HG Wells is to blame for geek culture

All "cool" geek culture (by which I mean the cheesy stuff that fashionably geeky people like) can be traced back to HG Wells: Syfy original programming, Dungeons and Dragons, war games, steampunk, bad sci-fi adventure novels (okay, Jules Verne is probably more to blame for that one), eugenics (as understood by Internet neckbeards) and self-righteous vegetarianism. All the genuinely cool things about him (proto-feminism, Fabian socialism) remain unfashionable. I have therefore concluded that the only way to save humanity from its navel-gazing fantasist inclinations is to travel back in time and assassinate HG Wells. Oh wait, time travel is another genre trope he popularized. God damn it. HG fucking Wells.

A revolt does not a revolution make...

Roger Cohen wrote this rather interesting, though wrong, account of the chaos in Tunisia and Egypt. Cohen has been pushing the line in his last few editorials that social networking technology like Twitter and Facebook is facilitating some kind of instant revolution in the Arab world. As a friend of mine pointed out, commentators are confusing the word "revolution" for "revolt." Here's a little excerpt from Cohen's piece:

Organization, networking, exposure to suppressed ideas and information, the habits of debate and self-empowerment in a culture of humiliation and conspiracy: These are some of the gifts social media is bestowing on overwhelmingly young populations across the Arab world.

Above all, the Internet’s impact has been to expose the great delusion that has led Western governments to buttress Arab autocrats: that the only alternative to them was Islamic jihadists. No, the Tunisian revolution was middle-class, un-Islamic and pro-Western. The people in the streets of Cairo are young, connected, non-ideological and pragmatic: They want a promise that Mubarak won’t stand in the presidential election this year or hand power to his son, Gamal, who, by the way, has a nice pad on London’s chic Eaton Square.

 In his previous editorial, Cohen wrote:

Anders Colding-Jorgensen, a Danish psychologist, conducted an experiment in 2009 in which he implied that Copenhagen’s Stork Fountain was about to be demolished and started a Facebook group to save it. The threat was fictitious but the group soon had two new members joining every minute...

The Tunisian revolution was that experiment on steroids. Castro spent years preparing revolution in the Cuban interior, the Sierra Maestra; Facebook propelled insurrection from the interior to the Tunisian capital in 28 days....Tunisia was a Facebook revolution. But I prefer a phrase I heard in Tunis: “The Dignity Revolution.”

A nice thought, but I think it's gravely naive and oversimplified. I was pleased to see that my comment on Cohen's latest editorial was actually highlighted--yes, my ego really is that easy to stroke. Here is my comment:

I think Cohen is mistaken in calling these massive protests "revolutions," even in the case of Tunisia where the head of state was actually thrown out.

A revolution isn't throwing out a government; it's what happens after you overthrow the government. It requires a balancing act of carrying out the mandate of the people while retaining order. A spontaneous uprising can be the beginning of a revolution, but it's not the end or even the middle of a revolution. If you don't have anything to replace the ousted regime with, you'll simply end up with another authoritarian to fill the vacuum.

In a previous article Cohen compared the speed of mobilization in Tunisia with Castro's years in the Sierra Maestra, arguing that social networking technology did in days what it took years to happen in Cuba. But this comparison is deeply flawed. Castro spent those years creating a sustained popular momentum, building lasting political alliances/networks, defeating utterly Batista's forces, establishing a new military force to replace them, carrying out tentative reforms in the countryside and planning for the post-war period That's the kind of work that goes into any lasting revolution.

Since the end of the Cold War, US policy makers have leaped at every opportunity to call any government-toppling mass uprising a "revolution," especially when they were favorable to us (as in the former Eastern Bloc/Soviet satellite countries). This has now extended to our authoritarian allies in the Arab world. But all of these so-called revolutions are already in danger of petering out or being crushed under tighter restrictions from new and existing authoritarian governments. And that's because few of them have the leadership, ideology or planning in place to permanently take charge and implement reform--I hope for the best in Egypt, but I think it's going to go the way of Iran, the last "revolutionary" hot spot. All the social networking technology in the world isn't going to change that. Only by building real, permanent alliances, creating comprehensive programs, and sustaining long-term public action will these groups become true revolutionaries--and that's not going to happen through Facebook alone.

I do believe that all this can be the beginning of revolutions, especially with the heavy-handed suppression tactics we're seeing from the states. As any historical revolutionary will tell you, it's often the brutality of the state against reformists and protesters that leads to more radical and subversive action from the people. Spontaneous uprisings are important in a revolution, but they're only one component of the larger public struggle.

It's simply too early to call what we're seeing in North Africa revolutionary. There were people claiming that the post-election protests in Iran were part of a revolution, and we see how that worked out. The events unraveling now are, at most, the first tentative steps toward revolutions.

All that said, I do think Cohen is a smart dude with a better handle on the situation than most. His main problem is a bottomless faith in American technological know-how and its capacity to save the world.This contagious optimism afflicts many people who devote their life to public service.

I do welcome these protests. Sure they're not genuinely revolutionary (in the sense of fostering lasting change), but in 20 years time though, who knows what these countries will look like?

What I do like about all this is that it brings to the fore the fact that, no, Arab and Muslim societies are not static homogeneous blocs stuck permanently in the 12th century, contrary to popular western stereotypes. Yes, even the Arab/Muslim world desires change, though not always the kind the West favors. The fact that these protests are against authoritarians propped up by the West speaks volumes about US/European priorities in that part of the world: security and stability at any cost. Fear or Islamic states and the understandable desire to protect Israel has led the US to support brutal regimes in the region well beyond their shelf dates. It's like South America in the 1970s.

Of course, these popular revolts do open a door to Islamists seeking to replicate Iran's Islamic Revolution. But it must be emphasized that like the different strains of dissent in pre-revolution Iran, radical Muslims represent just one piece of the pie. These uprisings represent a very broad spectrum of Tunisian and Egyptian society. Personally, I think the US should change course now and back pro-democracy movements in the region regardless of whether or not their aims fall into direct line with US goals because failure to do so will mean more radical forms of protest, and more radical ideologies, becoming the dominant forms of dissent in the future. People forget that the post-WWII crop of radical Muslims came out of Egyptian prisons.

Not that the US will grow a pair and change course. The perceived economic and security risks are too high to get all teary eyed for populist democracy now.

GUNS, GUNS, GUNS!

 This lovely article in the New York Times summarizes some of the lazier arguments used by the pro-gun crowd. I've seen them all before, and they're got getting any younger or any better looking. Let's run through them shall we:

“What happened wasn’t caused by the failure or absence of some gun control law,” said Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the organizer of the Shot Show. “It was caused by a breakdown in the public mental health system. The question is why wasn’t this individual dealt with when everyone around him apparently saw there were very real issues.”

Well okay, nice try. But let's think about this diversionary argument for a second. On second thought let's not, let's just dismiss it out of hand. Hey dude, the argument for gun control laws isn't based on the assumption that guns cause violence. The idea is to prevent the cause the deadly rampages, i.e. people, from acquiring guns that make killing easier. There's nothing unreasonable about making it a little harder for certain people to get strapped. It's not about ending violent impulses, it's about ending violent acts. Get it?

“To my mind,” Mr. Keane added, “gun control is a failed social experiment, and it is time to move on.”

A set of gutted, rarely enforced laws does not constitute a "social experiment," failed or otherwise. A political failure, sure, but not a failed social experiment. In a way, the argument against gun laws is like the argument against public education. Right now it's very en vogue to talk about how public education has failed and the salvation of reading and math can be found in private charter schools, vouchers and, puke, home schooling. The problem with this line of reasoning becomes apparent when you notice that the rest of the developed world have public education systems that (mostly) work. The problem in the US isn't a theoretical failure of the "idea"of public education. It's that US culture and attitudes have effectively sabotaged our ability to run a decent public education system, local, national or otherwise.

It doesn't mean the idea doesn't work. It means that implementation has failed. Same with gun laws. If stringent federal gun laws were put into place, and enforced (with actual political and financial backing) and given time to actually work before the gun lobby could cut them down, they might actually keep psychopaths from getting guns. I dunno, just a thought. And before you show me how violent crime declined while gun laws were loosened, let me remind you that CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION. Just because there are two lines forming an X on a graph doesn't mean that Line A and Line B in inversely related.

“To point any fingers at the gun industry is ignorant,” Mr. Scherer said, as passers-by stopped to pick up and examine the magazines lined up on the counter. “That’s like pointing a finger at Ford and blaming them for car deaths.” 

Ford produces products that have considerably more utility than guns. Guns are designed to do two things: kill things and kill/injure/intimidate things that might kill you. As loathe as I am to defend the auto industry (given their contribution to the imminent environmental apocalypse), the argument can at least be made that they serve a useful function--they're not just a hobby, a weapon or a defensive aid for paranoids. Furthermore, the industry isn't being blamed for killing people; it's being blamed for making it easier with a product designed to make it easier and helping a billion-dollar lobby keep a bare minimum of reasonable laws off the books. 

“It’s the same kind of panicked reaction you get after a hurricane,” he said. “It’s over, and everyone wants to get shutters.”

It is like getting shutters, except the shutters are buying guns, not the reexamination of laws you might see in a reasonable country.

“Tucson is a tragedy, but that’s all we have to say about it,” said the sales representative, Tony Musa. “I have no opinion about gun control.”

 Hey, that's like everyone in American right now. Look, I don't mind the Second Amendment or people who like firearms (hell, I hunted when I was a kid and freely admit that firearms can be a fun pastime for sane people), but simply sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "nanny nanny nanny" over again isn't an argument. Just assuming that no reasonable argument can be made for gun regulations is tantamount to forfeiting all reason, simply giving up because you're tired of thinking an issue through. It's just another manifestation of American laziness and ineptitude. If the system's broke, don't fix it.

Guns don't kill people. Shitty arguments do.

The Joy of Sex

Eric Holder and Robert Gates are beaming with smiles of joy now that Assange has been formally arrested for alleged sex crimes in Sweden, mainly because they hope that once he's in Swedish custody they will be able to extradite him and try him stateside as a...a...I don't know, whatever a foreign national who hosts leaked documents on his website is.

Though I'm sure a long rape sentence in Sweden would work in a pinch. 

The hipster brain parasite has gone feral--it's time to put that hipster down

On Saturday, I watched some hairy Seattle hipsters knock over a garbage can. When the middle-aged owners of the Guitar Store tried to convince them to push the can upright, the rabies that had apparently addled their cool urban brains went into full infected pit bull mode. Next thing you know, these four hairy agents of gentrification were pummeling two men at least twice their age to the ground, shouting crude threats and basically behaving like extras in the Road Warrior. I don't know if it's the economy, the growing seediness of Seattle in general, or if the same virus that makes people listen to the Dirty Projectors, wear skinny jeans and slurp Pabst has gone malignant. I sincerely hope that the police take some time out of their busy schedules shooting indigenous wood carvers and beating black teenage girls to knock some everliving shit out of these droogs.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpuNE1cX03c

The Cowardice of the Mainstream Press

The noose is closing on Julian Assange. His fucked with the superpower horse, and now he's going to get the dong end of it. This is of course perfectly well expected. Anytime you arbitrarily dump a load of sensitive State Department data on the streets, you should probably expect a little comeuppance (rape accusations one day, the full wrath of the United States and its allies the next). This is all good and well. As any superpower knows, you might not be able to kill an idea, but you can definitely kill its most annoying and visible exponent.  Sometimes  you need to throw fresh flesh on the cross to keep the other would-be messiahs at bay. (note to the easily offended: this analogy is not intended to elevate Assange to the level of Christ, but rather designed to reduce Christ's glory)

All that said, the hypocrisy and general cowardice of the mainstream press has been staggering. Look at any major newspaper in the country, and you'll see two things: 1)a huge trove of news stories drawn from the copious hoard of leaked cables, and 2)a self-congratulatory editorial staff either condemning the leak and its imminent and apparently catastrophic effects on the US's FY2011 business plan, or outright dismissive of it--"hey, even though we've sold headline after headline of this non-news Assange leaked, none of this has been helpful at all." You have to dig around in the national magazine/left-wing blog/weeklies circuit (The Atlantic, the Nation, Counterpunch, the Stranger, etc.) to find anything like a defense.

Quite frankly, publications like the NY Times, the New Yorker, Seattle Times, etc. (and just about every daily paper in the country) should be ashamed of themselves. Some guy--albeit a guy with a penchant for conspiracy theories, a freshman-level political philosophy and alleged rapist tendencies--hands them a veritable treasure trove of top-shelf dirt, they gobble it up like a starved cabal of skeksis, and does he get a thank you or even a middling defense? Aside from a limp day-two editorial in the NY Times, the opinion mongers have been quick to distance themselves from their own reporting and offer up Assange for ridicule or contempt.

I'm sorry guys, but you can't get away with that. If someone serves you a free and delicious prime rib dinner, and you eat it, you can't retroactively call it crap and demand a refund. Well you can, but you'd be a pretty shitty dinner guest. You can't run story after story, call it news, but then turn around and say it's "not really news" because you're scared of the wrath of Uncle Sam, who you know is about to serve up a shit sandwich to the original publisher of the materials you have so graciously culled. You got what you wanted and now you're throwing away your source. It's the like "The Insider" if "The Insider" was the worst movie ever.

You know trying Assange on terrorism or espionage charges will have a chilling effect on other would-be whistle blowers and the First Amendment. But you're too cowardly to take a real stand, playing the role of the official newspapers of power, trumpeting the capture of Assange with the same zeal you unquestioningly parroted the official Iraq line in 2003 (yeah, I still remember that NY Times). It doesn't matter how useful the leaked intelligence is. What matters is that you used it, you fucking used it. It doesn't have to be the Pentagon Papers to be protected speech, though it must be said that the Pentagon Papers are really no different than what we've been offered here (wow, corrupt unstable government, popular insurgency, unreliable allies, futile endless war sold to the public as a winnable crusade for justice? Is that Vietnam or Afghanistan we're talking about?).

Assange simply provided a platform for publishing a leak. If he is arrested, your editorial staff should be arrested too, because you're doing the same he did only with the veneer of respectability.What a pathetic performance. You should bow your heads in shame.