This originally appeared on my main blog at https://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2021/10/post-no-2074-more-on-star-wars.html.
***
Further to my recent posts on "The Star Wars films" and "monsters and the risks of becoming one", I have come across a very interesting and well thought out video on the politics of the Star Wars prequel period - well worth a look, if you have a spare 1 ¼ hours.
I am re-watching the HBO series "Chernobyl", about the Chernobyl disaster of 1986 that killed possibly 27,000 people (the number is disputed and debated - including in scientific circles). The last episode, "Vichnaya Pamyat", blames Soviet culture for the problem - specifically, the state enforced secrecy and, to a lesser extent, the internal culture of striving for corporate success.
State enforced secrecy also applies in Western nations in relation to military matters - which I consider is fairly widely known (the secrecy is no secret).
Less widely known until recently is the issue of corporate secrecy.
Some matters (e.g., internal rates of return) are kept secret for commercial reasons, but there is a mistaken belief that corporate secrecy is "mostly" about hiding problems, such as the knowledge of the possibility of reducing deaths and injuries in car accidents, the effects of burning coal (first raised in the 1800s), or things like the thalidomide scandal, which led to changes in government oversight. It's not: it's mostly about trying to protect commercial competitive advantage (which also has an impact on IP that I don't consider society has properly examined yet).
In recent years, public authorities have been insisting on obtaining more information to counter that - which is excellent in principle, but too much of that is based on management theory that comes out of the 1950s or, in some cases, the 1800s.
As an example, if a company has, say, half a dozen people who can do a particular type of work, and 3 or 4 projects involving that work, insisting on using the exact same person who was nominated may do the one project a public authority has hired the company to do some good (it may not, too, if the person is being overworked), but will **** the other 2 or 3 public projects.
There is an insular blindness to some clients that is almost criminally stupid and short-sighted.
Insisting on knowing how much people are being paid is a breach of privacy that results in private industry workers being very disinclined to "go the extra mile" for the IPOCs in public authorities.
Insisting on managing how many hours are put into specific tasks is 1800s thinking, and the doing that need to read "Nine Lies About Work: A Freethinking Leader’s Guide to the Real World". - and consider that some of the best outcomes we had in the 1980s were a project where the workers were put on a subcontract for one time critical part of the work, and delivered it ahead of time (for a bonus). If we'd been insisting on hours allocated and nominated rates of pay, that wouldn't have happened.
However, private industry has it's problems as well, and one I am thinking of is the downplaying of public attitudes when making decisions.
In my opinion, that is clearest when looking at the Fukushima disaster, where I consider the standards selected for tsunami decision reflected direct costs and failed to consider the impact of a disaster on public opinion (see also here - I wasn't aware until writing this that an admission had been made, but the engineers involved could have argued strongly for greater safety [as obliged by Codes of Ethics] ). My opinion is that the Fukushima disaster has killed the nuclear power industry - it's now just a matter of time. (At least better thinking on risks and implementation of safety lessons are being applied to many still in-use nuclear power stations.)
It may be that private industry would have done better if the regulations required it to, but private companies have the option of not bidding for work. Most look at the chances of winning, the costs of bidding vs. likely return, and how competent the client is (many will make price allowances for the risks involved in dealing with less technically competent clients - which can actually be astronomical).
The other problem we have in the western corporate world, particularly as neoliberalism spread its tentacles in the 80s and 90s, is the drive to climb the corporate ladder of prestige - to prove loyalty to the company (with some aspects being disturbingly similar to the excesses of Japanese business culture), to show one's willingness to put loved ones and one's health last, and so on. Fortunately, the drive for greater health and safety that has been slowly gaining strength since the late 1980s has been offsetting that, and we now have some excellent managers on issues of OHS, work-life balance, and wellbeing.
The main point I have is:
although there are aspects of what happened before, during and after Chernobyl that are unique to the USSR, don't be too willing to judge and blame Soviet culture for problems WE also have.
Especially not after decades of neoliberalism and Fukushima.
PS - see also https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/12/15/unacceptable-sudanese-pm-criticises-armys-business-interests
The coup this week in Sudan was a major set-back to the transition to democracy and decency in that "not free" nation.
There had been hints of a problem with "protests" in support of the military over the last couple of weeks, but I hadn't picked up the seriousness of what was underway - Taiwan, getting our Prime Marketer Scotty from Coal Fondling to COP26, other places I care about, some major family health issues up north and ongoing health issues (including mine) here, etc all took my attention.
Also, having recently finished a major personal goal, I was taking things a little easy for while.
I'm not sure I would have twigged to what was about to happen if I had been paying attention, and I wonder what various intelligence agencies may or may not have known. Sudan is an oil exporter (but only around one quarter of what it used to be, now that South Sudan is independent), but mostly to China, it seems.
From the Wikipedia link:
The People's Republic of China is one of Sudan's major trading partners, China owns a 40 percent share in the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company. The country also sells Sudan small arms, which have been used in military operations such as the conflicts in Darfur and South Kordofan.
I was going to do one of my "assessment of nation" reports, but there is a key paragraph in the above Wikipedia link:
According to the Corruptions Perception Index, Sudan is one of the most corrupt nations in the world. According to the Global Hunger Index of 2013, Sudan has an GHI indicator value of 27.0 indicating that the nation has an ‘Alarming Hunger Situation’. It is rated the fifth hungriest nation in the world. According to the 2015 Human Development Index (HDI) Sudan ranked the 167th place in human development, indicating Sudan still has one of the lowest human development rates in the world. In 2014, 45% of the population lives on less than US$3.20 per day, up from 43% in 2009.
The former president who was ousted in 2019 has been charged with war crimes (the nation was subject to UN, EU, Australian, and US sanctions, [the US sanctions at least were lifted in late 2017 as the nation appeared to start to improve], and these also had an adverse impact on the economy), and allegations of corruption have been made against him.
Whatever the truth or otherwise of those allegations, the perceptions of Sudan's governance by World Bank respected experts has been poor, except for some improvement after the 2019 change of power - see below.
As with Burma, the military has its fingers in many economic pies - quite apart from the rebel groups in some provinces. The attempted coup last month (which, incidentally, shows the transitional government was aware of what could happen) was attributed to soldiers who were loyal to the previous president . . . was that loyalty economic? Was that the act of people who didn't want to lose their share of wealth, those who were personally loyal for whatever flawed reasons to the previous president, those wanting to be buddies with those around them, or a combination of those and/or other reasons?
Whatever the cause, they appear to have succeeded - for this time being, at any rate. On the "they", ACLED (who clearly had a very strong idea of what was happening and what could happen) has published a series of three articles pointing the blame finger firmly at "self-interested elites", separate to the military (which raises questions about how well informed / effective the transitional government was), but also states:
"Dark clouds are on the horizon for Sudan. The coup d’état elevates the role of self-interested elites from the country’s fractious military bloc, and may well set the stage for a showdown between these forces."
The people of Sudan deserve better - and, after decades of abuses, need better.
I personally consider it is in the interest of the rest of the world to ensure they get it, but doubt that will happen. Section VII of the UN Charter provides the right to take action if the UN's Security Council (UNSC) determines a risk exists, but China is a permanent member of the UNSC, with a veto on all matters - and China has been possibly starting to follow the example of Western nations of blocking matters that it doesn't consider in its direct interest. That means if intervening risks the oil China is getting from Sudan (or elsewhere in the region), a veto is likely. Conversely (and we saw hints of this at times with Burma), if inaction is the greater threat to China's oil supplies, some form of action (not necessarily military) may be supported.
At that point it is up to the rest of the world, and I don't know how much attention they would bring to this matter - I suspect, with attention on violent extremism risks in the Sahel, tensions over (democratic) Taiwan, and trying to resuscitate economies after the pandemic, that any intervention may be limited to sanctions. If so, I hope they include very strong, targetted sanctions of the Magnitsky type - and I note the ACLED articles refer to specific individuals, so trust those "in the know" can identify the necessary people to target.
For your information, the three ACLED articles are, in reverse order of publication:
The news links I provided in this week's news post are:
Sudan's military have committed a coup . . . - see also here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, - but "the masses" may yet have a say;
Our national neolib nitwits have consistently shown their limited understanding of digital risks. Two media articles emphasise that:
On the other hand, this suggests we're inching towards a much-needed and long overdue European-style protection of privacy.
The problem is not as simple as "the tech decisions are being made by old white dudes who don't understand", although that is certainly an element (e.g., from my coming weekly news post [on my main blog]: "a current reminder of old incompetence, overreaction, and refusal to admit error, and everlasting public stupidity in the "war on the unexpected" - aka security theatre"). Unfortunately, my experience of the sort of problem personalities we're seeing in the national neolib nitwits is that they won't accept or implement anything unless it results in them getting praise.
I worked for an abusive bigot decades ago who insisted that the pathway detailing around a treatment plant be done in a certain way. However, I had experience from tropical downpours in Queensland that it could be done in a simpler, less expensive way. That was ignored by Mr Inflexible, who, when I finally gave in and started parroting back to him what he was advocating for, stupidly said "now you're getting it". It took everything I had to not say "No, I'm just doing it your way. Let's just get it over and done with so I can go home" . . . actually, I didn't. (Incidentally the IPOC had insisted the work be done during a public holiday at his home.)
THAT is the sort of character flaw that is destroying this planet and allowing the pandemic to run rampant through half-hearted pretend measures.
THAT is the sort of character defect that should be prevented or addressed when it does occur - not overlooked as "cute" / a "chip off the old block" or facilitated/enabled by the schools of the elite that have been actively performing social engineering for centuries.
THAT is the sort of character defect that voters should cringe away from and put last on their voter forms - even if right wing media say otherwise.
Those people are a plague on this planet, and it is up to us - parents, teachers, work colleagues, etc - to be aware of and resist their evil.
If we don't, we're complicit.
On that, it is clear that white supremacism aka nazism (let's forget about the BS that it is "neo"nazism - it still nazism [or, at the very least, fascism]. Any IPOC who thinks otherwise should contemplate the FACT that had hitler been killed after stealing power, the nazis would have continued) are still active threats.
From my coming weekly news post (on my main blog):
Again, we need to actively resist this, or we are complicit.
And on fighting evil, now that IPOCs have successfully sabotaged all the good work (including R2P and W2I) done after World War (part) Two (incidentally, I include Bill Clinton in that bad bunch), it appears that the way to successfully fight the evil IPOCs who commit human rights abuses is to take away the toys and trinkets they cherish - such as being able to shop, get good health care/education for themselves or their family, and so on.
And that is where the various Magnitsky Acts come in to play.
I've been re-reading Geoffrey Robertson's book on this, "Bad People – and How to Be Rid of Them: A Plan B for Human Rights", and am pleased that we are inching (sorry, I should be using metric: millimetreing) our way towards a potentially good version of that (see here, here, and here), but, given Scott's penchant for stuffing up things, we need to avoid being complicit by actively advocating for the BEST version of this that we can.
For those in Australia, write to your Commonwealth MPs - please.
