We need more government Yes once more I’m returning to those crazy kids of the occupy movement, in a week where the LAPD have reportedly been destorying occupy tents* apparently up in Edinburgh the little bit of weather they’ve been having has cleared that camp quite effectively. As the lovely picture from Punk rock Libertarians wonderfully illustrates despite objectionable (and they have objected) tactics from the police the occupy movement seems to continue to call for more government control (of everyone else).

Over her on the more civilised side of the pond our police sent round a badly titled memo warning business people in the city that they’d had reports that some elements of the occupy movement might get up to unpleasant shenanigans and hijinks in the run up to Christmas. No doubt fuelled by copious amounts of non-alchoholic fair trade organic egg-nog. The occupy lot rather took objection to being on the same standard memo as other more nasty people, I’d have thought they’d have been chuffed to be being taken seriously. The warning seems reasonable given the mess that previous related marches and such like have caused.

The London crowd though seem to be made of cannier stuff and have prepared for winter by on the back of the strikes the other week, have “occupied” a variety of unoccupied buildings – something that used to be called squatting when I were an even younger lad. My current favourite of these is the Bloomsbury square squat.

Bloomsbury square squat Renamed by the squatters as the “Bloomsbury Social Centre” the comrades are keeping the read flag flying with an inclusive “communism” banner hanging out the upstairs window. Rather wonderfully they have both a Facebook and WordPress presence to truly demonstrate their anti-captilist stance. The WordPress site also has a Bookign form as the squat is apparently “a community space” and they’d “love for you to host your event here. All welcome!” (Told you that banner was inclusive). I wonder if they’d accept corporate bookings and if any of the students would be prepared to work as table service? After all times are tough and we’re all in it together and surely they’d not begrudge a bit of festive cheer to the working classes at this time of year. If anyone is worried about the risk of booking the venue they have reportedly had a health and safety assessment done so the “police can’t get them on health and safety grounds – from which I assume there are no law students involved. One of their main objections seems to be that the University plans to start using the building again and horror the new dean of post-grads will get “a luxury apartment in the top-floor of the building.” the bastard. Though I do agree with them that “our social spaces as well as our ability to organise are under attack” and whilst they may hope that squatting in a university building will tackle the issue, I can’t help but think helping to repair a run down old church hall might not achieve more.

As with every squat/occupation they have a Wish list, and looking at that I can’t help but observe that if someone did want to really cause any of these protests problems the wish lists are the way in – but then I’m not a very nice person. Of course many of these wish list items could apparently be gained by intercepting them before retail stores deliberately destroy them. All businesses obviously loving to spend time and resources destroying things rather than just throwing them out. I suspect those particular “occupiers” are too young to recall the times when you could buy electrical goods in jumble sales and the like, before the safety elf degreed that that was too dangerous as the cables might be a bit threadbare, so then they could only be sold for spares and now not at all. So the stores that used to donate food to shelters and might pass on electrical goods to charity now have to destroy them for fear of liability.

Still to end on a high note the lot over at St. Pauls have at least finally (I’m a bit late on this) after a mere six weeks decide what they want to ask Santa for for Christmas. Strangely the list doesn’t define the cut off point for being counted amongst the wealthiest nor what their “share” might be. Even more strangely they’re not asking Santa for a pony perhaps someone read them LegIrons story.

As the septicisle observes just six weeks to come up with the same list as UK uncut – they’ll prove the infinite monkeys theory right yet.

* As reported the police action strikes me as criminal destruction of property but I don’t know US laws.

 

Whilst this may be a bit like a dog going back to it’s vomit, or picking a scab – I’m afraid on the day when the big news seems to be the rapid approach of the collapse of the euro I’m going to sort of revisit the whole “occupy where ever you feel like” movement.

Firstly because The Nameless Libertarian has said what I was trying to say the other day far better than I did, especially with this bit:

However, there is a second reason why I think these protests may be deriving such scorn from many people. It is the arrogance of those involved to claim that they speak on behalf of the 99%. Put simply, you don’t. You don’t speak on behalf of me, and I am neither a banker nor a politician – ergo, I am one of the supposed 99% you claim to represent. And I would guess that you don’t speak for at least 85% of those including in your spurious figure of 99%. From what I can gather, the vast majority of people don’t want radical change; they want to be allowed to get on with their lives – preferably with the bills (tax ‘n’ all) being considerably lower. They don’t want to take to the streets to occupy financial districts, and even if they did then they couldn’t as they have jobs to go to and families to provide for. They just want life to a be a bit easier. And to have urban campers claiming their voice to back up a shambolic act of civil disobedience is bound to stick in their throats a bit.

The other reason I thought I’d go back to it is that a friend of mine did a bit of number crunching on the US version of things:

“Here are some numbers for you: 1% of the US population is about 3 million people. Roughly 2 million will be of working age. 1.4 million of those actually earn an income (that they reported to the IRS). In the top 1%, each of those made upwards of $380,000 in 2009. That’s 24% of the total income. They control about 43% of the wealth, and they pay about 38% of the taxes. The top 2% of earners (back to 3 million people, roughly 1% of total US population including kids and grandmas) made upwards of $225,000. If you made less than that, you are the 99%.”

Pretty scary huh? Unless you’re on over $225,000 you’ve in the 99%! Except well notice the other numbers in there:
that 1% controlling 43% of the wealth are paying 38% of the taxes – which is just 5% off being paying an equitable amount surely? Given another site apparently claims it’s 33% of the wealth they control and this is just for federal income tax. So it would seem to me that the 1% are probably paying their “share” So it seem it’s just that the idea of a smaller government spending less money so that the poorer elements (and everyone else) can pay less tax is just too strange a concept. So trying to take more money from people with the resources to avoid you doing that is obviously the only sensible alternative, followed by occupying random places when that doesn’t work how you hoped?

 

One of the great things about the internet is that give it a chance and sooner or later someone will provide you with the information you were missing. which means I have to revisit my whole pondering of this 99% thing, as a rather informative article with charts has identified just which 99% they’re claiming to speak for (which I’m still not convinced by) and why which is a whole lot more convincing.

Here’s What The Wall Street Protesters Are So Angry About…

“The “Occupy Wall Street” protests are gaining momentum, having spread from a small park in New York to marches to other cities across the country.

So far, the protests seem fueled by a collective sense that things in our economy are not fair or right. But the protesters have not done a good job of focusing their complaints—and thus have been skewered as malcontents who don’t know what they stand for or want.
(An early list of “grievances” included some legitimate beefs, but was otherwise just a vague attack on “corporations.” Given that these are the same corporations that employ more than 100 million Americans and make the products we all use every day, this broadside did not resonate with most Americans).

So, what are the protesters so upset about, really?

Do they have legitimate gripes?

To answer the latter question first, yes, they have very legitimate gripes.”

You really need to go read the whole thing and look at the charts to get the picture.

 

Protest on wall streetHaving linked to an account of how the police treated protesters in New York the < ahref="/2011/09/30/state-of-protest-in-the-us/">other day, I thought it only fair that I also link to this rather good and more in depth look at the protest itself over on Errata Security. I’d suggest you go an read the whole thing, but looking at it with my own particular slant there are a couple of bits which really stand out.

Firstly a problem I think many campaigns have especially online ones:

“As the protesters try to define themselves in order to come up with a coherent political platform, they are hindered by this filter bubble. The forces will drive them to come up with something that excites their small group, but which will prove unacceptable to the larger world. I think they have to learn to reach outside their bubble if they want to actually influence things and to become to the Democrat Party what the Tea Party is to the Republican Party.”

But more interesting to me is this bit:
“I found the occupiers had the same totalitarian attitude, though they don’t see it as totalitarian. Yes, their loving acceptance of those who disagree with them is astonishing, but it’s totalitarian. It asks that people give up their individuality to the state the occupiers are creating. Rather than free speech, the protest has a sort of “managed speech” to make sure everyone has equal time. There is also the flip side, that not to join the movement or to disagree with the protesters means that you are working against the interest of the people.

We have seen this before in history, such as during the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror. After they ran out of nobles, the Committee for Public Safety started beheading political rivals — even those of their own party who helped overthrow the royalty. Their implicit thinking was this: I support the people. Therefore, if you disagree with me, you are acting against the people and must be beheaded. Or to paraphrase in the modern idiom, “you are either with us or against the people”.

The protesters have been settling on the idea that the conflict is the 99% against the 1%. But since the country is evenly divided between Democrat and Republican, they represent, at best, the interests of 50% against the 1%. No matter how poor, Republicans don’t see socialism as being in their own interests. Instead of chanting “We are the 99%” they should be chanting “We are the 50%”, but they seem immune to seeing things from this perspective”

As this seems to be a very common thread on many recent “popular” demonstrations, totalitarianism seems to be far too in vogue all over the place. If we are facing as many grave issues as we reportedly are on both local and global scales then this sort of all or nothing stance isn’t going to help as it leaves no room for actually thinking our way out of the mess. just more of the same old baying mobs pushing the pendulum this way then that. And when it comes to that 99% statistic a survey by Fox gives them maybe 70% with a few percent not really being clear on what the demo is actually asking for. A camp I must confess to finding myself in but I’ve ranted about the need for clear messages on demonstrations before, I’ve been told that they’re campaigning for jobs and to have smaller loans from getting an education (though the report linked to at the start does observe that most of the protesters seem to be not sci/eng types).
but anyway back to this whole concept of 99% they have a tumblr page where people can post how they as part of the 99% are suffering. Which is interesting as reportedly only 77% of the US are on line. Beyond that this 99% includes such reports as:

“I will owe over 50,000 in student loan debt and I am having doubts my two A.S. degrees and my B.S. in Ecology will get me anywhere”

Now I would have thought that maybe after the first degree stopping to consider that debt might have been a plan maybe? Or at least maybe considering the employment enhancing prospects of the degrees. From reading many of those accounts the unifying threads of the 99% seems to be that they’re pissed off and want to blame someone else, which to be fair probably does cover 99% of the population.

And of course thanks to the joys of the Internet and “anonymous” this nebulous protest is heading here – But then I do have a problem with Anonymous’ claim that “we do not forgive we do not forget” as it’s rather reminiscent of certain slogans in Northern Ireland and is the sort of attitude which would seem to lead to new totalitarianism. Sure don’t forget but forgiveness surely is a measure of humanity. But then the edicts issues from anonymous do tend to have a dictatorial tone to them, no “lets all do this together” more “We have organised this, you will be our foot soldiers and take this chance”. The external point of view in that last missive from them rather rankled mind you.

 

Yesterday I briefly mentioned that things aren’t so good across the pond, well today Captain Ranty brings news that it’s actually worse than that….

“On August 3rd, millions of Americans are expecting their social security payments. The govt need to shell out $23 billion but they only have $12 billion, leaving an $11 billion shortfall. One way around it all is to increase the debt ceiling. The USA is in the hole for an incredible $14.3 Trillion but they need more.”

Pop over to the Captains for the full story, but you might want to get a strong cup of tea first.

 

In case I ever doubt the value of even small protests ever again it’s with some cheer that I pass on reports that councillor Bartlet has withdrawn his motion to ban smoking in Stony Stratford – to allow those opposed to the ban time to prepare their arguments. The Boiling Frog and Dick Puddlecote have more details. Yes it was a small battle and yes he’ll no doubt try again, but these days I’ll take whatever victories I can.

 

Fortunately for everyone concerned there don’t seem to be any pictures of me on the London Slut Walk, though I did take a few snaps myself. The walk was a terribly civilised and jolly affair, the sun was shining the marchers friendly and the police generally low key (as long as you didn’t look down the side streets). The turn out was good with some reports claiming hundreds* and others the more realistic 5,000 odd. The banners on the walk were largely home-made witty and on topic, with the obligatory SWP placards much in the minority (and being frequently converted into a useful supply of ticks and paper for more individual messages). So from my point of view and that of the people I was walking with really a very excellent demo. Amazingly there was no violence, so I guess that is just the reserve of students and those are possibly motivated more by fiscal matters than principle.

Oddly it seems that some people (Guido) still don’t get the point of the work, which possibly means it wasn’t actually that successful except as a show of strength and mutual support for those that already got the message. I’m really not sure why it’s so tricky to grasp that the point isn’t the affect it has on risk but on how the authorities respond to the victim afterwards, and the seemingly well ingrained idea that the victim in some fashion deserved it (unless I’m really missing the point).

The rally in Trafalgar Square at the end of the walk left me a tad less enthused. Partly as I often wonder what the point of these speeches are as they almost always preaching to the converted and just giving people a chance to go “yay!”, but I guess they’re traditional and give the media something more to say and make for a clear end to the event. But that aside on this occasion there was very much a feeling of “and now a word from our sponsors”. Which for me at least raised the problem that my presence there lent tacit support to the agenda of every “sponsor” that was on stage, just because we both support a mutual cause doesn’t mean I support your cause either in whole or in part. Which of course means I’ve just argued myself out of my previous claim that they were all preaching to the converted.

Sadly due to having to go and get a pint I missed hearing the ever erudite Laurie Penny speaking, but it was a very good pint.

* Yes a few thousand is still hundreds but…

 

Sexual assault prevention tips Just in case people had forgotten I thought I’d just remind you that the London Slut walk is tomorrow. For organisational reasons it’s the week after most of the others, which is rather handy as some of the press has already reacted and that means we can look at what they said about the other walks, and gasp in amazement as the point goes way over their heads. Just for a change we can find some idiocy over Comment is Free.

After wittering on about various misinterpretations of the what the Slut Walk is about Deborah Orr finally does admit that:

“Canadian policeman Michael Sanguinetti’s SlutWalk-inspiring advice that: “Women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised.” No one should be saying any of this.”

But then just a handful of lines later back tracks to what looks very much like a “dress that way and you’re asking for it” cunningly disguised as the analogy of leaving your door unlocked being an invitation to burglars. This of course rather neglects the fact that when burglars are having their wrists slapped the fact that a door may have been unlocked isn’t normally used in court as a mitigating factor:
“Your Honour whilst my client did enter the house and steal numerous items, the occupant had left their door open so clearly had no respect for their property and were asking for it all to be taken”

Equally worrying in an article that is discussing protests against attitudes to rape and assault is this rather nasty metaphor:

“Uniforms, for example, are an explicit signal. If I were to don an orange fleece and stand in Sainsbury’s, I wouldn’t be surprised if people asked me where to find the hankies.”

“Ah, glamour models. What is difficult is that it is women who tend to do sex work, and sex workers have adopted clothing styles designed to signal this very specific type of availability. When women wear similar clothing in a private and personal capacity, it pains them when it is presumed to be a sex-work signal, or at least a reference to a sex-work signal.”

Except of course the walk isn’t about women being asked if they fancy a shag (the equivalent of being asked for hankies), it’s about women being assaulted. So unless I’m very much misreading things Ms Orr seems to be suggesting that assaulting Sex workers is fine, as they’re advertising they want to be assaulted. Otherwise surely here example should have been:
“If I were to don an orange fleece and stand in Sainsbury’s, I wouldn’t be surprised if people held me at knife point and demanded the daily takings”

As seems to be the common problem for the “don’t dress like a slut” camp, Ms Orr doesn’t seem to be able to grasp that even if we accept* her argument that dressing a certain way is to be “thought of as sexually available”, doesn’t remove the rather important matter of consent. Nor does it make for any sort of mitigating factor for the criminals who Ms Orr seems keen to excuse. Would the fact that your wore a Rangers shirt in a Celtic area be presented in court as a mitigating factor for your being beaten up? I’d suggest to Ms Orr that most women are aware of the risks they may or may not be taken and have made an informed decision as to how to dress dependent on where they going. But what isn’t acceptable, and what the walk is (I believe) about is that if that risk assessment goes wrong they should not get blamed for causing/encouraging the attackers behaviour, and the attacker get a lighter sentence on the grounds of their victims attire.
“Well you honour obviously if they hadn’t looked so Asian/Gay/Goth/Slutty/Jewish…”

What is so difficult to grasp about this terribly simple concept, that “the victim isn’t to blame for the attackers” behaviour is an utter mystery to me. But as it seems to cause problems of understanding for some people, there remains a need for demonstrations like tomorrows walk.

See you there?

* Which I don’t but that’s a different debate

 

I do apologise to wander once more onto geekier topics, but largely un-noticed today is World IPv6 Day. Which was hoping to make people more aware of IPv6 and the need to get ready for it – I’m not sure how well it’s done outside of people who already knew about it. Outside of the techy press the Gaurdian picked up on it and apparently Ed Vaizey said something about it. Despite it being a very low key event this is something you need to care about, as it will actually be terribly important. So get a cup of tea whilst I give a brief bit of back ground before I tell you why it matters.

So IPv6 is the 6th version of the Internet Protocol, currently the entire internet is running on version 4 (we don’t talk about version 5). The problem with IPv4 (or today’s internet) is that it was designed when people thought 640k was more memory than you’d ever need and that there was probably only the need for a half dozen super computers in the entire world. Fortunately for us, they were wrong and things have moved on a lot since then. Unfortunately the current system can’t cope with all those smart phones, smart TV’s, tablets and other internet connected dohickeys. So things are getting more crowded and people and web sites are having to share ever fewer addresses – this is a bad thing ™. To solve this enter IPv6 stage left – with vastly more space. Of course to handle this larger space requires larger addresses and well all the bits of clever computers that tie the internet together really weren’t built to handle that, so it all needs upgrading. This is neither cheap nor painless, so everyone has been waiting for everyone else to do something first and kind of hoping to retire before it became an actual problem.

Ok that’s the back ground over with, you can wake up again now – maybe go for a quick walk. Then I’ll continue as to why it matters.

Well for starters the Internet won’t grind to a sickening halt (not for a while) as we can all make better use of the space and share addresses and all that manner of clever stuff. This however is a bad thing(tm), mainly at least, as the more machines that share an address the less secure it all gets, and eventually the slower. Also to manage all that sharing the clever bits of kit run by your ISP and in places the government will have to pay more attention to who’s talking to what and maybe what they’re saying. Personally I’d rather the fewer people looking at my traffic the better. Of course the flip side is it’s also harder for them to prove who did what due to all the shared addresses (in much the same way pinning down who threw a cigarette butt out of a coach window is trickier than pining down who threw it out of a chauffeur driven limo). So as IPv4 runs out it will get harder for individuals to run their own servers, and we’ll be gradually squeezed into the equivalent of high rise tower blocks .

So that’s the bad, but moving to IPv6 has a lot of good especially for those of us that quite like to be able to communicate with each other without too much hindrance from the powers that be. Do you recall I said that the new system gave us more space – well I meant it a lot more space. No more than that much more than that. In todays world ISP’s charge you for a static IP and then charge more if you want a whole 5 IP addresses, in the new world the smallest number of addresses you can have is 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 (18 quintillion). Yes at home you’ll have enough address space to address all of your cornflakes and more. Now the downside of us all having nice (probably stable) public addresses, is that it’s easier to see who we’re talking to but due to inbuilt security it’s much much harder to see what we’re saying or interfere with it.

The really really interesting bit though is if we’re all on public addresses we can talk securely directly to each other, with no middleman (if we want to). If you want to set up a web server for you radical free hamsters on the land group no problems give it a public address you’ve still another 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 to play with. Given this is such an obvious use along with direct person-to-person networking you can be pretty sure that people will produce tools to make this as easy as calling a phone. In fact people are already working on it with things such as the freedom box aimed at letting you take back control of your social networking, your email and where you blog. You can run all of your email on a plug computer that costs less than 100 pounds (and the price is dropping), allowing you to exchange email securely directly with someone with a similar set up, without leaving any logs (subject to intercept laws) on your ISP’s mail servers. Keep it all on a small solid state disk and if you need to you can walk away with it all or destroy it. Plus of course no data mining of your email to improve the customer experience.

The thing is you don’t need to wait to be offered this, you can start playing with it today for free, using providers such as gogo6, Hurrican Electric or Sixxs. So whilst our great and good are making speeches, we can be building new infrastructure and ways of using it so they’ll be playing catch up so hard their on going attempts to limit what we say, how we say it and who we say it to, will make old Canute’s efforts look viable. Of course we’re still mainly stuck using centralised infrastructure, but there are ways round that as well if we feel like it.

So hopefully if you’re still with me, some of that has made sense. Go find a friendly geek if you need to and get onto the next generation of the internet whilst those that would control it are still talking about how to make it happen.

See you in the future – or maybe the past

 

Just to follow up on yesterdays post on Tax freedom day, I realise I didn’t mention how much the EU spent. Thankfully due to an article brought to my attention by Penny Dreadful I can now correct this, as the Telegraph have all the gritty details all 9.2 billion of them!

9.2 Billion being the “Amount British taxpayers contributed to the EU in 2010.”, which makes the (presumably additional)

£3 billion

Amount of ‘stealth taxes’ to be levied on Britons under European Commission plans to generate one third of the EU budget by 2020 using direct taxation powers. ”

Quite a blow seeing as we’re all notionally trying to reduce our spending, well apart from the EU itself it seems. But of course the really worrying matter is how much of the money they take from us is gone but unaccounted for:

£94billion

The nine tenths of the EU’s budget in 2009 that was “materially affected” by irregularities, projects that included the spending of more than £350,000 “improving the lifestyle and living standard of dogs” in Hungary. ”

Remember the EU has never has it’s accounts signed off, and can’t keep to it’s own accounting rules, but that’s not stopping them demanding more money and the right to take it directly from us without even the pretence of our Government having a say in the matter. At which point what is the purpose of our national Government at all, then giving the EU a seat on the UN as a recognised state starts to make sense, and once it’s got that there’s no need for any of the EU members to have one is there?

© 2011 Anonymong Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha