Truth be told

I have always believed in absolute truth, but I have also long accepted that truth is always tainted by the interpretation of the beholder. However, this acceptance does not stop me from wanting to bang my head against my keyboard every time people get suckered into something blatantly false.

The suckers of late have been my parents, particularly with regard to their uncertain relationship with the internet and the number of inaccuracies that have bred and thrived in this distorted environment.

I have told both parents on no uncertain terms that I have filtered out all forwarded emails (this has, on occasion, filtered out genuine forwards from people showing me something of interest but the effect, on the whole, has rendered my inbox a peaceful place).

I had a comb through the e-bin this afternoon and came across a really disturbing picture sent to me in a email from my mum about washing bras before wearing them. The premise of the email was to wash your bras before wearing them because they could be full of parasites that would cause the 'damage' in the picture.

The digitally savvy, myself included, can immediately see that although grotesque, the picture is fake, digitally manipulated. Unfortunately someone like my mother cannot. Result is, she panics and sends the email to my sister and I reminding us to wash new bras before we wear them OR ELSE.

This email has also come from a woman who religiously watches 'Border Security' the reality TV show that gives ordinary Australians a snapshot of what organisations like the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, Customs and Border Protection and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship go through to save Australia from all sorts of unwanted pests.

I replied with this email:

Mum,

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE check is something is really true before you send it around - and tell your friends to do the same. There are so many lies on the internet and so much to worry about in the world that we really can't spare the time to worry about fake things.

The photo is quite obviously digitally manipulated.

You also forget Australia's rigorous quarantine laws and checking procedures.

You can read more about this fake email warning here:
http://www.snopes.com/photos/medical/breastrash.asp

The site www.snopes.com is very good for checking whether something is true. Sometimes, something is true - but the chances of it happening are so slim that it's really not worth passing on.

Now, pass this email back up to the person who sent it to you and ask them to do the same.

The education never stops Chez Witmol.

Pay it forward, enviro style

It's all very well that a lot of businesses are now greening their business practices, from producing better, more sustainable and enviro-friendly products in an efficient and enviro-friendly manner, to making their surroundings more eco-friendly and less resource hungry. Yes, by all means keep it up.

But wouldn't it be totally ace if you knew that the people who worked for that company ALSO subscribed to enviro-friendly values and ALSO lived their life in a sustainable manner?

That would mean that all the money you spend on a benevolent product or service goes to the wages of people who also buy benevolent products and services, exponentially extending the power of the dollar towards green goals.

Of course there are plenty of near impossibilities with this idea, largely being able to monitor light green and dark green practices, plus also things like privacy to contend with, but it's a good idea, isn't it?

You could start with smaller businesses not only declaring that their business is environmentally friendly, but that the people in it have those values so that customers feel comfortable putting money into a business where good green intentions are paid forward.

All other things being equal, I would prefer to give my business to someone who has the same green principles as me. It'd be a true green economy.

Uighurs

I'd never heard about Uighurs before the recent trouble in western China. I received a shorthand understanding of the situation through Friday's edition of The Week, which is pretty much a summary of the news aimed at lazy people (they say 'busy', but I can tell you it's really 'lazy').

For those after an overview, the Uighurs are a Muslim ethnic minority that live in the far west of China. Earlier this year ethnic tensions exploded between the Uighurs and the Han Chinese (more than 90% of Chinese are of Han ethnicity). The riot was largely based on a false rumour that some Uighur men had raped some Han women.

The first part of the article basically profiled the Uighurs as a group, where they came from, and their history. I got to the part decribing where they live, Xinjiang: "the region's rugged, arid terrain is so inhospitable that it was one of the last areas on earth to be settled". I thought 'huh, why would the Chinese want to annex that?'.

Then it became clear: "Beijing wants the Han to control the political and economic levers of Xinjiang, which boasts rich mineral, gas, and oil deposits."

Why didn't you say so? This conflict is less about a clash of religion and culture than a political takeover for resources/economic gain. Am I right?

The idea of fair trade strikes me here. Instead of the Han persecuting the Uighurs (there are reportedly huge differences in the living standards of the two groups with Han Chinese receiving government perks) why work out a way in which to extract the resources while providing Uighurs with incentives to govern the area to Beijing's liking? At this point, the Uighurs get shunted from their homeland and have nothing to show for it. Yes, I'm oversimplifying the situation, but it really is 'why can't everybody just get along?!'

Forget the ethnicity of each group for a moment and think of it this way: a powerful group wants the land and resources of another, less powerful group. It doesn't matter that they're Muslim or Buddhist (think Tibet), just that they are different and therefore able to be labelled as the Other and easier to target.

In similar circumstances, the rest of the world can see that this is unfair and tend to react accordingly (again, think 'Free Tibet'). Unfortunately there's no sympathy for the Uighurs because unlike peace-loving Tibetan separatists, Uighurs proved to be aggressive separatists. And the non-Muslim world is stil divided about whether Muslims, en masse religious community, are peaceful or terrorists.

It just brings me to think that religion and greed have no place in this world if we are to think of peace as more than just a concept.