okay Sunny, you're not an oik but you're still a sociopath

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Correction 08-02-12: Corrected "pedagogy" to "demagogy" in 1st para. Idiot. 

When I read this reply from Sunny to my earlier crowing I had a moment of genuine contrition because he's done some really good work at Liberal Conspiracy building a forum for thinking people and there's some really great stuff posted there. Then I re-read Martin Robbins' original tweet and I thought, "No, fuck it. Martin's about as right as anyone can be." You see, Sunny is happy to purse the truth and to share it with the world as long as it furthers his agenda to put the Labour party back in power. Sunny's a Labour fanboi. He sucks on the teat of social democrat demagogy like a parched camel after two months in the desert. Its his oxygen. And that's why he, like all partisan hacks, is a part of the problem. He's fundamentally disinterested in the entirety of the gritty truth behind any issue. 

Lets dig a little deeper into the issue. Martin's tweet was responding to this one of Sunny's:

@sunny_hundal: First NHS hospital gets privatised - article avoids mentioning company's links to Tories bit.ly/w3OLuL

And yes, the article avoids mentioning the link to Tories' pockets, which have been well established and are broadly appreciated by anyone who has the time and wants to take an interest. That isn't news. We all know the Tories are the Nasty Party, in bed with big business and happy to use their positions of enormous responsibility to throw the interests of the UK population on the bonfire in order to profit personally. I'm happy to read about this sort of thing, despite being already too familiar with it because every time I read something like this it fuels the fire inside me. It drives me to seek justice and to challenge the pricks responsible wherever I find them. The thing is, I'm equally happy to crow about Martin's post because Labour did a hell of a lot to advance NHS privatisation before the Tory's picked up the baton and ran with it. I can't be arsed to research links to it now, my name's not Google. Start with PFI and George Monbiot's book 'Captive State'.

For a Labour slut like Sunny to point and shout at the Tories for doing the same is rank, steaming hypocrisy. That is the opposite of evidence-based politics and it should be scorned for the malignant sociopathy it enables and propagates. Worse still, its the sort of shameless, history-denying points-scoring crap that keeps the endless two-party system in the UK going. Coalition government? What coalition government? All I see are a pack of Tory cunts and neoliberal, populist slags. Split these scum however you want because I don't see a choice between the lesser of two evils as any choice at all. A plague on BOTH your houses.  

And an especially rich, florid 'Fuck You' to you, Sunny.

on the use of the term "technocrat" as an epithet

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I've seen this many times from people I respect and admire (eg)and I want to complain about it to the internets. This is where I do stuff like that so if you don't like it fuck off. 

Lets see what the word means:

"Technocracy is a form of government where technical experts are in control of decision making in their respective fields."

- Wikipedia

Hmmmmm, those nefarious technical experts, hey? I bet they mean those evil people like medical doctors, engineers, scientists and other degenerate sociopaths. Because they're great examples of 'technical experts' who exert broad control of decision making in their respective areas of policy. Right?

I hope you've noticed my sarcastic tone. 

The problem is that people who generally deploy the term as a pejorative do so in reference to the kinds of people who claim to be technical experts in their field. I'm talking about political researchers, sociologists, economists and other pseudoscientists whose work is about as scientifically robust as Sarah Palin and often just as ideologically driven. These people are not technocrats. They're cunts.

The concept of a technocracy is entirely acceptable to most rational people in the context of the fields I have mentioned. You wouldn't want Gillian McKeith in charge of nutritional health at the British Medical Association or Lord Monckton in charge of energy policy, would you? You'd much rather that those roles were carried out by people oozing with demonstrable technical expertise and insight into the subject.

So, people of the internets, when you next wish to disparage the crimes against reason and science being committed by some insane, dribbling ideologue in Westminster or The Beehive, please don't demean the work of yours truly (yes, I count myself as a technocrat) by calling them by that otherwise eminent and respectable term. 

a note on language

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I get really annoyed by having to frequently use different terminology to describe the same phenomenon. If you follow my ravings for more than a day or two you'll notice that I often throw around terms like plutocracy, corporatocracy, pseudo-democracy, etc. etc. When I use these terms I'm very aware that they suggest an inconsistency in my analysis and I just wanted to throw this post out to explain why I do so. The reason is to identify the precise dysfunction underlying whatever subject I'm ranting about at the time. I think its useful to put these terms out there so that people can think about them and, if they wish, to explore further what they mean. As far as consistency goes the precise term is somewhat irrelevant. The depth of  the dysfunction that afflicts modern Western society is sufficient to contain a plethora of malignancies that are exhibited in different ways, be it Liam Fox's use of parliamentary office space to accomodate the operation of the sham 'charity' and arch-neocon lobby group Atlantic Bridge or the transparent attempts by the coalition government to push privatisation against public opinion and any conceivable national interest. Each term is appropriate to the specific phenomena to which I apply them but they all imply some sort of fundamental dysfunction. You can use a specific term to accurately describe the sociopathy that is being exhibited or you can use a generic term for the entire phenomenon.

As an aside, "sociopathy" is another favourite of mine. I use it as an umbrella-term for the entire, sordid, shit-storm of dysfunction that is endemic throughout modern Western society.  Wikipedia fails to provide a relevant definition, providing only psycho-babble that equates the term with psychopathy. According to the word's etymological roots, however, "sociopathy" is a pathology of society. I.E. It is some intrinsic aspect of society that is diseased. The intrinsic component of this definition is important because it is far too easy to subconsciously externalise behaviour and actions which are sociopathic. To categorise them as being alien to society, something new and different which isn't part of 'our society'. However, pretty much every sociopathy is not at all new but merely a development of some earlier human dysfunction that modernity has provided with a new way to manifest itself. Its really easy to draw historical parallels between serdom and modern wage-slavery, for example. Other examples are even more obvious: the resort to nationalism and jingo to exhort citizens to accept and embrace their own oppression is a beautiful one and a fundamental component of Tory ideology. The common theme running through all of these sociopathies is that they are human failings. They arise from humanity collectively misplacing trust or being insufficiently focused upon (sometimes purposefully distracted from) the workings of its own society to perceive the dysfunction lurking there. 

The problem with all these big words and my precise definitions is that they might alienate your average reader. Basically, they're radical jargon. The purpose of this post is to admit this and to confess to the crime of using jargon. It is a crime against communication and if there's one thing that radicals need it is to be understood. However, is it necessary to use such particular terminology in order to convince people of the truth of your arguments? Its entirely possible that such terminology might alienate people who are looking for a simple 'hit' of insight, such as Twitter might provide. Insight isn't necessarily compactable into 140 chrs but precise use of language is one way of facilitating it. Sometimes its not only helpful but essential to be precise in your use of terminology.

plutocracy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Plutocracy is rule by the wealthy, or power provided by wealth.

The US and the UK, being fundamentally similar in their social- and power-structures are both plutocracies, as revealed here.

trollgasm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm trolling this guy's post on the alleged absence of lefty alternatives to neoliberalism. I'm really quite proud of my work.

I rule.

LOLgasm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This Venn diagram is pretty much the most concise summation of the challenges faced by Western society that I've yet encountered:

from the horse's mouth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is the most blatant exhibition of corporate sociopathy I have ever seen.

I have transcribed the words of the participants so as to really hammer home the message to anyone who might develop temporary deafness when confronted by the brutal truth of this man's words.

Trader: [The euro?] is gonna crash and its gonna fall pretty hard. Because markets are ruled right now by fear. Investors, the big money, the smart money. I'm talking about the big funds, the hedge funds, the institutions. They don't buy this plan. They basically know the market is toast. They know the stock market is finished. The euro, as far as they're concerned, is finished. They're moving their money away to safer assets, like treasury bonds, 30 yr bonds and the US dollar. So its not going to work.

Presenter: We keep hearing that whatever the politicians are suggesting, and admittedly its all been rather woolly so far, isn't right. Can you pin down exactly what would keep investors happy and make them feel more confident.

Trader: That's a tough one. Personally, it doesn't matter. You see I'm a trader. I don’t really care about that kind of stuff. If I see an opportunity to make money, I go with that. So, for most traders its not about...we don't really care that much how they're going to fix the economy, how they're going to fix the whole situation. Our job is to make money from it. And, personally, I've been dreaming of this moment for 3 yrs. I have a confession, which is: I go to bed every night, I dream of another recession. I dream of another moment like this. Why? Because, people don’t seem to maybe remember, the 30s depression, the depression in the 1930s wasn't just about a market crash. There were some people who were prepared to make money from that crash. And I think anybody can do that. It isn't just for some people in the elite. Anybody can actually make money . . . its an opportunity. When the market crashes… When the euro and the big stock markets crash, if you know what to do, if you have the right plan set up, you can make a lot of money from this. For example, Hedging strategies is one, then investing in bonds, treasury bonds, that sort of stuff.

Presenter: If you could see the people around me, people's jaws have collectively dropped at what you've just said. We appreciate your candour but it doesn't help the rest of us. or the rest of the eurozone.

Trader: I would say this. Listen. I would say this to everyone who's watching this: This economic crisis is like a cancer. If you just wait and wait, thinking this is going to go away, just like a cancer its going to grow and its gonna be too late. What I would to say to everybody is: Get prepared. Its not the time right now to . . wishful thinking, that the government is gonna sort things out. The government doesn't rule the world. Goldman Sachs rules the world. Goldman Sachs does not care about this rescue package, neither does the big funds. So, actually ... I would actually tell people, I want to help people. People can make money from this, its not just traders. What they need to do is learn how to make money from a downward market. The first thing people should do is to protect their assets. Protect what they have, because in less than 12 months, my prediction is that millions of people's savings are going to vanish. And this is just the beginning. So, I would say: be prepared and act now. The biggest risk people can take right now is not acting.

This is it, people. If you ever had any doubts about whether the people and institutions this appalling character refers to are actually benign wealth-creators or unabashed, sociopathic parasites, there's your answer. They. Don't. Care. About. Us.

Its time they were stopped: Nationalise the banks. Move to quash speculation. Close the tax loopholes.



Addition:

Looks like John B is right in the comments. This guy isn't a trader. He's not even authorised by the FSA. In his own words, he's "an attention seeker". 

I saw someone on Twitter musing whether he was, in fact, a member of activist group The Yes Men. At the time I thought, 'nah'. In fact, he is a hoaxer, just not a very good one. Which is a real shame. The reason I got so excited about this video was that its rare for the public facade of financiers to crack, for them to admit to the fundamentally sociopathic nature of what they do. This lie is so robustly defended by the media and the government that it is currently pervasive. Most of the population aren't aware that one of the biggest industries in this country is fundamentally hostile to the state and to the 'poor' (meaning anyone on less than £200,000). General dissatisfaction with "bankers" resulting from the fuckyounomic implosion threatened to bring this truth to light but, despite the valient efforts of activists and campaigning journalists, it remains obscured by a general air of approval emanating from the media and the government that is all it takes these days to conceal enormous crimes. I'm talking the astonishing public herd mentality that "if no-one's acting against it, it must be fine". For example, read the business page of any newspaper and marvel at the absence of critical, joined-up thinking.

NB: Please don't refer to the Vicker's Report as if it is evidence of the government "doing something", its a pathetic fig-leaf-gesture to reform. 

on being a scientist

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is absolutely my favourite quote from The Guide:

"I'm a scientist and I know what constitutes proof. But the reason I call myself by my childhood name is to remind myself that a scientist must also be absolutely like a child. If he sees a thing, he must say that he sees it, whether it was what he though he was going to see or not. See first, think later, then test. But always see first. Otherwise you will only see what you were expecting. Most scientists forget that. ... So the other reason I call myself Wonko The Sane is so that people will think I'm a fool. That allows me to say what I see when I see it. You can't possibly be a scientist if you mind people thinking you're a fool."

-- Wonko The Sane

malware, what malware?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One of the feeds in my blogroll appears to have been a source of malware, according to Google. Apologies to anyone getting scary messages or who has actually suffered from this phenomenon. Do let me know of anything untoward as I am in touch with admin at the alleged offending site. Send your electronic mail to punkscience at gmail, innit.

Wird.


Addition: I should, of course, have stated explicitly that I have removed the offending site from my blogroll & requested a review from Google.

hard lessons in a global society

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One of the most obvious results of US exceptionalism and unilateralism has been the collapse of global cooperation as forums such as the UN are no longer seen to represent the weaker, developing countries but to be vehicles for legitamising US policy. The consequences of this permeate far and wide throughout global society and one of the saddest aspects of this is described in this article by MJ Robbins, who blogs for the Guardian as The Lay Scientist. 

The following paragraph struck me as highly pertinent in the wake of my recent post on human sustainable development and my point in the comments that cultural influences that promote fecundity as a desirable trait are, alongside US exceptionalism, one of the most malignantly sociopathic influences upon our species. 

"In a male-dominated culture with a strong tradition of polygamy (in the Islamic north at least), where children are seen as gifts from God, the power of men is measured by the size of their families, and different political, ethnic and religious groups compete to be the most populous, fertility is an especially sensitive issue."

Whilst America continues upon its historical course of imperial conquest, subjugation and exploitation there is little hope that genuinely benevolent campaigning organisations can make much impact in their attempts to confront and reform such appallingly destructive and regressive cultures. Oh, and they're not going to make much progress in Nigeria either. LOL

happiness

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You may not believe this but I have a particularly pessimistic, misanthropic view of human civilisation. I'm an avowed technophile, however, and if there's one aspect of humanity that is certain to bring a smile to my face its awesome gadgets being used awesomely. So here's a couple of examples that I've just discovered on a blog called genomicon. Its a pretty cool place if you're into tech and gadgets. 

cosmetic changes

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, its a colour change. In a move that reeks of desperate work-avoidance behaviour I am embracing meaningless, superficial changes to try and make my blog feel more lively. Has it worked?

the crisis of capitalism via RSA Animate

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

snigger

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Via Chris Coltrane.

I wonder if Rupert Read also supports the murder of democracy protesters?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Seeing as Rupert was so keen on the absurd concept of Western "humanitarian intervention" in Libya I wonder if he is also a strident supporter of the brutalisation and murder of pro-democracy protesters. That was the bargaining chip given up by Hillary Clinton in return for the Arab League's blessing of the Libya escapade. 

brief Fisk on Tory Lord electoral propaganda

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My target is this Torygraph article on Lords reform containing the following para:

"One senior Conservative source in the Lords said of the draft [Lords reform] Bill: “This is fantasy land. It’s a joke. How can you have PR for the country rejected in the AV referendum and then bring in PR for the Lords. The whole thing is utterly ridiculous.”"

Firstly, PR wasn't even an option in the AV referendum. This is certainly one of the reasons why the Yes vote was so low.

Secondly, the referendum vote wasn't a democratic rejection of anything.

The only thing that's ridiculous here is UK "democracy".

fucking pinko-commie-cyclislamofascists! *

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'd love to hear what a yank thinks of this:



I know its very flat in Holland, making cycling long distances much more practical than in hilly places like where I've lived (Plymouth, Auckland), but surely a little creative city planning won't find that a challenge.

I bought a bike the other day, BTW. Off the NZ equivalent of fleabay. It was a 10 year old racer that I paid $145 for. I've put commuter tyres on it (700x28) & have bought mountain bike handle bars to swap for the 'racer' ones that I dislike. My nephew also found out about this uber-awesome 2nd-hand bike shop on Symonds St which has a basement full of rebuilt and revamped bikes, as well as filing cabinets full of pre-loved parts that I rifled through to find a pair of matching brake levers which I subsequently paid the princely sum of $2 for! TEH AWESOME!

I'll post a picture when I can be arsed.

* Respect to General J. C. Christian for inspiring the title

no, actually that's what stupidity looks like

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Watching the ongoing campaign by UK Uncut against the various shades of cad, tosser and bastard on the high street is particularly warming. However, the joy I derive from the spectacle of Barclays branches being occupied is diminished somewhat by the underlying feeling of A Seriously Missed Point. Why are people targeting banks, which no one can reasonably resent attempting to maximise profits within the existing legislative framework, instead of politicians? Its politicians who create legislation regulating how much tax banks and other businesses pay. Its politicians who decide whether to gut the HMRC of its valuable staff, leaving the playing field even more insanely one-sided for the megacorps and their legions of top-flight accounting staff that run rings around the underresourced and undermotivated HMRC staffers.

The same phenomenon of misguidance is equally evident on the other side of the Atlantic where impassioned articles such as this one are becoming increasingly common (see where the title of my post comes from?). In contrast to such myopathy, the legendary Matt Taibbi does an awesome job of revealing the utter moral bankruptcy and mendacious sociopathy of the big finance houses but he has also done a fantastic job drawing attention to the hollow institutions of government whose job it should be to police such corporations. If the government won't govern then there's little point trying to get corporations to listen to their social consciences as they don't have one. At all. Corporations exist to maximise shareholder value and their directors are restricted by law to acting solely in that interest. Calls to action against corporations and businesses will achieve little. If you want to change how much tax corporations pay you need to lobby the government. UK Uncut obviously does this as well as targeting businesses and there is a credible argument to be made that engaging in direct action against tax avoiders grabs media attention and "gets the message out". It can also be argued that it confuses the message by suggesting that corporations act  immorally by engaging in tax avoidance measures when they are simply staying afloat in the race-to the-bottom that is neoliberal capitalism.

The problem is that many lobby groups already do target politicians. Its damning of UK society that the commentariat of the 4th estate has to argue the case for more tax officials. See Richard Murphy, George and Johann for more info. And that is my point: As with most issues, this one boils down to a fundamentally unrepresentative, unaccountable and undemocratic government. Its pretty clear that the UK public don't want Vodafone to get away with their epically cunty tax avoidance scheme but the UK's political elite disagree and there's no way for the public to force them to act.

What comes first: A just tax policy or an accountable and representative government? I'm pretty certain that you won't get the former without first establishing the latter and so I'm afraid that, without widening their goals to include the establishment of an representative and accountable government, the current protest movement is doomed to failure.

this right here

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Read this blog post and marvel at the middle section where your girl takes apart the business section for its astonishingly blind pursuit of the growth fetish.

Robert Newman's History of Oil

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Have you seen this? Watch it- its really, really good!

the limits to personal wealth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I just posted this on Twatter:

What's the most wealth any individual should be allowed to accumulate? I can't imagine any ethical purpose for more than ~$50 million.

I really can't. I consider the relentless accumulation of wealth by the mega-rich to be inherently sociopathic. Its inhuman. I mean, where's the humanity in accumulating bigger yachts, more houses and flash cars- not to mention considerably more power? Its inherently undemocratic because of the power obscene wealth can buy. Its unequal for obvious reasons. Its antisocial because the abuse of power inevitably harms broader society. 

Lets not fuck around here. If you, dear reader, or I had $50 mil in the bank then we'd certainly be enjoying the good life but would we just jack in the day job and sit on our arses growing fat and doing too many drugs? I would have no aspirations to invest that money offshore with the intention of doubling it in a couple of years. My personal conviction is that speculation itself is fundamentally sociopathic. Wealth should be earned, not effortlessly harvested. We all have a responsibility to earn a living by contributing productively  to society. Living off interest earned on a fortune, whether that fortune itself was earned, inherited or won on the lottery, is personal stagnation and should be viewed with contempt. It lessens

However, personal development can only be so rewarding and so I have argued myself in a circle because I suddenly find myself subconsciously empathising with those who feel they have a contribution to make to society; an course of action open to them to change things for the better. The problem, of course is that people are notoriously fickle, not to say delusional! I would happily rule the world, laying waste to inequality and injustice and labouring tirelessly to construct an earthly utopia but I imagine the Daily Mail readership, finding themselves living in such a world, would find it repugnant for its absence of petty malice and prejudice and would join together into some sort of vitriolic resistance movement to overthrow my enlightened rule and reestablish the cancer-curing plutocracy.

This post started out with such a grand vision but, as with so many of mine, has deteriorated into introspection, navel gazing and tail-chasing. So, if you ignore the last couple of paragraphs, do you agree with my initial proposal and if not, why not?

Word.

Rule Britannia - Teenage Riot

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dan Hind is super-awesome, calls for Direct Democracy in media content generation

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Apologies for the extended absence. I have been securing employment, surfing and spearfishing. Hard life, innit. 

I've come across Dan Hind a couple of times before but his opinion article for Al Jazeera contains a familiar concept for regular followers of punkscience. The odd thing is that someone so clearly switched-on and perceptive as Hind can propose the application of such a concept in such a limited fashion. Direct democracy, if you're not familiar with the term, is the idea that all legislative decisions should be open to participation by the entire electorate, instead of solely by representatives elected by some semi-representative process. Sci-fi fans might be familiar with the Demarchist society of the Yellowstone Glitter Band created by Alistair Reynolds in his Revelation Space Novels, where citizens carry implants which convey their personal positions on all matters automatically to a central processing system which arranges policies accordingly (it should be pointed out that demarchy, or democratic anarchy, differs conceptually from direct democracy and the demarchist label is misapplied by Reynolds).

Back to Dan Hind, I say its "odd" that he fails to perceive the relevance of direct democracy beyond mere agenda setting for the media, but that's just another example of how institutional thinking blinds people to the wider implications of their thinking. A problem that is endemic throughout our society. Hind even alludes to the importance of DD for broader society himself:

"Given the constitutional significance of the media - the fact that democracy itself depends on adequate information – we need nothing short of a constitutional change in the way we gather and disseminate that information."

So, we need a change in the way information is gathered and disseminated, but not in the profoundly undemocratic system in which it is applied in the UK and other countries? See? odd. Its like the self-censorship that Hind criticises is manifested in his own thinking. I, of course, being something of an arrogant bastard, am quite happy to let my words trample across other people's intellectual turf.

has anyone ever done cost/benefit analysis on whether changing government policy is worthwhile?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 Sorry, just a hurried post (and, re-reading it, a dull one) as I'm dog tired. I just had this thought whilst halfway through Toynbee's latest effort. She writes:

The Salmon centre has just lost 80% of its funding from its 48 streams as state funds for the young dry up. Half its staff have gone, losing irreplaceable experience built up over years.

 That irreplaceable experience. Does it ever get accounted for in planning the effects of cuts? Furthermore, does anyone ever account for the time lost to adapting and acclimating to a new legislative system when they plan these hatched jobs or clean sweeps or new guidelines? I don't think they do. Punkmum was a primary school teacher, retired a few years back. She used to dread general elections because the new lot would inevitably "reform" the education system- both were awful at it. As a result, half her career was spent familiarising herself with some new legislative environment, instead of refining her performance under a single one. 

The same goes for hiring and firing people. In the science career path you are always seeing PhDs and postdocs come and go. The technical staff are broadly stable, unless your university enacts one of those sporadic orgies of destruction and contraction that have characterised the last decade. As a result I am very appreciative of the enormous value of the knowledge and expertise a single, experienced human being can carry around with them. When a good researcher moves on your lab suddenly has a hole in it where things don't get done and problems that used to be easily resolved suddenly become monstrous challenges. Furthermore, collaborations which once might have added novelty and power to an experiment- and yet were frequently easily achievable due to the experience of the collaborator- are no longer available or, again, become inordinately challenging to achieve. In contrast, when new staff appear they take time to acclimate to the bureaucratic environment and to establish themselves to the point when their expertise becomes available. This is more than a casual reference to Adam Smith and the division of labour. As an aside I also want to comment that, due to the overly competitive and highly results-driven research environment that has been cultivated in the UK in the last ten or fifteen years there are consdierable obstacles to young researchers engaging in any significant collaborations outside of their core experiments.

So I am very understanding when Toynbee writes about the loss of experienced staff and how an institution  ca be crippled by the loss of a few, key staff (or pretty much all of them, in her case). This is not an anti-reformist post, as with most of my posts I'm calling for decisions to be made rationally and transparently upon the best evidence possible. And that includes costing the relative benefits of any legislative changes against intangible losses such as expertise as well as more tangible ones such as the time taken to train and familiarise new staff or for established staff to adopt new procedures.

Yawn. 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

on democratic participation and work hours

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How many times have you heard people say, when confronted with a political position, something along the lines of "oh I don't have time to follow politics"? We must all have heard some similar excuse and I, like many of you, have often put this down to willful ignorance, laziness or some other dysfunction. On reflection, however, I appreciate that politics is fiendishly complicated, not least because of the inordinate amount of proganda and misinformation propagated by the media. The situation is made worse in countries such as the UK, that have unreformed and near-mediaeval constitutional arrangements.

I will happily spend several hours a day reading links from twitter and other sources to keep up to date on developments that personally interest me. Although I consider myself well-educated I still can't offer any truly informed opinion on issues such as health and safety policy, social care, the health service and other issues that I'm just not that excited about. And so I'd like to contrast my position with what must be a significant minority of the electorate of the UK who don't possess the means to access virtually any reasonably objective sources of information about our democracy. These people still spend a considerable fraction of their waking hours at work or occupied in some other useful activity such as caregiving.

Citizens not having time in their lives to acquire sufficient knowledge to engage in constructive politics is a glaring symptom that our economic culture is depriving people of the opportunity to participate in our democracy. For our democracy to function these people need the personal time to allocate to such activity, the information technology to access them and the langauge and comprehension skills to understand them. 

To emphasise this point, let me present a contrasting example of the electorate to my first one. Instead of Mrs Caregiver, lets look at Mr Accountant. Mr Accountant works 70 hour weeks for a big firm in the city. In this capacity he might well be an expert in accountancy law and policies affecting it but he lacks any broader understanding of politics. He has no incentive to gain one, either, because his six figure income allows him to afford a lifestyle remote from the majority and unaffected by such piddling social issues as unemployment, healthcare, environmental or foreign policy. This man has no greater incentive to engage in enlightened politics than Mrs Caregiver.