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.
Wednesday, 16 May 2012
Friday, 11 May 2012
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.
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.
Wednesday, 2 May 2012
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.
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.
Tuesday, 1 May 2012
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.
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.
Friday, 20 April 2012
Libertarianism in the U.K.
This guy was WAY more into "the scene" than I was, but I can find a lot of common ground with him on the punk-conservative idea. "Libertarian" is about as close as I can get to a political label for myself, although my attachment to Good Government goes back as far as I've had an opinion, so the Anarchy thing was never happening.
I think the biggest thing that would have you transition between Punk and conservatism is the fact that you can think for yourself. There were a fair number of slumming dilettantes hanging around the gigs 25 years ago, but the people like me who were living on their own and too poor to buy new jeans when their old ones ripped survived on our own ingenuity. Except those who were on Welfare who were never likely to amount to anything. Some others of this group have gone on to be hateful leftist PC types, but not that many.
The biggest thing I got out of being a "punk" (as labelled by others, not initially self-identified) was the idea that it was a group where I could be myself. There were of course always the "harder-core than thou" types who were their own sort of conformists, but I was quite capable of ignoring them.
A group identifies by certain conventions they follow, and my favourite one of the list McInnes gave was #6 about slam dancing. Slam dancing was fun, because you could actually move, with a (usually) gratifying amount of physicality to make it more interesting. Moshing is an abomination and I personally blame Nirvana for ruining everything. Picking people back up was a key part of slamming, and this made it a social activity instead of a blood sport.
I said I blame Nirvana, so I shall substantiate. It was the fall of 1991 and I was a young guy living in a dank basement apartment downtown with a couple of friends. There were a small number of clubs which were "alternative" at least in the middle of the week when the hard-drinking party crowd was in abeyance. These we patronized on the Tues/Wed/Thurs as appropriate and at the time I knew pretty much everyone who showed up at least by sight if not better.
Then "Smells Like Teen Spirit" started getting heavy rotation on Much/MTV and things changed almost overnight. Fratboy jocks started showing up and trying to flatten people on the dance floors. The rest of us had learned the social mores of punk at gigs and followed them in the clubs; these new arrivals had no idea and seemed disinterested in learning better. It was a flavour of the month thing, but it "broke" the alternative scene in my city.
Entropy is the way of the universe so my time for that passed, but it was mildly disturbing to be off the cutting edge at 21. However, it was never about that; I as an accidentally opportunistic Individual liked the music (still listen to it and seek out new stuff) and was not about to conform to something I didn't like just to stay "in".
Doing your own thing and minding your own business are the traits of both Punks and Libertarians. My current career is a blatant sell-out to financial security as I really don't like being told what to do, and LOATHE being told how to do it. This is how I'm fighting Entropy these days, but I hope to make a change to being my own boss. Having children does tend to keep one's inner Anarchist under control, so I'm plotting and planning, but not holding my breath or betting the house on it. There's the "conservative" part.
What else particularly resonates with me? # 8 (The PC Police Have No Power Over You) and #10 (Violence has its Place). The former is part of the hating-to-be-told-how-to-do-things issues I have, and the latter is merely the way of the world. Indeed, both of these precepts are the underpinning of this Blog's existence.
Categorizing people inherently limits them, and nobody that I want to know would fit neatly into any one category. I'm all over the place in how I feel about things, and what I write here is a fair representation of that, but the map is not the territory. Speaking of a map, this post has lost it's way so it's time to tie it off.
I think the biggest thing that would have you transition between Punk and conservatism is the fact that you can think for yourself. There were a fair number of slumming dilettantes hanging around the gigs 25 years ago, but the people like me who were living on their own and too poor to buy new jeans when their old ones ripped survived on our own ingenuity. Except those who were on Welfare who were never likely to amount to anything. Some others of this group have gone on to be hateful leftist PC types, but not that many.
The biggest thing I got out of being a "punk" (as labelled by others, not initially self-identified) was the idea that it was a group where I could be myself. There were of course always the "harder-core than thou" types who were their own sort of conformists, but I was quite capable of ignoring them.
A group identifies by certain conventions they follow, and my favourite one of the list McInnes gave was #6 about slam dancing. Slam dancing was fun, because you could actually move, with a (usually) gratifying amount of physicality to make it more interesting. Moshing is an abomination and I personally blame Nirvana for ruining everything. Picking people back up was a key part of slamming, and this made it a social activity instead of a blood sport.
I said I blame Nirvana, so I shall substantiate. It was the fall of 1991 and I was a young guy living in a dank basement apartment downtown with a couple of friends. There were a small number of clubs which were "alternative" at least in the middle of the week when the hard-drinking party crowd was in abeyance. These we patronized on the Tues/Wed/Thurs as appropriate and at the time I knew pretty much everyone who showed up at least by sight if not better.
Then "Smells Like Teen Spirit" started getting heavy rotation on Much/MTV and things changed almost overnight. Fratboy jocks started showing up and trying to flatten people on the dance floors. The rest of us had learned the social mores of punk at gigs and followed them in the clubs; these new arrivals had no idea and seemed disinterested in learning better. It was a flavour of the month thing, but it "broke" the alternative scene in my city.
Entropy is the way of the universe so my time for that passed, but it was mildly disturbing to be off the cutting edge at 21. However, it was never about that; I as an accidentally opportunistic Individual liked the music (still listen to it and seek out new stuff) and was not about to conform to something I didn't like just to stay "in".
Doing your own thing and minding your own business are the traits of both Punks and Libertarians. My current career is a blatant sell-out to financial security as I really don't like being told what to do, and LOATHE being told how to do it. This is how I'm fighting Entropy these days, but I hope to make a change to being my own boss. Having children does tend to keep one's inner Anarchist under control, so I'm plotting and planning, but not holding my breath or betting the house on it. There's the "conservative" part.
What else particularly resonates with me? # 8 (The PC Police Have No Power Over You) and #10 (Violence has its Place). The former is part of the hating-to-be-told-how-to-do-things issues I have, and the latter is merely the way of the world. Indeed, both of these precepts are the underpinning of this Blog's existence.
Categorizing people inherently limits them, and nobody that I want to know would fit neatly into any one category. I'm all over the place in how I feel about things, and what I write here is a fair representation of that, but the map is not the territory. Speaking of a map, this post has lost it's way so it's time to tie it off.
Saturday, 7 April 2012
God will know His own
Just when you thought things were screwed up enough in South Asia:
(Reuters) - An Islamist leader who had a $10 million American bounty placed on his head this week has been helping Pakistan de-radicalize militants under efforts to stabilize the strategic U.S. ally, a top Pakistani counter-terrorism official said on Friday.
Of course I have no idea how sincere this guy's effort to get heads out of religiously-brainwashed asses is, but taking the statements of the Pakistani government at face value, this situation seems sufficiently absurd to be plausible.
I know that doesn't seem like the best way to make a case for it, but that how things roll in the Global Something On Guys We Don't Like For Some Reason Or Another (GSOGWDLFSROA). I will forgive you if you don't see that acronym sticking, but I think it sums up the current state of play pretty well.
A key thing to remember is that even in the best-case that this is legit, "de-radicalizing" to the Pakis is not the same as it would be to the Yanks. To the former it means that some of the would-be jihadis will get jobs or at least stop attacking their own people. To the latter it would mean that they stop targeting Western troops and interests in that part of the world and beyond. It doesn't take a genius to see that "a" does NOT equal "b".
So? Past and current American practice is to shoot first and ask questions later (though ironically not when their own troops need that fire support in combat) so even money has a Hellfire with Hafiz Saeed's name on it despite whatever anyone else says about him. He may have it coming, but it is at least possible that killing him will be counter-productive on the strategic level. Oh well, I can always hope to be pleasantly surprised and that some investigation will be done before they lock on. On va voir.
(Reuters) - An Islamist leader who had a $10 million American bounty placed on his head this week has been helping Pakistan de-radicalize militants under efforts to stabilize the strategic U.S. ally, a top Pakistani counter-terrorism official said on Friday.
Of course I have no idea how sincere this guy's effort to get heads out of religiously-brainwashed asses is, but taking the statements of the Pakistani government at face value, this situation seems sufficiently absurd to be plausible.
I know that doesn't seem like the best way to make a case for it, but that how things roll in the Global Something On Guys We Don't Like For Some Reason Or Another (GSOGWDLFSROA). I will forgive you if you don't see that acronym sticking, but I think it sums up the current state of play pretty well.
A key thing to remember is that even in the best-case that this is legit, "de-radicalizing" to the Pakis is not the same as it would be to the Yanks. To the former it means that some of the would-be jihadis will get jobs or at least stop attacking their own people. To the latter it would mean that they stop targeting Western troops and interests in that part of the world and beyond. It doesn't take a genius to see that "a" does NOT equal "b".
So? Past and current American practice is to shoot first and ask questions later (though ironically not when their own troops need that fire support in combat) so even money has a Hellfire with Hafiz Saeed's name on it despite whatever anyone else says about him. He may have it coming, but it is at least possible that killing him will be counter-productive on the strategic level. Oh well, I can always hope to be pleasantly surprised and that some investigation will be done before they lock on. On va voir.
Monday, 2 April 2012
Declaration of War, the Short Form
For years now (predating this blog even) I have railed against the Americans' lack of sense vis a vis National or Strategic interest. This is manifest from everything they have done in the last 20 years. I say that time period, as during the preceding 40 years you could argue that the questionable regimes they propped up or overthrew were within the overall strategic design of containing Communism. When that collapsed under the weight of it's own inefficiency the Yanks started looking around for causes to replace it.
In fact the rot started before that, at the time slightly disguised as a way to stick it to the Soviets. The lack of consideration for unintended future consequences in shipping hundreds of millions of $ worth of cash and weapons to a barely (if at all) civilized group of raiders in Central Asia was truly breathtaking, but at least it was in the context of containing the Red Menace. Replacing them with the Green one wasn't the plan of course, but...
The article in The Atlantic which I linked to addresses the lack of long-term thinking that goes into the way America (and NATO by extension) fights these days. This is certainly fair, but I think it misses the bigger picture. Instead of planning as if you'll still be there in five years, ask yourself why wherever/whatever it is would be worth, in blood and treasure, getting locked up in it for years on end.
Let's imagine that the Americans broke Afghanistan's government ten years ago, laid a beating on Bin Laden's goons and then let the locals sort each other out. The whole thing as far as we're concerned would be over by spring 2002, mission (actually!) accomplished. Instead, we're here over ten years later staring down the barrel of the whole place doing exactly what I've said we should have let it do in the first place when NATO finally pulls the plug after 12-13 years in 2014 or so.
It's not a tactical problem, it's a strategic one. The trick lies in finding places that we might be able to help, not failed basket case states that will act as nationbuilding tar pits. Afghanistan? Fucked. Kosovo? Shouldn't have gotten involved, it was another "stick-it-to-the-Slavs" exercise which should have died out when Yeltsin came in. Iraq? I think we all know how big a mistake that was by now. Libya? Sure Qaddafi was a dick, but a bit of pragmatism in our foreign policy would have been in order there in view of what has happened. That one at least I am willing to wait out a bit before passing judgement, but my crystal ball has Tripolitania and Cyrenaica (at least) making a comeback...
What you want is a basically sound country with a bad government; that's a simple fix. Note however that "simple" and "easy" are not the same word; if it was easy the people would do it them selves. My example for this is Zimbabwe, albeit fixing it would require some old-school colonial-style administration while you build them a functioning government. South Sudan is another possibility, but the grand prize is Iran.
You may have noted that whenever I mention attacking Iran, it's always the Revolutionary Guard and other bulwarks of the Islamic regime, not the country itself. We can get on just fine if we clear the decks for them to have a more reasonable crew in charge of the place. There would be nary a boot on the ground, save some operators making contact with the opposition, certainly no "ground troops".
This is how I would do things, but I don't set policy for anyone. What I can say is that whatever I did I would assume that my kids would be dealing with it after I'm gone, and pick my battles accordingly.
In fact the rot started before that, at the time slightly disguised as a way to stick it to the Soviets. The lack of consideration for unintended future consequences in shipping hundreds of millions of $ worth of cash and weapons to a barely (if at all) civilized group of raiders in Central Asia was truly breathtaking, but at least it was in the context of containing the Red Menace. Replacing them with the Green one wasn't the plan of course, but...
The article in The Atlantic which I linked to addresses the lack of long-term thinking that goes into the way America (and NATO by extension) fights these days. This is certainly fair, but I think it misses the bigger picture. Instead of planning as if you'll still be there in five years, ask yourself why wherever/whatever it is would be worth, in blood and treasure, getting locked up in it for years on end.
Let's imagine that the Americans broke Afghanistan's government ten years ago, laid a beating on Bin Laden's goons and then let the locals sort each other out. The whole thing as far as we're concerned would be over by spring 2002, mission (actually!) accomplished. Instead, we're here over ten years later staring down the barrel of the whole place doing exactly what I've said we should have let it do in the first place when NATO finally pulls the plug after 12-13 years in 2014 or so.
It's not a tactical problem, it's a strategic one. The trick lies in finding places that we might be able to help, not failed basket case states that will act as nationbuilding tar pits. Afghanistan? Fucked. Kosovo? Shouldn't have gotten involved, it was another "stick-it-to-the-Slavs" exercise which should have died out when Yeltsin came in. Iraq? I think we all know how big a mistake that was by now. Libya? Sure Qaddafi was a dick, but a bit of pragmatism in our foreign policy would have been in order there in view of what has happened. That one at least I am willing to wait out a bit before passing judgement, but my crystal ball has Tripolitania and Cyrenaica (at least) making a comeback...
What you want is a basically sound country with a bad government; that's a simple fix. Note however that "simple" and "easy" are not the same word; if it was easy the people would do it them selves. My example for this is Zimbabwe, albeit fixing it would require some old-school colonial-style administration while you build them a functioning government. South Sudan is another possibility, but the grand prize is Iran.
You may have noted that whenever I mention attacking Iran, it's always the Revolutionary Guard and other bulwarks of the Islamic regime, not the country itself. We can get on just fine if we clear the decks for them to have a more reasonable crew in charge of the place. There would be nary a boot on the ground, save some operators making contact with the opposition, certainly no "ground troops".
This is how I would do things, but I don't set policy for anyone. What I can say is that whatever I did I would assume that my kids would be dealing with it after I'm gone, and pick my battles accordingly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)