This week

Conduct has been a topic of discussion this week.

I'll begin with this Washington Post article: "Which is worse, bigotry or cowardice in the face of bigotry?"

Well, to make my desired position clear, one of my favourite sayings is:

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [people] to do nothing.

(based on writing by) Edmund Burke

Now, Edmund Burke was a monarchist, and he was actually writing the above against the first French Revolution in 1789, so his motivation was questionable, as far as I am concerned. Nevertheless, I believe in trying to do what one can - and "what one can" varies from person to person; I hope that all will do their genuine best, and I acknowledge that not everyone can be a Nelson Mandela, for instance (I know I can't - and that's not being the same quality of person, quite apart from issues around courage).

The Post article - to simplify - looks at attitudes, particularly those that are discriminatory, and the role of enablers, and basically criticises the latter for what they did to the republican party in the USA. To me, that's not quite the same thing as cowardice - it's collaboration, which may not involve any fear at all if you feel your faction is in control.

But the article does raise the issue, and it's one I got into over at my spiritual blog (see here). Courage, no matter what the situation, is overcoming fear.

Someone overcoming their fear of dentists (which is understandable given how bad many were decades ago) is being courageous.

Someone overcoming their fear to make a mild stand against a hateful statement is being courageous.

And someone realising that they've been duped, and someone or something they thought was good isn't and then making at least some sort of objection or stand is also being courageous.

We're not all capable of charging into a hail of machine gun fire, or being Tank Man, or being Dr Martin Luther King, Jr.

But we're all capable of courage in our lives.

And that brings me to the next issue from this week: the reaction to a moment of tone-deafness (actually, it was stupid) by the ALP's national leader, the Hon. Anthony Albanese, MP, Member for Grayndler, an electorate in NSW.

Mr Albanese is on a tour of Queensland, trying to win back the support base the ALP lost over jobs - because jobs in central Qld. are tied to the coal industry, which was being - rightly, in my opinion, although the convoy from the southern states was a counter-productive, patronising and stupid idea - criticised over the damage it does to the climate, and thus the role it lays in our current existential crisis. He made a comment about exporting coal because "if we don't, someone else will".

Understandably, given the raging 2019 climate bushfires (see here for a comparison of these to other recorded bushfires), the remark went over like a lead balloon. The Morrison "government" (theocracy) was missing in action for weeks of the bushfire crisis, and the ALP's leader wasn't particularly noticeable either. To some extent, it's not the opposition's job to be noticeable, but had Mr Albanese been doing regular media briefings from his electorate office, in the smoke haze from the bushfires, it would have been an opportunity to highlight the ALP's policies at the 2019 federal election, which included substantial sums for firefighting as well as action on the climate crisis, as well as presenting an image "here is a party that turns up when you need it".

I know that tours like the one Mr Albanese is on take time to organise, but, had someone had the nous to say "Stop! Opportunity! Do the tour later", I think, in the long term, the ALP would have wound up far further ahead everywhere - especially as Queensland is also part of the 2019 climate bushfires.
I've heard two points of view on this:

1.  It is necessary to get power to be able to act; and 
2. A just transition of jobs is necessary.

I'll deal with the second point first, as it is easier.

There undeniably will be a long term and just transition required. On the closure of major industries, I looked at the effect of the closure of the steel industry in Newcastle (see here), and consider it led to a population decline of around 83,000 people.

Although help after coal industries close down (and thermal coal WILL close) can help, which was shown by the Andrews government's response to the closure of Hazelwood (although quite a few workers there are still out of jobs), implementing a policy beforehand - as was shown in Germany - will ultimately be of benefit, which is why also starting work on renewables now will help maintain jobs in the long term.

I've written about the need to "future proof" jobs previously - which is something that applies across all jobs, not only the coal industry.

In fact, we can do better than simply replace/maintain jobs: we can turn our renewables potential into  a major export industry. This was written about recently in The Conversation, but has also been pushed for years by others - including me. The schemes to export solar power from the Kimberley and the newer one in the NT are doing well - and Andrew Forrest's recent decision to invest in them will help, but there is also the potential to export renewables (a lot of Qld has the regular, reliable and consistent trade winds - which I used to sail in for around 12 years) to PNG and the Pacific. I would have considered SA under Jay Weatherill the most likely state to do that, but now it's probably Victoria (which is already developing an export hydrogen to Japan business [which saw a milestone with the ship carrier launched this week], albeit on a trial basis and from coal, not renewables). In Qld, a scheme like that could set up an alternative to start transferring coal industry workers to now. In fact, a scheme like that In Qld would offset some of the harm to our international reputation that the Morrison "government" (theocracy) has done. 

Just transition is certainly part of the ALP thinking, and it is probably part of the platform (the official document is quite long, so I won't go looking to check), although I would like to see it tweaked, and for State ALP governments to prove the jobs that can come from renewables by setting up sustainable energy export businesses. 

When you can look a voter in the face and say "here's the proof that we can get jobs in renewables by selling the power overseas because we've been doing it at a State level", you are in a much stronger position than if you can only talk about plans - and your position would be stronger both in Qld. and the rest of Australia in relation to both jobs and the climate crisis.

Of course, that requires cooperation between State and Federal branches, and it probably needs some state government investment, but I consider those things would be good.

And on good, let's look at the ethically murky issue of "if we don't someone else will", which has been used to justify things such as selling weapons and uranium (more on that shortly).

How does that compare with the Post article?

Well, "if we don't someone else will" is about maintaining a status quo, not making things worse, but it is still about a situation that is harming people and putting our existence at risk, and seems to be about deferring taking action.

It's not a good argument - it is, at the least, disappointing - most of all because it underplays the ALP platform. It would have been better to talk about commitment to jobs, and "look at what we did when we had a closure of Hazelwood foisted on us".

It's an issue that is addressed more openly in the USA, where, because they stupidly don't have compulsory voting, one f their biggest issues is doing what is necessary to "get out the vote". Thus, there are intense debates over whether progressives like Bernie Sanders and Elisabeth Warren are better than more establishment figures like Joe Biden. That's the sort of debates that applies in this situation: is the gain in one area of one state going to be enough to offset the poor signalling the remark makes elsewhere?

Going to that level of debate when we're not used to it seems to be being a bit of a painful experience.

Moving on from that debate, Mr Albanese has started the recovery by - quite rightly - attacking the proposal by the neoliberal "government" to get into nuclear power. Others are pointing out what was in the election platform for the 2019 election.

And an article here has pointed out the ALP's historic credentials on climate change.

The journalist's decision at the end of that article to wait and watch is reasonable for her, but that assumes that those who can, will work at things like persuading the state ALP governments to get renewable energy export businesses going NOW for (a) our and the climate's benefit, and (b) the ALP's prospects in two years' time.

And ensuring that is up to all of us.

The explanation about the realities of trying to win government with the Australian electorate as it is now is also apt - sadly. (The debate is also happening in the UK, given the disastrous election result there - see also here. Also from the media there is this, calling for more honesty about pain [I don't entirely agree with this: having smaller, simpler houses is not painful], and an interesting call for the ALP's Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Mark Butler, should be "front and centre".) This not a new debate here, and it is as old as politics, probably, but the issue must always address the issue of being authentic and progressive vs. creating an image that will get you elected - yes, if elected you can do things, but if you got there on what is effectively a deceit, anything you do will be viewed with suspicious and distrust no matter how good it is. The maths is - and I am making these numbers up - along the lines of 10% good if you don't get elected (there is always some pressure that can be exerted), vs a net 60% (80% good less 20% for the effects of the distrust that was engendered) if you get into power.

Also, I suspect that Mr Albanese's tone-deaf remarks didn't just trigger reactions because of the 2019 climate bushfires; I think things like the incredibly unwise capitulation over national "security" (authoritarianism) legislation last December, on the bass of a political wink-and-a-nudge that no-one believed, and the ALP's patchy history on refugees, are also playing into this.

The ALP has actively supported Medevac legislation, and has quite a few MPs who are pro-refugees (including my local Federal MP), so that issue is being addressed - slowly, and not completely. Some of the ALP's history is good, some not so much, but it needs to be sold better - particularly the economic credentials - and  having soundbites prepared for questions and challenges, including "fake news", which I understand the controversial UK MP and PM Tony Blair was good at. All this is necessary at the best of times, but the poor timing of Mr Albanese' remarks on coal mean there is much more work to do.

And on responses, we have the Mediaeval Re-enactment Bill, also known as the Religious Discrimination Bill. If the ALP let this one pass as was done with the "security" (authoritarianism) bill last year, the damage will be irrecoverable.

Looking at the bill itself, it has been made worse following complaints by the reactionary dotards, bigots and haters in the small ultra-"conservative" religions that support our neoliberal prime minister. Official information on the changes is available here, which also invites submissions.

Making such a submission can be, apart from the normal challenges, traumatic when it is about something that is aiming to enable hate, and also enables the death of a society. It is important to consciously plan for self-care when engaging with evil, and this is no exception.

As far as the details of a submission go, Alastair Lawrie has some excellent critiques (see here, for instance, and here, here, and here also have useful points), see also here, and a bit of searching will find other suggestions.

As an example of the latter, this is this, from here on Twitter:

Personal experience is often described as being useful in such submissions, and it often is, but look after yourself first. Sometimes doing what one can, in order to be a snowflake that is part of an avalanche, is the best aim for individuals - but you have to be in there.

Also, do not forget to send copies of your submissions to as many progressive MPs and Senators as you reasonably can - your MP, if they are a progressive, and every state has at least some good Senators.

I'm going to end this with a few articles that may be of use to others:

• from "The Guardian", "'Traitors to their class': meet the super rich who want to be taxed more", which is not actually entirely surprising, given that a number of ultra-rich are doing what they can to help others/the world, but it is encouraging to see some who are aligned so clearly with Robert  Reich's persistent calls to tax the wealthy; 
• "Assange and the Myth of Due Process", which I haven't read much of yet, but is worth considering; and
• "Perceptions of Frontline Managers Practicing Diversity Management", which I've circulated to my company's Inclusion and Diversity Committee (which I am a part of).

And now, time to go attend to this week's chores (housework).