So Obama visits Israel. Despite the famously frosty relationship between Bibi (Netanyahu, Israeli prime minister) and Barack (Obama), things seem to be going well.
Bibi says he will let the Palestinians have a state, so long as they are good. And don't ask for their bit of Jerusalem. And let settlers colonise most of their land.
Obama says it is very important to let the Palestinians live in a peaceful Bantustan. But the grown ups will decide who they are allowed to be friends with.
Why America is so beholden to Israel is an interesting question. I think it is something to do with Evangelical Protestantism. People may rail against the 'Jewish' or 'Israeli' lobby, but only about 1.7% of US citizens are Jewish. It is the weird fixation some sects of American Protestantism have with Israel and ancient versions of the bible that cause the trouble. There are not enough Jewish voters to make much of a difference. There are quite a few Muslim voters to counterbalance. It is the evangelical protestants that make the issue important. And the mythology that you really can't go anywhere without AIPAC and the Israeli lobby. The description of America's friendship with Israel also entailed the word 'eternal'. I think this kind of shows how the whole thing is packaged for religious fanatics.
The Palestinians demand a state within the 1967 borders (including East Jerusalem) and the refugees' right of return to the ancestral homes. The UN and polite opinion agrees with the 1967 borders thing, but also agrees to do nothing about it. No one really thinks that it will happen soon. The Americans have got so intertwined with the Israelis that they have ceased to be polite. Prominent Americans subscribe to the Israeli dogma that Jerusalem is "the eternal and indivisible capital of Israel". Wow. Eternal. Was this a revelation from the Most High?
There are other dogmatic statements that the pro Israel lobby tries to make people say. They insist that everyone recognise "Israel's right to exist". This is emotive. The Holocaust proposed a final solution of eliminating all Jews, that is eliminating Israel. The dogmatic statement regarding Israel's "right to exist" leads you to agree rather than get on the side of the Nazis. I find it insidious and divisive. Perhaps Bibi Netanyahu should be asked if he recognises Palestine's 'right to exist'? It is in light of the 'right to exist' dogma that Israel describes Iran as an existential threat. In aquiescing to the 'right to exist' dogma you are also pressed to recognise Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. This is not something I can agree to. I see religion as a personal choice. I would be glad to have a country called Israel within the 1967 boundaries operating as a democracy. I would expect all citizens of that country to have the same rights. Jewish people may constitute a majority, but if many Jews and Arab citizens later come to define themselves as secular, would they need to be deported to maintain the Jewish majority?
But back to the 1967 boundaries. These are viewed as the borders of a future Palestinian state. If you take the time to look at the map of Israel & Palestine, you will notice this gives the Palestinians two areas, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Can these to pieces of land really form a single state? I would suggest not. States with non contiguous territory only really work if you can get from one part to the other via the sea.
So the 1967 boundaries are compromised. And even if Israel was prepared to take all their people back behind them, I am not sure a two state solution could work. Therefore I think the time has come to recognise that the two state solution is a non starter. The world has tried to negotiate it time and again. We have all tried and we have failed. The Israelis blame Palestinian intransigence. Likewise the Palestinians blame Israeli intransigence. Whatever. The two sides cannot reach agreement.
There is only one solution. A single state. Let all the people of Israel and Palestine live together in a single state. Israel has consistently refused to recognise Palestinian sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Israel also declines to recognise this land as occupied. Normally Israeli government ministers refer to this land as 'the territories'. Fair enough. Let it be a single territory Israeli territory and Palestinian territory, a single state. One person, one vote.
Neither Jewish nor Muslim. Just a single secular state. A democracy.
Jews may well be in the minority in ten or twenty years' time. Unlucky. The Israeli people and government have had plenty of opportunity to put a palatable deal before the Palestinians. They have not put Palestinian good faith to the test. Just as Israeli policy has strangled the two state solution before it was fully born, the US Israeli lobby, in tying itself so tightly to Evangelical Protestantism sows the seed of its own demise. Religion is a dying force in American society. If evangelical protestants could guarantee you an American majority, we would have a republican president. Tying your colours to that mast nowadays puts you in the minority.
Friday 22 March 2013
Thursday 21 March 2013
NATO - why bother?
What is NATO for?
I know what it was founded for. The defeat of the USSR. The USSR no longer exists. The old Warsaw pact is dissolved.
When that occurred, why was NATO not disbanded?
There were a few Europeans who felt it was important 'to keep America engaged in Europe'.
There were a few Americans who though it was important 'to maintain America's footprint in Europe'.
But really, why?
I am not advocating being unfriendly to the Americans in any way. But why would anyone want troops from another country deployed in their own country? There is only one reason, to repel a threat.
That was why we had NATO, to repel a threat. The threat of the Soviet Union. As noted above, that threat is now extinct.
The military is a government department. Much like any other. The only real difference between the military and other government departments is the political right loves the military and hates other government departments, while the political left is more suspicious of the military than of other government departments.
In this it displays some similarity with the police.
NATO was a sort of supranational governmental department, dominated by the US, but with significant contributions from others. As such NATO was, and remains, a bureaucracy. Soldiers are a certain sort of bureaucrat. This is particularly true of officers. They are, in many ways, the archetypal bureaucrat.
They believe the world would fall apart without them.
NATO, like any other bureaucracy, eventually directed itself to its own benefit. To self preservation. To really answer the question 'What is NATO for' one must only read Ludwig von Mises book, Bureaucracy - http://mises.org/etexts/mises/bureaucracy.asp
In many ways NATO is the prime example of bureaucracy at its worst. Having achieved the objective, NATO should have disbanded. But instead of the 'peace dividend' promised by George Bush the elder at the end of the cold war, NATO sought a new reason for its existence. It went into full self preservation mode. Compromising the peace it had helped secure by inviting former Warsaw Pact countries to join.
Eventually NATO would find a new reason to exist. The war on terror. I sometimes wonder if, without the bureaucratic muscle that NATO provided, if the 'hawks' that hate government but love the military would not have found it a little more difficult to engineer the war on Iraq and the war on terror.
Nevertheless, as the troops have now left Iraq, and will soon leave Afghanistan, it is time once again for Western Nations to review their defensive posture. We do so in a significantly different economic environment.
Whatever the priority of Obama and America, let us be clear, China represents no military threat to any European nation.
We may seek alliance with America. We do not need the bureaucracy of NATO. And we cannot afford the luxury. Time to close it down.
I know what it was founded for. The defeat of the USSR. The USSR no longer exists. The old Warsaw pact is dissolved.
When that occurred, why was NATO not disbanded?
There were a few Europeans who felt it was important 'to keep America engaged in Europe'.
There were a few Americans who though it was important 'to maintain America's footprint in Europe'.
But really, why?
I am not advocating being unfriendly to the Americans in any way. But why would anyone want troops from another country deployed in their own country? There is only one reason, to repel a threat.
That was why we had NATO, to repel a threat. The threat of the Soviet Union. As noted above, that threat is now extinct.
The military is a government department. Much like any other. The only real difference between the military and other government departments is the political right loves the military and hates other government departments, while the political left is more suspicious of the military than of other government departments.
In this it displays some similarity with the police.
NATO was a sort of supranational governmental department, dominated by the US, but with significant contributions from others. As such NATO was, and remains, a bureaucracy. Soldiers are a certain sort of bureaucrat. This is particularly true of officers. They are, in many ways, the archetypal bureaucrat.
They believe the world would fall apart without them.
NATO, like any other bureaucracy, eventually directed itself to its own benefit. To self preservation. To really answer the question 'What is NATO for' one must only read Ludwig von Mises book, Bureaucracy - http://mises.org/etexts/mises/bureaucracy.asp
In many ways NATO is the prime example of bureaucracy at its worst. Having achieved the objective, NATO should have disbanded. But instead of the 'peace dividend' promised by George Bush the elder at the end of the cold war, NATO sought a new reason for its existence. It went into full self preservation mode. Compromising the peace it had helped secure by inviting former Warsaw Pact countries to join.
Eventually NATO would find a new reason to exist. The war on terror. I sometimes wonder if, without the bureaucratic muscle that NATO provided, if the 'hawks' that hate government but love the military would not have found it a little more difficult to engineer the war on Iraq and the war on terror.
Nevertheless, as the troops have now left Iraq, and will soon leave Afghanistan, it is time once again for Western Nations to review their defensive posture. We do so in a significantly different economic environment.
Whatever the priority of Obama and America, let us be clear, China represents no military threat to any European nation.
We may seek alliance with America. We do not need the bureaucracy of NATO. And we cannot afford the luxury. Time to close it down.
Wednesday 20 March 2013
Iraqi Anniversary
So..... ten years since the Iraq invasion. Wow, doesn't time fly when you're having fun?!?
To any neutral observer, the Iraq war was lost.
It was lost by the Brits in Basra.
It was lost by the US in general.
It was certainly lost by the Iraqi people.
And Saddam Hussein's Tikriti clan lost power, so they lost too.
The only way not to lose was not to participate. Iran and France did the best out of it. Jaques Chirac will be forever remembered (outside of France at least) for refusing to bow to the pressure to join the charade. It is only a minor injustice, all things considered, but it still rankles with me that a corrupt old hypocrite like Chirac gets to leave with a positive balance sheet because other world leaders proved even more useless.
How can men of conviction (however deranged) like Bush and Blair make the weather vane Chirac look principled in comparison? Answers on a postcard to the ICC at the Hague.
My Grandad told me that there are only two ways to win a war.
1) Eliminate the enemy (almost never tried, if it is tried, always failed since prehistory)
2) Keep on fighting until the other side gives up
Looked at like that, unless we eliminated every single Iraqi, sooner or later the war would be lost. However many victories the Brits scored in India, sooner or later we were always going to leave. The empire would be lost.
In light of this, you need a central, achievable objective which, when achieved, lets you declare victory and pull out. This objective has to be something the other side will aquiesce to when faced with the alternative. Iraq war 1 provides a clear example. pictures of Norman Schwarzkopf telling the Iraqi general where to sign let the world know the US had won. The Iraqis aquiesced to the US objectives/terms.
But in Iraq war II. what would victory have looked like? There was no clear objective, apart from making those dastardly Iraqis 'stop it'. This is confirmed by the shifting justification both before and afterward.
After Vietnam, the US learnt, at least for a generation, to not invade other people's countries. They didn't stop meddling, but they didn't invade.
Iraq war I only half changed that. Kuwait was an ally. Iraq was in breach of international law. It was a wide coalition which went after them. Iraq war II was very different. It was probably illegal, and had to be justified by half truths and lies.
Have we learnt? Well, no. Perhaps because there was no draft, the US polulace has not accepted defeat. Likewise (but not so relevant) the UK.
Everyone thinks it was 'the surge that won it'. The surge provided covering fire for withdrawal. In that sense it was tactical genius. Political rather than military tactics. Problem is, the US Army believed its own publicity. It tried the same trick in Afghanistan. And it has failed. Still they fail to acknowledge that.
Perhaps, in ten years time when the US elite realises it lost both these wars, the lessons will be learnt.
After all, if all the soldiers are back home, the budget will be much healthier and that may allow space for reflection.
As for me, I still have difficulty forgiving the big lie. I can respect people that disagree with me, that thought it was worth attacking Iraq just to remove Saddam. Or that the oil justified it. I may dislike them, but I can respect them, or who believed the WMD fairy story and now fully admit they were wrong. But Tony Blair, the supposed leader of the British left said, on the eve of war, 'Even today, if Saddam gives up his WMDs, he and his sons can stay in power'.
I do not believe Mr Blair was misled. I believe he demanded British secret services present the evidence to support the policy upon which he was already set.
I have real difficulty coming to terms with that. Any rational person must know that fabricating evidence to invade another country is against international law. It is a war crime. I cannot prove Mr Blair is guilty, but surely there is a case to answer?
Let the court decide. Mr Blair should be extradited to the Hague. Then our leaders might learn lessons a little more quickly.
To any neutral observer, the Iraq war was lost.
It was lost by the Brits in Basra.
It was lost by the US in general.
It was certainly lost by the Iraqi people.
And Saddam Hussein's Tikriti clan lost power, so they lost too.
The only way not to lose was not to participate. Iran and France did the best out of it. Jaques Chirac will be forever remembered (outside of France at least) for refusing to bow to the pressure to join the charade. It is only a minor injustice, all things considered, but it still rankles with me that a corrupt old hypocrite like Chirac gets to leave with a positive balance sheet because other world leaders proved even more useless.
How can men of conviction (however deranged) like Bush and Blair make the weather vane Chirac look principled in comparison? Answers on a postcard to the ICC at the Hague.
My Grandad told me that there are only two ways to win a war.
1) Eliminate the enemy (almost never tried, if it is tried, always failed since prehistory)
2) Keep on fighting until the other side gives up
Looked at like that, unless we eliminated every single Iraqi, sooner or later the war would be lost. However many victories the Brits scored in India, sooner or later we were always going to leave. The empire would be lost.
In light of this, you need a central, achievable objective which, when achieved, lets you declare victory and pull out. This objective has to be something the other side will aquiesce to when faced with the alternative. Iraq war 1 provides a clear example. pictures of Norman Schwarzkopf telling the Iraqi general where to sign let the world know the US had won. The Iraqis aquiesced to the US objectives/terms.
But in Iraq war II. what would victory have looked like? There was no clear objective, apart from making those dastardly Iraqis 'stop it'. This is confirmed by the shifting justification both before and afterward.
After Vietnam, the US learnt, at least for a generation, to not invade other people's countries. They didn't stop meddling, but they didn't invade.
Iraq war I only half changed that. Kuwait was an ally. Iraq was in breach of international law. It was a wide coalition which went after them. Iraq war II was very different. It was probably illegal, and had to be justified by half truths and lies.
Have we learnt? Well, no. Perhaps because there was no draft, the US polulace has not accepted defeat. Likewise (but not so relevant) the UK.
Everyone thinks it was 'the surge that won it'. The surge provided covering fire for withdrawal. In that sense it was tactical genius. Political rather than military tactics. Problem is, the US Army believed its own publicity. It tried the same trick in Afghanistan. And it has failed. Still they fail to acknowledge that.
Perhaps, in ten years time when the US elite realises it lost both these wars, the lessons will be learnt.
After all, if all the soldiers are back home, the budget will be much healthier and that may allow space for reflection.
As for me, I still have difficulty forgiving the big lie. I can respect people that disagree with me, that thought it was worth attacking Iraq just to remove Saddam. Or that the oil justified it. I may dislike them, but I can respect them, or who believed the WMD fairy story and now fully admit they were wrong. But Tony Blair, the supposed leader of the British left said, on the eve of war, 'Even today, if Saddam gives up his WMDs, he and his sons can stay in power'.
I do not believe Mr Blair was misled. I believe he demanded British secret services present the evidence to support the policy upon which he was already set.
I have real difficulty coming to terms with that. Any rational person must know that fabricating evidence to invade another country is against international law. It is a war crime. I cannot prove Mr Blair is guilty, but surely there is a case to answer?
Let the court decide. Mr Blair should be extradited to the Hague. Then our leaders might learn lessons a little more quickly.
Tuesday 19 March 2013
Austerity double down
Well, I suppose every country in Southern Europe has already seen it, and worse. We have had the same in Ireland. Who knows where else?
Today, having seen the policy of austerity fail by any realistic measure, the UK government decided to cure the problem with more austerity.
I am reminded of the Einstein's famous definition of insanity. Doing the same thing again and again, but expecting different results.
Our current (UK) government inherited a situation with the public finances in dire straits but the economy in growth. It said that cutting back the (evil) public sector would increase growth. It did so, since then we have had at least a double dip and possibly a triple dip recession.
Their response to this policy failure? To announce two more years of public spending cuts.
Doh!
There is only one question.
Why? Please provide your answer from the choices below:-
A) Are our leaders so stupid as to believe what they say? Still?
B) Are they merely too proud, unable to admit they are wrong even theough they know it deep down?
C) Could it be that they know they made a mistake, but, with the next election coming in 2015, think that staying the course gives them their best hope then, irrespective of the economic consequences?
D) Have they taken the political decision that this offers a once in a lifetime to destroy the welfare state and force a step change reduction in public spending, and this chance must be taken at all costs?
E) Some other fandiful reason..... please elaborate.
Today, having seen the policy of austerity fail by any realistic measure, the UK government decided to cure the problem with more austerity.
I am reminded of the Einstein's famous definition of insanity. Doing the same thing again and again, but expecting different results.
Our current (UK) government inherited a situation with the public finances in dire straits but the economy in growth. It said that cutting back the (evil) public sector would increase growth. It did so, since then we have had at least a double dip and possibly a triple dip recession.
Their response to this policy failure? To announce two more years of public spending cuts.
Doh!
There is only one question.
Why? Please provide your answer from the choices below:-
A) Are our leaders so stupid as to believe what they say? Still?
B) Are they merely too proud, unable to admit they are wrong even theough they know it deep down?
C) Could it be that they know they made a mistake, but, with the next election coming in 2015, think that staying the course gives them their best hope then, irrespective of the economic consequences?
D) Have they taken the political decision that this offers a once in a lifetime to destroy the welfare state and force a step change reduction in public spending, and this chance must be taken at all costs?
E) Some other fandiful reason..... please elaborate.
Monday 18 March 2013
Cyprus austerity tax
Cyprus announced last night they were going to tax bank deposits by (around) ten percent.
People are outraged that the government can come along and just 'take their money'. I can understand why. But is it rational?
Firstly, there is a name for that thing when the government comes along and takes your money. It is not robbery, it is taxation. Robbery is when private individuals do it. There are people that pretend all taxation is robbery. For them this is no different to any other tax.
Normally governments tax us when we get money (income tax) or when we spend money (sales tax/VAT). They rarely tax our wealth (although land tax is an example).
Given that the return to labour from economic activity has been decreasing while the return to capital rising, why shouldn't wealth, as opposed to income be taxed? Put another way, workers have been getting an ever smaller slice of the pie, savers an ever bigger one. Should we then tax workers and spare savers?
In the final analysis Cypriot banks are in such a state they cannot survive without state subsidy. That subsidy comes at great expense. Should savers really have all their money preserved? Should benefits be cut just so people with savings can receive a subsidy from the state?
All over Europe we are implementing economic austerity. We are cutting benefits, and the root cause is a bankrupt financial system. The poorest in society are paying for the mistakes of the richest. And now bank depositors think they have a special case to plead? Someone, somewhere has to pay for this bailout, as major beneficiaries, shouldn't they be close to the front of the queue?
Finally, consider this. Cyprus has acted as a tax haven and a hub for money laundering. This way teh Cypriot government gets to tap wealthy as well as corrupt foreigners.
This move may look bad, it easily could be the least worst option available. If we aren't to let banks go under, I can't think of anything better.
People are outraged that the government can come along and just 'take their money'. I can understand why. But is it rational?
Firstly, there is a name for that thing when the government comes along and takes your money. It is not robbery, it is taxation. Robbery is when private individuals do it. There are people that pretend all taxation is robbery. For them this is no different to any other tax.
Normally governments tax us when we get money (income tax) or when we spend money (sales tax/VAT). They rarely tax our wealth (although land tax is an example).
Given that the return to labour from economic activity has been decreasing while the return to capital rising, why shouldn't wealth, as opposed to income be taxed? Put another way, workers have been getting an ever smaller slice of the pie, savers an ever bigger one. Should we then tax workers and spare savers?
In the final analysis Cypriot banks are in such a state they cannot survive without state subsidy. That subsidy comes at great expense. Should savers really have all their money preserved? Should benefits be cut just so people with savings can receive a subsidy from the state?
All over Europe we are implementing economic austerity. We are cutting benefits, and the root cause is a bankrupt financial system. The poorest in society are paying for the mistakes of the richest. And now bank depositors think they have a special case to plead? Someone, somewhere has to pay for this bailout, as major beneficiaries, shouldn't they be close to the front of the queue?
Finally, consider this. Cyprus has acted as a tax haven and a hub for money laundering. This way teh Cypriot government gets to tap wealthy as well as corrupt foreigners.
This move may look bad, it easily could be the least worst option available. If we aren't to let banks go under, I can't think of anything better.
Friday 15 March 2013
Press freedom
In Britain, we now have a debate about regulation of the press. For anyone that has missed this slow burning story, much of our press, especially that which is controlled by the Murdoch family, has been caught doing bad things. Tapping phones, bribing police, that sort of thing.
Not very good. Some senior executives still have charges pending. So we had an enquiry, presided over by a judge.
This enquiry, called the Leveson enquiry, concluded that the UK system of 'self regulation' of the press really wasn't working.
That is not news to anyone. We had a committee called the press complaints commission which could tell papers off a bit, but not really hurt them. It had a chair appointed by the papers. And representatives from the papers.
Nobody listened to it.
So the Leveson enquiry recommended that they have a new regulator. Backed by law, which make them pay big fines. And put their apologies on the front page, that sort of thing.
The press hate the idea. They keep whining about it being a fundamental issue of freedom. That it is the function of the press to hold the government to account.
I could take a cheap shot and point out that messing with the voicemail of missing 14 year old girls is a strange way of holding the government to account. So I have done.
The point is, the press are saying statutory regulation (meaning laws which regulate the press) are a limit on press freedom. They are backed by the Conservative party (the largest party in parliament and the government). These people say they are happy with all the rules but just don't want them to be enforced by law. That somehow puts the government in control of the press, is a step towards licensing of the press.
Whereas the Labour party (the main opposition) and the Liberal democrats (the minor government party) do want the regulations to be backed by law.
So the issue is not the regulations themselves, but how they are enforced. How arcane. I am left thinking that legal restrictions on the press can be introduced at any time. The real reason the press doesn't like this is because the really don't want to be held to account. They don't want the regulations enforced at all.
Many Latin American leftists point out, in defence of Chavez's record on press freedom, that the press is controlled by the wealthy. That it promotes the interests of those that own it, not the majority, and not justice or right.
It is a similar debate we see here. A feral press, controlled by a global elite, crying foul, backed by political rightists, opposed by leftists (such as we have any leftists here).
Which way will the cards fall?
The real question is, will it matter? Are newspapers actually that important or relevant any more?
Not very good. Some senior executives still have charges pending. So we had an enquiry, presided over by a judge.
This enquiry, called the Leveson enquiry, concluded that the UK system of 'self regulation' of the press really wasn't working.
That is not news to anyone. We had a committee called the press complaints commission which could tell papers off a bit, but not really hurt them. It had a chair appointed by the papers. And representatives from the papers.
Nobody listened to it.
So the Leveson enquiry recommended that they have a new regulator. Backed by law, which make them pay big fines. And put their apologies on the front page, that sort of thing.
The press hate the idea. They keep whining about it being a fundamental issue of freedom. That it is the function of the press to hold the government to account.
I could take a cheap shot and point out that messing with the voicemail of missing 14 year old girls is a strange way of holding the government to account. So I have done.
The point is, the press are saying statutory regulation (meaning laws which regulate the press) are a limit on press freedom. They are backed by the Conservative party (the largest party in parliament and the government). These people say they are happy with all the rules but just don't want them to be enforced by law. That somehow puts the government in control of the press, is a step towards licensing of the press.
Whereas the Labour party (the main opposition) and the Liberal democrats (the minor government party) do want the regulations to be backed by law.
So the issue is not the regulations themselves, but how they are enforced. How arcane. I am left thinking that legal restrictions on the press can be introduced at any time. The real reason the press doesn't like this is because the really don't want to be held to account. They don't want the regulations enforced at all.
Many Latin American leftists point out, in defence of Chavez's record on press freedom, that the press is controlled by the wealthy. That it promotes the interests of those that own it, not the majority, and not justice or right.
It is a similar debate we see here. A feral press, controlled by a global elite, crying foul, backed by political rightists, opposed by leftists (such as we have any leftists here).
Which way will the cards fall?
The real question is, will it matter? Are newspapers actually that important or relevant any more?
Thursday 14 March 2013
Liberation of Francis
Through the 1950s and 1960s the Latin American Catholic Church reinterpreted the gospel in a radical way. This radical, politicised Christianity was named Liberation Theology. Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology
In the 1980s, pope John Paul II refused to condemn the right wing regime in El Salvador for running death squads. Ostensibly this was because he didn't like the condemnation of systemic, as opposed to personal, sin.
This was not a philosophy he applied to the communist regimes of Eastern Europe, with which he was a little more familiar. Quite the opposite.
In fact I rather think the John Paul II decided that the greater evil to fight was communism, so he basically took sides in the political dogfight between left and right. He took the side of the right. I do think John Paul II was a basically good man, but I do not think he was politically neutral, I think he could easily make common cause with the political right, such as anti abortion republicans. But he could not condemn the right wing death squads of Latin America. This is the most serious of failings, in my mind it ranks close to his failings on sexual abuse in the Church, and it has a common cause. His right wing philosophy trusted the church hierarchy in a fundamental way. He thought it a good of itself. Where as the revolutionaries of Liberation Theology were only too ready to accept the complicity of religious authority in the excesses of the government, and see both government and church as part of the same ruling class. Much like in medieval Europe.
To my mind, in the same way that some evangelical protestants seem to worship the bible instead of God, some high church Anglicans & Catholics can sometimes appear to worship the church. It is this sin of idolatry which I think John Paul II fell in to. All the institution of the church, human organisation that it is, is not worth one human life, which (for a Christian) is indisputably the creation of God.
From the election of John Paul II up to the resignation of Benedict XVI the papacy was occupied by confirmed right wingers.
This was but a short season. And it aligns with the dominance of the political right in the secular west. The regimes of Reagan/Bush, Thatcher/Cameron. Kohl, Berlusconi. Even the representatives of the left in this time were less radical than the rightists, and would have looked centre right just a couple of decades before. Think of Clinton, Blair, Mitterand & Schroeder.
After the second world war there was a revolution of democratisation throughout the West. Votes guaranteed to all. Welfare states founded. A new accountability for our rulers. An unprecedented expansion of educational opportunity.
The rightwingism from the late seventies up until the aftermath of the Global Economic crisis is the reaction to the revolution. A retrenchment, a rolling back of the earlier reform.
It is time to once again tread the path of radical reform. Liberation theology has returned. I expect secular leadership to also follow this leftward path.
In the 1980s, pope John Paul II refused to condemn the right wing regime in El Salvador for running death squads. Ostensibly this was because he didn't like the condemnation of systemic, as opposed to personal, sin.
This was not a philosophy he applied to the communist regimes of Eastern Europe, with which he was a little more familiar. Quite the opposite.
In fact I rather think the John Paul II decided that the greater evil to fight was communism, so he basically took sides in the political dogfight between left and right. He took the side of the right. I do think John Paul II was a basically good man, but I do not think he was politically neutral, I think he could easily make common cause with the political right, such as anti abortion republicans. But he could not condemn the right wing death squads of Latin America. This is the most serious of failings, in my mind it ranks close to his failings on sexual abuse in the Church, and it has a common cause. His right wing philosophy trusted the church hierarchy in a fundamental way. He thought it a good of itself. Where as the revolutionaries of Liberation Theology were only too ready to accept the complicity of religious authority in the excesses of the government, and see both government and church as part of the same ruling class. Much like in medieval Europe.
To my mind, in the same way that some evangelical protestants seem to worship the bible instead of God, some high church Anglicans & Catholics can sometimes appear to worship the church. It is this sin of idolatry which I think John Paul II fell in to. All the institution of the church, human organisation that it is, is not worth one human life, which (for a Christian) is indisputably the creation of God.
From the election of John Paul II up to the resignation of Benedict XVI the papacy was occupied by confirmed right wingers.
This was but a short season. And it aligns with the dominance of the political right in the secular west. The regimes of Reagan/Bush, Thatcher/Cameron. Kohl, Berlusconi. Even the representatives of the left in this time were less radical than the rightists, and would have looked centre right just a couple of decades before. Think of Clinton, Blair, Mitterand & Schroeder.
After the second world war there was a revolution of democratisation throughout the West. Votes guaranteed to all. Welfare states founded. A new accountability for our rulers. An unprecedented expansion of educational opportunity.
The rightwingism from the late seventies up until the aftermath of the Global Economic crisis is the reaction to the revolution. A retrenchment, a rolling back of the earlier reform.
It is time to once again tread the path of radical reform. Liberation theology has returned. I expect secular leadership to also follow this leftward path.
Wednesday 13 March 2013
The new poor & Socialism
Today a report is out from the Resolution Foundation think-tank. This report relies on data from the Joseph Rowntree foundation. And the report tells us that by 2015 over half of under 18s will be living in homes with incomes "judged to be less than the minimum necessary for a decent standard of living".
Wow. Is this really where we want to be? I don't expect it means that children will be starving. But I do think that it means children are growing up in families which are isolated from wider society. It may actually affect the nourishment of some children in extreme cases. Looking at the levels of pay they calculate to be sufficient, I can say with certainty that they are not planning great luxuries for these children.
There are all sorts of reasons. In our society, the less money you have, the more children you have. The less education you have, the more children you have (particularly true for women). The less money you have, the more religious you are and the more religious you are the more children you have. Immigrants and their descendant are also likely to have more children.
The current age of austerity is reinforcing this trend of relatively impoverished families. And it is a trend we see across the western world. In both Europe and North America. Can this be reversed? Almost everywhere the old have great advantages compared to the young. In healthcare, in retirement ages and in pensions in both the US & UK. In mainland Europe you see it very starkly in employment rights, which leaves a whole generation of young people without work while older people cling to their positions and 'rights'.
It is a strategy of political parties to preserve the privileges of the old. Medical care in America. All benefits to the old are protected in the UK. Pensions already agreed are to be protected everywhere. This is particularly true of parties of the right.
I think the reason is that old people are much more likely to vote.
And the political and journalistic elite have no clue about the pressures ordinary families face.
Why, for instance, should 40 year olds pay taxes to support the pensions of the current claimants, when there is no possibility of claiming that sort of pension when they reach that age? Paying for the luxuries of others? Absurd.
In the UK it can seem lke a bad joke. right wing austerity Government is actually planning to subsidise care for people as they get older so they won't have to sell their homes. At the same time, any family with a home will have their benefits cut if they have a spare room. The reasoning being it would be unfair if they had to sell their house and be left with nothing to leave to their children in their will. This is ridiculous. Why should our taxes be used to preserve the inheritance of some arbitary group of people?
This whole thing is beyond a joke.
This is a generation of children that will grow up with a burning sense of injustice.
Do the current parties of the right actually want to see the left in power for a generation or more? It is not the policies of Barack Obama that will lead the US to socialism, rather the 'Grapes of wrath' planted in the policies of tea party inspired austerity.
Wow. Is this really where we want to be? I don't expect it means that children will be starving. But I do think that it means children are growing up in families which are isolated from wider society. It may actually affect the nourishment of some children in extreme cases. Looking at the levels of pay they calculate to be sufficient, I can say with certainty that they are not planning great luxuries for these children.
There are all sorts of reasons. In our society, the less money you have, the more children you have. The less education you have, the more children you have (particularly true for women). The less money you have, the more religious you are and the more religious you are the more children you have. Immigrants and their descendant are also likely to have more children.
The current age of austerity is reinforcing this trend of relatively impoverished families. And it is a trend we see across the western world. In both Europe and North America. Can this be reversed? Almost everywhere the old have great advantages compared to the young. In healthcare, in retirement ages and in pensions in both the US & UK. In mainland Europe you see it very starkly in employment rights, which leaves a whole generation of young people without work while older people cling to their positions and 'rights'.
It is a strategy of political parties to preserve the privileges of the old. Medical care in America. All benefits to the old are protected in the UK. Pensions already agreed are to be protected everywhere. This is particularly true of parties of the right.
I think the reason is that old people are much more likely to vote.
And the political and journalistic elite have no clue about the pressures ordinary families face.
Why, for instance, should 40 year olds pay taxes to support the pensions of the current claimants, when there is no possibility of claiming that sort of pension when they reach that age? Paying for the luxuries of others? Absurd.
In the UK it can seem lke a bad joke. right wing austerity Government is actually planning to subsidise care for people as they get older so they won't have to sell their homes. At the same time, any family with a home will have their benefits cut if they have a spare room. The reasoning being it would be unfair if they had to sell their house and be left with nothing to leave to their children in their will. This is ridiculous. Why should our taxes be used to preserve the inheritance of some arbitary group of people?
This whole thing is beyond a joke.
This is a generation of children that will grow up with a burning sense of injustice.
Do the current parties of the right actually want to see the left in power for a generation or more? It is not the policies of Barack Obama that will lead the US to socialism, rather the 'Grapes of wrath' planted in the policies of tea party inspired austerity.
Tuesday 12 March 2013
Rule of Law
Today a former UK Cabinet minister and his ex wife have been sent to prison.
For anyone not familiar with the story, bad luck, it really has been a great one. The cabinet minister (Chris Huhne, who very nearly became leader of his party and therefore could have been deputy prime minister now) was caught driving in excess of the speed limit. In the UK we have a system where you can get points on your driving licence for an offence. And offence like this is three points (plus a fine etc.) 12 points will result in being banned from driving (for a year, perhaps).
So Mr Huhne asked his wife (Vicky Pryce) to say she had been driving. Which she did. I am not so clear on the why. Perhaps he had 9 points already and was therefore heading for a ban (points always seem to come in multiples of three) or, being environment secretary at the time, perhaps he found burning all that fuel a bit embarrassing. Whatever. They did it.
Naughty, naughty. This is an offence called perverting the course of justice, and is much more serious than driving a bit fast. But it can be easily imagined that many married couples have tried it on before. The idea of the points system is you get a chance to modify your driving, don't get banned for every mistake. While it is wrong there are still only a total of 24 points available. So you can't really carry on with absolute abandon. Points expire after three years (I think).
Then, silly boy, Mr Huhne went and screwed around. And, even worse, told his wife it was all over. Not clever. Many men may be able to persuade their wife to take three points. Many other men may get out of a 26 year marriage unscathed. Trying for both is pushing it.
So Ms Pryce went to the papers.
Mr Huhne tried to have the proceedings stopped. He tried to brazen it out, saying it really didn't happen. But Ms Pryce had entrapped him. She had got a load of emails and recorded conversations (at the behest of the journalist who she gave the story to, and who promised she would get away with it). It was clear they had conspired together to do this. And the court had the evidence. They got it from the journalist and it incriminated both of them.
So, before he got to court, Mr Huhne changed his plea to guilty. Finally reality dawned. Mr Huhne emerges from this with almost no credit, but in a relative sense at least, when push came to shove, he realised that he did the crime so would have to serve the time.
Ms Pryce on the other hand pleaded not guilty due to 'marital coercion'. This is a medieval defence which claims that the husband 'forced' the wife to take the points. It really didn't stack up. I had never even heard of this until now. Ridiculous.
The journalist (Isabel Oakeshott), meanwhile, for the sake of a story, took poor Ms Pryce for a ride and dumped her at the gates of jail. Seems like Mr Huhne and Ms Oakeshott have something in common.
There is one real important lesson. It is we still have the rule of law in the UK (for politicians at least). Mr Huhne was not able to stop the proceedings against him. He could not brazen his way through. There was clear evidence that he and Ms Pryce swapped points, it was put before a jury, he is now in prison. Likewise for Ms Pryce. She wanted revenge, very understandably. She really could finish her ex husband by exposing this conspiracy, the problem was she was also a part of the criminality. Exposing Mr Huhne's criminal behaviour necessarily involved exposing her own. No way out, before a jury and prison for her too.
Both these people thought the law somehow did not apply in their case. Both were proven wrong.
Some people might claim that there are other lessons, such as 'never trust a journalist' or 'hell hath no fury like a woman scorned'. Those things were, for me at least, already obvious.
Anyway, what a relief! All we need now is to lock up some bankers and a few newspaper executives and we will be close to getting back on track with rule of law.
In the US at least (according to Attorney General Eric Holder) there is still much work to be done on that. Banks have moved on from being to big to fail to too big to jail.
For anyone not familiar with the story, bad luck, it really has been a great one. The cabinet minister (Chris Huhne, who very nearly became leader of his party and therefore could have been deputy prime minister now) was caught driving in excess of the speed limit. In the UK we have a system where you can get points on your driving licence for an offence. And offence like this is three points (plus a fine etc.) 12 points will result in being banned from driving (for a year, perhaps).
So Mr Huhne asked his wife (Vicky Pryce) to say she had been driving. Which she did. I am not so clear on the why. Perhaps he had 9 points already and was therefore heading for a ban (points always seem to come in multiples of three) or, being environment secretary at the time, perhaps he found burning all that fuel a bit embarrassing. Whatever. They did it.
Naughty, naughty. This is an offence called perverting the course of justice, and is much more serious than driving a bit fast. But it can be easily imagined that many married couples have tried it on before. The idea of the points system is you get a chance to modify your driving, don't get banned for every mistake. While it is wrong there are still only a total of 24 points available. So you can't really carry on with absolute abandon. Points expire after three years (I think).
Then, silly boy, Mr Huhne went and screwed around. And, even worse, told his wife it was all over. Not clever. Many men may be able to persuade their wife to take three points. Many other men may get out of a 26 year marriage unscathed. Trying for both is pushing it.
So Ms Pryce went to the papers.
Mr Huhne tried to have the proceedings stopped. He tried to brazen it out, saying it really didn't happen. But Ms Pryce had entrapped him. She had got a load of emails and recorded conversations (at the behest of the journalist who she gave the story to, and who promised she would get away with it). It was clear they had conspired together to do this. And the court had the evidence. They got it from the journalist and it incriminated both of them.
So, before he got to court, Mr Huhne changed his plea to guilty. Finally reality dawned. Mr Huhne emerges from this with almost no credit, but in a relative sense at least, when push came to shove, he realised that he did the crime so would have to serve the time.
Ms Pryce on the other hand pleaded not guilty due to 'marital coercion'. This is a medieval defence which claims that the husband 'forced' the wife to take the points. It really didn't stack up. I had never even heard of this until now. Ridiculous.
The journalist (Isabel Oakeshott), meanwhile, for the sake of a story, took poor Ms Pryce for a ride and dumped her at the gates of jail. Seems like Mr Huhne and Ms Oakeshott have something in common.
There is one real important lesson. It is we still have the rule of law in the UK (for politicians at least). Mr Huhne was not able to stop the proceedings against him. He could not brazen his way through. There was clear evidence that he and Ms Pryce swapped points, it was put before a jury, he is now in prison. Likewise for Ms Pryce. She wanted revenge, very understandably. She really could finish her ex husband by exposing this conspiracy, the problem was she was also a part of the criminality. Exposing Mr Huhne's criminal behaviour necessarily involved exposing her own. No way out, before a jury and prison for her too.
Both these people thought the law somehow did not apply in their case. Both were proven wrong.
Some people might claim that there are other lessons, such as 'never trust a journalist' or 'hell hath no fury like a woman scorned'. Those things were, for me at least, already obvious.
Anyway, what a relief! All we need now is to lock up some bankers and a few newspaper executives and we will be close to getting back on track with rule of law.
In the US at least (according to Attorney General Eric Holder) there is still much work to be done on that. Banks have moved on from being to big to fail to too big to jail.
Conclave!
It's new pope time. All the Cardinals of the Roman Catholic church are locked away in the Sistene Chapel to choose a new pope.
This can sometimes last days. But they probably have better pictures than a flat screen TV - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Creaci%C3%B3n_de_Ad%C3%A1n_(Miguel_%C3%81ngel).jpg
Something has happened to the church in general in the past few decades.
They have been screwing kids.
I think, in fairness, this has been done by people in power for ever. There are a certain percentage of people that have this tendency to paedophilia. People in power get the opportunity to indulge it.
So all the exposure we see of priests from various churches tells us something. I think it is not about paedophilia. I think politicians, journalists and police will be no more or less prone to paedophilia than priests are and were. I think it is about power.
Back in the 60s, the 70s and the 80s priests were in a position of massive power relative to their flocks. That power has now dissipated, as evidenced by the ability of victims to bring their abusers to justice.
Don't misunderstand me, some of the things the church hierarchy did to hide the wrongdoing were despicable. The way they moved abusers around giving them access to more and more victims. One can only hope that the primary motivator was shame for the Church.
Nevertheless, as the Cardinals now gather to appoint a new leader, I think we can say for sure that it is a diminished role in a diminished organisation.
Some will see this as a good thing, that the unaccountable power wielded by clerics over the centuries is now largely passed. In some countries, where the power of the church has been great indeed, doubtless this is so.
For me, I accept this as the way of things. I would even go so far as to say I support this social change. However, there lies in me some pang of nostalgic regret for a time when Western culture could be described as Christian in its foundation. The new found accountability for Priests of the church tell me that time is passed.
This conclave is, in truth, pretty irrelevant.
This can sometimes last days. But they probably have better pictures than a flat screen TV - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Creaci%C3%B3n_de_Ad%C3%A1n_(Miguel_%C3%81ngel).jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
Something has happened to the church in general in the past few decades.
They have been screwing kids.
I think, in fairness, this has been done by people in power for ever. There are a certain percentage of people that have this tendency to paedophilia. People in power get the opportunity to indulge it.
So all the exposure we see of priests from various churches tells us something. I think it is not about paedophilia. I think politicians, journalists and police will be no more or less prone to paedophilia than priests are and were. I think it is about power.
Back in the 60s, the 70s and the 80s priests were in a position of massive power relative to their flocks. That power has now dissipated, as evidenced by the ability of victims to bring their abusers to justice.
Don't misunderstand me, some of the things the church hierarchy did to hide the wrongdoing were despicable. The way they moved abusers around giving them access to more and more victims. One can only hope that the primary motivator was shame for the Church.
Nevertheless, as the Cardinals now gather to appoint a new leader, I think we can say for sure that it is a diminished role in a diminished organisation.
Some will see this as a good thing, that the unaccountable power wielded by clerics over the centuries is now largely passed. In some countries, where the power of the church has been great indeed, doubtless this is so.
For me, I accept this as the way of things. I would even go so far as to say I support this social change. However, there lies in me some pang of nostalgic regret for a time when Western culture could be described as Christian in its foundation. The new found accountability for Priests of the church tell me that time is passed.
This conclave is, in truth, pretty irrelevant.
Monday 11 March 2013
Free Labour
It seems like everyone wants to reduce the welfare bill. Entitlement spending. All the money that the lazy people get at the expense of the hardworking.
To be honest, these are by no means feelings I am immune to. I have relatives who seem to have a very similar disposable income to mine, but a lot less work. And qualifications. It can rankle a little sometimes.
The unfortunate thing is, most entitlement spending in advanced western countries actually goes to people IN WORK. That's right. Unemployment is one problem, and at the moment quite a serious problem, but even if you stopped paying unemployment benefit, that would not solve the problem of the welfare bill.
The problem is welfare is being used to subsidise EMPLOYERS not EMPLOYEES.
What I am saying is, if a mature adult is prepared to go out to work, full time, and has been doing so in steady full time employment for five years, they should be able to do the following.
1) Support themselves
2) Support a spouse/partner
3) Support two children
4) Afford a car (second hand)
5) Afford a cheap (not international) one week holiday once a year.
If someone is working hard, full time and had held down a job for five years and CAN'T have that, what would be the point? The minimum wage should be targeted at that level. That would be a really significant rise in the minimum wage.
Many people might say employers 'can't afford' to pay that level. I have news for those people. If you can't afford to pay someone a fair wage, you can't afford to employ them. I would like to have someone come into my house and do the cooking and cleaning. Problem is I can't afford to pay enough. Does that mean welfare should make up the difference?
Why should welfare subsidise employers? So they can make fat profits? Pay executives big bonuses? Pay dividends to shareholders?
There was a time when an average unskilled wage was enough. That time has passed. Wages have been forced lower. Now low wages are subsidised by the tax payer, and the growth in the return to capital has outstripped growth in the return to labour.
Worst of all the narrative is all about lazy feckless poor people taking advantage of the welfare system, when the people getting fat on it are the rich.
To be honest, these are by no means feelings I am immune to. I have relatives who seem to have a very similar disposable income to mine, but a lot less work. And qualifications. It can rankle a little sometimes.
The unfortunate thing is, most entitlement spending in advanced western countries actually goes to people IN WORK. That's right. Unemployment is one problem, and at the moment quite a serious problem, but even if you stopped paying unemployment benefit, that would not solve the problem of the welfare bill.
The problem is welfare is being used to subsidise EMPLOYERS not EMPLOYEES.
What I am saying is, if a mature adult is prepared to go out to work, full time, and has been doing so in steady full time employment for five years, they should be able to do the following.
1) Support themselves
2) Support a spouse/partner
3) Support two children
4) Afford a car (second hand)
5) Afford a cheap (not international) one week holiday once a year.
If someone is working hard, full time and had held down a job for five years and CAN'T have that, what would be the point? The minimum wage should be targeted at that level. That would be a really significant rise in the minimum wage.
Many people might say employers 'can't afford' to pay that level. I have news for those people. If you can't afford to pay someone a fair wage, you can't afford to employ them. I would like to have someone come into my house and do the cooking and cleaning. Problem is I can't afford to pay enough. Does that mean welfare should make up the difference?
Why should welfare subsidise employers? So they can make fat profits? Pay executives big bonuses? Pay dividends to shareholders?
There was a time when an average unskilled wage was enough. That time has passed. Wages have been forced lower. Now low wages are subsidised by the tax payer, and the growth in the return to capital has outstripped growth in the return to labour.
Worst of all the narrative is all about lazy feckless poor people taking advantage of the welfare system, when the people getting fat on it are the rich.
Tax relief
We have this thing called tax. Some stuff has to be bought by the government.
People generally complain about it, nevertheless, when it gets down to it, most people recognise that there are some basic functions that are best provided collectively, and that democracy is the best way to mediate just what we are to pay for collectively, and how much of it we will buy.
In order to finance all of this, our elected representatives oblige us to pay a proportion of our income, expenditure and/or wealth. This is called taxation.
And don't we all hate taxation. It is commonly viewed as a great evil. Sometimes and a necessary evil.
People claim all the time to be in favour of a balanced budget, yet they also speak ceaselessly of reducing taxes. I have a piece of news for humanity. There is NO SUCH THING as a FREE LUNCH.
If you want to balance the budget, either be prepared to see government spending fall or taxes rise. Given the scale of the gap in most western countries, you will very likely have to see both.
Which kind of brings us to the expenditure side of things. Government spending, like taxes, is often seen as wasteful and inherently evil. Until you start pointing out the kind of things government spends its money in.
In economic theory there is the concept of a public good. This is good as in 'goods and services' as opposed to the opposite of bad. Such a good can be used by many people, and one people using it is not detrimental to the enjoyment or use of another user. Moreover, once provided there is no way to exclude other people from also enjoying the benefits. (See wikipedia:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good) Flood defence is a good example. A hundred household living on the coast. One guy decides to build a flood defence. If he asks everyone else to contribute afterwards there is a good chance at least some will decline. Because they already have the benefit of the defence. Such things kind of have to be provided via taxation, or people, being as they are, will always wait for someone else to provide that flood defence, and it will just never get built.
Like the military. This is commonly called defence, even if a country actually attacks other countries more often than other countries attack it. Military forces are also used for UN peacekeeping. That isn't defence either (but it seems less dishonest labelling that as part of the defence budget).
Then there is infrastructure, like roads, telephone and electricity networks.
And then there is education, which most people think should be free for small children, but sooner or later they thing the beneficiary should end up paying for.
Then some people think a rail network should be backed by taxation, and others not. Some people think and urban transport networks should, and others not. Some people think medical help for the old. Others think for families.
There is an endless array of little things some people think should be paid for out of taxes. Taxes that other people should have to pay.
Then there is this concept of tax relief. That if we spend our money on something the government approves of, we will get some sort of tax rebate. So, if I go to church and give them some money, tax relief. Some people even get tax relief on mortgage payments, they actually get a subsidy to buy their own home! Firms get tax relief on some sorts of investment.
This is insane. Why should there ever be tax relief.
Make no mistake, there is no such thing as a free lunch. When someone claims some tax back, they are getting a subsidy of the other tax payers, Now, I like the idea of me paying less tax than the rest. Problem is, so does everybody else. And think of the number of tax officials and accountants getting paid to administer this.
I have this radical idea. Why not abolish, like totally do away with, tax relief. If I make a decision to donate to charity. Good for me. That does not oblige the government to come along and give either me or the charity a subsidy. Try explaining it to a militant atheist, that they subsidise my church. I can understand why it might annoy them.
Or try explaining to a Christian, that they subsidise mosques.
When a company invests, it does so to make profits for its shareholders. Great. Nothing wrong with that. But should I subsidise that from my taxes? What if I think the company is unethical? What if I am a pacifist and they are exporting arms?
We agree a tax rate, that government will raise so much revenue. That everyone should pay according to the rules. Then we start bending these rules every which way. Why? Could it be that politicians are up to that 'bribe us with our own money' thing?
I do not like the idea of subsidising other people's pet causes.
I do not like the idea of subsidising firms' investments.
I do not like the ide of governments offering subsidies for 'good behaviour'.
Besides, all this complexity in the system not only increases the cost, making tax officials much more necessary. It also creates work for accountants. Worst of all, it favours the rich at the expense of the poor. If you are poor and not paying much tax, you have little scope for tax relief. You cannot afford the accountant to claim what small relief you might.
Let the government set the tax.
Let the people pay the tax.
Be done.
Thursday 7 March 2013
Drones on US soil
Robotics in the military is a relatively new area.
It began with drones flying for reconnaissance purposes. Uncontroversial.
They then began firing missiles off them. Pretty uncontroversial
A democratic president uses them loads. Controversial.
First, lets get something clear. What we call drones are UAV, or unmanned aerial vehicles. The armed ones are generally piloted by a human being, but remotely. So there are bases in the US where people pilot drones on kill missions in Pashtunistan. For the US political class, and public, this is also pretty uncontroversial.
Then there are the new surveillance drones being flown over US cities. there is no suggestion that these are going to be armed, or that if they are armed, that the person with their finger on the button would not be culpable, but the issue has become controversial. It lead to an actual talking filibuster in the senate! (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/rand-paul-filibuster-john-brennan-cia-nominee-88507.html)
I am not entirely clear on what the point of the controversy is. Police officers shoot people now and again. When they do, they have to go through a process and possibly face a court. Should a senior officer tell a subordinate to go out and shoot someone, would that not be murder?
If he uses a gun, remote controlled bomb or remote controlled drone, that is still murder. Kind of more likely to get into trouble if you don't have the self defence argument.
Opposing surveillance is reasonable. Pretending that the President is about to start randomly killing US citizens is not. Not reasonable, not rational, it is just plain silly.
Although Rand Paul, who lead the filibuster can talk shit for 13 hours non stop, and therefore I feel we must be related and he must be a fine upstanding man,
If a person in US jurisdiction uses a remote control device to kill another person in US jurisdiction, that is surely homicide. The only problems are when persons is US jurisdiction start killing people in other jurisdictions, and claiming never to be culpable. But I already noted that is uncontroversial.
It sends a stark message about how many Americans view the world that they can get so worked up about this non existent threat, while ignoring the thing that has gone well beyond the threat stage just because the victims are not US citizens.
After the death of Chavez yesterday, it seems the whole world are the Latino farmers of the 80s today.
It began with drones flying for reconnaissance purposes. Uncontroversial.
They then began firing missiles off them. Pretty uncontroversial
A democratic president uses them loads. Controversial.
First, lets get something clear. What we call drones are UAV, or unmanned aerial vehicles. The armed ones are generally piloted by a human being, but remotely. So there are bases in the US where people pilot drones on kill missions in Pashtunistan. For the US political class, and public, this is also pretty uncontroversial.
Then there are the new surveillance drones being flown over US cities. there is no suggestion that these are going to be armed, or that if they are armed, that the person with their finger on the button would not be culpable, but the issue has become controversial. It lead to an actual talking filibuster in the senate! (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/rand-paul-filibuster-john-brennan-cia-nominee-88507.html)
I am not entirely clear on what the point of the controversy is. Police officers shoot people now and again. When they do, they have to go through a process and possibly face a court. Should a senior officer tell a subordinate to go out and shoot someone, would that not be murder?
If he uses a gun, remote controlled bomb or remote controlled drone, that is still murder. Kind of more likely to get into trouble if you don't have the self defence argument.
Opposing surveillance is reasonable. Pretending that the President is about to start randomly killing US citizens is not. Not reasonable, not rational, it is just plain silly.
Although Rand Paul, who lead the filibuster can talk shit for 13 hours non stop, and therefore I feel we must be related and he must be a fine upstanding man,
If a person in US jurisdiction uses a remote control device to kill another person in US jurisdiction, that is surely homicide. The only problems are when persons is US jurisdiction start killing people in other jurisdictions, and claiming never to be culpable. But I already noted that is uncontroversial.
It sends a stark message about how many Americans view the world that they can get so worked up about this non existent threat, while ignoring the thing that has gone well beyond the threat stage just because the victims are not US citizens.
After the death of Chavez yesterday, it seems the whole world are the Latino farmers of the 80s today.
No Turning Back
Our esteemed leader has informed us (or is about to inform us, speeches are so heavily trailed nowadays most could be replaced by a press release), that there is to be 'No Turning Back'. He is sticking to his guns on economic policy.
What a silly thing to say. What an absurd speech to make. No one is right all the time. When you make a mistake, or take a wrong turning, sooner or later you have to turn around or fall off a cliff. Or drive into the sea.
Refusing to change direction regardless of the correlation between desired and actual destination is called stubbornness. Or stupidity. Dave has that in spades. Even if he didn't have enough for himself, Gideot Odbourne has it to spare.
The discussion is not about U turns or the like, it is about whether the UK government's current economic policy is going the right way.
I believe Dave is saying it is. I don't believe most of the people in the UK agree with him.
Dave has around two years for them to change their minds.
Such a change will not come from clever arguments or incisive debate. Neither will it come from calling their political opponents nasty names, demonising the poor, assylum seekers and immigrants. It certainly won't come from Davvy making speeches about 'No Turning Back'.
It can only come from economic recovery.
On assuming power the coalition adopted a policy of austerity, and told us it would be expansionary austerity. that theirs was the fastest path to recovery. It hasn't turned out that way so far.
Come election time, they will be judged on the results of their economic policy. The same old saw "it's the economy, stupid". Given their back ground of PR and outrageous privilege I sense this might be unfamiliar territory (this judgement by results thing) for the gruesome twosome, Dave and Gideot.
They had better get used to it.
What a silly thing to say. What an absurd speech to make. No one is right all the time. When you make a mistake, or take a wrong turning, sooner or later you have to turn around or fall off a cliff. Or drive into the sea.
Refusing to change direction regardless of the correlation between desired and actual destination is called stubbornness. Or stupidity. Dave has that in spades. Even if he didn't have enough for himself, Gideot Odbourne has it to spare.
The discussion is not about U turns or the like, it is about whether the UK government's current economic policy is going the right way.
I believe Dave is saying it is. I don't believe most of the people in the UK agree with him.
Dave has around two years for them to change their minds.
Such a change will not come from clever arguments or incisive debate. Neither will it come from calling their political opponents nasty names, demonising the poor, assylum seekers and immigrants. It certainly won't come from Davvy making speeches about 'No Turning Back'.
It can only come from economic recovery.
On assuming power the coalition adopted a policy of austerity, and told us it would be expansionary austerity. that theirs was the fastest path to recovery. It hasn't turned out that way so far.
Come election time, they will be judged on the results of their economic policy. The same old saw "it's the economy, stupid". Given their back ground of PR and outrageous privilege I sense this might be unfamiliar territory (this judgement by results thing) for the gruesome twosome, Dave and Gideot.
They had better get used to it.
Wednesday 6 March 2013
Adios Hugo Chavez
With some inevitability Hugo Chavez has passed away.
My condolences to his family and many supporters everywhere.
Mr Chavez was a long way from perfect. His manipulation of the constitution to allow an extension of his time in power was reminiscent of much historical leftist abuse of power. It is difficult to know the extent to which he may have supported leftist rebels in his Colombian neighbour. We can be certain that his interference in Colombia was less destabilising than that of the US America
Nevertheless, while Chavez lived anyone else winning a Venezuelan election remained unlikely.
Chavez was in some ways innovative. Taking Venezuela
He could be brave, his defiance of US
His staunch support of Cuba
He was inspirational. Breathing new life into the left across Latin America , inspiring a whole generation of leftist leaders.
While Western leaders viewed Chavez with distaste, in doing so they show their hypocrisy. Chavez was by no means the least democratic of Latin American leaders. He was not the most repressive, nor was his record of support to foreign insurgents particularly bad. But he was singled out by the West as uniquely bad. Ordinary Latin Americans know why. It is because he was a bulwark of opposition to Western power. He would not bow to the Gringo. For the supine political leaders of Britain
While Chavez had many faults his anti Western rhetoric is not among them. He is, in large measure, forgiven because of his anti Western rhetoric. He will be remembered for comparing George Bush to the Devil. Most of the world will remember him fondly.
As Venezuelans mourn their president, Western leaders would be wise to reflect the outpouring of affection and grief that will come from people all over Latin America and the wider world.
If the West cannot learn to accept the democratic choices of peoples across the world, it has no business speaking for, never mind fighting for, democracy. One of fundamental features of a true democrat is the ability to accept the result when it goes against your own will or judgement.
Chavez exposed Western espousing of world wide democracy for the humbug it was. All true democrats should be thankful for that.
Tuesday 5 March 2013
Austerirty
What a word. It is made to appeal to a certain section of society, those that like things austere. Those seniors just in or coming up to retirement. The "I've worked all my life" brigade.
I have a message for those people. It goes like this.
How lucky you have been. You were the last generation that had full employment. No one under the age of 50 is under any illusion that you have to be VERY lucky to 'work all your life' nowadays. What a privilege. How dare you speak of it as a sacrifice?
Yours is a generation that did not fight the war, but reaped the benefits. That grew up with a generation of heroes as parents, and promptly dropped your pants and showed them your arse.
And now what? You think because some numbskulled financial advisor told you you had a pension saved, that my generation must pay it? Think again.
There will be no reitrement for me. Why should I pay for you to have what will never come my way?
Whatever assets exist in your pension fund, you will NOT be able to sell them for their book value. Who would you sell them to? My generation can't afford a pension. You will be forced to sell into a falling market.
Curtail your plans. Prepare for an old age of much reduced means. That is what awaits me, I am under no obligation to finance the fantasy that you bought into.
There is a name for this new normal. Austerity.
I have a message for those people. It goes like this.
How lucky you have been. You were the last generation that had full employment. No one under the age of 50 is under any illusion that you have to be VERY lucky to 'work all your life' nowadays. What a privilege. How dare you speak of it as a sacrifice?
Yours is a generation that did not fight the war, but reaped the benefits. That grew up with a generation of heroes as parents, and promptly dropped your pants and showed them your arse.
And now what? You think because some numbskulled financial advisor told you you had a pension saved, that my generation must pay it? Think again.
There will be no reitrement for me. Why should I pay for you to have what will never come my way?
Whatever assets exist in your pension fund, you will NOT be able to sell them for their book value. Who would you sell them to? My generation can't afford a pension. You will be forced to sell into a falling market.
Curtail your plans. Prepare for an old age of much reduced means. That is what awaits me, I am under no obligation to finance the fantasy that you bought into.
There is a name for this new normal. Austerity.
Monday 4 March 2013
Intelligent design
Intelligent Design is a concept that seems to twist a lot of otherwise reasonable people into knots.
It is one of those dividing issues. If I tell a freind with no religious conviction that I am a christian, one of their earliest responses is often to ask if I think 'intelligent design should be taught in schools'.
This is a standard question. It comes across almost as if rehearsed. The person who poses it generally considers only a simple yes/no answer to be fair. Anything else is weasling.
It is is ways like this the place of religious belief in Western society has become a matter of great intolerance. I do not claim people of religion have always been tolerant in the West. Even today there is much intolerance of irreligion amongst the religious. But the irreligious are also intolerant of belief. Strangely they have their own mantras and dogmas to which everyone must conform. This statement on intelligent design is one of them. They also like to ask you how old you think the earth is. Like I have a clue.
Intelligent design, put simply, is the notion that the world is far too complex, to beautiful, simply too good to be merely coincidence. There must be a creator, a designer. This is not a new concept, although the term 'intelligent design' is relatively new. It is an ancient argument for the existence of a supreme being.
What is new is an attempt to dress up the idea of intelligent design as a scientific theory. It is not. It is a philosophical stance.
So the answer to the question 'should intelligent design be taught in schools' ought to be the same for religious and irreligious alike.
'Absolutely, teach it in philosophy, religious education, social studies. Do not teach it as scientific theory or in science lessons'.
All well meaning and rational people should be at one with that answer. And they should unite against those that would divide us. Because those that seek to divide us almost certainly want to divide and rule us. That way lies tyrrany.
In particular, Christians should be aware that to dress up faith as science is the opposite of truth. It is a lie, and the devil is the father of lies.
It is one of those dividing issues. If I tell a freind with no religious conviction that I am a christian, one of their earliest responses is often to ask if I think 'intelligent design should be taught in schools'.
This is a standard question. It comes across almost as if rehearsed. The person who poses it generally considers only a simple yes/no answer to be fair. Anything else is weasling.
It is is ways like this the place of religious belief in Western society has become a matter of great intolerance. I do not claim people of religion have always been tolerant in the West. Even today there is much intolerance of irreligion amongst the religious. But the irreligious are also intolerant of belief. Strangely they have their own mantras and dogmas to which everyone must conform. This statement on intelligent design is one of them. They also like to ask you how old you think the earth is. Like I have a clue.
Intelligent design, put simply, is the notion that the world is far too complex, to beautiful, simply too good to be merely coincidence. There must be a creator, a designer. This is not a new concept, although the term 'intelligent design' is relatively new. It is an ancient argument for the existence of a supreme being.
What is new is an attempt to dress up the idea of intelligent design as a scientific theory. It is not. It is a philosophical stance.
So the answer to the question 'should intelligent design be taught in schools' ought to be the same for religious and irreligious alike.
'Absolutely, teach it in philosophy, religious education, social studies. Do not teach it as scientific theory or in science lessons'.
All well meaning and rational people should be at one with that answer. And they should unite against those that would divide us. Because those that seek to divide us almost certainly want to divide and rule us. That way lies tyrrany.
In particular, Christians should be aware that to dress up faith as science is the opposite of truth. It is a lie, and the devil is the father of lies.
Friday 1 March 2013
Nick Clegg dies another day
Interesting result in the Eastleigh by election.
Lib Dems scrape in, 14% down in share of the vote, and declare a stunning victory. Their loss of share of vote is broadly in line with national polls. If they think this is good news they must have expected to lose every seat. Nick Clegg should have been finished by tuition fees. He must be finished by Rennard. But I expect the Lib dems will let him carry on, zombie like the banks.
Tories are destroyed. That they failed to win the last election, and are going backwards from there. The only questions are about getting rid of Cameron before or after the election, and who will replace him. The worst thing for Cameron is that he loses to UKIP, but the Lib Dems hold the seat. This will reinforce the claims by his back benchers that the Lib Dems are getting too much of their own way in the coalition. Thus dragging the tories even further away from reality.
Labour is in much better shape than this result would indicate. Normally a third party gets squeezed in a tight by election. When another challenger comes in to make it a three horse race it can be disastrous. As it was their share of vote held steady (very marginal increase). A good performance.
UKIP look like the real winners. This really was a solid performance from them. Their program is an interesting mix of vairous populist nationalistic measures. While their voters may harbour ante diluvian attitudes, there is no real reason to accuse the party of racism.
I personally do not support their policy on immigration or on Europe. But they speak more economic sense than the Tories. They are also more willing than Labour to step outside the prevailing political consensus. Do not be surprised to see them do very well at every election between now and the next general election. They could win some other by election.
When Miliband first got into post he was prepared to swim against the tide on Murdoch & on austerity. He needs to double down on that to win a working majority at the next election.
Lib Dems scrape in, 14% down in share of the vote, and declare a stunning victory. Their loss of share of vote is broadly in line with national polls. If they think this is good news they must have expected to lose every seat. Nick Clegg should have been finished by tuition fees. He must be finished by Rennard. But I expect the Lib dems will let him carry on, zombie like the banks.
Tories are destroyed. That they failed to win the last election, and are going backwards from there. The only questions are about getting rid of Cameron before or after the election, and who will replace him. The worst thing for Cameron is that he loses to UKIP, but the Lib Dems hold the seat. This will reinforce the claims by his back benchers that the Lib Dems are getting too much of their own way in the coalition. Thus dragging the tories even further away from reality.
Labour is in much better shape than this result would indicate. Normally a third party gets squeezed in a tight by election. When another challenger comes in to make it a three horse race it can be disastrous. As it was their share of vote held steady (very marginal increase). A good performance.
UKIP look like the real winners. This really was a solid performance from them. Their program is an interesting mix of vairous populist nationalistic measures. While their voters may harbour ante diluvian attitudes, there is no real reason to accuse the party of racism.
I personally do not support their policy on immigration or on Europe. But they speak more economic sense than the Tories. They are also more willing than Labour to step outside the prevailing political consensus. Do not be surprised to see them do very well at every election between now and the next general election. They could win some other by election.
When Miliband first got into post he was prepared to swim against the tide on Murdoch & on austerity. He needs to double down on that to win a working majority at the next election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)