Wednesday, October 26, 2016

A Corruption Culture?

A Corruption Culture?

My Twitter Tweets
Live Feed
http://twitter.com/AkaashMaharaj
    
WADA and the IOC Will be One Another's Salvation or Undoing
23 October 2016, 11h00 EDT (UTC-4)
http://www.maharaj.org/blog/2016_10_23.shtml



At the Canadian Intl Council, with Stu Rothenburg. His analysis of US politics suggests a nation slowly rejecting the ideal of modus vivendi


The Montreal Gazette
Click photo for the newspaper article
My article in the Montreal Gazette discussed what the recent "Olympic Summit" means for international affairs and the future of global sport integrity. The Gazette published a slightly shortened version of my article below; the full text was later carried by several other publications in Europe and North America.

The Montreal Gazette

 
* * *
Recently, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) convened a closed-door summit, to debate the future of the global anti-doping regime. The summit was prompted by revelations of state-sponsored doping in the Russian sport system, which had ruptured into the public sphere on the eve of the Rio Olympic Games.
 
Yet, the IOC declaration emerging from its four-hour conclave said nothing about halting those crimes or bringing their perpetrators to justice. Instead, the IOC demanded a fundamental repurposing of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), the institution that had had the audacity to investigate and expose the crimes.

 
WADA had called -- in vain -- for the IOC to ban the Russian team from Rio. In the months since, the agency has endured a campaign of vilification by political actors and cyberattacks by hackers. Far more insidiously, too many of WADA's ostensible sport partners appear to feel that the agency has betrayed them, by unmasking the ugly truths that lie behind impeccable fictions.
In this clash between the high ideals of sport and the low ruthlessness of politics, WADA holds the ethical high ground, but is catastrophically outmatched in its material resources.

 
In September, WADA convened a "Think Tank" in Lausanne, to advise them as they sally forth. I left those discussions with a sense that the mismatch between WADA's colossal mission and its pygmy budget is flatly absurd.

 
From an athlete's perspective, we need an independent WADA to protect us from exploitation. Too often, the only reward for ethical athletes is to suffer the injustice of being cheated of our rightful victories. On the other side, athletes who are enabled or coerced into doping are eventually left damaged in body and broken in mind.

 
From a global perspective, we need a powerful WADA to thwart subversion of international affairs. For better and for worse, sport has become a key instrument of statecraft, as much as diplomacy and aid, as much as defence and intelligence.

 To the extent that sport becomes captive to political corruption, it becomes an instrument to prop up tyrannies and kleptocracies, an instrument to marginalise democracy and the rule of law. It becomes a weapon against the common interests of the human race.

 
I feel certain that in the fullness of time, WADA's willingness to expose and condemn state-sponsored doping in Russia will come to be seen as a seminal victory in the fight for sport integrity. Yes, WADA could have moved sooner and faster. However, this should not blind us to the fact that before WADA was created, no one ever moved against the chamber of horrors of the East German sport system.

 
But it would be folly to believe that WADA could strike a blow against some of the most powerful figures in sport and politics, without those figures striking back. They have done so, and they will continue to pummel WADA until it perishes or it prevails over them.

 
The outcome will hinge on whether WADA will be able to rely upon the support of governments and athletes, as well as that of the IOC and the International Paralympic Committee.

 
I take some comfort in the fact that the IOC has insisted that it supports WADA's independence and its capacity to prosecute its mandate. However, I must confess that that is not my impression when I read the invective penned by the IOC's officers.

 
My impression is instead that the IOC can not forgive WADA for embarrassing the Olympic leadership during their moment in the sun. I fear that lurking behind the IOC's subtly scripted declaration on remaking WADA, are designs to undermine and supplant it.
If there is any justice to this impression, then I should offer the IOC leadership some simple advice.

 
Not everyone who stands up to you is your enemy, just as not everyone who flatters you is your friend.
 
Ultimately, WADA and the IOC will be one another's salvation, or undoing. The only people who would prosper from a confrontation between the two institutions would be those who trade upon doping in sport.

The World Anti-Doping Agency Think Tank
14 October 2016, 12h00 EDT (UTC-4)
http://www.maharaj.org/blog/2016_10_14.shtml


The World Anti-Doping Agency
Click image for the Think Tank Communiqué
Three weeks before the Rio Summer Olympic Games’ opening ceremonies, the World Anti-Doping Association (WADA) published its Independent Person Report into the Sochi Winter Olympics. The findings were damning: Russia’s Ministry of Sport, government security service, and testing laboratory had operated a state-sponsored doping programme, suppressing positive test results and substituting counterfeit test samples to shield cheating athletes.

 
WADA called for Russia to be banned from the Olympic and Paralympic Games. The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) agreed; the International Olympic Committee (IOC) did not.
Since then, we have careered towards a pitiless confrontation between the high ideals of sport and the low ruthlessness of some of the most powerful figures in global affairs. Which will prevail is very much an open question.

 
At the end of September, WADA convened a “Think Tank” in Lausanne, to advise them as they sally forth. The group included leaders from a broad range of international sport institutions and national governments, representing a sometimes-stark diversity of views. They invited me as an independent voice, drawing on my experience in both Equestrianism and in combatting political corruption.

 
The Think Tank was conducted under the Chatham House Rule, to ensure that our discussions would be unrestrained and uncensored. It certainly achieved that objective.

 
WADA has, however, agreed to allow a summary of the discussions and outcomes to be circulated, and I am sharing the document with GOPAC’s legislators to encourage them to strengthen domestic laws and international agreements against doping and its ancillary crimes.


 
In addition, my colleague Declan Hill blogged about his submission to the Think Tank. Declan is highly regarded for his work against match fixing and sport corruption. He is also an amateur boxer. In both regards, he pulls few punches.

 
At its best, sport can be an unrivalled force for good in the world. It can take bitter enemies and bring them together as peers around a shared passion. It can champion equality of opportunity in the pursuit of excellence. It can excite hope in the midst of despair. There is a reason “the level playing field” has become the universal metaphor for fairness and meritocracy.

 
But at its worse, sport can be little more than a drug-addled carnival of false glory and mindless chauvinism. It can be the currency for tyrants to buy a place at the table of international affairs and thus a veneer of respectability. It can be the pretext for kleptocrats to plunder their states and to brand their critics as unpatriotic. It can be a tool to distract and stupefy populations who might otherwise rise up against their oppressors.

 
The battle against doping and for integrity in sport is one we must win, because the consequences of failure are simply too tragic to contemplate.

 

Saturday, October 1, 2016

HERE GOES October 2016 This Infographic Shows How Only 10 Companies Own All The World’s Food Brands

This Infographic Shows How Only 10 Companies Own All The World’s Food Brands

by Kate Ryan                           ALSO SEE  http://sploid.gizmodo.com/fascinating-graphic-shows-who-owns-all-the-major-brands-1599537576


https://food.good.is/articles/food-brands-owners

Just when you think there’s no end to the diversity of junk food lining supermarket aisles, an insanely detailed infographic comes along to set us all straight. Out of the hundreds of products at our disposal, only ten major corporations manufacture the bulk of what we toss in our shopping carts.

So whether you’re looking to stock up on anything from orange soda to latte-flavored potato chips, Mondelez, Kraft, Coca-Cola, Nestlé, PepsiCo, P&G, Johnson & Johnson, Mars, Danone, General Mills, Kellogg's, and Unilever own just about everything you could hope to buy. It seems that six degrees of separation theory has been proven after all, if only because we all drink Diet Coke every now and then.

In order to visually elucidate that point, Oxfam International created a comprehensive infographic that reveals the extensive reach of the “Big 10” food and beverage companies. Unlikely ties between brands we largely don’t associate with one another show how easy it is to be misinformed about the American food system. For example, PepsiCo produces Quaker granola bars, and Nestlé makes Kit Kat bars but also frozen California Pizza Kitchen pies. To the surprise of many, Pineapple Fanta isn’t sourced straight from the mythical Fanta Islands, but canned right alongside Barq’s root beer at the Coca-Cola factory.



Obviously, the horrors extend far beyond our own shattered daydreams. Massive corporations squash entrepreneurial diversity and make it nearly impossible for startups and small businesses to compete. According to Oxfam’s report, “The world’s largest food and beverage companies have a lot of power – but you have more. And because they’re not using theirs enough to help poor communities or the planet, you can use yours to change the way they do business.”

If you’re looking to avoid contributing to the Big 10 world takeover, try shopping at local farmers’ markets and maybe skip out on soda and highly processed foods altogether. Your body will thank you for it in the long run anyway.

Image via Oxfam






Monday, September 19, 2016

UPDATED BLOG ARCHIVE MyGlobalUnderstandingFiles "THE NEW JUDASES" (my next blog)

MyGlobalUnderstandingFiles : will continue in tandem.

Seek to reveal and understand little known documents, Required Studies, Understanding Global Trends, Social Media, GeoPolitical Governance, Warring Factions, Military Alliances, Energy Strategy, Displacement of Communities, The Islamic Alliance, Spirituality, Role of religions.
 
And may I add: The new, SECRET Trade and FINANCIAL INVESTMENTS  agreements, World Finances and Corporate World dominance at the expense of citizens ..the new Judases, our heads of states. (more on this later in the new blog)

Blog Archive


Blockchain Summit 2016


The SECRET strategy to create a new system: TPP, TTIP, TISA



188,829

The strange new world of the Federal Reserve (GIANT EXPERIMENT) is not your daddy's central banking system


Janet Yellen conducts a giant experiment as Fed decides whether to raise rates: Don Pittis

The strange new world of the Federal Reserve is not your daddy's central banking system

91186719
The world is waiting for a word to the wise from U.S. Federal Reserve Board Chair Janet Yellen. But some critics fear only radical solutions will get the bank out of its current tight spot. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Stocks surged and tumbled last week as market analysts see-sawed over whether U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen and her panel of advisers would raise interest rates this week.
Everyone from Canadian homeowners to stock and bond traders are holding their collective breath waiting to see what Yellen decides. But whether she raises rates, cuts them or leaves them the same, experts say the Fed is conducting a giant monetary experiment using strange new tools, and no one quite knows how it will turn out.
Money used to be so much easier to understand, says economist and central banking critic Kevin Dowd, who did one of his degrees at Western University in London, Ont.

Printing money

"The fundamental problem with money is that there has to be some mechanism to control it because it costs almost nothing to print a $100 bill," says Dowd, now a finance professor at Durham University in Britain.
Creating electronic money is even cheaper.
USA-CURRENCY/
Money being printed a the Bureau of Engraving and Printing in Washington. (Reuters)
Up until 1935, Dowd says, the Canadian dollar was one of the most stable in the world. That was before Canada had a central bank. Instead the value of the currency was tied to gold, and interest rates were set in the market by bankers who would succeed or go broke based on whether they lent money at the right price.

Boring bankers wanted

"You want boring bankers. We've gone away from this model," says Dowd.
Since the banking crisis of 2008, central banking has been anything but boring.
The Fed and other central banks responded to the emergency by flooding the world with a new wave of cash. Dowd says the Fed missed its chance to return to a simpler monetary system.
MARKETS-PRECIOUS
Before Canada had a central bank, the value of the currency was tied to gold and interest rates were set in the market by bankers who would succeed or go broke based on whether they lent money at the right price. (Reuters)
"Some banks should certainly have been allowed to fail because they were essentially zombies," says Dowd. "Instead the banks were propped up. They weren't recapitalized and made strong again."
Since U.S. president Richard Nixon went off the gold standard in the early 1970s, the U.S. dollar has become the new equivalent of gold in the world's banking system.​ And since the 2008 crisis, central banking has entered a strange new world, says Canadian monetary policy expert Scott Aquanno.


"They're still in a kind of experimental stage," says Aquanno, whose main area of research is the U.S. Federal Reserve system. He is a research fellow at the Munk School of Global Affairs and teaches at University of Ontario in Oshawa, Ont.
Under the traditional model of central banking, the Fed used to change interest rates by altering the amount of money in circulation by buying and selling bonds.

New toolkit

But with a glut of U.S. dollars already circulating in the world, that is no longer possible. Instead says Aquanno, the Fed has had to develop a whole new toolkit.

For instance, if the Fed decides to raise rates this week, one tool it can use is something called the I.O.E.R. system, which stands for interest on excess reserves. Effectively, the Fed pays interest on any money banks have on hand.


Since lending for less than that rate to any other borrower would cost the banks money, the Fed is able to set a floor on interest rates.
"The assessment of how the Fed is doing has to begin by pointing out it is in uncharted territory," says Aquanno.

There are several odd things about the I.O.E.R system, but one is that it means the Fed will no longer be paying money to the U.S. treasury — in other words to the U.S. taxpayer.

Instead, billions of dollars will be flowing from the Fed to the banks in interest payments. And the higher it pushes rates, the more the Fed will have to pay. That's especially ironic considering that the current money glut that made the new system necessary occurred because the taxpayers bailed out the banks in the 2008 crisis.

New crisis

Both Dowd and Aquanno believe it is crucial for the Fed to gradually push rates higher. Aquanno says that would allow the Fed to cut rates in the event of a new crisis. Dowd fears that raising rates to their "normal rate" may itself precipitate a crisis.

And fixing the system for the long term?

"I can't see it being done in any other way than through a crisis, but my fear is the crisis could produce the wrong solutions," says Dowd. "It did the last time."

Aquanno sees dangers, and believes the coming period will be "messy." But he believes the Federal Reserve will continue to create new tools to get us through the messy time.

"It's still in its infancy so it's difficult to understand all the potential problems or limitations," says Aquanno of the new regime for keeping the U.S. dollar stable. "By all accounts, it works. We think it works."

Follow Don on Twitter @don_pittis
More analysis from Don Pittis