Cross posting: Post No. 2,143 - Fixing avoidable problems after the fact

This originally appeared on my main blog at https://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2022/01/post-no-2143-fixing-avoidable-problems.html.

*** 

There is a lot of valid criticism of nations trying to do things like "sportswashing" their human rights abuses (distracting the world from the fact they are committing human rights abuses - egregiously so, in some cases - with international sports events), and corporations investing in philanthropic works but getting their money in ways that are damaging, unethical, or unsound. 

The abusive nations I won't cover in this post - they, and those idiots who are duped by their distractions, are repugnant, and morally indefensible. 

However, I do want to briefly consider corporate ethics. 

If we go back a few decades, we had things like widespread advertising of smoking, widespread drinking to excess, highly questionable ethics ("gifts" and other more severe forms of corruption) and misogynistic and other discriminatory abuses that are only now coming to light through the actions of the Me Too, BLM, and other movements. 

Many companies are not stupid: they know bad publicity harms them (reduced income, possibly legal costs, etc), so they started seeking, some years ago, to avoid doing the wrongdoing that exposed them to the bad publicity that hurt their profits. Some time after that they realised that "being proactively good" (i.e., inclusive, corporate social responsibility, etc) actually had direct benefits - it boosted their profits, and thus they went from doing unbridled harm through damage minimisation to anti-wrongdoing. 

This has been aided by investors/shareholders and customers setting expectations that go beyond price and immediate quality, and there are companies providing independent assessments of how ethical companies, or who are specialising in ethical superannuation, banking, investment, etc. 

In some cases, however, no matter what the company does, they cannot make up for the harm they do - and the environmental damage caused by fossil fuel companies fits into that category, in my opinion. 

(Incidentally, I am satisfied that the company I work for is doing good - sustainable water & wastewater [which is where I work], solar power, community skills building, CSR, etc.) 

Some companies are somewhere between the two - it is a grey area whether the good they are doing offsets the harm, and that is also affected by whether they are genuine in their caring (or perhaps how genuine they are). 

All of this also applies to individuals: 

• instead of just ensuring you are recycling, perhaps you should reduce using plastic in the first place, and buy goods made from recycled plastic when no plastic-free options are available (my partner is excellent at this); 
• instead of focusing on buying green power, build houses that aren't effectively tents (which is how Australian houses have been described); and 
• instead of focusing on charitable giving, get involved in preventing or fixing the problems that create poverty and other needs for assistance - for instance, be anti-racist.
  

Above all else, think deeply:

are you minimising or fixing problems that you should not be creating in the first place?

I have a few thoughts here that are worth considering, also. 

Notice: possibly ads coming

I have got to the stage where it is worth my while considering advertisements on this blog. I'd rather not, but this gives me a greater possibility of being able to focus on my blogging. This is a bit of prior notice so you can think about this.

Some thoughts on the Russia-Ukraine crisis

When hitler seized power in Germany in the 1930s, one of the praises he received was along the lines of "he got the trains to run on time" - or that might have been mussolini. I'm not interested enough to invest the effort in checking a detail of either despot's life. (Nnngh - I can't leave it unchecked: it was mussolini - see here. hitler built - or expanded, rather - the autobahn.)

The point is that they initially seemed to make the mundane aspects of life better. 

However, if that is all an autocrat / despot does, then over time people will begin to wonder if the loss of personal freedom is worth the price. Thus, despots eventually have to seek grander and grander "distractions": in mussolini's case, the establishment of an Italian empire that was portrayed as a "re-establishment" of the centuries past Roman empire; with hitler, it was about German nationalism / patriotism and undoing the perceived harshness of the Versailles Treaty - a harshness perceived by not only Germans, but a harshness predicated on the harshness of the treaty to end the Franco-Prussian  war of 1870-71, and the savagery of World War (part) One. 

(Side note: I've just watched a video which refers to the Russo-Japanese  war of 1905 as "World War Zero". The history periodical my adoptive parents bought me when I was young showed some disturbing photos from that war and the (Second) Boer  War, and it was then that I started realising the savagery that some humans were capable of. Later, a documentary on the Indian  Rebellion left me with nightmares, as it further emphasised that deplorable capability.) 

If despots cannot find an external conflict (a "diversionary  war") to focus on, as Argentina did by invading what they term the Malvinas (see here, here, here, and here), leading to the United Kingdom's ultimately successful Falklands  War, as the USSR did - to some extent (it was also an ideologically driven contest / conflict) - with the Cold War, and King Henry V of England did in 1415 with an attempted invasion of France, then they will have to implement increased repression. 

As a variation on that, Xi Jinping of the CCP has directed what is described as a campaign against corruption (also suspected of being partly a cover for purges which have created a succession crisis and left Xi vulnerable if he leaves power, but corruption has also been genuinely a problem in need of constructive attention), although tensions with the USA (particularly over the South China Seas - and China's claims there pre-date the communists rise to power) help.

Tensions with the USA also help the despot kim ⅓ in North Korea - and the bombastic displays of missile launches are probably as much for domestic consumption as external.

kim ⅓ faces succession problems as well, problems that also plagued stalin, amin, hussein, mugabe, and other despots.

Russian President Putin appears to have also been considering, if not succession, at least what could happen after he leaves power - for instance, laws have been passed granting him life-long absolution (my term).

Putin has also been very focused on his image - largely successfully, within Russia. Elections within Russia are often criticised for not being fair (with considerable validity, in my opinion - see here, for instance), but they are of some significance, and Putin has to put effort into winning them (perhaps one way or another?). And recent polls show a decline in Putin's approval ratings. 

Given that, is the current escalation of the war between Russia and Ukraine in eastern  Ukraine at least partly a political ploy to distract internal (Russian) dissatisfaction? 

Maybe. 

If true, does this reduce the risk of war? No. 

In any case, enforcing one's will over others in any way is wrong - doing so through violence, at the expense of others, is UTTERLY unacceptable. Putin's threat - no matter why it is there - exists, and must be dealt with . . . effectively.

It is worth noting that: 

• Ukraine's borders have changed over time, with Crimea only having been incorporated in 1954 (and grabbed back, possibly in part at least, as a diversionary war); 
• the USSR had a tradition, under stalin, of creating borders that cross ethnic boundaries - thus the legacy of fighting over Nagorno-Karabakh between Armenia and Azerbaijan; 
• ethnically, eastern Ukraine is more Russian than Ukrainian; 
• most Ukrainians seem to want democracy - and western Ukrainians seem to want closer ties to "the West"; 
• all modern nation-states want to preserve their territorial integrity as a fundamental part of their existence;
• would eastern Ukraine want to secede from Ukraine to join Russia if a fair and fee referendum was held? Had there been discrimination against Russians in eastern Ukraine before this conflict? (A referendum now would be meaningless - there has been too much blood spilt);
  
• Russia appears have interfered in Ukraine's internal politics; 
• there are persistent  concerns that NATO's expansion eastwards is contrary to an agreement made at the the USSR was dissolved, although NATO says that agreement was limited to the context of the former soviet satellite state East Germany.
  

This is unquestionably a complex situation. For more on this, I suggest the following videos from the Caspian Report: 

• "Legitimacy of Ukraine's new government" (2014); 
• "Ukraine's crisis and strategic importance" (2014); 
  
• "Russia's leverages on Ukraine" (2014); 
• "Russia-Ukraine standoff in Kerch Strait" (2018); 
• "Ukraine and Russia preparing for a new war" (April, 2021);
  
  
• "Why Russia wants to restore the Soviet borders" (July, 2021); and
  
  
• "Finland and Sweden consider NATO membership" (January, 2022).
  

Some (mostly) human rights links [Note: Content Warning - reader discretion is advised!] and thoughts - Saturday 22nd January, 2022

Some human rights (including significant, relevant links in other fields - such as geopolitics, democracy, or authoritarianism) links: 

• "in an act of climate barter, Jordan is gearing up to provide solar energy to Israel in exchange for desalinated water";
  
• there is only limited time available to salvage the Iran nuclear deal;
• an interesting video on having more than two parties, including commentary that Europe's multiplicity of choice results in more stability than the USA's binary choices - and criticism of the blocking of voting reforms in the USA by two nominally Democrat Senators; 
• a very US-focused video on SLAPPs and anti-SLAPP measures, and one on the limitations of HIPAA; 
• a call for international law to recognise climate refugees; 
• Ukraine, currently being menaced by Russia, has experienced a major cyberattack - which some groups in Russia are noted for committing; 
• "70 people have been killed after an airstrike by the Saudi-led coalition hit a detention centre in northern Yemen"; 
  
• the CCP's head, Xi Jinping, has established himself as leader, but by doing so (particularly in the way he has), has created a situation where a succession crisis is inevitable, and may play out badly for him - thus compelling him to stay in power; 
• other nations are allowing the CCP to forcibly return people to mainland China;  
• an opinion that the IoC was partly responsible for the debacle of the app for the sporting event in China - where the CCP has threatened legal action against any athletes who speak out on ANYTHING that doesn't kow tow to the CCP;
  
• Sudan's military continues to appear move towards reimposing its autocratic rule by violently  suppressing dissent - at the expense of foreign aid, although their words suggest support for civilian government; 
• more calls for the junta to allow elections in Mali; 
• protests against suppression of free speech in Angola;
  
• a jailed Vietnamese journalist has been given a human rights award; 
• the catholic sect's pope has "vowed justice" for abuse victims of the church he now heads - abuse which also was reportedly enabled by his still living predecessor;
  
• the digital trail of a recent mass murderer has exposed "the violent fantasies of the ‘manosphere’";
• the misogynistic violent extremists who have power in Afghanistan have responded violently to women calling for rights;
  
• "research by the Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right (CARR) uncovered a “foul trove of racial hatred” on [social media platforms] and amongst the gaming community";
  
• the use of biometrics by Greece's police is undermining human rights; 
• a legal case has been launched against the use of facial recognition technology ("there is little evidence that the technology reduces crime, critics say. It also often fails to identify darker-skinned persons and women accurately, and its use is problematic in the absence of a data protection law in India, digital rights activists say") in India;
• a caution that aid to address Afghanistan's massive and growing humanitarian crisis "must be disentangled from concepts of political legitimacy"; 
• an opinion that "the torture of asylum seekers has twisted our perceptions of right and wrong"; 
• Australia has failed to meet an obligation under the international anti-torture convention; 
• calls to ban an abusive Bangladesh unit from peacekeeping; 
  
• "the United Nations (UN) has [reportedly] commended Nigeria for being the first country in Africa to successfully secure conviction for piracy";
  
• a criticism of changes in recent years at SBS (to this criticism I'll add SBS's aggressive harvesting of personal information, which is why I use neither their app nor their online viewing options); 
• "White Man’s Media: Legacy media in the US and UK frames and conditions our thinking and actions" - the first in a series to come; 
• "the appointment of a long-time friend to Rupert Murdoch as chair of the ACCC is dubious, given potential conflicts of interest";
• the national neolib government is putting workers at risk again; 
• more allegations of corruption (or, at the very least, unfairness and possibly arbitrariness) by the national neolibs;
  
• an opinion from the USA that "Hospital Greed Is Destroying Our Nurses";
  
• a thoughtful (and evidence-informed) reflection on why (some) mass protests fail; 
• a new theory on the causation of vigilante violence; 
• Russia is the latest government to ban cryptocurrencies.
  

"Fit and proper person" . . . a brief musing

In the society I've grown up and live in, "fit and proper" is a requirement for people in many public office positions - and, much as with "merit-based  employment", on the surface, it sounds reasonable. 

But, also as with "merit-based employment", dig a little deeper, and there  are  problems - most notably, in the context of this post, prejudice, including "unconscious  bias". 

The decision as to what is meritorious depends on the person making the decision, and thus reflects their worldview. To such a person, it may be acceptable to skip attending a child's birthday party in order to do some overtime, and that doing otherwise is not meritorious - thus, such a person's view of merit in that instance may actually be sexist, given that women are generally the ones doing the bulk of the child care. To put this another way, the view of "merit" is subjective. 

Another assumption around merit relates to university qualifications. 

Now, as a preliminary comment, my experience is that a lot of decisions around university degrees appear to be for convenience (managerial laziness, perhaps? Or human resources overload?), and without actually considering what is required for a position. In my case, for instance, because of decades of on-the-job training and experience (and some courses), I have a lot of skills that were not in my original degree. My experience of graduates - for some decades now - with the same degree is that they also may lack adequate competency in the skills I have, and in fact subsequent degrees have been developed that are what I would seek for someone to replace me (although they would be missing some other skills).
(There are other flaws associated with tertiary qualifications - see, for instance, here.)

More to the point, in terms of this post, is that such assumptions tend to rule out people  from  poorer  backgrounds, where lack of money and, in the worst cases, a forced focus on survival needs, means being able to attend uni (and this is without considering the costs of doing so [I would never go to Uni again, when I look at the debts courses leave students with] ) is not an option - but that doesn't mean the person is lacking in intelligence, application, or potential ability: they could well be capable of learning many of the skills on-the-job, and then perhaps do their degree study (with a little help) while they work. 

In fact, in my opinion one of the crimes of poverty is that it robs society of an enormous field of talent and human potential. 

The other aspect I will touch on here is straight out bigotry. 

Having developed a set of principles, there is plenty of evidence that they will be assessed unfairly - ranging from the historic reluctance to hire women on the false premise that they all want children or that having children will impede their potential to contribute to the company, to actions lumped together under "glass  ceiling". Some of the evidence includes people changing their names to seemingly Anglo names, which led to improved chances of being interviewed. 

So the flaws of "merit-based employment" include: 

• being subjective (perhaps arbitrary could apply?); 
• being influenced by cultural (things were not always this way, incidentally) and unconscious bias (perhaps that could be indirect  discrimination?); and 
• being potentially prone to bigotted implementation (e.g., see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). 

Those flaws also apply to the concept of "fit and proper", but what I particularly want to cover is an aspect of the second dot point - "cultural and unconscious bias": the focus of "fit and proper" on financial matters. 

My experience is that the most important factor (sometimes the only factor of any real world import) as things currently are seems to be the requirement for "fit and proper" people to be free of what the elites and some middle class of society see as financial "flaws" such as bankruptcy.

Now, there may be issues around unknown problems, such as an undeclared bankruptcy or undeclared prison sentences, in that the person becomes vulnerable to blackmail, but someone never having been bankrupted is no indication that they will not suffer from unconscious bias and similar problems. 

And as far as the prison sentences and other crimes go (even if they are in the areas of the position being considered), if they've done their time, they've paid society's imposed punishment and should not be subject to further punishment. And if people have concerns about whether jailing will prevent future crimes (and there are some areas I have such concerns - child abuse, violent misogyny, and violent extremism [including hate crimes] ), then society needs to consider whether it wants to consider punishment, or start moving more towards the Norwegian model of rehabilitation (where appropriate - the evidence suggests it may not be feasible with child sexual abusers, and doing so with the other two categories I raised my concerns about may also be difficult). 

In terms of those being considered for public office, I want to know that, for instance, police will not  be  biased, judges will not fail to recognise the death-dealing nature of misgendering, and legislators will not  favour  their  mates. 

Those are aspects relating to the character of the people involved - and they are flaws that are not necessarily going to be noticed by those who have the same flaws, unless those people become better people themselves. 

Properly acknowledging the importance of non-financial aspects of "fit and proper" would be an excellent first step towards that.

Some (mostly) human rights links [Note: Content Warning - reader discretion is advised!] and thoughts - Saturday 15th January, 2022

Some human rights (including significant, relevant links in other fields - such as geopolitics, democracy, or authoritarianism) links: 

• "humans alive today are witnessing the beginning of the first mass extinction in 65 million years. What does biodiversity loss mean for us and the environment?"; 
  
• thousands of Kazakhs have been arrested for protesting against fuel costs, where the Kazakh president has made inane comments about defeating "a coup" - with Russian troops . . . and the use of violent criminals, along the lines of what Assad did in Syria; 
• "legacy of the “Dark Side” - the costs [not only financial] of unlawful US detentions and interrogations post-9/11"; 
• a criticism of the USA's hypocrisy / double standards (my words) on international treaties; 
• "the 1^st February 2021 coup d’état has intensified deadly conflict and ended [Burma]’s decade-old peace process involving its many ethnic armed groups. The Tatmadaw now faces a mix of new and reinvigorated adversaries, some of whom have begun to unite behind a collective vision for a genuine federal state" - and recommendations on what should be done about that;
  
• ECOWAS has closed borders and imposed sanctions on Mali over the coup leaders' continuing delays of elections (and the USSRussia and CCP have stopped the UN's Security Council being decent enough to do the same);
  
• modern dictators in South and Central America are using hitler's abuse of democratic processes approach;
• the misuse of social media to stay in power by dictators - and their continuing use of purges; 
• as Biden is criticised for not doing enough to defend democracy (and concerns are pointed out about democracy / human rights in Brazil, Turkey, Belarus, and Cambodia), an opinion piece pointing out the losses of the extreme right, and calling for "consistent, genuine, and inspiring liberal democratic politics"; 
• "capitalism is compatible with democracy only if democracy is in the driver’s seat. But the absence of democracy doesn’t strengthen capitalism. It fuels despotism"; 
  
• a defence of boycotts as an essential part of democracy (I am disappointed the ALP was critical of the boycott being discussed);
  
• despite the slant of the words used in this article, it boils down to the neolibs actually protecting privacy - and the ALP's criticism of that is disappointing; 
• "“Biggest cyber breach in history” as techs scramble to be heard above Omicron din";
  
• German police have misused a COVID app - and Bulgaria's surveillance has breached European human rights convention; 
• "a deadly decision: The [US] Supreme Court [has struck] down OSHA's vaccine-or-testing mandate";
  
• tensions continue between the USA and Russia over Ukraine - with concerns on the risk of war, possibly with a "false flag" operation;
  
• "why reconciliation agreement between Germany and Namibia has hit the buffers"; 
• "a landmark trial to examine state-sponsored torture during the Syrian civil war" in a German court "has found a Syrian former army colonel guilty of crimes against humanity, handing him a life sentence";
  
• "UN calls for $5 billion in aid for Afghanistan to 'avert catastrophe' in 2022" - and there are other places in need as well, such as Tigray, where aid was suspended after Ethiopian air raids, South Sudan, a land of plenty facing famine because of war, and the ineptly run North Korea; 
• the staggering extent of the abuse of refugees in Libya; 
  
• violence in the Sahel may extend into West Africa;
  
• "vulnerable people in Australia are being considered “acceptable collateral losses” and has called upon the government “to recognise and remember that we’re human”"; 
• "following unanimous parliamentary approval in 2021, conversion "therapy" is now illegal in Canada"; 
•  more homophobia in sport has been called out; 
• "transgender people who start their hormones as teenagers have “far better” mental health than if they wait until adulthood, new research says";
  
• "minority and indigenous peoples’ rights defenders urge African states to address marginalisation grievances";
  
• a move from invisibility to visibility for one person with a disability; 
• "after stalling for almost a decade, Indonesia's House of Representatives is expected to debate a bill on sexual violence next Tuesday";
  
• "one of Egypt’s last independent human rights organisations has closed down . . . citing government persecution"; 
• an opinion that a culture of corruption is "engulfing" the national neolib government;
  
• many MPs have now completed their "respectful workplace" training - although I wonder if it will work with some of them (Recommendations 5 and 6 include "First Nations people, people from CALD backgrounds, people with disability, and LGBTIQ+ people"), and a notorious idiotic senator from Qld has demonstrated her need for such training by claiming she is too old to harass anyone;
• the loooooong history of conspiracy fantasies.
  

Some (mostly) human rights links [Note: Content Warning - reader discretion is advised!] and thoughts - Saturday 8th January, 2022

Some human rights (including significant, relevant links in other fields - such as geopolitics, democracy, or authoritarianism) links: 

• an assessment of how various nations/blocs have been approaching the topic of human rights in cyberspace - and some thoughts on transhumanism and human rights; 
• Canada has shown decency towards women and LGBTIQ+ refugees from Afghanistan; 
• Senegal has decided to leave its anti-LGBTIQ+ hate at the current level;
  
• as an example of the harm done by the Newtonian worldview of right wingers, this article shows that Japan and North Korea normalising relations (based on Japan apologising and North Korea returning abductees) in around 2014 was stopped by right wingers in Japan - much as "hawks" several times stopped a formal peace treaty on the Korean peninsula after the active phase of the still-continuing Korean War; 
• another example of the harm done by right wingers is this - the securitisation mindset that the evil  John  Howard introduced; 
• in a rare joint statement, more commitments against nuclear weapons by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council . . . which China has within days tried to undermine; 
  
• Iran is threatening retaliation against #45 and others over the killing two years ago of one its military leaders by the USA unless there is a "fair" international trial
  (a "fair" trial is likely impossible - for a start, any insistence on sharia law, for instance would be unacceptable: the ICC is the only "fair" international venue for trial of individuals, but the USA will not give up one of it's own for any international trial.
  Any retaliation by Iran, however, is unlikely to involve missiles as their current material suggests [they don't have the range/orbital capacity, although that may change eventually, and I doubt North Korea would want the risk of allowing Iran to use its locale/submarines and missiles - apart from the certainty of a US response, it would anger China, which North Korea still depends on for many of its survival needs],
  but might involve a "dirty" bomb [they have expertise at violent extremism [terrorism] and some nuclear materials] against US interests, but unlikely on continental US territory or Hawaii. If that is so, I hope those in possible target areas will be properly protected [travel warnings etc may be issued], and that the international community effectively manages the situation with Iran [which might require an attack of rationality - or at least management of its RWNJ "hawks" on the part of the USA].
  Subsequent drone attacks also raise the possibility of less severe responses);
  
• "On International Treaties, the United States Refuses to Play Ball" - because it hypocritically expects other nations to give up a little of their national sovereignty for the greater good, but continues its elitist refusal to do so itself (which is shooting itself in the foot again, much as it did during part of the Cold War);
• the USA has "excluded Ethiopia, Mali and Guinea from a US-Africa trade agreement" over human rights breaches; 
• also from the USA, "one year after the violent assault on the US Capitol, Americans remain deeply concerned about the health of their democracy and about a third say violence against the government can sometimes be justified"; 
• "the recent rise in coups in Africa reflects a waning regional and international willingness to enforce anti-coup norms. Reversing the trend requires incentivising democracy and consistently imposing real costs on coup makers";  
• the recent resignation of Sudan's civilian PM has been attributed to the military coup leaders reneging on an agreement; 
  
• an opposition MP in Tunisia, currently experiencing a suppression of democracy that has been likened to a coup, has been kidnapped; 
• US President Joe Biden has spoken powerfully in support of democracy and against #45 on the anniversary of #45's attempted insurrection; 
• criticism of Australia's "leaders" for following the mob instead of constructive, positive leadership;
  
• a state of emergency has been declared in Kazakhstan over violent, fatal  protests  against rising fuel prices - and Russian and other troops have arrived;
  
• the CCP has successfully used intimidation and fear to close another news outlet in Hong Kong, in its continuing campaign to silence dissent - and Western businesses continue to be cowards on China's human rights abuses; 
• the European Union's border agency has claimed a legal action against it is inadmissible - without addressing the serious allegations made - and sought costs against activists, continuing a practice which saw the European Parliament decide "not to discharge the agency's 2019 budget, the European Parliament highlighted that "charging civil society with excessively high legal fees has a chilling effect on civil society's access to justice in the field of access to documents" "; 
• concerns about an "anti-woke" backlash in Europe;
  
• Ethiopia is abusing Tigrayan refugees who have been returned from other nations; 
• South Africa's President (and government generally) is facing a challenge to properly address "damning" findings by a state commission of inquiry into corruption; 
  
• Nigeria - currently struggling against violent extremists and criminals - is missing nearly 90,000 AK47s (!);
  
• a soldier in the German army has been arrested for allegedly threatening the government over pandemic containment measures;  
• more reports on Afghan families being forced to sell children;  
• an example of the damage done by child sexual abuse;
  
• an award shows the growing awareness in Portugal of racism; 
• the "alleged creator of app ‘selling’ Muslim women [has been] arrested in India"; 
• three murderers of a black man in the USA have been sentenced to life in prison - two without parole. The judge's remarks were powerful, and included a comment to the families that sentencing doesn't always heal, and should be seen as an exercise in accountability;
  
• an encouraging report on those white people who reject racism despite being raised in the midst of white supremacism - because of empathy, strength of character, being outsiders in other ways, being touched by a story, or relationships;
  
• "There Can Be No Masters at The Table of Human Rights . . . Archbishop Desmond Tutu said, “I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights”"; 
• the "human rights of elderly and disabled people [are] ‘not fairweather luxuries’";
  
• anti-union arrests in Cambodia may be in breach of human rights laws; 
  
• short-sighted bias in rejecting applications for academic grants; 
  
• "the BMI's really old, non-medical and racist origins"; 
  
• the COVID crisis is continuing, in many forms.
  

 On journalism: 

• recent reports that NASA had hired a bunch of theologians were wrong.

Unexpected developments from the pandemic

Before I get into this topic, I want to comment on something I was told during my public health engineering lectures at uni in the late 1970s:

mosquitoes are infected by malaria as well as humans, so if we could keep every infected mosquito separated from every infected human for 28 days, malaria would die out.

Obviously, that is impossible, but isolation for a period of time is a long standing medical practice - in fact, the word quarantine comes from the 40 day isolation of ships from plague-infected nations introduced by Venice in 1377, which became generalised to any compulsory isolation in the1670s. The current use of isolation to address the COVID pandemic is an important step, but vaccination is also a must have to learn how to live with this, just as we have learned to live - with varying degrees of success - with other zoonotic diseases such as rabies, malaria, and Ebola. 

The problem we have had, of course, is that: 

• short-sighted self-interest and xenophobic dismissiveness of too many governments has led to a situation where poorer nations have been unable to deal effectively with COVID,
  
• economic and political interests in richer nations have impeded effective medical management, and 
• global interconnectedness has recycled infection, reinfection, and rapid transmission of new (and old) variants, 

and we've all suffered as a result. (This is something that is well described and assessed in Simon  Dalby's book "Anthropocene  Geopolitics", although that is in the context of the climate crisis - another situations where the response has been crippled by the same fatal flaws).

We have, as a result of the pandemic and attempts to manage it, become aware of: 

• the problem of excessive focus on economics and self-interest; 
• the fundamental flaws of patriarchal valuations of jobs, which has undervalued and thus under-invested in what are now being termed frontline workers - health care workers, supermarkets workers, etc - and associated issues such as adequate supplies of resources for transport; 
• the downside of international interconnectedness (although THAT one has been warned of for decades - see, for instance here [1995 film], here [2011], here [2002], here [1971], here [1964], this 2016 film about a 2014 real world outbreak of Ebola, - and these real life warnings here [2014], here [2019 - who wrote a book on this in 1995], and here, here, here, and this far-sighted 2013 bill from the Philippines [not adopted] ); 
• the importance of community and support; and 
• the stupidity of some of our decisions around work.
  

On that last one, probably the most noticeable effects here is the growth and likely permanence of work from home (see here and here), but there have also been a few "tree/sea changes" and, perhaps overseas more than here, what is being referred to (and possibly over-emphasised) as "the Great Resignation" (see here, here, here, and here - and note this). 

It is terrible that it has taken millions of deaths and the devastation to billions of lives of a pandemic for people to make such fundamental realisations. 

I sincerely hope we remember these lessons, and stop being so short-sighted, ultra-competitive / macho, and economics- & growth-addicted, and continue to put people first and foremost in our thinking, decision-making, planning, and governance.

More positive commitments against nuclear war

Almost one year ago, the International Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which Australia's Nobel Peace Prize winning  ICAN played a key role in formulating, "came into force". 

From my post on that: 

That means it is, as of this day, a part of international law. It is now illegal to (and I am simplifying here - text is here) develop / test, manufacture, have, transfer, receive, threaten to use or use nuclear weapons (multi-language version at https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/2017/07/20170707%2003-42%20PM/Ch_XXVI_9.pdf).

Now, from this media report:

China, France, Russia, the UK and the US have agreed that a nuclear war "cannot be won and must never be fought." 

There was also affirmation that "nuclear weapons — for as long as they continue to exist — should serve defensive purposes, deter aggression, and prevent war."

This (will also included a commitment to support ongoing efforts against proliferation) is a major commitment ("to pursue negotiations in good faith") between a key set (but not all) of those nations with nuclear weapons, and that these parties, some of whom have strong divisions on other matters, issued this as a "rare" joint declaration is VERY encouraging. 

It doesn't remove nuclear weapons, and thus doesn't fulfil the requirements of the International Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, but it is a major step towards that. 

See also here, here, and here.

The text of the full statement, from here, is: 

"The People’s Republic of China, the French Republic, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America consider the avoidance of war between Nuclear-Weapon States and the reduction of strategic risks as our foremost responsibilities.

We affirm that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.  As nuclear use would have far-reaching consequences, we also affirm that nuclear weapons—for as long as they continue to exist—should serve defensive purposes, deter aggression, and prevent war.  We believe strongly that the further spread of such weapons must be prevented.

We reaffirm the importance of addressing nuclear threats and emphasize the importance of preserving and complying with our bilateral and multilateral non-proliferation, disarmament, and arms control agreements and commitments.  We remain committed to our Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations, including our Article VI obligation “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

We each intend to maintain and further strengthen our national measures to prevent unauthorized or unintended use of nuclear weapons.  We reiterate the validity of our previous statements on de-targeting, reaffirming that none of our nuclear weapons are targeted at each other or at any other State.

We underline our desire to work with all states to create a security environment more conducive to progress on disarmament with the ultimate goal of a world without nuclear weapons with undiminished security for all.  We intend to continue seeking bilateral and multilateral diplomatic approaches to avoid military confrontations, strengthen stability and predictability, increase mutual understanding and confidence, and prevent an arms race that would benefit none and endanger all.  We are resolved to pursue constructive dialogue with mutual respect and acknowledgment of each other’s security interests and concerns."

 

As an example of the problems to be overcome, there is also this, from my coming weekly human rights post: 

Iran is threatening retaliation against #45 and others over the killing two years ago of one its military leaders by the USA unless there is a "fair" international trial
(a "fair" trial is likely impossible - for a start, any insistence on sharia law, for instance would be unacceptable: the ICC is the only "fair" international venue for trial of individuals, but the USA will not give up one of it's own for any international trial.
Any retaliation by Iran, however, is unlikely to involve missiles as their current material suggests [they don't have the range/orbital capacity, although that may change eventually, and I doubt North Korea would want the risk of allowing Iran to use its locale/submarines and missiles - apart from the certainty of a US response, it would anger China, which North Korea still depends on for many of its survival needs],
but might involve a "dirty" bomb [they have expertise at violent extremism [terrorism] and some nuclear materials] against US interests, but unlikely on continental US territory or Hawaii.
I hope those in possible target areas will be properly protected [travel warnings etc may be issued], and that the international community effectively manages the situation with Iran [which might require an attack of rationality - or at least management of its RWNJ "hawks" on the part of the USA] );

A review of the last half century by former US Secretary of Labor Robert Reich

I came across a video yesterday by former US Secretary of Labor Robert Reich giving his thoughts on the political changes of the last half century, and what has to be done to undo the damage that has been done. As always, I found the presentation engaging and thought provoking, and, for all that its US-centric, I consider it well worth a look and a think.

A lot of the general trends apply to my nation (Australia) as well - the growth of the evil of neoliberalism in particular.

However, there are a few other major items of damage that can be blamed on the evil and despicable John Howard, including: 

• enshrining racism and xenophobia - as I wrote here:
  "The debate and ranting in reaction to this legislation have, however, hardened the once shallow fault lines that Howard identified and then incised deeply into the bedrock of Australian society."
  
• start of the trend towards harshly abusing refugees aka "asylum seekers" (although the initial problem started under the ALP; see here, here, here [on the fundamental misconception], here, here, and here - and more recently, just as our racist "White Australia" policy contributed to South Africa's apartheid, so too now does our policy of punitive abuse threaten to drag other parts of the world down [see here and here]) and a more widespread contempt towards and disregard of international law, beginning with the "Tampa affair" (see here, here, here, here, and here) and continuing with the deceit and outright lies of the "children overboard" scandal (see here, here, here [the comments about the "backfire model" are particularly worth considering], and here); and
  
• perverting ordinary, everyday Australians into neoliberals who want to be rich IPOCs. As I've written elsewhere,
  "a home is for living in, not feeling, becoming or being rich or a “better” class than others"
  However, as the fictional character US President Josiah Bartlet says, in the Season 3 episode (no. 3) “Ways and Means” of the TV series “The West Wing” (at 40 min 29 sec):
  "It doesn't matter if most voters don’t benefit. They all believe that someday they will. That’s the problem with the American dream. It makes everyone concerned for the day they're gonna be rich."
  That's poison infected Australia's soul largely through the evil of John Howard, and his attempts to, in effect, buy votes.
  

I see racist Howard is still refusing to accept that the apology by PM Kevin Rudd had to be given - and, incidentally, it is the response of the Rudd Government (see here, here, here, here, and, for good measure, here) that prevented the GFC being as much of a catastrophe here as it was elsewhere.

PS - see also https://theconversation.com/cabinet-papers-2001-how-securitisation-became-a-mindset-to-dominate-australian-politics-for-a-generation-172056.