How many compact fluorescent bulbs can I safely eat?

Many folk are alarmed at the mercury content in CF lamps, mostly due to the fact they either eat the bulbs, or break the globe and lick the broken glass to clean it up (the standard hazardous materials handling method).

(For the benefit of everyone, I’ll exclude accidental compact fluorescent suppository incidents).

So how many CF lamps would the Food Standards agency recommend consuming?

* Each CFL contains 4mg of mercury.
* Total permitted methylmercury intake per week is 221.1 micrograms per week for an average person over 2 years of age. (105.6 for preggies, 62.7 for infants).

The Australian standards would only recommend eating 2.8 compact fluorescents per year for the average person over 2 years of age and weighing around 67kgs. Pregnant women should restrict themselves to 1.38, and infants should only eat 0.8 bulbs per year.

Oh, and you probably shouldn’t eat fish.

Facts from here and here.

More Ruddy IR

As I predicted (insert my own trumpet where appropriate) Kevin Rudd has released the better policies after the worst ones.


LIST OF "CHANGES"
1. Hours of work Standard working week of 38 hours.
2. Parental leave Guaranteed 12 months' unpaid leave for both parents.
3. Flexible work for parents Guaranteed right for parents to request flexible work arrangements until their children reach school age.
4. Annual leave All full-time, non-casual employees will be guaranteed 4 weeks' paid annual leave.
5. Personal, carer's, and compassionate leave Guaranteed 10 days' paid carer's and personal leave. An additional two days a year for the death or serious illness of a family member or person the employee lives with.
6. Community service leave Employees will be entitled to leave for community service such as jury service or emergency services.
7. Public holidays Guaranteed public holidays including Christmas Day, Boxing Day, New Year's Day, Australia Day, Anzac Day, Good Friday and Easter Monday.
8. Information in the workplace Employers must provide employees with a statement containing information on rights and entitlements.
9. Termination Guaranteed fair notice. Less than one year service, at least one week notice period. Less than three years, at least two weeks. Less than five years, at least three weeks. More than five years, at least four weeks.
10. Long service leave Nationally consistent long service entitlements


REVIEW OF "CHANGES"
1. Same as WorkChoices. Not sure whether the averaged-over-a-year will be repealed.
2. Same as WorkChoices. I originally thought it was an improvement – but Rudd says only one parent at a time – WC says the primary caregiver.
3. Ah, see, you have to read these things carefully. “Guaranteed right for parents to request“ – not a “right to”. I imagine that will be worded with escape clauses for employers. I predict the word ‘reasonable’.
4. Same as WorkChoices. Not sure whether the option to cash-out will be repealed.
5. Worse than WorkChoices – it appears to be the same quantity of leave, but WC did guarantee at least 2 days carers leave unpaid.
6. Better than WorkChoices. Potentially. It’s a bit of a grey area. It seems to be absorbing the jury service rules from the states rather than adding any non-existing protection. Protection for emergency services personnel might be new.
7. Better. Penalty rates will be reinstated. (Although in removing AWAs, this was always a given.)
8. Good. Workers get pamphlets – should tackle a bit of ignorance.
9. Same. This is exactly how the law already reads. WC only removed the ability to include termination notice in awards – no word on whether that’s being reinstated.
10. Unknown. It could be good for some states, worse for others.

On point 4, Rudd claims “that, we believe, is the pro-family way.” That, Mr Rudd, is the WorkChoices way. It words it: “Parental leave of up to 52 weeks unpaid after the birth or adoption of a child for the primary caregiver”, as one of the 5 minimum conditions. Sounds strikingly similar to your own stance.

SUMMARY:
Mostly the same as WorkChoices.

PROS:
Parents get to ask for flexible working arrangements.
Emergency services are guaranteed leave. (Not sure if they have that already.)
Penalty rates for public holidays returned.
Possibly better long service leave entitlements.
Workers get pamphlets on their rights.

CONS:
Standard working week might still be averaged over a year.
Option to cash out annual leave might not be repealed.
Two days unpaid carers leave might be repealed.
Possibly worse long service leave entitlements.

RANT:
Rudd may as well have got up and said he was going to read out the Workplace Relations Act, because that’s essentially what he did. I’ve struggled to find the benefits, but workers get public holidays and a booklet. Amazing. But it’s too easy to get mired in the spin, let’s get a list of the changes made by WorkChoices, and see what’s changing. Here’s my WorkChoices graphic, which does just that:

GRAPHICS FOR THE HARD OF THINKING:

This is based on Wikipedia’s WorkChoices article describing the scope of changes. I added in AWA's because they're a big part of it (despite the fact they were brought in before WorkChoices). I'm sure this graphic is subject to change, but it seems accurate so far. (Critiques welcome.)

UPDATE: As I feared, the right to flexible work hours for those with young children won't be binding. Employers need only reject the request in writing, with no fear of challenge or penalty. Which kind of hollows out the proposal - a guaranteed right to ask? I would have assumed asking for flexible hours wouldn't exactly be grounds for dismissal.

Ruddy-IR from blogland.

We’re not going to get much in the way of critical analysis of Rudd’s IR from business – they’ll toe the ‘oh no, Labor is standing up against us evil bastards’ line, unions are wedged against Howard and a hard place so they won’t be picking through it, and the media has been quite weak on the matter. So we’ll turn to blogs.

The Solidarity blog started off positive but cautious – “all in all, Fair Work Australia seems like a good idea”. Then lost a little faith with further examination – “Labor’s IR plan is an unacceptable restriction on workers’ legitimate right to take industrial action, including strikes. It should not be supported by the union movement.”

Andrew Bartlett believes Rudd’s changes will leave IR not quite where it was before the Coalition got control of the Senate.

The Age had some good commentary, with a Your Say section here, with arguments for and against.

Mikey loves the laws. But I noticed some comments that were interesting.

Here’s a result of searching for Mikey’s opinion on unfair dismissal laws.

2005-10. Mikey defends unfair dismissal, claims only 3% went before the courts.
2005-11. Mikey gets into his argument for unfair dismissal with his boss.
2005-12. Mikey claim no access to unfair dismissal could result in sexual assault.
2006-02. Mikey refers to unfair dismissal and right to charge before incarceration as only affecting 0.001% of economic growth.
2007-04. Rudd unveils ALP's weaker unfair dismissal laws.
2007-04. Mikey claims the same unfair dismissal laws he was previously defending were broken, abused, needed fixing, and Rudd’s new plan adds balance.

I don’t want to slander Mikey, he’s a good bloke and I feel bad even mentioning this, but I found it annoying. Maybe he’s toeing the party line, maybe he just neglected to mention his opposition to unfettered unfair dismissal until after the ALP decided to restrict it, I don’t know. I hope his opinions are not a result of any organisation’s stance, but stem from his own senses.

Howard neuters, Rudd kills.

Is there a new April Fools Day? Is it today? Please tell me it’s today, because I just read that Kevin Rudd plans to scrap the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.

I know, it’s absurd, couldn’t possibly be true.

SCRAPPED UNDER LABOR:
* Australian Industrial Relations Commission (103 years old)
* Fair Pay Commission (2 years old)
* Office of the Employment Advocate (10 years old)
* Office of Workplace Services (2 years old?)
* Australian Building and Construction Commission (3 years old)

One of these was NOT created by John Howard. In fact, it was created several decades before he was even born.

Why the AIRC? Mr Rudd claims:
1. It is “a 20th century institution that is too remote from the needs of modern Australian workplaces”
2. “Australian working families need an industrial relations system with a fair and independent umpire.”

1. So it doesn’t meet the needs of today’s workplaces? How? Is it too far away? Too slow? Favours justice? I’m pretty sure it’s met the needs of everyone I know that has utilised its services. In fact I’m not aware of any single incident that would suggest such a thing. I must be missing something – there must be overwhelmingly different workplace requirements around now for this to be justified. What are they?

2. Its not fair or independent? I don’t recall unions or employers seriously making any such claims. But there must be overwhelming proof of bias - otherwise Rudd wouldn’t have said it. Where is it?

There is no proof of any need, nor any call, for the AIRC to go. An efficient institution that has safeguarded worker’s rights for a century is not your play-thing, Kevin. Do not destroy them with your petty Orwellian IR projects.

Rudd wants a new system. And He shall call it:
'"Fair Work Australia."'

I would have gone with Super-Happy-Good-Worker’s-Worry-Place, but his is good too. Howard neutered the AIRC. Rudd would have it put down.

ALP will now be placed last on my ballot paper. Final straw.

UPDATE: There is simply no need to scrap the AIRC in order to ease any issues caused by distance - increase the number of courts, and space them around. It's a fair court system with due process. A guy coming into the workplace with powers to judge, and make a quick binding decision, is not. I have a lot of trust in the AIRC, much like other courts, and a lot of distrust of those that seek to scrap it.

I know our legal system is expensive, slow, and inconvenient - but justice is neither cheap or easy. I have no intention of tolerating police with the power to try and convict on sight, and the same goes for IR justice. I doubt Hockey's claims that "Fair Work Australia" will be a biased pro-union hit squad, but even if that was the case, I'd mourne the loss of an actual independent arbitrator no less.

And Sharan Burrow from the ACTU, the plan does not "make a lot of sense". "Working Australians will be well served by a one-stop shop that is geographically accessible and less legalistic".

Legalistic? LEGALISTIC?! Nuzzling away towards a parliamentary pension much, Sharan? I am steamed.

Anzac Day

ANZAC DAY. The day, that we sit back, and solemnly appreciate those young men that invented that awesome, awesome biscuit.

But it’s not just about the cookie. Lots of old dead people died in wars to protect our freedoms. Some of them didn’t die, some were just maimed, and some survived to tell the tale of war.

Until, over time, most of them died too. Which shows that war is like time. Only quicker.

But what IS war good for? Population control for one. Territory for another. A bit of strategic fun for generals. Ego-fiddling for leaders. Weapons testing. Defoliation. All manner of things.

But war comes at a cost. The economies of many nations were damaged severely in both world wars – this was before the US developed incredibly advanced techniques enabling them to profit from active warfare.

And on this day, the 25th of April, each year, we should lament the tragic economic losses from war. As the diggers died on the shores of Gallipoli, a great sadness fell upon the employers of Australia.

They knew their trained workers would not be returning.

The economy and jobs, as stressed by the leaders of today, should always be our prevailing concern. Lest we forget how much the ASX dropped.

Some “humane” individuals choose to neglect to emphasise the economy during remembrance activities. They highlight the human losses, the futility of war, the suffering of families, and the freedoms that were defended.

Australia has protected the freedom of its people in all the wars it has fought. When the Vietcong stormed Canberra, and tried to remove our right to free speech, we went to war for our freedom. When Saddam invaded Brisbane, and removed our right to a fair trial, we went to war for our freedom.

Some say we should mourn and appreciate the loss of those that died protecting these freedoms. Some say we should never allow wars to be fought unless absolutely necessary, only when the intelligence is unquestionable, the situation dire, the threat ominous. That engaging the army in war on a whim is hideously disrespectful to every soul lost in just wars – but we, the eternally remembering public, would never, EVER, allow that to happen.

ABC LOUD?

Has anyone else noticed the ads on ABC TV are now incredibly loud? Precursor to paid ads, or just my amp up too loud? You decide. I can't be bothered checking the compression.

The ice epidemic we had to have.

You restrict the import of heroin, people make their own meth/ice.
You restrict the manufacturing of ice, people start sniffing paint.
You restrict the sale of paint, people start stealing pharmaceuticals.
You restrict legal drugs, people start sniffing glue.
You restrict the sale of glue, people start sniffing petrol.
You restrict the sale of sniff-able petrol, people start taking cactus/mushrooms.
You restrict the growth of illicit plants, and people start injecting spider venom.

And good luck restricting insects.

Why would someone want to inject venom? Because their source of other drugs was restricted. Why do they want to take drugs in the first place? Welcome to the real question.

The term zero-tolerance is being used incorrectly. No one can seriously condone simply accepting drug abuse, the damage is too obvious for that. But it’s used in place of the far more accurate ‘zero-help, maximum-laws, maximum-trauma, maximum-votes’.

You don’t get an epidemic if your illicit drug solution is working. Heroin deaths are down, ice use is up. The supply is linked to the demand, you remove one supply and another will, and has, replaced it.

The drug problem will continue to degrade unless logic is applied to drug laws.

If a political party refuses to endorse solutions that aren’t popular, but have been proven effective, then educate the public – do not cowardly assume the popular/inaccurate position. We will be forced to continue to tolerate drug abuse, while they claim a zero-tolerance approach. Legalising all illicit drugs would fail just as current policies have, the only difference being lessened incarceration costs. Both positions are irrational.

I have zero tolerance for any party that refuses to accept effective drug laws, this is a heinous scourge on our society, and inaction is reprehensible.

Rudd spends time with septuagenarian.

Politicians will usually act with alterior motives. Not so with Kevin Rudd. On a short trip to the US, he took time out of his day to spend with an elderly man, for no nefarious purpose whatsoever. It is these small acts of kindness that highlight their decency and humanity, and we should all commend them for it.

We should all aspire to lend an ear to our many seniors.

Industrial Action != Strike

Industrial action can mean the following:

• a strike
• go-slow
• work-to-rule
• general strike
• slowdown
• overtime ban

Can people in the media not confuse industrial action with strikes, please?

Rudd's IR

Rudd’s current IR plan:

1. AWA’s abolished.
2. “Return the right” to “basic working conditions” – penalty rates, overtime, public holiday pay.
3. Ensure a minimum wage, set by “independent umpire” that “keeps track with living standards”.
4. Federal jurisdiction of IR laws, and a “uniform” system.
5. Industrial action outlawed unless voted by a majority secret ballot.
6. Industrial action outlawed during the term of, and in support of, a collective agreement.
7. Industrial action outlawed if there has been “genuine good faith bargaining”.
8. Industrial action outlawed in support of “industry wide agreement”.
9. Pay during industrial action outlawed.
10. No unfair dismissal for 6 months with less than 15 employees, and 12 months for larger businesses.
11. Unfair dismissal dealt with by new local “industrial umpires”, heard in 7 days, no lawyers, effort to “resolve claims by discussion”, else umpire makes decision.
12. A Fair Dismissal Code – a guideline for employers to follow, to help them sack employee’s fairly.

It’s not fantastic, but it’s not complete yet. Getting rid of AWA’s solves the problem of reinstating the No Disadvantage Test, having the minimum conditions, etc.

NOTES:
1. No qualms.
2. Devils in the details, this pledge is meaningless as it stands.
3. I don’t see how this is any promise to abolish Work Choices’ Fair Pay Commission. It sounds like that’ll be retained – in fact the wording is almost identical to the description of the commission.
4. The corporations power ensures federal control regardless, so unless Labor plans to hold a referendum to alter that section of the constitution, this seems a moot point.
5. Secret ballots will have to be paid for, waited for, etc. This serves more to delay and disenfranchise than to protect employees from (I’d imagine quite illegal) harassment.
6. This is a nuisance. Collective agreements can, and usually do, go for several years. Action can only be taken during bargaining. Also, taking action to protest a safety hazard, or any other grievance is outlawed. Not good.
7. Not easy to enforce, but the wording doesn’t sound too insidious.
8. I’d need to be convinced that industrial action taken to support industry wide agreements were sufficiently damaging in order to justify outlawing it.
9. This is a removal of the right of both employers and employees to make an agreement. It ensures that workers suffer during industrial action, which is not particularly humane.
10. This isn’t particularly bad, but it IS worse than what it was for most of Howard’s term. With Work Choices, employers could trial for 6 months instead of 3. Not sure what’s happening with that, but it gives the employers the same employee – checking abilities as this law, so I’d hope the trial gets reduced or abolished.
11. Umpire is a weasel word – at least Howard’s “taskforce” was more honest. Otherwise a seemingly sound policy.
12. This seems to be the government doing the work of industry/small/large business groups. It encourages sackings, and I fail to see how it is necessary – compared with a simple requirement for 3 written warnings. It might not be sinister though.

BETTER? BY HOW MUCH?

It’s hard to judge such a rough vague policy sketch, but it can be reduced to three main points.

AWA’s, unfair dismissal, and protected action.

Lower is better for workers. Higher mark represents degradation in worker rights for each issue. Middle is bad, top is worse.

This graph shows in 1996 that AWAs were introduced, and protected action restricted. Then with Work Choices, they were both attacked, as well as unfair dismissal being heavily restricted. 2008 is Rudd’s proposal, protected action unchanged from WC, unfair dismissal restrictions reduced instead of removed, and AWAs abolished altogether.

Lower is better for workers. Uses same data as above, with 1 point given to bad, 2 for worse.

This graph shows four periods – before Howard, Howard with no balance of power, Work Choices, and Rudd’s proposal. It shows Rudd’s proposal is worse than the IR system under Howard (before Work Choices/balance of power). Whilst the AWA-issue would be improved, unfair dismissal and the right to protected action will be further restricted.

Another Infamy Day.

I don't feel I have any right to lament the tragedy of Virginia Tech here. I do not regularly mourn senseless Iraqi deaths, nor those of any other region. To show sympathy for one is disrespectful, so I send my sincere condolences to all those affected by senseless violence and death around the world.

Rudd on IR: Not news?

Apparently Kevin Rudd has finally (after however many state elections were campaigned, and won, on his IR policy) decided an ACTUAL IR policy.

I read a short article in The Age, which was a little light on the details, so I resorted to the Herald Sun. Only to find:

The same article. (Click for a more detailed view.)

It's not entirely the same, but The Age has the decency to admit it's an AAP article. But it begs the question - why weren't any of the Australian newspaper journalists able to write an article themselves? It was held at the National Press Club... weren't they invited? Is it too quick to press? Or is this really just a non-issue?

(I'll do a proper commentary once someone decides this is news and gets something detailed published.)

Greens v Family First

Aha! I’ve caught those dastardly Greens lying!

They accused Family First of 'coming to their senses', and being ‘soft on drugs’, and dropping their zero-tolerance drug policy.

Here’s there latest policy:

"Family First believes a balanced and comprehensive strategy is needed to combat the increasing problem of substance misuse and abuse. The Party believes Australia’s response to illegal drugs and health in general should primarily be preventative through educating the public as well as supporting rehabilitation services.

Family First rejects harm minimisation as the primary strategy for combating substance abuse. The Party favours prevention, rehabilitation and avoidance as more acceptable primary strategies."

And here’s there policy from 2005 (according to archive.org, this seems to be their first drugs policy since the site opened in 2001.)

"Family First believes a balanced and comprehensive strategy is needed to combat the increasing problem of substance use and abuse. Family First believes Australia’s response to drugs and health should primarily be preventative through educating the public as well as supporting rehabilitation services.

Family First rejects harm minimisation as the primary strategy for combating substance abuse. It favours prevention, rehabilitation and avoidance as more acceptable primary strategies."

The changes are clerical. There is no reference to zero-tolerance in Family First previous policy statements at all. Fielding has pushed a zero-tolerance platform a few times (including today – for alcohol-induced “drunkenness”), but the Greens media release specifically claims the 2007 policy has "softened".

In fact, the Family First drug policy hasn’t even changed. The old text is STILL under their Health policy, they’ve just created a slightly edited one under “Illegal Drugs including Marijuana”. Doubling-up policy. Tre professional.

But, if I’m going to slag off the Greens, I should probably try and find deception in Family First. Oh look, here’s one, from Friday:

"Yet the extreme Greens have NO policies for families or small business, which shows how out of touch they really are."

Was that carefully worded? They have no policies FOR families/small business? Is that no policies that apply to them, or no policies that actively support them? I am intrigued, best investigate.

15. provide incentives to workplaces which offer not-for-profit childcare in house and flexible childcare, including ‘childcare credits’, where workplaces assist parents to place children in childcare close to home.

I like that one, it provides support FOR business and ACTIVELY SUPPORTS families all in one hit. Everyone’s a winner. Except Fielding. In fact, while I'm on a tangent already, here’s some of the things from the press release he claims FF has supported thus far:

Voted against WorkChoices.
Voted against Telstra privatisation
Voted against “unjust” asylum seeker processing
Voted for anti-terror laws
Voted for welfare changes
Voted for new laws to “protect small business”
Voted for cutting petrol tax
Voted against Qantas sale
Voted for stopping tax rorts

"The question for families is: Which party do they want holding the Balance of Power in the Senate? Do they want a party like FAMILY FIRST that supports family values or a party like the Greens that promotes extremism?"

I’m sorry, didn’t they vote the same way as you on at least half of those issues? Wouldn’t that mean that Greens support family values too? Does it mean they’re not extreme, or that both FF & Greens are extreme?

Don't use grey water.

Gravel reed bed for grey water.

I’d like to send out a quick message to all Bandwagon-Greenies. They’re the ones that suddenly give a crap about the world around them because they saw this DVD from Blockbuster about bad environmental stuff, or they saw some ad on TV about how our water is vanishing somehow. Not that those aren’t totally valid reasons to care, but they’re merely a starting point.
You shouldn’t get your science from ex-vice presidents OR shock-columnists, and you need to know your facts before you jump aboard the green train.

Here’s an important tip:
Don’t re-use grey water.

Just don’t. Install water saving devices, get a rainwater tank, flush when brown, collect clean shower water (otherwise wasted while it’s warming up), just don’t use grey water. Everyone’s doing it, but almost no one is doing it properly, and there are consequences. You screw up your soil with excessive sodium, and the best cure is to flush it with fresh water. Great water saving technique. Listen to talk-back garden programs, and you’ll hear time and time again stories of people destroying plants and soil with grey water. Just stop it now.

There are pathogens, E. coli, oils, reedbed filters, sodium quantities, differences between laundry and bathroom grey water – and which to use on veggies and fruit trees, food residues, pH, petrochemicals, phosphorus, the many and varied laws for grey water, the pointlessness of most legal grey watering systems, sulphur, storage issues, laundry powders vs. laundry liquids, living walls, the list goes on.

Here’s what you can do:
1. Throw the grey water onto grass straight after you collect it. To do more than that will require you to throw money, or your brain, at it. Grey water systems are complicated and elaborate, you won’t get much in the way of returns on your investment – they are purely for the committed.
2. Use Earth Choice, Aware, or Seventh Generation products. There are better ones, but it's likely you'll be able to find these.

As an example, here’s the effort a “proper” greenie would put into choosing a laundry detergent:
There is a round-up of laundry detergents in Renew (Jan-Mar 2007), and Choice (April) magazines, gathered by http://www.lanfaxlabs.com.au/, so you’d aim to use the product that has the lowest sodium, phosphorus and sulphur, then further checking needs to be done to ensure that isn’t tested on animals, not made with petrochemicals, Australian made/product/owned (product miles), make sure it has recyclable packaging, doesn’t have phosphates or other magical brightening/softening/perfume/colour chemicals, is any of that data reputable in the first place, and ultimately – can I buy it easily (most decent products aren’t even on the average supermarket shelves) and does it even work well (this will require testing). After some research and testing, you'll know what's good.

5 Rage clips

I got the taggage, so here’s the goods:

What I’d put on Rage:


Duran Duran - Girls On Film.

Because, well. It’s handy for Rage’s demographic. Was that pun too subtle?

Pearl Jam - Do The Evolution.

It’s got it all. Man’s evolution from barbarian caveman to barbarian modern man, and all the inhumanity in between. A poignant work of art.

Rage Against The Machine - Sleep Now In The Fire.

I shouldn’t really need to say why this rocks. But they stage an illegal gig outside the NYSE, Michael Moore gets detained, it parodies Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, got kick arse lyrics, passion, brilliant.

A Perfect Circle – Counting Bodies.

This appears to be a flash animation, but in music video form. Nice and powerful though.

Eminem – Mosh (Post election version)

The silly twat may have released it a LITTLE too late to have any effect, and it’s a tad corny. Heck, it’s probably even dishonest bandwagon-jumping, but it still rocks.

NB: I would have chosen Metallica’s One, (the one from the movie, not of the band) but it was taken

This wood smells illegal.

AUSTRALIA will consider banning or confiscating furniture and other products made from logs illegally harvested overseas, Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull has pledged, as part of his initiative to combat global warming.

He claims consumers and the private sector should be alert to the origins of timber and to reject any suspect wood. How?

Well, it is obvious to anyone that knows anything about wood.

Illegal wood tastes different. It has a lighter and fruitier flavour than legally logged wood. Many materials have a similar tang when processed in violation of local laws, so this is not unusual.

When purchasing any timber product, Australian consumers have the right to request a taste-test prior to monetary exchange. This provides us the ability to ensure legality. Many unscrupulous dealers have been reluctant to allow buyers to take a sample, however the onus is on the consumer to insist that it is his/her right and responsibility to do so.

We should be very grateful for the specific taste difference of illegal wood, because without such a thing, it would be completely impossible to ensure that timber was harvested in a sustainable way – unless we have severe restrictions on any importation from nations that do not effectively enforce sensible logging practises.

Greenpeace has repeatedly called on the Government to follow the European Union, which is considering banning timber that cannot be independently certified as being legally logged.

Ultimately, Turnbull is considering a ban on illegal wooden goods, he even pledged it. Well, not to actually do it, he just pledged to consider it. My hero. Might want to look into our own illegal logging while he's at it. Y'know those ones where it's a handful of greenies against the government/loggers? Take the log out of your own pulp mill, etc.

Rant

OK, I’m just going to have a rant.

First up: GlaxoSmithKline.

Now I can understand how a jar of homemade marmalade sold at a local fete might not have the most accurate nutrition information slapped on the side. I’ll forgive it because there is hardly an easy way for Mrs Jones from down the road to get access to scientific instrumentation to analyse said product.

She doesn’t have the same equipment as, say, the second largest pharmaceutical company in the world. And, it seems, even a business of that size can struggle with checking its own claims. But if 14 year old students are expected to perform the lab work for multinationals, there’s a problem.

What happened here? Did you forget to chuck in the vitamin C into Ribena? Was the vitamin guy off sick? Did your obsessive processing reduce the quantity of the nutrient? How did you not notice? Surely you didn’t just simply lie? You are mostly a drug company, it’s kind of important for you to do adequate testing on your products.

And while I’m at it – can you cut back on the doctor kick-backs a little – there’s one GP I dub ‘the GlaxoSmithKline lady’ – no matter what ails you, they have a product that can cure it. Like when I went in for a certificate for a cold I was almost entirely over (just a bit of mucus left) – and got a prescription for freaking Ventolin.

Climate Change Denials.

I don’t have any particular problem with ExxonMobil’s impressive efforts to question the validity of climate change. They’re protecting their interests; a lot of companies do the same in various ways.

I start to have a problem when they enter the realms of both deception and risk. All businesses and people should be free to protect their interests by funding studies, lobbying, etc, just as long as it does not depart from reality or pose a danger. And if they do indeed resort to both (which is obviously the case for ExxonMobil) their argument is void, and there should be penalties.

The fossil fuel sector is hardly at fault, it is merely a machine of business, there will be no success in pleading to its morals if they conflict with its existence. Business is never going to work that way, but feel free to boycott. Legislators bear the entire blame for any corporate machine that protects its survival at the risk of living beings.

Easter

It’s Easter time.

Sure it’s a religious day, but there’s a four day weekend, an encouragement to eat round bits of chocolate, and everyone lies to children about magic bunny rabbits. What’s not to like?

They solve murders in Norway over Easter, as well as play Yahtzee. In Central Europe they have some freakish spanking ceremony – which I think should be extended to our culture.

But it’s really about that bohemian Jew, Jesus. When He died for the sins of man, and then came back to prove He really was the Messiah by visiting numerous reputable sources before flying away like Superman.

Jesus. The man that came down and to update the People Training Manual that God wrote. I think the Old Testament was a beta version or something, still had a few bugs in it – but as always, there was a rush to print. He must have been God’s secretary/sub-editor, and also His son. Probably a small family business I guess.

Anyway, he died for our sins. Which means two things:

1. He was executed for REALLLY trumped-up charges. For ALL the sins that will ever be committed? How could he be charged with things that were to occur millennia after his death?

2. There is only one person in Hell. Jesus. He died for our sins – all our sins are his to bear. He’s in Hell. With the devil. Playing poker.

We can honour this great martyr by:

1. Ensuring that trumped-up charges are never accepted ever again. Justice shall be a high priority, in His name.

2. Never worry about going to Hell. That would be tantamount to questioning Jesus’ commitment to dying for our sins. Maybe he skipped a few sins when filing the guilty plea? We might still go to Hell due to a clerical error on behalf of the Son of Man? I don’t think so – that’s blasphemy. I wouldn’t recommend committing sins willy nilly, just because the bar tab is paid in-full in advance, doesn’t mean become an alco' – it just means your concern about the price you’ll pay (in the afterlife) is no longer a concern.

So slack-off, spank, scoff, spin lies to children, and maybe, just maybe, do a little bit of sinning.

Hijacking misfortune

Hijacking misfortune is a disgraceful act. A simple example would be to steal the wallet of an unconscious person, or exploiting vulnerable people in a financial scam.

There are more extreme examples, like hijacking disaster.

(Some) Christians have been doing this with recent disasters, the most recent being the Gizo quake/tsunami combo. I don’t have a problem with attempts to explain “acts of God”, or any attempts to help people cope with the situation. But to exploit tragedy for explicit desired outcomes – surely a special place in hell is reserved for those involved.

From an article titled: "Clergy blame sinners for tsunami."

Many clergy in the Solomon Islands… have blamed the catastrophe on people straying from Christian ways.

In Malakera, someone has painted on a smashed water tank the slogan: "Sin - contributing factor to destruction".

"This is a turning point for everybody. A reminder that God created the Earth," one young female survivor said.

Y’know what I reckon? Its proof that God thinks cheese can be pretty darn yummy. I’m speculating of course, and despite the assertion being no less absurd than God angrily killing people for obeying Him (yet disobeying His son), at least I don’t stand to gain from my explanation.

My lovely carbon lumps.

There is a comforting thought that seems to be quite popular amongst people in this democracy: That despite the voters’ petty grievances and political differences, the politicians ultimately know better, and will do what is just.

Sure there might be an economic rationalist tweak with the Libs, but that will get a socialist twang with Labor, and we all break even in the end. They’re all knowing, all caring, and all doing. (Obviously this doesn't really apply to those that pay attention with an open mind, but that demographic is a freak-minority at best.)

But the issue of climate change completely throws that idea on its backside.

Svante Arrhenius was the first scientist to speculate in detail how burning fossil fuels and the increase in atmospheric carbon could lead to global warming.

In 1896.

111 years ago. The same year x-rays were discovered, and just over a decade after the first gasoline automobile. (The greenhouse effect itself was "discovered" in 1824.)

And his predictions aren’t that far from current IPCC estimates – although he thought it a positive scenario. Of course, it wasn’t until the 60-70's that the science solidified, and the threat became clear.

Our government has really done much since then. Recycling became the norm, a few environmental flows went into the rivers, a few token biomass and wind turbines in recent years, a few banned pesticides, catalytic converters, changes in fuel.

But we’re still the world’s second worst polluter on a per capita basis.

Victoria’s state ALP government can’t even bring itself to go ahead with the planned decommission of the dirtiest power station in the industrialised world.

We have both federal and state governments refusing to allow electric cars to be made legal (apart from the recent eleventh-hour WA trial), while other nations subsidize the very same vehicles.

The current political fight to be seen as dealing with climate change has not only steered well clear of making the tough decisions, but is based almost solely on gaining votes rather than environmental concern. I wouldn't hold the public accountable for this - they were mostly unaware (or doubtful) of climate change (sounds like a conspiracy, and if the government is doing nothing, it must be rubbish), and thus couldn't create the voting pressure to affect change. The blame lies solely in the governments that knew, ignored advice, and did nothing. Garnering votes was considered more important than saving the environment.

Today’s policies should have been 1970, 1980, 1990 policies. You can’t turn around from those decades of inaction and claim to champion the cause. It won’t fly. Today’s decisions are harder than they could have otherwise been.

(Just saw Kevin Rudd shovelling chunks of carbon piled high, pending their great journey into the atmosphere on the news, I think that about sums it up.)

Quotes.

Here are my 5 quotes from that tagging thing Mikey did ages ago.

1. "The mobile phone user is the new drink driver"
Bicycle Victoria president Harry Barber. Very true.

2. “Windmills do not work that way.”
Morbo, Futurama. See here. Cracks me up everytime I hear it.

3. “Elastic bands are made from recycled steam trains.”
Uncyclopedia article on elastic. So subtle, yet so ludicrous.

4. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Inigo Montoya, Princess Bride. Brillo.

I had a fifth, but I'm not sure where it went.