hadj-podge

Add this being an election year to the series of crises that have fraught and jeopardised Europe’s attempts to shelter the displaced and the threatened (not to mention the spectre and reality of rising nationalism, preachers of hate and preachers of appeasement), it is little surprise that some German politicians are drafting a raft of proposals that would markedly change the country’s policy on immigration.
Though attested as measures to promote integration and public-safety, the reforms include, most provocatively, the banning of burqas and hijabs in public, following France’s rules. While other elements might be less sensational, the former seems the least worrisome considering that there is talk of relaxing doctor-patient confidentiality by introducing a duty to report even when the threat is not imminent, the expulsion of notorious characters for their potential to incite violence, or even removing refugees to massive encampments outside of European Union borders to wait it out until their respective conflicts at home end. What do you think? Whosoever champions one side or another seem unable in any venue to start a conversation that can be heard above the din of the repelling of opposites and the compacting of reasoned arguments down to their dread conclusions. One has to wonder if those policymakers are above that miasma of the democracy of the moment, in the thick of it, or are foolish enough to try to wield it.

and i endorse this message

Sometimes simplicity can speak volumes, and from an economy of design perspective, there is quite some immediacy to it that is almost stronger for the juxtaposition. Found here.

free-return trajectory

An internet giant and associates intend to land an unmanned spacecraft on the Moon before the end of 2017, we learn via Kottke, after overcoming the administrative embargos established under the terms governing the parties of the Outer Space Treaty, which provides that no government can claim ownership of any celestial body, nor can weaponise space and is responsible for commercial spacecraft launched under their jurisdiction—no matter how close or loose that association is, what with multinational entities beholden to no state.  The treaty was installed shortly after the US government seeded the upper atmosphere with tens of thousands of microscopic needles at the height of the Cold War as a contingency for maintaining global communications in case the Soviets cut the undersea cables spanning the Atlantic.
Incidentally, the first private, commercial mission to the Moon was a fly-by and fourteen day Earth orbit executed by a German ærospace company in October of 2014 (EN/DE), memorialising its founder who had recently departed, but entailed no actual touch-down or permanent presence and this upcoming enterprise will be a first. In addition to being liable for the craft that take-off under their auspices, space-faring nations also retain ownership of the artifacts that they leave behind, space-junk, equipment, rovers and flags but can stake no claim—despite America’s push to have Tranquility Base protected as a national historic monument. I wonder how the Outer Space Treaty applies to wholly private activities—like asteroid mining, whose mere spectre should have already stopped the gold speculators, or space tourism. While we have to have confidence that governments with the urge to explore and not exploit, will only vet businesses of a like character, on the other hand, one has to wonder about burdening entrepreneurs with an insufficient regulatory framework and disincentives when private innovations may be a far greater boon to all of humanity than anything government can produce. What do you think? Not only do I not want to see tatty resorts crowding up the lunar surface, who’s to say that one could brand hollowed-out planetoids (or at least overlay them with advertising in a virtual augmented reality) or net a comet and remove it from the skies forever?  I think the potential amazing advances will carry the day and prevail, however, in the end.

couplet and quatrain

Appreciating, like the troubadours of yore, that news and current events are especially good subjects for verse and there a quite a few social mediators out there doing just that. These are not ballads, quite (I tried that once during a long car trip in Ireland, “Heiko in his Aygo, he was a sheep-dodger!” and was asked to please stop) but rather poems adapted for genre and format of immediacy of meaning that can be teased out in a few choice words.
There is one superb individual, writing under the pseudonym Brian Bilston, whose been accorded the title of poet laureate for his moving and pithy works. I only found out about Mr. Bilston having heard tell that he’s been recruited by the traveling circus of the rich and powerful that will be descending on der Zauberberg later this year for the World Economic Forum as sort of a court-minstrel, but unbound by any patronage. His most famous poem that earned him the laurels, entitled “Refugees,” tweeted in March of this year, appears below. Please do heed the author’s request (and I promise, the effect is arresting) after reading it from top to bottom, re-read it from bottom to top:

Refugees

They have no need of our help
So do not tell me
These haggard faces could belong to you or I
Should life have dealt a different hand
We need to see them for who they really are
Chancers and scroungers
Layabouts and loungers
With bombs up their sleeves
Cut-throats and thieves
They are not
Welcome here
We should make them
Go back to where they came from
They cannot
Share our food
Share our homes
Share our countries
Instead let us
Build a wall to keep them out
It is not okay to say
These are people just like us
A place should only belong to those who are born there
Do not be so stupid to think that
The world can be looked at another way

(Now please re-read from bottom to top)

cozy bear, fancy bear

US intelligence agencies are lending credence, BoingBoing informs, to the suggestion that the Russian government contracted hackers to leak Democratic National Committee internal emails that would besmirch Clinton’s candidacy and throw the presidential election in Trump’s favour.
Given the mogul’s disdain for institutions like NATO and attested admiration for the Russian leader (not to mention business connections), the conspiracy seems more and more plausible. Yet this development might be a double-bluff to bury an even more diabolical plot. Asked what the bureau’s next move might be in the investigation, experts owed that their scope could be quite restricted and outside of their jurisdiction, as while bypassing computer security is a crime (even white hat hacking) trying to influence the outcome of a vote is not, and, unlike the unabashed media, the government would not want to risk fowling the waters—poisoning their own wells. What do you think? Being frank and forthright is a rare commodity in politics.

mo(u)rning in america

Via Marginal Revolution’s curated links, we are invited to check our punditry-meter when considering—or privileging—the current political landscape in America and abroad. Rhetoric is certainly spun-up to a fevered-pitch but the other thing about persuasive or sophistical speech is that is also serviceably modular and forgettable. While there is certainly cause for alarm and precedence for danger and intrigue and an awful redux of some things we’d thought we had dispatched, maybe there’s little novel in the present situation to bemoan.
Looking at these melodramatic instances from recent campaigns and critiques, I am reminded of far older politicking that conceived the polarising two-party system of the US: like the Tea-Partiers of the last election cycle, there was in the mid-1850s a movement called the Know Nothings—being a quasi-secret society whose membership and activities they’d never divulge to outsiders, owning up to no knowledge of whatever accusations. Even more anachronistically, they called their political caucus the Native American Party in order to balance out the political vacuum with the collapse of the of the Whig constituency and existed exclusively to warn-off the decent suffragans of the country about the dangers of immigration—especially of the Catholic persuasion with marching orders from the Pope to subvert the country. Unsuccessfully, they campaigned to reinstate former president Millard Fillmore and in the wake of the US Civil War, sublimated themselves into the grandees of the GOP. Fillmore had the first bathtub put in the White House, among other things. Even compared to contemporary events, the politics of America seem almost abruptly passé, given that BREXIT has effectively already built that border-wall, Theresa May has been installed as an unelected Prime Minister (though a Bremain-supporter, is quite a boon to an Anglo-Saxon named Status Quo) and dotty former London mayor Boris Johnson has been elevated in the caretaker cabinet to the office of Foreign Minister. America, for once, might have an uphill battle for lunacy.

trademark, earmark

Though there is no law proscribing that an American president cannot be engaged in private commercial activity—though most are more discrete about it, having their income tied up in plantations, speakers’ fees, book deals or in other monetary instruments, no other candidate has founded his pre-political career on image and personality so as to seem inexorably inseparable from the brand as our mogul Silvio Berlusconi.
Notwithstanding the inherent conflict of interest that presents itself when pledging to restrict Muslim immigration despite lending his name to business towers in Istanbul and Dubai, there are a whole array of products, like premium vodka, subscription steak deliveries, cologne, a winery, a diploma-mill in addition to the casinos and beauty-pageants that the candidate might have to divest himself of. With the campaign slogan, “America—you can be my ex-wife,” I wonder who the lucky recipient of this alimony might be. I suspect Berlusconi or a coalition government formed by one of Stevie Nick’s shawls and the scalp of Trump’s own balding pate might make for a more beneficent rule.

lustration

While it is probably almost always amateur-night at the False Flag, depending on how chuffed one imagines oneself to be and the target-audience to be duped—despite what the hecklers may counter, the manufactured junta, military coup that the current and long-standing regime of the Turkish government sprung in the midst of tragic distraction and suffering ought to be a cue to the world that this Ottoman cabal ought not be accorded the respect and confidence of a legitimate and democratically sourced power any longer.
The rolls of undesirables to be purged were at the ready to be released in the immediate aftermath of the orchestrated failure, like the enemies-list of some paranoid Roman emperor (the attested role of country’s military’s executive estate being to preserve the standard of secularism in the face of the blurring of Church and State) and ushered in the lock-down of thousands of educational, judicial, media and charitable institutions accused of subversion, not counting the depleted ranks of the army and untold political dissidents in the sweeping process. The staging of the whole theatre was sloppy—but also was the media coverage and critical-analysis. Such disdain for difference of opinion certainly and basic human-rights could not be the hallmarks of accession to the European Union—not that the muzzled majority of Turkish people should suffer more for the tyranny of their leaders, nor does it seem to be an ideal location for the US to store its nuclear arsenal or consider its NATO partnership a reliable one. Let’s hope that this pretend narrative could lend momentum to the real thing.

tonkin ghosts or mess-o'-potamia

Finally released seven years after the beginning of the investigation and five years after its conclusion, with publication delayed several times, the Chilcot Report (or the Iraq Inquiry) brought back a surge of memories and is confirmation of what many if not most of us suspected:
diplomatic solutions had not been exhausted, Iraq presented little imminent threat beyond its neighbours and the actions of the US and the UK undermined the United Nations’ authority through the unilateral determination, the case for war of their leaders. Legality and thus the ability to indict or exonerate anyone of war crimes was outside of the scope of the investigation, and thirteen years on it is difficult to conceive how a world with or without Hussein might be. The forces that rushed in to occupy that void in power does seem rather like a hydra instead of any improvement, and prosecuting regime-change under once dubious and now patently false fears and scaremongering seems beyond regrettable.  Sadly, this publication will not vindicate the suffering of Iraqis or service members that have been pained by this pretext, and I wonder if the political fall-out will be momentous and haunting enough to ensure that such adventures are not embarked upon again.  The world’s threshold and memory sometimes seems woefully inadequate.

lingua franca or brexit, stage left

To the disdain of the Maltese and Irish—whose concerns are being downplayed as they elected to make their first official languages Maltese and Gaelic, respectively, some in Brussels want to see the use of the English language in official parlance scaled back. Although there’s no legal status accorded to the “working languages” of the European Union and French and German are only spoken by tradition, some feel that the UK should take its linguistic and cultural dominance with it. What do you think of this proposal? I am already a little fearful that a large percentage of the world might forget about Europe as some byzantine amalgam that’s just alien and just the end of some long, strange continuum of foreignness without the Anglo-Saxon element.

frexit, nexit or waiting for the other shoe to fall

It seems that authorities at the European Union would like to hasten the UK out of the bloc and not prolong matters, for fear that lingering would result in extended economic turmoil and that it might cause contagion.
Not only might Oxbridge, Gibraltar, Scotland and County Ulster choose secession from England, votes and sentiments more or less split down these internal borders, there’s a cascade effect already happening and I am not sure how earnest it is—though I think Brexit came as a shock to many, and if lessons imparted from Britain’s going alone will prove discouraging of revolt. The Netherlands, France and Hungary, all championed by emergent right-leaning politicians, are calling for their own plebiscites. If they do materialise, let’s hope they’re awarded better acronyms and portmanteaux, and that in the long run we don’t lose sight, amid business interests or the complaints—and some of them certainly valid ones, about EU-House rules, of the long-range objective of this Union of promoting peace, cooperation and understanding in this war-torn continent and to avoid the jingoistic mistakes of the past.

common market

The only other quasi-precedential withdrawal from the European Union was in 1982 when after devolution and greater independence from metropolitan Denmark, Greenlanders held a plebiscite and by the same narrow margins (a fifty-two/forty-eight split) voted to leave.
The chief motivation to leave (a decision that suddenly reduced the landmass in the then fledgling European Community by about sixty percent) was the fishermen of Greenland being told how much they could catch and then sharing that quota with trawling powerhouses. Negotiations between København, Nuuk and Brussel took over three years, but the untried exit mechanism, Article 50 that came with the Treaty of Lisboa of 2007, was not yet in place and no things being equal in the parallels of recent times (in terms of complexity)—one can rest assured that the EU and the UK will reach a new, neighbourly deal in no time. Maybe this was one of those times that America tried to buy Greenland wholesale. I think it was around this time that the US Three and a half decades on, Greenland, wishing for greater leverage and protection to curb other manufacturing nations from flooding their domestic markets, is now contemplating returning to the EU.

photo-finish or vox-populi

It’s a little hard to wrap one’s head around what impact and further repercussions the outcome of the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union will have, as a framework for discharge needs to be crafted first for this separation to be in any sense amicable—countering arguments that the UK is instantly free from any obligation to the bloc of European nations, since even if they don’t want to be welcomed back into the fold with open arms, no one wants to spoil trade or travel relations—but it does illustrate how quickly that one half of a population can turn against another.
Although Britain has examined and relooked its relationship with and in the EU for over four decades now and sides had been fermented long ago, the escalation that might cascade to other polities and break-up the whole experiment did come rather abruptly, fueled in large part by social mediators. No one ought to be faulted for sharing his or her opinion and beyond guess-work, none of us can say whether this bodes fair or ill, but the referendum also illustrates I think the rationale behind representative democracies—even when at the pinnacle of that hierarchy, one finds monarchs or unelected eurocrats—who assume the responsibility to protect us (often falling short) from our own immediate wishes. Delayed or deferred gratification for the sake of the longer view may not be as appealing as whatever is trending at the moment, and politicians serve (supposedly) to manage those expectations and (supposedly) are culpable for the miscarriages of governance. Those who launch teapot-tempests, no matter what the result, are exculpable and there’s no one held to account in mob-rule to pick up the pieces if things fall apart. What do you think?  Will other members follow Britain’s lead?  Perhaps democracy in action delivers what the voters deserve. 

media black-out or all the news that’s fit to print

While after having its servers compromised and fearful at the DNC that whatever muck has been raked (which ought not be such a bombshell, we suspect) might be released prematurely and spoil their impact, meanwhile the Republican National Committee has been presented a challenge by the third estate.
Although we have serious objections to the concept of denying dissenting voices a platform out of fear of causing trauma, the threat, pledge of journalistic abeyance strikes me as an effective way to take the wind out of certain sails. The time and resources formerly dedicated, thoughtlessly and without stint, to covering every stump speech would instead be pledged to uncovering the veracity of such claims that might only pass as the news ticker. Media organisations would also petition the party for the reinstatement of their credentials and access, revoked for having crossed the presumptive candidate. What do you think? Just apply the resolution equitably (when any candidate denies an audience to media outlets because it is not supportive of his or her platform) to preserve journalistic integrity and spare us all the awful spectacle. Is it biased or undermining to deny demagogues their expected and free publicity?

equal time or frontierland

Vice Magazine gives us an important reminder that debate regarding the UK’s withdrawal from European Union membership is not only championed or disparaged by the alternatively shrill and even-keeled political figureheads that try to mold public opinion and secure votes, to the exclusion of the opposing antagonism—but there are also underlying ideological battles that strangely are not the bailiwicks of our familiar ideologues.
Left of centre proponents’ arguments to leave the EU include that the union is akin to empire and client states are unable to fulfill the social-contract to its citizen subjects, owing to the fact that so many laws and regulations are crafted at the supranational level and thus estranging governments from their responsibility for good governance. Local authorities could rightly throw up their hands in frustration over the deficit of influence they and their constituents have on big issues, like trade policy, that have global effects. Alternately, with trade also as the driving vehicle, those liberals in the bremain camp argue that an insular Britain detached from the EU would strip-mine labour protections and cost many their livelihoods, which the common-market fosters. Next week, Vice will air the views of the right-wing on the referendum and perhaps the squabbles for and against won’t be the televised predictable pedantry either.

brussels calling

Chief diplomat to the European Union’s delegation to Turkey, Hansjörg Haber, has abruptly resigned, reportedly (angeblich), over Ankara’s conduct regarding a deal to create an immigration buffer-zone in exchange for visa-free access to the EU bloc of nations for Turkey and refusal to live up to its end of the bargain.
This rather cantankerous behaviour is to be expected from a nation that realises it has the EU over a barrel with the refugee situation, even if Europe does not itself fully appreciate the situation. This further fracture comes at a time when tensions are already running high over a lack of candor about the present and the past that has seen German journalists being denied entry and German officials of Turkish ancestry being given police protection, worried that there could be retaliation for their votes to label the massacre perpetrated by the Ottomans as genocide—and campaigners in the UK are vocal with a political hot-potato that EU ascension for Turkey is either imminent or otherwise will not happen within our natural lifetimes but that Turkey should nonetheless strung along with a glimmer of hope to maintain good terms. I’ve wanted to say to the Leave camp, “You know, Brussels can hear you?  They hear all those awful things you are saying about them.” Perhaps the Remains need to have the same thing pointed out to them about Turkey.

With such hate and suffering in the world, nuancing the politics of the outcome with a foresight that’s only the lens of hindsight mean that truly the Tea Party teaydists have won and are playing right into the clutches of chaos and division that obscures any chance for change for the better.
As much as we all are united in prayer for the victims, family and friends (and for those who’d discharge compassion without stint or judgment), I think we most also rally behind the prayer for strength to stand up against tyranny and intolerance, whenever and wherever. One cannot simply throw back the argument that those who want a better homeland, be it America or Syria or Afghanistan, must be willing to fight for it is not wholly fair as there are significant roadblocks and the same intrigues erected all around that can lame an uprising (mostly by proxy) even before it can be conceived, but I’d wager that immigration policies—whatever the intent—have attracted a desperate class who’ve gotten out through alternate routes that are in the minority but mostly undifferentiated from the network of rubbish and opportunist smugglers that brought them and would willing exchange roles. Any one of us can gain security through strife but it is not a rewarding boon to pass along, neither as guest nor host.

shangri-la or public-burden

Although with very different issues at stake, a series of referenda (plebiscites) put to the people have been returned, I think, with a degree of timidity—like Switzerland’s recent rejection of a basic income for all, the cession of Scotland or of Catalonia, and I wonder what this bodes, bold or dull, for up-coming votes, like for the US electorate or the potential UK withdrawal from the EU.
Of course, sometimes a departure is a foolhardy thing that fortune does not necessarily favour and there’s little leverage for polemics and convincing in defeat—but, as hackneyed and exhausting as being told votes are historic and come with a mandate can be (I doubt that anything so momentous would be left in the hands of the public) maybe our conservative posture is indicative of what meaning we attribute to democracy and how much personal liability we are willing to accept. What do you think?

hochwohlgeboren

The German president will be tendering his resignation and not seeking a second term. While there are some good candidates for Gauck’s successor being proposed, including co-chairman of the Green Party and direct-democracy advocate Cem Özdemir or Christian Social Union leader Gerda Hasselfeldt, I still tend to think (although more persuaded that the position is more than just a ceremonial one) that one of Germany’s noble families, given the affection that the country has for Her Majesty, could enjoy a more or less hereditary office and discharge a service to the public. I think royals must be naturally gracious hosts and could execute those duties expertly and without political baggage.

terminal, process, decision

The latest comic from Randall Munroe is in keeping with his best xkcd strips in putting forward something rather thought-provoking bound up with the humorous side. This flow-chart helps one pinpoint the age of a globe or world map that’s otherwise undated through the quirks of geopolitics, (click on the image to enlarge) whose overlap and historical context are pretty fascinating to think about, especially when presented as parallels and culs-de-sac.