Photo by Peter Menzel via Phil Greenspun
Links for July 15th to July 16th
19 hours ago
Tuesday, April 22, 2003
Wednesday, April 16, 2003
Essential Greg Palast
Q: What does it take for a complete blackout of like the one we're getting on, say, the U.S. spying on the United Nations delegates?
A: Official denial. American newspaper reporters and outlets will not run a story which has undercover information which is officially stone-blank denied. Now that story, for example, of spying on the U.N., that's my newspaper by the way, The Observer, and those are my friends -- who are now, by the way, facing jail time for that story, under the Official Secrets Act ...
If I printed everything I wanted, if I printed the American edition in Britain, I would be jailed. One of my sources has already spent six months in jail. It's just horrendous without a First Amendment. I mean, unfortunately we in the U.S. don't use our First Amendment. Like I say, if Britain needs a First Amendment they can use ours because we're not. It's a nightmare in both countries. There, the nightmare is the law. There, editors are afraid, justly afraid, of the law. Here, editors are afraid of their shadows. As I say, Bob Woodward, editor of the Washington Post, would never run the Watergate story today. It was an unnamable source versus an official denial. He would not run it now. No way. And that's why I'm "in exile."
And where is Norman anyway?
... the other is Norman Schwarzkopf. You have to understand that after Gulf War One, the Bush family cashed in like crazy, and Schwarzkopf said we didn't send half a million kids into the desert so the Bush family could cash in. And you hear how much he's been out front now, right? You'd think they would wheel out their big hero.
Q: What does it take for a complete blackout of like the one we're getting on, say, the U.S. spying on the United Nations delegates?
A: Official denial. American newspaper reporters and outlets will not run a story which has undercover information which is officially stone-blank denied. Now that story, for example, of spying on the U.N., that's my newspaper by the way, The Observer, and those are my friends -- who are now, by the way, facing jail time for that story, under the Official Secrets Act ...
If I printed everything I wanted, if I printed the American edition in Britain, I would be jailed. One of my sources has already spent six months in jail. It's just horrendous without a First Amendment. I mean, unfortunately we in the U.S. don't use our First Amendment. Like I say, if Britain needs a First Amendment they can use ours because we're not. It's a nightmare in both countries. There, the nightmare is the law. There, editors are afraid, justly afraid, of the law. Here, editors are afraid of their shadows. As I say, Bob Woodward, editor of the Washington Post, would never run the Watergate story today. It was an unnamable source versus an official denial. He would not run it now. No way. And that's why I'm "in exile."
And where is Norman anyway?
... the other is Norman Schwarzkopf. You have to understand that after Gulf War One, the Bush family cashed in like crazy, and Schwarzkopf said we didn't send half a million kids into the desert so the Bush family could cash in. And you hear how much he's been out front now, right? You'd think they would wheel out their big hero.
Tuesday, April 15, 2003
Nick Denton is in Brazil
He says Baghdad ... all seems very far away.
But actually, here's how it's going down in South America.
The Israel of South America is Columbia. A state which the US pumps large amounts of money and military aid into. Ostensibly this is part of the War on Drugs (Columbia's coke == Iraq's chemical weapons, dealers == terrorist delivery system.)
The Palestinians / "bad guy terrorists" are FARC, the old style leftist guerrilla movement who still control territory (where of course, all the coke is allegedly grown)
The oil is next door in Venezuela. Currently under control of Hugo Chavez. Chavez is no Saddam Hussain but he has had the audacity to inspire militancy in Opec and nationalize the oil company. That was enough for the US to try a regime change when the CIA backed an attempted coup.
The US probably thinks it can wait for Chavez to lose in the next elections, but is hedging it's bets by building up a military presence on the border in Columbia and building military bases in Brazil. These are very unpopular with the population here (in Brazil) , but the new government hasn't decided what to do about them. Lula is torn between Blairism : slick, media-friendly presentation, some minor reforms and big symbolic campaigns like his war against hunger (Fome); and a more traditional latin American inspiration from Chavez and Castro. At the moment he's steering a course between the two.
He brought in the US as a "friend of Venezuela" to help negotiations between Chavez and the strikers, but on the other hand he refused to declare FARC a terrorist organization banned from Brazil. He allows the Americans to have their base here (so far); but refused to support the war in Iraq.
Latin America is far more sensitive to US imperialism than the anglosphere or Europe. Chile, Argentina and Brazil have all had US backed rightwing military dictatorships within the last 30 years. (Remember that the US even tried to stop Britain going to war against the Argentinian Junta) So anti US feeling and cynicism is high. And Lula, a veteran of the anti-dictatorship movement is likely to be wary of US influence. On the other hand, the country is in hock to the IMF, and most believe that keeping the US sweet is essential to keeping the IMF credit line open. And if they don't ... well Argentina is a good lesson in not pissing off the IMF.
Brazil also has a growing oil industry in Rio and will allegedly be self-sufficent in oil within about 5 years. But it has an exploding drug trafficking problem in Rio too. The organized gangs have brought a large number of weapons into the city, which now has a mortality rate higher than Palestine! And they are increasingly coming into violent conflict with the police and authorities. Roughly once a month, as a show of strength, they shut down the city by threatening to kill any shopkeeper who opens shop, and taking out public transport with rockets. The Brazilian government responds with martial control, and the army on the streets.
How does this play out? South America is very different from the middle east and asia but some similar forces are at work. The war on drugs is as vacuous as the war on terrorism, and leads to the same category mistake of trying to use war against the governments of states rather than police work against networks of criminals within states.
Furthermore, the war on drugs has been spectacularly unsuccessful in anything other than moving weapons into the war zone and the hands of wealthy drug gangs. It's so unsuccessful that it raises the suspicion that that's actually what suits the US. In the short term it gives the US an excuse to extend it's power in the area : by selling miltary support to friendly governments, and making war against unfriendly ones.
In the long term, as with Afghanistan, countries are torn apart by civil war, they become candidates for invasion and reconstruction with pro-US governments. It also doesn't hurt the imperialists' aims that most of the population of the countries experiencing this, are so pissed off with the US, that they have long since become anti-American and therefore (incomprehensibly to the wide-eyed American public) hostile "potential dangers" to the US; and must therefore be repressed in the name of self defence.
He says Baghdad ... all seems very far away.
But actually, here's how it's going down in South America.
The Israel of South America is Columbia. A state which the US pumps large amounts of money and military aid into. Ostensibly this is part of the War on Drugs (Columbia's coke == Iraq's chemical weapons, dealers == terrorist delivery system.)
The Palestinians / "bad guy terrorists" are FARC, the old style leftist guerrilla movement who still control territory (where of course, all the coke is allegedly grown)
The oil is next door in Venezuela. Currently under control of Hugo Chavez. Chavez is no Saddam Hussain but he has had the audacity to inspire militancy in Opec and nationalize the oil company. That was enough for the US to try a regime change when the CIA backed an attempted coup.
The US probably thinks it can wait for Chavez to lose in the next elections, but is hedging it's bets by building up a military presence on the border in Columbia and building military bases in Brazil. These are very unpopular with the population here (in Brazil) , but the new government hasn't decided what to do about them. Lula is torn between Blairism : slick, media-friendly presentation, some minor reforms and big symbolic campaigns like his war against hunger (Fome); and a more traditional latin American inspiration from Chavez and Castro. At the moment he's steering a course between the two.
He brought in the US as a "friend of Venezuela" to help negotiations between Chavez and the strikers, but on the other hand he refused to declare FARC a terrorist organization banned from Brazil. He allows the Americans to have their base here (so far); but refused to support the war in Iraq.
Latin America is far more sensitive to US imperialism than the anglosphere or Europe. Chile, Argentina and Brazil have all had US backed rightwing military dictatorships within the last 30 years. (Remember that the US even tried to stop Britain going to war against the Argentinian Junta) So anti US feeling and cynicism is high. And Lula, a veteran of the anti-dictatorship movement is likely to be wary of US influence. On the other hand, the country is in hock to the IMF, and most believe that keeping the US sweet is essential to keeping the IMF credit line open. And if they don't ... well Argentina is a good lesson in not pissing off the IMF.
Brazil also has a growing oil industry in Rio and will allegedly be self-sufficent in oil within about 5 years. But it has an exploding drug trafficking problem in Rio too. The organized gangs have brought a large number of weapons into the city, which now has a mortality rate higher than Palestine! And they are increasingly coming into violent conflict with the police and authorities. Roughly once a month, as a show of strength, they shut down the city by threatening to kill any shopkeeper who opens shop, and taking out public transport with rockets. The Brazilian government responds with martial control, and the army on the streets.
How does this play out? South America is very different from the middle east and asia but some similar forces are at work. The war on drugs is as vacuous as the war on terrorism, and leads to the same category mistake of trying to use war against the governments of states rather than police work against networks of criminals within states.
Furthermore, the war on drugs has been spectacularly unsuccessful in anything other than moving weapons into the war zone and the hands of wealthy drug gangs. It's so unsuccessful that it raises the suspicion that that's actually what suits the US. In the short term it gives the US an excuse to extend it's power in the area : by selling miltary support to friendly governments, and making war against unfriendly ones.
In the long term, as with Afghanistan, countries are torn apart by civil war, they become candidates for invasion and reconstruction with pro-US governments. It also doesn't hurt the imperialists' aims that most of the population of the countries experiencing this, are so pissed off with the US, that they have long since become anti-American and therefore (incomprehensibly to the wide-eyed American public) hostile "potential dangers" to the US; and must therefore be repressed in the name of self defence.
Monday, April 14, 2003
Many on the left will say this is the wrong time for leftists who oppose the embargo and even worse military invasion as a wrong-headed approach to dealing with Castro's regime. I disagree. I think this is exactly the right time for the Left to act in solidarity with the Cuban people in defense of both democracy and social justice in that country. We should not force dissidents to choose between Bush's rightwing capitalist militarism and Castro's authoritarian repressive social justice policies. This is a call for leftist activists to standup for both social justice and human rights against militarists and authoritarians of all persuasions.
Nathan Newman :
Nathan Newman :
Saturday, April 12, 2003
Signed up for BlogWise.
Another blog directory. But maybe it's good to get into a network early if winner-takes-all power laws are the rule around here.
Another blog directory. But maybe it's good to get into a network early if winner-takes-all power laws are the rule around here.
Friday, April 11, 2003
Apple may buy Universal Music
Interesting. To make it's catalogue available online? Don't think they'd give it away for nothing. So either they have a strategy for selling it with some kind of DRM or they think it can stimulate hardware sales. Some proprietory file format which can only be played on iPod?
Surely Apple are too smart to do the really dumb things. So what have they got up their sleeves?
More wondering here
Interesting. To make it's catalogue available online? Don't think they'd give it away for nothing. So either they have a strategy for selling it with some kind of DRM or they think it can stimulate hardware sales. Some proprietory file format which can only be played on iPod?
Surely Apple are too smart to do the really dumb things. So what have they got up their sleeves?
More wondering here
I notice that the Iraq Civilian death count is almost up to 1400 since I last checked. As the war seems to be over I hope this increase is news trickling in, or is it more people being killed in ongoing fighting?
Thursday, April 10, 2003
Qualifying "neocon bastards" below.
Q : Hey Phil, that's a bit strong isn't it?
A : Well, I'm very happy the Iraqis are free of Saddam. In particular, I'm happy it didn't turn into the bloodbath it could have.
But I don't for a moment believe that the neocons went to war against Saddam to save the Iraqis from torture. Sure, it helps them feel good about themselves. Sure it's great media. But that's just a bonus. It wasn't the motive.
Q : C'mon, on what evidence?
A : Well, I reckon these are pretty much the same people who under Raegan sponsored the Contra terrorists in Niceragua who often used barabaric torture methods. I never heard a neocon hawk renounce that. They're still supporting right wing thugs in Columbia.
Q : That's just the "why Iraq, not somewhere else?" argument.
A : No. I accept somewhere has to be first if you are on a crusade against evil dictators. (And maybe Blair, for example, is.)
No, this is about those people who are still supporting torturers, when it's in the interest of the American empire.
Q : Hey Phil, that's a bit strong isn't it?
A : Well, I'm very happy the Iraqis are free of Saddam. In particular, I'm happy it didn't turn into the bloodbath it could have.
But I don't for a moment believe that the neocons went to war against Saddam to save the Iraqis from torture. Sure, it helps them feel good about themselves. Sure it's great media. But that's just a bonus. It wasn't the motive.
Q : C'mon, on what evidence?
A : Well, I reckon these are pretty much the same people who under Raegan sponsored the Contra terrorists in Niceragua who often used barabaric torture methods. I never heard a neocon hawk renounce that. They're still supporting right wing thugs in Columbia.
Q : That's just the "why Iraq, not somewhere else?" argument.
A : No. I accept somewhere has to be first if you are on a crusade against evil dictators. (And maybe Blair, for example, is.)
No, this is about those people who are still supporting torturers, when it's in the interest of the American empire.
Iraq teaches everyone that having nukes is the only thing that deters the US. What should be done about N. Korea?
The obvious thing is that this is for China and S. Korea to sort out between them. Western powers should be encouraging China and S. Korea to work together on this. China is the only country with any influence over the N. Korean government. And, re-unification with the south is the most attractive option for most Northerners. Between them they can probably encourage a diplomatic opening.
China can show the north how to incorporate quite a lot of a capitalist economy without losing political control. A more open, capitalist north would want to re-unify with, and learn from the south, the way China wanted Hong Kong. And the south, without excessive US pressure, would be tempted.
But the prospect is deeply scary to the US imperialists. Suppose North and South Korea come to an agreement to unify, but keep the nukes? A unified Korea with the economic strength of the south and the military strength of the north would be a serious contender on the international stage. It could play the same role of attendant to China's growing superpower status, as the UK or Europe does to the US. Japan would fall further within this sphere of influence. (The equivalent of Germany in Europe?)
And it's likely that a revitalized East would want the US out ... of Japan, of Taiwan, of S. Korea.
So my bet is that the imperialists don't want this solution to the North Korea problem.
Testable Predictions :
Expect to see US pressure on the south Koreans not to build too many diplomatic bridges to the north. Expect more military "investment" by the US in south Korea. Expect not much to be done about the north. A divided Korea is the key to preventing an Asian block.
The obvious thing is that this is for China and S. Korea to sort out between them. Western powers should be encouraging China and S. Korea to work together on this. China is the only country with any influence over the N. Korean government. And, re-unification with the south is the most attractive option for most Northerners. Between them they can probably encourage a diplomatic opening.
China can show the north how to incorporate quite a lot of a capitalist economy without losing political control. A more open, capitalist north would want to re-unify with, and learn from the south, the way China wanted Hong Kong. And the south, without excessive US pressure, would be tempted.
But the prospect is deeply scary to the US imperialists. Suppose North and South Korea come to an agreement to unify, but keep the nukes? A unified Korea with the economic strength of the south and the military strength of the north would be a serious contender on the international stage. It could play the same role of attendant to China's growing superpower status, as the UK or Europe does to the US. Japan would fall further within this sphere of influence. (The equivalent of Germany in Europe?)
And it's likely that a revitalized East would want the US out ... of Japan, of Taiwan, of S. Korea.
So my bet is that the imperialists don't want this solution to the North Korea problem.
Testable Predictions :
Expect to see US pressure on the south Koreans not to build too many diplomatic bridges to the north. Expect more military "investment" by the US in south Korea. Expect not much to be done about the north. A divided Korea is the key to preventing an Asian block.
Wednesday, April 09, 2003
I notice Diesel Sweeties is evolving into Doonesbury
Other suggestions?
- Indie Rock Pete == Mike
- Metal Steve == Zonker
- Maura == Boopsie
Other suggestions?
So, maybe ... maybe it's been a relatively easily won war after all.
And of course, armed resistance has collapsed. Military analysts will be studying for years the non-appearance of the Republican Guard, the vanishing Iraqi army, the lack of organised urban guerrilla warfare. Perhaps shock and awe had their effect after all.
Historian John Keegan, Defence Editor of the Daily Telegraph, concluded that there had not been a war at all as Iraq had not put up a fight.
BBC
And with only around a thousand civilians killed. Perhaps fewer than the regime would torture to death in a good year.
So am I switching to thinking that the war was a good thing all along? I'm going to remain open minded on that. We'll see how this plays out.
A new picture is emerging of Saddam. Not a dangerous monster, not someone on the verge of unleashing weapons of mass destruction, not an evil tactical genius with the skill or ability to turn Baghdad into a Beirut style death trap for the US army. Just a puffed up, nasty, and very stupid dictator. A fall guy for the US, too vain and dumb not to play that role. Then idly swatted, wiped out without the army even noticing.
I stand by the prediction that on the WMD front, it's likely the US / UK will find nothing more than some attempts to build fairly inneffective chemical and biological weapons. Nothing which posed a significant danger. And no nuclear weapons programme worth speaking of.
Some of my friends think that the US and UK will just fake the evidence. I don't think so. I think there'll be enough feel-good factor from happy Iraqis that they'll just run the bits of evidence they do find, and make a big noise about how significant it is. The supporters and media will accept that. Some radical anti-war and anti-american journalists will complain, but the details are too subtle for the news media to convey significantly. If they hear the word "anthrax", people will nod and accept that WMD have been found. I hope the blogosphere can track and fact check this.
Building a civil society in Iraq will be difficult. The idea of dividing it into Kurd, Suni and Shi'ite zones is relatively smart. The Kurds can be given elections early to demonstrate the good intentions of the occupiers; while the military government assesses whether the Shi'ites can be allowed democracy without voting in a pro-Iranian government.
If terrorism haunts the new Iraq, the US will blame it on Iran and Syria rather than disaffection of the Iraqis themselves. The more terror there is, the more it re-enforces the view that the problem resides in the rest of the Islamicist world; and that this needs to be dealt with too.
In other words, for all the hot air generated, the neocon bastards in the US government look like they might get away with it.
And of course, armed resistance has collapsed. Military analysts will be studying for years the non-appearance of the Republican Guard, the vanishing Iraqi army, the lack of organised urban guerrilla warfare. Perhaps shock and awe had their effect after all.
Historian John Keegan, Defence Editor of the Daily Telegraph, concluded that there had not been a war at all as Iraq had not put up a fight.
BBC
And with only around a thousand civilians killed. Perhaps fewer than the regime would torture to death in a good year.
So am I switching to thinking that the war was a good thing all along? I'm going to remain open minded on that. We'll see how this plays out.
A new picture is emerging of Saddam. Not a dangerous monster, not someone on the verge of unleashing weapons of mass destruction, not an evil tactical genius with the skill or ability to turn Baghdad into a Beirut style death trap for the US army. Just a puffed up, nasty, and very stupid dictator. A fall guy for the US, too vain and dumb not to play that role. Then idly swatted, wiped out without the army even noticing.
I stand by the prediction that on the WMD front, it's likely the US / UK will find nothing more than some attempts to build fairly inneffective chemical and biological weapons. Nothing which posed a significant danger. And no nuclear weapons programme worth speaking of.
Some of my friends think that the US and UK will just fake the evidence. I don't think so. I think there'll be enough feel-good factor from happy Iraqis that they'll just run the bits of evidence they do find, and make a big noise about how significant it is. The supporters and media will accept that. Some radical anti-war and anti-american journalists will complain, but the details are too subtle for the news media to convey significantly. If they hear the word "anthrax", people will nod and accept that WMD have been found. I hope the blogosphere can track and fact check this.
Building a civil society in Iraq will be difficult. The idea of dividing it into Kurd, Suni and Shi'ite zones is relatively smart. The Kurds can be given elections early to demonstrate the good intentions of the occupiers; while the military government assesses whether the Shi'ites can be allowed democracy without voting in a pro-Iranian government.
If terrorism haunts the new Iraq, the US will blame it on Iran and Syria rather than disaffection of the Iraqis themselves. The more terror there is, the more it re-enforces the view that the problem resides in the rest of the Islamicist world; and that this needs to be dealt with too.
In other words, for all the hot air generated, the neocon bastards in the US government look like they might get away with it.
Monday, April 07, 2003
Seb Paquet asks for ideas for swarms tackling real problems
Here's one I thought of a few weeks ago. As the war was gearing up in Iraq I started thinking about the following problem. Was it possible to solve the controversial question : is US agression towards Iraq motivated by oil?
I wondered whether some kind of smart mob could solve this through swarm statistics. Perhaps by collecting data about US military focus (either aggression or "friendly" military presence like US bases) on countries, and the estimated oil reserves of the country at the time.
Then to do some stats to see whether one is a significant predictor of the other. The smart mobbing would come in because the swarm would pool data, ideas as to what statistics to collect, actual number crunching, and would (constructively) criticise each model. Ideally it should include both those who believe that oil is and those who believe oil isn't, a factor.
My brother-in-law works in the oil industry and promised me some figures for the oil reserves of different countries, but I'm stumped for measures of US aggressivity / military presence. Any ideas? If I get a good one, I'll be tempted to start this.
Here's one I thought of a few weeks ago. As the war was gearing up in Iraq I started thinking about the following problem. Was it possible to solve the controversial question : is US agression towards Iraq motivated by oil?
I wondered whether some kind of smart mob could solve this through swarm statistics. Perhaps by collecting data about US military focus (either aggression or "friendly" military presence like US bases) on countries, and the estimated oil reserves of the country at the time.
Then to do some stats to see whether one is a significant predictor of the other. The smart mobbing would come in because the swarm would pool data, ideas as to what statistics to collect, actual number crunching, and would (constructively) criticise each model. Ideally it should include both those who believe that oil is and those who believe oil isn't, a factor.
My brother-in-law works in the oil industry and promised me some figures for the oil reserves of different countries, but I'm stumped for measures of US aggressivity / military presence. Any ideas? If I get a good one, I'll be tempted to start this.
Thursday, April 03, 2003
I'm taking part in today's Cyberhippie DDOS sit-in by trying to download the Uk prime-minister and US government's site thousands of times.
Cyber Hippies
Is this a good thing? Well, as I'm not in the UK at the moment I can't get to a UK demonstration against Blair. I could fax my MP but apparently, and weirdly, my hardcore Tory MP (Ainsworth) was againstthe war. Not sure what more I could ask of him.
It's distributed action, and it would be interesting to see how much affect it has. Of course, actually changing minds against the war, not much.
Had some more interesting correspondance with anonymous civil servant. Unfortunately I think I'm going to take until the weekend to organize an answer. Could be an essay in it though.
Cyber Hippies
Is this a good thing? Well, as I'm not in the UK at the moment I can't get to a UK demonstration against Blair. I could fax my MP but apparently, and weirdly, my hardcore Tory MP (Ainsworth) was againstthe war. Not sure what more I could ask of him.
It's distributed action, and it would be interesting to see how much affect it has. Of course, actually changing minds against the war, not much.
Had some more interesting correspondance with anonymous civil servant. Unfortunately I think I'm going to take until the weekend to organize an answer. Could be an essay in it though.
Wednesday, April 02, 2003
Trying to get the Second Superpower to put up a candidate in elections is so crazy it just might work
Jim Moore
But I have some suspicions. The second superpower has a lot of people. But currently elections are fought over geographically defined areas. The SS (hmmm. don't know if I entirely like that term) may be a minority within each. Does geography (community) based voting make sense now we're all network individualists?
Of course, we aren't really, yet. A short term solution might be for everyone who cares about an issue to virtually move into one place. And get their guy selected there.
Hey, if the UK anti-war movement all moved to Sedgefield we could vote out you know who.
Jim Moore
But I have some suspicions. The second superpower has a lot of people. But currently elections are fought over geographically defined areas. The SS (hmmm. don't know if I entirely like that term) may be a minority within each. Does geography (community) based voting make sense now we're all network individualists?
Of course, we aren't really, yet. A short term solution might be for everyone who cares about an issue to virtually move into one place. And get their guy selected there.
Hey, if the UK anti-war movement all moved to Sedgefield we could vote out you know who.
War switchers ...
Apple has a campaign to highlight real people who switched from Windows to Mac. I'm looking for warbloggers who switched from supporting the war to criticising it once they realized it wasn't going to be a quick painless strike against Saddam.
Suggestions please ...
Apple has a campaign to highlight real people who switched from Windows to Mac. I'm looking for warbloggers who switched from supporting the war to criticising it once they realized it wasn't going to be a quick painless strike against Saddam.
Suggestions please ...
Tuesday, April 01, 2003
But at least Blair's motives are not compromised. Like Kennedy he sees the role of power as being to work, sometimes, for nationally disinterested purposes. He's an internationalist visionary, albeit a naive one. He believes he was put on earth to make it a better place, in ways that have little to do with the power or riches of his own country.
This, however, makes him look the more forlorn. It marks one more divide between him and the mighty ally whose armed fig leaf he has allowed this country to become. He is tainted, much as he might dislike it, by American political strategies. Around the world, he is seen the way Bush's neocons are seen, even though many people, especially in Europe, are mystified about how and why he allowed this to happen. He has been sucked into their power games, their world view, and their grotesque insensitivity to the interests and judgments of other nations.
He has, maybe, one final chance to break free of this fealty. The next test is over who does construct the political authority in postwar Iraq. Blair believes, allegedly with passion, that it has to be the UN. Looking at the scale of the problem, most people would agree that internationalisation is the only way. Does our leader have the nerve to speak and vote with Kennedy, not Bush?
The Guardian
This, however, makes him look the more forlorn. It marks one more divide between him and the mighty ally whose armed fig leaf he has allowed this country to become. He is tainted, much as he might dislike it, by American political strategies. Around the world, he is seen the way Bush's neocons are seen, even though many people, especially in Europe, are mystified about how and why he allowed this to happen. He has been sucked into their power games, their world view, and their grotesque insensitivity to the interests and judgments of other nations.
He has, maybe, one final chance to break free of this fealty. The next test is over who does construct the political authority in postwar Iraq. Blair believes, allegedly with passion, that it has to be the UN. Looking at the scale of the problem, most people would agree that internationalisation is the only way. Does our leader have the nerve to speak and vote with Kennedy, not Bush?
The Guardian
Monday, March 31, 2003
Architecture at War
An astonishing event is about to happen. For the first time in modern history a city with the population of London is preparing to resist assault from a land army. The outcome of such a struggle is wholly imponderable. ... In Baghdad the coalition forces confront a city apparently determined on resistance. They should remember Napoleon in Moscow, Hitler in Stalingrad, the Americans in Mogadishu and the Russians at Grozny. Hostile cities have ways of making life ghastly for aggressors. They are not like countryside. They seldom capitulate, least of all when their backs are to the wall. ... In the desert, armies fight armies. In cities, armies fight cities.
The Times
Saturday, March 29, 2003
Thought for the day
There's a big difference between killing someone to stop them trying to kill you, and killing someone to punish them for trying to kill you.
The business of warblogging
I looked at a link to Venture Blog from Ross Mayfield. And what suddenly struck me was seeing USS Clueless in the blogroll.
One of the things that makes weblogs so fascinating is that each person has multiple interests. There's plenty of serendipity in reading a blogger because he shares your interest in software, and discovering he also has a passion for hand-made pasta or antiquarian books. You end up learning something about these too.
But the warblogging network is very strong; and attracts a lot of attention. When the war is over, warbloggers will a have a lot of network capital sitting around idly. Meanwhile, when the recession is over, VCs will have a lot of cash looking for investment. The combination of the two may be a significant force.
Of course, the right wing is naturally allied with business through shared values and opinions; and the left is defined by it's opposition to capitalism. But in the past we've seen capitalist entrepreneurship by ex-hippies, liberals, social revolutionaries and new age networks.
This has certainly had an effect on the values and attitudes in places like silicon valley. And what we think of as entrepreneurship.
But possibly, if the conservative / right-wing / warblog network holds up, we're likely to see more neo-conservative hawks, who have contacts with VCs, getting funded in the next wave.
How will this affect the culture? What about Richard Florida's notion of a Creative Class who value diversity and some more traditionally liberal issues like the arts? Or am I being prejudiced? Perhaps neo-con hawks can also be libertarians who would encourage such freedom in their companies?
I looked at a link to Venture Blog from Ross Mayfield. And what suddenly struck me was seeing USS Clueless in the blogroll.
One of the things that makes weblogs so fascinating is that each person has multiple interests. There's plenty of serendipity in reading a blogger because he shares your interest in software, and discovering he also has a passion for hand-made pasta or antiquarian books. You end up learning something about these too.
But the warblogging network is very strong; and attracts a lot of attention. When the war is over, warbloggers will a have a lot of network capital sitting around idly. Meanwhile, when the recession is over, VCs will have a lot of cash looking for investment. The combination of the two may be a significant force.
Of course, the right wing is naturally allied with business through shared values and opinions; and the left is defined by it's opposition to capitalism. But in the past we've seen capitalist entrepreneurship by ex-hippies, liberals, social revolutionaries and new age networks.
This has certainly had an effect on the values and attitudes in places like silicon valley. And what we think of as entrepreneurship.
But possibly, if the conservative / right-wing / warblog network holds up, we're likely to see more neo-conservative hawks, who have contacts with VCs, getting funded in the next wave.
How will this affect the culture? What about Richard Florida's notion of a Creative Class who value diversity and some more traditionally liberal issues like the arts? Or am I being prejudiced? Perhaps neo-con hawks can also be libertarians who would encourage such freedom in their companies?
Friday, March 28, 2003
Got a fantastic response to Emergent Democracy question from a UK civil servant :
I've been thinking about issues around the "emergent democracy" topic for a couple of years. I think the energy shown both in the anti-war protests and in the various groups of people thinking about e-democracy is very exciting. It's all rather unfocused at the moment, but I suspect we're reaching a tipping point, where emergent democracy (or whatever you want to call it) becomes a "next big thing".
I think the reason that emergent democracy has such appeal is that modern politics is falling behind people's expectations. I don't
believe that standards of political behaviour or the conduct of government have got worse - in fact, I think they've been getting better in recent years, largely thanks to unforgiving and sometimes unfair media pressure.
However while politics has not declined, it is still trying to conduct business in a manner that looks increasingly out of date. In the consumer world, people are wanting more and more authenticity, "real" experiences, tailored to their personal preferences. In a world of reality TV, Have It Your Way and cars with more options than Microsoft Word, it's no wonder politics-as-usual is looking a bit faded.
So people feel that politics is not connected with their lives or desires, and so they ignore it, or protest against it, or protest against it and then ignore it in frustration, as you rightly say.
But some of the alternatives are suffering from the same sort of disconnection. You are absolutely spot on to describe blogging as a form of Freemasonry, and also right to point out that being a protestor is merely being counted as one of the numbers roughly supporting the views of the organisers.
My first answer to your question about giving the anti-war protesters influence is that the anti-war protests are the wrong place to start. If it had been a domestic issue bringing that number of people onto the streets, the PM would have done a U-turn quicker than you could say "knife". But foreign affairs are a special case. Apart from the close relations between the US and UK at all military levels, which no PM in his right mind would want to jeopardise, the nature of diplomacy is such that once you have allied yourself with a position, it's a lot harder to flip-flop than it is on domestic issues.
But, more generally, what is it that makes Governments sit up and take notice? I've had a few years working in the Civil Service, under both political parties, and I'd say from my experience, the following characteristics (in no particular order) make a message more likely to have influence in the political world.
1. Expertise. Academics and think tanks, depending on reputation, have
a lot of access to Government, and are listened to. Politicians and civil servants are usually generalists, and so they are always ready to hear views that have been developed through years of practical and/or intellectual experience.
2. Coherence of view. This is important for groups and organisations. Organisations that have a strong opinion - even if it is opposed to the general tenor of the Government's views - will often get a hearing if their opinion seems to be well-thought out, and coherent across the
piece. If they are (e.g.) proposing an increase in EU funding while also railing against interference from Brussels, they are likely to be ignored. Similarly, protest movements will be held to be less important if it seems that their members' views are all over the place (e.g. Countryside March) or motivated by a "motherhood and apple pie" slogan that covers a wide range of views.
3. Reasonableness. The political classes (and this is particularly true of civil servants) have an extremely low tolerance for single-issue obsessives, of whom they see quite a lot. Organisations that explicitly acknowledge the problems with their preferred outcomes, or show an openness to compromise will receive a better hearing than last-ditchers. Conversely, people or organisations with extreme views (withdrawal from the EU, fluoridation a conspiracy, extreme anti-capitalist) will be bracketed together as "loonies" and given a (more or less) polite brush-off.
4. From an MP or well-known pressure group. These get a hearing because they are respected for their political knowledge rather than (necessarily) their knowledge of the subject area.
5. Public support. Petitions with a lot of signatures, or well-run local campaigns do make a difference if they are coherent and the people involved seem to have thought about the issues involved.
From an emergent democracy point of view, I'd add the so-obvious-people-forget-it point that the political class have to be *aware* of the view. Most politicos don't have time to read more than one newspaper a day, let alone blogs or specialist magazines. civil servants have a little more coverage, but even their media exposure is
less than you might think.
So, if emergent democratic methods are going to affect what politicians do (and I think that must be the aim), they need to give the right people reasonable, thought-out opinions in a format that is easy to digest, through a medium that those people know and trust.
I think that for this to happen, there needs to be some sort of institutional structure imposed within which debates can take place. That institution can then build a reputation with the political classes in a way that the more ephemeral blogs and protest groups cannot. It can make it its business to promote debate in an impartial way, and then present those views to government.
Needless to say, from a democratic point of view the institution needs to be:
But, given what it needs to do, it also needs to:
Thinking about this over the past few months, I've come to believe that the most scalable sort of institution would have a central organisation and a number of branches or colleges. The colleges (let's call them)
would be a bit like business franchises - anyone could set them up, in any way they liked, as long as they stayed in line with the democratic principles of the institution. They could be set up, for example, in a village or a company, or over the Internet. That collegiate system
would allow low-level debates to take place in small groups where people would know each other and feel able to contribute without being squished by one of the big beasts of the jungle. It would also allow debates on local issues to take place without occupying the time of the rest of the institution's members.
Then those colleges would elect or select by lot, or however they chose, some of their members to the centre of the institution. From those members would be selected a Senate to act as a central discussion forum, "citizen jury/deliberative democracy" groups that could discuss a particular question or (like Commons Select Committees) 'cover' all aspects of a particular area, and a small group to run the
institution's day-to-day affairs.
There would, I think, also need to be a class of members who give up their rights to speak and vote, and in return are given "host-like" responsibilities as guardians of the institution's principles - adjudicating disputes, chairing discussions, etc., like a combination of the Commons' Speaker and a judiciary.
I was jolted by the concluding suggestions. I guess I've fallen into the Californian / libertarian influenced ideology of assuming networks must be as decentralized and uncontrolled as possible. What my correspondant could be describing is a chaordic organization, co-ordinated only by minimal protocols. Or he / she could be suggesting that there are good reasons for a centre which demands more . I think the devil is in the details of this one. Possibly subtle details of how a campaigning organization is constructed, including it's
constitution, are likely to affect whether it
- can be constructed at all
- can reach a unified opinion
- can delver that opinion authoritatively to government representatives
So my naive first draft at translating how this might be constructed is Wikiarchy. A one level deep hierarchy of wikis.
What would a Wikiarchy be? A place where any interested group who wanted to form a college could sign up and get a wiki
(which members of the college could post to). This college would be able to use the wiki any way that suited them. To structure their discussion however they liked. However, only one page of the collegial wiki would be visible outside the group. This page would be where the college would have to distil their discussion into a unified point of view for presentation outside.
Centrally, there'd be another wiki, comprised of each of these collegial public pages, and with some housekeeping managed by the central gatekeepers. These people would have no editing rights over the collegial public pages, but would have the power to make supplimentary clarifying and indexing pages. They would have a high level control over the structure of the overall wiki, but coupled with a powerlessness due to the recognition that they represented only themselves. (Perhaps colleges could be obliged to publish the number of members, so readers of the central wiki would know how much weight was behind each of the colleges.)
Q : but isn't this top level just a collection of static(ish) pages. How is it wiki? Could colleges edit other colleges pages?
A : Yes. But through a very specific mechanism which, inspired by Ted Nelson, I'll call a transclusion request. College X can add to it's public page, a macro which says something like add this paragraph to college Y's public page. The central wiki then transcludes the
paragraph onto college Y's page. If college Y doesn't like it, then they can remove the insert.
Q : Sounds convoluted, what's the point?
A : If we let anyone personally add anything to college Y's page, then we lose the hierarchical structure and the idea of colleges altogether. It just becomes a standard wiki free-for-all. If we don't let people change college Y's page at all, we've lost the wiki benefits. Given that what appears on college X's public page is meant to represent the common opinion of the college. (howver arrived at), a transclusion request macro on college X's public page represents an agreed desire to add a comment to college Y's page.
Wednesday, March 26, 2003
Still thinking about the cost of the war (see below).
Suppose the US had simply offered Saddam and his government $500 million to quit (to create a democratic infrastructure before retiring into luxury). While placing a $500 million price on his head. (encouraging freelancers from around the world to take him out.)
Couldn't this have solved their problems for around a 40th of the current cost? And without either civilian or military casualties
OK, so Saddam is mad and proud. But $500 million is a lot of money. Wouldn't you be tempted? If it was cash, in your hand, and you could spend it on anything you wanted (except buying weapons, of course.).
I guess the argument against this is that it will encourage dictators. But would it really? Dictators can't do it on their own. They need a context, an infrastructure. Most of them come to power in adversity and during civil war. Buying off potential troublemakers early is maybe the cheapest way to maintain a world where such conditions don't arise to begin with.
Of course, no one likes to see evil rewarded. But there are plenty of evil bastards in capitalist democracies, running the corporate world. Arguably they do less harm there than in the strifezones where they become local warlords. Their agression is channeled into competition rather than killing.
Why don't we like to see evil rewarded? Probably because we have an instinctive urge to, as the game theorists put it, punish cheaters. But perhaps this instinct, like a sweet tooth, doesn't serve us well out of the context where it evolved. In a world of WMD, international treaties and big stakes, maybe our instincts are leading us astray.
Suppose the US had simply offered Saddam and his government $500 million to quit (to create a democratic infrastructure before retiring into luxury). While placing a $500 million price on his head. (encouraging freelancers from around the world to take him out.)
Couldn't this have solved their problems for around a 40th of the current cost? And without either civilian or military casualties
OK, so Saddam is mad and proud. But $500 million is a lot of money. Wouldn't you be tempted? If it was cash, in your hand, and you could spend it on anything you wanted (except buying weapons, of course.).
I guess the argument against this is that it will encourage dictators. But would it really? Dictators can't do it on their own. They need a context, an infrastructure. Most of them come to power in adversity and during civil war. Buying off potential troublemakers early is maybe the cheapest way to maintain a world where such conditions don't arise to begin with.
Of course, no one likes to see evil rewarded. But there are plenty of evil bastards in capitalist democracies, running the corporate world. Arguably they do less harm there than in the strifezones where they become local warlords. Their agression is channeled into competition rather than killing.
Why don't we like to see evil rewarded? Probably because we have an instinctive urge to, as the game theorists put it, punish cheaters. But perhaps this instinct, like a sweet tooth, doesn't serve us well out of the context where it evolved. In a world of WMD, international treaties and big stakes, maybe our instincts are leading us astray.
Tuesday, March 25, 2003
New ideas are cool. But some are so stupid they hurt :
‘Ala’, a brand detergent created specifically to meet the needs of low-income consumers who wanted an affordable yet effective product for laundry that is often washed by hand in river water.
That's a good idea, Unilever. Sell branded fucking detergent to the natives who wash their clothes in the river.
Cute smart mobbing application
Where's George harnesses the swarm to track the movement of dollar bills. Pointless, but cute and probably heralds more serious applications to come.
Bush's accounts
source: OMB, Congress
- Military operations: $44bn
- Call up of reserves: $10bn
- Munitions: $6.5bn
- Reconstruction: $1.7bn
- Humanitarian aid: $500m
- FBI: $500m
- Coast Guard: $1.5bn
- Afghanistan aid: $400m
- Aid to Israel: $10bn
- Aid to Jordan, Egypt: $1bn each
source: OMB, Congress
By my calculation that makes the cost of the military part of the war roughly 30 times the amount of money committed to reconstruction of Iraq.
And the poor Israelis (suffering from a recession and a few terrorist attacks) get 20 times the amount of money that Afghanistan (suffering 20 years of US inspired civil war, and an invasion) get.
Monday, March 24, 2003
I pitched the following business idea as a suggestion to Tim Draper on the AlwaysOn Network. I await his comments. Interesting if they turn out to be something like "Google already doing it!".
Step 1 : Build a decent news agregation site, suck in RSS feeds from weblogs etc.
Step 2 : Watch what people read, allow them to build their own custom agregators. Use Amazon style database to make recommendations of "people who read X also read Y", "readers like you also read Z" and let readers create "my blogroll", "my article reviews" etc.
Step 3 : Sign up people who want to SELL content. Use the reader data to introduce people to paid content that would interest them : "readers who have a similar blogroll to you also subscribe to Bob's Exclusive Chanel for only $5 a month", "readers who share your interest also bought the Research Corp. report for $1000" etc.)
Why this works :
It solves the two big problems of selling content online :
a) how do you know you want a piece of info before you buy it and read it?
b) free content is plentiful and of perceived high quality. Actually networks of interconnected information stimulate consumption of both free and paid info (Everyday I'm in the blogosphere I find more webogs I think I should monitor; every time I visit Amazon I discover more books I NEED to read.)
Also this has positive feedback. Once some info channel providers realize they can plausibly sell their content, they'll be tempted to do so. That in turn will increase the amount of quality stuff in the paid sector.
Paid and unpaid content will be symbiotic, often with the same people and organizations building both.
Step 4 : Increase the value of the network, support the infrastructure of social knowledge sharing (provide weblogs, wikis, Ryze.com style group forming) Allow people to build whatever form of social communication support infrastructure they like. If they want to make it free, give it to them and harvest their behaviour data to make better recommendations. If they want to make it paid, provide billing and subscriber management for a small cut etc. etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
