A Question of Ethics

I have attended my first meeting of the local writers group and find it incredible - not only is there a great range of people, there is also the opportunitiy to have my work critiqued.

And now I have a problem. The group meets at the local club. And the club has pokies.

I am from a state that doesn't have the ubiquitous poker machines - well they are in the casino but that is it. Over here they are in every pub and club. The money from these allegedly goes back into the community - and about5% of it actually does. The rest of it goes into promotional activities for the venue (for example cheap eats) or just into the general revenue. Most venues scream that they woldn't remain viable without these gambling mosters that flash and scream at the patrons, urging them to gamble more and more.

Now I accept that not all gamblers are problem gamblers, and there is a vast range of alternative places for one to gamble if the machines weren't there but I made a decision I wouldn't become a member of any venue that had pokies.

So now what to do. I have to join the club to attend the writers group. Do I join and compromise myself, or do I keep my principles and miss out on developing my craft in this way? I have discounted the option of discussing it with the group - when you question pokies over here, people look at you as if you had just sprouted a new head. And the two people I have mentioned it to in passing point out that I am only there to use the meeting space, and I am under no pressure or obigation to gamble so it is no big deal.

What to do, what to do ....

Image: "Gambling Gummy Bears" by radioPooh

Decisions, Decisions

The State Election is coming up on Saturday and I am genuinely struggling with who to vote for. The Greens are an easy first preference but that isn't going to get me anywhere so I have to decide on who is going to get my number two vote.

Option 1: The state Labor party has been in since Adam was a child and is making a real mess of things. Not to mention they are self-imploding. And, I have vowed an declared to never vote for Labor again due to their refugee policy.

Option 2: The incumbent member is from the National Party. Now he is an excellent local member - advocating for a full range of local groups (such as the local hospital) as well as having provided me personally with excellent service on the occasions that I have had to contact the office. Having said that, the party is anti-gay marriage, anti-republic, anti-so many many things that I find important. Bit of a dilemma here.

Option 3: Lunatic fringe (Christian Democrats) - not a chance.

Option 4: Independent. Hmm, well I got a flyer from an independent in the local newspaper this week (see photo). No policy details, no contact details. Being an intrepid sort I hunted him down anyway. I asked what he stood for. He replied that he would represent what we (the electorate) wanted. Sounds good but such a cop out. I explained that he wouldn't be holding a referendum before each vote so where did he stand on the popular issues. Got a heap of spin as a reply - oh he tried to sound genuine but I have been around long enough to understand it is just empty spin (with a lunatic fringe crossed with a populist tinge). And he is very focussed on the southern part of the electorate and don't believe he has any intention of doing anything real for my section. And he is incredibly naive in the small suggestions he did put forward - a policy needs to be integrated to be realistic, not just a knee-jerk reaction. Why can't an independent be a candidate who actually has real opinions - who actually stands for something real, who has a belief, a plan. I might not agree with them but it would be oh, so refreshing.

So now I am still none the wiser on where my second preference will go. Two more sleeps to figure it out ....

Ethical Dilemma

There are so many ethical choices to make each day.

To buy cheap milk from Coles - easy decision - NO. It isn't ethical for the survival of the dairy industry. The same applies to their free range eggs.

To support GM food - easy decision - NO. Graham did add a factor for my consideration - that being that many of the GM advances are really just a fast-forward of the natural breeding that farmers and producers have been doing for years. That is true but I object to the ethics of the food I eat being owned by Monsanto and co. I also object to the farmers not being able to store seed - especially those in developing nations. I really object to cross-species breeding in both plants and animals.

To support a price on carbon - easy decision - YES. It is only fair that the real price of products and services is part up for consideration in my decision making process.

To attend a wedding in Fiji - easy decision - NO. But what if it was my brother, or daughter or someone else of similar importance .... hard decision - UNSURE. I don't want to do anything to support the junta (including buying Fiji water - easy decision - NO) but if the couple had made their decision and weren't going to change it, I am not sure what I would do. I am not even sure there is even a "right" or "wrong" decision to make in this case - there are winning and losing arguments on both sides. Hmmm .... have to continue to ponder this one (and it is only a hypothetical for me).

Image: "the choice" by FaeriGirl

What Price Freedom

Once again I find myself watching in awe people for the basic right of a vote in a free and fair election. I am somewhat overwhelmed at the bravery and fortitude shown by those that are in the streets. Some face beatings, others torture and 'disappearances' to themselves or their families.

And again I reflect on those imbeciles (I am over being polite) who live in "free" countries like Australia, the US or most of Europe that refuse to vote - or for some, to even register to vote.

No government is perfect and I wouldn't pretend to claim otherwise. I know a number of ignorants and as much as I try, I don't understand. One example (just a random) refuses to enroll and vote because 'politics is silly' but she still enjoys working as a public servant and being paid directly by the government. This same person enjoys (it is her 'right') to free health care, access to Centrelink periodically, travel overseas, the ability to call the police and have them respond in a timely manner and sending her children to school. 

Voting is not a right but a privilege and while we live in a country that has freedom of speech, no secret police, and free and fair elections, not to vote is somehow sacreligious. 

The Chicken Update (and Beef and Pork)

Since deciding some months ago to only buy free range (preferably organic) chicken my consumption has dropped from a few times a week to maybe once a month. Two reasons for this - the product is harder to source, and I have decided to pay a fair price for the product (about double what cage birds cost) so it is less easy to fit in the budget.

So, I have been buying Lilydale chicken on the occasions that I do buy it but some further research has made me pause again. Their stocking rate comply with the FREPA standards (not the "new and improved" free range standards that give the birds an area not much bigger than their body size to stand on - still better than cage standards but not my idea of "free range") but it has been pointed out by my ever wise food guru (that would be you Graham) that the amount of manure produced is unsustainable for the land they are grazing on.

So now I have written to them to find out what they do with it. And chicken is again off the menu until I work it out. On the same subject, I have found a producer that fits into my Food Mile goals that is now selling their product in Coffs - I will give them a call tomorrow re stocking rates and manure to see if they are a viable alternative.

All bacon and ham purchases are also on hold until I can find a supplier that can guarantee that the pork is not a subsidized imported product - I think I have a lead there. And my beef is still grown on a farm 6 km down the road. And no I don't eat a lot of meat anymore.

PS - I know the Isa Brown is an egg chook not a meat chook but it was so pretty lol

Girl Power!?!

So we have a new PM. What does it mean?

Well for a start she is a woman so part of me jumps for joy with "go girl". Another part of me asks if that isn't patronizing (at least a little bit). Being a woman will affect her leadership because it affects us, her voters. Between the existing focus on her hair styles, and a woman making it in a blokes world her actions will be judged not only on their "rightness" but on how her gender imposes on it. And while Tony Abbott can be seen as the "boxer" having a swipe at Kevin Rudd, he can't he seen lobbing punches at a "girl".

Now I think it was bleeding obvious that Kev had had his run - got us through the financial crisis in a sterling manner but his micro-management style sucked and he had lost too much credibility to ever be able to claw back his popularity (two thumbs up to Tony Abbot for his Machiavellian tactics in that regard - it was a masterpiece of political theatre watching that one happen - not that I am sure Machiavelli is popular with the voters but that is another story) so change needed to happen for the sake of the ALP having any chance at the election.

On a policy level? Well we will just have to wait and see on that one. Will it encourage me to vote Labor - possibly not.

We live in interesting times .... and I am so glad that politics is one of my favorite hobbies lol

Two Thoughts on Food

First thought: If we import such a huge amount of pork from Canada (some say 85%, others 50%, lets just agree on 'a lot') where is it?

The major supermarkets brand their pork cuts as "Australian" so it isn't their. My reasoning is that it must be in the ham and bacon. Now I have done a random survey over the past few weeks and all of the products I can find are labelled "Made in Australia using local and imported ingredients" (or variations of that). I understand that processing is required to turn pork into ham or bacon and that additional ingredients are required and that, as such, it does comply with our labeling laws but .... I mean take a piece of bacon, remove all the pork (from Canada) and there isn't a whole lot left to be called Australian! Something has gotta give on this one ....

Second thought: I am contemplating food security again. I may be wrong but it is my impression than we have pretty much learnt all we can to maximize production of our conventional crops using techniques and inputs to improve soil, encourage growth, and minimize the impediments of weeds and pests. That isn't to say that all farmers across the world use these techniques, or that they can't be tweaked for future improvements.

As we look to the future, to feed the future global population we will need to move away from "conventional" and into what will be the "new-conventional". This obviously includes the increased reliance on genetically modified food, vertical farming and food substitutes.

On this last point, they have almost perfected fake meat that tastes like chicken - and before we all say yuk and admit that we would never eat that, think about all of the other fake food that we eat - olestra, saccharine, cheese in a can, the list goes on. In fact any prepared food contains ingredients that would never go into the real recipe and we would never choose to eat.

It may be easier to reduce food waste and change our attitude to food but that is too much to ask. I honestly am beginning to think that my generation might be the last that will remember "real food" - I have already ranted about the younger generations (say anyone under 30) not knowing about real milk, what a real tomato tastes like, not knowing how to cook from scratch and how most of them accept GM readily (or with complacency), and all the rest.

The world is a changing and the more I think about it, the less I like this aspect of it.

Level Paying Fields

Australia does not subsidize their farmers like the EU and the US do and it is a great source of angst when one is trying to be competitive on the world stage.

Australia does though subsidize many industries, including agriculture, through direct investment, tax breaks for the film industry, items like the diesel fuel rebate for mining and agriculture, subsidies like the one that was implemented to "save" the sugar industry or to compensate dairy farmers when faced with deregulation after a 10 year warning that it would occur, import duties which affect any number of industries. There are also incentives for manufacturing, technology and education industries, to name but a few.

And is landcare a subsidy or an investment? I think it would depend on your "green" credentials. And is government "incentives" for the car industry in South Australia self-serving? I think it depends on whether you are one of the workers or not.

I am not arguing that this is right or wrong - it just is, a reality of the global world that we live in. And it could be argued that is still doesn't compete with the direct subsidies given to US or UK farmers (I am not even getting into French farmers lol). And it is difficult to compete financially with, say, Asian economies where the wages and standard of living is so much less than our. Layer onto that the requirements of various trade agreements we have entered into (is there any other way of describing the one with the US as "we got screwed" and everyone involved should be in sack cloth and ashes and tried as a traitor") which require a minimization of trade sanctions. And trying to play a "level playing field" when no one else is is self-defeating at the best of times.

So while it is important to acknowledge that we perhaps subsidize less than out international competitors, I think it is equally important to acknowledge that many, many industries are subsidized. So while we debate the pros and cons of a super-profits tax on the mining of our natural resources, keep in mind that many industries are dependent on government protection funds for their success.

One way or another, the taxpayer always pays ....

Image: "Wheat" by Konijntje

Red Shirts and Democracy

The Thai Red Shirts are not giving in and according to an interview this morning, many are prepared to die for the right to vote, for democracy. We have seen similar situations in Burma and with the Uygur in the last year or so. If you want to look back even over the past 20 years, the list gets long very quickly.

Added to that the collective "we" of the US, Europe, Australia and a myriad of other countries have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq to bring "freedom and democracy" to the citizens of these countries. Hundred of thousands of the troops, and perhaps more importantly, civilians have died in the process.

I am not in favor of the wars (Bush, Howard and Blair should be tried as war criminals) but all were re-elected by their people do I know I am in a minority with that view. And I am not taking sides with the Red Shirts or the Thai government. Nor am I promoting one political party over another.

What continues to astound me is that people are willing to die for the right to vote, for democracy, or for allowing others to have that right. And yet in the complacent West, so many do not vote at all. Okay the turn out for the last US election was up, same too for the UK but it is still pitiful. Australia is still compulsory for state and federal elections so our figures are always really high but if you take the number that turn up for local elections you can see the real apathy that exists within the populace.

How can people not vote when at some point they are affected by education, or roads, or tax, or welfare, or health, or whatever. Surely people have an opinion on at least some issues like equality for all, law and order, abortion, capital punishment, the environment ... well the list goes on. How can we be so complacent as to not take part in the process that determines how our communities will be formed. And how different would the their attitudes be if the option to be apathetic was taken away, they had no democracy - no voice, no choice.

It has continually astounded me that while some will die for the right to vote, so many who have it, take it for granted and abuse the privilege by not using it.

Seasonality

I have been listening to a lot of podcasts from the BBC relating to agriculture and food security and the like and it has got me thinking. What applies to the England doesn't necessarily apply here in in Australia but bear with me.

The concept of something being "out of season" appears to have been eliminated for it will always be in season somewhere on the planet, or seasons can be replicated using hothouses and polytunnels, or the effect of the seasons can be minimized through breeding programs (genetically engineered or otherwise). There may be a variation in price through the year but generally availability won't be affected. I know when I was working with the lovelies they had no concept that there was a season for the growing of any particular crop.

As a result of this our expectations around food have changed and our diets and lifestyles have followed suit. I mean why both bottling your own tomatoes when you can buy them fresh all year around? I also acknowledge that there are social and economic issues including both parents generally working outside the house and having less time for these pursuits, house blocks being much smaller that the traditional quarter acre so there is less space for vegetables and fruit trees, and the overall urbanization of the population. Is this a chicken and egg situation? Not sure ....

I also acknowledge my passion for food within 100-miles of home is another layer of consideration. And I know that I have contradictory views in that crops like rice should not be grown in Australia for the simple reason of a lack of water but I like to eat rice. I also know that Australia exports large quantities of agricultural products and that changes to that would have a big impact, both socially and economically, on  individuals and the country as a whole. Not to mention the importance of balance of trade between nations and the existing treaties in this area. I also know that the size of this country and the range of weather experienced means that we are more able to produce food and less reliant on international imports.

So where is this all leading? Well if we, as a country, want to have food security as we progress thorugh the 21st century we are going to have to consider some questions before any answers can be found. Do we want to be self-reliant when it comes to food security or are we happy to collaborate with others? Are we really willing to consider the environmental costs of our food requirements (farming on marginal land, land clearing, water availability, various forms of pollution generated)? Do we want quality food, or food for the lowest price? Are we willing to make changes to the way we eat or live? What foods are now "basic" and we need to ensure they are "secure" and which ones are not? Are we willing to continue to subsidize some aspects of the agricultural industry to sustain communities and the individual farmers? I am sure there are more.questions but these were my starting points.

The reality is that I can find no outcomes to the proposition of food security until the answers come in. I know my answers - and acknowledge the contradictions that included in them. I think we as a nation need to have the conversation .... after there has been considerable education on the current realities of agriculture, and we re-connect with our food and its sources (yes the milk issue is still there lol). And we probably need to have the conversation sooner rather than later because the inevitable change that will occur will take time.

UK Elections Are Here

It is the final day of campaigning - don't forget to vote!

Consider This A Personal Invitation

From the Facebook Boobquake site:

"Many women who do not dress modestly ... lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes," Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi was quoted as saying by Iranian media. Sedighi is Tehran's acting Friday prayer leader.

I have a modest proposal.

Sedighi claims that not dressing modestly causes earthquakes. If so, we should be able to test this claim scientifically. You all remember the homeopathy overdose?

Time for a Boobqauke.

On Monday, April 26th, I will wear the most cleavage-showing shirt I own. Yes, the one usually reserved for a night on the town. I encourage other female skeptics to join me and embrace the supposed supernatural power of their breasts. Or short shorts, if that's your preferred form of immodesty. With the power of our scandalous bodies combined, we should surely produce an earthquake. If not, I'm sure Sedighi can come up with a rational explanation for why the ground didn't rumble. And if we really get through to him, maybe it'll be one involving plate tectonics.

So, who's with me? I may be a D cup, but that will probably only produce a slight tremor on its own. If you'll be joining me on twitter, use the tag #boobquake!

Hmm, an excuse to let the girls hand out and call it science (and a personal protest against fundamentalism in all its forms) .... well count me in rofl

Photo: "Cleavage" by Butchy

All Men Are Created Equal?

Over the last few years in Australia, Melbourne specifically, there has been a bit of a gangland war going on. One of the main protagonists has charged and found guilty and received a long prison sentence in a maximum security prison.

This week he was killed. An fellow inmate has been charged. There is much controversy over how it happened being that he was meant to be supervised at all times and there are allegations that this wasn't the case for the crucial 25 minutes it took for him to be discovered, stories that the cctv footage of the said period has apparently gone missing and hints of the corruption of police and prison officers are being plastered over the front page of the papers. Three individual inquiries have been launched into the whole affair - plus there will be the trial of the man arrested for the crime.

There have also been calls for a royal inquiry-type commission to look into the issues raised by the attack. The Government has refused this - because it sees it as a waste of taxpayers money into a known serial killer. Now if they rejected the idea for reasons that the other inquiries would achieve the answers or a similar reason, well I wouldn't have a problem.

I do have a problem with the lack of a Commission for the official reason give. Yes the guy was a nasty piece of work and I can't imagine too many people grieving for his passing. But are we not all equal before the law? And is his murder of any less importance than those he committed? And is not the potential of corruption of members of the judicial system not of wider concern to the community as a whole?

It all makes me think ... and I am not really liking the results of these thoughts.

Political Times

In Australia we are having something of a political scandal (boringly titled "ute-gate") about whether the Prime Minister called for special treatment for a businessman friend of his. The blustering has got to the point that there are now cries for the resignation of the Prime Minister and Treasurer or the Opposition Leader. Ho hum!

In Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi spends more time in prison. In Iran, the demonstrators are still on the streets despite the very real risk to their lives. We haven't heard from Tibet in the headlines lately but I don't that as a sign that all is well. And lets not forget the atrocities that are continuing in Palestine, North Korea and Zimbabwe.

It makes me so mad that we (the Australians who are interested enough to follow this story) are getting so fluffed up by something so ridiculous when there are REAL problems in the world.

And then I think that maybe this is what democracy is all about - the fight against corruption (real or perceived), the ability to try and bring down a government without a revolution, the ability to have ongoing debates about the merits of the Prime Minister's culpability (if any) in the newspapers, the ability for the population to know that any of this is happening in the first place, the ability of myself to write this post.

It has got me thinking ....

Photo: "Democracy" by jaderrrxO

Just Say "No"

Go WA dance, dance, dance:-)

Photo: "Sunshine" by xuvi

For Gaza

We have flown like the birds and swum the seas like fishes, but have yet to learn the simple act of walking the earth like brothers.

Martin Luther King Jr

Photo: "Save ... Gaza" by Funtoon

A Dream Deferred

What happens to a dream deferred?
Does it dry up

like a raisin in the sun?

Or fester like a sore--

And then run?

Does it stink like rotten meat?

Or crust and sugar over--

like a syrupy sweet?
Maybe it just sags

like a heavy load.
Or does it explode?

Langston Hughes

PS: Yes the irony of Obama and I quoting the same poem this week hasn't alluded me - he was talking about the US economy and I am weeping for Palestine

Art: "here is Gaza, itis humanright20" by persian rose

Why?

Why do I start weeping every time I hear of the Israeli incusion into Gaza?

Photo: "Tear Speak" by funkipunk

For Our Times

You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.

Albert Einstein

Especially thinking of the Palestinian and Iraqi people today - may they one day soon experience peace ....

Photo: "Peace" by vieheureuse

Yes We Can

CHICAGO - President-elect Barrack Obama and his wife took their daughters to work at a food bank on the day before Thanksgiving, saying they wanted to show the girls the meaning of the holiday, especially when so many people are struggling.

Ten-year-old Malia and 7-year-old Sasha joined their parents to shake hands and give holiday wishes to hundreds of people who had been lined up for hours at the food bank on Chicago 's south side.

Sasha wore a pink stocking hat over her pigtails and Malia had on a purple striped hat as the family handed out wrapped chickens to the needy in the chilly outdoor courtyard. Those seeking food on Wednesday at St. Columbanus also received boxes with potatoes, oranges, fresh bread, peanut butter, canned goods, oatmeal, spaghetti and coffee.

The president-elect, dressed casually in a leather jacket, black scarf and khaki pants, was in a jovial mood, calling out "happy thanksgiving" and telling everyone "you can call me Barack."

He told reporters that he wants the girls "to learn the importance of how fortunate they are, and to make sure they're giving back."
The soon-to-be first lady said the Obamas wanted to give their children "an understanding of what giving and Thanksgiving is all about."

The Obama family's activities in the courtyard quickly drew the attention of schoolchildren whose windows overlooked the courtyard. They put up a sign against the glass that read: "We love our Prez".

Obama then turned to his wife and suggested they go visit the kids. Secret Service agents, looking surprised, disappeared inside the building to accommodate his request.

Minutes later, hundreds of children were brought down to the school auditorium, and Obama loped onstage as they screamed and cheered.

"I just wanted to come by and wish everybody a happy Thanksgiving," he said. He then asked the children what they would be eating for Thanksgiving dinner.

So lets recap.
He took his kids to work in the cold…? Instead of getting someone to line up and dish the gifts? Instead of telling them 'You are kids of a VIP. Therefore there are things that you can’t do. To show the kids that people are suffering? Yes, that people are suffering? They have to live understanding the importance of giving back to the community.

Let us learn from this great family… and for those who have children, this is a wonderful example of raising our kids.

From Miss Weasley