Camera obscura

There was a time when the public trusted any plausible narrative given by the state. People went to war based on radio broadcast descriptions of events happening in nations they knew nothing about. I think it is safe to say we are now in a different place.

Ever since the police beating of Rodney King, image evidence from private individuals has been used to challenge official explanations. Conversely, the lack of CCTV evidence damned the police investigation into the July 7th attacks. The death of Ian Tomlinson updates the same pattern.

This is a strange inversion of the "surveillance society", whereby everyone watches everyone and no-one trusts anything unless it is on camera. But holding authority to account simply by trying to catch them in the act of cheating simply gives power to those who cheat well. And it ironically punishes the usually honest who naively trip up.

Reconstructing events by using any number of restricted viewpoints is no replacement for vital missing facts. If I present you with a black box that contains a photo I made of a scene, I'll happily let you make as many pin holes as you like - you will still struggle to make out whats going on. Especially if I choose the image.

Professional journalists pieced together Watergate, but it would be hard to build up a case by relying on passing tourists getting incriminating evidence on their Nokias. Its more likely than an infinite number of monkeys coming up with the works of Shakespeare, but the focused plans of a well resourced state will only fuck up a small number of times.

No amount of individual observations can replace trust. Even government officials who lie occasionally are a better bet than hoping to trip up the seriously devious. Unfortunately lost trust doesn't really return.

Somehow the current low trust institutions need to be rebuilt. The solution will probably involve systems that break the ties of loyalty to careerist superiors. But this problem won't be faced unless we stop using institutions we no longer trust, and stop making one nation under CCTV.

Panic on the streets of London

The newer, shinier, War against Terror was introduced by Gordon Brown over the weekend, and by a Metropolitan police poster campaign .

Mr Brown's article is by turns depressing and hysterical:

We should be under no illusion, however, that the biggest security threat to our country and other countries is the murderous agents of hate that work under the banner of al-Qaida

The preparation of ordinary citizens who have been co-opted, or "trained and equipped", to deal with problems looks very, er, National Socialist. In any other sphere of crime prevention, this would be, quite rightly, regarded as vigilantism.

What has led the New Labour think tanks to come up with this stuff? I will assume, for charitable reasons, that there is more to it than "because they are cunts".

The government fears losing the reigns of power if another terrorist incident occurs. Even a temporary blip will be magnified during the G20 summit or the London 2012 games. By pre-booking the fear response, they hope people will give them credit for being on a known track should the worst occur.

You might think that a better way to avoid panic is just to lead by example, as opposed to resetting the clock back to 1984. But from an administrative point of view, that may not be an option.

The economic downturn is beginning to undermine the assumption of authority that the incumbent establishment usually has. If stuff just works, there are few reasons to ask questions. But the sudden onset of poverty tends to focus the mind. Yeah, just like hanging does.

And on top of this, the net is providing a ready source of alternative narratives as to why things are as they are - few of the 700 replies to Mr Brown's article are supportive.

Economic collapse. Terrorism. Alternatives.

Outside of alarmist films, most of us settled in the west have little experience with extreme situations. The governments deepest fear is that people will swing wildly between ugly nationalism and dysfunctional behaviour - leaving society kaput. There have been moments in the last few months that hint at this.

None of the above justifies the fear pimping because, ultimately, the governments job is to protect society as it is - not to subvert it to taste.

During the original Irish terrorist troubles, open propaganda was limited to functional reminders not to stop tube trains in tunnels. It was supposed that people did not require the state to fill in the blanks - the history between the English and Irish is twisted, but well documented.

But there were strange moments. Gerry Adams, the Sinn Fein leader, was subject to a ban on the media broadcast of his voice - in the belief that he had Svengali like hypnotic powers. Laughable today, but that is what panic does. We now know that an awful lot of things were done in our name that we had no idea about - but in most cases they were focused on dealing with the IRA, not selling Double Think.

This may be a way point to further measures, or just the stuttering of a leadership running out of ways to look serious. Either way, prepare for a long hot Summer of Rage.

Modern Liberty

I went to catch the train. Buying the ticket was easy - I didn't have to, as all I did was walk through the barrier, my National ID card and my Credit Card had been interrogated by contactless technology. The rescue services said it was much safer if they knew who was in which carriage when the train crashed.

As I walked into the shop my ID card registered my presence, and the CCTV checked it was me. Once or twice a week I get stopped by the security guards, they say it is my fault, because my beard causes more false negatives. The shop keepers say it has reduced shop lifting.

I get home to a message telling me that unless I walk more I will be deemed to have failed to keep my responsibilities to the State, and that the level of my health cover will be reduced. They promise that this will not impact emergency care, but that I will have lower priority in booking appointments. They list my travel over the past month, identifying 20 journeys that I could have walked rather than driven or taken the bus.

While the narrative doesn't seem like such a terrible Dystopia, on closer examination much of it is coming to pass with data already held in the public and private sector. The above is taken, with thanks, from another attendee of the Convention on Modern Liberty that took place over the weekend.

Despite the lack of anything in writing, a comfortable British consensus supports the notion that a set of civil rights are required for the relationship between the state and its citizens (er, subjects) to remain healthy. In recent times, the government has traded some of these in, to more keenly prosecute The War on Terror. Quite a few cross party organisations have sprung up in defence of these rights, that we don't actually have.

The speakers were pretty much those you would expect to see on Question Time; there were multiple panels sessions with the Great and the Good (well, the Guardian anyway) to cover the various areas that have been trampled on recently. Shami Chakrabartis (Liberty) keynote speech was manic, Philip Pulmans (the author and atheist) was lyrical, and that from David Davis (Tory without portfolio) was certainly powerful.

Helena Kennedy suggested there was something in the water in the Home Office, to allow so many rights shaving measures to be introduced. From 42 days detention, ID cards, attacks on the jury system, the DNA database, there was plenty to debate. I say debate - but that isn't quite correct. There was little discussion on how or why, only on what method of complaint was best. Its as if the awkward parents of teenage lovers were working out how to punish their delinquents.

The ID card debate is a good example of this. We all move around with dozens of pieces of plastic that refer to some data on ourselves. A possible future scenario could involve a policeman asking me to produce an ID card. I "willingly" give my data to private companies, but I should not be forced to give it to a "central state database". The fear of the government holding data appeared to the delegates as a massive spectre; the shit loads of data held privately was of little interest. In fact the idea of the State being separated by some Chinese wall from the private sector is fairly quaint.

As the young black inner London New Labour MP pointed out, CCTV does improve the experience in otherwise dangerous Streatham neighbourhoods. In fact the few New Labour representatives tended to talk in a different language. They talked about "mainstreaming" and "service delivery". Maybe that is not so surprising. The chattering classes are mainly talking to themselves, whereas the government is trying to communicate with the electorate, and the electorate are only talking to Tescos.

As dangerous as correlated data is, the structures of repression cannot cause that repression by osmosis. It has to be in peoples brains, or it doesn't exist. Once there, any law can be bent to the needs of hatred. I give you the SPG.

There is something rotting inside the current administration, but it is not the result of some choreographed master plan. People have to ask themselves, did they believe that the London bomings on 7/7 was the work of Al Qaeda, because Tony Blair said so? I can't remember a lot of people questioning him at the time. It is the forgotten moments of fear and compliance that gave birth to most of the curbs in civil rights we see now. Look back in anger all you want.

Politics by other means

Donald Rumsfeld knew he had a problem. It wasn't how to take Iraq; it was how to control the US army. He knew that there are two types of army. The large hierarchical state armies that project power through equipment, systems and organisation. And the small racially cohesive units, that are agile and can follow political objectives.

An army, or a a state force that Clausewitz would recognise, is only controllable by the military and follow military rules. And that is why Rumsfeld wanted to remake it into the second type of army that he could control. He couldn't do anything about cohesion, but he knew he could do business with about 75,000 troops. The US Army wanted to send 400,000.

Rumsfeld will be remembered as the the man who didn't plan for what to do after Iraq was "captured":

One of Secretary Rumsfeld's close associates was telling me, quite passionately, that Rumsfeld axiomatically is against predictions and expectations. Life is uncertain and that's fine. But when he comes to drawing up plans for running a country, it's hard to have quite this existentialist view. Existentialism is fine as a personal philosophy. But if you're running a nation's occupation, it can lead to problems.

The large state army still works, witness Russia slapping down Georgia when it tried to push its luck, but this is now the exception.

After Gaza, it is clearly obvious which way things will go in the future. Gaza was bloody because two modern style small armies were prepared to go head to head. As Hamas were by definition surrounded before they had even started, the result was not at issue - even if the forces had been balanced.

The Israeli army, or IDF, is not really a military force - it is almost totally political. They had no, and didn't need any, achievable military objectives. (Stopping your neighbours sticking two fingers up at you is not a valid military objective). But the Israeli racial distrust of their enemy allowed them to ignore the rules of fair war and just put fire down where it would have most graphic effect.

Of course, Israel were trying to punish Palestinians. In Israeli eyes, it is they who voted for Hamas - and thus all Gazans were valid targets. And a political tool can be used to instill fear, in order to destabilize a regime. Hence killing a few children here, using a little white phosphorus there and hitting UN schools for kicks sent the required message - nowhere is safe; if you tolerate Hamas your children will be next. These are not the actions of regular disciplined forces.

Successful armies are now more likely to be sectarian in nature, because with a reasonable cost base they can do a lot of damage, and easily hold their own against bigger slower forces. But much more importantly they can take direct political direction - as long as its correctly dressed up. What if you don't have a small racially cohesive pack of war dogs? Don't worry - use someone elses! A proxy war is still a good war.

A little local difficulty

If there is one thing that the internet has certainly done, it has reduced the cost of giving a damn.

During summer weekends in 70s London, a "demo"was a fairly common event. Protesters would be bussed in from around Britain to protest about.. well anything. Vietnam, pay and conditions, racism, fascism, nuclear confrontation - Piccadilly or Hyde Park would grind to a halt with slow walking banner holders, mothers with prams and flanking policemen. Londoners are quite used to the world's troubles (and bombs) being aired on its streets. It's what real cities are all about. By the evening, the television news would show a few seconds of protest - and then let the corresponding minister assure the country that Everything Was Alright.

To show support for those wronged abroad, many chose to follow letter writing campaigns via Amnesty International. Letters are a much more accurate form of communication than slogan shouting.

A lot of energy and thought was needed to make small, one way ripples of concern that could be denied in a moment. (I have no wish to stop anyone working with Amnesty International, their work is still vital.)

Compare and contrast with today. The Israelis Hasbara or propaganda machine realise that killing 300 Gazans over 48 hours might cause a few waves of concern in the West. Starting a war over Christmas is no longer enough to confuse 24 hour news coverage.

By using the popular social media service Twitter, the Israeli consulate held a "conference" and got the chance to see how the connected world's opinion sees their little conflict. They are sensible enough to realise that they cannot control the hosepipe of condemnation, but they can at least place their own objectives and viewpoints into the stream.

The definition of the "connected world" is now no more than the ability to read and write on a web site. It takes little time, but is visible to all, immediately. Letting everyone voice their opinion is not in itself a panacea, but from it flows more understanding of how others view the world. And it is much harder for those who have missed the zeitgeist to slip by unnoticed.

The losers of open debate are politicians who speak without first listening; for example David Milliband's initial statement was very anodyne even for a foreign secretary, as if mourning a death on Eastenders. Or take this example, from the start of an article by Seumas Milne:

Israel's decision to launch its devastating attack on Gaza on a Saturday was a "stroke of brilliance", the country's biggest selling paper Yediot Aharonot crowed: "the element of surprise increased the number of people who were killed". The daily Ma'ariv agreed: "We left them in shock and awe"

Put simply; when your finger is on the trigger you seek to cover your exploits in darkness, not light. Israeli forces are mainly just kids, many of whom are "Generation Y" social media junkies and they can see for themselves that preserving the safety of their homes is not best done by torching their neighbours.

Have a great 2009.

No more heroes

In a scene from Steven Soderbergh's first film about Che Guevara, we see the icon inspect a few potential recruits who have come from the nearest village to join up with the Cuban revolutionary army. He glances at the motley villagers, and immediately accepts those with their own weapons. Then he asks those who can't read and write to go home.

This selection method seems to confirm the view of Che as the romantic poster revolutionary cum poet. Later, he explains that those who cannot read are too easy to fool. He wasn't trying to gain control of Cuba by some type of common coup, he wanted complete revolutionary change. Nothing reversible.

Partly to avoid this calamity, most modern democratic styled nations use adversarial politics. A government is balanced by an opposition with, usually, opposite opinions. Except of course when they agree.

This system seems to work well when ideas are placed, like a football, between the two sides. After getting buffeted about a bit, the idea ends up either helping one side win or it gets rejected. If rejected, proposals can always be put through at a later date. Those on the losing side of the debate don't try to start a revolution - they just adapt their tactics for next time.

This leaves the public, like football fans, to watch and support one side or the other. So although we don't get to make any decisions, we get to cheer or boo and are entertained in the process.

We all know that this system only really supports two political parties, with independents or a third party as little more than a tasty pie to be consumed during half time. But we are getting just a bit bored of this sport.

While we are still all willing to go to the match, we are beginning to realise the sides are often just going through the motions. Because events happen at a scale or speed that can no longer fit into a 90 minute spectacle. While the sides kick the truth about on the pitch, those guys in the executive suites aren't even taking any notice. Maybe they already know the result - or couldn't care less?

And like the premiership, politicians don't really have deep rooted reasons for being on one side or another anymore. Indeed, most can quite happily argue for or against the same policy on demand - because being adversarial is their job. The right position trumps the right solution every time.

A revolution is one method to change an ineffective system - but something bloodless would be more comfortable. Either way, the current systems do need to be revamped to become more flexible in responding to circumstances. For instance, it is still controversial to not compose the main decision making body wholly with the members of the majority party - except in a national emergency. And we also know that by supporting both sides, anybody with sufficient money and influence can push any vaguely acceptable idea through.

In reality what needs to be done gets done outside of government purview - which just pisses everybody off. The much coveted ability to throw one party out for another one is a great solution to the national evils of a previous century. It doesn't help much today, when a single banker, or a lucky terrorist can change the world in a matter of minutes.

Crash

I like cross cultural parodies, such as this T-shirt design. To get the reference, and thus the point, you need to be familiar with video games as well as modern art.

So is the joke half Magritte and half Super Mario? Well, yes. The picture belongs to the Nintendo game, and the French words are from the well known painting. But is what makes the T-shirt funny half Belgian and half plumber? Obviously that doesn't make sense. The joke simply refers to contradictions and surprises - clearly something that both Magritte and Shigeru Miyamoto enjoyed, but not unique to them.

There have been quite a few heated debates by columnists and bloggers trying to decide whether the new president elect of the United States is black, of mixed race, or neither. Treating a human as a tin of paint (or a T-shirt) is unlikely to yield much truth, though some interest in what makes Obama tick is hardly surprising. Is it always wrong to wonder how culture may effect people?

I was intrigued by what Malcolm Gladwell, the Tipping Point author, had to say about how a persons culture has a greater effect on their job than many other factors. He gives the example of how a cultures deference to authority has lead to increased air crashes, purely because of bad communication between pilots. If a co-pilot sees a problem, but does not feel it is right to confront the captain, what happens? What happens if he cannot find the right form of words, in a timely fashion, to indicate that fuel is low, or there is ice on the wing? Well, statistically, the answer is that he could cause a plane crash. Hence a culture’s attitude toward authority can influence things unexpectedly elsewhere.

So it isn't wrong to think about how culture can influence how people behave, as long as you realize individuals don't spend time fitting in with statistics - a point Mr Gladwell emphasizes. And the way people interpret statistics.. is cultural. The tendency to look at a story, then counterfactually make connections that don't really exist is a hard habit to break. For example, if Obama was involved in street crime, he would definitely, as far as the media was concerned, become black.

(Having said that, you may want to avoid Colombian airlines.)