A Yorkshireman in America

Occupy Your Mind

2011-11-16T22:22:00.001-08:00

There has been much talk lately about the vacation of the various sites occupied by protestors. Those critical of the protest movement have interpreted this as evidence of lack of determination. Yet, as Lindsey Walker put it in her open message to the city of Portland and its occupiers, "who would camp outside if they didn't have to?"

That, of course, leaves those that have to: the people with no houses to go to. The homeless (or rather the houseless, since technically the whole world is their home) were there in Portland and New York before the occupation began, and they are still there now. And while many of the occupiers have a place to go as the nights draw in, the houseless can only look forward to cold nights with, if they are lucky, some shelter against the weather.

It is to Portland's credit that the first phase of the occupation has come to an end without serious confrontation between the occupiers and the city. When Mayor Adams said that the occupation had gone too far many occupiers looked hard at what the occupation had become and agreed that this was not a positive direction for the city or the occupied parks; quite a few had moved out by Friday night.

The police sensibly did not attempt to march in immediately after the deadline expired. Their later move to break up the remaining camp early in the morning after the victorious protestors had gone home to a well-deserved sleep was perhaps somewhat cynically timed, but tactical decisions of that nature are never easy until it comes to second-guessing. The fact remains that Portland's mayor (unlike New York's) has managed to show respect for the aims of the occupy movement and a willingness to work with it which the movement has reciprocated.

My friend Kirby remarked today that the opposite of occupation is vacation, and that if America as a nation were to vacate the places it invades more readily then its foreign wars might be less expensive in human lives as well as financially. In the case of the occupation, however, people have returned to their former lives with a feeling of solidarity and (in some cases) a wish to continue to help those who will be left behind. Some of those houseless people were beginning to find reasons for self-esteem during the occupation, and it will be good if they aren't forgotten in the aftermath.

The solidarity is something that will continue to build. People have seen a broad coalition of forces getting involved in occupy, and it just might be enough to get the whole country shouting "I'm as mad as hell, and I am going to do something about it." It is no longer enough for the mealy-mouthed to pay lip service to the complaints of the majority (remember, the 99% is made up of left and right). Something fuundamental now has to happen in response to the honesty of the occupy movement.

What Perverse Logic Is This?

2011-06-28T14:24:00.000-07:00

I am sure that nobody thinks that the Justices of the Supreme Court are in any way corruptible. It seems to me, though, that the results of their recent work are such that they may just as well have sold out to the corporate world and profited from it as handsomely as they can.

The verdict just handed down by the Supreme Court in McCornish v. Bennett appears to tell us that free speech is only free if it can be purchased in unlimited quantity. This judgment has declared unconstitutional the state of Arizona's desire to ensure that nobody buys an election by having public funds move towards matching private spending when candidates who choose not to take public funding spend significantly more than the privately-funded candidates. According to the OpenSecrets blog:

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, stating the law limited free speech of outside groups and candidates who accepted private funding, because it matched that funding with government money.

That assertion, an essentially correct summary of a lengthy judgment, in effect says that the states are powerless to fight against corporate corruption of politics. Justice Kagan is rational and even spirited in her dissenting view, but in my opinion this 5-4 vote sets a hitherto-unseen low in the constitutional ethics of the Supreme Court. This is the most insane judgment imaginable in a world where we have just had ample evidence, from both a global financial collapse and a record oil spill, that corporations are not out to help the people whose lives they profit by.

Following, as this does, hard on the recent judgment in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission that unlimited corporate campaign contributions are "free speech," this heralds an new era in American history where corporations can pretty much buy whatever system of government they want without even having to apologize for it. Let nobody who has observed the naked greed of the Wall Street Contemptibles over the last three years be under any illusions that moderation will be the order of the day. Many of the rich would happily have a poor person starve if it meant an extra dollar in the bank (and most would prefer not to think about such unpleasant topics). Regulation will go to hell (because it's expensive, and corporations have to pay taxes to fund it) and enforcement funding will be squeezed so that companies can freely flout even those laws remaining on the books (as they do in the mining industry) without fear of reprisal.

Until breaches of ethics once more become an acceptable reason for dismissal and career decline there is no hope for the average voter, since there is nothing left to vote for that cannot be corrupted by corporations at the drop of a check book. Welcome to America: caveat emptor, and if you can't buy anything you have no voice.

Open Letter to BMI's Web Team

2011-06-15T05:39:00.000-07:00

Dear Team:

I have documented my efforts to unsubscribe from your newsletter in my blog, most recently at http://yorksamerica.blogspot.com/2011/06/bmi-are-definitely-not-interested-in.html. This communication is also being published there under the title "Open Letter to BMI's Web Team". It appears to me that your current mechanisms for unsubscribing are ineffective and broken, to the point that if you were an American company there is little doubt you would be in breach of the law.

I have changed my communication preferences. I have used both "unsubscribe" links on the "Contact Us" page. In short, it seems there is nothing I can do to stop you sending unsolicited commercial emails. Now, being a geek I can filter them out before they ever hit my inbox, but that isn't the point. The Internet is a valuable international resource, and you are demonstrating your total absence of clue by abusing it in this way.

I had originally planned to put this in a direct message to customer support. The sad fact is there does not seem to be any way from the contact page that anyone can send you a direct communication about the inadequacies of your customer communications methods. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that nobody there is particularly interested in what the customers actually think of your service. Which is a shame, because it really sucks.

So please, tell me, what is the secret formula that I am supposed to use to stop receiving your spam? As a matter of customer relations I am now so incensed by the poor performance and design of your customer communication systems that I have determined that BMI will only receive further business from me if there is no practical alternative. The world is changing, and this kind of thing does have an effect on business levels (in BMI's case, pretty much a negative one, I would think).

I will be posting a link to this message on your Facebook and Twitter pages, with no more expectation of success than any of the attempts I have previously made. This is ridiculous.

BMI Are Definitely Not Interested in Customer Service

2011-06-15T04:30:00.000-07:00

Well, that about wraps it up. Today I got yet another email from BMI, finally confirming that it doesn't matter how you set your "communications preferences", they will not stop spamming you. What a horrible company!

The Reply-To address of "donotreply@@flybmi-email.com" makes it pretty obvious that there is no point trying to reply directly. So now let's see whether any of the "contact us" options are any use. Don't ever let anyone say this is a company that listens to its customers!

More to follow ...

BMI: Still Sending Emails

2011-06-06T07:12:00.000-07:00

I am really not sure what to do about BMI. I received another email today, so I checked my mailing preferences:

Sharpening my knives here and searching for "unsubscribe" ... OK, I know I have been here before, but I am going to try it one more time just to confirm that this web site is as broken as I think.

So, any more emails and the site is definitely broken.

BMI: And as slow as a rock, too.

2011-06-02T08:33:00.000-07:00

Following up on my last, rather acerbic, post about British Midland, it appears that if their unsubscribe link works it must do so at a glacial pace, because just now their June newsletter dropped into my inbox after I unsubscribed from all mailings (or so I thought) five days ago.

If a July newsletter shows up I am speaking to a lawyer ...

Dear BMI, You Are Dumb Shits, and Do Not Comply With CAN-SPAM

2011-05-27T06:18:00.000-07:00

Dear Lazyweb:

I don't ever want to get a single further email from British Midland unless I have unfortunately somehow found it necessary to use their services as an airline. This is a tale of how to screw up a customer relationship.

I used to be a somewhat frequent flyer with BMI, and have an account with them. Since it's now over six years since I have flown with them (and counting, naturally) I haven't had the need to log in. As a result I cannot remember what the password is.

But still BMI keep sending emails. No, it's not voluminous, but it is incessant. So eventually I decide that I will put a stop to this and look for the "stop spamming me" link that is required in the United States. (At this point a faint hope rises in my breast that BMI may somehow be incorporated in the USA, in which case there may even be legal redress). Guess what? In order to cancel my subscription to their fucking emails I have to log in to my account! Full marks to the system geniuses who thought that one up, and thanks to the lawyers who let them do it.

Distant memories return of having tried this caper before. Now my frustration and rage is explained: the "Contact Us" link requires you to log in to your account (or create a new one)! Lordy, lordy, where's my fucking gun? Who are these dimwits?

[EDIT: You can in fact "ask a question" - I asked for "phone" and one of the answers gives me a UK number to ring and links to a bunch of other international numbers].

Anyway, it seems my last hope is to write a really snarky blog post (people who know me, and you should be able to tell from the typical content of my blogs) and have it go viral in the hope that someone at British Midland knows how to use the fucking Internet properly and meanders across in a month or so to find out what all the BMI buzz is about. Harness the power of the Internet. I should say so. I'm a technologist, and I have friends.

Fix your public communications, already. You are dumb shits. Fix this.

[EDIT: Looking at the comments you will see I was making a big deal about not very much. I'd still like to know exactly how BMI rubbed me up the wrong way so badly that I was prepared to publicly hate them. That's just not like me.]

Naked Self-Interest

2011-05-05T08:15:00.000-07:00

So now we have a proposed executive order to ensure that federal contracting companies have to declare their political contributions. Predictably those presumably making the largest contributions (at present the legal situation is that companies have been granted the right, by the Supreme Court, to make unlimited donations without any disclosure at all, so we have no information to work with) have come out against this.

The US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable oppose the new law because, they say, it would "bring politics into what is supposed to be a non-partisan federal contracting process." I really do love it when vested interests are so obvious that they can muster only a feeble defense against opponents. Quite how the disclosure of political contributions is suppose to render a process more partisan is beyond me. Of course if you spent millions trying to influence the outcome of the last election in your favor then you might not want your customers or the public to know that. At present there are no records of who contributed to the $33 million fund used by the Chamber of Commerce, but I think we can assume that few of them are likely to be strong advocates for the consumer.

America is increasingly a country where the rich are supported by the government in their shamefully greedy plans to disenfranchise the poor even further. Sure, there are always going to be inequalities in income, but the gap between the richest and the poorest is widening faster in America than in most other countries (and after adjusting for inflation working-class people actually earn less today than they did twenty years ago). Unfortunately an anemic media is part of the problem (being run by big business they aren't generally supportive of moves agains business interests) rather than offering any kind of a solution, so at the moment the turkeys continue to vote for Christmas. Business interests seem confident that people will continue to bear it as the financial pips are squeezed even harder, but eventually the worm must turn and people will say "enough".

Let's just hope they don't say it the same way the French did at the time of their revolution. People will say that revolutions just don't happen nowadays, but that would be ignoring the recent evidence of the Middle East. And yet those whose comfortable lives will be most disrupted by any kind of revolution (and these people don't even like technological revolutions, because of the inward investment they require) continue to make things worse for those whose work actually keeps the money going round and the wealth accumulating. Myopia of such staggering proportions surely carried with it a hubris that will be the downfall of the oppressors.

What I don't understand is why those who are so busy enriching themselves at other people's expense, and who already have more money than they can spend in a hundred lifetimes, seem to have no concept of "enough". Looked at one way, business is simply an environment that allows people to collectively do things that individually would be unethical and illegal. The whole legal nonsense of "corporate personhood" is completely bogus and should be redacted from all legislation at the first opportunity. It allows shareholders and management to wash their hands, hold them up and say "Hey, it was just business". Which seems to be BPs answer to all the questions about why they have by far the worst safety record of any oil-producing company. If BP really were a person I would cheerfully vote for the death sentence - sorry, stockholders, you lose: your company was being run carelessly and unethically, so it has died and gone to heaven, and the courts decreed that you only get back 30% of your investment.

Now that would be capitalism I could live with. Of course the capitalists will cry "foul" as soon as they see any such proposal, because despite all the nonsense about capital "taking risks" capitalists don't in fact like risk at all, and work in every way they can (including successfully lobbying for the right to inject unlimited amounts of money into the political debate anonymously) to avoid it. Yet the justification for the profits is that if there weren't profits then capital would go to something else less risky.

American politics is a dirty game, played by people who in many cases have little interest in the electorate who voted for their representation. Congress is nakedly supportive of selfish legislation to enrich their corporate backers, and education appears to be so badly hosed that the majority of kids emerging from school are hardly capable of enough joined-up thinking to say why the present state of affairs is undesirable.

This really isn't the advanced society that America likes to project an image of to the public world. It's been said that war is the the continuation of politics by other means. It seems that at present politics is the continuation of corruption by other means. Corporations nowadays like to force governments (national, regional and local, depending on the size of the project) to bribe them with tax breaks as incentives to generate new business or build new plants (Walmart being the prime example, where city governments actually incentivize Walmart to come in and put their established small retailers out of business, but other examples are not hard to find nowadays). It's time that the governments learn that the companies accepting these incentives are only there for as long as the incentive lasts, and they will disappear the minute it's more advantageous to the bottom line to find a new teat to suckle.

Enough? Just How Much is That, Exactly?

2011-03-26T20:08:00.000-07:00

In 2009, the richest 5 percent [in the United States] claimed 63.5 percent of the nation’s wealth. The overwhelming majority, the bottom 80 percent, collectively held just 12.8 percent.

Bob Herbert, New York Times, March 25, 2011

This is something that most people seem to either not think about or find quite acceptable, but it isn’t. Let’s just look at the inequality of income by using some simple figures to bring it home. Let’s suppose we had a million people, and a total wealth of a billion dollars. This would make the average wealth $1,000. For the sake of argument, let’s suppose that someone who has $1,000 can get by OK, feeding and clothing themselves and their families. This assumes that their income is by and large proportional to their wealth – not strictly true, but close enough to make little difference to this discussion.

The top 5 percent (i.e. 50,000 people) share $635 million, giving them an average of $12,700 each. When you think of that as a little over twelve times the average wealth it doesn’t sound excessive – after all, the average guy has $1,000, right?

Wrong, if you mean "the guy in the middle", because averages (in this case the name of the culprit is the arithmetic mean, arrived at by adding all the wealth up and dividing by the number of people) can be very misleading. The fact that an unemployed person and someone earning $100,000 have an “average” income of $50,000 does not make life any easier for the guy who’s getting nothing. The earner has “taken” 100% of the money, and so there is nothing for the unemployed person.

Because the relatively few most wealthy take so much of the pot there is not a whole lot to share among the bottom 80 percent (that’s 800,000 people in our example). If they were all to be averagely wealthy we would need $800 million for them, but in fact they divide up just $128 million. This means that their average wealth would be $160 – just less than a sixth of the average. In other words each of the richest 5 percent of the population has, on average, almost eighty times what each of the poorest 80 percent has. Of course, now you know what you just learned about averages, you can probably guess that the comparison becomes even more incredible when you compare the top 1 percent, or the top 0.1 percent, of earners with the really impoverished. The ratios become obscene.

What about the fifteen percent in the middle, between our two extremes? Well, simple arithmetic tells us that these 150,000 “middle class” get to share the remaining $237 million, giving them an average of $1,580. They are doing OK, they definitely feel that they are well off, and they can’t understand what the hell the bottom 80% is bitching about. They’d like to move up, to have more, and they feel that there is ample scope for those below them on the ladder to do the same. Alas there is only so much available, and the more that goes to the rich the less there is for the poor. This is why Western civilization is going to hell in a handbasket.

It is fashionable (as it was in the days of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, the two Western leaders of the last half century most transparently disinterested in the people on whose behalf they purported to govern) to suggest that people must look out for themselves, by being industrious. This fashion serves the rich very well, as it allows them to hold on to most of their wealth and pay expensive accountants to work out how to make sure that the IRS (one of the federal government’s major revenue generators) takes as little of their income as possible. But does it not seem that the acquisitive rich are leaving too little of the pie for the poor?

One has to ask of the extremely rich why it is necessary to continue to aggressively accumulate more wealth. Is that really the best way to enjoy wealth? Could one perhaps not more enjoyably take it a little easier, exercise a practical interest in philanthropy; try to do a few more people a bit more good? High earners often like to excuse their incomes by suggesting that the money isn’t really important, it is simply a measure of their success. In which case, are they not perhaps trying to be a little more successful than necessary? If it is only a way of keeping score, it seems we should really find a better way, one that does not lock up huge amounts of resource in the hands of a very few to the detriment of society as a whole.

The latest financial scandals have made it obvious even to people educated in America’s (seventeenth best in the world) school system that government and business are serving the same set of interests, which are not those of the working people. It is said that those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it. If the wealthy were a little better schooled in history they might remember the French and the Russian Revolutions, both uprisings by the proletariat against a bourgeoisie that was well-fed, prosperous and by and large uncaring about the conditions of their less fortunate fellow men.

People think that history never happens around them, but of course it does: history is simply the more-or-less organized memory of past events. The historical precedents are not good. Already we see signs of Western governments deploying brutally repressive tactics against protestors with legitimate democratic concerns. In the name of the “war against terrorism” both the United Kingdom and the United States have turned back the clock on the civil liberties of their citizenry in a huge way. The forces of repression are massing, and the Obama administration, a dreadful disappointment to a large number who took hope from his election campaign, has proved to be a keen supporter of government repression. How long will it be before these chickens come home to roost?

Nuclear Power is Safe, It's the Humans You Can't Trust

2011-03-21T02:11:00.000-07:00

As the investigation into the failure modes of the Japanese nuclear reactors goes forward, uncomfortable information has emerged about the way regulatory requirements were circumvented. Among other things it appears that the containment vessel for number 4 reactor at Fukushima was deformed during manufacture. The vessel should have been scrapped, which might have led to the bankruptcy of its manufacturer, Babcock Hitachi, K.K. Unfortunately the management conspired to cover up the irregularity in manufacture, and Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry was disinclined to investigate the accusations of a cover-up. I'd really rather there wasn't any doubt about the integrity of a nuclear containment vessel.

Tokyo Electric, Kansai Electric Power Co., Chubu Electric Power Co., Tohoku Electric Power Co. and Hokuriku Electric Power Co. have all admitted falsifying safety records and failing to report accidents. Some couldn't be covered up - the fatal ones. Part of the problem is that such regulation as the nuclear industry in Japan is subject to is maintained by the Trade Ministry rather than an independent regulatory body. We have just seen in the United States how government supervision of potentially life-threatening operations can lead to inadequate controls and a cosy relationship between the regulators and the regulated.

When matter of such potential moment are freely swept under the carpet in the name of economic interests this brings into question the whole safety ethos of the nuclear industry. Nuclear power is safe, we are told, because of the intensive controls it is subject to. Sadly humans aren't, because they will lie, cheat and steal to support their own narrow economic interests. As long as regulators continue to rubber-stamp the reports they get from industry we remain under threat from technologies that are inadequately supervised. The issue here is that while we are dealing with events having a very low probability, the potential for damage is so large that there may actually be a measurable expectation of loss.

Alas it appears that the nuclear industry is no more prepared to cope with these calculations than the financial industry was. It's all very well for President Obama to say that nuclear energy is central to America's future. When are we going to get a regulatory environment that actually takes the risks into consideration

Danger, Will Robinson

2011-02-21T09:18:00.000-08:00

I am seriously concerned that the erosion of civil liberties that the George W. Bush era typified continues under the president that promised "change we can live with". Or whatever promise he made. Which I am sure was made is weasel words, designed to be wriggled out of under appropriate circumstances.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement continues to sieze domain names without any judicial process. This appears to be part of a concerted strategy likely to lead to increasingly peremptory challenge to and confiscation of domain names on what is essentially an administration whim.

At the same time the FBI appears to feel that it is entitled to break the law in order to uphold it, and continues to violate the civil liberties of American citizens. Apparently they are planning to expand the surveillance laws still further, in a move reminiscent of the German Third Reich, that well-known defender of public liberty, and feel it is entirely appropriate to take over two years to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request for information. This is not a good advert for American democracy.

Finally, the administration appears to have no problems with secrecy when it comes to their own actions. You may remember they recently filed suit against Twitter to try and retrieve information users who had allegedly communicated with the allegedly criminal organizers of WikiLeaks. What you may not know is that they filed that motion with the court under seal rather than being prepared to state on what basis they were trawling for information. The judge in that case has now ordered the records unsealed, so while Secretary of State Clinton might try and sound as though she is on the side of freedom actions speak louder than words. It appears as though the Obama administration is no more concerned with Americans' human rights than any previous government.

It really does make you wonder whether democracy is worth protecting.

Why Protect Freedom and Democracy?

2011-02-02T14:12:00.000-08:00

So ever since 9/11 the politicians have been eroding American freedoms (can you say "PATRIOT Act"?) and generally behaving as though American citizens had no rights. Well, they soon won't if they aren't careful - as Benjamin Franklin so famously said "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." The point of view that the government owes nothing short of total protection to each and every citizen is at best unrealistic, and at worst delusional, yet politicians appear to feel that they cannot afford to give the lie to this myth lest they be seen not to care.

The latest piece of federal government misbehavior that has come to my notice is in a report by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) on the gross disregard for the law demonstrated by the FBI in intelligence investigations between 2001 and 2008. One imagines that the individual agents were for the most part motivated by a wish to catch criminals and bring them to justice. Yet this catalog of delays and lies to courts and judges makes it clear that the sanctity of the legal system was not uppermost in the agents' minds, otherwise these offenses would never have been committed.

In all the EFF estimates that upwards of 40,000 intelligence violations may have been committed in the nine years since 9/11. But the rule of law is a strange and delicate thing. Those who are responsible for upholding the laws appear to hold them in such pitiful regard that they are broken without compunction. We are talking 4,500 offenses a year, or about twelve per day across the whole country. This rate of offending is so staggering it is impossible to think about investigating and prosecuting them all, thereby giving these law enforcement officers effective immunity from their crimes.

The question that I cannot now get out of my mind is, since all these violations were apparently committed in the name of upholding freedom and democracy, why is it necessary to bypass or ignore the constraints of just the system they profess to be trying to support. What value do freedom and democracy have if the only way they can be protected is to ignore the democratic controls that they impose? This is such a basic question that in a country like the USA I cannot imagine why it is not on everyone's lips.

Clinton Should Put Her Thinking Cap On

2011-02-02T03:16:00.000-08:00

The current revolt in Egypt seems unlikely to be calmed or suppressed given that Egypt's troops have by and large refused to engage those involved in the popular uprising. This is hardly surprising because it appears that the troops are largely from the same places as the protesters, and are reluctant to kill their fellow Egyptians to support a dictatorship. Bully for them. After Tunisia, if Egypt goes then the United States is possibly going to see uprisings in many more of the repressive countries it is in bed with politically and economically in the name of expediency and profitable trade.

This is going to require some creativity from Hillary Clinton's State Department (and I do hope that whoever is in charge of the CIA now has the dogs on a firm leash: we wouldn't want to cause the wrong kind of political instability, now would we?) at a time when the USA has not been phenomenally impressive itself. Clinton saw fit to lecture the world on Internet freedoms. Here's a part of what she had to say at the Newseum on January 21:

Now, we are reinvigorating the Global Internet Freedom Task Force as a forum for addressing threats to internet freedom around the world, and we are urging U.S. media companies to take a proactive role in challenging foreign governments’ demands for censorship and surveillance. The private sector has a shared responsibility to help safeguard free expression. And when their business dealings threaten to undermine this freedom, they need to consider what’s right, not simply what’s a quick profit.

And yet domestic legislation is being prepared to allow the US government to turn off the Internet in much the same way that the Egyptian government has. The proponents of the Bill argue that only critical infrastructure will be covered by the legislation, which leads us to another rather interesting point: the President's choice of the systems (whether public or private) making up the critical infrastructure is specifically barred from judicial review. Yet another example of suspending the operation of the constitution in order to protect ... the operation of the constitution.

Those are brave and interesting words from the Secretary of State of an administration whose Vice President was rolled out to ceremoniously deny that Mubarak is a dictator and appease him in the most ingratiating way shortly before he cut off almost all Internet links to the outside world. One might have thought that such censorship would have brought some protest, but as yet there appears to be no chink in the facade that Hosni Mubarak is a paid-up member of the good ole boys' club. Is it likely American businesses all over the country reconsidering their commercial links with Egypt: "Gee, Harry, they cut off the Internet in Egypt. That's not right. Maybe we should stop selling them tear gas?" You can probably put that down as an episode of "things that will never happen". Oh, sorry, only media companies are supposed to worry about their business dealings undermining freedom.

Anyway, assuming that the Egyptian government falls and the American government realizes that it can no longer continue to bury its head in the sand, what might be the best policy for dealing with the states that were formerly "good friends" but whose people have now taken this democracy idea way too far and actually incited the kind of revolution that in 1776 started America down the path to becoming the imperialist giant it now is? So far there has been little hostility to the US -- the discontent has been purely internal. Of course back in the 1970's the CIA (remember that leash?) would simply have conspired with the opposition to stage a coup. Strange, isn't it, how a country that professes to love democracy finds it expedient to suppress it using all the tools of state repression that they fashion to deplore in others when the policies of a democratically-elected government don't suit them? Salvador Allende would have been a far better ruler for the Chilean people than Augusto Pinochet, who was a brutal dictator of the worst kind and deserves, if there is such a place, to burn in Hell. Yet the CIA funded and conspired in his coup d'etat. Good for business, don't you know.

So the question as I see it is whether US foreign policy can be finally placed on a level footing, with rules and relationships clearly stated and maintained under public scrutiny. If not then it will continue to be the shady, underhanded skullduggery that encourages people like Pinochet and Mubarak. It seems that we have learned nothing from the mistakes we made in arming the Afghani "rebels" to fight Russia in the 1980s only to see those same weapons deployed against American troops when our good friends became our sworn enemies. Sadly, it seems that professional politicians and diplomats now have such a stranglehold on the whole process that "the people" don't get a look in. This is a great shame, since when individual people from conflicting nations are allowed to mix socially they almost always realize that the humanity they share far outweighs any differences between them. I am sorry to say that, as a country, you just can't trust America.

It's time for the American people, and people of all other developed nations, to use whatever education they have to answer some simple questions like: "Whose interests does this incessant conflict serve?" and "Why does the US spend almost as much on war* as the rest of the world put together?" Each cruise missile costs over half a million dollars. They are way too profitable to just stay in the armory, but of course the only way the DoD is going to need more is if it uses the ones it has. So the armaments and munitions companies certainly aren't going to complain about America's gunboat diplomacy: it is just too good for the bottom line**. As always, "follow the money" is a good rule of thumb.

Since Ms. Clinton appears from the speech I quoted above to feel that public scrutiny (what we used to naively refer to as "the oxygen of publicity") will help to avoid bad government, I should like to challenge her to open up the workings of her own department to scrutiny by the citizenry. As she herself points out, we now have the technology to make this eminently practical, just as it would for public accounting scrutiny. Alas, there are I fear just too many dirty deals, too many situations where duplicity is going to be the chosen way to relate to other countries, so I don't see such openness arriving any time soon.

Let's hope I am wrong.

* They call it "defense", of course. This is mealy-mouthed bullshit of the worst kind. It's all about aggression.
** At least we are now spared the feeble bleatings that weapons profits will contribute to some people's pension schemes since it has become perfectly obvious that the banks will rob the citizenry of any wealth they might happen to accumulate.

Don't Think It Couldn't Happen Here

2011-01-28T10:10:00.000-08:00

So the repressive and undemocratic rule of Hosni Mubarak is under threat from those whose lives it has made unbearable. But you can't find out about it via the Internet. CNN at least had some footage from Alexandria where there correspondent reported crowds heavily outnumbering an apparently fairly lightly armed police force. So if you can afford satellite links you can still get information out of Egypt.

The thing is, in America the media are by and large complicit with the established political parties in shaping the news so that certain kinds of change become difficult or impossible. Since the media is dominated by large corporations they want to encourage corporate benefits that they can profit from, and this means a conflict of interest which in any ethical and educated world would have them laughed out of credibility.

There seems to be "something wrong with the state of Denmark" if people are looking to Comedy Central for more informed political comment than they can get from most major networks.

Also consider the ready compliance of the telephone companies with W's administration when it requested access to information that amounted to illegal spying on US citizens. The administration as good as admitted that when it persuaded Congress to grant the telcos legal immunity (legislation supported by candidate Obama, who apparently wasn't in favor of the kind of change that meant bringing corporate and executive lawbreakers to justice). Yet the public still acquiesced to the convenient fantasy that democratic elections give the people freedom.

One might almost say "horseshit".

Freedoms must be exercised to be maintained, and my personal experience of the last decade and a half in the USA is that erosion of civil liberties should be expected from both "sides" of the political spectrum. It is almost as though George Orwell's vision of Animal Farm has come true, and the pigs have turned into farmers.

Nobody holds out any hope to the downtrodden: it's all about middle class property values, and the underclasses can be ignored because of their lack of political power (illegal immigrants are great when you want people to keep their mouths closed, because they are naturally averse to any authority and want to give as little information as possible). Look at the economic exploitation that takes place and it really is not so different from the tenets of slavery.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. And when did we last have a government that was on the side of the poor?

Use Your Fucking Brains

2010-10-05T19:42:00.000-07:00

I have just watched someone I (scarily) believe to be a voter on television say "Barack Obama is the worst President in the history of the United States".

Now, as an immigrant I don't have that much knowledge of American history, though oddly I seem to know at least as much about it as your average American. But let's ignore history. If you can live through the "Bush the Idiot" presidency and still say that Barack Obama is the worst president ever then you are, in my opinion, less than qualified to vote.

Republicans Against the Minimum Wage (What is it, by the Way?)

2010-10-05T19:29:00.000-07:00

Lawrence O'Donnell is interviewing Michael Steele, chairman of the GOP, on TV and just asked him, in view of his opposition to the minimum wage, what the minimum wage actually was. His answer made it obvious that Steele had no idea what the minimum wage actually is (answer: $7.25 under federal law, $8.55 in Washington State). But he sure is against it. Any minimum wage.

I know other people who are against the minimum wage, and they at least have sensible arguments that involve the desire to help people who because of disability, for example, cannot justify being paid the minimum wage due to their low productivity. But I would have thought that someone in Steele's position would have bothered to find out exactly what he was against. Sadly not. To him it's a purely ideological argument. To me it's a question of how we ensure that greedy capitalists (like me) are forced to share a tiny portion of their gains with the people who create their wealth.

In the same interview, he was adamant that job creation came from small businesses, not government. But none of this explains why the Republican party wants to support large-wallet capitalism (unless, of course, you look at the campaign contributions that large corporations continue to make to electoral campaigns - and don't even get me started about the supreme court decision that says corporate campaign contributions are "free speech").

Interestingly enough, 80% of Americans believe that there should be a minimum wage. So don't try and tell me that the Republican party are interested in imposing the will of the people. Unless, of course, the people happen to run large corporations and have absolutely no idea, when it comes to earnings and wealth, of the meaning of the word "enough". Apparently the Republican party is the party of Gordon Gekko*

* My favorite quote from Wall Street: "Gordon Gekko: The richest one percent of this country owns half our country's wealth, five trillion dollars. One third of that comes from hard work, two thirds comes from inheritance, interest on interest accumulating to widows and idiot sons and what I do, stock and real estate speculation. It's bullshit. You got ninety percent of the American public out there with little or no net worth. I create nothing. I own. We make the rules, pal. The news, war, peace, famine, upheaval, the price per paper clip. We pick that rabbit out of the hat while everybody sits out there wondering how the hell we did it. Now you're not naive enough to think we're living in a democracy, are you buddy? It's the free market. And you're a part of it. You've got that killer instinct. Stick around pal, I've still got a lot to teach you."

I Don't Give a Fcuk About My Dyslexia

2010-09-16T22:45:00.000-07:00

Funny how you can suffer (mildly) from something all your life and then only realize it in a moment of self-awareness. Probably everybody who ever read anything I wrote will laugh when I confess I believe I may be slightly dyslexic. If I am, it doesn't stop me communicating with people - it's just that one of the things I seem to communicate is that I either can't spell or don't care about accuracy. Exasperating, but fortunately far from fatal.

Presenting a Pony to a Congressman

2010-09-12T12:30:00.000-07:00

In what I sometimes laughably refer to as my "professional" life odd things seem to happen now and then. Last week, more by good luck than good judgment I did Congressman David Wu an accidental favor. We got to talking and lo, he had an interest in technology. One thing led to another and he ended up addressing the conference I had traveled to Portland, OR to organize.

One slogan at the conference was "everyone gets a pony at DjangoCon". This originally related back to the conference the previous year, where people whose feature requests were added into the release were referred to as having "got a pony". So this year I decided to give everyone a pony, and purchased 260 of the little buggers from Hasbro.

Explaining the meme to the Congressman after his talk I presented him with a pony; having two daughters he asked for a second, thereby handing me a quandary. I had previously explained to the other parents at DjangoCon that even if they had multiple children they only got one pony. In the end I decided to accede to his request. He seems to be the kind of man whose daughters could each love their own pony, so I have a feeling those ponies have gone to a good home.

Congressman Wu's campaign staff were kind enough to invite me to a breakfast meeting the following day at which Congressman Chris van Hollen (the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) outlined in stark terms the prospects that await the country if the Republicans make serious gains in November's election. It was quite frightening enough to make me put my hand in my pocket, and those of you who know Yorkshire (or what a tight-wad I am) will realize that is not done lightly.

But in my estimation the Congressman will not let those ponies down. He seems to me to be, as I wrote in another blog, a "two-pony family man". I hope his constituents re-elect him in November.

Good On Yer, Prince William

2009-12-22T19:00:00.000-08:00

Those who know me well know that I am no royalist. Ask me my impression of the royal family and it will be along the lines of "worthless bunch of parasites".

Kudos, though, to Prince William for what appears to be a serious attempt to understand the plight of Britain's homeless people. Too many in today's Western societies find it easy to write the homeless off as a bunch of shiftless ne'er-do-wells. The truth, sadly, is usually more complicated than that.

Spare a thought, at this time of year, for those who are separated from their families by homelessness or who have neither homes nor families to support them. Those who think the problem can be solved by telling the homeless to pull their socks up and look for a job fail to take into account the systemic discrimination that homeless people face when trying to avail themselves of what should be universal rights in wealthy societies.

At least by trying it for a night Prince William shows sincerity in his desire to understand.

Joe Lieberman Can Eat Shit and Die

2009-12-15T09:22:00.000-08:00

So "health care reform" continues to die the death of a thousand cuts. The single-payer option never really made it off the starting blocks. Then the public option was removed in the smoke-filled rooms. In the latest work-over, thanks to Joe "What a Dick I Am" Lieberman bailing on his commitment to support it, the expansion of Medicare to support buy-in by uninsured people (a policy he supported in 2000) has been removed. In the end "health care reform" is being transformed into "more money for the bloated insurance companies" in the face of all common sense and election promises.

It isn't difficult to see why health care reform has failed. In the end you just have to follow the oldest principle of crime investigation: follow the money. Who will the new legislation benefit? The health care industry is a major employer in Lieberman's home state of Connecticut, and a major supplier of campaign funds. Those (including Lieberman) who have obstructed the legislation and transmogrified it into a bastard son of private insurance that will do little good to anyone who doesn't hold stock in pharmaceuticals or insurance companies have done so because it's in the interest of people who have funded their election campaigns.

Barack Obama or not, America really does have "the best government money can buy". And sadly that's a very poor excuse for government, as this latest debacle makes plain. The senate and the congress cannot claim to be guided by the welfare of the populace with this kind of cynical manipulation going on. Time we started to read the Declaration of Indepence again, I think. Particularly this bit:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

The (lack of) progress on healthcare reform adequately demonstrates that the current system of government in America has indeed committed "a long train of abuses and usurpations," and the outcome of the health care "debate" might even be the straw that broke the camel's back. It is genuinely destructive of the asserted rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness for the majority of its citizens, and it's time that was recognized.

Lieberman has shown himself to be unfit to hold public office, and should immediately be removed as chair of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Then let's get on with the revolution that the Declaration of Independence so clearly indicates as overdue ...

A Wunch of Bankers?

2009-11-03T04:13:00.000-08:00

The recent news that UK banks receiving a further tranch of bailout money (strange how £40 billion no longer seems like a lot of money since the banks became too big to fail) are to have restrictions place on bonus payments has spurred the usual bullshit from the banks.

Stephen Hester, chief executive of RBS, said the bonus requirements made it more difficult for the bank – which has a large investment banking division – to recruit the right staff.

Really? This excuse is trotted out whenever any reduction in the bankers' ability to pig out at the corporate trough is in any way impeded. Note, the actual restriction being discussed here is not the ability to pay bonuses for 2010, it's the mere deferral of those bonuses for a year. I think bankers must live in some strange world that's almost entirely devoid of any contact with the real world. Hester might have been better (or at least more honest) to write

“You people just don't understand that a good banker will insist on the right to huge payments before even sitting down at his or her desk. If we can't recruit the right sort of greedy bastard then we will fall behind the banks who are fully staffed with rapacious, backstabbing self-serving minions, and our shareholders will buy their shares instead. It's not easy being a banker, you know, and bonuses are a right, not something you have to earn”.

When I was a kid this sort of assumption of entitlement was chiefly associated with the output of the nation's public schools. In today's classless society anyone, even a lad from Easingwold comprehensive school, can apparently get in on the act. Oxford apparently did Mr. Hester no good at all.

Your Trash is Killing Things

2009-10-17T13:29:00.001-07:00

If you happen to be one of those people who doesn't think this litter is a serious problem, please look at these pictures and think again. This is a graphic demonstration of the human race's careless abuse of the environment. Please stop it.

Polanski Case Highlights Us-Them Divide

2009-10-05T05:29:00.000-07:00

The case of Roman Polanski, who thirty years ago drugged and raped a 13-year old girl and then fled the US before sentencing after pleading guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, has brought into sharp relief the fact that some Hollywood celebrities appear to feel that artistic accomplishments should give someone the right to stand above the law. Quite why the fact that Polanski has made great films, or that his crimes were committed a long time ago, should allow them to be ignored is a little bemusing. If he really believes these charges should be dropped then let him return to the USA and face the courts he fled from.

To me it doesn't seem unreasonable that Polanski is having to suffer for his admitted misdeeds, though it's a shame that the operation of the media publicity machine inevitably means his victim will also have to face renewed exposure. Her public statements have an unusual poignancy: she probably just wants the whole matter to be forgotten (I believe, but thankfully cannot know, that I would want the same in her situation).

I don't claim to know all the ins and outs of the case, though I find the facts repugnant. But it is reassuring to know that failure to submit to the courts at the time of the crime doesn't give you a free pass thirty years later. Polanski's rich and powerful friends can screech all they like about his achievements, but if his current incarceration makes even one potential child rapist think again it will be serving some purpose. At least in Switzerland (though not in the minds of his Hollywood apologists), it appears, the rich and the poor are subject to the same law.

Pay More, Die Younger

2009-09-28T05:28:00.000-07:00

Well, here's a hard look at the American health care system that makes it pretty clear that some change is required. Paying more to die sooner doesn't sound to me like what people really want. Unfortunately many people in America don't realize what a crappy system they have got. This article tells it like it is.

The "healthcare industry" is interested in maximizing profits, not in taking care of the people who pay its premiums. Inserting the profit motive between the doctors and the patients that they care for seems to me like a recipe for stupidities like a declaration that a bleeding breast is not an emergency - a declaration that was reversed after media publicity.

Who needs death panels? The insurance companies already have them.

Fox Hypocrisy

2009-09-19T07:42:00.000-07:00

I don't tend to go in for media-bashing, because experience has taught me that those who listen exclusively to a single source of news are unlikely to question it, because it's telling them they want to hear.

But when Fox News takes out a full-page ad chastising other channels for not covering an event (which those channels did cover) the lie so blatant that it's worth publicizing. Perhaps just a few of those who swallow Fox News' "fair and balanced" coverage might actually start to ask themselves why they daily swallow the Fox garbage hook, line and sinker. They even used full-page image from a CNN camera as the background to their ad!

Fortunately CNN's Rick Sanchez publicly called Fox in their lie far more effectively than I could.

I always used to wonder why I disliked Rupert Murdoch, without ever having met him. Now I understand. It's because he creates powerful media enterprises with no respect for the truth, to serve his own crass commercial ends. The Times in London used to be the UK's journal of record. Since Murdoch took over it's become a sleazy muckraking tabloid.

If you really think that Fox News , as it claims, fair and balanced please watch the video and think again.

Idiocracy

2009-09-09T17:37:00.001-07:00

There's been a lot of evidence that the Republican party, despite paying lip service to bipartisan politics in the interregnum between president Obama's election and his taking office in January. Since then there have been precious few signs that Republicans have interest in anything other than obstructing the social progress that will highlight the irresponsibility of the Bush administration.

So it was fascinating to come across this list of contradictions in Republican thought. I would never claim that Democrats have a monopoly on rational thought, but at present the Republican senators and congressmen need to hear from their constituencies that it's time to stop the doublespeak and start to consider the needs of those who voted them into power.

On a day when America finally learns that it will join all other Western democracies in providing universal health care, it would be nice to see some cooperation in government. Maybe next we can start to send fewer people to prison than China.

Drug War Stupidities

2009-09-04T04:57:00.002-07:00

So the Atlanta police have killed another innocent person in their attempt to keep illegal drugs off the street. When will the citizenry of this country wake up to the atrocities that are being committed in their name? Well, not just wake up, but actually start exercising democratic control over the "forces of law" who can apparently do this kind of thing with immunity. This guy gets it.

Feel Your Boobies Week Oct 6-9

2009-08-29T04:14:00.000-07:00

October 6-9 is "Feel Your Boobies" week. Don't leave it until the (if you are lucky) annual exam to find out there's been a change. I once had a breast X-ray. Not fun - they say "the less you have the more it hurts". Knowing your body can let you detect change early.

Death Panels Exist

2009-08-18T11:37:00.001-07:00

I am grateful to my friends Paul McNett and Ed Leafe for pointing me to an article that explains better than I could have that Death Panels do indeed already exist. How or why "socialized medicine" would be worse than what people pay for today I have no idea.

Digital Computer Invented by Yorkshireman

2009-08-18T05:35:00.001-07:00

Tom Kilburn, working at the Electrical Engineering department under Freddie Williams, built the SSEM (Small Scale Experimental Machine: the Manchester guys love naming things). This later grew into the Manchester Mark 1, but the SSEM is accepted by some authorities as the first stored-program digital computer.

Troy Davis Supreme Court Victory

2009-08-17T11:40:00.000-07:00

I am happy that one of the voices heard in the case of Troy Davis might have been mine. It seemed like it would have been a grave injustice to execute Mr. Davis on the evidence presented at his trial. Thank you, Supreme Court, for doing your job.

Bolshevik Blood

2009-08-13T08:27:00.000-07:00

I've just read a piece that captures very well my unease and discontent at the Obama administration. Having said that, like old age the Obama administration "isn't so bad when you consider the alternatives." So discontent is rather less appropriate than unease in this case. It's a bit like we've handed Obama a hammer and put our collective nuts on the table. We don't think he's going to squish them, but that doesn't stop our eyes watering as we wait to find out.

Unease is currently mostly about social inequity, and just what kind of societal fracture it is going to take before the well-off just shut the fuck up instead of bleating (or ranting) about how public health insurance is unnecessary (or, even worse, will threaten their lives). The truth is they have no noeed of it themselves and they don't like that the cost will devalue their investments. So, the hell with the poor having it, nobody can have it. Maybe we should start another war somewhere, that'll save money.

Many of those of a Republican persuasion still haven't got the message that they have stomped on too many people's nuts for them to be politically relevant for a good long time.

So, instead of letting Obama get on with it they proceed to obstruct at every turn, while feeding their media mouthpieces with irrelevant stupidities like "is he really American" and fear, uncertainty and doubt about how having health insurance will fuck their lives over. Even supposing that the Soylent Green nonsense about the potential for state health insurers to decide when lives end had any substance at all (which it almost certainly doesn't), what uninsured person wouldn't consider that a win over being denied any but emergency room treatment? The Republicans would apparently rather leave the life and death decisions to the insurers, hardly a group well-known for their compassion.

These bogus scaremongerings try to make it sound as though having to negotiate your health insurance with the government will be difficult and unpleasant. Personally I hope the government provide (as a model for others) an administration that's a pleasure to deal with. Latest information technology properly deployed, all that. Helpful, friendly, and sympathetic when they can't help, with assistance on lowering health costs for uninsured cases. You'd certainly know you weren't talking to an insurance company then. Insurance companies rank high in the difficult and unpleasant stakes, in my experience. I am usually calling them to be told "no".

This bit from the Rude Pundit got me started:

Let's be honest (and, yes, this is one of those overgeneralized, "look at the yokels," elitist statments, so, sure, exceptions exist): there's large swaths of the United States that are filled with lost people, people who have been broken down by wondering whether they're gonna lose or have lost their jobs (and health insurance) as jobs go overseas and employment ranks shrink, people who feel an anger out there that is, yes, yes, soothed by guns and religion, the former that promises them instant power, the latter that promises them happiness everlasting if they do what they're told God wants. They are deluded by those who soothe their anger, the people on talk radio or Fox "news" who say in an endless loop, "It's not your fault, it's not your fault, it's this person or that person, immigrants, gays, liberal activists, attack them." Toss into this mix the natural progression of personal problems like divorce or illness, toss in the shitty education most of them have, and shake, motherfuckers, shake. It's fucking scary to live now, and not even for the reasons they've been told by Sean Hannity. (my emphasis)

That represents the current left-right juxtaposition in the United States. It's a bit like being back in the pre-Thatcher era, except that the USA certainly has no Ronald Reagan waiting in the wings (and very grateful I am for that). Psychologically, it makes sense for the administration to be conservative in what it provides, since if a sudden further economic reversal were to necessitate taking some of it back those newly-deprived of their benefits would be a powerful revolutionary force.

The scary thing is the ease with which media manipulation can now create a groundswell of opinion. As far as I can see there's a percentage of the US population who already are living in the doublethink* world of 1984. And the Republican party is going around poking sticks in these people's sides and telling them go fuck over a Democrat's town hall meeting -- it'll make you feel better.

* doublethink: e.g. "Obama has ... a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture." ... "I'm not saying he doesn't like white people, I'm saying he has a problem." right-wing commentator Glenn Beck on July 28

Rude Pundit Calls It Like It Is

2009-08-05T07:51:00.000-07:00

OK, the problem isn't Barack Obama, who appears to be doing his best to keep his campaign promises (modulo certain conflicts that I have already written about in earlier posts). The problem is the chickenshit Democratic Congress, who with a filibuster-proof presence continue to act as though the people of America will rise up in revolution if they pass any legislation that the Republicans don't agree with.

I have said before that the Republican opposition are simply opposing everything, because they don't have a fucking clue about what the people of this country want, how they live, or the frustration they feel at having been governed for eight years by a bunch of yahoos who only understand and care about the needs of the privileged.

However there is now someone who is saying the same thing much more effectively than I can (warning: his language is often calculated to offend). The Rude Pundit is pointing out that the consequences for this country are too awful to contemplate. It really is time that Congress found its balls, or gave up any pretense of having any. Are the Blue Dogs just Red Dogs in disguise? I am beginning to wonder.

If the Democrats can't support their own president, elected by a majority of the people, it makes you wonder just whose interests they think they are there to serve, doesn't it?

Democrats Have No Balls?

2009-07-28T09:47:00.000-07:00

I just don't get it. Here we are, with a Democrat president, a Democrat Senate and a Democrat Congress, proof against filibusters, and yet there seems to be a problem passing legislation.

The Republican opposition has proved beyond all shadow of a doubt that its only interest is in obstructing such necessary reform as universal health care. Or have I missed some Republican proposal that explains how they would bring Americans without healthcare insurance (all 80 million of them) under some protective umbrella? It's quite clear that the Republican party doesn't give a fuck about uninsured Americans. So fuck them.

I say to the Democrats, get on with it. Put aside your petty in-fighting and your reservations. Stop acting as though bi-partisan support was necessary for healthcare reform. Screw the Republicans, who if this were the 1930s would no doubt be complaining about "socialized transportation" because of the construction of the interstate highways.

Let America put its money where its mouth is. Start letting banks fail, and make sure that the 21st century becomes the time when Americans could look forward to at least adequate healthcare independent of their ability to pay. The money we've thrown at the banks (which, remember, was instigated by the Bush administration, albeit with support from the gonadless Democrats) would have paid for the whole fucking country's healthcare for the next twenty years.

Denver Lawyer Disciplined for Winning Case

2009-07-27T09:33:00.000-07:00

I came across an interesting case today of a lawyer who was dragged before a disciplinary committee, apparently mostly because he had the audacity to win a large settlement against his city for a client. He was then misrepresented in the news media and by those he opposed. This is a small example of a much larger phenomenon: abuse of power.

If this isn't a case of those in power abusing their authority then I'd be very surprised. Yet how many times do we hear about things like this and simply shrug our shoulders, as though surprise at corruption is something that should be reserved for the innocent or naive?

WAKE UP, PEOPLE! YOUR FREEDOMS ARE BEING STOLEN AT HOME!

And of course anyone who read George Orwell's 1984 knows that the classic technique for shifting attention from the abuses of domestic government is to manufacture hysteria about a real or imagined external threat. George W Bush's fruitless pursuit of Osama bin Laden is a classic play from Orwell's book.

With all the modern technology we have at our disposal today it's time to start policing the rules and making our elected and unelected representatives responsible for their actions. Of course, if we can't be bothered to bring a rogue president to justice (presumably on the grounds that "he was trying to protect the country") then why would they bother to take action against corrupt city officers who persecute ethical lawyers?

One problem, of course, is that to take arms against this sea of troubles is to invite its visitation on yourself. The bully boys who run the country at so many levels (city, state and national governments are equally bad) rely on our desire to escape persecution letting them continue to behave as though they were above the law. We ignore the abuse of others' rights in order to retain our own. What kind of sense does that make? About as much as going to war for peace, or screwing for virginity. It takes courage to stand up and be counted, but ultimately there is strength in numbers - encourage others to stand up with you and you will feel less alone standing up.

Let's be clear about this, not ALL elected officials and public servants are corrupt. But way too many are, and act as though they need not be constrained by the same laws and regulations they apply to other people every day. They need to learn to live in fear until they change their ways.

Nobody should be above the law. If our president can act as though the law did not apply to her* then are our legal freedoms really worth protecting?

* Yes, I know the current president is, like all those before him, a man. This emphasizes that we are discussing a principle here, not an individual.

Sense on Slavery

2009-07-08T21:08:00.001-07:00

The world definitely needs more of this sort of stuff.

HOT Lanes, Shmot Lanes

2009-06-23T20:55:00.001-07:00

I've just discovered that the final deforestation of the area surrounding Tysons Corner has been performed to construct HOT lanes. This is a grandiose and ultimately useless scheme to increase the capacity of a section of the DC beltway between the Springfield mixing bowl and the Dulles toll road.

It seems that America still isn't learning that the only thing bigger roads get you is more traffic. The web site promises that these new lanes (free to HOV users, available to other users for a charge depending on traffic volume) will reduce congestion. We'll see. One thing they certainly won't do is reduce the traffic.

The most noticeable change so far is that thousands of trees have been uprooted, thereby reducing the capacity of the environment to absorb carbon dioxide—which will, of course, increase as the traffic increases. Oh, and it looks like shit, too. The formerly pleasant driving environment is now an extension of the bleak concrete landscape that is Tysons. Give me back my trees, you fuckers.

If I were a tree in Virginia I'd be nervous.

Just Another President? How Sad

2009-05-28T22:17:00.001-07:00

Despite my exuberant and possibly misplaced optimism about the election of President Obama, it appears that it's likely to be business as usual at the Whitehouse. The handouts continue to large corporations which should have been forced to go bankrupt (and today's news emphasizes that much of the taxpayer money used to fuel this munificence will never be recovered). That's politics, I suppose, and America is, after all, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.

But if today's repeat of information about the contents of the unpublished photographs from Iraq is to be believed then the President has lied through his teeth, thereby becoming complicit in the torture scandal by Bush and Cheney. It has been known since 2004 that prisoners have made many accusations of rape and sodomy against US soldiers. President Obama said in a statement on May 13 “I want to emphasize that these photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib.” Major General Antonio Taguba, the man responsible for the US army report on the Abu Ghraib atrocities, says that the unreleased photos showed rape and sexual abuse of women and minors.

This lends a whole new meaning to “not particularly sensational”, making it a phrase worthy to be called Newspeak. Being "economical with the truth" is one thing, but President Obama seems to have told a gratuitous lie when it wasn't necessary. Strike one, President Obama. Strike one. I might reluctantly accept that the President's decision to keep the photographs unpublished makes rather more sense in the light of this information, but I can't accept that as a reason to lie about the contents.

Obama's point was that those responsible for the atrocities have been dealt with appropriately. I respectfully disagree, the consequences stopped far too low on the food chain. It really is time that the people responsible were held accountable for the horrendous torrent of death and maiming that they loosed upon the world. Obama is caught in the aftermath, as he is in so many political dimensions. Congress needs to find its balls and teach Bush and Cheney such a lesson that no future presidents would dare to abuse their executive powers in such a way again. One suspects the problem is that many Congressmen are concerned to prevent similar actions being taken against them for their self-serving greed and corruption.

This all makes "government of the people by the people" seem like a joke in very poor taste. Still, at least the USA has the 23rd best education system in the world. It would be nice to think there'd be some money to fix that soon.

Elephant Abuse: Letter to the Secretary of Agriculture

2009-05-21T22:00:00.000-07:00

Dear Secretary Vilsack:

I am writing further to yesterday's email in the hopes that the USDA can finally be persuaded to finally ensure that Lancelot Ramos Kollman, aka Lancelot Kollman Ramos, the person from whom the lately deceased elephant Ned was finally confiscated last November, can never again work as a trainer. His documented history of neglect and abuse makes it clear that no animal should be entrusted to his care.

I would also request an urgent investigation into the activities of Tom Frisco, an elephant trainer employed by the Carson and Barnes circus. There is documented video evidence of his cruel methods - see

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryDfr3jid_4 [beware: not suitable for children]

for a graphic record of vicious brutality. You should also note that Carson and Barnes routinely separates elephant mothers from their young, inducing in both parent and child levels of trauma and stress sufficient to render them vulnerable to fatal viral illnesses. This is almost certainly why their elephant Jenni, born in 1999, died at the age of 5 years from the elephant endotheliotripic herpes virus.

Lastly, urgent action is also needed in the case of the Hamid circus, currently abusing elephants Tina, Jewel and Queenie, apparently owned by the Davenport family. USDA inspectors have documented numerous and egregious violations of the Animal Welfare Act, including multiple wounds consistent with ankus abuse, eye-witness reports of beatings, and the "inappropriate and abusive use of the ankus..." Yet the USDA has failed to enforce its own confiscation regulations to ensure that no further harm will come to Tina, Jewel and Queenie.

Your action in these and similar cases would earn my lasting support. Please help these magnificent animals, who are quite unable to fend for themselves and are being abused in clear violation of the federal Animal Welfare Act. If you need further assistance to enable you to marshal the necessary resources please let me know.

Sincerely
Steve Holden
--
Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/
Watch PyCon on video now! http://pycon.blip.tv/

Free Cartoons for Your Blog

2009-05-04T12:33:00.000-07:00

I've been a fan of Daryl Cagle's work for a while now. Not only is he a good cartoonist, he also makes enterprising use of the web to promote his own work as well as that of many other cartoonists via his cagle.com site.

I'd even been toying with the idea of creating a budget to include a different cartoon each week, so I was pleasantly surprised to read on Twitter today that the cartoons now come with an "embed" button that allows you to put them into your blog royalty-free.

Here's an example that succinctly encapsulates the Republican opposition's first 100 days:

See Cartoons by R.J. Matson - Courtesy of Politicalcartoons.com - Email this Cartoon

This is a great step forward, and I hope that other electronic publishers will follow suit. Happily cagle.com includes work from cartoonists with both left-wing and right-wing points of view, so if you are selective you will be able to maintain your own bias as I intend to.

China: Stop the Executions!

2009-04-08T20:10:00.000-07:00

On April 8th, China sentenced two Tibetans, Lobsang Gyaltsen and Loyak, to death for their alleged involvement in last year's protests in Lhasa. Two others, Phuntsok and Kangtsuk, were also sentenced to death but with a two year reprieve, and Dawa Sangpo was sentenced to life imprisonment.

These harsh sentences signal an alarming escalation in the Chinese government's campaign to punish and intimidate Tibetans who dare to speak out against Chinese rule.

If you agree that such punishments are harsh and unjustified please take action. Below is the text of an email I sent to China's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Yang Jiechi, and its Minister of Justice, Wu Aiying.

To send a similar letter please visit this web page and fill out the form, editing the letter to suit your own feelings.

I am outraged to learn that the Chinese government has sentenced four Tibetans to death and one Tibetan to life imprisonment. While China has the right to determine its own policy I hope the government understands that these decisions are widely seen as repressive and reactionary.

I understand that Lobsang Gyaltsen and Loyak have been sentenced to death without a reprieve, and I call for an immediate stay of execution and an independent inquiry into their cases.

I am gravely concerned for Tenzin Phuntsok and Kangtsuk who have also been sentenced to death with a two-year reprieve, and for Dawa Sangpo who has been sentenced to life imprisonment.

These individuals were denied their basic legal rights, and the trials were not conducted in accordance with international judicial standards. As the most populous nation on Earth I would have hoped that China could set a better example for other, less civilized, countries.

The Chinese government has responded to last year's protests with extreme violence, and these harsh sentences are a blatant attempt to further intimidate Tibetans from speaking out against Chinese rule.

I call on the Chinese government to immediately halt these executions and reverse these unjust sentences.

I will be notifying my government representatives about this situation, and I will urge them to take strong action to condemn this travesty of justice. Please consider seriously this call to revise the unjust punishments meted out to the above-named individuals.

China has the potential to be the greatest nation in the world, but at present the forces of repression appear to be actively supporting an approach that will drag the country back towards the middle ages.

No Bonuses? Take the Money Back!

2009-04-06T18:45:00.000-07:00

I was glad to read in a recent report that the President has taken the gloves off with the bankers whom our tax money has been bailing out. Suddenly the fat cats who have taken our tax dollars and used them just as irresponsibly as their shareholders' funds now want to give back the TARP funds they were only too willing to take and carry on paying themselves unwarranted huge bonuses for screwing their customers.

It seems there is no end to human greed. Perhaps if the education system were more effective the people who have run the economy aground would find that there was a public outcry against letting them continue business as usual. I'm glad President Obama refuses to take the money back. It's time these cosseted bandits learned the hard facts of life, which sadly aren't taught much on Wall Street.

Unfortunately stealing from the poor is legal, whereas stringing the rich up by their nuts remains a crime. Truly the collective noun for bankers is "a wunch". [Non-British readers: this may take a little research].

Up Against the Wall, Bankers

2009-03-23T20:30:00.001-07:00

A lucid article in Rolling Stone by Matt Taibbi makes better sense of the current financial crisis than any of the dailies (including the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times). It is becoming apparent that the timing of the meltdown might not have been entirely accidental.

Looked at in one light the TARP legislation was George W. Bush's final gift to the wealthy, sealing the fate of millions of householders with "toxic" mortgages but ensuring that the bankers and investment houses retained not only their wealth but also their huge political power. The key paragraph for me in Taibbi's article is the following.

People are pissed off about this financial crisis, and about this bailout, but they're not pissed off enough. The reality is that the worldwide economic meltdown and the bailout that followed were together a kind of revolution, a coup d'état. They cemented and formalized a political trend that has been snowballing for decades: the gradual takeover of the government by a small class of connected insiders, who used money to control elections, buy influence and systematically weaken financial regulations.

If people truly understood the irresponsible way in which this country's financial dealings have been used to manipulate the negation of common aspirations there would be a backlash worthy of the name "revolution". The Republican right isn't too worried about having temporarily lost power because the scandalous financial abuses revealed over the past six months represent (besides a disgusting portrayal of human greed) an effort to tie the hands of this country's political leaders.

My uncle Cyril was an independent candidate involved in politics at a petty level back in the UK. He would rail against the corrupt career politicians, lawyers and accountants he came up against, complaining that they were "all pissing in the same pot", and "only there to feather their own nests". It appears that the petty chicanery of the parish council is being repeated on a far grander scale, and there are few in congress with a sufficient combination of integrity and acumen to oppose the process. The rest just happily keep pissing, with nests as feathery as any ever seen.

All this is happening after a century in which the gap between the rich and the poor has widened hugely. Political power has always been in the hands of the wealthy, but the most recent turn of events makes it transparently obvious that it's time to fleece the poor yet again. Thus the average wage-earner maintains the Sisyphean mortgage repayments as long as possible, only to be robbed of any capital gain by the cynical ploys of the financial moguls in companies where the minimum wage is ten times the national median.

What's too often overlooked in the wailing and gnashing of teeth is that the "toxic" mortgages now so belittled by the very people who were happy to securitize them have yielded trillions of dollars in interest payments. It is those very interest payments that have funded the profits of the financiers. If you are rich, you will stay rich and hold on to all your assets. If you are poor, you lose your only significant asset an your rock gets rolled back to the bottom of the hill.

I am tired of hearing that these institutions are "too big to fail". They already have failed. Now we are all in thrall to them, and their leaders are more confident by the day that there will be no penalties for their willful recklessness. I am so angry it's a good job for Wall Street that I don't carry a gun. It's time we all got angry, and let everyone know it.

The Hell With "Too Big to Fail"

2009-03-09T01:45:00.000-07:00

Anything that's "too big to fail" is just too damned big.

Yet still people continue to ignore that if you split one big company into a thousand pieces it doesn't take that long for the pieces to find each other and start to join back up. It's almost like a horror movie as chunks of some monster reassemble themselves.

The hell with banks to whom I am just a computer record.

Thomas L. Friedman writes in the New York Times, principally of the current (manufactured) economic crisis:

What if it’s telling us that the whole growth model we created over the last 50 years is simply unsustainable economically and ecologically and that 2008 was when we hit the wall — when Mother Nature and the market both said: “No more.”

That's an interesting question. The Club of Rome triggered this whole "ecology" thing off with a report entitled Limits to Growth, and their 1972 work (yes, 37 years ago, count the increases in rapacious pollution since) now has the ring of unregarded prophecy.

If Nominated, I Should Be Delighted to Serve ...

2009-03-08T19:58:00.000-07:00

... but it would help if you could give my accountant a call and make sure I have settled up any "back taxes".

Yeah, right, and I know you are not a freeloader how, exactly? Correct me, I thought this was a Democrat administration. Am I having W flashbacks?

Hands up if you have a vote. [Count hands. Subtract one if you counted me.]

"No matter who you vote for, the government always gets in".

Reporters Demonstrate Selfishness of the Rich

2009-02-27T07:16:00.000-08:00

Apparently there's a bunch of well-paid (significantly, paid over $250,000) reporters who still feel that the President is wrong to consider raising taxes on the richest 2% of the community (to which, surprisingly, many of them currently belong).

Those reporters should be ashamed to be asking such blatantly self-serving questions of a President whose mandate clearly includes reducing taxes for the poorest 95% of the population. Anyone familiar with the statistics (and if you aren't, then you must read David Cay Johnston's Free Lunch) knows that the Reagnomics/Thatcherite "trickle-down" theory has been thoroughly discredited by a half-century during which the rich obstinately continue to get richer.

My own household isn't yet at the level where my taxes will go up. Should I become that fortunate, however, I will consider myself doubly lucky: I will be earning more for myself, but more importantly I shall be contributing more to the recovery of the country's economy, and helping to make sure that the lower-paid see more of their income in their pockets.

The rich have soaked this country (and other developed countries) for long enough. Time for them to demonstrate some patriotism. Government hand-outs are one thing--at least they benefit people who need help. Bail-outs are another thing altogether. They benefit the greedy, the avaricious and the selfish.

The Lunatics Are Running the Asylum

2009-02-15T17:03:00.000-08:00

So what I'd like to know is why aren't heads rolling in the financial and banking world? The industry has received huge injections of capital, largely at the taxpayers' expense, and yet the people who steered the industry wrong in the first place are either keeping their jobs or becoming institutionalized as government advisers and cabinet members.

Not only that, but you could drive a London double-decker through the salary caps put in place at President Obama's request. While they may limit the short-term income of the chief executives there are apparently many devices that they can use to defer income, and still end up with tens or hundreds of millions of dollars once the cap is lifted.

In this interview with Bill Moyers Simon Johnson, former chief economist of the IMF, argues inflluentally that Congress has way too much respect for the powerful insiders whose business inadequacies have put us in this position. Sadly, those people have collectively contributed $180m in campaign contributions, and now seem to be receiving the benefit of this investment by not having to answer the awkward questions they should be facing from all sides.

If something isn't done, and quickly, it's going to become apparent that the greed and corruption endemic in Wall Street extends to Capitol Hill. The people who we elect to serve us are in fact serving themselves, nobody appears to feel compelled to pay taxes until they are faced with a public inquiry, and there is remarkably little concern for the middle- and working-class millions whose lives are being destroyed by the incompetence and dishonesty of the political-financial complex.

One Reason Wall Street Failed

2009-02-15T01:47:00.000-08:00

This New York Times article gives a great analysis of Wall Street's over-reliance on a risk model that reassures you about what will happen 99% of the time but fails to take into account the catastrophes that can occur the remaining 1% of the time. And these people want to keep their bonuses?

I found this in Bruce Schneier's February Crypto-Gram newsletter, a great read for anyone who's interested in security of all kinds - even financial security!

Opening Up Government Audit

2009-01-26T10:21:00.000-08:00

The catalog of credit card abuse by government workers at this web site stretches credulity to breaking point. Speaking as someone whose company has been unable to accept government credit card payments through PayPal (because there can be no third parties to the transactions) I am amazed at the laxity of some government spending controls, as revealed by the auditors' report.

Now I realize that the government auditors can't be everywhere, and that some charges that seem unacceptable might be perfectly valid, but this kind of thing should be stamped out. I think it's time for government to reverse the current thinking on things like this. Centralized scrutiny isn't working, because the transaction volume is too high compared with the number of people available to scrutinize them. Hierarchical scrutiny isn't working for the same reason. As reports go up the tree more and more detail is aggregated, hiding the grubby little secrets in a welter of transactions. What we need is an army of volunteer auditors. And today's Internet age can provide them!

Much of this spending couldn't be justified as secret, so why not send the details of each transaction to a few randomly chosen volunteer auditors. If a certain number of volunteers flagged the transaction as potentially worthy of audit then it could be put on a list for scrutiny, and the auditors could give those special attention when it comes time to look at the books.

Being under the public's eye would cause government spendthrifts to think twice, and volunteering to scrutinize transactions would allow citizens to provide the public service President Obama is keen to see engendered once more among the wider community.

Yes, it would be difficult to manage, and there would be costs involved in setting up the systems to support it. But the savings could easily pay the costs, and I know I'd rather be spending money tightening up government financial responsibility than funding what is, simply put, embezzlement of public funds. The volunteers who caught unjustifiable spending could be rewarded from the funds saved.

It would also be nice to see some of these embezzlers prosecuted, to encourage others to keep their fingers clean. Why this hasn't happened I can only guess, but it's time for more accountability. Let's open up what doesn't need to be kept secret, and use modern technology to distribute responsibility for fiscal prudence across the whole population. I believe this is approach can be started small, and expanded as the volunteer base grows and the system's worth is proved.

Would you volunteer to scrutinize, say, ten transactions a week as a public service? I know I would, busy as I am.

If this approach works, next we can start to look at how we can scrutinize the behavior of the banks and other financial institutions whose incautious behavior and cozy relationships with the regulators have cost us so dear in the last few months.

A Nation of Stoners?

2008-12-27T00:19:00.000-08:00

I've just been back to the change.org site's Ideas for Change in America site. The idea is that the top ten ideas (i.e. the ones receiving most votes) will be presented to the newly-inaugurated President Obama as a part of some kind of plan for action. For the last two weeks of the voting, starting January 5, the ideas will be categorized. You can find out more about how the plan is supposed to work on this FAQ page.

There are some terrific ideas, many of which (as an unashamed liberal) I agree with, but I am afraid it doesn't show America up an a very good light. Here's the top ten list, with the number of votes, as it stands at the time of writing.

1. Legalize the Medicinal and Recreational Use of Marijuana (4292)
2. Appoint Secretary of Peace in Department of Peace and Non-Violence (2559)
3. Pass Marriage Equality Rights for LGBT couples nationwide (2073)
4. Save Handmade Toys From the CPSIA (2022)
5. Accept and Sign " The Autism Reform Act of 2009" (1914)
6. Legalize Milk (1826)
7. Get FISA Right, repeal the PATRIOT Act, and restore our civil liberties (1624)
8. Pass the Puppy Uniform Protection Statute to Help Stop Puppy Mills (1569)
9. Pass the DREAM Act Now! (1531)
10. Repeal the Patriot Act (1452)

Many of these are indeed worthy causes, the top one in particular being a lifelong interest of mine, but I have to say that as a statement of national priorities from the grass roots this is not the most encouraging list. Two of them, while certainly addressing health and safety concerns, continue the long American tradition of injecting self-interest into political lobbying.

President Obama faces economic conditions unprecedented in the last fifty years at least and will preside over a country whose long-term foreign policy record, frankly, stinks. Yet none of the top ten suggestions concern America's foreign relations. Perhaps those voting are taking the phrase "Change in America" too literally? It's a pity to see the world's largest economy so apparently introspective while its government has its troops out there killing and being killed abroad at a fast pace.

The USA has the highest per capita rate of incarceration in the world - roughly one percent of the adult population is currently in prison. This is a shocking waste of human resources, and gives the USA a very flimsy platform from which to be lecturing other countries about human rights. Black males are almost seven times as likely to be banged up as white males, Hispanic males about three times as likely. This does not speak well of race relations, and here at least there is some relevance: non-violent drug offenders are frequently jailed, and such inmates are much more likely to be persons of color.

US education is failing in mathematics, and generally [1]. There is little evidence that President Bush's much-vaunted "No Child Left Behind" has done much to improve educational standards.

These are just three areas where the United States needs to look to its laurels. To give you some idea of how the web-voting public (clearly a self-selected group not typical of the American public as a whole) sees overall priorities, here is the list of topic areas with the number of proposals in each area.
It seems a shame that the country that led the world in abolishing domestic slavery is now apparently unconcerned about foreign slavery and human trafficking, despite the fact that much of it supports the American standard of living.

I moved to the United States because I was fascinated by its potential for good. It looks like I ma going to have to become a citizen so I can start poking it where it needs to feel pain. The frustrating part is that Americans as a whole are an idealistic people. They just don't seem to understand some of the awful things that are being done in their name. Sure, we need to improve life for those who, like me, live and work in the USA. But it would be an abrogation of our tremendous collective economic and political power not to try to change the whole world. Not to re-cast it in some American mould, but with respect for the diversity of the many independent nations.

[1]: One has to wonder about UPI, whose "news" article contains no reference to any source and whose web server chooses to garnish "international organization" in reference to the OECD by highlighting the word "organization" and linking it to an advert for Microsoft Office. Oh well.

Loans to People in Need

2008-12-06T10:32:00.000-08:00

One of the great things about the Internet is the way it makes new business methods practical. In the past there was no way I, as an individual, could make much direct practical difference to individuals in developing countries. Today, however, I just made a loan to someone in the developing world using www.kiva.org.

You can go to Kiva's website and lend to someone in the developing world who needs a loan for their business - like raising goats, selling vegetables at market or making bricks. Each loan has a picture of the entrepreneur, a description of their business and how they plan to use the loan so you know exactly how your money is being spent - and you get updates letting you know how the entrepreneur is going.

When the entrepreneur pays back their loan you get your money back - and Kiva's loans are managed by microfinance institutions on the ground who have a lot of experience doing this, so you can trust that your money is being handled responsibly. At that point you can either reclaim the money, or lend it to someone else.

I just made a loan to an entrepreneur named Illenikhene Isibakhome in Nigeria. She still needs another $500.00 to complete their loan request of $600.00 (you can loan as little as $25.00!). Help me get this entrepreneur off the ground by clicking here to make a loan to Illenikhene Isibakhome too.

It's finally easy to actually do something about poverty - using Kiva I know exactly who my money is loaned to and what they're using it for. And most of all, I know that I'm helping them build a sustainable business that will provide income to feed, clothe, house and educate their family long after my loan is paid back.

Join me in changing the world - one loan at a time.

Thanks!

What others are saying about www.Kiva.org:

Revolutionising how donors and lenders in the US are connecting with small entrepreneurs in developing countries -- BBC

If you've got 25 bucks, a PC and a PayPal account, you've now got the wherewithal to be an international financier -- CNN Money

Smaller investors can make loans of as little as $25 to specific individual entrepreneurs through a service launched last fall by Kiva.org -- The Wall Street Journal

An inexpensive feel-good investment opportunity...All loaned funds go directly to the applicants, and most loans are repaid in full -- Entrepreneur Magazine

I Beg Your Pardon?

2008-11-13T17:56:00.000-08:00

So, word has it that President Bush is planning to hand out pardons like they were going out of style, and include himself. I don't understand: if it's OK for the person ultimately responsible for upholding the law is held to be above it, then what value does the rule of law have?

Then again, the President has only today clearly demonstrated that he is quite capable of ignoring his principles when it's convenient. In a speech today he said "I'm a market-oriented guy, but not when I'm faced with the prospect of a global meltdown." So I guess he might soon also be saying "I'm a law-and-order kind of guy, but not when I'm faced with the prospect of going to jail".

Sarah Palin is a Millstone Round John McCain's Neck

2008-10-15T19:42:00.000-07:00

Six (yes,100 percent) of MSNBC's post-debate mini-focus group are less likely to vote for McCain because of Sarah Palin. The McCain campaign's attempt to divert the campaign from the issues appears to be a failure, and the American public are not apparently as gullible as the Republicans appear to believe.

The sad thing that summed up my reservations about the whole campaign was Governor Romney's response to tonight's debate. Sometimes it becomes apparent that government need to put aside the party politics and address the real needs of the real silent majority.

That's a phrase that's particularly resonant with me, since I am (as I have repeatedly reminded anyone who is silly enough to listen) myself a disenfranchised immigrant, and therefore silent by force majeure. There are a lot of people who make a positive contribution to this country's future but have absolutely no effective voice in the direction it takes.

For myself I'd be happy with a president who is prepared to try and get people to change their thinking. It's just as important to use less energy as it is to make more energy available. But Obama was ridiculed for suggesting we should check our tire pressures. Sure, it might not make a lot of difference. But isn't a small difference significant when multiplied by 300 million?

I am astonished by the response of the broadcasting channels to the debate. Do yourself a favor and review the replays. Look at John McCain's body language and compare it with Barack Obama's. Remember that 70% of any communication is made by non-verbal means, and try to tell me that John McCain didn't lose tonight's debate. Significantly, I believe, that's because McCain believes he has to do something, while Obama believes he has to be something, and that something is simply what he actually is.

If John McCain is this country's next president I will walk round the Reflecting Pool naked. Because it will mean that it no longer matters where I live, and the cynical slogan of the 1970s is true: No matter who you vote for, the government always gets in. Because it won't matter to me any more who runs the country. Because I am tired of being outvoted by people who don't understand the issues or the way the world really works. Why won't politicians accept that they need to plan for a world in which they, and the people who voted for them, have ceased to exist?

I am not a McCain supporter, but I had a lot more respect for him before he started to compromise his ideals in search of a majority vote. Sarah Palin was also a better politician befoer the right-wing neo-conservatives dangled absolute power before her naive nose. I hope they both recover after losing the election and realize that they still have a lot to offer their (existing) constituents.

The Other Side of the Bike Shed

2008-09-23T05:29:00.000-07:00

I don't normally post my semi-political rants on my technical blog, but this one is ever-so-slightly relevant.

A $700 Billion Handout to the Rich?

2008-09-22T17:10:00.000-07:00

So now President Bush wants his secretary of the Treasury to hand on $700 billion to the very people whose irresponsibility and greed has caused the current fiscal crisis. But surely he will demand accountability and changes in procedures in return?

Well, no, actually. The proposal to hand over $2,333 for every man, woman and child in America carries with it no proposals at all to change the current system. Yet the $1.1 trillion that has already been given away to support AIG, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and Bear Sterns is now to be followed by yet another bail-out.

How much more good could this money have done if spent wisely? But it seems that the Bush administration can only throw money at tax breaks and handouts for the rich. Support for social programs and veterans has to wait. When do the rest of us start to see some support from the government we pay for?

Government Agency Encouraged Financial Failures

2008-09-20T23:42:00.000-07:00

Among all the talk of a bail-out for failing financial institutions very few people appear to be focusing on the news that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the federal agency charged with regulating US financial markets, was a probably major contributor to the very collapses they now seek to reverse.

Since 1975 US markets have operated under "net capital" rules which require that broker-dealers, companies who trade on their own accounts as well as for clients, must value their tradable assets at market values and then apply a discount to account for the element of risk. They must also maintain a debt to net-capital ratio of 12 to 1, and issue warnings as they approach that value. The straightforward thinking is that this limits key institutions' exposure to risk, but of course the downside is that it also limits the amount of money they can make: doing trades at higher leverage means you can make (or lose) more money with the same amount of capital.

A former employee of the SEC alleges that in 2004 it allowed five companies to move to a much higher ratio, 30 or 40 to 1, and also to stop applying the risk discount. Not unnaturally this left those companies rather more seriously exposed if any of their debts defaulted, and we all know what's been happening with bonds based on dodgy mortgages lately. The five firms were Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, Merril Lynch and Bear Sterns. Oops. In case you have just arrived back from another planet I have italicized the names of the firms that no longer exist. Perhaps high-ratio trading isn't good business?

This should piss off a lot of people, including the poor saps whose pensions schemes have been in the hands of said institutions or dependent on their continued success. The American horror of socialism is laughable when you look at the mess capitalism has managed to create. An inefficient, outdated and centralized government bureaucracy could hardly do worse than this free-market cockup. It would be nice to see the millionaires who have created this mess by their incompetence serve some serious time in prison in view of the widespread misery they have caused. I somehow doubt, however, that this is going to happen.

Personally, I say that if you want to profit from capitalism then you should accept the downside risk and be prepared to take the losses when your greed blows up in your face. But then unlike many of the senators and congressmen currently scrambling to put things "right" with large injections of government funding (yes, ladies and gentlemen, our tax dollars in action) I don't have large holdings in stocks and bonds. So my major asset, the house I live in, will decline in value thanks to the greed of the people at the top, and the rich will stay rich at the expense of the poor and the middle classes.

Where are the revolutionaries when you need them?

Obama Fights Back

2008-09-17T09:09:00.001-07:00

I am very glad to see that Barack Obama is responding to the lunacy from the Republican party by retaining his focus on the real issues. The fact is that Sarah Palin's selection as John McCain's running mate was a deliberate strategy designed to focus on personalities, because the Republican party knows its policies are out of touch with the American people and will not result in election success.

Sadly there will always be those who are convinced by Republican lies. I heard a Hispanic woman on the radio last week who was convinced that Obama is a Muslim, despite being told directly by the reporter that this was untrue. Sadly there is no short-term way to overcome ignorance and prejudice.

The Democratic caucus collectively has responded to Palin's selection in a very damaging way. I say, leave her to dig her own hole: either her ignorance ("what does a vice-president really do?") and inexperience will become more obvious as she interacts more with media representatives, or it will become blindingly apparent that the McCain strategy is to keep her away from such damaging engagements.

The fact remains, if John McCain were to win the election and die the day after, there's no way I'd want Sarah Palin running this country. She'd be a puppet, and that would hand our future over the the same neoconservatives who screwed up the last eight years for the lower and middle classes in this country (as indeed a McCain presidency probably would). At least Joe Biden would retain a steady hand on the tiller.

McCain's Campaign Flails

2008-08-01T13:59:00.000-07:00

If the latest video from the McCain campaign is anything to go by then the Republicans might just as well stop spending money now. They have gone negative, but the worst thing they can find to say is "is he ready?"

If that question had been asked about a Bush candidacy against someone like Obama the answer would have had to be "no", and the last eight years have given us ample proof.

Do I really want someone in the White House who is still learning to use e-mail? I don't think so. At this stage a change of direction seems like to good thing. When you look at what "politics as usual" has done for America it seems natural to want someone as President who is way less embedded in the system than McCain.

Justice Department Used Illegal Hiring Practices

2008-07-29T14:34:00.000-07:00

Just in case anyone thinks that the rot in the current administration stopped at the President and the Vice-President, here's evidence that the Gonzales Justice Department used political bias in appointing public prosecutors - a report from the Justice Department's own Office of the Inspector General.

The 140-page report released Monday said Monica Goodling and D. Kyle Sampson routinely violated federal civil service law and Justice Department policy by seeking to hire only Republicans and conservatives. This sometimes meant that terrorist cases would be prosecuted by attorneys with no experience of such litigation. So, one wonders, how important really was it to get convictions?

Cowardly Congress Continues to Toady to Bush

2008-07-29T10:12:00.000-07:00

The American Congress certainly knows how to make it obvious that they really don't care to defend the Constitution as they have taken an oath to. The House Judiciary Committee finally aired the topic of the Bush White House's perfidy at a recent hearing on abuses of executive power, but many in Congress have no stomach for the fight. Perhaps they've forgotten the oath they took:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Dennis Kucinich's speech was particularly powerful. If you read his articles of impeachment for Bush and Cheney it is perfectly obvious that the nation was wilfully misled into a course of action that has already cost trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives.

President Bush continues to sully his nation by his continued occupancy of the office which his high crimes and misdemeanors make it obvious he is unfit to hold. I just wish that more people felt the outrage I do at the cost of his shameful acts. Why isn't he being held up as a domestic enemy of the nation he purports to lead? The cost of his presidency will be paid in American blood for years to come if he isn't brought to justice.

The feebleness of our congressional representatives is stark in contrast with the bravery of those who continue to pay with their lives in the service of their nation in Afghanistan and Iraq. If their sacrifices aren't to be completely meaningless Congress needs to show that America's power cannot be abused on a whim by an executive branch that won't even accept responsibility for its actions.

My New Girl

2008-07-17T20:46:00.001-07:00

Meet the latest addition to the family, Goldie.

She's a mutt, but seems to have a lot of golden retriever in her. We rescued her from Page County animal shelter nearly two weeks ago, at the age of eight weeks.

Cuter than I would have believed! She's obedient, likes children, gets along with the cats.

We couldn't have asked for better. I just know life is going to be even more fun with her around, and she's likely to help me get more exercise too.

Losers' Spoils? I Think Not

2008-05-29T10:56:00.000-07:00

The people at http://action.wilderness.org/campaign/utahm09 asked me to say this:

I need your help.

The Bush administration is moving at breakneck speed with plans to drill and destroy some of the most stunning proposed wilderness areas in Utah.

The architects of these plans believe they can sneak this land grab past us in their waning days of power. We can't let them get away with it.

Utah's Red Rock canyon country is world-renowned for its stunning beauty, sandstone arches, slot canyons, and wild rivers. It's also home to precious wildlife - bighorn sheep, endangered falcons, cougars, and more.

Join me today in letting Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne know that this land is your land too. Tell him to protect the 11 million acres from rampant oil & gas development and off-road vehicle use.

Thank you for your attention. We now return you to your regularly scheduled looting and pillaging.

The Brainwashing of America

2008-05-01T05:33:00.000-07:00

Want to know why America is scared? Just watch the verbal behavior of its leaders. Ron Paul may be out of the presidential race, but we can thank his campaign for this very telling video. Worth watching right to the end.

So, who are the real terrorists? They have learned Goebbels' lesson very well.

Human Rights 0; United Nations 1

2008-04-28T19:45:00.000-07:00

I'm afraid the United Nations is a busted flush for me after the Council on Human Rights voted to limit the right to free speech. The politics of intolerance have triumphed. President Bush must be delighted: he doesn't seem to understand freedom either, and religion is more important to him than democracy.

The Depressing Thing About The Right

2008-04-22T22:05:00.000-07:00

Is that some people will cheerfully argue that this is acceptable if it yields information about those who would threaten democracy. Don't they realize that the the people who use torture in its name are the ones threatening democracy?

The only correct response to 9/11 was "we will not be terrorized". Unfortunately Bush, being the spineless limpdick that he is, was terrorized, and continues to impose the cost on us all in terms of his continued attack on the Bill of Rights, the nuisance of airport security theater, and the world's contempt for the United States and its foreign policy.

I really have no idea why the Democrats in Congress continue to treat him as though he deserved any respect at all, when clearly he deserves to be impeached. Oh, sorry, he hasn't had sex with an intern, so I must be mistaken. All he's done is lie to his country, take us into a two foreign wars on false pretenses, ignore international and domestic law, suspend habeas corpus, and refuse to pronounce the word "nuclear" correctly. [Hint: there is no "u" between the "c" and the "l", President Bush].

I have a certain amount of respect for the actions of Rep. Cynthia McKinney, who has told it like it is in terms of Bush's continued deception of the American public and was, I believe, the first to introduce articles of impeachment against Bush. We can only hope he has to go to the Hague and stand trial as a war criminal. I really hope that Shirley Golub gets elected to Congress. Nancy Pelosi might as well be a Republican.

Song of Our Times

2008-02-16T04:28:00.001-08:00

I firmly believe that the established political order is dying on its feet, but it doesn't know it. The global reach of digital communications media makes it less possible to propagate lies and deceit without being found out.

While the traditional (i.e. corporate) media find it convenient to suppress uncomfortable news that shows entrenched governments up for the hypocrites they are, individual bloggers suffer no such compunctions. Freedom is fragile, however, and digital censorship is a very real possibility. Constant vigilance continues to be necessary.

If we had a truly participative democracy, would the horrors mentioned in David Rovic's song (YouTube video below) be possible? Thanks to the Found In Pockets blog for the link.

Perhaps it's time we realized that humanity doesn't just exist within our own borders, and that we can spread wealth without making ourselves significantly poorer. If America decided to commit the resources wasted on the Iraq war (see the ever-rising figure top right) instead to worthwhile global goals then terrorists would have much less justification (and correspondingly lower support) for opposing America. Unfortunately American politicians don't even try to enlighten their voting public as to how wealthy the majority here truly are.

No Matter Who You Vote For ...*

2008-02-14T03:56:00.000-08:00

This Salon.com article is a really good summary of the issues around the recent efforts to let telecommunications companies off the hook for their collusion with the US government in running a huge (and profitable) illegal warrantless wiretapping scheme. If the Democrats, now in the majority in the Senate, aren't prepared to stand up for the rule of law then they are a spineless bunch of hypocrites who should be hounded from office.

The two-party system so beloved of Western democracies is in precisely the state of disrepair that George Orwell's Animal Farm predicted over sixty years ago. The corporate executives and the politicians sit guzzling around the same table while the interests of the honest masses are sold down the river in the name of greater profits ... which go to the corporate executives and the politicians.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Sorry, democracy just isn't working any more. Find out what you can do to stop this egregious abuse of political power.

* ... the government always gets in

Response to a Bigoted Angry Woman

2008-02-05T19:54:00.000-08:00

Someone I know sent me another of those email rants today. If you haven't been locked away from the Internet for the last ten years you must have seen lots like it. I don't know why, but this particular one got up my nose enough to make me reply to the person who sent it to me. Since it helped me to articulate many of my feelings about "the war on terrorism" I decided to post it here.

I made a few errors in the heat of verbal battle (for example I respond to some of the bigotry by comparing Muslims and Americans, even though there are millions of American Muslims, and 150,000 Iraqis have died, not 15,000,000), but I have left it unchanged as a cry from the heart.

Thanks for your email. As I have a lot of personal respect for you I have taken the trouble to read and respond to the points made by your unknown correspondent.

I will be happy to hear from you, in your own words, about why you agree or disagree with what I have written.

In return I would like your assurance that you will stop sending me other people's ideas, carbon copied in ten seconds. There has to be serious debate between thinking people about issues like this, and rabble-rousing mass emails really don't make things any better.

Best wishes
Steve

You wrote:

Subject: Fw: Angry Woman

Letter from one "Angry Woman"

I don't know who wrote it but they should have signed it. Some powerful words. This woman should run for president.

Written by a housewife from New Jersey and sounds like it! This is one ticked off lady.

"Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001?

No. They didn't declare war, they committed an act of terrorism, for which they should be punished by the full might of the law. If we have to break the law to punish the terrorists then the laws aren't really worth much, are they?

Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania ?

Yes, of course they were. And what's the penalty for murder? They paid it as they committed their act of terrorism.

The penalty for murder is not "150,000 citizens of a country close to yours will die in a war they had nothing to do with". You do realize, I hope, that 19 of the 20 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, a country the USA bends over backwards to protect in its repression of its own people, especially women.

Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?

They did. And for each one of those, 5,000 Iraqis have died. And all this has achieved is to turn Iraq into a magnet for every fanatic who wants to take a shot at American soldiers. Those soldiers would be safer back home, where they belong. They aren't keeping the US safe while they are in Iraq.

And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet?...Well, I don't. I don't care at all.

Well you should. You should care as much as you would care if whatever your holy book is were desecrated by a foreign invader. If the US had to suffer an occupation of comparable size to the US invasion of Iraq there would be over a million foreign soldiers walking American streets with weapons drawn.

You surely don't imagine American citizens would take that lying down, do you? Wouldn't you want to do whatever you could to show the invaders they weren't welcome? Are you really surprised that Iraqis are shooting at innocent American soldiers whose only "mistake" was to join up to serve their country?

However much I disagree with the war (and you probably realize by now that I *really* disagree with it) I have only sympathy, admiration and respect for the men and women who have been deployed to fight an unjust and irresponsible war that the USA will be paying for for years to come, both in terms of an unbalanced budget and in the international hate that Bush has earned by his stupid and cowardly actions.

I know as a British citizen that the only way to defeat terrorism is to refuse to be terrorized. Osama Bin Laden must laugh out loud whenever he sees coverage of an American airport: whatever the next terrorist attack is, you can be sure it won't be anything to do with the air transport system. But Bush has not only wasted billions of dollars in airport security, he wastes millions more each day with the wasted time and lost business hours spent by millions of American (and foreign) citizens waiting in security lines. How many lives have been saved? Suppose it's a thousand. Is each life worth $80,000,000? At least $80 billion was spent on airport security the day after 9/11, and it was largely money wasted.

I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.

You should care now, just as you would want other people to care if you suffered the same insult. Don't make the mistake of ceasing to believe in other people's humanity because your country was attacked. Muslims bleed red just like Americans do, and if you belittle them you belittle yourself.

I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia, America's special friend. Do you know that the only civil aircraft flying on 9/12 were the ones that Bush had authorized to fly Bin Laden family members out of the USA and back to Saudi Arabia. Wake up and smell the coffee, for Pete's sake.

I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for chopping off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.

And are you sorry about the "collateral damage" to tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis? Those deaths were caused by the president you (I'm taking a wild guess here) voted for.

I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" inIraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.

It's actually the US press and politicians who call them "insurgents", because in strict fact it's the US troops who are the insurgents. Misguided as they may be, they see themselves as defending their country from an invader. Perhaps it's time you learned to walk a mile in someone else's shoes.

I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide

Well you will never care, then, because the mindless bigots who are suicide bombers have no respect for humanity. By responses like this you make yourself more like them. Doesn't Christianity teach us that life, all life, should be cherished? Or is there some equation that says one American life is worth a thousand Iraqis? Do the mothers of the Iraqi dead weep any less than the mothers of the American soldiers killed in this unnecessary action?

I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United StatesConstitution's Bill of Rights.

What? Please don't make me describe exactly how corporate America in the shape of the media primarily serves the interests of bug business and the political machine. Knowledge comes from independent thought, not from sending a hundred copies of a mindless and ill-thought-out email to acquaintances with the click of a single button. Do the work, find out what is *really* happening around you.

In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.

Sad. If you don't care then the terrorists have won.

When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest assured: I don't care.

Sad. You are losing your humanity.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank: I don't care.

He deserved to die, but that shouldn't stop you caring.

When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts: I don't care.

I don't believe any of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay actually believe they are on vacation at the American taxpayer's expense, and I seriously doubt there is a single one who would not want to go home tomorrow and stop being a burden on the American taxpayer. The Bush government has ridden a horse and cart through international law, and as an American citizen you should be ashamed enough to make sure it never happens again.

And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran" and other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and-you guessed it-I don't care !!

Well, perhaps not. Guess what: "quran" is not an English word, and it comes from a language that uses a different alphabet. So who is making the mistake?

If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your E-mail friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behavior!

Good grief. If you really think a billion emails will stop terrorism you are out of your mind.

If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button. Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great Country! And may I add:

Actually, I have a third alternative. I can respond to this immature and ill-thought-out email with a forceful expression of my own opinion. That's the wonderful thing about freedom. When I hear bullshit I can shout "BULLSHIT".

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the Marines don't have that problem" -- Ronald Reagan

Of course the Marines deserve our honor. They also deserve not to be made pawns in a political game, played by a spent President who dishonors his country by his actions.

I have another quote that I would like to add AND.......I hope you forward all this.

"If we ever forget that we're One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under." Also by.. Ronald Reagan

And if we ever deny the humanity of other humans, if we let our politicians persuade us that "they" are evil and "we" are good then we might as well not be free, because we have locked our own souls in a cage.

The greatest thing about this great country is its acceptance of freedom. Not even freedom can be an unmixed blessing, but if you get trapped in slogan-shouting and xenophobia you might as well live in a prison.

One last thought for the day:

In case we find ourselves starting to believe all the Anti-American sentiment and negativity, we should remember England 's Prime Minister Tony Blair's words during a recent interview. When asked by one of his Parliament members why he believes so much in America , he said: "A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how many want in.. And how many want out."

As an immigrant I have nothing to say about this except that it was Tony Blair's country I chose to leave. But belief in a country does not imply belief in everything that's done in the name of its citizens, and I refuse to accept that the killing that's going on is right. Not killing of Americans, not killing of Iraqis.

Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you: 1. Jesus Christ 2. The American G. I.

One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.

YOU MIGHT WANT TO PASS THIS ON,

AS MANY SEEM TO FORGET BOTH OF THEM.

AMEN!

If you do not want to receive future unsolicited commercial email advertisements or promotions from American Family Insurance you may opt-out by clicking here

Note: After opting-out, you may receive emails that you have specifically requested

American Family Insurance can take a running jump and fuck themselves. They are trying to profit by the deaths of American solders, and should be despised.

regards
Steve

Hey, I'm a Digital Coach

2008-01-23T12:05:00.000-08:00

If you've never come across squidoo.com before it's an interesting way to build a one-page web site focused on a single topic. I built one about the Python programming language that is still quite well regarded (number 12,000 out of over 400,000, and just outside the top 500 in the computers category).

Recently the Squidoo people raised the idea of digital coaching and so I decided I would see how a lens on that topic went down. It's really quite surprising how much I have picked up in forty years as a computer power user, and if I can get to share it without the current incessant traveling then so much the better.

Do you need a digital coach?

Congress: Silence and Denial

2008-01-16T23:53:00.000-08:00

Congressman Wexler continues his fight to bring some measure of accountability to this apparently out-of-control administration. As you can see in the video below he is one of the better public speakers in Congress, and he makes a very good case for the vice president's impeachment. Support him at Wexler Wants Hearings.

Impeach Cheney

2007-12-27T11:28:00.000-08:00

One of the more depressing aspects of George W Bush's two terms has been the damage done to the whole idea of democracy. Two countries have been invaded, domestic civil liberties have been eroded and America's relationships with countless foreign countries have been set back by years. It's ironic that Bush and Cheney are turning the democracy they pretend to promote into something that no sane person would be interested in.

There is now credible evidence that Vice President Cheney manipulated intelligence to bolster the case for an invasion of Iraq, and that he was either deeply involved in or directly responsible for revealing the identity of a serving covert CIA officer, a criminal offence. Cheney's disdain for the legal process is evidenced by his response to requests for information from Congressional oversight committees. He claims the office of the Vice President isn't a part of the executive branch, but nevertheless invokes executive privilege to avoid investigation.

Finally someone in Congress has decided that this abuse of power should not go unpunished, as a reminder to future presidents that their power does have limits. Representative Robert Wexler has issued a demand for impeachment hearings for vice-president Cheney, and to date over 140,000 members of the public have responded by signing up. Wexler has posted an hour of audio on this topic on Blog Talk Radio, and plans to approach the members of the Judiciary Committee early in the New Year.

So far it hasn't made national headlines, but with articles in the Miami Herald and the Philadelphia Inquirer plus video coverage from CBS4 in Miami this issue can no longer be dismissed as only of interest to the liberal left.

If the Republicans could justify attempts to impeach President Clinton for a sexual peccadillo that had little or no effect on the execution of his duties or on America's international relationships, how much more appropriate that the current vice president be called to account for his abuse of executive power. Visit WexlerWantsHearings now, and add your support to show that not all American citizens are happy to see their country become an international disgrace.

Enjoy Your Turkey?

2007-11-24T06:39:00.000-08:00

[For non-American readers, the USA has just celebrated its annual Thanksgiving holiday, at which the traditional fare is roasted turkey]

Amnesty International recently started a campaign called "unsubscribe" to make a broader public aware of what's being done, in our names, to "protect freedom". President Bush's mealy-mouthed attempts at plausible deniability on torture should make anyone who lives in this country ashamed. I will be very surprised if we do not see the President expressing "shocked surprise" within the next five years at the actions that were taken under his orders.

Amnesty have produced a short video highlighting just one interrogation technique that the CIA deem "acceptable". Caution: do not view this video if you are under 14, or if you wish to avoid images of a disturbing nature. Young people should have their parents view the video and explain why they should not watch it.

It's ironic that according to the Bush doctrine the only way to defend our freedoms is to trample all over them. If the methods they sanction really are necessary then clearly freedom isn't worth defending anyway. But then I have never though that "freedom" for President Bush meant freedom for everyone, just freedom for the Americans to pursue irresponsible lifestyles without interference. And not even all Americans.

But hey, as long as people like this continue to believe that America is the world, that might is right, and that the end justifies the means I will continue to be baffled as to how this squares with 97% of the American population professing a belief in God. I don't know what proportion of those 97% are Christians, but if the Christian right are happy about the way this country is being run then I am happy not being a member of the Christian right.

Let's not, by the way, get started on what happens to the turkeys ...

Baildon Moors from Moorhead

2007-10-27T15:42:00.000-07:00

This picture shows the view from Moorhead top, across Shipley Glen to Dobrudden Farm, with Ilkley moors over the horizon from Baildon. When I was a kid I would cycle over to the Cow and Calf rocks just outside Ilkley, sometimes just for the fun of it. Happy days ...

Paisley and Dapple

2007-10-26T14:56:00.000-07:00

Paisley in the foreground being studiously ignored by his elder housemate Dapple, as she stretches out in front of the fire in our house in Linlithgow about two years ago. Just came across this and thought it made a nice picture.

Paisley is effectively Dorothy's cat, and not too aggressive for his size, though he likes to push Dapple around. My sister-in-law Karen also adores Paisley, and that's unusal because she doesn't generally like cats.

Dapple tends to favour me, though her personality and mine are completely unalike. Really I suppose I'm her servant, but she allows me to take care of her with good grace no matter how inadequate the services are for a cat of her refinement.

A Hero's Passing

2007-10-24T20:33:00.000-07:00

I read today of the death of Robert Moog, the inventor of the sound synthesiser and a true pioneer of electronic music. Someone who really made a difference to his world. Worth noting, even though he died two years ago.

A Good Day's Work

2007-10-23T16:25:00.001-07:00

750 Sq.Feet of Concrete Sealed
Starting at nine o'clock on Saturday morning I used epoxy resin to seal this garage floor. I wasn't finished until seven-thirty that evening, but I think the results justify the time spent (and I haven't mentioned the etching I had to do the preceding weekend).

My wife has a tendency to asthma, and so the less dust there is in the air the better. It's also much nicer to walk on than bare concrete, and thanks to Mrs. H (though you can't see it in the photos) it has grey blue and black sprinkles in a pseudo-random pattern to enhance the aesthetics.

I am planning a workshop area at the back of the garage for woodwork and electronics and happily the central vacuum system has an outlet in the garage, so keeping the area clean should not be too much of a problem. I have also saved a couple of stainless steel refuse cans that were surplus to kitchen requirements, and hope to make use of them in what an American might well call "the shop". Unless, that is, the other half spots them and banishes them from the house.

Shocking Picture

2007-10-06T10:53:00.000-07:00

Sorry about the possibly misleading title. I don't normally post other sites' pictures, preferring to link to them, but this one was too good to resist. Thanks, guys-at-the-humor-archives, for this post.

zestyping Sticks It to the White House

2007-10-06T06:24:00.000-07:00

Any honeymoon Dana Perino might have expected in her first two weeks as press secretary is now clearly over. As Ka Ping points out, there is no logical defense for her position in this press conference. The White House position on torture is, in short, indefensible.

If the big bad wolf handled his policy on eating small girls this way then Little Red Riding Hood would not have gone within three miles of the Dark Woods.

Bush Buddies

2007-10-03T17:20:00.001-07:00

The latest industry grouping seeking to suckle at the Bush teat (now the banks are, at least temporarily, satiated) appears to be the telcos.

These companies have the amazing gall, despite complicity in quite unconstitutional and almost certainly ultimately illegal surveillance of US citizens, to seek immunity from prosecutions that might occur as a result of their actions in the event of a less timid Justice Department emerging some time this century. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is currently litigating against AT&T and believes these efforts are intended to derail its case.

So the bottom line is this: an ordinary citizen who commits a crime to aid police or federal investigators is still liable for those crimes, but a corporation whose management permits it to commit a crime to abet the unconstitutional acts should be liable to neither criminal nor civil prosecution for such illegal acts? Sorry, I just don't see this, though underwriting crime somehow seems like a natural progression for an unpopular administration determined to complete its rape of the country before it departs.

Recalcitrant administrations and bloated corporate management need to be reminded (with actual jail time where appropriate) that they are not immune to prosecution nor able to evade the moral responsibility for their actions.

Next: security companies active in Iraq threaten to attack the US unless rates are increased?

It's not too late to persuade your Congressional representation that it's time to show some spine and stand up for the rule of law. Call Pelosi or Reed, and demand that they stand up to the lobbyists.

Details at: www.stopthespying.org
Call Rep. Nancy Pelosi — 202-225-4965
Call Sen. Harry Reid — 202-224-3542

NewSpeak

2007-08-14T21:46:00.000-07:00

Following on from my last post, this piece of drivel appears on the home page of the PepsiCo web site. I don't believe it's an accident that you can't use the normal copy-and-paste feature to quote it.

PepsiCo's commitment to sustainable growth, defined as Performance with Purpose, is focused on generating healthy financial returns while giving back to the communities the company serves. This includes meeting consumer needs for a spectrum of convenient foods and beverages, reducing the company's impact on the environment through water, energy and packaging initiatives, and supporting its employees through a diverse and inclusive culture that recruits and retains world-class talent.

I can't think of a more convenient beverage than the one that arrives when you turn the kitchen faucet. "Performance with Purpose" is a description, not a definition, and a pretty vacuuous one at that. It sounds like the sort of thing that corporations pay advertising houses thousands of dollars to dream up, but in reality it's completely meaningless without being tied to real purposes. I'm pretty certain that nothing will take priority over those "healthy financial returns" - Indra K. Nooyi wouldn't like to lose her job.

Pepsi Selling Bottled Tap Water

2007-08-14T21:30:00.001-07:00

Along with 40% of the industry, the Pepsi is bottling tap water and marketing it at exorbitant prices. This tells us a lot about what's wrong with today's world.

The sad part is, buying anything from Pepsi seems to mean paying for a product where the cost is probably less than ten percent of the price, and probably 98% of the cost is spent on packaging and marketing.

The lunatics have truly taken over the asylum. It's surely time that the management of the corporate giants were forced to be accountable for some of this insanity.

If you haven't read Naomi Klein's No Logo you should. It explains just exactly how the international conglomerates are ripping everyone - customers, suppliers, employees - off. I particularly liked the description of how Microsoft have outsourced their HR (personnel) function. Now you have to persuade a Microsoft supplier that their customer should hire you and then continue to retain your services.

The worst part of capitalism is that it tries to distribute ownership precisely to avoid responsibility, the clarion cry being "we have a responsibility to our investors". How about putting the world first, so our kids have some kind of future?

Same Law For Rich or Poor

2007-06-11T18:58:00.000-07:00

Nice to see that at least one member of the judiciary is prepared to ensure that his instructions concerning the incarceration of a prisoner are followed, and that Paris Hilton doesn't get to emulate Ernest Saunders [1]. It would be wrong if Hilton got the impression that wealth could excuse not only vapid stupidity but also a blatant disregard for the law.

[1]: A diagnosis of Alzheimer's got him released from prison early and then turned out to be unduly pessimistic: he recovered fully from his symptoms and later claimed they had been due to a cocktail of drugs.

Email Blogging

2007-06-10T19:31:00.001-07:00

If this appears as a blog entry then I have solved the question "How can I make blog entries from email". I suspect the results will be less than stellar, however.

[As indeed they were, with rotten line breaking and formatting generally. Don't hold your breath ...]

Random Images of the Recent Past

2007-06-10T13:14:00.000-07:00

Who knows, maybe the Wayback Machine will find these photographs of people and places and people of the future will wonder what the hell I'd been doing. I sometimes ask myself the same question ...

My LinkedIn Profile

2007-06-09T06:08:00.000-07:00

Sure, I thought, why not? Seems like a nice idea (if it works). So here it is (or should, through the magic of HTTP and HTML, be).

View Steve Holden's profile

Hmm, let's see where this goes ...

Free, As in Beer

2007-06-03T13:05:00.000-07:00

So I am sitting in a bar at La Guardia airport, and a guy comes in and asks for a Heineken. It's on draft, and the tap gives out after the server has pulled about three-quarters of a glass. She explains that no more is available and offers him an alternative, which she pulls after throwing the Heineken down the sink.

Now, to see good beer poured down the drain was a painful enough experience (I suppose there may be food regulations about serving the part-beer, but the server didn't know of any - it looked quite good enough to drink). The Yorkshireman in me abhorred the waste (rumour has it that we are all "as tight as a duck's [nether regions]" in Yorkshire: it's no more true of us than it is of the Scots, but it makes a good slur). Seth Godin would, I am sure, know exactly what to say about the marketing.

What would it have cost to say to the customer "As you can see, your favorite beer has just run out. Please drink this while we fix the keg, or while you choose what other beer you'd like at no extra charge"? That, I'd have thought, would be great customer service. Instead a guy sees someone pouring his chosen beer down the drain then charging him full price for something else. That doesn't, to me, scream "the customer comes first".

* Open source and GNU software supporters distinguish between the freedoms they espouse and freedom from price by discussing "free, as in software" as opposed to "free, as in beer".

A Cut Too Far

2007-04-30T15:01:00.000-07:00

Product: "Work Essentials Electronic Stapler" by Swingline
Bought at: Local Staples
Complaint: Product as delivered does not work due to absence of consumables.

Needing a few things for the office after moving continents I shoogled on down to Staples, where I found everything I wanted in under an hour. Not, unfortunately, eveything I needed. My purchases included the aforementioned stapler, which was well-priced in its class (being cheaper than some more capable manual staplers) and looked reasonably attractive.

On opening it three days after purchase I discover that some thoughtless loon has allowed the production and delivery of a stapler that comes with no staples. Since I didn't open the stapler until I actually wanted to staple something this meant that something had to go unstapled. Now, where did I put those paperclips?

I have a nasty suspicion that the cost engineers have been at work here. "We could save 3.78 cents on each stapler if we didn't put any staples in it", one would say. The other would say nothing, having already worked out that 10,000 times 3.78 cents comes out at $378, which is clearly better on the bottom line than off it. "No brainer", as they say.

Except that only a person with no brains would value the cash more that the customer goodwill that stands to be lost by this stupidity. I will certainly think twice before I buy anything else marketed by Swingline, and now you will all at least ask yourself questions. Have you ever bought a colour printer with no ink?

Workaround: Clearly mark packaging as "STAPLES REQUIRED"

Fix: Put some bloody staples in the package. Yes, it costs 3.78 cents more. Not pissing the customer off: priceless. Birks like me will stop writing blog entries detrimental to your corporate health.

Maybe this is the perfect chance for Staples to provide some free staples? They could easily do so at point of sale.