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.
Showing posts with label Europe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Europe. Show all posts
Sunday, 7 August 2011
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
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.
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.
Saturday, 16 July 2011
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.)"
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, 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.
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!
Friday, 29 April 2011
Royal Wedding day purge.
Around 50 facebook pages and accounts of UK activist groups have been purged. The timing of this on the day of the royal wedding and just days before May Day is deeply suspicious.
Lists of the purged accounts can be found here and here.
Lists of the purged accounts can be found here and here.
Wednesday, 27 April 2011
Monarchy isn't about freedom
If I'd been blogging a few months back I'd have probably highlighted that civil liberties experts in the UK believe the Royal wedding will be used as template for stifling protest as "austerity measures" begin to bite. Here is a summary of how counter terrorism laws are being used to protect the elite from any acts of dissent on their special day, all without a credible terror threat.
Nonetheless even with all this policing and denying of civil liberties I would not be surprised if a small group of "anarchists" do something bad that the media can focus on to demonise the growing protest movement and legitimise calls for further police powers.
The negative effects of the Royal Wedding don't just fall on the UK though, several nations within the Common still retain the Queen as their head of state including Canada and Australia. Australia, for the privilege of maintaining a hereditary dictator, albeit a relatively toothless one, as their head of state must trade away their right to free speech it appears. The awesome Chaser boys have been forbidden by the Royals to commentate on the royal wedding because
Dissent isn't tolerated even if its on the other side of the world.
Nonetheless even with all this policing and denying of civil liberties I would not be surprised if a small group of "anarchists" do something bad that the media can focus on to demonise the growing protest movement and legitimise calls for further police powers.
The negative effects of the Royal Wedding don't just fall on the UK though, several nations within the Common still retain the Queen as their head of state including Canada and Australia. Australia, for the privilege of maintaining a hereditary dictator, albeit a relatively toothless one, as their head of state must trade away their right to free speech it appears. The awesome Chaser boys have been forbidden by the Royals to commentate on the royal wedding because
The broadcast agreement under which the ABC takes the wedding telecast forbids its use in "any drama, comedy, satirical or similar entertainment program or content."
Dissent isn't tolerated even if its on the other side of the world.
"To wit, damaging a truncheon."
Alife Meadows, a student who was beaten up by the police to the extent he needed brain surgery has been charged with violent disorder by the police.
LENIN'S TOMB summarises it better than I could. Its a fucking farce the amount of deference and respect the Police are given.
LENIN'S TOMB summarises it better than I could. Its a fucking farce the amount of deference and respect the Police are given.
Tuesday, 26 April 2011
Another charmer invited to the Royal Wedding.
Al Jazeera offers a profile of King Mswati III the last absolutist monarch in Africa. Although to be fair to him he disputes this claim because he technically shares power with his mother. (This is, surprisingly, not an unheard of claim from absolutist monarchs. Empress Maria Theresa and her son of the Austro-Hungarian Empire bitterly feuded over power for much of his adult life). However while the Bahraini Crown Prince was disuaded from attending it would seem the mistreating blacks, who are after all considerably darker skinned than Arabs, is a-ok with Britain's government.
Monday, 25 April 2011
Unhelpful advice.
A Labour Party allied think tank, the Fabian Society, has offered advice to the Lib Dems regarding equality. Shockingly this advice could cause internal discord in for them.
Sunday, 24 April 2011
Bloody Royals.
With Bahrain being one of those countries where the media look the other way on protesters being killed and disappeared I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that Bahrain's crown prince is to be a guest at the Royal Wedding on Friday. I suppose hereditary dictatorships recognise their mutual interests.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)