Random links of the hour
A fascinating article in the Guardian (May 5, 2005; Now that’s what I call democracy) about the difference between American and British elections. The anglophile author convincingly argues that while American election campaigns are cheezy, carefully and artificially orchestrated affairs, British ones are calmer and more honest. British politicians are willing to handle tough questions from reporters and constituents, to question their own chances of victory, to walk into a potentially hostile crowd without bodyguards. They do not call on divine intervention to put them into office and smite opponents. They do not put protestors into Free Speech Zones or holding pens.
And yet, despite the superficial superiority of British election campaigns, the end result seems no better than America. Tony Blair bamboozled the Parliament into invading Iraq with as much aplomb as Bush and his team had done with the US Congress. British politicians seem as keen to exploit public panic as those of any other country; witness London’s omnipresent cameras, draconian laws on “antisocial behavior” that go far beyond those of any US municipality, Patriot-style anti-terrorist legislation, plans to force ISP’s to keep tabs on all their customers, etc. In other words: at first glance, one might think that British-style elections would put better candidates into office who would then write better laws; but the actual results do not support such a view.
Which is a pity. If the British system were better, at least we would have had some guidance for how to reform the American electoral process…
And on the subject of keeping tabs on customers: according to a 2003 article from The Register, the FBI can, and does, use OnStar, TeleAid, and similar systems to record conversations in cars; the only limitation (which was enacted by a Circuit Court in 2003) is that the car-tap cannot interfere with safety systems. So if you have a navigation or a theft recovery system in your car, be aware that someone (hackers, random sysadmins, or even the Feds) might be listening.
And finally, as a followup on the nuclear topic I posted on previously: Robert McNamara wrote an interesting article in May/June edition of Foreign Policy on America’s nuclear weapons. McNamara was the Secretary of State during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and had personally helped save the planet from a nuclear armageddon. His qualifications for speaking on nuclear policy are thus nearly impeccable. McNamara’s argument is that the only sane option for humanity’s long-term survival is for the nuclear powers to disarm. Even during the Cold War, nuclear weapons were essentially useless (their use being equivalent to loss for both sides); and with the Cold War over, there is absolutely no reason to keep thousands of warheads. McNamara strongly criticizes the Bush administration for making nuclear weapons a major part of America’s military policy, for researchign and developing new nuclear devices (and thus forcing a nuclear arsenal onto future presidents), and worst of all, for keeping 2000 warheads on a “hair trigger”, ready to be launched in minutes. A few people in Washington and Omaha can still destroy human civilization in half an hour — just as during the height of the Cold War.
Considering the strength of American conventional armed forces, and that America’s opponents today are terrorists and not superpowers, McNamara’s argument is very convincing. Keeping thousands of missiles ready to launch in minutes is rather similar to keeping loaded guns, safety off and bullet chambered, on your bedside table — it might sound like a good idea, but one day you will shoot yourself in the face. Except in this case, shooting yourself in the face would mean destroying much of the life on the planet.