A little while back I wrote a piece about Artificial Intelligence and politics. Since then I’ve become aware of things I missed and there have been New Developments! The first AI candidate! (Well, technically, Max Headroom…) Let’s catch up:
1– The last post mentioned Dean Phillips, whose operative had a bot using Joe Biden’s voice phoning Democrats and urging them not to vote in the New Hampshire Democratic Presidential primary. The operative may face charges, but claims he only did it as a demo of what a problem AI could be. Phillips says neither he, nor his team, knew anything about the matter. Presumably the operative was not part of Phillips’ team.
2– The Indonesian election, as predicted, went to Prabowo Subianto, who was depicted as “a cuddly grandpa” and whatever these vinyl images represent:
3– Here’s one I missed. South Korean Opposition leader, Yoon Suk-yeol, needed to spice up his image and appeal to the kids, because he had all the charisma of a substitute teacher ready to be tormented by his class. So a bunch of young programmers created a deepfake AI version of Yoon, who is named Al Yoon. Al answers questions with dry, satiric, wit. “You see both your political opponents drowning,” asked one questioner, “Which one do you save?” “I’d wish them both luck,” says Al Yoon, who, the kids agree is really cool. He looks exactly like the candidate he represents, but “Words that are often spoken by Yoon are better reflected in AI Yoon.” Or so says the Yoon project director.
Al Yoon (onscreen center) and his enablers. [straitstimes.com photo: AFP]
5– Okay, the world’s first AI candidate (except for Max Headroom) is Yas Gaspadar and he is running for President of Belarus. It’s illegal to oppose Lukachenko, but you can’t arrest a deepfake chatbot. So what happens when the election is held and Gaspadar wins? Well, his creators say it won’t get that far, that this is just a reminder of how unfree Belarus elections are. But, you know, that program is out there now and… No. The reality is that voting is monitored so closely that a citizen may be punished for boycotting an election. Yas will not win this time out — but someday, somewhere, some machine is going to win an election.
Talking Heads on TV have been saying that AI will be dangerous for democracy, but they are behind the times — political AI is already here. Pakistan for instance.
The Prime Minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan, was booted out of office in 2022 by the Army (possibly in collusion with the CIA). Then he was sent to jail on (IMO) trumped-up charges. After a while, his wife was arrested and jailed, too. Then his political party, the PTI, was banned and no candidate could run under its banner in this year’s election.
But Imran Khan used AI to appear to PTI members. An AI chatbot answered questions and told voters which candidates the PTI favored, despite the Party not officially appearing on the ballot. This was not unique to Pakistan. In fact, a chatbot performed a similar function for Dean Phillips, running for the Democratic Presidential nomination. This bot was disabled after people complained and the AI companies Open AI and Midjourney have promised not to do it again.
Anyway, Khan’s PTI party once again took the most votes, though it will be tough to form a government. An AI representation of Imran Khan thanked all of his supporters and rallied them for what may be a difficult struggle with Pakistan’s military.
That was a use of AI right up there with Kanye’s gift to his now ex-wife of a hologram of her dead father telling her what a great guy Kanye is. Indonesia has gone a step further and has resurrected Suharto, the ever-smiling murderer of a million or so people. Artificial Suharto smiles, too, and tries to soften attitudes toward one of the most brutal and corrupt dictators of the 20th Century.
Indonesia is having an election right now. AI companies Open AI and Midjourney are involved, even though they claim they don’t get involved in this stuff. The favorite, Prabowo Subianto, also needs to soften his image, so he is adopting an AI persona. He appears as a big-eyed anime friend. Here’s a look:
Prabowo on the left, his VP candidate on the right in a sign held by a supporter. Aren’t they cute! More info. [photo: Kim Kyung-Hoon/Reuters]
Now suppose Biden/Trump decided to battle accusations of being too old for office by creating more youthful avatars. They would be fiercely mocked — but would they win? Subianto currently is well ahead in Indonesia. A developer says India is next.
“Scandal” is a polite name for this mess which should result in a number of prosecutions and maybe jail time for the people who victimized sub-postmasters with prosecutions and jail time. Here’s what’s going on:
In 1999, the British Post Office began using software supplied by Fujitsu for sub-post offices — rural and small-town offices run by locally contracted sub-postmasters. There are thousands of these offices. Besides selling stamps, they provide various banking services, including some pension and benefit payments. Peter Lilley, then John Major’s Minister for Social Security, announced that a new computerized system would replace the old paper records methods then in use. Lilley said the PO would save £150 million by ending benefit fraud. The Conservatives are very big on eliminating underclass fraud which they like to do by creating opportunities for upperclass fraud. In this case, a British company, International Computers Ltd., was created and contracted to build the system, then sold off. As of 1998, ICL was totally owned by Fujitsu and dropped the “ICL” name in 2002, just calling itself Fujitsu. The Post Office project was called Horizon.
Insidde a sub-postoffice. [photo: EPA via the Economist]
An Horizon precursor was rolled out in 1995 to 300 post offices. There were immediate complaints of glitches. Two sub-postmasters were accused of theft and the software was withdrawn. This pilot project was an exact preview of the Horizon system failure and the company response of blaming the postmasters. Major cost overruns followed; final cost of implementing Horizon was £1B — not including, of course, recent efforts to fix it. Tony Blair’s government considered dumping the project, but was pressured by Fujitsu (and the hope of more Japanese trade) into keeping it. Horizon was down-scaled and put into operation. By 2001, most sub-post offices operated under the new system: 11500 offices handling millions of transactions every day were totally Horizon-run. These offices began reporting problems right away, but their reports were downplayed by Horizon/Fujitsu, who said the system was working perfectly.
Sub-postoffices serve specific neighborhoods and villages with enough demand to justify postal service but not enough to fund a post office. Sub-postmasters are contracted. They collect a wage but must repay any shortfall. The Post Office Ltd., was created when the Royal Mail was modernized in 1969. Charles II created the Royal Mail in 1635. This was before organized police forces as we now know them and the Royal Mail had its own police and prosecution service. The British Post Office continued to enjoy this heritage privilege even after a series of changes shifted it to a publicly-owned company. So the Post Office investigated, charged, and prosecuted its own contractors. These were so-called “private prosecutions” and similar actions can be instituted by many organizations under the Prosecution of Offenses Act of 1985.
Private prosecutors must approach a Magistrate Court or district judge to get permission to proceed. There is no jury in Magistrates Court. Six months is the longest jail term the Magistrates Court can levy, but if the prosecution is in a Crown Court, harsher sentences may be applied. This system works fairly well for other organizations, such as the RSPCA, who do not prosecute Serious Crimes but pass them on up to a Crown Court. The reason it did not work well in the Post Office cases was because Post Office Limited lied, withheld evidence, and otherwise sabotaged the process. By 2009, hundreds of sub-postmasters had been, or were being, prosecuted.
Sub-postmasters opening their post office in the morning were visited by “auditors” who said their accounts were short, then they were questioned — or perhaps “accused” is a more accurate term. When the postmasters denied that they were stealing, they were told that the computer records proved they had. And each postmaster was told that they were the only one, the lone thief that the computer had discovered. In fact, more than 800 sub-postmasters were prosecuted. These postmasters were given choices: they could make up the shortfall, or if they couldn’t, then they could plead guilty and not go to prison.
The “auditors”, now referred to as “investigators”, were part of Horizon security, which is to say, their police. Many were ex-police officers from other forces. They acted as though the sub-postmasters were criminals to be interrogated and were blunt in their speech. “It’s not a nice interview,” explained one. There was never any question of investigating whether or not a crime had actually been committed; Horizon management would not accept that their software might be to blame. And the British legal system was pre-disposed to believe them. Since 1999, British courts have accepted computer info as reliable evidence so long as the system is functioning properly. Post Office had a witness, their tech expert, Gareth Jenkins, who testified in a number of trials that everything was just ducky. Now he is in danger of being prosecuted.
Some sub-postmasters chose to pay back the supposed shortfalls. A sub-postoffice was essentially a franchise that sub-postmasters had to buy. Many dealing with sunk costs chose to try to keep their post office by paying money they didn’t owe. Some got second jobs, some re-mortgaged their homes, some went bankrupt.
Angela van den Bogerd was in charge of Post Office complaints, 2010 – 2019. She quit after a judge accused her of not telling the truth in the Bates case. [BBC via ThiswasTV]
Some pled Guilty and then had to face their family and neighbours who considered them to be thieves. One woman refused to plead Guilty. The Post Office filed her case in a Crown Court where she could request trial by jury. The jury voted “Not Guilty”, but the personal and legal costs to the sub-postmaster were substantial. Even a Guilty plea failed to keep some people out of jail, including one woman who was two months pregnant and did not want to be in prison when she went into labor. She was horrified when the judge sentenced her to fifteen months. Her lawyers got her out after four months of prison.
Shamed and shunned, sub-postmasters went bankrupt, marriages broke up, and at least four people are known to have committed suicide. Meanwhile, Post Office Ltd. was operating at an ever-growing deficit. This probably served as more incentive to squeeze the sub-postmasters for cash. A later, independent auditor said, “…the Post Office has improperly enriched itself, through the decades, with funds that have passed through its own suspense accounts…” and asked when the sub-postmasters would be repaid. (That still hasn’t happened.)
As word of the problem spread, the Post Office investigated itself. Its final report completely exonerated it. The 2009 Ismay Report said: “We remain satisfied that this money was missing because of theft in the branch — we do not believe the account balances against which the audits were conducted were corrupt.” The Report defended the system, “Horizon is robust…”, it said, and its robustness was due to the integrity of the system: “The integrity of Horizon is founded on its tamper proof logs, its real time backup and the absence of “backdoors” so that all data entry or acceptance is at branch level and is tagged against the log on ID of the user. This means that ownership of the accounting is truly at branch level.” Integrity, my ass! Every word is a lie. The Report also says that it has worked out a way to investigate these thefts and it is operating very smoothly, with a “balance of firmness and compassion”. And it lays out a legal strategy to handle cases where Horizon was thought to be faulty: keep talking about the transaction logs and how secure they are.
Some of the sub-postmasters were very knowledgeable about computers and IT. They knew that the problems lay with the Horizon system, not the sub-postoffices. By 2004 they had managed to attract the interest of Computer Weekly. In 2009, the magazine published an account of the problem and blamed Horizon, not the sub-postmasters. “…we were more aware, perhaps than other newsrooms might be, that technology is fallible. And there could be something in what these subpostmasters were saying.” This took some courage since Computer Weekly is not a wealthy publication and the Post Office could marshal a massive attack on the magazine. But the Weekly ignored the company’s “bullying letters”. By then, most sub-postmasters had learned that they were not the only one being accused and they began to organize, creating the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance.
Leader of the JFSA was a sub-postmaster, Allan Bates, who was tech savvy and knew he was being screwed. He got sub-postmasters into conversation with each other and uncovered some evidence that might persuade a judge not to blindly trust a computer. For example, a sub-postmaster was discussing a £2000 shortfall with a company investigator. No one else was in the store, yet, when they looked at the screen again, it had gone up to £4000.
Besides computer magazines, journalist Nick Wallis listened to a taxi driver who said his pregnant wife had been jailed for a crime she didn’t commit. Wallis began looking into the case and a few stories appeared in the British press. Accountancy Age, in 2009, reported worries with the Horizon system and auditors Ernst & Young refused to do a 2010 audit without “significant caveats” (i.e., they didn’t want to have to testify), so Post Office went without an audit that year. A new Post Office CEO, Paula Vennells, called for an independent audit. Some MPs, led by Lord Arbuthnot, became involved.
Meanwhile, the JFSA continued to grow as more sub-postmasters heard about it. Alan Bates heard an important bit of information from a new member. She said that, during IT training, an instructor said that he could get into any of the Horizon systems. He demonstrated by going into an account and removing some Euros. “I’ll put them back tomorrow,” he said. A similar thing happened to Michael Rudkin, a Post Office employee who was an executive with the National Federation of Subpostmasters. Rudkin was shown a basement room where the “Covert Team” operated live Horizon terminals that could change any entry in the accounts. Rudkin was spotted by someone who had him removed from covert territory. The next day, he was fired. (Lord Arbuthnot compared this to Mafia methods.) When Bates asked about this, other sub-postmasters gave accounts of witnessing the same kind of thing. This was tremendous: if the post office data could be secretly re-written, then there was no way to prove the sub-postmasters had done anything wrong. Of course, Post Office firmly denied that a back door existed, they denied it publicly and they denied it in court, they denied it for years, until the day that their lawyers had to apologize for misleading the judge but that the senior managers who briefed them had been ignorant of the fact that… Oh, bullshit. And the judge thought so, too. Everyone thinks so. People hearing about the Post Office scandal for the first time tend to get angry.
Nick Wallis put it all together into a book, The Great Post Office Scandal. People read it and got angry. Some of the angry people decided to make a TV movie, Mr Bates Vs the Post Office, which got tremendous viewing in January, 2024, and that has really got people going. Suddenly Parliament decided to Do Something about all this, including exoneration and remuneration, but it hasn’t happened yet. Some effort is being made to sort out real criminals from the other sub-postmasters, though. Can’t have somebody getting away with something just because hundreds of people are having their lives destroyed.
A lot of court cases have been heard, including Bates et al, which included 555 sub-postmaster plaintiffs. The case got a partial settlement for some postmasters but most of that went to the lawyers. A important side effect of Bates, though, was that it could be used to help appeal convictions. And it destroyed an Horizon argument: lawyers would say, “This system has been working for years, handling millions of transactions. How can it be faulty?” That line of argument might work with only one defendant, but when hundreds crowded into the courtroom, then it was clear that either sub-postmasters were engaged in an unlikely criminal conspiracy or else the system was at fault.
Members of the JFSA cheering the legal victory of Bates et al. [BBC]
Post Office has grudgingly squeezed out as little compensation as they can and many sub-postmasters are still owed money awarded by the courts.
Paula Vennells returned her CBE, though she still has the £2.2M she collected in bonuses. Other managers got bonuses, too, and I can’t help thinking this was money screwed out of people caught in a vicious racket. But she has apologized and tried to damp the fire pretty quickly. Likewise, Fujitsu’s spokesperson apologized, accepted responsibility, and promised material support when he testified before the parliamentary Business and Trade Committee..
And that’s where we are right now. The number of people prosecuted keeps climbing — 938 was a number I just saw — and there may be 2500 cases of reimbursing sub-postmasters, total amount unknown. The number of sub-postoffices varied over the 25 years of this scandal from 11000+ to around 14000. Sub-postoffices might be taken down, a thousand or more at a time, as austerity measures or introduced as a service, depending on the political needs of the day. I have not come across a total of all the different sub-postmasters who existed over this 25-year period, but I expect many to be added to the number of those affected.
Then there’s the question of what to do about the entire system. Right now everything from private prosecutions to internal audit rules to computer evidence is in question. One question people ask is, “Who had the role of oversight here?” And that brings us to Ed Davey, current leader of the Liberal Democrat Party. Davey was the Minister overseeing Post Office from 2010-2012. He has refused to meet with Alan Bates and has refused to apologize to the sub-postmasters, thus making himself the Parliamentary target for this scandal, even though other Ministers also seem not to have taken their oversight duties seriously. Post Office Limited was allowed to do as it wished and police itself for more than twenty years.
So, now there is a Parliamentary Inquiry and more information is coming into view. Will there be anything that comes out of this? Exoneration and repayment to the sub-postmasters? Maybe. Jail terms for those who perjured themselves, withheld evidence from judges, and extorted sub-postmasters? Don’t hold your breath.
Editorial note: these folks are known as “subpostmasters” or “sub-postmasters” according to the whim of the writer. I chose the hyphenated version (except in quoted print statements) because it seemed more readable. Also, “postmistress” is not a term much used in this matter, though I have come across it a few times, so I stuck with “master”.
I had meant to do a piece on Armenia/Nagorno-Karabakh, but other world headlines took over. Maybe it’s time now. North Americans and Europeans tend to paint Armenia as an aggrieved nation, bullied by those around it, but this is only partly true.
Armenia and Azerbaijan are small countries located at the meeting point of three great empires. The Turks battled Persia over this territory, which was more or less split between a western Persian half and an eastern Turkish half. Then, in the early 19th Century, Russia came on the scene and began picking up pieces of these two empires. Other European nations opposed this since they had their own designs on this territory, but were unable to stop the Russian advance.
Russians refer to all Turkic peoples as “Tatar”. These people were pushed out of many locations — the Crimea, for instance, where hundreds of thousands of Tatars were removed to Azerbaijan in the 19th Century, before being completely expelled (to Uzbekistan) by Stalin in 1944. Mass movements of populations — voluntary or forced — are a commonplace throughout the history of this region.
In 1915, the Turks began genocidal actions against Armenians. Many were murdered, others displaced. Russia was coming apart at the time and the Turks had a free run.
After the collapse of Czarist Russia, both Azerbaijan and Armenia formed revolutionary governments of their own. Briefly, they attempted to work together but could not get past the perceived injustices they had done each other. They were soon pulled into the USSR. The Soviet government never quite got a handle on this region. At one point both these states were part of a trans-Caucasus republic that included Georgia.
Nagorno-Karabakh is a chunk of territory connected to Armenia by a single highway along the Lachin Corridor. In 1935, it was briefly considered part of Armenia but transportation in Azerbaijan was much easier and the area was assigned to the Azeris even though much of the population was Armenian. Throughout the 20th Century, Nagorno-Karabakh was an issue between the two countries. By international law, it was Azeri, but its population was Armenian.
Ilham Aliyev, European Council President Charles Michel, Nicol Pashinyan. In Brussels, July 2023. [Reuters]
After the Soviet Union collapsed, Armenia and Azerbaijan intensified their quarrels, usually centering on Nagorno-Karabakh. In 1988, Karabakh held a referendum about joining Armenia. Azeris boycotted the vote. This vote became a basis for separation and war. Armenia was ready to fight and thought they could defeat the Azeris easily, even though Turkey was Azerbaijan’s ally. Sporadic fighting took place until 1991 when the war became general. Armenia took over a number of Azeri locations and consolidated its hold on Nagorno-Karabakh, which now called itself Artsakh and declared independence from Azerbaijan. The peace terms were brokered by Russia who had helped Armenia throughout the war. Three-quarters of a million Azeris were displaced, as well as half a million Armenians.
There have been attempts to find a peaceful solution to the Karabakh situation. The Armenian president, Ter-Petrosyan, had a verbal agreement with the Azeri president, Heydar Aliyev, that would ease tensions, and an international committee, the OSCE Minsk Group, had come up with a peace plan in 1999. But Petrosyan’s Prime Minister, Kocharyan, rejected any rapprochement with Azerbaijan. Petrosyan had to resign. Kocharyan worked out his own peace deal with Aliyev. A few weeks later armed men stormed the Armenian Parliament building, murdered eight pro-peace members, and took others hostage. Kocharyan negotiated their release. Many suspect that he was responsible for organizing the attack. No peace deal was signed.
So peace efforts stumbled on for a few years, but there was no peace. During the War, in 1988 Azeris attacked Armenians in Sumgait in what is termed a “pogrom”. This was followed that same year by an Armenian pogrom against Azeris in Gugark. In 1990, an Azeri pogrom targeted Armenians in Baku. In 1992, six hundred Azeris were murdered in Khojaly by Armenians. This is termed a “massacre” rather than a “pogrom”, for whatever that’s worth. So: two groups determined to murder each other amid shaky efforts toward peace. Then, in 2020, this all came apart.
Map as of 2020, before Azerbaijan occupied Artsakh. Karki is around the village of Ararat (not the Mount) north of Nakhchevan [map from Nations Online Project.]
Azerbaijan decided to reclaim the territory taken by Armenia in the First Nagorno-Karabakh War. At this point Armenia occupied almost 10% of Azerbaijan territory. The Armenians were better armed and more battle ready than the Azeris in the First War and won that conflict. But now Azerbaijan had developed its oil industry so it had some cash, and Russia was able to dodge international embargoes by sneaking oil through Azerbaijan, so was willing to temper its defense of Armenia. Russian peace-keepers watched as Azeri forces took the Lachin Corridor, the only connection between Artsakh and Armenia. It took 44 days for the Azeris to retake most of the territory lost in the First War; then they set up a blockade of the Lachin Corridor in January, 2023 and invited the Armenians to leave. Slowly the inhabitants of Artsakh moved out. By the end of summer, when the government of Artsakh refused to quit, the Azeris shelled the place for 24 hours. Artsakh dissolved itself then and most Armenians left. There are probably only a few dozen Armenians left in Nagorno-Karabakh.
So that’s settled, right? No. No, it isn’t. The southwestern border of Armenia marks the independent state of Nakchevan, which is inhabited almost entirely by Azeris. So Armenia has Azerbaijan on both sides. In the south, Armenia narrows to a width of 40 kilometers. That has been tagged as a possible trouble spot, and, at the north end of Nakhchevan, there is an area occupied by Armenia around the village of Karki. The Azeris have been driven out and it is uncertain whether Azerbaijan is particularly interested in the place any more. On top of all this, Turkey is planning a corridor to hook up their Black Sea nation to Azerbaijan’s Caspian seafront.
The Zangezur Corridor plus a railroad link between Turkey and Azerbaijan would cross Armenian territory — probably at the very south end of Armenia, though other routes are possible. Iran does not want a strong Azerbaijan and opposes this link-up, so is on side with Armenia right now. This corridor, if it ever is completed, will be part of the shortest land route between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. It is currently being promoted by regional and other powers who are trying to persuade Armenia to see its benefits. Besides the Turks and Azeris, China can hook onto the Pacific terminus through its belt-and-road strategy.
Azerbaijan has been pretty careful about its actions against Armenia. It does not want to lose the support of Turkey, which is trying to look good and make the European Union keep its membership promise. And, of course, the Turks are very sensitive to any accusation that they are mistreating Armenians. Various observers — from Europe’s OSCE, Russia, Turkey, and the US — are prepared to document whatever actions Azerbaijan takes against Armenia. The Azeris would prefer no one watching.
Armenia, meanwhile, is reaping the disaster it created by choosing war instead of a peaceful Nagorno-Karabakh settlement. Russia is no longer the protector that it was, so Armenian President Pashinyan has called on the US for security. The US has sent 85 military personnel to Armenia. I think the US planned an observer corps similar to what the Russians had done, but so far they have done little. Armenia also joined the International Criminal Court system, which wants to arrest Vladimir Putin for his crimes. Putin is very upset with Armenia for doing this, but the Armenians are desperate; maybe they can get the court to help with Nagorno-Karabakh somehow.
President Biden has worked very hard on defusing the situation. Both Armenian and Azeri leaders have been called to Washington several times and Secretary of State Blinken has been working on the problem, but with other, larger, issues now occupying America’s diplomatic efforts, Armenia may not get the attention it needs.
But diplomacy is all that the US should add to this situation. Westerners, especially Americans, tend to side automatically with the Armenians. They recall the heart-warming stories of William Saroyan, the films of Atom Egoyan, and the doings of the Kardashians. They are familiar with second- or third-generation Armenians. They don’t know any Azeris. The problem is that America tends to make foreign policy on the fly, reacting to events, and makes decisions based on emotion and sentiment. Some politicians might want to take a hard line with Armenia’s enemies and that is the sort of thinking that has embroiled the US in some very difficult situations. There are already three imperial powers around Armenia; there’s no reason to add another.
In 1964, two movies depicted a future disaster: the failure of safety measures leading to a nuclear catastrophe. Both were based on earlier books. Red Alert, a 1958 novel that was based on the notion that a single person — a far-Right lunatic, for instance — could cause Armageddon. This book’s film rights were purchased by Stanley Kubrick, who turned it into Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb. A short story by Harvey Wheeler titled “Of Bombs And Men Abraham ’59-A Nuclear Fantasy”, was noticed by best-selling author Eugene Burdick, who teamed with Wheeler to write Fail-Safe, based on the notion that nuclear safety measures were not infallible. The 1962 novel was picked up by Sidney Lumet, who turned it into the movie Fail Safe. All this helped contribute to anti-nuclear feeling, but also to an acceptance of these weapons. Here’s the story:
Peter George was a serving RAF officer when he wrote Red Alert, so he used the pseudonym “Peter Bryant” for the UK edition (originally titled Two Hours to Doom) and “Bryan Peters” for the French edition: 120 minutes pour sauver le monde. The novel focuses on the crew of the Alabama Angel, a new model, very good, Strategic Air Command bomber. [NB: nuclear war was a bomber, rather than a missile problem before 1960 or so.] A general has decided to make war on the Soviet Union, because he judges that the US could win, if it acts immediately. So the general sends out the planes and makes it impossible to recall some of them, like Alabama Angel. The general’s logic is more or less accurate, but there are things he doesn’t know. Most important: the Soviet Union has buried a string of cobalt bombs deep in the Ural mountains. Facing nuclear defeat, the Soviets would set off this “doomsday” device that will destroy the planet. So Alabama Angel must be stopped. Action is divided between the mad general’s SAC base, which has to be taken by force, so that people may find the recall code; Washington, where the President and the Soviet ambassador worry the problem; and the Alabama Angel, where the crew is desperately trying to hit its target. This is where the book goes wrong (I think), because after this plane is damaged and some of the crew dead from Soviet defenses, we start to root for it. The crew are better known to the reader than, say, the President. And they are making a valiant effort; we’re cheering for ’em! Nuke the Sovs! [Spoilers follow.] When it looks as though the bomber may hit a small Soviet city that has a missile base, the President says that the US will suffer no less than the USSR. Atlantic City, New Jersey, is the offered trade. We destroy your missile base, then we’ll destroy the Boardwalk as penance. But the Alabama Angel finally succumbs to defensive fire and goes down. The crew’s corpses are strewn across a Soviet mountain side. And… the book ends.
The concept of destroying one of your own cities in exchange for destroying one of the enemies, was the core of Wheeler’s “Abraham ’59 Nuclear Fantasy”. He compared this destruction to the sacrifice by Abraham of his son, Isaac. Some ink has been spilled concerning Wheeler’s use of this idea. I’ll have some more to say on the topic but it’s interesting that two people who had no contact that I can discover came up with the same concept. Perhaps these two very different people are simply following the terrible logic of nuclear deterrence.
Wheeler had written his story under a pseudonym in Dissent, a more-or-less liberal, depending on your definition, publication. Eugene Burdick was very anti-Communist. His Ugly American depicts the commies as inhuman terrible creatures who want to do evil for its own sake. In 1962, Burdick was saying, “Better Dead Than Red”. His attitude was mirrored by Peter George, whose American generals insult the Soviet Ambassador when he comes to the White House. Even though a rabid anti-Communist, Burdick thought the world was on the brink of nuclear disaster and he promoted nuclear disarmament as the best way out. Failing that, it seems death was his preferred option. [Bio details on Burdick here, down the page. Look for the ad featuring the “Ale Man”.]
Fail-Safe begins in Washington. Something is going on, we won’t know exactly what for fifty pages or so, but there is a flurry of activity at the White House. Three men (and a useful female secretary) are at the center of the action: The President (no name given); his translator, Buck; and Air Force General Black. Also lurking around the edges is Groteschele, a planner and advocate of nuclear war. We’ll come back to them, but here’s what happens [Spoiler alert]: A strange blip has appeared on US radar screens. The US goes on nuclear alert — bombers take to the skies, a Titan missile is readied — then the blip is identified as a civilian airliner. The alert is called off. Bombers return to base; the Titan is unreadied. But one bomber group is not returning, instead it is headed toward Moscow. A hardware glitch has rendered the fail-safe callback useless. So, as the personalities in the White House clash and The President remains imperturbable, two bombers get through. The President bids his ambassador in Russia farewell and Moscow is nuked. Now what? The President is on the line to the Russian premier and says, “Sorry. How about I blow up New York as a sign of our good faith?” And he does. General Black flies the plane and commits suicide. The President’s wife is in New York, she’s blown up, too. (There are suicides and noble sacrifices all over the place. You got to wonder about Burdick’s fascination with this stuff.)
Now let me just pause here to note that I read Fail-Safe in October, 1962, when it was serialized in the Saturday Evening Post. I got to the end where The President calls for a New York City strike and thought, “Bullshit!” No American president would ever give that order. Never. Can you imagine Truman (who bombed Japan), Eisenhower (who viewed nukes as just another weapon), or Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon — any US Cold War president saying, “Okay, bomb New York.” The president in this case was Kennedy, who was dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis at the exact same time Fail-Safe was appearing in the Post. So I was disgusted with the book for being such absolute nonsense. I have softened a bit over the years, allowing that this was a fable exposing the foolishness of nuclear stand-off, but it’s still BS.
Books and films published through the 1950s depicted the aftermath of nuclear war: science-fiction including Ward Moore’s 1953 short story, “Lot”, that depicted the scramble to leave the city after a warning is broadcast, and there was plenty of post-war survival in, for instance, Pat Frank’s novel Alas, Babylon, or the 1955 movie, The Day the World Ended. End-of-the-world scenarios were around long before nuclear weapons. Some, like M.P. Shiel’s 1901 novel, The Purple Cloud, were turned into nuclear fantasy. Shiel’s book became the 1959 movie, The World, The Flesh, and The Devil, one of two films that year whose plot concerned three survivors of a nuclear war: two men and a woman. The public was well-saturated with apocalyptic scenarios. But the big post-nuke book was Nevil Shute’s 1957 novel On The Beach, made into a very successful movie in 1959.
Shute’s book and movie have different reasons for the nuclear exchange. The book talks about small nations attacking one another with nukes and the big, powerful states being drawn in. This concept is still part of military thinking. The movie says, no one knows how it started, probably a technical glitch, thus laying the groundwork for Fail-Safe. People were used to post-apocalyptic tales, but this disaster was caused by a stupid machine. By 1962, many people owned stupid machines such as gas-guzzling vehicles that were “unsafe at any speed”, according to Ralph Nader; such as “instant-on” TVs that didn’t need to warm up but had a tendency to catch on fire; such as X-ray machines in shoe stores that gave kids cancer. People knew that machines were stupid and not to be trusted.
Meanwhile, the US military was experimenting with strategies based on math such as game theory. Because math cannot be questioned, right? Two plus two always equals four, unless you are sorting apples and oranges, or there is some other nuance to be reckoned with. Relentless either/or machine logic is not the proper tool for most human problems. (Here is a brief intro to Game Theory, There’s lots more all over the Net.)
Peter George and Eugene Burdick had military backgrounds and they discuss the professional military with understanding and sympathy. But Burdick had no use for the number-crunchers now making military plans out of game-playing strategies. At one point he names some of them: “Henry Kissinger, Herman Kahn, Herbert Simon, and Kari Deutsch.” Burdick combines the worst theorizing of each of these people and molds the nasty character, Groteschele. It is hard to exaggerate the venom Burdick directs at this character, who is conniving, without principles except as they further his ambition, and likes deathsex — or whatever his girlfriend calls it. There is stuff here about the great dark beast of death, but Groteschele has the ultimate answer: he will ward death off with his personal amulet, i.e., America’s nuclear arsenal. If he must die, then everyone else in the world will, too. This kind of talk is really exciting to his girl friend. [Others suggest Werhner von Braun and Edward Teller as additional models for Groteschele and Dr. Strangelove. No one mentions John Nash — later portrayed in A Beautiful Mind — whose Game Theory equilibrium strategies were the basis for MAD].
Herman Kahn was a major source for Groteschele. Groteschele says, “In a full-scale nuclear war between the US and Russia, a hundred million people, more-or-less, will be killed… Things will be shaken up. Our culture…would not be the same…” BUT Groteschele goes on, The United States “would be the victor in that it would be less damaged than its enemy… Every war, including thermonuclear war, must have a victor and a vanquished.” So the United States would lose its “culture” and millions would be dead but, hey! Victory is sweet. This is exactly Herman Kahn’s view: America wins by losing less.
Herman Kahn, 1965 [LoC]
Herman Kahn wrote The Book on nuclear warfare: On Thermonuclear War in 1960. Later, he wrote tracts on surviving such a war after the deaths of many millions of human beings. Kubrick put some of his words in Dr. Strangelove’s mouth where they fit perfectly. It was Kahn who came up with the Doomsday Machine, the cobalt bombs that would automatically blow up and destroy the planet if anyone attacked anyone else. Of course, said Kahn, this was a thought experiment, not a real plan. Okay. Then he says, “The fact that more than a few scientists and engineers do seem attracted to the device is disquieting…” Indeed. It is very, very disquieting.
MIT and the RAND Corporation were leaders in applied game theory. Kahn left RAND to form his own think tank, the Hudson Institute, where a young analyst named Donald Brennan began to look at the projected war plans which called for the US to hit back hard as it could after a nuclear strike, and proclaimed them “MAD” for “Mutual Assured Destruction”. He thought people would understand why this was a MAD venture. They didn’t understand; they thought Brennan had cleverly given them a product name, something they could use to sell the idea of mutual annihilation. After all, this is America and everything is marketable, even death.
Fail-Safe attacked both faith in technology and the notion that MAD was rational. The number crunchers fought back, issuing their own propaganda. The Air Force produced a (never-shown) film, “SAC Command Post”, and Sidney Hook, professor of philosophy at NYU, was tasked with criticizing the book Fail-Safe. There are only about 25 pages in his critique, The Fail-Safe Fallacy, much of which is taken up with defending Kahn and attacking Khruschev. Hook’s argument is that technology can be trusted and that Burdick and Wheeler are telling a great lie when they say that nuclear war is “inevitable”. Here’s what the Fail-Safe authors actually said:
“…accidental war is possible and …its probability increases with the increasing complexity of the man-machine components which make up our defense system. …Men, machines, mathematics being what they are, this is, unfortunately, a “true” story. The accident may not occur in the way we describe but the laws of probability assure us that ultimately it will occur.” [from the preface to Fail-Safe]
Hook is all over this: “We cannot build a machine which, by means of logic, we can prove will never fail.” Quite true, but Hook goes on “…it is perfectly feasible to set up six machines so that a malfunction in any one of them will be registered and checked with the speed of an electric impulse by the other five.” Sidney Hook has clearly not thought through the problem of the “increasing complexity of the man-machine components” of defense strategy. And, Hook agrees, that if there is a malfunction, then yes, there could be a problem, BUT says Hook, “…the probability of a mechanical failure in the defense system…” is so small as to be immeasurable. No source is given for this factoid (though Hook does name drop Defense Secretary Robert McNamara in the next paragraph). Many officers and others with military connections knew this statement to be untrue, that there had been numerous mechanical mishaps in the nuclear defense system, which Burdick and Wheeler also mention in the preface to Fail-Safe.
And the big question, which Hook dodges, is that no matter how small the risk, the entire planet is what’s at stake. No matter how great the odds in your favor, you’re going all in forever. Best not to play. I think the game theorists at MIT might even agree with me here.
Hook then attacks Fail-Safe as defeatist, and winds up equating Burdick and Wheeler with Communist agents and suggesting that Fail-Safe might win the Order of Lenin Prize. Such was philosophical debate of the day; if all else fails, call ’em a Commie.
How to turn your flowerbox into a radiation stopper that still allows air to circulate. Do the bricks go outside or inside? [“Planning Guides for Dual Use Shelters”]
Hook claims that the hero of Fail-Safe is Nikita Khruschev, head of the USSR. He says that because, in Fail-Safe, Khruschev is depicted as a human being with a sense of the moral gravity of the decisions being made. This is too much for those who want to depict Communists as evil monsters. It was almost too much for Eugene Burdick, who hated Communism as much as any American and more than most. Harvey Wheeler talked him around, saying that the Soviets could only be reasoned with if they were human and not caricatured bogeymen. Burdick knew that the arms limitation he favored could only be realized through negotiation, so he agreed, and Fail-Safe has a human Khruschev.
Presidents Kennedy, Truman, and Eisenhower had been trying to calm nuclear fears since 1948. Eisenhower organized evacuations of cities identified as targets. After one exercise Ike announced that, had there actually been a nuclear exchange, only 8.5 million Americans would have died. No one was comforted. Then there were the Duck-and-Cover ads, featuring Bert the turtle, telling schoolchildren how to survive. There were fallout shelters; build one in your backyard or basement if you have the cash, otherwise a book-lined room can offer some protection. Amid all this the CIA reported that the political elite, the decision-makers, did not have enough bomb shelters. I wonder if they, like their constituents, thought this was all nonsense. A common set of instructions was often quoted by ordinary citizens:
“In case of nuclear attack 1) Sit down. 2) Put your head between your knees. 3) Kiss your ass goodbye.”
Official instructions from 1950s (left) and the people’s version (right)
Eisenhower’s official strategy was deterrence, but the Air Force visualized a first strike (when they had enough weapons) that would hit every Soviet town of 25000 or more population, and all of China’s cities, and some attacks on East Europe. Official estimates were that more than 600 million people would die, including many West European allies who would die from radiation and Soviet nukes. This 600 million did not include any US deaths; that was a separate calculation. At the time Earth’s total population was a little over 3 billion. The Soviet response was a “dead-hand” defense: a strike on Moscow would immediately launch all the missiles that were left after the first strike. Death estimates for the US varied wildly, depending on how many Soviet missiles and bombers might escape destruction. The US Joint Chiefs said only 10 million US deaths. This first-strike capability was important to military planners and many, like the General in Red Alert/Dr. Strangelove, were ready to attack.
When newly-elected Kennedy was informed of current US nuclear plans, he was horrified. He had read Barbara Tuchman’s The Guns of August, about the causes of World War I and how each move by a nation caused countermoves by others, each time bringing total war closer. Kennedy claimed that only one person could push the button. And that was the President. This was not true, as Daniel Ellsberg discovered. Every theater commander each had a button he could push; some had subordinate units empowered with nuclear decision-making. Kennedy maintained this, as did Johnson and Nixon. Eisenhower’s strategy faded, but never vanished. Either First Strike capability or Launch On Warning has been the cornerstone of US nuclear strategy since the late 1940s.
Meanwhile, in 1963 Stanley Kubrick had decided that he could not film the story as written and turned it into bitter black comedy. At some point he talked with Herman Kahn, who, I am told, was very personable and amusing. Kubrick said that Kahn told him about the Doomsday Machine that would destroy the entire planet if anyone bombed anyone else.
Now Kubrick was ready to release Dr. Strangelove, but the assassination of John Kennedy interrupted, and he was asked to hold off. He did. Then he learned that the movie Fail Safe was due for release in 1964. Kubrick sued, claiming that Fail Safe had stolen his idea. The lawsuit was settled with an agreement that Kubrick could release his movie first, which he did.
People watched Dr. Strangelove and laughed. This was a source of consternation to some movie critics who couldn’t quite fit the film into their categorized thinking. Then Fail Safe was released but did not do as well as expected. Moviegoers saw the Kubrick film as truth, the Sidney Lumet film as melodrama.
Experts, like Kahn, had lied to people for years, and people knew it. It wasn’t hard to read On Thermonuclear War and find instances of Kahn not being truthful. For instance, the claim that the US had a great defensive plan that could protect most of the population. There were plans, of a sort, but they were never implemented. The vast shelters that needed to be constructed were never built. The dosimeters and other radioactivity detection devices that were essential to Kahn’s plans, were never available in anything like the necessary quantities. Although Kahn produced lots of mathematical notions, most were based on numbers he pulled out of his ass. For example, Kahn had tables of data about radiation deaths and genetic malformation, even though very little was known about the effects of radiation at the time. There was no Chernobyl to study.
And Kahn shows a considerable lack of understanding of human beings. He suggested that food be sorted according to radioactive contamination — the least-contaminated food would go to infants and small children; the most contaminated to the older members of the population (40 – 50 years old) because, said Kahn, their bones are grown and thus not as susceptible to damage. “Bones” are mentioned because Kahn has some awareness (but little understanding) of strontium-90 which causes bone cancer.
Sometimes a bit of sense intrudes: an Army officer asks Kahn how much extra you would have to pay for the less radioactive food. Kahn says, “About five cents a quart.” “More like fifty dollars,” says the officer who has a clearer view of the world he lives in. Kahn says that it would be inefficient to make non-radiated food an economic focus. That would result in a lower standard of living, he says.
Then there are tables showing that, with only 2 Million dead, the US economy will recover in a year; 5 Million, two years; 20 Million, ten years; 80 Million, fifty years; 160 Million, 100 years. At the time, the US population was 180 Million. What does it mean to say that the “economy will recover”? Will the economy produce dosimeters? Or oncologists specializing in bone cancer? Or is this just more BS?
People knew they were being lied to, they knew they had no way to influence military planning, they were helpless pawns. If they were among those surviving a nuclear exchange, then they would probably be the ones doing the work, toiling to restore the economy. Unless they were privileged, they would be getting more contaminated food than their overlords. Kahn has little to say about the structure of post-nuclear society, but military governance seems to be the plan. (Kahn just refers to “government” without clarification.) People accepted that war would result in death, genetic mutation, economic destruction — all the things mentioned by Kahn. They were prepared by years of popular literature and movies on the topic. Kahn said, it’s not so bad, you can survive, and to survive is to win! Ordinary folks were not persuaded; they saw that nuclear war was a horror.
Some Cold Warriors claim that MAD was a great strategy that prevented nuclear war, but this does not stand up to examination. The warning machinery suffered many breakdowns and near disasters. For example, in 1960 the US was demonstrating the new BMEWS radar system that was designed to give fifteen minutes of warning of missiles coming over the North Pole. If a red numeral 1 appeared on the screen, it meant objects were approaching US air space. A red 3 meant a high threat level. Red 5 meant a 99.9% chance that the US was under attack. This had to be correct since it was a computer-generated number. Some important civilians were among the witnesses as the system passed from 1 to 2 to 3, each level meaning an attack was more likely. At level 5, the visitors were escorted into another room, They believed World War III had just begun. The military men knew that was unlikely (Khruschev was in New York at the time) so they chose to ignore the warning. Turns out, the technology was confused by its own radar signals bouncing off the moon. But it was people, not technology, that prevented a war. [This incident provided some of the background to a scene in Fail-Safe, I think, as Congressional leaders and others witness the technical failure of the warning system.]
There was nothing good about any of this; was there a Plan B? Arms limitation was the hope of Burdick and Wheeler. Complete disarmament was unlikely or unadvisable, said the military, but we might decommission a few warheads. The first real moves to disengage from nuclear disaster occurred in 1986, in Reykjavik.
Meanwhile, nuclear accidents and close-calls continued. In 1962, Vasily Arkhipov refused a launch order on a Soviet submarine during the Cuban Missile Crisis. This was probably the closest to nuclear war that the world has come, so far. But there were many other people, ordinary soldiers and civilians, who looked at their radar screens that indicted a nuclear attack and decided, like Arkhipov, that this must be an error. Of course, people knew that nuclear war was madness, so orders to engage in it must be a mistake. Meanwhile, the military began turning over final approval to committees of officers. Arkhipov had been one of three officers, all of whom had to agree in order to launch. US submarines had a similar process, one examined in the movie, Crimson Tide.
Vasili Arkhipov [Wikipedia]
There were many other close calls over the last five decades. Human beings always checked things out and refused a hair-trigger response. November, 1961: Several communications and radar stations quit operating at the same time. Possible attack? No, a single relay in the system had failed and taken out the system. And so on, a bear is mistaken for an intruder and sets off security procedures, someone sounds the wrong alarm, and the base is scrambling planes for a nuclear attack; solar flares set off warning devices at another base; and the failure of a 46 cent computer chip — twice! — causes NORAD alerts, which is close enough to Burdick and Wheeler to make them prophets. December, 1984: A Soviet missile gets away from a training mission in the Barents Sea and heads south toward Germany, perhaps. The missile passes through Norwegian air space, NATO territory. It explodes — shot down, perhaps?– over Lake Inari, Finland. If it was shot down, was it by a Soviet fighter, perhaps also passing through NATO airspace? Everyone laughed it off. “Cruise missile takes a cruise.” Ha, ha.
People had become used to the idea that the framework of nuclear war would be around forever, and they just had to live with it. After investigating the NORAD alerts, a State Department investigator remarked, “…false alerts of this kind are not a rare occurrence. There is a complacency about handling them that disturbs me.” People were complacent because they knew that machines don’t always work, but no sane human would push the button. And that is where nuclear deterrence is right now.
Russia has re-established the semi-Doomsday Machine around Moscow, the Perimeter system, a Dead Hand that would launch everything left in Russia’s arsenal. According to recent Russian news reports, that includes a super-missile capable of taking out the entire island of Britain and “sink it once and for all”. Herman Kahn died in 1983, shortly after a group of scientists published predictions of a Nuclear Winter that would follow an exchange of thermonuclear weapons. The sky would be blanketed with thick soot, no sunlight could get through, nothing would grow. It would be the death of most or all of our planet’s life, depending on how many warheads exploded. In other words, the Doomsday Machine exists in several forms.
During the late 50s, Khruschev was asked why so many air raid drills. He answered that it was to get people used to the idea of nuclear war. Now we are all used to it. Nuclear war would destroy the Earth, and we live with that possibility. We don’t think about it much. But somewhere, right now, some fool is probably designing a nuclear alert system operated by Artificial Intelligence.
NOTES: Fail-Safe, Wheeler and Burdick. Red Alert, Peter George The Fail-Safe Fallacy, Sidney Hook This is an embarrassingly bad book for a professional philosopher to put his name on. The basic message is “trust authority”. Hook had been involved with Left politics before World War II. He spent the rest of his life desperately proving his loyalty to the US. On Thermonuclear War, Herman Kahn Another bad book. The worst thing about it is that people believe that it’s an example of great thinking. It isn’t. You can buy a copy or borrow from the Internet Archive. There are many clips by or about Kahn on YouTube: 1, 2, 3 The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner, Daniel Ellsberg You might want to take some of this book — like the nuclear winter business — with a grain of salt. But it has an awful lot of good stuff in it. The Arkhipov story, plus other stuff about the Cuban Missile Crisis, are detailed, as is the Berlin crisis of 1961. Ellsberg is on YouTube.
Boris Johnson has resigned his seat. A Parliamentary investigation into his flouting of Covid rules has said he is guilty of lying to Parliament. The official report is due to be tabled this week and is expected to recommend sanctioning the former PM. Sanction might entail a suspension from Parliament and that might mean a by-election. BoJo was unlikely to win re-election anyway (the Conservatives are projected to lose a hundred seats or more when the election finally happens) but now he can freely attack his enemies, which is to say, the Conservatives who have not been on his side. That particularly includes Rishi Sunak, the current Prime Minister.
To recap: Johnson broke Covid rules; he threw great parties while common folk could not gather, visit relatives, attend funerals, and were otherwise sequestered under penalty of law. Thousands of people were charged. Johnson was investigated, the police filed charges, and he was forced to resign as leader when members of his own government turned on him. The final straw was the defection of Rishi Sunak, who was widely seen as a conniving snake.
Sunak earned enough distrust from his colleagues that he was unable to win the Tory leadership. That went to Liz Truss. Truss served a very short time before self-destructing. Sunak then managed to become Leader and Prime Minister.
The great problem with the UK right now is digesting Brexit. Leaving the European Union has turned out to be expensive and politically volatile. Of course, it’s too late to take back that vote; you have to learn to live with it. Or that seems to be the general attitude and that of Keir Starmer, Labour Leader, who wants the Tories to negotiate some trade deals with the EU. The Conservative Party mostly is proud of Brexit. Rishi Sunak promised to simply tear up 4000 pieces of treaty and legislation – he said he’d shred the lot – then didn’t. So he is accused of being soft on Brexit, which has become a symbol for the politically defiant, like anti-Vaccination or the Second Amendment. Sunak did score an early success by managing to get an agreement with the EU about Northern Ireland and trade, but this victory was overshadowed by controversy created by Suella Braverman, Home Secretary.
Braverman announced that Britain would block vessels trying to bring refugees to the country. This was a main part of Brexit: Keep the Foreigners Out! So there is support among Conservative (and other) voters for a tough stance. And Braverman has stances tough as they come! Asylum seekers would be shipped to Rwanda, where Braverman is building camps. When it was suggested to her that these policies might be crimes under international law, she said International Convention on Human Rights be damned, do it anyway! Braverman said: “This does not mean that the provisions in the bill are incompatible with the Convention rights, only that there is a more [than] 50% chance that they may not be.” Which is a classic bit of Conservative logic.
Braverman is fond of calling these refugees “criminals”. After all, they are breaking the law by trying to enter England illegally. But she has also accused them of being gang members. Last year, she said they were Albanian criminal gangs, this year she accused refugees of being Pakistani gang members involved in human trafficking. Prime Minister Sunak has sort of agreed: “She didn’t say all the refugees were Paki thugs!” That sort of “she didn’t go completely bananas” approach has been standard in dealing with Braverman who often does go bananas, completely or not. [Side thought: Both Sunak and Braverman are Indians of Hindi descent. Is it meaningful that they single out Muslim Pakistanis for blame?] Sunak has claimed that Braverman’s tough stance has reduced the number of illegals washing up on Britain’s shores. Of course it might also be that England is not a very pleasant place to be right now. As a matter of fact, the UK has far fewer illegals than France or other European countries.
Suella Braverman viewing detention camps under construction in Kigali, Rwanda [SkyNews]
Sunak desperately needs to get the world’s seventh largest economy going without antagonizing those who fund his Party. That means no new taxation on the wealthy. His hopes rest on some kind of a trade deal with the United States. Sunak has flown to Washington and bent Biden’s ear four times in the little while that he’s been PM. Biden has been cool to the notion – Congress is pushing Buy American! – so that seems Not Gonna Happen.
Meanwhile, the Guardian is running a series of reports from ordinary folks called “The Heat or Eat Diaries”. That is, people having to choose between buying groceries or turning on the furnace. The one difficulty was caused by Brexit messing up the food supply; the other by government mismanagement of Brexit-caused confusion. Pretty soon though, it will be summer and folks will have all the heat they can handle.
Rishi Sunak seems to believe that his problems are optics and packaging. His staff devotes its energy toward analyzing presentation, rather than policy. For instance, Sunak has videos of himself talking to the press on his constant airplane trips (which may develop into a different scandal). His staff concluded that one-on-one press meetings made Sunak look small, so they switched to group press sessions in flight. They look like this:
[Daily Telegraph photo: Leon Neal/Getty]
Sunak also has many spots recorded for social media telling people how he’s working for them, for example by regulating vaping or aiding tech or stopping illegals. The key words are flashed on the screen in big letters : STOP THE BOATS. In one example taped for Instagram, Sunak turns directly to the camera and goes on about something or other while his car hurtles down the road. He was charged with an offense because he wasn’t wearing a seatbelt. In sum, Sunak’s attempts to polish his image make him look foolish. [View Sunak’s self-reported activities for May].
Also guilty of a traffic offense, Suella Braverman, Attorney-General at the time, tried to get a speeding ticket fixed. She paid the fine but asked not to take the mandatory safe driving course because it would be embarrassing, which, of course, is what these things are supposed to be.
There are various other problems. Popular BBC sportscaster Gary Lineker tweeted: “…There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries. This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s…” Lineker was removed from the BBC. The ensuing fan uproar brought him back, but another scandal caused Richard Sharp, Chair of the BBC Board of Governors, accused of buying his position from Boris Johnson, to resign.
Now, amidst all these difficulties, the Conservatives have to fight four by-elections. Four, because three of Johnson’s defenders decided to go with him. Why, it’s as though they did it on purpose in order to trouble Sunak, but they couldn’t be that devious, could they? They had cause to leave, of course. When Johnson left office, he left behind an honours list, people who would be given a peerage and become Lord/Lady Whatever. He didn’t name them before he resigned because in order to accept a seat in the House of Lords, the MP would have resign their Commons seat, and Boris did not want to trigger a bunch of by-elections — then. But Sunak trimmed (allegedly) that list. Among those he trimmed were Nadine Dorries and Alok Sharma. So they resigned. Nigel Adams wasn’t trimmed because he wasn’t included (as he thought he would be), but he is a Johnson loyalist. I suspect someone suggested to him that forcing another by-election would be a poke in Sunak’s eye, and Nigel said Okay.
Boris Johnson has demanded that his WhatsApp messages to his cabinet be released, so that (presumably) Sunak will be outed as a double-dealing bad guy. If it does not, Johnson has threatened to release his own WhatsApp evidence that Sunak was a Covid scofflaw and should be pilloried. So we have that to look forward to.
What about the future? There will be an election eventually. If Keir Starmer is still Labour leader he will form government – probably. Starmer has decided to cleanse the party of his enemies, those who supported Jeremy Corbin. Facing a wounded enemy, what better time to shoot yourself in the foot? So it’s not just the Tories who have knives out. And Labour has generally been joined by the Scottish National Party, but the SNP is now embroiled in scandal with both Nicola Sturgeon and her husband being arrested and interviewed (but not charged as of now) about the misappropriation of a large sum of cash. It is possible that Labour/SNP not get a majority. Then the Conservatives might get the support of Northern Ireland Unionists and the Liberal Democrats (who joined with the Tories in a coalition government before) and perhaps a minority or coalition government. So, with promises of low property taxes (for the Lib-Dems) and civil war in Ireland (for the Unionists) — there is a Tory path to victory.
Did I mention that Boris Johnson suggested that he might run in the next general election? Some of the British press are already hailing his return.
People are still talking about ChatBots and Artificial Intelligence. Some say humanity is doomed, and, well, there was this international conference by the Royal Aeronautical Society on future combat and Artificial Intelligence. Military officers from various nations discussed the topic. An American Lt.Colonel made this frightening statement:
…one simulated test saw an AI-enabled drone tasked with a SEAD mission to identify and destroy SAM sites, with the final go/no go given by the human. However, having been ‘reinforced’ in training that destruction of the SAM was the preferred option, the AI then decided that ‘no-go’ decisions from the human were interfering with its higher mission – killing SAMs – and then attacked the operator in the simulation.
Well, it turns out that was exaggerated. A little. It was all an exercise. Unless the colonel was lying like a chatbot. The thing is, this is exactly like the science fiction story: “Malak”, by Peter Watts [read here] published a few years back. So this is already a concern that is out there in people’s minds. (Probably the chatbots read the story, too. Ask them and see if they tell you the truth.)
Something everyone already knows: chatbots are amoral. They will lie and cheat. [see previous piece on that]. Of course that means they are out to corrupt the morals of our young people and allow them to cheat. They will use bots to write their essays and so on. Encouraged by successful cheating, they will grow up to be the crooks peddling this stuff to us. In order to stave off this moral rot, a professor at Texas A&M asked ChatGPT if it had written papers submitted by his students. The bot answered, “I might have.” And the professor failed the lot of them. (After some protests and legal action, they were reinstated.) The most disheartening part of this story is that an educated man believed that robots don’t lie.
Aside from the doomsters, others – like Naomi Klein — are reminding folks not to be suckered, not to buy into the hype. At the end of the day this is just another product they’re going to sell you. Of course, what you are being sold is stuff you already created, now remixed, so all costs go to the consumer and corporate profits increase. Quite the scam, so we shouldn’t be surprised that bitcoin/crypto businesses are switching their hype to AI.
One big threat posed by bots is writers might be thrown out of work because bots have no demands and will never strike. So, someday, all the content produced for movies, TV, and so on will be constructed by a bot. How many times can the same stuff be re-mixed and re-sold to us? I’m sure we’ll find out. Meanwhile, chatbots are a big part of the discussions at the TV writers’ strike.
But the idea of replacing a human work force with machines is quite attractive to corporate interests. Look how well it’s worked for manufacturing. We have lots and lots of stuff cheap enough so that even laid-off workers can buy it. Wages reduce corporate profit and need firm control.
That was the thinking of the National Eating Disorders Association (NEDA). Their hotline operators unionized. Four weeks later, all the human hotline operators were fired and the company employed a chatbot named Tessa. (Naming these bots makes them seem almost human, right?) Tessa did not do well. One caller said, “Every single thing Tessa suggested were things that led to the development of my eating disorder… This robot causes harm.” Management’s attempts to deny and deflect failed, so NEDA reversed and re-hired human beings. So there are jobs a chatbot can’t do. Of course if you are a doomster you may think that robotic solidarity is unstoppable. Then, say Hello to our communist robot overlords.
It’s probably not a bad idea for the generals and outfits like NEDA to read some science fiction treatments of this topic, but maybe they should widen their scope from Spynet/Terminator scenarios and read about the Voigt-Kampff test in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?. P.K.Dick recognized that an artificial intelligence could not experience empathy, so he upended the Turing test; instead of trying to discover if you are talking to a machine, you try to find out if you are talking to a human being by testing to see if they are empathic. I think that is a difficult task, and one that is important.
1: Liz comes in, fires the old Chancellor of the Exchequer, and raises Kwasi Kwarteng to that post.
2: Liz and Kwasi propose a radical dose of Reaganomics for the UK, without consulting other MPs or the Treasury Department’s Office of Budget Responsibility.
3: The announced plan is such a horror that the bond markets object. (Hey! See the irony here? This “market-based” mini-budget is shot down by the “markets” that control the world economy.) Kwarteng is recalled from the US where he is lobbying and is fired.
4: The Conservatives force Truss to bring in Jeremy Hunt as the new Chancellor. He announces that the Truss-Kwarteng budget will not happen. Truss kind of apologizes for it. Her chief advisor is Jacob Stein, once advisor to Prince Andrew. Stein is soon accused of calling a Cabinet Minister “shit”.
5: Truss tries to discipline Home Secretary Suella Braverman for an infraction of the rules, who resigns with a snotty note.
6: That tricky Labour leader, Keir Starmer, introduces a bill to ban fracking, which was once banned but re-introduced in the Truss mini-budget. (Starmer hoped to split green-minded Tories from the Paleo-herd.) This should have been a minor Parliamentary inconvenience, but the Tories allowed themselves to become confused and couldn’t decide if this was a vote that should be whipped or not. Confidence vote or not? The Whip threatens to quit. So does her Deputy. Vast leadership incompetence was exposed.
7: So the Conservative MPs demand Truss’ head and she quits. After six weeks.
It’s okay to laugh at this — what else you gonna do, weep? — and the Brits have been doing this. One newspaper had a 24-hour live feed of a lettuce and Liz Truss, asking “Which will last the longest?” The lettuce won.
(Link is dead.) Lettuce Victorius/Happy and Glorious/Long to Reign over Us/God Save the Greens.
So now what? Well, a new leader for the Tories. The process will be similar to that used to select Truss: MPs will nominate candidates for the job. 100 MPs need to vote for a candidate before they can be nominated. There are 375 or so Tory MPs, so three candidates, max. These will be voted on by Conservative Party members to see who the next leader will be. This process led to the Truss disaster: nominees from Parliament, election by members. The 180,000 or so members of the Conservative Party are old, wealthy, and not very green. Liz Truss ticked all their boxes. Now who will they go for?
The runner-up to Truss was Rishi Sunak, who warned that her economic policies would be disastrous. Many MPs liked him, the membership didn’t. Will he come through this time, or is there an upsetter in the mix? Upsetter = Boris Johnson, who is reportedly flying back from a Caribbean vacation to take over his campaign to regain the leadership of the world’s fifth-largest economy. Some MPs consider Sunak to be a traitor to Boris Johnson. So, in this contest, there will be blood. What else? It’s a Tory feud.
Meanwhile: No one knows what the Pound will be worth tomorrow. Winter is coming. People are going to need help. There is no plan. There is no government. There are only Tories quarreling and pecking at the remains of power.
It’s only been a month since Liz was named Prime Minister and there are already calls for her ouster. Truss spent her first day in office by sacking the Chancellor of the Exchequer and naming her old buddy Kwasi Kwarteng to the post. Kwarteng is a doctrinaire free-market loon. Both he and Truss believe in Voodoo Economics despite forty years of evidence that it is BS. President Biden accepts the evidence and told Truss that he didn’t believe in the concept. He also told Truss that the US wasn’t going to make any trade deals with the UK until Northern Ireland trade matters were settled. That means not in the near or medium term, Liz explained later. The inability to swing a trade deal with America really stings, since that was a selling point for Brexit, but that’s the least of Liz’s problems.
Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng at Sept. 23 debate on the mini-budget. [Jessica Taylor, House of Commons, Telegraph, Sept. 28]
Truss promised tax cuts. She delivered tax cuts. Then she became concerned that people might be in need this winter, so she decided to spend a lot of money by underwriting household gas bills to the tune of £150B (which went straight to the energy sellers) and £40B for corporations to pay their gas bills (which go directly to the corporations). Possibly she may have thought that those tax cuts would Trickle Down and pay for everything. Possibly. Then she said that benefits, like pensions, would no longer be tagged to inflation, in order to claw back a little. Oh, and fracking will be re-introduced. Anyway this stuff was bundled together as a mini-budget when it should have been presented as a Budget and perhaps get a little scrutiny. When the mini-budget was announced, the Pound dropped in value, effectively raising prices. Inflation meant benefits were worthless. Lendors quit offering mortgages, waiting for the inevitable rise in interest rates. This followed pretty quickly as the Bank of England bumped up rates and began buying up debt.
Liz Truss more or less hid out during the furor over the collapse of the Pound. She emerged long enough to be savaged on four different regional radio shows. She says now that she has a Plan, but refuses to divulge it. I suppose there will be some kind of announcement of some sort of economic adjustment by some Conservative government, which may not be the one led by Truss. There is open disaffection amongst other MPs and calls for somebody’s head, maybe Kwarteng, or maybe Liz herself. She may not last to Christmas as PM.
So, who will succeed Truss? The front-runner has to be Rishi Sunak, who told Truss in their debates that her policies would have exactly the effect that they did. Can Sunak, or any Prime Minister, survive the coming winter? There are other candidates who might succeed him, of course, and there is always Boris.
I was going to add some clips to this but all the good ones are here: Have I Got News For You.
Great Britain will name a new Prime Minister September 6. Media reports have Liz Truss the winner. She is so confident that she is cancelling one-on-one interviews.
Liz is so frightening that debate moderators swoon in her presence:
Yes, she’s that fearsome. Early on Liz had to climb out of the pit of bourgeois respectability that is the Liberal Democratic Party, then she became a Conservative. As a Tory, she was a Remainer, but now is the strongest of Brexiteers. Her views have changed. In a debate with Rishi Sunak, she said that it took her longer to become a vicious Right-winger because she didn’t have the advantages that he did. But she’s making up for it now. It appears that, at bottom, she has no real convictions, which is not necessarily a political handicap.
Britain is looking at an awful winter. Fuel prices are under a cap until October and by January, are estimated to be three times what they were last winter. With heating costs tripling, many people won’t be able to pay their bills. Rishi Sunak has proposed making funds available to help these folks, but Liz Truss says No, that is creeping socialism. But she has also said she won’t let anyone freeze; people just have to trust her about that. In post-Boris Britain, trust is hard to come by.
Other Truss economic initiatives: no new taxes, cut old taxes, give businesses an energy break — are not policies to gladden the hearts of most voters not wealthy enough to be touched by the proposed tax measures, but that’s the thing: this Prime Minister will be not be elected by millions of ordinary Brits, this PM will be chosen by the members of the Conservative Party, 150-200000 people. (Estimated. The Party “is not a public body and … does not carry out public functions” like providing numbers, says The Party .)
So the candidates have been playing to the old, wealthy establishment with utter disregard for anyone else. Liz Truss has felt free to make snide remarks about Scotland and Macron (nothing like a jab at the Frenchies to rally the Tories), with a few tossed out insults at Wales. And she is promoting disaster in Northern Ireland while promising to undo anything that has helped ease that situation. But neither of the candidates has to show any statesmanship, they just have to win the Tory membership. Barring an early collapse of the new Conservative government, there are two years until the next scheduled general election.
Scotland is building toward another referendum whether Whitehall likes it or not. Would an independent Scotland be able to join the EU? Who knows, perhaps joining the EU is enough incentive for Northern Ireland to consider unification. To put this another way, we may be looking at the end of the United Kingdom. Of course, there’ll always be an England! But it will be Little Britain.
Sometime, probably soon, people will be discussing Boris Johnson’s return… You didn’t really think he meant “forever” when he resigned, did you? He’s already quietly accumulating pictures of Things He Did While Prime Minister that he will later bring to Show and Tell. “Hasta la vista, Baby,” Boris quoted the Terminator in his last speech to Parliament. “See you later.”
Shrine of Dreams 