No, Jodi, you are not the only one. From your exhaustive review, the process was clearly narrowly focussed and not comprehensive. Such a dereliction of duty of care with regards to public health, which should be even more exhaustive when mandates for the whole population are involved.
Thank you! Exhaustive work demonstrating reporting bias (or simply ~ Occams Razor ~ rank laziness of "experts" and bureaucrats), or just the absence of the necessary time and willingness to conduct a systematic and thorough review of the literature surrounding the topic (or finding the minions capable of undertaking the task), all part of the same systemic faults, deficiencies, and overt incompetency that thrives in mid-wit, ideological fueled, subservient bureaucracies. Well funded policy-based evidence defeats most.
A recurring reference to "civil society" is disquieting, also seen in your bio.
If I might opine, there appears nothing civilised about ‘civil’
'Civil' is lazily and unconsciously translated in ignorance bereft of discernment, it is considered synonymous, even laced with a comforting soupçon of subliminal reassurance, all by design. It is reassuringly thought of as civilised (though that is never spoken) society, indeed this is a groomed implication. It is nothing more than a sleight of linguistic contraction, a convenient malapropism. It commands rigid ‘politeness’ (conforming and compliant) and it is reflective of tyranny. Its ordered pretense of societal trust and cohesion is an illusion. It is merely adherence.
The World Economic Forum (WEF) states: “When mobilized, civil society - sometimes called the “third sector” (after government and commerce) - has the power to influence the actions of elected policy-makers and businesses.”
Elsewhere, what is the UN foot soldiers construct, ‘Civil Society’?
UN CIVIL SOCIETY ~ Since the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in 2015, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) play an even more important role as partners to the United Nations on the ground. They support the Organization in advancing its mission and objectives and help the international community deliver this roadmap.
[civil society organization (CSO) or non-governmental organization (NGO)] CSOs provide analysis and expertise, serve as early warning mechanisms and help monitor and implement international agreements, including Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals.
Sleight Of Hand, Sleight Of State ~ Hoodwinked By Winking Hoods
I consider 'civil' from a different perspective. I'm surrounded by small business people, bright, curious, intelligent. Most are able to consider complex politico-economic issues, when provided substantive information, from a critical point of view. I understand the tradies, shop owners, farmers, health care workers, people in our communities as civil society. Where the rift may be, I believe, is when people are anxious not to consider information that might contradict the perspective of peers and co-workers, they may be employed by larger institutions.
Joseph on Constitutional and Administrative Law, in discussing whether an issue is ripe for judicial review, outlines the 'instinctual impulse' of judges - 'has something gone wrong' - and the sniff test. We know that concepts of fairness and justice are understood inherently in all humans, unless their early childhood harms their developmental processes (this can by physiologically or emotionally). Everyone of those people around me understand the instinctual impulse, the sniff test.
Civil society is all around us. Civil - relating to citizen, law and life. 'Civil servant' may seem quaint but it is grounded in law and philosophy. It reminds society that government must serve the people if government is not to be tyrannical. Just because legacy media and state bureaucracies have jettisoned the term and the WEF is clever enough to identify this - doesn't infer that the term is incorrect or misleading.
WEF will use these terms, but in WEF's framework, global business is compatible with societal agendas. WEF is there to further policy that aligns with their corporate partners, and seduce government actors into alignment with their goals. Discussion, for example, on anti-trust action, corporate power and influence, and the externalities and harms emanating from the activities of their business partners is out of scope. This is why they will discuss equity for low-income nations in terms of tech solutionism (that profits their partners) but never local and indigenous foodways. This is why methane and carbon (IP) tech is valorised, but never (no IP) agrarian solutions for drought tolerant farming. This is why social design around a future technology rhetoric suits WEF so perfectly. WEF is just responding to its stakeholders.
There will always be the gaming of language - the sophists taught us that!
No, Jodi, you are not the only one. From your exhaustive review, the process was clearly narrowly focussed and not comprehensive. Such a dereliction of duty of care with regards to public health, which should be even more exhaustive when mandates for the whole population are involved.
Thank you! Exhaustive work demonstrating reporting bias (or simply ~ Occams Razor ~ rank laziness of "experts" and bureaucrats), or just the absence of the necessary time and willingness to conduct a systematic and thorough review of the literature surrounding the topic (or finding the minions capable of undertaking the task), all part of the same systemic faults, deficiencies, and overt incompetency that thrives in mid-wit, ideological fueled, subservient bureaucracies. Well funded policy-based evidence defeats most.
A recurring reference to "civil society" is disquieting, also seen in your bio.
If I might opine, there appears nothing civilised about ‘civil’
'Civil' is lazily and unconsciously translated in ignorance bereft of discernment, it is considered synonymous, even laced with a comforting soupçon of subliminal reassurance, all by design. It is reassuringly thought of as civilised (though that is never spoken) society, indeed this is a groomed implication. It is nothing more than a sleight of linguistic contraction, a convenient malapropism. It commands rigid ‘politeness’ (conforming and compliant) and it is reflective of tyranny. Its ordered pretense of societal trust and cohesion is an illusion. It is merely adherence.
The World Economic Forum (WEF) states: “When mobilized, civil society - sometimes called the “third sector” (after government and commerce) - has the power to influence the actions of elected policy-makers and businesses.”
Elsewhere, what is the UN foot soldiers construct, ‘Civil Society’?
UN CIVIL SOCIETY ~ Since the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in 2015, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) play an even more important role as partners to the United Nations on the ground. They support the Organization in advancing its mission and objectives and help the international community deliver this roadmap.
[civil society organization (CSO) or non-governmental organization (NGO)] CSOs provide analysis and expertise, serve as early warning mechanisms and help monitor and implement international agreements, including Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals.
Sleight Of Hand, Sleight Of State ~ Hoodwinked By Winking Hoods
https://drlatusdextro.substack.com/p/sleight-of-hand-sleight-of-state
I consider 'civil' from a different perspective. I'm surrounded by small business people, bright, curious, intelligent. Most are able to consider complex politico-economic issues, when provided substantive information, from a critical point of view. I understand the tradies, shop owners, farmers, health care workers, people in our communities as civil society. Where the rift may be, I believe, is when people are anxious not to consider information that might contradict the perspective of peers and co-workers, they may be employed by larger institutions.
Joseph on Constitutional and Administrative Law, in discussing whether an issue is ripe for judicial review, outlines the 'instinctual impulse' of judges - 'has something gone wrong' - and the sniff test. We know that concepts of fairness and justice are understood inherently in all humans, unless their early childhood harms their developmental processes (this can by physiologically or emotionally). Everyone of those people around me understand the instinctual impulse, the sniff test.
Civil society is all around us. Civil - relating to citizen, law and life. 'Civil servant' may seem quaint but it is grounded in law and philosophy. It reminds society that government must serve the people if government is not to be tyrannical. Just because legacy media and state bureaucracies have jettisoned the term and the WEF is clever enough to identify this - doesn't infer that the term is incorrect or misleading.
WEF will use these terms, but in WEF's framework, global business is compatible with societal agendas. WEF is there to further policy that aligns with their corporate partners, and seduce government actors into alignment with their goals. Discussion, for example, on anti-trust action, corporate power and influence, and the externalities and harms emanating from the activities of their business partners is out of scope. This is why they will discuss equity for low-income nations in terms of tech solutionism (that profits their partners) but never local and indigenous foodways. This is why methane and carbon (IP) tech is valorised, but never (no IP) agrarian solutions for drought tolerant farming. This is why social design around a future technology rhetoric suits WEF so perfectly. WEF is just responding to its stakeholders.
There will always be the gaming of language - the sophists taught us that!