Brussels bombings

I don’t want to hear these news

I don’t want to cry for these news

I don’t want to read these news

I don’t want to suffer for these news

We pray, but hatred continues…

They say that ISLAM is a religion of peace

But in the name of ISLAM people are slaughtered

I don’t want to cry for those people…

They teach love…but I don’t see love

We are all brothers and sisters…but I don’t see love in many eyes

I don’t want to cry for those eyes

We pray, but hatred continues

I don’t want to see those eyes

But I want to pray for them

I don’t understand, but I believe anyway

I don’t want to suffer anymore…I’m tired…

I’m tired of hearing those news

I’m tired of waiting for love

I’m tired of this world. A world of hatred

I’m tired of seeing flowers on the floors…and then nothing changes

I’m tired of seeing more soldiers than people

I’m SO tired

I don’t want that hatred, I can’t stand it

I don’t understand it: what do these people want?

WHO are they to kill in the name of ISLAM?

Why are they so full of hatred?

I can’t stand their hatred, I don’t want their suffering

If they don’t have a heart, they can take mine

I don’t want their suffering

I don’t want their emptiness

I don’t want their pain

I don’t want to suffer for their hatred. It belongs to them, not to me

One day…our religion won’t be a problem anymore

I will not see that day

That day is so distant

That day is so far away…

I don’t want to wait…

I don’t want to cry till that day…

One day, their God will let them understand they are so wrong

I will not salute that day

That day is so far away

I want to see a world of people

Not a world of empty hearts

If they don’t have a heart, they can take mine

I’m tired of emptiness

I’m tired of hatred

One day…

(Sorry. These are merely my random, genuine thoughts…)

Drones

I’ve tweeted it many times: where others were seeing fun, I was seeing danger. They are everywhere. The problem is that some of them weigh even more than 70 kg and…still no regulations: they’re considered recreational. Toys for children (even if some of them aren’t children anymore) that can fly where helicopters and little airplanes should be permitted only.

It’s the perfect way of looking for troubles: how can something terrible not happen sooner or later?! It’s only a matter of time. Besides let’s consider the purpose of almost all drones is taking pictures. There are going to be massive disputes over privacy violations.

The main problem resides in the fact they aren’t identifiable. It’s already totally illegal to fly a drone near an airport, but no violators have ever been caught. Their owners should be required to take a safety course and get a license before they can operate threatening public safety. Businesses must/should have their commercial operators to undergo more extensive training.

As it stands now, is all very wrong and messy. So why they aren’t proceeding to solve the problem?

I understand they’re certainly useful in so many cases. In humanitarian missions e.g. In this role, drones equipped with cameras were flown over mountain roadways blocked by landslides to locate the injured and look for potential damage to bridges and other buildings. The goal was to provide real-time images and data for emergency crews to intervene on the scene.

Other cases where they can be utilized (only your imagination is the limit): in search and rescue, surveying, crop dusting and even deliveries (think about Amazon), some businesses are beginning to look at opportunities to revolutionize how basic services and dangerous tasks might be performed in the future. Which is fine. So far, so good. But as the number of drones entering the skies increases, accidents, injuries and the potential for lawsuits are likely to increase as well... In the commercial marketplace, successful companies deploys drones more and more increasingly. Wherefore: safely and effectively as well? THAT’s the big question. For airspace already crowded with commercial, civil and military flights, regulations have been missing to develop a framework to integrate drones safely into the national airspace. What are they waiting for?!

Whatever form those rules will take, a regulation will provide only one measure of control. Meaning, let’s go further: businesses also need to consider how potential liabilities from injuries and property damage can be minimized. And exposures are not limited to outdoor environments: drones have the potential to cause injuries indoors as well. You can see more and more of them everywhere, like shopping malls, restaurants, even swimming pools. It's not hard to imagine how even relatively minor incidents could very soon lead to major lawsuits. Whether an event happens indoors or outdoors, such incidents might also ignite public disappointment. Opinions can change very quickly!

There’s only one solution: we need rules! May I say: desperately? Just try imagining: what are the make, model and year of the drone? How high can it fly? How long can it remain in the air? Is it traceable? Is the owner clearly identifiable? If pushed to exceed its limits, a drone might malfunction and consequently crash back to earth, possibly colliding with a car, building, power line or… killing a person! How much weight can a drone safely carry? Has the drone been legally/illegally modified after manufacture? Are connectivity limits tested? And so on and on… only your fantasy is the limit. If overloaded, both the drone and the cargo could be lost and theorically damage property or, again, harm bystanders below. Is it allowed to investigate whether a drone has been serviced and maintained according to manufacturer guidelines? Who is taking care of all these issues, for the time being? There are definitely way too many “grey” areas at the moment, in my humble view. That’s including the drone's software and operating systems too, which should be both kept up to date to reduce the risk of malfunction.
Each industry presents its own risks in using drones. E.g. another risk involves potential risks for those who misuse drones to take and exploit pictures without consent of persons on private property, as I said above: privacy violations.
Drones used in a commercial context are of course the vast majority and present risks and rewards that may soon become much clearer to everyone, let me say literally … at “ground level”. For businesses that seek to get the potential benefits, it might be prudent to pause for a while and conduct a due diligence review of drone risks. But when will this materialize?
My take? Something really, really bad must happen before and we won’t have to wait much longer: many planes missed them by only a few meters. What more can I possibly say? I think all aspects have been laid out. Our world…today. It’s all just an extension of selfies, isn’t it?
….Always humble,
Angiolino

(What might you need in your life? Kindly visit: What do you lack ?)

Faulty Internet

When I start using my computer I never think about how it works, or about how internet works. I just open it and there I go. Well, I don’t know why, but today I am. Which is scaring me. I did a little research and realized, at least according to me, that it’s alarmingly faulty. Should you be thinking about viruses, software problems, hacking, encryption, speed or clouds problems, etc., you’re SO wrong. None of those. Wherefore material cables, even advanced fiber optic, are the main problems: that’s what you should be worried about. Isn’t it wireless too? Of course it is, but to the final users only, however relying on physical cables vulnerable to attacks….Let me say “ouch”! Let’s all thank cybersecurity meanwhile.

Most worrisome, there isn’t an updated global map on the Internet’s highways: everybody assumes/hopes so by thinking someone else knows, but nobody does. Maybe it’s wanted/conceived this way for security reasons. But what the result would be?

To begin with, let’s forget about Google, Apple, Amazon, Twitter, Microsoft...our bank accounts. Everything on-line, basically all gone!

That’s the “best” and only initial scenario: in case of a coordinated attack on multiple locations, that would even turn into a global nightmare. Difficult to achieve? Nope, not even that. There are websites that list some (thank God only some) of them with relative I.X.P. (Internet exchange points). So someone here and there DOES know, hence with a great amount of patience a global map could be realized by the proper, let’s say generally speaking, security forces. Or by someone else, who cares, or should we wait for a disaster before mapping it all?! And consequently secure it all?! Are we all naïfs?

At this point the question is how that’s possible. Because they’re almost all privately held. And with the help of more private companies some businesses are rightly trying to solve the problem. Zayo, Allied Fiber, Integra (to name a few), are building alternative fiber networks. Lighter, still private, however at least a routing diversification, less subject to possible attacks.

How do you see Internet now? I guess not so amorphous anymore. Do you see why I am so scared? Do you remember the movie: “The unbearable lightness of being”? I’m old enough to recall it. I wonder how come nobody has already shooted “The unbearable lightness of Internet”. That’s only the physical part. It doesn’t end there: at that point my mind began to jump, which is a very good thing (that’s when I start connecting better).

Wherefore internet is feared by the authoritarian states, filtered by the semi-authoritarian ones, monitored by Western democracies (?), manipulated by the less democratic (Western States), obstructed by some Asian ones…Thank God also a crucial, important tool through which human rights activists mobilize the entire planet, climbing over those undemocratic Countries. Using a defective, yet very powerful instrument.

We can express, share ideas and our freedom in the openness of the internet. Even if it’s a faulty internet. “MEDIUM”: you’re most welcome!

I am not concerned about potential legal, economic, security challenges raised by this crucial medium: solutions will be found. I’m worried by more and more governments censoring information of public interest, wherefore the aim of such restrictions is/would be to protect views on religion, morality, powerful figures, leaders’ popularity and so on. North Korea and Sony website hacking is THE perfect example.

Someone might argue above actions (at least some) are inevitable because freedom without interdependence is impossible: an internet human chain spans the globe and only a perception of freedom can be guaranteed, exactly because we’re all linked (figuratively as well).

Maybe it’s true.

Conversely, let’s not forget that only a truly open platform can guarantee innovation, learning, free expression, human rights values, fuel the global economy, ultimately increasing productivity and consequently creating jobs. It ALL depends on a merely single, individual duty/right.

There is so much work to be done in order to perfect this world web. Maybe it will always remain imperfect. However needed. Individually, we can do only one thing on our own: let’s watch out for our uttermost right (on/for internet as well), all together. Which is FREEDOM.

And let’s hope the material, faulty components of the system will always do their part in order to maintain this supreme right. I’ve started using “MEDIUM”, tonight I’ll sleep. Confident. (Gosh! I’m twisted!)

….Always humble,

Angiolino

(What might you need in your life? Please kindly visit: What do you lack ?)

The Brexit joke

We live in our little garden: as long as it’s green everything is more or less quite good. Right? Or maybe (also) Great Britain’s garden needs someone else to take better care of. Britons are debating whether to stay in or leave the EU at a membership referendum: will their garden be greener or not after leaving? Do we have to worry? Will they leave the EU? In my view the answers to all these questions is no. Anyway the correct phrasing will be: ”Should the UK remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?”

Wherefore, in spite of current opinion polls, when Britain will start seriously debating the costs and benefits of leaving the EU, will also realize that a Brexit implicate immense economic costs. Follow the money and you’re seldom mistaken when trying to understand what’s going on. The EU, with a GDP of $18,000 bn, is the biggest economy in the world. Britain is highly specialized in services (law, media, architecture, research, accountancy, insurance, asset management, banks, hedge funds, tourism, etc.) and all those service businesses would be forced to transfer their jobs outside, to Paris, Frankfurt, Dublin. Or…. Edinburgh (if you know what I mean). In the end a Brexit would even lead to a loss of political sovereignty for Britain. Scotland might join the EU. Let’s not even count goods: 90% of UK’s trade with Europe is in goods. There are so many opinions on this issue, but no concrete alternative to EU membership. There’s only one thing certain in case of a Brexit: uncertainty, the unknown.
Anyway, what’s going on out there, outside our bigger garden? A mix of factors combined has revealed us an entire new world, waking us up (someone is still sleeping). Too many factors, actually: hacking wars, terrorists, ISIS, climate change, cybercriminals, economies kept alive with a wash of easy money, richer getting richer but the middle class disappearing, levels of pollution never seen before and so on and on. To summarize it in one concept: 25 percent of us won’t be better off than our parents: this is scaring us because we all want to feel safe, we all want financial security, nobody likes uncertainty. Also because an “increasingly-diminishingly” number of workers will have to pay for migrants’ benefits (the main cause of current EU problems, emotional rather than purely economic, but nevertheless the main), and most don’t consider this right. It’s so easy to be an Eurosceptic, isn’t it?

Luckily I’m a simple man with simple answers: all leaders of 28 members know that the easiest way to lose elections is destroying your own industries. Again…follow the money. Besides there would be the risk of others following the British example breaking up the EU, and most probably the remaining 27 leaders will choose to make Brexit as painful as possible, to discourage similar actions in future. Because in my view an actual Brexit would trigger the disintegration of the EU.
Technological and economic pressures are unprecedented, so to get a decent job requires more and more technical skills, complicating everything. Exceptionally hypocrite and stupid politicians (NO names, please: really not needed) are promising to bring back the golden era…but it’s not that easy. Yet so many of us are buying it. But it’s only when you see the precipice in front, you start braking/breaking and questioning. It’s only before voting you really wonder: what IF?
What’s our effective defence then? Our brain. Nothing else than it, IF we use it properly. Connect it when you read news, to choose a job, to question a politician, to understand what’s the best way to take care of our garden, or…to decide about a possible Brexit. Keep you intelligently informed. Use it not to follow false prophets, whatever they’re promising: stability (of any kind) or anything else. Everlasting prosperity will be achieved only in a far, distant future (we will! I have faith). For the time being it’s a merely religious conception. For the time being British voters will back EU membership. Because they’re intelligent. No jokes please, we are “Europeans”, we are British. My dear friends, let’s wait for Thursday June 23: The People WILL speak (let’s just hope they’re all aware of 1st April 2016 new restrictive rules).
….Always humble,
Angiolino

(What might you need in your life? Please kindly visit: What do you lack?)

Future of Schengen

We “had” a dream… It was a Europe without borders. Has it already gone? Maybe, at least practically. Only the border guards are missing, wherefore there are already other kinds of physical barriers, such as the Hungarian one. Of course a single currency would remain, regardless. But a United Europe is represented only by freedom of movement, not anything else. In principle the dissolution of the Schengen Agreement alone wouldn’t mark the end of EU. Only in principle: as a matter of fact some politicians are already arguing about what could really remain without it, because the direct result would be an enormous increase in costs and reduced productivity, due to the re-erection of national barriers.

Let’s go a little bit further: a truly United Europe never existed. The concept of its founders of an “ever closer union” was never accepted by Eastern Countries. Signed up, but NOT accepted, merely to benefit of the enormous financial aids received back then. And let’s include UK-“Brexit” as well. The refugee crisis is just showing this sad reality to everybody, crystal clear! National interests are emerging. In some cases even regional interests (Catalonia). Fiscal, harsh rules are not accepted anymore, especially by the more vulnerable Countries like Greece. Politicians are realizing that defending EU policy is more and more counter-productive, and adjusting consequently. Nobody wants to lose an election, although the majority of people is in favour of solidarity (but heavily conditioned by politics), particularly in richer countries. In my view refugees will never be re-allocated throughout the EU: we’re sleepwalking, happily so, while blaming each others’. Decisions must be taken by politicians, not by the people. If a wider EU response is failing, Schengen itself is failing.    

Why are there so many politicians talking about Schengen? Because, one way or another, they’re all in search of an easy electoral victory. If you prefer: give “some” people what they want. Moreover: the hallmark of populism is anger, easily applicable to nowadays events. It can be about culture, economics, wars, religions, with such an abundance of issues (real or fictional). In this case might be, or actually absolutely IS, about refugees. It makes noise, gets attention and therefore votes or in absence of elections, popularity.

Does it also make you win? (Just) apparently yes, wherefore we all have hopes and fears, appealing to interests and conceptions pushing against the prevailing status quo. But it has a volatile nature and can be counterproductive as promises simple answers to complex problems. We should all aim to an “ever closer European Union” instead. Populism flourishes in front of presumed imminent ruin at the hands of opportunistic harbingers of malefactors (refugees, racists, Muslims & Jews, polluters…throw in everything & everyone).

But its fundamentals are lacking. It might exist within the realm ranging from easily persuadable people to people accepting even demagogic extremes, deriving from ignorant demagogues (even in another Continent). The notion of truly solving problems is a completely different matter than counting on sheer force of personality, often without contents, fouling the political arena.

Populism is the ultimate improbable beneficiary of a deeply disenchanted public, lasting only if such public is continually reassured the battle of good against evil will never end. Someone hoping to be the future President of The United States perfectly understands all this very, very well.

But the majority of people wants the battle to finish, sooner or later. Because 2 or 3 million refugees over 500 million European people is NOT a real problem, nor difficult to be handled. It’s just a very powerful weapon in the hands of our politicians: it’s only because of them if Schengen will fail. The difficult way out (at least there would be a solution) would be TOTALLY embracing the concept of an “ever closer union”: that’s it.

….Always humble

Angiolino

(What might you need in your life? Please kindly visit: What do you lack?)

Giulio Regeni and Egyptian democracy

He was an Italian student, secretly writing from Egypt for a left-wing Italian newspaper “Il Manifesto”. He was conducting a research into Egypt’s labor movement and was very critical of the Egyptian President, Sisi. Mr. Regeni died because of extensive tortures. Egyptian officials promised cooperation to find Regeni’s killers and a team of Italian/Interpol investigators is joining Egyptians’ ones in order to answer two main questions. Who took him? Why? In my humble view we’ll never know the truth. Strangely enough his death received a very limited coverage on Egyptian (government) television channels. And all that coverage exonerated the police. Italian officials seem very sceptical that Egypt would be willing to find those who killed him, because of the initial declarations by officials that Mr. Regeni died in a car accident. With cigarette burns and many other signs of torture?!....Please! Egypt’s foreign minister, Sameh Shoukry, merely said that the two Countries had agreed to increase cooperation to determine the cause of the death. What does it mean?! Is that all, in light of the exceptional gravity of what happened?!      

Can we call it democracy? I’d like to. I’d need to. I’d hope it is.

But I am so disbelieving. Certainly that Government doesn’t like criticism. A human rights activist and journalist, Hossam Bahgat was “summoned” to Egyptian military intelligence office in Cairo. He‘s a soft-spoken activist, not a radical one. So eventually he was released, but it’s not clear whether he faces charges or not for publishing information that threatens national security. Is it difficult to decide? The detention itself and the prospect that he could be prosecuted in a military tribunal (military) is somewhat disturbing, on its own. Because these “meetings” often lead to the Country’s perverse justice system.

What has Mr. Bahgat published (on Mada Masr)? The story of the prosecution of 26 military officers plotting to overthrow Sisi government.  Twenty-six. Not just a few! This means something.

The founder of Al Masry Al Youm was arrested (no quotation marks here needed) because the newspaper published critical reports about the government. Now Salah Diab is being investigated for possible corruption.

Under the justification of fighting terrorism the detention of civilians in Egypt has become routine. And their prosecution is in military courts, not civilian courts. All forms of dissent have been closely confined, especially well known figures (to amplify the effects) in the human rights community.

Is it really so necessary silencing all dissenters?! Is Egypt's President so weak? Or is it truly a lack of democracy? Activist Mona Seif is warning foreigners to stay away from Egypt until security improves. This shouldn’t happen in a democratic Country.

Meanwhile world leaders are responding with resignation. Peace in the region is far more important. Alliances with Egypt too crucial to fail. So Sisi government is not confronted. America is giving 1,3 billion in military aid each year to Egypt, but its armed forces are committing human rights abuses. The indefinite balance of forces, of powers, of risks. But only civil liberties are paying the price. Is this balance correct, immutable? Egypt DESPERATELY needs international investment: shouldn’t trade, national security and military aid be more conditioned to respect and freedom of expression?

So, can we call it democracy? In the end…absolutely not. Whatever you want to call it: at least I hope it’s justified by other, more impelling reasons.

….Always humble,

Angiolino

(What might you need in your life? Please kindly visit: What do you lack?)

The Chinese crisis

The Chinese economy is slowing down and its government is responding to the recent crisis pumping enough liquidity to ease the panic. An easy solution to a difficult problem. So many people relying on their stocks to constantly grow…how crazy.

A wash of money, buying what is otherwise untradeable. The Bank of China is doing the same thing: freeing up cash for banks to make new loans easier, covering bad loans, weak state-owned enterprises (that could / should fail) and so in the end…covering China’s debts in all its various forms.

Apparently, at the beginning it had stabilized markets but without fixing all the imbalances that led to financial troubles (manifestations of  deeper troubles). And so their stock market is now falling (apart). The point is that people aren’t realizing they’re now trading with free money, consequently free of risks (better: the perception of them), weakly and temporarily.

China is obviously trying to reach a new safe, slower, sustainable growth. An internal growth, less dependent on decreasing exports. This is what its government is claiming, at least. In my humble view they’re hiding something at a deeper level. The problem is that their economy is so big that is slowing the global economy, besides easy money equals sugar rush: massive flood of money has always failed to drive human behaviour. We’re animals with animal spirits (ooppsss, sorry). Meaning: we MUST take/feel risks. Take the risks out of the equation and we’re doomed to fail. As a matter of fact they are.

Why am I so worried? Because I see so many similarities here in Europe, Japan and America as well (translated: basically the whole world). But it's not working: the proof is that Japan is now adopting even negative interest rates. Easy short-term rescue is useless and even dangerous without long-term reforms providing sustainable growth. These reforms are still lacking in China, wherefore, again, they’re looking for an easy solution to a complex series of problems.

But I’m merely a nescient. I must surely be wrong.

I am not an expert, don’t misunderstand me. Rates go up and down. Even before China and I merely, passively (more or less) accept this fact decade after decade.

But I am not a stupid either. So I’ve noticed a few things that I’d like to share with you. Afterwards you’ll decide on your own what’s going on worldwide, not only in China. Banks decisions may (just may) be smart, serious, based on right theories or.…NOT, on right data….or NOT (Chinese date are wrong, they show us what they want). Starting from 2009 Western Countries constantly declared the recovery would have materialized the next year. Then the next year. And so on…

Well, in Europe we’re still waiting! Who’s the expert now?

It appears to me just a game, in reality (Imhv-in my humble view). A political balancing, a sort of reconciliation among many forces of pressure. Careers, Presidents out, future Presidents in, those who makes appointments, who sets budgets, who empowers. Political parties, interest groups, lobbies. Throw in the media, the markets, foreign governments and Countries. Enough?! 

What have you deducted? It’s all but a decision in the interest of The People. Neither in the interest of The Chinese People. Are they realizing this? Are “WE” realizing this? We should stop instead relying on Central Banks and do what’s necessary: reforms. Otherwise it’s going to be the perfect recipe for a global disaster. If it has already started or not is not up to me to decide. I’m just…

…always humble,

Angiolino

(What might you need in your life? Please kindly visit: What do you lack?)

Refugees

They keep coming, not migrants but refugees, more or less welcomed. There are many European depressed villages with a decreasing population which are facing both double aspects of those new arrivals: stop population losses but also try to figure out a way to ensure them a job, to avoid falling into perpetual poverty. So far we’ve struggled to deliver on both goals. Consequently some of them are trying more or less legally to pick up again and move into other cities where, again, are more or less welcomed.

The only common denominator is that they don’t come to join family members, but who instead arrive knowing no one. I really can’t think about their religion: who cares? I feel so pity for them, they’re just human beings to me. A shabby building here is surely so much better than tents elsewhere like animals. But a human being has higher needs.

So-called “free cases” are the most difficult. People who come alone often find challenging to get a job and a permanent, affordable place to live on their own exactly because they don’t have the same connections others may have.  Some live with roommates or meet others when learning the language or receiving services with their resettlement agency. So looking for jobs could go on for years. Having children or a spouse significantly boosts the amount of money a refugee can receive. That’s the whole problem, they really need to get to work as soon as possible (also to send money back home), but seldomly do. Language is of course another problem faced in finding works, often the key for everything else. The main reason refugees appear to move is because they can’t find a job and so on and on, villages to cities. Cities to villages.

They’re just searching for a better life. I don’t pretend to offer easy solutions, but at least we shouldn’t be afraid of them, wherefore they are the ones afraid of us. Why should they be afraid of us? Because of egoism. Because of our populism: what have we become?!

Demagogic movements are increasing with ideas that would be disastrous if implemented. Greece was an example, but their politicians had to change directions and very quickly. We want but we don’t give, we are rich but we don’t want to share (at least not as we should). But we have all been migrants once, have we already forgotten it? Populism has found fertile ground in the Eurozone because of two main crisis: financial’ and refugees’.Leadership was needed but lacking, with the exception of Angela Merkel. Though she failed to explain to her people the benefits of the common policy. It can all be verified looking at Cameron’s policy: a concentrate of all the above mistakes. So, do we ever learn?
We obviously need a turn. Maybe Europe’s problems need a global solution, maybe. I have my view: the E.U. is made of many Countries, in essence, separate Countries. This also explain Europe’s schizophrenic response to the refugees crisis. Now, compare this crisis to the financial crisis which has been solved (is being solved, actually). Why was that possible? Unity! A common response orchestrated by the ECB.
When the interests are not common we lack unity and so the solution must be found elsewhere. Not imposed, or we risk the disintegration: we already have the first very clear signs (e.g. Sweden, Denmark, Austria). The alternative is that not only the people but politicians in first place have to be an example of this unity. Impossible?! Not at all….they just need courage!
Courage! The opposite of Cameron’s policy is Renzi’s policy in Italy. For one time, just one, an Italian politician is showing the way. And his people are following. And…just maybe, there is another partial “solution”, which should work hand in hand. Let me explain.

Many of them are now in supposedly temporary camps unable to leave, in a sort of limbo. This extends to all migrants/refugees, generally speaking. It wasn’t supposed to be this way, it wasn’t supposed to be a durable solution. Only three rules allow them to remain: until they return to their Country of origin, until are integrated into the host Country or they are to be offered a new resettlement to a third Country.
Protracted situations creating protracted refugees because none of the above three rules will ever materialize, as rich nations are accepting fewer and fewer of them. Contradictions start to arise as these camps become “cities” with cinemas, irregular elections, any kind of goods smuggled in, schools, even football leagues: social life continues, so to speak. The paradox is that they aren’t allowed to work.
The world is in turmoil and whole generations are growing up in camps. One example for all is the Gaza strip camp founded in 1948 and is still there: 750,000 Palestinians were forced to flee their homes to make space for Israelis. Then ask yourselves why they are constantly angry: 2,000,000 descendants are forced to stay there. Thank you Israel!
These permanent limbos are growing because wars are growing. A number?! 60,000,000 refugees worldwide! This is the general somber picture and no one wants to admit it. Not the Countries that must host them nor The United Nations which must pay for them. Potentially they’ll never stop increasing: this could be the real reason why Europe doesn’t accept them. It’s a potentially endless number. But things are changing and washing up on Europe’s beaches. Literally.
At least a partial solution would be to allow refugees themselves to invest in their camps in any possible way, to build a future within these pseudo-cities/pseudo-legal “countries” inside Countries, therefore becoming international zones trading with the rest of the world and building a future on their own.
They should be allowed to become economically viable and autonomous: people must belong somewhere! WE, Western Countries, have created the root of this problem. Now we must at least contribute to find a solution.

…..Always humble,

Angiolino

(What might you need in your life? Please kindly visit: What do you lack?)

Renewables

We all know what they are. But how often do we use this kind of energy? Let me wrap up, and then get to the point. A lot, although not enough: it contributed almost half of the world’s new power generation capacity in 2014. Low oil prices are helping, allowing countries to move ahead with their phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies, so to put the energy system on to a more secure and sustainable path. I’d even say to leave a suicidal path. The final aim is bringing the share of non-fossil fuels up from 19 percent of the global mix today to 25% in 2040 (wait a minute: that’s 25 years from now!). China has more renewable power generation than any other Country, but its total energy demand in 2040 will be double that of America. India is entering a sustained period of rapid growth in energy consumption, pledging to have a 40% share of non-fossil fuel in 2030.

It’s obvious to everybody that electricity will gain more ground in many sectors, contributing to a quarter of final energy consumption by 2035.

Oil and gas will gradually become more expensive to extract while the costs of renewables will continue to fall.

Those appear to be the comforting general trends. So, is everything ok? NOT AT ALL. Fossil fuel subsidies were around 490 US billions in 2014!....What?! And only 112 US billions in renewables! Shouldn’t it be the opposite? Obviously it should…

And right now I’m not even going to talk about climate change implications. This data alone let you understand one simple concept: all the above goals could / should be achieved quicker. Much quicker! Ergo, political willingness is lacking: AS ALWAYS. Why? You aren’t stupid. Neither am I: extremely powerful OIL lobbies. But some of you might (just might) be cynical, needing a practical example.

It’s not all that difficult to understand, if you think about it. Should you have a very profitable business, would you abandon it? Motor companies don’t earn on selling vehicles, they earn on spare parts. They won’t be able to do that with electric cars anymore: bye-bye maintenance and…. gasoline! With just € 1,2 you can run more than 100 kilometres. It’s all part of a consolidated business nobody wants to forsake. It’s also the reason why electric cars are so expensive (based on engine complexity, they should cost less, not more). And this is merely a single example. Think about all the rest on your own.

There’s just one “little” detail: can our planet wait for lobby groups’ interests? Can your children wait?! When in 15 years time they’ll ask you why half of the population has some form of cancer due to pollution, what will you answer them? I suggest you to prepare your justification. Right now.

Because renewables ARE the future, the future of your children. Period. Simply because fossil fuels will end and there are no other alternatives. Electric cars are beginning to boom, like in Norway or Netherlands for example. No questions their cities are getting cleaner and cleaner also because there are generous tax incentives in place to buy electric vehicles. The same should happen everywhere else in my view.

I certainly don’t have to remind you the Volkswagen scandal on faked emissions. There’s a risk coming, though. Some “presumed” environmentalists say that electricity used for electric cars is still produced using polluting methods (such as coal). For the time being that’s true, I have to admit, but the only important question is why don’t we switch to cleaner production alternatives then?! There are decision to be taken, we just HAVE to. Example: Seville/Spain is going 100% green, and I’m talking about the whole city (not a small one) itself, not even its cars. Problem solved: they wanted, they did it! All the rest are merely fake issues created by fake environmentalists (paid by who?).

Oh yes: some also argue that coal is very cheap. Well, electricity in Seville will be even cheaper. Netherlands is full of old windmills but not so much of the new ones. What a paradox, they didn’t learn from their own history: the worst mistake mankind can make! Electricity generated from renewable sources is increasing in the Dutch Country, but not enough with overall demand for electricity rising as well.

Luckily electric cars are going to be cheaper soon, while extending their mile / kilometer range. Besides they’ll be more needed to smooth out the surges in the grid caused by the increased use of wind and solar energy (storing that clean energy in their batteries). That’s not all, as efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas production in power plants are moving forward more rapidly that electric-car production on a global scale, at least, with the exception of China (a big consumer of coal) which is also paying a heavy price in terms of pollution.

And this is happening now, as I’m writing. You should consider that the situation will improve year by year, not quickly enough, but nevertheless it will. Besides, each year new technologies are tested. The simple salt will be used for storing heat during the day, to be later used to produce electricity: a big plause to Morocco!

If someone argues that coal is better just because it’s cheaper, from now on you know what to answer: I’ll leave it to you.

….Always humble,

Angiolino

Marijuana

Do you remember the period of alcohol Prohibition? Do you also recall what happened afterwards? Here we are again with marijuana, which is less harmful than alcohol, by the way.

It all comes down to one question: should governments all around the world decriminalize the use of pot or not? Which directly leads to the first question: why punish drug users in first place? We know both points are not the cases. Moral thinking is one thing, the legal point of view is a completely different matter. We might think that the consequences of using weed are as bad as….everyone else think, or that a form of punishment is likely to deter its use. Legal basis? None: threats of punishments don’t deter drug use.

Do we punish smoking, drinking, eating garbage (which we do, a lot!): we don’t even punish companies producing that kind of stuff. The principle is exactly the same. Crimes we punish do serious harm to other people, while smoking pot only harm users themselves. Only in an extremely small minority they harm their families and we should be very cautious about generalizing.

Efforts to prevent its use cause a greater harm than whatever harms they would like to prevent. Imagine an adolescent going to prison just for that reason and his life later ruined forever. THIS is what parents fear, if you think about it, NOT a little bit of smoking weed. Since legal drugs should be less dangerous than illegal drugs.

Statistics and criminologists say that the deterrent effects of punishments for pot use are minimal. It’s certainly not up to me to contradict them. At most I could say I don’t believe them. Not to mention scientific consensus: life expectancy of people who have used it is identical to those who have not. Legal marijuana would also cost less than illegal one, so crime rates related to finance this habit should fall as well.

Decades of war against pot have produced zero accomplishments: it means something. On the contrary legalizing it would at least allow governments to get rid of all producers. We’re all in favor of a healthy lifestyle, but do you get punished if you don’t exercise?

Think properly and thoroughly about the basic question: is the principle of fighting the use of marijuana defensible or not, morally and legally?I already know what you’re thinking. Yes or no? It’s as simple as that. The direction appears to be in favour of a legalization. Gradually. Canada, America and Mexico are already changing some laws. “Changing” consequently the question: will you accept them or not?

Do you accept consumption of tobacco and alcohol? Then you should also know that marijuana is far less harmful and when it’s illegally sold help to fuel drug-related crimes. How many people already drink and smoke? Be honest to yourself: don’t you drink a couple of beers in a night out? I would be more afraid of granting a monopoly over the growing and sale of legal pot to a limited number of investors. Nobody would gain from that, although I’m afraid it’ll end up likewise.

Support for making weed legal is increasing around the world, provided the proper limits of quantity and legal age are in place. Instead of spending billions on imprisoning people for violating disputable laws, those money could / should be better spent for fighting against cultivation and distribution of real, truly dangerous drugs.

Laws on banning the growing and possession of marijuana have caused much, much more damage to society than the little harmful usage itself.

You should keep that crystal clear in mind before deciding where you stand.

….Always humble,

Angiolino