issues will they open when they censored something that was lost in translation, how will they fix those mistakes at that point?

I think that they should state that the beheading intervention was a once off and not interfere again. Not because I want it, but because Twitter seems safer by remaining on the side of innocent dissemination, a side that they might not be regarded as ever again (speaking juridical), simply because the action has already taken place.

So is the censor in for censoring?

That is a question that only Twitter can answer, yet the emotional decision to intervene in this case was morally right, emotionally correct and decently good, this jurisprudential mouse will however end up having a slightly too long tail, I wonder whether Twitter considered that option, especially in regards to victims like Caroline Criado-Perez who did not get the intervening attention they rightfully deserved.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media

Tagged as Caroline Criado-Perez, Common Law, Defamation act 2005, Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), James Ball, James Foley, Jane Austen, the Guardian, Twitter

August 21, 2014 · 11:17

A time to breath

I am just now taking a few minutes (roughly 32.4) break from my UNI assignment. I have way to go and I should be OK to get it all done in time. These are also the moments when a person, no matter how driven to get the assignment done, will start worrying about the proper tense of it all. I procrastinate, he procrastinates, she procrastinates, we all look at Facebook, the Guardian, YouTube and whatever other non-University virtual place we can think of.

I do it every two hours to keep my mind slightly more alert than usual. Assignments can be dull dreary and often nerve wrecking and if we do not take a little look out of the window, we go bonkers (for Americans: that means ‘loony tunes’).

The topic of news are the beheading of a US reporter by ISIS, air strikes batter Hamas and something about Sainsbury and credit card fraud. If you do not know that ISIS is a massive threat, then feel free to hide back under your rock, if you think that there can be peace between Hamas and Israel, then please say hi to Professor Minerva McGonagall from me when you get back to Hogwarts and enjoy the ‘reality’ of magic, muggles and feast over the death of he-who-should-not-be-named.

The Sainsbury issue is however a massively different slice of pie, and I will take a bite out of that one. It is yesterday’s pie, but it seems to have the good taste of ‘are you for real?‘ whilst having a glass of ‘someone better start waking up soon there‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/aug/20/sainsburys-bank-security-fraud-transfer-credit-limit).

The first quote that I have an issue with is almost at the end of that article, where it states “Sainsbury’s, which has run its own banking operation since 2013, might now want to look at its security measures“. How about “Dear Sainsbury bank, in light of the information we currently have, we will feel a sense of utter joy to permanently shut you down in 48 hours if you do not wake the flip up and get your hat on straight! Kind regards the office of common sense and persecutors of dumb, dumber and the flatulently moronic”

This is not 2001 or 2003, it is 2013 and the dangers of cybercrime, identity fraud and other mismanaged works by those who acquire that what others own, has been in operation since the late 90’s and the article, if correct has all the makings of a new season of ‘the Office‘.

The quote “At no time was I asked the further security questions that only I could answer“, which implies that the security of ones birthdate is as dangerous as it is futile. Many people seem to hand over that information to Facebook (that open message and personal detail place which was created in 2004). The fact that the automation and security process of commonwealth welfare is stellar-sized more advanced above the implied security of the Sainsbury bank should give credit to levels of Howling laughter from Edinburgh (random place to the north), which the people in London would hear.

So, that’s enough rant for a few minutes!

The issue remains how ‘a bank’ had not been vetted beyond the points of common cyber sense, as well as allow certain changes (like increasing credit limit) other than in person to the place where the credit was offered in the first place. I must stress out here, that I am going by the Guardian article, so if their information is incomplete, then so will be the info you read here. Yet, if we see some place called ‘the northern echo’ (at http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/8423732.Sainsbury___s_hit_by_credit_card_scam/), then we see more issues with Sainsbury and well before 2013, which means that there is at least one watchdog that seems to be asleep at the helm. A quote from the echo is “The court heard that the scam was costing Sainsbury’s £12,000 a week in the North- East alone“, which implies that it is costing them a bundle, so we should take a step back and wonder how asleep some of these people are.

There is however a larger issue that is not being addressed. We have seen that ATM’s have been the target of several options. In Australia, Westpac came with a novel idea that prevents someone adding a skimming slot in front of the card reader of an ATM that is quite ingenious (see pic),

but overall the ATM has not been too overly developed. There was a time when I saw that the AMEX cards had a hologram, but the newer systems which are all about waving in front of a scanner open up many other criminal endeavours of exploitation of your bank account. The fact that seems to be implied is that Sainsbury, even today, remains a decade behind is cause for massive concern. This all will give rise to the question on how long it will take, before insurance companies take enough offense and no longer pay banks for their shortcomings, then what?

Here is see instant fortune for the one innovator that can truly show us a new way on digital transactions that allow for a new (or upgraded) system that is about safety and security, not about speed of transaction. Consider that golden idea that will keep trillions of transactions safe. Even if you only get $0.01 per transaction, you would end up wealthier then Bill Gates in less than two years (greed tends to be a great motivator).

Is there anything we can do? Well, the Sainsbury issue is a little extreme, but overall banks are getting better at upgrading security, yet there are a few things you can do. First of all, limit the location of your card, so that you can only use it national. Yes, it looks so cool that you can use it all over Europe, but if you are stuck in Stratford-upon-Avon and you have yet to write your first book, then it is highly likely that you cannot afford distant travels, which means that your card only needs to work in the UK (or whatever country you live in). Second, cyber criminals tend to spy on your computer if they can. So, when you are not using your computer, shut it down. It seems so cool to have it ready at a moment’s notice, yet that thing actually uses a fair bit of electricity and when you are not using your computer at night, it could be used to see if you have passwords and account details somewhere. Not the thing you want to leave unattended. Today, people leaving their smartphone unattended (I mean no pin or password), which is even more reckless nowadays. Even having more ‘renowned’ apps are getting to be more and more questionable (reference to my ‘No Press, No Facebook!‘ blog of August 10^th), how long until someone slips in an app, to piggy onto some banks wave and pay app (a way to pay using the mobile phone by waving it in front of a scanner)? These are technologies that are possible today (whilst Sainsbury is an implied decade behind).

So, we should all take a moment to breath (except Sainsbury who apparently need to update their security) and consider the financial links we now have and when we last checked them for correctness of transactions, more important, what other card options do you have where people can too easily take your cash for a ride? I am referring to possible fuel cards, book club cards and other cards where you do not get the invoice immediately, so you might get a nasty sting when you open ‘that’ letter next week wondering when you had that complementary 50 pound dinner as a new member. It is the unspoken danger of having too much info on open social media, some banks seem not to have been updated and likely other providers could well be lacking in security procedures too.

Did you take time to breath?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Science

Tagged as credit cards, Facebook, fuel cards, Gaza, Hamas, ISIS, Israel, Sainsbury, Sainsbury bank, the Guardian, the Northern echo, the Office

August 18, 2014 · 11:44

Hiding behind the bully

Again it is the Guardian the illuminates an issue that seems to hit the UK (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/aug/17/sainsburys-removes-kosher-food-anti-israel-protesters). The header ‘Sainsbury’s removes kosher food from shelves amid fears over protesters‘. Let’s take a look at the sanity of this. First, about Kosher foods, if we accept this explanation: “Kosher food is food prepared in accordance with Jewish Dietary Laws“, which makes the act of Sainsbury an act of discrimination. These same protesters were actually quite busy ignoring events as Hamas was sending thousands of rockets into Israel; in addition, they seemed not to care about the acts of Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine against Israel. No one seems to be asking the question how missiles weighing well over a ton (FAJR-5), and also not the cheapest of ordinance makes it into Gaza. The option where we suddenly see, but no serious questions are asked on how Iranian hardware gets there, in an age when there is a block on all things Iranian. It seems that big business has more than just a small hand in keeping the imbalance going. Yet, ‘these bullies’, is that even correct?

You see, Sainsbury acted preventively. There were protesters and I do believe in free speech, so there is nothing against protesters, as long as they respect the choices of others. There will always be the bullies in these places, who by their acts will escalate an issue into something more. It still makes the act of Sainsbury a discriminatory one and as such, there could be legal ramifications for Sainsbury.

The quote “Louise Mensch, the former Tory MP, accused Sainsbury’s of racism” is not incorrect, yet the information is slightly off the boil. I should also add the quote from Sainsbury “A spokesperson for Sainsbury’s said it was ‘an absolutely non-political organisation’ and said the food was returned to the shelves ‘as soon as was practically possible’“. This has a ring of truth, so basically, we can argue that the store manager in question had made a bad call, but that is something for Sainsbury to address.

So why are we looking into the issue of hiding behind the bully. There is a sound to it, that links to it, that corrupts the nature of acts, which is not a good thing either. We act according to our values, our insights and often by our direction. It makes the act of the branch manager of the store in Holborn questionable, but not necessarily wrong, evil or racist. We are confronted with dilemmas in the face of a crisis and we all at times make not the best choice, which is not saying that we made the wrong choice.

And as we look through the coloured glasses we see a pattern, coloured by the bullies. In this case the accusation by Louise Mensch, the former Tory MP and Facebook user Gavin Platman who had a much more down to earth pragmatic response. He voiced a view that “move blurred the line between a political statement and a hate crime” was that so? Perhaps the store owner feared the consequence of vandalism with possible added dangers to his customers. As stated, the act remained questionable, but there is enough evidence that this was not an act of Malice, but simple fear and worry, enough doubt to state it was absent of political issues and absent of hate.

I have my views in the matter of Gaza, some formed whilst I was there in 1982, some formed by the news and some by other information. It is also important to show another side. Even though I have spoken out against journalists often enough, there is a view you must know about. There is a headline “Journalist quits Australian newspaper after suspension over ‘offensive’ response to Gaza column complaints“, this is because of the article the journalist wrote (at http://www.smh.com.au/comment/israels-rank-and-rotten-fruit-is-being-called-fascism-20140724-zwd2t.html).

I do not agree with some of his views, but they ARE HIS views and he is entitled to them, plain and simple. The quote “Yes, Hamas is also trying to kill Israeli civilians, with a barrage of rockets and guerrilla border attacks. It, too, is guilty of terror and grave war crimes. But Israeli citizens and their homes and towns have been effectively shielded by the nation’s Iron Dome defence system, and so far only three of its civilians have died in this latest conflict” is one of the quotes I do not agree to. His facts are straight, yet this system was designed in 2005 and it had been in service since 2011. Yet, before that already hundreds of mortars and missiles had been fired upon Israel. The issue I raised in ‘Puppet on a string‘ on June 30th and in a few blogs before that. Consider the amount of missiles fired, who is supporting Hamas, because this entire mess is escalating because some people behind the screen are funding all this, the article NEVER goes into that. My issue is that the writer seems to rely on a missile defence system that is 3 years old, whilst the Israeli people had been under attack for decades. It seems that to the lesser extent, hatred for the Jews has never stopped, not since WW2. What we see now is a nation that has been under attack and in fear of extinction for 4 decades. The writer does touch on some of the events and also is adamant in calling both sides guilty, which is fair enough. The other quote is do not completely agree with is “The Israeli response has been out of all proportion, a monstrous distortion of the much-vaunted right of self-defence“, yes, from the directness of what happens now he is stating the truth, yet decades of missiles has made Israel angry and perhaps worried and in fear. More than 1300 missiles were fired upon Israel last year. Someone with a massive fat wallet is funding Hamas, yet the Iron Dome also requires funds every shell Hamas fires requires another $25.000. How long until the funds runs out for Israel? These sides are not shown or talked about. He ends in “That is why the killing and the dying goes on. Ad nauseam, ad infinitum. And the rest of the world, not caring, looks away“. That I can partially agree with. The issue is still, until funding runs out for one of them. A side no journalist seems to be looking at. It is a simple view in any analytical premise. So is there a bully here?

Yes, I speak out against certain journalism, or better stated lack thereof. Mr Carlton was ‘judged’ as we see the quote “An Australian newspaper columnist has resigned after being suspended for telling people abusing him over a column on Gaza to ‘f*** off’” Is that reason enough? How was he wrong? Have you seen some of the trolls we see in social media? So he tells an abuser to (F word omitted) off. How does that even closely justify suspension? I might not agree with the view Mr Carlton had (at least partially), yet he had a right to his view. I might counter it, but I will not abuse him for it. Here it seems that the Sydney Morning Herald was hiding behind the Bully. The question becomes, who was that bully? The fact that Mr Carlton responded to the abuse was also not the greatest idea, but it was HIS RIGHT to do so, it seems that this side was also ignored, especially as we look at the weeks of suspension result.

So as we look for the bullies and look for the result of their acts, we should also realise that we all react to some extent here, not all in the greatest way, sometimes we think it was not important, sometimes to not rock the boat and sometimes because it seems like to only act available to us. But whether we give in to the bully, or hide behind the bully, we gave the bully that what he wanted and never deserved, so does the bully have an identity? To the Palestinians it is Israel, to the Israeli’s it is Hamas, and to Hamas they are the Jews. And as the vicious circle grows we see more players pointing towards their own demons, whilst the actual bully points towards his or her own ignorance and fears.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media

Tagged as Carlton, Gavin Platman, Gaza, Hamas, Iron Dome, Israel, Jews, Louise Mensch, Palestine, Puppet on a string, Sainsbury, SMH, Sydney Morning Herald, the Guardian, WW2

August 13, 2014 · 14:15

We lost a giant

I was hit with waves of sadness yesterday. We lost Robin Williams. I do not claim or pretend to know too much about him. When I was young, I loved watching ‘Mork and Mindy’. I saw him in the movies and lately his star ascended again in the advertisement comedy ‘the Crazy ones‘. The thought most on my mind was ‘How can Sarah Michelle Gellar ever keep a straight face around him?’
Yesterday and today there are no happy faces, we lost a giant. I am not the only one thinking this. Twitter was buzzing with news and condolences from the famous and non-famous alike. The Guardian had a story (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/12/russell-brand-robin-williams-divine-madness-broken-world). It is an article by Russell Brand, and seeing him outside of comedy or from the stage of the social aware was reason to take a look at this. The article shows two clear things. The first is that there is a lot more to Russell Brand then I thought there was. He is brilliant in his own way and he is asking out loud certain questions we do not tend to ask. Basically I saw more journalism in Russell Brand in one article then several have showed this year (if you, the reading journalist are the exception, then I apologise for my generalising directness).
There is a quote at the end that gives pause to wonder “What I might do is watch Mrs Doubtfire. Or Dead Poets Society or Good Will Hunting and I might be nice to people, mindful today how fragile we all are, how delicate we are, even when fizzing with divine madness that seems like it will never expire“.
If we are all so fragile, how can we cope? If we are all sane, how can we give support to those with mental health issues? It I however this quote which strikes a nerve “Hidden behind his beard and kindness and compliments was a kind of awkwardness, like he was in the wrong context or element, a fallen bird on a hard floor. It seems that Robin Williams could not find a context. Is that what drug use is? An attempt to anaesthetise against a reality that constantly knocks against your nerves, like tinfoil on an old school filling, the pang an urgent message to a dormant, truer you“.
I am not sure if the thought is correct as such (from my point of view). It might apply to Robin Williams, Russell had met the man, I never had, so why my opposition to this?
Well, is drug use just that? I was fortunate to stay away from drugs, yet is it an anaesthetic against reality or a way to see a better reality as these users think it will, a more appealing one? You see, if Russell is right, then every famous comedian would become a drug user, I find that thought too depressing. Robin Williams once stated “Reality is just a crutch for people who can’t handle drugs“, it is just a comedy statement, but there is also the statement from another giant, a musical one who stated “When you smoke the herb, it reveals you to yourself“. The man was Bob Marley!
Before I continue, I need to add another article. It was written by Dean Burnett (at http://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2014/aug/12/robin-williams-suicide-and-depression-are-not-selfish). Here he writes something particularly strong and interesting: “to say taking your own life because of such an illness is a ‘selfish’ act does nothing but insult the deceased, potentially cause more harm and reveal a staggering ignorance of mental health problems“.
Russell and Dean are both hitting one side of the same coin. My worry is not: ‘why this is happening to Robin Williams’, but why are we seeing it only now? Is Robin Williams the moment we start to wake up and realise that we have a massive issue which a ton of people have been hiding under the rug because it was too uncomfortable?
Dean goes on for a bit longer, but then he doesn’t just hit the nail on the head, he makes a case why the nail was never guilty and did not deserved to get hammered.
“That doesn’t mean those with reduced likelihood of exposure to hardships or tragic events are immune. Smoking may be a major cause of lung cancer, but non-smokers can end up with it. And a person’s lifestyle doesn’t automatically reduce their suffering. Depression doesn’t work like that. And even if it did, where’s the cut-off point? Who would we consider ‘too successful’ to be ill?”
I myself had that very same thought. ‘Why would a man this successful, having a beautiful daughter who is starting to have her own successful career, a massive success in his field be depressed?‘
It is a side I never really considered when having to read ‘Crime and Mental Health Law in New South Wales‘ by D. Howard. Those who try to give aid in one way or another, being it through legal aid, through psychological aid or through medical aid might have unintentionally missed a side we never considered. Russell voices it as “Is it melancholy to think that a world that he can’t live in must be broken?” But from my view the world is not broken (it is just in control by those filled with greed). The physician might note that this world can be lived in (it is just severely polluted and food is getting more and more expensive) lastly the psychiatrist wanted to talk about it but he had no sense of humour, apparently he was German.
The powerful statement Russell made in the beginning “Is it melancholy to think that a world that he can’t live in must be broken?” is now slightly changed (by me). “Is the world making me too sad to consider remaining here for another day?” I feel so sad because I lost an idol of comedy. I am certain I will get over it, but I know I am not alone, many with me remember the man who was the Genie, voicing the life of Donald Trump ‘PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWERS!!! … Itty-bitty living space‘.
We will soon enough remember again and again the famous moments that made us laugh or be silent. Yet, the issues on depression remain, not for just those Robin left behind, but for those who are still fighting this battle. A battle that is not just uphill, but for many it is a losing uphill battle and that is how they feel from the beginning of the journey they walk.
It is not new; depression has been around for at least 3 centuries, it has had many names. It was called Melancholy and Charlotte Smith wrote a sonnet to it in 1785. She wrote:

O Melancholy!–such thy magic power, 
That to the soul these dreams are often sweet, 
And sooth the pensive visionary mind!

Which might be better phrased as:

Oh dark dread, stopper of heart and reason
 in my dreams I yearn to end 
so that in my next life, I find a friend

Did the sonnet turn people away from depression as it was not a real condition?

I think that too many have never seen it for the dangerous affliction it truly is. Dean goes on and writes in his article in regards to ‘a’ selfish act “The ‘selfish’ accusation also often implies that there are other options the sufferer has, but has chosen suicide“. Was suicide even a choice? Are those on this track choosing at all? I have seen my share of people under Section 20 and Section 21 of the mental health act. Those who are hospitalised through them without and with their consent. There has been enough documentation that these people never seemed to have any choice in the matter. From their one sided view, there was only one path and only when services were too late lives were lost.

So, the medical branch seems to know the dangers, the legal branch has the knowledge that resulted in the existence of a section 20 and a section 21 of the mental health act, but these two are only 0.001% of a population, wouldn’t it be great if the other 99% catches on, on how dangerous and lethal depression really is?
Russell also wakes up to a revelation in the quote “When someone gets to 63 I imagined, hoped, I suppose, that maturity would grant an immunity to adolescent notions of suicide but today I read that suicide isn’t exclusively a young man’s game“, depression is timeless and it is ageless. We are bound to endure its dangers quite literally from the cradle to the grave, we can only hope for true friends around us to be there when it overwhelms any of us.

There is one more article that must be mentioned. It is again in the Guardian, but now it is Simon Jenkins (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/12/robin-williams-sadness-clown-addiction-mental-illness) that writes his view, but then he makes one ‘mistake’, perhaps it is just the observation he makes, but I disagree completely and for that I must lash out. He wrote “Therapists wander the scene like surgeons on a medieval battlefield, at a loss for what to do“.

I do not think that this is the case; it has not been the case for some time. Yet, some physicians and some psychiatrists seem to have inherited a former treatment for this, ‘have a pill, sit in a corner until the moment passes‘. There is enough evidence that this is no longer the approach and the current generation is still fixing the mess the previous generation made; but even today many are learning on how long the path to a cure is. Perhaps it is never cured, but in some cases it could be managed, as long as the patient does not do it alone. It is a personal view I have. I might be very wrong indeed and if someone lashes out to me for that same reason, then so be it.

I do know that in many places it is getting more and more the visibility it should have had, but let us not forget that depression was not generally accepted and published in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) until the 3rd edition in 1980. The documentation that is openly out there shows that depression was a debilitating disease long before it was made a sonnet in 1785, so people had known about it for well over 300 years, which means the adoption only 30 years ago is still a questionable issue. So, it seems that therapist are not at a loss for what to do, but there seems to be a lacking clarity of what will truly work. It does seem that medication alone will not ever be a solution.
It is clear that we are not there yet. If you think other whiles then consider that for the DSM-V the following is currently set: “DSM – V proposed (not yet adopted) anxiety symptoms that may indicate depression: irrational worry, preoccupation with unpleasant worries, trouble relaxing, feeling tense, fear that something awful might happen.”

Proposed, but not yet adopted!

We are not there yet and there is a long way to go. We can only hope that this road will have the resources needed to get there. I reckon we need to keep a view on the events that have shaped our view of the world and of those in it, for some of them will need our help. We might not be physicians or psychiatrists, but we can all do a little bit, so that they can do what must be done to find a solution for those who need help. If we keep to the cold statistics then we see that in the USA alone, 10% have it, this means that in one nation alone 30 million people are afflicted with depression, the reality is much higher because many do not seek help and some around them do not realise that depression is very near to them. Healthline (provider of health information) also reported the following: “60%-80% of all depression cases can be effectively treated with brief, structured forms of psychotherapy and antidepressant medication“.

I find absolutely nothing true in that statement, if it was then depression would have been successfully treated in so many cases and I would not have lost an idol. I think that it is time to take another true look at this without caring about budget cuts and ego’s.

If we get Keating involved, as Robin played him in Dead Poet’s Society, I would state “Thank you for playing anyway. Because we are food for worms, lads. Because, believe it or not, each and every one of us in this room is one day going to stop breathing, turn cold and die“, is that, what we, with our ‘generic’ view of mental health condemn these people to?
So I hope that politicians will take this event to sit down and proclaim that they will ‘take another true look at today’s mental health issues‘.

I will have a reason to smile, but I will say “Son of a bitch! They stole my line!“

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as Bob Marley, Charlotte Smith, Crime and Mental Health Law in New South Wales, Dead Poets Society, Dean Burnett, depression, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), Donald Trump, DSM-V, Good Will Hunting, Healthline, John Keating, mental health, mental health issues, mental health problems, Mork and Mindy, Mrs. Doubtfire, Robin Williams, Russell Brand, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Simon Jenkins, the Crazy ones, the Guardian

August 10, 2014 · 18:42

The second exploitation

It is always nice to see business to take a look at others and see how they can profit. As The US had to increase its Intelligence spending from 2004 onwards, many of us saw the outrageous amounts that the taxpayer had to dish out for intelligence resources. The biggest drain was not the need for more men, but the simple fact that much of the Intelligence community went private and those intelligence officers who were making on average $72333 year, suddenly in the private sector were asking for $172333. It was a simple ask and demand issue. This has gone on for some time and now we see how others are picking up the idea.

It is Sky News who informed us (at http://news.sky.com/story/1310468/nhs-hospital-paid-1800-a-day-for-nurse) on something so outrageous, that for a moment I thought they had just copied and pasted news from the Telegraph (the truth is far more shocking).

The first quote should be a massive wakeup call “On May Day Bank Holiday this year a locum agency was paid more than £1,800 to supply a nurse for a 12-hour shift, new figures show“, so a group that does not get anywhere near such an income supplies more funds for one day then most nurses will ever make in a week. Can anyone please explain that to me?

I know that I had given the answer in the beginning of this blog, yet in my blog of June 19th ‘Concerning the Commonwealth‘ I wrote “if we look at the NHS, then staffing and expertise are also a worry, which is by the way a worry in many Commonwealth Nations. Most of these nations have well over 5% unemployed; can some not be re-schooled in the healthcare sector?” Of course, that was after the event and long before Sky News wrote their article, yet overall, just as we saw on the mismanaged 111 helpline; it seems that hospital resources are not budgeted correctly either. You see, when we look at budgets, we think of coin and cost. It seems that most people think in that same way. Yet, hours and staffing is also a budget we must keep. The fact that we for some reason suddenly need to pay 1800 pound for a 12 hour shift comes down to the cost of a full day plumber (or the equivalent of two QC’s).

Yet the article is also lacking, WHY was this action taken? Perhaps there were valid (or better stated a host of) actions that resulted towards this choice. So, not unlike the Telegraph, we should ask the questions in regards to these events as they are told to us. This is why I decided to hold on to this, as it was clear that there was more to this than meets the eye. My initial response: ‘Bad Sky News, bad!‘ (Especially as the health strikes were already going on).

It is now, today August 10th that I see an article of the Guardian that does more than just put the Sky News article to shame. I am not debating whether the article was true, but it seems that there are sides that certain people are never happy to inform the others about.

This part is now seen (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/09/former-nhs-carers-intensify-strike-over-pay). If I read this correctly then these people are making just above minimum wage, yet these people are doing intense work, needing to keep a mind of everything (especially physicians at times), whilst making no more than the brain dead fast food counter staff tends to make. How is this even close to acceptable?

Perhaps Sky News did stumble upon something, but they ignored the other side. So at 7 pounds, a nurse makes 280 pounds pre taxation. If that person was staying at a homeless hostel, she would lose out on 105, which gives her 175 to live on for a week, which is 25 pounds a day, take in consideration underground, busses and such, which makes for another fiver down the sewage (as they would rightfully see it). So how can ANYONE live on less than 20 pounds a day? Remember, this still needs to account for food, clothing and a few other items.

There is no denying that leaving the NHS in private hands is worse than just a bad idea. It could be the first onset of death for healthcare in the UK. As politicians have wasted in excess of 15 billion pounds on failed approaches to healthcare, why think that the private sector (a greed and profit driven entity) would do better to the cost and even more disgraceful, better to the people it is supposed to take care of?

The article has a clear quote that shows the danger people face: “Once they have squeezed out the state sector, and the third sector, we will then see prices rise; then we will see profits; then we will see these tax-efficient structures working.” This is a clear ‘divide and conquer’ approach, a method, might I remind the reader of that has been around Julius Caesar, so long before Nicola Machiavelli decided to become devious. Attached to this is that as more and more cost cutting solutions are born, ‘surviving’ on tax shelter operations, then the treasury coffers will miss out on a lot more, which will just force a system of checks and balances which is no longer depending on any balance, it makes for a massively unbalanced future for both the people and the state.

The part that gets me is the people behind the strike “Fifty carers for the disabled are staging one of the longest strikes in the history of the health service to secure a living wage for staff working in privatised services formerly run by the NHS“. Have these people on minimum wage figured out what politicians, who make a lot more than that are ignoring?

The danger is that when (not if) the healthcare sector collapses, the fallout will be unimaginable. Those deciding on cutting costs (which by itself is not a bad idea), should also consider the dangers that follows. Government has health and medical options because (for now) it is not driven from a profit point of view, which is at the heart of this situation, this is not about cutting cost or making profit, this is about breaking even or losing an essential part of support for the living. When we are left to the devices of that what brings profit, we see the first steps into culling a population. It will not happen because they are killed, it will happen because services are no longer available. Then what will the government do, and who will they have to pay, or more interestingly, how much will it cost the government then?

Is that in any way a lesser form of murder?

The question becomes: ‘If a Service Level Agreement is set between government and the private sector, can any of these parties be prosecuted for murder?‘

You the reader will laugh now, which is fine, but when we see the first casualty because of these changes consider my words and consider how that person would still be alive if certain steps had not been taken.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as 111 helpline, healthcare sector, Hostels, Julius Caesar, Minimum wage, NHS, Nicola Machiavelli, Nurses, private sector, Sky News, the Guardian, The Telegraph, US

August 1, 2014 · 12:12

Talking the Walk

Yes, today is an interesting day, in a time when we all have a notion of democracy; we must all wonder how much of a democracy is left. You see the freedom of choice and the choice in options means that the freedom given is also an inherent acceptance of accountability? If we make a small sidestep at this point, then I would like to take a step towards the Media Ethics as stated at mediaethicsmagazine.com.

There in the fall of 2008, T.L. Glasser and J.S. Ettema wrote an interesting article called ‘A Philosophy of Accountability for Journalism’, it is a good article to read and well worth reading (at http://www.mediaethicsmagazine.com/index.php/browse-back-issues/135-fall-2008/3639324-a-philosophy-of-accountability-for-journalism).

The initial line, as in any good academic article is right at the beginning, when we read “The problem of ethics in journalism, we want to argue, is not the inability of journalists to know right from wrong but their inability to talk articulately and reflectively about it“. I from the my viewpoint, for the point of view that many has seen as we see the ‘junk’ articles from Murdoch publications hit us is that the point given reads to many of us (roughly 99.32443% of them non-journalists) see the second phrased as “their inability to avoid accountability by speculate on the words of seemingly non-existent sources they will never reveal“.
What we get is gossip, branded as journalism, a speculative piece where no accountability will ever be required. This is for a lot of people at the heart of the need that the Leveson report would address, which is why Journalists in many nations, especially in the UK as a trade that had lost its integrity to many.
This is however not about the article, yet, I am mentioning it as the article is an excellent piece of work and the article actually is to some extent shows the moral compass within all of us. There is however one more quote that I will not go into now, but it has bearing on what comes next “which reminds us that discourse ethics does not involve a marketplace process which aggregates individual interests but a deliberative process which brings into existence common or shared interests“.

This is about today, the first day of a new day of default for Argentina (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/31/argentina-government-defiant-debt-default-axel-kicillof). We seem to have been all about the banks and their evil practices. I know, because I have been one of them. The question becomes, what happens when you accept doing business with a loan shark? I wrote about it in my blog ‘Changing the rules of Democracy‘ on July 27th.

When the IMF wanted to restructure debts in 2003, USA as stated stopped the IMF; I want to know the EXACT reasons why. Perhaps they are valid, perhaps not! I also reflected on the fact that someone went to the Vulture funds and signed a deal. What was that deal exactly and who signed it. You see, Argentina is not blameless here; at some point, there is a knock on the door and at that point, the bailiff will want his coin, which is pretty much what was settled in court.

The Guardian article raises a point through the following quote “Economists at the Washington-based Centre for Economic and Policy Research called on the US Congress to intervene, warning in a letter that Griesa’s decision to uphold the holdout investors claim could cause ‘unnecessary economic damage to the international financial system, as well as to US economic interests’“.

You see, in all fairness, is that acceptable? If a system is brought and evolves devoid of accountability, how can we ever get a better world? I have pressed for accountability on many sides. On the side of Journalism as I embrace the full Leveson report, on the side of the banks as their soulless acts have diminished the value of millions of account holders, yet here in this case, are they not on the morally higher ground? No matter how despicable Vulture funds might be regarded as, these people offered a deal on conditions of risk because no bank wanted them, or in the case of Argentina, as the USA seemingly prevented the IMF offering a deal.
Now, when the deal is due, the client requesting the deal is not willing to make payment. So, as the facts are shown, I have to be (alas) n the side of the vulture fund, who offered the deal. If not, then I myself must abandon the premise of accountability, which is pretty much not an option.
If we accept the implications of communicative rationality in the sphere of moral insight and normative validity as the setting for discourse ethics, then I would like to change it (mold it) into the following statement: “If we accept the implications of agreed contract terms of rationality in the sphere of moral choices and normative acceptance of a loan” then we are getting to the part why I added the Journalism article on accountability for journalism.
This I now link to the quote I mentioned from the Guardian article. This is the cost of doing business! Sometimes you win, sometimes you do not, but to go out in response to change the game, because there is a cost, then we have a new problem. Do not misunderstand me, if there is some kind of a bail-out deal, then that is fine, but it would be understandable if it comes at a cost, more important, it might have been avoided all together if the 2003 IMF deal had gone through, so why was the 2003 deal stopped?

I understand and I do not disagree that the Argentine government is stopping it all and taking the ‘default’ path, yet, that too will come at a cost. Accountability should prevail here too. Is it for the better or for the worst? That is a discussion that is speculated upon, but for now it is one that comes without a clear answer. So, I cannot, without clearly more evidence to agree with cabinet chief minister Jorge Capitanich here. You see, who signed for this all in 2003? It is the inherent consequence of governing. The bill is pushed forward, it is a dangerous game that the US is currently excelling at and so if you wonder on why I care about another deal for 1.5 billion dollars, it is mainly because this paves the way for America when it defaults on their 18,000 billion loans, then what?

When we see people hide behind statements like ‘too big to fail‘, you should also consider the fallout when things go wrong. Consider what once happened to the Dutch SNS bank and is now happening to the Argentinian economy, both impacts were felt in large ways and they are not even anywhere near the scale of the debt the US and Japan have. And as we mentioned Japan, is that not the fear many brokers have? If we see the text from Moody’s (at https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-Japanese-RMBS-and-ABS-default-rate-declined-in-April–PR_302652).

Someone or something seems to be pushing Japan along, holding them on the safe side for now. Yet, this economic high-wire act is nowhere near done and it is a long walk to go for now. When we read “For CMBS deals, Moody’s outlook for the next 6-12 months is negative, as it will be difficult to refinance defaulted loans with high loan-to-value ratios“, so as refinance is now getting harder and harder, consider the US bonds. Part of the US debt is also the ‘Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding’ (at http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm), this is set for 2014 (up to October) to be almost $355 billion dollars. This is just the interest. At Bloomberg we see “The government will reduce net sales by $250 billion from the $1.2 trillion of bills, notes and bonds issued in fiscal 2012 ended Sept. 30“, this is clearly incomplete, as there is not mention of WHEN these bonds mature, but the overall sell of bonds will hit the US at some point. If we consider the CNS headline “$2,472,542,000,000: Record Taxation Through August; Deficit Still $755B“, so taxes are coming in, they are not enough as the deficit is around 30%, now consider that the due interest is going to be 15%-20% (because two months are currently not known) of all collected taxation. When the bonds are due, how much larger will the debt become?
I have mentioned it many times, but now as we see the reaction of fear as Argentina defaults, we cannot continue without seeing the threat and fear of Japan from defaulting, which will clearly push the US over the edge of that abyss too.

Here is where the issue becomes the dangers we fear. We seem to always mention that those who talk the talk should be walking the walk too. This has not been done by large by many, so now we talk the walk but no one is really accountable, making for a massively dangerous situation. If you even consider thinking that there is no danger here, try calling a Syrian hospital by telephone and ask them how they are doing. It might open your eyes really quick.

If we are to walk the walk then Argentina will default and we have a new situation, yet the unnamed danger is that ‘some’ deal will find its way, which is great for the Argentinian people, yet it also impacts the cost of doing business for all the other players. Have you consider the costs that this will bring everyone else?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as A Philosophy of Accountability for Journalism, accountability, Argentina, bloomberg, cabinet chief minister Jorge Capitanich, democracy, IMF, J.S. Ettema, Jorge Capitanich, Leveson, Moody, Syria, T.L. Glasser, the Guardian, UK, US Congress, USA, Vulture Funds

July 28, 2014 · 11:35

The old reasons

There are a lot of high running tensions in play at present. There is the Gaza, which has been going on since I was there in 1982 and there is the downing of MH17, which is now becoming an increasingly political hot potato involving the Russians.

Yesterday, Nick Clegg called for stripping Russia from the world cup 2018 (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/27/nick-clegg-russia-world-cup-2018-stripped-mh17-ukraine). I do not think I can presently agree with this. Yes, there are issues that need to be answered, yet, there is enough evidence to clearly state that Russian separatists, not the Russian army shot the plane down. The last group might not be innocent, yet for this we need actual evidence, which is currently (for now) not available.

David Cameron seems to be in agreement with me (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/27/david-cameron-russia-2018-world-cup-ukraine).

In my case there is another reason. If we are to resolve any issues, then we need to make sure that diplomats get as many options as they can to smooth things over. In three years the issues of MH17 will have been passed, yet what lies around the corner? There is not a person in the world who can give us any answer in that regard, nor should they have to. If we want options, than we need to look no further than the Olympics, especially the ‘original’ ones (you know, the ones you might have seen in 776 BC).

In those days, there was an important side to these groups of people, who were always bickering with each other using swords and spears. It was stated “During the Olympic Games, a truce, or ekecheiria was observed. Three runners, known as spondophoroi were sent from Elis to the participant cities at each set of games to announce the beginning of the truce. During this period, armies were forbidden from entering Olympia, wars were suspended, and legal disputes and the use of the death penalty were forbidden“.

It was a stroke of genius! This was a time when certain officials could off the books meet and possibly broker solutions in a way where the ego and reputation of a person was not on the line. It was a time when some people could meet and possibly longer lasting truces could be held. Even today, when the emotions run high, we need to make certain that such an option remains.

This brings me to the second part in this, which is only casually linked. It was my blog of March 19th 2014 called ‘Any sport implies corruption!‘ where I looked at some of the issues regarding the accusation of corruption by Qatar in getting the World cup 2022. There were a few views that caused me to question whether there was actual corruption, or was this a push by big business to replace Qatar for revenue reasons? What is ‘more likely than not’ is the question in this case!

Last week the Guardian gave us additional information (at http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/jul/21/ethics-investigation-private-fifa-michael-garcia), in the article, where it states: “Former attorney expected to deliver evidence by end of July“. It is now the end of July and we see the quote “Garcia’s report will go directly to FIFA’s ethics judge Hans-Joachim Eckhart, who is not expected to make any rulings until August or September“, so there will; be another delay in finding out the truth.
Moreover, I feel at present that after that another delay will come as certain people could be offered high income positions in other places before the news comes out. Will that happen? I do not know, what I do know is that the allegations have gone on for way too long and the additional delays, whilst we see more and more press on this should anger us all beyond belief. Big Business made a try and as such they hopefully failed. Of course we will not know until the rulings are made, but I remain adamant in my view! I demand the disclosure of names and participants in these events. In addition, the quote “Shortly before the World Cup in Brazil, Britain’s Sunday Times newspaper reported that some of the ‘millions of documents’ it had seen linked payments by former FIFA executive committee member Mohamed Bin Hammam to officials to win backing for Qatar’s World Cup bid” (at http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/25/us-soccer-fifa-qatar-idUSKBN0FU1M720140725), I could not get the Sunday times link as people need to pay for it and it cannot be fully shown, yet the quote is seen at CNN (at http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/02/sport/football/football-qatar-world-cup-sunday-times/) which states: “We’ve seen millions of documents that prove without a shadow of doubt that corruption was involved. There is clear evidence linking payments to people who have influence over the decision of who hosted the World Cup“.
I think we should DEMAND the display of these documents. If there is corruption, we are entitled to see it, on the other hand, if we accept that it is more likely than not that an industry that misses out on millions of dollars are behind the accusations, then we are allowed to see that as well. In that regard, if the Royal commission would prefer not to be the laughing stock regarding the press, then in my view, it should have only one response to the quote from the Sunday Times, when it is proven wrong. The Sunday Times is to cease all operations for no less than 6 months, all staff to be paid during this time, no online activities and no revenue based activities. Subscribers get an automatic 6 months extension.

Is that too harsh?

The claims here, the claims in regards to MH-370 that were made by the Telegraph, none of it founded and no actual evidence ever presented.

Why is this such a big deal?

As the Olympics evolved, the base need for honest and open competition is what allows for differences to be settled. The concept of the Olympics was also continued in other events, like the World Cup Soccer and the Commonwealth Games. These events go beyond the events on the field. It allows for trade discussions, diplomacy and other conversations that have larger impact, in some cases none of them an option in an official capacity. This is why I disagree with Nick Clegg on this.

Even now, I have been adamant about the need for President Vladimir Putin to speak out harshly against these separatists since the first day it happened. It is likely that he relied on the wrong advisers (as I see it), but to cut off options of diplomacy is NEVER EVER a good idea. Even now, we see news (at http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/07/27/vladimir-putin-facing-multi-million-dollar-lawsuit-for-aiding-separatists-who-shot-down-mh17-lawyers-say/) where the headline “Vladimir Putin facing multi-million dollar lawsuit for aiding separatists who shot down MH17, lawyers say“.

How is this even realistic?

Is there ACTUAL evidence that Putin did directly support in the act that resulted in the downing of MH17? Yes, I agree there are issues with the hardware the separatists have and I mentioned that the first day, whilst the press were all about the ’emotional stories’ (which is not journalistic out of place). The facts are there and they need to be answered, but that lawsuit is a joke. Consider the fact that Osama Bin Laden was a product of the CIA, trained to some extend and funded to a larger extent. Was President George W. Bush, Senator Charles Wilson or many others ever sued for 9/11? Both premises are equally ridiculous. I see them all as meagre attempts from certain individuals to claim income and/or visibility from where ever they can.

So, why this switch?

If any of these issues are to ever be resolved we need to keep one open path, one path no one messes with to remain. We need sports to remain to be about sports, so that those attending (not those who participate), to divert the conversation to non-sport matters. If we can keep peace through an innocent informal conversation, then by all means let us do that. Preferably without a group of bloody Murdoch’s miscreants making claims without producing the actual evidence trying to divert games towards a better ‘big business’ marketable environment. My reasoning here is twofold. First the quote as “We’ve seen millions of documents that prove without a shadow of doubt that corruption was involved”. Were these people really that stupid? The one true rule here is that if it isn’t written down, it does not exist, would people state ‘in writing’ such events (people who should be a lot more intelligent than I am), or is it just a bluff? You see, evidence (or not) did the press not have clear, distinct and utter responsibility to produce and print this evidence? The people who have been hiding behind every sleaze report with pictures stating ‘the people have a right to know’, now suddenly they hide behind innuendo and silence? That is part of the picture I have a problem with.

The old reasons are now clearly in focus.

Sport should be about sport and sport alone. The people in the field are all about that what they excel in and as such, it might be the only true entertaining excitement left to us. This atmosphere will always allow for officials who are admiring their team. What was more endearing, more powerful and more sportive then seeing the Royal Dutch family amongst the Dutch, all in Orange, cheering for their team! What a massive adrenaline jolt it must have been for those players to hear their own royal family cheer for them! Is anything more amazing in sports? Is there a chance that his royal highness, King Willem Alexander of the Netherlands shook hands with an official from another nation, perhaps starting a conversation? The fact that Angela Merkel and Vladimir Putin were there for the match and had a conversation can only be a good thing for all kinds of reasons in the long run.
We seem to forget these old reasons. We get the sports, but foremost, we get the commercials and we get clobbered to death by sponsors with their trinkets, foods and drinks. That last part is the part too many are catering to. The bringers of news (especially in paper forms) are at least one third advertisements. Income is dwindling here and papers are more and more about keeping their (possible) advertisers happy. Even though these politicians can hold talks anywhere, allowing them to hold onto as many as informal places as possible is a given need. So, as such, for now, I feel that Moscow 2018 should continue.

If not, then Moscow should have never won the bid in the first place.

1 Comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as Ancient Greece, Angela Merkel, CIA, CNN, Commonwealth Gaames, corruption, David Cameron, FIFA, Gaza, Greece, Hans-Joachim Eckhart, King Willem Alexander, MH17, Mohamed Bin Hammam, Netherlands, Nick Clegg, Olympics, Osama Bin Laden, President George W. Bush, President Vladimir Putin, Qatar, Qatar 2022, reuters, Rupert Murdoch, Senator Charles Wilson, separatists, the Guardian, The Telegraph, Vladimir Putin, World Cup, world cup 2018, World cup 2022, World Cup Soccer

July 22, 2014 · 11:55

8 Generations

I thought long about this and until this morning I had not made up my mind whether I would write this. You see, this is not based on facts (or at least extreme loosely facts), I had spoken to a priest about this, but as I see the article in the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/21/five-biggest-threats-human-existence), I decided to write the story anyway.

Consider the notion, the one that Anders Sandberg wrote in his story “Not those who will live 200 years from now, but 1,000 or 10,000 years from now“. In my view the man might actually be an optimist. For the most we have been deceived so long (not by the fore mentioned writer), that we have not been heeding anyone’s word in matters of survivability.

What if we are ending the option of life the way we currently are? What if we have at the maximum only 8 generations left? Did you consider this? Why 8 generations? Well, the number is slightly random, we might actually only have 7 or even 6 generations left.

This train of thought started with two events. The second one is the one I wrote about in ‘Tusks!’ earlier this month. It was about the Ivory trade and how at this stage, elephants will be extinct in 15 years (a claim by the World Wildlife Federation). The first one was the news by several sources that Japan was intend on slaughtering whales again for ‘scientific’ purposes (at http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/experts-concerned-japans-talk-scientific-whaling-n156766). The interesting quote is “What bothers Clapham is that ‘whaling nations have said forever that they advocate sustainable whaling, and then they go on to ignore mounting evidence of population declines in the interests of profit’“. I must say that the IWC has not been overly outspoken in visibility of the numbers, some they have, some are estimates and it can all be found here: http://iwc.int/estimate. The numbers imply that between the two markers 1985-1991 and 1992-2003, the Minke Whales in the southern Hemisphere were ‘culled’ for almost 30%. That is a MASSIVE number! So far Japan has not produced ANY viable information on why whales have to die for their ‘research’. In my view, Japan has an obligation to openly produce the entire scientific data on the whales, with the spectrum of issues they want to prove/disprove by slaughtering whales. If they do not, it is only fair that we perform medical experimentations on the Japanese population in regards to resistance to radiation for the term 1944-1947 and 2010-2014. Will they wait until 30% of the population is ‘culled’ until they complain? I do reckon that national interest in Whale meat would likely go down.

Let us all remain calm and realise that this is not some anti-Japanese issue! But, the example is here for a reason!

The whale has a massive impact on the aquatic balance “When one species of animal that is important to the food chain dies it allows other species to thrive” (from whalefacts.org). In addition there is the quote “Studies have shown that the nutrients in sperm whale poop helps stimulate the growth of phytoplankton which pull carbon from the atmosphere to provide a cleaner and healthier breathing environment for all animals. Estimates state that as much as 400,000 tonnes of carbon are extracted from the air due to these whales each year!“, the whales also keep the krill population in balance, who in term deal with some of the carbon issues we create. Here is where it all becomes a bit weird. It seems that we, Homo Sapiens need Krill oil too. We have been taking massive amounts of it from the arctic and as such, we have denied the whales their food source. Another part is the quote “The adult Antarctic krill feeds preferentially on phytoplankton” implying that the whales themselves foster and nurture their own food source, making it a symbiotic relationship. “Several threats to Antarctic krill have been identified, including increasing commercial demand for krill oil and meal for the aquaculture, medical and cosmetic industries, as well as advancing technologies which enable much greater catches and quicker processing” show that we need the krill food source too, making the whale a competitor, as such, in conjunction with global warming (which removes the chances of successful Krill reproduction), should give us a larger pause then it is currently giving us.

All this has further consequences, as these two species are culled stronger and stronger, the predators in the arctic will end up with different needs. Like the whale, the Elephant has a similar impact. As the Lions and subsequent the Hyena’s lose this food source, they will have to pick on other sources. Consider that an elephant carcass will feed the pride for a week, taking them out means that they become solely dependent on the other species, which will then take a downturn in numbers too. How is all this linked to these 8 generations?

We have been feeding ourselves and through this our biosphere into extinction. The time we could have had to resolve issues are slowly and surely getting lost to us due to sheer greed! You do not have to believe me, but when was the last time you have beef without the fear of horse meat? Is it about profit (partially accepted as correct), or is this because veal is getting harder and harder to get? We see part of this at http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/23/us-usa-agriculture-inflation-idUSBREA4M0FI20140523, where it is stated that prices in the US are at a record high. They blame the drought, which might be true in part. Another side here is the fact that this planets population grew by 30% in the last 20 years, that is within two generations. This is the need to feed over one and a half billion more people. The US only grew by 22% in that time, but consider the given truth that you need greens and livestock to feed another 60 million and add obesity into the mix and you have the beginning of a food disaster.

It goes beyond food, which is the main event, but not the whole picture. The site IndexMundi is telling us, that the world requires 90 million barrels of oil EACH DAY! This number becomes an issue, when we know that the bulk of all oil comes from OPEC and the OPEC-12 reported in that same time a production of 31 million barrels a day. The entire world produces roughly 80 million barrels of oil a day, there seems to be the issue that we need more. Before you go into the idea that it is just oil, and like running water we have plenty. Think again, oil is begotten (for the lack of a better word), from the earth. These fields are finite plain and simple! If we take the following premise that over the last 12 years, we used on average 80 million barrels of oil a day and a barrel in 159 litres, then how much oil did we need to spawn? that number comes to 12.72 billion litres of oil each day for 4380 days, which gets us to a cube that is 59 Km by 59Km by 59Km. That is one massive cube and this is only for the last 12 years. If we accept that the atmosphere end (roughly) at 17Km, then we get an interesting rectangular cuboid which is just over 109 Kilometres long and wide reaching to the edge of our atmosphere (at twice the height of the Mount Everest). I think the picture is clearly shaping that we are seriously on route of consuming ourselves quite literally into extinction. That view is only enhanced when we see the extreme ways on how large companies are now trying to get a little more gas using shale gas methods of getting a little more out of rock. Do you think they would go this distance and setting themselves up to these dangers if it was not ‘essential’? The question becomes, is it greed, or is it finality that is getting us into these waters?

I do not claim to have the answers, but there is every indication that 8 generations might be optimistic. Yes, we see the words on ‘responsible’ fishing and on the need for other solutions. It was only last July when we saw on ABC the quote “Australia’s east coast is experiencing a chronic shortage of wheat and stocks could run out by November“. No matter what this precise reason is for that one newscast, we are confronted that a larger part of the 7 billion population (a 2012 number) needs bread on a daily basis. How much wheat is needed to make 7 billion buns of bread each day?

It is when we realise these astronomical numbers that we get a first inkling on the dangers we face when we hear the words ‘food’ and ‘shortage’ together. More important, what can we do to prevent the nightmare the eight generation will face once he/she arrives there. I am not the first one to make these claims and in many places, we see some ‘expert’ giving us numbers that it will not be such a harsh reality. Is that so? For decades global warming was ‘debunked’ by carefully selected ‘experts’ even today they are still trying to throw sand in many eyes to dissuade many from seeing the perilous times that lie ahead.

In this article I only raised two of the daily needs we face every day, what happens when we add the need for clean (healthy) water? Part of that was illustrated last February in the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/09/global-water-shortages-threat-terror-war).

The six areas in direct threat give us an indication that drought or not, we are in long term dire need for the one substance we cannot do without. If the human body needs 3 litres of water each day, then how will we get by on getting 21 billion litres of water each day for years to come? We all think too easy that this planet is 70% water. That water is not all fresh water and we have to share it with many other life forms (not just the fish). Feel free not to take my word on this. The WWF had this to say “By 2025, two-thirds of the world’s population may face water shortages”, that is just a decade from now, will this come to pass? Consider that the current population requires a body of water the size of the Dead Sea is not entirely comfortable when we consider the amounts of fresh water we have been polluting in recent years.

Time will tell, in the end we might not even get 8 generations to figure it out, however I always was an incurable optimist.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as Adam Sandberg, Crude oil, Eliphants, food source, Japan, Krill oil, NBC News, OPEC, population, the Guardian, water, whalefacts.org, Whales, WWF

Tag Archives: the Guardian

Recent Posts

Archives