smhwpf: (Default)
It is fucking scary.

Nazis, Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, gathering in large numbers, armed, chanting "blood and soil" and "Jews will not replace us", violently attacking and even murdering those who protest them.

And a President in the Whitehouse who clearly demonstrates his sympathy with them, praising the defence of monuments to those who fought to preserve slavery, and calling those who protest Fascism as bad as fascists.

While running an Administration with a clear agenda of keeping out immigrants, denying black people the vote, abandoning all efforts for promoting civil rights, and stepping up mass incarceration.

I have white privilege. I do not face the systemic oppression that people of colour face, and which the political establishment maintains and promotes, or at best takes half-hearted measures to moderate.

But I am also Jewish. Or, at least, Jewish. Christian by religion, not actively part of a Jewish community. But I, and members of my family, are very clearly on the target list of the tiki-torch wielders at Charlottesville, if not of the more respectable racists in Congress. So yes, this is not an abstract or distant issue for me.

This by way of prelude.

That Nazis, white supremacists, and their enablers in the halls of power need to be vigorously opposed is not something in question among my friends and progressive people generally. How to do so is a matter of legitimate discussion.

Should you punch the Nazi? Under what circumstances? Should protest against them be kept purely non-violent? Does using violence in return to their violence make things better or worse? I don't think the answers to these questions are as obvious for those with a modicum of human decency and political awareness as the question of whether they should be condemned and opposed.

For a Christian, Jesus's teaching and action are also a central consideration. "Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be true children of your Father in Heaven, who makes the sun to shine on the righteous and the unrighteous, and the rain to fall on good and evil alike". Or, in secular terms, there is a human being inside every Fascist, with the possibility for change, for love, for a different path to the one they're on.

That's not simply a matter of sentimental wooliness, it's a fact. Daryl Davis, the black musician who befriends KKK members, and has got 200 of them to leave the hate group, for example. Then, lately, I read a Sojourners article, Confessions of a former white supremacist, anout the group Life After Hate. There's an anecdote about one of the people in it, when he was still a Nazi, being served at McDonalds by an African-American woman, who saw the swastika tattoo on his hand, looked at him, and said "Oh. honey, you're so much better than that". And it didn't make him turn around and repent on the spot, but "That seed germinated for years until the man left white nationalism and dedicated himself to helping others leave".

[Geeking out], it sort of reminds me of when Dream of the Endless says to Hob Gadling at one of their Centennial meetings, when the latter has become a slave trader, "It is a poor thing to enslave another". That's all. And several books later we find these few sparse words likewise gnawed at Hob's soul until he stopped. [/geekery]

So yes, I believe that we should never forget the humanity even of the worst people, those who most hate us.

That does not, however, answer the question of what to do about hundreds of armed, torch-bearing Nazis gatheing in a city to march, spew hatred, intimidate, and commit acts of violence.

The first option I would rule out is "Just ignore them, they're a tiny insignificant bunch of losers who are no real threat. Just don't give them th attention".

Tell that to an African American, a Jew, an LGBT person, or a lot of straight white folks for that matter, in a town like Charlottesville where they come to play. From the articles I've read, they were an intimidating presence well before the actual day of the rally. At the rally, they surrounded a synagogue and an African American church. The synagogue was prevented from holding their Sabbath service, and went to the step of hiding away their Torah scrolls. (The police did nothing).

As for the oldest white supremacist group in the US, the KKK, they were orchestrating lynchings within living memory, with complete impunity. When Fascists gather in large numbers, they are a very serious threat.

I do not think it at all likely that explicit white supremacist groups, of the type that paraded in Charlottesville, will take over the government. I don't think we'll see a President Richard Spencer. But when we already have a government that is pushing hard against every gain people of colour have made over the past 60 years, and one of the two major US parties moving further and further to the right, embracing voter suppression and vicious misogyny and homophobia in the name of Christian Fundamentalism, these most extreme groups could play a significant role as the 'tip of the spear' of an increasingly authoritarian polity - in addition to the violence and terror they can spread at a local level.

And, well, I don't think it at all likely that actual Nazis will take political power, but the original Nazis started pretty small too. Unlikely is not the same as impossible. I'm not keen to take the risk.

So I think that left unopposed, far right groups would become more and more emboldened, dangerous, and probably bigger. They need to be confronted, in the streets, opposed and if possible shut down wherever they go, denied the possibility of becoming a more serious threat.

The police have shown, time and again, that they will not be the people to do this. Most police officers are not affiliated with the far right themselves, but they are a reactionary institution, a highly racist institution, and tend to see the left, not the right, as the ones that need to be kept down. Black Lives Matter, the Standing Rock Water Protectors, striking workers, etc., these all regularly find themselves on the wrong end of batons, tasers, tear gas and worse. Fascists far less often.

It is not primarily about beating Nazis up (satisfying as it may be when that happens), it is not about doing them injury, it is primarily about getting sufficient numbers in the streets to block their path, drown them out, make it clear that they are not welcome and will not be allowed to spread their evil, and basically get them skulking off home with their tails between their legs.

The British experience suggests that shutting Fascist groups down on the streets before they can get too big can be effective. The Battle of Cable Street in 1936, when Oswald Moseley's British Union of Fascists, aided by the police, were prevented from marching through the East End of London with its large Jewish community, by a large crowd of Jews, Communists and Socialists, and local workers, is widely seen as having been one of the factors in stemming the tide of Fascism in Britain. A generation later, when the rapidly-growing National Front tried to march through Lewisham in South London, they were likewise stopped and beaten off by left-wing counter protestors, their own internal literature shows they saw it as a defeat that harmed their momentum.

This is a small sample, and moreover there were a lot of other factors at work, and the exact role of these events in the political outcomes is of course highly debatable. I don't know in the end what is going to be most effective in stopping these groups, and nor does anyone else, for certain. But my best guess is that putting up a large and powerful street opposition to them will probably help, and that letting them rally and march unimpeded is dangerous.

If that can be done without violence, great. But, and here's the but, Nazis and their allies are not non-violent. They showed that very, very clearly in Charlottesville, as often before. They will, they do, they did, use violence, sometimes lethal violence, against those who stand in their way. So if you are going to protest against Nazis in the streets, then either you need to be willing to get beaten to a pulp, or you need to be willing to engage in self-defence, or allow those more prepared and capable to defend themselves and you.

Parts of the Civil Rights movement, led by MLK and others, did take the approach of allowing themselves to be subjected to police violence without fighting back, and it was arguably very effective at changing public opinion in favour of their cause and forcing political action. This was not the only aspect of the movement though, and I think that the Malcolm X wing, the Black Panthers, and so on, were also part of what brought about change. Who knows for sure what the balance was. But this is a rather differnent case. Bad as the police are, even less restraint can be expected from a white supremacist mob. Fighting back against a heavily armed police force in a pitched battle is generally going to be a pretty clearly losing option. Nazis can be outnumbered and beaten. This is not so much about changing public opinion in favour of equal rights, public opinion is already against the Nazis, it's about stopping an incipient movement from growing and spreading.

Besides, I don't think you're going to get too many takers for "Let's go and get our heads kicked in by Nazis".

At Charlottesville, those practicing pure non-violence and those willing to engage in self-defence found themselves in sometimes uneasy alliance; a group of clergy, of several faiths, along with Professor Cornel West and others, were among the former, linking arms, singing, putting their bodies in front of the Nazis, incredibly bravely, and willing ultimately to face the consequences. But at one critical moment when they were about to come under very serious attack, they were protected by a group of AntiFa.

West said, "The anti-fascists, and then, crucial, the anarchists, because they saved our lives, actually. We would have been completely crushed, and I’ll never forget that. Meaning what? Meaning that you had the police holding back, on the one hand, so we couldn’t even get arrested. We were there to get arrested. We couldn’t get arrested, because the police had pulled back"

I would never, never belittle what those clergy did, or say it was worthless. I've been involved in non-violent direct action in the face of state violence. But I would certainly, like West and the others, be very glad of the AntiFa stepping in. Is that hyporcytical, to engage in active non-violence, but be willing to have others use violence to protect you? I don't know. Maybe it is. I don't actually care if it is a bit, if it can bring about positive effects. Different roles, different gifts. Not everyone is physically cut out for serious fisticuffs, whatever their ideological approach, but as I say, sheer numbers are most important (so I'm told by one who knows this stuff, anyway, and I'm inclined to believe it).

If you do have the numbers, the likelihood is that you will never have to worry about when and whether to use violence in self-defence, because when far right groups are heavily outnumbered, the police will generally form a very solid cordon around them. (Like I say, much more willing to protect the Nazis than their opponents). The Fascists will not be able to go anywherem they will be restricted to making their speeches and chanting their slogans in their little cordon, hopefully drowned out with plenty of whistles and vuvuzelas and shouting from the other side. Some of the more militant AntiFa might try to break through police lines to get at them, but those who do not wish to do so can remain with the rest of the crowd, making a joyful noise. (This is pretty much how it went down at one anti-Fascist counter protests I went to in Stockholm, although the cops kept the sides so far apart that we couldn't really drown them out.)

From everything I can gather, overwhelmingly the violence in Charlottesville was from the Nazis, and that used by the counter protesters was mostly a matter of self defence. Is going beyond that, actively seeking to attack far right gatherings, justified? Is it effective? I don't know, and I don't know. I would be unlikely to engage in it myself. Getting a bit old, and not in sufficient physical shape, apart from anything else. I'm not going to condemn those who do.

This is not all a matter of theory for me. There's a far-right 'Free Speech' rally in Boston on Saturday, I'm going on the counter-protest. It looks like there will be good numbers. 10,000 have clicked "Going", so hopefully we will be in the thousands at least, whcih will be way more than the Peach Freezers. I will be with a group of people I know. I will be prepared. I will not do anything stupid. I do not intend to be in the front lines. There's a Q&A on the Facebook page for the counter protest. One of the questions is "Are the organizers committed to non-violence?", to which the answer given is "The organizers of this event are committed to community safety, survival, and protecting marginalized communities." I am on board with this.

Where did we leave things with loving your enemies and so forth? I do believe in this. I think it is pretty crictial to calling oneself a Christian. (Though a whole lot of Christians seem to have missed that memo). it is important not to lose sight of your enemy's humanity. I do believe that hatred, even when most understandable (and sometimes emotionally unavoidable), is corrosive at an individual and a collective level. (Though the hatred of the victim for the abuser and oppressor should never be put on the same moral plane as the abuse and oppression itself).

Love of enemies is not about entertaining warm fuzzy feelings for Nazis, it is about remembering that they are also a child of God, on whom the same sun shines and rain falls, and desiring and seeking their ultimate good - part of which of course involves abandoning Nazism. I don't think it means you do not try to stop your enemies from harming you or others, especially when they are gathering in a large group with evil intent.

Incidentally, Daryl Davis's vocation of meeting and talking to Klansmen while black has not always been the safest of pursuits. He says that he's only got into a couple of physical fights as a result though, and won them both.

smhwpf: (Sandman)
Shit, but Handmaid's Tale is scary. One of the most terrifying programs I've seen.

Three episodes in. Not read the book.

Non-spoilery, but CN for slavery, rape.

So you probably know the basic premise, a plague has made the great majority of women infertile, Fundamentalist Christians have taken over the US and established a totalitarian regime, in which fertile women are enslaved as 'handmaids' to elite men and their wives who can't have children, to bear children for them. Based on the passage in Genesis 29, where Jacob has married sibling rivals Leah and Rachel, but while Leah has children, Rachel (initially) can't get pregnant and so tells Jacob to impregnate her handmaid Bilhah, who will bear children on Rachel's behalf.

It is terrifying because it is all too believable. I mean, I don't think a Christian Dominionist takeover of the US is likely, but I don't think it is impossible either; Fundamentalists are a minority, but a large and extremely determined minority, currently allied with a lot of extremely rich and powerful people, having a large if not controlling interest in the main ruling party at the moment, and they are going to be quite happy to play dirty when it's about salvation or damnation.

For them to actually take over and institute a theocracy would require some sort of massive crisis, as is the case in Handmaid's Tale. Plus all sorts of other things going their way. Far from inevitable, but far from imaginable. And it's going to take something waaaay better than the Democratic Party as currently led to stop them if they ever do get sufficiently close to power.

Handmaid's Tale is also terrifying because of how brilliantly it is shot and made. It is mostly from the point of view of Offred, one of the handmaids, and there is a constant sense of fear and oppression; literally the atmosphere is oppressive. The feeling of being completely under other's power.

(Of course there is a racial dimension to the effect this has - it is showing slavery in its full horror (and indeed sexual slavery), but this time the slave is white. Who was it that said that the definition of Dystopian fiction is when the sort of things that happen to people of colour all the time, happen to white people?)

The switching back and forth between the present day, under the theocracy, and Offred's previous life is also very effective, which makes the show even more overtly political.

The other way it's terrifying for me is that it's set in Boston! Offred comes from Brookline! One of the characters mentions having gone to the Fletcher School! (Which is where I work). One of the characters in the flashbacks mentions Davis station being closed! (Which is the station by my office). Gyaaaagh.

50 years

Jun. 12th, 2017 11:22 pm
smhwpf: (Handala)
There's some good anniversaries to celebrate around now. Like, 50 years since the US Supreme Court struck down all state laws forbidding interracial marriage, in the Loving vs. Virginia case. For 50 years, race has not been a factor in who you can legally marry in the US. Aren't we modern? (Britain had and has plenty of racism. It never had a law forbidding interracial marriage). For about 1 year, gender has not been a factor either.

And some not so good ones. Last week was 50 years since the 6-Day War, when Israel conquered the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, and the Syrian Golan Heights, and thus began the Israeli occupation of the remaining Palestinian territories - those that they had not been mostly expelled from in 1948.

So I'm writing this a bit late, but we had a demo in Cambridge marking it today, so it's as good an occasion as any, and hey, what's a week in 50 years?

But when you get to 50 years, calling it an "Occupation" gets a bit silly. Military occupations are supposed to be temporary things. In international law, and in reality. I mean, everything is temporary, but after enough time, an occupation ceases to be merely an occupation, and becomes something else. An empire. A new border. A new country. Like, if a peace process goes on long enough, without actually leading to peace, you need a new name for it. Nothing complimentary comes to mind.

The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories quite quickly stopped being a mere military occupation, when an army of one country temporarily controls another in the aftermath of war: Israel started (illegally, under the Geneva Conventions which Israel signed) moving in civilian settlers in the 1970s, and now there are 800,000 Israeli settlers, including in East Jerusalem, 13% of Israel's population. There are cities. There are industrial zones. There is large-scale agriculture in the Jordan Valley. (Where the Palestinians are denied access to the most fertile land in the region, and the plentiful water resources of the Jordan, and are reduced to a precarious, marginal existence, constantly vulnerable to demolitions and expulsions when the Israelis covet the patches of land on which they temporarily reside). This is way, way, beyond an "Occupation".

What is it then? An annexation? Israel formally annexed East Jerusalem, in a move never recognized by any other country, even the US - though they never gave the Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem citizenship. They are "permanent" residents, but this permanency is a fragile thing that can be easily lst by, say, going away to study or work for too long. In the rest of the West Bank, Israel maintains strategic ambiguity. Israel has no defined borders. So where there are Israeli settlements, that is "Israel". If you want to send a letter to an Israeli settler in Ariel, you address it "Israel". But where there are concentrations of Palestinian population that can't easily be ushered away, that is - well, it's not not Israel, but it's not Israel either. Israel has perfected the art of having its cake and eating it.

Apartheid is an apt name in many ways, but apart from the familiar moans of liberals that you can't possibly use that awful word, because it's reserved for South Africa, andSouth Africa is special, (hint: it isn't: there's a legal definition of the "crime of Apartheid" in international law - look it up) - apart from this, Apartheid is just woefully inadequate to encapsulate the horrific conditions to which Palestinians are subjected.

Of course, there is gross economic discrimination. Israeli settlers in the West Bank get 6 times as much water per person as Palestinians, at a fraction of the price (the water coming from the West Bank aquifer). Then there are the separated road networks, the high quality Jews only express highways. While Palestinians who want to move around their country are subjected to a gauntlet of checkpoints and roadblocks, endless humiliations and risk of arrest or being shot; African Americans in parts of the South especially would recognize some of this, only on steroids. Palestinians cannot leave, or reenter, their country without Israeli permission.

In 'Area C' under the 1994 Oslo accords, the less populated areas where Israel exercizes full civil and security control, Palestinians are essentially never granted planning permission, and thus anything they build can be, and frequently is, knocked down at the whim of the Israeli authorities. Or if not demolished for the lack of permits that are rarer than unicorns, the same result can always be obtained on grounds of "security".

Perhaps most egregious is the "justice" system. Israelis living in the West Bank are subject to the regular Israeli civilian justice system, with lawyers and due process and a presumption of innocence. Palestinians in the West Bank are subject to a military justice system, where they have no such thing. Israeli military courts convict 99.7% of the Palestinian defendants before them. over 400 Palestinians are currently in Administrative Detention, which is detention without charge or trial, where the prisoner has no lawyer and is not allowed to know what they are accused of. Administration is for an initial period of 3-6 months, but can be renewed indefinitely. 800,000 Palestinians have at one time or other been imprisoned by Israel in the past 50 years. At a rough estimate based on demographic statistics, that's somewhere between 20-25% of the entire population of the Palestinian territories aged 15+ that have been alive since 1967. Oh wait, but Israel imprisons children too, so maybe that statistic is misleading.

Palestinians in the West Bank. Have. No. Rights.

What do you call such a set-up? Apartheid is accuate - inhumane acts "...committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them" - but insufficient. It will have to do for now.

As for Gaza, while Israel is still legally the occupying power (and we should not forget it), that has in practice morphed from an occupation to a siege, and a slow-burning humanitarian catastrophe: a UN report a couple of years ago predicted that Gaza will become unliveable by 2020. Water supplies are running short.The sewage system is creaking and cracking. Israel's intent is to choke Gaza while not actually creating a situation where people die in such large numbers that the media notices, but things don't always turn out the way we intend, do they?

The notion of a 2-state solution is dead, if unfortunately not quite buried. The idea that you can shift this huge settler population and all the accompanying industry and infrastructure back across the Green Line, or that Israel would ever agree to it, is absurd. Whatever the legal position, either internationally or in Israel, there is one political entity between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. A just peace in Israel/Palestine now can only mean one thing: equality for all its people, regardless of ethnicity or religion.

Hopelessly idealistic. Yes. But the only option. It's the sort of thing that can never happen, until it does. It will only happen with serious external pressure, combined with effective internal resistance. Both are currently lacking, although internally there are encouraging signs, such as the recent mass hunger strke by Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, which led to significant Israeli concessions (which they will presumably renege on at some point, because that's how Israel generally behaves, but it's something). Externally, the movement for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) is growing, and is seriously scaring the Israelis, enough that they are recruiting armies of internet trolls to oppose it, giving Israelis flying out of the country propoaganda materials on how to counter it, while in North America and parts of Europe, Israel's apologists are doing everything they can to condemn the movement as anti-Semitic, and if possible make it illegal. But as yet, it is not enough to cause serious economic harm to Israel, or cause them to consider coming to the negotiating table.

Some day it may. Diaspora Jews are, slowly or rapidly, falling out of love with Israel, especially the younger generations, as the monstrous nature of the Israeli state becomes ever harder to hide between even the best PR and invocations of the Holocaust. It could take decades, or it could happen incredibly suddenly, when no-one is expecting it.

But battles for equality are never easy, and are never finished. Look at the US, or South Africa. Some in the Palestinian cause seem to decry the very idea of negotiations and messy compromises. They seem to imagine that, with enough Palestinian resistance and external pressure from BDS, the State of Israel in its current form will all at once be swept away by the inevitable laws of historical justice and the moral arc of the universe, or some such, the Knesset will dissolve itself and hand over power to a Revolutionary Committee, and a beautiful new secular, non-racial state with equality for all will be ushered in. (I exaggerate a little, perhaps).

No, it will probably come rather more slowly and messily than that, if it come at all. Dismantling this pervasive network of repression and control is a gigantic task, likewise creating a political settlement in Israel/Palestine that gives not only freedom, democracy and equal rights for all, but confidence for all groups that this state of affairs will persist. Absorbing however many of the 7 million or so Palestinian refugees, those expelled by Israel in the war of 1948 and their descendants, in a peaceful and sustainable way is no small task either, though I do not believe an impossible one. As for reducing and ultimately ending ethnic-based economic inequality and discrimination. Well.

But I do think this is the only long-term solution, what the rest of the world, insofar as it cares about the situation, should work for, rather than perpetuating the fiction of a 2-state solution that lies somewhere at the other end of an ephemeral rainbow called the 'peace process'. I believe there is also a moral debt from the west to the Palestinian people. Another anniversary this year is the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, whereby the British promised to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine, without any thought of consulting the existing population thereof. Britain, and later the US and other leading powers, created and enabled this state of affairs, and still uphold it. So I think we kind of have a responsibility to do something about changing it. Or at the very least, stop actively supporting it.

GE17

Jun. 9th, 2017 03:13 pm
smhwpf: (BuffyAnne)
Well, that was a lot better than expected.

I don't feel that celebratory, as we still have a Tory government, albeit a minority one, propped up by the far-right DUP, with potentially serious negative consequences for political stability in Northern Ireland. (Some good analysis from [personal profile] nwhyte ).

However. It is far better than expected, in line with the most optimistic (from a Labour point of view) polls towards the end of the campaign. The Tories have lost their majority, Theresa May has egg all over her face, and is pretty much a lame duck. The Tory-DUP effective majority will be only 13 or 15 (higher than it would otherwise be, due to Sinn Fein not taking their seats), which will make them vulnerable to defeat on individual issues, and to further whittling of the majority by by-elections. The Tories will probably also have a lot of internal divisions as a result of this, not least because there are likely to be not a few Tory MPs who are distinctly queasy about the deal with the DUP. Like, the 19 openly LGBT Tory MPs.

I think, I hope, they will have to moderate some of their more extreme policies, including o n the ultra-hard Brexit. Theresa May's negotiating in Brussels will be massively weakened, so it will hopefully be much harder for her to plant her feet on the ground and say no to everything. (The DUP, for all their faults, do not want a hard border with the Republic of Ireland).

The best thing is the revival of Labour under Jeremy Corbyn, on the basis of a solid, sensible, but full-throated social democratic platform, with no attempt to pander to soft racism. In spite of all the ferocious media campaign and the highly damaging internal party battle after Brexit - one thing voters consistently do not like is a divided party - Labour achieved the biggest increase in its vote share in a single election since 1945. That Corbyn has inspired large numbers of people, especially young people who actually turned out to vote (I saw a figure of 72% among 18-25 year-olds, don't know if that's a solid figure?). Hopefully, having got the voting bug, they will continue with it.

Blairism, and the strategy of 'triangulation', the endless quest for the fictional 'middle ground' is, maybe not dead, but at least in abeyance for the moment. I do believe that the only way for center-left parties in both Europe and North America to go if they are to reverse their catastrophic decline is to offer something clear and inspiring that is clearly an alternative to both Neoliberalism and anti-immigration nationalism. This is clearly the direction Labour is going in now, and hopefully after this election the party will be united behind it.

Beyond the Labour Party, there is now actually a generally progressive majority in Britain again. Left of center parties (excluding NI), got 52.52% of the vote (excluding Kensington, which hasn't declared but won't change things much), while the Tories + UKIP got 44.3%. (Independents, the main NI parties, and Other got 3.18%). That's an increase of 5.1% for the center-left, and a fall of 5.17% for Tories+UKIP.

There is clearly still a lot for Labour to do to go from this close defeat to an actual win. Paul Mason has some good suggestions, but it is actually possible to be hopeful about the direction of British politics for the first time in, well, my lifetime.

smhwpf: (Sandman)
A post about work

Today World Peace Foundation is making public the first major output from my work here, a Compendium of Arms Trade Corruption (also known as the Dossier of Dodgy Defense Deals), a collection of 18 cases of arms deals with which serious corruption allegations have been associated, and other examples of military corruption not directly related to major arms deals.

It is not new information, but it is collating together the latest available information on each of the cases in one place, and mostly in a standardized form. It is intended as the first installment of a larger project, whereby we hope to make a comprehensive survey of such arms deals, for which we are seeking further funding.

Some of the cases are quite eyeball-popping. Well worth a read, though I do say so myself.

smhwpf: (DeadJohn)
I have finally completed the migration of my pics from LJ to Dreamwidth, replacing all the LJ Scrapbook links in past entries with links to my DW image space.

I have also saved all the LJ icons I want to keep to my computer. If I buy a paid account here some time I might bring some of them back.

I think that is everything. I have now deleted my LJ.

{is sad}
smhwpf: (Sandman)
We had a really powerful, eye-opening, set of testimonies at St. James last Sunday. We are having various guest preachers for the Easter season (though Holly the Rector preached on Easter Day itself), and this week it was a panel from MaeBright, a local company that

"works with state agencies, service-providing non-profits, businesses, schools, and communities that want to evaluate and improve the services they provide to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQ) people."

Faith groups are one of the types of organization they focus on, working with congregations that are trying to do better at being genuinely welcoming and inclusive to LGBTQ people; in our case, specifically trans and genderqueer folks.

There were four speakers, starting with the MaeBright Director, who was mainly there to say a bit about the company, and to introduce the other three on the panel, who are all trans people, and practicing Christians, and who were basically telling their stories and experiences. After the service, and the food and chat time, there was a Q&A session with the panel, for which quite a large proportion of the congregation stayed behind.

The stories were powerful and heart-rending, but it is clear that they are very, very, typical of the bullying, discrimination, violence, abuse, sexual violence and worse that trans people go through on a daily basis. And while it may pride itself on being a liberal city, Boston is far, far from being exempt from this. But as is so often the case, they were also stories of people who had come through a whole lot of shit, and still bear the wounds - I won't say they've come out "stronger", because trauma doesn't go away that easily, but with a whole load of compassion and wisdom and determination to fight and support other people going through the same.

C's story [1] struck me in particular. She's an African American trans woman, who came from a low income, very religious family, that initially rejected her when she came out (though now her mother has come round and strongly supports her, and was indeed there in the congregation). She knew she was a girl from childhood, but heard from her church how people like her were an abomination. She went through bullying, abuse, homelessness, rape, was repeatedly sacked from jobs or didn't get them in the first place because of her gender presentation, went into sex work due to a complete lack of alternatives.

She is fortunately in a much better place now, and is an active trans rights campaigner, helping run various advocacy and health advice services. And generally seems to be an utterly awesome person.

Hers was very much a religious as well as a personal and political testimony, and one thing that came through strongly was how she held onto faith throughout this, despite the church very often being the source of much of the prejudice she faced. Just how strongly she remained aware of the presence and love of God throughout it all, and determined to keep practicing her faith, so that even when she was homeless and felt there was no worshipping community where she could be at home, she would put on Gospel music on the radio on a Sunday morning, and sing and pray, and pretend she was at church. (She has now found an inclusive - or at least trying to be inclusive - church community).

The Q&A afterwards was really good I thought, with people engaging in serious discussion and listening, and not being afraid of being uncomfortable. A lot of tough issues, like intersection of race and LGBT issues, transphobia within the LGB community, as well as practical stuff like what should teachers do to support trans students.

Holly asked for a show of hands, to guide the Vestry, on putting the rainbow flag we currently have inside the churchm outside on public display, which received resounding support!

So, St. James is certainly better educated on this than we were before, and hopefully we will be making serious efforts to improve our welcome. For me,a rather belated awakening; while I know some trans andrather more  genderqueer people, and thought I had informed myself at least somewhat on some of the issues facing trans people, I think this revealed just how little time I have spent actually listening to trans people's experiences in particular. Well, I hope I will do better.

[1] She did give her name, and indeed is out there in public fora with her full name, but I hesitate to use it in a public post that she has not specifically approved.

Migrating

Apr. 12th, 2017 12:11 am
smhwpf: (Default)
This whole LJ Migration thing will take a little longer than planned to complete. I realized that all the photos in all my past entries are linked to my LJ Scrapbook. If I want to keep them in my Dreamwidth entries after deleting my LJ, I therefore have to upload them somewhere else, and change the links in the entries.

I have downloaded all the photos from my LJ entries to computer, carefully filed according to date of entry, and have started the process of going through each corresponding DW entry, uploading the photos to my Dreamwidth image hosting space, and replacing the links. So far reached the end of 2005.

Or is there some much easier way of doing this that I'm missing?
smhwpf: (Default)
This will be my last LJ post. (Crossposted from Dreamwidth). Following LJ's new ghastly Terms of Service, essentially requiring us to follow Russian censorship laws with all their homophobia and whatever else, I will be abandoning LJ for Dreamwidth, where I am also smhwpf.

Before I go, I just have a few things to say. I realize that I am far more able to say them safely than someone in Russia.

Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Queers, Trans people, Intersex people, Asexual people, and straight cis people, are all equal human beings with equal rights, including the right to love, have sex with, form relationships with, and marry, whomsoever they wish to that wishes likewise.

Same-sex relationships and marriages, or relationships and marriages between people who are gender-queer, have no gender, or define their gender otherwise (or any combination thereof) are as valid, holy, and good as 'conventional' relationships and marriages between cis people of opposite gender.

Trans people are real. Trans men are men. Trans women are women.

Vladimir Putin is a murderous tyrant. He has turned Russia into a totalitarian petro-state. He is guilty of war crimes in Syria, and has powerfully aided and abetted crimes against humanity by the Syrian regime.

He has wrought brutal slaughter in Chechnya, where he has now installed an equally brutal puppet, Ramzan Kadyrov, whose forces are right now rounding up and in some cases murdering gay men.

Putin reigns supreme for now, but one day the Russian people will sicken of him and be sufficiently motivated to do something about it. One day, Putin will fall. May it be sooner rather than later. May he face justice for his crimes when it happens.

Finally, here is a picture of a placard depicting Putin as a gender-non-conforming clown, just because it's been banned in Russia.

Putin gay clown

I will leave this up for a couple of days (if the overlords don't take it down), and then I will be deleting my LJ.

Farewell LJ, we've had some good times. Sorry you got taken over by assholes.

smhwpf: (BuffyAnne)

It appears that my emails were illegally hacked by the Metropolitan Police, probably some time in the 2000s.

The Guardian ran an article on Tuesday about how the Met, in cooperation with Indian police, used Indian hackers to illegally access the email accounts of hundreds of activists, and were regularly reading their emails. This was revealed in information sent by a whistleblower to Jenny Jones, a Green Party member of the House of Lords (Britain's unelected Upper House of Parliament). The information will be submitted to the ongoing Pitchford Undercover Police Enquiry, which resulted from revelations about police spies forming long-term relationships with women they were spying on. (Who were unaware of their true identities).

In particular, the information included a list of ten names with associated passwords. The article says that lawyers from Bindmans, a leading UK human rights law partnership, had contacted 6 of the people on the list, who had all provided passwords that matched exactly, or in one case almost exactly, the ones on the list.

I was one of the four who had not yet been contacted at the time the article was written. I got an email from a Bindmans lawyer on Tuesday, (which at first I took for spam - this was before I saw the Guardian article), informing me that I may have been the target of illegal hacking.

My main problem was, I have had a lot of email accounts and a lot of different passwords. It seems the list just had names and passwords, no details of the email accounts in question or the time they were hacked. But after some emails back and forward, he sent me a set of eleven dashes, corresponding to the length of the password he had for me, with two of them filled in. This fit one of the passwords I have used in the past (and will not be using again for anything!), so I sent him that one, and this was indeed the one he had on the list.

(Obviously it would not be nearly so strong evidence if he had just told me the password and I had confirmed it.)

The password in question is one I did not use before 2003. As I left the UK for Sweden in late 2007, and soon stopped being active in the UK activist scene (beyond the odd letter to MP or online petition, etc.), I would guess that the hacking can't have taken place too long after that. My best guess is that it related to my involvement with Campaign Against Arms Trade, in particular as a member of their Steering Committee from I think 2004-2007. We know, after all, that BAE was spying on our emails around that time. But there are other possibilities.

So our email correspondence will be going into the Pitchford inquiry. The Bindmans guy will be getting in touch at some stage to discuss next steps, whatever this might involve.

I can't say I am massively surprised. When you're involved in left-wing, environmentalist, trade union, or peace activism, etc. etc., you pretty much expect that the government may well be spying on you in some way, while wondering if you are just being paranoid or self-important.

You are not being paranoid or self-important. If you are involved to any significant extent in activities that fundamentally challenge the government, then the government probably are spying on you in some way, and not just the bulk meta-data collection by which they are passively spying on just about everyone.

The police are not, and never have been, neutral, apolitical upholders of the law and protectors of the public. They are, and always have been, first and foremost the protectors of the rich and powerful, and upholders of the established order. This should not be news to anyone who is paying attention. (I'm not saying that there are not plenty of police officers who are decent people who are seeking to serve the public, or that the police do not also provide an important public service. But as an institution, their raison d'être is fundamentally politically reactionary).

So I am not surprised, but I am certainly angry that the police were illegally reading my emails: potentially my personal correspondence with friends and family as well as my political activities, professional correspondence, Buffy fandom exchanges, and whatever else. (I am not completely sure which accounts they hacked; I can't remember which accounts I used this passwords for when. So I don't know for certain if my personal email was one of the ones hacked). The fact that this sort of behaviour by the police is normal (and that they have done much worse) does not make it acceptable or right.

I hope that Pitchford will succeed in digging out some of the truth of all this and that there will be some sort of consequences, although I can't say I'm optimistic that the state will stop spying activists who oppose them; a unit may be disbanded, and declared to have been a Very Bad Thing, and not at all in keeping with our values, and we do things differently now; but other ways will be found. It is the nature of the beast.

(For those who do correspond with me: I am confident that this password is one that I have not used for my main personal email account for at least, oh, 7 years or so. I am going to start shifting away from that account, however, which is not with the world's most secure provider).
smhwpf: (BuffyAnne)
The idea of the technological singularity, where artificial intelligence overtakes human intelligence, leading to runaway technological growth with unknown implications for human society, is well-established, although how likely it is remains controversial.

There are numerous concerns about the implications of increasingly autonomous computers and robot systems with artificial intelligence. A very important one relates to autonomous weapon systems, or killer robots, that not only operate without a physical human pilot/driver, but which use AI algorithms to make their own decisions about who to target, and when. In the short term, there are all sorts of moral and legal concerns - who is to be held responsible if an algorithm kills an innocent person? In the longer term, the potential for killer robots to turn against their makers and take over the world and destroy humanity. Such a risk may be far in the future, but it seems to me far from implausible, once you start building algorithms that 'work', but in ways that human programmers do not fully understand, there must exist a risk that they will develop in ways completely contrary to the intentions of the programmers. The Campaign to Stop Killer Robots campaigns on just this issue. It seems to me that, as AI becomes a reality, something akin to Asimov's Laws of Robotics becomes a no-brainer.

The other big potential danger that is often talked about, and which is the main subject of this post, is that of mass unemployment as robots replace more and more human jobs. This has long been the case for blue-collar manufacturing jobs of course, but now the middle classes are beginning to sit up and take notice, with cases like the recent decision by Japanese insurance company Fukoko Mutual Life to replace 34 employees who assess insurance claims with the IBM Watson AI system. The Nomura Research Institute estimated in 2015 that half of all jobs in Japan could be replaced by robots by 2035.

Up to now, advances in technology have certainly caused significant sectoral employment problems among workers with particular skills that are no longer needed; the tendency of a Capitalist economy has been to shrug its shoulders at the fate of these obsolete workers and leave them to rot on the dole, if they're lucky. Sometimes, where there are more social-democratic oriented governments, there may be some effort at retraining, reskilling, industrial and regional policy, etc., to provide new opportunities to such workers. So far, however, fears that advancing technology would lead to permanent and growing mass unemployment have proved unfounded; new technologies make some occupations redundant or less needed, but create new ones, and expand the production possibility frontier so that the great majority of workers can still be employed one way or another, but producing more and more output. Not that this is unproblematic, for all sorts of social, economic and environmental reasons, but the majority of humanity has not been thrown on the scrapheap, and indeed extreme poverty continues to diminish.

Perhaps, then, fears of economic doom due to AI are misplaced? In fact, I think it may be worse than most people think.

Starting with economic fundamentals, production (in the economy as it has been up to now) requires a combination of labour and capital. (The latter in a broad sense may include land). Labour is paid a wage, capital receives a rate of return, in the form of profits, interest or rent.

But capital, and the owners of capital, needs labour needs the rest of us, tho great majority of us who depend on our labour for our livelihoods*, in two ways: first as a means of production; you need some combination of people, land and machines; but secondly as a market for the goods and services produced by labour.

This is crucial. Capital does not reproduce itself, does not get a rate of return by some intrinsic magical property, but because there is demand for the goods and services capital helps produce. It is true that the rich themselves form an important market, but that is not enough to sustain the great majority of owners of capital. The owners of Starbucks and Macdonalds could not become rich just by selling to the rich. Even, say, landlords can only earn rent if their tenants are able to pay it, which means they need employment (or government transfers).

But if AI becomes sufficiently advances, this could cease to be true. If capital can create more capital without labour input, that is if robots can build robots, that can in turn do all (or almost all) the necessary work, then those who own capital (robots and the technology that drives them) not only no longer need labour for production, they no longer need to mass-produce products and services to be sold to the majority of the population. Their capital can provide them with all the necessities and luxuries they desire, and continue to reproduce itself to greater and greater levels of sophistication. No doubt a small number of very lucky humans would be needed to help maintain things (who themselves would quickly join the ranks of the rich, the robot-owners), but the great majority of the population would become completely surplus to the requirements of the elite.

This is a truly terrifying prospect. Would the rest of humanity even be allowed to survive? Perhaps the elite 1% or so would allow the rest of us to continue to eke out an existence as best we could on whatever portions of the earth they decided they had no use for, and without access to the technologies that allow the elite their luxurious lifestyle. They would certainly want to sequest for themselves all the key natural resources they need to keep this new economy running. They would protect themselves of course not only with high fences but with robot armies. They would probably see a need to 'cull the herd' periodically of the roaming barbarians outside their protected zones, less we threaten their system in some way. I suspect they would quite quickly come to see the rest of us as less than human. Maybe some of them would extend 'charity' to a few of us.

Perhaps in such a scenario, a robot rebellion would not be the ultimate fear, but our only hope.

Is there a flaw in my reasoning? There may well be, I hope there is, and please do point it out if so. Or is the point when capital becomes self-reproducing so far in the future that it is not a serious concern for now, especially in the face of other civilization-threatening challenges? Perhaos the Future of Humanity Institute has already analyzed this question, although I did not see anything obviously relevatn on a cursory look at their website.

But if my line of reasoning is correct, then Socialism becomes all the more urgent - that is, the socialization of the means of production, of the technologies that would enable self-contained labour-free production. If capital is all that is needed for production, then we must all own the capital.

The choice will be between fully automated luxury space communism, or the end of humanity as we know it.



*We must also include those of us who do not own capital, but who are unable to work due to unemployment, sickness or disability, or old age. Those of us in this position either depend on our own past labour (savings, pensions), or on a social transfer system that relies on labour income from a large proportion of the population.
smhwpf: (Treebeard)
Since the Brexit vote, there has been a massive upsurge in Brits applying for other EU citizenships. Not me, for once I had foresight and applied for Swedish citizenship about a week after the last UK General Election, when it was clear there was going to be a referendum. Didn't expect people would vote Leave, but just in case. Smart move.All too rare on my part.

So it seems that precautionary back-up measures are once again required, this time in the blogosphere, with LJ's servers moving to Russia n'all. So I have finally done what I probably should have done ages ago (not so much foresight this time), and put my journal in the queue for backup to Dreamwidth. I am also smhwpf there.

I still intend to keep posting to LJ as my primary place, so long as matters do not take a turn for the worse, but will copy to DW.

Also, fuck Putin.
smhwpf: (Treebeard)
There are a lot of narratives about why Trump won. It's racism. (Almost certainly). It's misogyny (ditto). It's anger by the white working class at declining economy and lost manufacturing jobs. (Maybe). It's a desire to give a big up yours to the system (probably). It's a reaction to political correctness. (Sceptical).

Likewise, there are two major counter-narratives: that we need to understand, reach out to and empathize with Trump supporters; and that, no we don't, or at least we don't need to 'understand their concerns' as if they're poor victims, rather than people with deep racist instincts angry at the perceived dilution of their privilege.

I tend to agree with the latter, except I think we clearly do need to understand Trump supporters, what's driving people to vote for him, and why there were enough people choosing to vote for him in exactly the right states.

I've seen the exit polls, the breakdown by all sorts of demographic indicators, race, gender, age, income, education, etc. Also plenty of articles with data on predictors of Trump support: authoritarianism, implicit racial bias, etc., articles supporting and opposing the idea that economic decline is a factor.

But these all leave so many questions. One of the key ones is, what is the interplay between racism and economics? It seems pretty damned obvious that racism is a factor behind Trump support. But racism is not exogenous; what social circumstances tend to lead to higher levels of racism? Trump has galvanized and empowered racism that was already there, but what factors have led to this strategy gaining him votes in the particular places he needed them.

There is a lot missing from the exit poll data. Like, the breakdown by income shows Clinton getting majorities among people of lower income and Trump of higher income, going against the economic anger theory. But, given that people of colour have lower average incomes, does this pattern hold when restricted to white voters? We know white voters without college degrees voted for Trump much more strongly than those with, and of course college degrees correlate with higher income, but it does not thereby follow that low income among whites correlates with Trump support.

Then again, how does the income distribution of Trump support among whites compare with the income distribution of previous Republican support among whites? Traditionally, I think, lower income whites have been more likely to vote Democrat than high income. So the question is not just are they still more likely to vote Democrat, but, is the income correlation with voting among whites stronger or weaker than before? What has happened to the relative propensity of lower income whites to vote Dem compared to upper income, from previous elections to this one?

In particular, what is the source of the increase in relative Trump vote compared to McCain and Romney? The people who voted Obama but now voted Trump, who voted Obama but now stayed at home or voted 3rd party, the people who stayed at home but now Voted Trump?

Racism is clearly a huge factor behind Trump support. But racism was almost certainly correlated with support for previous Republican candidates. It has been at least since Nixon's Southern Strategy. Trump got the support of the great majority of (self-identified or registered) Republicans, Clinton got the support of the great majority of Democrats, so the fact that racism is correlated with Trump support doesn't tell us much about the relationship between relationship and Trump's gain in support (in relation to the Democrat opponent) compared to previous candidates. (In fact Trump got less votes in absolute terms, as I understand it, than Romney or McCain, but while Clinton beat Trump in popular vote by 0.2% so far, maybe 1-2% when all the votes are in, Obama beat McCain by over 7 and Romney by 3.9.)

Some of Trump's largest gains relative to Clinton in vote share, compared to the 2012 election, were in the Mid-West, certainly if one considers swing states. (Which includes virtually all the Mid-West). By contrast, the Clinton vote held up relatively well in Southern swing states or near swing states.

What I'm possibly getting at is that it could be true both that racism is the key predictor of Trump support, and that a key factor of Trump's victory—the people who switched to him, the people who stayed at home having previously voted for Obama, and so on—is anger at economic decline and a system that has failed the working class. (Not to say race isn't still a factor. But maybe, say, the more racist people turned out for Trump, while people who were put off by Trump's racism but angry at the system stayed at home instead of voting Clinton. Maybe).

I say this could be the case, but we need better, more granular, data.

None of this changes the fact that Trump's victory has enthused and empowered racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia and much else, and that these forces need to be vigorously opposed, not empathized with. That is the priority. But we also need to understand what went wrong, and what strategies can reverse it; what, for example, is going to help the white working class people in rural, small town and suburban communities, who didn't vote for Trump, reach out to at least some of their neighbours who did and offer a better alternative? I think that is a much better question than the one that is often asked, how can 'we' (implicitly right-thinking but guilt-ridden middle-class educated urban liberals) 'reach out' to 'Trump supporters' in the abstract.
smhwpf: (Winter is coming)
The world is entering its second Fascist era.

The absolute number one priority now is to fight this new Fascism. All other ideological differences, be you socialist, communist, anarchist, scoial democrat, liberal, neoliberal, moderate conervative, all these are secondary.

I do not know how to fight it. Although I have some limited experience on what might be called the front lines, it was toes in the water, and for the most part I am an elitist middle-class London/Stockholm/Massachusetts liberal. But we are all going to have to learn fast.

We have one advantage, which is the knowledge of how things played out last time, so that maybe we can avert the very worst of it.

One thing I would say - do not put your trust in senators, or judges, or constitutions, or (hollow laugh) the international system, or any of the august established institutions of authority to hold the dark forces in check. They will all melt away when the right incentives are found. None of the normal rules can be assumed to apply. If they did, we would not be where we are today. It is on all of us to find new ways.

It is a different and darker world we wake up to. But if we survive this, we get to try again.
smhwpf: (Winter is coming)
So what do we do if Trump wins? The odds are against it, but not that much against it. Not something we want to think about, but probably eaier to think about now than in the immediate miasma of despair.

There's some obvious answers: "Don't mourn, organize". Resist, build solidarity, seek to maintain compassion and hope.

But what specifically? What would be the best ways to stand by the people most vulnerable to Trump's attacks? What battles can be realistically fought with some hope of at least fending off some of the worst? What should the top priorities be?

(Of course many of these questions are still valid if Clinton wins, but the answers are probably very different).

What about for people outside the USA? A Trump Presidency would affect the whole world of course; questions of war and peace, climate change, etc. If the US pulls out of the Paris accords as Trump has promised, what can the rest of the world do, and what can its citizens do to push their governments?

I suspect that in the US the priority is probably simply resisting fascism, resisting the destruction of democracy, standing up for minorities and immigrants, against attacks on the press, activists, civil society, opposition politicians, even fighting to keep Hillary Clinton out of jail. Because if the battle against fascism is lost, so are all others until the wheel turns again.

This is still short on detail.

Meanwhile hoping to God that this question remains hypothetical.
smhwpf: (Buffy Restless)
There's a sci-fi film I saw on TV as a kid, of the Earth-to-be-destroyed-by-giant meteor variety, I can't remember the name of the film or the nature of the calamity, and for once will abstain from Googling. Anyway, there's a last throw of the dice effort by the brave sciencey heroes to do science and avert the catastrophe, and no-one knows if it's going to work. It's all in the public eye, and so there's this scene with a newsstand, and there's two piles of papers being delivered to it, one with the headline "EARTH SAVED" and the other with the headline "EARTH DOOMED".

That's kind of how it seems now.

Nate's a bit more optimistic just now than in the past few days, giving Clinton a 70.9% chance, when it had fallen as low as about 63% a few days ago, but those are still darned concerning odds. But I'm not going to speculate on what if this state or that, and shy Trump voters versus Hillary's ground game, because I've wasted far too much breath on that in the past and it's all irrelevant afterwards, vanity and chasing of wind.

Talking of Hillary's ground game, I've been part of it in the last few days. Doing some phone banking down at the Cambridge Dem office, first of all recruiting more volunteers, then calling voters in New Hampshire for Get Out The Vote. Saturday I was up in NH as part of a party from Cambridge, canvassing. I was with a friend, and we were paired with a driver, another British guy who's been living here 20 years. Used to run theatre tours to Britain for dramatically minded young Americans. Anyway, we went up to Rochester NH, a small town of about 30,000. The campaign office was buzzing with dozens of vols, so this ground game is really a thing. My little group was sent on a really rural turf, driving along leaf-covered tracks by a lakeside, where occasional clusters of houses could be found in clearings in the wood. One of the 'streets' was called 'Hideaway Lane', which was accurate.

We only managed to make contact with a handful of voters, but by God the scenery was gorgeous.

This also counted as my first American Road Trip, albeit a relatively short one.

This evening I was calling likely Dem voters in NH to GOTV , using a cunning app that robocalls numbers until it finds a live one, then puts it through to your phone, although half the time you get the click of someone hanging up. Mostly got positive responses, yep, we're voting Dem all the way down, one 'well she's the lesser evil' (I restrained myself from saying 'right there with ya'), but several "For Gods sakes stop calling me, this is the dozenth call", and one "If I get another call from you people I'm voting Trump!".

Is it possible to have too much ground game?

Seriously, it seems loads of people round here are doing stuff, in some cases phone banking from home using a thing on the Clinton website.

More tomorrow after work, which willl be mostly directed at points West. Then an election watch party with some friends, at which I can confidently project that a very large quantity of liquor will be consumed whatever happens.

Deliver us from Evil, O Lord. Or at least from the greater Evil. That'll have to do for now.
smhwpf: (Misbehave)
I was in New York last weekend, for the New York launch of the movie Shadow World, by Johann Grimonperez, based on the book, The Shadow World: inside the global arms trade, by Andrew Feinstein, who also worked extensively on the film. Andrew, as I've mentioned, is one of the people in the group I've been in, working with World Peace Foundation on their global arms project that I'm now running.

It was a very powerful film, extremely well put together. (It won Best Documentary at the Edinburgh Film Festival earlier this year). It is partly on the international arms trade, with some entertaining/revealing/horrifying interviews with a very candid arms broker (who apparently is now in prison in Portugal), but also, moreso than the book, on US wars and militarism more generally; but it manages to fuse these two elements together pretty well, with some apparopriate readings of his work by Eduardo Galeano interspersed. Not a whole lot that I wasn't aware of, though some things, but as I say well put together and effective in its impact.

Full disclosure: I am actually in it for about 15 seconds as a talking head. So now I am wondering if I have a Bacon Number. (I might already as I was in an episode of Mark Thomas Comedy Product). And if so if I have a Bacon-Erdos number, as I have co-authored one maths paper.

It is also a salient reminder that, for all that Obama has done that is praiseworthy, there is plenty on the foreign policy front that is pretty dismal, perhaps the drone wars in particular, and that he really only looks at all good when grading on a curve. And that Hillary promises to be worse. (Yes, still unimaginably better than the alternative).

There was a Q&A afterwards with Andrew and with Anna Macdonald of Control Arms, which went on way longer than scheduled, a lot of people with questions. And I was invited to give a brief spiel about the work we're doing at WPF and hand out fliers, to justify my train fare.

Anyway, the film is definitely recommended. It has apparently already had a 3-week run in London, don't know if it will be on anywhere else in the UK. We are still trying to organize a showing in Boston.
smhwpf: (Winter is coming)
In the final round of the 2002 French Presidential election, leftists faced an insidious choice: the two remaining candidates were Jacques Chirac, of the mainstream right-wing party, the Rassemblement pour la République (RPR, Assembly for the Republic); and Jean-Marie le Pen, leader of the far-right, explicitly racist Front National (National Front).

France has a 2-stage Presidential election system: in the first round, there are many candidates – 16 in this case; but if no candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, there is a 2nd stage run-off between the top 2 candidates.

Usually, that will be someone from the main right-wing party [1], and one from the Socialists. But this time, with an even more divided left than usual with 8 parties standing [2], and partly as a result, the Socialist candidate Lionel Jospin came narrowly 3rd behind Chirac and Le Pen.

Most of French society was horrified that a fascist like Le Pen could come so close to power. [3] What, though, was a Socialist or Communist voter to do faced with this ugly choice in the second round of a right-winger and a far-right-winger? Stay at home? Spoil their ballot paper? Or swallow their bile and vote for a candidate whose politics they detest (and with a bunch of corruption scandals from his time as mayor of Paris)?

Read more... )
Footnotes )
 
smhwpf: (Dr Who Tardis)
Well, it's sufficiently official and generally known by all concerned that I can make it public.

I will be moving to Boston, Massachusetts in the autumn (or fall as I should get used to calling it), to work at the World Peace Foundation, based at Tufts University, as Project Manager for their programme on corruption in the global arms industry and trade. I start there at the beginning of October. I was in Boston earlier this week to meet with them and discuss details and ideas.

I have in fact been involved in this project for the past few years, as part of an international group of academics and civil society people convened by WPF to discuss these issues and produce various materials on the subject (there's a book coming out fairly soon, plus various internet tools). The group includes South African anti-corruption campaigner Andrew Feinstein, whose book on the arms trade, The Shadow World, has recently been made into a movie, which everyone should totally see when it hits the cinemas.

The idea of the programme has been to take a rather broad perspective on the issue of corruption, looking not only at financial corruption, but at how the global arms industry and trade, and the militarist ideologies behind it, can undermine democracy and the rule of law.

Anyway, so this project by WPF has been edging forward for the past few years, but now they are able to hire someone full time, that someone being me.

The position is for 2 years initially, potentially longer if more funds are raised; however, I am taking a 2-year leave of absence from SIPRI, so I will have the option of returning at the end of this 2-year period. I am therefore not technically leaving SIPRI at the present time, but will at any rate be gone for at least 2 years. If anyone wants to apply for my position at SIPRI working on military expenditure (again, 2 years initially), or knows someone who might be interested, the ad is here.

As to whether or not I will return in 2 years, well, a lot can happen in two years, so who knows? But it is good to have the option.

I am very excited by this. It is a really interesting project, and a really good bunch of people I'll be working with, and from all I hear (and the little I've seen so far from the meetings there of our group), Boston is a fantastic city.

I am already a US (as well as UK) citizen, but this will be the first time I have lived in the US, or indeed been there for more than a week at a time. So that too will be an interesting new experience.

I will also be sad to leave SIPRI, and will miss a lot of people there, not least my team, who are also a great bunch to work with. After the storms of 2 years ago, SIPRI is now on what seems to be moving in a very positive direction, so in some ways a strange time to be leaving; but I have been crunching the military expenditure numbers for long enough, and feeling it's been time for a change for quite a while; and this definitely feels like the right move at the right time.

(Well, except that we might have President Trump a few months after I move. But since there are no shuttles to Mars Colony any time soon, there's nowhere to escape the consequences that may bring.)
smhwpf: (Homework)
Quick post, as I'm exhausted. Today was the big day of the year for my secret identity as Doctor Milex, when SIPRI released our new data on world military expenditure for 2015. Link is to the press release, which also has links to the fact sheet and the full database.

I also have an entry in the SIPRI blog discussing trends in military and health expenditure, and the costs of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals in comparison to world military spending. Graphics, in particular the cool interactive line graph, courtesy of our new web editor.

Profile

smhwpf: (Default)
smhwpf

August 2017

S M T W T F S
  1234 5
6789101112
13141516 171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Aug. 19th, 2017 06:24 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios