ISIS / DAESH / ISIL

What’s the best way to combat it? Surely not only with weapons. An entity that operates also in digital territory to be conquered without impunity. Besides, it might be just the beginning, with all terrorist groups expanding online. An underestimated threat used to recruit terrorists and inspire attacks. A psychological warfare that helps immensely the physical one reducing the possibility of next revolts by oppressed populations. A broad-scale tactic that would require a similar comprehensive opposite strategy.

We’re facing highly educated leaders setting their agenda in a managerial way and then operating offline/online. Not to mention sympathizers, helping ISIS to disseminate its radical message in order to convert people to their ideology. And here’s the trick: apparently spreading extremism on line is not illegal, based on their right to free speech. I don’t think it should require considerable efforts to change a little bit our laws in this particular regard.

Nevertheless it can be marginalized, isolated as a digital threat. Still a possible, future, digital threat but incapable of growing on internet. Preventing the group’s messages to reach millions of people would prevent those people reaching later their ranks in combat. Whether this is easier said than done remains to be seen, because it would involve all internet/digital operators at all levels: all accounts have very strict privacy settings. You can well picture the relative difficulties.

Probably it would be much easier to covertly infiltrate ISIS’ internet connections with fake accounts. They may have passwords, encryption, rigid privacy settings but fortunately they’re also traceable, identifiable….ergo: weak. That’s to our governments’ advantage, with far superior technology capabilities elaborating software programs to quickly identify their digital leaders, probably even already in use. Let’s not forget that all the digital platforms belong to companies that oppose ISIS ideology and can’t be shut down.

You have a homework too: keep your eyes wide open while using internet! Be ready to quickly report dubious accounts.

Stop the money and the whole world will stop: this should be another very effective way to combat it.

It should apply to ISIS as well, shouldn’t it?! So what IS complicated?!

Surprisingly enough (and supposedly) it’s not fully understood where the money comes from, because it’s not a State, it’s an entity. I don’t know if it’s true. It certainly comes from oil black market and antiquities smuggling: so the real question is WHO’s buying.

The most used excuse is they’re extorting civilians and businesses. According to you would that pay for an entire (illegal) Army and relative weapons, using that money only?! Beautiful brand new Toyota S.U.V.s, by the way. Oh yes, actually it has also been declared money is coming in from kidnapping victims and engaging in human trafficking.

Please….! In reality ISIS earns $50 millions a month selling oil to local buyers, smugglers, THE SYRIAN REGIME ITSELF and Turkey. That’s how much it’s radicated and that’s the root of the problem: the Islamic “State” is even using banks and financial exchanges in Iraq.

So military force alone will never be enough (could someone explain this to Putin, please?!) to beat ISIL.

The remaining plausible excuse (not to intervene decisively) is that international efforts are trying to understand who assists them, hoping to dismantle the whole network. I'll  leave the decision to believe it or not up to you.

….Always humble,

Angiolino

Christmas time

A small prayer for Christmas

(sorry to all of you because it’s not good enough, but I’m not a poet)

With no merit

only the Lord I entrust,

the Holy Spirit will reign upon all us,

in the Holy I can trust.

His days shall come.

My only supreme

Judge he will be,

no fear I will have

and serene I shall finally feel,

after the Holy I can finally see.

My day shall come.

Christians will sit closely to their Deity,

peacefully, together in pray.

There shall be that day.

We live as if we’ll never die. One day we will. Remember it while we’re still alive. May your Christmas be happy and peaceful.

….Always humble,

Angiolino

Child marriage

It means nothing less then someone’s future flying away. Forever.

It’s not about poverty, that’s just an excuse. It’s about culture: 700 millions girls are / have been involved. They’ll stop going to school, probably face domestic abuse and early pregnancy without the choice of whom to marry. All their rights denied, nothing left, except the right to exist (if they don’t commit suicide). All under our noses.

I know, it’s fuelled by poverty, wherefore is one less mouth to feed: but is it the real reason or is more attributable to long-held beliefs and traditions based on gender inequality? Meaning that becoming a wife and mother is often deemed a daughter’s only choice, to the point that by 2050 an additional 1,2 billion girls worldwide will be married before their 18^th birthday. India surpasses any other countries by a wide margin: about 40 percent of all child marriages take place there.

When we say child marriage we might think by age 18. Right, that would be so easy, so convenient, so easily justifiable: you know…it also happens here (referring to developed Countries). I’m sorry to disappoint but we’re talking about one in nine girls by age 15 or even younger: this means “child”, you see? Some of them, based on broadly very well documented cases are even as young as eight or nine!

All those children without education will remain poor for the rest of their lives, without better paid works, no decision making in their communities, left at increased risks of diseases, without preparation for adulthood, a proper ability to create a family inside a sane community, isolated, exposed to a higher risk of injuries / abuses, even more likely to die in childbirth. Their first sexual experience will be forced (the correct term is RAPED), with all the traumatic psychological consequences connected.

Based on what? The REAL reason is culture.

How do we solve this problem then? In my view forget more laws: they already are in place and…meaningless/useless. In many countries child marriage is prohibited, but existing laws are often not enforced exactly because of parental consent, traditions, customary laws. The more is tolerated, the more it becomes easier for others to perpetrate illegal human rights violations.

And instead of diminishing poverty it perpetuates it: married girls leave school and will lack the skills to lift their families out of poverty. My opinion is that it can be solved with shame. Shame on those parents who allow their children to get married so young! Shame on their future husbands! Shame on them! They should feel so ashamed to the point of wishing suicide for such actions (they’ll never get to that because they haven’t human feelings). That gives you the perfect idea of what I mean. Eradicate even the concept of child marriage.

That is just my idea. The complex mix of cultural and economic factors mean there is not a single, simple solution. The pressure to solve this problem must be global: connecting and amplifying all our voices through civil society organizations across the entire world like “Girls Not Brides”. Sensitize everyone you know involved, talk with them, make them understand, force them with ANY possible means to change: NOT ideas, but a deeply shattering culture to be ashamed of.

The definition of child must be universal. So far, we’ve all failed. The right to free and full consent to a marriage is recognised in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Period. That’s how it should be. Until all our attitudes don’t change, nothing will change. Think about it, don’t be passive, at least through social networks spread awareness.

“I was really in need of money and thought it was a solution for the family”: Abdul Mohammed Ali, father of a married nine-year-old girl in Yemen.

“Islamic law allows marriage not by age but by maturity, which is attained once a girl reaches the age of puberty”: Sani Ahmed Yerima, Nigerian Senator.

….Always humble,

Angiolino

Donald Trump

I decided not to talk about this…”man” (surely he’s not a politician). Not because of the reasons you might think, just because I’m not American. I trust them, I trust their votes, they’re intelligent.

But…what IF he’ll be the next President? Which I personally consider impossible. In that case it would become a worldwide problem. I mean: banning all Muslims from America?! That’s enough! One Hitler was enough! There couldn’t be a bigger gift to terrorists. Given his steady consensus, I’ve changed my mind and here I am.

What’s his political tactic anyway? Or should we call it hysteria? Surely he has done a big favour to his fellow GOP contenders. Let’s also remember that those contenders have previously received money from Trump when he wasn’t running. When you use for your own purposes all the trash of a Country to tap into in order to win the race, can you call it tactic or merely opportunism? When you exploit racial tensions, religion tensions and terrorism for your interest and not for the higher interests of your Country, can you call it tactic? Can a frontrunner be called that way if he doesn’t play by the rules? Surely it works wonderfully: polls speak for themselves. But what kind of “man” are you? In my view that’s like buying your (controversial) votes, nothing less!

In my Country we had a “man” like that who won the elections making easy promises and we learned our bitter lesson the hard way: almost got kicked out of the European Union. That “man” was Berlusconi. Donald Trump is just appealing to racism and general anger, he goes straight to xenophobia. How convenient. What’s left? Oh, yes: mass deportation of American Muslims. That could be a little bit problematic, though, because so many of them are in the Army….ouch! Much easier with the Mexicans….(?)

But I don’t think the “unthinkable” will really happen, as he leads among Republicans but not among all Americans, Democrats included obviously. It’s not up to me to decide if remaining contenders would be up to their future job, whereas they certainly are too many now and this is also pushing Trump ahead.

He’s defying all the rules for one reason: the more he’s outrageous, the more he dominates the coverage thanks to TV networks which are interested merely in increasing their audience. And that is free, abundant advertisement for Trump as he grabs the spotlight every single day. One thing Trump could do if elected would certainly be to rewrite the Constitution and sadly the Thirteenth Amendment would allow that: I can only imagine the treacherous consequences. Banning all Muslims from America would be nothing compared: as I already said, one Hitler had been more than enough.

A ban ridiculous and dangerous: he’ll be realizing this very soon when his own business in the Middle East diminishes. Maybe even the polls are ridiculous: not to be misunderstood I’ll remember you December 2007 had Clinton with an 18 points lead over Obama. Who’s the President now? Trump might capture the GOP nomination only because is threatening to run as an independent, but is it meaningful given the way he’s campaigning?

In more than one previous posts I said that this is exactly what ISIS want: every Muslim to feel alienated. Thank God now the President is Obama. Trump, with his infantile threats of massive bombings (bombs: a very simple solution for an extremely complicated problem) is merely doing an enormous damage to Obama’s ability to lead a coalition. Unrealistic claims made by a xenophobic man. When enough will be enough?!

When Trump will be nominated as the GOP presidential nominee. But at that point it’ll be too late: they will lose total control over the image of their party, besides of course losing the presidential election, that’s for sure and that’s what they deserve. So what are they ready to do to stop this pseudo-Hitler?    

America should be a more confident nation unafraid to welcome newcomers. One of its founding principles is freedom of religion: among those who founded America were those fleeing religious persecution.

Dump Trump. No more words are needed.

….Always humble,

Angiolino

Gun control

Terrorism, wars….and guns. The biggest mistake is fatalism: things happen, you know. Not according to me. We should never get used to the ritual of shock and horror, thinking that nothing will change, accepting all those realities. Since 9/11 150.000 Americans have been killed by guns: 3 Vietnams. But I don’t see any evidence of intention to limit or somewhat regulate guns purchases. We, Europeans, look at that number quite astonished. How’s that possible?! Conveniently many politicians point fingers at mental health issues (oh, yes: some of them blame video games). But they all know that’s not the real point. The point is that gun lobbies are extremely powerful and they very powerfully nourish the concept of the presumed guns culture.

Quite often a new tragedy happens and relative ongoing criticism. Then…nothing else. Till when? So gun control groups are increasingly taking their case directly to the public. Maybe that’s the only effective solution. We can all see those kind of tweets on Twitter, for example. The best campaign is to pressure the public considering guns as any other possible danger to public health: do you care about your wellbeing? Do you smoke? Do you eat properly whenever possible? And so on, the concept is identical.

The message is that the main reason guns cause the deaths of so many Americans is just that America has so many guns. In other countries, like Australia, a proper regulation has been introduced after mass shootings. The result is an 80 percent decline in the rate of suicides.

At least, a background check should be carried out: it’s inexplicable that people on no-fly lists can buy guns. Isn’t that a contradiction? Although it wouldn’t be very effective in avoiding mass shooting, has to be considered a matter of principle anyway, in my view. Another consideration is that the overwhelmingly majority of homicides are between two people and so, all in all, a system of background checks could at least serve as a future deterrent. Similarly licenses should be revoked to dealers who knowingly supply guns to people not allowed to buy them as a result of the checks carried out.

Statistically there are far fewer deaths in states with more restrictive rules on firearms and fewer guns around. The same similarity can be noted in states with the most lax laws on guns having higher numbers in suicides and homicides. The connection is crystal clear and evident. The only way to effectively reduce gun homicides is gun control: there are no other ways (of course the first step would be reducing lobbying and pandering politicians). The availability of firearms viciously feeds the problem.

I know, THE “Second Amendment” is like THE Bible for Americans: the right to own guns for defence. Not limiting the right the Government has to legally restrict their sales, though. They are two completely different matters. All the rest is merely rhetoric properly used in favour of the right to own them: but it’s not a right, it has become a claim. I.e., in parallel, just because the First Amendment exists, do you allow your children to watch pornography, do you constantly hear offensive words during a TV show, do politicians (except one "odd") say whatever they want wherever they want regardless? So….same point with gun rights.

If Americans really desire things to change about gun violence, they must realize that only THE People can change that, sorry! There are no quick loopholes.

….Always humble,

Angiolino

Generosity

Christmas time is almost here. It could be called, you’ll forgive my broken English, the “generosity month”. All people around the world increase their charitable donations. During this particular month we have the need of feeling good. Donations have that effect, generosity has that effect.

Sadly it doesn’t apply to everyone, many donate just to impress their girlfriends, to impress their friends, to obtain favours, even jobs. Whereas I’m convinced the overwhelmingly majority of us donate for a genuine sense of altruism, generosity. To help those in need and to make the world a better place. Positive feelings that encourage more giving.

The more you give based on objective reasons, the more the positive sensation increases. On the contrary donating based on personal reasons (e.g. in memory of a relative) decreases that positive sensation, wherefore it’s note genuine generosity anymore but serves our personal relief, our individual suffering. I envy those who devote their lives to helping others, or those who take high-payed jobs merely to have a disposable income they can donate: there aren’t many of them around. It’s genuine selflessness replacing philanthropy-style kindness.

Of course there are evident tax-deductions benefits and very effective free advertisement in case of high-profile, like Elon Musk. Related to much higher benefits for poor people receiving the money, though.

But emotions reinforce kindness. Only when emotion, passion and empathy are added to philanthropy we have, in my view, evidence of a powerful altruism. Which otherwise would only be a positive but unnatural, distant, moral abstraction.

Scientists have also demonstrated that when emotion is involved makes altruism healthier. Because generous, kind behaviour and genuine concern for others reduce the stress and anxiety levels. It’s a win-win situation reducing suffering in the world. Just make sure who you’re donating to, I personally don’t trust worldwide organizations, but it’s just my opinion. The more directly you donate, the better. E.g. to a well known local missionary who collect the money and use it himself in a poor Country where it’s needed without being wasted.

If the feeling isn’t unnatural to you, try to be involved, to understand where the money you’re donating will be mostly needed and turn your empathy in that direction: the difference will be immense. Do not reduce your generosity, your values, merely to a generic goal-oriented action. Open your heart. Because giving in itself expresses our values and that link must be embraced, we must align with it.

It’s almost Christmas. Do yourself a favour by doing it for others.

….Always humble,

Angiolino

Climate change

What will our children think? That we are a smart species or not? Should you smoke in your home, what will you do to clean the air: open the windows or stop smoking? We should find a similar solution for our planet, the sooner, the better, shouldn’t we? Here we go COP21. Don’t expect too much from it, though. No silver bullet, until our attitude will change, at least. But the change could begin right in Paris: stronger commitments and a shared sense of urgency.

Actually it should have changed back in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, but little has happened since then nor during the following meetings. Emissions of greenhouse gases have risen with droughts, sea level rise and atmospheric temperatures rise. One thing has changed: in Rio there were 150 nations, now they are 196. Another difference is that we call this one “our last hope”, which reminds me of “There’s still HOPE!”. And so let’s hope it could mark a turning point.

Nothing can be taken for granted: think about Kyoto and Copenhagen. Lobbies are very powerful, opposing any action to limit emissions of greenhouse gases. Let’s not mention entire groups of politicians denying the scientific statements on climate change: they must know something we don’t (and have very large wallets).

The point is that a global problem requires a global solution, to find a global solution everyone must agree on that solution, i.e. we already have the impossibility to solve the problem. Wherefore poor nations haven’t contributed to present levels of pollution and don’t even want to hear about stopping burning fossil fuels (like India), as richer nations has never done it themselves.

The same frictions between industrialized nations and developing countries were already seen in Copenhagen. And even among richer nations there are strong oppositions: e.g. think about Republicans in America. It’s also true that 170 countries out of 196 have submitted pledges this time. Although evaluating those pledges scientists have already calculated that temperature increases will reach more than 4 degrees by the end of this century (I’m talking about Celsius, or more than 6 d. Fahrenheit). May I remind you that the limit is considered to be 2 degrees Celsius? Maybe scientists will be wrong (I’m not convinced about my sarcasm). As a matter of fact there are contradictions among individual (individual) scientists too.

Let’s also hope another thing: that those pledges are only the beginning and not the end. It’s very difficult for me to have faith because there are no plans for monitoring and reporting on emissions. It’s like having a law with no police.

Do you know what I really rely on instead? Future technology (which is already constantly improving) and basic economics 101: China is already realizing that the costs and negative health/social impact of pollution related issues are superior that the benefits deriving from production of goods supported by fossil fuels’ energy. If China is at a turning point as it seems to be, America will be obliged to follow. Fingers crossed and eyes on Paris.

Back to my initial question: what will our children think about us? I’ll leave the answer to you.

….Always humble,

Angiolino

G.M.O.s (2nd part)

Organisms that should / must be safe, until proven not to be. This is the undisputable reality. Not the theory, thereby in theory they are (supposedly) approved after being tested. Nevertheless in so many cases the contrary happens and previously approved G.M.O.s are no longer allowed to be sold. This is not working, wherefore we don’t know what we are eating. An example is the recently approved genetically modified salmon able to reach market sizes in half time, thanks to inserted genes. But the overwhelming majority of examples can be found in the vegetables / grains area.

How come they are first sold and then recalled from markets? Exactly because they’re all new products, genetically engineered. Therefore we don’t know their direct health toxicity. Potentially allergic reactions. Toxic properties, stability of the inserted genes. Are nutritional effects superior? What about unintended effects? All questions unanswered. Supposedly answered by producers, whereas on the market real, final effects contradict them “too” many times.

Moreover once sold there is no control (AGAIN: there is only in theory). This particular phenomena is called: outcrossing. Which is the migration of genes from G.M.O.s plants into conventional crops, as well as the mixing of crops derived from conventional seeds with G.M.O.s crops. Plenty of cases have been reported. Search the web. There is just NO (practical) control whatsoever. Period. These products are utterly out of human management.

The law itself is not flawless: individual G.M.O.s and their safety are to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Meaning that is not possible to make general statements on their safety. Thank God the European Union is a step ahead on this side. At least on this.

You might say these are merely my concerns. Yes, they are, but if you consider above example of G.M. salmon, 300 (three hundreds) environmental, consumer, health, animal welfare organizations, and the Center for Food Safety (CFS) were all opposed to it. Not the FDA. Dr. Michael Hansen, Senior Scientist at Consumers Union US declares: “the FDA is relying on woefully inadequate data. There is sloppy science, small sample sizes, and questionable practices”. I think he knows better than me. Plus so, so many others. There are even stores that have pledged not to sell this genetically engineered salmon: Costco, Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s, Target, Kroger.

Jeffrey Smith, Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, declares: ”the risk of allergies, hormonal disruption, novel proteins and other serious issues, known or unknown, exist in these fast growing, gene-altered salmon”. Which reminds me of one fact: girls have been entering puberty at a much earlier age in the last twenty years. But of course injected hormones in meat or dairy products have nothing to do with it. Besides, in the specific case of G.M. salmon, hormones are not injected. They are “only” genetically-engineered delivered. Why worry then? We are all perfectly safe.

So let me ask you a question: would you consider safe an animal not allowed to be grown in your Country? The breeding of the G.M. salmon is forbidden on US territory. Why?! Is the FDA sure or not about it?! Isn’t it safe?! …..Maybe, just maybe, NOT.

And you will be eating it. Without being aware.

In fact, one thing I cannot understand nor condone: there is no proper labelling. Maybe the answer is in my previous post: “G.M.O.” of October. Don’t worry, my posts were much shorter before - XD.

….Always humble,

Angiolino   

Sugary beverages

We all know sugar is harmful. Theoretically it should be our choice to use it or not. Whereas there’s plenty of hidden sugar in so many beverages, we can’t avoid it. You might think you can /should avoid those beverages, so where is the problem? The problem is that we’ve been so tricked for so long that now sadly so many people consider it normal to drink a soda (with plenty of sugar in it). Let me clarify: people are aware of the presence of plenty of sugar, they just don’t care, considering it acceptable. Which is not, by all means.

Advertising agencies are really good at their job. But it’s not their fault: soda industries are behind them, lobbying politicians as usual (see my post “Electoral promises”). Paying absurd amount of money to make people desire their products, to block unfavourable legislation, influence policy, ultimately ruining our own health. Afterwards, it’s “just” called brilliant marketing.

And I am not comfortable with it. Even though its consumption is declining in richer areas where people are more and more worried about their health, it’s increasing in poorer countries like Latin America. The industry knows it (someone is already saying it’s winning the battle, but losing the war, because sooner or later everybody will realize the hidden danger) and consequently also perfectly knows where to place the right kind of advertisement. They know that educated, wealthier people don’t drink harmful sodas. Statistically: Hispanics and Africans drink more than whites and Asians. With everything else in between (more cans, less cans, etc.) They know everything. They know where to sell it, how to sell it.

Why are we buying it? Are we all stupid? Of course not. But we’re all emotional, we’re all human beings. And they take advantage of it. Meaning: soda companies have never advertised their products but a “somewhat” emotional “something” else, with attached the soda to it. At a more or less subliminal, so pervasive level, that you don’t notice it. We think we know, we think we consciously accept the product because we see the brand, but they know better how to subtly sneak in.

The smartest move had been giving it away for free to all soldiers during World War II. This is ONE example, but those were different times: less money around and less drinking. Nowadays there are diabetes and obesity. These companies perfectly knows, have all the data, and act to limit damages denying the evidence. Like tobacco companies or chemical ones (see my post “A contaminated world”).

We’re all adults, presumably smart, we can / should take duly notice. You know what’s pissing me off instead? Targeting children. To the point they’ve been forbidden to advertise on children’s television under the age of 12. As if “that” could work…please! Look at the toys around you. And when they’ll be teenagers, they’re going to be SO doomed: no more limits whatsoever. Gosh, they’re good at their job! They deflect attention from the product itself, but propose it in many other ways. Funding organizations, even (paradoxically) health organizations, recommending it for hydration after exercise (?!), buying silence from all of them. Nothing to be surprised of, if you think about it. Falsity, deception, lobbying, double standards, double behaving, bribery, betrayal of our health: THAT is their real job, not selling sugary beverages.

We have to buy food to eat, to live. We don’t really need sodas to drink. Awareness is the key. Spread it.

….Always humble,

Angiolino