The proposal to reform our war powers

As I recently posted, currently a bill is before Parliament on reforming our war powers to require proper Parliamentary debate before we go to war - a measure with strong voter support. 

The Bill (text here, explanatory memo here): 

• provision for declaration of an emergency, subject to the accountability of a report to Parliament (which I consider entirely reasonable and practicable); 
• measures to ensure subversion of the will of the Australian people through their elected representatives by proroguing Parliament is not possible; 
• exclusions for procurement, training, normal (non-war related) overseas passage and presence (e.g., of naval ships).
  

Except that some of timelines seem a little too tight, to me it seems a reasonable Bill - one well worth a reasonable debate. 

One article on this quotes a notorious, bigotted conservative Senator, whose comments I won't bother to discuss here (bigots cannot think clearly - that is WHY they are bigots, and the comments are nonsensical), a supportive position from an Independent Senator, and a disappointing comment from one ALP Senator which ignores the provision for declaration of an emergency. 

I am currently considering a few emails to Senators asking for more information on this ... if I do, I may post any useful information here.

A reminder: Afghanistan and the climate crisis

I've long considered the climate crisis to be our version of World War III; - not the feared nuclear holocaust I grew up with, slower to act, but just as much of an extinction of life threat, and a threat that too many people were unable - either intellectually, or because of emotional/moral cowardice - to comprehend, accept and properly act on. 

In many ways, the pandemic is a sub-set of that World War III, in my opinion - it highlights the issue of zoonotic diseases that humans are going to have to deal with more as we continue to destroy the ecosystems we fundamentally need for physical survival (the concerns over bee pollination is probably one of the few areas where there has been close to a widespread comprehension and commitment to action - albeit a very slow commitment). 

The effects of the climate crisis have crossed over into politics and conflict on several occasions - there have been warnings over the increasing risks of wars over water, and a drought forcing people into Damascus was one of the triggers to the Syrian revolution, which was warped by militaristic people with a Newtonian worldview and a savage despot into the Syrian civil war.

And now, an article has reminded us of the impact of the climate crisis on Afghanistan. 

We really are running out of time, but we also really do have options available to address this - once we deal with and overcome our personal blindness, emotional-intellectual flaws, and lack of courage.

We cannot stay the same sort of people we are and save life on this planet - we have to change before we can do that.

A still present management curse: presenteeism

This thoughtful article from the BBC website on why, despite the lessons of remote work during the pandemic, the curse of presenteeism is still an ever-present curse, deserves a read and a think: 

• "Why presenteeism wins out over productivity"
  

After you've read and considered that, perhaps consider reading and thinking the book "Nine Lies About Work: A Freethinking Leader’s Guide to the Real World" (Amazon) by Marcus  Buckingham and Ashley  Goodall.

War powers

Update here.

At present, Australia can be taken to war by - as the media reports it - the Prime Minister (it was might actually be the executive). There are strong concerns about this - other than in the case of a defensive response to a direct attack on our territory - in many sections of the community, including a movement pushing for change on this within the ALP - which has not been included in the official ALF national platform (although Chapter 7 talks about independent foreign policies, ability to defend ourselves, and respect for the international rules-based order). 

The Greens have introduced a motion to limit those war powers and ensure we only go to offensive (I have not read the motion, so I have assumed it is limited to that) war after a debate. Independents like Senator  Rex  Patrick (a former submariner in our navy who uses a phrase made famous by the now effectively defunct Australian Democrats) will probably provide reassurance on whether the detail of that motion is acceptable that to unaligned voters.

It will be a debate to follow - and one that voters should contact their Senators about their views. 

A proposed safe zone in Kabul, Afghanistan

France's President has proposed that the UN create a "safe zone" in Kabul to enable evacuations to continue. 

On the surface, this appears to be a reasonable proposal, and potentially it could work ... but to work it would need a significant military investment, and: 

• European nations have a history of not providing sufficient military resources and/or cutting and running at the first sign of trouble (e.g., Somalia, Rwanda [where France was such a major problem] and Bosnia); and 
• This whole situation has occurred because the USA decided to compound it's initial ineptness by cutting and running - you think they're now going to reverse that? Especially after Biden has said the collapse showed the USA was "right" in cutting and running?
  

Politically, given that the UN has steadfastly refused to move into the 21st Century by enabling online meetings of the General Assembly, this would have to go to the Security Council. That means the vetoes which were agreed to reluctantly back in the late 1940s, as a precondition before the establishment of the Security Council was agreed to, become an issue. 

China and Russia are notorious nay-sayers, but Russia has no love lost with the Taliban, and China favours stability before it boosts its investment in Afghanistan, so it is at least possible that the proposal would be accepted ... but then we have the issue of who would provide military? Certainly not the USA, and certainly not my spineless, unethical nation. 

France might, given their history of active involvement in the Sahel, but that is an involvement France is having second thoughts about as well. 

Overall, this is a dreamland proposal - I suspect genuinely meant, but something said out of frustration at the inability to find a humane solution to in an unacceptable and inhumane situation. 

How do you reach the other side of politics?

In my post "I am stunned ...", I commented that "NO-ONE is doing anything to bring the lunatic fringe RWNJs back into the fold". 

So what would that entail? 

Well, I think it is instructive to consider how minority governments function - which is a compulsory process of talking and negotiating to a position that all involved can live with, even if they aren't happy with it. 

When I was co-convenor of TGV, we deliberately worked with the ALP and the Libs (we would talk to anyone who would listen): both those parties were supportive, but the independents weren't. An ALP MLA took on the role of negotiating with the independents, and was able to get an agreement, although we had to concede one transphobic inclusion, and there were a few times I would have taken personal legal action if I had the money.

Interestingly, when the legislation passed, one of the organisations that rang to congratulate us was a UK organisation whose decision to hold off until they could get everything they wanted was used as a basis for criticising us - something they were utterly stunned about, as that hadn't been their intention - they were dealing with UK conditions. 

So from that: 

• use an intermediary who has credibility with both sides; 
• understand that you WILL have to concede something, but stick to your guns on what is genuinely important (we threatened to get the Libs to oppose the law in response to one egregiously transphobic proposal).
  

Amy Chua advocates, in "Political Tribes", for people in different groups to talk to each other. Two or three decades ago, that would have worked, but the divisions that neoliberalism and right wing neochristianity have entrenched - particularly in the precariat - have made that unviable (it never was viable in terms of having bigots meet members of minority group). 

However, political parties may still have that option to some extent - as was shown by the Gillard government.

The problem these days, in the era of what Robert Reich describes as "knee jerk conservatism", is to find a conservative MP who is approachable - they do exist, mind, but they're not necessarily going to be able to talk as they wish.

The other option, of course, is for voters to change their representatives, but that can be difficult. 

Consider the electorates of Hughes and Capricornia. 

Hughes has an extremely controversial representative who has quit the Libs and joined the extreme right wing UAP, giving him access to funds from a billionaire (which has been used to send uninvited texts to much of Australia). That rep is in power because two Lib PMs overruled the local branches and insisted on him (refer to the link I provided - you can get general statistical info on electorates via this ABS page). Now that he is out, the Libs can propose who they want, and there will be a question over how many Lib votes the rep takes with him. 

In this electorate, and Capricornia, jobs are a key issue - I'll come back to that shortly, bu the comment on jobs is "Hughes has always had a well above average number of trade qualified residents. The decline in Labor's vote in Hughes reflects changes in the workforce, tradesmen more likely to be self-employed these days compared to the days when they worked for the large state corporations such as the electricity authorities".

Let's now look at Capricornia, which is held by the conservatives (the Libs and National Party have joined in that state, so that is a reference to the LNP). One of the other extreme right wing parties also gained a major vote there, and the link includes the following: "The electorate still includes significant agricultural and pastoral districts, but the region's economy and workforce is increasingly dominated by the mining industry and associated transport and export facilities".

The mining in Capricornia is fossil fuel mining - coal. Coal is an industry that has no future - in fact, the fossil fuel industry is a "dead man walking" situation, and for very good reasons: the survival of life on this planet. 

However, if you're talking to someone who is drowning, they're not going to be receptive to a warning of an imminent landslide that will be even worse. 

Thus, the sorts of points which need to be conveyed to people in Capricornia are: 

1. the climate crisis is real - yes, that needs to be said because the consequences are so life changing it blocks people's ability to accept it; 
2. other jobs can be made available; 
3. other jobs, training and support will be made available.
   

It is actually a pity the Palaszczuk government hasn't actively implemented the renewable energy and job transitions policies of the Andrews government, which would give credence to point no. 3 above. If they had, there would be, in my opinion, a good chance that the ALP's policies on "just transition" and jobs (see Chapter Two here - the length of that document is a challenge) would help win the electorate. 

The Australian Greens have also published reasonable "principles" on employment and economic justice, but I doubt they would appeal to parents with kids who are looking at losing their life plans (people often do build plans for their lives on the basis of a particular job). 

With regard to other parties, I'll indulge in a bit of speculation (you should check their actual policies - particularly closer to the next election). 

The Libs will probably trot out their wrong claim to be better economic managers, and everyone - out of habit and lack of credible challenge - will swallow that reflexively - without thought.

The extreme right wing parties will probably promise the world, and appeal to people's fears - populism of the type that #45 used so devastatingly in the USA. I am relieved that this group of people, mostly the victims of neoliberalism in the precariat, will not be likely to form government ... but I am concerned they may get balance of power.

In terms of working with those people who are drawn to the extreme right, Guy Standing has a few recommendations on how to engage with them. Those should be being implemented RIGHT NOW and for the last year or so by all parties which consider themselves progressive - with the first step being listening (and the mass phone ins from other states / travel train of outsiders being avoided) - use local members of parties.

It is difficult during a pandemic, but phone calls and web-based engagement have become quite widespread now, and would be a  good way to get this underway (and to coincidentally reduce the power of conservative media).

So ... just a few thought.

Cross posting: Post No. 2,003 - US revenge

This is an extract from the original post on my main blog at https://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2021/08/post-no-2003-us-revenge.html.

*** 

The USA has killed someone it says was a planner in the group responsible for the terrible violent extremist (I refuse to give them the satisfaction of being named, nor of being referred to using the t-ism word) attack in Kabul a few days ago. The US military has not said the person was directly connected to that attack, and does not "know of" civilian casualties.

OK, so let's look at this.

Firstly, it will probably play well with those US voters who have a simplistic Newtonian world view - and, amongst that group of people, the person killed will probably be dehumanised. 

That dehumanisation will NOT apply to those directly involved. Military people know what is involved in killing, and most find it traumatic - as portrayed, for instance, in the film "Eye in the Sky". You may well disagree with their worldview - I do - but don't assume they're all inhuman robots (although they do have a concerning mostly small-ish element of unprofessional [drunk], sadistic [animal killing], misogynistic, LGBT-phobic people who should be kicked out and face civilian charges - and that is without getting into any alleged war crimes - and who are the reason I do NOT want our military "representing" us overseas, and part of my concerns when they are deployed within Australia in peacetime). 

There are a few points to look at more broadly though: 

• Was the killing justifiable under international - not expedient US - law?
  This requires consideration of the quality of the evidence of culpability, including where it came from. If you watch the film I linked to above, you will see that this occurs, but I'm not a lawyer and, even if I was, do not have access to the evidence, so I do not know how competent that consideration was.
  The question is: do I trust the US intelligence-military-political complex?
  The answer is: despite the considerable improvements US intelligence and military HAVE made to many systems, no - especially not the politicians;
  
  
• Consideration of evidence when imposing a sentence also requires consideration of reasons for leniency. To do that, you need to know the person's backstory.
  I suspect those involved in this decision in the US military probably did know a reasonable amount about the person's backstory, but in the US intelligence-military-political complex that would be outweighed by US political interests ("how will voters perceive this - as an act making the world safer for US people and organisations to dominate? Yes? No problems").
  There have been people in the US military who are aware of the impact of such actions on recruitment by violent extremists - a bit of common sense that has been mocked in some films, but is quite true and relevant here: how many people will be recruited by that VE organisation as a direct result of this attack?
  
  
• This is also where the issue of civilian casualties arises.
  Apart from the injustice of those deaths, such deaths will increase VE recruitment - a fact likely known to the US intelligence-military-political complex, but not given as much weight by the political sector of that complex as others.
  It is worth keeping in mind that attempting to break civilian morale by an aerial bombing campaign is rarely (if ever) successful - although destroying military targets such as oil supplies, tactically significant bridges, etc can potentially be effective.
  
  
• The effect on members of VE organisations also needs to be considered.
  If they believe in martyrdom, killing someone will result in other people in the organisation feeling admiration for the new martyr, and possibly result in them feeling inspired.
  One of the advantages of capturing people alive and putting them on trial is that it denies them and their followers of that stupid notion. It can potentially show how flawed and human the VE actually is - and this would have been one of the advantages had the key VE (I won't name the person) behind the terrible 9/11 VE attacks been caught alive (especially if it had happened early in the invasion of Afghanistan ... sadly, once they were being hidden in Pakistan, that option was increasingly unlikely).

The USA's drone killing is not, in my opinion, likely to stop the spread of violence.

The superficiality of some activists

As I wrote in my last post, I am stunned by the recent actions of a party that seeks to portray itself as progressive - but I am also flabbergasted by the superficiality of some activists who claimed the ALP and the neoliberal party were EXACTLY the same. 

That position was backtracked from when I mentioned the abhorrence of having Morrison as a leader after a next election, and I gained the impression that the earlier statement was not a well reasoned piece of lobbying, it was a simplistic "device" - and exactly the sort of fashionable cynicism that I am concerned with, that discourages people from getting involved in politics. 

I also consider it important that political activists have an understanding of what is required in achieving change in a representative democracy where the representatives reflect the diverse mix of views - and the inequity of political clout - of various groups in society. As a starting point, I suggest the film "All the Way". 

I am stunned ...

I was recently stunned by something the national ALP did in the Commonwealth Parliament. I'll begin with a slightly edited quote from an email I sent to my local MP, who is a member of the ALP: 

It has been brought to my attention that the ALP apparently (see https://twitter.com/adambandt/status/1430423710700167173?s=21) voted with Morrison a few days ago to provide public funds for a controversial fracking project in the Northern Territory (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beetaloo&oldid=1038979213#Beetaloo_Sub-basin and https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jul/29/beetaloo-basin-fracking-court-bid-launched-to-stop-coalition-giving-company-21m-in-grants-for-project).

Apart from the serious environmental concerns involved in this project, I am concerned that - particularly if the potential to block the legislation was reported correctly - what amounts to active support of such a damaging proposal - particularly so soon after the IPCC report - is, at the very least, inconsistent with Chapter 3 of the National Platform (particularly clauses 1,2, 4 - 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 18 and 23 ["Labor recognises the Paris Agreement is more than just a commitment to emissions reductions and therefore commits to implementing all of the components of the Agreement including its requirement for just transition planning"]).

The ALP is currently facing criticism over an apparent "low target" policy approach (e.g., https://www.australiannews.net/news/270782853/labor-to-lose-progressive-identity-with-small-target-policies), appears to have very low recognition (based on those I know and have contact with) of key figures and policies, and now may have made a mistake Senator Wong criticised the Greens for (see Chapter Ten of "Penny Wong: Passion and Principle", by Margaret Simons) - namely, holding out on interim measures (such as blocking the provision of funds to this project now, as compared to the Greens blocking the CPRS in 2009) in hopes of a better measure (such as being elected to government sometime next year, at which point the project damage will already be severe and likely will be irreversible, as compared to the Greens' expectation that Copenhagen would be a gamechanger, rather than the actual Copenfloppen).

Had the ALP voted against this fracking project, in addition to taking the sort of action the ALP's platform commits it to and that the IPCC report recommend (and that the Paris agreement Australia and the ALP have committed to requires), the ALP would have gained considerable credibility and publicity - including publicity that differentiated the ALP from Morrison's corrupt and backward crew of neoliberal ideologues.

I am gravely concerned that a decision which may have been undertaken for some sort of tactical political considerations (e.g., possibly allow debate in the Senate, which is a nonsensical argument for such measures I have heard in the past) has been a strategic political error.

Your advice on this matter would be appreciated.

I may update this post after any future reply, but a few points here: 

• this was not passively "waving the matter through", it was active support; 
• "waving the matter through" by abstaining would, in my opinion, have been a better political strategy (especially in terms of getting the Morrison government voted out); 
• moving for a deferral until the concerning links were voted on would have been better politically, but may not have been possible under Senate rules; 
• the science, the local Indigenous people, and the ALP's Senator from the Northern Territory (who is Indigenous) were all against this project - and so was the Code Red recently issued by the IPCC.
  

I have been concerned for some time that the ALP under Albanese is not getting enough traction with voters to get Morrison voted out. That concern has grown with the decision to go for a low target / become invisible to the electorate policy, and now, with this recent bit of political stupidity, has gone through the roof. 

The Greens have started to develop better policies around jobs and a less bad organisation, but are decades away from forming a government - and we have nothing like the Australian Democrats before they sacrificed themselves on the GST Altar of Political Expediency (wrongly thinking it makes them look politically suave . . . perhaps much as the ALP appears to be currently doing), and NO-ONE is doing anything to bring the lunatic fringe RWNJs back into the fold, so I fear Australia is facing more years under the corrupt, inept, and backward neoliberal ideologue Morrison and his colleagues of similar ilk - some of whom I consider to be evil.

Citizens vs. denizens / "the precariat"

This is from an email I am working on to my local MPs. The concept has clearly been around for a while, although I have only recently come across it, and found it interesting enough to share here.

***

I have come across the work of Guy Standing, in particular on being a citizen vs. being a denizen / member of the "precariat" (those people in society who are vulnerable, insecure, and may not face any improvement in their life - workers in the gig economy, for instance [Wikipedia article here]).

Guy Standing

• website is at https://www.guystanding.com/, and describes him as "Professorial Research Associate at SOAS University of London and a founding member and honorary co-president of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), a non-governmental organisation that promotes a basic income for all";
  
• most recent book is "A Precariat Charter - From Denizens to Citizens", available on a chapter by chapter basis free of charge at https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/a-precariat-charter-from-denizens-to-citizens/ (he compares his idea of a "precariat charter" to the Magna Carta and the Forest Charter) ;
  
• other books available at https://smile.amazon.com/Guy-Standing/e/B001JXANZE/ref=dp_byline_cont_ebooks_1;
  
• I first encountered this person through a Fabians video on UBI at https://youtu.be/T2mH429rre0, and thence to https://youtu.be/nnYhZCUYOxs (on the precariat).
  

Pollie response problems

The problem with some of the neolib pollies isn't that they don't respond, it is that they respond inappropriately.

As an example, in response to concerns about the damage being done to refugees in our care, the utterly evil John Howard introduced measures to charge our victims the cost of medical care. Scott, in response to the coronavirus pandemic, has responded with jingles and marketing strategy (a criticism I've also read has been directed to other leaders of large nations that are supposedly democracies). Barnaby has responded to warnings of the crisis that will eventuate from climate change, and the devastation that will cause everyone's economy, by wanting to know how much the preventative cure will cost.

And the scariest thing?

People were so duped they voted for these clowns when their problems were obvious.

It's not enough to blame the media, or a "low-target" opposition: some voters experienced all that, but made an informed choice to not vote for the neolibs.

What was wrong with the others that they didn't? 

Do we need to teach critical thinking more effectively in schools, and have some remedial teaching of adults?

That might also help avoid people being duped by commercial propaganda (aka "advertising").

Cross posting: Post No. 1,978 - the climate crisis: IPCC says “code red for humanity”

This originally appeared on my main blog at https://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2021/08/post-no-1978-climate-crisis-ipcc-says.html.

***

This is too important and urgent to leave until my end-of-week post: 

• the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned of a “code red for humanity” because of HUMAN-induced climate change, some of which is IRREVERSIBLE - see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here;

Cross-posting: Post No. 1,970 - post-1788 Australia: land of reactionaries and disempowered rebels

This originally appeared on my main blog at https://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2021/08/post-no-1970-post-1788-australia-land.html.

***

In 1788, a bunch of soldiers and aristocracy from the United Kingdom escorted a bunch of convicts to Australia and set the convicts to work at being mediaeval serfs, while most of the entire bunch set themselves to work misunderstanding and murdering Australia's Indigenous people - and ignoring the invaluable knowledge those same Indigenous people had built up as they were stewards of the land for around 80,000 years (around one third of our species entire existence - and when Burke and Wills' team starved to death, to the Indigenous people it was the equivalent of non-Indigenous people seeing someone starve in aisle three of our local supermarket). 

Those convicts included a fair few people who were just trying to survive, quite a few people who were genuinely criminals (their peers in the juries were not always fools), and the occassional person with progressive politics - such as Chartists, and other "rebels" against the elites' imposed, artificial "order". Some of my ancestors were shipped out from Ireland for stopping English soldiers raping their mother - which, in the twisted thinking of the time, made them "rebels". 

We still have that twisted thinking, and broadly three camps: 

• the elites; 
• those who want to be part of the elites so much (a relative who researched my birth family's history was perversely proud of the thought of one of our ancestors riding high up on a horse, a right royal superior git, when that unesteemed ancestor was the mayor of a regional town)  they will sell their souls willingly and become mediaeval slaves (that is what a serf is, in effect) of spirit and soul, and, like a kapo, do the work of their masters at enforcing social conformity (with an especial emphasis on the preservation of money and things that indicate money, even if that destroys people, places, environment, culture, etc); and 
• advanced thinkers - political and social progressives, and other advanced thinkers, who are seen as existential threats by the elites' kapos, and continue to be coerced (sometimes successfully, sometimes not, sometimes successfully only temporarily) into conformity and compliance, and often have to struggle with their work from a place of disempowerment.
  

Whenever I've tried to analyse non-Indigenous Australia's soul, I'd made the mistake of thinking it was two camps, but it is actually three, which makes more sense for me.

Cross posting: Post No. 1,967 - Change is not compulsory

This originally appeared on my main blog at https://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2021/08/post-no-1967-change-is-not-compulsory.html.

***

One of the things about government is the quest to make things "better". Of course, the definition of "better" tends to change from election to election, but one thing almost all governments look for is "value-for-money", and that often involves cutting costs. 

One of the ways that can be done, while also improving the delivery for many citizens, is good use of online systems - "good" meaning secure, respectful of privacy, and with effective allowances for the varying abilities and capabilities of citizens. 

We don't get much of that. 

Instead, we have had - at the national level - massive data breaches (some of which compromised the safety of groups of vulnerable  people that the national neolib nitwits happen to despise [see Note 1] ), a set up that is so stupid someone thinks security questions are a "good thing" (quite major hacks have occurred after harvesting the answers to such questions off people's social media), and a set of basic questions that is out of touch with government duties and realities. 

On government duties, my main concern is that service providers (what used to be government departments) seem to think we can be treated as if we were customers of a private industry company, where if some people can't get what they need it's OK - they can go to another company. 

Citizens can't do that with government services - there is no other government we can go to (unless we emigrate - we can't even choose a different outsourced private industry service provider), but more importantly, as citizens we hold inalienable rights - there is an inherent obligation on the part of the government to meet those needs of its citizens (all of 'em, not those citizens considered suitable, or compatible with the values of the elected government of the day) that we have all agreed shall be provided - services such as education, transport, aged care, unemployment benefits (social security), hospitals and other health care (although the neolibs have certainly succeeded in undermining THAT one), and so on. 

In fact, that's a convenient point for me to move in to my next point: it is WRONG to assume that all citizens have, sheep-like, all fully complied with all changes along the way. 

For instance, when Medicare went online, as I did not trust the government's online systems (and with good reason, given the hacks - and that Medicare card numbers were sold to criminals) my choice was to only use doctors who bulk bill - which I have done ever since. 

However, I had to order a replacement Medicare card a little while ago, and it was quite an ordeal to get set up with all the procedures that others went through at the time they were being good sheeple and sacrificing privacy to a highly questionable neoliberal organisation. 

It wouldn't hurt those who set such systems up to remember that people may not have much familiarity - and for good, valid reasons. 

I'm working on an article more or less along these lines which will touch on other areas - such as the fact that I can choose not to give my personal data (and possibly my passwords, in some situations) to a group of border security people who are, in my opinion, unfit to be trusted. 

It seems fairly clear that security services are staffed by people with "conservative" views - which means they are also likely to be bigots (like the transphobic bigot in an Australia Post office I encountered a few years ago when witnessing a form for a friend), and also like the misogynistic porn-addicts portrayed in the film "Snowden". 

Those people are, through their porn addiction, misogyny and other forms of bigotry, and disrespect for privacy, making themselves potential subject to blackmail - a very small chance, it is true, but apart from their moral unfitness, there is a questions about their professional competence / ability. 

Edward Snowden and others show the truth has a habit of getting out - because there are also decent people buried in there. 

So ... for a host of very good reasons, change is NOT compulsory. 

You don't have to go along with all the changes your governments make - but you DO have to obey all laws. 

And none of what I have chosen to do in response to callous, careless and cruel changes, breaks any laws.

Note 1 - see here (which illustrates the sort of PEBCAK problems I am gravely concerned about), here, here, here, here, here, here, here (which compromises our defence forces), here, here, here, here, here, here, and here - and that's just in the last few years!