Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts

07 March 2012

How the world learnt about Joseph Kony

A short 30 minute documentary on YouTube (below) and Vimeo has been shared extensively on Twitter and Facebook to spread the word about Joseph Kony, a warlord and war criminal who has kidnapped children to turn them into child soldiers, amongst other atrocities.
KONY 2012 is a film and campaign by Invisible Children that aims to make Joseph Kony famous, not to celebrate him, but to raise support for his arrest and set a precedent for international justice.
Watch



See - www.invisiblechildren.com

17 December 2011

A random act of kindness does make a difference

From Life Vest Inside


(Song: One Day by Matisyahu - original clip)

A random act of kindness does make a difference and 'what goes around comes around'

12 November 2011

Another (sub) species, extinct

According to the latest update of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™, "the Western Black Rhino (Diceros bicornis longipes) has officially been declared extinct." (see IUCN news release).

The loss of a rhinoceros sub-species is a travesty, particularly as it was hunted to extinction.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) is a democratic membership union composed of over 1,000 members, 11,000 scientific experts in various thematic commissions with 1,000 staff, working together in more than 160 countries to help the world find pragmatic solutions to the most pressing environment and development challenges.

The Australian Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities is a country member, along with nine state government agencies and 16 non-government organisations.

The United States Department of State Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs and the United Kingdom Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are also country members.

25 September 2011

Catalonia's final torment and torture of bulls

Last year, I wrote about the Catalan parliament banning the torment and torture of bulls, otherwise known as bullfighting.

Today, Barcelona hosted its last bullfight.

Reported by Euronews





Further print reporting in BBC News, AFP and France24.

03 August 2011

Free speech or hate speech?

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation's (ABC's) Q&A on Monday night featured a challenging discussion between Brendan O'Neill, editor of Spiked and the federal Minister for Human Services and Minister for Social Inclusion, the Hon Tanya Plibersek MP.  The exchange was a debate about free speech and hate speech, and well worth watching.



Transcript, the debate followed on from discussion about the terrorist attack in Norway
TONY JONES: The core fear is about racism because, isn't it, because there isn't any question at all, as far as I can see, that he was a racist and the attacks were racially motivated?

BRENDAN O'NEILL: They were racially motivated. He didn't attack another race of people. He attacked his own people but he was obviously driven by cultural paranoia, by insanity, by various different things. But the problem is that to say that there is a direct link between right-wing commentators who say "I hate Muslims" or "I hate immigration" or whatever cranky stuff they come out with, and this guy, who then goes out to kill people - to draw a link between those two things is effectively to say that words kill. And as far as I'm concerned, the only people who say that words kill are censorious people - people who want to clamp down on debate, people who want to restrict what we can say. So I think, yeah, The Sun made a mistake, but it made a fleeting mistake. Other people are making a very conscious, more long, drawn-out mistake by drawing a link between words and violence.

TONY JONES: Tanya Plibersek?

TANYA PLIBERSEK: I feel really deeply uncomfortable about what Brendan's saying. I think he's saying that the left are trying to exploit this terrible event and it makes me sick to the stomach to hear that. It makes me absolutely sick to the stomach to hear you saying that there is any group of people in the community trying to exploit what is a deeply disturbing event. I don't know the answer to whether this person is one crank or whether he's a terrorist. I think normally terrorists work in concert with other people, so I would say in many ways that he is one crank. But the idea that people who preach hatred in the community have then no responsibility for violent acts that occur afterwards, I cannot understand that you think that it is fine for people to go out and say we should kill all Muslims or we should do this or do that and that that has no real effect in the world.

BRENDAN O'NEILL: But people are - no but the writers that are being blamed for...

[APPLAUSE]

BRENDAN O'NEILL: No, wait, before you clap, the writers who are being blamed for this massacre did not say "Go out and kill all Muslims". They said "I am opposed to the ideology of multiculturalism." They said "I think there should be 5,000 immigrants a year rather than 50,000". Now, I happen to disagree with them on pretty much everything, but what I'm saying is that you cannot draw a distinction between someone who rationally criticises multiculturalism and someone who irrationally kills 77 people.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: And I think that it is perfectly fine in any democracy to have a discussion about government policy, whether it's multiculturalism or climate change or social security legislation. Whatever it is, of course we should have a debate. But what you're saying is that there is no responsibility if you preach hate for what happens when you preach hate.

BRENDAN O'NEILL: No, there isn't, because I believe in something called free will. I think people should take responsibility for their own actions and you are - you are letting Breivik off the hook by saying that other people are to blame for invading his mind.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: No. No. No. No.

STEPHEN MAYNE: So, Brendan, you're saying it's fine for...

TANYA PLIBERSEK: I didn't say that. Please don't put words in my mouth. I do not say that he - he has...

BRENDAN O'NEILL: You have just said other people need to bear responsibility for his actions.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: No. No. I didn't say that.

BRENDAN O'NEILL: I'm saying only he...

TANYA PLIBERSEK: No.

BRENDAN O'NEILL: ...only he should bear responsibility for his actions.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: No, I did not say that. He should bear responsibility but people who preach hate bear responsibility for the hatred they support in the community.

BRENDAN O'NEILL: Okay.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: And I'm not drawing a direct link and you cannot put those words in my mouth.

BRENDAN O'NEILL: Okay, well, I...

TANYA PLIBERSEK: But if you think it doesn't matter in a community that we shouldn't have courteous debate about the issues we care about as a nation, then I am very disappointed to hear that.

BRENDAN O'NEILL: Well, I think it is illegitimate for you - for a politician to depict legitimate criticism of multiculturalism...

TANYA PLIBERSEK: I don't.

BRENDAN O'NEILL: ...as preaching hate.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: No, I don't.

BRENDAN O'NEILL: You have aligned those two things.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: No, I don't.

BRENDAN O'NEILL: The writers who are being blamed for this act did not preach hate.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: You are not listening to me.

BRENDAN O'NEILL: They raised legitimate political concerns. You may disagree with them. I do.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: You are not listening to me.

BRENDAN O'NEILL: But you cannot (indistinct).

TONY JONES: Okay, I'm sorry. No, I'm going to put a pause button on this.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: No, Tony, I just...

TONY JONES: No, I'll let you make your comment and then I'll go to someone else.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: I need to repeat this. I have not drawn that direct link and I have said very clearly that people should be able to have any civilised debate in our community about any issue but that debate should be respectful and it should not preach hate.

BRENDAN O'NEILL: Respectful of what?

TONY JONES: Can I interrupt there? Very briefly, have you seen that link drawn in Australia?

TANYA PLIBERSEK: No. No, I haven't.

TONY JONES: Some people suggest, for example, the Cronulla riots...

STEPHEN MAYNE: Absolutely.

TONY JONES: ...came, partly at least, as a result of talkback radio.

STEPHEN MAYNE: It was. It was incited by Alan Jones. Let's say it.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: I believe it was incited and I'll tell you something else....

BRENDAN O'NEILL: That's incredible.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: I'll tell you something else, Tony. I mean, you know, the Gabrielle Giffords, the crosshairs, if you think that that sort of thing doesn't influence people, if you think that people out there saying homosexuals deserve to die and the Iraq war is God's punishment on homosexuality, that that doesn't increase...

BRENDAN O'NEILL: The implication...

TANYA PLIBERSEK: ...homophobic violence it...

BRENDAN O'NEILL: The implication of these argument are extraordinary because what you're effectively saying is that journalists should be restricted in what they should say and the tone in which they can say it and the public are so stupid and gullible that if there is a Daily Mail article which is shrill and outrageous, they'll go and get a gun and kill loads of people.

TANYA PLIBERSEK: No, nobody's saying that.

BRENDAN O'NEILL: The censorious implications of this are extraordinary.

STEPHEN MAYNE: But are you okay with Alan - are you okay with Alan...

BRENDAN O'NEILL: It's pretty predictable that a politician would have those kind of view but for Stephen, a journalist and a founder of online publications, to draw a link between Alan Jones and riots as if one incites the other...

STEPHEN MAYNE: Well, there were investigations of it? I mean are you comfortable with Alan Jones saying that Julia Gillard, our Prime Minister, should be put in a bag and thrown out to sea? That's what he said recently. I mean...

BRENDAN O'NEILL: Yes, because I trust -

STEPHEN MAYNE: ...it's ridiculous.

BRENDAN O'NEILL: I trust that the vast majority of the public know that he is having a joke and will not take him literally.

STEPHEN MAYNE: It's not a joke.

BRENDAN O'NEILL: And if they do...

TONY JONES: All right. Okay. Okay...

BRENDAN O'NEILL: If they do they he has committed a crime.

TONY JONES: Brendan...

TANYA PLIBERSEK: Just the vast majority.
It was an extraordinary exchange.  The issue was whether society should allow hate speech as a part of freedom of speech.

Words have consequences.

16 July 2011

wasting food 6

I've previously written (a number of times) about wasting food.  Sweden's The Local (in English) has reported that Swedes throw away a large amount of food every year and malformed vegetables do not even reach human consumption stage.
Swedes throw away food for 20-40 billion kronor ($3-6 billion) every year and the food tossed aside by households, stores and restaurants is just the tip of the iceberg. A new report from the Swedish Board of Agriculture (Jordbruksverket) reveals that vegetables considered unattractive never even reaches stores.

"A lot of carrots get thrown away because of their looks, and that just feels completely wrong considering today's debate about the environment," carrot farmer Tanya Hultman, outside Piteå in northern Sweden, told The Local on Thursday.

Carrots that don't make the cut are among the unappealing foodstuff most often rejected, according to Sveriges Radio (SR). Too small, too crooked, too big - none of these vegetables will see grocery stores.

Hultman is disappointed by this blatant discrimination, pointing out that there's nothing wrong with the carrots apart from looking insufficiently appealing.

According to the Swedish Board of Agriculture, as much as a fourth of all the carrots farmed are rejected by stores.
The Local also reported that one third of all food produced is not even eaten. Read more.  Full report from Jordbruksverket, Hållbar konsumtion av jordbruksvaror linked here (pdf document in Swedish).

Surely, unattractive vegetables would have been used in food processing.  The high levels of food wastage in affluent nations is unacceptable given so many in the world have barely enough to eat.

10 May 2011

Australian celebrity chef swears that perfectly edible food should not be thrown out

I've previously written (a number of times) about wasting food, including mentioning that for commercial operations like catering and restaurants, there are charities that make good use of unsold or untouched food to help those in need, and that in Australia, OzHarvest is one such charity.  Today, OzHarvest announced a new initiative
OzHarvest, Australia's leading food-rescue charity, today launches REAP, an initiative that brings the food-rescue concept to regional areas around the country. The project, the brainchild of OzHarvest founder and former Local Hero of the year 2010, Ronni Kahn, provides a toolkit for regional communities to carry out the OzHarvest mission themselves; that is, to collect excess food and feed those in need.

REAP launched with a controversial viral ad campaign featuring renowned chef Matt Moran, owner/chef of Sydney and Brisbane's Aria restaurant and also judge on Network Ten's MasterChef.

The controversial viral video, captured on an iPhone, was released onto YouTube and Twitter revealing a very irritated Moran having a heated argument with staff on set while filming a cooking segment.

The unknown staff member throws away a piece of perfectly good-to-eat 'plated-up' chicken only to have a very angry Moran shock viewers by shouting expletives at the staff member for throwing away perfectly edible food.

It is revealed through a second viral video release that this was, in fact, a hoax which brings to light the issue of food wastage in Australia with the message from Moran to think twice about throwing away food. Moran also emphasises that billions of dollars of food is thrown away every year. A community service announcement with REAP's message will also be played on Network Ten during the month of May.

Matt Moran said: 'I was more than happy to be involved in something so controversial if it meant that the message of food waste would be brought to the top of Australians' minds. REAP is a simple concept started by leading food charity OzHarvest, who have already rescued millions of meals from going to waste and who have provided millions of people with fresh food that they normally would not have access to. It's a f***ing great cause!'

The REAP regional toolkit contains a three-step process with four guiding principles for communities in feeding the needy within their own towns. Firstly, identify the need, secondly, source the food and lastly get an esky and go!

Community food rescuers collect the food from the donor, delivering it to the client, who provides the food to the needy. Central to the program's effectiveness is that it is an entirely free service, aligned with the OzHarvest mission. The NSW Premier's Department provided funding to OzHarvest for this project.

Ronni Kahn, CEO and founder of OzHarvest said: 'The issue of feeding those in need goes well beyond the areas we currently service which is Sydney, Canberra, Newcastle, Wollongong and most recently Adelaide. We have been working hard to create ways to help regional areas where our yellow OzHarvest vans just don't have the capability to reach on a day-to-day basis.'

Kahn said: 'REAP provides regional areas with all the necessary tools that they need to rescue food and deliver it to the disadvantaged. On top of that, it also serves to stop good food from ending up as landfill.'
The 'viral' video


The follow-up video


Aside from the gimmicky manner in which this was announced such as prematurely labelling of a 'controversial viral' video (see reporting in Sydney Morning Herald, which played along), this is a great initiative.

See also public relations company Liquid Ideas' news release, which also includes details of 'food facts'.

28 April 2011

Animal language needs rethinking

From Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics news release 'Animal Language Sends Wrong Message' of 26 April 2011
A call for a new “animal language” has been made by some of the world’s leading animal ethicists who say words like “pests” and “vermin” send out the wrong message and even our most common terms such as ”pets” and “wild animals” need updating.

The editors of a new Journal of Animal Ethics (JAE) published this month by the University of Illinois Press say derogatory words like “pests” and “vermin” should be dropped altogether and “pets” replaced by “companion animals”, while “wild animals” should be termed “free living or free ranging animals”.

“Despite its prevalence, “pets” is surely a derogatory term both of the animals concerned and their human carers. Again the word “owners”, whilst technically correct in law, harks back to a previous age when animals were regarded as just that: property, machines or things to use without moral constraint … In addition, we invite authors to use the words “free-living”, “free-ranging” or “free-roaming” rather than “wild animals”… For most, “wildness” is synonymous with uncivilized, unrestrained, barbarous existence. There is an obvious prejudgment here that should be avoided.”

“Our existing language about animals is the language of past thought – and the crucial point is that the past is littered with derogatory terminology: “brutes”, “beasts”, “bestial”, “critters”, “sub-humans”, and the like. We shall not be able to think clearly unless we discipline ourselves to use less than partial adjectives in our exploration of animals and our moral relations with them,” they argue.
Read more, including details about the journal.

Some of the suggestions may seem far-fetched to some people. The notion of 'ownership' of 'pets' is worth thinking about. I have often been uneasy about the concept of 'owning' other living creatures, which is basically, the lives of other sentient beings. Hence, the alternative notion of humans as 'carers' or 'guardians' of pets and other domesticated animals make more sense. This reinforces the need to treat other creatures with respect and dignity, free from cruelty.

'Pets' or rather 'canine or feline companions' then become adopted rather than bought.

The question isn't academic but rather an ethical one.

Much of our values concerning animals are based on cultural and religious views. In Judeo-Christian-Islam ('people of the book') traditions, living creatures have been given to humans by God. In most native American cultures, animals have spirits (or souls). It might be time to re-examine our views.

09 April 2011

Some species aren't worth saving according to scientists

A new tool has been developed by Australian scientists to enable prioritisation in the attempt to save species at risk of extinction. When these species fall below a population threshold, they may not be worth saving. Abstract from Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List is arguably the most popular measure of relative species threat, but its threat categories can be ambiguous (eg “Endangered” versus “Vulnerable”) and subjective, have weak quantification, and do not convey the threat status of species in relation to a minimum viable population target. We propose a heuristic measure that describes a “species' ability to forestall extinction”, or the SAFE index. We compared the abilities of the SAFE index with those of another numerically explicit metric – percentage range loss – to predict IUCN threat categories using binary and ordinal logistic regression. Generalized linear models showed that the SAFE index was a better predictor of IUCN threat categories than was percentage range loss. We therefore advocate use of the SAFE index, possibly in conjunction with IUCN threat categories, because the former indicates the “distance from extinction” of a species, while implicitly incorporating population viability as a variable.
Media release from University of Adelaide
Scientists have new measure for species threat
According to the authors of the SAFE (Species Ability to Forestall Extinction) index, conservationists with limited resources may want to channel their efforts on saving the tiger, a species that is at the 'tipping point' and could have reasonable chance of survival.
Photo by Juliane Riedl.
According to the authors of the SAFE (Species Ability to Forestall Extinction) index, conservationists with limited resources may want to channel their efforts on saving the tiger, a species that is at the 'tipping point' and could have reasonable chance of survival.
Photo by Juliane Riedl.

Full Image (175.46K)
Thursday, 7 April 2011

A new index has been developed to help conservationists better understand how close species are to extinction.

The index, developed by a team of Australian researchers from the University of Adelaide and James Cook University, is called SAFE (Species Ability to Forestall Extinction).

The SAFE index builds on previous studies into the minimum population sizes needed by species to survive in the wild. It measures how close species are to their minimum viable population size.

"SAFE is a leap forward in how we measure relative threat risk among species," says co-author Professor Corey Bradshaw, Director of Ecological Modelling at the University of Adelaide's Environment Institute.

"The idea is fairly simple - it's the distance a population is (in terms of abundance) from its minimum viable population size. While we provide a formula for working this out, it's more than just a formula - we've shown that SAFE is the best predictor yet of the vulnerability of mammal species to extinction."

Professor Bradshaw says SAFE is designed to be an adjunct to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species, not a replacement.

"Our index shows that not all Critically Endangered species are equal. A combined approach - using the IUCN Red List threat categories together with the SAFE index - is more informative than the IUCN categories alone, and provides a good method for gauging the relative 'safety' of a species from extinction," he says.

Of the 95 mammal species considered in the team's analysis, more than one in five are close to extinction, and more than half of them are at 'tipping points' that could take their populations to the point of no return.

"For example, our studies show that practitioners of conservation triage may want to prioritise resources on the Sumatran rhinoceros instead of the Javan rhinoceros. Both species are Critically Endangered, but the Sumatran rhino is more likely to be brought back from the brink of extinction based on its SAFE index," Professor Bradshaw says.

"Alternatively, conservationists with limited resources may want to channel their efforts on saving the tiger, a species that is at the 'tipping point' and could have reasonable chance of survival."

The SAFE index is detailed in a new paper published this month in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and Environment (http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/100177). It is co-authored by Reuben Clements (James Cook University), Professor Corey Bradshaw and Professor Barry Brook (The University of Adelaide) and Professor Bill Laurance (James Cook University).
Canadian Digital Journal (Kimberley Pollock) has a good well-sourced write-up. According to the SAFE index, the ten species most at risk of extinction are
1. Javan rhinoceros (Indonesia)
2. Kouprey (Cambodia)
3. African wild ass (Eritrea and Ethiopia)
4. Iberian lynx (Spain)
5. Northern hairy-nosed wombat (Australia)
6. Sumatran rhinoceros (Malaysia and Indonesia)
7. Ethiopian wolf (Ethiopia)
8. Addax (Sahara Desert)
9. Dibbler (Australia)
10. Riverine rabbit (South Africa)
Australia's ABC interviewed Professor Corey Bradshaw, focusing on the northern hairy-nosed wombat (article, radio interview transcript, audio).

While the SAFE index provides a rational approach, this is not always going to be the case. If tigers and pandas fell below the viable population for saving, there is no doubt that extra effort including cloning would be made to save them.  Today, species like the dodo or Tasmanian tiger would certainly attract considerable effort for saving.

30 March 2011

Refuse, fuse to chair, confuse

From Bellaire, Ohio, WTRF 7 News on Monday reported that a 43-year old obese man who had not moved from a chair in two years had become fused to it. Officials discovered the man's condition after housemates sought assistance when he became unresponsive.



Within the Bellaire community, questions are now being asked how this could have happened.
WTRF 7 News is told by several sources that the man insisted on living his life in his chair, insisted that his girlfriend bring him food and soft drinks.
Someone should have sought help rather than allow another human being, despite their own choosing, to live in such a condition.

15 February 2011

Ewe are smarter than ewe think

The Public Library of Science's international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication PLoS ONE has reported that sheep are actually far more intelligent than their reputation holds. Abstract
A. Jennifer Morton, Laura Avanzo
Department of Pharmacology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom

Two new large animal models of Huntington's disease (HD) have been developed recently, an old world monkey (macaque) and a sheep. Macaques, with their large brains and complex repertoire of behaviors are the ‘gold-standard’ laboratory animals for testing cognitive function, but there are many practical and ethical issues that must be resolved before HD macaques can be used for pre-clinical research. By contrast, despite their comparable brain size, sheep do not enjoy a reputation for intelligence, and are not used for pre-clinical cognitive testing. Given that cognitive decline is a major therapeutic target in HD, the feasibility of testing cognitive function in sheep must be explored if they are to be considered seriously as models of HD. Here we tested the ability of sheep to perform tests of executive function (discrimination learning, reversal learning and attentional set-shifting). Significantly, we found that not only could sheep perform discrimination learning and reversals, but they could also perform the intradimensional (ID) and extradimensional (ED) set-shifting tasks that are sensitive tests of cognitive dysfunction in humans. Their performance on the ID/ED shifts mirrored that seen in humans and macaques, with significantly more errors to reach criterion in the ED than the ID shift. Thus, sheep can perform ‘executive’ cognitive tasks that are an important part of the primate behavioral repertoire, but which have never been shown previously to exist in any other large animal. Sheep have great potential, not only for use as a large animal model of HD, but also for studying cognitive function and the evolution of complex behaviours in normal animals.

Citation: Morton AJ, Avanzo L (2011) Executive Decision-Making in the Domestic Sheep. PLoS One 6(1): e15752. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0015752

Editor: Georges Chapouthier, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, France

Received: October 13, 2010; Accepted: November 21, 2010; Published: January 31, 2011
So due to ethical issues with testing on macaques, it was acceptable to test on sheep and the studies inadvertently revealed that sheep have a higher brain function than first thought.

Perhaps it would worth undertaking comparative studies with pigs and dogs. Despite claims of pigs being more intelligent than dogs, they are still bred for food. Raising the status of sheep is unlikely to save their chops.

See also New Scientist.

02 January 2011

wasting food 4

I've previously written about wasting food. On Boxing Day (26 December 2010), Jennifer Rajca writing in the Sydney Morning Herald reported that annually "[a]cross Australia, about 4.45 million tonnes of food, worth $7.8 billion, is discarded."   According to Jon Dee, founder of Do Something! "each household throws away $1036 worth of food, or 585 kilograms, each year."

That is a staggering amount. There needs to be a more careful study that audits food by type such as fresh (including vegetable, meat and dairy), processed foods (including condiments and their expiry dates) and frozen foods. While I very rarely discard fresh food as they are usually consumed before they get to spoil, processed condiments such as mayonnaise with expiry dates that require refrigeration often expire with significant content in the bottle. Hence packaging sizes may be a factor on such items.

Relatedly, last month, Sophie Morris in the London Evening Standard reported about a wonderful concept called "The People's Kitchen". Extrait
Sundays start slowly in Dalston. The local hipsters have been up late. If not partying, they've been customising their latest vintage clothing finds, writing short films to release as virals or debating radical politics.

So it's gone 4pm when a crowd begins to gather around chopping boards and crates of onions and potatoes at Passing Clouds on Richmond Road, a newish venue that wants to offer all things to all-comers, be that a funk night, drum workshop, gin-soaked ragtime and swing afternoon, golden oldie film screening or, in this case, a tasty home-cooked Sunday feast.

The venue describes itself as a “collective of artists and musicians” but now a band of foodies are staging a weekly takeover dubbed “the People's Kitchen”. You can eat a leek and courgette tortilla, oozing runny eggs and fresh greens, curled up in one of the worn velvet and leather armchairs in front of a film, or grab a spot at the bar with a bowl of spicy aubergine pasta. Latecomers pile up plates of bread and cheese before settling in for the evening's jam session, a weekly event performed by some of Passing Clouds' regulars.

The food is all waste collected from Spitalfields Market and local businesses that would otherwise have been thrown away, and some of the people who have turned up to help out have experience in professional kitchens, so the food and environmental boxes are ticked. But, best of all, this Sunday lunch is completely free.
Read more. It is a fascinating read. Wasting food is just simply sinful.

30 December 2010

Cruelty doesn't fly - PeTA advert banned

AFP via France24 has reported that a PeTA advertisement featuring Pamela Anderson, along with some nudity (bare bottoms) has been deemed inappropriate for showing at Hong Kong International Airport. Excerpts
An animal rights commercial starring former Playboy centrefold Pamela Anderson, which is banned at some US airports, has been deemed too racy for Hong Kong, one of Asia's busiest aviation hubs.

The advertisement, titled "Cruelty Doesn't Fly", features the scantily-clad former "Baywatch" star as an airport security guard who strips passengers of leather, fur and other skins.
and
The ad -- which also features comedian Steve-O, a star of the 'Jackass' movie series, and German punk icon Nina Hagen -- is already banned at airports in New York City and Boston, PETA said.
The animal rights group said it still hoping to run the ad in other Asia-Pacific airports, including Tokyo, Seoul and Sydney.




See also PeTA media release of 24 November 2010 following Boston (Logan) Airport's ban.

Whether you agree or not with PeTA's methods or messages, they do know how to gain attention.

28 December 2010

Over-indulgent much?

Here is the content of a Christmas meal.
2 x 25lb oven roasted turkeys

2 x 15lb maple-glazed hams

10lbs of roast potatoes

5lbs of mashed potatoes

5lbs of steamed broccoli

5lbs of chopped carrots

5lbs of sweet corn

5lbs of roasted butternut squash

5 loaves of house-baked bread

4 pints of cranberry relish

4 pints of house-made gravy

5lbs of herbed stuffing

1 tray of mixed green salad with dressing
It could easily feed 15 people or more. In this case, it fed one person. Donna Simpson. See reporting in UK Sunday Mirror (26 December 2010). Excerpt
Donna, from New Jersey, USA, claims to be frustrated that she can't eat even MORE as she aims to almost double her weight to 1,000lbs (71 stone) in a bid to smash her current Guinness World Record. She has already gone down in history as the largest woman ever to give birth.

Jacqueline was born when Donna weighed 38 stone in a dangerous delivery that required THIRTY doctors.

She spends up to £500 a week on food and gets through 12,000 calories a day - the healthy recommendation for women is just 2,000. Donna is proud that her blood pressure is "normal" but her doctor has warned that she will die if she continues her quest and she has dangerously high cholesterol levels.

She cannot walk more than 30ft at a time or stand for more than five minutes. She wheezed and appeared out of breath all through our interview.
She should get out more. Oh wait. She can't. Perhaps that is the problem.

13 December 2010

Helping others when we earn more than we need

BBC News has reported about Dr Toby Ord, who has given away more than a third of his income to charity
Toby Ord is a university researcher earning not much more than the average salary. So why is he giving away £1m over his lifetime to help address global poverty? When Facebook founder and billionaire Mark Zuckerberg pledged to give away most of his wealth during his lifetime, some British commentators bemoaned the lack of philanthropy on this side of the Atlantic.

But an academic at Oxford University is living off little more than £300 a month in an act of charity-giving that is arguably more impressive than those of Zuckerberg, Gates, Buffett and co.

Toby Ord, 31, has in the past year given more than a third of his earnings, £10,000, to charities working in the poorest countries. He also gave away £15,000 of savings, as the start of his pledge to give away £1m over his lifetime.

And he's started a campaign to recruit, Bill Gates-style, other people to give up at least 10% of their lifetime's earnings in the same way. A year on, 64 people have joined his movement Giving What We Can and pledged £14m.

Given his personal sacrifice, it's difficult not to feel rather intrigued about the kind of lifestyle he can maintain while so much of his earnings is going elsewhere.
Read more. Dr Ord still manages a comfortable lifestyle while helping others.

Giving up luxuries to save lives is a great philosophy. Perhaps earning more money than is needed and acquiring wealth for the sake of it, are not what life is about.

04 December 2010

Beyond reasonable doubt 4: making the invisible visible

I've previously written about the death penalty. From Amnesty International
Troy Davis has been on death row in Georgia, USA for 19 years. He has already faced execution three times. Amnesty is now deeply concerned that a recent decision by a federal district court puts him back on track for execution, despite unresolved doubts about his guilt.

No physical evidence links Troy to the crime and seven out of nine witnesses on whose evidence he was convicted have since changed their testimony. In June, Troy was given an unprecedented opportunity to present new evidence at a hearing ordered by the US Supreme Court. However, the judge ruled that Troy did not meet the extraordinarily high standard for proving his innocence.

“This decision puts Troy at risk of execution and like all death penalty cases, any doubt will become meaningless once his life has been taken.” Amnesty International UK Director, Kate Allen
This is an innovative way of bringing the case to the public's attention
German street art collective Mentalgassi have teamed up with Amnesty International to highlight his case by creating unique lenticular fence posters across London.

Troy Davis: Making the invisible visible from Amnesty International on Vimeo.

Music track is 'Heart Monitor' by Worried About Satan.

The posters can be seen at
4-7 Great Pulteney Street (W1)
21 Great Pulteney Street (W1)
5 Berners Street (W1)
and there may be others up.

29 October 2010

Beyond reasonable doubt 3

Last year, I wrote twice about the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in 2004 by the state of Texas on charges of murder. Today, questions remain about whether he was actually innocent.

More recently, again in the state of Texas, an inmate named Anthony Graves was finally freed after 18 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. He was also on death row. Melissa Block in All Things Considered on NPR interviewed Pamela Colloff, editor of Texas Monthly who wrote an in-depth article about the case. Extract of the radio transcript
BLOCK: Let's recap this case. Anthony Graves was convicted of capital murder. That conviction was actually overturned 12 years later, but he was awaiting retrial on capital murder charges. Now, the D.A.'s office says, unequivocally, he is an innocent man.

Ms. COLLOFF: Yes. What's interesting is that they say that unequivocally. This is not the sort of situation where a D.A. is saying we don't have enough evidence to move forward or this case is too old to prosecute. There is a remarkable press conference this morning that the district attorney held in Brenham, Texas, in which he and his special prosecutor said this man is innocent. We have absolutely no shred of evidence that connects him to this crime.

BLOCK: Well, how was it that Anthony Graves was first implicated in these murders back in 1992?

Ms. COLLOFF: This began because Robert Carter, the man who did in fact commit this crime and he was later executed for committing this crime, was asked repeatedly on the night of his arrest who had helped him. The Texas rangers who were investigating the case believed that one person could not have been responsible for the murders of six people. Finally, after a lengthy interrogation, Robert Carter came up with the name of Anthony Graves, a person he knew very, very casually, and that was the beginning.

BLOCK: And there was no physical evidence connecting Anthony Graves with the murders. He had an alibi, witnesses to back it up. What is the explanation for what happened with this case? Pamela, was this, as we said, missteps by the D.A., or was it something really more pernicious? Was there a willful misconduct on the part of prosecutors?

Ms. COLLOFF: The night before Robert Carter, the man who committed this crime, took the stand at Anthony Graves' trial, he told the district attorney, I did this myself. Anthony Graves had nothing to do with this. The district attorney at that point was obligated to disclose that information to the defense. He claimed that he did. The defense said that he never disclosed that. And there's no evidence to support that he ever did disclose that information. The following day Robert Carter took the stand, he testified against Anthony Graves and delivered the testimony that the district attorney had hoped he would. A federal court later found that when Mr. Sebesta took that testimony, he knew that that was perjured testimony.

BLOCK: It's worth noting that it was a journalism class engaged in investigating wrongful prosecutions that led to Anthony Graves' original conviction being overturned, right?

Ms. COLLOFF: That's correct. There's a professor here in Houston at University of St. Thomas, Nicole Casarez, she and her journalism students spent eight years investigating this case and turned up some remarkable facts. They went back. They reinvestigated the case. They found new people to talk about what had happened. They pored over this incredible lengthy and complicated court record. And what Nicole and her students put together was a very damning picture of miscarriage of justice.

BLOCK: Anthony Graves was, what, 26 when he was arrested. He leaves prison now at age 45 - 18 years of his life behind bars. What happens with him now?

Ms. COLLOFF: I think that's the question. I talked to him very briefly yesterday, and he said this is the beginning - I think, meaning, this is the beginning of my life or the rest of my life. But keep in mind he will get no money from the state of Texas. He's 45. He has nothing to his name. When he called his mother yesterday to tell her that he was finally being let go, he didn't know how to use his attorney's cell phone. And no amount of money, even if he were being given money, I think could give back what's been taken from him.

BLOCK: Pamela Colloff, it is a chilling and terrifying story. Thank you very much.
This would surely be another case to support the abolition of the death penalty.  Unlike Cameron Todd Willingham, Anthony Graves is now free. And alive.

What is worrying is the miscarriage of justice that allowed him to be imprisoned for so long in the first place. That is a separate issue and just as important.

23 October 2010

The ugly face of Islamaphobia



From (US) ABC News
The Sept. 11 attacks, the Iraq war and suicide bombings worldwide have changed not only the way we live but the way we look at those around us, especially Muslims. "Islamophobia" has entered the American vernacular, and the anti-Muslim attitudes and prejudice it describes remain common.

But what if you witnessed "Islamophobia" in action and saw someone being victimized because of someone else's prejudices? What would you do?
As the father, of a soldier just returned home from serving in Iraq, said "every person deserves to be treated with respect and dignity".

15 October 2010

The most expensive residence in the world

According to The Times of India (reported by Reeba Zachariah), Mr Mukesh Ambani, chairman of Reliance Industries, India's largest private sector company, with a personal estimated wealth of US$27 billion, is set to move into his new mansion. With a price nearing US$1 billion and named Antilia,
the 27-storey building completed after seven years of labour, has three helipads on the top floor and has been billed as the most opulent home of an individual anywhere in the world.

The glass tower that stands 570 feet tall features a swimming pool, a health club, a salon and a mini-theatre. The first six levels comprise the garage where more than 160 cars can be parked. Atop the parking lot is Antilia's lobby, which has nine elevators.

The lobby leads to numerous lounges, powder rooms and a ballroom. The top floors, with a sweeping view of the city, are where the 53-year old business magnate, his wife Nita and children Akash, Anant and Isha will reside.
Further reported in The Times (republished in The Australian), Rhys Blakely made a poignant observation
Looking over a city where more than half the population lives in slums, it is a soaring monument to the growing chasm dividing India's rich and poor.

For many, however, the gleaming tower will be an uncomfortable reminder that India's economic renaissance has delivered extraordinary benefits to a handful of hugely wealthy "Bollygarchs" but little to the 800 million Indians who live on not much more than $2 a day.

Mumbai suffers from a chronic shortage of quality homes, and visitors arriving at its airport are greeted by a seemingly endless patchwork of mottled tin and blue tarpaulin - the construction materials of the city's slum-builders. For decades, the slums have existed next to the luxurious bungalows and high-rises of India's super-rich - but not even the maharajas of past centuries exhibited the opulence of Mukesh Ambani, critics say.
Yes.  It is possible to have too much money. Such ostentatious displays of wealth in the face of poverty is a matter for residents of Mumbai to discuss.

08 October 2010

The right to dry.

A battle is raging across the United States by people fighting for the right to dry their laundry naturally outside on clotheslines.



See Drying for Freedom (trailer of film above)
Tens of millions of individuals across Northern America are banned from outdoor line drying by the very communities they live in, forcing them to turn to the dryer. Homeowners who break the rules are fined, sued and even foreclosed on. This ban is not only infringing on civil rights, it's contributing to the environmental and energy crisis. The dryer is responsible for 6% of the average household's energy bill and it costs residential ratepayers in the US an estimated $5 billion annually.
The right to dry movement embodied by Project Laundry List was founded following a speech by former Australian Dr Helen Caldicott.

See also Chicago Tribune and BBC News Magazine.

The concept of not being allowed to dry clothes outdoors is unthinkable in Australia, where the rotary clothesline known as the Hills Hoist was invented.