Complexity as a curtain for fraud

“Whoever knows he is deep, strives for clarity; whoever would like to appear deep to the crowd, strives for obscurity. For the crowd considers anything deep if only it cannot see to the bottom: the crowd is so timid and afraid of going into the water.”

Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, The Gay Science (1882).

“. . . using financial complexity allegedly to deceive and then using so-called independent experts to validate the deception (lawyers, accountants, credit rating agencies, "portfolio selection agents," etc etc ) . . .”

"Now we know the truth. The financial meltdown wasn't a mistake – it was a con"

Why are many human systems complex? If we’ve learned anything over the past few years, it’s that there are two reasons—there are two kinds of complexity. Sometimes, complexity is required to get the job done. I think of this as “parsimonious complexity.” For instance, the Mars Rovers are extremely complex robots, but every part of these magnificent robots has a specific function that furthers a clearly and publicly defined mission. There are also instances where complexity is purposely injected into a system. I think of these as instances of “gratuitous complexity.” It’s important to keep in mind that all forms of complexity serve as entry barriers to activities, due to the limited attentional capabilities of humans. Very few of us have the stamina or intellect to thoroughly understand all of the artificial systems people create; many of us don't have the stamina to thoroughly understand even simple systems. When an activity is more complex, it is more difficult to understand and more daunting to those wishing to participate. Activities that are more complex are thus accessible to fewer people. For instance, chess is more complex than checkers, in that the state space of possible moves is larger in chess than in checkers. Checkers is easy to learn and play. But many checkers players don’t graduate to chess due to the increased complexity. Some systems are so incredibly complex that only the chosen few are able to participate.

Continue ReadingComplexity as a curtain for fraud

Hundreds of known innocent men imprisoned at Guantanamo

As reported by the UK Times Online Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as Colin Powell's Chief of Staff has confirmed that most of the men imprisoned at Guantánamo were innocent, and that the Bush Administration knew this. Most of them were taken into custody without ever having had their cases reviewed by a member of the U.S. military, and most of them were turned over to the U.S. by others in return for reward money ranging from $3,000 to $25,000:

Referring to Mr Cheney, Colonel Wilkerson, who served 31 years in the US Army, asserted: “He had absolutely no concern that the vast majority of Guantánamo detainees were innocent ... If hundreds of innocent individuals had to suffer in order to detain a handful of hardcore terrorists, so be it.” He alleged that for Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld “innocent people languishing in Guantánamo for years was justified by the broader War on Terror and the small number of terrorists who were responsible for the September 11 attacks”.

Though many of the prisoners were immediately known to be innocent, the Bush Administration kept them imprisoned so as not to hurt its image as being tough on the "War on Terror." The innocence of almost all of these prisoners compounds the evidence that many of them were tortured and at least several of them were murdered while in U.S. custody. 759 men were imprisoned at Guantanamo. Only about 35 of them will be prosecuted in federal or military courts. Fifty others will be "held indefinitely without trial under the laws of war."

Continue ReadingHundreds of known innocent men imprisoned at Guantanamo

Problems with heavily monied judge elections

At Raw Story, Adam Skaggs warns that bigger money than ever will be pouring into judicial elections in light of the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling of Citizens United. He also offers some good suggestions:

[S]tates should adopt public financing systems for judicial elections (something West Virginia, North Carolina, New Mexico, and Wisconsin have already done). Public financing gets judges out of the unseemly business of dialing for dollars to make sure they win. States also need to adopt stricter disclosure rules, so the public knows which individuals and groups are spending in judicial campaigns. And states should institute new disqualification regulations to ensure that, if a judge is assigned to hear the case of a major campaign supporter, he or she must step aside and let a wholly impartial judge preside.

Continue ReadingProblems with heavily monied judge elections

Dylan Ratigan’s three strikes against the pending financial services legislation

Dylan Ratigan put on a "Family Fued Show" to illustrate the three major failures of the pending financial services legislation. Seems like this bill is not for any meaningful reform. It's only a dog and pony show.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Continue ReadingDylan Ratigan’s three strikes against the pending financial services legislation

Victory at what cost?

I'm on Lawrence Lessig's mailing list. Here is an excerpt from an email he sent today, which you can read at Huffpo:

However good, however essential, however transformative this health care bill may be, we should not mistake success here as a sign that Washington has been cured. Indeed, as Glenn Greenwald reminded us over the weekend -- in an essay that should be every reformer's required reading -- success on this bill is no justification for:

claiming that it represents a change in the way Washington works and a fulfillment of Obama's campaign pledges. The way this bill has been shaped is the ultimate expression -- and bolstering -- of how Washington has long worked. One can find reasonable excuses for why it had to be done that way, but one cannot reasonably deny that it was.

Obama's victory was achieved because his team played the old game brilliantly. Staffed with the very best from the league of conventional politics, his team bought off PhRMA (with the promise not to use market forces to force market prices for prescription drugs) and the insurance industry (with the promise -- and in this moment of celebration, let's ignore the duplicity in this -- that they would face no new competition from a public option), so that by the end, as Greenwald puts it, the administration succeeded in "bribing and accommodating them to such an extreme degree that they ended up affirmatively supporting a bill that lavishes them with massive benefits." Obama didn't "push back on the undue influence of special interests," as he said today. He bought them off. And the price he paid should make us all wonder: how much reform can this administration -- and this Nation -- afford?

Another thing: As Greenwald noted in his excellent article, to get this bill passed Obama used "the exact secret processes that he railed against and which he swore he would banish."

Continue ReadingVictory at what cost?