Five Minute Analysis of… Everything!

Sometimes I come across analysis that is so sharp, it makes me just want to stop writing. When you can tie everything up in under five minutes… what else can you say?

(P.S. This is a joke, in case you’re wondering…)

Read Full Post »

Hilarious!

Read Full Post »

Julian Assange’s Testimony

I’ll be back in a few days for economic commentary and the like – but I feel I have to highlight this video. Presenting: Julian Assange and WikiLeaks – sans spin! Listen carefully – there’s a million and one insights into how the media works…

 

Read Full Post »

Happy Christmas!

Well, I’m sure as hell not doing a post today – my head is killing me from… er… certain festive transgressions. But here’s a Christmas present… Presenting, the best documentary ever made (well, second best – Curtis’ ‘Century of the Self’ is actually better)! Adam Curtis’ ‘The Trap’ was produced for the BBC back in 2007 and is absolutely incredible. If you haven’t seen it already – well, just watch it:

The Trap

If you have seen it, consider one of his other incredible documentaries:

Adam Curtis’ Films

Oh, and a quick plug of Curtis’ blog – which I often reference and write articles on – for the curious or addicted reader (he’s got a wonderful post on pandas and geopolitics today…):

Adam Curtis’ Blog

UPDATE: It would seem that I’ve forgotten to include links to Curtis’ other incredible film offering which, some time ago, me and another few eager bloggers tracked down and made available on the internetz. It’s called ‘The Living Dead’ and it’s up there with the best of Curtis’ work. It can be found here:

Part I — Part II — Part III

Read Full Post »

Cryptome.org: Weighing in on the Debate on Freedom of Information

"Oh, I just looove freedom of information..."

Originally, I wasn’t going to weigh in on this debate – basically, because I thought it was stupid and boring. But now – due to certain circumstances that have arisen – I feel I must.

The other day I ran an article on Julian Assange’s underlying philosophy. One of the purposes of this article was – not to judge what Assange does – which I largely agree with – but to take a closer look at his motivations; which, I thought, were rather interesting. Assange has a definite – if rather abstract – political agenda. I laid that agenda out in the above article – together with describing a similar agenda in the work of French philosopher Gilles Deleuze – so I won’t go into it again.

Anyway, shortly after that article was published, visits to this site absolutely skyrocketed. I was sort of surprised, so I started poking around the stats to see why. Well, it would seem that in the article I had linked to a site called cryptome.org, which hosted Assange’s philosophical/political treatises. The people that run this site then presumably read my article and enjoyed it – because they linked back to me on their homepage. And that’s where the flood of readers came from.

Ordinarily, I’d have just shrugged my shoulders – happy that my article had not gone unappreciated. But being the curious mofo that I am – call it ‘journalistic instinct’; or, ‘nosiness’, if you prefer – I began looking into the site. And what an unusual site it is.

Apparently, it’s been around since the early days of the internet – it was set up by a New York based architect, John Young, back in 1996. It still shows these marks to this day, having not changed its ‘old skool’ html format.

Cryptome.org is essentially a leaks website – a sort of forerunner to WikiLeaks. “Fair enough,” I thought – but then, I looked into the site even further to try to discern what it was all about. That was when I began to realise that it wasn’t just a site like WikiLeaks.

Some of the stuff they leak/run is pretty important – for example, some time ago Microsoft attempted to sue them because they ran a Microsoft document dealing with how the company were going to assist in… well… I can’t put it politely: government spying.

Now, that’s pretty important – I, for one, certainly want to know if Microsoft are assisting governments in spying on me. But Cryptome doesn’t stop there. They also publish some very dodgy stuff. Here’s some passages from a Reader’s Digest article that was done about them back in 2005:

In the weeks before New York City hosted the Republican National Convention last August, security officials spent millions securing the area around Madison Square Garden against a possible terrorist attack. They set up barricades, installed extra cameras on buildings, and assigned extra police to the streets. John Young, a 69-year-old New Yorker, was also surveying the neighborhoods. He spent hours wandering around midtown Manhattan, snapping photos of unprotected local streets and other vulnerable areas near the convention site. He even snapped the location of a major pipeline that carries highly explosive natural gas into Manhattan.

Young was not working for the NYPD or the FBI. Nor was he part of a terrorist plot. A self-employed architect, he claims to be just a concerned citizen, someone who thinks we’re all safer if there are no government secrets.

So what did he do with all that sensitive information? He posted it on the popular website he runs, which typically gets 50,000 visitors in a day. Young featured dozens of maps and pictures, as well as observations about ways terrorists might attack the convention. Just trying to help, Young says.

Look, I’m the last person in the world to start banging on about freedom of information being dangerous in the age of terrorism – I know where that argument comes from and who it supports… I also know where it leads; but, that said, Cryptome still makes me uncomfortable.

I don’t need to know this stuff – I don’t need to know the ‘weak links’ in the Republican Party’s security. Indeed, who on earth would need to know this information – except some Travis Bickle-type who is intent on assassinating some political figure?

I’m not even talking about some scary Islamist militant (although, let’s not completely discount the possibility) – I’m talking about some wacko ala Lee Harvey Oswald (conspiracy theorists, please, don’t flood my comments section – thank you very much). I’m talking about the Timothy McVeighs of this world.

I guess the case could be made that the FBI et all could use Young’s ‘research’ to tighten up security – indeed, Young himself does make this argument – but its a little dubious. But let’s say we do accept this argument – how on earth can we justify this (also pulled from the Reader’s Digest article above):

Recently I surfed the Web and checked out Young’s site. Among other items, I found detailed maps showing how to reach a secret government bunker that’s reportedly one of Vice President Dick Cheney’s emergency hideouts. There were also photos of the front entrance.

Or consider what some of Cryptome’s sister sites are doing:

At another site are the home addresses and phone numbers of hundreds of officials around the country, from federal judges to mayors to attorneys general.

Cryptome provides similar information – listing the home addresses of CIA officials; including that of former director Porter Goss. Who the hell seeks out that sort of information?

This is all pretty far beyond WikiLeaks, of course – WikiLeaks have the wherewithal to vet the information they’re releasing, ensuring that this sort of stuff doesn’t make it to press. But we have to look at extremes in order to draw a clear line in the sand as to what is acceptable and what is unacceptable in the freedom of information debate. Cryptome – or at least, some of what it posts – is, in my opinion, unacceptable.

Why? Well, I think I’ve laid the case out fairly well – but I’ll add one or two last comments.

First of all, its sites like Cryptome that will – if the time ever comes – give certain power-players a mandate to shutdown net freedom. Sites like this will give them the ammunition they need in the debate over whether or not internet freedom should be absolute.

Secondly, the people who contribute to Cryptome clearly appreciate their privacy not being encroached upon – and I can appreciate that, really, I can. But have they not become so obsessed with this that, they themselves, have started to become the ‘bad guy’ – the person who spreads private information about people on the web? On that note I’ll leave you with a quote from the great German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche:

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

UPDATE: Well, it looks like posting the addresses of certain public officials can end with some jail time for the eager freedom of information warrior: Blogger gets 33 months for threatening judges.

Turner had faced up to six years in prison. His trial was moved from Chicago to Brooklyn, where the case twice ended in mistrials after jurors deadlocked. In addition to his statements, Turner posted photographs, phone numbers, work addresses, and room numbers for the three judges.

Of course, Turner actually threatened the judges – but still, something to be learned, perhaps…

 

Read Full Post »

So You Want to be a Journalist?

From the xtranormal site:

Read Full Post »

Strange Bedfellows

Well, its been a few days. I’ve been preparing for and undergoing some minor surgery… which went well. Anyway, I haven’t had much of a chance to do anything, really – and I’ve fallen behind any news that isn’t broadcast on the radio. But sometimes enlightenment is found in strange places – so while I catch up on the economic and financial news, forgive me for some rather abstract speculations.

As stated, while I was unable to get access to decent economic and financial analysis – i.e. when I had no internet access – I had ample opportunity to listen to news/talk radio. I rarely listen to news/talk radio (when its not CDs in the car, it’s either Lyric FM or Radio Nova – the latter has completely trumped the now awful Phantom as the key Dublin rock station) – nor do I regularly watch Irish news television. On the rare occasions when I do tune into these media I’m often shocked at the level of what passes for debate.

Ditto over the past few days. But as I said, enlightenment is sometimes found in strange places.

So first, a few comments on the level of debate on key economic questions. One word: shocking. The formula seems to run something like this: (1) Incompetent finance minister makes extremely unlikely/over-optimistic predictions as to the future of the Irish economy – then routinely denounces Morgan Kelly; (2) Economist-cum-shill comes on and broadly backs the ministers fantastic claims – then routinely denounces Morgan Kelly; (3) Radio presenters voice intuitive disbelief at what the minister has just said; (4) [Optional] Economist-cum-shill summons all his verbosity-cum-incoherence to convince said presenter that the presenter is mistaken – then routinely denounces Morgan Kelly.

Yep, that’s how it runs. So, what did I find so enlightening about this drivel? Well, it got me thinking: how on earth can these people – I’m referring to our incompetent finance minister and our economists-cum-shills – actually believe this stuff? I mean, not only are they not completely contradicted by day-to-day reality and not believed by pretty much anyone (barring, perhaps, rich native businessmen…) – but daily, their strange opinions are debunked by the much finer economic and financial reporting done by widely respected figures in the international media.

Well, I can forgive our finance minister. At this stage he needs all the fictions he muster to reassure himself that he hasn’t – as in fact he has – taken catastrophic decisions that are fast destroying the country. I can sympathise with this unfortunate truth giving him some tunnel-vision – after all, incompetent as our finance minister is (and I’m not the only one who thinks so), I do believe him to be patriotic and have (what he sees as) the interest of our country at heart. Confession has been taken and forgiveness bestowed… but what about the economists-cum-shills? They’re an altogether stranger case.

Well, the first thing that came to my mind was that, they too need self-reassurance in order to believe that the economic nonsense they’ve been spreading over the past years hasn’t led the country down a very dark path. The second thing that came to my mind was that, well let’s be honest, they aren’t very good at their jobs – nor have they ever been. Both thoughts have merit – but I still wondered how to tie it all together. And then I remembered an extremely interesting chapter in the great US economist John K. Galbraith’s classic work ‘The Affluent Society’.

Entitled ‘The Vested Interest in Output’ the chapter explores the sociological positions of politicians, businessmen and intellectuals. What we see is a sketch of a political landscape that looks altogether very different from the one we inhabit today (the book was first published in 1958). But the structure to be found therein is still completely applicable to our contemporary times.

Galbraith contends that businessmen and intellectuals are constantly vying for the ear of the public – the politicians oscillate between the two, picking up on whatever works for them at a given point in time. In Galbraith’s day the businessmen were losing the battle. Most people could see that it was the technocrats that were predominantly responsible for the opulence of the masses – and the intellectual was the representative of the technocrat. Due to this the businessman would often find himself ‘playing intellectual’ – he’d do interviews with Time Magazine where he would discuss his love – sincere or otherwise – of Brahms, Proust and ancient philosophy. The businessman would leach off the intellectual’s discourse – and those that refused, wealthy as they might have been, sunk into the shadows.

Today, almost the exact opposite is the case. Now it is the businessman that is lauded as societies great savior. Technocrats are to be distrusted – the ideology of the dynamic businessman reigns supreme. Businessmen, to engage the public, no longer need to keep up intellectual pretensions – as these pretensions are now themselves subject to public distrust.

Intellectuals, on the other hand, find themselves in a rather difficult position. You see, intellectuals are naturally – perhaps we should say ‘organically’ – distrustful of businessmen. Rich as the business class might be – they are rarely very clever (with notable exceptions, of course, like Soros…). They often appear vulgar – sometimes, in their constant seeking of short-term, quick-fix solutions, even self-destructive and dangerous to society at large.

This unwillingness to worship the businessman is why many intellectuals have shunned the limelight (or, perhaps more to the point, have been booted out of it). With public discourse being what it is, its perhaps better simply to not get involved. This has led to some awful navel-gazing in our universities – not to mention in intellectual circles at large. Intellectuals today often don’t seem in any way ‘plugged in’ – indeed, they often seem cognitively dissonant to the world around them… not to mention self-absorbed.

But some of the more hard-headed – note: I don’t say cleverer – among them, those who couldn’t stand the stagnant air of what accounts for much of today’s academia, those that craved power and influence – I venture to say – became neo-classical economists, or some other broad variety of free-market shill (mythologists of ‘selfish’ genetics or something of the sort). In doing this they, like the businessmen of Galbraith’s time, could stitch themselves into the public discourse. They became champions of the businessman – and bent over backwards, contradicting themselves week-by-week, month-by-month to accommodate the mood of business.

What we see then is a complete reversal. Public discourse has changed and with it the positions of its key players (or should that be the other way around?). But recently something else has been stirring in the public mood. Economists-cum-shills are no longer trusted – not even by radio talk show hosts. And businessmen have to watch their step – especially if they are tied to finance, which so many of them now are. The public seems to have far more respect for figures who – as far as they perceive – haven’t been lying to them; your Morgan Kellys, your David McWilliamses and your Fintan O’ Tooles.

Perhaps, then, what we are seeing is another gradual shift in public discourse. God knows – we sure as hell need it!

Read Full Post »

Help the CEPR… With Fistfuls of Cash

I don’t know if I’ll get to make a post today – as I’m insanely busy; the grim specter of deadlines stands ominously over my shoulder. This sucks, because I’ve got an important article in the works on what will happen if Germany leaves the Eurozone – which is looking increasingly likely – and what this means for Ireland. I’ll try to get this finished tomorrow – promise.

Anyway, the CEPR – that is, the Center for Economic and Policy Research – is looking for donations. If any organisation that isn’t a homeless charity or something of the sort deserves donations this Christmas, it’s the CEPR. They operate on a shoestring budget – and, without them, much great economic reporting would be impossible. It’s not just blogs – such as this one – that use their research to cut through nonsense; newspapers like The Guardian often run their stuff.

In an economics profession that has become deeply cynical and corrupted – they are a beacon of light.

What’s more, you’ve got to admire the zest of the people that work there. In 2004, Dean Baker – the director of the CEPR and the first major economist to call the housing bubble (way back in 2002 – also note that the CEPR staff called the DotCom bubble when everyone else was twiddling their thumbs) – offered $1,000 for the best article arguing against the existence of a property bubble. An economist called Hilary Croke won it – Baker published her article, gave her the cash – and proceeded to demolish her argument!

If that wasn’t brilliant enough, Baker then solidified his argument – and showed just how confident he was in his own analysis – by selling his and his wife’s only home in 2004, which he’d owned for seven years, and renting down the street.

Needless to say, Baker had the last laugh – his argument was vindicated and he made off with a cool $285,000 profit! You gotta love it!

So, go on… throw them some change!

Read Full Post »

The Privatising of State Censorship

For a long time academics and other such pests have been warning us about the privatisation of censorship.

The idea runs as follows: In Western democracies there exists freedom of the press – as long as the media don’t engage in libelous slander, they’re pretty much free to print whatever they want. Yet, some point out that press censorship still exists – and that it works through indirect and usually private channels.

Perhaps the most famous example of this is Herman and Chomsky’s ‘Manufacturing Consent’. Herman and Chomsky claim that the private media is self-censoring. Due to the media being tied into society’s power-structures, they see it in their own self-interest to suppress certain material and to lay emphasis on other, inappropriately researched material (think of charlatan journalist, Judith Miller’s WMD scam – originating, not in the backrooms of the NSA or the CIA, but in the halls of the New York Times).

Herman and Chomsky published their thesis back in 1988 – and at first they were only taken seriously by a few radicals. But since then – as the mass-media deteriorated immeasurably – Chomsky and Herman’s thesis has become far more widely accepted. Nowadays, journalism schools teach it as a matter of course – most of my lecturers, even when they didn’t devote an entire module to it, cited it as a key source for us to read. Most journalists now seem to recognise that the thesis holds water – at least most journalists I know.

Reagan once said that facts are stubborn things – I’ll just let the irony of that wash over you for a moment – and in a sense he was right. When something becomes so patently obvious in one’s profession that there is simply no ignoring it anymore, it has to be accepted.

Today we see that the state-private sector censorship apparatus doesn’t merely wield it’s power ‘softly’. After Senator Joe Lieberman called for the WikiLeaks website to be censored, private companies simply complied.

Julian Assange put it bluntly:

“Assange this morning said the development is an example of the “privatisation of state censorship” in the US and is a “serious problem.” “These attacks will not stop our mission, but should be setting off alarm bells about the rule of law in the United States,” he warned.”

The problem here is one of apathy – but that makes the practical consequences no less ominous. Newspapers and the people that work for them pride themselves – or, at least, used to pride themselves – as the guardians of freedom of speech. Most people don’t realise just how hard journalists and editors have fought over the years to protect their freedom of speech – these people simply don’t realise that censorship, in any country, is always a looming threat that needs to be met with legal action. And only independent and well-funded organisations – such as certain media organisations – have the resources to implement such legal action.

But private companies whose only interest is shareholder value – and many media organisations are coming increasingly close to this corporate model – couldn’t care less about freedom of speech; especially if such a freedom eats into their profits.

That is why Lieberman isn’t calling on The Guardian to shut down its presses – he knows what response he’d get; and the media shit-storm that would follow. Instead, he’s appealing to the corporate structures surrounding the media to close the tap. This is just another indication of how important it is that we have an independent media – one that is neither shackled to the state or reliant on private corporations for its funding and operations.

UPDATE: The more I look into the reaction in the US to the leaks, the more worried I become about what’s happening in that country:

Read Full Post »

Fixing the Economists – The Magazine

Click for full size

Imagine if I got paid for writing this stuff, eh? Yeah, right!

Anyway, I had to put together a magazine cover for a Layout and Design class I’m taking – so I thought, “Why not do ‘Fixing the Economists’ the magazine?”

Coming soon to a shelf near you? Well, probably not – but it was fun to make!

Read Full Post »