Blackcap Blog

Published at 07:47 on 5 February 2013

So, it’s OK to kill Americans extrajudicially overseas, not because of any specific evidence they are planning to launch attacks, but simply because they are part of an organization which is “continually” planning attacks. (Which is not to imply that extrajudicial executions of anyone are ever morally justifiable, just pointing out the ever-slipping standards.)

Well all righty now.

By the way, just when is the President planning his next overseas trip, anyhow?

Update: full document here.

Published at 20:03 on 5 December 2012

Some months ago, I wrote a rant about what I believed to be the capitalist censorship of radical political opinion. It seemed a reasonable thing to presume at the time: the building in question had been a disused eyesore for over a decade, mainly serving as a venue for advertising posters of various sorts.

And then a radical political group appropriates it for their own message, followed quickly by the building being surrounded by fencing. Mere coincidence? Highly unlikely.

Unlikely or no, I feel safe now saying that it does indeed appear to have been coincidence. There’s been an ever-increasing amount of activity at the site since it was fenced, and it’s now quite obvious that the building is in the process of being gutted and renovated.

Moral of the story is that even fair dice sometimes come up snake eyes.

Published at 07:37 on 5 December 2012

The most important thing to remember about the “Fiscal Cliff” the Establishment types are obsessing over is that it is merely a law, not a Constitutional mandate. All it takes to change or repeal a law is a new law. That’s hardly anything extraordinary.

In other words, “going over a cliff” is a very poor analogy. It’s a curious kind of cliff, one that can be wished away at basically any time, even after one has “gone over” it. All Congress needs to do is pass a law retroactively repealing the “Fiscal Cliff”.

The nervous mobs that rule the fiscal markets may get a few jitters about the process until it is all settled, but there is approximately zero chance that the “cliff” will fully and lastingly go into effect with all its drastic measures intact.

Published at 19:40 on 3 December 2012

Introduction. This is going to be a somewhat long and rambling collection of thoughts prompted by a visit to Vashon Island last weekend. Conventional blogging wisdom says I’m not being a very good blogger big gaps in activity punctuated by periods when I post lots of content.

To hell with the conventional wisdom. Regarding the first electrical communications medium, Thoreau once wrote:

We are in great haste to construct a magnetic telegraph from Maine to Texas; but Maine and Texas, it may be, have nothing important to communicate.

Well, often times I have nothing meaningful to communicate. In those cases, the most appropriate course of action is to post nothing.

On last Saturday. I spend most of the day (and the following night) on the island, visiting some friends, touring artist’s studios, communing with nature, and generally evaluating Vashon Island as a possible place to move to and live one day.

On primal beauty. One of my favorite places on the island is Maury Island Marine Park (despite its name, Maury Island is connected by an isthmus to Vashon Island, making it a peninsula rather than an island of its own). Much of it is a pretty ravaged landscape, having once been a large sand and gravel quarry.

No matter. Nature is continually reasserting itself, showing that in the big picture, on the scale of eons, civilization’s depredations, catastrophic though they may be, will be but a fleeting departure from the normal wild state of things. Already madrone are spreading from the surrounding forest, colonizing the once-bare land, the sunny, denuded slopes being to the liking of this drought-adapted species near the northern limits of its range. Many of these relatively young trees are already the brilliantly intense red berries that are their fruit, ensuring that the pace of afforestation will only accelerate in the coming years.

So there it was, little bits of red so intense and vibrant littering the ground, contrasting so strikingly with the overall grayish-blue dusky scene. I didn’t even bother attempting to photograph any; some things must simply be experienced. Art always falls short of wild nature, serving at best as a reminder to get out and appreciate it.

On feelings, reason, and rationalization. Ultimately, it is the feelings inspired by direct, unmediated exposure to primal beauty and not logic or science which will save both the natural world and the possibility for freedom to exist. That’s not because science and logic have no value, but because they are merely amoral tools. It is as easy to construct arguments — logical arguments based on scientifically-determined evidence — against freedom and wildness as it is to construct arguments in their favor. We are ultimately not rational animals but rationalizing ones.

The forces of capitalism ensure that almost all the money is on the side of the destroyers. How do you privatize and monetize beauty and freedom? You can’t. But you can easily to both to natural resources, even when extracting these resources destroys beauty and freedom.

On Anarchism, Evolution, and Freedom. That freedom is possible is probably the greatest and best thing about the world and universe we find ourselves in. That’s probably why most authoritarian power structure value organized religion and why the advocates of both tend to get so upset when the lack of evidence for their boss in heaven is pointed out. The existence of our 3 billion year old biosphere proves that leaderless systems can work and create a lasting order — and order that has lasted at least six full orders of magnitude longer than any hierarchical civilization has lasted.

With all its warts and drawbacks, I can think of no better way to exist as a sentient being than as the way I do, in fact, exist — as an animal, as a product of a freely-organized and freely-evolved natural order in a world where the pursuit of greater freedom for all beings is possible. Morbidity and mortality are small prices to pay for this possibility of freedom.

On commuting. I tend to forget the above when I get wrapped up in my workaday city life. It’s particularly a hazard in a place like Seattle, which has not done a good job of preserving any large swath of nature close to the inner city. There is no Forest Park, Point Defiance Park, or East Bay regional park system here. One must cross a wide moat of sprawl in order to get to anything reasonably wild.

Of course, were I to live outside of the city that would not be the case. But it would be no win for either myself or the environment — I’d merely be replacing commuting to nature once a week with commuting to the office five times per week. Under my present circumstances, commuting cannot be eliminated, only minimized.

I hope to make the transition to mostly telecommuting within a year. That would make living out of the city more of a net win, if I could get my in-person appearances down to a weekly or fortnightly level.

On island living. This takes me full circle back to where I was on Saturday. Overall, I feel save saying now that Vashon is about what my previous observations led me to believe. It’s not a particularly good match for me. Although it’s not an awful match, and I could probably make it work, there’s a few things about it that give me pause.

For one, grocery shopping — a routine task for which it is thus critical to be able to accomplish on-island — the options are significantly more limited than on the mainland. There’s a small natural-foods store, but the key word is small. There’s a nice Thriftway supermarket there, but that is still slim pickings compared to the food co-ops found in Seattle (or in Bellingham, Mount Vernon, or Olympia).

There’s also a moat — one of water, this time — between the island and any truly large wild areas. Most of the island itself is exurban in character; there are many hobby farms on lots of 5 to 50 acres there. Swaths of wild land tend to be limited in number and size. If I’d want access to any wilderness, it would mean a ferry ride. Sure, there’s always bicycling the back roads on the island, but I’d still be on a machine on a paved road — not as good as being barefoot in the wilderness.

So, probably not. With the proviso that any future living arrangement I transition to is going to depend strongly on some particulars. If I find a home on Vashon which is in all other ways ideal, then I could see perhaps deciding to accept the other limitations of the place.

Realistically, though, the odds are against my finding that otherwise perfect match there.

Published at 19:17 on 29 November 2012

After covering the recent internet blackout in Syria, NPR All Things Considered had one of those basically useless wastes of breathable oxygen known as professional pundits come on to discuss the story. He was full of BS about how the USA so much better than that, and respects free speech so that anything of the sort would be “impossible” here.

Ignoring completely, of course, the inconvenient fact that the US ruling elite would like very much to have that capability, has sought it in the past, and almost certainly will seek it again. Oops!

Published at 21:20 on 14 November 2012

An astounding bit of progress, and the marijuana legalization is, for the first time in my memory, the United States (well, two states) actually starting to take the lead on something progressive for a change. (Same-sex marriage was the law of the land on other countries before the first state in the Union legalized it. Ditto for universal health care, which Obamacare really isn’t, given the cracks and gaps in that program, as much as it will dramatically expand coverage. But even The Netherlands never actually flat-out legalized cannabis use; they merely decided to stop enforcing the laws against possession of small amounts of it.)

But, there’s still plenty to do, particularly on global warming and ecological sustainability.

Published at 22:35 on 1 October 2012

A prime example of that can be seen by considering the abandoned building at 11th Avenue E. and Pine St. in Seattle’s Capitol Hill neighborhood. For over a decade it’s been disused for any purpose save for those of bill-posters. It’s typically covered in ads for upcoming music performances and whatnot.

Well, about a month ago, a group called Grrrl Army decided to appropriate that space for their own. It was a wonderful action which provided a glimpse of what a world where advertising is used to challenge people to become better individuals, instead of simply to turn a profit, could be like:

This was arguably vandalism, but then again, so was the postering of every available vertical street-facing surface on this structure, which to reiterate has been tolerated for a decade or more. But, it’s postering with a political meaning (as opposed to postering to encourage people to spend money). We can’t have that!

The building’s owners saw to promptly erect a fence to prevent any such further defilement of their precious dilapidated eyesore from happening again:

What’s particularly amusing about this is that the structure, post-Grrrl Army action, was far more attractive than it had been in years. The unified effect of everything being the same basic color scheme made it look significantly better than the disorganized collection of advertising which it had previously borne. It’s not just me who thinks so, either: a number of my friends volunteered the same opinion.

Published at 21:51 on 17 August 2012

The British are already backpedaling on their threat to storm Ecuador’s embassy. It’s not been announced publicly, but no doubt the moron who penned the threatening letter to Ecuador’s ambassador has been quietly sacked or demoted. That letter was tantamount to begging Ecuador to grant Assange asylum. Any fool could see that would be the logical tit-for-tat response to such a thuggish and undiplomatic threat.

So even if one looks at things from a purely strategic (and British) point of view, the threat was an extremely bad idea. It took a delicate situation in which Britain did not have the upper hand in the first place, and further tilted the playing field against Britain.

As to where things are going to go, a storming of the embassy is still a possibility but I’d have to rate as it not very probable, because it would extract a very high diplomatic cost for Britain. If it happened, one would expect basically all Latin American nations to cut off diplomatic relations with the UK in response. The Latin American nations have had their sovereignty repeatedly violated by English-speaking foreign powers (typically the USA), and because of this history even ones with conservative or centrist governments would find such an act absolutely intolerable. That history is a big part of the reason why the threat was so foolish, and why it so effectively prompted Ecuador to do the very last thing Britain wanted it to.

If you don’t believe me, consider the reaction to the US-aided coup attempt against Hugo Chávez. Even conservative leaders like Mexico’s Vicente Fox strongly opposed it and directed their delegates to sanction the coup government when the OAS convened in emergency session to discuss it.

So what’s the most likely outcome?

First, Ecuador is unlikely to capitulate any time soon. They’ve just been threatened in a most undiplomatic way, one that touches some very raw nerves thanks to past history. You don’t catch many flies with vinegar.

Second, the UK is unlikely to honor Ecuador’s request to grant Assange passage out of the embassy. Why would they? They’re a loyal part of the world order Assange tweaked the nose of, and their ruling elite wants to see Assange extradited and judicially murdered in the USA.

Third, it’s no picnic, for either Assange or his hosts, for Assange to be living at the Ecuadorian embassy. He’s in the way, consuming office space that Ecuador no doubt needs for normal embassy business. And it’s an office, not an apartment. And not even a very nice office (it’s apparently a windowless basement one). Being confined there is, in other words, only marginally better than being confined to prison.

So, expect Assange to try and sneak out… eventually. Not right away, of course: the British are watching too closely right now. He’ll wait, perhaps a long time, until they’re not so much on guard. Most likely he will leave in disguise, of course, and with the goal of getting onto a plane headed for Ecuador proper.

Either he’ll make it, or he won’t, and the most likely reason for “won’t” is of course “apprehended by British authorities on his way to the airport in disguise”.

Assange might also end up being ejected by Ecuador after the current left-populist regime loses power there. But that might be a long time in coming; Correa is currently quite popular.

And of course there’s also the possibility of a US-backed coup attempt to force such a change in power. This cannot be discounted, as one was fairly recently staged against a left-populist leader in Honduras who the US ruling elite did not like. The question is whether a single despised (by those in power in the US) dissident is enough to prompt such an act.

Published at 19:21 on 16 August 2012

First, it’s great that Ecuador chose to grant Assange asylum from politically-motivated persecution.

And, make no mistake, that’s precisely what it is: politically-motivated persecution. Assange offered to let Swedish investigators interrogate him at the Embassy; the Swedes refused his offer. They also refused to promise not to extradite him to the USA, despite his likelihood of facing the death penalty here. (European nations have universally abolished the death penalty, and typically refuse to extradite wanted persons if that would place them in jeopardy of being judicially murdered.)

Second, yes there are indeed double standards at play here. Ecuador’s record on basic freedoms is not precisely stellar. It’s not difficult to find human-rights groups complaining about it; here’s Amnesty International’s collection of documents on Ecuador, just for openers. Really, this should not be a surprise: hypocrisy is one of the key defining characteristics of authoritarian power structures.

Third, given the recent threats the British made (see my previous post here), and given how Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa styles himself as one willing to tweak the noses of those who rule the current global imperialist order, it’s not surprising at all to hear he decided to say “yes” to Assange’s request. It’s a perfect tit-for-tat, one in which Correa cannot help but to come out the winner in the court of domestic political opinion.

Even if the British do decide to throw international law to the wind and storm the embassy, he will then very convincingly be able to portray himself as an opponent of a lawless and thuggish international order. This would only help his domestic popularity.

Fourth, the way the Establishment media continually harps on the second point, virtually never failing to mention it in any of their coverage of this story, points out somebody else’s double standards. Were stories of Soviet bloc dissidents receiving asylum in the UK or the US always mentioned complete with tales of, say, how the CIA teaches torture techniques to the secret police of US-friendly dictatorships? Of course not.

And did such misdeeds of the West disprove that those Soviet refugees were indeed fleeing persecution, and needed asylum? Again, of course not. The validity of an asylum claim is independent of any misdeeds of the claim’s grantor. We do not live in a simplistic melodrama world where all actors are either purely good or purely evil.

Fifth, this whole story illustrates that even though authoritarian power structures are universally hypocritical, there is value in their not having a monopoly on power. If nobody was willing to defy the world’s sole superpower, its power would be absolute, and it would be a much more dangerous world for those resisting such power.

Finally, what should be done? As a start, anyone in or near London who can spare the time to be there should gather in front of the embassy to make it as difficult (and costly, in terms of both domestic and international politics) as possible for Britain to storm it.

There’s ultimately nothing that can be done to stop such a storming, if the powers that be are dead-set on it. But it is possible to make it very, very costly for them.

Published at 23:13 on 15 August 2012

Britain is threatening to mimic what Iran did in 1979 and storm an embassy?

If the governments of the West didn’t have double standards, then they’d have absolutely no standards at all.

Actually, I’m being unfair in my comparison here… unfair to Iran, that is. The decision to storm the US Embassy was made by a non-governmental group of young radicals in Iran, and then subsequently supported by their new Islamic government. If the Ecuadorian embassy is stormed by the British, it will be done directly by the British government, with its support and advocacy, from Day One.