Review: Peter Hartcher - "Red Flag: Waking Up to China’s Challenge"

Well, I've come across a publication that has a position of caution and working constructively with China that is similar to my views: Peter Hartcher's Quarterly Essay 76 - "Red Flag: Waking Up to China’s Challenge" (from here, or Amazon). 

I recommend getting a copy and having a read - but remember to make your own mind up. 

Here's a few points:

• In an appalling and hypocritical breach of sovereignty, China is using its economic power to condition other nations into behaving the way they want - but they don't say what the problem or issue is: they expect other nations to use the self criticism (brain-washing) techniques of the "Cultural Revolution" - also well described in the anti-authoritarian/dictatorship books "Animal Farm" and "1984" written by George Orwell.
  
  A couple of quotes from the essay (I can't do better than these quotes, but all the rest of it well worth reading as well):
  
  "It’s part of their strategy. They leave it to you to guess. They let you go through the process of thinking, ‘What could we have possibly done to upset the Chinese?’ They leave us to use our imaginations to think of what we might have done. This is the same principle – the self-criticism – that the party used to pressure suspects during the Cultural Revolution."
  
  "It is, in other words, a process of conditioning. Beijing uses uncertainty over the reason for punishment to train countries into anticipating its wishes and fearing its wrath. Better than telling other countries how to serve China, Beijing trains them into doing it themselves. Unbidden."
   
  
• China has adapted more quickly than other nations (more than a decade and a half earlier than the USA) to the significance of the Internet in terms of how it has radically changed the nature of war - and in a way that suits the teachings of Sun Tzu on warfare. Based on how well the local Chinese engineers were set up in terms of computers when I was working there in the 90s, that doesn't surprise me - their engineers were first class, and just needed a little practical experience (which, at that water treatment plant, it was my job to provide). There were issues around China expecting IP even back then, and I'm not entirely surprised they followed the post-revolutionary USA (see here, here, and here) into IP theft (here, here, and here - by the way, those two sets of links are worth a look: there's some interesting twists and turns and examples in them).
  
  From the essay:
  
  "It was so profound that it “eclipses the introduction of nuclear weapons, the introduction of the air domain and the airplane, and the transition from battleship to aircraft carrier.” This 2012 pronouncement is similar to another one by two officers of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army. “We can say with certainty that this,” referring to information technology, “is the most important revolution in the history of technology. Its revolutionary significance is not merely in that it is a brand-new technology itself, but more in that it is a kind of bonding agent which can lightly penetrate the layers of barriers between technologies and link various technologies which appear to be totally unrelated.” This thought led them on to an idea that seems to prefigure using 5G, or fifth-generation, cellular network technology as a weapon of war:"
   
  
• Australia needs to calmly assert our values, stand up to China, recognise the situation is not as one sided as it seems (e.g., China has chosen not to extend its economic attack to our iron ore supplies, which it desperately needs), understand that the apparent Chinese economic juggernaut does has vulnerabilities - and that key people inside China are concerned about those, diversify our economy (their vulnerabilities are as much an argument for that as is wanting to be more resilient to economic attacks from China - although common sense has also dictated this for decades), and, as expressed in the book, remember the difference between the Chinese people and the Chinese Communist Party:
  
  "Australia today must confront through legislation and other measures the harms exported by the Chinese Communist Party while embracing the remarkable qualities of the Chinese people."

This post of mine has links to earlier articles on China, and you can find a few other articles that are related here, here, here, here, and here. 

Looking beyond China, Australia has needed to be more mature and realistically independent as a nation since 1901 (and 1931) - it was appalling that we didn't have our own passports until after the Second World War, and only got rid of our attachment to the UK's Privy Council in 1986, and it is still appalling that we are subject to a monarch in another nation - one who has form on apparently undermining our democracy, to boot. 

Learning to stand up to China would be good practice for us to move out of our subservience to the USA to a healthy and mature relationship - something else we can learn from New  Zealand. 

On China, I consider the push for investigation of the outbreak in Wuhan was idiotic, so the problems are not only on one side. However, much as Indonesia (a nation with greater  potential for Australia than China) needs to learn more about Australia, so too does the CCP need to gain a better understanding of Australia, Australians, and how we react to bullies, threats and bluster (although that may tale a little time).

A Brief Collection of Thoughts

As time and energy are limited this week (and the heatwave is knocking us around), I've decided to collect a few brief comments on issues together into a single post. 

Justice and predictive policing 

The purpose of our justice system is not solely punishment: it is also about prevention - which has improved in recent years, but we are nowhere near as good on that as, say, Norway (although infinitely better than the USA). 

One important foundation in that is the premise that people can change for the better - to be sure, they can also either not change, or change for the worse, and those options and being in the justice system in the first can be the result of discrimination, destitution, and dopiness (in terms of choices), but it is VITAL for our society that we allow for the possibility that people can get better - EXCEPT with child abusers, where the precautionary principle combines with a history of perpetuation to require that we place the wellbeing of children, some of our most vulnerable members of society, first. (That may be influenced by having been abused myself: I've also been sexually assaulted, so I also support stronger and earlier action against DV perpetrators, but make the action constructive - which does NOT mean focusing on trying to persist with a perilous relationship.) 

The use by police of predictive policing directly attacks the principle of allowing for change for the better - no matter how good the stats are (this claims 95%), the possibility of change for the better must be allowed for. 

I have read personal accounts by former crims where a moment of decency from a police officer or a jail guard led to them turning their lives around: we have to make sure nothing shuts that out, and predictive policing does. 

This tool also says a great deal about the mindset of police, and none of it good. It suggests that: 

• police have a them-and-use (or social class "elitist") mindset, not realising how circumstances or choices can easily tip a "law abiding" citizen into desperation (I know mothers who have stolen food for their children - here, in Australia); 
• police are either unaware of, or not prepared to admit the reality of, social and economic circumstances and discrimination in causing crime, and, perhaps more importantly, that THOSE PROBLEMS CAN BE ADDRESSED EFFECTIVELY BY POLITICAL CHANGE - SOME OF WHICH CHANGE IS CAUSED BY PROTESTS THAT TOO MANY POLICE SEEM TO BE AGAINST BECAUSE THEY CONTRAVENE POLICE IDEAS OF "ORDER" AND "THE QUEEN'S PEACE"; 
• the police advocating for this may have been calloused or traumatised by their work experiences - which SHOWS A NEED FOR THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY TO GET THEIR HEAD OUT OF THE SAND AND DEAL WITH THE RESULTS OF OUR OUTSOURCING OF SAFETY AND WELL BEING TO OTHERS (which I've written about elsewhere on this blog). The recent excesses by police in France are also, in my opinion, an illustration of what can happen when this point is ignored or neglected (police abuses in the USA are just racist). This issue is also being made more apparent by the problems being experienced by front line health workers as a result of the pandemic, and on firefighters by some past major fire disasters. We "just" need a way to that in the front of the minds of the community in a serious and meaningful way that leads to actual changes . . .
  

On the community, we still need to put safety and "first do no harm" front and centre - the recent Royal Commission shows that, but that is an evolving matter and always will be. There are related issues that should also be considered together, to allow some cross fertilisation, and learning from past and refined proposed programmes to prevent violent extremism (“But the really big change is around the empathy, the support, the understanding. You have, rather than a policing approach, an approach that is about how we can work with you to help the ones you love”).

One final point on this: I suspect there are senior police officers who are well aware of all this and are trying to effect change for the better. The problems are likely to not be in force command, in my personal opinion. 

Toxic social media comments

This article basically shows that we all influence each other: post snarky remarks, and others are more likely to do so. 

An awareness of this, and the importance of cutting its spread (just as stopping the spread of COVID-19 was also crucial - and, considering that the "Spanish" flu [called that because it was identified in Spain as a result of wartime censorship in other nations but actually likely came from a US military camp - much as COVID-19 was circulating widely before it was found in Wuhan] killed more people in 18 months than World War One  did in four years, and stopping the spread of COVID-19 has been done reasonably well in many - NOT all - places . . . but we're still in the middle of the pandemic) is a key part of the successful and respected Cure  Violence programme. 

Russian naval threats against a US navy destroyer

On the spread of violence, Russia's belligerence against a US navy destroyer is of concern, and creates exactly the sort of risk of escalating violence that Cure Violence tries to prevent. 

In writing that, I've obviously accepted the US assertion that they were in international waters. Why? Because Russia has recent form on ignoring international boundaries and invading other nations - the USA also has that sort of form, but from longer ago, raising hopes that it has - noting the above - "changed for the better". (Some of this also applies to groups and nations.) 

A question has to be asked, however, about the mindset of the Russian captain and senior officers (and probably the entire crew): what led them to think that it was OK to take such an aggressive act? Following orders doesn't cut it (and hasn't since Nuremberg), so what disinformation or toxicity (yes, along the same lines as happens on social media - or elsewhere) were they fed, and why did they accept it? 

Most militaries spend a fair bit of attention teaching soldiers to identify lawful orders and stay within them (hence the whistleblower from Australia's SAS, other complaints from within, and the refusal of some other soldiers to work with our troops): what needs to be improved (and I am aware Russia's imperialist aggression and the vagaries of international politics are part of this "complexity")?

The USA and #45

I came across some interesting articles this week that I thought I would share. 

1. "The Republican Party is an authoritarian outlier - compared to centre-right parties in developed democracies, the GOP is dangerously far from normal"; 
2. "Why Won’t Emily Murphy Just Do Her Job? In delaying the transition, the General Services Administration chief is acting like an ideologue"; 
3. The ongoing gerrymandering in the USA;
4. "Opinion: Nazi resistance fighters, Holocaust victims and the nonsense of COVID-19 denial"; 
5. and, finally, a fact check on a meme: "Was Trump First US President To Lose Popular Vote, Get Impeached, Then Lose Reelection?" (the answer is yes).
   

May those of you in the USA have a safe Thanksgiving.

Cross Posting: Post No. 1,708 - "pummelling"

This originally appeared on my main blog at https://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2020/11/post-no-1708-pummelling.html.

*** 

I've recently come across Eric Newby's "The Last  Grain Race" again - I read it decades ago, when I was starting to get interested in sailing, and at one stage had a hard copy but that has disappeared somewhere along the way. In it, it described something that has always seemed strange and often appalled me, and that is liking some people have for physical violence. In Mr Newby's case, before he sailed on the "Moshulu", he and a similarly young colleague would - when they got bored, "have a pummel". On the "Moshulu" he described an almost transformative fight. 

Why? Was everyone so incapable of behaving decently without that? 

I guess the answer to that is "yes, they lacked that capability". Physical competition is not necessarily bad, but thinking people have to prove themselves physically to get respect is illogical, harmful (it denies that group good leadership/contributions by, for instance, an Einstein who cannot physically fight), unjust, and just downright stupid. 

Physical dominance is just another form of bullying and oppression - and I have known, incidentally, a couple of cisgender women who had the same inclination, to the extent of saying they would accept the views on a subject of someone who beat them physically - irrespective of evidence and rationality. 

That such mediaeval thinking can still exist in this day and age is appalling. 

As a further example of this sort of problem, I recently watched the Netflix series "The Liberator" - which I put off for quite some time because it a cartoon (sorry - "adult animation" . . . ).  In that, there are early scenes along the same sort of line, where soldiers use physical violence - rather than competence - as a basis for establishing what they call "respect" (given it fallacious foundation, it can only be described as a pseudo-respect - at most an homage top the real thing). In the TV series, one NCO is portrayed as being insubordinate to the main character (a Lieutenant, at that stage) and justifying it on the basis of his racism. In the TV series, the lead character has one of his men fight the NCO and beat him. In the book (I read a sample), he is quite open about using violence, but of NCOs against soldiers.

This problem does not exist only in terms of physical violence: there are all sorts of irrelevant expectations that people are subjected to - such as having to serve for a certain amount of time in a position, or do certain types of action to gain access to a management level, and so on. (And irrelevant expectations of respect - such as from Uni degrees, which I point out to graduate engineers are a licence to start learning.)

No wonder the world has so many problems of we use such irrational salves to our insecurities, instead of putting the welfare of the world and all sentient life ahead of our shortcomings as human beings. 

This includes all management and politics that fails to be along the stewardship (or servant-leadership, if you prefer) model, or denies the primacy of the climate crisis or the legacy of bigotry in all its forms. 

PS - some of the problem is that those who favour fisticuffs are not fluent or familiar with other approaches, or have been made to feel uncomfortable by those who are. The solution to that is NOT more derision: it is using those vaunted skills to teach and develop that comfort, ability and fluency in others - starting, if need be, when they are but children. 

 

Some brief thoughts on change, protests and repression

Building on my previous post, there have been violent protests in a number of places around the world of late - you can see maps of this here, and in various human rights reports. 

To egregiously over-simplify, typically a despot or authoritarian person who is s*** scared of difference or anything which even hints of disorder, let alone chaos, does something repressive (say, arrests an opposition figure, or sets police onto peaceful protestors, or weakens or denies democracy in some way), possibly does that for many years, and those being repressed, being human, may snap and react out of anger, hate, or fear. 

We are currently rehabilitating a dog that was egregiously abused by her former "owners", and she sounds aggressive in any circumstance that she feels threatened or unsafe in. It is a reaction akin to the military notion of "offence is the best form of defence", and is something that happens to some people when they are afraid. 

That is, in fact, one of the fight, flight, freeze, or network and nurture responses, after all. (It is amazing how many men refuse to include that fourth aspect - is it too far out of their repertoire of responses? If yes, they should never be allowed to have a relationship or any children, IMO. * ) 

This is also part of the responses by the lyin45ettes (my term for supporters of POTUS45) - incidentally, on them, see here. 

Such reactions are human ... and as ineffective as the incompetent (non)responses I wrote about in my previous post. 

Erica Chenoweth and Maria J Stephens have found that non-violent movements are more than twice as likely to succeed as violent movements,  Gene  Sharp  listed  198 ways to protest non-violently, and Gandhi has shown that this can work. 

Apart from the reasons Ms Chenoweth and Ms Stephens cover, this physical world violence plays into the realm that despots, authoritarians and their sock-puppet remora are comfortable with - the mundane, secular, material world, a comfortable  predilection and bias illustrated by the way they think and feel. 

On the other hand, things like non-violence come from a world of morality and decency that the despots, authoritarians and their sock-puppet ** remora inherently flounder in - they don't understand what they are seeing, don't know how to take it, and don't know how to respond. This is very well written about in Srđa Popović's book "Blueprint for Revolution" - particularly the story about Lego men as a device: the repressive authorities didn't know what those being left in various places was about, but it gave hope and an outlet for those they were trying to repress (and led to humiliatingly hilarious results when they started trying to arrest people for having Lego). 

Mr Popović also talked about Otpor!, which used humour, public theatre, symbols and the like to help end a repressive regime. 

That type of work takes a high level of organisation, study/training, and discipline to be effective - as Gandhi knew, as written about very capably by Paul K Chappell, as known by the US civil rights protest organisers in the 60s, and as most recently demonstrated by the Black Lives Matter protestors and the pro-democracy protest in Hong Kong.

In fact, several of these movements have successfully combined very high levels of organisation, discipline and training with modern communication and a decentralised structure. The pro-democracy protestors in Hong Kong use a cultural saying to the effect of "be like water" - they will flow away from one area where police activity had intensified, and do something somewhere else (well, they did prior to the pandemic and the CCP crackdown that removed any vestige of one state-two systems).

As an analogy, consider scooping some water up in your hand, and then trying to crush the water: it just flows out between your fingers. 

Now, the aim of civil resistance is often to provoke a reaction and then take advantage of the publicity: that is the sort of work that needs to be done by those who have been prepared and trained (although I consider such training should consider (a) really obvious things like what to do if the Internet is shut down, (b) basic cyber-security and discipline [see here, for instance] - including personal cyber activities away from planned resistance [hackers have used answers to questions posted on social media to break into accounts, and the problem is often a variation of the biggest driving problem [the nut on the wheel - used in a pejorative reference to the driver] summed up as PEBKAC [problem exists between keyboard and chair], all of which is frustrating for me in everyday life, and (c) not using obvious terms and names when despots and their sock puppets are likely to be listening in). 

There is, however, less risky, less extreme, but effective if it is widespread enough work that can also be done - as exemplified by the Lego men, by posters and symbols being put up overnight, and by taxis driving at half speed - ostensibly for safety, but really as a protest at governance slowing reform. 

How can the despots, authoritarians and their sock-puppet remora object to something that is seemingly about safety? 

Imagine it: 

"Why are you driving so slowly?" 

"For your safety." 

"I think you're doing it as a protest - speed up!" 

"And put your life at risk?! No, I cannot do that - we take safety seriously, and what if something happened to you? I could not bear it!" 

In that circumstance, it would probably be wonderful if something did actually happen - but in governance, not on the roads or in the taxi.

(See Mr Popović's book - there is either that or something similar in it.)

One of the possible low risk actions I've often thought about is simply scratching a symbol or acronym in dirt - the "sacred soil" of every nation, maybe something as simple as B_ for "Better _<first letter of nation's name>". That is something people can do with low risk (they can't be identified as being up to mischief by having paint, posters or Lego men), if people do feel afraid they can wipe out the evidence, and by the time the despots, authoritarians and their sock-puppet remora realise that resistance to their repression is so widespread they no longer have the main power, it will be too late.

Of course, it would help if the rest of the world - beyond human rights organisations - stood up for R2P principles. That is best done by local regional bodies, but there are times others may have to get involved. 

Anyway, hopefully that is some food for thought. I have a few other thoughts about getting such despots out of power, but I will save that for another post.

(I've written about this sort of thing before - for example, here.) 

 * Yes, I am being deliberately provocative

 ** I'm using this term to describe someone who is being manipulated - not in the more recent fake social media sense

Incompetent (non)reactions

I've just started reading a science fiction novel, and set it aside out of frustration. Then I started on the autobiography of a woman in our diplomatic service, and similarly set it aside out of frustration. 

My frustration with the former is the passive non-action when a science vessel and its crew are threatened by armed thugs when it reaches Pluto. Communication between Earth and Pluto is difficult, but it can and does happen - in fact, we have satellites further away from the Earth who are in communication. 

If you suddenly find unexpected vessels at a place you're supposed to be at, you're going to relay that message, along with the threats. You won't get a reply to guide you in your decision making, but you will make sure everyone else knows what happens to you. And when the trigger-happy thugs start threatening and asserting you "must" do something, you do NOT simply accede straight away - you relay the orders/threats, protest/negotiate (e.g., refuse to let any armed soldiers on board). 

Although the book has been set up to explore some philosophical issues - and does so brilliantly, based on the reviews, the opening incident shows a reaction that I can only describe as incompetent, incredibly unlikely, and a non-reaction. 

That's a problem I have come across in other situations - predominantly when people are being discriminated against. I've even made the error myself - bigots (and that IS what they are) will persist in attacking, annoying and aggravating you until your reserves are gone, and then pounce and use your lack of response as a justification to continue being bigots. 

It is something I experienced throughout engineering, and the autobiography describes one such incident in the 70s (before the Equal Opportunity Act) where a male - another military figure - should have been charged with sexual harassment . . . but she ignored it so she could do her job. 

This sort of situation abounds - for instance, when TGD people do not object to every instance of misgendering, or allow themselves to rationalise over someone misgendering ("that's just a figure of speech he always uses" [it's more than 90% of the time a male] ). Again, that is an incompetent (non)reaction. 

It is easy to get overwhelmed and worn down in this too hate-filled world, but recognise that, do what you need to recover, acknowledge that you made a mistake, calmly and objectively assess whether you can recover from it or not and do so/desist, and work towards doing better next time. 

The accumulation of such incompetent (non)reactions leads to a society where bigotry, prejudice, and hate are the norm, and for an example of what that leads to, read this.

I will probably go back to those books, but not for a few days.

Housing and voting turnout

Sharing a house, unit or flat is NEVER like being in the TV series "Friends". The reality often involves household disputes and personality clashes, invasions of personal space, abuses based on misunderstanding of law (e.g., searching other people's possessions for drugs), and so on. Those people who do think sharing house is always - or even mostly -  a wonderful, or even a tolerable, experience, lack life experience. When they - and this includes politicians, economists, and other IPOCs who make assumptions about people's life housing cycle - consider it is permissible, reasonable, or acceptable to make housing plans on the basis of sharing, they become almost criminally inept, as well as morally incompetent. 

Here is just one of many problem stories around shared accommodation that have emerged from the pandemic. (Others include DV, predatory behaviour, refusal to take reasonable precautions or overreacting about risks - all of which literally put people's lives at risk.)

When I started renting, four decades ago and in regional Queensland, it was possible to get a reasonable and affordable flat for a single person. Nowadays, it seems that houses etc are only available for people who can, or are willing to, share. 

That's fine for the many people who do want to share, either willingly with a friend or at any price with a stranger because they cannot or will not cope with solitude, but that is NOT the case for everyone. To force a trans person who is transitioning to share in a socially regressive area is cruel, transphobic, and as harmful to health and well being as forcing people who do not want to, or who cannot, to live alone. The same applies to those who need to escape from DV or other abusive situations - and there are people I shared with in the late 80s who I never want to see again in my life. 

And to ridiculously say people should partner up in order to be able to share a place to live is to absurdly assume that love comes, or should come, on a timetable - which goes beyond lack of life experience to lack of common sense and rationality. 

Furthermore, some people also have a valid need to decompress. 

(One of my best living experiences was on a boat in a marina in the 90s: we had our own individual spaces that we could retreat to, but we also had a supportive community - something with almost a village vibe ["feel"] about it: that's what we need more of - healthy and respectful togetherness, but also apartness: as Kahlil Gibran  wrote "Let there be spaces in your togetherness".)

On top of this is the fact that some people are forced to share simply because the over-sized, over-elaborate and flimsy  (not to mention inappropriate for the climate - even before climate change) housing that we have is unaffordable for so many. 

We need to create a wider mix of housing options, and the vast majority of housing options need to match what people can afford - not what they want, if that is beyond their means. 

How do we get the housing industry to do this? Do we have to start regulating or legislating because of -what? Greed? Disdain for those who are not rich? Short-sightedness?

Next, votes and voter turnout. 

There has been a fair bit of comment about how votes cast in this year's US Presidential election have been the highest ever. That is in terms of absolute numbers, but I consider the measure that should be used is percentage of eligible voters who turned out to vote. In this year's US Presidential election, the turnout of eligible voters was around 67% (NOTE: all votes and numbers are still subject to official confirmation, and at least one recount and several legal challenges MIGHT affect this). In my opinion, that means Biden's 50.9% and #45's 47.4% are really 34.1% for Biden, and 31.8% for #45. (My sources are https://www.abc.net.au/news/us-election-2020/,  https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/results/president, and https://graphics.france24.com/election-results-2020-live/.)

The people who don't turn out - whatever their reasons may be (cynicism, disenchantment, alienation, etc - or as a result of blocks placed in their way) - matter, as do the reasons they didn't vote. The reasons for their decision not to turn out tell the society of the USA something important. 

I've argued in the past that we need a "none of the above" vote option, partly as a means of more openly capturing that discontent in a clear and measurable way (there are many other changes I would like to see - e.g., as described here). 

Be that as it may, I was pleased to find a few sites which listed the highest voter turnouts for Presidential elections in the USA, and this one (which is consistent with all the others, but a little easier to read), indicates: 

• the highest ever turnout, at 82.6%, was in 1876 after passage of the 15^th Amendment, removing "race, color [sic], or previous condition of servitude" from eligibility to vote; 
• second, at 81.8%, was the first election of Abraham Lincoln, in 1860; and 
• third was the 1868 election of US Grant, at 80.9%.
  

The 15^th Amendment raises another important point: that the proportion of the US population who are eligible to vote has been increasing as discrimination is removed. 

From that point of view, voter turnout as a percentage of total US population (which will never be 100% because of age and other restrictions), there has been a generally increasing trend - see this diagram. 

Assuming a current US population of 331.7 million (from here, which is a continuously updated estimate), Biden's currently estimated 78.1 million votes is 23.5% and #45's currently estimated 72.7 million votes is 21.9%, giving a total of 45.4% of the total population - and there were other candidates who had a small vote as well. 

So, voter turnout as a percentage of eligible voters was not that impressive, but as a percentage of the total US population, turnout was quite possibly the highest ever. 

And yet we still have that one third who either were prevented from, or chose not to, vote . . . 

The ongoing active and malicious sabotage of democracy in the USA by POTUS45

Given the uselessness and apparent lack of care for democracy and their legacy of the US Republicans, is it time for the USA's 25th Amendment to be invoked? In many ways Pence is worse than #45, but I suspect Pence would have some basic respect for the need for a smooth transferral of power. 

I hope no nation EVER relies of unwritten conventions ever again - anywhere. The current farce in the USA, and our problems in '75, show the dangers of that. As a comedian once said: a verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's (not) written on . . .

Australia's Watergate: The Dismissal

PS - having finished reading this book, my opinion remains the same - strengthened, if anything. 

I've started reading Professor Jenny Hocking's "The Palace Letters", about the struggles for Australia to gain access to a key part of our own heritage: the so-called Palace letters. Those relate the communication between Australia's then Governor-General, John Kerr, and the Queen (via the Queen's official Secretary , Martin Charteris). 

Professor Hocking's examination shows that Kerr planned Whitlam's removal and conspired secretly to that effect from before the supply crisis. 

I am now of the view that the Dismissal, the removal of an elected government in ways contrary to the applicable conventions (particularly the requirement of communication between the Governor-General and the Prime Minister), albeit a government that had become controversial and was heading for possible electoral defeat, could possibly be considered our version of the USA's Watergate scandal - and, in both cases, it is the cover up that is of greatest concern. 

The difference is, the USA's system was able to expose and deal with the wrongdoing at the time, whereas people here and in the UK were successful in organising a cover up for decades - right up until Professor Hocking's recent successes in court. 

Our version of Nixon is the triumvirate of John Kerr, Martin Charteris, and the UK's queen, Elizabeth II, who knew - partly through Prince Charles, and, in effect, colluded (my word choice) in the removal of a democratically elected government in an independent nation, despite that government's belated plan for a half Senate election (which would likely have been lost by Whitlam). I know some people claim the Queen didn't know just because Charteris knew, but Charteris was a most enthusiastic and effective servant, and you do not be so effective in that sort of role for so long by taking actions that would potentially damage or are contrary to the inclinations or wishes of the centre of your adoration.

The triumvirate's instruments (lickspittles?) include Malcolm Fraser (who brought on the supply crisis), Anthony Mason (who gave advice to Kerr and kept that fact secret), Garfield Barwick (whose advice has been known for a while, but he may have had a role in the cover-up), David Fricker (the former spy who played such an active and key role in the continuing wrong classification of the letters as ":personal" and cost Australia millions in his attempts to perpetuate the cover-up), and David Smith (Kerr's secretary, who refused to aid in breaking the cover-up). 

The leading heroine is obviously, Professor Hocking, but I am finding others as I work through this book. 

Australia needs to get rid of the monarchical link to the United Kingdom NOW, to protect our democracy and finish the journey to independence - an independence which must be felt in heart, accepted in mind, and lived in all we say and do. 

Otherwise we will forever be a colony of slaves - slaves of outmoded thinking and one-sided loyalty.

Why can't a woman . . .

There is an infamous line in the play and film "My Fair Lady" where the main antagonist, the at-that-stage still misogynistic Professor Higgins, asks:

"Why can't a woman . . . be more like a man?"

It was a patronising, paternalistic remark that sums up many of the problems in society - and I'd like to touch now on how that applies to engineering.

My experience is that the engineering profession assumes people are happy to: 

• presume they know it all and are comfortable to arrogantly self-promote, speak over, or otherwise drown out others, and
  
• adopt the bias that all situations can only be validly viewed through the lens of their personal perspective. (I've recently read a very one sided specification, clearly written by someone with limited experience of engineering, that is a perfect illustration of that - and I'm also reading a few legal eagle bio's, one of which also is well marinated in that weakness.)

What complete and utter rubbish! 

In fact, liberating the engineering profession from that rubbish:

1. doesn't just remove the pressure on women to be inauthentic rather than bringing their whole self to work (which enables access to better communication and freedom from the trumpist errors of hubris for the profession), 
2. it also liberates MEN who do not fit - or do not WANT to fit - the male stereotype (as a simple example, consider men who are shy), and
   
3. furthermore, a healthier, reflective/self aware, and more mature engineering profession would develop a way to share ideas without having to be a trumpist-style braggart.
   Under that more effective scenario, it is also less likely that people would be defensive against criticism, resistant to change, or ideologically addicted to ideas/positions in order to defend their ego.

Such a change would benefit: 

(a) all people in engineering, no matter what their gender is, 

(b) the engineering profession, and 

(c) the society that the engineering profession is meant to be serving.

OK, so how do we get from here to there? Well, I suggest we begin by acknowledging that arrogance is a problem, that it needs to change, and start a two or three year long (at least) discussion.

Once we've done that - or, at least, got it under way, maybe academia can do the same. Maybe even other professions - including politics, and, ultimately, society itself will mature enough to realistically include the introverted, the shy, and the non-trumpist . . .

What next for the USA?

POTUS45 is showing his incompetence as a human being by refusing to admit defeat. That was largely expected, and reflects, perhaps, the hyper-macho (toxic masculinity), hyper-braggadacio (arrogance and ego - or hubris, if you prefer), and hyper-"competitiveness" (selfishness) from his upbringing. However, whatever the cause, it risks causing massive damage to his "legacy" (excepting the die-hard sock puppets), embedding the current division in the USA into the bedrock of that nation (much as the utterly evil John Howard did here), and destroying the US Republican party. 

This commentary included a suggestion (see 3:40 and starting at 4:30) that the Republican party could recast itself as the party of people who don't have University degrees - particularly white males. That might be so, but the Republicans will need support from others to gain political power, and that could be put at risk by 45's behaviour over the next 77 days or so - for instance, giving pardons to his criminal cronies (this sort of issue is well discussed in "The Final Days" book by Bob Woodward and Bernstein, on the end of the Watergate scandal), or spiteful actions. 

Keeping #45, a proven irrational, immoral, and vindictive rogue, within the bounds of decency will be the US Republican party's duty, challenge, and final legacy out of these last four years.

Why we should care about: the USA

In a nutshell, we should care about what happens in the USA because the people there are still human beings - many almost out of their minds with fear, albeit fear based on falsehoods, but fear nevertheless. 

This is no different to caring for those living under the oppression of the USSR, Idi Amin, or Pinochet - the errors of the State or a few leaders do not put their victims beyond the pale, and it is the actions of POTUS45 and the USA's centuries-long focus on anti-society, anti-environment, anti-human focus on "individualism", in the sense of lifting oneself by one's bootstraps / overcoming adversity / being "number one" (which is narcissistic and based on proven fallacies - the exit rate from poverty is better in Europe than the USA [see here, here, and here]), that has contributed so much to the harm from the USA that we, the rest of the world are experiencing. 

When the USA was founded, much of it was admirable - but the racism was ALWAYS there, and slavery and paternalism was the vehicle chosen to express that racism for the first century or so of that nation's existence (until their 13th amendment to their constitution). The intellectual power was exceeded by an economic power was based on (a) growth from immigration, and (b) complete and utter disregard for environmental and social devastation. 

However the USA's influence in the world was often net beneficial, until sometime between the end of World War (part) Two and the escalation of American military actions in Viêt Nám, the balance point shifted, and the USA became a net harmer of the rest of the world (and itself). 

But, in the same way that, although the USSR was a net harmer of the world, but its people deserved care, so too do those in the USA - even now. 

Incidentally, although the USA did a great deal to stop the USSR's military expansionism, it's failure to understand that George Keenan's containment strategy also called for the key to be building democracy means that the USA did a great deal of harm - and the devastation  caused  in  Central  America by Reagan, which is the source of many of the refugees that have been trying to flee to the USA in recent years, is a perfect example of why I have nothing but loathing for that silver tongued snake. 

But those people fleeing the US-initiated violence in Central America are deserving of our care because they are human - in fact, even their scarred tormentors also have the inherent dignity of being a sentient being, and thus have rights and deserve our consideration (although the respect and consideration owed to their victims means that the tormentors must first be prevented from doing any harm, just as the right of people to health must, for the moment, override rights such as being able to move around). 

The human beings in the USA, on all sides of the various political and other divides, all have that inherent dignity that arises from the fact of their existence - even POTUS45. 

All are deserving of our care, and that, not the unfounded claims to moral, intellectual or political superiority (aka "exceptionalism") is why we should care about the USA and what happens in it - even as, much as actions should be taken to contain the harm of thugs in Central America, we must act to insulate ourselves from the harms committed by the large influence of that deeply flawed nation, the USA. 

PS - some interesting comments on the class divisions in the USA in this video commentary:
"Shields and Brooks on election results, national divisions"

Teachers: a criticism

You cannot be what you cannot see. 

In many ways, in many situations, that is true - or true up to a point. 

When I was at high school, my English teacher urged me to consider a writing career, and I've often wondered - regret is too strong a term - how my life would have been had I followed that suggestion. 

I have no regrets or wondering about not following the other suggestion of being a teacher: I saw how other kids behaved, I saw the physical discipline that was used in those days, and I thought "no, thanks" - if someone made that suggestion if I was at high school in the last decades or so, maybe a bit longer, I would seriously have considered that. The times had changed, for the better, in that area of life. 

I also have no regrets about pursuing sailing as a "career". That would have been enjoyable (yacht deliveries would probably have been the main source of income), but I would have been doing nothing of any significant benefit to other people and the world. 

(The half day in primary school that I wanted to be an explorer of deserts, right up until I found out deserts are - mostly - hot, ended with the right decision.)

What I do regret is that no-one suggested the law, politics, or human rights as career choices. 

Human rights was a new field in the 70s, and careers didn't exist then in any clearly appreciable form, so that is understandable. Law, on the other hand, did, but I wonder if teachers then saw law in terms of property matters, commercial disputes and other uninspiring acts, so chose to ignore it because of their (mis)perceptions - or did they just think the kids at my school were too poor or too stupid to do law?

I suspect perceptions and misperceptions were also a reason that politics wasn't suggested. I suspect our teachers saw politics as a grubby power play, when, given that Whitlam was in power at the time (although I also saw the dismissal while still at high school), it should have been clear that politics was about shaping the life of the nation. 

I suspect teachers' personal biases affected the choices that were presented to us kids - for the worse. 

I have the impression those limitations no longer apply. 

I hope that is the case.

The USA

Content warning: I am going to let rip in this. 

PS: others' thoughts along similar lines: 

• "Opinion: Trans-Atlantic romanticism ends with Donald Trump" ("In the European Union, we tend to idealize the United States as an international partner. But we should stop that as soon as possible — regardless of who the US president is")
• "A New Administration Won’t Heal American Democracy - The Rot in U.S. Political Institutions Runs Deeper Than Donald Trump" ("Regardless of who wins the 2020 presidential election, the health of American democracy will not soon recover.") 
  

And the counter argument, from Joe Biden, President-elect: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2020-01-23/why-america-must-lead-again

As I write this, the results of the US presidential election hangs in the balance. My assessment is that there has been a late surge in support for #45, particularly on the day that they voted. On top of that, a conspiracy fantasist has been elected! 

If fascism hasn't won, it has come a close second to amathia - or paranoia. 

Too many yanks are, frankly, insane about any hint or suggestions of "socialism" - which, to them, can ONLY mean the full blown, authoritarian dictatorship of the type seen in the USSR (which is NOT what Marx advocated for - and Marx, incidentally, was wrong in most of what he thought, in my opinion). In the last day or so, I started seeing uncontested / uncorrected references (particularly from Pence) to Marxism, and my suspicion is that it further enraged the already angry supporters of #45, and just might have led to the surge that seemed to happen - particularly in the USA's "mid-West". 

There's another issue that needs to be taken into consideration: jobs. 

Too many people on my side of the political divide tend to ignore that when pointing out the need to act on the climate crisis - or, even worse, make idiotic suggestions along the lines of steel workers retraining for the tourist industry (whether that suggestion is true or not is irrelevant: it exists in the zeitgeist, and there has been no credible attempt to counter it). Many of those voting for 45 are afraid - afraid of many things, and loss of jobs is one. To them, those advocating for action against climate change are saying "screw you and your family - you can lose your jobs now".

Yes, it is insane - but that's the problem: the people supporting 45 are almost insane with fear. It doesn't matter that, if they get all the jobs they want now they will all be out of work in ten years or so when the climate crisis destroys modern economic systems: being able to cope with that is beyond their ability.

These people have also been duped by the fear-mongering around disorder in the streets. Again, it doesn't matter that the media beat up is wrong: they are so afraid they cannot see through the rubbish to the truth. 

Will telling them they are a pack of ****wits - as they undoubtedly are - help? No. 

Will pointing out the errors of their ways in being conspiracy fantasists help? No. 

Will politely showing the errors of their assumptions about the word "socialism" or that 45 is not actually helping them economically get anywhere? No. 

These people, the lyin45ettes as I've termed them (for their support for their liar-in-chief), have gone beyond the capacity for rationality because they have become overwhelmed by emotion. They feel ignored, isolated, and alienated - and that makes them (a) only approachable on an emotional level, and (b) dangerous. 

And unfortunately we, the rest of the world, cannot afford to wait for the conspiracy RWNJ infested Congress of the USA, no matter who winds up as president, to sort itself out. We have to cut ourselves off from the USA, and the many good and clever people who are still there, and act on the climate crisis, the pandemic, and many other things, with neither deference nor disdain for what the US has become, and look after ourselves. 

In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that the UN and all associated international organisations need to relocate out of the USA - if not in fact, then in function, by holding their meetings online. Budgets need now to be workable without the USA, along with peacekeeping and other activities. Don't put the USA last, just ignore it and learn to stand on your own two feet without them, as, no matter who wins the presidency, they have shown themselves - as a nation - to be moral, intellectual and physical cowards, cravenly hiding in the basements of their souls. 

And we can't wait for them to get out. Leave them to their own devices.

Corporations, decisions, and the changing social/world climate

One of the statements I've come across in many situations is that corporations "must" make decisions based on money. 

I've always been annoyed by that, as it isn't in the laws on corporations, and it has taken some time to find out that this is actually based on common law - i.e., the decisions made by courts.

Now, having finally been able to work that out, despite the non-assistance and, in fact, obstruction of those shooting their mouths off about what corporations may or may not do, no-one will give me the details of the cases - and I don't have the time to go searching through all the records of court cases to find them (and I assume something as significant as this would either have been decided on the basis of a very large case, or, quite possibly, built up over several cases). 

The reason I want to do that, of course, is to challenge the decision. 

I have, however, realised that I don't actually need to do that. 

One of the points discussed in the film "On the Basis of Sex", about the early life of Ruth Bader Ginsburg (and it is probably in the book I have of RBG's legal pleadings before and decisions on the US Supreme Court, but, again, limited time so I haven't tracked that down yet), is that while courts should not be subject to the (ephemeral) weather of a time, they are (or should be) subject to the climate - that is, longer term changes in basic values (norms) of "the times". 

RBG used this principle to argue that it was not necessary to overturn the prior precedents on gender (or sex, as it was often mis-termed back then), but that the changed climate of society meant a new precedent should be established. 

In the same way, I argue that the changed conditions of today's world mean corporations making decisions solely on the basis of profit (money) are no longer appropriate - other matters, such as the environment (including, but not limited to, the climate crisis), stewardship of company resources (especially workers), and a social licence to operate, ought also to be considered.

So, next time I hear someone prattling on about how corporations "must" make decisions solely on a financial basis, I now  know how to rebut their argument. 

"All" that is needed now is for someone to write that in "legalese" and then win a case on that basis in an Australian court . . .

On the USA

Further to this post of mine, on the 1968 DNC aka "police" (at the orders of Chicago's Mayor Daley) riots, I have watched a miniseries about John Adams, and then, today, come across this excellent article by the renowned and very capable Stan Grant, relating this year's US presidential election back to what happened in 1968. 

READ IT. 

Again, the URL is https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-01/to-understand-2020-us-presidential-election-look-at-year-1968/12830272