31 August, 2008
http://consumerist.com/5043831/mythbusters-gagged-credit-card-companies-kill-episode-exposing-rfid-security-flaws
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2008/08/court-beef-expo.html
I found both articles interesting as it displays the power that organisations weild in the US. That is, they can silence those that want to protect consumers in their quest to control the market and, ultimately, profits.
Filed by nm on August 31st, 2008 under Politics
No comments on this post yet
30 August, 2007
I have shamelessly copied this poem from another blog because is thought it was so fantastic. I hope Carl doesn’t mind - visit his blog and read some of the 600 letters he has sent to the editors of local papers on climate change
http://www.blognow.com.au/600Letters/
Dear Editor,
I have a sorry tale to tell, about a small green planet.
A tale of greed and argument, between the men that ran it.
But so you can appreciate, the subtleties involved,
We must go back a little ways, before the truth be told.
Twas early eighteen hundred, when wheels began to spin,
Pistons pumped and whistles blew, and made an awful din,
Come forth they sang, dig up that coal, this is a revolution,
By George you’re right, we’ve seen the light, at last a good solution.
Did anybody stop to think, twas too good to be true?
Did anybody wonder what was passing up the flu?
For unbeknownst to all concerned, there was a little hitch,
Of the products of combustion, the C-O-2 is rich.
Relax they said, we know this gas, tis perfectly all right,
It’s natural - harmless stuff, plants use it day and night.
And they were right, it posed no harm, to their generation,
Twas not till later times we learned, all things in moderation.
A decade after world war two, on lofty Mauna Loa,
Some measurements were taken and the boffins all said “whoa!”
Not only was the carbon there, in the atmosphere,
It oscillated season’ly, yet still went up each year!
This is not good, the boffins shook, it must have some effect,
It’s a matter of importance for the President elect.
This cannot be sustainable, this cannot last forever,
Lest something undesirable, should happen to the weather.
The years went by, no one much listened, till nineteen ninety seven,
Suits gathered in Kyoto, the greenies were in heaven.
At last, they cried, a remedy, to fix this awful mess,
Alas, they were reliant, on Australia and US.
A protocol was nutted out, the suits were resolute,
Economy! They cried, we shall not sign, if we can not pollute,
Australia plead a special case, a loophole round land clearing,
was let to pass. Who gives a toss? My aeroplane is leaving.
The treaty sat and gathered dust, till one day, a miracle,
The Russians chose, they figured best, no more would they be cynical,
With no support from Uncle Sam, the la-nd of the free.
The protocol was given birth, by majority decree.
John Howard took his every cue, to Bush he was so loyal,
He promised George a full platoon, to fight on foreign soil.
Ostensibly, twas all about, weapons of mass destruction,
Had naught to do with oil they said, a ridiculous deduction.
In two thousand six, Albert Gore, put forth a documentary,
In which he argued visually, and most comprehensively,
The truth at last was out there, no more could weasels hide,
ExxonMobil were overcome, an end to their free ride.
One other major industry, deserves a special mention,
For their eagerness to stop all moves, promoting new invention,
A motor car, you will agree, with engine of great force,
Would make an all-round better friend, without the damned exhaust.
Not only can the batteries, be charged en-route downhill,
They offer great utility, when plugged and standing still,
Our grid is very clever, an act of balance steady,
For every watt that I might need, a burner sits at ready.
A smarter grid would have reserve, to meet the unexpected,
Electric cars, the studies show, are set to be selected,
By drivers who prefer to sell, than pay for fossil dust,
and help the local wind turbine, catch every passing gust.
So here we stand today my friends, we’re all in this together.
A victim of our ignorance, at mercy of the weather.
The answer to our problem, is there for all to see.
Put your cursor in the status bar, and google “V2G”.
Regards,
Carl Sparre
Eastwood
Filed by Nomad-odyssey on August 30th, 2007 under Uncategorized
1 person have commented this post
5 August, 2007
Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the last month or so, you would all be aware of the now infamous Dr Haneef case. For our international friends however, I will shortly explain the case background. Dr Haneef is an Indian national working at a Gold Coast hospital and also happens to be the second cousin of one of the terrorists in the recent Glasgow bombings. He was the first person to be charged under the new Australian anti-terror laws. The charge was aiding a terrorist organisation after Dr Haneef’s sim-card was allegedly found in the burning jeep that drove into the airport entrance. Dr Haneef was kept for 10 days without charge or interrogation, after which he was released on bail only to have his visa revoked and thus was placed in detention. Since then, the charges have all been dropped after it was found that 1) the sim-card was not in the jeep, rather 300 miles away at his cousin’s house. 2) The sim-card had been given to a cousin a year ago. 3) The Australian Federal Police had written names of known terrorist suspects in Dr Haneef’s diary and then proceeded to question him about those names. There were also a number of other “bungles” and facts in the case but you basically get the idea. These “bungles” have since lead to all charges being dropped and Dr Haneef basically being deported back to India. The case has shown the gross incompetence of the Australian Federal Police and Department of Public Prosecutions, in fact the whole affair is a complete embarrassment to the Australian justice system.
The Haneef affair also brings to light further issues – particularly the new anti-terror laws. In my opinion the biggest issues with these anti-terror laws is that the presumption of innocence is non-existent. The fact that they can hold you for weeks without charge and keep you in isolation…i.e. treat you like a criminal without any hard evidence or charges is unbelievable. John Howard argues it is better to be safe than sorry…I wonder how he would feel if he were in Haneef’s shoes. If there is strong evidence that a suspect is engaging in terrorist activities and that evidence has been scrutinized and tested – like for any other criminal, then I have NO problem with holding the suspect and following a hard-line approach. What I do however have a problem with, is rushing a case, cutting corners, fabricating facts and evidence and not giving the suspect a fair trial. Now obviously there is a lot we do not know in this particular issue and you cannot believe everything you read, as I said if the man is guilty than he should be put away for the next ten life-times and we should have a zero tolerance approach to terrorism, but at the same time the standards must be met and investigation procedures must be followed, otherwise a real terrorist will bloody get off on some technicality one day. I really do hope the AFP and DPP learn a good deal from this whole affair and get themselves in order so that such incompetence does not happen again.
I must admit I was also pleasantly surprised at the amount of support Haneef got from the Australian public, who basically demanded an inquiry and his release. It is encouraging to know the public still believe in democracy and upholding the law – particularly a fair trial.
Let me know your thoughts on the whole affair? Did anything particularly annoy you? Are these anti-terror laws warranted? Get involved guys and leave a comment as I am certain you all have an opinion on this.
-Swissbeats
Filed by Swissbeats on August 5th, 2007 under Politics
1 person have commented this post
30 July, 2007
Assumptions invade our life and are an integral part of our identity, they can influence us in a myriad of ways and yet we often spend very little time contemplating them. Some assumptions we make have the power to dictate the way we react to life, determine the decisions we make, who we become friends with, whether we are religious or not and what we think will happen when we die. This article is an effort to motivate you to consider some of the assumptions you make in your life and their implications. Assumptions are difficult to identify because they are often sub-consciously made as part of the decision process. We often make decisions without even acknowledging the assumptions that we have made. For example, we often assume that because it is grey and cloudy outside, it will be cold and we dress appropriately. This is a very simple example of an assumption made on the basis of past experience, but what if other factors change or we don’t have any past experience to rely upon?
Take for example a recent re-run of the ‘Chasers War on Everything’ when one of the crew pulled a stocking over his head and walked into a number of retail stores. The reaction he got from some startled shop keepers was quite impressive, with one even calling the police! The shop-keepers have found themselves in an unusal circumstance and incorrectly assumed that the cast member was a robber because he was wearing a stocking over his head. The world is a complex, twisted and intertwined place and assumptions provide us with a tool to minimise the amount of thinking we need to go through in order to make a decision. Assumptions also fill in gaps in our knowledge, providing essentials answers to us when we don’t have the actual answers. For example, some people may assume that heaven exists and that one must be a good person to gain entry to heaven after death and act accordingly, whilst others may assume that after death there is nothing, and will act accordingly – without the inhibition of consequence.
When a voter submits a donkey vote they could be assuming a number of things; that other voters will do the right thing, that they are powerless to create change, that their vote is meaningless or that they are not informed enough to make an accurate decision, among others. When we decide to drive instead of travelling by public transport we may be assuming that climate change is not as important as all those scientists say it is. When people keep buying petrol for their cars regardless of price, oil companies would appear fairly safe in assuming that its reasonably safe to keep increasing prices. Everyday people make many, many decisions and each of those decisions will incorporate at least one assumption, some more important than others. The assumptions we make assist other people in identify who they think we are, much the same as the way one dog sniffs another dogs butt. Make enough bad assumptions and eventually the bad smell will catch up with you. Please, consider your assumptions, they affect us all.
Filed by Nomad-odyssey on July 30th, 2007 under Uncategorized
2 persons have commented this post
16 July, 2007
Oz in 30 Seconds’ is your chance to vote for the first political ad authorised by the Australian Public.
Hundreds of Australians have made their own political ads about the issues that really matter to them and now it’s up to you to vote for your favourite. Come election time ’Oz in 30 seconds’ will broadcast the winner on national prime time television.
Visit http://www.ozin30seconds.org/vote/videos to view the videos and vote for your favourite.
The ‘Oz in 30 Seconds’ campaign was kicked off by Getup who are an independent, not-for-profit community campaigning group. They use new technology to empower Australians to have their say on important national issues and every campaign they run is entirely supported by voluntary donations. They receive no political party or government funding and their success depends on the apathy of the Australian public. Please go directly to www.getup.org.au to show your support for this fantastic organisation.
Many Thanks to LG who brought this initiative to our attention.
Filed by Nomad-odyssey on July 16th, 2007 under Uncategorized
1 person have commented this post
9 July, 2007
After reviewing the previous post on “Sicko” and through discussion in the comments section, I thought it would be a good idea to discuss CSR a little bit further. In the present business world, CSR has become the new buzz word of the times. After the great collapse of Enron and similar companies (HIH, World.com, One-tel etc) the public and employees in general have demanded greater social responsibility and more accountability from companies. CSR is NOT corporate philanthropy i.e. giving generous donations to charity every now and again. The firm must incorporate CSR into their entire business model and long term strategic plan- it must be included in the way they do business and how they do business, it must be within their vision and mission statements. Westpac believe that they not only need a legal license to operate, but also a social one - therefore they are at the mercy of customers to determine whether they are a socially responsible banking institution.
CSR is costly to implement as it may involve changing your entire business model and systems, it might even mean changing your products or exiting from profitable markets. The advantage however, comes through sustainability that CSR brings to the business. The idea is that companies that endorse and conduct CSR will be more profitable in the long run than those that do not. This profitability stems from the creation of not only a more favourable image of the firm amongst consumers and the public, but also creates better integration with the external environment which decreases risk and thus stimulates greater sustainability. In addition to this, sustainable companies attract the best talent and exhibit qualities that continue to build the business.
There still is plenty of debate as to whether CSR brings any real effect to the business. Classical economists such as Adam Smith and Milton Freedman argue that businesses should only be producing goods at prices which consumers can afford- profitability and efficient allocation of resources is the sole purpose and additional costs such as CSR are outside the duties of the firm. Others view CSR as simply executives trying to “do good” to improve their image. On the other hand CSR is seen an essential tool to ensure sustainability. One of the problems with CSR is that it is quite hard to measure. Many companies have began evaluating their business through a “triple bottom line” approach that includes - Profitability, Social Justice and Sustainability. An Australian group started a “CSR Index” to do just that - measure CSR within companies and to go as far as providing a benchmark and guides for companies wishing to conduct CSR. The evidence seems to show that CSR does indeed improve sustainability and business performance with the likes of Toyota, Westpac, ANZ and BHP all on top and doing very well. The index is very good because once you’re on there, you have committed the company to transparency and ethical behaviour - such that profit is merely a symptom and not a determinant of corporate success.
One has to ask questions as to why only a handful of companies have entered the CSR index. Most likely a number of them know they would not meet the criteria nor be able to handle the backlash when the company is transparent and at the scrutiny of the public. One also must wonder about those companies who have commited but are at the bottom of the list - should they be commended on their effort, or criticised that they’re not doing enough??
CSR still remains in a very grey area - there is no definitive approach or measure to determine the real effect to the business. It would appear however that many companies are beginning to adopt CSR - particualrly in the area of environmental sustainability (such as Murdoch going Carbon Neutral.) I suppose I must still wonder how certain companies such as those in the Alcohol and Tobacco industry could ever hope to adopt CSR when their products and purpose is harmful.
Let me know your thoughts on CSR! Any examples where it’s being implemented and working? any criticisms on it? waste of shareholder dollars? is it necessary? looking forward to some discussion…
Corporate Responsibility Index - http://www.corporate-responsibility.com.au/
-Swissbeats.
Filed by Swissbeats on July 9th, 2007 under Economy & Finance
4 persons have commented this post
6 July, 2007
Dear our beloved readers!
We here at winkman.org would love for all of you reading our articles to leave your comments and thoughts. Not only is it great feedback for us, but also it provides further opinions and ideas on the issues being discussed. Everybody has something to say and our aim is to write articles that provoke discussion, debate and curiosity. It is very easy to leave a comment to any of our posts. All you have to do is click on “no comments (or # amount of people have commented) on this post” this will then take you to the comments page. Here all you must do is fill out your name (or alias), email (which will NOT be published, nor will you receive any kind of spam whatsoever) and your comment. After you have commented, you just need to type out the two words in the box. (Our spam prevention tool) It’s that easy!!
Also note - the first time you comment, we at winkman will need to approve it before it is published. After the first comment is approved, your comments will automatically be approved from then on. So we really hope all of you reading will get in there and give us your thoughts and comments on our posts, so that we can further discussion and utilise the website!
Cheers,
The Winkman.org Team
P.S. Those of you, who are interested in posting articles, feel free to contact us - we’d love to hear from you.
Filed by Swissbeats on July 6th, 2007 under Uncategorized, Economy & Finance, Philosophy, Religion, Politics, Environment, Art & Culture, Sport
No comments on this post yet
5 July, 2007
The Australian government is finaly admitting that the war in Iraq is about oil, among other things.
A report is to be released today discussing the future of the engagement in Iraq and Afganistan and the factors the government has taken into consideration in making its plans for the future.
The ‘War on Terror’ was publicly promoted as a war for freedom when it was first breached. members of the public were lead to believe the Australian government was doing this for their safety and to ‘free’ the Iraqis and Afgans. Many suspected that the war has as much to do with securing the supply of oil than any warm and fuzzy feelings coming from freeing a nation.
This deceit can be added to the list of numerous other deceits perpetrated by John Howard and his band of merry men, on the trusting Australian public.
Check out the following articles for more info:
1. The ABC
2. The Age
Filed by Nomad-odyssey on July 5th, 2007 under Uncategorized
1 person have commented this post
1 July, 2007
Recently I was priviledged to be one of a few lucky people to see a screening of Michael Moore’s ‘SiCKO’. Whilst the focus of this documentary is the American health system, the movie carries a moral that applies to all countries and all people. Fight for your rights. Vote, protest, be an active member of your community, lobby politicians, put up bill boards promoting what you believe in, leave comments on random websites and fight for your rights!
The documentary investigates the state of the American health system and questions why it is profit orientated? Why are insurance companies rewarded for refusing service to people, why are medical directors rewarded for finding clauses in peoples health insurance contracts? The documentary follows this theme through to ask that in the United States of America (of all places), how is it possible that a hospital can refuse service to a person at the prerogative of an insurance company?
Personally the contrast between the Canadian system, the UK system, the French system, the Cuban system (although likely to be at least a little opportunistic) and the US system was priceless and most effective at getting Moores point across. It will hurt Americans where they fear most - their wallets and their national pride.
No country is perfect and the balancing job that is a national budget is no easy task. Unfortunately, people don’t always review a budget on how well it allocates resources, but on how good it is expected to make our standard of living. Whilst France may have an excellent health system (#1 according to World Health Organisation) it has much social unrest, and Australia has no halo either. But what rings true is that if a government has money for war and killing people, it should have money to save them as well. Top of the list on any budget should be Education and Health, but I wonder where Education really stands with Johny - after all if you keep the people stupid and scared you can control them a lot easier!
As usual Moore leaves a lot out of of the documentary which helps emphasize his point, but I thinks its his best evidenced doco yet. I applaud his efforts and hope you will all follow a little of his example and not be afraid to tell our government what we think of it (preferably by leaving a comment on this post!)
Filed by Nomad-odyssey on July 1st, 2007 under Politics, Art & Culture
3 persons have commented this post
12 June, 2007
It’s time to consider writing my next piece for Winkman. As such, I’ve had to consider a topic of conversation. Richard Dawkins may have provided me with some inspiration with his documentary, The root of all evil?
Dawkins is an atheist and believes that religious belief clouds the mind and discourages critical thought. The recurring theme in his documentary is that religion is dependant on the blind faith of its followers and that while this appears to be relatively harmless concept, it leads to the kind of fanaticism that inspires youths to walk into crowded markets with bombs strapped to their backs. He argues that the only way for the human race to move forward is to be completely rational in our decision making and his means of doing so is to accept scientific reasoning over religious belief. According to Dawkins, science is the logical process of forming a hypothesis and looking to prove/disprove it through the collection of evidence and subsequent debate among peers. However, he fails to mention that science can generate the same fanaticism as religion. The theory of social Darwinism when interpreted by a fanatic can be as detrimental to society as any form of religious fanaticism.
It is not necessarily the initial belief that is harmful, but the interpretation of this and the context in which it is interpreted. One situation can easily be manipulated depending on the motive of the group or individual by which it is interpreted. Almost as a game of Chinese whispers, the interpretation can be passed down the generations. The message can be manipulated to suit the people who are passing on the word.
The provision of an open forum for the discussion of issues and events is something of an ideal that has circulated for centuries. However, considering the size of the population, there will always be the need for elected representatives to make this ideal function in a practical sense. To make it work, though, it also requires an active community. That is to say that, if the community remains uninformed, then the representatives are given more freedom, with less accountability, to manipulate circumstances.
So amidst my ramblings I suppose it’s not necessarily the initial belief that is the problem, but the extremes in its interpretation – fanaticism and apathy.
Filed by Scooby on June 12th, 2007 under Philosophy, Religion
2 persons have commented this post