Saturday 9 November 2019

Post No. 1,436 - Cross Posting: This Week

This post originally appeared on my political blog at https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2019/11/this-week.html.

This week I had the profound misfortune to have to travel, for work, by air - again.

The flying part was fine, by the way - it never is the problem. There is nothing like the exhilaration of accelerating down a runway, followed by gracefully easing into the realm of wind, clouds, and birds - unless an enthusiastic pilot changes that to a joyful and vigorous leap into said realm ☺ I also think we take the marvels and graceful, if mechanical, beauty of planes for granted - especially the "small" 737 I was on. Small? As you're walking to a rear seat on the tarmac (and I really must stop being stubborn, and start using a walking stick), have you looked over and seen how massive it actually is, compared to a human?

(Of course, it seems quite small on the inside, where we cattle have been crammed in closer and closer, and can no longer even do something as simple as pick something up off the floor. That, however, is why flying has become so cheap - tickets used to cost what people pay in business class these days because that is how everyone used to travel, decades ago - spread out, with fewer people on a plane and thus each bore more of the cost. The discomfort, and aggravation my back problems is one of the major reasons I dislike flying - the pain, early hours and discomfort leave me exhausted - in fact, my wonderful boss * was surprised to see me in at the office the next day, and I wound up going home early, to finish my work over this weekend [which I want to do for my clients' sake, not the company's].)

 * My current boss would be rated as the best ever, except one boss in the past gave me a 30% - literally - pay rise. I lost ~15% within 2 years of my transition in the early 90s, and the pay drift continued afterwards - which is why I distrust anyone who asks about pay expectations. 

Landing is a relief for some of my other cattle class herd, but I tend to spend my time and energy at that time critiquing the flying - note when the flaps are extended and how much, when are the wheels lowered (I think a little early on my flights during the week, which can help with stability), how was the flare, etc.

I love flying - it's one of the aspects of Richard  Bach's books that attracted me, not just the philosophy he espoused (although that has it's attractions - especially in the famous "Jonathan  Livingston Seagull").

My father was training to be a navigator when World War (part) Two ended (I still have his main training manual), and we lived close to Moorabbin airport (I thought that was a colloquialism, much as Melbourne Airport is generally referred to as Tullamarine, but it seems not - although the official name now [post 1989] includes "Harry Hawker'), and so I had a fair bit of exposure to planes (including, in 1972, seeing and hearing and incredibly noisy Fairey Firefly when it was delivered to the airport for the museum [also now renamed]), but the enjoyment goes beyond that. The best way I can put it is that, as with sailing, it gives a sense of oneness with nature - in the case of flying, with the wonderfully dynamic atmosphere, and for sailing the dynamics of wind and water.

Also, the view is freakin' terrific.

Sadly, the environmental impact isn't, and I look forward to an era of electric planes - or maybe airships? 

Going back to my trip, the main problem I have with flying is the security people. I have been misgendered countless times by , frankly, f***wits, and I have been subjected to so much aggression that I now no longer wear any of the anklets or bangles I love, and I  refuse to travel with my asthma inhaler - yes, I know that's dangerous, but that is what the aggressiveness of those people has reduced me to. At least I now take a gamble and take an insulin pen with me in cabin baggage. Incidentally, many of my sheltered, limited life-experience work colleagues do not understand that I may need to travel with checked baggage, even on relatively short trips, so that I can take and have access to things like multiple insulin pens - although I obviously cannot pack inhalers, as they are pressurised.

That leads in to the next example of the problems with security people. The woman ahead of me put her handbag on ahead of her suitcase, and then was told by the security person to return and remove aerosols from her suitcase - while stupidly bloody putting the woman's handbag through the X-ray machine, leaving it, unattended and thus at risk, on the other side of the screening area!!!

Now, the security person may have been untrained on the matter of people's personal possessions (which would be gross incompetence on the part of those doing the training), tired / overworked (in which case questions get asked about cost cutting and staffing levels), or not paying attention or not caring (in which case questions get asked about fitness to be in that role), but this is one of the many major problems with airport security: that people's credit cards, phones, money, and other vitally important personal items are treated with absolute bloody disdain, if not outright contempt.

Airport security people, are you actually really trying to make people's travel experience safe, or are you actually OK with them being exposed to theft - possibly of identity - and stressed to the eyeballs by your conduct? I've personally been convinced by your conduct over years that you have massive problems with transphobia - and I am not interested in getting into any BS about which one specifically has been transphobic: don't try that effacing excuse, transphobia is an endemic problem in the industry, that needs to be addressed accordingly, not by pretending that whatever - if anything - is being done now is adequate and thus it is only a few "rotten apples" that need to be addressed. (I also hope the casualness about people's possessions isn't an attempt to bully them into subjugation - everyone associated with any such motivation should be charged with abuse, banned from any position of responsibility, and ejected from any faith they claim to be part of.)

That last comment about "a few rotten apples" actually leads in to the topic of police misbehaviour, which has also been incredibly widespread and serious, according to revelations this week.

Let's make no mistake about it: a strip search is sexual assault, and the defensive excuses trotted out by police shows that, on some level of their being, they are aware of that.

The NSW Coroner has now recommended that, amongst other matters, NSW police stop performing strip searches - some illegal - so flippantly (and in a way that verges into child abuse territory). This is needed, but so too is an attitude change on the part of social elites who are unlikely to ever be assaulted this way, and are so glib about brushing off the real problems with what is effectively an abuse of power.

The appalling comment by the NSW Minister about this shows not only that he is out of touch on this matter, but that he is also UNFIT to be a parent, and I genuinely fear for his children's emotional development.

There have been problems in other states as well, including  this retaliation (which, from a very trivial perspective, given the damage done, is unprofessional) against a whistleblower.

And all the above follows closely on the behaviour of police at a demonstration in my home state which was so bad even the police themselves are investigating  some of it.

The problem here is, partly, that crime has become so heavily politicised. Parties try to portray to voters that they are better than their competitors, and, given the limited education on the reality of the cause, prevention and cure of crime that most voters have, combined with human fear and other failings, and the lack of human competence of many neoliberals, this has been reduced to a "who can get lower than a snake's duodenum ** competition by being tougher on crime" - all of which is not only utterly useless, but counter-productive.

Yes, we need police and judicial systems, but we also need to genuinely be safe, not to have the illusion of safety, whether that illusion be in our homes or in the security theatre enacted in airports.

We need to de-politicise the issue of crime by creating the Office of the Chief Criminologist *** (see also here [which also includes suggestions for a Chief Philosopher and a Minister Against Boredom]; police biases, shown in their defensive on the matter of investigations, and their many comments on many matters that show they are either out of touch with everyone, or out of touch with minorities, mean they are completely unfit for such a role), which, in addition to making "crime fighting" more effective, would free politicians to get back to the matters they should be addressing.

 ** The only thing of any worth that ever came out of thoroughly evil Thatcher's mouth. 
 *** My home state has the Community Safety Trustee, but that position is, in my opinion, largely aimed at focusing on the public's perceptions, and misses the point on true criminological matters. 

One other point from my trip is finding a colleague I travelled with had access to one of the airline lounges. Initially, it was just us and a few others, and toast, fruit and water (and I had some ginger ale) on tap was quite a novelty, but then it started filling with stressed, tense, business people, and I was reminded why I avoid such places. I'll happily lead them to those who think they're part of the elite. 

OK, so moving on, I'm going to quote myself from Twitter:
"I've read some suggestions that the left-right divide is no longer applicable. My caffeine deficient brain is inclined to agree, and suggests it should be those who control the means of production (Google, Apple, and Microsoft) plus the oligarchs (who control the money and politico-social elites) on one side, and everyone else on the other :) "
I've had that topic on my wish list for discussion at my local political party branch meeting for some time: when I can raise it, I may be able to circulate the articles to help the other members prepare. See:
While I'm on that, I found the following article interesting, and well worth a read:
Robert  Reich has also done a video "Would the Founding Fathers Impeach Trump?", at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY10nWdhGaw, which is worth  look (perhaps more so for anyone in the USA).

Even more controversially, a book has been released which accuses Franklin D Roosevelt of anti-Semitism:
  • "The Jews Should Keep Quiet: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, and the Holocaust", by Rafael  Medoff, pub. The Jewish Publication Society, 2019, ISBN 978-0827614703 (I think - Amazon keeps hiding this for e-books), Amazon.
I have this on my wish list, but it's still in its initial release stage, where prices tend to be higher (I don't begrudge that - want to have an initial stage where my books over $1 so I can edge sales out of one hand to two hand count), and I'll just have to wait patiently for a while for the price to come down into the range I can afford.

What I can do, however, is read a free sample - which I have done.

The sample doesn't go into the newly found material that seems to be such a key to the conclusion, but it does illustrate some age-old lobbying questions - specifically, how far do you push those whose minds you are trying to change, how much do you attribute to "the times" and how does that change how you work towards your goals, and how does any of this influence what you're trying to achieve - i.e., a change for the better, in terms of human rights.

Now, the 30s was an era where appeasement of Germany was a widespread problem - although, as John F Kennedy  pointed out, it did give the UK a chance to rearm, and it apparently stopped a bloody invasion of Czechoslovakia  (see minutes 7 - 9 of Episode One of the Netflix series "Greatest Hits of WWII in Colour"). It was also an era of widespread anti-Semitism, as pointed out in Jon Meacham's "The Soul of America" (pub. Random House, New York, 2018, ISBN 9780399589836 [Amazon] - I am preparing a review of that now).

Was FDR racist or anti-Semitic? Meacham suggests not, which is the established orthodoxy - although it seems to be fairly widely accepted that Eleanor Roosevelt, who had her own flaws, was FDR's conscience in many ways, and unsuccessful tried to persuade FDR to accept more Jewish refugees. Was FDR racist, as shown by the internment of Japanese Americans, or anti-Semitic? I'll have to read Dr. Medoff's book and then review and maybe change my opinion, so I won't write anything for now.

In the meantime, you, Dear Reader, can find some reviews here, here, and here.

Finally, the ALP's review of its electoral loss earlier this year has been released. I haven't read this yet, and I'm not sure where I stand: I need to think a lot more. While I'm doing that, there have been some interesting articles written on this, which I consider well worth a read:
  A lot of what has happened this week has got me thinking about what I term "lazy management" - doing things, like threatening drug and alcohol tests to those who don't merit such, or warning police checks "may" be undertaken (rather than only including those where they will be needed - including that in all job ads is transphobic), because others are doing it, and they either feel safety lies in a herd mentality, or they are too lazy or unable to think the matter through clearly, logically, and fairly (see here, here, and particularly here).

I see signs of this sort of lazy management whenever I challenge people on decisions on a human rights basis - rather than being able to clearly, calmly lay out the business or other justification for their decision, they bluster (much as many police do when challenged over strip searching, especially of children).

Well, people, following a formula is not going to protect you if what you are doing is not justifiable, and, as for doing something because others do, so did many people in other places and times - which contributed to the viciousness of the Middle Ages with anyone who was different (e.g., didn't go to church, or wasn't pious enough) being outcast. It lead to mob riots, pogroms, lynching, and - in its most extreme form - Nazi Germany.

Don't do it - think for yourself.

(I may expand that flaw into a standalone article one day.)

OK, so, going back to reading, there have been some other articles I also consider worth a read, including:
Enjoy :)

PS - denying harm done exacerbates the harm 
Posted by at