US warship playing in Russia’s backyard is buzzed by Russian aircraft — what else?

April 14, 2016

The US Navy and a compliant press corps in the US and in Europe are making a great to-do about Russian aircraft buzzing a US warship playing war-games, in the Baltic. A long way from home and in the Russians’ backyard.

What's a US warship doing in the Baltic?

What’s a US warship doing in the Baltic?

What did they expect?

If a Russian warship was carrying out exercises just off the US coast, the US military would be castigated if it did not challenge such games.

NATO – after Turkey and Ukraine and Libya – is proving to be irresponsible. In Syria they could not do in 5 years what the Russians seem to have done in 6 months.

Baltic Sea Region

Baltic Sea Region

The Swedish military and the defence industry are pushing for Sweden to join NATO. I suspect that could be just the provocation needed for the Russians to do to the Baltic what the Chinese are doing in the South China Sea. Take over a few islands, build some airstrips and military bases and redefine the extent of domestic waters. It may not be Gotland in the first instance but Sweden joining NATO will increase the risk in the Baltic – not reduce it.

NATO expansionism creates a greater risk of WW3 than Russian aggression in Russian dominated areas of the old Soviet Union.

US Navy Press Release:

A United States Navy destroyer operating in international waters in the Baltic Sea experienced several close interactions by Russian aircraft April 11 and 12.

USS Donald Cook (DDG 75) encountered multiple, aggressive flight maneuvers by Russian aircraft that were performed within close proximity of the ship.

On April 11, Donald Cook was conducting deck landing drills with an allied military helicopter when two Russian SU-24 jets made numerous close-range and low altitude passes at approximately 3 p.m. local. One of the passes, which occurred while the allied helicopter was refueling on the deck of Donald Cook, was deemed unsafe by the ship’s commanding officer. As a safety precaution, flight operations were suspended until the SU-24s departed the area.

On April 12, while Donald Cook was operating in international waters in the Baltic Sea, a Russian KA-27 Helix helicopter conducted circles at low altitude around the ship, seven in total, at approximately 5 p.m. local. The helicopter passes were also deemed unsafe and unprofessional by the ship’s commanding officer. About 40 minutes following the interaction with the Russian helicopter, two Russian SU-24 jets made numerous close-range and low altitude passes, 11 in total. The Russian aircraft flew in a simulated attack profile and failed to respond to repeated safety advisories in both English and Russian. USS Donald Cook’s commanding officer deemed several of these maneuvers as unsafe and unprofessional.

After Syria, there is some irony in the US military accusing the Russians of unprofessionalism. Or maybe I’m thinking of competence rather than professionalism.

 

Tags: ,
Posted in Behaviour, Russia, Sweden, US | 6 Comments »

Panama papers probably a CIA hacking operation

April 13, 2016

That the CIA engineered the hacking and release of the Panama papers makes a lot more sense than the cover story of it being the work of “intrepid journalists” based on a whistleblower’s revelations.

CNBC: ….. the political uproar created by the disclosures have mainly impacted countries with tense relationships with the United States. “The very fact that we see all these names surface that are the direct quote-unquote enemies of the United States, Russia, China, Pakistan, Argentina and we don’t see one U.S. name. Why is that?” Birkenfeld said. “Quite frankly, my feeling is that this is certainly an intelligence agency operation.”

…… Asked why the U.S. would leak information that has also been damaging to U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron, a major American ally, Birkenfeld said the British leader was likely collateral damage in a larger intelligence operation.

“If you’ve got NSA and CIA spying on foreign governments they can certainly get into a law firm like this,” Birkenfeld said. “But they selectively bring the information to the public domain that doesn’t hurt the U.S. in any shape or form. That’s wrong. And there’s something seriously sinister here behind this.”

…… Birkenfeld also said that during his time as a Swiss banker, Mossack Fonseca was known as one piece of the vast offshore maze used by bankers and lawyers to hide money from tax authorities. But he also said that the firm that is at the center of the global scandal was also seen as a relatively small player in the overall offshore tax evasion business. 

….. But Mossack Fonseca was just one of a number of firms in Panama offering such services, he said. “The cost of doing business there was quite low, relatively speaking,” he said. “So what you would have is Panama operating as a conduit to the Swiss banks and the trust companies to set up these facilities for clients around the world.”

I find all the indignation about “avoiding taxes” a hypocrisy and rather stupid. The politicians make the rules and if anybody pays more tax (allows more of his wealth to be confiscated) than the rules require, then he is just plain stupid. Any company paying more tax than it should is failing in its fiduciary duties.

 

Tags:
Posted in Behaviour, Economics | Comments Off on Panama papers probably a CIA hacking operation

A back-lash against “authority” and the “establishment”

April 13, 2016

I observe that “authorities” are becoming much more strident and self-serving than ever before. They have become more lobbyists than authorities. They increasingly resort to advocacy – which is inevitably political – rather than being the objective disseminators of sound analysis – as they claim to be.

It applies to the World Bank, the IMF, many parts of the UN and virtually every NGO there is (WWF, Greenpeace, Amnesty….). Advocacy inevitably brings “spin”, and that leads, as I perceive it, to a loss of their credibility and their “authority”. But I also perceive a growing back-lash to this perversion of “authority”. The “establishment” view is facing an unprecedented loss of credibility.

This week it was the IMF coming out against Brexit. But it is so strident that it sounds more like scare-mongering than any reasoned analysis. The IMF has not covered itself in glory with their forecasts. They have been wrong in about 3 times as many cases as they have been right. I suspect that itself suggests that the Brits have much more to gain from Brexit than the “establishment” would have them believe.

Perhaps the “authorities” are turning strident to make themselves heard. But I suspect they are bucking a global “anti-establishment” phenomena that is just getting started. It was visible with all the various Arab spring events and it is increasingly visible in Europe and the US today. The EU is facing unprecedented opposition to its “establishment” positions; from Ukraine to refugees. Both the Democrats and the Republicans in the US are facing waves of ant-establishment protest. The stridency from the “establishment” or from “authority” is becoming counter-productive. The louder they shout, the less they are heard. When the ultimate establishment figure, the POTUS, attacks Trump, Trump’s numbers rise. When he supports Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders’ numbers rise. When the IMF attacks Brexit, the number in favour of Brexit increase.

I think the phenomenon arises from a resentment in being told what to think, by “establishments” and “authorities” trying to impose their politically correct beliefs (not analysis) onto others. The World Bank and the IMF write their conclusions before starting their analyses. Greenpeace and the WWF routinely exaggerate and Greenpeace even makes up facts. They have become no different in their tone to the Grand Mufti declaring that women who drive are exposed to evil or the Shankaracharya Swaroopanand warning that women will suffer rape now that they have entered forbidden parts of the Shani Shingnapur temple.

 

 

 

Tags: ,
Posted in Behaviour | Comments Off on A back-lash against “authority” and the “establishment”

Smombies

April 12, 2016

Smart phone zombies

“Beware the Smombies now, my son!
The ears that bud, the thumbs that swipe!
Beware the emoji birds, and shun
The frumious Bundersnipe!”

with apologies to Lewis Carroll

Millennial zombies (Twitter)

 

smombie

Beware the smart phone zombies

Tags: ,
Posted in Trivia | Comments Off on Smombies

Writing for myself

April 11, 2016

Someone asked me who I had in mind when I wrote – and I had no answer.

I know that some people read what I write – whether blog posts or articles or books. But I really have no idea who they are. I find I constantly misjudge what I think people may like to read. I find there is no correlation between pieces I am pleased with and proud of and the pieces that arouse the greatest interest. Some writings which I think are trivial get thousands of readers and other essays which I think contain a few real insights struggle to get up to readers in double figures.

I certainly imagine how certain types of readers may assess what I write while I am writing. But while that may lead to a reformulation of something I wish to say, a choice of different language, it rarely leads to any substantive change. Changes, when they occur during the writing, are due to the writing process itself. In fact, I find my position or viewpoint changes as I write. Ideas which were diffuse or thoughts which were incomplete coalesce and become conclusions during the process.

The satisfaction of writing comes primarily in completing the essay or article or blog post. It is of interest and gratifying when some piece attracts many readers, but that gratification is often negated when the readership does not match my own view of the quality of the piece. When some essay that I am quite pleased with also attracts many readers, then it is just a bonus. But even that gratification does not compare with the satisfaction of completing even a rarely read essay.

The writing process itself, for me, contains much reading and much thinking. I take positions and then start reading what others have written on the subject. I start writing something and then go into a bout of reading which means that essay may not be completed for many weeks or even months. I make assertions which I then feel obliged to fact-check and to reanalyse. The satisfaction of completing something increases with the effort expended.

The real answer, I suppose, is that I write for myself. I have some readers but I have no targeted audience.

 

Tags:
Posted in Trivia | 2 Comments »

Passenger comfort is no longer in the vocabulary of airlines and airports

April 10, 2016

Travelling by air has become an exercise in minimising the discomfort imposed by the purveyors of air travel. There is discomfort involved in all aspects of travelling by air. Depending on how fortunate one is, there could be levels of discomfort involved in arriving, in checking in, in negotiating harassment at security, in getting to the gate, in waiting at the gate, on board the aircraft, in leaving the aircraft  in collecting luggage and in leaving the airport. A nightmare journey is when you experience discomfort at every stage – and that is less uncommon than one would think.

Sometime last week the US Senate declined to bring in regulation to set a minimum regulation for seat size and leg-room on commercial aircraft. I don’t disagree with that because that should not be a matter of regulation. That is about passenger comfort, and that should be a matter which engages the airlines not the law-makers. It seems that for airport designers, airport managers, immigration and customs authorities and, most of all, for airlines, passenger comfort is no longer something they feel it necessary to deliver.

As I get older I give more value to comfort. But it is a luxury which is no longer even on offer. So when I travel by air – which is still about 10 -12 times a year – my concern is just to minimise the hassle. For a journey of up to about 500 km my preference is to take the car and avoid the hassle. Time, I find, is no longer of the essence. I go early. I no longer run to catch flights. I don’t hurry, I stroll, the 2 km needed to make a transfer at Frankfurt airport. Making a transfer at Heathrow is only for the masochist. But since I am early, I usually have to wait; in the check-in line, in the security line, in the immigration line, in the taxi line. I choose a carry-on bag on which I can sit. This is essential even at the gate. When was a gate ever equipped with more seats than the aircraft to be boarded? I am resigned to paying double for my rubbery sandwich and diluted coffee. I have learned to switch off my taste buds at airports. Airport designers win awards for architecture but they would never win any awards for passenger comfort. Ground personnel resent that you haven’t used the check-in machine that wasn’t working. On Ryanair you are punished if you bring luggage. Jet Air has a luggage limit of 15 kg for domestic flights just to suit international travellers who come with a 20 kg allowance. Security personnel are required to – and do – suspend their brains as they blindly follow their protocols. You cannot take the shortest way to the gate at Arlanda because that would mean bypassing the shops. Cleaners wait for me to approach before they close and start cleaning the toilets. Low cost airlines don’t even arrive at the city they tout as their destination.

cattle class

Cattle Class

Of course the worst comes after boarding. The only defense I have found is to try and sleep through the entire time on board. I skip the meals. I ignore the passenger in front who has reclined into my face. I ignore the pain in my knees and my sore shins. Announcements on board are in 3 unintelligible languages (all recordings of course) – all about everything of no relevance. There is never any explanation of that big thump while descending.

What you pay for these days is for arrival. Not for when you might arrive. The price of being alive (just) when you arrive is however still included. Comfort is no longer included in the ticket price.

There was a time when there was a joy in travelling by air. I still enjoy arriving, but there is no longer any fun in the travelling. In fact part of the new joy of arriving is that the discomfort of travelling has come to an end. Until the next time.

 

 

Tags:
Posted in Aviation | 2 Comments »

When a foetus is no longer an unborn child – just a toe-nail?

April 8, 2016

Hillary Clinton has been criticised for calling a foetus an “unborn person”. The pro-abortion movement in the US finds this beyond the pale. They find that the use of the words “unborn person” implies that the foetus is an “unborn child” which of course is unacceptable.

So is a “foetus” not an “unborn child” and of no greater significance than an overgrown toe-nail or unwanted hair? To be cut off as and when desired?

NYMagazine: Hillary Clinton drew criticism on Monday after referring to the unborn as a “person” in an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press. “The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights,” she said, before adding, “that doesn’t mean that we don’t do everything we possibly can to help a mother who is carrying a child and wants to make sure that child will be healthy to have appropriate medical support.”

As might’ve been expected, both abortion-rights advocates and abortion opponents quickly seized on Clinton’s remarks. “Usually when you hear her talk it’s about the fetus,” Tina Whittington, executive vice-president of Students for Life, told the New York Times. “To acknowledge it’s a human person, a human child, to us it’s huge.” Other activists condemned her use of the word “person,” saying it implies the fetus is an “unborn child” — rhetoric the pro-choice movement opposes.

I don’t dispute a woman’s control over her own body. But equally she must take responsibility for her own actions. The question becomes one of liability and to whom. And when does a foetus gain an identity and become a “who”? I find that the current practice of banning abortions after a foetus is about 20 -24 weeks old (as the point when it is independently viable) somewhat illogical since the alternative to an abortion is not a premature birth.

Immortality of Identity:

So why should it be that preventing an egg being fertilised, which would otherwise go on to become a foetus, causes no moral qualms but aborting that same foetus after it has been conceived is so disturbing to some? Extending that thought, what is it that makes aborting a foetus and preventing a child from being born much less disturbing than terminating the existence of that same child after birth?

I suspect that it is our concept of “identity” rather than “life” which determines. ……

… Many societies set a limit of 22 or 24 weeks after conception as being the point when a foetus acquires the “right” to live but this boundary is irrational. This time is based on when a foetus – if born prematurely – is considered to be viable. I don’t find this very useful since the alternative to an abortion is not usually a premature birth. I note also that the probability of a foetus reaching full term changes very little after the first 10-12 weeks of a pregnancy. A 12 week old foetus has almost the same chance of being born as a 30 week old foetus. An abortion at any time after about the first 12 weeks effectively eliminates a birth which – with a 90% probability – would otherwise occur. After birth, infant mortality rates today are generally around 5% (ranging from close to 15% in the poorest parts of Africa to less than 2% in well developed societies). …..

….. A unique identity is recognisable first when an egg is fertilised. That identity cannot be foretold but it may be remembered long after the individual dies. It may in due course be forgotten. But whether or not it is forgotten, the fact of the creation of that identity remains. Forever. It is identity, once created, which remains unique and immortal.

The winner spermatozoon – image Gabriel Sancho

 

Tags: , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Ethics | Comments Off on When a foetus is no longer an unborn child – just a toe-nail?

Slap in the face for the EU over colonial expansion in Ukraine

April 7, 2016

My own perception is that it was the EU’s adventurism (and a colonial style expansionism) which was a major factor in the Ukraine crisis. It was the EU (supported by the US and NATO) which quite irresponsibly built up the opposition groups in Ukraine (with money and arms and promises of the good life). It is this colonial expansionism which is the ugliest part of the EU’s dreams of a new Holy European Empire, and which is fuelled mainly by sections of the French, the Germans and the Brussels bureaucracy. The EU has degenerated into  a theocracy.

EU colonial expansion (wikimedia)

EU colonial expansion (wikimedia)

But the overwhelming Dutch rejection (61:38) of the EU’s “deal” for the Ukraine is more than just a rejection of just that particular deal. It is yet another manifestation of the unpopularity of the whole Brussels experiment. It is not wrong to paint Brussels with the “Holy” epithet. For all the parasitical politicians of the European parliament and the self-serving bureaucrats of the European Commission, the expansion of the EU and an imposed political union is nothing less than a religion. Their complete shambles in handling the “refugee” invasion has also demonstrated the shallowness and self-serving nature of “European values” as touted by the high priests of the EU.

BBC: 

With 99.8% of the votes counted, 61.1% had said “No”, with 38% supporting a deal, media reports said. Turnout is projected at 32%, above the 30% threshold of voters needed to be valid but within a 3% margin of error.

Prime Minister Mark Rutte said his government may have to reconsider the treaty if the vote is valid. The Dutch parliament has already ratified the EU agreement and the result of the vote is not binding. “We will have to wait and see but it is clear that the ‘No’ voters won convincingly. The question is whether or not the required turnout will be met.” Mr Rutte said in a televised reaction.

It is almost shameful that 27 EU countries merely rubber stamped the Ukrainian deal and that it is only the Dutch who put it to the question. The “deal” is not just a free trade agreement but a shameless, blatant step in a colonial expansion. It is a stepping stone for bringing Ukraine into the EU. The Dutch vote shows how out of step the EU is with the bulk of the population. One of the key tactics used by the proponents of the Holy European Empire is to govern by fiat, by decrees and diktats from Brussels and by avoiding any votes.

The Brexit vote is another rare example of of the EU theocracy being challenged. The Dutch vote will give support to the BREXIT campaign.

It is time, not to get rid of the EU, but to put a stop to the fantasy of the Holy European Empire and to return the EU to the trade and economic and labour cooperation it was meant to – and should certainly – be. The whole idea of political union is actually destructive of the rich diversity that has built Europe. Cloning nations by imposition of a false uniformity borders on stupidity. It is time to remove the unnecessary, unproductive and undemocratic layers of parasites that have built up in Brussels and made a religion of themselves.

 

Tags: ,
Posted in Europe, European Union | 1 Comment »

Sweden tries to buy votes for Security Council place

April 5, 2016

Five UN Security Council places (non-permanent) come up for election in June 2016. Sweden is competing against Italy and the Netherlands for the “Western European and Others” place.

The elections are for five non-permanent seats on the UN Security Council for two-year mandates commencing on 1 January 2017. The five members will serve on the Security Council for the 2017–18 period.

No doubt there is heavy lobbying going on. A UNSC place is seen as a strategic – and ideological – objective by the Social Democrat /Environment party government. The Social Democrats especially see the UN as a minor God and they have already canonised themselves as Saints. (Their sanctimonious self-image has been dented lately as they have been forced to take less than “friendly” actions in stopping the influx of “refugees”).

In any event, the Social Democrats were faced with the problem of how to fund their lobbying activities while not seeming to bribe “poor” countries for their votes and tarnishing their own self-righteous, self-image of propriety. So they chose a round-about method of inviting 27 UN ambassadors of “poor countries” to an all expenses-paid jaunt in Sweden under the guise of an “environment seminar”. They funded the whole business through a number of intermediary institutions to hide the fact that the money was coming from the Foreign Aid budget and that the whole “bribery tourism” was organised by the Foreign Ministry. The Foreign Ministry arranged the “gift packages ” for the UN ambassadors (note that those invited were not environment ministers but UN ambassadors). It is not often that UN ambassadors get their business class air tickets and five-star hotel bills paid for by a foreign country. What exactly was contained within the “gift packages” is not known. The environment seminar, just for these 27 country ambassadors, was an attempt by Sweden to cash in on its “environment credentials” just before the Paris conference. A similar jamboree was also arranged in March 2015.

By FIFA standards, the Swedish bribes were just small potatoes and normally I would expect Italy and the Netherlands to have provided more. But a  UNSC place is probably of more prestige value to the Social Democrats in Sweden. There is nothing wrong, I think, in lobbying. It is trying to hide it which is despicable. The sanctimonious, self-righteous facade which covers Swedish foreign policy is always despicable but it has reached new heights (or should it be depths) with this government. If it was all for the interests of the country it wouldn’t matter much, but for the Social Democrats, ideology often overrides country interests (Palestine, Saudi Arabia, the PKK ….).

(I observe that the left parties in Europe and including the Social Democrats in Sweden, in their ideological zeal to support the Palestinians often come close to being anti-semitic. And they get into a tangle when supporting a Kurdistan).

Kronprinsessan och Prins Daniel tillsammans med ambassadörerna.

Crown Princess and Prince Daniel with the Ambassadors. Photo kungahuset.se

Swedish Television:

Ambassadors from 27 island nations and poor countries were treated to a free trip to Sweden in August. The official reason for the visit was a climate seminar. The bills running into millions were sent to the  Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation, who in turn received 14 million kronor of Sida’s aid money.

The common factor for the visitors was that they each have one vote in the UN General Assembly, which in June will appoint new members to the Security Council.

To get a seat in the UN Security Council has been one of the current government’s major foreign policy goals. …..

After the disclosure the government … writes that aid money was also used at another opportunity to invite UN Ambassadors on a trip to Sweden. On March 10,  27 representatives of several small island states met the Aid Minister Isabella Lövin (MP) and Foreign Minister Margot Wallström (S), during a visit to Sweden at the invitation of the Dag Hammarksköld Foundation. ….

…… Niclas Kvarnström Manager of the Security Council candidacy, said that the UN ambassadors’ visit was a collaboration between the Foundation and the Foreign Ministry. …..

During the visit, the ambassadors lunched with Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom, had coffee with Aid Minister Isabella Lövin and had dinner with Prime Minister Stefan Löfven. 

But the program was not mentioned publicly …. and they made no press releases.

The UN ambassadors also met Crown Princess Victoria and Prince Daniel who received them at the  royal palace.

The Social Democrats together with the Environmental party makes for a dangerous mix. They are particularly good at “Do as I say and ignore what I do”

 

Tags: ,
Posted in Behaviour, Sweden, UN | Comments Off on Sweden tries to buy votes for Security Council place

A question of genetics (race) or of parental engagement?

April 4, 2016

A new study from Centre Forum in the UK about educational achievements only confirms what has been obvious for the last 2 or 3 decades. It should be noted though that Centre Forum is a “liberal” think tank and does have an agenda to push. Nevertheless, it is more objective and data-driven than many other “left/liberal” groups. The difference between “Black African” and “Black Caribbean”, between “White British”and “White Irish” and between “Asian Pakistani” and “Asian Bangladeshi” convinces me that the difference in achievement is more due to parental engagement than genetics (race). But genetics is clearly also a factor.

The Telegraph: Pupils with English as a additional language (EAL) are outperforming white British students across subjects at GCSE, a new study has shown, as it was revealed students in England are further away from world class standards than previously thought. 

….. The new study shows white British pupils lagging behind ten other ethnic groups when judged against new benchmarks based on eight subjects to promote a broad and balanced curriculum at the end of secondary school.

UK education achievements 2016 age 5 (graphic via Daily Mail)

UK education achievements 2016 age 5 (graphic via Daily Mail)

 

UK education achievements 2016 age 16 (graphic via Daily Mail)

UK education achievements 2016 age 16 (graphic via Daily Mail)

 

Tags: ,
Posted in Education, UK | Comments Off on A question of genetics (race) or of parental engagement?

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »