This blog was for my study of political science and philosophy (not now), but is an outlet for me on human rights - a particular and continuing passion of mine, based on lived experience and problems [Content Warning! Reader discretion is advised]. All opinions are my own, and have nothing to do with any organisation I have ever been associated with.
Saturday, 14 July 2018
Will to Intervene
The Will to Intervene is the response to the failure of governments to act on the Responsibility to Protect: is anyone in Australia working on this?
A commentary on recent events
I have limited time and energy: as a result of that, and the much higher priority that keeping my job so I can support those I do, I can't do the nice writing that I wish to. As a result of that, and a few other changes I've been making to my blogging, I've decided to do the occasional post with just a brief comment or two on current events. This is the first of those posts.
I suspect, like many things, there is a need to explore the nuance a bit further (e.g., some sanctions do lead to or aid change), and this article may reflect the influence of the unbridled power, arrogance and bullying of the USA, which is staggeringly backwards socially - to the extent that not many there are even aware of it. (They are also not aware of their hypocrisy over border "security".) When I wrote that, I was thinking, in particular, of debates on LinkedIn where US people have been victim-blaming people born into poverty for "not taking personal responsibility", and neoliberalism generally, but also this case of selling a my nation's soul and morals to neoliberalism.
Another part of the current selling-of-their-souls by nations has been cutting foreign aid. Apparently, however, paralegal aid to developing nations is both effective and supported.
Another thought for aid aimed at promoting peace or at least minimising violence is that "socialisation is a more durable way of promoting restraint"; a soundly based article . . . do authoritarians and victim blamers also need to be better socialised? (One of the problems of writing about that is that people - particularly those in the elites - tend to view such matters from their perspective, which is warped by centuries of social engineering - particularly by neochristianity, but also the desensitisation to suffering and violence perpetrated "on the laying fields of Eton", which is where the grounds of the British Empire was supposedly crafted, and that influence was passed on to the USA.)
That leads into my next item: researchers have found that a mild current applied to art of the brain "reduces aggressive intent". Now, this is not ECT, and it is being worked on in the context of people with profound violence problems in situations such as domestic violence, BUT . . . it raises ethical concerns about where it could go (i.e., large scale changing of character for nefarious purposes, or as an imposition of this instead of being jailed), and it weakens the researchers case that they don't appear to have even thought of that. (For what it is worth, I consider that, if this is proven to the extent that it becomes reliable, safe and "approved for use", extremely violent criminals facing jail for the rest of their lives MIGHT possibly be given the OPTION of choosing this VOLUNTARILY as a basis for them getting out at some stage, but I think it is a slippery slope to make it compulsory - jail violent criminals yes, but I don't trust governments being involved in character modification: that leads to Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World".) In terms of the technique itself, I consider violent tendencies to generally be an indication of a damaged soul: education and personal growth are preferable first steps, but there are people where such techniques may be pragmatically necessary step - for instance, those leaving the overwhelming indoctrination of the military.
Finally, it was god to read an article in the media which was open about the constraints on the media, and the resultant flaws in news reportage.
*****
I'll begin with authoritarianism - and examples of the abuses committed by such systems include the charges against two Reuters journalists who exposed burma's genocide (and Australia's charges against a whistleblower and his lawyer), the disappearance of a woman who "defaced" a poster of China's Chairperson Xi, the continuing grab for more power of Turkey's Erdowan (ph. version of "Erdogan"). Specifically, I read an article arguing that the imposition of sanctions feeds authoritarianism. The article is well written, and worth a read and ponder.I suspect, like many things, there is a need to explore the nuance a bit further (e.g., some sanctions do lead to or aid change), and this article may reflect the influence of the unbridled power, arrogance and bullying of the USA, which is staggeringly backwards socially - to the extent that not many there are even aware of it. (They are also not aware of their hypocrisy over border "security".) When I wrote that, I was thinking, in particular, of debates on LinkedIn where US people have been victim-blaming people born into poverty for "not taking personal responsibility", and neoliberalism generally, but also this case of selling a my nation's soul and morals to neoliberalism.
Another part of the current selling-of-their-souls by nations has been cutting foreign aid. Apparently, however, paralegal aid to developing nations is both effective and supported.
Another thought for aid aimed at promoting peace or at least minimising violence is that "socialisation is a more durable way of promoting restraint"; a soundly based article . . . do authoritarians and victim blamers also need to be better socialised? (One of the problems of writing about that is that people - particularly those in the elites - tend to view such matters from their perspective, which is warped by centuries of social engineering - particularly by neochristianity, but also the desensitisation to suffering and violence perpetrated "on the laying fields of Eton", which is where the grounds of the British Empire was supposedly crafted, and that influence was passed on to the USA.)
That leads into my next item: researchers have found that a mild current applied to art of the brain "reduces aggressive intent". Now, this is not ECT, and it is being worked on in the context of people with profound violence problems in situations such as domestic violence, BUT . . . it raises ethical concerns about where it could go (i.e., large scale changing of character for nefarious purposes, or as an imposition of this instead of being jailed), and it weakens the researchers case that they don't appear to have even thought of that. (For what it is worth, I consider that, if this is proven to the extent that it becomes reliable, safe and "approved for use", extremely violent criminals facing jail for the rest of their lives MIGHT possibly be given the OPTION of choosing this VOLUNTARILY as a basis for them getting out at some stage, but I think it is a slippery slope to make it compulsory - jail violent criminals yes, but I don't trust governments being involved in character modification: that leads to Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World".) In terms of the technique itself, I consider violent tendencies to generally be an indication of a damaged soul: education and personal growth are preferable first steps, but there are people where such techniques may be pragmatically necessary step - for instance, those leaving the overwhelming indoctrination of the military.
Finally, it was god to read an article in the media which was open about the constraints on the media, and the resultant flaws in news reportage.
Thursday, 12 July 2018
Cost Cutting as a Cover for Fear-Based Abdication Of Responsibility
Some years ago, the local Council where was
I living at the time upgraded the stormwater system in our street.
Now, that’s good for a whole range of
reasons, but on in particular is that a fair it of work has shown that the best
thing local government can do to prepare for the uncertainties of climate
change is to ensure all infrastructure is being properly maintained, so it can
operate as well as is possible.
That’s important for other reasons as well
– for instance, if stormwater drainage isn’t operating properly, water can pool
of the road, leading to accidents. (I
think I read, in the media, of a court case as a result of a death or injury
from exactly such an event: I don’t recall the outcome, but I do recall there
was discussion on the balance between people driving cautiously [aka “personal
responsibility”] vs. Council’s [i.e., our collective] responsibility, but it
didn’t get into how external life factors [e.g., being force to work late and
thus being tired, the demands of family duties, etc] can influence the ability
to take personal responsibility.)
Overall, the project was managed reasonably
well from a communications point of view (although
the demands of surviving in the modern
era meant some people didn’t read brochures about losing access the next
day, and they weren’t home when the Contractor’s people tried to talk to them –
which is a valid criticism of the communications
strategy). I can’t say much about the technical side, as I didn’t
have access to the technical specifications, but what I saw looked good.
Nevertheless, there were problems – such as
one foreperson being so unbelievably foul mouthed that I considered calling the
police and laying a complaint under Section 17 of the Summary Offences Act –
and I’m used to foul language from my experience in the construction industry,
from competitive sailing in the 1970s (a
sport which has improved on that aspect subsequently), and others I’ve
known (not many of the ex-military I’ve
known, though).
I talked to Council about the problems, and
they referred everything to the Contractor. At that time, I discovered that
Council had no-one supervising the
work being undertaken.
Council said the Contractor had been
trained and pre-qualified for the work - as if lack of knowledge was the only reason
for past problems. Sure, shortcomings in knowledge and procedures has been a problem, but thinking the
training and pre-registration would fix all problems was utter BS – it ignores the
biggest source of problems: greed and financial pressure to cut corners to make
more profit.
Ultimately, if you don’t see a substantial
amount of what is being done – or do random inspections – you cannot be confident
that what was specified has been done.
It’s a bit like taking Saddam Hussein’s or
North Korea’s word that they’ve got rid of all weapons of mass destruction.
The reality is, people are people: there
are times and places to be trusting (e.g., in personal relationships), and
there are times not to be – e.g., when spending public moneys.
That actually leads into the most frequent
excuse for this abdication of responsibility: cost cutting (often dressed up in fancier phrases, but it’s basically cost cutting).
In that case, complaints about rates are used as the pretext to deal with the
most obvious, most simple costs – things like paying the inspectors and
supervising engineers who used to be the QAQC of projects,
It’s often not actually saving costs so
much as shifting them from Council to Contractors, but it enables superficial
Councillors to say “hey we cut down
Council costs by $X - and we ploughed that back into more work on
infrastructure, which increased by $X”.
Yeah, right. That’s all a bit like the
current “revelations”
that power companies were increasing their prices so they could offer discounts
(did some people really not think that
was the case?!).
It’s very much a case of Council getting
the wrong end of the stick in terms of responses to rising prices (there are better, more long term approaches
– such as avoiding one company “panels”, and accepting that, despite its
advantages, competition has its limits! [and can
be downright damaging – to costs, and to
organisational culture]), but the main reason, in my opinion, is using cost
cutting as an excuse to abdicate responsibility.
I have come across many people in a wide
range of situations, possibly hired because those who put the job description
together didn’t know what was really necessary, who haven’t been comfortable
with supervision – in fact, even some young engineers aren’t, which I blame on
inadequate training at University (too
much focus on theory and equations, and not enough on practicality).
The truth is, society would be better off
from both a cost and a reliability/quality point of view if some of the
practices that have been abandoned under the excuse of cost cutting were
reintroduced – not all, as some of the supervision was excessive, but we, as a
society, have thrown the baby out with the bathwater on this issue.
Also, we needed to provide better training
and support of those – and I am thinking of people without tertiary qualifications
- who had been doing the supervision. That creates a close-in to the
councillors cost, but, in one takes the wider view (something neoliberals – and those with Newtonian
worldviews - lack, in my opinion), a net saving.
The savings in the long term are
particularly obvious when one considers the problem of flammable
cladding,
which, in my home state, may have been more widely used because of the
elimination of building inspectors in the 90s . . .
In the meantime, we’ve moved, and I’m glad
because, in addition to other reasons, I have no evidence other than unsworn
word of contractors that the stormwater drainage in our street was built right
…
Monday, 9 July 2018
Trauma
This is a cross-posting from here.
****
While I was creating the new format of my
Psychic Weather Report posts, I re-read this post
of mine, and I started thinking about trauma.
Now, I have had a formal diagnosis of PTSD,
but I reject that as I consider PTSD should be reserved for its original
purpose: for those, such as the military
and emergency services – who have seen people being killed (or have done the killing), as that makes major changes to the
treatment required. (There are some films
which show that trauma – “Fury”
comes to mind, for instance: “Saving
Private Ryan” shows the horrors of war graphically, but it doesn’t show the
damage it does “psychologically” [i.e., to character] to the same extent.)
There can be massive trauma from other
causes –as the recent Royal
Commission into child abuse has shown. In my case, the trauma has been
caused by sexual assaults, the bigotry and hate experienced by LGBT people (particularly those trans people who transitioned
in the 1990s), and workplace abuse.
On the abuse of trans people, the excuse
used at the time – and at other times through history – was “we didn’t know”. That is utter BS – I met people, in the 90s, who didn’t know, but they CHOSE not
to cause distress to other people by misgendering. They chose
to behave like decent human beings.
As for the other people who indulged in
misgendering, well, if you know someone is being distressed by something you’re
choosing to do socially (e.g.,
misgendering, or belittling, etc), then you may be – as far as I am
concerned – a sociopath or a psychopath.
If you don’t notice that they’re being
distressed you may need to undergo training like autistic people do to better
recognise what is going on around you, or at the very least acknowledge that
what you’re experiencing (e.g., trauma –
and I’ve shared house with people who have been so traumatised they haven’t
noticed mine) is making you less aware or sensitive of others’ pain, and be
prepared to apologise profusely – and credibly: too many apologies are just
attempts to evade trouble without changing. That last comment applies to
apologies over misgendering in the workplace: I think I’ve had two or three
genuine apologies in three decades. Unfortunately, I’ve generally been too
tired (one of the effects of being
traumatised) to chase those pseudo-apologies further.
I’ve touched elsewhere about the sexual
assaults I’ve had. Curiously, they’ve all
been from women – including as a those I experienced as a child, and as an
adult pre-transition (including an ex –
there was also another ex after I
transitioned who falls into that category).
The reactions I experienced have
exacerbated the trauma caused – especially pre-transition, and the sort of BS
that men can’t be sexually assaulted or raped is part of that. (I’ve also come across women who think them
slapping men is OK: it’s not, it is assault, and those who think that are
stupid.) I once read a brilliant article about the misconceptions around physiological
responses, and how that is not a “sign of consent” (my term). If you doubt that, consider this: the Nazis had ways of
forcing male prisoners in the concentration camps to ejaculate, such as driving
wooden objects up their backsides. As far as I’m concerned, anyone who think that
a male sexual physiological cannot be involuntary or without consent is stupid.
I’ll come back to that in a moment, but
first: the reactions of the gullible sheeple who credulously believe the
security theatre around airport “security” have exacerbated the trauma I’ve had
from the grope downs there – which are the reason I refuse to travel
internationally. As I’ve discussed above, there is absolutely NO acceptable
excuse for such reactions.
Now, (more)
on stupidity. I’ve known some truly stupid men and women in my time, and I
specifically lump everyone who thinks misgendering is acceptable, or that it is
minor, into that category – which includes some police. As far as I am
concerned, morally speaking misgendering is attempted murder. There is no
excuse on the basis of “I didn’t know” that is acceptable, and if you didn’t
recognise the distress, you have to consider whether you have the lack of
empathy that makes you potentially evil (see
this
post of mine). Those who smile disarmingly, and say “you know I don’t
mean that badly” are, without question, evil psychopaths.
Now, I’d like to move on to the workplace –
in particular, managers.
Some managers, including my current manager,
are great. In fact, I’d rate my current manager equal with the previous best
manager I had, but he will never be exceeded as he reversed years of
discrimination against me by giving me a 30% - yes 30% - pay rise.
Others have not been good, and one, maybe
two, from a few decades ago have been what I consider psychopaths.
The world of business is where the evil of
neoliberalism is working its evil. There has been plenty written of late on the
problems that economic changes have led – growing worker insecurity, the loss
of retirement, inability to buy housing, etc. Part of this is due to union
busting, but unions haven’t helped themselves in the past by their misogyny and
misuse of/addiction to power. The union busting that has been implemented since
then is a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater – an overreaction,
in other words.
The neoliberal reform of the water industry
in my state in the 90s is another example of that. There were problems, such as
authorities not working together when they could, and the inflexibility of the
MMBW, but the appropriate solution is to fix those problems – not throw the
good out with the bad.
The neoliberal trait of throwing the good
out with the bad has led a situation in the workplace where workload has
damaged, and continues to damage, my wellbeing –physical, emotional, mental,
and spiritual.
On that, I’m currently working on an article
on how business has perverted the hero myth.
(I’m
also working on an article on the problem of everyday people being unthinking,
unreflective sheeple living unexamined lives.)
Socially, neoliberalism is driving us,
through growing inequality, back into serfdom.
All of this (which can perhaps be summarised as the refusal to be kind)
has traumatised
the WHOLE of society – especially the USA.
So what can we do?
Well, as a first point, don’t buy in to
what you’re told without checking and thinking as best you can. This is more
than just being wary of fake news and social media bubbles (which existed before social media): it requires thinking about the
meaning of our lives (see here,
for instance), and what we want to be. It requires being able to reject wrong
influences from parents, peers and other influences so that we can “be all that
we can be”.
Think before you vote. I know people who
have suffered as a result of neoliberalism who nevertheless voted for Australia’s
evil John Howard because his policies enabled them to buy a house.
That’s called buying your vote, and it is
has – appallingly – become widespread.
(That’s
not a younger “Me First” generation problem, by the way: it is found in older
people as well.)
Money is important, though, but the way to
manage that is to live minimally and avoid a lifestyle that makes you
vulnerable, where you can be manipulated or bullied or intimidated into
compromising BPM
principles (which is where much of the
trauma of work can be) – see here.
There are a range of forms of activism that
people can be consider doing, including the psychic/spiritual ones on this blog.
There are some excellent articles by John Beckett on this, and
I particularly want to recommend “Resisting
Politely”, which I read after I started this article, and “Did
You Think the Gods Were Lying?”
Contrary to some of the reviews I’ve read,
which infer this is about the abuse Hannah Gadsby has experienced through
comedy, it is about trauma experienced THROUGHOUT
LIFE.
It is powerful, and takes the viewer on a
journey through multiple aspects of trauma.
It is angry, and it – combined with John
Beckett’s post
- is the reason I didn’t do my normal tone the expression down edit.
That, and the fact that we are allowing
the world to be spiritually mauled.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)