#'stewardship or responsible governance or harm reduction efforts' tag

[optionalcausality]

Not that we're quite at that stage, but:

Deepfakes are possible these days. If you have a plan to vote today (Tuesday, Election Day, in the USA) or to drop off your ballot, do so even if you see on the news that:

- Any candidate has died or been killed

- Any candidate has declared victory

- Any candidate has conceded, been arrested, admitted to a crime, or been caught on camera doing something bizarre and off-putting

- The election has been pushed back to a different date

Thank you.

[optionalcausality]

Yuuuup.

It takes time and experience to understand that the feeling of "righteous anger" can happen with no regard to whether it is:

1. Justified

2. Pointed at relevant people

3. Accompanied by a plan of action that will reduce future harm

And yes, people who have been harmed themselves are still able to be vicious and cruel when they feel "righteously" angry.

I have a lot of shame around how I've behaved when propelled by righteous anger. I don't like how often my abusers justified their actions with it, either.

I've been reading some stuff on punitive justice, and it made something click for me that I've observed a lot online but haven't been able to put into words before.

When someone does something wrong, that's bad, and the damage it does needs to be repaired while the person needs to try to do better in future to minimize repeating harm. We learn it in preschool - say sorry, don't do it again. If they keep at it, remove them from the situation where they can do the harm until they prove they're responsible enough to go back in.

So if it turns out someone DIDN'T do anything wrong, that should be a relief! There's no damage to fix, no internal errors to correct. Less work for everybody, literally no harm done. False alarm, all good.

The thing I've observed is, lots of people want them to have done something wrong. There's almost disappointment when it turns out there's no harm done. And I think that's because of this general undercurrent of punitive justice as morally righteous and desirable: someone does something wrong, you get to punish them. Turns out they're innocent? That's disappointing. Find another reason you get to punish them, or find another bad person you get to punish. But at the core of it is that desire to punish someone. Someone you can hurt in a way that makes you a better person for hurting them.

This particular brand of almost cannibalistic pseudo-justice is super common in tumblr, one of the most ostensibly liberal spaces on the internet; I see more borderline savagery in online discourse here than in the actually toxic parts of the internet that are just openly cruel for cruelty's sake. It's always thrown me for a loop, and has frankly also hurt me, because on the rare occasions I get personally dogpiled, it only actually stings when it makes me worry that I've legitimately hurt someone. If I did something wrong, or more realistically when I inevitably do something wrong, that would make it good and right for people to give me shit about it every day until I'm dead.

The thing that clicked for me most recently was this bit in Ijeoma Oluo's Be A Revolution:

Punitive justice is specifically, uniquely appealing to people who have suffered injustices. Of course it's the Tumblr zeitgeist. Everyone here is a marginalized person failed by at least one system. Punishing someone for perceived injustice is how someone the system has deemed worthless proves their value in blood, even if the person being punished hasn't harmed you directly - even if they haven't harmed anyone. "Righteous" anger isn't about the target in these cases, it's about the inflicter. This is how much my pain is worth.

And that kind of violent validation is so alluring and so very dangerous. It seeks an outlet, wearing the justification of justice. Who's in reach? Who's an acceptable target this week? What's a good reason to use?

Is there anything they could do that would make me stop?

[optionalcausality]

This is partly me being grumpy, but. If you're queer and talking to someone you're not comfortable outing yourself to, then don't out anyone you know to them.

[optionalcausality]

Things that can be true at once:

Panic about the storm is quite possibly overblown.

By the time Hurricane Hilary reaches Southern California, it will actually be a Tropical Storm rather than at Hurricane strength.

Flash flooding will be a real danger for a very wide area.

Power outages will be a very real possibility for a significant area.

Non-flash floods will also be an issue for a while, with flooded roadways affecting travel and with delayed effects from waterways overrunning their banks.

Other areas will be affected significantly more badly, and will have fewer resources to deal with the situation.

There will still be cities / communities / families in Southern California that were in no way financially ready to handle the situation, and will suffer for it.

[optionalcausality]

Ballot is now in mailbox.

[optionalcausality]

For folks in the Eastern side of North America, please keep an eye on the weather.

There's a predicted heat dome this week, which can be dangerous if people aren't prepared.

It's currently the top story on CNN's website, although I was first alerted to it by a blogger in the greater Boston metropolitan area.

[optionalcausality]

The history of HIV and AIDS is more relevant these days than I'd like.

Basically, the virus itself was circulating for a while -- certainly through the 1970s. AIDS was identified as a specific disease in 1981, after medical providers noticed a new trend of rare diseases showing up more often than previously, and of more ordinary diseases causing a heightened degree of illness in those affected, compared to normal.

In 1984, the virus responsible was isolated and identified. HIV. Well, at least then they could start looking for specific treatments like antivirals.

Now we're in a similar situation, but coming at it in reverse order. We identified the virus, we have some pretty useful treatment options, but the long-term effects aren't fully documented. There's increasing awareness that the virus weakens the immune system -- not quite like measles, not quite like HIV.

Eventually we'll probably come up with a new term for the after-effects. For now, Wikipedia has articles like 2022-2023 pediatric care crisis; Finland releases data on infants (under the age of 5, so unvaccinated against COVID) showing significant year-over-year increases in illness; China reports pneumonia outbreaks with disease severity linked directly to post-COVID immune dysfunction.

In ten years or twenty, we'll have done a lot more (UV-C bulbs in air vents, better air exchange, normalized mask use). It's not as though cholera outbreaks were resolved in only a few years, either, when that meant replacing entire cities' water and sewage systems.

It's just that the period before we get there has a lot of loss in it.

I wish people would fucking mask.

[optionalcausality]

If you're reading this, live in the U.S. and had some version of Medicaid near the start of the pandemic, please consider contacting your local office to tell them your address and phone number. Especially if you know you moved and you haven't gotten any Medicaid-related mail since.

Sincerely, a person who keeps getting Important-Looking Mail addressed to the family who lived here before me, whose contact info I do not have.

[optionalcausality]

Scheduling this for later so I can respond to it; there's no indication that the folks proposing this action are aware that digitized information is not eternal, not guaranteed safe from obsoletion, corruption, or accidental erasure.

You're a reasonably informed person on the internet. You've experienced things like no longer being able to get files off an old storage device, media you've downloaded suddenly going poof, sites and forums with troves full of people's thoughts and ideas vanishing forever. You've heard of cybercrime. You've read articles about lost media. You have at least a basic understanding that digital data is vulnerable, is what I'm saying. I'm guessing that you're also aware that history is, you know... important? And that it's an ongoing study, requiring ... data about how people live? And that it's not just about stanning celebrities that happen to be dead? Congratulations, you are significantly better-informed than the British government! So they're currently like "Oh hai can we destroy all these historical documents pls? To save money? Because we'll digitise them first so it's fine! That'll be easy, cheap and reliable -- right? These wills from the 1850s will totally be fine for another 170 years as a PNG or whatever, yeah? We didn't need to do an impact assesment about this because it's clearly win-win! We'd keep the physical wills of Famous People™ though because Famous People™ actually matter, unlike you plebs. We don't think there are any equalities implications about this, either! Also the only examples of Famous People™ we can think of are all white and rich, only one is a woman and she got famous because of the guy she married. Kisses!"

Yes, this is the same Government that's like "Oh no removing a statue of slave trader is erasing history :(" You have, however, until 23 February 2024 to politely inquire of them what the fuck they are smoking. And they will have to publish a summary of the responses they receive. And it will look kind of bad if the feedback is well-argued, informative and overwhelmingly negative and they go ahead and do it anyway. I currently edit documents including responses to consultations like (but significantly less insane) than this one. Responses do actually matter. I would particularly encourage British people/people based in the UK to do this, but as far as I can see it doesn't say you have to be either. If you are, say, a historian or an archivist, or someone who specialises in digital data do say so and draw on your expertise in your answers. This isn't a question of filling out a form. You have to manually compose an email answering the 12 questions in the consultation paper at the link above. I'll put my own answers under the fold. Note -- I never know if I'm being too rude in these sorts of things. You probably shouldn't be ruder than I have been.

Please do not copy and paste any of this: that would defeat the purpose. This isn't a petition, they need to see a range of individual responses. But it may give you a jumping-off point.

Question 1: Should the current law providing for the inspection of wills be preserved?

Yes. Our ability to understand our shared past is a fundamental aspect of our heritage. It is not possible for any authority to know in advance what future insights they are supporting or impeding by their treatment of material evidence. Safeguarding the historical record for future generations should be considered an extremely important duty.

Question 2: Are there any reforms you would suggest to the current law enabling wills to be inspected?

No.

Question 3: Are there any reasons why the High Court should store original paper will documents on a permanent basis, as opposed to just retaining a digitised copy of that material?

Yes. I am amazed that the recent cyber attack on the British Library, which has effectively paralysed it completely, not been sufficient to answer this question for you.  I also refer you to the fate of the Domesday Project. Digital storage is useful and can help more people access information; however, it is also inherently fragile. Malice, accident, or eventual inevitable obsolescence not merely might occur, but absolutely should be expected. It is ludicrously naive and reflects a truly unpardonable ignorance to assume that information preserved only in digital form is somehow inviolable and safe, or that a physical document once digitised, never need be digitised again..At absolute minimum, it should be understood as certain that at least some of any digital-only archive will eventually be permanently lost. It is not remotely implausible that all of it would be. Preserving the physical documents provides a crucial failsafe. It also allows any errors in reproduction -- also inevitable-- to be, eventually, seen and corrected. Note that maintaining, upgrading and replacing digital infrastructure is not free, easy or reliable. Over the long term, risks to the data concerned can only accumulate.

"Unlike the methods for preserving analog documents that have been honed over millennia, there is no deep precedence to look to regarding the management of digital records. As such, the processing, long-term storage, and distribution potential of archival digital data are highly unresolved issues. [..] the more digital data is migrated, translated, and re-compressed into new formats, the more room there is for information to be lost, be it at the microbit-level of preservation. Any failure to contend with the instability of digital storage mediums, hardware obsolescence, and software obsolescence thus meets a terminal end—the definitive loss of information. The common belief that digital data is safe so long as it is backed up according to the 3-2-1 rule (3 copies on 2 different formats with 1 copy saved off site) belies the fact that it is fundamentally unclear how long digital information can or will remain intact. What is certain is that its unique vulnerabilities do become more pertinent with age."  -- James Boyda, On Loss in the 21st Century: Digital Decay and the Archive, Introduction.

Question 4: Do you agree that after a certain time original paper documents (from 1858 onwards) may be destroyed (other than for famous individuals)? Are there any alternatives, involving the public or private sector, you can suggest to their being destroyed?

Absolutely not. And I would have hoped we were past the "great man" theory of history. Firstly, you do not know which figures will still be considered "famous" in the future and which currently obscure individuals may deserve and eventually receive greater attention. I note that of the three figures you mention here as notable enough to have their wills preserved, all are white, the majority are male (the one woman having achieved fame through marriage) and all were wealthy at the time of their death. Any such approach will certainly cull evidence of the lives of women, people of colour and the poor from the historical record, and send a clear message about whose lives you consider worth remembering.

Secondly, the famous and successsful are only a small part of our history. Understanding the realities that shaped our past and continue to mould our present requires evidence of the lives of so-called "ordinary people"!

Did you even speak to any historians before coming up with this idea?

Entrusting the documents to the private sector would be similarly disastrous. What happens when a private company goes bust or decides that preserving this material is no longer profitable? What reasonable person, confronted with our crumbling privatised water infrastructure, would willingly consign any part of our heritage to a similar fate?

Question 5: Do you agree that there is equivalence between paper and digital copies of wills so that the ECA 2000 can be used?

No. And it raises serious questions about the skill and knowledge base within HMCTS and the government that the very basic concepts of data loss and the digital dark age appear to be unknown to you. I also refer you to the Domesday Project.

Question 6: Are there any other matters directly related to the retention of digital or paper wills that are not covered by the proposed exercise of the powers in the ECA 2000 that you consider are necessary?

Destroying the physical documents will always be an unforgivable dereliction of legal and moral duty.

Question 7: If the Government pursues preserving permanently only a digital copy of a will document, should it seek to reform the primary legislation by introducing a Bill or do so under the ECA 2000?

Destroying the physical documents will always be an unforgivable dereliction of legal and moral duty.

Question 8: If the Government moves to digital only copies of original will documents, what do you think the retention period for the original paper wills should be? Please give reasons and state what you believe the minimum retention period should be and whether you consider the Government’s suggestion of 25 years to be reasonable.

There is no good version of this plan. The physical documents should be preserved.

Question 9: Do you agree with the principle that wills of famous people should be preserved in the original paper form for historic interest?

This question betrays deep ignorance of what "historic interest" actually is. The study of history is not simply glorified celebrity gossip. If anything, the physical wills of currently famous people could be considered more expendable as it is likely that their contents are so widely diffused as to be relatively "safe", whereas the wills of so-called "ordinary people" will, especially in aggregate, provide insights that have not yet been explored.

Question 10: Do you have any initial suggestions on the criteria which should be adopted for identifying famous/historic figures whose original paper will document should be preserved permanently?

Abandon this entire lamentable plan. As previously discussed, you do not and cannot know who will be considered "famous" in the future, and fame is a profoundly flawed criterion of historical significance.

Question 11: Do you agree that the Probate Registries should only permanently retain wills and codicils from the documents submitted in support of a probate application? Please explain, if setting out the case for retention of any other documents.

No, all the documents should be preserved indefinitely.

Question 12: Do you agree that we have correctly identified the range and extent of the equalities impacts under each of these proposals set out in this consultation? Please give reasons and supply evidence of further equalities impacts as appropriate.

No. You appear to have neglected equalities impacts entirely. As discussed, in your drive to prioritise "famous people", your plan will certainly prioritise the white, wealthy and mostly the male, as your "Charles Dickens, Charles Darwin and Princess Diana" examples amply indicate. This plan will create a two-tier system where evidence of the lives of the privileged is carefully preserved while information regarding people of colour, women, the working class and other disadvantaged groups is disproportionately abandoned to digital decay and eventual loss. Current and future historians from, or specialising in the history of minority groups will be especially impoverished by this.  

[optionalcausality]

Found out today that a nearby area is being renamed Yokuts Valley and I am absolutely delighted.

The original name was "a slur aimed at native American women" Valley, and even when I was in high school the sordid nature of the name was known. Back then, I didn't even have the concept that we could. just. Change the name to something that isn't blatantly offensive.

It's so good to see this being updated. To be reminded that with place names, as with so much else in society -- we named them in a way that was thought useful at the time. When a name no longer serves us, when it is known to cause harm to some of us, it should be replaced, and can be replaced.

[optionalcausality]

Voting Matters

I live in California. Shortly after the pandemic hit, the state decided to issue Emergency Allotments for the SNAP program - food stamps.

Anyone who was eligible to SNAP would get a supplement to bring them to the maximum amount.

Anyone who was already getting the maximum amount would also get a (smaller) supplement.

That started in, like, early or mid 2020. Drafting this in late October 2022, it hasn’t changed.

For all the flak California gets, it turns out that when there’s a freaking worldwide emergency, California’s public servants think that maybe the state should. Help people? That. Let’s do that.

(Is this perhaps more noticeable because I know a fair number of people who are 60+ and on fixed incomes? Probably. I also bet your community includes some retirees, some disabled folks, some people who are just financially struggling, for whom sudden extra expenses -- like paying a friend for gas money to take them to the store, instead of taking the bus during a pandemic -- were especially hard to manage. This affects the people you know, too.)

Every time I see people talk here on Tumblr about how their disability benefits went up slightly and then their SNAP benefits got cut, I can’t help but feel a little furious at whoever the hell their elected officials are. Because their state can do better than that.

Vote. Because your states can bloody well do better than that.

[optionalcausality]

Relatedly, send proof of your gross income with your packet!

W-2s and tax return from earlier this year (if you are required to file taxes), or things like recent pay stubs, current Veterans Benefits award letters or statement of current pension amount received each month.

If you were working somewhere and you aren't working there now, that may not be known to the folks handling your Medicaid case.

If you have moved during the pandemic, even if you told the USPS, then you should let your local Social Services office know.

Just a heads up:

If you are on Medicaid in the US you probably have not had to renew your coverage since March of 2020.

You WILL have to renew this year. The first renewal packets are getting sent out this month (March 2023). If you do not respond to them your Medicaid coverage will be terminated.

If your coverage is terminated, you have 90 days to appeal before you need to start the whole application process over again.

Please watch for this packet and fill it out if you get it! Don’t lose your coverage!

[optionalcausality]

There are many fewer traditional kimono makers in Japan now than at the height of the practice, and buying traditionally-made kimono from the artisans who sell them is the best way to keep that tradition alive.

Remember when people seriously thought wearing a kimono was supposed to be a “closed cultural practice”

[optionalcausality]

Rewilding is one of those concepts that took me a while to even process. But it's likely to be really important in the coming centuries.

Protecting large swaths of Earth's land can help stem the tide of biodiversity loss—including for vertebrates like amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds, according to a study published in Nature Sept. 27. The study, led by the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC) and Conservation International, emphasizes the importance of proper governance for the success of protected lands, and offers much-needed support for the United Nations' "30 by 30" initiative to conserve the world's biodiversity. Human activity has accelerated the natural extinction rate of vertebrates by 22 times. Such biodiversity loss can destabilize food webs and jeopardize the many benefits biodiversity provides to people, including crop pollination, healthy diets and disease control. "Humans are inextricably dependent on biodiversity for survival," said Justin Nowakowski, SERC conservation biologist and lead author of the study. "It provides food, fuel, fiber and other ecosystem services that we depend on for life."

Continue Reading

[optionalcausality]

Please, if you or a loved one is on Medicaid (or has been, within the last 3 years), double check that your local Department of Health Care Services / Department of Social Services has your current address.

Please. We get so much return mail from people whose phone numbers on file aren't working. We have the job we do because we want to help, but if we have no way to get your renewal forms to you, it's much harder.