Wednesday, 4 March 2015

The Simplicity of this Iran Nukes, US Treaty, and Netanyahu Speech

Rather than make this all complicated and require Wolf Blitzer an hour to explain things....let's do it in sixty seconds.

First, thirty-one countries have nuke power today in some form.  Nine countries have nuke weapons in some form.  How quick would it take Brazil, Czech or Finland to flip over to nuke weapons?  Probably less than three years.  Once you have the technology of nuke only takes a bit of experimentation or acquired technology from North settle into an accomplished goal of weapons.

Second, what the treat discussion here is really a brake-job or delaying Iran from nuke weapons for approximately a decade (might even be less than that, if they wanted to just skip the last part of the treaty).  So the value of the treaty is for the US is stand and admit there's nothing to hinder or stop this process....we will simply let things develop as they are.

Third, once Iran has nuke weapons.....what exactly do you think their neighbors will think about and consider?  Their own nuke weapons?  Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey?   The Saudis currently have no nuke power generator.  It'd take a simple contract with a French power company to get over to step a nuke plant, and then bring in some South African or North Korean engineers to build up the secondary arm of nuke weapons.   Ten countries in the Middle East by 2030 with nuke weapons.....if Iran proceeds ahead?  It's a safe bet to make and put some money on.

Fourth, Israel and Netanyahu simply want the poker game to keep playing out with economic sanctions and military strategy.  We are probably on poker game version forty-two at present and Iran has figured out how to play poker in an effective manner.  Iran can't lose.....while they might be on a long-term strategy, they don't care about short-term losses.

Fifth, President Obama and Netanyahu?  Basically.....two guys who have each run out of likability and flexibility.  Netanyahu is up for election, and some Democratic Party wise-guys have shown up to help against his election chances.  Bad strategy if you ask me.....but meddling in politics is now a daily event in US politics.  Netanyahu has countered the White House strategy and now in their own backyard....something that they never envision.

The only option left besides signing some marginal treaty with Iran?  Basically dig up fifteen Democratic senators who will side with the Republicans and vote prior to the treaty.....saying 'no' support, period.  It'll make the President look weak, as well as the Secretary of State.....but we are at some point where there's nothing much to gain.

Bottom line?  There's a nuke war to come sooner or later out of this, and it might not involve the Iranians versus the might be involving the Saudis, and there might be some religious mullah folks who trigger the event.  Then what?  To have twenty-five nuke missiles fired off within a span of an hour and half of Riyadh and Tehran destroyed?  Would it bother us that much?  I think the White House is simply saying 'no'.....they don't care anymore....let the nuke scenario play itself out.

That's the simplicity of this discussion.....nukes actually going off and some people wising up over stupidity.

EU: Fake Net Neutrality

It was an odd event yesterday that rivaled the US net neutrality of last week.

While the EU commission on communications didn't say nothing in public.....their documents found their way into the hands of a couple of journalists.  My humble guess is that some members of the commission disagree about what is being discussed and this was the only way to get public reaction.....complete open discussion prior to some big decision.

So, the talk within the commission?  You can have full up and turbo-powered net neutrality. one will stop net neutrality from occurring.  Oddly....the telecom groups (commercial organizations) will have the authority to monitor and arrange speed to customers.  In essence, there will be a minimum of two speed situations.  Those who pay extra.....will get extra.  Those who pay minimum.....will get plain vanilla speed.  But in the end, everyone will get net neutrality.

I will start laughing because it's a fake scheme and doesn't do much of anything, but that's the only way to keep current rates where they are.  You have to remember, there's already taxes built into the various government schemes in you pay a communications tax and sales tax into the package.  To suggest another tax, for what?  None of the current taxes find their way to improve the network....they simply move into the gov't pocket of revenue.

Folks disturbed by this? There are a number of folks who kept thinking the EU crowd would take the same steps as the FCC, and render net neutrality.  Well, they will deliver on that promise.....but it's not real net neutrality and simply plays on words, at best.

Living in Europe, as I do....I've come to some realizations about where things are going.  State-run and commercial-run TV is slowly dying off.  It might take twenty years but neither is going to be the vehicle of choice in thirty years for most residents of Germany.  Internet TV options will the pick, and state-run TV knows that it's a limited future for them....meaning their 18-Euro a month mandated tax is going to eventually dissolve.  It's almost impossible as it is find some sixteen-year-old kid who watches state-run TV.

I think the EU commission is looking at the situation and simply preparing people for the package want real speed via net will pay for it.  The customer will determine this and sign up for it.  The lesser-speed crowd?  Month by month.....they will decline in number and more will opt for better speeds and more cost.  The customer wins in the end.

As for the fake words of net neutrality here in Europe?  As long as you say it's fair and you allow two speeds to exist.....people will believe it.  You could utter 'beer neutrality' or 'car neutrality' or 'ice cream neutrality', and people would all believe in some fairness to be skimmed off the gimmick in question.  That's life.

A New McDonalds?

The Wall Street Journal did a fine report yesterday over McDonalds and where they might be going.  If you follow news.....they replaced the CEO of McDonalds recently....saying business was stalled.

What the journal says is that new ideas need to be pushed and there's two suggestions being reviewed.

First, bio-beef.  I realize most folks don' care, but here in Europe, it's a growing trend.  Probably five to ten percent of folks are bio-dedicated now.  They want 'pure' and safe foods (at least they believe the gimmick).

Where do you suddenly find vast herds of bio-beef?  That's something that I'm not sure about.  Even with Brazil and might be hard to find such beef.

Do you mix regular beef and bio-beef into the same stores?  No, with the idiots that run things within McDonalds.....they'd screw it up.  So you'd have to flip the button on day X and just go all bio.  Cost factor?  Figure ten to twenty percent increase in meat, and another 15-cents added to each burger.

Second?  Take out all preservatives from the special sauces/mustard/ketchup.  I know that the lab that McDonalds has experimented with this idea but it's like the holy grail for McDonalds.  There's a unique taste to the special sauce and if you remove the really changes the taste around.

How many people would return to McDonalds if you went to natural elements?  One percent?  Three percent?

Change is always good.......I tend to believe that concept.  But neither of these ideas appeal that much to me.  I use McDonalds maybe four times a year now.  Yeah, I went to a healthy lifestyle thing and tend to avoid them.  In my twenties, I stopped off there at least twice a week for lunch or dinner.  While at the Pentagon, I stopped every single morning for tea, and twice a week for lunch.

Sometimes, folks get some idea that they need to fix something that isn't broke, and I suspect this might be one of those occasions.