Greece burns, but not its German arms contracts

Definitely it does sound hypocritical for the Germans to be demanding such social austerity in Greece, while at the same time maintaining massive arms contracts.  While of course Greece was profligate and would need help anyway, it needs to be highlighted when countries like German and France are imposing tough conditions, to lend money which will be used to pay bills owed to them! Furthermore it is a valid question as to whether inner core countries have been able to reduce military spending partially due to relying on (poorer) peripheral countries who have to maintain the border. Of course there is some sharing of resources in the EU, but psychologically there is more drive if one is on the perimeter. And of course military spending is often accompanied by corruption, so will always appeal to the government/elite who can profit from it, and in border countries the psychology may again enable them to convince the public to pay for it (and worth noting even some German companies have been fined/settled out of court with regards to corrupt deals with Greece).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/19/greece-military-spending-debt-crisis?INTCMP=SRCH

America's deadly devotion to guns

"All the domestic controversies of the Americans at first appear to a stranger to be incomprehensible or puerile," suggested the 19th-century French chronicler Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America. "And he is at a loss whether to pity a people who take such arrant trifles in good earnest or to envy that happiness which enables a community to discuss them."
America's deadly devotion to guns | World news | The Guardian


While this might be taking it a bit far, when it comes to guns, I have to agree with Tocqueville. Surely there can be no more nonsensical concept in the modern day, than that citizens should be armed to keep the government in check. The whole point of modern democracy is that people have yielded this right in return for the benefits of a working modern society; otherwise it is mere temporary pause from anarchic feudalism.  How to differentiate between the terrorists, the Timothy McVeigh's etc, and justified cause? Why when have a democracy which can vote out politicians could it ever be the only option? And finally, how could it ever work, since surely no matter how many assault rifles the average joe has, if it ever came to an actual conflict the US army would decimate them. Unless of course private air forces and perhaps nuclear arsenals are formed. Lunacy, utter lunacy.
The only halfway reasonable argument is ironically the ability to defend oneself due to lack of government rather than too much - i.e. when under threat in one's own home, but even then I am convinced that arming both sides increases the risk, since the stakes are so high for the burglar, and the facts are it doesn't work as a deterrant. And of course despite being pragmatically against the interests of the average citizen, the willingness to tolerate as necessary cost the annual collateral damage of dead and disabled kids is disgusting.

Maybe the deep problem is that, as is evidenced by calls for 'small government' and endlessly lower taxes, the US still has trouble as viewing itself as a society at all, an evolved and chosen insitution where government is overall a benefit, and reason to discard the tools of our primitive past. As the article says :
"Ultimately it comes down to whether you trust other people or not," says one gun control activist. "We do, they don't." The ideas that the government might protect you, that the police might come, that if nobody had guns then nobody would need to worry about being shot, are laughed away. "By the time you call the police it could be too late," says Britt, who has never had to pull a gun on anyone but has had to make it clear he might a few times. "All they can do is write the report." When the breakfast is over I tell Britt that I am heading into town to see some people. "Be careful," he says. "St Louis is a very dangerous place."

The European Citizen's Initiative

"The European Citizens' Initiative (ECI),  -  Hailed as the first transnational instrument of participatory democracy in world history, it allows members of the public to call for new European laws on issues of their choice, provided they have a million supporting signatures from at least seven member states. But despite its stated aim of bringing the EU closer to its citizens"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/09/eu-citizens-initiative

BUT - while there is obviously a risk that a body such as the EU ends up being ruled by a kind of 'elite' of bureaucrats, I am also slightly sceptical about referendum/petition based politics. On the one hand they do provide help raise ignored issues, and give a voice to a perhaps too often paternalistically ignored public, but on the other they are very prone to populism, and the 'tyranny of the majority'. The problem is, apart from those affecting disenfranchised minorities (which by definition cannot result in such tyranny), often the topics which get people most exercised about, are those which are aimed at the behaviour of others (moral issues, social friction issues), and this is what is most dangerous about populism. And of course there is the risk of manipulation by well funded special interests. So overall while the EU needs more public involvement, I am wary of such initiatives unless properly balanced and controlled.

Portrait of Israelis...and secular settlers...

A brief collection of profiles of some example Israelis....from settler to secular.
Israelis: Portrait of a people in tense times | World news | The Observer

Perhaps the most interesting comment was how secular the settlements can be :
"Barkan is a mainly secular settlement. "It's very important to say that," says Natalie, "because people think once you cross the Green Line everyone is a religious fanatic. People don't know that a third of the [Jewish] population across the Green Line is secular."

What this suggests is that probably a significant section of settlers are so for economic reasons, taking advantage of the space and cheaper prices to better their lot. While they must still bear the moral responsibility for using such "stolen" land, the real blame lies with the government policies which must basically subsidize the settlements . I.E. many settlers are obviously manipulated by economics to bolster the settlement ideals of smaller factions. This might suggest that, since economic choices might underlie a large part of the settlement movement, it is not as intractable as it might otherwise be if based solely on fanatical beliefs.

The other interesting point was the study suggesting only 80% of Israelis believe in god. In a region beset by the results of religious fanaticism on both sides, lack of belief is grounds for hope!

Netanyahu keeps the war drums beating

While have no time for notions of 'Jewish conspiracy' it is still amazing, and real, the power the Israeli issue holds over US politics, as evidenced by the political participation at the recent Aipac meeting:
"More than half the members of the US Congress were in attendance, a reflection of Aipac's influence on Capitol Hill where it has been a driving force in pressing for stronger sanctions legislation against Iran and upping the rhetoric"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/06/netanyahu-iran-nuclear-weapons-israel
I personally think rather than any manipulation of the US by some shadowy 'lobby', or even that the 'Jewish' vote is a large and coherent enough bloc to be worth pandering to  to such an extent, the real reason that the Israeli issue has such a tenacious hold on US opinion and politics is somehow because its story, and what it is spun to represent, captivates the American mood and spirit. Apart from wilder fundamentalist theologies involving Armegeddon (but given that 80% believe in a 2nd coming, 20% within their lifetime then maybe this isn't as fringe a belief as it sounds ) there is something perhaps quasi-religous to it, or at the very least some emotional, non-rational, narrative that binds the US to Israel no matter what the realities on the ground.

Whatever the reasons, it is still exceedingly scary that the US could be  railroaded into a serious conflict by the beligerent and unilateral actions of a state to which it provides so much support. If Israel attacks Iran then the US will be seen by most in the region as at the very least approving and at worst complicit, and would inevitably be a dangerous and difficult development for the US itself to deal with. A closing of the straights of Hormuz, inflamed attacks on US interests in the region and beyond, an oil crisis wtih econmoic shockwaves, all these are real effects which will cost the US dear if it's 'friend and ally' ignores its please for calm and launches a preemptive strike. And of course the important point is that it's not that the US is trying to sacrifice Isreal for its own good, rather it is trying to prevent Israel from doing something which is worse for it itself.
No conspiracy, but crazy nonetheless...

Iran: false nuclear fears cloud the west's judgment

I personally think that while a dangrous development, a nuclear armed Iran is not the nightmare scenario it is often claimed to be,and rational analysis of the real dangers and likelihoods is needed, both in public and political discourse. So agree to a large extent with this article
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/16/iran-false-nuclear-fears
After all, the cold war subsided without armageddon, and that was a much worse situation. One valid point however is that the mechanisms that were developed between the US and USSR to prevent 'accidents' (misunderstandings which could lead to reaction and counter-reaction) aren't in place between places like Iran and Israel , and if Iran did have nuclear weapons then the lack of such a diplomatic safety apparatus would make it a very very dangerous situation. As the documentary 1983, Brink of Apocolypse showed, even with these mechanisms, the world could and did come frighteningly close to accidental annihilation during the cold war.

update : this following article also lists several reasons why a nuclear Iran might be containable :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/21/nuclear-alarmism-iran

drones, and a dangerous disconnect in war

While use of drones has been going on for a while, there seems to be more discussion of the topic recently, which is definitely a good thing.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/30/deadly-drones-us-cowards-war?mobile-redirect=false

For me the biggest concern is the potential disconnect between the aggressor and his/her victim...the more removed and unreal the target, the less emotionally involved the attacker, surely the greater the risk of inhuman attitudes. Of course it could be argued that it is precisely human weakness, fear, overreaction etc that leads to some of the unnecessary brutality in war, and the collateral damage, since a panicked soldier is an unstable one, but I think the following quote from the article is more pressing :
 
"Citing the Germanmilitary theorist Carl von Clausewitz, it [UK Ministry of Defence] warns that the brutality of war seldom escalates to its absolute form, partly because of the risk faced by one's own forces. Without risk, there's less restraint. With these unmanned craft, governments can fight a coward's war, a god's war, harming only the unnamed..... The danger is likely to escalate as drone warfare becomes more automated and the lines of accountability less clear. "

The dogs of war are bad enough, but at least if kept on a leash they drag their owners with them and make them part of it. The drones of war fly a bit too freely...

sanctioning bad behaviour

I have to say I barely read anything by Simon Jenkins anymore, since I don’t find his arguments at all convincing or well put, and in fact find his style rather vacuously rhetorical. Maybe his intentions are good, and I did agree with him in his arguments against the Iraq war, but looking back I think I may just have accepted poor reasoning since I agreed with the goal. However he does raise an important, and complicated topic in this article on the looming new round of sanctions against Iran.

His arguments seem to be both of practicality and of principle. So for example he claims sanctions were not only useless in achieving their aims in other countries (citing Iraq, Libya and Serbia) but have already long been tried to no avail against Iran itself, for the last 33 years in fact. Furthermore, he claims that sanctions actually lead to the war and conflict they are trying to avoid, since they create an embattled regime whose leaders not only are the ones least affected by the sanctions, but who can use these external aggressions as scapegoats to actually strengthen their power, and in doing so foster in an even more hardline and irresolvable position. Beyond these arguments as to why sanctions needn't be used, he also argues why they shouldn't be, claiming that the sanctioning countries are in fact meddling in areas which don’t concern them, in the case of the UK due to some post-imperial delusion, and in the US as political pandering to the pro-israeli lobby.

Before discussing the practical problems (regardless of the commentator all such points deserve attention, if only to be discounted once and for all) I would like to first reject the idea that it is not the ‘business’ of countries like the UK and the US.  Even in basic economic terms, there is I believe a moral justificaton for being involved, since in the interconnected world, especially on important trade routes and in oil supply countries, then the militarization of regions is very much everyone's  ‘business’ because the rippling economic effects influence the lives of millions in all countries. A global crisis sending developed and developing countries alike into miserable recession is something worth avoiding on humanitarian grounds as well as material ones. Participation in world affairs for economic reasons need not be solely viewed as trying to maximize exploitation; just trying to keep the game we’re all playing going doesn’t mean one is trying to win it by cheating.

Furthermore, and more importantly beyond economics, other countries’ actions are always the moral ‘business’ of other countries, just as the actions of other people are the moral business of individuals. While neutrality and disinterested isolation are perhaps better than active malicious actions, omission of action is as morally reprehensible as action itself; laissez faire is to accept the status quo, and hence to approve of it, and to be morally neutral is in fact to be morally bankrupt (although sadly not financially bankrupt, as the case of Switzerland in WWII shows). Also, and more practically, as in the social situation, there is the precedent that can be set through inaction. At an individual or international level, if someone is seen as ‘getting away with it’ then it will encourage others to do the same. So involvement is justified, indeed required, especially with respect to a state which has claimed it will wipe another off the face of the earth.

But there being a moral case for action does not mean that any action will do, and especially in world affairs there is perhaps nothing more dangerous than 'the politicians syllogism' (We must do something; this is something; therefore we must do this). When it comes to Iran I don't even pretend to have an answer to the question, and all I think I can contribute to the debate is the general suggestion that any solution will have to involve dealing with the realities of the situation, and taking into account all perspectives. The basic fact is that Iran is an islamic state, with traditions and values which in oe areas diverge from that of the west, and also a powerful one. Historical and diplomatic reasons, and some mistakes on the part of the west have resulted in a near pariah status, but this wasn't and isn't an inevitability. In addition it is brute fact that if it wasn't acquiring nuclear weapons then it should be. Apart from conventional enemies in a very volatile region, it already has a nuclear armed foe nearby in Israel. And of course it is being lectured on the inadvisability of nukes by a country which retains the right to first atomic strike, and has recently invaded its neighbour. Nothing is going to change these facts so they have to be lived with, but the successful defusing of the cold war, which brought the word so close to self-annihilation, shows that such situations can be resolved. Mutual Assured Destruction may still be best described by its initials, but it did work, and might be the only option. There may be suicide bombers in many domains, but that doesn't meant there are suicide states. Even those under dictatorial rule have a supporting elite with a self-preservation instinct (for example the generals etc.), and anyway Iran is no Libya or Zimbabwe.
 
But, leaving aside what better ways there are to address the Iranian question, some things can be said about the general approach of sanctions. Jenkins refers to Iraq, Libya and Serbia as failed examples , but these are all countries where the end result has been achieved, albeit with additional military (internal or external) intervention and it is not easily ruled out that the sanctions weakend the relevant regimes, militarily and politically. And of course the sanctions, did in all cases probably result in the containment of the problem, if not the immediate solution to it. Indeed it is claimed (e.g. here )  that sanctions were actually very effective in Libya, Yugoslavia and Liberia, and I tend to accept this. Similarly there are many examples of long term sanctions which haven't led to war, and are in no likelihood of doing so by themselves (for example with North Korea).

Also, from a moral perspective the appealing thing about sanctions is they are a relatively civilized way of dealing with disputes, since they are in affect a suspension of normal relations with entities which don't abide by accepted rules. Indeed, in my view, what is often the problem is not too many sanctions but not enough of them, or their inconsistent application, since there are many odious regimes and individuals who are tolerated for no morally good reason. A bit more practice is needed rather than less preaching. And in a rather limited set of options, the withholding of the carrot of material benefits is surely better than the stick of war.

Where Jenkins does have a point, and where sanctions do become problematic, is when they hurt the wrong people. When dealing with non-democratic regimes, where the peope at large have little influence, there is little point in making those people pay. And of course, public misery is easily manipulated to foster a defensive cohesion against an outside aggressor. And of course the classic example of sanctions going wrong in this way are the Iraq sanctions where corruption and incompetence led to starving the population of necessities while feeding the elite with luxuries That said, in well connected and relatively developed countries like Iran, but not perhaps in places like North Korea, there are ways in which that elite, which has interests and influence, can be squeezed. Of course if this is not working, or having undesirable effects, then the approach needs to be re-examined.


So I don't agree either with Jenkins' moral dismissal of involvement, or the outright rejection of sanctions. Something must be done, and if sanctions are the only way, and they are for sure a better alterntive to war, then so be it. But they need to be done in the right way, in a manner that is both pragmatically and morally correct. Boycotts work, but only if we hold back from demonization. The point is not to to ostracize states or people for the sake of it, or them forever from the social fold, , but to scold them into returning to it. It could be sanctions aren't suitable anymore for the Iranian problem, or at least not on their own, but they still can't be dismissed out of hand just because they haven't always worked before. More important is to have realistic and achievable goals, which in this case might not be a nuclear free region, but a stable and secure one, even with nuclear weapons.

I still believe if we can recover from the situation where thousands of nuclear weapons were primed and pointed at each other all over the world, we can recover from a situation where a few not yet existing nukes are planned in one small part of it.

To err is human, to ignore errors is political

Jenni Russell's article (here) about Theresa May's (UK minister) problems with admitting a mistake highlights something important and paradoxical about modern politics - the combination between wanting a human leader, but also an infallible one. As the power of the label 'flip-flopper' shows in the US, there is little that can do more damage to a politician's reputation than admitting a mistake, or performing a u-turn.

But, this is in stark contrast to normal life, where mistakes are accepted, and it is the willingness to acknowledge, learn from and rectify them that is what really matters. Indeed even in areas of expertise it is readily admitted that one learns most not from what one does right, but from what one does wrong.


Of course the power involved in politics means errors have real human cost, and so must not be treated lightly, but this still doesn't mean that when a course starts to go wrong, we value more highly leaders who stick to their misguided guns than try to change direction.


What is needed is the ability of both sides, public and politician, to appreciate that there are many kinds of mistakes, those that are rooted in the past, and those that portend for the future. Mistakes arising from incompetence, negligence, and even through fixed ideologies, do indeed say something about the person involved, and how likely the mistakes are to re-occur in the future. But mistakes made due to trying to solve a probem with incomplete information, or a plausible misinterpretation of th facts, are not necessarily something which means the person involved cannot be relied upon, or, more importantly, that someone else would do better. What is important is whether that person will do better, and admitting mistakes is part of that.



Bill Clinton is someone who has impressed me more and more since he left office, in large part I think because without the need to constantly cover himself politically, he can reveal some of his qualities which may have been misinterpreted as a politician. For example to hear him talk about subjects without caging his words, reveals how he is actually very thoughftul and intellectual, but had hidden this under a 'good old guy' demeanour. So I am not that surprised to see him espouse exactly the sort of mentality that is needed (in all walks of life) :

Bill Clinton has a new mantra. Once a day, as he told an audience this week, he makes it a rule to find a reason to say "I didn't know that" and "I was wrong". He takes it so seriously that if the opportunity doesn't come up naturally, he creates one.

We could all do worse, then being honest about needing to do better.

Letting the lunatics run the economic asylum

It is true that a dominant theme in the recent economic crises is how stupendously misguided the economist 'powers that be' have been, and so it is slightly worrying that they are now being handed even more power.


Whether they were blinded by group think, or simply delusioned masters of an uncontrollable science, a lot of the world's problems have been precisesly caused, and exasperated by governments being devoted to 'accepted' economic policies, not disregarding them. Not spotting the mortgage and building bubbles, or the impact of one-size-fits-all interest rates on diverging economies, is the equivalent to a aeronautics engineer assuming once a plane manages to take off, it  can there keep flying indefinitely (no more boom and bust land-and-takeoff cycle) and almost as devastating.

It is good to see many articles on the subject at the moment (e.g. this one in the guardian today, which interestingly points out that in countries like Japan, Taiwan, South Korea economic policy has been largely set by engineers and lawyers, or this editorial yesterday) but it does seem a bit like the journalists on the sidelines screaming about clothes while the economists parade past after their emporer.

While of course to avoid total collapse the economic system needs economists to rectify it, it also cannot be left solely to the economists. Otherwise it will be like the situation after the 2008 crisis when it was asked why all the financial whizkids weren't fired from the banks they'd brought to ruin, and the response was that it was exactly at a tough time like that when those whizkids were needed. The logic being if you're dog leads you into a swamp, then you're best way of getting out is to keep following him. It is worth remembering that this is the industry that lays claim to the best and brightest of society.

Now that I think about it, we're doomed...

Unprecedented, but not very presidential

Another presidential election dominated by guns,god and gays...but no Toto, we're not in Kansas now...

I admit I haven't being paying much attention to the Irish presidential election (to be held tomorrow), since I don't live there anymore, and the office itself is largely ceremonial. However having been exposed to the finale of the campaigns on a recent visit to the country,  it does seem worth at least briefly commenting on.

I don't really believe the hype about it being a particularly important election in itself. The country is of course still reeling from the economic and political implosion of the last few years, and hence it is indeed a time for plotting a new direction, and choosing an appropriate head of state is a part of this, but at the end of the day such a figure-head position is hardly going to make too much practical difference. What does make this election interesting however, is the type of candidates involved, and what this says about the current mood of the country.

The first thing that comes at to mind when one surveys the field is how lacklustre it is. Times of national crisis are when new dynamic leaders are most needed and also, given the fall from grace of those at the top making room for new blood, normally most likely to make an appearance. When an old mindset has been discredited, then the time is ripe for people with a vision for the future to come forward, but this seems to be remarkably lacking in the current election. There is an air of staleness to it all, at least to me as a transient observer, something which could be interpreted as indicating widespread disillusionment and apathy in the country. Whereas the Greeks man the barricades, the Irish seem to have breathed a national sigh of resignation, muttering stoicly 'we are where we are', but with no inflamed passion to change that.

Ironically one candidate, Martin McGuiness, is no stranger to manning (and blowing up)  barricades, and even though he could at least be admitted to be bringing a vision to the table, it is his same old one which is even less relevant than ever in the current situation.

the lacklustre seven

However, even if the candidates are less than interesting politically, on a personal level they actually are. In a country long dominated by both the church and the issue of the north  it is indeed amazing that among the seven candidates is a divorcee, an openly gay man, and an ex-terrorist. If the US republican right is as obsessed as they say with 'Guns, God, and gays' then this collection would surely interest them. Of course not everything is new, Ireland's fame for Catholicism and Eurovision success is eerily manifested in Dana, but apart from that it is almost amazing how a widely divergent bag of individuals could so collectively fail to rise to the moment.

What follows are my own first impressions of this unimpressive bunch, but I must stress I am probably as lacking in understanding in what is really needed for Ireland, as they themselves seem to be. I've listed them in their current order of poll standings, though it also works roughly out as in decreasing order of comedy value.

Dana
Yes, that is Dana-allkindsofeverything-Dana, the 1970 Eurovision song contest winner. As an ex-pat it is bad enough to have foreigners assume all us Irish have an intimate knowledge and love for Johnny Logan, but I can't imagine how excruciatingly embarrassing it would be if we actually actively send someone from the eurovision stage onto the world one. Thankfully she comes across as someone who has had a frontal lobotomy, staring unblinkingly as she delivers one incoherent and vacuous statement after another, so even the apathetic Irish should resoundingly reject her. Which is just as well, since the knowledge that she is a bit of a fundamentalist catholic is made deeply disturbing by that unblinking stare. Why is it zealots don't blink? Is it that they see through this mortal world to some higher reality? You can almost picture them shooting you mercilessly while they calmly assure you it is God's will and for your own benefit. She definitely inhabits some other reality, though I sincerely doubt a higher one.

Mary Davis
Presumably relying on the fact that after Marys Robinson and McAleese Ireland will elect another Mary, given how little sense or impact this she seems to make, I would think her only hope of not being decimated at the polls is the intervention of a rather more holy Mary (though presumably any helping hand from above would first go to Dana). I admit my only knowledge of Davis is from watching one presidential debate (and unfortunately her comments were so inane and vague I immediately forgot them) and from sitting through a rather eerie campaign advert, which consisted of a succession of random people mouthing her words. I guess the intended message was she was 'one of us' but instead seemed to perhaps more accurately reveal her either as as some face changing robot woman, or as someone without absolutely nothing to distinguish her from the crowd. At a time when the country is in desperate need of strong leadership, I am not sure why people would be moved to vote for someone who claims to be the same as both some random fisherman and that bloke who sold them their TV.

David Norris
The first 'gay' in the group, and the only authentic one.  It is good that an openly gay candidate can stand for such high office, but I do think that while the controversies that have surrounded him might indeed be worthy of debate, one has to at least ask if unresolved prejudices play a role in their intensity. Regardless of his sexuality, his excruciatingly irritating Basil-Fawlty-impersonating-an-ex-british-army-major accent definitely isn't an asset, and despite claiming to be some kind of long term independent politician, again he didn't appear to me to be exactly presidential material, even in Ireland.

Gay Mitchell
Gay by name but not by nature. It is illustrative of how utterly forgettable this man is that I had actually finished writing this article before I realised I'd actually forgotten him. Now he's been mentioned, I think we can safely forget him again.

Martin McGuinness
The joke doing the rounds is that with McGuiness Sinn Fein are giving southern politics 'their best shot' , but despite being third in the ranking, I think their day has not yet come (nor ever will).  As with catholic-eurovision Dana, he can also claim to bring to mind two of the things that Ireland is well known for abroad - Guiness and the IRA; and like her he has an unsettling habit of not blinking, but in his case any unease is well justified since this is a man who is actually no stranger to having people shot (if not going so far as to claim it's for their own benefit). I always thought McGuiness eerily reminiscent of Damien in the Omen, something to do with those cold and calculating steely blue eyes, and always found it funny that he was made minister of education, of all things; though that said, if there ever was someone scary enough to act as the ultimate threatening principle, then it would be him - even back in the days of corporal punishment the worst one could expect was a few lashes of a cane, not a knee capping.
My personal removed-from-it-all opinion is that between the developments of the peace process in the North, and the recent (if temporarily subdued) growth in prosperity in the south, the 32 county battle call is even less relevant, or cared about, than ever. Especially during a crisis which so obviously requires a global collective solution, surely nothing could be less appropriate than trying to make Ireland literally completely insular.
I also have serious reservations about a man with such a violent past contending for public office in the south, not least due to his involvement in the killing of individuals representing the very state he wants to represent (e.g. the killing of Garda McCabe by the IRA during a robbery).  The argument seems to be that if he can be included in the political process of the north, then why not 'down here'. I have no time for this argument, since in my view while it might be necessary in the north on utilitarian grounds to ignore past deeds and move on, since otherwise things would never improve, this was never a full moral rehabilitation, and in no way applies by default in the south as well. Much, much more (and probably un-resolvable) debate and discussion would be needed, regardless of what the realities of the situation demand north of the border.

Michael D Higgins
Michael D, as he is known, is I admit my favourite of the lot. His record seems excellent, and as poet and author brings some much needed intellectualism to Irish politics. Furthermore, at a time when Ireland is suffering from the excesses of capitalism run rampant, then I think a left-wing Labour candidate is quite suitable. In fact, ranked against the other candidates, his main weakness is he comes across as a bit of a doddery old man, an image not helped by having hurt his leg and hence literally doddering at times. Another problem, and the reason why even he with an obvious intellect fails to stir my imagination, is that I perceive his campaign as having been a bit too gentle and respectful. While these are qualities suited to the office of president, it unfortunately fails to galvanise people. Some rousing is needed, if not of the rabble variety.
While he may not be exactly a strong leader, at least he is someone cultured, decent and respectable, and given that no one else brings anything more to the game, then this I think is the best we can hope for.

Sean Gallagher
The current front runner however is Sean Gallagher. Again I know very little about the man (as do seemingly a lot of people) but my crash course of the last week has told me he is a successful businessman, was a judge on the TV show Dragon's Den, and despite at times distancing himself from the party, has at least some connections with Fianna Fail. Oh, and he looks like a bouncer. Maybe it's the latter that subliminally turns me off him, due to subconscious images of some shaved head ape in a monkey suit saying 'not tonight' , but I actually do think he is a very questionable candidate. Despite the obvious appeal of a 'businessman' at times of economic trouble, it is exactly in this particular economic situation that the word 'businessman' occurring in the same sentence as 'Fianna Fail' is a cause for concern. Of course he distances himself from the previous (now disgraced) administration, but I find it hard to believe someone who seems now to have done at least some fundraising can claim to not have some moral responsibility, however minor, for the fiasco that ruined the country. Even if not directly involved, and just along for the ride (since Fianna Fail were the dominant party then it would make business sense to have been 'in with' them even if you didn't agree with the policies), then surely he is at least tainted by association. And of course we might not know the half of it, since a lot of this stuff seems only to have started coming out recently.
Speculation aside, I also don't see how his business prowess is at all relevant in such a ceremonial roll, a minister/adviser for industry or something maybe, but president?  And surely immigration isn't such a problem we need a bouncer as our head of state?

No A candidate, but better a D than nothing

After discussing the lack of relevance of Gallagher's business prowess to the situation, I realise maybe it isn't such an issue that there is no strong leader, since the president has no real power anyway, so what could he do? If one thinks about it, what one really wants is a sort of father (or mother) figure looking benevolently over the country, and not making a fool of us abroad. I also like the idea of the job going to an elder statesman, almost as a kind of political life-time-achievement award,  an honour bestowed on a politician who has served his/her country well, and can be liked by all. In these terms, I think Michael D Higgins is by far the most preferable candidate, since I think of all of them his integrity is most beyond doubt. It is a distinguished role, and doddering is no hindrance, indeed almost fitting with the avuncular aspect of it.
And, as has been pointed out as a final plus in a time when the state is bankrupt, as the eldest candidate (70), he won't cost the country much in post-office pension payments.

Politically incorrect

Yet another survey has come out showing the disillusionment people have with politicians. This was from the UK, where the atmosphere is particularly bad after the expenses scandal, but these ‘they’re all the same’ and ‘only in it for the perks’ sentiments can be found in any country, and is often held as the reason for voter participation is so low, the opinion being that if they’re all the same, what point is there in trying to choose between them. It just struck me how ironic this is, since it means the more politicians misbehave, the less accountable or scrutinized they become. Surely there is no other public domain where misbehavior is rewarded with being left to get on with it?

People get so riled up about so many things that ‘others’ do in their society, even when these ‘others’ have very little to do with them, so it is amazing why there isn’t the same level of excitation when it comes to the group of offenders that actually have a duty to them. This is probably due in part to frustration at the hopelessness of doing anything about the system, but possibly also has roots in a submerged inclination for deference to those in charge. Whatever the reason, this apathy is perhaps the most dangerous mood in society, since as they say, for evil to triumph all that is required is for good people to stand by and do nothing.  And the problem is that while few politicians might be really worthy of our respect, they vary in how they underserving they are of it.

Churchill was on the mark when he said democracy was only the best of a bad lot, and depressing as this may be, it is still a valid principle to apply to who should run it. They may not be great, but there’s always worse, and why can’t people get motivated by that?

left, right, redwood

One of the few half-positive things to come from the recent London riots were they at least triggered some discussion about the nature of a society where such things can happen, and how best to react to it.
From both sides of the supposed left-right divide there have been constructive comments and analysis, but unfortunately all too often these are overshadowed by indirect and subtle evocations of underlying value systems, which are just as rigid as ever.

The conservative MP John Redwood, provided in this article I think a revealing example of what i think is a classic 'rightwing' view - that the poor are some how to blame for their situation, the rich are deserving of theirs, and that the only way to help the former is to make things easier for the latter.

What I think is interesting in this piece is how the language he used reveals a true position completely contrary to the claims stated. The expressions are so contradictory I would almost assume it was self-parody, but I think it is completely unintentional. So although he seems to be really trying to convince us of his (at least what he thinks counts as) 'liberal' and charitable nature, the underlying tone of his piece is the opposite.

For example, he says "Like all members of the main political parties I support taxing the rich more to help pay for the lifestyles of the worse off."

Simply read, this represents him as a committed member of the political mainstream, committed to re-distribution of wealth, but this is belied by the use of the word 'lifestyle', which implies superfluous if not outright luxurious non-necessities. It's unbelievable that someone could refer to support which help keep some people's heads above the financial water as 'lifestyle' elements - or maybe Redwood considers being able to send your kids to school, or even feed and house them, as part of a certain kind of 'lifestyle'. Maybe that consumerist 'living in a house lifestyle' which so many people gubbily grasp for. And of course 'lifestyle' implies choice, it is the way you choose to live life, bringing out the chosen-and-therefore-deserved notion. It's hard to believe Redwood is really just so far removed from reality that he doesn't realise the reality of living the life you have to live, so it more probable that it is just his ingrained assumptions about the moral relation of the poor to their position coming through.

But even if he thinks the poor choose their 'lifestyle', surely even he can't think the same about the handicapped? He continues with "I am a softy when it comes to more public money and facilities for the disabled." While he might be trying to convey the idea that he is more liberal than most when it comes to supporting the disabled, the term 'softy' indicates this in a shockingly derogatory manner. Softy when it comes to helping the disabled? He might as well say he's a softy when it comes to helping someone fallen on the road out of the way of an oncoming car - a soft squishy irrational teddy bear of a man out of place in the brutal world. Public money to help part of the public that needs it most to be part of the public? How soft.

He then goes on to claim that along with his awe enspiring charity in wanting to fund poor lifestyles, and not keep disabled people effectively locked out of society, that he also wishes the poor to prosper and their living standards to improve, and that the only disagreement with the left is about the means. This might be true, since he probably doesn't actively want to keep down the poor, but the means he mentions again I think highlight how it is not these aims which are at issue in this whole debate, but his beliefs about why people are rich and poor, and which I think are the real problem, since they are in my view wrong headed and nasty. He may not want to keep them down, but in refusing to help in an effective way, the result is the same.

The crux of his argument comes when he says "I do not believe you can make the poor rich by making the rich poor. The problem is the rich do not have to hang around if you seek to make them too poor." There are so many buried assumptions and falsehoods tied into this statement that I find it hard to know where to start.

This 'make the poor rich by making the rich poor' is a famous right wing motto, and it is I think highly revealing. Firstly it again implies the riches of the rich are deserved, achieved unaided, and only hindered and never helped by the state, which can only make them poor, and never helped made them rich. But of course this ignores not only the luck involved in being at the top of society (place of birth, inheritance, connections) but also the fact that wealth accumulates exponentially, and that the set-up of society does a lot to make the rich rich, and then richer. Apart from the fact that people with some initial wealth are best positioned to make more out of it from the tangible infrastructures and institutions of society (from roads to colleges to banking systems to development), there are also the intangible conventions that mean there is no linear correlation between ability and earnings, and hence removes any real notion of deserved rewards. Otherwise, excepting some genetically modified CEO tribe, from a generation of prodigies who could work tens of times faster and smarter, there is no reason why the average executive to worker pay ratio saw an increase from 40:1 to 500:1 since 1980.

Secondly, it is a perfect strawman argument, since no credible politician has ever suggested making the rich 'poor', rather simply limiting , or actually just slowing down, how rich they can get. But it makes a great soundbite, and its notion of dashing and punishing those who (again deservedly) have succeeded, appeals to what I think is one of the best ways to describe the difference between leftwing and rightwing views. It is not about a difference in moral values overall, but a major difference in priority and focus. In my view, a plausible simplification in many areas is that rightwingers are worried most about the undeserving getting what they shouldn't, whereas the left are worried about the deserving not getting what they should. It's a bit like that famous dilemma as to whether it is better one innocent man goes to jail or 9 guilty go free. This plays out in many seemingly unrelated areas, for example in the welfare debate,whether it is more important that no one gets benefits they shouldn't, and the most important thing is to stop the cheating, or should the primary concern be to ensure no deserving claimant loses out, even if 9 cheats 'go free'.

Of course it is a grey area, with shades and degrees of emotion on both sides. Indeed probably no one, even the most ardent leftwinger, really would be ok with someone completely undeserving getting something for nothing. This can be illustrated by the case I read about recently regarding a homeless drunk in an American city. The costs involved every time he fell down drunk in the street - the police time and effort, the medical attention at an A&E ward were staggering, and since his condition wasn't improving, it all kept on happening again and again, and the burden to society just kept on rising. It was worked out that compared to this expense, it would actually be much cheaper overall for the state to just give him a free flat and provide him with therapy. But of course there's hardly anyone who would feel comfortable with this - why should a drunk get a free flat


when many non-drunks are just as in need of one. So indignation at undeserving gain is always present especially in the particular case, but I think the difference between right and left is how much they care about it, how much it dominates their thinking at the general level. It reminds me a bit of the description of a puritan as someone who is worried that someone, somewhere is having fun, what worries the right is someone is having fun they shouldn't, and what worries the left is someone is missing out on the fun they should.

There seems even to be some psychological evidence for this. This Scientific American article reports on a study that indicated "political right showed more of a “bad is stronger than good” bias than those on the left." which would fit well with this notion of the right being driven more by reaction against, and the left by action for.

And the problem is, as the Redwood article I think shows, without paying attention to and resolving these conflicting attitudes in, it's hard to make progress in the debate. It is not the ends that are the problem, or even fundamentally the means, it is the priorities and the relative valuations, and unless some progress can be made in reconciliation and compromise in this area, then all the good intentions in the world or only all so many more paving stones to hell, and balast for a handcart to head there in.

it was a riot

There were some pretty shocking scenes from the London rnd of course the sheer feral criminality on display in the looting which seemed to be the main driving force. While sparked by what could probably only tenuously be called a racial incident , it is probably true that it triggered some real and perhaps even valid racial grievances, but what followed had little to do with this in justification. To avoid misunderstanding, there is no doubt that most of the violence and all of the looting was just criminal opportunism, and completely inexcusable. But that doesn't mean that the people involved were just criminals (although they of course are now) and that it is completely inexplainable. In my view what we saw was an deprived and discarded underclass, with no hopes for or from society, taking advantage of a break down in law and order to help themselves. And of course the looting of televisions and trainers showed it wasn't a fight for survival, but enrichment. It was wrong behaviour, and of course should not be tolerated.

But, that said, while it is worrying that a 'rich' and developed country such as the UK might have such a simmering class ready to rip off what they can, what's more worrying to me is how people in the UK, and especially abroad, responded to it. I can understand outraged calls for vengeance from those directly, or even indirectly, affected, but what shocked me was the level of moral indignation, and venom, from people who had absolutely nothing to do, and importantly to lose, from the situation. Lock them up and throw away the key, teach them a lesson, were the standard responses. Why did people care so much about a few vagabeonds stealing things? Especially as in the current scheme of things, there are people a lot more deserving of our ire - for example the corrupt and incompetent politicians and bankers and developers who have brought the western economic system to the brink of collapse. In terms of impact (billions), excusability (rich already) and consequentialism (most likely to affect us again if we don't do something) surely people should be getting and staying a lot more het up about this international cadre than a few localized yobs? How come a co-worker here in Austria might rant to me about how the rioters are 'getting away with it' and not ever mention the catastrophe unfolding in famine hit Africa, or the ongoing collapse of our economies?

It points again to what I believe is necessary, but unpredictable element of our moral systems. Morality in a society is about the community as a whole, and this requires it to be more than simply a network of reciprocal tit-for-tat calculations. If individuals just took umbrage at what affected them or their kin directly, then it would not count as a moral system. What is needed is a sense of outrage and indignation at general 'wrongs' - even if they don't affect us. Only if every node of the system is disposed to react, can any violations be suppressed, and violators clamped down upon, before they and their methods spread. This is why I think moral indignation, the emotional drive to blame and see punished, evolved. A rational cost-benefit analysis would always be superseded when push came to shove, which is why group selection I think caused the reactions to be evolved in the gut.

But, just as we have natural drives which we rationally keep in check to maintain society, so these drives must be consciously and rationally channelled. It is I think insightful that contrary to its modern connotation of animal revenge, the rule of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth was actually in its origin an exhortation to limit revenge to the scope of the original offence, and avoid excessive reactions.

So if he urge to react to the 'bad' is so basic, why do these distance rioters provoke such a disproportionate response? Apart from the very important and serious investigation needed into why the rioters acted as they did, and what can be done to stop such phenomenon in the future, just as important is to understand why they achieved such disproportionate relevance in the news and public discourse, and what can be done to temper and better direct the anger of people such as my co-worker. Because although moral indignation against perceived violators is needed, it is a slippery slope from there into vilification and dehumanizing segments of society. if someone is 'just' a criminal, then they are nothing else. And such prophecies have a tendency to become self fulfilling

a right royal state of affairs

Having been subjected to the whole palaver of the “will & kate” wedding, and also listening currently to some lectures on the US and French revolutions, I’m not exactly in a favourable mood to royalty at the moment, so had mixed feelings about the Queen’s visit to Ireland.

First of all let me make clear that I don’t harbor a grudge against the British (specifically the English) , since they are not individually responsible for the previous acts of their country, nor have I any issue with Britain itself, since while as an enduring entity it does have ownership of prior deeds, it has not only stopped it’s policies against us, but does and has done many things for our benefit (stopping the Nazis being the most notable, while we could cower in protected neutrality).

So if this was a state visit, by the Prime Minister, then I would consider it nothing but a good thing, a normal act between neighbours. The problem is, as Sir Humphrey might say, a question of hats, specifically a pointy metal one. Although the Queen is the head of state, she also is the living embodiment and defender of the institution of British Royalty. Now while royals from anywhere will always get my goat up, and might be welcomed as irrelevant wasters but still treated as guests, a lot of the worst things that happened in Ireland could be blamed more on the British royals than the British state. Not the invasions, or occupation, or taking of resources, or even the lasses faire cruelty in the famine, which could have been done by any state with any government, but the anti-catholic measures which were a direct result of the English crown wanting to remain protestant, and which inflicted the most objectionable hardships on Ireland, and sowed the seeds for a lot of the sectarian troubles that have racked the land ever since.

Since for most of our history ,catholic and Irish were pretty much synonymous, then I think the royal family, as distinct from the British state, have a specific debt and guilt when it comes to Ireland, which is why I think there’s something wrong about the Queen’s visit, unless it’s accompanied by acts of apology not for the acts of Britain, but the ideology of the crown that drove those acts. The problem is, there has been to my knowledge no symbolic renunciation of that ideology, and until there is I find it very out of place that the defender of that tradition, should lay a wreath for those who fought (and would still fight) against that tradition. Perhaps a slightly stretched analogy would be if a German chancellor were to lay a wreath at the cenotaph, without Germany having acknowledged that it was in the wrong in WWII. It’s not that countries can’t honour each other’s dead – I see no problem in paying tribute to dead german soldiers, since even though they fought for an evil cause, in most cases they were just swept along by that cause. But if the cause is not denounced, then the tribute is meaningless - the crown is on the one hand honouring people killed , but since the reasons behind the killing are not dealt with, in principle they’d be killed again if necessary, which defeats the purpose of it.

No one seems to mention that the hypocrisy with having the head of an insitution which explicitly discriminates against catholics, visit a catholic country, and express "sympathy" with the problems her insitution caused for them through said discrimination.

Ultimately all that’s needed is a symbolic act of contrition and denunciation of the tradition that caused ireland’s problems, but none seems forthcoming. On the contrary , the British Royalty preserves the rule that forbids a catholic ascending to the throne, then it would seem that the tradition lives on unchanged.

Of course there is pragmatism too, and in principle it is good and important that Britain and Ireland can focus on current and future partnership, and base our relation on that and not harking back to the unchangeable grievances of the past, and since that was probably the intention of the whole visit then there is a lot to be said for it. But if the Queen, who people praise always for handling things so well, and being so dignified etc. etc. really was dedicated to that mission, then surely she could make some form of apology for the 2nd institution she represents? Royals want to inherit by birth the rights and powers of the predecessors, but that means they also inherit their sins and responsibilities. Hat’s off to the queen, but only if she acknowledges the one she’s wearing.

terminate, with extreme prejudice

That apparently is the US army euphemism for assassination, and given that prejudice is never held to be a good thing, it would seem to be a self-condemning label. And in general it is, since extra-judicial killings while not only being outside of the workings of the courts, can easily be beyond the realm of justice as well, devoid as they are from the normal safeguards and procedures on which the rule of law depends.

So was the killing of an unarmed Bin Laden an assasination? And if it was, was it justified? It's interesting that the event came in the same week as Nato bombed a compound of Gadaffi's, killing his son in what was obviously an attempt to kill Gadaffi himself. Are the cases any different, or both ,or one, or neither justified?

While few people would mourn either's demise, I think Bin Laden would for sure receive least sympathy. Here was the self-confessed, proud perpetrator of an act which killed thousands of innocent people, and who remained a dangerous threat to society. Surely he would have been convicted easily, and would have received the death penalty in the US - so if both judgement and sentence were foregone conclusions, could it be so wrong to just take him out?

Gadaffi on the other hand is the head of state, and in principle the conflict there is a war between the Libyan state and NATO forces. But the very fact that the attacks on the sovereign country are to prevent 'war crimes' surely means the rules of war must be applied, and specifically the rules , i.e. the UN resolution, by which the war is being justified in international law. To put it in context, while no one considers it a war crime for Gadaffi to fire on Nato planes (just stupidity), I am sure he would go from leader to terrorist very rapidly if he somehow managed to successfully fire a scud (or whatever he uses) into 10 Downing Street or (miraculously) the White House. But if it's war, then surely the same rules apply to both sides?

Of course they must, and I think it highlights just what a paradoxical idea the notion of 'rules of war' is. The problem is, some rules are justified, but they can't operate independently of the grounds for the war itself. You can't have an unjust war fought justly, and neither can a war that is fought unjustly, ever be just. I believe there are unfortunately times when war is necessary, to preserve human life and rights, but the ends can never out rank the means - it is not morally coherent to kill civilians to save civilians, to trample human rights to further human rights. Of course war is always going to be bloody, so some utilitarian calculus will need to apply, but the whole point of rights is they can't be simply totted up and compared - the rights of each individual always count for something. This is what I think went wrong with the Iraq war - the allies were blind to the possibility, and then the reality, that the cure while not being anyway was bad as the disease, was similar to it - and not just abstractly (the general suffering and death unleashed) but also sometimes specifically - e.g. when Saddam's torture facility Abu Ghraib became infamous under it's new ownership. And this is what made it questionable - the very things that justified the war, arose in different forms because of it.

On the other hand though, if the war is justified, then I also believe there's no point being restrictive about what one can and can't do. War is war, and if necessary, then there can be no half measures - since it if justified at all then has to be completed, and completed quickly. Thus, in my view, if it's ok to kill the soldier manning the gun, then it's coherent to consider it ok to kill the commander whose order keep him there, or the leader who planned it. In fact, the commanders and leaders, since they have more power and possibility to change the situation, are in fact more culpable than the solder who is following orders. In addition, taking out 1 leader involves less bloodshed and would have more effect then taking out 10 commanders or 100 grunts.

So in fact far from being beyond the fringe in war, i think targeted assassinations are not just acceptable but even preferable, given that they have to involve less collateral damage and overall death than a clash of armies.

So I think they should be targetting Gadaffi, and I hope for everyone's sakes, the rebels, the civilians and even his soldiers, that they get him.

But what about Bin Laden? My own personal view is that if he was really just a criminal, then it would have been wrong to assassinate him, since it must be society that deals with criminals, not armies and not politicians. And crucial to the justice of society is that it follows procedure, since it is what holds the entire edifice together, and the whole is worth the occasional inefficiencies of some of its parts. But he claimed himself to be a 'at war' with the West, so surely then the rules of war apply, and make him fair game.

And even if he didn't claim to be a 'soldier' , the crucial difference between a terrorist leader and a criminal, is the terrorist leads an organization, which magnifies his intent, like Gadaffi and his army. And from this perspective, taking out the leader is again the best option, morally and practically.

Finally, it might not have been a pure assassination at all. It has been said that given the risk of him having a vest bomb to take some US troops with him (not so unlikely given the fact that he was prepared enough for an assault to have a 'getaway' robe with cash sewn into it) then the orders were to take no risks , and to kill him if 'he's not naked'. This I think would be completely justified, and a whole lot more responsible and just of the Americans than dropping a bomb from a B2 bomber.

So he's gone, and it was a good riddance. But of course we shouldn't rejoice about anyone being killed, just relieved he's gone. And just to be sure, once the initial debate has died down, let's keep him gone by denying him 'the oxygen of publicity' even in death, especially now he's under water.

society settling scores

So they got Osama. Think the only proper response is - about time. While killing him will make probably very little difference to world affairs, indeed in the short run might actually result in some retaliatory terrorist attacks, it needed to be done, and it was unbelievable it took so long.

Satisfaction on some form of justice having been done is definitely in order - but celebration? I guess in the US especially it's more a release of pent up frustration, and maybe an eruption of the a hope that maybe the new and dangerous world has been somehow put back in balance, but unfortunately this isn't the case; the world is as dangerous as it was before OBL met his demise, and if it is to change for the better, then the needed causes would have effect even if he was still around. Osama rode a wave of a certain type of feeling, and while he may have for a while acted as a focus for it's crystalization, it was always bigger than him - arising of it's own, and maybe even dissipating on it's own, neither raised nor subdued by any one man or group.

To celebrate is to be rejoice about something positive, something above the normal, but removing one mad dog from the world is not a plus, it is simply the cancelling of a minus, and it's a sad state of affairs if the only hope we can look forward to, is the removal of fear. It also isn't the most moral or ethical of reactions- since it shows the whole event is more about revenge, than justice. A society settling its scores rather than settling matters.

But while we shouldn't get carried away, either for practical or ethical reasons, the event still does count for something in both domains. Practically, it does show something that such a criminal is eventually hunted down, despite his connections and wealth. And ethically, while it has to be held in check, I think there is something telling about the need for revenge, the human drive for pure punishment, and not just justice. Rationally looked at, as long as Osama couldn't hurt anyone anymore, and his treatment served as an example to others, then we shouldn't really care what happens him, since the point of our rule of law is mainly to preserve and protect. And of course, a civilized society needs to make this the main pillar of our legal system. But to look at it just in these terms is to miss something. It overlooks the effect not on the culprit, or even on the victim, but on all those who are technically uninvolved, but still on the victim's side. For a moral society to work, these people, who might otherwise be 'disinterested' need to be made emotionally involved. And it is the desire for punishment, to inflict discomfort on those who violate the rules, that I think is the evolved mechanism which allows this involvment. It is of course based in a sense of righteousness, but coupled with a crucial desire for action, and this relies on triggering I think our most basic 'fight' response.

The problem of course is, this powerful and necessary fuel, needs to be kept in check, since otherwise can lead to the uncontrollable barbary of mob justice and vigilantism. And seeing people rejoice in crowds about the killing of another human being, while maybe necessary in this case as a release valve, and as an indicator of that retributive glue that can bind a society together, is somehow disconcerting. When passions are inflamed by the idea of justice, and revenge, then care is needed that things don't get out of hand.

So i have no problem with raising my glass to the death of such a cruel and insane individual, but only as a mark of respect to the forces for good that could put a stop to him. But celebrate? celebrate that there are such people in the world, even if now one less? Surely we've more to be glad of than that...

Free wiki

My views on the wiki leaks affair are  hardening I think. First of all, I think my initial comments of the diplomatic cables as being almost gossip were partially misplaced, since there do seem to be some very important issues touched upon, for example covert operations in Afghanistan, and cruise missile attacks involving civilians in Yemen. These in themselves I think qualify the leaks as true "whistle blowing" , and this I think justifies both wiki leaks itself and the various papers for carrying them.

Furthermore, once the worth of the information in general is shown, then this also counters the gossip charge: this is an important leak and hence all aspects of it are "fair game". This second point is I admit debatable, but I think there is difference to a situation where there was no public interest issues raised and it was just pure miscellaneous chatter.

However, what seems to becoming more important now is not the right or wrongness of the leak itself, but what the reactions to it mean for free speech in a connected world. As has been pointed out, a large part of our modern "discussion space" is in the virtual world, and relies on a supporting structure whose roles and practices haven't yet been properly scrutinized. Previously, we knew what was meant by "the media", and importantly, it did too. Of course not that it consisted solely of, or was even dominated by, venerable trustworthy institutions, but at least it was clear what it meant to be venerable and trustworthy, and whether they followed it or not, most networks and papers at least paid lip service to the ideals of a "good" press. Censorship, bias and inaccuracy were thus labels they at least claimed to care about, and in general tried to avoid.

However now the media world is more fragmented and decentralized, with blogs, websites and databases now being important new players. It was always apparent  that these small operations, being so numerous and easy to setup, inevitably diluted the media space with sources and opinions which posed problems for corroboration and responsibility, but this was a price with paying for the expansion in content and comment which came with it; however, now it is coming to light that the very structure which facilitates this expansion in freedom of expression also puts it at risk. This new media, precisely because it consists of small time operations whose only focus is providing news, relies on other entities, with different priorities, to deliver that news, and therein lies the problem. The new "free speech" is dependent on the likes of Amazon, who have no duty as such to protect it.  They grant the "small man" enormous support, but it comes with catch all agreement clauses which allow immediate revocation without reason or recourse.  In this case the driving pressure seems to be political, but the vulnerability applies to other situations as well. If a hosting company doesn't like what you're using its services to say, or you're causing it problems for some reason or other, then it can boot you with very little comeback.

In the past suppression came from governments, who had the means to enforce it. But in democracies at least they needed to have reasons as well. But now the power lies with the market at large, and the unpredictable and often irrational forces at play in it, and these might be harder to combat. And of course as this particular shows, government interference has not gone away, and can now also try to use these new elements to its advantage. Whither the wiki world? Hard to tell...

Posted from phone via Blogaway (so excuse any typos!)

Wiki wars

(btw, these are my first few posts using the "swype" input method on my phone, and while really impressed by it, still takes some getting used to ; so if there some odd word choices, or obvious non-sequiters, them it's probably to blame!)

Definitely the major current affairs topic at the moment is wiki leaks. At first it was just the leaking of so many sensitive documents, but now the whole affair has widened significantly: Julian Assange is now in jail in the UK pending extradition to Sweden to face rape charges, companies like VISA, Amazon and Paypal are refusing to deal with his website, and, in response, a mysterious army of independent hackers are targeting them as punishment.

From being an almost traditional debate about press freedom (and how even "democratic" governments react when not in their interests) it has grown into a question about who really controls the web, if anyone. Can an angry government , specifically the US, suppress information by bullying the private companies that help hold the web together? And, as a consequence, what does it mean for how the web develops in the future? As I saw mentioned in an article recently, for the first time the general concept of ' cloud' computing, which seemed relentless in its progression, has been called into question. Could this restrict or at least pause its growth?

It's probably being a bit hyperbolic, but I wonder if this is in some small way, a kind of web 911? Of course in human impact no way comparable to the death of over 3000 people, but rather as a similar 'game-changer' news event witnessed by most of the world in real time.

It's almost like the first cyber war, and rather than being between superpowers, or involving rogue states, it's between one government (and ironically the one professing the most commitment to furthering freedom!) and a vague  collection of outraged 'netizens', with 'violent' militias (hackers) involved on both sides. The parallels with an uprising against a colonial power are I think striking: it's becoming like a guerrilla war waged online,  with the dominant authority using the apparatus of the society (the hosting websites and credit card companies) to try to regain control while an underground resistance uses sabotage to fight back (DDOS attacks). The weird , and slightly scary thing is though, while the authority's agenda is clear, the same cannot be said for the hackers both for and against it. Of course at the moment there is the initial rallying banner of ' web freedom', (and on the other presumably US patriotism) but that's too vague a notion I think to hold such a disparate group together for long, and in principle it's more a mob than a movement.

So while on the one hand it might be good that are forces to resist a domineering government, those forces are I think dangerously unpredictable. And it seems there are indeed similar forces on both sides. While I'm sure Amazon and co. were put under pressure by the US, there was the point made that some of the smaller sites, like the hosting company, felt they would be faced with an anti-wikileaks hacking onslaught which they couldn't withstand, and hence pushed it away to protect themselves. In this case I think the forces of the web seem less benign, (even though they might consider themselves to be just as principled).

Crazy times, and it might just be that "the revolution" won't just be "digitized", it will be digital...

Posted from phone via Blogaway (so excuse any typos!)

Leaky wiki boat

Whether they support what it's doing or not, I think most normal people must agree the wiki leak affair is pretty gob smacking, both in the sheer amount, and the detail, of data involved. It really is amazing to get such an unfettered insight into the workings of the diplomatic machine of a super power. But I think as well as simply being fascinating for anyone interested in current affairs, there also was an illicit thrill to it, like being party to juicy pieces of celebrity gossip, which were actually real, and about agents in the world who really mattered. And that I think is the problem with the latest batch of leaks-it was more telltale whispering than whistle blowing, and I really have reservations as a result.

While I think whistle blowing is something to be defended in principle, it is however always a breach of duty and trust, and hence not something to be undertaken lightly. All organizations are deserving of the loyalty of their members, but the point is that loyalty does not supersede the individuals other loyalties and duties to society at large. Thus whistle blowing is only justified when there is a conflict between these obligations, and the individual is trying to remedy that by exposing it.

Government is perhaps also a special case since it is supposed to represent its people, and so they have always have a principled stake, and hence some rights to know what it is doing on their behalf.

However even here some limits are needed, since there are also other external parties involved (other countries or even special interest groups within the country) that the government has to deal with, and hence some of the workings need to be hidden, both so that it can develop its policies and plans in private until they are mature, and so that its hand, and hence bargaining power, isn't revealed to all and sundry.

The problem is, I think the latest batch of leaks, the diplomatic cables, are by and large (with some exceptions) not whistle blowing proper, but instead just a revealing of these inner workings, and hence not really justified. Interesting as it is to know what ambassadors and officials are thinking, the fact that they think these thing is not really scandalous. It doesn't call their behavior into question, just provides some entertainment to us on the sidelines.

And of course, apart from the principle, there are the pragmatic considerations - these leaks not only make the diplomatic job harder - one side having revealed their hand on existing issues, and other sides now more way of talking candidly - but also the blunt revelations risk causing new problems by revealing to some countries and leaders what others really think or know, but would never say without more tact and caution. Furthermore, there is a definite risk of killing the golden goose, since inthe future such information will more carefully looked after, which means there will be less opportunity for true whistle blowing when it might really matter.

So, while I can't help reading it all, I think in this case things might have gone too far.

One other question is whether the papers, like the Guardian, who published the stories and who are closely involved with the wiki leaks site, acted wrongly. My first reaction is to say no, since they were just informing the world about what was already in the public domain. But is it logical to blame wiki leaks for publishing it and not those papers as well? Who is supposed to draw the line? Maybe the best approach is actually not to blame either, as long as they did not incite or reward the initial leaking, since they just then act as neutral channels of communication, which is what a free press should be. Perhaps then the only blame really resides with the original leaker, who broke his bonds of duty without justification. It seems slightly counter intuitive that the initial act can be wrong and the amplification of the results is not, but I think this is the only coherent way of viewing it. It is not the consequences if the act which were wrong, so magnifying those consequences is not to be blamed. Rather the initial act of betrayal was wrong in isolation.