Second-hand items

As you will note from the links on the right hand side, I make use of second-hand options such as Green Metropolis, Amazon Marketplace, and E-bay. I feel that buying second-hand is a positive thing. It reduces waste by encouraging people not to throw things away, and also by reducing the market for new items, and reducing the need for wastefully large print runs which can end up destroyed untouched.

I also try to be as strict as possible about not illegally copying material, be it CDs, games, books, or essays. Whilst I am happy to accept the disgusting greed of the music industry and the poor treatment of the writing and recording artists, I still feel that stealing music (for example) is not only illegal, but probably does have a negative knock-on effect on the artists themselves.

I realised the contradiction in these positions the other day. I try to buy items second-hand. This means I am usually buying from an individual who bears no relation to the original source of the book or CD in question. No royalties will be paid to the author of the book, there will be no boost up the charts for the musician.

From the point of view of the artist, I may as well have acquired an illegal copy. The sole direct beneficiary of my second-hand purchase is the existing owner. In some cases, for example Green Metropolis, there are additional benefits to the second-hand purchase, such as a portion of my money going towards other beneficial projects.

So what is more important to me, the reduction of waste by buying second hand, or supporting the artist for their work?

Fluoridating MPs

A missive that I sent to my MP, Hugh Bayley, using the excellent Write To Them service.

---

Dear Mr Bayley,

I noted last week that the Health Secretary, Alan Johnson MP, is
leading a drive to encourage the fluoridation of water supplies. Two
parts of his statements seemed important to me. Firstly, he suggested
that there is strong evidence that the fluoridation of water is of
benefit to dental health. Secondly, he encouraged debate of the issue
at a local level.

In 1999 the Department of Health commissioned a systematic review from
the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) at the University of
York into the efficacy of fluoridating drinking water supplies. This
review was 'unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in
the fluoridation literature world-wide'[1]. The CRD has been at pains
to make its findings known, and to ensure that they are understood. In
fact, it released a statement asking that the relevant decision makers
make themselves aware of the contents of the report. The full text of
the statement and report can be found on the CRD website at
http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm.

Given the results of the review, commissioned by the Department of
Health, I am surprised that the Minister is supporting this initiative.
As my MP, I was wondering if you would be able to find out why this is
so, especially given the recent emphasis placed by many members of the
government on making evidence based decisions. Clearly, this policy is
in conflict with the existing evidence.

In addition, as the Minister suggested asked that debate occurs at a
local level, I would like to add my voice to those asking that the York
water supplies are not fluoridated, if for no other reason than it
seems foolish to waste public money on a project that has no shown
benefit. If of course any future well-conducted studies were to show
benefits of water fluoridation, I would happily change my position.

Yours sincerely,
LSNDuck

[1] CRD, October 2003: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm

Response from the Green Party

At the end of November, I wrote to the Green Party explaining why I had decided not to renew my membership. The text of my e-mail can be found in my previous post.

I was surprised to receive a response from the membership secretary of my local party. He said:

Sorry to hear you're not renewing your Green Party membership. I agree with your point about scientific illiteracy and also that there are ways to reduce quantities of paper we send.

York Green Party also has a supporters' scheme, where for £5 a year you can remain a supporter. The quantity of literature you receive is much reduced, but it means you are still kept in touch with regarding news and events.

I am glad that at the local level there are options to reduce the large amounts of paper sent out by the party. It is also heartening to see a positive response to my comments concerning the level of scientific literacy within the Green Party.

Although I won't be rejoining in the near future, some of my confidence is the common membership of the party is restored.

E-mail to the Green Party

Dear madam/sir,

Thank you for all of your recent correspondence concerning the lapsing of my Green Party Membership. Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding.

I have a great affinity with the principles, and the majority of policies of the Green Party; more so than with any of the other political groups. This extends not only to your stance on environmental issues, but to the wider issues such as benefits, education, and foreign policy. In any future elections, I am most likely to vote for a Green candidate.

However, I no longer feel it appropriate for me directly support the Party with either a financial contribution, or by being a full member. I have two reasons for this.

I strongly believe that the best way for a party such as the Green Party to be successful, it should base its policies and campaigning on as firm as base as possible. Having been brought up and educated with a strong scientific basis, and having observed the increasingly populist form that recent politics has taken, it seems that a truly benevolent government should be focusing on what works, what can be shown to work, and to what can rationally be expected to work.

Whilst a large proportion of formal Green Party policy has been formed in this way, I am increasingly concerned by the behaviour of senior Party members who are abandoning these principles and resorting to positions that seem more interested in manipulating irrational fears than in the realities of a given situation.

As a brief example, there was some brief concern over the potential dangers of wireless computer communications. These concerns have very little basis either in observable effect, or in the theories that underlie our current understanding of the physical world. There are certain parts of the media, and opportunistic politicians, who I had no surprise in seeing jump on this and create irrational fears and ban everything headlines. I did not expect this behaviour from senior members of a party that I had joined at least partly on the basis of its rationality.

I fully accept the right of any individual member to hold some particular views that do not agree entirely with the policy of their party. There are of course one or two points in which I disagree with Green Party manifestos. However, there is also an added responsibility upon senior party members, particularly those who are frequently providing a voice for the party in public fora, to be consistent with party policy, and where they are known to disagree, to at least be sure that their disagreement in based on a tenable position.

On a second, more practical note, I have been astounded by the amount of information I have received from the Green Party during my year as a member. Communication is a very important part of any political movement, but the volume of paper that I have received, frequently with separate mailings from different sources containing exactly the same information has almost disgusted me.

In addition, none of this sources seem to offer alternative methods of communication, most notably in my mind an e-mail or internet based method of delivery that would reduce the amount of physical resources used.

I repeat that I will continue to vote for the Green Party at every opportunity. I will continue to support the aims of the Party where I can, both in practical acts, and in communicating with friends, relatives, and in dealing with important issues. However, I cannot consider offering financial support, or continuing my formal relationship with the Party given my concerns raised above.

Yours sincerely,




LSNDuck

Reply to my e-mail

The reply to my e-mail from my local Liberal Democrat candidate. He failed to address my concerns, but he did answer within two hours, which was very good.

===

Dear Mr Duck,

Thank you for your e-mail.

You will have seen my regular Focus newsletters throughout the past four years that I have been your local councillor, and I have continued with this literature through the election campaign. All the leaflets are on recycled paper.

My aim is to keep in touch with local residents all year round, for example, to highlight local issues such as the Germany Beck development and the campaign for a pedestrian refuge.

On another note, I have been in communication with your neighbours about the planning application for [censored]. I am going to be making representations on their behalf to council officers, but welcome any comments you may have.

Kind regards,

Keith
----
Cllr Keith Aspden
Liberal Democrat, Fulford Ward
http://democracy.york.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.asp?UID=107

Local election letter

An e-mail to our Liberal Democrat candidate in the coming local elections:

---

Dear sir,

I am writing with regards the local election material that has been distributed on behalf of yourself and the Liberal Democrats. In past elections I have consistently voted Liberal Democrat, and although I always keep an open mind before casting my vote, was strongly considering doing so again in the coming election.

Unfortunately, two aspects of your campaign have caused me to reconsider.

Firstly, your stance has been almost purely negative, being based on the premise that voting Liberal Democrat is not voting Labour or Conservative. However, I accept this as a feature of modern politics, especially from the major parties and it is not my greatest concern.

Secondly, I am greatly concerned by the simple volume of material that has been distributed. So far I have received at least four flyers, of either A4 or A3 size, with identical content. In addition has been your recent personalised letter.

I appreciate that you wish to put a great deal of effort into your election campaign. I also understand more generally that election turnout is very low at present and you wish to have as many people voting as possible on general principle.

However, the sheer volume of paper that you have used shows a disturbing lack of concern for the environmental impact of your campaign. In addition, it is quite insulting that you feel the need to mindlessly repeat the same material so many times as though the potential voters were incapable of understanding it if they were only
presented it once.

I have yet to finally decide who I shall vote for on Thursday, but I am afraid that it is unlikely that it will be for you. In future elections, I will of course keep an open mind and judge on the circumstances at the time.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yours sincerely,

LSNDuck
--
[Address trimmed out]