20131223
20131219
China's central bank hacked; angry bitcoin traders may be to blame
China's central bank hacked; angry bitcoin traders may be to blame
As bitcoin halved in value after several Chinese exchanges halted yuan deposits, China’s central bank was the target of a hacking attack on Wednesday, with state media suggesting angry bitcoin investors may be to blame.
The official site of People’s Bank of China (PBOC) went down around 5 p.m. local time Wednesday, possibly due to an attack by bitcoin traders after the central bank curbed bitcoin transactions in China, the state-run China News Service said.
The news agency cited central-bank officials as saying were aware of the issue and had been working to bring the site back online, but they didn’t confirm whether the problem was related to bitcoins.
“Some Internet users claimed the central bank was hit by a DDoS [distributed denial-of-service] attack. We strongly condemn those hackers,” BTC38, a Chinese bitcoin exchange, said in an online statement on Wednesday. “Our site has also been DDOS’d several times. No matter what, those attacks are irrational and illegal.”
Last Thursday, the PBOC and several top regulatory agencies warned in a joint statement that bitcoin “is not a real currency” and that Chinese financial institutions and payment processors shouldn’t handle bitcoin transactions.
The central bank also met on Monday with several third-party payment processors and ordered them not to provide service for the bitcoin exchanges, according to China News Service.
On Wednesday, China’s two major bitcoin exchanges — BTC China and OKCoin — announced they would temporarily stop accepting yuan deposits. CHBTC, a Chinese bitcoin trading site, also said it would stop allowing customers to use yuan to buy bitcoins online.
France on edge of return to recession, increasing pressure on Hollande
France on edge of return to recession, increasing pressure on Hollande
François Hollande's beleaguered socialist government was under increased pressure to boost the eurozone's second largest economy after a collapse in manufacturing orders tonight left it on the cusp of another recession.
A survey of French manufacturers found that output contracted and businesses shed jobs in November in response to the fastest slowdown in new orders since April, accentuating the single currency bloc's sluggish recovery. The services sector also declined, potentially sending the country sliding back into recession after having only emerged from one in the second quarter of 2013.
Hollande is already the most unpopular French president on record and can expect to face further charges of economic incompetence after the mainstays of French output and employment failed to reverse their fortunes ahead of the Christmas break.
French GDP shrank by 0.1% in the three months to the end of September and a second quarter of decline would put it technically in recession.
The government is under fire for presiding over a moribund economy that has kept unemployment at a record high. Only 26% of French people have a positive opinion of Hollande, according to the latest BVA poll, the worst score for a French leader since it began polling 32 years ago.
A series of climbdowns on tax reforms following violent street protests and intense lobbying by business groups have further undermined his authority. French footballers have proved a high-profile thorn in his side after they complained about a 75% tax on earnings of more than €1m (£850,000), which will be introduced in 2014. Only last week MPs conceded that Monaco players would avoid paying it following an appeal by the principality, a tax haven.
The dismal situation contrasted with Germany, which has enjoyed a prolonged recovery based on growing orders from new markets. A record increase in manufacturing output, according to the survey, gave a lift to the incoming coalition government of the chancellor, Angela Merkel, and helped to push the reading on the eurozone economy as a whole to its fastest monthly rate of increase since 2011.
Markit's flash eurozone composite purchasing managers' index (PMI), which gauges business activity across thousands of firms large and small, rose to 52.1 in December from 51.7 last month. It was the second-highest reading since mid-2011 and has been above the 50 mark that denotes growth since the summer.
But France's recent economic woes have dragged on the eurozone's growth and have probably weakened the Hollande government's ability to push through labour reforms while maintaining welfare and pension payments. With declining tax receipts, Paris will also struggle to make the investments needed to boost GDP.
Markit's chief European economist, Chris Williamson, said: "This is very much a manufacturing-led recovery. It's reflective of companies, especially in Germany, being more competitive and taking advantage of the upturn in global trade."
The latest signs of the French economy ailing comes as the carmaker Peugeot Citroën was reported to be close to signing a deal with Dongfeng Motor, a state-owned Chinese firm, with which it already has a joint venture, that would see much-needed capital injected into the manufacturer.
Meanwhile, a survey of French services firms found optimism ebbing, with the index drifting to 47.4 from 48.7 last month.
Moody's Analytics, a unit of the credit-rating firm, said: "This decline in business sentiment is starting to be a concern, as we were hoping the November decline was a consequence of the temporary political context and that December data would have reversed."
Analysts at HSBC were even gloomier, noting that the gap between Germany and France has rarely been bigger in a single month.
They said: "France looks increasingly worrying, with weak services recovery and manufacturing PMI pointing straight to contraction. One has only to hope that the looser relationship between PMI and GDP growth seen in France than elsewhere will play beneficially here. Some pre-emptive spending of consumers anticipating the tax increases planned for January may do just that."
France will raise its headline VAT rate from 19.6% to 20% on 1 January to protests from retailers and consumer groups. The small rise is seen as an attack on living standards already battered by four years of faltering recovery from the banking crash.
Business have also complained by a rise from 7% to 10% in the intermediate VAT rate that affects goods such as imported art works, which Sotheby's has said could benefit London and New York at the expense of Paris.
Banks in 'doom loop'
European banks have filled their balance sheets with national debt since 2011, bringing them easy profits but reinforcing a "doom loop" linking weak banks to governments with shaky finances, the European Union's banking watchdog has said.
The European Banking Authority(EBA), the European Union's banking watchdog, said the share of bonds issued by sovereigns under stress held by their domestic banks had "increased markedly" between December 2010 and June 2013.
The net exposure of banks to sovereign debt fell 9% in 2011 but then rose 9.3% in the 18 months to June this year, data showed.
The data confirms suspicions - that banks, particularly in Italy and Spain, have ploughed cheap funds from the European Central Bank into buying more of their own countries' bonds, a move that helps ensure governments fund their deficits at sustainable rates.
Regulators partly blame a move by banks to rein in cross-border activity and build up new liquidity buffers made up predominantly of government debt as a way of reducing risk.
But the EBA's data - which updated core capital and holdings of sovereign debt and loans at 64 leading European banks - is likely to reinforce fears that the fortunes of the banks and the states in which they are based are still too closely intertwined.
It will also fuel a debate over whether all government debt should be treated as equally risk-free when it comes to calculating bank capital requirements. Reuters
20131217
20131216
Spooks at MI5 spied on high-ranking SAS officers in as part of military leak probe
Spooks at MI5 spied on high-ranking SAS officers in as part of military leak probe
Source: Mirror UK
Spooks at MI5 probing the leaks of military secrets have spied on high-ranking SAS officers.
Special forces commanders are believed to have initiated the investigation after becoming increasingly frustrated by SAS operations, training and disciplinary issues appearing in the media.
A team of hand-picked MI5 agents are understood to have bugged phones, monitored computer traffic and watched several senior members of the SAS between 2010 and 2011.
The MI5 operation, said to have caused a lasting and deep rift between the two covert organisations, led to the arrest of two special forces officers whose careers were destroyed, even though charges against them were dropped.
In February 2011, MI5 named the two officers to Metropolitan Police’s Counter terrorist Command (SO15) detectives.
They were identified as suspects because of their friendship with a TV journalist, who they met in Afghanistan in 2008.
He was embedded with the 16 Air Assault Brigade.
One, a major in command of the SAS’s counter-terrorism unit identified as AB, was with his young son driving on a bridge in Hereford when detectives stopped him.
The other, a captain known as SF, was arrested at his desk at the SAS’s London HQ by SO15 officers.
Iraq and Afghanistan veteran AB, being groomed as a future SAS commander, had visited his seriously ill wife in hospital.
Detectives took charge of his son and AB was ordered to his HQ where he was arrested on suspicion of breaching the Official Secrets Act.
AB was taken to Marylebone police station where he was quizzed for 18 hours by detectives who specialise in interrogating terrorists.
He was fingerprinted, made to pose for a police mugshot and give a DNA sample but AB denied leaking secret information and told police he was “a patriot” and “not a liar”.
Released on bail, AB was suspended as the head of the SAS counter-terrorist unit. In October 2011 he resigned from the Army.
All charges were later dropped by the Met, who assured AB neither he nor SF would be investigated further.
The journalist was also close to another senior SAS officer and had privately communicated with General Sir David Richards, then Chief of the Defence Staff, but neither officer was questioned.
Details of the spying operation are revealed in a Met police legal document seen by the Sunday People.
AB is now suing the Met and one of the senior officers believed to have authorised the mission – Lt Gen Jonathan “Jacko” Page, then Director of Special Forces.
A police source said: “The SAS is supposed to have a very close working relationship with MI5".
“But that trust was shattered after the regiment learnt that MI5 was bugging soldiers’ mobile phones and email accounts.”
This revelation follows the allegation – first revealed by this paper – that the covert unit were involved in the murder of Princess Diana.
The regiment has been criticised over the treatment of war hero Danny Nightingale, 38, who is appealing his conviction for illegally possessing a gun and ammo.
He was sentenced to two years’ suspended for 12 months at a court martial in last summer.
Danny Nightingale - Wikipedia.org
Source: Mirror UK
Spooks at MI5 probing the leaks of military secrets have spied on high-ranking SAS officers.
Special forces commanders are believed to have initiated the investigation after becoming increasingly frustrated by SAS operations, training and disciplinary issues appearing in the media.
A team of hand-picked MI5 agents are understood to have bugged phones, monitored computer traffic and watched several senior members of the SAS between 2010 and 2011.
The MI5 operation, said to have caused a lasting and deep rift between the two covert organisations, led to the arrest of two special forces officers whose careers were destroyed, even though charges against them were dropped.
In February 2011, MI5 named the two officers to Metropolitan Police’s Counter terrorist Command (SO15) detectives.
They were identified as suspects because of their friendship with a TV journalist, who they met in Afghanistan in 2008.
He was embedded with the 16 Air Assault Brigade.
One, a major in command of the SAS’s counter-terrorism unit identified as AB, was with his young son driving on a bridge in Hereford when detectives stopped him.
The other, a captain known as SF, was arrested at his desk at the SAS’s London HQ by SO15 officers.
Iraq and Afghanistan veteran AB, being groomed as a future SAS commander, had visited his seriously ill wife in hospital.
Detectives took charge of his son and AB was ordered to his HQ where he was arrested on suspicion of breaching the Official Secrets Act.
AB was taken to Marylebone police station where he was quizzed for 18 hours by detectives who specialise in interrogating terrorists.
He was fingerprinted, made to pose for a police mugshot and give a DNA sample but AB denied leaking secret information and told police he was “a patriot” and “not a liar”.
Released on bail, AB was suspended as the head of the SAS counter-terrorist unit. In October 2011 he resigned from the Army.
All charges were later dropped by the Met, who assured AB neither he nor SF would be investigated further.
The journalist was also close to another senior SAS officer and had privately communicated with General Sir David Richards, then Chief of the Defence Staff, but neither officer was questioned.
Details of the spying operation are revealed in a Met police legal document seen by the Sunday People.
AB is now suing the Met and one of the senior officers believed to have authorised the mission – Lt Gen Jonathan “Jacko” Page, then Director of Special Forces.
A police source said: “The SAS is supposed to have a very close working relationship with MI5".
“But that trust was shattered after the regiment learnt that MI5 was bugging soldiers’ mobile phones and email accounts.”
This revelation follows the allegation – first revealed by this paper – that the covert unit were involved in the murder of Princess Diana.
The regiment has been criticised over the treatment of war hero Danny Nightingale, 38, who is appealing his conviction for illegally possessing a gun and ammo.
He was sentenced to two years’ suspended for 12 months at a court martial in last summer.
Danny Nightingale - Wikipedia.org
20131215
Man emerges from bunker 14 years after Y2K scare
Man emerges from bunker 14 years after Y2K scare
After being away from society for 14 years, Norman Feller is most impressed with KFC's 'Double Down' sandwich. (iStockPhoto)
January 1, 2000 was the day that our computers were meant to fail us and change our lives forever. It was also the day that 44 year old Norman Feller headed into his underground bunker over fears of the fallout from the Y2K virus. Remarkably, Mr. Feller spent the next 14 years in isolation only to emerge this past September.
In this touching documentary, Peter Oldring visits with Norman to learn more about his unbelievable decision to live underground.
20131212
Florida Woman Megan Mariah Barnes Causes Two-Vehicle Crash...While Shaving Her Bikini Line
Florida Woman Megan Mariah Barnes Causes Two-Vehicle Crash...While Shaving Her Bikini Line
Megan Mariah Barnes, 37, caused a two-vehicle crash last week in Florida because she was shaving her bikini line, KeysNews.com reports. While Barnes' hands were busy, her ex-husband held onto the steering wheel from the backseat.
So why was Barnes taking care of her hygiene while on the road?
"She said she was meeting her boyfriend in Key West and wanted to be ready for the visit," Trooper Gary Dunick said.
Uh, okay--we won't pass any judgement regarding Barnes's love life. But back to her driving: Barnes wasn't even supposed to be on the road because she was convicted of DUI with a prior and driving with a suspended license just one day earlier.
This time she was charged with driving with a revoked license, reckless driving, leaving the scene of a wreck with injuries and driving with no insurance. She faces a maximum of a year in jail. We also hope the court recommends a good salon.
Megan Mariah Barnes, 37, caused a two-vehicle crash last week in Florida because she was shaving her bikini line, KeysNews.com reports. While Barnes' hands were busy, her ex-husband held onto the steering wheel from the backseat.
So why was Barnes taking care of her hygiene while on the road?
"She said she was meeting her boyfriend in Key West and wanted to be ready for the visit," Trooper Gary Dunick said.
Uh, okay--we won't pass any judgement regarding Barnes's love life. But back to her driving: Barnes wasn't even supposed to be on the road because she was convicted of DUI with a prior and driving with a suspended license just one day earlier.
This time she was charged with driving with a revoked license, reckless driving, leaving the scene of a wreck with injuries and driving with no insurance. She faces a maximum of a year in jail. We also hope the court recommends a good salon.
20131210
20131209
20131208
Political, economic and military simulator: GoldenTowns
In goldentowns there are only 100,000 gold in circulation, 100% backed up by real gold. We constantly increase the real gold reserve so your virtual gold is more and more precious every second.
GoldenTowns is a political, economic and military simulator in which virtual gold can be converted into real money. You will have to build a town, you will be required to fight, trade and take part in the political life.
www.goldentowns.com?i=92271
20131206
20131205
20131203
Steven Spielberg: Film Industry Implosion Lies Ahead
Steven Spielberg: Film Industry Implosion Lies Ahead
Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, two of the biggest filmmakers of all time, expect some massive upheaval in Hollywood as the division between TV and film content disappears. Spielberg even forecast that the film industry would "implode."
Both see changes in the way movies are made, the way content is distributed and to the business itself, they said during a panel discussion at University of Southern California's School for Cinematic Arts, where they are board members.
But Spielberg also said that it's like 2008 in the business again, with the market bottomed and on the way up. There has never been more exciting potential, he added.
Spielberg and Lucas expect consumers to watch more content, including movies and TV shows, on giant screens at home, as the separation between TV and film content disappears and theatrical releases are limited to fewer, big-budget films.
"There's going to be an implosion where three or four or maybe even a half-dozen mega-budgeted movies go crashing into the ground, and that's going to change the paradigm again," Spielberg said.
Lucas predicted that the movie-going experience would become more of a luxury.
"You're going to end up with fewer theaters, bigger theaters with a lot of nice things," he said. "Going to the movies will cost 50 bucks or 100 or 150 bucks—like what Broadway costs today, or a football game."
He forecast that the movies that do make it to theaters will stay for a year, similar to the run of a Broadway show.
The two joked that they barely got their films "Lincoln" or "Red Tails" into theaters. Spielberg ribbed his friend that more people saw "Lincoln" than saw Lucas' "Red Tails" but admitted that it was a close call, adding that the presidential biopic almost ended up on Time Warner's HBO.
In the future environment, neither of those films would have made it into theaters but would have been available instead on the big screen in people's living rooms, in a new video-on-demand paradigm, they said.
In a building full of high-tech tools to help the next generation of filmmakers tell stories, Spielberg and Lucas had warnings for students.
First, technology should never be in the driver's seat, because the narrative is always the most important thing, they said.
"There is going to be a day when the experience is going to be the price of admission," Spielberg said. "What I fear about that day coming is that the experience will trump the story or the ability to compel people through a narrative. And it's going to be more of a ride, a theme park, than it is going to be a story, and that's what I hope doesn't happen."
Both passed the buck on another Indiana Jones movie. Spielberg said Lucas is the boss and that Indy's future lies with him.
"I'm happy to direct for George," he said. "If George decides to make another one, I'll be happy to shoot it."
Lucas countered that he didn't hold the power, saying that Lucasfilm President Kathleen Kennedy will make the call.
20131202
The Other America: "Taxpayers Are The Fools... Working Is Stupid"
The Other America: "Taxpayers Are The Fools... Working Is Stupid"
While what little remains of America's middle class is happy and eager to put in its 9-to-5 each-and-every day, an increasing number of Americans - those record 91.5 million who are no longer part of the labor force - are perfectly happy to benefit from the ever more generous hand outs of the welfare state. Prepare yourself before listening to this... calling on her self-admitted Obamaphone, Texas welfare recipient Lucy, 32, explains why "taxpayers are the fools"...
"...To all you workers out there preaching morality about those of us who live on welfare... can you really blame us? I get to sit around all day, visit my friends, smoke weed.. and we are still gonna get paid, on time every month..."
She intends to stay on welfare her entire life, if possible, just like her parents (and expects her kids to do the same). As we vociferously concluded previously, the tragedy of America's welfare state is that work is punished.
As quantitied, and explained by Alexander, "the single mom is better off earnings gross income of $29,000 with $57,327 in net income & benefits than to earn gross income of $69,000 with net income and benefits of $57,045."
We realize that this is a painful topic in a country in which the issue of welfare benefits, and cutting (or not) the spending side of the fiscal cliff, have become the two most sensitive social topics. Alas, none of that changes the matrix of incentives for most Americans who find themselves in a comparable situation: either being on the left side of minimum US wage, and relying on benefits, or move to the right side at far greater personal investment of work, and energy, and... have the same disposable income at the end of the day.
While what little remains of America's middle class is happy and eager to put in its 9-to-5 each-and-every day, an increasing number of Americans - those record 91.5 million who are no longer part of the labor force - are perfectly happy to benefit from the ever more generous hand outs of the welfare state. Prepare yourself before listening to this... calling on her self-admitted Obamaphone, Texas welfare recipient Lucy, 32, explains why "taxpayers are the fools"...
"...To all you workers out there preaching morality about those of us who live on welfare... can you really blame us? I get to sit around all day, visit my friends, smoke weed.. and we are still gonna get paid, on time every month..."
She intends to stay on welfare her entire life, if possible, just like her parents (and expects her kids to do the same). As we vociferously concluded previously, the tragedy of America's welfare state is that work is punished.
As quantitied, and explained by Alexander, "the single mom is better off earnings gross income of $29,000 with $57,327 in net income & benefits than to earn gross income of $69,000 with net income and benefits of $57,045."
We realize that this is a painful topic in a country in which the issue of welfare benefits, and cutting (or not) the spending side of the fiscal cliff, have become the two most sensitive social topics. Alas, none of that changes the matrix of incentives for most Americans who find themselves in a comparable situation: either being on the left side of minimum US wage, and relying on benefits, or move to the right side at far greater personal investment of work, and energy, and... have the same disposable income at the end of the day.
From Quebec to Spain, anti-protest laws are threatening true democracy
From Quebec to Spain, anti-protest laws are threatening true democracy
The Quebec government
sought to stifle student protest with emergency legistlation that
included measures banning demonstrations within 50 metres of a college,
and changing the route of a protest at short notice.
The Spanish government's punitive anti-protest draft laws are, critics say, an attack on democracy. That is precisely what they are.
In a number of recent front lines of popular protest, state capacities have been reconfigured to meet the challenge. In some instances, as in Greece, this has meant periods of emergency government. In Chicago, in Quebec and now in Spain, it has meant the expansion of anti-protest laws.
In 2011, the Chicago mayor, Rahm Emanuel, requested that the city council pass "temporary" anti-protest measures in response to the planned protests around the Nato and G8 summits. The laws included a $1m insurance mandate for public protests, heavy policing and greater obstacles to obtaining a protest permit. By early 2012, the legislation had been made permanent.
Later that same year, as the administration of Jean Charest in Quebec sought to deal with a tumultuous uprising of students against increased tuition fees, it passed a piece of emergency legislation named Bill 78. With the support of the state's employers, it imposed severe restrictions on the ability to protest, including banning protests within 50 metres of a college and giving the right to change the route of a protest at short notice, with severe fines for those protesters who did not co-operate.
The "public safety" legislation proposed in Spain has an essentially similar basis. Demonstrating near parliament without permission will result in steep fines, while participation in "violent" protests can result in a minimum two-year jail sentence. In each case, the logic is to put a chill on protest. It is not just that it is a protest deterrent; it has a domesticating effect on such protests as do occur.
To understand why this is happening, it is necessary to grasp the relationship between neoliberal austerity and popular democracy.
In a previous era, when neoliberal austerity was first being prepared in tandem with a racist, authoritarian crackdown, Greek political sociologist Nicos Poulantzas spoke of the "redeployment of legal-police networks" as a constitutive element in a new "authoritarian statism". In this regime, formal parliamentary apparatuses would be retained even while substantive democracy was eroded. Stuart Hall, writing a few years later, remarked of Thatcherite neoliberalism that "under this regime, the market is to be free; the people are to be disciplined".
Why this authoritarianism? Why, in freeing "the market", was it necessary to discipline the people? If the focus is limited to austerity – neoliberalism in its "shock doctrine" form – then the problem can be interpreted simply as one of crisis management. The state assumes measures for enhanced popular control at just the moment when it is trying to manage an unpopular reorganisation of public services, welfare and capital-labour relations. But in fact, this is merely a conjunctural form of a wider problem.
In a simple genealogical sense, neoliberalism can be read as an adaptation of the concerns of classical liberalism to the problems posed by the age of mass democracy. At a political level, neoliberalism responded to a supposed surfeit of democracy, an excess of popular demands upon the state. This not only trapped the state in a web of special interests but ultimately produced a crisis of "ungovernability". For the state to be able to do its business, its authority had to be restored; hence the salience of "law and order".
The "primary purpose of the state," said Thatcher, "is to maintain order." By designating the problem in this manner, and identifying political opponents through the ideology of crime and disorder, she was able to link her successes to a simple assertion of common sense. But the proliferation of laws designed to restrain protest and strike action, the growth of a centralised and militarised policing apparatus and the boom in prison construction, all beginning during her reign, not only transformed the relationship of citizens to the state but in so doing weakened popular constituencies relative to dominant business elites.
This expansion and refinement of the technologies of containment is, by itself, rarely sufficient. It has generally been accompanied by the deployment of new ideologies of crime and legality. For protest policing under neoliberalism does not simply entail more repressive behaviour. In fact, the secular trend across European states is for a convergence around a more differentiated system of strategies toward protests.
In dealing with larger protests representing "official" bodies, police tend to prefer consensual and negotiated approaches, and tend to take a greater physical distance from the people whose activities they are policing. By contrast, smaller groups of protesters representing loose social coalitions, campaign alliances and so on, are more likely to be deemed extremist, terrorist or even – theatrical gasp – anarchist, and thus subject to militarised policing, direct surveillance and physical coercion, with the invocation of "anti-terrorist" or other repressive legislation.
Just as the definition of crime is inherently ideological, so the decision as to what constitutes an "official" protest or an "extremist" outrage is in part ideological and normative, deriving from the legal and political culture of policing in a given state and bureaucratic categories deployed by local and national forces. Necessarily, then, this is an inherently politicised form of policing. It is not merely demonstrative, showing by example what styles of protest are tolerated (ineffectual ones, largely), but practical in the sense that it drastically foreshortens democratic possibilities.
The reorganisation of states today in an authoritarian direction is part of a longer-term project to contain democracy while retaining a minimum of democratic legitimacy. That is what the anti-protest laws are about.
In a number of recent front lines of popular protest, state capacities have been reconfigured to meet the challenge. In some instances, as in Greece, this has meant periods of emergency government. In Chicago, in Quebec and now in Spain, it has meant the expansion of anti-protest laws.
In 2011, the Chicago mayor, Rahm Emanuel, requested that the city council pass "temporary" anti-protest measures in response to the planned protests around the Nato and G8 summits. The laws included a $1m insurance mandate for public protests, heavy policing and greater obstacles to obtaining a protest permit. By early 2012, the legislation had been made permanent.
Later that same year, as the administration of Jean Charest in Quebec sought to deal with a tumultuous uprising of students against increased tuition fees, it passed a piece of emergency legislation named Bill 78. With the support of the state's employers, it imposed severe restrictions on the ability to protest, including banning protests within 50 metres of a college and giving the right to change the route of a protest at short notice, with severe fines for those protesters who did not co-operate.
The "public safety" legislation proposed in Spain has an essentially similar basis. Demonstrating near parliament without permission will result in steep fines, while participation in "violent" protests can result in a minimum two-year jail sentence. In each case, the logic is to put a chill on protest. It is not just that it is a protest deterrent; it has a domesticating effect on such protests as do occur.
To understand why this is happening, it is necessary to grasp the relationship between neoliberal austerity and popular democracy.
In a previous era, when neoliberal austerity was first being prepared in tandem with a racist, authoritarian crackdown, Greek political sociologist Nicos Poulantzas spoke of the "redeployment of legal-police networks" as a constitutive element in a new "authoritarian statism". In this regime, formal parliamentary apparatuses would be retained even while substantive democracy was eroded. Stuart Hall, writing a few years later, remarked of Thatcherite neoliberalism that "under this regime, the market is to be free; the people are to be disciplined".
Why this authoritarianism? Why, in freeing "the market", was it necessary to discipline the people? If the focus is limited to austerity – neoliberalism in its "shock doctrine" form – then the problem can be interpreted simply as one of crisis management. The state assumes measures for enhanced popular control at just the moment when it is trying to manage an unpopular reorganisation of public services, welfare and capital-labour relations. But in fact, this is merely a conjunctural form of a wider problem.
In a simple genealogical sense, neoliberalism can be read as an adaptation of the concerns of classical liberalism to the problems posed by the age of mass democracy. At a political level, neoliberalism responded to a supposed surfeit of democracy, an excess of popular demands upon the state. This not only trapped the state in a web of special interests but ultimately produced a crisis of "ungovernability". For the state to be able to do its business, its authority had to be restored; hence the salience of "law and order".
The "primary purpose of the state," said Thatcher, "is to maintain order." By designating the problem in this manner, and identifying political opponents through the ideology of crime and disorder, she was able to link her successes to a simple assertion of common sense. But the proliferation of laws designed to restrain protest and strike action, the growth of a centralised and militarised policing apparatus and the boom in prison construction, all beginning during her reign, not only transformed the relationship of citizens to the state but in so doing weakened popular constituencies relative to dominant business elites.
This expansion and refinement of the technologies of containment is, by itself, rarely sufficient. It has generally been accompanied by the deployment of new ideologies of crime and legality. For protest policing under neoliberalism does not simply entail more repressive behaviour. In fact, the secular trend across European states is for a convergence around a more differentiated system of strategies toward protests.
In dealing with larger protests representing "official" bodies, police tend to prefer consensual and negotiated approaches, and tend to take a greater physical distance from the people whose activities they are policing. By contrast, smaller groups of protesters representing loose social coalitions, campaign alliances and so on, are more likely to be deemed extremist, terrorist or even – theatrical gasp – anarchist, and thus subject to militarised policing, direct surveillance and physical coercion, with the invocation of "anti-terrorist" or other repressive legislation.
Just as the definition of crime is inherently ideological, so the decision as to what constitutes an "official" protest or an "extremist" outrage is in part ideological and normative, deriving from the legal and political culture of policing in a given state and bureaucratic categories deployed by local and national forces. Necessarily, then, this is an inherently politicised form of policing. It is not merely demonstrative, showing by example what styles of protest are tolerated (ineffectual ones, largely), but practical in the sense that it drastically foreshortens democratic possibilities.
The reorganisation of states today in an authoritarian direction is part of a longer-term project to contain democracy while retaining a minimum of democratic legitimacy. That is what the anti-protest laws are about.
20131201
US B-52 bombers challenge disputed China air zone
US B-52 bombers challenge disputed China air zone
The US has flown two B-52 bombers over disputed islands in the East China Sea in defiance of new Chinese air defence rules, officials say.
China set up its "air defence identification zone" on Saturday insisting that aircraft obey its rules or face "emergency defensive measures".
A Pentagon spokesman said the planes had followed "normal procedures".
The islands, known as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China, are a source of rising tension between the two nations.
Japan has dismissed the Chinese defence zone as "not valid at all" and two of its biggest airlines announced on Tuesday they would abide by a request from the government in Tokyo not to implement the new rules.
'Normal procedures'
"We have conducted operations in the area of the Senkakus," said US Colonel Steve Warren.
"We have continued to follow our normal procedures, which include not filing flight plans, not radioing ahead and not registering our frequencies."
The US has flown two B-52 bombers over disputed islands in the East China Sea in defiance of new Chinese air defence rules, officials say.
China set up its "air defence identification zone" on Saturday insisting that aircraft obey its rules or face "emergency defensive measures".
A Pentagon spokesman said the planes had followed "normal procedures".
The islands, known as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China, are a source of rising tension between the two nations.
Japan has dismissed the Chinese defence zone as "not valid at all" and two of its biggest airlines announced on Tuesday they would abide by a request from the government in Tokyo not to implement the new rules.
'Normal procedures'
"We have conducted operations in the area of the Senkakus," said US Colonel Steve Warren.
"We have continued to follow our normal procedures, which include not filing flight plans, not radioing ahead and not registering our frequencies."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)