The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Month: December 2013

Stirling Newberry Could Use Some Books

Stirling’s doing reasonably well, and is at the stage of boredom induced near-madness which people who have spent a long time in medical institutions will be familiar with.

As NBBooks reports, he’d like books.  To me he said he’d like history and economic books.

If you want to send him some, please send them c/o his fiance:

Stirling Newberry
c/o Mi-Jeong Kim
19 S. Russell St. Apt 3
Boston MA 02114

Stirling still has some mobility issues, but he can get around using a cane, and that’s a vast improvement.  Still has aphasia as well.

Mandela Was a Terrorist

That’s just a fact.  He was also the father of his country, and I believe he was a great man and a good man.  In 1985 he was offered release from jail if he would unconditionally renounce violence, he refused.

One might want to think about the fact that a great man and a good man was a terrorist.

Today, Emptywheel asked:

what leader currently considered a terrorist will be globally celebrated upon her death 50 years form now?

The obvious answer will be environmental “terrorists.”

The problem here is the word terrorist is meaningless.  A word we use to demonize others.

  • George W. Bush, probably responsible for 500,000 Iraqi deaths and a pile more Afghani deaths is not a terrorist despite what he did to, say, Fallujah.
  • George H. Bush, his father, who bombed Iraq’s infrastructure into smithereens (sewers are not a military target), is not a terrorist.  Sanctions intended to break the will of a people, that cost the lives of tens to hundreds of thousands of children, are not terrorism.
  • The firestorm of Tokyo, meant to break the will of the Japanese people… was not terrorism.

The founders of Israel were mostly terrorists.  Many American patriots in the Revolutionary War certainly committed acts of straight up terrorism.

Terrorism seems to be different from what governments do only in that it is not sanctioned by government and kills a lot less people.

One could say “only political violence sanctioned by a State is legitimate” and that would be far closer to the real meaning of “terrorism” as we use the word.  A terrorist is someone who does, less effectively, what the State does, without a State saying “this is ok”

Legitimacy is a larger question.  When someone commits political violence without State sanction they usually believe the State is illegitimate. Few people would, today, say that the Apartheid State was legitimate, and thus we slide on the fact that Mandela committed “terrorism”.  But he was on the State Department Terrorist list till 2008.

During the Vietnam War, when the US was killing Vietnamese in droves, was the US government legitimate? Was violence against Americans legitimate?  What about during the Iraq War?  What about today, as Obama drone murders children, and goes back for a double tap precisely to kill “first responders” (a war crime.)

When is violence legitimate?  Who is a terrorist?  If we want to keep the word terrorist as something more than a propaganda tool, do we have to acknowledge that sometimes terrorism is legitimate? If not, can we pretend that what States do that is no different except that it is sanctioned by a State?  Where do we change from Terrorist to War Criminal?  Mandela was a terrorist, George W. Bush and Barack Obama are War Criminals?  The difference being that Bush and Obama killed a ton more people without nearly as legitimate a reason as opposition to Apartheid?

Mandela committed terrorism, by any reasonable understanding of the word. He was also a great, good man.

We might want to think about that.

 

The UK is a Propaganda Society

People cannot make correct decisions if they believe lies:

In May 2013 the reputable polling company ComRes asked a representative sample of the British public the following question: “How many Iraqis, both combatants and civilians, do you think have died as a consequence of the war that began in Iraq in 2003?”

According to 59% of the respondents, fewer than 10,000 Iraqis died as a result of the war.

This is similar to the fact that on the eve of the Iraq war, 70% of Americans thought that Saddam was involved in 9/11.

The information problem, that people believe what they hear repeated, and the way it interacts with our media system is another problem we’re going to have to tackle if we want a long cycle of prosperity after this cycle ends.

Why China Banned Banks from Bitcoin Transactions

China has ordered banks not to engage in Bitcoin transactions.  The reason is simple: bitcoin is used to bypass currency restrictions, and China doesn’t want even more money flowing out of China (it’s already contributed massively to the Australian housing bubble and affected New York’s, for that matter).  China is creating about sixteen times more money a year than the US, everyone else’s QE is meaningless in comparison.  That money is meant to boost the Chinese economy, not cause property bubbles outside of China.

Bitcoin is dubious at best.  It intentionally gives a huge first mover advantage (and has made its founders filthy rich). It is intentionally deflationary.  It is the libertarian answer to their screams about the central bank “no, we just wanted to be the central bank”.

What bitcoin is is an way of moving money without monetary authorities knowing about it.  Its first bubble peak was during the Cyprus debt crisis, when it was used to move money out of Cyprus.  Since then it has risen based on bubble psychology and on money movement and laundering.  I don’t necessarily mind, just because a government says you can’t buy something doesn’t mean the government is right, I just think it’s important to be clear what Bitcoin is.

The best way to make money from Bitcoin if you weren’t a founder is to mine Bitcoins: printing money, if you think Bitcoin is money.

Governments since the 70s have massively cracked down on movements of money: the $10,000 declaration when you travel (a lot less than it used to be given inflation), the $10,000 reporting limit at banks, huge lists of suspect individuals and corporations which must be checked during every transaction, requirements to report transactions that look like they are structured to avoid the 10K reporting limit, and so on.

This infrastructure was used, in part, to break old-style organized crime (so we could get the far worse networks we have today.)  It is used to break countries like Iran.  It used during the seizure of assets when the government decides to charge someone with a crime and take away all their money so they can’t defend themselves.  It is used to enforce legal restrictions and monopolies on what you can and can’t spend money on.

Bitcoin threatens that.  It also threatens monetary policy in countries which try to keep their money in their country, like China, which is why China was the first country to forbid it.  In the West, Bitcoin is used to move money by small people, the big guys have other ways to do it.  The Russians needed Bitcoin to get out of Cyprus because the Europeans were trying to screw them, but real Western elites, nah.

All of this might make you think I like Bitcoin: I don’t, it’s the wrong way to do something that needed to be done.  We need a peer to peer payment system, but Bitcoin, intentionally deflationary, and intentionally providing huge first mover advantages and advantages to miners which increase over time, is not it.

And if you’re not Chinese, you don’t want more Chinese money getting out.  Well, maybe you do, if you own prime real estate and want to sell in a few years.  Otherwise, no, that money isn’t going into useful production, it’s going into asset inflation.  That’s not good for you.

We’re going to have to clean up money creation and find a new measure of value to peg creation to. Bitcoin, however, is not it.

European Union Tells Banks To Commit Fraud Again

Per the NYTimes:

The European Union has fined eight banks a combined 1.7 billion euros… The banks were accused of fixing rates for the London interbank offered rate, or Libor, as it relates to the Japanese yen and the euro interbank offered rate, or Euribor.

Let me spell it out: they made more money from fixing those rates than they were fined, and the people who did the fixing kept thier bonuses (worth many millions) based off the profits from those fixed rates, therefor the lesson is: do the next fraudulent activity you can think of it, it’s totally worth it!

This is why white collar criminals are proliferating and our economies suck, because the people at the top know that there are no real consequences for soaking everyone else.

DDOS Attacks Effective: Omidyar

So, the CEO of EBay, parent company of PayPal, writes to suggest leniency in the punishment of the people accused of running a denial of service attack against PayPal because of PayPal’s boycott of Wikileaks.  His claims of powerlessness, of being against PayPal’s boycott but unable to do anything about it are amusing, but as a commenter to his post notes, what is interesting is his confirmation that DDOS attacks actually inflict costs, unlike normal protests:

If we want to make parallels between real-world protests and online protests, that means that one thousand people can have the effect of six million people demonstrating in front of your office. That seems like an excessive impact in the hands of each person. It’s like each protester can bring along 6,000 phantom friends without going to the trouble of convincing each of them to take an afternoon off and join the protest in the street.

That’s why I’ve concluded that the use of these attack tools is vastly different than other forms of protest.

Normal protests don’t get to 6 million except in extraordinary circumstances.  What he really means is “this works, this inflicts actual costs.”

As for all the apologetics for PayPal, MasterCard and Visa, I note simply that American Express did not cut off Wikileaks.  I guess a major multinational can resist the Federal government if it chooses?  Anyone aware of any harm AmEx has suffered due to not cutting Wikileaks off?

I want to remind readers of a simple rule: your Lords and Masters respond only to pain and personal inconvenience.  Either you must cost them real money, or you must get in their personal space in a way they can’t ignore.  Gays got much of what they wanted from Obama because they heckled him in person, and they cut off the money.

The people involved in the DDOS will receive vastly disproportionate sentences, it will be interesting to see how many receive more jail time than the average rapist.  Meanwhile, those who caused the financial collapse by acting in clearly fraudulent ways, costing the economy trillions of dollars, continue to go unpunished and live the high life.

Law that is selectively enforced cannot make even the slightest claim to be just.  If we had a legal system that came down on everyone like a ton of bricks, one could say “well, I don’t agree, but they are just enforcing the law”.

Maybe I’ll live in such a country before I die.

 

A Challenge To the No Fly List

Is ongoing. An American citizen who cannot fly has taken the US government to court.  The most amusing part, to me, is this, from the Judge:

I want to categorically reject one thing: If information is publicly available in some other way, the government does not have the right to retroactively clamp it down and remove it from the public record. Even if it could have been protected as SSI within the government, if the plaintiff obtains this information independently, the government can’t clamp that down.

But this is a rearguard cry, a last plaintive defense.  The principles of justice are simpler:

  1. You have the right to see the evidence against you, and to face your accusers;
  2. You can’t be punished without a trial.

The no-fly violates both these principles: you are punished without a trial, and you have no right to see the evidence against you.  Even if we assume that in extremis the government might have to forbid someone to fly because they pose a danger to the flight, one can’t make a case for a multiple-year ban, at best it should be a few days while the government puts together the case and takes you to court.

Administrative judgments which take away out liberty or punish us without a trial (including binding arbitration agreements) are an affront to justice and freedom both.  They are “trust us, we’re the government”.  No; the government must prove its case before damaging private citizens.

Any country that does not allow people to see the evidence against them, face their accusers and have a trial before punishment is de-facto an unjust, unfree country.

Grace and the Cycle of Abuse

Those to whom evil is done. Do evil in return

– W. H. Auden

Grace is the good we do not deserve.  A society without grace, a society without mercy, a society that knows only vengeance, is a horrid land of violence and fear.

The simple rule of evil is Auden’s, but it’s worse than his line implies: we don’t do evil to those who do evil to us.  Oh no, those who are abused, do evil to someone else, someone innocent, and so it goes.  The cycle of abuse lives in families, it lives in prisons, it lives in everyday life, it lives in nations, as Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians attests.

A person or group who is hurt comes to believe that’s how one should act.  It’s weird, it’s counterintuitive (shouldn’t abuse make you want to be sure it never happens to anyone else), but the evidence is that it’s true.  Once hurt, once damaged, too many of us act out that hurt on other people.

Or, as the saying about child-rearing runs, children do what you do, not what you say. If you abuse them, they will abuse.  If you bully them, they will become bullies.

True of adults, too.

Justice requires that we punish those who hurt others except in defense of themselves or others.  But the nature of that punishment is key, it must be rehabilitative, not punitive.  This was understood well by by the prison reformers of previous generations, and in this as in much else, we have regressed from our humanity in the 60s and  70s.

A prison where people are raped, turns out rapists.  A prison where people are beaten, turns out people who resort easily to violence.  A prison where the only people who can protect you from rape and beatings are racist gangs, turns out racist gang-members.

Rape a rapist, or stand by and watch, effectively condoning it, and you become a rapist.  The problem with eye-for-an-eye punishment is that it perpetuates the cycle of abuse and it coarsens those who must do the punishing.

And so, in civilized nations (like Finland, not America) the punishment is understood simply: the loss of freedom.  Because the prisoner has proven they cannot be trusted to make their own decisions, the right to make those decisions is taken away from them for a time.  During that time they should be treated well, treated better than they treated their victim, both because a society which rapes and murders is coarsened and because the cycle of abuse must be broken.

The recidivism rate in Finland is 1/2 that of the US rate.  Why?  Because their prisoners aren’t raped and beaten, that’s why.  Because they are treated kindly.

Grace is the kindness you don’t deserve.  Only grace, only kindness, can break the cycle of abuse.  To be sure, it doesn’t always work, but it works more often than violence does.

If you aren’t going to either lock someone up for the rest of their life (expensive) or kill them (and we make way too many mistakes to be killing people based on our court’s decisions), then you’d best treat prisoners well, because they’re coming out of the prison, and you want them to come out better people than they went in, not worse.

This also has to do with how we treat them once out.  The standard practice, now, of criminal background checks for every decent jobs, means that ex-cons can never actually have a good life outside prison.  Absent any opportunity in the legal economy, of course they go to the illegal economy: those are often the only people willing to hire them.  Once someone has done their time, they’ve paid their debt to society and save for a very few jobs, criminal record checks need to be illegal.

Treat people with both justice and grace, and you’ll have a far happier society.  This is true for affairs far beyond prison, mind you, but it is especially true for those who have committed crimes.  Justice without mercy is cruelty, and mercy without justice is unfair.

Grace: it’s the good we don’t deserve, and combined with justice, it’s how we should run our societies.

Page 2 of 2

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén