How to force a cash-free numismatic policy to people, part II

I have not blogged in ages, but I felled compelled to touch upon a topic I wrote on some time ago. This is the insistence of Swedish government to get rid of cash entirely. When I first wrote about it, two years ago, I outlined the steps that a government must take in order to enforce this. And I was right. I also wrote

And so, little by little, there will be no cash in the country. Everybody, regardless of whether they want it or not, must use a credit card (or some form of electronic transaction). Unlike the US or the UK, credit cards are not free. I am charged something like 50 US dollars per year for a credit card. (The cost is 0 for my US credit card.)

and commented on the fact that if anything goes wrong with electronic cash then it is the individual's responsibility in Sweden.

What I did not anticipate was that there would be some voices, in Sweden, that would be against such a change. I read about this yesterday on BBC. It is an interesting article but, Maddy Savage, the BBC business reporter, doesn't seem to know all the facts or understand the severity of the situation. I don't blame her. It's hard to know when the policy to design a cash-free society is hidden. Therefore, any inference on what is going on can only be made by observations of the consequences and changes that can be witnessed by living in Sweden and seeing the difference between now and, say, four years ago.

Here are then some further comments:

1. Responsibility. If you only use cash and lose your wallet, then you just lose your cash. But worse, much worse things can happen if you use electronic cash. The question is who is responsible. If you lose your cash then, clearly, you are responsible. If someone steals money from you electronically by compromising the electronic banking system then, rationally speaking, it should be the bank that should bear responsibility. But not in Sweden. It is almost always the case that the responsibility is upon the individual. 
2. Vulnerable groups: The BBC article says "Some worry about the challenges it poses for vulnerable groups, especially the elderly." In fact, this is very true. I know elderly people who do not use smart phones or computers. Are these people considered undesired citizens in Sweden? At Uppsala, a town/big village, with no traffic and plenty of parking, it was decided that parking fees be imposed almost everywhere, 24 hours a day. What is worse, is that you can't pay with cash or even credit card. You are forced to have a "smart" phone with an app. A Swedish elderly lady I know used to visit her friend several times a week and drive to her because she can't walk. The increase in the cost and the inconvenience of the payment method forced her to cancel her visits and she now stays home all the time. Does anyone care about her mental health?
3. Foreigners/visitors: What about people visiting Sweden from abroad? How can they pay if you must have a Swedish phone, a Swedish ID, a Swedish app? Well, again, Sweden does not care. This happened to me several times when I was a newcomer to Sweden. I would try to pay, with, say, my mobile phone, but it was impossible.
4. Data leaks: The aforementioned BBC article states "Swedes are very trusting but I think that is changing. For example the recent Cambridge Analytica scandal has made people more aware of how their data is being used." But they don't mention what is worse: the huge scandal that took place a few months ago because Sweden outsourced almost all details of nearly everyone in Sweden to some private company and then all data leaked to unknown sources, leading to the biggest data leak in history. Yes, Swedes are trusting but they shouldn't blindly trust their government. However, since trusting the government in Sweden is, for now, much strongert than a religious dogma, this will not be easily reversed.

If a cashless society is desired then this should be designed carefully, by revealing all steps of the process, by being frank about the goals, by talking about responsibilities (in case of data breach), by making everything very clear to everyone.

I believe that the cashless design will be successful, not because the steps above will take place, but because it is happening under the carpet, and in ways that nobody can ever voice any disagreement. In the end, it will be triumphantly announced that "the people wanted a cash-free society, the people got it, long live the people!"

I shall conclude this posting with three images, giving a very partial glimpse of what the future is like, not just in Sweden, but even in your country. Sweden simply represents the future.

Faithful believers giving money to their church using electronic means

Homeless person accepting monetary alms via electronic means

Swedish title says: We only take cards; no cash. Notice that the "sorry for any inconvenience" is mentioned only in English. This is actually a very common phenomenon. The words "sorry" and "apology" are meant to be only for English speakers who still believe that the words are not obsolete.

What is the EU?

The Brits voted in the referendum whose question was clear: should the UK stay in the EU or leave?

After they voted, many went to the Internet and typed on Google:

"What it the EU?" 

That is to say, they had no clue what they were voting for. And then they typed: "What will happen if we leave the EU?"

Are we surprised? No. Many voters, far more than the small margin between the leave/stay outcome, have no clue what they're voting for. They're just following, like sheep, someone who's shouting. They listen to the one who's shouting louder. They only thing they don't do is think.

So, whoever says that the people of the UK decided that UK should leave the EU is wrong. Many of them didn't decide. They just voted at random, influenced by demagogues. Nothing special with the UK, of course. It would have been the same in many countries. Many people vote for reasons unrelated to what the actual vote is for. Unless we take into account these random, uninformed, votes, the result is not correct. We need to allow for the probability that a voter acted under the influence, some influence.

Searches for "what is the eu" and "what is brexit" spiked in the U.K. after polls closed [Google Trends via NPR]

Nobel peace prize for Greek islanders

Earlier this year, Vanessa Redgrave praised Greek islanders for helping  refugees arriving en masse in Aegean islands such as Kos. It was suggested that the Nobel peace prize be given to Greek islanders who "since the very beginning of the refugee crisis, fishermen, housewives, pensioners, teachers -- ordinary residents of the Greek islands and other volunteers have opened their homes and hearts to save refugee children, men and women fleeing war and terror."

And now, there is a petition on the internet  about this. A petition launched by a Avaaz is asking for the Nobel Peace Prize to be awarded to these unsung heroes

Greece does not have the means to police its borders. It's in a deep financial crisis, instigated by previous corrupt governments in cooperation with the European Union lenders who turned the blind eye when "checking" obviously fake balance sheets. Nevertheless, at the individual level, and despite the rise of neo-Nazis, many Greek islanders are indeed doing as much as they can--and more--to aid the refugees, at least those who arrive alive.

In the opposite direction, EU gives Greece warning to fix border 'neglect'. Easier said than done, of course. There is no money. Greece is cutting down on police forces because they can't pay them.

The Nobel peace prize would be a good gesture but we should keep in mind that this prize is quite controversial: it has been given to people and organizations supporting violence, to others who have been directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds or thousands, to corrupt people, and has been largely politically motivated, i.e., a Nobel peace prize award is often given as a statement of whom the world should consider as proponent of peace, not the one who actually is. Here are some very controversial Nobel peace prizes:
2012: European Union (really?)
2010: Liu Xiaobo (who, basically, is a voice of American-style democracy, including support of US-initiated wars)
2009: Barack Obama (who me? he said, but he accepted it)
2004: Wangari Maathai (who claims that AIDS was invented by first-world scientist in order to depopulate Africa)
1997:  Jody Williams (for her work in banning anti-personnel landmines but isn't it Dyno-Nobel who makes landmines?)
1994: Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, and Yitzhak Rabin (could that be a political statement? duh!)
1989: The Dalai Lama (paid directly by the CIA in the 60s)
1979: Mother Teresa (who let people die as they would go faster to paradise; read Hitchen's "The Missionary Position")
1973: Henry Kissinger (probably, the most ridulous peace prize ever given; again, read Hitchen's "Trial of Henry Kissinger")

To summarize, Greek islanders will welcome the prize even though it's a controversial thing. At the same time, EU should make up its mind: support the islanders get the prize or punish them for not doing enough. At the minimum, they should be helped. Those people in Kos who risk their lives to help half-dead immigrants are not the ones who stole public money and led to the crisis. Those who did are still enjoying their loot.

Violence in Sweden

There are a lot of things happening in Sweden that makes everyone who is not Swedish feel very uncomfortable.

The most recent of them is the attack to immigrants by about 100 masked people in central Stockholm. Although it appears that Sweden is welcoming immigrants it is rather clear to someone who lives here that a large fraction of people do not like them. The attacks that took place today are not the first. They happen, perhaps at a smaller scale, almost weekly. But it is a policy in Sweden that violence should not be reported. Central Stockholm and Uppsala, as well as many other Swedish towns, are accommodating immigrants from many countries, including Syria, Afghanistan, Romania, etc. One sees them on the streets. You can't go to a supermarket without seeing beggars often staying outside in the cold. Many people "help" them by giving them tips but even this is hard because the Swedish government adopted the policy of discouraging people from using cash, the intention being to force everyone use credit cards. Some beggars are now carrying credit card readers so they can accept credit card donations from people. But many people would rather not see anyone who looks darker than them. And since they cannot express their opinion openly, they put on a mask and beat street people up.

I know some people who work for the Uppsala city council who tell me that the phenomenon of attacking Syrian refuges camps is not uncommon. "I've never heard anything about it", I said. "You won't", they replied, "because the attacks are not reported." Apparently, only when something leaks out one finds out officially. Otherwise, it's hard to know what's going on. A few weeks ago there was this mass sexual attack in Cologne, Germany, from the other side: that is, by migrant people. Someone I know in Uppsala told me, around the beginning of the year, that similar things have been taking place in Sweden. "I can't believe it", I said. Again, the answer was "they are not reported". And, indeed, 2 weeks ago something leaked out. There were sexual attacks, by migrant youths but police did not make the information public. When the BBC found out they questioned the chief of the Swedish police who admitted that information is not released.

It happens both ways. Regardless of whether Swedes attack immigrants or the other way around, one cannot always find out: these attacks often don't make the news. Not by negligence; but by design.

In 2013, the now infamous Stockholm riots took place. A relatively high proportion of immigrants and second-generation immigrant residents, including a substantial number from Somalia, Eritrea, Afghanistan and Iraq instigated a mini-revolution by burning cars, throwing bricks, vandalizing, etc. Somehow, this was thought to be against the image that Sweden is portraying towards the outside world so it was not reported. When it leaked out, police declared it was terrorist groups. Although one may call such acts terrorism, it's not the kind that take place elsewhere. Apparently, the revolting migrants were expressing their frustration for their segregation and attacked innocent, of course, people. Just like in Paris suburbs a few years ago, at a smaller scale. As for segregation, it is rather obvious that many people who don't like typical Swedes are being kept apart. There is a neighborhood in Uppsala, Gottsunda, where they put immigrants. When we first moved to Sweden and were looking to buy a house we were explicitly warned not to go to Gottsunda. Such racist comments I thought existed only in Texas (and had experienced them). But Sweden, in some sense, is even more racist.

Back in 2011, when we had just moved to Sweden, there was this infamous mass killing in Norway by that human monster called Anders Breivik. The day after the killings, several people in Sweden started posting on Swedish newspaper sites, anonymously, their support for Breivik. I remember I got a call from Stockholm and was told to take a look at what they were saying. With the help of Google Translate, I read several of their comments and was appalled and scared. Good to know, however, I thought, that many people around me in Sweden support Breivik and would kill those whom they consider responsible for supporting immigrants. But my thought was quickly overturned: the Swedish newspapers decided to censor the readers' comments by deleting them and by closing their sites for a couple of days. They also created filters and other gadgets so that readers can't post anonymously (and, who knows, censor those who expressed their sympathy for Breivik).

Taking the train to and from Stockholm, one encounters some sad angry youth in neo-Nazi uniforms and tattoos: SS tattoos on their shaved heads. The reaction of passengers is to ignore them. I think they are scared, but I can't tell because they don't discuss it. I met Nazi demonstrations in Uppsala a few times. In 2010 or 11 there was this riot at the center of Uppsala by a bunch of angry young Nazis with pictures of blond men chasing black people. I approached one of them and asked him what's up. He said "we're against immigrants because they steal our jobs". I replied that "I'm an immigrant too and have the job of a professor in the University." I think I was aggressive and the young Nazi got scared. He replied  "it's only black immigrants we don't like. White Europeans are OK." "But I'm American", I said. He looks at me and says "It's OK, Americans are white Europeans." I didn't finish my sentence when a cop approached me and told me to get away.

And then, sometime later, we saw more riots of neo-Nazis, probably from the so-called "sverige demokraterna" party. The funny thing was that they had asked support of Greek Nazis from the equivalent "golden dawn" Nazi party. They brought them to Sweden for support!

The times are very fearsome. There is violence from all sides and it's rather clear that violence will escalate. I'd rather know than be in darkness. So I don't appreciate the censorship of information in Sweden. The Police view is that they should not "disturb" people by revealing that there was violence, rapes, murders, etc. But not all agree. It is silly and irrational not to know the truth. Take, for instance, the pre-war Jewry in Germany. Many of them were in denial that something bad would happen to them. Would it not have been better if they knew so they could get out while the could? When they finally found out what the true intentions of the Nazis were it was too late.

P.S. The latest response by Swedish government: Deport 80 thousand immigrants.  Previous response (4 weeks ago: fence borders.)

Half of the Republicans reject evolution

According to Courrier International, more and more of Republican sympathisers in the US do not believe in the theory of evolution. In 5 years, among people who call themselves republican, the percentage of those who accept evolution has dropped by 11 points and has reached 43% today according to Pew Research.
 

On the other hand, the percentage of Democrats who accepst evolution has remained constant at 67%. The differences between the two groups remain the same even if one takes into account other characterstics, like race, education or religion.

The most skeptical of all are white evangelical Protestants comprising a powerful conservative political force in the ultra-conservative Tea Party. Nearly 2/3 of them simply reject evolution and claim that "humans and other living beings have existed during all time in their present form." The fraction of all Americans who say likewise is 1/3.

Design from the article linked above

Note: To understand how ridiculous those who do not accept evolution are, compare with this: Evolution is as well established as the fact that the Earth rotates around the Sun. Even though this was established long ago, during "dark ages", lots of people did not believe it. They were "sure" the Earth was at the "center" (and were called geocentrists; laughably, there are still some of them, but nobody takes them seriously.)

Corruption index

I just read, via BBC, the existence of an indicator of a country's corruption, called corruption perceptions index, created by an organization called Transparency International (TI). Now, although I don't like single numbers for quality control, and although I have no opinion about this organization's methods and ethos, some of the numbers in their report seem to correspond to common sense:

Worldwide, Denmark, Finland [, New Zealand] and Sweden were seen as the least corrupt nations, while Afghanistan, North Korea and Somalia were perceived to be the most corrupt.

No surprises here. Also,

Greece [is the] 'most corrupt' EU country.

Again, this is not a surprise.

What I found rather surprising is the relatively good ranking of Bhutan, Uruguay, Chile and Botswana. Uruguay has a very interesting character as president, José Mujica, who is the world's poorest president, living a very simple life in a farm. In the case of Botswana, perhaps in the character of Precious Ramotswe we see a reflection of reality.

Another thing that is worth asking is this: the perception that Greek governments were corrupt is not new. In fact, I have a hunch that EU did know that Greece was corrupt all along and that the surprise they showed when it was revealed that Greece was faking its balance sheets was not honest. It was, simply, mutually convenient for corrupt Greek fovernment to fake its balance sheets (with the help of Wall Street companies) and for EU to accept them at face value. Convenient, as long as the shit hadn't hit the fan yet.

Also, it is nice to know that I live in the number 4, according to the report, least corrupt country (and hope they clean the roads soon, because the snow doesn't seem to stop falling).

Finally, and rather obviously,

TI believes there are strong correlations between poverty, conflict and perceived levels of corruption.

On the Greek neo-nazi party

The crisis in Greece has given rise to a gang, called Golden Dawn (Χρυσή Αυγή) who have, at the moment, risen to the third place. There are all kinds of comments about them on the Internet, for example, this one. The members of the gang are unashamedly talking about Hitler as a leader, a person who would have saved Europe from the Jews, would have created a super-state embracing the Greek ideals, and who would have led Europe to prosperity. Concentration camps did not exist--they say--and WWII was started by the Jews. National Socialism, they claim, was identical to the Greek ideology and they are sad that it does not exist now. They look back at the times when Greece was under military dictatorship, and state that these were times of prosperity and security. In brief, anything that would make any rational person sick is part of their "ideology". A few years ago, you would have to search hard to find someone with this kind of distorted mind.

They are in third place not because they are wrong in everything they do, but because they are right at the things they are actually stressing: just as the national socialists, they offer protection to those who need it, and the need is there, now; just as the national socialists, they offer money and food to those who cannot afford it--as long as they are Greek; just as the national socialists, they stress the corruption of the state and point out that those who stole public funds are not in prison.

People, desperate for a quick and dirty solution, turn to the gang and ask for help. As long as they are Greek, white, and Christian orthodox, the gang will, indeed, help them. They will, at the same time, beat everybody else up.

I would *never* have imagined, even 2 years ago, that the time would come when a member of the parliament would openly state that

if you are not white Greek, and if your parents are not white Greeks, then you are not Greek.

This is what the bearded member of parliament tells a Greek woman in the following, recent, video clip, because, as it happens, the woman is black, born of naturalized Nigerian parents:



It is one of the saddest points of Greek history. What is even sadder is that the neo-nazis receive, at the moment, loads of support from many people.

Indeed, the Time magazine article is right: the rise of Greece's Golden Dawn party is bad for Europe too.

If you happen to read this, please do leave a comment.
 

In the Russian Orthodox Chruch

Once upon a time, we used to think that there is one country in the world where religion was playing little role. Yes, that was Soviet Union. Of course, we didn't know that religion cannot be eliminated by fiat. We were naive. We were young. We did know, however, that religion and Soviet do not mix. No proper communist would ever go to church. Certainly not a KGB agent.

But then, one day, things changed. They changed fast. We learned that the Orthodox Church was playing a big role in ex-Soviet Union. That people were queueing in order to enter churches. That the state had endorsed Orthodox religion so much so that religion and state were almost inseparable. Just like in Greece. (Except that, in Greece, there had been no divorce period: religion and state have been living in harmony for a couple of millennia or so.) Even ex-KGB agents became religious.

They had to, I guess. I found this bizarre, in the beginning. But not any more, of course.

And now, some Russians, a minority of course, are protesting. Some, quietly, very quietly. They fear that if they protest openly they might go to jail. Imagine the contrast: 30 years ago, you could receive a Lenin medal for advocating the evil of religion. Nowadays, you just keep it to yourself. You certainly must not offend the State leader. This is a faux pas.

Of course, I know that these silly girls did not have religion as their primary target, but, rather, wanted to pass on a political message. Yet, they chose a church to perform their gig

which I found not distasteful; perhaps a pleasant interruption of the boring church rituals. They were put to jail. They face up to 7 years imprisonment. Some describe them as naive. They are. But they have to be naive, young as they are, in order to attempt this.

European Comission's blunder

As "a Nadder" puts it, the following video is a hilariously inept and patronising ad by the European Commission, "trying" to encourage women to pursue careers in science. It's so inappropriate that makes you wonder if those guys have any brains at all. Here it is:

So not just Sweden, but the whole Europe is obsessed with gender. They try to come up with quick and dirty fixes for, say, the discrepancy between the number of women and men in the university (or in engineering, science,...), that the results are often so demeaning to the women themselves, let alone that it is more scientific to watch MacDonald's hamburger ads than the video above. Just plain stupid.

The Dawn and the Golden Dawn

As well-known, in the latest parliamentary elections (6 May 2012) in Greece, the parties Coalition of the Radical Left (ΣΥΡΙΖΑ) and Golden Dawn (Χρυσή Αυγή) came, respectively, 2nd and 6th,  receiving 16.78% and 6.68% of the votes,

The somewhat curious coincidence is that the newspaper of the first party is called Dawn (Aυγή), while that of the second one is called Golden Dawn (Χρυσή Αυγή). This is true, albeit curious. It should also be mentioned that the online newspaper of the latter party was hosted by wordpress until 10 May 2012, when it was taken down by wordpress for alleged violations of the host organization's policies, which include spamming, defamation and copyright violation. Golden Dawn folks allege that any resemblance of their symbol to the nazi swastika is totally coincidental.

It is moderately funny that with the omission of an adjective one can swing from far right to far left.

Obsession with gender

This blog is about rationality. So, when I spot things which are irrational, I write about them. Indeed, an offence to one's sense of logic should be one of scientists' concerns.

In my less-than-two-years sojourn in Sweden, I noticed that there is a certain obsession with the concept of gender. Much in the same way that there was (and still is) obsession with affirmative action in the U.S. So, much so, that the obsession often violates elementary logic.

I pointed out some of these gender-type of obsessions before. For example, here and here. Of course, there is nothing wrong about promoting equality, at all levels, for all people, all genders, all ethnicities. But to be obsessed about it so much so that you feel the need to theorize that "one's sex is not biologically determined but  rather something that is `socially constructed'" is a mere insult to elementary science and elementary logic. True, there are exceptions (as always) to the rule. There are people who may not feel comfortable with the gender they are born with and seek a change at some point in their lives. One should respect this. However, to say that everyone's gender is a social construct is not just absurd, but also idiotic.

Such things are pointed out in an article by Bo Rothstein, professor of Political Science at Gothenburg University. Rothstein refers to the Secretariat for Gender Research (sekretariat för genusforskning), formed several years ago, by the Swedish State. Again, having a body of the government interested in promoting equality of sexes, making sure that neither men are discriminated by women nor women by men, is laudable. But to have statements such as "analyze the need for gender research in all disciplines" is strange. I do not understand the meaning of the phrase. It is, to say the least, strange. It does not say "make sure that there is no sex discrimination in any job". The phrase above presupposes that there is a need for gender research in all scientific disciplines (analysera behovet av genusforskning inom alla vetenskapsområden). It is not unlikely that my Swedish (thanks to Google translate, to be honest) is not good enough, but "vetenskapsområden" means "scientific areas" (vetenskap = Wissenschaft = science). If, then, Physics is a scientific discipline, the phrase above implies that there is a need for gender research in Physics. Since it is true that Physics is a scientific discipline, we conclude that the sekretariat för genusforskning mandates that Physics should also be concerned with gender research. Now, this starts looking very irrational, doesn't it?

Pseudo-scientists who conduct gender research in Physics include a certain infamous philosopher, Luce Irigaray, who, among other things, argues that E=mc² is a "sexed equation" because  "it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us". She also concludes that fluid mechanics is a neglected discipline because it deals with fluids (duh!) which are feminine in contrast to rigid mechanics which are masculine. For more information on this kind of idiotic research, please take a look at the book "Fashionable Nonsense" by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont.

Perhaps the Secretariat for Gender Research do not really mean to be irrational. Perhaps the phrase above, taken from their Code of Statutes, means something else. (We should always give someone the benefit of the doubt.) But then it is a mystery what they might mean, if they don't really mean Irigaray-type of pseudo-research.

Last but not least, when we talk about under-represented gender, we may as well remember that such things are, unfortunately, so much embedded in people's minds that people (even the ones who promote gender equality) cannot think of the root of the problem. Rather, they touch upon these problems tangentially, on the surface. As an example, take, for instance, the four monotheistic religions (Zoroastrinism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, in chronological order of their foundation). As soon as homo sapiens came up with the idea that there is one god, this god immediately assumed male gender. (Whether this has something to do with a male-dominated society, I'll leave it as an exercise.) Therefore, if the Secretariat for Gender Research want to do something about equality, they should go to the Swedish Church (for instance) and tell them to change, or eliminate, the gender of their deity. At least this is more rational than looking for gender research in Physics. I'm willing to bet, however, that they won't do it.

Flip-flopping

November is almost gone, and I have posted almost nothing. Too much work, I guess. Here's what caught my attention recently. The term "flip-flopping" of politicians, with proof. There we go (source):
1) Barack Obama.
2) Mitt Romney.
 

Greek debt and German concern

No doubt, the Greek financial crisis is due to, among others,
(i) politicians' greed (they did put a lot of money in their pockets, and still possess them),
(ii) the politicians' slackness in collecting taxes (they didn't want to, they themselves and their friends would have to pay taxes and that was not in their plan),
(iii) Europe's turning a blind eye to Greek financial reports (everybody and their mother knew that Greeks were faking their papers, come on!) .

However, here is an alternative piece of information which should make Germans, now pointing fingers towards Greece, reflect upon their recent history.

According to Albrecht Ritchl, professor of Economic History at LSE, the largest debtor of all times is Germany. In the June 2011 issue of Der Spiegel, Ritchl gave an interview (original German version here) pointing out that

during the 20th century, Germany was responsible for what were the biggest national bankruptcies in recent history. It is only thanks to the United States, which sacrificed vast amounts of money after both World War I and World War II, that Germany is financially stable today and holds the status of Europe's headmaster. That fact, unfortunately, often seems to be forgotten.

This happened twice. First, during the Weimar Republic, and then after WWII. The US helped Germany on both occasions tremendously, but it was also agreed that

there wouldn't be a repeat of high reparations demands made on Germany.

That is, that Germany would not have to pay its war victims. This was the actual financial basis of the German Wirtschaftswunder.  In fact,

[w]ith only a few exceptions, all such demands were put on the backburner until Germany's future reunification.

As we know, reunification took place, but Germany did not pay reparation. I don't think it's only Germany's fault. It's likely that Greek politicians didn't ask for it loud enough for they didn't want to. They had money pouring in their pockets via Europe, why should they want to make their benefactors unhappy, reminding them that Greece lost 10% of its population due to WWII casualties (one of the largest losses in the world, after Poland and Soviet Union)? As Ritchl says,

[c]ompared to [the Weimar Republic] default, today's Greek payment problems are actually insignificant

and that

[i]f the mood in [Greece] turns, old claims for reparations could be raised, from other European nations as well. And if Germany ever had to honor them, we would all be taken the cleaners. Compared with that, we can be grateful that Greece is being indulgently reorganized at our expense. If we follow public opinion here with its cheap propaganda and not wanting to pay, then eventually the old bills will be presented again. 

This is something to keep in mind. The Greek elite consists, of course, of unreliable politicians and their buddies who have faked papers, stolen money, avoided taxation, asked Greeks to borrow more, made them believe they live and can live in luxury without working, numbing their brains with false hopes... But, on the other hand, who is shouting to whom? Read some history and see that the whole of Europe has been a mess.

I don't know what "the solution" could be. I'm afraid that one of the most difficult things to acquire is not money, but the right mentality (what does work mean?). And this is lacking in Greece. But, at the same time, lack of the right mentality of different sorts is encountered in other countries as well. By shouting and finger-pointing you cannot eliminate history. Unless you can make people forget it, and this is something that frequently happens. In history. (History is being constantly revised to reflect the point of view of those in power, the winners.)

How to make the masses obey

 Suppose you are a leader of a big country. Say the Roman empire. Or Russia. What do you do to make people follow you? One way is to identify their religious tendencies and amplify them. You adopt, as state religion, the one which the majority of the people like. You then do a bit of marketing, preferably indirectly, and convince people that you, as a state leader, are chosen by the god(s) of the promoted religion. Then you are on a good path.

This is an almost sure recipe for success. Despite the fact that it has been employed hundreds of times in the human history, it still works! Why? Simply because people cannot reason independently of an authority.

Take, for instance, Constantine I, a.k.a. "Constantine the Great" or "Saint Constantine" (none of which adjectives has anything to do with his true nature). He sensed that his subjects were falling victims of a religion known as Christianity and so he declared he had a vision in which he was told to adopt the religion as official one for his empire. So he did. The devastating consequences are well-known.

Or take Vladimir Putin. A former KGB agent of the, supposedly atheist, Soviet Union, current prime minister of Russia, has been, for a few years now, officially endorsing Orthodox Christianity as official religion of Russia. Vladislav Surkov, Kremlin’s first deputy chief of staff, a staunch Putin supporter and one of Russia’s most powerful men, declared:

“I honestly believe that Putin is a person who was sent to Russia by fate and by the Lord at a difficult time for Russia.” “(Putin was) preordained by fate to preserve our peoples.” 

You can find the full story in Reuters, but I first saw it here. Reuters also reports that:

Two months ago, a nun-like sect appeared in central Russia claiming that Putin was a saint and a saviour. A spokesman said Putin "does not approve of that kind of admiration".

Indeed, Putin is modest. He does not approved that kind of admiration. Not yet, that is. However, recall that he wants to be buried next to Stalin, and that Stalin is often viewed as a "saint" by many Russians. See my earlier posting titled "Saint Joseph Stalin" for more information.

In order to justify their behavior, they turn their theories into dogmas, their bylaws into First Principles, their political bosses into Gods and all those who disagree with them into incarnate devils. This idolatrous transformation of the relative into the Absolute and the all too human into the Divine, makes it possible for them to indulge their ugliest passions with a clear conscience and in the certainty that they are working for the Highest Good. And when the current beliefs come, in their turn, to look silly, a new set will be invented, so that the immemorial madness may continue to wear its customary mask of legality, idealism, and true religion. --Aldous Huxley

More on titles

I knew it. When I questioned the ridiculous habit of many to attach lots and lots of titles in their names, when I wondered why on Earth a man, with an already sizeable and doubly aristocratic name, Karl Theodor Maria Nikolaus Johann Jacob Philipp Franz Joseph Sylvester Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg, wanted to change it to Dr. Karl Theodor Maria Nikolaus Johann Jacob Philipp Franz Joseph Sylvester Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg, I suspected there is something more to the story.

Indeed, we read today, in a  BBC Berlin report:

German defence minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg resigned after admitting copying large parts of his doctoral thesis. But why was he so keen to be a doctor in the first place?

Why, indeed!.

You would think that Karl-Theodor Maria Nikolaus Johann Jacob Philipp Franz Joseph Sylvester Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg had enough titles.

He did. He had a VON, he had a ZU, and he was a BARON.

In Germany, the "von" and "zu" denote aristocracy and he has both. And the word "Freiherr" means "Baron".

Don't forget that he won't lose his aristocracy titles. These were given to him at birth. Regardless of whether he deserved them or not. Neither will he lose his money. He's already rich. Too rich.

But if you want real clout in politics, being a doctor is desirable and that was his downfall. The title in front of even such a grand name is desirable, but not if it is the product of the work of others.

He will only lose one title, the DR, the only one that he tried to earn with his own work. Unfortunately, he didn't think that stealing a bit left and right was all that bad.

Indeed, he finally admitted that his zeal to add the extra two letters, Dr, in front of his name made him plagiarise his thesis by copying parts of it from the Internet. 

Too bad, Mr. Baron Von and Zu. If you kept the title, it's not so much that anything bad would happen, but it's unfair for others who do have titles and have them for work they've done. Oh, by the way, many of those people were not fortunate enough to have a zu and a von. Some of them don't even have a single von or a single zu.

Titles should--in principle--represent something. I used to work for a university where it was possible to get promoted from senior lecturer to professor simply for administrative work, e.g. for serving as a chairman. In Academia itself, there are many instances were titles are abused. But it would be nice (wishful thinking) to have a reality check from time to time.

I used to daydream and ask: Would it not be nice, and fair, to give, from time to time, a Maths exam to all Maths professors and see if their performance is up to date? Or a Physics exam to Physics professors? This would be a reality check. And it should be fair.

A title, no matter how big it is, should not be big enough so that it hides inadequacies of its owner.

What's in a title

Some people find that my family name is too long. Not infrequently, US supermarket cashiers used to  ask whether I had difficulty learning how to write my name when I was little (!)

But the length of my name (20 letters) in comparison to "Karl Theodor Maria Nikolaus Johann Jacob Philipp Franz Joseph Sylvester Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg" (89 letters, not counting spaces) is small.

If you've never heard of this fellow, besides your obvious guess that he is noble, he is also Christian (Catholic, to be exact), he is a member of a political party with a religious name, the "Christian Social Union of Bavaria", the current minister of defence in Germany, married to an equally noble person, Countess Stephanie of Bismarck-Schönhausen, great-great-granddaughter of Otto von Bismarck.

Besides his fame, he has very recently become infamous too as he was accused of incorporating numerous excerpts from previously published literature in his doctoral thesis, without crediting the sources. See here and here.

Of course, he refuses this. And he is backed up by Angela Merkel. Of course.

According to BBC, ZDF television website dubbed him "Zu Copyberg", Financial Times Deutschland named him "Baron Cut-and-Paste", and Berlin daily Tageszeitung nicknamed him "Zu Googleberg".

The plagiarism allegation arose when a law professor from Bremen University began writing a review of Karl Theodor Maria Nikolaus Johann Jacob Philipp Franz Joseph Sylvester Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg's thesis, using the Internet. Most likely, the wonderful Internet helped Karl Theodor Maria Nikolaus Johann Jacob Philipp Franz Joseph Sylvester Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg finish his PhD (and do something more important, politics) and also the Bremen prof. who easily discovered plagiarism by googling Karl Theodor Maria Nikolaus Johann Jacob Philipp Franz Joseph Sylvester Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg's thesis.


Are we surprised?
No. (i) There is a strong correlation between someone being a politician and being dishonest. A colleague from the US once told me "I don't understand why people are so surprised every time a scandal about a politician is revealed; I'd be surprised if the opposite happened." (ii) I personally wouldn't trust anyone who belongs to a party with a religious name. (iii) The titles! You can have as long name as you wish, but it is so much more comfortable to have a long name, especially one that uses both VON and ZU (I've actually never heard of that before), so much so that, if you're the holder of such a name, you probably feel more important than others and, hence, less vulnerable, and can justify to yourself to plagiarize (a wee bit) in order to achieve a noble purpose.

Back to the titles, however. Although I have no proof about the following claim (just empirical evidence) I feel that people who are von's and zu's and people who attach lots of name titles after their surname (Prof. Dr. Qxqz Xpliwar, BSc, MSc, PhD, FFS, FRBS) do so because they feel that their titles equip them with a certain shield. Even though they will refute any claim of importance to titles, the mere fact that they carry them on their web sites, business cards and at their doors, feels (to me) like an attempt to impress and, therefore, make their lives easier. Imagine, for example, a professor in a university with lots of titles (of nobility or academic ones). Suppose, for instance, that this professor, at some point, got tired of learning anything new in his/her field, or doing anything new, and started teaching/researching the same old stuff forever. In such a case, titles help. They help because it is more difficult to accuse someone with lots of titles, rather than someone with none. As a matter of fact, certain combinations of titles make it obvious (to me) that they are used precisely for this purpose. For what is the purpose of, say, preceding "PhD" with "MSc" and "BSc"? If you see a name, followed by "PhD" only, would you think that this person got a PhD without first getting a lower degree? (If so, then this person is brilliant.) But the bottomline of using lots of titles excessively is (in my opinion again) insecurity.

Having said that, of course, I do not want to trivialize important awards given to people for real work, awards which lead to a distinction with a name title. Life-time achievements are, and rightly so, rewarded. What I am saying is that acquired titles and the use of excessive name titles are nothing but a sign of insecurity and incompetence (in my opinion).

So, no, I'm not surprised that Karl Theodor Maria Nikolaus Johann Jacob Philipp Franz Joseph Sylvester Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg is accused of plagiarism.

Christine O'Donnell

Today  I saw, on the front page of the German newspaper, "Die Welt" the picture of  a woman, called Christine O'Donnell, together with an article titled "a quite normal American". Not having followed the latest developments of American politics, I was ignorant about her existence. The article starts as follows:

Christine O'Donnell is Republican and the number two in the ultra-conservative Tea Party. She hates communism and Selbstbefriedigung. She knows witches well and once had a date on a satanic Altar. But let us not forget: She is a candidtae in the the midterm elections for Congress. She has become a nightmare for the Democrats. Mrs. O'Donnell said simply of herself: I'm a normal American. The people on the street are enthusiastic.

 Who? What? I don't know her. I don't understand German that well. Did I understood incorrectly? Ok, she hates communism, she is super-conservative, she sounds like Sara Palin, but what? She knows witches? She dated a satan? Is she an idiot?

So, let me go ask a German colleague. (I'm in Oberwolfach, for a mathematical workshop.) "What's Selbstbefriedigung?", I ask. The German colleague smiles, hesitates to answer, and I tell him that I saw it in front of Die Welt. He then explains: "Selbstbefriedigung means to satisfy yourself... sexually..." 


Oh, is that so? So I translate again:

Christine O'Donnell  hates communism and masturbation.

 What is this? Is she a complete idiot? Why does Die Welt feel that this statement is so important that it appears on its front page? Is this woman even worse than Palin? Can that be?

So I checked. Indeed, my suspicions are true. She hates communism. She condemns masturbation as sinful. She does not accept the theory of Evolution. She hasdated or been a friend of people who practiced witchcraft. She is against abortion. And the list goes on...I won't give links because the Internet is littered with her portraits; and they're neither pretty nor funny.

She is a normal American. She expects to be elected by people who have the same values. There are, apparently, many--too many--of them.

Here is the transcript from a very recent debate between Christine O'Donnell (republican candidate), Chris Coons (democratic candidate) and two moderators. I learned it through Evolutionblog. That she is an idiot can be witnessed from the following excerpt:

BLITZER: Let's give you a chance to respond to some of the things she said because in a television appearance back in 1998 on Bill Maher's show you said evolution is a myth. Do you believe evolution is a myth?
O'DONNELL: I believe that the local -- I was talking about what a local school taught and that should be taught -- that should be decided on the local community. But please let me respond to what he just said.
BLITZER: We'll let you respond but answer the question. Do you believe evolution is a myth?
O'DONNELL: Local schools should make that decision. I made that remark based on --
BLITZER: What do you believe?
O'DONNELL: What I believe is irrelevant.
BLITZER: Why is it irrelevant?
O'DONNELL: Because what I would support ...
BLITZER: Voters want to know.
O'DONNELL: What I will support in Washington, D.C. is the ability for the local school system to decide what is taught in their classrooms and what I was talking about on that show was a classroom that was not allowed to teach creationism as an equal theory as evolution. That is against their constitutional rights and that is an overreaching arm of the government. But, please allow me at least the full minute to respond to what he said because he said these statements that we made should be taken into consideration when casting your vote. So then I would be remiss not to bring up the fact that my opponent has recently said that it was studying under a Marxist professor that made him become a Democrat. So when you look at his position on things like raising taxes, which is one of the tenets of Marxism; not supporting eliminating death tax, which is a tenet of Marxism -- I would argue that there are more people who support my Catholic faith than his Marxist beliefs, and I'm using his own words.

UK libel laws are unjust

UK libel laws are unjust, against the public interest and internationally criticised - there is urgent need for reform. [Source]

Freedom to criticise and question, in strong terms and without malice, is the cornerstone of argument and debate, whether in scholarly journals, on websites, in newspapers or elsewhere. UK current libel laws inhibit debate and stifle free expression. They discourage writers from tackling important subjects and thereby deny us the right to read about them.

The law is so biased towards claimants and so hostile to writers that London has become known as the libel capital of the world. The rich and powerful bring cases to London on the flimsiest grounds (libel tourism), because they know that 90% of cases are won by claimants. Libel laws intended to protect individual reputation are being exploited to suppress fair comment and criticism.

The cost of a libel trial is often in excess of £1 million and 140 times more expensive than libel cases in mainland Europe; publishers (and individual journalists, authors, academics, performers and blog-writers) cannot risk such extortionate costs, which means that they are forced to back down, withdraw and apologise for material they believe is true, fair and important to the public.

The English PEN/Index on Censorship report has shown that there is an urgent need to amend the law to provide a stronger, wider and more accessible public interest defence. Sense About Science has shown that the threat of libel action leads to self-censorship in scientific and medical writing.

Several people, in the UK and beyond, have taken the initiative to urge politicians to support a bill for major reforms of the English libel laws now, in the interests of fairness, the public interest and free speech.

TO SIGN THE PETITION FOR REFORM IN LIBEL LAWS, CLICK ON THE IMAGE BELOW:

UK libel laws are so bad that attract the so-called “libel tourists”, i.e. people who want to sue someone for "libel" but, because of freedom of speech regulations, cannot do so in their own country. They therefore go to the UK, where libel laws are terrible, sue, and have a high chance of winning. The reputation of the UK for lack of freedom of expression is very bad. On the positive side, The US senate passed, on 20/7/2010, legislation to protect US journalists, writers and publishers from libel tourists— litigants who sue Americans in foreign jurisdictions which place a lower emphasis on free speech. [Source]

The legislation was specifically designed to negate the threat of English laws, amid claims that the UK has became an international libel tribunal. One case in particular incensed US politicians, that of New York based academic Rachel Ehrenfeld who was sued in London despite only 23 copies of her book, on the financing of terrorism, being sold in the UK. The bill, co-sponsored by Democrat Patrick Leahy and Republican Jeff Sessions has broad cross-party support. If passed, the proposal will prevent US courts from recognising foreign libel rulings that are inconsistent with the First Amendment. During the debate Leahy argued that foreign courts were chilling open debate and “undermining” freedom of speech in the US. In a statement he said:”While we cannot legislate changes to foreign law that are chilling protected speech in our country, we can ensure that our courts do not become a tool to uphold foreign libel judgments that undermine American First Amendment or due process rights.” The SPEECH (Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage) Act will now go before the House of Representatives.

It is a complete shame to have laws passed in other countries (and rightly so) to protect  their citizens from being sued in UK courts. What needs to happen is a complete change of UK libel laws. Apparently, one reason for their existence is because they bring a sizeable income to the UK from litigants who can afford to pay a million pounds in order to get rid of people who freely express their opinion.

The silence of the Vatican, I

In April 1994, a Catholic priest, Athanase Seromba, promised safety to 2000 men, women and children in his church in Rwanda. These people expected to find refuge in Seromba's church from the atrocities which left a million people dead (the infamous Rwandan genocide). The people asked Seromba to pray for them. Instead, he ordered a bulldozer bring down the walls of the church, while the 2000 lives were in it, killing most of them. The ones who survived were shot by Seromba himself.

Nevertheless, Seromba continued working as a priest. In July 1994 he moved closer to the Vatican. He went to Italy and worked as a priest in a church near Florence under the name Anastasio Sumba Bura. He did so until 2002 when he was forced to surrender to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). In 2006 he was found guilty of mass murders and was sentenced to just 15 years of prison.

This is but one example of the complicity of the Catholic Church in the Rwandan genocide. Did the Vatican know? It is believed that, indeed, it did. But even if it did not, the Vatican keeps an eerie silence for the happenings in Rwanda. In fact, the Vatican has never taken back its statements defending Seromba before his conviction.

It appears that the Rwandan genocide is not high up in the priority list of Vatican apologies. It doesn't matter now. The Vatican has to deal with peadophilia and sexual abuses, offering lukewarm apologies to its European victims. Africans can wait for later. For now, the Vatican keeps (once more) silence...

Today's article from the Guardian:

--------------

For Rwandans, the pope's apology must be unbearable

If sexual abuse in Ireland warrants his contrition, what contempt is shown by the Vatican's silence over its role in genocide.

If you are an Irish Catholic, and have suffered sexual abuse at the hands of a priest, you were recently read a letter from Pope Benedict that tells you: "You have suffered grievously and I am truly sorry. I know that nothing can undo the wrong you have endured. Your trust has been betrayed and your dignity has been violated."

For any practising Catholic in Rwanda, this letter must be unbearable. For it tells you how little you mean to the Vatican. Fifteen years ago, tens of thousands of Catholics were hacked to death inside churches. Sometimes priests and nuns led the slaughter. Sometimes they did nothing while it progressed. The incidents were not isolated. Nyamata, Ntarama, Nyarubuye, Cyahinda, Nyange, and Saint Famille were just a few of the churches that were sites of massacres.

To you, Catholic survivor of genocide in Rwanda, the Vatican says that those priests, those bishops, those nuns, those archbishops who planned and killed were not acting under the instruction of the church. But moral responsibility changes dramatically if you are a European or US Catholic. To the priests of the Irish church who abused children, the pope has this to say: "You must answer for it before almighty God and before properly constituted tribunals. You have forfeited the esteem of the people of Ireland and brought shame and dishonour upon your confreres."

The losses of Rwanda had received no such consideration. Some of the nuns and priests who have been convicted by Belgian courts and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, respectively, enjoyed refuge in Catholic churches in Europe while on the run from prosecutors. One such is Father Athanase Seromba, who led the Nyange parish massacre and was sentenced to 15 years in jail by the tribunal. In April 1994, Seromba helped lure over 2,000 desperate men, women and children to his church, where they expected safety. But their shepherd turned out to be their hunter.

One evening Seromba entered the church and carried away the chalices of communion and other clerical vestments. When a refugee begged that they be left the Eucharist to enable them to at least hold a (final) mass, the priest refused and told them that the building was no longer a church. A witness at the ICTR trial remembered an exchange in which the priest's mindset was revealed.

One of the refugees asked: "Father, can't you pray for us?" Seromba replied: "Is the God of the Tutsis still alive?" Later, he would order a bulldozer to push down the church walls on those inside and then urge militias to invade the building and finish off the survivors.

At his trial, Seromba said: "A priest I am and a priest I will remain." This, apparently, is the truth, since the Vatican has never taken back its statements defending him before his conviction.

In the last century, Catholic bishops have been deeply mired in Rwandan politics with the full knowledge of the Vatican. Take Archbishop Vincent Nsengiyumva. Until 1990, he had served as the chairman of the ruling party's central committee for almost 15 years, championing the authoritarian government of Juvenal Habyarimana, which orchestrated the murder of almost a million people. Or Archbishop André Perraudin, the most senior representative of Rome in 1950s Rwanda. It was with his collusion and mentorship that the hateful, racist ideology known as Hutu Power was launched – often by priests and seminarians in good standing with the church. One such was Rwanda's first president, Grégoire Kayibanda, a private secretary and protege of Perraudin, whose political power was unrivalled.

The support for Hutu Power was therefore not unknowing or naive. It was a strategy to maintain the church's powerful political position in a decolonising Rwanda. The violence of the 1960s led inexorably to the 1994 attempt to exterminate Tutsis. These were violent expressions of a political sphere dominated by contentions that Hutu and Tutsi were separate and opposed racial categories. This, too, is one of the legacies of the Catholic missionary, whose schools and pulpits for decades kept up a drumbeat of false race theories.

This turning away from the Rwandan victims of genocide comes at a time when the Catholic church is increasingly peopled by black and brown believers. It is difficult not to conclude the church's upper reaches are desperately holding on to a fast-vanishing racial patrimony.

Perhaps it is time Catholics forced the leaders of their church to deal with a history of institutional racism that endures, if the church is truly to live up to its fine words. Apologies are not sufficient, no matter how abject. What is demanded is an acknowledgment of the church's political power and moral culpability, with all the material and legal implications that come with it.

The silence of the Vatican is contempt. Its failure to fully examine its central place in Rwandan genocide can only mean that it is fully aware that it will not be threatened if it buries its head in the sand. While it knows if it ignores the sexual abuse of European parishioners it will not survive the next few years, it can let those African bodies remain buried, dehumanised and unexamined.

This is a good political strategy. And a moral position whose duplicity and evil has been witnessed and documented. For, it turns out, many people, scholars, governments and institutions inside and outside Rwanda are excavating their own roles in the genocide. The Vatican stands as an exception, its moral place now even lower than that of the government of France for its enduring friendship with genocidaires.

We pay £20 million for the Pope's visit

The Pope is going to visit the UK and charge us 20 million pounds in order to tell us that

• the British equality legislation is running contrary to "natural law", and that
• it creates "unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs".

The National Secular Society is right to not want to welcome the Pope to the UK.

If Mr Ratzinger wanted to act as a Christian, he should, now, cancel his visit to the UK and tell the UK to give the 20 million pounds to the poor. But, surely, he won't: For him, it is more important to promote his organization (as it was for Mother Teresa) than help people.


But, hang on a minute... Remember how, in the summer of 2008, the Pope's visit to Sydney resulted in an increase in business for the city's brothels, strip clubs and prostitutes? Perhaps the UK economy could benefit from the sex drive of the Pope's devotees. Well, it would take an awful lot of visits to London's brothels to make up for the 20 million pounds tax payers will have to pay, but you never know...