In the event of an actual emergency...

This is just a test to see how well posting things from my phone works.  Not being raised on texting I can't see myself doing a whole lot of this, but one never knows.  No, screw that, this sucks even more than doing it from my work computer with an outdated version of IE; big thumbs and little virtual keys don't get along well. 

Anyway, if you're reading this we know it works.  Yay mobile technology, I guess.

Demographic Adjustment

I was going to go with something about Syria, how the UN and a number of countries have finally decided that slaughtering your civilians in a reign of terror to uphold your regime is a "bad thing", but what's the point?  Gaddaffi was thrown over for much less, the only reason I can see being European economic (oil) interests and a complete lack of understanding of the internal dynamics of Libya.  Since Syria has no oil worth mentioning and Assad is inexplicably given a pass in the international community as a "reformer", I guess his timing was good on this one to capitalize on the intervention fatigue which has come in wake of Libya.

Hmm, looks like I'm talking about this anyway. I'd like to say that this is what happens when I start writing without a plan, but sometimes it happens even with one.  To take this topic as far as I can now see a point in doing, perhaps people did in fact learn something about knocking over the strongman leaders of cobbled-together states.  This could explain the lack of definitive action vs. Assad, but that gives too much credit to institutions which have failed to learn from pretty-much anything else in recent and more remote history.  The disintegration of Libya for example has already spawned an Islamist/Tuareg takeover of half of neighbouring Mali, a direct result of that conflict.

Tito and Yugoslavia, anyone?  Not exactly ancient history and there are plenty more where that came from.  There are no neat endings/answers short of forcible partition (a la Kosovo, as bad an example as that is) so what else do we have?  As always there is lots going on under rocks of various sizes the world over but I am finding myself to be caring less and less about it.  Posing problems without solutions (or at least management) is not my style, and I honestly don't know what to expect in Syria. 

Given the resources I would chop it up I guess, but there's no winning in that part of the world short of some Old Testament ethnic cleansing.  One of my recent posts noted the willingness of a large part of Egyptian society to do this to Israel, but Arabs have been trying to re-do what the Romans did nearly 2000 years ago without success for 60+ years so it's almost boring (from this distance anyway) now.

One thing I have to say is that I'm becoming fond of the idea of a few hardcore Islamic states popping up in certain places.  My rationale is that this gives you something that you can attack as it concentrates terrorist idiots wonderfully.  Northern Mali? A good opportunity to kill a bunch of guys the world will not lament passing; it worked in Iraq and it's working to some extent in Somalia and Yemen right now so it's not without precedent.

And this takes us to Diversity as a policy.  It doesn't work.  People don't like "us" all that much, they REALLY don't like "them" in any quantity too near them.  This is as politically incorrect as all get-out, but it's a demonstrable fact.  The divide can be racial, though far more often it's religious/ideological/cultural, and the more of those differences you combine the worse the animosity is.  The answer to this would seem to be "split them up" would it not?  Yes, but...

People are even in our "enlightened" age essentially tribal and will almost always at least temporarily expand their "us" net to sweep in those with relatively minor differences when faced with a real "other".  Subdividing people too much would destroy these accommodations, so as much as I think maps need to be redrawn, more consideration and less zeal needs to be brought to bear on the process.  And yes, moving people around is the best way to accomplish this effectively (Greece and Turkey in the 1920s).

Back to Syria to close things out, here's a proposal: carve away a section for the Alawites, Christians and Druze along the Lebanese/Israeli border, leave the Sunnis the rest of it, maybe taking off the NE corner as a contribution to "Kurdistan".  Lots of hardship associated with this and a lot of other problems (Turkey's reaction to the Kurdistan idea not the least of them) but you know, omelets, eggs, etc.

Working for the Clampdown

Being of a generally libertarian bent, I'm never keen on anything that gets in the way of people minding their own business. The corollary to that is of course that I am VERY much in favour of things which put a stick in the spokes of people who make life harder (or shorter) for people like me. This can mean anything from sclerotic bureaucracies and over-reaching police to professional victims who will grind things to a halt because they're not happy.

Enter the Great Mask Debate of 2012. Montreal, indeed much of Quebec, has been regularly disrupted by mobs of "students" bitching about their entitlements. There has also (finally!) been a lot of talk and maybe even some action about the masked idiots participating in these marches. There is still a lot of hand-wringing about what if anything to do about this, but as usual I have some ideas.

Concern #1: Civil liberties. No ban on hiding your face is an imposition on your right to free assembly for peaceable purposes. Things vary country to country, but in Canada we have rules for things that happen in public and there never was carte blanche to disturb the peace. There are laws (finally being enforced) that prevent you from camping in city parks etc. A whole lot of people have been breaking these laws, all of which are there to ensure that business and public life can carry on without undue imposition from mobs.

Concern #2: Enforcement. "You can't arrest everyone if they're all wearing a mask!" No, and it was impractical for a Roman Centurion to slaughter his entire command for cowardice, etc. too. The solution then, as now is Decimation. Taken literally it means "to take one in ten", e.g. kill every tenth man. There is no reason a less-lethal application couldn't set the example. I would apply this with a bit of "profiling" i.e. take preferentially the people who most looked like they were up to no good, but a smattering of "harmless" looking types should be collared as well so that people don't figure that bright colours or hippy, etc. clothes will give them a free pass.

Concern # 3: Violent reactions to #2 above. If you are concerned about the reactions of criminals to the enforcement of the law, you might as well disband the police and give the country over to violent anarchy. "Criminals?" you say? "Isn't that presumptive? These start as peaceful protests!" Well,  ignorance of the law is no excuse as they say, so here is some education for all those participating in a public assembly. This is from the Criminal Code of Canada, but wherever you live I pretty much guarantee you have something similar.

63. (1) An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner or so conduct themselves when they are assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that they

(a) will disturb the peace tumultuously; or
(b) will by that assembly needlessly and without reasonable cause provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously.

Marginal note: Lawful assembly becoming unlawful
(2) Persons who are lawfully assembled may become an unlawful assembly if they conduct themselves with a common purpose in a manner that would have made the assembly unlawful if they had assembled in that manner for that purpose.

64. A riot is an unlawful assembly that has begun to disturb the peacetumultuously.

Pretty neat eh? Check this next bit, this is the part you really need
to know.

65. Every one who takes part in a riot is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 66.

Marginal note: Punishment for unlawful assembly 
66. Every one who is a member of an unlawful assembly is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.


Consequences, people, consequences; these students are supposedly bright types and may in fact know the above already. Likely they (or at least some of them) do, hence the desire to avoid said consequences by say, hiding their identity? Anyway in for a penny, in for a pound; I like these parts too so I'll keep rolling with the CCOC.

Reading proclamation
67. A person who is
(a) a justice, mayor or sheriff, or the lawful deputy of a mayor
or sheriff,
(b) a warden or deputy warden of a prison, or
(c) the institutional head of a penitentiary, as those
expressions are defined in subsection 2(1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, or that person's deputy,who receives notice that, at any place within the jurisdiction of the person, twelve or more persons are unlawfully and riotously assembled together shall go to that place and, after approaching as near as is safe, if the person is satisfied that a riot is in progress, shall command silence and thereupon make or cause to be made in a loud voice a proclamation in the following words or to the like effect:
Her Majesty the Queen charges and commands all persons being assembled
immediately to disperse and peaceably to depart to their habitations or
to their lawful business on the pain of being guilty of an offence for
which, on conviction, they may be sentenced to imprisonment for life.
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.

[This would be lots of fun in this exact form in Quebec right now...]

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 67;
1994, c. 44, s. 5.
Marginal note: Offences related to proclamation
68. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to
imprisonment for life who
(a) opposes, hinders or assaults, wilfully and with force, a person who begins to make or is about to begin to make or is making the proclamation referred to in section 67 so that it is not made;
(b) does not peaceably disperse and depart from a place where the proclamation referred to in section 67 is made within thirty minutes after it is made; or
(c) does not depart from a place within thirty minutes when he has reasonable grounds to believe that the proclamation referred to in section 67 would have been made in that place if some person had not
opposed, hindered or assaulted, wilfully and with force, a person who would have made it.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 69.

"...liable for imprisonment for life..."! I don't see that happening but if you want to go out and "smash the state", capitalism, globalization, what-have-you, be very aware of the ice you're walking on. One final bit of the section worth noting for the authorities:

Neglect by peace officer
69. A peace officer who receives notice that there is a riot within his jurisdiction and, without reasonable excuse, fails to take all reasonable steps to suppress the riot is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

Peace, Order and Good Government. That's what Canada is all about. We make no pretense in our Constitution of any "pursuit of happiness"; keeping the wheels on is what this country is all about from its' founding to present. This means that our public officials have a DUTY to do their jobs and keep the yobs off the streets even if that means making them (the yobs) unhappy. I suspect that once you slap fines on your average protestor for wearing a mask, only the hard core (who were going to be a problem anyway) will keep at it. Then comes the richly deserved head-cracking and  tear-gassing.

Making this work is in two parts: enforcement and moderation. The students in Quebec are losing what public support they may have had, so the time is ripe for a crackdown. I've used the phrase "pour encourager les autres" before, and taking enough of these protesters into custody (to be punished as appropriate) will gut the movement and restore order sooner rather than later.

It's possible to go too far (the "kettling" etc. in Toronto two years ago ) but despite the propaganda, another Tiananmen Square is simply not going to happen if a few dozen idiots get picked up and fined for wearing a mask. Random civilians will not be swept up for minding their own business, and that's one of my tests for a tolerable restriction on our behaviour.

Arab Spring, Jewish Winter

There wasn't a lot to say in defence of the previous Middle-Eastern regimes which were overthrown last year, but a certain stability can be said, and in practical terms that counts for a lot.  Not only from the perspective of the Powers that be, but for people on the ground who although they aspired to a new system are now finding themselves nostalgic for the old bosses.

That is the case in Tunisia for example, and some people in Libya (although the latter are not likely to have wanted a change in the first place), but Egypt is a different story.  I don't have a lot to say about this since it speaks for itself.  This is from a rally held by the new Islamist government:

Safwat Higazi : We can see how the dream of the Islamic Caliphate is being realized, Allah willing, by Dr. Muhammad Mursi and his brothers, his supporters, and his political party. We can see how the great dream, shared by us all - that of the United States of the Arabs... The United States of the Arabs will be restored, Allah willing. The United States of the Arabs will be restored by this man and his supporters.
The capital of the Caliphate - the capital of the United States of the Arabs - will be Jerusalem, Allah willing.
[...]
Safwat Higazi : Our capital shall not be Cairo, Mecca, or Medina. It shall be Jerusalem, Allah willing. Our cry shall be: "Millions of martyrs march toward Jerusalem." Millions of martyrs march toward Jerusalem.
Crowds : Millions of martyrs march toward Jerusalem.
Crowds : Millions of martyrs march toward Jerusalem.
Safwat Higazi : Millions of martyrs march toward Jerusalem.
Crowds : Millions of martyrs march toward Jerusalem.
Ceremony leader : Banish the sleep from the eyes of all Jews.
Come on, you lovers of martyrdom, you are all Hamas.
From the eyes of all Jews...
Come on, you lovers of martyrdom, you are all Hamas.
Banish the sleep from the eyes of all Jews.
Come on, you lovers of martyrdom, you are all Hamas.
Forget about the whole world, forget about all the conferences.
Brandish your weapons... Say your prayers...
Brandish your weapons... Say your prayers...
And pray to the Lord.
From the eyes of all Jews...
Come on, you lovers of martyrdom...
Banish the sleep from the eyes of all Jews.
Come on, you lovers of martyrdom, you are all Hamas.
[...] 

If that doesn't tell you what the Muslim Brotherhood is all about there's nothing that will.  All the aspiring democrats who demonstrated in Tahir Square last year now have these clowns, who make a significant majority of the Egyptian population, to deal with.  Oh yes, this hope and change thing is working fantastically.  Nice work again, America: making the world safe for the return of the Caliphate one expediently abandoned ally at a time.

The Flyswatter Doctrine

This article is on the same wavelength with my thoughts on the level of threat from non-state-sponsored terrorist outfits, Hezbollah being a different beast entirely.  Key excerpt:

A third technique is to exaggerate the importance and effectiveness of the “affiliated groups” linked to al-Qaeda central. In particular, alarmists point to the al-Qaeda affiliate in chaotic Yemen, proclaiming it to be the “deadliest” and the “most aggressive” of these and a “major threat.”

Insofar as it threatens the United States, the Yemen group has been elevated by two efforts at international terrorism, both of which failed abysmally.

It apparently supplied the 2009 underwear bomber with an explosive that he was unable to detonate, one that, a test by the BBC suggests, might not have downed his plane even if it had gone off.

The other failure is the foiled effort to set off bombs contained within laser printers on planes bound for the United States in 2010. The organization explained that one of their packages contained a copy of Charles Dickens’s novel Great Expectations to express its optimism about the operation’s success even as the group promised more such attacks. The optimism, and thus far the promise, have gone unfulfilled.

With that track record, the group may pose a problem or concern to the United States. But it scarcely presents a “major threat.” [emphasis mine]

It's taken a long time, but people seem to be grasping that this "nation-building" thing is a no-go, which should trigger a re-assessment of strategy and tactics used to deal with jihadi idiots the world over.

"Should" is of course the operative word but there are bureaucratic and other empires built on over-reacting to minimal threats.  This means that any changes will have economic and/or political causes.  We are seeing a manifestation of that with "the Obama Doctrine" of frequent little taps of the big stick which is the American armed forces.

I, btw, approve of this as the way to deal with these threats: surgically, remorselessly and frequently.  Just because something is a minimal strategic threat doesn't mean that you ignore it, just use the tools appropriate to the job.

Demobcracy

Democracy is rather famously the worst form of government except for all of the others, and it's certainly a shibboleth these days that it is the best, full-stop.  As is my wont I am here to Devil's Advocate that assumption, and current events are certainly pointing out the instabilities inherent in the concept of free-for-all democracy.

Most recently and closest to home, students in Quebec are protesting (more or less violently) the decision to raise their tuition rates.  This is no "Arab Spring" but the idea is similar; they don't like what's happening and they vote against it with sit-ins, and some arson and smashing of things.  Leaving out the details of that protest (except to say I have no sympathy since everyone else in the country already pays far more than they do), this is an ancient problem getting a modern treatment.

First, the ground rules in a standard liberal democracy: they are Representative Democracies.  This means we have a system used to elect representatives for our local interests, and it's an understatement to say that this has limitations.  Regardless, it's the system we have, and it's a "model" of democracy which works adequately as long as people work within it.  "Model" in this case means something which represents the actual thing, and of course anything which isn't the thing itself can't display all characteristics of it.  Details are lost, values are approximated.

A REAL democracy would have everyone voting individually for everything.  Of course technology brings this closer all the time, but ask yourself if you'd really like to see that.  It is pretty obvious that you can (in fairly homogeneous societies) put peoples' political leanings on a curve with distinct Left and Right tails.  Each of these tails overlaps into the Centre, and it is my belief (not tested) that the Right is bigger than the Left.

So what?  The polarization of the electorate in Canada and the USA is very evident in voting patterns indicating a "core" of people who feel certain ways about certain things.  This is of course a model, not the real thing, but it's serviceable.  Of the two tails the Right is bigger, as this encompasses the conservative/leave me alone strains of the population.  We'll say this is 35% of the population.  The other end, the entitlement/nanny state I'll put at a hard 20%.  In between there are a lot of people who don't feel terribly strongly about very much, and that 45% or so will either form a default plurality bloc or bleed off in either direction as circumstances warrant. 

With the map (a.k.a. model) laid out, back to my point.  The above groups display certain basic characteristics, some of them common.  Both tails think they know better than everyone else, and the Right and the Centre will overwhelmingly go with "the Devil they know" than smash everything in pursuit of "Revolution".

Enter the sore losers.  Election didn't come out the way you wanted? Scream "cheating", "recall" or whatever is likely to get you what you want.  Sit-in, smash and burn things, distort peoples' statements, act outraged at everything you don't agree with, lie, and resort to ad hominem attacks on the opposition.  It is to be noted (neatly backing up my numbers) that 2/3 of Quebec students are quietly completing their semesters.  I think this excerpt says it all:
At McGill University, classes and exams have been largely unaffected by the student unrest. Only four departments -- Gender, Sexuality and Women's studies; Graduate Art History; Social Work; and French Literature -- are on strike. (emphasis mine).

This is not to say that any one group has a monopoly on dirty tricks.  Much mud is slung in all directions, but the TEA Party vs "Occupy" comparison is educational as it directly compares both ends of the political curve.  TEA Party groups came out for the day, then went home sans rampage.  Occupy groups squatted somewhere and formed impromptu communes and mini-Woodstocks.  In Oakland Ca there were labour and trade disruptions as well as the usual vandalism and not-always-civil disobedience.

The latter are not the people who keep the lights on in our civilization, the former are.  The evil baby-raping Right Wingers protest within the law of the land and go home, voting their preferences and conscience at all opportunities.  The "you're too stupid to know what's good for you" Left cries "foul" and tries to physically change the terms of the discussion.

There are a lot of different brands of ideas and the farther you go in either direction the less common ground they have.  With this in mind, the dangers of unbridled democracy should become evident.  Here is the reductio ad absurdum of "Democracy is always good":

Last year, the White House began peddling the line that the uprisings in the Middle East were a repudiation of the al Qaeda model of seeking change through terrorism. The argument was that while America opposed violent extremism, the rise of nonviolent radical movements was just fine, and even commendable. Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri quickly dismissed this claim, saying that from the terrorists’ point of view, it didn’t matter whether an Islamist victory came through violence or not. The means were unimportant except as they related to the end state: the imposition of hard-line Shariah-based laws and policies. (emphasis mine again)

Of course we've been down this road many times, recently and obviously with Hamas in the Gaza Strip.  The thing that people seem to forget is that any political system is a tool, a means to an end.  If the end is the means, anything done within the means is legitimate. 

When you think "Democracy" do you think "one man, one vote, once"?  Theocracy? Democracy can be used to achieve these end-states as easily (more easily, really) than it can produce a stable liberal democratic system.  Hitler was legally elected too...

Life is a struggle (ultimately futile) against Entropy, and anything we do in life requires maintenance.  If you want to live in a society which allows free speech and freedom of association, that cannot be maintained by burning everything down each time you have a grievance.  I started this post yesterday (30 April) but as I wrap it up today it is May Day and further Anarchist/nihilist stupidity can be expected over the Western world.  As the Gender Studies students and loutish vandals co-mingle at various "protests" the former will not recognize themselves as the vectors of the latter "Black Bloc" assholes.

Coming back to the freedoms (speech and association) I mentioned earlier, there can be no absolute freedom in anything.  Although poorly understood, the Universe has rules which are necessary to keep things turning and every other sub-system needs some definable structure too.  Nature abhors a vacuum, and if you squeeze the trigger on your "revolucion" don't be surprised when your Robespierre pops up, Reign of Terror and all.