A riot has occurred in Tottenham, I am writing this in an attempt to try and quantify what exactly caused it.
Tottenham is a suburb of London, to the north of the centre. It has a large Afro-Caribbean population and is home to a wide variety of ethnicities. It is a deprived area with double the UK national average unemployment
The catalyst for this disturbance was the shooting of a 29 year old man, Mark Duggan, by an armed police officer. The police story (and the only one you'll be hearing in the media) goes that when an anti-gang task force attempted to arrest the dead man he resisted, shot at them with an illegal handgun and they returned fire and killed him.
Which you know, might be true.
The problem is the Metropolitan Police have a great deal of trouble telling the truth. Take for instance the death of Jean Charles de Menezes the way they told it he ran away from them, jumped a ticket barrier and was generally behaving suspicously. The way eye witnesses told it he was sitting on an underground train minding his own business, the police burst in, grabbed him and held him down and then shot him in the head. A slight discrepancy in the police's favour. Similarly when allegations about how police involvement in Ian Tomlinson's death began to emerge the Met forgot that a CCTV camera near the scene of the crime existed.
Lenin's Tomb has an unconfirmed eye witness report that Duggan was executed after being arrested. Now without verification this is questionable but it is far from impossible. Maybe he was killed because they disliked him or, given the endemic corruption across the British police maybe a rival drug gang paid to have him gotten rid of.
Certainly the circumstances surrounding his death are a little odd. He was cornered in the back of a mini-cab and decided to go down in a blaze of glory, if the Police are to be believed, an unusual course of action for nearly all criminals, especially alleged drug dealers with their likely access to a well paid lawyer. Illegal handguns can be placed on the scene, especially if the Police had decided to kill him beforehand. Indeed this is one of the most questionable issues of the whole affair for me, if you ever read one of those cheerleading pieces in the papers about how a cop caught a suspect there will usually be a reference to how if a story is too perfect, too without holes it is likely false and pre-rehearsed. The police officer who shot Duggan apparently was saved by his radio. It so wonderfully justifies his "returning fire" on Duggan in a way a shot lodged in a wall wouldn't do so. Indeed it must've been a wonderous radio because the injured officer didn't even spend a night in hospital.
Now it may be all as the police say, it is just very hard to trust them given the lies they've repeatedly told in the past. The worst thing is though, we have no way of trusting the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)'s investigation. The reason for this is twofold but connected. Firstly their investigation into Jean Charles de Menezes was deeply flawed with strong suspicions of deliberate coverups. The second reason we can't trust the IPCC is because in the aftermath of that investigation a senior officer directly criticised in relation to the incident was appointed to the IPCC.
With collusion and corruption like this it is difficult to trust anything the Metropolitan Police or the IPCC have to say.
Sunday 7 August 2011
Thursday 4 August 2011
Fractional reserve banking explained.
On a truly terrible day for the markets I have finally happened upon a decent description of fractional reserve banking, one of the major problems with the current financial system.
I've been an occasional follower of Positive money but while their ideas seem fairly decent their videos are terrible.
Happily the Zeitgeist Movement of all things have made a very good lecture about it.
Towards the hour mark things go off the rails slightly but it is consistently a sound analysis of a barely known issue. Their proposed solution is... less sound, being a kind of magical technical centrally planned economy. Though as the guy giving the lecture points out at the end, the current system is way more absurd than that.
Oh and in another unexpected turn arch-conservative David Frum has kinda almost paid Paul Krugman a compliment and again here. We are living in strange times.
I've been an occasional follower of Positive money but while their ideas seem fairly decent their videos are terrible.
Happily the Zeitgeist Movement of all things have made a very good lecture about it.
Towards the hour mark things go off the rails slightly but it is consistently a sound analysis of a barely known issue. Their proposed solution is... less sound, being a kind of magical technical centrally planned economy. Though as the guy giving the lecture points out at the end, the current system is way more absurd than that.
Oh and in another unexpected turn arch-conservative David Frum has kinda almost paid Paul Krugman a compliment and again here. We are living in strange times.
Wednesday 27 July 2011
Defaultgeddon: More good articles
The articles I post here pretty much show for certain that there wont be a default but still, for ease of lumping the topics together I've kept the same title
Yesterday I posted a short FAQ that was one of the best explanations of the debt ceiling farce so far. In a discussion on Buzz I was caused to ask if there are any longer form articles that give a description of a similar quality. Thanks to a mix of hanging out in a Something Awful thread and checking various sites I regularly do a day later I have an embarrassment of riches on the subject.
This fairly short article by Dean Baker explains how the debt ceiling arguments are just being used as a cover by both Republicans and Democrats, especially Obama, to force austerity measures on America and gut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security at the behest of their corporate overlords.
Given the stealth Bi-partisan support for this Americans really are screwed.
Michael Hudson has written a longer piece that focuses on the great amount of effort Obama has put in to destroying as much of FDR's legacy as he possibly can.
Speaking of FDR, Richard D Wolff has written an article examining the nature of the Keynesian softening of Capitalism that was required to save Capitalism. Essentially the Welfare State and the New Deal were part of a system to keep Capitalism going and protect the rich from popular anger when the system is experiencing one of its' major crisis. However in order to maintain this buffer and protect the rich governments incurred greater deficits because the rich and powerful didn't want to pay the tax necessary to maintain it. Now public debt has gotten so large the elite want deficit reduced. Thus the buffer that keeps people relatively safe and relatively quiet is being removed. Interesting times loon.
Yesterday I posted a short FAQ that was one of the best explanations of the debt ceiling farce so far. In a discussion on Buzz I was caused to ask if there are any longer form articles that give a description of a similar quality. Thanks to a mix of hanging out in a Something Awful thread and checking various sites I regularly do a day later I have an embarrassment of riches on the subject.
This fairly short article by Dean Baker explains how the debt ceiling arguments are just being used as a cover by both Republicans and Democrats, especially Obama, to force austerity measures on America and gut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security at the behest of their corporate overlords.
Given the stealth Bi-partisan support for this Americans really are screwed.
Michael Hudson has written a longer piece that focuses on the great amount of effort Obama has put in to destroying as much of FDR's legacy as he possibly can.
Speaking of FDR, Richard D Wolff has written an article examining the nature of the Keynesian softening of Capitalism that was required to save Capitalism. Essentially the Welfare State and the New Deal were part of a system to keep Capitalism going and protect the rich from popular anger when the system is experiencing one of its' major crisis. However in order to maintain this buffer and protect the rich governments incurred greater deficits because the rich and powerful didn't want to pay the tax necessary to maintain it. Now public debt has gotten so large the elite want deficit reduced. Thus the buffer that keeps people relatively safe and relatively quiet is being removed. Interesting times loon.
Tuesday 26 July 2011
Defaultgeddon: A different kind of scare.
There's plenty to be afraid of with Defaultgeddon and the inevitable "compromise" but I had a different kind of scare this morning, The Australian, a Murdoch owned paper, has one of the best breakdowns of the issues surrounding this crisis I've read.
Take a look at it here
I mean a broken clock and all that but still, it has shaken my view of the world a little. Also when did Leonard Nemoy grow a goatee...?
Take a look at it here
I mean a broken clock and all that but still, it has shaken my view of the world a little. Also when did Leonard Nemoy grow a goatee...?
Monday 25 July 2011
The IMF gets to play to the home crowd.
Over the years the IMF has gotten to fuck over a lot of countries and bring misery and death to countless poors but this is the big one, the IMF is going to do the biggest gig of all, the home crowd. We all knew it was coming but finally they're starting to hype it up for the fans.
And as they receive a ticker tape along the newly privatised streets the IMF's open topped limo will be blaring out a very special anthem:
Make your peace with your Gods non-millionaire Americans.
And as they receive a ticker tape along the newly privatised streets the IMF's open topped limo will be blaring out a very special anthem:
Make your peace with your Gods non-millionaire Americans.
Sunday 24 July 2011
Defaultgeddon: a couple of points.
Firstly I would like to thank Amber for bringing something important to my attention. I had assumed renaming welfare programs as "entitlements" had been a slow creeping shifting of the narrative. Amber however pointed out the shift has occurred very rapidly only starting earlier this year with Paul Ryan's slash and burn budget. And I quote:
It is pretty terrifying how much and how rapidly the right wing control the narrative.
Secondly I found this LA Times article that sums up how much damage the Gang of Six proposals and other compromises Obama is willing to back will do to America. He really has sold us down the river.
As an aside there is an article by Jeffrey Sachs doing the rounds at the minute explaining why America is in such a bad state and it is fairly trenchant but thanks to someone in the comments (comments are weird like that, a lot of dross and then some very worthwhile stuff) pointed out Sachs is one of the creators of shock doctrine and was personally responsible for turning Russia into the Oligarch run hellhole it is today.
There are a lot of false friends out there.
first instance of "Roadmap for America" plan being introduced: May 21, 2008 with a revision in January 2010.
check this google trends data:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=entitlement&date=all&geo=usa&ctab=0&sort=0&sa=N
Talk about controlling the narrative...
It is pretty terrifying how much and how rapidly the right wing control the narrative.
Secondly I found this LA Times article that sums up how much damage the Gang of Six proposals and other compromises Obama is willing to back will do to America. He really has sold us down the river.
As an aside there is an article by Jeffrey Sachs doing the rounds at the minute explaining why America is in such a bad state and it is fairly trenchant but thanks to someone in the comments (comments are weird like that, a lot of dross and then some very worthwhile stuff) pointed out Sachs is one of the creators of shock doctrine and was personally responsible for turning Russia into the Oligarch run hellhole it is today.
There are a lot of false friends out there.
Saturday 23 July 2011
The far right is the majority's worst enemy.
I feel a little uncomfortable writing this, am I simply emulating the worst of the right wing commentators by bandwagoning on a tragedy. Nonetheless I feel that such a tragedy as the bombing and shooting spree in Norway need to be looked at in wider terms than the narrow context of a lone mad man doing a bad thing that can be quickly ignored.
The far right are useful to economic elite and thus the mainstream media are not going to be asking probing questions about the nature and ideology of this attack. Take this analysis from the BBC and reflect on how it ends:
Which marvellously combines an entreaty to support the status quo as much as possible with an equivocation that the Muslims are just as bad. No questioning of if the motives of a marginalised and victimised group in Europe's are any different from a comfortably off man who was a member of the accepted majority in one of the most pleasant places to live on Earth.
Fascists are useful to the elite for the simple reason of their not being Socialists. Socialists might tax them more heavily, ask questions about the distribution of wealth and so on. Fascists will target ethnic minorities and homosexuals which the majority of the elite aren't and those that are are rich enough to be well protected. Best of all Fascists will target Socialists and indeed all social and political movements the elite like least.
So we can expect plenty of condemnation of this particular act but there will be limited attempts to tie this into a wider context and at the same time this good looking white mass murderer gets his picture plastered everywhere, to encourage the others and you better bet the mainstream right will start to ask questions about whether our immigration and asylum policies are causing actual problems. I mean of course killing people is bad but maybe there is something to what he was talking about, we can't let the violence of his actions blind us to the real problems immigrants cause in society. etc etc.
We really do need to look into what kind of utterly corrosive ideology makes a comfortable and affluent man who faces no real threats kill nearly 100 people. We can over no grandiose excuses like Western Imperialism in the Middle East, nor the sociological and economic explanations of competition with immigrants for jobs driving working class whites towards the right wing. No this guy lived with his mum in an affluent part of Oslo, had enough money to set up an agricultural company, that admittedly may have been a front to buy fertilisers for bombs, and lived in Norway, one of the best damn places to live on Earth.
The malignancy of an ideology than even in the most comfortable circumstances can drive someone to commit such horrific crimes is something we in the West truly have to confront, in full force and quickly. However we simply cannot expect the political class to lead us in this regard. As I said before the elite have little to lose from supporting the far right. Indeed they are already doing so quite openly. Back in February of this year David Cameron just happened to give a speech attacking Multiculturalism hours before a big march by the EDL, the biggest Fascist group in the UK.
The EDL, an alliance of football hooligans and other extremely unpleasant groups in society was allegedly an inspiration for the Norwegian terrorist. The EDL has other friends beyond Norwegian Mass Murderers and the British Prime Minister though, The Daily Star, a less reputable tabloid than the Sun but with a decent circulation, also tested the waters for backing them earlier this year.
Also quite by chance while finding that story on the New Statesman website I stumbled on this article about how the architect of "Blue Labour" a plan to move New Labour even further to the right, which Ed Miliband was smiling upon, is at best a xenophobe and may well be a racist.
The political mainstream simply will not save us from Fascism. This atrocity in Norway must be a rallying cry for the majority to push against a growing Fascism in the western world, to defend values most people support and prevent the elite from having an army of remorseless thugs to keep them in power by attacking any positive political and social movements that may emerge from the current economic crisis. Make no mistake the elite will be doing everything they can to take advantage of this with fleet footed "well maybe he had a point" statements and articles.
"Anything but Socialism" has been the mantra of the Western elite for over a century and regardless of whether you are left wing or not it is imperative that we as a majority do not make supporting Fascism the path of least resistance for the elite.
Oh bugger, I meant to incorporate this article into the body of the text because it is very good and was the inspiration for this whole entry. I shall highlight it here instead, please read..
Also it had the best advert for a magazine I've ever seen:
The far right are useful to economic elite and thus the mainstream media are not going to be asking probing questions about the nature and ideology of this attack. Take this analysis from the BBC and reflect on how it ends:
Following the attacks in Oslo and on Utoeya, it will be interesting to see whether many in the country develop a more sophisticated view of where the greatest threats are coming from, amid a growing realisation that extremism is deadly regardless of nationality, ethnicity or religion.
Which marvellously combines an entreaty to support the status quo as much as possible with an equivocation that the Muslims are just as bad. No questioning of if the motives of a marginalised and victimised group in Europe's are any different from a comfortably off man who was a member of the accepted majority in one of the most pleasant places to live on Earth.
Fascists are useful to the elite for the simple reason of their not being Socialists. Socialists might tax them more heavily, ask questions about the distribution of wealth and so on. Fascists will target ethnic minorities and homosexuals which the majority of the elite aren't and those that are are rich enough to be well protected. Best of all Fascists will target Socialists and indeed all social and political movements the elite like least.
So we can expect plenty of condemnation of this particular act but there will be limited attempts to tie this into a wider context and at the same time this good looking white mass murderer gets his picture plastered everywhere, to encourage the others and you better bet the mainstream right will start to ask questions about whether our immigration and asylum policies are causing actual problems. I mean of course killing people is bad but maybe there is something to what he was talking about, we can't let the violence of his actions blind us to the real problems immigrants cause in society. etc etc.
We really do need to look into what kind of utterly corrosive ideology makes a comfortable and affluent man who faces no real threats kill nearly 100 people. We can over no grandiose excuses like Western Imperialism in the Middle East, nor the sociological and economic explanations of competition with immigrants for jobs driving working class whites towards the right wing. No this guy lived with his mum in an affluent part of Oslo, had enough money to set up an agricultural company, that admittedly may have been a front to buy fertilisers for bombs, and lived in Norway, one of the best damn places to live on Earth.
The malignancy of an ideology than even in the most comfortable circumstances can drive someone to commit such horrific crimes is something we in the West truly have to confront, in full force and quickly. However we simply cannot expect the political class to lead us in this regard. As I said before the elite have little to lose from supporting the far right. Indeed they are already doing so quite openly. Back in February of this year David Cameron just happened to give a speech attacking Multiculturalism hours before a big march by the EDL, the biggest Fascist group in the UK.
The EDL, an alliance of football hooligans and other extremely unpleasant groups in society was allegedly an inspiration for the Norwegian terrorist. The EDL has other friends beyond Norwegian Mass Murderers and the British Prime Minister though, The Daily Star, a less reputable tabloid than the Sun but with a decent circulation, also tested the waters for backing them earlier this year.
Also quite by chance while finding that story on the New Statesman website I stumbled on this article about how the architect of "Blue Labour" a plan to move New Labour even further to the right, which Ed Miliband was smiling upon, is at best a xenophobe and may well be a racist.
The political mainstream simply will not save us from Fascism. This atrocity in Norway must be a rallying cry for the majority to push against a growing Fascism in the western world, to defend values most people support and prevent the elite from having an army of remorseless thugs to keep them in power by attacking any positive political and social movements that may emerge from the current economic crisis. Make no mistake the elite will be doing everything they can to take advantage of this with fleet footed "well maybe he had a point" statements and articles.
"Anything but Socialism" has been the mantra of the Western elite for over a century and regardless of whether you are left wing or not it is imperative that we as a majority do not make supporting Fascism the path of least resistance for the elite.
Oh bugger, I meant to incorporate this article into the body of the text because it is very good and was the inspiration for this whole entry. I shall highlight it here instead, please read..
Also it had the best advert for a magazine I've ever seen:
Friday 22 July 2011
The decline of Canada continues
Last year Al Jazeera English ran an opinion piece explaining Canada's deepening ties with Israel and it would seem Stephen Harper is now switching his pro-Israeli policies into the domestic arena.
The Canadian Parliamentary Committee to Combat Anti-Semitism (CPCCA) has come to the conclusion that criticising Israel is a new form of anti-Semitism even going as far as to say that criticism of Israeli policy in greater amounts than criticism of other countries is an anti-Semite. Policy specialisation is racism if the Right doesn't like the policy you focus on.
The members of the committee must be praised for the insightfulness, they managed to work out the motives and ideas of those who campaign against Israel's occupation of Palestinian land and other crimes without even talking to them. I suppose all the pro-Israeli groups they spoke to filled them in. Better that way, not to waste the campaigners' time.
This, in a way, can be seen as a positive sign. As a short headline on Exiledonline.com pointed out regarding the Israeli outlawing of supporting the boycott it must actually be hitting profits if the Knesset is being forced to acknowledge the opposition and publicly oppose it. With so many things regarding Israel's crimes we see the mainstream media try to ignore it completely (as they did with reporting the boycott law).
It is somewhat trite to mention this specific Gandhi quote these days but still
does have a ring of truth. One of the most powerful prerogatives of the powerful is the ability to ignore those below, their complaints and their aspiration. When they actually have to start addressing issues those below them are putting forth then those issues are having some effect.
If organised opposition to Israel and elsewhere wasn't having an effect then there would be no need to start aggressively expanding the idea that criticising Israel is anti-Semitism. Rhetorically this been attempted for years already with Jews such as Chomsky and Finkelstein who criticise Israel being labelled as "self hating Jews" (what a farce). Whether the notion of self hating Jews will be legislated for is yet to be seen in Canada. They will likely just be marginalised "for their own good." No true Jew opposes Israel.
In a war the time you advancing without meeting opposition can be the most dangerous because at that time you don't know where the enemy is. That the Israel lobby is resisting popular organising and boycott so hard suggests it is having an effect.
The Canadian Parliamentary Committee to Combat Anti-Semitism (CPCCA) has come to the conclusion that criticising Israel is a new form of anti-Semitism even going as far as to say that criticism of Israeli policy in greater amounts than criticism of other countries is an anti-Semite. Policy specialisation is racism if the Right doesn't like the policy you focus on.
The members of the committee must be praised for the insightfulness, they managed to work out the motives and ideas of those who campaign against Israel's occupation of Palestinian land and other crimes without even talking to them. I suppose all the pro-Israeli groups they spoke to filled them in. Better that way, not to waste the campaigners' time.
This, in a way, can be seen as a positive sign. As a short headline on Exiledonline.com pointed out regarding the Israeli outlawing of supporting the boycott it must actually be hitting profits if the Knesset is being forced to acknowledge the opposition and publicly oppose it. With so many things regarding Israel's crimes we see the mainstream media try to ignore it completely (as they did with reporting the boycott law).
It is somewhat trite to mention this specific Gandhi quote these days but still
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
does have a ring of truth. One of the most powerful prerogatives of the powerful is the ability to ignore those below, their complaints and their aspiration. When they actually have to start addressing issues those below them are putting forth then those issues are having some effect.
If organised opposition to Israel and elsewhere wasn't having an effect then there would be no need to start aggressively expanding the idea that criticising Israel is anti-Semitism. Rhetorically this been attempted for years already with Jews such as Chomsky and Finkelstein who criticise Israel being labelled as "self hating Jews" (what a farce). Whether the notion of self hating Jews will be legislated for is yet to be seen in Canada. They will likely just be marginalised "for their own good." No true Jew opposes Israel.
In a war the time you advancing without meeting opposition can be the most dangerous because at that time you don't know where the enemy is. That the Israel lobby is resisting popular organising and boycott so hard suggests it is having an effect.
Pressure on Peston and News Corp Counter-Intelligence hacking.
Tom Watson MP, one of the two Labour MPs who have been pushing for greater scrutiny of the phone hacking scandal for years has become the first prominent person to openly call out Robert Peston as a News Corporation patsy.
He is "close friends" with Will Lewis, who was Rebekah Brooks' deputy until she stepped down. He also broke the story the Telegraph sting operation on Vince Cable (the business secretary) had revealed Vince Cable was openly opposed to Rupert Murdoch gaining control of BSkyB. Cable was overseeing the merger at the time , the Telegraph realised what a boon this would be for Murdoch and kept it quiet, Peston broke it and got Cable removed from overseeing it.
He was also at the Chipping Norton set party just hours before the Milly Dowler story broke.
True to form when two prominent ex-News International employees accused James Murdoch of lying in his testimony to the select committee this Tuesday Peston broke the news a low level editor who'd been in his job only six months had been fired.
This lead Watson to attack Peston on Twitter:
Nice to see Peston is following the standard News Corporation line of pretending there is no crime to answer for.
In addition News Corporation have plumbed yet deeper depths, BBC's Newsnight have accused the News of the World of hacking the phones of three lawyers for phone hacking victims.
Which strongly implies News Corporation were running counter-intelligence against hacking victims, either trying to find out legal information to undermine the victim's cases or blackmail material to make the lawyers back off. By God these motherfuckers are dirty.
He is "close friends" with Will Lewis, who was Rebekah Brooks' deputy until she stepped down. He also broke the story the Telegraph sting operation on Vince Cable (the business secretary) had revealed Vince Cable was openly opposed to Rupert Murdoch gaining control of BSkyB. Cable was overseeing the merger at the time , the Telegraph realised what a boon this would be for Murdoch and kept it quiet, Peston broke it and got Cable removed from overseeing it.
He was also at the Chipping Norton set party just hours before the Milly Dowler story broke.
True to form when two prominent ex-News International employees accused James Murdoch of lying in his testimony to the select committee this Tuesday Peston broke the news a low level editor who'd been in his job only six months had been fired.
This lead Watson to attack Peston on Twitter:
Watson accused Peston of being spoon fed stories by News International to distract the public's attention from the more dramatic development about James Murdoch's evidence to parliament.
Watson tweeted: "Why Sun story now @Peston? More spin to deflect Myler/Crone statement? Where's your dignity?"
Peston responded: "@tom_watson Tom, this is an outrageous and untrue allegation."
Watson shot back: "I'm sorry @Peston but you are being spoonfed stories. The Myler statement creates a crisis at NI. You have form. Stop being a patsy."
To which Peston replied: "@tom_watson That is not worthy of a response."
Nice to see Peston is following the standard News Corporation line of pretending there is no crime to answer for.
In addition News Corporation have plumbed yet deeper depths, BBC's Newsnight have accused the News of the World of hacking the phones of three lawyers for phone hacking victims.
11.27pm: Three solicitors representing phone hacking victims were themselves targets of the News of the World, according to Newsnight. They included Mark Lewis, the lawyer for the family of Milly Dowler and Gordon Taylor, the former head of the Professional Footballers' Association. The programme reported that the solicitors were not put under surveillance for the purpose of writing stories about them.
Which strongly implies News Corporation were running counter-intelligence against hacking victims, either trying to find out legal information to undermine the victim's cases or blackmail material to make the lawyers back off. By God these motherfuckers are dirty.
Thursday 21 July 2011
Defaultgeddon, the bright side?
With a US default looking increasingly likely in the face of the Tea Party rejecting Operation kill all poors. What are the benefits of this, not for non-millionaires like you but for the politicians who'll be fine whatever happens?
We'll leave endemic corruption aside because apart from "they're being paid to shit on us" what more is there to say?
The reason the Tea Party want a default is fairly simple, they think big government is bad thus they causing it to shut down will be great. They assume the treasury will be forced to maintain debt payments thus everything else will take catastrophic cuts and free market magic will fix everything. Of course if anything goes wrong (and hoo boy will it) all the right wing press and politicians will scream how willing to make a deal they were but Obama just wouldn't be reasonable.
Obama wants a default because while the President will take the blame for a bad economy it looks like the economy is going to be bad whatever. At least this way he'll be able to point to GOP intransigence and the fact he made huge offers of compromise (which he also supports because he really doesn't care about the poor) which might just work. Polling consistently shows the US public hate congress more than the president so having a tangible way to put the blame for the economy on congress would be no bad thing for him.
Democratic congresspeople to my mind have the most to lose, their constituents are going to blame them directly for the loss of vital services and reductions in social security and medicare /medicaid. If there were anything like justice in the world the tea party members of the house who are making default seem ever more likely would be the ones to be punished for that but that is rather a weak reason for Democratic congresspeople to want a default.
Now the big problem with these positive scenarios is that while maybe politically one faction or another may gain somewhat from a default the nation as a whole loses so badly the political loses will be far greater.
For the Tea Party their arguments for small government will be undermined by a recession that may well become a depression. A weak and faltering economy simply will not be able to handle the sudden withdrawal of the direct contribution public funds make to the economy and the indirect contribution public institutions and the spending power of public sector workers bring. I have no idea if the super rich assholes behind the Tea Party will benefit economically or otherwise but in terms of politics the GOP will not be vindicated.
For Obama the ability to blame congress for the economy would be nice but the collapse of US prestige and power after the dollar stops being the reserve currency ( I don't honestly know what will replace it, maybe the Yuan?) will give his opponent in 2012 ample chance to attack him on nationalistic grounds. As will the increased price of borrowing for the US, foreign wars will become even more expensive. Plus presiding over a major economic turmoil doesn't tend to make voters like you much even if they do blame congress.
I don't tend to think Democratic congresspeople have any reason at all to want default so there's little contrast with for them.
I think the Tea Partiers may actually want a default whereas Obama sees some benefits in it for him so as to prevent him caving in completely. Still though, what a silly mess we're in that a wholly artificial accounting process, the debt ceiling, is coming so close to causing a global economic crisis.
We'll leave endemic corruption aside because apart from "they're being paid to shit on us" what more is there to say?
The reason the Tea Party want a default is fairly simple, they think big government is bad thus they causing it to shut down will be great. They assume the treasury will be forced to maintain debt payments thus everything else will take catastrophic cuts and free market magic will fix everything. Of course if anything goes wrong (and hoo boy will it) all the right wing press and politicians will scream how willing to make a deal they were but Obama just wouldn't be reasonable.
Obama wants a default because while the President will take the blame for a bad economy it looks like the economy is going to be bad whatever. At least this way he'll be able to point to GOP intransigence and the fact he made huge offers of compromise (which he also supports because he really doesn't care about the poor) which might just work. Polling consistently shows the US public hate congress more than the president so having a tangible way to put the blame for the economy on congress would be no bad thing for him.
Democratic congresspeople to my mind have the most to lose, their constituents are going to blame them directly for the loss of vital services and reductions in social security and medicare /medicaid. If there were anything like justice in the world the tea party members of the house who are making default seem ever more likely would be the ones to be punished for that but that is rather a weak reason for Democratic congresspeople to want a default.
Now the big problem with these positive scenarios is that while maybe politically one faction or another may gain somewhat from a default the nation as a whole loses so badly the political loses will be far greater.
For the Tea Party their arguments for small government will be undermined by a recession that may well become a depression. A weak and faltering economy simply will not be able to handle the sudden withdrawal of the direct contribution public funds make to the economy and the indirect contribution public institutions and the spending power of public sector workers bring. I have no idea if the super rich assholes behind the Tea Party will benefit economically or otherwise but in terms of politics the GOP will not be vindicated.
For Obama the ability to blame congress for the economy would be nice but the collapse of US prestige and power after the dollar stops being the reserve currency ( I don't honestly know what will replace it, maybe the Yuan?) will give his opponent in 2012 ample chance to attack him on nationalistic grounds. As will the increased price of borrowing for the US, foreign wars will become even more expensive. Plus presiding over a major economic turmoil doesn't tend to make voters like you much even if they do blame congress.
I don't tend to think Democratic congresspeople have any reason at all to want default so there's little contrast with for them.
I think the Tea Partiers may actually want a default whereas Obama sees some benefits in it for him so as to prevent him caving in completely. Still though, what a silly mess we're in that a wholly artificial accounting process, the debt ceiling, is coming so close to causing a global economic crisis.
Tuesday 19 July 2011
Murdochgate = Watergate?
The Guardian's John Harris has written an article looking at how Murdochgate has unmasked the UK's political elite and how it will affect civil society in the future. I highly recommend you read this.
As the title implies I want to look at his allusion to Watergate at the end impacts things. First of all I want to direct you to a piece Noam Chomsky wrote in 1973, when admittedly the Watergate scandal had been running a bit longer (but then again info moves much faster now) but it is still very much a contemporary assessment. While Chomsky doesn't specifically predict the moral majority and Reagan, which Harris highlights as a key outcome of Watergate, he does accurately predict an increase and entrenchment of executive power over other branches of the US government.
There are also strong elements of Chomsky's main criticism, that Nixon was punished not for wrongdoing but for breaking the rules. For upsetting the cosy elite. In a similar sense Murdoch is receiving so much criticism because he used his influence to sway the political parties to do his will. This is not right, the press exists to influence the masses, to manufacture consent on issues the elite have already agreed upon. Even then it was only the revelations such as those about Milly Dowler that gave politicians enough cover to act in their own interests and take down Murdoch. Indeed Murdoch's strong connections to the elite before the past two weeks and even now is not a particularly large issue, other media groups seem to tacitly accept that influence and connection to the rich and powerful is a good thing, they were more jealous that they didn't hold as much power as Murdoch than worried about such close links between power and the fourth estate.
Finally to quote a paragraph of Chomsky's:
We are seeing a similar compartmentalisation of Murdoch's wrongdoing here, it is a British problem, it is a problem only with his papers, the TV arms of News Corporation in the UK and US is seperate and shouldn't be blamed. Close ties to a media oligarch by politicians in both main parties are seen as a sign of shame but not an indictment of the British political system as a whole.
The myth is still being maintained that this is a scandal that can be dealt with by the political class even though it is the creation of the political class. Removing Murdoch's influence removes an especially egregious symptom but it certainly does not cure the disease.
As the title implies I want to look at his allusion to Watergate at the end impacts things. First of all I want to direct you to a piece Noam Chomsky wrote in 1973, when admittedly the Watergate scandal had been running a bit longer (but then again info moves much faster now) but it is still very much a contemporary assessment. While Chomsky doesn't specifically predict the moral majority and Reagan, which Harris highlights as a key outcome of Watergate, he does accurately predict an increase and entrenchment of executive power over other branches of the US government.
There are also strong elements of Chomsky's main criticism, that Nixon was punished not for wrongdoing but for breaking the rules. For upsetting the cosy elite. In a similar sense Murdoch is receiving so much criticism because he used his influence to sway the political parties to do his will. This is not right, the press exists to influence the masses, to manufacture consent on issues the elite have already agreed upon. Even then it was only the revelations such as those about Milly Dowler that gave politicians enough cover to act in their own interests and take down Murdoch. Indeed Murdoch's strong connections to the elite before the past two weeks and even now is not a particularly large issue, other media groups seem to tacitly accept that influence and connection to the rich and powerful is a good thing, they were more jealous that they didn't hold as much power as Murdoch than worried about such close links between power and the fourth estate.
Finally to quote a paragraph of Chomsky's:
"Still more cynical is the current enthusiasm [from the media] over the health of the American political system, as shown by the curbing of Nixon and his subordinates, or by the civilized compromise that permitted Nixon and Kissinger to kill Cambodians and destroy their land only until August 15, truly a model of how a democracy should function, with no disorder or ugly disruption."
We are seeing a similar compartmentalisation of Murdoch's wrongdoing here, it is a British problem, it is a problem only with his papers, the TV arms of News Corporation in the UK and US is seperate and shouldn't be blamed. Close ties to a media oligarch by politicians in both main parties are seen as a sign of shame but not an indictment of the British political system as a whole.
The myth is still being maintained that this is a scandal that can be dealt with by the political class even though it is the creation of the political class. Removing Murdoch's influence removes an especially egregious symptom but it certainly does not cure the disease.
Sunday 17 July 2011
Israel likely to attack Iran within months.
I was halfway through writing this when I realised the real reason for Israel doing this, blackmailing China and the EU into opposing the Palestinian State with the threat of massively increased oil prices. I didn't want to delete the other stuff because it is valid but I'm putting this TL:DR here because this is the main point I think. Scroll down to the next bolded bit for my thoughts on this.
Former CIA agent Robert Baer, the inspiration for George Clooney's character in Syriana, has stated there is an extremely strong possibility Israel will attack Iran, probably in September. Given he cites a former head of Mossad that only stepped down in late 2010 I think we can take his warning seriously.
I am also inclined to believe Israel, who are now totally out of control, will attack against American's wishes. Politically and Militarily there is no will for the third middle eastern war.
The probable outcomes for the US are such an attack are devastating. If they do the sensible thing and don't rush to Israel's aid then Obama loses in 2012 for certain. More to the point though we see another example of the American Empire not looking after its' colonies. Sure Russia and the EU took notice that America wouldn't defend Georgia in 2008 but Georgia was small potatoes. Failure to defend Israel, the jewel in the crown means it is open season on the US, China, Russia and others can follow a much more aggressive foreign policy knowing the US simply can't back up its' colonies and client states.
If then they do the publicly popular and necessary thing and defend Israel things are unlikely to go much better. Iran has had years to see how American forces work in Iraq and will have tailored their asymmetric capabilities in response. Also any US navy vessels hanging around Iranian waters probably wont do so well either. But on top of these handicaps the US faces other problems.
The Arab Spring means that guarantees of fly over rights, security of supply lines and so on is vastly weakened. Also the great unpopularity of Israel will likely be a regionally galvanising force, US aligned client rulers across the region could face even greater problems in the event of an Israel and America vs Iran conflict.
Plus you know the massive war fatigue, an economy on life support and likelihood of the need for more troops at home as social conditions deteriorate further at home.
TL:DR bit
Of course as I write this I realise none of that will happen. Because I remember reading at least one article before where Israel threatened China that if they didn't do some such thing then Israel would attack Iran. Now China has no love for Iran, not really but they do need oil and they're heavily dependent on the Middle East for it. The disruption a war between Israel and Iran would cause would create huge problems for China, economically and socially. So China did what Israel wanted.
Now the UN vote on Palestinian Statehood approaches and several big EU countries are looking favourably at the motion. The EU is similarly reliant on Middle Eastern oil so in order to get Israel to reconsider this mindless jingoism they'll have to do whatever Israel wants. I don't know China's position on the issue but if they were looking favourably at it this will likely make them reconsider.
It may be Israel wants other concessions or issues resolved in this extortion operation but regardless of the objective I think this is why their stupidly dangerous plan is suddenly being aired.
However one has to wonder if Israel's chickens will come home to roost at some point. America's power and economy is seemingly on the wane. Doing everything you can to piss off the EU and China seems... unwise. Still, what do I know?
Former CIA agent Robert Baer, the inspiration for George Clooney's character in Syriana, has stated there is an extremely strong possibility Israel will attack Iran, probably in September. Given he cites a former head of Mossad that only stepped down in late 2010 I think we can take his warning seriously.
I am also inclined to believe Israel, who are now totally out of control, will attack against American's wishes. Politically and Militarily there is no will for the third middle eastern war.
The probable outcomes for the US are such an attack are devastating. If they do the sensible thing and don't rush to Israel's aid then Obama loses in 2012 for certain. More to the point though we see another example of the American Empire not looking after its' colonies. Sure Russia and the EU took notice that America wouldn't defend Georgia in 2008 but Georgia was small potatoes. Failure to defend Israel, the jewel in the crown means it is open season on the US, China, Russia and others can follow a much more aggressive foreign policy knowing the US simply can't back up its' colonies and client states.
If then they do the publicly popular and necessary thing and defend Israel things are unlikely to go much better. Iran has had years to see how American forces work in Iraq and will have tailored their asymmetric capabilities in response. Also any US navy vessels hanging around Iranian waters probably wont do so well either. But on top of these handicaps the US faces other problems.
The Arab Spring means that guarantees of fly over rights, security of supply lines and so on is vastly weakened. Also the great unpopularity of Israel will likely be a regionally galvanising force, US aligned client rulers across the region could face even greater problems in the event of an Israel and America vs Iran conflict.
Plus you know the massive war fatigue, an economy on life support and likelihood of the need for more troops at home as social conditions deteriorate further at home.
TL:DR bit
Of course as I write this I realise none of that will happen. Because I remember reading at least one article before where Israel threatened China that if they didn't do some such thing then Israel would attack Iran. Now China has no love for Iran, not really but they do need oil and they're heavily dependent on the Middle East for it. The disruption a war between Israel and Iran would cause would create huge problems for China, economically and socially. So China did what Israel wanted.
Now the UN vote on Palestinian Statehood approaches and several big EU countries are looking favourably at the motion. The EU is similarly reliant on Middle Eastern oil so in order to get Israel to reconsider this mindless jingoism they'll have to do whatever Israel wants. I don't know China's position on the issue but if they were looking favourably at it this will likely make them reconsider.
It may be Israel wants other concessions or issues resolved in this extortion operation but regardless of the objective I think this is why their stupidly dangerous plan is suddenly being aired.
However one has to wonder if Israel's chickens will come home to roost at some point. America's power and economy is seemingly on the wane. Doing everything you can to piss off the EU and China seems... unwise. Still, what do I know?
Sunday's Murdochgate developments.
A marriage born of true love. I also hear Rupert is a big fan of Anime
Saturday was a little sleepy but Sunday brought yet more big news stories. This fits with a favoured strategy of getting as much bad news out of the way as quickly as possible but as we will see there is so much bad news out there the Murdochs may well be sacrificed to save News Corp.
However the biggest story today has been the arrest of Rebekah Brooks. Conveniently this occurred just two days after she quite as the CEO of News International but as her PR firm were at pains to make clear, she had no idea she was to be arrested today when she went in for questioning. Given just a week ago she was in charge of the internal investigation News Corp was holding on the phone hacking scandal this doesn't look good for them or any of her politician friends. Do be wary of the Robert Peston quotes in that article though, he is a News Corporation man that just happens to be working for the BBC.
Brooks' arrest is fortuitous in that it will likely prevent her from giving evidence to a the select committee on Tuesday but it is even more fortuitous for Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson who appears to be as corrupt as all hell. The close connection between senior Metropolitan Police officers at the heart of the phone scandal and News Corporation was mentioned by me yesterday but this morning brought revelations of numerous official and private meetings between the police and a senior News Corporation employee. This was followed just hours later by a further revelation that Commissioner Stephenson took a £12 000 spa holiday for free.
In such a situation an embattled Police Commissioner might just push for a headline grabbing arrest that need not result in a solid conviction, just give him some breathing room. Heck if he is really in News Corporation's pocket a "botched" arrest now could save her from punishment in the future.
Still if Brooks does end up facing the Select Committee on Tuesday things might not be so bad as has been made out. The Independent exclusively revealed that the Chairman of the committee has very close links with News Corporation too! While he may be trustworthy on this matter one can't help but ask questions about things such as this (quoted from this article I'll get on to in a moment)
Committee members preparing to grill the trio are to be given legal advice on the morning of the hearing on how far they can push the News Corp boss and his son for answers. The committee's chairman, the Tory MP John Whittingdale, has asked for details of their lines of questioning to avoid duplication.
While certainly duplicated lines of questioning would be a bad thing, one has to hopes his links to News Corp don't mean that Murdoch father and son (and maybe Mrs Brooks too) aren't forewarned.
Still everything does not seem to be going the Murdoch's way of late. It would seem, at least at this point, News Corporation isn't really at that much risk, its' most profitable arms and ventures are yet to be touched by the scandal, but Murdoch control of the company does seem to be looking weaker. There is no place for sentimentality in business so the fact he built the empire from scratch will count for little. Still there is no guarantee without him at the helm sailing will be as smooth and even with Rupert gone it is likely in the short term at least politicians in the US and definitely the UK wont want to appear to close to the Corp. Furthermore every indication is Rupert wont fall easy if they try to usurp him and that could cause a great deal of damage before he is gone.
Indeed Ed Miliband, leader of the Labour party is now in a do or die struggle against News Corporation and is smart enough to realise it. Breaking up News International is not a new policy, Neil Kinnock tried it in 1992 , which lead to The Sun fighting an all out war against him. With the Sun claiming "It was The Sun wot won it!" for the uninspiring John Major in the general election that year. This time around popular opinion is definitely on Miliband's side. His victory in this is far from assured but if he loses his political career is over and Rupert Murdoch hardly needs an enemy that motivated with the public backing at this point in time.
If you are interested in how much Miliband has benefited from his strong opposition to Murdoch this interview is worth a read. While they're definitely slanted to favour Miliband there are some interesting examples of just how much influence News Corporation papers had in the UK (and likely still do elsewhere).
I hope I haven't missed anything. This looks like it is going to be another interesting week for News Corporation and the Murdochs.
Obama, the Tea Party President.
Reading a couple of articles today I am becoming increasingly pessimistic about that a compromise on raising the debt ceiling can be reached (I am, of course, wholly pessimistic about what the content of any possible compromise would be).
This first article by a hedge fund manager who seems to at least pay lip service to being liberal gives this entry its title, examining how Obama increasingly seems to agree with the Tea Party on savage cuts. Now this would seem to suggest a compromise is more likely, not less, but as I have argued with Tony, who is clearly vindicated by this piece, it isn't Obama so much as Democratic legislators that are an obstacle to total GOP victory on this issue.
Obama's seeming desire to gut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security is so unappealing to the voters that the selfish pragmatism of many Democrats will prevent them from agreeing to a capitulation. Defending these three broadly popular programs is a big vote winner, attacking them is a vote loser as Paul Ryan learnt a couple of months ago.
Further at this piece by Will Hutton asserts, basic human interaction requires some give and take. For reasons of pride and for the ability to tell angry constituents they at least put up a fight Democratic legislators may not be willing to throw cherished welfare programs under the bus. Even if Obama explains in a soaring and wondrous speech why the poor should go die in a fire and why people under the age of 55 expecting to retire at some point are unreasonable.
But while it will be the political reality of legislative politics that prevents absolute capitulation by the Democrats it is Obama who is preventing any other outcome. If he had fought for anything near a middle ground rather than agreeing to make major concessions on social programs on day one then there would be some impetus for compromise, something for Democratic legislators to hang their hats on and, much more importantly, an opportunity for more moderate House republicans to push for compromise too. Sure the Tea Partiers are happy to drive straight off the cliff but older GOP hands will probably not want to see the end of the American empire, even if only social programs and civilian jobs are lost following a default with more expensive credit the American war machine is that much harder to maintain.
There are other signs a default is becoming a more likely scenario. A look at the business press, Fox News and others shows you the increasing suggestion that a default wouldn't be so bad. Some people have taken away from this the belief that big business and the super rich want a default. This is highly unlikely, I mean they'd be better off than the rest of us sure but the potential upheaval is unlikely to be appealing to them.
What instead this "default aint so bad" rhetoric is for is a form of spinning a very bad scenario into being Obama's problem. You plant the seed that a default really need not be that bad if you're smart, you're competent and then when the inevitable major problems occur you scream as loud as you can it is Obama and the left's fault for not being competent. Thus you attempt to shift the blame from the debt ceiling debate, where GOP intransigence might get blamed to it being wholly an issue of presidential control. Default as a controllable thing gone bad lays the blame solely at Obama's door.
Still given I don't think anyone beyond the Tea Party really wants default the fact the business press have shifted from trying to prevent a very bad thing to damage control on that very bad thing is not a good sign. Of course maybe the rich will profit from a default in a way I don't understand or perhaps the business press are just idiots, both are entirely plausible.
I still think there is a very good chance we'll get some kind of settlement on the debt ceiling before August 2nd but I will reiterate that the mainstream view that there is nothing to worry about is incorrect. We'll have to see I suppose.
This first article by a hedge fund manager who seems to at least pay lip service to being liberal gives this entry its title, examining how Obama increasingly seems to agree with the Tea Party on savage cuts. Now this would seem to suggest a compromise is more likely, not less, but as I have argued with Tony, who is clearly vindicated by this piece, it isn't Obama so much as Democratic legislators that are an obstacle to total GOP victory on this issue.
Obama's seeming desire to gut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security is so unappealing to the voters that the selfish pragmatism of many Democrats will prevent them from agreeing to a capitulation. Defending these three broadly popular programs is a big vote winner, attacking them is a vote loser as Paul Ryan learnt a couple of months ago.
Further at this piece by Will Hutton asserts, basic human interaction requires some give and take. For reasons of pride and for the ability to tell angry constituents they at least put up a fight Democratic legislators may not be willing to throw cherished welfare programs under the bus. Even if Obama explains in a soaring and wondrous speech why the poor should go die in a fire and why people under the age of 55 expecting to retire at some point are unreasonable.
But while it will be the political reality of legislative politics that prevents absolute capitulation by the Democrats it is Obama who is preventing any other outcome. If he had fought for anything near a middle ground rather than agreeing to make major concessions on social programs on day one then there would be some impetus for compromise, something for Democratic legislators to hang their hats on and, much more importantly, an opportunity for more moderate House republicans to push for compromise too. Sure the Tea Partiers are happy to drive straight off the cliff but older GOP hands will probably not want to see the end of the American empire, even if only social programs and civilian jobs are lost following a default with more expensive credit the American war machine is that much harder to maintain.
There are other signs a default is becoming a more likely scenario. A look at the business press, Fox News and others shows you the increasing suggestion that a default wouldn't be so bad. Some people have taken away from this the belief that big business and the super rich want a default. This is highly unlikely, I mean they'd be better off than the rest of us sure but the potential upheaval is unlikely to be appealing to them.
What instead this "default aint so bad" rhetoric is for is a form of spinning a very bad scenario into being Obama's problem. You plant the seed that a default really need not be that bad if you're smart, you're competent and then when the inevitable major problems occur you scream as loud as you can it is Obama and the left's fault for not being competent. Thus you attempt to shift the blame from the debt ceiling debate, where GOP intransigence might get blamed to it being wholly an issue of presidential control. Default as a controllable thing gone bad lays the blame solely at Obama's door.
Still given I don't think anyone beyond the Tea Party really wants default the fact the business press have shifted from trying to prevent a very bad thing to damage control on that very bad thing is not a good sign. Of course maybe the rich will profit from a default in a way I don't understand or perhaps the business press are just idiots, both are entirely plausible.
I still think there is a very good chance we'll get some kind of settlement on the debt ceiling before August 2nd but I will reiterate that the mainstream view that there is nothing to worry about is incorrect. We'll have to see I suppose.
Saturday 16 July 2011
US coverage of Murdochgate so far.
Someone in a comment thread on the Guardian website suggested the scandal be called Murdochgate and I think it fits rather well.
Rumour has it the NYT has a scoop on the phone hacking of 9/11 victims and their families that will break tomorrow. In which case it seems likely the story is about to become at least somewhat more prominent in the US. So pointing out this comparison Media Matters made of CNN, Fox and MSNBC's coverage of the issue seems rather timely.
Oh and courtesy of Jonny here is a sample of Fox News' coverage of the scandal:
Rumour has it the NYT has a scoop on the phone hacking of 9/11 victims and their families that will break tomorrow. In which case it seems likely the story is about to become at least somewhat more prominent in the US. So pointing out this comparison Media Matters made of CNN, Fox and MSNBC's coverage of the issue seems rather timely.
Oh and courtesy of Jonny here is a sample of Fox News' coverage of the scandal:
Further developments in the News Corp. crisis.
The Guardian has revealed that in late 2009 and then in late 2010 the Metropolitan Police tried to pressure them away from investigating phone hacking. It is very much worth reiterating that during that specific period Neil Wallis, the now arrested former executive editor of the News of the World was working as an "advisor" to the Metropolitan Police.
The second piece I want to draw your attention to isn't so much a development as a summary of the first ten days. Johnathan Freedland looks at what has happened so far and what the aftermath may be. It raises the very real possibility that as with the credit crunch and the MPs expenses scandals the aftermath of this wont be any real change. Nonetheless though it is a worthwhile summary of the spirit if not the details of what has happened so far. It also points out a very important point it has been easy to miss:
A great point that raises a scary question, if you don't know who is oppressing you how can you revolt against them?
The second piece I want to draw your attention to isn't so much a development as a summary of the first ten days. Johnathan Freedland looks at what has happened so far and what the aftermath may be. It raises the very real possibility that as with the credit crunch and the MPs expenses scandals the aftermath of this wont be any real change. Nonetheless though it is a worthwhile summary of the spirit if not the details of what has happened so far. It also points out a very important point it has been easy to miss:
One aspect of this British revolution sets it apart. Normally, people know how they are governed long before any change in the system happens. It did not take the Arab spring to teach the people of the Middle East how they were ruled. But in Britain there has been a degree of shock as the curtain was suddenly pulled back, revealing exactly how Murdoch has operated these last 30-plus years.
A great point that raises a scary question, if you don't know who is oppressing you how can you revolt against them?
Friday 15 July 2011
Europe's sweaty palms moment
I would argue that while the EU's problems are potentially much worse than those of Americas, there is greater scope for action while the intransigence of the Tea Party refusing to raise the debt ceiling could end the dollar's status as the global reserve currency and that really could be catastrophic for America. Hence sweaty palms rather than pooey pants
Sauce for goose is sauce for gander so here is an excellent article regarding Europe's debt problems. While the short term solution to the EU's problems aren't quite so simple as just raising an arbitrary cap on borrowing it would seem the self interest of German elites and to an extent German voters could badly harm the EU just as Tea Party self interest could badly harm the US.
The article also highlights the growing sense of lacking economic agency most citizens of Europe have. The flip side of the coin is the assertion of the elites and their lickspittles that essentially democracy works and thus it is everyone's fault and everyone has to face the consequences of that. The contrast of the self congratulation elites chorused when things were going well to this egalitarian approach to blame is probably the most crass case of "socialise the risk, privatise the reward" I have yet to see. Still the way things are going I doubt this is the most egregious case we're going to see.
One complaint I have about the article (and something I hope Tony will comment on) is that it fails to mention the nature of the Euro as a currency peg rather than an actual currency. There is no central control mechanism for borrowing (or at least there wasn't, I don't think this has changed but it might've) so countries like Greece could use the value of the Euro as imbued by big economies like France and Germany to borrow on much more favourable terms than their own economies would allow. That is to say Greece could borrow with Euros but was only able to pay back in (metaphorical) Drachma.
I really hope there is a reason other than cynical self interests that such a glaring oversight was made in the creation of the single currency.
Tony's Response
"For the most part you're correct, but it's important to note that while there is a single currency, the mechanism by which sovereign debt is accrued varies by state and unlike the US there isn't a single entity who can reign it in.
The question the Euro sought to answer was "can a unified currency work with a bunch of different entities essentially managing the back end?" As France and Germany will likely find out, they're going to be footing the bill for every country that doesn't have enough cash to meet its obligations. Either they do it or the currency itself gets weakened in ways that no one can really predict. Right now things aren't so bad, but if Italy goes or Spain, well, that's going to be the test because at a certain point the Germans aren't going to be able to keep up with large but faltering economies.
Within a country, sovereign wealth generally has to support the weaker, depressed parts of the country. That's just the way it has to be. In the Eurozone it's difficult to see how that's going to fly when the wealthier countries aren't responsible for and don't answer to the weaker countries but still have to act in a way that primarily funnels money to the countries that need it in order to support the entire system.
This is uncharted territory, really. There isn't any historical data on how this will play out to my knowledge, but my guess is that France and Germany won't be able to shoulder the burden for long and something will have to give either politically or economically. It's worth watching.
(FWIW Europe isn't worse off than the US economically, but the political realities involved will likely create a crisis in Europe before the US. The US has the benefit of simply being able to falter on it's own rather than having disparate parties who could precipitate collapse by actions that they might not be able to avoid. Europe's situation is definitely better overall when looking at the numbers and they're willing to address the actual balance sheet problems whereas the US simply never will, but the uncertainty over how Europe will play out makes it riskier now than it is in the US.)"
Sauce for goose is sauce for gander so here is an excellent article regarding Europe's debt problems. While the short term solution to the EU's problems aren't quite so simple as just raising an arbitrary cap on borrowing it would seem the self interest of German elites and to an extent German voters could badly harm the EU just as Tea Party self interest could badly harm the US.
The article also highlights the growing sense of lacking economic agency most citizens of Europe have. The flip side of the coin is the assertion of the elites and their lickspittles that essentially democracy works and thus it is everyone's fault and everyone has to face the consequences of that. The contrast of the self congratulation elites chorused when things were going well to this egalitarian approach to blame is probably the most crass case of "socialise the risk, privatise the reward" I have yet to see. Still the way things are going I doubt this is the most egregious case we're going to see.
One complaint I have about the article (and something I hope Tony will comment on) is that it fails to mention the nature of the Euro as a currency peg rather than an actual currency. There is no central control mechanism for borrowing (or at least there wasn't, I don't think this has changed but it might've) so countries like Greece could use the value of the Euro as imbued by big economies like France and Germany to borrow on much more favourable terms than their own economies would allow. That is to say Greece could borrow with Euros but was only able to pay back in (metaphorical) Drachma.
I really hope there is a reason other than cynical self interests that such a glaring oversight was made in the creation of the single currency.
Tony's Response
"For the most part you're correct, but it's important to note that while there is a single currency, the mechanism by which sovereign debt is accrued varies by state and unlike the US there isn't a single entity who can reign it in.
The question the Euro sought to answer was "can a unified currency work with a bunch of different entities essentially managing the back end?" As France and Germany will likely find out, they're going to be footing the bill for every country that doesn't have enough cash to meet its obligations. Either they do it or the currency itself gets weakened in ways that no one can really predict. Right now things aren't so bad, but if Italy goes or Spain, well, that's going to be the test because at a certain point the Germans aren't going to be able to keep up with large but faltering economies.
Within a country, sovereign wealth generally has to support the weaker, depressed parts of the country. That's just the way it has to be. In the Eurozone it's difficult to see how that's going to fly when the wealthier countries aren't responsible for and don't answer to the weaker countries but still have to act in a way that primarily funnels money to the countries that need it in order to support the entire system.
This is uncharted territory, really. There isn't any historical data on how this will play out to my knowledge, but my guess is that France and Germany won't be able to shoulder the burden for long and something will have to give either politically or economically. It's worth watching.
(FWIW Europe isn't worse off than the US economically, but the political realities involved will likely create a crisis in Europe before the US. The US has the benefit of simply being able to falter on it's own rather than having disparate parties who could precipitate collapse by actions that they might not be able to avoid. Europe's situation is definitely better overall when looking at the numbers and they're willing to address the actual balance sheet problems whereas the US simply never will, but the uncertainty over how Europe will play out makes it riskier now than it is in the US.)"
Shame on Obama.
Why on earth did Pex have to be so goddamnn right?
Less Americans have access to basic necessities than when Obama was elected.
Goddamn scum.
Less Americans have access to basic necessities than when Obama was elected.
Goddamn scum.
America's Pooey pants moment.
One of my favourite teachers introduced me to the concept of a pooey pants moment. She described how her son in an A-level exam had described Lenin's position after the October revolution as such. He got an A in that exam and not unreasonably. While the term is crude it does rather accurately reflect the nature of having a military of around 500 dedicated amateurs (the red guards) against standing remnants of the Tsarist military numbering about 20,000 men who have much more material and expertise. On top of that even the majority of the left intelligentsia / political class that had emerged following the February revolution opposed the Bolshevik seizure of power. The Bolsheviks eventually won out, mostly because of how badass a dude Trotsky was, although there were of course other factors. Nonetheless early on in the civil war if I were in Lenin's position my pants would likely have been rather pooey.
But why should America's pants collectively be pooey? The absurd argument over the raising of the debt ceiling of course!. As you are likely aware this is not a thing most other countries have, it should be linked to the budget with the amount of debt the nation takes out linked to the budget that was passed. But America is exceptional
But others have commented on this and far better explanations exist elsewhere. This shouldn't be a pooey pants moment but it is because of the nature of Republican Party at this moment in time. 538 lays out the nature of this very well.
Most commentators and economists and so on aren't very worried about a US default, technical or otherwise because logically it is very much in the GOP's interest to raise the debt ceiling, sure they'll push for cuts that'll hurt the poor, that's what they do, but at the end of the day they'll compromise and the ceiling will be raised. The problem is the Tea party is so far to the right and so ideologically driven it doesn't appear to be looking to its' own (or big business's) self interest anymore. Indeed Nate Silver demonstrates that the ideological gap between the House GOP and GOP voters is bigger than the gap between GOP and Democratic voters.
So why are they so far out in to right field? Do they have some strategy to bring down Obama that the mainstream media hasn't picked up on? It could possibly be, but as Silver points out it is very difficult to predict who could win out of this. Given how Gingrich's shutdown in 1995-6 didn't play out well for the GOP, either their strategists have some amazing insights everyone is lacking this time around or they're not behaving in a sound manner.
So have the lunatics taken over the asylum? Is it time to poo our pants and eat the barrel of a gun? Well maybe but the GOP's behaviour isn't quite as mad as it may seem or at least it isn't aimless madness. The article about the ideological gap between the House GOP and GOP voters is mildly misleading because the gap between likely GOP voters and the House is much smaller. As this third article explains the GOP are not in a position to compromise. Jonny linked it me last week and my only response was welp.
Essentially the GOP is seemingly on the ropes it has haemorrhaged the middle ground to the Democrats (whatever the hell the middle ground in the US even is these days) and the only thing that allowed them to win so comprehensively in the 2010 midterms was a motivated minority of extreme right wingers and the apathy of the larger more moderate groups of voters. They are just trapped in a morton's fork (Catch 22) situation, they can't alienate the Tea Party because if they do they seemingly face extinction but appeasing the Tea Party drives them further from the mainstream and leads them to take absurdly hard lines on issues they have no public support on.
Will the debt ceiling be raised in some form before August 2nd? Probably. The calm assurance it will happen is definitely misplaced however.
But why should America's pants collectively be pooey? The absurd argument over the raising of the debt ceiling of course!. As you are likely aware this is not a thing most other countries have, it should be linked to the budget with the amount of debt the nation takes out linked to the budget that was passed. But America is exceptional
But others have commented on this and far better explanations exist elsewhere. This shouldn't be a pooey pants moment but it is because of the nature of Republican Party at this moment in time. 538 lays out the nature of this very well.
Most commentators and economists and so on aren't very worried about a US default, technical or otherwise because logically it is very much in the GOP's interest to raise the debt ceiling, sure they'll push for cuts that'll hurt the poor, that's what they do, but at the end of the day they'll compromise and the ceiling will be raised. The problem is the Tea party is so far to the right and so ideologically driven it doesn't appear to be looking to its' own (or big business's) self interest anymore. Indeed Nate Silver demonstrates that the ideological gap between the House GOP and GOP voters is bigger than the gap between GOP and Democratic voters.
So why are they so far out in to right field? Do they have some strategy to bring down Obama that the mainstream media hasn't picked up on? It could possibly be, but as Silver points out it is very difficult to predict who could win out of this. Given how Gingrich's shutdown in 1995-6 didn't play out well for the GOP, either their strategists have some amazing insights everyone is lacking this time around or they're not behaving in a sound manner.
So have the lunatics taken over the asylum? Is it time to poo our pants and eat the barrel of a gun? Well maybe but the GOP's behaviour isn't quite as mad as it may seem or at least it isn't aimless madness. The article about the ideological gap between the House GOP and GOP voters is mildly misleading because the gap between likely GOP voters and the House is much smaller. As this third article explains the GOP are not in a position to compromise. Jonny linked it me last week and my only response was welp.
Essentially the GOP is seemingly on the ropes it has haemorrhaged the middle ground to the Democrats (whatever the hell the middle ground in the US even is these days) and the only thing that allowed them to win so comprehensively in the 2010 midterms was a motivated minority of extreme right wingers and the apathy of the larger more moderate groups of voters. They are just trapped in a morton's fork (Catch 22) situation, they can't alienate the Tea Party because if they do they seemingly face extinction but appeasing the Tea Party drives them further from the mainstream and leads them to take absurdly hard lines on issues they have no public support on.
Will the debt ceiling be raised in some form before August 2nd? Probably. The calm assurance it will happen is definitely misplaced however.
Thursday 14 July 2011
News Corp corruption news!
(almost a palindrome)
A couple of stories worth pointing out:
The former executive editor of the News of the World was arrested today. Oh and he happened to be a consultant hired by the Metropolitan police to advise the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner John Yates, the officer in charge of investigating phone hacking. Oh and he just happened to be advising them on "stuff" over the period back in 2009 when the Met decided there was no need to investigate phone hacking further.
All perfectly innocent I'm sure.
Secondly Rupert Murdoch gave the American Chamber of Commerce $1 million to lobby to weaken the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the very act he may now be charged under over events in the UK. Theres also a picture of Elliot Spitzer because it is all but inevitable he is going to try to link his own downfall with other invasions of privacy of the rich and powerful probably as a springboard back into politics. After his shameful defence of the IDF's illegal boarding of a ship in international waters and the murder of nine passengers I can't say I view that as a good thing.
Oh just noticed this on the live stream from the Guardian (where else?) and it is probably worth pasting:
PA has published a list of the menbers of the Commons culture media and sport committee who will grill Rupert and James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks at next Tuesday's hearing:
• Chairman John Whittingdale is a senior backbench Conservative. He quit his job in the City to work as an adviser to Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s.
• Tom Watson, Labour, took News International's Sun newspaper to court and won after it ran stories claiming he had been involved in a campaign to smear the Tories.
• Louise Mensch, Conservative, a "chick-lit" novelist, claims she has been "threatened" before by a national newspaper journalist.
• Philip Davies, Conservative, is a rebellious backbencher who is outspoken on crime and immigration.
• Therese Coffey, Conservative, was finance director for Mars Drinks UK before being elected last year.
• Damian Collins, Conservative, worked at Saatchi advertising before setting up his own marketing firm.
• Paul Farrelly, Labour, admitted last year he "wrestled" a man to the floor in a Commons bar "entirely in self-defence".
• Alan Keen, Labour Co-operative, is chairman of the All Party parliamentary football group and once worked as a tactical scout for Middlesbrough football club.
• Adrian Sanders, Liberal Democrat, is a keen campaigner on animal welfare issues.
• Jim Sheridan, Labour, a former trade union convener and chairman of the All Party parliamentary Scottish football group.
A couple of stories worth pointing out:
The former executive editor of the News of the World was arrested today. Oh and he happened to be a consultant hired by the Metropolitan police to advise the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner John Yates, the officer in charge of investigating phone hacking. Oh and he just happened to be advising them on "stuff" over the period back in 2009 when the Met decided there was no need to investigate phone hacking further.
All perfectly innocent I'm sure.
Secondly Rupert Murdoch gave the American Chamber of Commerce $1 million to lobby to weaken the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the very act he may now be charged under over events in the UK. Theres also a picture of Elliot Spitzer because it is all but inevitable he is going to try to link his own downfall with other invasions of privacy of the rich and powerful probably as a springboard back into politics. After his shameful defence of the IDF's illegal boarding of a ship in international waters and the murder of nine passengers I can't say I view that as a good thing.
Oh just noticed this on the live stream from the Guardian (where else?) and it is probably worth pasting:
PA has published a list of the menbers of the Commons culture media and sport committee who will grill Rupert and James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks at next Tuesday's hearing:
• Chairman John Whittingdale is a senior backbench Conservative. He quit his job in the City to work as an adviser to Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s.
• Tom Watson, Labour, took News International's Sun newspaper to court and won after it ran stories claiming he had been involved in a campaign to smear the Tories.
• Louise Mensch, Conservative, a "chick-lit" novelist, claims she has been "threatened" before by a national newspaper journalist.
• Philip Davies, Conservative, is a rebellious backbencher who is outspoken on crime and immigration.
• Therese Coffey, Conservative, was finance director for Mars Drinks UK before being elected last year.
• Damian Collins, Conservative, worked at Saatchi advertising before setting up his own marketing firm.
• Paul Farrelly, Labour, admitted last year he "wrestled" a man to the floor in a Commons bar "entirely in self-defence".
• Alan Keen, Labour Co-operative, is chairman of the All Party parliamentary football group and once worked as a tactical scout for Middlesbrough football club.
• Adrian Sanders, Liberal Democrat, is a keen campaigner on animal welfare issues.
• Jim Sheridan, Labour, a former trade union convener and chairman of the All Party parliamentary Scottish football group.
A couple of quick stories.
Firstly we need to note that it is a bad week for everyone who breach people's privacy for a living and not just News Corporation employees. MI5, MI6 and GCHQ (the British version of the NSA) are all facing funding cuts and shock horror the Intelligence and Security Committee, a parliamentary committee, wants some oversight over the operational activities of all three services. The article is perhaps most noteworthy however for helping me realise the gulf between myself and the establishment
I didn't think anyone talked like that anymore. Perhaps we can apply to the IMF for a bridge loan so as to damn the tide of Whizz loss?
and Secondly a news bulletin this morning relating to violence at a memorial service for Ahmad Wali Karzai, Afghan president Hamid Karzai's half brother was the straw that broke the camel's back. The article states:
Now while it is fair to say that "controversial" has a fairly wide scope in a country as unstable as Afghanistan but it does imply his views prompted disagreement rather than his actions. His actions really should provoke more than controversy given he was a Drug Lord and CIA Asset. But the latter probably explains why anywhere above the fold or the first few paragraphs his nature will and can only be referred to as "controversial".
GCHQ director Iain Lobban also says he is having trouble retaining sufficient numbers of suitably-qualified internet specialists.
"I need some real internet whizzes in order to do cyber," he told the committee.
"They will be working for Microsoft or Google or Amazon or whoever. And I can't compete with their salaries. I can offer them a fantastic mission, but I can't compete with their salaries.
"But I probably have to do better than I am doing at the moment, or else my internet whizzes are not going to stay… and we do have a steady drip, I am afraid .
"Month‑on‑month, we are losing whizzes who'll basically say 'I'm sorry, I am going to take three times the salary and the car and whatever else'."
I didn't think anyone talked like that anymore. Perhaps we can apply to the IMF for a bridge loan so as to damn the tide of Whizz loss?
and Secondly a news bulletin this morning relating to violence at a memorial service for Ahmad Wali Karzai, Afghan president Hamid Karzai's half brother was the straw that broke the camel's back. The article states:
Ahmad Wali Karzai, a controversial but key figure in Nato's battle against the Taliban, was killed by his bodyguard.
Now while it is fair to say that "controversial" has a fairly wide scope in a country as unstable as Afghanistan but it does imply his views prompted disagreement rather than his actions. His actions really should provoke more than controversy given he was a Drug Lord and CIA Asset. But the latter probably explains why anywhere above the fold or the first few paragraphs his nature will and can only be referred to as "controversial".
Wednesday 13 July 2011
The Guardian's initial summary of Lord Justice Leveson.
edit: Haha, forgot to mention Lord Justice Leveson has been appointed to head the inquiry into the phone hacking scandal and wider media ethics.
This is just a copy paste from the Guardian liveblog of events. However a lot of this stuff is easy to miss if you're not following it neurotically like I am. Relevant bit I copy pasted from is here
Lord Justice Leveson, who has been put in charge of the hastily-assembled inquiry into phone hacking, is a trusted senior judge who is currently chairman of the Sentencing Council, which draws up guidelines for the courts.
He was lead prosecutor in the case of Rose West, Britain's most prolific female serial killer ...
Leveson was educated at Oxford University and became a barrister in 1970, working out of chambers in Liverpool. He initially practised in northern England across a range of crime, personal injury and commercial work.
He was appointed Queen's Counsel in 1986 and began his climb up the judicial ladder, sitting as a recorder and then a deputy high court judge. As Sir Brian Leveson, he joined the appeal court in 2006.
He has already demonstrated his willingness to engage with broader public debates beyond the confines of the courts. Earlier this year he defended a district judge who had been severely criticised – by the prime minister among others – for imposing only a £50 fine on a man who burnt poppies during an Armistice Day event.
In an interview on BBC radio, Leveson explained: "[The judge] had to balance the insult caused to those who were respecting the two minutes' silence against the right which we all have to express ourselves freely … It depended on the evidence and what he heard."
On his appointment to the Sentencing Council in March 2010, Leveson said: "I am keen to look at ways in which the council can help to inform the public about the practice of sentencing in our courts. I am aware from personal experience that giving people the opportunity to explore and understand the way in which judges approach sentencing can significantly increase their confidence in the criminal justice system."
I don't know nearly enough about the English Judiciary to make a comment on the appointment but given a lot of the people who'll read this are American I will make a few basic points.
1) Because this was decided on last week to be a Judicial inquiry it was always going to be headed by a senior judge. All senior judges are Lords, this is a throwback to Britain's medieval heritage and all that, especially because the House of Lords (the upper chamber of our legislature) is the highest court in the land. So while it may seem elitist it is just a seniority thing. (well seniority in an elitist institution but still)
2)Activist judges don't really exist exist in the UK for various reasons so the guy's willingness to stand up and publicly support a fellow judge is noteworthy.
3)Judges are never elected in the UK (in fact I'm fairly fuzzy on how exactly they are selected) so he isn't likely to be overtly political. However since the British establishment is deeply intertwined with this scandal his impartiality is impossible to assert. That would however be true of all potential appointments.
This is just a copy paste from the Guardian liveblog of events. However a lot of this stuff is easy to miss if you're not following it neurotically like I am. Relevant bit I copy pasted from is here
Lord Justice Leveson, who has been put in charge of the hastily-assembled inquiry into phone hacking, is a trusted senior judge who is currently chairman of the Sentencing Council, which draws up guidelines for the courts.
He was lead prosecutor in the case of Rose West, Britain's most prolific female serial killer ...
Leveson was educated at Oxford University and became a barrister in 1970, working out of chambers in Liverpool. He initially practised in northern England across a range of crime, personal injury and commercial work.
He was appointed Queen's Counsel in 1986 and began his climb up the judicial ladder, sitting as a recorder and then a deputy high court judge. As Sir Brian Leveson, he joined the appeal court in 2006.
He has already demonstrated his willingness to engage with broader public debates beyond the confines of the courts. Earlier this year he defended a district judge who had been severely criticised – by the prime minister among others – for imposing only a £50 fine on a man who burnt poppies during an Armistice Day event.
In an interview on BBC radio, Leveson explained: "[The judge] had to balance the insult caused to those who were respecting the two minutes' silence against the right which we all have to express ourselves freely … It depended on the evidence and what he heard."
On his appointment to the Sentencing Council in March 2010, Leveson said: "I am keen to look at ways in which the council can help to inform the public about the practice of sentencing in our courts. I am aware from personal experience that giving people the opportunity to explore and understand the way in which judges approach sentencing can significantly increase their confidence in the criminal justice system."
I don't know nearly enough about the English Judiciary to make a comment on the appointment but given a lot of the people who'll read this are American I will make a few basic points.
1) Because this was decided on last week to be a Judicial inquiry it was always going to be headed by a senior judge. All senior judges are Lords, this is a throwback to Britain's medieval heritage and all that, especially because the House of Lords (the upper chamber of our legislature) is the highest court in the land. So while it may seem elitist it is just a seniority thing. (well seniority in an elitist institution but still)
2)Activist judges don't really exist exist in the UK for various reasons so the guy's willingness to stand up and publicly support a fellow judge is noteworthy.
3)Judges are never elected in the UK (in fact I'm fairly fuzzy on how exactly they are selected) so he isn't likely to be overtly political. However since the British establishment is deeply intertwined with this scandal his impartiality is impossible to assert. That would however be true of all potential appointments.
The Guardian reviews the Metropolitan Police's position.
I was somewhat unsure what was happening regarding the Home Affairs Committee interviewing four senior police officers yesterday. The Guardian has clarified things somewhat.
For reference those police officers were: Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner John Yates, Peter Clarke; a retired Deputy Assistant Commissioner with the Metropolitan Police, Andy Hayman; a retired Assistant Commissioner with the Metropolitan Police and Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers, currently heading Operation Weeting, the ongoing investigation into phone hacking by the News of the World.
Nick Davies who is one of the main Guardian journalists behind their investigation into phone hacking has made a video summing up what happened.
Meanwhile Simon Hoggart further puts the boot in for Andy Hayman.
However it is worth bearing in mind that the man heading up the Home Affairs Committee, Keith Vaz has a fair amount of association with corruption himself.
Sir Hugh Order of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), which in spite of its' name is a wholly private company with no attachment to the state, has also criticised Mr Hayman. One has to assume Sir Hugh and ACPO are bristling at someone else horning in on their undermining people's privacy. and example two
But hey in the midst of all this at least our noble law enforcers are marching against deep cuts to public services. So at least in this we can stand in solidarity with these peo-
Oh. So cuts to public services in general are fine, just not to their wages. What a fine bunch the British police are.
For reference those police officers were: Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner John Yates, Peter Clarke; a retired Deputy Assistant Commissioner with the Metropolitan Police, Andy Hayman; a retired Assistant Commissioner with the Metropolitan Police and Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers, currently heading Operation Weeting, the ongoing investigation into phone hacking by the News of the World.
Nick Davies who is one of the main Guardian journalists behind their investigation into phone hacking has made a video summing up what happened.
Meanwhile Simon Hoggart further puts the boot in for Andy Hayman.
However it is worth bearing in mind that the man heading up the Home Affairs Committee, Keith Vaz has a fair amount of association with corruption himself.
Sir Hugh Order of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), which in spite of its' name is a wholly private company with no attachment to the state, has also criticised Mr Hayman. One has to assume Sir Hugh and ACPO are bristling at someone else horning in on their undermining people's privacy. and example two
But hey in the midst of all this at least our noble law enforcers are marching against deep cuts to public services. So at least in this we can stand in solidarity with these peo-
We accept that cuts have to be made but we ask that the government acknowledges our unique status.
Oh. So cuts to public services in general are fine, just not to their wages. What a fine bunch the British police are.
Saturday 18 June 2011
Monday 23 May 2011
Automation: A massive problem mostly ignored.
Yesterday I posted about the singularity and how it seems to be a front for exceptionally unpleasant people. In the process of looking into that Martin Ford and his book "Lights in the Tunnel" was mentioned a lot on Wikipedia (I think he was stealth advertising) and it raises a problem that I'd been kind of hazily aware of, not least because of a Paul Krugman article I read last week.
The essential idea Ford (and others) puts forward is that with improvements in technology and increasing automation an increasingly large sector of the economy will not require human workers at all. While this has already happened to an extent automation up to this point has mostly complemented human workers, that is to say labour saving devices meant fewer employees doing more work and other jobs created by the technology taking up the slack. Well for the past couple of decades that slack has been taken up by the service sector. The bad news is automation of the service sector seems to be imminent, with self service checkouts and Online shopping we are already seeing the beginnings of this. In a piece written a few years ago (so it sadly doesn't cover the most recent financial crisis) Marshall Brain wrote a piece detailing how rapid and large scale automation of the service sector is likely to be.(Marshall Brain is the founder of HowStuffWorks.com with a surname like that I suppose it was inevitable)
Something he highlights, which in retrospective seems painfully obvious, is the existence of Jobless Recoveries. Traditional economists have explained away improved growth alongside continuing unemployment because jobs are apparently a "lagging indicator" but it would seem increased automation would explain this equally well if not better. Ford notes that offshoring is linked to automation, deskilled jobs and computers / high bandwidth long distance communication allow jobs to be much more easily exported to places where labour is cheapest. However with automation seemingly poised to replace these jobs altogether it seems China and India's current economic booms may be shortlived.
The general way of things up to now, or at least up to recently, has been that as automation has eliminated some jobs the slack has been taken up elsewhere but as Brain points out (scroll down to "Creating new jobs") there seems to be little place for new jobs to be found, Ford argues an exception is Green Jobs and building a renewable energy infrastructure but even that is short term, once its built the new of jobs required to maintain it will not take up anywhere near all the slack. Worse still even in the near term it wont just be low skilled jobs that will be automated, as mentioned in Krugman's article above and by Ford in an excerpt from his book.
This leads to two possible scenarios, the more optimistic one being that the massive efficiency increases of robotic labour are shared with the general population and the large numbers of people placed into long term, or likely lifelong unemployment are given a decent standard of living funded by the massive surplus robots can create. This is potentially possible and I'm inclined to believe that to some extent the Middle Eastern and now Spanish uprisings are the first wave of backlash against economic automation. The truly massive levels of youth unemployment, Spain has a Youth unemployment rate of 45% are leading to the young taking to the streets and demanding change. They may not get it but it is a potentially hopeful sign.
The less optimistic scenario is much less optimistic. The evidence of US wages being stagnant since the 70s would suggest the benefits of automation and increased efficiency have flowed solely to a very small part of the population who are at the very top of the pile. Without intervention automation, with massively reduced labour costs and no wages going to an increasing slice of the population, the rich will get even richer even faster. We have seen evidence for this in the aftermath of the 2008 crash with Billionaires getting much richer even as the rest of society faces financial crisis and austerity measures. Indeed austerity measures are a good example of this trend, with the poorer in society becoming worse off even as the amount of wealth in society increases. Then you have movements like the Tea Party wanting to cut Medicare and privatise social security, this does not bode well for a future American society looking after the permanently unemployed.
Indeed, as an increasingly large amount of the population becomes essentially surplus social unrest could well increase. This however may not happen due to increasingly powerful surveillance systems in the West being used to prevent organisation and action. While western troops / police might not fire on civilians (the 2008 RNC Protests suggest that they might well do so) Blackwater / Xe mercenaries and automated drones definitely would. The counter to this is a probably vain hope the human elements of the military (if they existed) would revolt if this happened. Thus there is something of a timelimit, once humans have been removed from military and policing operations (if that is indeed possible) the super wealthy minority would likely be utterly secure and looked after by automated systems and robotics. This in turn could lead to a slow genocide as the majority of the population were left to starve to death or perhaps even a more rapid active genocide.
Three things are factors in this happening. Firstly there is the speed and range of automation, if for whatever reason important parts of infrastructure can't be automated or automation is slow allowing things to build to a head a more egalitarian distribution of the benefits of automation may occur. Secondly there is the issue of Awareness if people become aware they're likely to be out of a job permanently in a decade they may well start to look to softening their landing before they become powerless. This is likely why there is no mention of automation in the mainstream media. Thirdly there is the possibility of robotic efficiency being so great that it is inevitably shared more widely. This a very optimistic scenario but there may simply be an upper limit to what the tiny elite can use and control meaning the crumbs left to the rest of society are big enough to allow the global majority to lead decent lives. I certainly wouldn't count on it happening but it is possible I suppose.
I think point two has the most potential to avert catastrophe for the majority which is why I'm going to make a request of you. Spread the word about this. You need not link my blog post, just cherry pick links or even just explain it to people you know. This is seemingly a major factor in the current state of things and yet no one is talking about it, not even dedicated left wing media outfits. People need to know this stuff.
Here are a few key conversation points:
1)Jobless recoveries amid continuing growth.
2)Robots in the service sector, especially self service checkouts, What will replace those jobs?
3)Krugman and Ford's point about higher skilled jobs such as radiology being replaceable.
4)If those jobs can't be replaced what on earth is going to happen?
Spreading the word as widely as possible can only be a beneficial thing.
I forgot to work this into the text but Jeremy Rifkin also covered this topic in The End of Work but I can't find much to cite from this but still, worth knowing about if you're interested in the topic.
The essential idea Ford (and others) puts forward is that with improvements in technology and increasing automation an increasingly large sector of the economy will not require human workers at all. While this has already happened to an extent automation up to this point has mostly complemented human workers, that is to say labour saving devices meant fewer employees doing more work and other jobs created by the technology taking up the slack. Well for the past couple of decades that slack has been taken up by the service sector. The bad news is automation of the service sector seems to be imminent, with self service checkouts and Online shopping we are already seeing the beginnings of this. In a piece written a few years ago (so it sadly doesn't cover the most recent financial crisis) Marshall Brain wrote a piece detailing how rapid and large scale automation of the service sector is likely to be.(Marshall Brain is the founder of HowStuffWorks.com with a surname like that I suppose it was inevitable)
Something he highlights, which in retrospective seems painfully obvious, is the existence of Jobless Recoveries. Traditional economists have explained away improved growth alongside continuing unemployment because jobs are apparently a "lagging indicator" but it would seem increased automation would explain this equally well if not better. Ford notes that offshoring is linked to automation, deskilled jobs and computers / high bandwidth long distance communication allow jobs to be much more easily exported to places where labour is cheapest. However with automation seemingly poised to replace these jobs altogether it seems China and India's current economic booms may be shortlived.
The general way of things up to now, or at least up to recently, has been that as automation has eliminated some jobs the slack has been taken up elsewhere but as Brain points out (scroll down to "Creating new jobs") there seems to be little place for new jobs to be found, Ford argues an exception is Green Jobs and building a renewable energy infrastructure but even that is short term, once its built the new of jobs required to maintain it will not take up anywhere near all the slack. Worse still even in the near term it wont just be low skilled jobs that will be automated, as mentioned in Krugman's article above and by Ford in an excerpt from his book.
This leads to two possible scenarios, the more optimistic one being that the massive efficiency increases of robotic labour are shared with the general population and the large numbers of people placed into long term, or likely lifelong unemployment are given a decent standard of living funded by the massive surplus robots can create. This is potentially possible and I'm inclined to believe that to some extent the Middle Eastern and now Spanish uprisings are the first wave of backlash against economic automation. The truly massive levels of youth unemployment, Spain has a Youth unemployment rate of 45% are leading to the young taking to the streets and demanding change. They may not get it but it is a potentially hopeful sign.
The less optimistic scenario is much less optimistic. The evidence of US wages being stagnant since the 70s would suggest the benefits of automation and increased efficiency have flowed solely to a very small part of the population who are at the very top of the pile. Without intervention automation, with massively reduced labour costs and no wages going to an increasing slice of the population, the rich will get even richer even faster. We have seen evidence for this in the aftermath of the 2008 crash with Billionaires getting much richer even as the rest of society faces financial crisis and austerity measures. Indeed austerity measures are a good example of this trend, with the poorer in society becoming worse off even as the amount of wealth in society increases. Then you have movements like the Tea Party wanting to cut Medicare and privatise social security, this does not bode well for a future American society looking after the permanently unemployed.
Indeed, as an increasingly large amount of the population becomes essentially surplus social unrest could well increase. This however may not happen due to increasingly powerful surveillance systems in the West being used to prevent organisation and action. While western troops / police might not fire on civilians (the 2008 RNC Protests suggest that they might well do so) Blackwater / Xe mercenaries and automated drones definitely would. The counter to this is a probably vain hope the human elements of the military (if they existed) would revolt if this happened. Thus there is something of a timelimit, once humans have been removed from military and policing operations (if that is indeed possible) the super wealthy minority would likely be utterly secure and looked after by automated systems and robotics. This in turn could lead to a slow genocide as the majority of the population were left to starve to death or perhaps even a more rapid active genocide.
Three things are factors in this happening. Firstly there is the speed and range of automation, if for whatever reason important parts of infrastructure can't be automated or automation is slow allowing things to build to a head a more egalitarian distribution of the benefits of automation may occur. Secondly there is the issue of Awareness if people become aware they're likely to be out of a job permanently in a decade they may well start to look to softening their landing before they become powerless. This is likely why there is no mention of automation in the mainstream media. Thirdly there is the possibility of robotic efficiency being so great that it is inevitably shared more widely. This a very optimistic scenario but there may simply be an upper limit to what the tiny elite can use and control meaning the crumbs left to the rest of society are big enough to allow the global majority to lead decent lives. I certainly wouldn't count on it happening but it is possible I suppose.
I think point two has the most potential to avert catastrophe for the majority which is why I'm going to make a request of you. Spread the word about this. You need not link my blog post, just cherry pick links or even just explain it to people you know. This is seemingly a major factor in the current state of things and yet no one is talking about it, not even dedicated left wing media outfits. People need to know this stuff.
Here are a few key conversation points:
1)Jobless recoveries amid continuing growth.
2)Robots in the service sector, especially self service checkouts, What will replace those jobs?
3)Krugman and Ford's point about higher skilled jobs such as radiology being replaceable.
4)If those jobs can't be replaced what on earth is going to happen?
Spreading the word as widely as possible can only be a beneficial thing.
I forgot to work this into the text but Jeremy Rifkin also covered this topic in The End of Work but I can't find much to cite from this but still, worth knowing about if you're interested in the topic.
Sunday 22 May 2011
The Singularity movement as Eugenics 2.0
With the total failure of the May 21st rapture to come to pass I decided to have a look at the atheist/nerd version of the rapture, that is the Singularity and while I am in no position to judge how plausible it is I did notice something odd. A lot of the people who are ardent believers are noticeably right wing. Vernor Vinge, the guy who coined the term Technological Singularity is an Anarcho-capitalist. Another prominent speaker in the movement, Robin Hanson is a professor of economics at George Mason University (a Koch Brothers controlled institution) and his views on the economics of the Singularity is very much along Libertarian lines. Then theres the corporate sponsorship of the Singularity University which according to wikipedia: "Corporate founding partners and sponsors include NASA, Google, Nokia, Autodesk, IDEO, LinkedIn, ePlanet Ventures, and the X-Prize Foundation."
This seemed odd to me hey, nerds tend to libertarians and heck corporations sponsor everything these days. However while drifting around Wikipedia trying to get a better insight into the whole movement I was lucky enough to stumble upon a brief mention of David Correia as strident critic of the movement and a footnoted link to this Counterpunch article which expands greatly upon what had caused me to be suspicious and highlights links to US military funding via DARPA. At the very least this article makes a strong argument for much greater suspicion about the movement and its' actual, rather than stated, goals.
http://www.counterpunch.org/correia09152010.html
This seemed odd to me hey, nerds tend to libertarians and heck corporations sponsor everything these days. However while drifting around Wikipedia trying to get a better insight into the whole movement I was lucky enough to stumble upon a brief mention of David Correia as strident critic of the movement and a footnoted link to this Counterpunch article which expands greatly upon what had caused me to be suspicious and highlights links to US military funding via DARPA. At the very least this article makes a strong argument for much greater suspicion about the movement and its' actual, rather than stated, goals.
http://www.counterpunch.org/correia09152010.html
Saturday 21 May 2011
Some excellent opinion pieces.
Al Jazeera has put up a number of excellent opinion pieces today.
Dominic Strauss Kahn
I had some suspicion that DSK being charged with Rape might be politically motivated, though I had assumed it was more likely to be Sarkozy's doing than anyone else's. Now I do not suggest the victim is lying, just that the timing is suspicious, Elliot Spitzer was found to be a user of prostitutes at a very fortuitous time for the GOP but he had actually committed that crime for instance. These two pieces examine this possibility from different angles:
Danny Schechter looks at The Financial world as a hypsexualised environment and examines how intelligence agencies and banks who were not fond of some of the things DSK was saying might have exploited already known about "foibles" to shut down a potential threat.
Pepe Escobar expands on just why DSK could have needed neutralising pointing out that he was trying to make the IMF slightly less of a machine designed to carve up the world for the benefit of a plutocratic elite. As Escobar highlights the endorsement of Joseph Stiglitz could well have lead the financial elite to get rid of him.
This does not of course mean DSK did not commit rape, it just means a lot of very powerful people had reason to have him disgraced. On a more positive note it strongly suggests Noam Chomsky is a really decent guy, hes been a thorn in the right's side for decades and they haven't gotten anything to stick to him.
Obama's Speech
I haven't read or watch the whole speech so I can't really offer much comment but reading around the apparent Israeli chagrin at the 1967 borders proposal (something the UN has always endorsed) one realises that Obama has given Israel all they could really want in that speech. Still no harm in acting angry and hoping for more.
Richard Falk looks specifically at how the speech favours Israel and examines within this context what Palestinians can do.
Joseph Massad looks at how the speech impacts US Imperial policy in the middle east depressingly but not surprisingly he finds it to be a lot of hypocrisy and a continued pursuit of the status quo. The point about Obama giving a speech for the West and specifically for America is an interesting one. Sure the US has always been insular but given Obama's popularity and prominence as a non-white Western leader and the clear political awakening going on in the Middle East to be so tone deaf to the views and opinions of Arabs is unwise. I mean sure he probably assumes he can use violence and financial coercion to force the Arabs back under dictatorships but it never hurts to at least pretend not to be a monster.
Miscellaneous
I probably wont link this unless I do it here so here we go. Jonny sent me this and it's an article in an Indian newspaper about how China has pledged to protect Pakistan from future US incursions. Now you'd think that would be big news, but no, the western media obviously don't want to get too stuck into the regional political situation. America and friends are saving Afghanistan from Muslims or something and no other nation really exists in that scenario.
Tarak Barkawi examines how accusations of "radicalisation" are being used to attack freedom of speech at universities. He also broaches the subject of neo-liberalisation of University management.
Finally there is a review of a book by Francis Fukuyama, he who is mocked over the misinterpretation of his statements regarding the "end of history". It is a critique of the anti-state sentiment of right wingers in both the US and the UK. Such a prominent conservative making such a strong case against neo-liberal ideology is I think noteworthy and worth keeping an eye on. Then again, maybe he'll be arrested for an embarrassing crime within the next couple of weeks.
Dominic Strauss Kahn
I had some suspicion that DSK being charged with Rape might be politically motivated, though I had assumed it was more likely to be Sarkozy's doing than anyone else's. Now I do not suggest the victim is lying, just that the timing is suspicious, Elliot Spitzer was found to be a user of prostitutes at a very fortuitous time for the GOP but he had actually committed that crime for instance. These two pieces examine this possibility from different angles:
Danny Schechter looks at The Financial world as a hypsexualised environment and examines how intelligence agencies and banks who were not fond of some of the things DSK was saying might have exploited already known about "foibles" to shut down a potential threat.
Pepe Escobar expands on just why DSK could have needed neutralising pointing out that he was trying to make the IMF slightly less of a machine designed to carve up the world for the benefit of a plutocratic elite. As Escobar highlights the endorsement of Joseph Stiglitz could well have lead the financial elite to get rid of him.
This does not of course mean DSK did not commit rape, it just means a lot of very powerful people had reason to have him disgraced. On a more positive note it strongly suggests Noam Chomsky is a really decent guy, hes been a thorn in the right's side for decades and they haven't gotten anything to stick to him.
Obama's Speech
I haven't read or watch the whole speech so I can't really offer much comment but reading around the apparent Israeli chagrin at the 1967 borders proposal (something the UN has always endorsed) one realises that Obama has given Israel all they could really want in that speech. Still no harm in acting angry and hoping for more.
Richard Falk looks specifically at how the speech favours Israel and examines within this context what Palestinians can do.
Joseph Massad looks at how the speech impacts US Imperial policy in the middle east depressingly but not surprisingly he finds it to be a lot of hypocrisy and a continued pursuit of the status quo. The point about Obama giving a speech for the West and specifically for America is an interesting one. Sure the US has always been insular but given Obama's popularity and prominence as a non-white Western leader and the clear political awakening going on in the Middle East to be so tone deaf to the views and opinions of Arabs is unwise. I mean sure he probably assumes he can use violence and financial coercion to force the Arabs back under dictatorships but it never hurts to at least pretend not to be a monster.
Miscellaneous
I probably wont link this unless I do it here so here we go. Jonny sent me this and it's an article in an Indian newspaper about how China has pledged to protect Pakistan from future US incursions. Now you'd think that would be big news, but no, the western media obviously don't want to get too stuck into the regional political situation. America and friends are saving Afghanistan from Muslims or something and no other nation really exists in that scenario.
Tarak Barkawi examines how accusations of "radicalisation" are being used to attack freedom of speech at universities. He also broaches the subject of neo-liberalisation of University management.
Finally there is a review of a book by Francis Fukuyama, he who is mocked over the misinterpretation of his statements regarding the "end of history". It is a critique of the anti-state sentiment of right wingers in both the US and the UK. Such a prominent conservative making such a strong case against neo-liberal ideology is I think noteworthy and worth keeping an eye on. Then again, maybe he'll be arrested for an embarrassing crime within the next couple of weeks.
Friday 20 May 2011
Israel's reasonable response.
This is no about Obama's speech that he delivered yesterday, I may do a post collecting different people's analysis but I'm not sure, so often Obama has said a lot of pretty things and then done pretty much none of it. With a year and a half to go in his first term actions are more of an issue than slogans.
No instead we're looking at an OP-ED piece in the NYT that Jonny linked me to last night. This one. He framed it saying something along the lines of he was astounded at how audacious it was. As per my usual world weary act and a general numbness to Israel's free wheeling evil I dismissed this assertion and pointed out it was in the NYT afterall.
On reflection though I was wrong and Jonny was right, this is shocking and it is audacious. In writing, deliberately released just the day before Obama's big speech we have a senior member of Israel's ruling party openly advocating ethnic cleansing. To wit:
Now the Nazi comparisons are easy and unarguably apt but I'd instead like to compare this assertion to a hypothetical one made by a Serb, a member of Milosevic's party in the mid to late 90s. First with the Bosnians and then with Albanians in Kosovo you had a situation where Muslim ethnic groups were trying to break away from a violent and repressive regime. When they did violence and, in the case of the Bosnians, genocide occurred. But lets backtrack to when Bosnian and Kosovan independence was more talk than action, can one really imagine a Serb politician being given a platform in a major American and International Newspaper to threaten violent mass expulsion from what was then Yugoslavia?
One of course cannot. Yet Israel, useful tool of the Energy and Arms industries is allowed to have its' politicians issue outrageous threats against a repressed minority that is trying to assert its' statehood in a peaceful and democratic manner in line with international law and the UN charter. While the NYT editors temper circulation boosting Wikileaks revelations with descriptions of why Julian Assange is a poopy head they seem totally willing to print statements of intent regard massive breaches of international law that would bring misery to millions. Though to be fair to the NYT it is not like any of her rivals either domestic or foreign have thought it worthy of mention. Nor is there any political reaction, HAMAS is a dismissed as a negotiating partner because it refuses to recognise Israel as a nation state, yet Israel is being hailed as an ardent pursuer of peace in the aftermath of Obama's speech, and this unmentioned piece.
There is, I think, some hope to be drawn from this though. I am fairly sure if Israel actively pursued this policy they could annex all Palestinian land and drive them out. At the same time I think the US could win in Afghanistan if they used a few nukes. The fact is though that some victories are simply too costly to be pursued, in a world where Israel's image is consistently becoming murkier and European popular support for Palestine is growing rapidly and even in the US questions are starting to be asked Israel will suffer a great deal if they do this. Similar economic sanctions to those suffered by South Africa would likely be imposed by the EU.
Plus Israel is not a monolithic bloc, there is a sizeable minority of Israelis who would not stand for such an action, likely leading to considerable internal unrest.
Thus if the Israeli establishment is feeling forced to shift from a position of ever claiming to be the innocent victim to issuing threats such as this perhaps the plan to push for the recognition of Palestine as a sovereign state has some potential for the Palestinian cause.
No instead we're looking at an OP-ED piece in the NYT that Jonny linked me to last night. This one. He framed it saying something along the lines of he was astounded at how audacious it was. As per my usual world weary act and a general numbness to Israel's free wheeling evil I dismissed this assertion and pointed out it was in the NYT afterall.
On reflection though I was wrong and Jonny was right, this is shocking and it is audacious. In writing, deliberately released just the day before Obama's big speech we have a senior member of Israel's ruling party openly advocating ethnic cleansing. To wit:
[following annexation of all remaining Palestinian territory] These Palestinians would not have the option to become Israeli citizens, therefore averting the threat to the Jewish and democratic status of Israel by a growing Palestinian population.
Now the Nazi comparisons are easy and unarguably apt but I'd instead like to compare this assertion to a hypothetical one made by a Serb, a member of Milosevic's party in the mid to late 90s. First with the Bosnians and then with Albanians in Kosovo you had a situation where Muslim ethnic groups were trying to break away from a violent and repressive regime. When they did violence and, in the case of the Bosnians, genocide occurred. But lets backtrack to when Bosnian and Kosovan independence was more talk than action, can one really imagine a Serb politician being given a platform in a major American and International Newspaper to threaten violent mass expulsion from what was then Yugoslavia?
One of course cannot. Yet Israel, useful tool of the Energy and Arms industries is allowed to have its' politicians issue outrageous threats against a repressed minority that is trying to assert its' statehood in a peaceful and democratic manner in line with international law and the UN charter. While the NYT editors temper circulation boosting Wikileaks revelations with descriptions of why Julian Assange is a poopy head they seem totally willing to print statements of intent regard massive breaches of international law that would bring misery to millions. Though to be fair to the NYT it is not like any of her rivals either domestic or foreign have thought it worthy of mention. Nor is there any political reaction, HAMAS is a dismissed as a negotiating partner because it refuses to recognise Israel as a nation state, yet Israel is being hailed as an ardent pursuer of peace in the aftermath of Obama's speech, and this unmentioned piece.
There is, I think, some hope to be drawn from this though. I am fairly sure if Israel actively pursued this policy they could annex all Palestinian land and drive them out. At the same time I think the US could win in Afghanistan if they used a few nukes. The fact is though that some victories are simply too costly to be pursued, in a world where Israel's image is consistently becoming murkier and European popular support for Palestine is growing rapidly and even in the US questions are starting to be asked Israel will suffer a great deal if they do this. Similar economic sanctions to those suffered by South Africa would likely be imposed by the EU.
Plus Israel is not a monolithic bloc, there is a sizeable minority of Israelis who would not stand for such an action, likely leading to considerable internal unrest.
Thus if the Israeli establishment is feeling forced to shift from a position of ever claiming to be the innocent victim to issuing threats such as this perhaps the plan to push for the recognition of Palestine as a sovereign state has some potential for the Palestinian cause.
Thursday 19 May 2011
Counter-revolution to the Arab Spring
Obama is delivering a speech about the Arab Spring today and it will most likely be just as full of lies as his 2009 speech in Cairo (worth bearing in mind how when he no doubt mentions in today's speech how awesome democracy how willing to give a speech in a client dictatorship he was two years ago.)
Thus I highly recommend Joseph Massad's editorial about how the Euro-American / Saudi counter-revolution to the Arab Spring is going and what it entails. Read it here and bear in mind how little this resembles the mainstream coverage of the region.
Thus I highly recommend Joseph Massad's editorial about how the Euro-American / Saudi counter-revolution to the Arab Spring is going and what it entails. Read it here and bear in mind how little this resembles the mainstream coverage of the region.
Patch Adams was a real person.
I just watched the Latest Onion A.V. Club Inventory on Youtube and they pointed out Patch Adams was a real person. Surprisingly he seems to be a really great guy and a devoted political activist for Healthcare reform in the US.
Wednesday 18 May 2011
Glenn Greenwald Q&A at Brown
I admit I am somewhat schizophrenic about Glenn Greenwald praising him one minute and questioning him the next but he seems an odd mix of genuine concern about civil liberties and still thinking the CATO institute is pretty good (he tweeted about a drug conference there the other day).
Nonetheless this lecture and Q&A is very good. In the lecture part he does cover some old ground so if you're pressed for time skipping to the Q&A bit at around the 50 minute mark may be worthwhile.
Nonetheless this lecture and Q&A is very good. In the lecture part he does cover some old ground so if you're pressed for time skipping to the Q&A bit at around the 50 minute mark may be worthwhile.
Tuesday 17 May 2011
Bill Gates: Liberal Communist
please note, Zizek, as a political philosopher, uses Liberal in a very specific sense regarding Liberalism as an ideology as opposed to the much more generalised usage prevalent in the USA
This article by Slavoj Zizek is from 2006 but still makes worthwhile points about the lauded charity of men like George Soros and Bill Gates and how it is used to justify damaging and negative actions on their part. Zizek draws comparisons to Andrew Carnegie which he is right to do but I feel it is important to note the deeper roots of this practice, that of Noblesse Oblige where aristocrats for centuries have thrown the peasants a few crumbs to keep them in line.
However the key thing to remember about Noblesse Oblige is not just that it is a manipulation tactic, a damage control method, but also that it is a tactic of legitimation. The elite are right to do whatever evil they will because they know best how to do decent and good things. Or to put it another way "You lefties are just jealous of Bill Gates' success, after all, now he is rich look at all the good he is doing!" It aims to propagate the idea the general public don't know how best to improve things and that the concentration of wealth required for individuals to be able to fund grand charitable projects is desirable.
This article by Slavoj Zizek is from 2006 but still makes worthwhile points about the lauded charity of men like George Soros and Bill Gates and how it is used to justify damaging and negative actions on their part. Zizek draws comparisons to Andrew Carnegie which he is right to do but I feel it is important to note the deeper roots of this practice, that of Noblesse Oblige where aristocrats for centuries have thrown the peasants a few crumbs to keep them in line.
However the key thing to remember about Noblesse Oblige is not just that it is a manipulation tactic, a damage control method, but also that it is a tactic of legitimation. The elite are right to do whatever evil they will because they know best how to do decent and good things. Or to put it another way "You lefties are just jealous of Bill Gates' success, after all, now he is rich look at all the good he is doing!" It aims to propagate the idea the general public don't know how best to improve things and that the concentration of wealth required for individuals to be able to fund grand charitable projects is desirable.
Sunday 8 May 2011
How the US and the west is transitioning to Fascism.
William I. Robinson has written an editorial for Al Jazeera that details how the US is on the verge of fascism he is not using the term fascism lightly either. It pulls together a lot of threads explaining why things are as they currently are but one especially good point it makes is an explanation of why Obama is doing what he's doing.
Saturday 7 May 2011
If you had any lingering support for the New Atheists...
...now is probably a good time to abandon it. I though Hitchens was the worst one of the bunch but Richard Seymour at Lenin's Tomb highlights a post Dawkins made in which he calls Islam unmitigated evil.
I've heard from time to time critics say atheism as an ideology is very much a first world thing and not something that can be applied globally. I still believe that is not universally the case but the New Atheism that has become very popular in the last few years does seem to have a strong first world and perhaps even a colonialist component.
And speaking of colonialism and religion in Africa I'll highlight this article by the war nerd (one of several he did on the subject in the space of a few days) which examines the situation of religious and ethnic tensions in Africa, especially West Africa. Makes it a bit clearer why Dawkins, a right winger, wants to protect Christianised Africans.
I've heard from time to time critics say atheism as an ideology is very much a first world thing and not something that can be applied globally. I still believe that is not universally the case but the New Atheism that has become very popular in the last few years does seem to have a strong first world and perhaps even a colonialist component.
And speaking of colonialism and religion in Africa I'll highlight this article by the war nerd (one of several he did on the subject in the space of a few days) which examines the situation of religious and ethnic tensions in Africa, especially West Africa. Makes it a bit clearer why Dawkins, a right winger, wants to protect Christianised Africans.
Adam Curtis has a new series coming out soon
Its about computers and their affects on our everyday lives. Watch a trailer here.
Looks good, but its an Adam Curtis documentary, of course it looks good.
Looks good, but its an Adam Curtis documentary, of course it looks good.
Friday 6 May 2011
I love the Onion.
Sure its not been nearly as good since it went on TV, for one thing the blonde lady just isn't as good as many of the actors she turfed out but still, the razor sharp observations persist:
Thursday 5 May 2011
Hans Rosling on Stats
Hans Rosling makes stats more interesting than one could imagine possible, watch it Here
Wednesday 4 May 2011
Aliens tech is now real.
We have long known that monstrous parasitic alien lifeforms with acid for blood exist but now the other half of James Cameron's 1986 classic is starting to be realised. Helmet cams were used by US Special forces so Obama could watch, allegedly only until the mission to kill Osama Bin Laden started, yeah just like you told your mother you'd change the channel if the film got too violent or rude.
To be fair I don't think helmet cams themselves are too new, I'm pretty sure they were proposed for British Police a few years ago but it all went quiet, the coppers are fine with CCTV but something that records their own actions on duty is somehow much less worthy in their view. But the way the system of transmitting via WiFi back to a helicopter (much like the APC in Aliens) and then up to a satellite and command is really close to how the film portrayed it.
Tune in next time for more trenchant examinations of how I think something in real life is similar to a film!
To be fair I don't think helmet cams themselves are too new, I'm pretty sure they were proposed for British Police a few years ago but it all went quiet, the coppers are fine with CCTV but something that records their own actions on duty is somehow much less worthy in their view. But the way the system of transmitting via WiFi back to a helicopter (much like the APC in Aliens) and then up to a satellite and command is really close to how the film portrayed it.
Tune in next time for more trenchant examinations of how I think something in real life is similar to a film!
Tuesday 3 May 2011
We support such charmers.
Not an indepth post but I was just reading the BBC website's monthly column of obituaries for more obscure people (yes the hallmark of adulthood that is the greater interest in obituaries has hit me) and the first lady of the South Vietnamese regime that was the US puppet until support was switched to a military junta in 1963 has recently died, heres her summary:
Seriously where do we dig these loonies up from? The article, which cover a lot of more benign figures can be found here.
Dubbed by her opponents as a latter-day Lucrezia Borgia, Madame Nhu was one of South Asia's most powerful women. She was effectively the first lady of South Vietnam between 1955 and 1963 during the regime of her unmarried brother, Ngo Dinh Diem. She also participated in the nepotism and corruption that was a feature of his presidency, giving government positions to her relatives and living a luxurious lifestyle. She became famous both for her glamorous appearances in figure-hugging clothes and her drive to outlaw abortion and make adultery and divorce illegal. She also attempted to ban beauty pageants, musical entertainment and boxing matches. She was widely condemned for her dismissive attitude to Buddhist monks who had begun setting fire to themselves in public as a protest against Diem's repression of their religion. Her offer to bring fuel and matches to the self-immolations alienated even her own family and, more importantly, undermined American support for the Diem regime. Her power abruptly ended in 1963 when Diem was assassinated, and she was forced into exile in France.
Seriously where do we dig these loonies up from? The article, which cover a lot of more benign figures can be found here.
Monday 2 May 2011
Emmanuel Goldstein is dead Part 2.
Probably to your surprise I am doing a second posting about this today. To start off with I recommend two Alternet articles: This one lays out the more mainstream concerns of the aftermath of Bin Laden's death and this one gives a reasonable assessment of how OBL's death doesn't really improve the lives of most Americans one bit.
Now on to some more speculation.
4)I'm going to couch this in terms of TV but thats because I've been watching a lot of it today. The "death" of Osama Bin Laden, a figure who as aforementioned had been reduced to little more than occasional obscure audio messages of dubious provenance, could've been prompted for another reason. TV shows often have an arc across a season in which the protagonists of the show face a particularly dangerous foe. While some opponents last for longer its general a good idea to cycle through villains. When first introduced a villain has mystery and that leads them to be more scary and unpredictable, so an interesting and engaging character. Over time though a villain will often become well known and, well, familiarity breeds contempt. On top of that if a foe lingers for a long time the show can start to slow down and you have increasing difficulty explaining why your protagonists can't deal with them.
Can you see through my elaborate metaphors? Yes, Osama as a concept of evil, a rallying cry and justification for certain foreign policy decisions had really run its' course and was starting to make the American Empire look weak, with all those trillions of dollars spent on defence they couldn't kill one guy? Plus as has been pointed out Americans now care more about the economy than being afraid of brown bogey men. Obviously the old method of keeping Americans scared has run out and a new one rolled out. Otherwise they might start asking questions the elite don't want asked.
5) Following on from that a similar reason for wrapping up the threat of Bin Laden could well be due to extremely pressing foreign policy concerns elsewhere. After all the song and dance made about the danger he posed until he was dead it was really quite hard to shift foreign policy focus. That may well be why Obama was so focused on killing him, he has shown himself to be a traditional US Imperialist and likely wants to move away from the strange neo-con crusades of the W Bush White house.
With OBL dead there is plenty of excuse to shift to other concerns. The most likely new direction is probably South America. In the past decade it has shifted from being a subdued back yard for America, something it has long been, to a largely leftist region that is rapidly gaining regional solidarity and moving away from Washington's roadmap. Still as Honduras's Coup showed countries in the region can be realigned to US interests. I have no idea if other nations will be retaken so easily but I imagine the Obama Whitehouse strongly desires to regain control of the region and its' natural resources and having an excuse to shift focus to South America from the AFPAK region is mighty handy for them.
6)Of course, just because a course of action seems to be the best one from the outside doesn't mean that is the one that'll be pursued, maybe because of info outsiders aren't privy to or maybe because of regime politics. I have absolutely no inside track or real understanding of how Obama's government functions but I would say the appointment of General Petraeus to head the CIA shows Obama maybe doesn't have total control of the direction his regime takes (to be fair there are compelling arguments for why Obama would actively choose to appoint him but thats not what I want to focus on here.) Petraeus has been a booster for invading Iran for instance which in the US Empire's current weakened state would be tantamount to suicide.
Then again, W Bush's legacy is a wide variety of ways for the US Empire to commit suicide. Going back to the issue of Pakistan I raised in Part 1 while I said it gave the US carte blanche I think that should be clarified via the can should gap. Yes you can do a thing but that does not mean you should do a thing. There are broadly justifiable actions the US could in the near future take in Pakistan but they would be exceptionally unwise to do so. As aforementioned the US is not pleased Pakistan has overthrown their client dictator. This can be rectified, as happened in Honduras and many other places, by the CIA and other intelligence agencies in quite subtle ways that really don't place the US Empire under much threat even if they fail.
There are strong hints however that America is taking a much more dangerous path that OBL's death could justify ramping up. The drone bombings and incursions into Pakistan by ground troops are not subtle and are already having considerable blowback, ramping that up in a country with nuclear weapons and a large population that holds pretty fundamentalist views would be bad at any time, let alone in the midst of two ohther wars and maybe a third in Libya. Oh and of course lets not forget in the Kashmir region Pakistan shares a border with India AND China, spillover that brought those two countries into the mix could be absolutely catastrophic.
Lord knows what will actually happen.
Oh and now you've read all this heres a much more concise and better summary: http://www.explosm.net/comics/2409/ Thanks Jonny.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)