People enforce rules with a single minded focus that can be self defeating. Change the circumstances slightly and people are not likely to reinterpret the rules, even if this would seem “obvious”. This is one of the reasons top down management is so inefficient in the long run. Circumstances change but the person who made the rule is not around to reinterpret the rules.
A friend told me of a person in a flying club with him who went to the airport to go on a hunting trip. They had slung their guns over their shoulders and walked to the entrance of the airport to get to their plane. Security officials scanned them with hand held scanners and waved them through...
This is not a massive break from the international status quo by a any means. The USA and all other nations have operated in a similar manner for a long time with equally gruesome outcomes.
If I recall the head of Interpol “disappeared” not long ago, and that little kerfuffle died away right quick.
Perhaps the reasons are more mundane.
1. The Saudis got caught out by the Turks with the evidence. Which has been used effectively. The Turks have a lot to gain by seeing the alliance between SA and the US weakened.
2. The senior leadership of SA can be more directly tied to this incident, as opposed to more common case where plausible deniability exists. Rookie mistake.
3. There exists internal opposition to the leadership in the US and SA that find it convenient to escalate the profile of this issue for their own purposes.
This will blow over and business as usual will resume shortly.
The whole point of extraordinary rendition is to remove the target to another country to give some legal cover and plausible (hah) deniability to the subsequent interrogation / torture / what have you.
Murdering someone in your embassy (although technically your own sovereign territory) is a new low.
That trailer's voiceover is so cheesy, I have to hunt down the movie and watch it. And the movie poster: "See...Great Special Affects!" Clearly, the producers had a lot of self-awareness.
I’m not alone then. I moved my subscription from the NYT to FT looking for a less politically slanted product but the tone at the FT is definitely going in the same direction. Any suggestions?
P.s I have to phone the FT to cancel my subscription apparently.
I like Wall Street Journal. It's more business-focused, and definitely has a conservative bend, with occasional editorials that are much more out there (the benefits of prayer in school or something), but since I'm left-leaning, it feels pretty good on balance.
The wall Street Journal lost my support after they came out with a shitty hit piece [0] against PewDiePie. I read some of their arguments, but found em to be pretty damn shallow.
Although they came out against him, if you actually watch the source videos I don't think they had a strong case. This was one of the key posts that made me lose trust in WSJ as an organization.
Yes, perhaps partially, but would you not agree that the amount of outrage-worthy news has also increased? Perhaps the issue is not the lens, but the reality...
Well it is only starting to move in that direction, they are clearly running campaigns on certain topics (like feminism), and I skip any article on Trump, Brexit or Boris Johnson. But outside of that it’s still OK.
I’d say the most neutral news will come from news agencies (reuters, afp, etc). There you get the raw material (what happened) without the comments. For business news bloomberg is the (expensive) equivalent. But occasionally there is important original content in the FT so I am not contemplating cancelling my subscription for the time being.
The current demand for high quality nickel used in batteries is very small in comparison to overall world nickel production. This will continue for the foreseeable future.
Nickel is trading at very low prices historically and most producers are losing money at current prices.
This would imply that the current supply of nickel is more than sufficient for the worlds needs and that some producers need to shut down. (Why they don’t is fascinating on its own)
Most of the worlds nickel production is low quality ferro nickel used in the production of stainless steel.
Despite this we are not seeing larger premiums for high quality nickel products which would indicate that there is more demand for high quality nickel.
High quality/ high cost nickel producers know that their only chance to survive the over supply of cheap nickel in the world is if we see the same over exuberance as which we have seen with cobalt trading in recent months.
The only problem is that nickel is a much larger market than cobalt and as such is not as susceptible to small market changes, and as the article points out nickel does not face the same geopolitical supply risk as cobalt does in the Congo.
A friend told me of a person in a flying club with him who went to the airport to go on a hunting trip. They had slung their guns over their shoulders and walked to the entrance of the airport to get to their plane. Security officials scanned them with hand held scanners and waved them through...