To state the obvious, violence is still a problem in the world.
In the Democratic Republic of Congo, which is still suffering the legacy of violent colonialism, that violence is inhibiting the fight against Ebola, and thus adding to the inherent problems (death, injury, the war crime of sexual assault, instability and lack of governance, food shortages and famine, economic loss to nation and person, etc) of the fighting.
On the other hand, there has been signs of movement towards peace in some places - Yemen, and possibly Afghanistan, and also accountability for war crimes in Suriname (undermined by POTUS45), and East Africa has taken measures to improve security.
However, in Afghanistan, the problems with the Taliban are (a) they've shown in the past that they may not act with what is typically considered to be good faith, and (b) they are still misogynistic, and thus any "peace" would probably involve significant human rights abuses and thus be of questionable benefit - that is, is the current level of physical violence and governance of limited effectiveness better or worse than a possibly more stable, reduced physical violence but increased abuse existence under the Taliban?
I can't see any acceptable, viable options for resolving these problems - but I support continuing to talk. Engagement doesn't always help (if the people doing the talking are disrespectful, lacking in understanding, or limited in their comprehension/awareness [including of human rights], it could create more problems than open opportunities for shifts in positions, or may allow movement towards something that is worse - which is what I fear in the case of Afghanistan), but it has the potential to do so.
On solutions, the recent talk by Geoff Gallop at my home state's Fabians annual dinner (I did not attend, to be clear) on ways to improve democracy is now available on YouTube, and is well worth a listen. I've listened to it, downloaded the transcript, and - when I've edited the downloaded transcript into a more readable form, am looking forward to reading it carefully and gleaning what I can from it.
Continuing that theme, one US state is looking to a form of sortition to find a way to ensure that changes to electoral boundaries will fix any gerrymandering and be truly fair.
This is likely to be akin to the use of citizen's juries, in my opinion: if the group of citizens is given good information, including good (unbiased) education on the issues, they will work well - that has been shown by the outcomes of such juries for a range of governmental organisations in my home state; see here, here, here, and here, for instance.
On governance matters, an article from academia this week has confirmed what many, if not most, people have known for a while now, which is that - even without considering climate change - people's lifestyles are changing, and thus the assumptions used for government planning need to change as well.
And on climate change, there is some more fumbling around the edges of ensuring we have better (or at least less bad) buildings, including houses.
Governance matters have not all been good or neutral.
Hungary, the nation which famously stood up to the military might of the USSR, has sadly been regressing for some time, and this week tried to silence Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch - the latter an organisation founded in efforts to hold the USSR to account on human rights abuses.
And Singapore has taken some appalling actions against the human rights of workers. (If I get the time and energy, I would like to work that one up into a standalone post.)
On a personal note, I've been re-reading Geoffrey Robertson's "Crimes Against Humanity" (The New Press, 2012, ISBN 978-1-59558-860-9, 4th ed.), and have started reading his book "The Tyrannicide Brief: The Story of the Man who sent Charles I to the Scaffold" (Vintage Digital, 2010, 978-1407066035, Amazon), as well as a few others.
I have also finally had the energy to resume some of my semi-formal studies - which may lead to another post or two in due course.
Saturday 30 November 2019
Wednesday 27 November 2019
"Hello, China here"
I received another one of those annoying foreign language scam calls yesterday. They're utterly wasted on me, as (1) (relates to their first word - I'll explain shortly) the official legal language here is English, although other may be used to improve communication (using a different language that cannot be understood therefore is not OK), and (2) I have no idea what is being said. In fact, scam calls are why I divert ALL my calls, with an admonishment to leave a message or risk being reported as a scammer.
Anyway, there was a change yesterday: the message started with an English word: "warning". Of course, once it switched to what sounded (from the times if worked for a few weeks there - many years ago, which means I have forgotten most of what I knew of the language) like Chinese (which is also consistent with media reports I've report warning of Chinese language scams), I stopped listening and deleted the message (next time, I might get a friend to translate it).
Anyway, just in case it was a threat, rather than a scam, I want to get a few things clear:
* This was a point made about the USSR in "The Craft of Political Analysis for Diplomats", by Raymond F. Smith (pub. Potomac Books, Washington, 2011, ISBN 978-1-59797-730-2, Amazon).
Anyway, there was a change yesterday: the message started with an English word: "warning". Of course, once it switched to what sounded (from the times if worked for a few weeks there - many years ago, which means I have forgotten most of what I knew of the language) like Chinese (which is also consistent with media reports I've report warning of Chinese language scams), I stopped listening and deleted the message (next time, I might get a friend to translate it).
Anyway, just in case it was a threat, rather than a scam, I want to get a few things clear:
- the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is not the Chinese people;
- China, existing now as the Chinese people, has an illustrious history, which was brutally stopped by the Opium Wars, where Britain (and other Western nations) enforced devastation so the West could get more profit;
- the CCP has lifted many people people out of desperate poverty;
- notwithstanding that, the CCP is a brutal, human-rights-suppressing dictatorship of the type George Orwell wrote about in "Animal Farm" and "1984", and is seeking to brainwash the Chinese people and other peoples who have been invaded (Tibet) or are being threatened (Taiwan), and has shown by its actions in relation to Hong Kong that it lies (the "one nation, two systems" claims have been consistently undermined);
- the suppression of freedom of thought is now limiting the Chinese economy (as shown by its slowing growth), and thus is now being harmful even to those Chinese people who are not being actively suppressed;
- the CCP has a choice: it can become a genuinely progressive party, allow people increasing genuine freedom, and thus start to harness the talents of the Chinese people (which I know are there from the times I worked there), or, ultimately, be rejected by the Chinese people.
The longer the people are suppressed, the more violent and complete will be the way they overthrow the CCP * .
At that time, how the international community reacts will depend on how the CCP has treated other nations - with threats and acts of attempted intimidation and interference, or with respect.
Leninism and Stalinism lasted around seven decades in the USSR; the Maoist version has lasted around a similar time in China, and is likely to last at least a couple more (decades), but what then?
It's up to the CCP.
* This was a point made about the USSR in "The Craft of Political Analysis for Diplomats", by Raymond F. Smith (pub. Potomac Books, Washington, 2011, ISBN 978-1-59797-730-2, Amazon).
Monday 25 November 2019
Moving beyond lip service in human rights
Although I am of the view that I and every other woman alive today owes a massive debt to the feminists (i.e., pro-women s rights activists, some of whom were male) from the 60s, I also consider that steps such as removing courtesy titles (i.e., Ms, Miss, Mrs) was a disservice in the long term.
It was undoubtedly a tactical gain, as it enabled a short term way of getting around sexist discrimination, but that was exactly why it was a long term (strategic) loss: it got around the problems of sexism, it didn't change it.
There is a valid argument that gaining experience working alongside women would further erode that sexism, but I consider any such decision around actions in support of human rights should be fully informed - i.e., there should have been a discussion about the fact that there was a long term issues not being addressed fr the sake of short term gain.
And such short term gains can be more important - for instance, when lives are at stake.
The issue of short term vs. long term also crops up, however, in relation to the opposition to human rights.
As a couple of examples from the 1960s women's rights movement:
Also, the first example needs to kept in mind, along with the resistance to giving women the vote that led to the shift from the suffragist movement to the at times violent suffragette movement. There is always resistance to change because it is change, and that is even stronger when it involves ceding rights to others - even though that does NOT diminish anyone else's rights ever. (Feeling less privileged is not a diminishment of human rights.)
Decisions about whether to make life for a discriminated against group more survivable or bearable as opposed to changing the bigotry that causes the problem ideally should be subject to an informed discussion.
On that, there have been a number of reflections on increased discussions (for instance, see here), and that is often good.
As a first step, it can be important, although challenging, to call out instances of lip service.
I recently had the opportunity to do that on a matter that related to trans and gender diverse (TGD) rights, and have decided to post the relevant part of that here. Please read and consider.
Be aware of it, and please call it out when you come across it.
It was undoubtedly a tactical gain, as it enabled a short term way of getting around sexist discrimination, but that was exactly why it was a long term (strategic) loss: it got around the problems of sexism, it didn't change it.
There is a valid argument that gaining experience working alongside women would further erode that sexism, but I consider any such decision around actions in support of human rights should be fully informed - i.e., there should have been a discussion about the fact that there was a long term issues not being addressed fr the sake of short term gain.
And such short term gains can be more important - for instance, when lives are at stake.
The issue of short term vs. long term also crops up, however, in relation to the opposition to human rights.
As a couple of examples from the 1960s women's rights movement:
- women initially asked for an equal share of power, but men said "oh no, we think around 30% would be enough" - and THAT is why the "all power to women" saying started;
- people who didn't like using "Ms" could use the argument that titles were being removed to avoid addressing their discomfort over not knowing if women were in an official, state and religion sanctioned relationship.
Also, the first example needs to kept in mind, along with the resistance to giving women the vote that led to the shift from the suffragist movement to the at times violent suffragette movement. There is always resistance to change because it is change, and that is even stronger when it involves ceding rights to others - even though that does NOT diminish anyone else's rights ever. (Feeling less privileged is not a diminishment of human rights.)
Decisions about whether to make life for a discriminated against group more survivable or bearable as opposed to changing the bigotry that causes the problem ideally should be subject to an informed discussion.
On that, there have been a number of reflections on increased discussions (for instance, see here), and that is often good.
As a first step, it can be important, although challenging, to call out instances of lip service.
I recently had the opportunity to do that on a matter that related to trans and gender diverse (TGD) rights, and have decided to post the relevant part of that here. Please read and consider.
- Transition (not necessarily with GRS [gender realignment surgery] ) is supported by medical professionals on the basis that it is necessary for the wellbeing of TGD people;
- After years of agitating, medical professional finally realised one of the biggest problems post-transition is discrimination (although I am still seeing surveys constructed with insufficient awareness of this);
- Now that much of the government documentation has been fixed (this does not cover all documentation, and this is referring to my home state), the biggest problem is most commonly misgendering (i.e., wrong pronouns) – to the extent that some of us consider it tantamount to attempted murder or manslaughter;
- Getting official recognition of the problem of misgendering has been slow – in my opinion, because it means people have to go beyond paying lip service to not discriminating against TGD people, to being genuine about it. There has slowly been some movement on this – for instance, the former EOCV guidelines removed mention of misgendering at the insistence of others in 2000/01, and the EOCV only put it back in around 5 years or so ago;
- Deadnaming is referring to pre-transition names. It is nearly equally as deadly as misgendering. The desire of some people to insist on previous names being made known highlights a point that some have often talked about, which is some people’s fear of being “tricked” into what they wrongly classify as a same sex encounter on the basis of pre-transition, assigned gender. Again, avoiding deadnaming also obliges people to move beyond lip service / begrudging acceptance to genuine.
Be aware of it, and please call it out when you come across it.
Sunday 24 November 2019
Weekend ramblings: addiction to virtue signalling, the fear of having power, and the mistake of not taking people with you
This is a post in my Ethics, Lazy Management, and Flawed Thinking series - see https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2019/11/ethics-lazy-management-and-flawed.html.
If I had the time and energy, each of these would be worked up into a complete post, but for expediency and health's sake, I've decided to put them all together.
Addiction to virtue signalling
Now, people want to feel good. Fair enough, mostly, although there is an entire religion/philosophy (Buddhism) built on examining how to be happy in "better" ways, some people can develop problematic preferences around things that make us feel good (just ask any anti-smoking, anti-alcohol, or anti-sugar/salt campaigners [and I'm in the first three categories]), and there is the extremely annoying and irrelevant furphies around sadism-masochism whenever this topic is raised.
It is possibly for the desire to feel good to lead to bad things - as an example, I have a spiel around World War (part) One that starts with "people want to feel good". There is also the old neochristian-framed saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", and, on neochristianity, things sex-negativity that can be traced back to seeking approval within that system of dogma.
However, there is also a lot of good - including personal growth work, charity (notwithstanding the slagging off at some people's motivations), and social changes for the better.
Wanting to feel good is a complex and nuanced subject, but what I want to focus on is wanting to feel good in the context of working for social change.
Now, keeping in mind the evidence that one of the ways to prevent a backlash (which is the other side of the "win people over" coin, so to speak), is to be pleasant and not metaphorically beat people around the head, one of the problems to be aware of in relation to wanting to feel good while working for a better society is becoming addicted to what we used to term "feelings of moral superiority", and what tends to be covered these days, to some extent, by the phrase "virtue signalling".
It is an incredibly easy trap to fall into, because it feels good, but it is an error for at least the following reasons:
The fear of having power
I want to make it clear that, while I am strongly spiritual and religious (albeit not mainstream religion), I am not referring to the sense of the following famous (and often mis-attributed) quote from Marianne Williamson's work:
I've used the word "influence", as it provides a more accurate - or more likely to be accurately understood - meaning than "material world power".
(I suspect Cass Sunstein's book "Nudge" may be a good exploration of what I am exploring here, but I have not yet had the opportunity to read that book [although I did guiltily buy it after I wrote the preceding].)
Power, in the context of the material world, often has associations of political-social elites, ultra-wealthy oligarchs, or mafia like mobsters. The truth is, we all have the capability to be influencers, and power can be significant on a smaller scale - for instance, having a well-paying job (if you are that fortunate) and thus being able to support one's family and maybe even make donations.
The organisation 80,000 Hours has some excellent considerations on that.
There are also a wide range of activist organisations - I first joined Amnesty International back in the 80s, for instance.
Still, it is possible to be part of such organisations, making a valid contribution, and yet still be dithering on the edges of truly exercising influence.
Where I would like to see more progressively inclined people doing more is political involvement.
The idea of putting oneself out for public evisceration, as most politicians do, is terrifying for many people, and I can understand their reluctance to do so - either for their own sake, or for the sake of their family, for instance.
I won't take on such a role.
However, in addition to writing letters to MPs that are aimed at achieving change (remember Gandhi's exhortation: "do you fight to change things, or to punish?"), there is the challenge of joining a political party and trying to achieve change that way.
I have, and after some time have decided I'm going to focus my efforts in that area on branch meetings - I had been trying to get on to policy committees, but there are logistical challenges for me to get to their meetings, and my health and energy levels are continuing to decline.
It is not easy: you can't just fire off a tweet and sit back and bask in your self-righteousness (and letters I've written have not always ended with the outcome I sought), you have to engage face-to-face with real people - people who may not be as progressive as you like, people who may genuinely hold to an alternative world view, people who are as flawed as you are . . . but, if you can't get people who are at least partly on your side onboard, you have little chance of getting the broader electorate to come on the human rights / progressive journey that you want them to take (more on that shortly).
It can be scary to try to succeed, as you may fail - and that fear of failure stopping people making an effort is what I am concerned about. Take it in steps that you can manage, if you wish, but, as the proverb says, the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
Other options that people may not pursue out of fear, perhaps of the responsibility that comes with positions, fear of failing to fulfill the aim of making good change, change that makes things better, include:
The mistake of not taking people with you
When I look back at my lived experience of the world, I can simplify my experience into growing inclusivity and caring (and, of particular relevance to me, genuine spirituality, as opposed to old, outmoded and rigid religions) from the late 60s through the 70s, and then a growing backlash which started to predominate as agreed in the 80s, and then as the xenophobia and other forms of hate we're now living with.
With the virtuous benefit of 20-20 hindsight, it seems clear to me that the mistake made - by me, as much as anyone else - in the 70s and 80s was to think that once a change had been implemented in some way, whether widespread social acceptance or legislated, that was it: the "obvious" rightness of it would be sufficient to sustain that change for the better.
How naive and stupid I was - I could have learned more from history, and exploring why I didn't is a whole set of posts and currently continuing reflections and meditations. I had other major life issues to deal with, my exposure to history was flawed (our high school history teacher was so demoralised [and European-centric] that he did nothing when the class just went outside to enjoy the sun), I had too few good role models in relevant areas (I had some, but none pushing the importance of learning from history enough), but I could have, and should have, thought better about things.
I consider the debates that are going on now in human rights are a considerable improvement over what we were doing in 60s, 70s, and 80s. They probably should be, as the field of human rights has evolved substantially since the end of World War (part) Two.
Sacha Baron Cohen's speech when accepting the Anti-Defamation League's International Leadership Award is a perfect example of this. I have never been into Mr Baron Cohen's humour, but that talk impressed me - full kudos to him, and I urge you to watch it.
If I had the time and energy, each of these would be worked up into a complete post, but for expediency and health's sake, I've decided to put them all together.
Addiction to virtue signalling
Now, people want to feel good. Fair enough, mostly, although there is an entire religion/philosophy (Buddhism) built on examining how to be happy in "better" ways, some people can develop problematic preferences around things that make us feel good (just ask any anti-smoking, anti-alcohol, or anti-sugar/salt campaigners [and I'm in the first three categories]), and there is the extremely annoying and irrelevant furphies around sadism-masochism whenever this topic is raised.
It is possibly for the desire to feel good to lead to bad things - as an example, I have a spiel around World War (part) One that starts with "people want to feel good". There is also the old neochristian-framed saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", and, on neochristianity, things sex-negativity that can be traced back to seeking approval within that system of dogma.
However, there is also a lot of good - including personal growth work, charity (notwithstanding the slagging off at some people's motivations), and social changes for the better.
Wanting to feel good is a complex and nuanced subject, but what I want to focus on is wanting to feel good in the context of working for social change.
Now, keeping in mind the evidence that one of the ways to prevent a backlash (which is the other side of the "win people over" coin, so to speak), is to be pleasant and not metaphorically beat people around the head, one of the problems to be aware of in relation to wanting to feel good while working for a better society is becoming addicted to what we used to term "feelings of moral superiority", and what tends to be covered these days, to some extent, by the phrase "virtue signalling".
It is an incredibly easy trap to fall into, because it feels good, but it is an error for at least the following reasons:
- You are not inherently better than others, even if you are living a low-environmental-impact or "woke" or some other term lifestyle. To think you are better is an attack on the inherent dignity of every single human being;
- You are actually demonstrating a lack of personal "virtue" - read some of Paul K Chappell's book to gain an understanding of this point;
- You are likely to drive the victim of your virtue signalling / moral superiority away (or drive their behaviour "underground"); and
- You are harming the movement you are trying to support in several ways, including forming a link to other harmful actions (i.e., the aforementioned "virtue signalling / moral superiority") that opponents can use.
"When we're challenged, it's very very critical for us to really deeply reflect on, not who we are as a person, but deeply reflect on what was said, and what was said to us, and what we just said."I am making that challenge to those who are addicted to virtue signalling/moral superiority now, just as those people will make valid challenges to others on those topics they are passionate about, and just as I have received valid - and often useful - challenges all my life on a wide range of matters.
The fear of having power
I want to make it clear that, while I am strongly spiritual and religious (albeit not mainstream religion), I am not referring to the sense of the following famous (and often mis-attributed) quote from Marianne Williamson's work:
“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, ‘Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous?’ Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won’t feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It’s not just in some of us; it’s in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.”In a personal growth sense, this is something that can be worth considering - people may inhibit themselves out of fear. However, I know people who are strong and confident and either not subject to the above problem, or have overcome it, who still shrink from material world influence.
I've used the word "influence", as it provides a more accurate - or more likely to be accurately understood - meaning than "material world power".
(I suspect Cass Sunstein's book "Nudge" may be a good exploration of what I am exploring here, but I have not yet had the opportunity to read that book [although I did guiltily buy it after I wrote the preceding].)
Power, in the context of the material world, often has associations of political-social elites, ultra-wealthy oligarchs, or mafia like mobsters. The truth is, we all have the capability to be influencers, and power can be significant on a smaller scale - for instance, having a well-paying job (if you are that fortunate) and thus being able to support one's family and maybe even make donations.
The organisation 80,000 Hours has some excellent considerations on that.
There are also a wide range of activist organisations - I first joined Amnesty International back in the 80s, for instance.
Still, it is possible to be part of such organisations, making a valid contribution, and yet still be dithering on the edges of truly exercising influence.
Where I would like to see more progressively inclined people doing more is political involvement.
The idea of putting oneself out for public evisceration, as most politicians do, is terrifying for many people, and I can understand their reluctance to do so - either for their own sake, or for the sake of their family, for instance.
I won't take on such a role.
However, in addition to writing letters to MPs that are aimed at achieving change (remember Gandhi's exhortation: "do you fight to change things, or to punish?"), there is the challenge of joining a political party and trying to achieve change that way.
I have, and after some time have decided I'm going to focus my efforts in that area on branch meetings - I had been trying to get on to policy committees, but there are logistical challenges for me to get to their meetings, and my health and energy levels are continuing to decline.
It is not easy: you can't just fire off a tweet and sit back and bask in your self-righteousness (and letters I've written have not always ended with the outcome I sought), you have to engage face-to-face with real people - people who may not be as progressive as you like, people who may genuinely hold to an alternative world view, people who are as flawed as you are . . . but, if you can't get people who are at least partly on your side onboard, you have little chance of getting the broader electorate to come on the human rights / progressive journey that you want them to take (more on that shortly).
It can be scary to try to succeed, as you may fail - and that fear of failure stopping people making an effort is what I am concerned about. Take it in steps that you can manage, if you wish, but, as the proverb says, the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
Other options that people may not pursue out of fear, perhaps of the responsibility that comes with positions, fear of failing to fulfill the aim of making good change, change that makes things better, include:
- joining a community organisation's committee;
- becoming a Board Director (I'm currently studying towards being able to do this); or
- taking on a leadership activism role.
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
The mistake of not taking people with you
When I look back at my lived experience of the world, I can simplify my experience into growing inclusivity and caring (and, of particular relevance to me, genuine spirituality, as opposed to old, outmoded and rigid religions) from the late 60s through the 70s, and then a growing backlash which started to predominate as agreed in the 80s, and then as the xenophobia and other forms of hate we're now living with.
With the virtuous benefit of 20-20 hindsight, it seems clear to me that the mistake made - by me, as much as anyone else - in the 70s and 80s was to think that once a change had been implemented in some way, whether widespread social acceptance or legislated, that was it: the "obvious" rightness of it would be sufficient to sustain that change for the better.
How naive and stupid I was - I could have learned more from history, and exploring why I didn't is a whole set of posts and currently continuing reflections and meditations. I had other major life issues to deal with, my exposure to history was flawed (our high school history teacher was so demoralised [and European-centric] that he did nothing when the class just went outside to enjoy the sun), I had too few good role models in relevant areas (I had some, but none pushing the importance of learning from history enough), but I could have, and should have, thought better about things.
I consider the debates that are going on now in human rights are a considerable improvement over what we were doing in 60s, 70s, and 80s. They probably should be, as the field of human rights has evolved substantially since the end of World War (part) Two.
Sacha Baron Cohen's speech when accepting the Anti-Defamation League's International Leadership Award is a perfect example of this. I have never been into Mr Baron Cohen's humour, but that talk impressed me - full kudos to him, and I urge you to watch it.
An application of political analysis
This was written before the appalling widespread egregious excesses of police and paramilitaries in the USA over recent months, particularly in response to the BLM protests: this article (by others, not me) updates that, and highlights the need to be ready for mass nonviolent civil resistance - of the type where mothers have successfully and nonviolently forced violent thugs back into buildings, for instance.
As well as many other books, I have been reading "The Craft of Political Analysis for Diplomats", by Raymond F. Smith (pub. Potomac Books, Washington, 2011, ISBN 978-1-59797-730-2, Amazon).
I'm only 60% of the way through it, but want to have a go at using some of the ideas - specifically, among other political forces, the attributes of intensity and violence of conflict (p. 51).
After describing conflict as the engine of social change, the author introduces two axes to assess conflict (which can include discussion, so this is not only referring to physically violent conflict):
Now, keeping in mind that I don't live in the USA and thus am relying on what I can discern from the media, the situation I'm interested in applying these two measures to, is:
Those members of the public who support POTUS45 undoubtedly have a very high level of intensity. The reasons for that intensity are complex (although too often for racist or misogynistic reasons), and it seems clear that, no matter what POTUS45 does, at least some of that intensity will remain.
Those who oppose POTUS45 (and I am one, to admit a potential bias in this exercise - and I don't live in the USA) have a range of intensities, but as times goes on, the intensities are increasing for more people.
So it is likely that, whatever the result is of the 2020 US Presidential election, there will be very strong reactions on both sides.
But does that mean there will be physical violence? (I am ignoring the very real, incredibly harmful, emotional, mental and moral violence that POTUS45 is committing and causing others to commit for the purposes of this exercise.)
I think it is fair to say that physical violence is unlikely on the part of those who oppose POTUS45. If POTUS45 wins there will likely be protests, and verbal abuse, but whether that escalates to violence depends on how it is handled by police and POTUS45 supporters (and whether POTUS45 says anything churlish or offensive). Sadly, the USA has a history of violent riots, and of lynchings and other mob violence. (On the other hand, it also has Dr Martin Luther King, Jr., Cure Violence, and key roles in the Paris Pact, the United Nations, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.)
I also consider it likely that most POTUS45 supporters would also refrain from violence. They may be bitter, they would would be angry, and they may withdraw from the US political process - amongst the elites who support POTUS45, there would likely be legal challenges, but, despite the intensity, most would not resort to physical violence.
But I'm not convinced that would be the case for all POTUS45 supporters.
We have already had the situation where one POTUS45 supporter mailed pipe bombs without triggers to critics of POTUS45, and the murder at Charlottesville.
At this point, I would comment that society as a whole has the strength in this situation. Yes, I know that doesn't fit on the axes, but people who feel they are in a position of strength are more likely to remain calm and react constructively - or forebear to react at all.
That means it is more likely those POTUS45 supporters who see him as an anti-establishment hero, who possibly feel disempowered anyway, would be more likely to express their anger through violent reactions.
I don't consider a civil war likely. Again, society has the strength, and the USA has lasted despite widespread violence in the past (even if it did take too long to learn vitally important lessons). The most likely violence would be at protests, which we've already seen, and I consider it inevitable that police and civil authorities would be planning for such possibilities (again, given the USA's history, the plans may not all be good, but there would be preparations that would contribute to containing violence - but not necessarily saving the lives of all involved).
Going back to the two axes, the USA has the stronger weapons for violence, even if some malcontents use guns or explosives.
I don't consider it likely that POTUS45 supporters would organise a widespread violent uprising, but, even if they did, I suspect the FBI would likely be monitoring that and pre-emptive action would be taken.
To sum up:
So having got through the above, I've now done an internet search, and here is some of what others think:
I also found this, raising concerns about what happens if POTUS45 is impeached.
Having read those additional articles, I still consider anything like a civil war or insurrection unlikely, but there is a chance of violence from some of POTUS45's supporters if he loses the election.
If he is impeached, he becomes a martyr, and the situation becomes more complex, but I consider the likely outcomes the same: the USA will survive, but it is likely to experience violent events.
For anyone who wants to prevent - or even minimise - that violence, I suggest engage in persuasion as best you can, and study the techniques of Cure Violence, and writers such as Paul K Chappell. The potential harm can be addressed.
PS - for a historical comparison, look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLm1gWnlcYw and the related episodes.
***
As well as many other books, I have been reading "The Craft of Political Analysis for Diplomats", by Raymond F. Smith (pub. Potomac Books, Washington, 2011, ISBN 978-1-59797-730-2, Amazon).
I'm only 60% of the way through it, but want to have a go at using some of the ideas - specifically, among other political forces, the attributes of intensity and violence of conflict (p. 51).
After describing conflict as the engine of social change, the author introduces two axes to assess conflict (which can include discussion, so this is not only referring to physically violent conflict):
- the violence of the conflict, which can range from the aforementioned discussions to the aforementioned physical violence; and
- intensity - which is a measure of the involvement and energy of those involved.
Now, keeping in mind that I don't live in the USA and thus am relying on what I can discern from the media, the situation I'm interested in applying these two measures to, is:
What happens if POTUS45 stays in power and loses next year's election?I have read some comments expressing fears around violence if that happens - quite apart from what POTUS45 would do.
Those members of the public who support POTUS45 undoubtedly have a very high level of intensity. The reasons for that intensity are complex (although too often for racist or misogynistic reasons), and it seems clear that, no matter what POTUS45 does, at least some of that intensity will remain.
Those who oppose POTUS45 (and I am one, to admit a potential bias in this exercise - and I don't live in the USA) have a range of intensities, but as times goes on, the intensities are increasing for more people.
So it is likely that, whatever the result is of the 2020 US Presidential election, there will be very strong reactions on both sides.
But does that mean there will be physical violence? (I am ignoring the very real, incredibly harmful, emotional, mental and moral violence that POTUS45 is committing and causing others to commit for the purposes of this exercise.)
I think it is fair to say that physical violence is unlikely on the part of those who oppose POTUS45. If POTUS45 wins there will likely be protests, and verbal abuse, but whether that escalates to violence depends on how it is handled by police and POTUS45 supporters (and whether POTUS45 says anything churlish or offensive). Sadly, the USA has a history of violent riots, and of lynchings and other mob violence. (On the other hand, it also has Dr Martin Luther King, Jr., Cure Violence, and key roles in the Paris Pact, the United Nations, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.)
I also consider it likely that most POTUS45 supporters would also refrain from violence. They may be bitter, they would would be angry, and they may withdraw from the US political process - amongst the elites who support POTUS45, there would likely be legal challenges, but, despite the intensity, most would not resort to physical violence.
But I'm not convinced that would be the case for all POTUS45 supporters.
We have already had the situation where one POTUS45 supporter mailed pipe bombs without triggers to critics of POTUS45, and the murder at Charlottesville.
At this point, I would comment that society as a whole has the strength in this situation. Yes, I know that doesn't fit on the axes, but people who feel they are in a position of strength are more likely to remain calm and react constructively - or forebear to react at all.
That means it is more likely those POTUS45 supporters who see him as an anti-establishment hero, who possibly feel disempowered anyway, would be more likely to express their anger through violent reactions.
I don't consider a civil war likely. Again, society has the strength, and the USA has lasted despite widespread violence in the past (even if it did take too long to learn vitally important lessons). The most likely violence would be at protests, which we've already seen, and I consider it inevitable that police and civil authorities would be planning for such possibilities (again, given the USA's history, the plans may not all be good, but there would be preparations that would contribute to containing violence - but not necessarily saving the lives of all involved).
Going back to the two axes, the USA has the stronger weapons for violence, even if some malcontents use guns or explosives.
I don't consider it likely that POTUS45 supporters would organise a widespread violent uprising, but, even if they did, I suspect the FBI would likely be monitoring that and pre-emptive action would be taken.
To sum up:
- intensity is high on both sides - the POTUS45 supporters, and those who want POTUS45 removed from power;
- the means for both enacting violence and preventing violence are higher on the part of the US government, and thus the "weapons" available to POTUS45 supporters are likely to be either those of spontaneous choice (as happened at Charlottesville), or asymmetrical conflict - i.e., violent extremism (as happened with the pipe bombs).
So having got through the above, I've now done an internet search, and here is some of what others think:
- POTUS45 warned of violence if his party lost the "mid-terms" (see here, here, and here): they did, but there wasn't any widespread violence (that I know of);
- there were fears of violence during voting in the 2016 US Presidential election - see here (not widespread, that I know of, although there were problems);
- there were warnings of violence if POTUS45 was elected - see here, for instance (sadly, came true);
- the importance of elections both being and being seen to be fair - see here;
- this, which starts from the fears of a former POTUS45 "fixer" (I think his comments are where I first came across these fears), and examines some of what could happen;
- this assessment of POTUS45 supporters is concerning (I've been generic in my comments, as not all POTUS45 supporters are white supremacists, but I suspect all white supremacists are POTUS45 supporters); and
- concerning comments about the prospect of violence - and POTUS45's encouragement of that here and here.
I also found this, raising concerns about what happens if POTUS45 is impeached.
Having read those additional articles, I still consider anything like a civil war or insurrection unlikely, but there is a chance of violence from some of POTUS45's supporters if he loses the election.
If he is impeached, he becomes a martyr, and the situation becomes more complex, but I consider the likely outcomes the same: the USA will survive, but it is likely to experience violent events.
For anyone who wants to prevent - or even minimise - that violence, I suggest engage in persuasion as best you can, and study the techniques of Cure Violence, and writers such as Paul K Chappell. The potential harm can be addressed.
PS - for a historical comparison, look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLm1gWnlcYw and the related episodes.
Thursday 21 November 2019
Some good news environmentally
Something that many people have been urging in Australia for many years now is for us to export our solar power to the world. There have been a couple of projects underway in northwestern and northern Australia for some time now, aimed at exporting power to Indonesia.
Now, finally, we have some serious investment that will move this along - see here.
(interesting to see Andrew ‘Twiggy’ Forrest is involved: he has some business faults [such as his opposition to the resource rent], but he has also shown signs of being ahead of the times in many ways - philanthropically, but of particular interest to me was that Mr Forrest was an anti-modern slavery activist long before it was in public consciousness.)
The other piece of good news is the development of greener cement for making concrete - see here. I have long felt the best way for Australians to build houses is using materials that don't burn, like concrete - which is common practice in South America.
It means we can start doing what Europe has for ages, and build the structures (or "shells", some would term it) of houses to last for centuries, which is the best way to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as well as building houses that have half a chance of lasting fires (internal fire load from books, clothes, curtains, etc can still be significant, as can outdoor furniture, etc), and that starts to people people and animals a quarter of a chance on extreme fire days.
Now, finally, we have some serious investment that will move this along - see here.
(interesting to see Andrew ‘Twiggy’ Forrest is involved: he has some business faults [such as his opposition to the resource rent], but he has also shown signs of being ahead of the times in many ways - philanthropically, but of particular interest to me was that Mr Forrest was an anti-modern slavery activist long before it was in public consciousness.)
The other piece of good news is the development of greener cement for making concrete - see here. I have long felt the best way for Australians to build houses is using materials that don't burn, like concrete - which is common practice in South America.
It means we can start doing what Europe has for ages, and build the structures (or "shells", some would term it) of houses to last for centuries, which is the best way to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as well as building houses that have half a chance of lasting fires (internal fire load from books, clothes, curtains, etc can still be significant, as can outdoor furniture, etc), and that starts to people people and animals a quarter of a chance on extreme fire days.
Wednesday 20 November 2019
Tuesday 19 November 2019
Ethics, Lazy Management, and Flawed Thinking - "Diversity Fatigue", short-sightedness vs. flexibility, and "tinkering round the (management) edges"
This is a post in my Ethics, Lazy Management, and Flawed Thinking series - see https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2019/11/ethics-lazy-management-and-flawed.html.
I've decided to group a few issues together with brief comments. Unfortunately, I don't have time or energy to address these properly.
Diversity Fatigue
I can relate to this reported problem of "diversity fatigue" - even as a member of several minority groups with a passion for human rights, trying to stay up to date with inclusion and diversity issues can be as challenging - or more - as any profession's expectations of continuing professional development.
That leads to a few points:
Short-sightedness vs. flexibility / allowing for difference
There was a time in my life when I travelled 2 hours each way, to and from work.
To stay alive (and I work in a profession with too much experience of people falling asleep while driving), I would have a power nap after work, before I drove home. This was something unusual, and therefore inherently threatening to some people in the workplace, so I copped a lot of criticism.
However, I rated my safety above their minor discomfort, and thus continued it.
One of the other things about naps, is that they can give people a boost to their productivity. There are some guides around this (e.g., don't nap for too long), but, above all else, the min issue is, in my opinion, accepting the reality that people are all different, and thus any management needs to have the flexibility to allow people to best adapt for their personal differences. This is a particular problem if a manager has only experience of "coping"/doing things in one way (e.g., just push harder / "push through"), possibly not realising how much that has harmed their own productivity (guilt and fear in relation to perceptions of possible laziness are a major block to efficient productivity), they are unlikely to recognise that such flexibility as allowing people to nap is better for their business.
Thus, in this era of inadequate / poor sleep, this article has been published on this topic.
Sham actions / "lip service" / "tinkering round the (management) edges"
This abstract reports that evidence questions whether workplace wellness programmes actually have any benefit.
And that is a lead in to the concept of tinkering round the (management) edges, rather than addressing the issue.
It is a very human reaction to, when faced by an overwhelming or apparently insoluble problem, choose to find and focus on something that can be done and feels within one's capabilities, rather than necessarily chasing after the true cause(s) and solution(s).
Let me illustrate that flaw with a few examples.
Our response to declining housing affordability and growing risks of homelessness, particularly for the elderly, has been to look at market approaches - first home buyer grants, tinkering with supply and demand, etc.
NOTHING has been done about increasingly unrealistic expectations around house size, the basic and inherently flawed view that housing is a way to build wealth instead of having a place to live securely, and the flow on impacts from that, such as pressure to maintain housing value, which is an inherent tension against reducing housing costs so that more people can afford to buy houses.
If we had, as a society, given up the stupid idea of feeling like we're one of the rich elites by having a flashier and higher value house (not a home, a big, flashy palace that is bad for the environment financial security, and needs lots of housework), we could have introduced measures like allowing tiny homes and investing in social housing. We might even have found a way to work with the house building industry to ensure this is done more sustainably!
I'll come back to climate shortly (on that,I'm looking forward to the new green cement, and a house built out of concrete to last for centuries, as houses used to be built, is going to be one of the best ways to reduce environmental impact - which, of course, means people have to stop redecorating/renovating in order to make money), but I'll finish this topic by pointing out that all politicians who have rental properties have a conflict of interest when discussing ways to improve housing affordability.
Think about that: they need renters, and reducing the number of renters means they might have to do things like lower rents or treat renters decently, so there are financial incentives in their favour if they only put on a façade of addressing housing unaffordability, rather than genuinely doing so.
Taking that last comment further, there can be a focus on counting problems (e.g., wage gaps) to delay doing anything, rather than to gather data to enable better change. I came across this most clearly in the 80s, when white male managers refused to provide additional female toilets in buildings on the excuse that they didn't know how many extra to provide, rather than acknowledging a known problem and making an effort to address it.
Another example (and I am doing a full post on this sort of problem when I can) is nominal catering for TGD issues - programmes/policies/pronouncements about everything (pay, etc) except the issues that do the most to actively kill TGD people: misgendering and deadnaming. That way, it is possible for companies to say "buy hey, we're treating them the same as others" - which ignores differentiated bullying.
The final example of sham responses rather than taking real action is . . . climate change.
I've decided to group a few issues together with brief comments. Unfortunately, I don't have time or energy to address these properly.
Diversity Fatigue
I can relate to this reported problem of "diversity fatigue" - even as a member of several minority groups with a passion for human rights, trying to stay up to date with inclusion and diversity issues can be as challenging - or more - as any profession's expectations of continuing professional development.
That leads to a few points:
(a) approaching inclusion and diversity from the perspective of management needs to be treated as accounting, workplace skills, human resources, and all other skills in the workplace are. Professionals may be as necessary as they are in other areas, and those professionals will need to be supported in their continuing development - but there is a need for more consultation with minority groups that is not present in other areas, as members of minority groups are the experts with lived experience, and, as experts, need to be treated with just as much respect as any other;
(b) managers cannot rely on their management skills to make them experts in inclusion and diversity;
(c) this is an area of competition between businesses, and the businesses that continue to respond and adapt to the ever-more accurate field of inclusion and diversity (new developments do not add "new" minorities/issues, they recognise the groups/issues that were always there and were being overlooked/ignored/inadequately addressed) more effectively will outcompete their rivals for diversity of thinking and creativity.
Short-sightedness vs. flexibility / allowing for difference
There was a time in my life when I travelled 2 hours each way, to and from work.
To stay alive (and I work in a profession with too much experience of people falling asleep while driving), I would have a power nap after work, before I drove home. This was something unusual, and therefore inherently threatening to some people in the workplace, so I copped a lot of criticism.
However, I rated my safety above their minor discomfort, and thus continued it.
One of the other things about naps, is that they can give people a boost to their productivity. There are some guides around this (e.g., don't nap for too long), but, above all else, the min issue is, in my opinion, accepting the reality that people are all different, and thus any management needs to have the flexibility to allow people to best adapt for their personal differences. This is a particular problem if a manager has only experience of "coping"/doing things in one way (e.g., just push harder / "push through"), possibly not realising how much that has harmed their own productivity (guilt and fear in relation to perceptions of possible laziness are a major block to efficient productivity), they are unlikely to recognise that such flexibility as allowing people to nap is better for their business.
Thus, in this era of inadequate / poor sleep, this article has been published on this topic.
Sham actions / "lip service" / "tinkering round the (management) edges"
This abstract reports that evidence questions whether workplace wellness programmes actually have any benefit.
And that is a lead in to the concept of tinkering round the (management) edges, rather than addressing the issue.
It is a very human reaction to, when faced by an overwhelming or apparently insoluble problem, choose to find and focus on something that can be done and feels within one's capabilities, rather than necessarily chasing after the true cause(s) and solution(s).
Let me illustrate that flaw with a few examples.
Our response to declining housing affordability and growing risks of homelessness, particularly for the elderly, has been to look at market approaches - first home buyer grants, tinkering with supply and demand, etc.
NOTHING has been done about increasingly unrealistic expectations around house size, the basic and inherently flawed view that housing is a way to build wealth instead of having a place to live securely, and the flow on impacts from that, such as pressure to maintain housing value, which is an inherent tension against reducing housing costs so that more people can afford to buy houses.
If we had, as a society, given up the stupid idea of feeling like we're one of the rich elites by having a flashier and higher value house (not a home, a big, flashy palace that is bad for the environment financial security, and needs lots of housework), we could have introduced measures like allowing tiny homes and investing in social housing. We might even have found a way to work with the house building industry to ensure this is done more sustainably!
I'll come back to climate shortly (on that,I'm looking forward to the new green cement, and a house built out of concrete to last for centuries, as houses used to be built, is going to be one of the best ways to reduce environmental impact - which, of course, means people have to stop redecorating/renovating in order to make money), but I'll finish this topic by pointing out that all politicians who have rental properties have a conflict of interest when discussing ways to improve housing affordability.
Think about that: they need renters, and reducing the number of renters means they might have to do things like lower rents or treat renters decently, so there are financial incentives in their favour if they only put on a façade of addressing housing unaffordability, rather than genuinely doing so.
Taking that last comment further, there can be a focus on counting problems (e.g., wage gaps) to delay doing anything, rather than to gather data to enable better change. I came across this most clearly in the 80s, when white male managers refused to provide additional female toilets in buildings on the excuse that they didn't know how many extra to provide, rather than acknowledging a known problem and making an effort to address it.
Another example (and I am doing a full post on this sort of problem when I can) is nominal catering for TGD issues - programmes/policies/pronouncements about everything (pay, etc) except the issues that do the most to actively kill TGD people: misgendering and deadnaming. That way, it is possible for companies to say "buy hey, we're treating them the same as others" - which ignores differentiated bullying.
The final example of sham responses rather than taking real action is . . . climate change.
Sunday 17 November 2019
Some current threats and concerns
Although I generally admire and respect the UN (which does essential work on disaster relief, health [the WHO], international transport & communication, etc), this was <expletive deleted> insane, and incredibly damaging to the UN's credibility:
The following is partially edited (for length):
"Out of 111 countries present at the hearing, 95 of them, including North Korea, Qatar, Belarus, Malaysia, Iraq and Oman, praised Iran’s rights record. Only 16 countries criticised Iran, according to UN Watch, a Geneva-based non-governmental organisation, including the USA, which called for Iran to:Iran's submission was rebutted by https://unwatch.org/iran-claims-commitment-to-human-rights-ahead-of-mandatory-review/ and
"One, immediately release all Iranian prisoners of conscience," including US citizens it holds in detention."Two, immediately end the use of torture and credibly investigate and prosecute all allegations of torture. Three, establish an independent judiciary, including significant reforms to the revolutionary courts.”
https://unwatch.org/un-condemns-iran-press-statement/.
I consider that the two biggest needs at the UN at the moment are:
- a counter or refinement of the veto power in the UN Security Council, which most people are aware of, but that veto power was the condition which allowed the UN to come into existence (the best suggestion I've come across is using the General Assembly more, which could overrule the Security Council, as I understand it);
- a smaller Human Rights Council, which would allow the "less desirable" nations to be kept out (spaces are allocated on the basis of regional blocs, which is fair enough as it prevents the HRC being dominated by a few big nations, but the numbers are too high as a percentage of each region to ensure that abusive nations are kept out). Alternatively (or, perhaps, as well as), insist that nations wanting to be on the HRC meet minimum standards - sign up to, ratify and implement key international treaties, for instance.
Others' views on concerns at the UN are presented in this: https://www.crisisgroup.org/global/three-troubling-trends-un-security-council.
On others' concerns, this is a well-written article:
- "How an India-Pakistan nuclear war could start - and have global consequences" - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2019.1680049.
- this is a warning to take note of: "The government is in authoritarian mode and now is not the time for complacency" - https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/commentisfree/2019/nov/12/the-government-is-in-authoritarian-mode-and-now-is-not-the-time-for-complacency (if I had the time and energy, I'd do an article on this); and
- some good news: "Suicide rates fall after gay marriage legalised in Sweden and Denmark" - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/14/suicide-rates-fall-after-gay-marriage-laws-in-sweden-and-denmark.
Following the (management) crowd
This is a post in my Ethics, Lazy Management, and Flawed Thinking series - see https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2019/11/ethics-lazy-management-and-flawed.html.
One of the fairly widely used approaches to many matters is: "What have others done, and what are they doing?"
In engineering, it was an early approach, before the development of materials science and reliable design equations a couple of centuries ago, to keeping things from falling down.
Slightly more rigorously, in court decisions it is aimed at taking advantage of previous thinking by "good thinkers", avoiding reinventing the wheel, and attempting to ensure matters are properly considered.
Socially, the "what is everything else doing" approach is a form of control - enforcing herd thinking, compelling people to be sheeple, suppressing any difference / dissent, and it has been a plague for millennia that reached its extreme in nazi Germany in the 1930s, and deserves comparison to that whenever it occurs since.
My experience suggests that many management programmes are based on what others have done.
In the good sense, this means that things like improved management of safety spreads through other companies (which I have seen since the 1980s).
In a less salubrious sense, much as happens in engineering, it means there are fashions and fads.
Worst of all, it can mean that companies introduce measures that harm people, or have potential harm for some people, without having thought of that matter.
This is particularly likely in the case of management that has limited awareness of "other" people - e.g., all male Boards, all white Boards, all cis / hetero Boards, etc - unless they exercise careful, deliberate, and specific attempts to be aware and think of minorities.
Boards and management more generally have been getting better at that - slowly, too slowly - in my nation over recent years, maybe a couple of decades.
However, they need to be aware that lazy or flippant / trivial / glib / nominal consideration of matters that affects the human beings who work for them will not protect in a court case, in the worst outcome, but I would also hope they have some pride in their job (and I know that at least some do) and want to do their job to the best of their ability.
So, if another company introduces a measure, or has something that may address a matter you are considering, take the time to think about everything involved carefully, properly, and clearly. If you are not sure on particular aspects, seek expert help.
Don't, whatever you do, use the glib lies that I experienced from some "managers" in the 80s and 90s and say "well I'd be grateful if X".
People who do that don't just look like idiots, they are idiots - and incompetent managers to boot.
One of the fairly widely used approaches to many matters is: "What have others done, and what are they doing?"
In engineering, it was an early approach, before the development of materials science and reliable design equations a couple of centuries ago, to keeping things from falling down.
Slightly more rigorously, in court decisions it is aimed at taking advantage of previous thinking by "good thinkers", avoiding reinventing the wheel, and attempting to ensure matters are properly considered.
Socially, the "what is everything else doing" approach is a form of control - enforcing herd thinking, compelling people to be sheeple, suppressing any difference / dissent, and it has been a plague for millennia that reached its extreme in nazi Germany in the 1930s, and deserves comparison to that whenever it occurs since.
My experience suggests that many management programmes are based on what others have done.
In the good sense, this means that things like improved management of safety spreads through other companies (which I have seen since the 1980s).
In a less salubrious sense, much as happens in engineering, it means there are fashions and fads.
Worst of all, it can mean that companies introduce measures that harm people, or have potential harm for some people, without having thought of that matter.
This is particularly likely in the case of management that has limited awareness of "other" people - e.g., all male Boards, all white Boards, all cis / hetero Boards, etc - unless they exercise careful, deliberate, and specific attempts to be aware and think of minorities.
Boards and management more generally have been getting better at that - slowly, too slowly - in my nation over recent years, maybe a couple of decades.
However, they need to be aware that lazy or flippant / trivial / glib / nominal consideration of matters that affects the human beings who work for them will not protect in a court case, in the worst outcome, but I would also hope they have some pride in their job (and I know that at least some do) and want to do their job to the best of their ability.
So, if another company introduces a measure, or has something that may address a matter you are considering, take the time to think about everything involved carefully, properly, and clearly. If you are not sure on particular aspects, seek expert help.
Don't, whatever you do, use the glib lies that I experienced from some "managers" in the 80s and 90s and say "well I'd be grateful if X".
People who do that don't just look like idiots, they are idiots - and incompetent managers to boot.
Saturday 16 November 2019
Corporate knowledge - better learning
This is a post in my Ethics, Lazy Management, and Flawed Thinking series - see https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2019/11/ethics-lazy-management-and-flawed.html.
One of the significant things about most militaries, apart from their unpleasant purpose, is their dedication to learning.
It is common - and right - for all non-combatant deaths to be deplored, but, notwithstanding that such deaths do occur, the military these days is much better at preventing them than it used to be. As an example, I've read estimates of French civilian deaths for D-Day that range from 3,000 to 15,000, and 50,000 for the entire bombing campaign associated with that action. - see also here, here, and here.
We don't hear much about that (and it has disappeared from the main Wikipedia article again; it used to be there [who the hell took it out, and why???] ).
When we compare that to current and recent events, despite there being a need for further improvement, there has been some improvement.
In fact, the events that the book and film "The Men Who Stare at Goats" were based on, and I am thinking of the learning from the "human potential movement" in particular, did happen.
So: the military does try, in its own way, to learn. (There is more I could write about that, but not in this post - look up for more.)
One of the things that the military does which I consider has potential value elsewhere is the use of unit diaries.
Now, in personal development, the use of personal journals is standard practice, and is accepted because it improves the efficiency of our learning.
I contend that the same applies to a properly recorded organisational journal, whether military or commercial. (The commercial version would also have to include market conditions and influences, organisational staffing and skill levels, etc.)
The information would enable management to assess proposals for new actions against what has worked and what has NOT worked in the past, and thus either stop what would be a waste in its tracks, or, at the very least, fine tune suggestions to improve their chances of success.
I have the impression that too many - not all, by any means - managers approach their job from an ideological dogma, possibly one imprinted by a University course, and thus there is a lot of hiring and firing until, coincidentally, market conditions, staff levels & skills, and opportunities get the results are desired.
The perfect example of this is the economic ineptness of Australia's current neoliberal government (see here, here, and here, for instance).
From my working life, over the last two or three decades, since project managers lost their technical literacy, I've routinely experienced every basically indulging in abuse using economic arguments that, in real life terms, actually are naive and lacking in any sense.
It's as if they've all come, bright eyed and bushy tailed, from the same project management factory, and the factory hasn't earned.
Actually, there has been signs of some improvement in the last 5 years or so, but I think that is more because the company I work for has infused its experience into the system.
And that sort of "infusement" could be done more efficaciously if we maintained a proper, accessible, up-to-date record of our corporate thinking, actions, and experiences - i.e., a corporate unit diary.
One of the significant things about most militaries, apart from their unpleasant purpose, is their dedication to learning.
It is common - and right - for all non-combatant deaths to be deplored, but, notwithstanding that such deaths do occur, the military these days is much better at preventing them than it used to be. As an example, I've read estimates of French civilian deaths for D-Day that range from 3,000 to 15,000, and 50,000 for the entire bombing campaign associated with that action. - see also here, here, and here.
We don't hear much about that (and it has disappeared from the main Wikipedia article again; it used to be there [who the hell took it out, and why???] ).
When we compare that to current and recent events, despite there being a need for further improvement, there has been some improvement.
In fact, the events that the book and film "The Men Who Stare at Goats" were based on, and I am thinking of the learning from the "human potential movement" in particular, did happen.
So: the military does try, in its own way, to learn. (There is more I could write about that, but not in this post - look up for more.)
One of the things that the military does which I consider has potential value elsewhere is the use of unit diaries.
Now, in personal development, the use of personal journals is standard practice, and is accepted because it improves the efficiency of our learning.
I contend that the same applies to a properly recorded organisational journal, whether military or commercial. (The commercial version would also have to include market conditions and influences, organisational staffing and skill levels, etc.)
The information would enable management to assess proposals for new actions against what has worked and what has NOT worked in the past, and thus either stop what would be a waste in its tracks, or, at the very least, fine tune suggestions to improve their chances of success.
I have the impression that too many - not all, by any means - managers approach their job from an ideological dogma, possibly one imprinted by a University course, and thus there is a lot of hiring and firing until, coincidentally, market conditions, staff levels & skills, and opportunities get the results are desired.
The perfect example of this is the economic ineptness of Australia's current neoliberal government (see here, here, and here, for instance).
From my working life, over the last two or three decades, since project managers lost their technical literacy, I've routinely experienced every basically indulging in abuse using economic arguments that, in real life terms, actually are naive and lacking in any sense.
It's as if they've all come, bright eyed and bushy tailed, from the same project management factory, and the factory hasn't earned.
Actually, there has been signs of some improvement in the last 5 years or so, but I think that is more because the company I work for has infused its experience into the system.
And that sort of "infusement" could be done more efficaciously if we maintained a proper, accessible, up-to-date record of our corporate thinking, actions, and experiences - i.e., a corporate unit diary.
Ethics
I've just been watching a new streaming series on World War (part) Two "in colour" (which means "it's been colourised). The talking heads are new, but the content is the same as in other history books, series, etc.
What concerns me about this, however, is that some of the air combat footage in a couple of the episodes looks very like scenes I've seen in movies (most is clearly NOT, I wish to make clear), and some of the film is incongruent - for instance, in discussing an attempt by a US B-17 bomber as it crashed to hit a Japanese aircraft carrier, showing footage of a near miss by a two engine Japanese bomber - and some of the other air combat scenes are the wrong plane types. My impression is that someone thought these sorts of details didn't matter (like the person who thought blue combat lighting for one side's submarines in the film "The Hunt for Red October" was acceptable), perhaps because they wrongly thought "Oh all planes fighting each other are alike".
However, the series is described as a documentary, and the talking heads are accurate and good, but including the claims of discovered footage and "in colour" in series title implies, in my opinion, a reasonable expectation of accuracy - that means, if you don't have relevant footage, stay on a talking head. (Also, one of the graphics wrongly shows Japan conquering all of PNG - which is an area these sorts of series seem to have a US-biased inclination towards errors . . . .)
If you do not understand where the errors are and why they matter, in my opinion you need to seriously lift your game.
This has, however, led me to decide to have a vent on ethics.
Ethical concerns is why I haven't signed up to facebook. Specifically:
I've been concerned about a fair few ethical issues of late, and have decided to start a new, occassional series: "Ethics, Lazy Management and Flawed Thinking".
This post is not the first.
I'll create a running summary, which I will refer to in this and all future posts, at: https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2019/11/ethics-lazy-management-and-flawed.html
What concerns me about this, however, is that some of the air combat footage in a couple of the episodes looks very like scenes I've seen in movies (most is clearly NOT, I wish to make clear), and some of the film is incongruent - for instance, in discussing an attempt by a US B-17 bomber as it crashed to hit a Japanese aircraft carrier, showing footage of a near miss by a two engine Japanese bomber - and some of the other air combat scenes are the wrong plane types. My impression is that someone thought these sorts of details didn't matter (like the person who thought blue combat lighting for one side's submarines in the film "The Hunt for Red October" was acceptable), perhaps because they wrongly thought "Oh all planes fighting each other are alike".
However, the series is described as a documentary, and the talking heads are accurate and good, but including the claims of discovered footage and "in colour" in series title implies, in my opinion, a reasonable expectation of accuracy - that means, if you don't have relevant footage, stay on a talking head. (Also, one of the graphics wrongly shows Japan conquering all of PNG - which is an area these sorts of series seem to have a US-biased inclination towards errors . . . .)
If you do not understand where the errors are and why they matter, in my opinion you need to seriously lift your game.
This has, however, led me to decide to have a vent on ethics.
Ethical concerns is why I haven't signed up to facebook. Specifically:
- I question their need for a physical address for people signing up - especially given their sleazy origins;
- I have always considered their attitudes towards what they consider free speech to be immature, and reject the "radical honesty" line as immature, self-serving BS. Furthermore, their decisions show a concerning tendency, in my opinion, towards misogyny;
- their flippancy and one-sidedness around privacy and security have always been a concern;
- they are dealers pushing and addictive product with no concerns to social harm; and
- their lack of action on violence is concerning - and makes a mockery of their request for an address.
I've been concerned about a fair few ethical issues of late, and have decided to start a new, occassional series: "Ethics, Lazy Management and Flawed Thinking".
This post is not the first.
I'll create a running summary, which I will refer to in this and all future posts, at: https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2019/11/ethics-lazy-management-and-flawed.html
Ethics, Lazy Management, and Flawed Thinking
As I explained here, I've decided to tie my thoughts on these topics together into a series under the above title.
This post will be where I keep a running list of posts on this topic. (I'm thinking of doing this on a few other topics as well.) I'll also add a few interesting posts by others as I come across them.
So, the current, ongoing list is:
Posts by others
This post will be where I keep a running list of posts on this topic. (I'm thinking of doing this on a few other topics as well.) I'll also add a few interesting posts by others as I come across them.
So, the current, ongoing list is:
- (reserved for next post) ;
- Some thoughts on force, domination, and coerced compliance (10th June, 2020);
- On dentists and professionalism (2nd May, 2020);
- More on engineering (23rd April, 2020);
- The Hypocrisy of the "No Emotions at Work" Dinosaurs (8th March, 2020);
- Cross posting: Post No. 1,511 - the Relativities of Mastery vs. Mastery of Change (8th March, 2020);
- Getting into management should NOT be like getting into a cult or a gang (26th February, 2020);
- Management (a great book) (13th February, 2020);
- Surveillance capitalism (27th January, 2020);
- Psychopaths in the workplace (25th January, 2020);
- Shirking and stuffing up legislative - and other - responsibility (24th January, 2020);
- Weekend ramblings: addiction to virtue signalling, the fear of having power, and the mistake of not taking people with you (24th November, 2019);
- Ethics, Lazy Management, and Flawed Thinking - "Diversity Fatigue", short-sightedness vs. flexibility, and "tinkering round the (management) edges" (19th November, 2019);
- Following the (management) crowd (17th November, 2019);
- Corporate knowledge - better learning (16th November, 2019);
- Ethics (16th November, 2019).
- This week
(airport security, sexual assaults in the form of strip searches)
(9th November, 2019); - Cross Posting: Power (3rd November, 2019);
- The dualism of the profession of engineering (2nd November, 2019);
- A commentary on protests, police, and perceptions - and violence (31st October, 2019);
- Sanctions and war (27th October, 2019);
- A "hierarchy of needs" for nations (27th October, 2019);
- Steps towards fixing the combustible cladding problem (16th October, 2019);
- Review and lessons from TimeGhost Army’s “Rise of Evil - From Populism to Fascism” (12th October, 2019);
- Voters and the possible impeachment of POTUS45 (6th October, 2019);
- The problem of ignoring humanity to allow scope creep (28th September, 2019);
- Running multi-employee businesses (28th September, 2019);
- Are neoliberals setting things up for their third rate manager mates? (22nd September, 2019);
- The amorality of political science - especially international (21st September, 2019);
- National interests vs. ethics (16th September, 2019);
- The Murray-Darling basin (7th September, 2019);
- The irresponsibility of consumers (7th September, 2019);
- Backward step for engineering (30th August, 2019);
- More evil from John Howard and the neoliberals (30th August, 2019);
- The harms of discrimination (30th August, 2019);
- An argument for not hiring "the best" (12th March, 2019);
- Male vs. female in the workplace (24th February, 2019);
- Political Tribes: A Comment (23rd February, 2019);
- Competition is not the only way (15th January, 2019);
- Worse than the elites/ oligarchs are ... (12th December, 2018);
- A 40 year cycle on unpaid overtime (11th December, 2018) - and see this update;
- Cross-posting: The Ethics of Self Sacrifice (31st October, 2018);
- Will to Intervene (14th July, 2019);
- Cost Cutting as a Cover for Fear-Based Abdication Of Responsibility (12th July, 2018);
- From an old website of mine
- Thursday 9th February, 2017 - The Erosion of Workers Rights, and Other Stuff;
- Sunday 22nd January, 2017 - Motivating and De-Motivating Workers;
- Friday 25th November, 2016 - Qualifications and Hiring, and the New Life Cycle;
- Saturday 23rd July, 2016 - Emotional Intelligence, Excessive Rationality, and Reading;
- Tuesday 5th July, 2016 - CVs / Resumes, Letters, Interesting Links;
- Friday 1st July, 2016 - Timesheets, and Incorporating the goals you want when incorporating;
- What is a lack of common sense? (27th June, 2018);
- Katherine Graham’s autobiography: a brief review (24th June, 2018);
- Is Peter Dutton evil? (23rd June, 2018);
- Cross-Posting: The Struggle to Survive (25th April, 2018),
and a follow up:
More on the struggle to survive (25th May, 2018); - Body blows to MPs' worldviews in politics (1st April, 2018);
- The problem of the Newtonian heart, mind and soul worldview (30th March, 2018);
- Collective Unthinkingness and the Loss of Workers' Rights (12th February, 2018);
- My Submission to Australia's Religious Freedoms Enquiry (1st February, 2018);
- Hypocrisy and/or weakness by Australia’s neoliberal Prime Minister? (14th January, 2018);
- How the USA contributed to the genocide of the Rohingya (11th December, 2017);
- Some thoughts on the so-called "equality" of debate on Equal Marriage (12th September, 2017);
- More on the Rohingya (14th October, 2017);
- Future proofing work (partial cross post) (21st May, 2018);
- The foresight of past visionaries (9th April, 2017);
- Reasons to enter public service - aka, become a politician (2nd April, 2017);
- Adapting to the Future of Work: our Third Most Imperative Need
(including a rebuttal of claims around employment in Newcastle, NSW following the closure of the steel industry)
(8th March, 2017); - Sustainable Progressivism (2nd March, 2017);
- A critique of the reactions to US President Trump's actions (30th January, 2017);
- A Commissioner for Political Plurality? (11th January, 2017);
- The Benefits of Stopping (30th October, 2016);
- Civil Society (11th October, 2016).
Posts by others
- (reserved for next post) ;
- Alternative management structures https://www.cultureamp.com/blog/alternative-management-structures/.
Tuesday 12 November 2019
The start of holding burma to account for genocide
This is the best news I've come across in quite a while:
- http://www.globalr2p.org/media/files/2019-november-myanmar-icj-press-statement-1.pdf; and
- http://globaljusticecenter.net/files/20191110_BurmaICJ_QandA_Factsheet_2.pdf.
Saturday 9 November 2019
This week
This week I had the profound misfortune to have to travel, for work, by air - again.
The flying part was fine, by the way - it never is the problem. There is nothing like the exhilaration of accelerating down a runway, followed by gracefully easing into the realm of wind, clouds, and birds - unless an enthusiastic pilot changes that to a joyful and vigorous leap into said realm ☺ I also think we take the marvels and graceful, if mechanical, beauty of planes for granted - especially the "small" 737 I was on. Small? As you're walking to a rear seat on the tarmac (and I really must stop being stubborn, and start using a walking stick), have you looked over and seen how massive it actually is, compared to a human?
(Of course, it seems quite small on the inside, where we cattle have been crammed in closer and closer, and can no longer even do something as simple as pick something up off the floor. That, however, is why flying has become so cheap - tickets used to cost what people pay in business class these days because that is how everyone used to travel, decades ago - spread out, with fewer people on a plane and thus each bore more of the cost. The discomfort, and aggravation my back problems is one of the major reasons I dislike flying - the pain, early hours and discomfort leave me exhausted - in fact, my wonderful boss * was surprised to see me in at the office the next day, and I wound up going home early, to finish my work over this weekend [which I want to do for my clients' sake, not the company's].)
* My current boss would be rated as the best ever, except one boss in the past gave me a 30% - literally - pay rise. I lost ~15% within 2 years of my transition in the early 90s, and the pay drift continued afterwards - which is why I distrust anyone who asks about pay expectations.
Landing is a relief for some of my other cattle class herd, but I tend to spend my time and energy at that time critiquing the flying - note when the flaps are extended and how much, when are the wheels lowered (I think a little early on my flights during the week, which can help with stability), how was the flare, etc.
I love flying - it's one of the aspects of Richard Bach's books that attracted me, not just the philosophy he espoused (although that has it's attractions - especially in the famous "Jonathan Livingston Seagull").
My father was training to be a navigator when World War (part) Two ended (I still have his main training manual), and we lived close to Moorabbin airport (I thought that was a colloquialism, much as Melbourne Airport is generally referred to as Tullamarine, but it seems not - although the official name now [post 1989] includes "Harry Hawker'), and so I had a fair bit of exposure to planes (including, in 1972, seeing and hearing and incredibly noisy Fairey Firefly when it was delivered to the airport for the museum [also now renamed]), but the enjoyment goes beyond that. The best way I can put it is that, as with sailing, it gives a sense of oneness with nature - in the case of flying, with the wonderfully dynamic atmosphere, and for sailing the dynamics of wind and water.
Also, the view is freakin' terrific.
Sadly, the environmental impact isn't, and I look forward to an era of electric planes - or maybe airships?
Going back to my trip, the main problem I have with flying is the security people. I have been misgendered countless times by , frankly, f***wits, and I have been subjected to so much aggression that I now no longer wear any of the anklets or bangles I love, and I refuse to travel with my asthma inhaler - yes, I know that's dangerous, but that is what the aggressiveness of those people has reduced me to. At least I now take a gamble and take an insulin pen with me in cabin baggage. Incidentally, many of my sheltered, limited life-experience work colleagues do not understand that I may need to travel with checked baggage, even on relatively short trips, so that I can take and have access to things like multiple insulin pens - although I obviously cannot pack inhalers, as they are pressurised.
That leads in to the next example of the problems with security people. The woman ahead of me put her handbag on ahead of her suitcase, and then was told by the security person to return and remove aerosols from her suitcase - while stupidly bloody putting the woman's handbag through the X-ray machine, leaving it, unattended and thus at risk, on the other side of the screening area!!!
Now, the security person may have been untrained on the matter of people's personal possessions (which would be gross incompetence on the part of those doing the training), tired / overworked (in which case questions get asked about cost cutting and staffing levels), or not paying attention or not caring (in which case questions get asked about fitness to be in that role), but this is one of the many major problems with airport security: that people's credit cards, phones, money, and other vitally important personal items are treated with absolute bloody disdain, if not outright contempt.
Airport security people, are you actually really trying to make people's travel experience safe, or are you actually OK with them being exposed to theft - possibly of identity - and stressed to the eyeballs by your conduct? I've personally been convinced by your conduct over years that you have massive problems with transphobia - and I am not interested in getting into any BS about which one specifically has been transphobic: don't try that effacing excuse, transphobia is an endemic problem in the industry, that needs to be addressed accordingly, not by pretending that whatever - if anything - is being done now is adequate and thus it is only a few "rotten apples" that need to be addressed. (I also hope the casualness about people's possessions isn't an attempt to bully them into subjugation - everyone associated with any such motivation should be charged with abuse, banned from any position of responsibility, and ejected from any faith they claim to be part of.)
That last comment about "a few rotten apples" actually leads in to the topic of police misbehaviour, which has also been incredibly widespread and serious, according to revelations this week.
Let's make no mistake about it: a strip search is sexual assault, and the defensive excuses trotted out by police shows that, on some level of their being, they are aware of that.
The NSW Coroner has now recommended that, amongst other matters, NSW police stop performing strip searches - some illegal - so flippantly (and in a way that verges into child abuse territory). This is needed, but so too is an attitude change on the part of social elites who are unlikely to ever be assaulted this way, and are so glib about brushing off the real problems with what is effectively an abuse of power.
The appalling comment by the NSW Minister about this shows not only that he is out of touch on this matter, but that he is also UNFIT to be a parent, and I genuinely fear for his children's emotional development.
There have been problems in other states as well, including this retaliation (which, from a very trivial perspective, given the damage done, is unprofessional) against a whistleblower.
And all the above follows closely on the behaviour of police at a demonstration in my home state which was so bad even the police themselves are investigating some of it.
The problem here is, partly, that crime has become so heavily politicised. Parties try to portray to voters that they are better than their competitors, and, given the limited education on the reality of the cause, prevention and cure of crime that most voters have, combined with human fear and other failings, and the lack of human competence of many neoliberals, this has been reduced to a "who can get lower than a snake's duodenum ** competition by being tougher on crime" - all of which is not only utterly useless, but counter-productive.
Yes, we need police and judicial systems, but we also need to genuinely be safe, not to have the illusion of safety, whether that illusion be in our homes or in the security theatre enacted in airports.
We need to de-politicise the issue of crime by creating the Office of the Chief Criminologist *** (see also here [which also includes suggestions for a Chief Philosopher and a Minister Against Boredom]; police biases, shown in their defensive on the matter of investigations, and their many comments on many matters that show they are either out of touch with everyone, or out of touch with minorities, mean they are completely unfit for such a role), which, in addition to making "crime fighting" more effective, would free politicians to get back to the matters they should be addressing.
** The only thing of any worth that ever came out of thoroughly evil Thatcher's mouth.
*** My home state has the Community Safety Trustee, but that position is, in my opinion, largely aimed at focusing on the public's perceptions, and misses the point on true criminological matters.
One other point from my trip is finding a colleague I travelled with had access to one of the airline lounges. Initially, it was just us and a few others, and toast, fruit and water (and I had some ginger ale) on tap was quite a novelty, but then it started filling with stressed, tense, business people, and I was reminded why I avoid such places. I'll happily lead them to those who think they're part of the elite.
OK, so moving on, I'm going to quote myself from Twitter:
Robert Reich has also done a video "Would the Founding Fathers Impeach Trump?", at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY10nWdhGaw, which is worth look (perhaps more so for anyone in the USA).
Even more controversially, a book has been released which accuses Franklin D Roosevelt of anti-Semitism:
What I can do, however, is read a free sample - which I have done.
The sample doesn't go into the newly found material that seems to be such a key to the conclusion, but it does illustrate some age-old lobbying questions - specifically, how far do you push those whose minds you are trying to change, how much do you attribute to "the times" and how does that change how you work towards your goals, and how does any of this influence what you're trying to achieve - i.e., a change for the better, in terms of human rights.
Now, the 30s was an era where appeasement of Germany was a widespread problem - although, as John F Kennedy pointed out, it did give the UK a chance to rearm, and it apparently stopped a bloody invasion of Czechoslovakia (see minutes 7 - 9 of Episode One of the Netflix series "Greatest Hits of WWII in Colour"). It was also an era of widespread anti-Semitism, as pointed out in Jon Meacham's "The Soul of America" (pub. Random House, New York, 2018, ISBN 9780399589836 [Amazon] - I am preparing a review of that now).
Was FDR racist or anti-Semitic? Meacham suggests not, which is the established orthodoxy - although it seems to be fairly widely accepted that Eleanor Roosevelt, who had her own flaws, was FDR's conscience in many ways, and unsuccessful tried to persuade FDR to accept more Jewish refugees. Was FDR racist, as shown by the internment of Japanese Americans, or anti-Semitic? I'll have to read Dr. Medoff's book and then review and maybe change my opinion, so I won't write anything for now.
In the meantime, you, Dear Reader, can find some reviews here, here, and here.
Finally, the ALP's review of its electoral loss earlier this year has been released. I haven't read this yet, and I'm not sure where I stand: I need to think a lot more. While I'm doing that, there have been some interesting articles written on this, which I consider well worth a read:
I see signs of this sort of lazy management whenever I challenge people on decisions on a human rights basis - rather than being able to clearly, calmly lay out the business or other justification for their decision, they bluster (much as many police do when challenged over strip searching, especially of children).
Well, people, following a formula is not going to protect you if what you are doing is not justifiable, and, as for doing something because others do, so did many people in other places and times - which contributed to the viciousness of the Middle Ages with anyone who was different (e.g., didn't go to church, or wasn't pious enough) being outcast. It lead to mob riots, pogroms, lynching, and - in its most extreme form - Nazi Germany.
Don't do it - think for yourself.
(I may expand that flaw into a standalone article one day.)
OK, so, going back to reading, there have been some other articles I also consider worth a read, including:
PS - denying harm done exacerbates the harm
The flying part was fine, by the way - it never is the problem. There is nothing like the exhilaration of accelerating down a runway, followed by gracefully easing into the realm of wind, clouds, and birds - unless an enthusiastic pilot changes that to a joyful and vigorous leap into said realm ☺ I also think we take the marvels and graceful, if mechanical, beauty of planes for granted - especially the "small" 737 I was on. Small? As you're walking to a rear seat on the tarmac (and I really must stop being stubborn, and start using a walking stick), have you looked over and seen how massive it actually is, compared to a human?
(Of course, it seems quite small on the inside, where we cattle have been crammed in closer and closer, and can no longer even do something as simple as pick something up off the floor. That, however, is why flying has become so cheap - tickets used to cost what people pay in business class these days because that is how everyone used to travel, decades ago - spread out, with fewer people on a plane and thus each bore more of the cost. The discomfort, and aggravation my back problems is one of the major reasons I dislike flying - the pain, early hours and discomfort leave me exhausted - in fact, my wonderful boss * was surprised to see me in at the office the next day, and I wound up going home early, to finish my work over this weekend [which I want to do for my clients' sake, not the company's].)
* My current boss would be rated as the best ever, except one boss in the past gave me a 30% - literally - pay rise. I lost ~15% within 2 years of my transition in the early 90s, and the pay drift continued afterwards - which is why I distrust anyone who asks about pay expectations.
Landing is a relief for some of my other cattle class herd, but I tend to spend my time and energy at that time critiquing the flying - note when the flaps are extended and how much, when are the wheels lowered (I think a little early on my flights during the week, which can help with stability), how was the flare, etc.
I love flying - it's one of the aspects of Richard Bach's books that attracted me, not just the philosophy he espoused (although that has it's attractions - especially in the famous "Jonathan Livingston Seagull").
My father was training to be a navigator when World War (part) Two ended (I still have his main training manual), and we lived close to Moorabbin airport (I thought that was a colloquialism, much as Melbourne Airport is generally referred to as Tullamarine, but it seems not - although the official name now [post 1989] includes "Harry Hawker'), and so I had a fair bit of exposure to planes (including, in 1972, seeing and hearing and incredibly noisy Fairey Firefly when it was delivered to the airport for the museum [also now renamed]), but the enjoyment goes beyond that. The best way I can put it is that, as with sailing, it gives a sense of oneness with nature - in the case of flying, with the wonderfully dynamic atmosphere, and for sailing the dynamics of wind and water.
Also, the view is freakin' terrific.
Sadly, the environmental impact isn't, and I look forward to an era of electric planes - or maybe airships?
Going back to my trip, the main problem I have with flying is the security people. I have been misgendered countless times by , frankly, f***wits, and I have been subjected to so much aggression that I now no longer wear any of the anklets or bangles I love, and I refuse to travel with my asthma inhaler - yes, I know that's dangerous, but that is what the aggressiveness of those people has reduced me to. At least I now take a gamble and take an insulin pen with me in cabin baggage. Incidentally, many of my sheltered, limited life-experience work colleagues do not understand that I may need to travel with checked baggage, even on relatively short trips, so that I can take and have access to things like multiple insulin pens - although I obviously cannot pack inhalers, as they are pressurised.
That leads in to the next example of the problems with security people. The woman ahead of me put her handbag on ahead of her suitcase, and then was told by the security person to return and remove aerosols from her suitcase - while stupidly bloody putting the woman's handbag through the X-ray machine, leaving it, unattended and thus at risk, on the other side of the screening area!!!
Now, the security person may have been untrained on the matter of people's personal possessions (which would be gross incompetence on the part of those doing the training), tired / overworked (in which case questions get asked about cost cutting and staffing levels), or not paying attention or not caring (in which case questions get asked about fitness to be in that role), but this is one of the many major problems with airport security: that people's credit cards, phones, money, and other vitally important personal items are treated with absolute bloody disdain, if not outright contempt.
Airport security people, are you actually really trying to make people's travel experience safe, or are you actually OK with them being exposed to theft - possibly of identity - and stressed to the eyeballs by your conduct? I've personally been convinced by your conduct over years that you have massive problems with transphobia - and I am not interested in getting into any BS about which one specifically has been transphobic: don't try that effacing excuse, transphobia is an endemic problem in the industry, that needs to be addressed accordingly, not by pretending that whatever - if anything - is being done now is adequate and thus it is only a few "rotten apples" that need to be addressed. (I also hope the casualness about people's possessions isn't an attempt to bully them into subjugation - everyone associated with any such motivation should be charged with abuse, banned from any position of responsibility, and ejected from any faith they claim to be part of.)
That last comment about "a few rotten apples" actually leads in to the topic of police misbehaviour, which has also been incredibly widespread and serious, according to revelations this week.
Let's make no mistake about it: a strip search is sexual assault, and the defensive excuses trotted out by police shows that, on some level of their being, they are aware of that.
The NSW Coroner has now recommended that, amongst other matters, NSW police stop performing strip searches - some illegal - so flippantly (and in a way that verges into child abuse territory). This is needed, but so too is an attitude change on the part of social elites who are unlikely to ever be assaulted this way, and are so glib about brushing off the real problems with what is effectively an abuse of power.
The appalling comment by the NSW Minister about this shows not only that he is out of touch on this matter, but that he is also UNFIT to be a parent, and I genuinely fear for his children's emotional development.
There have been problems in other states as well, including this retaliation (which, from a very trivial perspective, given the damage done, is unprofessional) against a whistleblower.
And all the above follows closely on the behaviour of police at a demonstration in my home state which was so bad even the police themselves are investigating some of it.
The problem here is, partly, that crime has become so heavily politicised. Parties try to portray to voters that they are better than their competitors, and, given the limited education on the reality of the cause, prevention and cure of crime that most voters have, combined with human fear and other failings, and the lack of human competence of many neoliberals, this has been reduced to a "who can get lower than a snake's duodenum ** competition by being tougher on crime" - all of which is not only utterly useless, but counter-productive.
Yes, we need police and judicial systems, but we also need to genuinely be safe, not to have the illusion of safety, whether that illusion be in our homes or in the security theatre enacted in airports.
We need to de-politicise the issue of crime by creating the Office of the Chief Criminologist *** (see also here [which also includes suggestions for a Chief Philosopher and a Minister Against Boredom]; police biases, shown in their defensive on the matter of investigations, and their many comments on many matters that show they are either out of touch with everyone, or out of touch with minorities, mean they are completely unfit for such a role), which, in addition to making "crime fighting" more effective, would free politicians to get back to the matters they should be addressing.
** The only thing of any worth that ever came out of thoroughly evil Thatcher's mouth.
*** My home state has the Community Safety Trustee, but that position is, in my opinion, largely aimed at focusing on the public's perceptions, and misses the point on true criminological matters.
One other point from my trip is finding a colleague I travelled with had access to one of the airline lounges. Initially, it was just us and a few others, and toast, fruit and water (and I had some ginger ale) on tap was quite a novelty, but then it started filling with stressed, tense, business people, and I was reminded why I avoid such places. I'll happily lead them to those who think they're part of the elite.
OK, so moving on, I'm going to quote myself from Twitter:
"I've read some suggestions that the left-right divide is no longer applicable. My caffeine deficient brain is inclined to agree, and suggests it should be those who control the means of production (Google, Apple, and Microsoft) plus the oligarchs (who control the money and politico-social elites) on one side, and everyone else on the other :) "I've had that topic on my wish list for discussion at my local political party branch meeting for some time: when I can raise it, I may be able to circulate the articles to help the other members prepare. See:
- https://www.joplinglobe.com/opinion/columns/robert-b-reich-the-battle-democracy-versus-oligarchy/article_5de31d22-856c-57f2-a2df-4a7e9c2e524e.html;
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkM_NG6HkqY; and
- part of: https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2019/11/reading-this-week.html.
Robert Reich has also done a video "Would the Founding Fathers Impeach Trump?", at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY10nWdhGaw, which is worth look (perhaps more so for anyone in the USA).
Even more controversially, a book has been released which accuses Franklin D Roosevelt of anti-Semitism:
- "The Jews Should Keep Quiet: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, and the Holocaust", by Rafael Medoff, pub. The Jewish Publication Society, 2019, ISBN 978-0827614703 (I think - Amazon keeps hiding this for e-books), Amazon.
What I can do, however, is read a free sample - which I have done.
The sample doesn't go into the newly found material that seems to be such a key to the conclusion, but it does illustrate some age-old lobbying questions - specifically, how far do you push those whose minds you are trying to change, how much do you attribute to "the times" and how does that change how you work towards your goals, and how does any of this influence what you're trying to achieve - i.e., a change for the better, in terms of human rights.
Now, the 30s was an era where appeasement of Germany was a widespread problem - although, as John F Kennedy pointed out, it did give the UK a chance to rearm, and it apparently stopped a bloody invasion of Czechoslovakia (see minutes 7 - 9 of Episode One of the Netflix series "Greatest Hits of WWII in Colour"). It was also an era of widespread anti-Semitism, as pointed out in Jon Meacham's "The Soul of America" (pub. Random House, New York, 2018, ISBN 9780399589836 [Amazon] - I am preparing a review of that now).
Was FDR racist or anti-Semitic? Meacham suggests not, which is the established orthodoxy - although it seems to be fairly widely accepted that Eleanor Roosevelt, who had her own flaws, was FDR's conscience in many ways, and unsuccessful tried to persuade FDR to accept more Jewish refugees. Was FDR racist, as shown by the internment of Japanese Americans, or anti-Semitic? I'll have to read Dr. Medoff's book and then review and maybe change my opinion, so I won't write anything for now.
In the meantime, you, Dear Reader, can find some reviews here, here, and here.
Finally, the ALP's review of its electoral loss earlier this year has been released. I haven't read this yet, and I'm not sure where I stand: I need to think a lot more. While I'm doing that, there have been some interesting articles written on this, which I consider well worth a read:
- https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-09/labor-heartland-mirage-not-destination-political-post-mortem/11687718?section=politics;
- https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/07/labors-election-review-reads-like-a-disaster-movie-with-a-few-clues-for-the-stunned-survivors?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other;
- https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/08/labor-must-stop-look-and-listen-while-walking-both-sides-of-the-street; and
- this speech of Doug Cameron's, from 2003: https://evatt.org.au/news/fighting-australian-social-democracy.html.
I see signs of this sort of lazy management whenever I challenge people on decisions on a human rights basis - rather than being able to clearly, calmly lay out the business or other justification for their decision, they bluster (much as many police do when challenged over strip searching, especially of children).
Well, people, following a formula is not going to protect you if what you are doing is not justifiable, and, as for doing something because others do, so did many people in other places and times - which contributed to the viciousness of the Middle Ages with anyone who was different (e.g., didn't go to church, or wasn't pious enough) being outcast. It lead to mob riots, pogroms, lynching, and - in its most extreme form - Nazi Germany.
Don't do it - think for yourself.
(I may expand that flaw into a standalone article one day.)
OK, so, going back to reading, there have been some other articles I also consider worth a read, including:
- https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/making-sense-collective-violence-and-oppression/201911/acknowledging-collective-victimization;
- the problem of covert, as well as overt, racism in the media (which I can relate to from my own lived experience with both forms of discrimination in several areas of life): https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/media/2019/11/09/reporting-racism/15732180009055; and
- a reminder of the key role women played in the Northern Ireland peace deal (which sources like Wikipedia bury): https://theglobalobservatory.org/2019/10/role-of-women-northern-irelands-peace-process-monica-mcwilliams/.
PS - denying harm done exacerbates the harm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)