by Richard Gowan | Apr 6, 2008 | Influence and networks, North America, Off topic
Utilitarian philosopher (and celebrity corpse) Jeremy Bentham famously proposed a “Panopticon” design for a prison: a circular building, with the warder sat at its center able to see all the inmates in their cells around him at all times. The warder would have to be hidden behind Venetian blinds to conceal who he was looking at, but all would fear surveillance:
The more constantly the persons to be inspected are under the eyes of the persons who should inspect them, the more perfectly will the purpose of the establishment have been attained. Ideal perfection, if that were the object, would require that each person should actually be in that predicament, during every instant of time. This being impossible, the next thing to be wished for is, that, at every instant, seeing reason to believe as much, and not being able to satisfy himself to the contrary, he should conceive himself to be so.
What Bentham did not consider, however, was whether “ideal perfection” might be achieved by placing the jail inside an all-glass apartment building in downtown Brooklyn, New York, replete with retail areas. Well civilization has advanced since Bentham’s day, and the current edition of the The Brooklyn Paper (“Brooklyn’s Real Newspaper”) reports on exciting new ideas to renovate the Brooklyn House of Detention, a remarkably ugly building that has been out of use since 2003:
The Department of Design and Construction will pay a developer $240 million to enlarge the currently closed, 11-story, 759-inmate prison into one that holds 1,469 troubled souls, plus boasts ground-floor retail on bustling Atlantic Avenue.
The latest request for proposals is a far cry from the city’s effort last year, when it asked developers to integrate residential housing and retail into the complex. Such a request brought little interest — though Common Ground Council, Hamlin Ventures and Time Equities created a fanciful idea that included luxury housing and open space in a glass-walled doughnut around the jail.
That proposal went nowhere because it called for demolishing the existing jail and replacing it with a smaller detention center — a vision that doesn’t mesh with the city plan for expanding the jail, said Department of Correction spokesperson Steven Morello. Another contentious proposal called for a public middle school on the premises. That idea was scotched within minutes after it was floated at a January meeting.
While pondering how they let this genius proposal hit the rocks, NYC pols should surely leap on an ultra-Benthamite plan: build an all-glass jail inside an all-glass apartment building (with all-glass Starbucks, Burger King and Gap in retail zone) meaning that the prisoners can be constantly observed by the honest citizens around them… while they in turn are observed from the street by more-or-less honest passers-by! It’s not too late, for The Brooklyn Paper concludes:
Developers interested in expanding the jail should submit proposals to the Department of Correction by April 11.
by Jules Evans | Apr 6, 2008 | Economics and development, Europe and Central Asia, Influence and networks
I recently interviewed Sergei Markov, who is a key spin-doctor to the Kremlin. He told me that the West had completely underestimated the extent to which things will change under Russia’s new president, Dmitry Medvedev.
He said: “Most western observers expect no change because Medvedev is the new president. On the contrary, Putin chose Medvedev precisely because he believes Russia needs to change. He has decided that Russia has now completed the previous stage, the stage of stabilization. For that stage, you needed a KGB guy to consolidate state structures and to consolidate the state’s control over the oil and gas sector. Now, Russia has come to a new stage, the stage of development. The country needs to develop new sectors of the economy, such as the hi-tech sector, and this form of development needs a new type of leadership, run by technocrats rather than KGB guys, with less state control and more innovation.”
Medvedev himself stated this new direction in his key speech in Krasnoyarsk in February, when he made an implicit criticism of the state-driven economic policy of Putin’s second term. He said: “We have to admit that we have been running the economy in manual over these last years. The time for this kind of hands-on decision-making in the economy is over. The new economy calls for a completely new approach: incentives for innovation and not directives from above. It is private initiative…that must be the foundation for the new economy.”
Medvedev has called for a number of liberal reforms to create this new hi-tech, entrepreneur-friendly and innovative economy: less red-tape for new businesses, fewer civil servants, less bureaucrats in charge of state corporations, more independence for the judiciary, more protection for small businesses from corporate raiders, lower VAT.
He has also called for more people with private sector experience in the top echelons of the government. The only time I’ve spoken to him, at a press conference in 2006, he said: “I would like to see more people with a background in business working in the government.” We shouldn’t forget he is the first ever leader of Russia to have experience of working in the private sector.
But this programme is setting Medvedev on a collision course with the Siloviki, or security services, who as a group have seen their interests furthered more than any other group during the Putin years.
Professor Stephen White of the University of Glasgow and Olga Kyrshtanovskaya of the Centre for the Study of Political Elites estimate that Siloviki account for around 23% of the political elite under Putin, compared to around 11% under Yeltsin and around 4% under Gorbachev. So they’re actually more powerful now than they were in the USSR.
Markov says he believes Medvedev can pursue his new direction without upsetting the Siloviki: “I don’t think the KGB will resist too much. They will accept Putin’s decision, not Medvedev’s. The old guard will not lose their positions. New people will come in and take new positions and new government structures, such as an agency to promote small businesses.”
But this doesn’t sound like a genuinely new direction or genuine administrative reform, but instead like the proliferation of more government, more civil servants, more agencies. You can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs, and you can’t reduce the role of the state in the economy without upsetting some interest groups.
Professor White tells me: “The security services are at the moment in control of both the political structures of society, and the commanding heights of the economy, and the reports are that they have used this position for enormous personal enrichment. They’re not going to give that position up without a struggle. So there’s alot of room for instability in the mid term.” (more…)
by Jules Evans | Apr 5, 2008 | Off topic
I posted a few weeks ago suggesting that one of the big -isms of this century would be transhumanism, or the idea that humans can ‘evolve’ to higher beings through the use of technology.
On that theme, I’ve been digging the news story recently about the legal battle by Oscar Pistorius, also known as the Blade Runner, to be allowed to compete in the Beijing Olympics this year.
Pistorius had both legs amputated when he was 11 months old, but didn’t let this get in the way of his love of sports. In 2004, he teamed up with the Icelandic design company Ossur, who designed him special carbon fibre artificial limbs, that sort of look like two bendy metal threshers with spikes on the bottom.
He never looked back, winning the Para-Olympics medals for the 100m, 200m and 400m, and setting the world record in all these events.
Last year, he started competing in athletic competitions against able-bodied athletes. He was beginning to do well in these races, when the International Association of Athletics Federation ruled that he actually had an unfair advantage over able-bodied athletes. Quite a turn-around – from being allowed to compete in the patronizing side-event of the Para-Olympcs, to being forbidden to compete in the actual Olympics because you might win!
He’s appealing the IAAF’s decision now, and the case is going to court. It should be an interesting court case. If we allow the Blade Runner to compete in the Olympics, then why should transhuman advances in athletics stop there? Will we have athletes amputating their own limbs in order to fit them with faster prosthetics?
In the words of the film Robocop:
– We saved the left arm.
– What? We agreed on total body prosthesis. Now lose the arm.
by David Steven | Apr 5, 2008 | Articles and Publications, Reports
Paper by Alex Evans and David Steven, commissioned by Gordon Brown and presented to heads of state at the Progressive Governance Summit (April 2008).
Download Report
by Charlie Edwards | Apr 4, 2008 | Conflict and security, Middle East and North Africa, North America, UK
Back in the middle of February I posted on the plight of the Iraqi people in Basra suggesting that while the the city was not in the media spotlight things were turning from bad to worse. I ended saying I think we are going to see a lot more about Basra in the headlines in the next few weeks. Hmmm. Even though the report I read was shocking there was some positive stuff about British involvement – it was, however, not overly complimentary. And certainly not as bad as General Hayden’s view of how we, the Brits, have done in Southern Iraq.
