It's Not Paranoid If They're Really Out To Get You

I've recently been reading a couple of books, one about modern day Russia and the other is about political paranoia in the USA*. I was struck by the similarity between the actions of modern FSB- the rebranded KGB- and the COINTELPRO operations of the FBI in the 1970s that the two books described.

The FSB pracitice techniques developed by East Germany called Operational Psychology:

Mafia State recounts how the KGB first became interested in "operational psychology" in the 1960s. But it was the Stasi, East Germany's sinister secret police, that perfected these psychological techniques and used them extensively against dissidents in the 1970s and 1980s. These operations were given a name, Zersetzung – literally corrosion or undermining.

According to former Stasi officers the aim was to "switch off" regime opponents by disrupting their private or family lives. Tactics included removing pictures from walls, replacing one variety of tea with another, and even sending a vibrator to a target's wife. Usually victims had no idea the Stasi were responsible. Many thought they were going mad; some suffered breakdowns; a few killed themselves.

Meanwhile the FBI's programme to undermine peaceful opponents included tactics like this:

The special agent in charge of the FBI’s San Diego office had a plan. An antidraft activist in the area was convinced that the Bureau was watching him—he kept telling people that his phone was tapped, his home bugged, his every move observed. With “a small push in the right direction,” the agent believed, the activist would start exhibiting “obvious paranoid tendencies,” and that would “completely neutralize him in his several leadership capacities.”

So let’s make a big show of spying on the man, the investigator suggested. Maybe we could build a spooky-looking mechanism from a bicycle part and an old transistor radio, then drop it off near his front steps one night. “In the event he displayed the contraption to anyone,” the officer argued, “its crude construction would ultimately neutralize any allegation that it originated or is being utilized by the FBI.” And if the target tried to tell people it was a bugging device, they’d ridicule him.

The method used by both agencies was subtle, deniable harassment that over time could wreck someone's mental well being rather than outright thuggery. This isn't to make a facile point about the USA being no different to Russia but the important differences there are because of the strength of other institutions in reigning in the excesses of the security services and with the scale of the problem (Russia has about 20 times more FSB employees per capita than the USA has FBI agents). The difference was not in the mindset of the respective agencies themselves.

In the United States the courts, a free press and a pluralistic political system could eventually hold the FBI to account and bring it back within the norms of legal behaviour. In Russia there is no such constraints on the FSB which therefore has expanded to essentially control the country.

* The books are "The United States of Paranoia" by Jesse Walker and "Mafia State" by Luke Harding.

So How's That Reset Coming Along?

I'm beginning to suspect that the "reset " the Obama administration offered to Putin in 2009 might not be going so well. In this Obama's delusion was that the poor relations between Russia and the USA was due to something Bush had done because he looks at the world entirely through the prism of US domestic politics.

The real cause is that the Putin's Russia seems unable to have civil relations as equals with it's neighbours and instead tries to dominate, intimidate and control them. The USA is not unusual in being targeted by Russia, even neutral Sweden gets the threatening treatment.

It is the geo-political equivalent of the retarded kid whose been held back a couple of years and can't socialise with his class mates but can beat them up. Although even an actual retarded kid would be hard pressed to have handled the Ukrainian situation less effectively than Putin.

A Tale Of Two Cities

New York has just elected a mayor whose politics make Ken Livingstone look like Norman Tebbit and it is the first time in twenty years that this heavily Democratic city has elected a Democratic mayor.

The main reason for this is that New York used to have a horrendous crime problem until Rudolph Guliani took office and reduced it massively and Bloomberg continued the process. Under the two Republicans (very nominally so in Bloomberg's case) the Big Apple became a liveable city once more.

Washington has undergone a similar transition lately, with crime falling considerably. It used to be one of the USA's most violent cities, ranking alongside Baltimore, Detroit and New Orleans but since 2008 the homicide rate has fallen by half from 31 per 100,000 to 14 per 100000. This is still a very high rate by most standards but it is a massive turnaround for a city that had seen rates over 80 per 100000 in the recent past.

New York rewarded the leaders who slashed the crime rate by re-electing them repeatedly over two decades. Washington has taken a different approach- with the mayor who presided over this unprecedented turnaround being unceremoniously turfed out of office.

Justice In A Tribal Society.

The Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman case fascinates me because it shows how fragile the rule of law is even in an advanced democracy.

 There was quite clearly no evidence that George Zimmerman was guilty of a crime and he was found not guilty, but even so the fact that he was tried at all and the US government is still investigating him is an affront to justice.

The fact that so many people are willing to publicly denounce the verdict despite not actually being able to explain what evidence the prosecutors presented that showed that Zimmerman was a murderer is also shocking. It seems that the US Department of Justice is still trying to lynch Zimmerman by making it a civil rights case, despite a complete lack of evidence for any racial bias on the shooter's part.

What makes so many people lose their minds, lie shamelessly and dispose of the rule of law?

Tribalism.

By turning a tragic event into a racial issue- despite the fact that there is a lot of evidence that Zimmerman is no racist- the media have ensured that the question wasn't "did Zimmerman kill Martin" but " are you on the side of Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln and Rosa Parks or are you a KKK sympathiser".

It's not an approach that is likely to uncover truth but is sells papers and enables idiots to preen self righteously and pretend to care about a dead kid (although not enough to actually look at what actually happened).

Nice Business You've Got There- Shame If Anything Were To Happen To It

People often think of the relationship between politicians and big business as being business corrupting politicians through the influence of their cash.

In actual fact the relationship seems to be more like a case of politicians seeking rent from business. Politicians know they control the ultimate levers of power and can in effect run a protection racket. As this piece on Microsoft in the late 1990s makes clear:

But it grated on Hatch and other senators that Gates didn't want to want to play the Washington game. Former Microsoft employee Michael Kinsley, a liberal, wrote of Gates: "He didn't want anything special from the government, except the freedom to build and sell software. If the government would leave him alone, he would leave the government alone."

This was a mistake. One lobbyist fumed about Gates to author Gary Rivlin: "You look at a guy like Gates, who's been arrogant and cheap and incredibly naive about politics. He genuinely believed that because he was creating jobs or whatever, that'd be enough."

Gates was "cheap" because Microsoft spent only $2 million on lobbying in 1997, and its PAC contributed less than $50,000 during the 1996 election cycle. "You can't say, 'We're better than that,' " a Microsoft lobbyist told me on Friday. "At some point, you get too big, and you can't just ignore Washington."

"You can sit there and say, 'We despise Washington and we don't want to have anything to do with them,' " the lobbyist said. "But guess what? We're going to have hearings about the [stuff] you do."

It's no shocker that lobbyists think companies should hire lobbyists. But so does Capitol Hill -- Orrin Hatch included.

In a 2000 speech to technology companies, Hatch called Microsoft "knuckle-headed and hard-nosed," according to Wired magazine. "I have given [Microsoft] advice, and they don't pay any attention to it." In that same speech, Hatch warned: "If you want to get involved in business, you should get involved in politics."
"The industry had an attitude that government should do what it needs to do but leave us alone," one Hill technology staffer complained to Business Week at the time. "Their hands-off approach to Washington will come back to haunt them."

After the Hatch hearings, Microsoft complied. Its PAC increased spending fivefold in each of the next two elections. In the 2010 elections, Microsoft's PAC contributed $2.3 million to House and Senate candidates. The PAC has contributed the maximum $10,000 to each of Hatch's last two campaigns.

I would regard the Leveson inquiry as of a similar ilk- News International's behaviour has undoubtedly been poor, but it is hard to believe the fact that Tom Watson- the leading MP behind the attack- is a noted loyalist of Gordon Brown is a coincidence. When he and other Labour MPs went beyond what had been dicussed at the committee and concluded that Rupert Murdoch was not a fit and proper person to run News Corp, it was similarly thuggish- if the press oppose us we try to sabotage their business.

The Clay Davis Effect

Black members of Congress are far more likely to be investigated for ethics violations than their white colleagues, and understandably some people are upset:

The facts say this: African-Americans make up 10 percent of the House, but as of the end of February, five of the sitting six named lawmakers under review by the House Ethics Committee are black. The pattern isn't new. At one point in late 2009, seven lawmakers were known to be involved in formal House ethics inquiries; all were members of the Congressional Black Caucus. An eighth caucus member, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois, had also been under investigation, but his probe was halted temporarily while the Justice Department undertook an inquiry of its own.
All told, about one-third of sitting black lawmakers have been named in an ethics probe during their careers, according to a National Journal review.

This isn't too surprising given the existance of congressional districtsdesigned to ensure most voters are black. Most black representitives do not have to worry about appealing to non-black voters- this encourages politicians to play the race card to succeed and when elections become a matter of ethnic identity rather than competence or integrity- more corrupt individuals thrive.

This can be thought of as the Clay Davis effect:



It is also one reason why ethnically divided countries without a single demos tend to be more corrupt as voters take the attitude that they need a bigger crook representing them than their neighbours.

Andrew Breitbart

So sad for anyone to die at just 43.

This from the Antony Weiner press conference last year was incredible to watch.





His combination on entreprenurial flair and shrewd journalist is almsot irreplaceable.

Mail Shocked That Kidnapping Children Illegal.

The one sided extradition treaty with the United States has rightly received a lot of criticism, but the Daily Mail's outrage over this potential extradition is demagogic America bashing rather than a serious criticism.

In what circumstances is it acceptable for one half of a divorced couple to deny custodial access to the children by moving to another country and refusing to let them see the other parent?

End Nato?

I see Ron Paul is running away with the Fun Online Poll.

Since most voters are British and the most significant aspect of a Ron Paul presidency for Britain would be the end of NATO and similar alliances- does this mean that people think NATO should be disbanded.

Arbitrary List Of The Day- Best To Worst Republican Candidates For President.

Still active candidates in bold:

1. Gary Johnson (former governor of New Mexico)
2. Mitt Romney (former governor of Massachussetts)
3. Jon Huntsman (former governor of Utah)
4. Tim Pawlenty (former governor of Minnesota)
5. Rick Perry (governor of Texas)
6. Ron Paul (Texas congressman)
7. Herman Cain (Businessman)
8. Rick Santorum (former senator for Pennsylvania)
9. Michelle Bachmann (Minnesota congresswoman)
10. Newt Gingrich (former speaker of the house)

Scaremongering

I'm not a Ron Paul fan but I can see why he gets support when mainstream Republicans are coming out with horseshit like this by GOP congressman Steve King of Iowa:

“To paint an image of what I think it looks like under a Ron Paul presidency, it would be Iranian nuclear missiles placed in Cuba and Katyusha rockets in Tijuana."

Prediction USA 2012

Back in 2008 I correctly predicted the outcomes of the Republican and Democratic primaries and the general election. In fairness my prediction of the British election was way off but like most people I am psychologically inclined to attribute my successes to talent and failures to bad luck.

The Republican Primary is much easier to predict this year simply because only one first class candidate has decided to put himself forward- Mitt Romney. There were other candidates who could have won, like Mike Huckabee and Jeb Bush, but they didn't run. Rick Perry should have put up a more impressive challenge than he did but that did not materialise.

Earlier this year I also predicted that Barack Obama would win a 2nd term, because of the weakness of the Republican candidates. However given how efficiently Mitt Romney's campaign has gone so far- with no sign of being perturbed by the succession of great right hopes who have come and gone- I now think he can overcome his history of ridiculous flip flopping to win against Obama.

So my final prediction is that Mitt Romney will be the president elect this time next year.

On Texas & Job Creation

I linked yesterday to this summary of Texas's record on job creation and growth. With Rick Perry's entry into the contest to become President, Democrats are seeking to dispute the success of the Texan economy. The weakest effort so far must be this from The Centre For American Progress- the Soros funded liberal advocacy group:

Texas Ranks Dead Last In Total Job Creation, Accounting For Labor Force Growth

This seems unlikely, so how have they managed to work this out? The key phrase is "Accounting For Labor Force Growth", the method is astoundingly simply- subtract the total number of people entering the workforce from the total number of jobs.

The flaw in this approach should be easy enough to spot, but just to spell it out:

Imagine if there were 2 states, each with 10 million people in the workforce.

State A- Loses 500 000 jobs and 1 million people move to state B.
State B- Adds 500 000 jobs and 1 million people come in from state A.

Which state is a basket case and which one is thriving? For sane people the answer is that B is doing better than A, but not according to the Center For American Progress, because using their statistic- change in jobs minus change in labor force-  A scores +500 000 and whereas B gets -500 000.

So if Texas scores worst on job creation according to CAP which state tops the table job creators and should presumably be emulated?

Michigan!

The same Michigan that has had among the highest levels of unemployment in the USA for decades- but is losing population quicker than any other state in the nation.

On The Republican Nomination

The Iowa straw poll did it's job of whittling down the field of candidates for the Republican nomination, with only Michelle Bachman, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney & Rick Perry likely to pick up serious numbers of delegates once voting begins in the primary process.

I agree with most mainstream pundits that only Romney and Perry can win the nomination. Both have lovely hair which is a key attribute in a presidential candidate. My preference is Romney because he is a highly effective leader in both government and business- and he can win the votes of moderates and even disgruntled liberals. Also Perry's record of cronyism and lack of concern about executing innocent people are disturbing.

For the last two years Romney's strategy has been to run as the candidate of economic competence for a general election that would be about the dismal record on jobs and growth by the Obama administration. Against the presumed candidates up until now- Huckabee, Palin, Pawlenty, Huntsman, Gingrich etc- he could reasonably claim to be far and away the most plausible man to turn around the US economy.

Rick Perry is the one candidate who Romney cannot play the economy card against with much success for the simple reason that Texas has an incredibly successful economy compared to the rest of the United States. There is a question of how much that has to do with Perry personally or how much he could apply Texan policies to the USA as a whole but politics is partly about being in the right place to take credit for good things that happen. He is also a better campaigner than Romney.

However I am going to predict a Romney win because:

• Bachman will take more votes from Perry.
• Romney is a more attractive candidate outside the South, support for him will be strong in the North East of course but also in the Mormon heavy Western states around Utah and the Mid West where his father was a successful governor.
• He has a campaign network in place from 2008 and will probably out organise Perry.
• The Republicans tend to nominate from the more moderate wing of the party.

It is a much more intriguing campaign than it looked a few months ago when Donald Trump & Herman Cain were the flavours of the month.

Generational War

The deal made in Washington between Congress & President Obama is a pretty bad one all round. Cuts are an integral part of the deal but the three sections of the US budget than consume the most wealth- social security, health spending and defence- have all been ring fenced so the cuts will hit everything else very severely.

The amount the United States spends militarily is excessive and much of it is wasted as money is given directly to defence contractors who in return create jobs in the constituencies of key politicians.

Entitlements- Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid- are protected in order to preserve the interests of older voters- at the expense of the young. Any attempts to reform them have hit the political buffers whereas efforts to increase them get bipartisan support.

This isn't the only example of government policies that benefit the old at the expense of the young- the housing boom also created a de facto transfer of wealth from the young to the old.

There is no obvious moral imperitive to transfer wealth to older people who are on average considerably wealthier already than younger people (these aren't targeted benefits that help the poorest pensioners but universal ones). It is certainly not a pragmatic approach in a society that is getting older.

However older people actually pay attention to politics and vote- so they are far more valuable than the young- which is why politicians bend over backwards to help older voters.

The Debt Ceiling.

The big argumemt over the debt ceiling rumbles on in Washington. Failing to raise it would be a disaster because cuts deep enough not to exceed the ceiling would have to be massive and immediate. While spending does need to come down cutting 40% in one year is not possible without damaging the economy more.

Anyway the deal that Obama and Boehner eventually come up with is going to involve spending cuts and once again demonstrates that the most effective combination for fiscal responsibility is a Democratic president and a Republican congress- the combination that produced welfare reform in the 990s for example.

With a Republican president a Republican congress will happily forget any notion of limited government and support massive increases in healthcare entitlements, military expenditure and education spending. Equally a Democratic president with a congress of his own party will spend like Charlie Sheen in a brothel.

So while Obama doesn't like being forced to offer cuts, he will in a few years be claiming credit for them as Clinton does for the policies forced on him in the 1990s which led to higher growth.

A Fan Of Weiner

When you're Weiner, don't send people photos of your weiner as it makes it too easy for the tabloids:

US Rep. Anthony Weiner yesterday spent the day on the grill after a lewd photo purporting to be of him was sent to a pretty Seattle coed from his Twitter account -- but the young woman insisted a stalker was the culprit.

The six-term Democratic congressman struggled to play defense as rumors swirled, continuing to insist that the illicit tweet -- a below-the-waist photo of a man in bulging gray boxer-briefs -- was the work of a hacker.

His rep called the incident nothing more than "a distraction."

The woman on the receiving end of the tawdry tweet -- 21-year-old Gennette Nicole Cordova -- said in a statement published in another New York newspaper that she was sure the questionable photo came from a person who had harassed her many times "after the congressman followed me on Twitter a month or so ago."

She insisted that while she's a "fan" of Weiner, she'd never met him in person.

Hurr hurr, snigger, fnarr fnarr chortle.

I'm not a fan of his, he always seems a bit stiff to me.

Socialism

Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the IMF chief currently accused of sexual assault is a French socialist:

Strauss-Kahn, who had a meeting planned for today with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin, has an arrangement with Air France that allows him to get on any flight and sit in first class, the sources said. 

Nothing's too good for the workers!

Fear Of The New

It can be bizarre to see how irrationally wedded to the status quo people are.

For example when US liberal blogger, Matthew Yglesias, draws attention to the insane use of occupational licencing in the USA- for things like cutting hair- hordes of commentators pour on arguing that it would be incredibly reckless to to allow people to become barbers and hairdressers without satisfying a regulatory board or otherwise they would be over run with " Lice, hepatitis, using hazardous substances".

I've never been given hepatitis by the people  who have cut my hair despite the lack of a similar regulatory regime in the UK. Whilst I wouldn't go as far as say Milton Friedman and end licensing for all professions including medicine, it is clearly a silly and wasteful practice in most cases.

Irrational fear mongering about the new brings me on to the impending referendum on the Alternative Vote. While there are legitimate causes for concern about AV*, the claims being made by the NO2AV campaign are scaremongering on a par with """"" unless you licence hairdressers you will get Aids".  The evidence that it provides a massive boost for extremists can easily be shown to be false simply by looking at Australia where it is already in place and fewer minor parties have representation than in the UK.


* It seems likely that it will produce even more disproportionate results than FPTP on occasion for example.

Hari + Economics = Fun

Johann Hari calls for a Keynsian approach to getting the economy going. Apart from getting economic history completely wrong (for example President Hoover did not slash spending, he increased it faster than anyone in history had done up to that point), there is something else about it too.

Like all of the press advocates of Keynsianism who advocate higher public spending in a downturn. Keynes encouraged counter cyclical spending- spend more in a recession but less in a boom. Hari was not demanding that Gordon Brown rein in spending while he was running budget surpluses during the boom years. Therefore it can only be concluded that Hari 's support for Keynsianism is opportunistic and he merely supports whatever theory will encourage further public spending at any given time.

Via.