I finally gave Santorum 10 minutes today. I've been a Santorum virgin, meaning I've never seen video of this particular US presidential candidate. (After all, I live overseas and I don't usually "check out" senators, especially not senators from other states, not before they hit the bigtime.) So for 10 minutes, I watched the worst, most gaffe-laden, repugnant "gotcha" stuff I could find from the liberal media via Youtube.
I have this to say: while Palin is a disaster and a walking bag of malapropisms who is terminally provincial, I don't think the media has anything on Santorum. I think he's bright, fairly articulate and very committed to his version of the truth.
McCain scared me (the anger/temper thing); Santorum didn't. I didn't see deep-seated pathologies and hang-ups just begging to come to the surface; I think those are in people's minds. Such as in the mind of advice columnist Dan Savage. (I watched a video of Savage, too, for comparison, where he explains why he coined a new word named after Santorum -- Savage seemed troubled and used a lot more curse words than Santorum.)
Of course, when I watched Santorum, I see a bit of inflexible white dork who wears his belt too high, but that's par for the course for Republicans. Apart from the fact that he's Republican (weak, splintered party, damaged brand) and that he seems too principled (it will be more painful to watch his inevitable slide to the center if he is elected), he seems like a very strong candidate.
I wish him well, in the sense of good sportsmanship.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
ACTA, and then some
The protests against ACTA are a just cause, and I support them. I'm always for the underdog, and the underdog these days, if it isn't a small independent bookseller or something, is almost always bound to be an individual. Whenever individuals have to compete against corporations, special vigilance is needed; and more than anything, opposition to ACTA ultimately comes from the concern for the status of the individual in the face of government control and corporate special interests. As for the rest of the criticisms of ACTA, there's very little I don't agree with, and I don't see too much misrepresentation, ignorance or, as the Prime Minister put it, seed intoxication.
Personally, I have two predictions -- fatalistic, pessimistic, but not too hard to see coming. One is that ACTA will pass anyway, largely unaffected by the opposition. The other is that, post-ACTA, rather than entailing too many expenses and red tape as some warn, it will be ridiculously easy to regulate many aspects of what reaches consumers on nearly the data packet level, just as it was easy for, say, Napster, after the anti-sharing backlash had begun, to prevent certain files from being shared. Even in Estonia there will be little disincentive to eventually go the route of policing content, of putting all these wonderful tools we have to index information online to work -- to flag certain information online.
But this is not just a post against ACTA or about freedom of expression. President Ilves talked about the ACTA protests being a symptom of broader dissatisfaction with the government's communication, and I don't think he meant just its lack of dialogue on ACTA, or the way it went over and behind the people and parliament on this particular issue. A much broader problem is the government's attitude, its implicit and often explicit insistence that it is infallible. It was impressive, maybe refreshing, in the beginning. But now, years down the road, like Ansip himself, it has started seeming sociopathic, self-justifying and hectoring. He's always right and never admits he's wrong. So what if the man is competent and usually has his facts straight; it's no way to talk to other people. It's too bad, because many of Reform's ideas like the flat tax and other liberal ideas appeal to me. I am after all a small business operator. But if Ansip thinks he is winning any points with his approach and demeanor, he must be from another planet. These are not my values.
Overlooked in the wave of protest against ACTA is the fact that the government has been smashing unions. Because part of it affects moribund industries and poor people, it's not as sexy an issue as educational reform, which is most people's #2 issue. But if anti-ACTA people are worried at all about individual rights losing out to corporate rights, there is nothing more glaring than the shabby way the pro-business government is eroding the potential role of unions, which should be an equal social partner. Actually, "smashing unions" sounds heroic, like Thatcher going after a bunch of menacing, dirty, Internationale-singing thugs. Considering that no one is very red in Estonia anyway, unions are practically non-existent in Estonia, and no one is striking yet in the first place, the government isn't smashing them, it's like it's dissecting a one-armed man in vivo. I'm not sure if anesthesia is being used, but Harri Taliga, the top union leader, seems to be in a state of permanent pain. It seems like half the bills that come out of the ministries these days attack one or another employees'-rights clause. Today it was a minor one: the right of employees who leave voluntarily to receive full compensation for a limited period. A plausible cut, but not all seem as clear. What will it be tomorrow?
The idea of increasing the level of companies' protection against their own employees began, of course, with the recession. Ever since the Employment Acts Contract was rewritten during the downturn to make it easier for companies to lay off workers, it has been one thing after another. Little of it will be reversed, now that the recession is long over. Even though growth is soaring (arguably it rode on the back of Ericsson exports for most of 2011, but now even other sectors look pretty solid), reserves are full of cash, in some cases much fuller than they were before the recession.
The Unemployment Insurance Fund's reserve in fact was so full it proved attractive to the government, which decided to take control of it last year. The stated reason: it knows how to invest this nest egg better than a wishy-washy public-law-governed body like the Fund, and can give the Fund better interest rates on it than a bank. The government decided this even though it holds only one-third of the seats on the Fund, which, as said, is not a government institution. The other members on the board have walked out, it didn't matter what they thought. The employers and unions actually agreed, this one time, that the government was playing foul.
What is interesting about the Fund's reserves is that they are not really being spent for the purpose they were designed for. They just sit and gather interest, because the government cannot bear the idea that money could be paid to people for doing nothing, and because there may be another "crisis" around the corner, at which point the government will need the reserves for other things besides the unemployed. It must be something in the national character: I witnessed similar behavior at private companies in the year of the recession. They had 300,000 kroons tucked away, but it was never used. Employees were asked to take a pay cut even though orders had not started dropping. It was so that the reserve could remain at that level, even though there was no requirement that a company have that much cash and with interest rates near zero and inflation high, financially pointless.
The workers' disability system is being overhauled. Here, too, the idea is to try to pay less whenever possible. Again, sounds admirable, until you remember that there are people on the receiving end, not all of them crooks faking gimpy legs. Apparently the idea is to make all payouts conditional on people having a personal return-to-work plan. It's something that sounds brilliant, but at the same time, nothing except for Soviet bureaucracy will drive a man to drink and apathy more than proactive meddling. Forgive me, but I am not optimistic that clinical depression and other intangibles will be taken into account by this return-to-work plan. And despite more such conditions, the overhaul proposal still contained the idea that the government might be unable to manage it and would have to involve private insurance companies in the scheme. My question: If the government can't even provide basic disability measures for people who lose limbs on the job, and has to farm it out to a bunch of dyed-in-the-wool sharks like the private sector insurance industry, what good is that? Is that really reform?
Another area where the unions have been stonewalled -- also this winter -- is proposed amendments to the Collective Bargaining Act. Here the idea is to give employers more wriggle room so that old collective agreements eventually run out -- even before a new agreement is reached. The problem here is that the government has behaved in such a bad-faith way with the unions vis-a-vis employers, that the unions don't expect there will be much dialogue or bargaining in the future. As far as they are concerned, they are probably serious when they say they fear the collective agreements will just be ripped up.
I understand that all this may be consistent with the government's platform and the holy principle of soundness of the public finances. I think financial soundness ("we're not Greece") may arguably have become a bigger selling point for the country than things like cyber defense (requires too much explaining). But there's a lack of a human face to it all, a whiff of paternalism, and I wonder whether these measures aimed at straitjacketing organized labor will really help make society stronger. It's like ACTA -- you could conceivably not implement it, but it's easier to implement it than you think. With ACTA, instead of a thriving, fertile, open-source innovation sector, you may end up with a stifling environment and a dead cyberspace where people don't have even access to their full cultural heritage. With the assault on employee's rights, instead of a flourishing real economy, you have a shifting landscape of insecurity, crumbling public services, lack of middle-class pride, crumbling brick and mortar, and places that don't produce anything. Might as well move to Greece.
Personally, I have two predictions -- fatalistic, pessimistic, but not too hard to see coming. One is that ACTA will pass anyway, largely unaffected by the opposition. The other is that, post-ACTA, rather than entailing too many expenses and red tape as some warn, it will be ridiculously easy to regulate many aspects of what reaches consumers on nearly the data packet level, just as it was easy for, say, Napster, after the anti-sharing backlash had begun, to prevent certain files from being shared. Even in Estonia there will be little disincentive to eventually go the route of policing content, of putting all these wonderful tools we have to index information online to work -- to flag certain information online.
But this is not just a post against ACTA or about freedom of expression. President Ilves talked about the ACTA protests being a symptom of broader dissatisfaction with the government's communication, and I don't think he meant just its lack of dialogue on ACTA, or the way it went over and behind the people and parliament on this particular issue. A much broader problem is the government's attitude, its implicit and often explicit insistence that it is infallible. It was impressive, maybe refreshing, in the beginning. But now, years down the road, like Ansip himself, it has started seeming sociopathic, self-justifying and hectoring. He's always right and never admits he's wrong. So what if the man is competent and usually has his facts straight; it's no way to talk to other people. It's too bad, because many of Reform's ideas like the flat tax and other liberal ideas appeal to me. I am after all a small business operator. But if Ansip thinks he is winning any points with his approach and demeanor, he must be from another planet. These are not my values.
Overlooked in the wave of protest against ACTA is the fact that the government has been smashing unions. Because part of it affects moribund industries and poor people, it's not as sexy an issue as educational reform, which is most people's #2 issue. But if anti-ACTA people are worried at all about individual rights losing out to corporate rights, there is nothing more glaring than the shabby way the pro-business government is eroding the potential role of unions, which should be an equal social partner. Actually, "smashing unions" sounds heroic, like Thatcher going after a bunch of menacing, dirty, Internationale-singing thugs. Considering that no one is very red in Estonia anyway, unions are practically non-existent in Estonia, and no one is striking yet in the first place, the government isn't smashing them, it's like it's dissecting a one-armed man in vivo. I'm not sure if anesthesia is being used, but Harri Taliga, the top union leader, seems to be in a state of permanent pain. It seems like half the bills that come out of the ministries these days attack one or another employees'-rights clause. Today it was a minor one: the right of employees who leave voluntarily to receive full compensation for a limited period. A plausible cut, but not all seem as clear. What will it be tomorrow?
The idea of increasing the level of companies' protection against their own employees began, of course, with the recession. Ever since the Employment Acts Contract was rewritten during the downturn to make it easier for companies to lay off workers, it has been one thing after another. Little of it will be reversed, now that the recession is long over. Even though growth is soaring (arguably it rode on the back of Ericsson exports for most of 2011, but now even other sectors look pretty solid), reserves are full of cash, in some cases much fuller than they were before the recession.
The Unemployment Insurance Fund's reserve in fact was so full it proved attractive to the government, which decided to take control of it last year. The stated reason: it knows how to invest this nest egg better than a wishy-washy public-law-governed body like the Fund, and can give the Fund better interest rates on it than a bank. The government decided this even though it holds only one-third of the seats on the Fund, which, as said, is not a government institution. The other members on the board have walked out, it didn't matter what they thought. The employers and unions actually agreed, this one time, that the government was playing foul.
What is interesting about the Fund's reserves is that they are not really being spent for the purpose they were designed for. They just sit and gather interest, because the government cannot bear the idea that money could be paid to people for doing nothing, and because there may be another "crisis" around the corner, at which point the government will need the reserves for other things besides the unemployed. It must be something in the national character: I witnessed similar behavior at private companies in the year of the recession. They had 300,000 kroons tucked away, but it was never used. Employees were asked to take a pay cut even though orders had not started dropping. It was so that the reserve could remain at that level, even though there was no requirement that a company have that much cash and with interest rates near zero and inflation high, financially pointless.
The workers' disability system is being overhauled. Here, too, the idea is to try to pay less whenever possible. Again, sounds admirable, until you remember that there are people on the receiving end, not all of them crooks faking gimpy legs. Apparently the idea is to make all payouts conditional on people having a personal return-to-work plan. It's something that sounds brilliant, but at the same time, nothing except for Soviet bureaucracy will drive a man to drink and apathy more than proactive meddling. Forgive me, but I am not optimistic that clinical depression and other intangibles will be taken into account by this return-to-work plan. And despite more such conditions, the overhaul proposal still contained the idea that the government might be unable to manage it and would have to involve private insurance companies in the scheme. My question: If the government can't even provide basic disability measures for people who lose limbs on the job, and has to farm it out to a bunch of dyed-in-the-wool sharks like the private sector insurance industry, what good is that? Is that really reform?
Another area where the unions have been stonewalled -- also this winter -- is proposed amendments to the Collective Bargaining Act. Here the idea is to give employers more wriggle room so that old collective agreements eventually run out -- even before a new agreement is reached. The problem here is that the government has behaved in such a bad-faith way with the unions vis-a-vis employers, that the unions don't expect there will be much dialogue or bargaining in the future. As far as they are concerned, they are probably serious when they say they fear the collective agreements will just be ripped up.
I understand that all this may be consistent with the government's platform and the holy principle of soundness of the public finances. I think financial soundness ("we're not Greece") may arguably have become a bigger selling point for the country than things like cyber defense (requires too much explaining). But there's a lack of a human face to it all, a whiff of paternalism, and I wonder whether these measures aimed at straitjacketing organized labor will really help make society stronger. It's like ACTA -- you could conceivably not implement it, but it's easier to implement it than you think. With ACTA, instead of a thriving, fertile, open-source innovation sector, you may end up with a stifling environment and a dead cyberspace where people don't have even access to their full cultural heritage. With the assault on employee's rights, instead of a flourishing real economy, you have a shifting landscape of insecurity, crumbling public services, lack of middle-class pride, crumbling brick and mortar, and places that don't produce anything. Might as well move to Greece.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
EU INFO: A Citizen's Guide to Extradition in the New Era
It may have happened to someone you know. It will probably happen to you sooner or later. Maybe it was that download from that site. Maybe it was something you said about the US president on Facebook. Maybe it was just mistaken identity. All you know is that you were having breakfast one moment, and the next the local constable is at your door with two gentlemen from Tallinn. He's apologetic, but there's a hard set to his face you haven't seen before and it's clear you're to come with them, and now. What are the charges? They don't know, but it's all in a dossier they have in the capital city, in a foreign language and they say it looks pretty official. Yes, it's happened, you think as they push your head down. You're about to be…extradited.
What sorts of charges can I expect?
If you're lucky, you will be facing libel charges in Britain. Britain has a relatively high standard of living, not that you would find out first-hand, but it can be evident in certain aspects of civility and politeness you experience in your new life in pre-trial holding centers. Extradition will be automatic because Britain is nominally in the EU. From the capital of your country, you will be on the way to Gatwick the very next day.
The negative side, as noted, is that libel cases drag on for years. You could find yourself in legal limbo where your case never comes to trial due to a backlog and where you waste away in a regional holding center, although you will find yourself treated with respect, including behind your back, probably because the officials have an interest in avoiding slander charges themselves.
The libel charges against you could be based on anything you said in the last seven years online. The governments have maintained a rigorously cross-linked registry of IP addresses, MAC numbers and usage habits, so it's all on the record.
But the content of what you said may be contestable. Make sure you find out what the charges against you are before the case goes to trial, i.e. what they claim you said. This may be hard to do.
If you do succeed in finding out anything about your case, a last-ditch but surprising recourse may be to cite differences between British and US English -- sometimes a good strategy is just to own up to making the libelous statement but counter that the statement means the opposite in another variety of English.
But are libel charges out of thin air really a possibility for an ordinary citizen?
Tax charges in the US are another distinct possibility.
For anyone? Say I'm a guy with a paint shop in Tõrva. I don't have any business in the US.
It doesn't matter. If you own any property anywhere, it is a technically a piece of the global pie and the value of your property affects the percentage of American assets with respect to the rest of the world, and thus affects the money global investors have staked on making those assets grow. If you didn't do what you were supposed to, you could be in trouble with the IRS.
What should I have done?
Found out what your obligations were, obviously. And forms. Downloaded forms. Filled out forms. The more the better. And declared income, especially income not earned in the US but which was income contingent on US assets.
Contingent on US assets?
That's right.
But..
I know what you might be about to say, but ignorance of the law is no excuse. In fact, actually, ignorance of the law is punishable as a separate offense, under a US Congress bill being prepared for ratification right now by committee in a leading EU member. An extraditable offense.
This is crazy.
Look. If you have money, people will want it, including powerful people with bad cash flow. One of the best ways of getting it is to claim you said things that insulted their honor. Or the honor of their money. In another age, such matters were settled more speedily, in a duel. But now we rely on seconds -- trusted alternates known as the Justice Department and Interpol.
Think of yourself as lucky. If you're unluckier (and have specific enemies who know who you are), you may be charged with a sex crime based on unreliable testimony. However, this is usually reserved for politically exposed persons.
Sex crimes? Rape?
No, not rape, anything but. Some sort of failed attempt. You'll probably be in for something that sounds ineffectual and kinky and utterly perverted, like attempted frottage.
But if you're seriously unlucky, you will find yourself facing child pornography charges. The worst case scenario in this case is extradition to the US. While you're guaranteed to be raped in any US prison, in the case of sex offenders, the first rape usually happens as soon as the pretrial detention stage. In fact it could happen on the airplane ride to the US, when you are handcuffed to a Federal Marshal.
Unlike the case with libel, do not make an effort to find out anything about your case. Asking to be shown the culpable material can lead to even more serious charges, up to and including the death penalty.
On second thought, being on death row can substantially reduce the frequency of rape, so this may not be a bad idea. If you're being extradited to the US, you're basically a goner, so might as well take the most sequestered option.
This thing about rape in US prison…
Aboslutely true. There's a lot of differences in jurisprudence from state to state -- they need to have another Civil War to clear it up -- but one thing is certain, when push comes to poke. You will be violated. Multiple times. A whole dang bunch of times, as they say down there.
What sorts of charges can I expect?
If you're lucky, you will be facing libel charges in Britain. Britain has a relatively high standard of living, not that you would find out first-hand, but it can be evident in certain aspects of civility and politeness you experience in your new life in pre-trial holding centers. Extradition will be automatic because Britain is nominally in the EU. From the capital of your country, you will be on the way to Gatwick the very next day.
The negative side, as noted, is that libel cases drag on for years. You could find yourself in legal limbo where your case never comes to trial due to a backlog and where you waste away in a regional holding center, although you will find yourself treated with respect, including behind your back, probably because the officials have an interest in avoiding slander charges themselves.
The libel charges against you could be based on anything you said in the last seven years online. The governments have maintained a rigorously cross-linked registry of IP addresses, MAC numbers and usage habits, so it's all on the record.
But the content of what you said may be contestable. Make sure you find out what the charges against you are before the case goes to trial, i.e. what they claim you said. This may be hard to do.
If you do succeed in finding out anything about your case, a last-ditch but surprising recourse may be to cite differences between British and US English -- sometimes a good strategy is just to own up to making the libelous statement but counter that the statement means the opposite in another variety of English.
But are libel charges out of thin air really a possibility for an ordinary citizen?
Tax charges in the US are another distinct possibility.
For anyone? Say I'm a guy with a paint shop in Tõrva. I don't have any business in the US.
It doesn't matter. If you own any property anywhere, it is a technically a piece of the global pie and the value of your property affects the percentage of American assets with respect to the rest of the world, and thus affects the money global investors have staked on making those assets grow. If you didn't do what you were supposed to, you could be in trouble with the IRS.
What should I have done?
Found out what your obligations were, obviously. And forms. Downloaded forms. Filled out forms. The more the better. And declared income, especially income not earned in the US but which was income contingent on US assets.
Contingent on US assets?
That's right.
But..
I know what you might be about to say, but ignorance of the law is no excuse. In fact, actually, ignorance of the law is punishable as a separate offense, under a US Congress bill being prepared for ratification right now by committee in a leading EU member. An extraditable offense.
This is crazy.
Look. If you have money, people will want it, including powerful people with bad cash flow. One of the best ways of getting it is to claim you said things that insulted their honor. Or the honor of their money. In another age, such matters were settled more speedily, in a duel. But now we rely on seconds -- trusted alternates known as the Justice Department and Interpol.
Think of yourself as lucky. If you're unluckier (and have specific enemies who know who you are), you may be charged with a sex crime based on unreliable testimony. However, this is usually reserved for politically exposed persons.
Sex crimes? Rape?
No, not rape, anything but. Some sort of failed attempt. You'll probably be in for something that sounds ineffectual and kinky and utterly perverted, like attempted frottage.
But if you're seriously unlucky, you will find yourself facing child pornography charges. The worst case scenario in this case is extradition to the US. While you're guaranteed to be raped in any US prison, in the case of sex offenders, the first rape usually happens as soon as the pretrial detention stage. In fact it could happen on the airplane ride to the US, when you are handcuffed to a Federal Marshal.
Unlike the case with libel, do not make an effort to find out anything about your case. Asking to be shown the culpable material can lead to even more serious charges, up to and including the death penalty.
On second thought, being on death row can substantially reduce the frequency of rape, so this may not be a bad idea. If you're being extradited to the US, you're basically a goner, so might as well take the most sequestered option.
This thing about rape in US prison…
Aboslutely true. There's a lot of differences in jurisprudence from state to state -- they need to have another Civil War to clear it up -- but one thing is certain, when push comes to poke. You will be violated. Multiple times. A whole dang bunch of times, as they say down there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
