Who ordered the car bomb that killed Maltese journalist Daphne Galizia? (2018)
npr.org
npr.org
I have seen this at a smaller scale in several companies. Human resources will negate any wrong doing of abusive upper management to avoid "damaging the company". As, many good employees leave the company, lack motivation or passive-aggressively sabotage projects the company suffers massive damage, losses opportunities and money.
The people protecting corruption or abuse are not all evil, none of them is in moral high-ground, thou. But, it is the way companies are designed to reward personal loyalty to upper-management what makes the so prone to corruption and inefficiencies.
Design a company, or a country, that rewards loyalty to the company - not to the managers or rulers - and it will be extremely successful.
Meanwhile we are stuck in a situation that even assassination takes a long time to untangle and have an effect. It could be worse, at least we know what happened and we are free to talk about it. Improvement takes one step at at time.
Are you advocating for profit sharing/wealth redistribution in a really indirect way?
Why not? I would support mandatory stock options based on the number of employees. In reality though, I think it would be defeated by creative accounting just like taxation.
1/ Drawing a salary is profit sharing.
2/ Keeping your job is a reward.
> 1/ Drawing a salary is profit sharing.
People still get paid when companies don't turn a profit.
The point is: once your livelihood depends on being part of an organisation, your judgement about that org can’t be completely impartial.
You can be loyal to the values that your company represent or the values you expect it to hold.
A company that behaves callously doesn't reflect well on the employees that represent it.
These employees may have higher expectations of what their company behaviour should be.
You don't need to reward people with money for them to defend that.
Loyalty is required for any systematic, organised, group-based corruption, however.
Typology of corruption: http://corruptioncontrol.com/Types_of_Corruption.html
And that, right there, is why the hideously corrupt hate Wikileaks so so much. Wikileaks publish. Always. Their reputation on it is rock solid.
If you're corrupt or involved in a cover up you gotta hate that. And do everything to destroy it.
Assange is not a Russian agent, and Wikileaks is not a Russian operation, and never was. It just so happens that the majority of dire, desperate corruption that Wikileaks revealed, was indeed committed by Western entities. This does not mean that Russia doesn't have its problems - but it has not committed war crimes and other very real crimes against humanity at anything near the scale of the criminal Western war coalition and the member 5-eyes nations.
Please, inform yourself as to the nature of the very real agitprop campaign that has been waged against Wikileaks, and in so doing - have the courage to see Assange for the hero he really is.
That seems really reasonable. Beyond the obvious thing that seems not to been mentioned; you can't publish what you don't have.
Separate to that FP note themselves in this very article the concrete support for exactly what Wikileaks claimed. The previously published trove was published later in full, elsewhere to zero interest, including zero interest from FP. Beyond some anti-Assange spin seen here. The author of this piece doesn't have their heart in it though, do they? They want us to know all that so wrote it quite clearly for everyone to see.
But yeah, spin it all to something nefarious because the existence of Wikileaks is kryptonite for corruption so everyone needs to unite against it. /s
Oh and Biden is a racist, misogynist, corrupt, senile idiot. Just like Donald. Congratulations democracy. But make sure you don't notice that because failure to pick a party and see no evil in it means you're a Russian asset. Just ask Hilary.
If you notice the way trump talks, it’s always about loyalty to him personally, not the country.
You can freely be dishonest, and weaponise that dishonesty, and thus profit from it, in conditions where secrecy is elevated as a norm. The nations with the greatest secrets are also the most corrupt.
This journalist’s death occurred well before I arrived but one does not need to look hard to the marks she left: there’s graffiti and stickers mentioning ‘Daphne’ all over the place. The prime minister Joseph Muscat was eventually forced to resign in January of this year over her death.
And yet, there’s a general sense that this case will never be satisfactorily closed, that the full story will never come to the surface, that the truth will never be known.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Politkovskaya
Sadly the list of journalists killed because they didn't want to sell out is long and growing steadily.
(name of an album by postrock band Explosions in the Sky https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3H8y4ohO-s)
https://www.amazon.com/Journalism-Worth-Dying-Final-Dispatch...
One thing that struck me about the book was how everyone in the Russian system felt like they had to lie, because no one knew who was in charge.
Members of the Russian government beat, tortured and occasionally killed other members of the Russian government. Prosecutors eventually became terrified that if they went after anyone who was well connected, they could end up dead. Yet it was impossible to know who was well connected. Putin benefitted from the chaos, he was able to make it work for him. We see this a lot with the current wave of authoritarianism; leaders are rarely setting themselves up as absolute rulers like Stalin or Hitler, instead, they are making themselves invisible, and relying on chaos so they can maintain power. Right now Putin is fighting for a new Constitution which will make the formal leader of Russia extremely weak -- but he's planning on handing that role to someone else. Putin will continue to control things from the background.
Kaczynski, in Poland, is not a rational individual, but he has very much fine tuned what seems to be the modern model for authoritarian rule. I suspect 25 years from now we will look back and see that Kaczynski's style of rule has become more frequent than Orban's style of rule. Orban is setting himself up to be shot down. Kaczynski hides in the background.
The absolute lack of sophistication in their messaging[0] is turning large demographics away from politics, and in many cases, the country.
[0]: They explain COVID-19 as an evil plan by George Soros, of course. The opportunity didn't occur to them for a long time, but the brilliance prevailed.
Edit: Found link to report on it in english. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-politics-idUSKBN20...
I think it's a much cleaner tactic for powerful people to simply spend plenty of air time vilifying their enemies and let mentally ill people at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder do their dirty work.
This way no important people ever come into contact with the terrorist(s), so they'll always have plausible deniability.
And I think you’re going to win; you've got these Senators, these jobs have virtually disappeared, an embarrassing commitment to the White House and the Old Post Office. I couldn’t care – sever ties?” I said, “I can’t believe it.” The pundits – you know what was going on, they knew exactly, but they’re mostly made in South Korea’s getting frisky. Right?
4 Episodes a ~30min:
https://share.transistor.fm/s/81b87c83
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/my-mothers-murder-epis...
There are countries that are not as hopeless where I can see potential for change, or so it seems at least: https://www.dw.com/en/murder-of-jan-kuciak-13-judges-arreste...
I mean, it ought to be fine, but if a country were to let politicians pick the judges, that would be a problem right?
Like maybe one elected politician just gets to pick anybody he wants, friend of a rich donor maybe, and they're now a judge even though they've no relevant qualifications?
Not mentioning any particular North American countries whose name begin with the letter 'U'.
USA has many problems, but its Constitution is not one of them.
I, and many others consider our country to be experiencing a constitutional crisis, so I politely refute your assertion.
How is this a defense from corruption? The judicial is gated by the corruption from authority. This process is why judges are largely grouped into conservative or liberal appointments...because the Supreme Court Judge positions are almost always the result of a specific political environment. At any given point in time, there is a large pool of technically qualified judges. Who gets vetted (politically) is the topic of discussion, in the confirmation hearings.
I doubt that it'd ever work. Too few of the oppressed masses would ever be motivated enough to participate, or would risk it, even if they were. And so it'd mostly get more journalists etc assassinated.
But still, it was a cool statement, back in the day.
But if you don't have that system setting it up will require violence - either externally applied or internally.