Don’t Slag the PM

Children literally are leading the revolt in the UK:

A schoolboy trying to save his youth club was hauled from class after his plan to protest outside David Cameron’s constituency office was spotted – by anti-terror police.

In an astonishing over-reaction, 12-year-old Nicky Wishart was warned he faced ARREST.

And I can’t tell you how much it pleases, and amazes me.

How wikileaks have discredited the mainstream media

Besides the government, the mainstream media look set to auto-destruct in reaction to the wikileaks cables releases. Apart from heroically exposing injustice, the liberal media in the US have (almost totally as far as I know) betrayed their genuine characters; as obsequious, voluntary servants of the state and big big business. That this is the case is a cliche among the left, of course (something one gets laughed at for pointing out, perhaps rightly so). But but the cliche’s significance is generally ignored; now we are confronted with a illustration of it that is almost impossible to ignore. And this will, as a side beneficent, come as an embarrassment to those bet-hedgers who attempt to capitalize on the sincere aspirations of the left while at the same time keeping one foot safely planted within the limits of acceptable discourse, as defined by, say, the Nation.

But what primarily concerns me is not posers on the left but the harm to the media’s credibility that I now suspect will be done. It’s not that in the normal course of things people treat the media as a serious news source (few I meet, anyway, really do). But many, it seems, harbor a belief, perhaps unconsciously, that somewhere, somehow serious journalist work gets done–NPR can’t be completely rotten!, if nothing else. The fact the media not only won’t or can’t ignore wikileaks but they feel they have to be openly hostile to it forces everyone to confront them (at least for time being) for what the really are, and react according to what ever bona fide (rather than asserted) principles they may have.

This may not sound like a big deal, but I believe it is. Because those who do act on principle can only possibly regard the liberal media after this in one way: as an enemy to one’s interest; to the common good.*

I doubt those who operate the media understand this. If they did I believe they would have–at least at the “progressive” extremity–taken the tried and true approach of, as it would render in this case, reporting the bare fact of wikileaks releasing classified documents while posing as agnostic whether this action was a good thing or not (Perhaps dropping in one or two carelessly selected, relatively uncontroversial quotes: “Assange thinks secrecy bad/Unnamed former diplomat thinks it good.”). But they didn’t. And their usual, euphemism-soaked subtlety in trying to surreptitiously advocate a reactionary cause was hastily abandoned–perhaps never to be successfully recovered. Instead they went right on the defensive–perhaps precisely because wikileaks set their pathetic pandering to money and power in dangerous perspective by providing an example of what real journalism looks like–and in so doing have merely discredited themselves in a salient and perhaps irreversible way. An achievement we should all be grateful for.

---

*It is worth also noting–another cliche–that the appearance of open government is essential for the present establishment to stay in business. If this appearance is compromised, if the actual, authoritarian nature of the regime (if we may loosely call it that) becomes manifest a revolt becomes a real possibly, and a overtly repressive response or preemptive action is likely only to make the problems worse.

Population Decline?

Foreign Policy refutes the canard of an exponentially expanding population:

It’s true that the world’s population overall will increase by roughly one-third over the next 40 years, from 6.9 to 9.1 billion, according to the U.N. Population Division. But this will be a very different kind of population growth than ever before — driven not by birth rates, which have plummeted around the world, but primarily by an increase in the number of elderly people. Indeed, the global population of children under 5 is expected to fall by 49 million as of midcentury, while the number of people over 60 will grow by 1.2 billion. How did the world grow so gray, so quickly?

Apart from the implications of an aging population, it’s satisfying to see the popular cliche, used to explain all manner of the world’s problems, from famine to war, hopefully put to rest once and for all. In fact, it seems the notorious Third World birth “bubble” may be a temporary artifact of decreased infant mortality:

In the 1960s and 1970s, much of the developing world also experienced a baby boom, but for a different reason: striking declines in infant and child mortality.

Which, incidentally, brings to light the fact that birthraters never inquire into why birthrates might be so high (relatively) in some places nor, typically, identify the particular countries, preferring to treat it as a general, Third World-wide trend. Yet their certainty that it is a major problem, if not The Problem, is beyond question.

Shit Hits the Fan?

As you’ll doubtless know, several hundred thousand pages of embassy correspondence has been leaked, much of it revealing US intelligence gathering operations–seeking such critical intel as diplomatic credit card numbers–in other countries….

First, let me say: it should come as a surprise to no one the government employs spying, or even that their operations target so-called allies. The US sees other countries not a peers put either as potential imperial rivals or objects of conquest. At best it seems them as loyal associates to be taken advantage of and patronized, but inferior and slightly embarrassing, such as the UK.

As to the reaction we can expect from other countries: Governments, to the extent they think rationally, presumably take spying for granted. In that sense I don’t think the revelations should come as a surprise to our allies (i.e., countries reliably doing what the US wants). However, it will be convenient for less trustworthy associates–those who may, from time to time, put their own interests above Uncle Sam’s–giving them a certain amount of propaganda leverage they can use against the US; and it we be amusing indeed to see our Administrational superiors wiping up the shit.

On a side note, why we spy is an interesting question (at least it was to me). It seems unlikely the ‘intel’ yielded is of much value, particularly to a country as powerful as the US (experts cast doubt even on the value of nuclear secrets, what agents operating in the US–or at least in the imagination of Hollywood–desperately seek, apparently). My guess: in part it is mere superstition; the irrational belief the fruits of spying benefit the empire. Also–obviously–paranoia. And finally, perhaps crucially, the sense of power–of omniscience–it provides.

(Update: Clinton may be forced to do shit-moping on Asia trip. Well, one hopes.)

The Scope of Political Ignorance

Jonathan Versen’s musings on the public’s credulity at television news got me thinking…. I meet way more people who assume the vast majority of the public are mindless idiots, hypnotized by TV than actual mindless idiots.

***

Let me first define three classes of people, admitting that in so going I am oversimplifying to make a point, that obviously no one falls neatly into any of the three:

A) Those who are genuinely, thoroughly deceived, or made impotent by watching too much TV or whatever.

B) Those that see through the dominant ideology, if only partially, and are dissatisfied with the present state of affairs.

C) Apologists for the ideology–usually characterized by denying there is an ideology–who in some way profit from the status quo, or believe that they do.

My own experience is that most fit B best, even if their understanding of what’s actually going on is opaque. Yet most of B aren’t active in any meaningful way, even in case of those regarding themselves in some fashion “left”. But even if my anecdotal experience is misleading, as it’s apt to be, it is still true that large numbers aren’t mindless idiots. Enough to work with to get started, at least. Thus the question arises, is the claim by (individuals fitting) B that almost everyone else fits A sincere? It probably is partially so–at any rate A is used as a substitute for a sincere belief that political change that improves general quality of life, beyond tepid reform, is not only impossible but its advocacy is irresponsible. Perhaps one that cannot be properly articulated.

It is this unwillingness on the part of those who know better to fight for anything not the ranks of TV news drones than I find most the most disturbing feature of the political impotence in the US.

Ames/Lavine Respond

Authors Mark Ames and Yasha Lavine respond following Glenn Greenwald’s demolishion of their Nation article. (Cf. “Team Spirit” at SMBIVA.)

Ames/Lavine:

[Apart from smearing John Tyner] We also documented the story of the first “victim” of the TSA—a libertarian named Meg McLain—who was found to have lied about being sexually molested by TSA agents. Before Tyner, McLain was being heralded by the same right-wing PR network, particularly Matt Drudge and Koch-funded libertarians, who later promoted Tyner to fame and who last year led the PR drive promoting the Tea Party movement.

And, laying down proper journalistic etiquette:

How did Greenwald get to this conclusion [that we're Democratic Party shills]? We’re stumped—he never tried contacting either one of us before publishing his story. That’s one big reason why we’re both so disappointed—because that’s what journalists do: we call our subjects to confirm, or not confirm, evidence and suspicions that we have compiled. Even Democratic Party centro-fascists like myself and Levine were professional enough to call John Tyner—and we printed his denial of any involvement in a Koch-network-funded PR campaign.

Yet, who turns up in the comments section but none other than the hysterical overeacter who thought she was being molested, Meg McLain:

My name is Meg McLain, and I am appalled at the lack of journalistic integrity in these articles. Every single line written about me is a bold faced lie. Many of which I have no idea even what the basis for the lies are.

And I find it extraordinarily hypocritical for the author(s) to be upset that GG didn’t contact them before writing his article as NOBODY in this slanderous pieces, including myself, was ever contacted to confirm the facts of the piece.

probably because there was none.[sic--all]

While I admit that recent TSA polices aren’t the Worst Thing in the World, there is a legitimate basis for outrage; and since the policies are relatively indiscriminate are bound to spark a reaction even among otherwise complacent, affluent folk of whatever self-assigned political identity. Therefore it was foolish on Ames/Lavine’s part to shill so openly on behalf of the police state Democratic-style. And more foolish for the Nation to publish it. But it makes for amassing stuff, seeing liberal totalitarians shown–when their team is in power– for what they truly are: unprincipled dickheads.

How Ideology Subverts High-Tech Surveillance

A technology I took for granted was already in place, in some fashion, has recently be unveiled:

…this new tech may well be the final icing on the cake. It’s a computer program that trawls phone conversations, emails, and social networking sites looking for any signs of resentment of the government.

That’s right. If you’re angry at Washington, they want to know who you are and what you’re saying.

But it seems to me the risk from these technologies comes not from the given technology itself, or the agency using it, but the paranoia affected in those who believe they are its subjects. Because the filters are so broad they include anyone who “shows resentment” to the government as a potential terrorist, worthy of more direct supervision, millions of people (perhaps most) will end up getting flagged.

Presumably the intelligence agency in question will have the same resources for direct spying as they do now, and since the follow-up procedure–a bureaucracy being what it is–will inevitably be mindlessly automatic, our supervisors will have broadened the number the should spy on with traditional means not reduced it.

For automated surveillance to actually work (as it is ostensibly supposed to) a method of isolating a tiny number out of a large group is needed. And in principle this is possible. Assuming the intended target is political dissidents not actual would-be terrorists a number of criteria could be used to identify those who pose the biggest threat–such as flagging those the clearest understand of what’s actually going on. But intelligence agencies aren’t going to be able to conceive such non-arbitrary filters since those setting the parameters don’t themselves understand what’s really going on and don’t have the imaginative capacity to understand how dissidents (or bona fide terrorists for that matter) actually think. The end result will be a system that is more or less indiscriminate (al la TSA “screenings”). And since the victims are as likely to patriotic citizens as dirty hippies antagonism toward the government, and a potential unwelcome backlash, is likely to increase.

The weakness in such technologies lies in their inability to effectively isolate a small number of individuals who can be subject to direct scrutiny by human beings.

Mr. Obama Goes to Washington

From the HP:

The next time I’m ever asked to give a would-be presidential candidate some advice…[*]one thing I’d recommend is that you don’t make any grandiose promises to “change Washington.”…

…the one thing that’s never going to change about Washington is the unrelenting, inhuman pettiness of the place.

Poor Obes…. You promised so much…and sorely underestimated the sleaze of Washington.

---

*In case you are wondering what context I redacted with the ellipse–the author proves his humility: “…which for all of our sakes, will hopefully be never…” I may actually find this parenthetical, self-conscious gesture of false modesty more offensive than the suck-up article itself.

Middle Class Redundancy and the Democrats’ Hatred of the Left

The following inspired by a facebook discussion on the–indisputable–hatred of the serious left by Democratic apologists:

I wonder if it isn’t that middle class professionals, those who comprise the Democratic party’s most enthusiastic supporters (such as teachers, humanities academics, some corporate managers, IT professionals as well as “creatives”–art directors and so on), haven’t begun to sense their coming redundancy–thanks, in reality, to outsourcing and the replacement of traditional industry with financial “markets”–and looking for scapegoats to lash out on. The scapegoats include, of course, those nominally on the right and a construct they call the Tea Party*–but in reality working class white people, not the rich business owners who sponsor the GOP (to some extent the Tea Party itself) and were principally responsible for the Republican victories in the last election. But also include the left;–to be premise, those who act on principle rather than hedges their bets based on Democratic rhetoric–a discovery that might seem odd at first, since Democratic voters consider themselves liberal or progressive it not openly pinko. But in fact, like the Republican business owner, the liberal Democrats’ professional interests are closely tied to those of the business elite (even if the role that play differs), occupying a position of relative privilege that any serious move in the direction of socialism would endanger. But not only is the left a threat by virtue of its principles vis-a-vis class power it is now a threat by bringing to the fore the unwelcome fact the economy increasing no longer needs a middle class. The average liberal professional preferring to attribute the withdrawal of his or her privileges to Republican connivance, even–when things get desperate–Republican infiltration of the Democratic party.

*Obviously the Tea Party exists in some fashion. But I don’t believe what Democratic apologists call the Tea Party has much in common with the movement, such as it is a movement, that actually exists.

Reserves too Fractional

It seems the real problem is fractional-reserve lending, specifically too low reserve requirements have created a “moral hazard” situation:

Mr Greenspan said the major lesson from the financial crisis is that US banks need more capital to survive shocks.

Banks operated with less capital because of an assumption they would be rescued by the government, he said. Lehman Brothers would not have failed with adequate capital, he said.

This is the problem, not that a private banking cartel (without even the formal oversight of elected “representatives”) is in control of the money supply, and therefore the economy at large to a significant extent.

By the way, this may simply be a tactic to destroy smaller banks, which typically hold less on average in reserve. Increasing rather that averting the liquidity problem.