adobe indesign database Buy Adobe Illustrator CS5 for Mac OEM - Online Software Downloads Center adobe creative suite 3 contents adobe photoshop cs upgrade windows Buy Adobe Illustrator CS5 OEM - Online Software Downloads Center adobe indesign cs2 warez adobe indesign free downloads Buy Adobe Creative Suite 5 Master Collection OEM - Online Software Downloads Center open sourc corel draw adobe illustrator adobe photoshop free online tutorial Buy Adobe Flash Professional CS5 for Mac OEM - Online Software Downloads Center fonts for adobe photoshop cs adobe creative suite 2 Buy Adobe Flash Professional CS5 OEM - Online Software Downloads Center purchase adobe photoshop cs2 transparent colour gif in adobe photoshop Buy Adobe Photoshop CS5 Extended for Mac OEM - Online Software Downloads Center adobe indesign cs palettes adobe photoshop and not elements cs Buy Adobe Dreamweaver CS5 for Mac OEM - Online Software Downloads Center oem adobe photoshop cs2 download adobe photoshop 7.01 Buy Adobe InDesign CS5 for Mac OEM - Online Software Downloads Center adobe indesign xml adobe photoshop 6 upgrade Buy Adobe InDesign CS5 OEM - Online Software Downloads Center adobe cs3 keygenerator dreamweaver adobe illustrator tutorials post cards Buy Adobe Creative Suite 5 Master Collection for Mac OEM - Online Software Downloads Center adobe photoshop black and white images adobe creative free photo suite Buy Adobe Dreamweaver CS5 OEM - Online Software Downloads Center adobe illustrator course outline adobe photoshop elements 5.0 photo editing Buy Adobe Photoshop CS5 Extended OEM - Online Software Downloads Center adobe cs3 photoshop oem

Posts Tagged ‘government’

Petitions

Wednesday, February 15th, 2006

Daniel Dearnley

Petitions writing
Petitions have been a tool for change for a very long time. This article looks at the basics of petitions: What are they? How to write them, effective ways to use them, and the rules of petitioning. This article also looks at how the internet can be used for petitioning.

What is a petition?
A petition is, in basic terms, similar to a complaint letter. It is a document containing a statement of views/concerns/grievances/etc. about an issue. It is addressed to a target person or organisation. The key difference is that petitions are signed by multiple people, rather than just the writer. More signatures, of course, means more impact and more chance for change.

How to write one
For a simple step by step guide:

  • 1) Decide what the aim of the petition is — what do you want changed and how?
  • 2) Decide who to petition — who is able to cause the changes you want and are they likely to respond? Or do you want to generally express views and raise awareness?
  • 3) Write it — tips on this later.
  • 4) Collect signatures — this can be either physically signing a piece of paper, hosting an online petition on a website for people to sign’ (often with email addresses etc), or providing documents or text that individuals can sign and then post or email. (See the take action guides on awareness campaigns for ideas on how to promote.)
  • 5) Send it.

Here are some tips for writing effective petitions
Have a clear statement about your concerns and specific demands — PR people love vague and waffling language. If you have an unclear demand it is too easy for the petition target to simply make it seem like they’re moving in the right direction, while not doing anything significant.

  • Be polite (but firm). Being disrespectful or rude is unlikely to get people on your side. If you’re seen as extremist some people will be unlikely to listen to you or support the petition.
  • Make concise statements based on fact. If possible reference what you say. Concise, clear, intelligent, factual statements often have more impact than an extended rant.
  • The demands should be practical — otherwise they will likely get ignored.

Who to petition
This depends on what you hope to achieve with the petition. If the petition wants to create specific change then it probably needs to be sent to a person/organization with the ability to cause the change, and one that is likely to listen.

Common targets for petitions are:

  • Governments — Governments often have a lot of power and influence so they can be well worth petitioning. Democratic governments are answerable directly to public opinion, so they do have to respond to petitions in some way.

However, there is a very complex formal process to submit a petition to a government, which must be followed to validate the petition. This varies depending on which government is being petitioned.

To look at the process required for the NZ government go to their website and follow the petitioning the house of representatives’ link.

Petitioning individual politicians can also be effective and there are less strict rules. Sometimes it can also be effective to petition city councils.

  • Companies — Sometimes people petition companies/corporations asking them to change business practices, etc. This can be effective as companies often have a lot of influence on issues (e.g. McDonalds would have an ability to fight childhood obesity if it wanted to).

The trouble with petitioning companies is that their bottom line is profits, not popularity. Unless a company feels that loss of image will lead to loss of business, all that petitioning is likely to achieve is a nicely worded explanation by the companies PR staff.

Petitioning can be effective as companies generally consider public image important (think of all the money spent on advertising). If a petition to a company hints at a possible boycott, etc. it is likely to be more effective.

  • Individuals - In some (rarer) cases, individuals or non-corporate organizations can be petitioned. As with petitioning companies, petitions will probably be more effective if the target is given good reason to care about what you think.

Online petitions
The Internet has brought about a new trend of online petitions — a petition can be hosted as a website (googling online petition’ will likely bring up a million hosting sites), where people can sign it by entering email addresses (or other details) into an online form. Or people can be asked to sign and send a copy of an email individually to the target.

  • These can be very convenient ways to collect signatures, however there are some drawbacks:
  • Verifying identity is difficult on the Internet. This means online petitions are less trustworthy and generally have less impact.
  • If a formal process has to be followed for a petition to be accepted usually physical signatures are required, thus online petitions are invalid.
  • Serious petitions are often lost among silly ones. For instance a petition that Ashlee Simpson should shut up received over 50 times as many signatures as a petition to the music publishing association not to sue websites offering transcripts of modern songs for the purposes of teaching music.

So how effective are they?
There are some success stories advertised on the various petition hosting websites, but not many. Petitions can be an effective tool for drawing attention to an issue and awareness raising, but more often cause minimal change and are simply stating a viewpoint, which is essentially all a petition can do.

Beyond the petrol pump - peak oil and aotearoa new zealand

Wednesday, November 16th, 2005

Omar Hamed

A friend told me earlier this year that he was buying an expensive new car. One that guzzles petrol like there is no tomorrow. I asked if he was out of his mind. I told him that there is no point buying a gas guzzling car now that the end of cheap oil has come. In a couple of years, I said, he will not even be able to afford the petrol for his new car. Needless to say, he bought the car. But now less than twelve months later he is finding it harder and harder to afford the rapidly increasing petrol prices.

petrol pumpsAlthough the price of petrol is estimated to reach $2.00 a litre by Christmas, and with analysts saying this is just the beginning of the price rises, no one should be surprised with the current situation. Matthew Simmons, an adviser to President George Bush, said earlier this year, “Demand is pulling away from supply…and we have to ask whether we have the resources that we think we do. It could be catastrophic if we do not anticipate when peak oil comes.”

Many of you are probably thinking, “what is peak oil’?” Peak oil is when the amount of oil being extracted reaches its highest point and after that it starts to decline. We will not know when peak oil happens until after it has already occurred. There are conflicting opinions on when peak oil will be reached. Some experts say we have already reached it, while others say it will happen in the coming decade. The fact is that in the next few years oil is going to get increasingly scarce. Oil prices are going to keep rising and with this rise will come a rise in the costs of those things which require oil to be manufactured. This includes everything from clothing to food, and from plastic bags to bicycle tyres.

Peak oil will have a huge effect on our society. Because a major part of our economic system is built around oil, running out in the near future is going to have dramatic effects on the way we live. Oil provides 90% of global transport supply and a reliable flow is needed for New Zealand and most other countries economies to continue growing. Because of New Zealand’s location at the bottom of the world, increased oil prices will make transport to and from these islands increasingly expensive.

The move away from a society based around cheap oil to one based around renewable resources and energy conservation is not simply an option; it is an inevitability. Harnessing solar and wind power as well as increased energy efficiency will reduce the possibilities for blackouts down the line. Long queues at the petrol station can be avoided if there is adequate government funding of public transport and cycle infrastructure. Use of plastic packaging can be cut back on dramatically by businesses. Food processed and transported thousands of kilometres from factory to supermarket will cease to be the norm as oil prices hit consumer spending. In a sure sign of things to come a neighbour told me last night that he had sold his four wheel drive the week before. Why? Because the cost of filling his tank with petrol was now costing well over a hundred dollars. Oil free future, here we come. Ready or not.

LEARN MORE

Richard Heinberg’s Paper presented on November 7th 2005, at the California Leaders Round Table Dialogue on Peak Oil, Climate Change and Business Action; , 2005 in San Francisco.

Neo-colonialism ratified at Pacific Islands’ Forum

Friday, November 4th, 2005

Omar Hamed

Today Pacific Island nations at the Pacific Island Forums have welcomed and endorsed the Pacific Plan, a blueprint for neo-colonialism in the south Pacific.

wto

The Governments of Australia, the Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Papua New Guinea, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu and Vanuatu, and representatives of Palau and Tonga. New Caledonia, French Polynesia Timor-Leste and Tokelau endorsed the Pacific Plan which is mainly based around implementing a number of trade liberalisation agreements notably Pacific Island Countries Trade Agreement (PICTA), the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA) and the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER).

Professor Wadan Narsey, the Director of Employment and Labour Market Studies at the University of the South Pacific in Fiji has a good and brief summary of these different agreements in the Pacific Magazine.

Particularly concerning was the news that Pacific leaders have adopted a roadmap that paves the way for, “Expansion of market for trade in goods under the South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Cooperation Agreement (SPARTECA), the Pacific Island Countries Trade Agreement (PICTA), the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER), and through trade arrangements with non-Forum members.

  • Integration of trade in services, including temporary movement of labour, into the Pacific Island Countries Trade Agreement (PICTA) and the Economic Partnerships Agreement (EPA).” A clear reference to WTO GATT and GATS agreements.

wtokills
The recent round of talks this week has angered some NGOs concerned at the speed with which these trade agreements are taking place. Greenpeace Oceans Campaigner, Lagi Toribau said in a press release at the end of the conference that “Despite the rhetoric about security in the Plan, it currently fails to deliver true security for Pacific Island communities, such as health, food and real energy security”.

Oxfam New Zealand Executive Director, Barry Coates was at a meeting of civil society groups in Papua New Guinea to launch a report on Vanuatu’s accession to the World Trade Organisation called “Make Extortion History” and to seek a freeze on trade negotiations. He said on the Oxfam website that “Small Pacific countries have much less to gain than most other nations from joining the WTO, due to factors like the wide dispersal of their populations and the great distances to markets. They of all countries should be allowed to try and find ways to use international trade as a means to enhance their development. Instead, they are subjected to intense pressure to open up their economies for the benefit of foreign exporters and multinationals.”

Oxfam New Zealand have been watching the Pacific Plan for some time now and their report “Make Extortion History” and a number of Pacific focused reports about the effects of economic deregulation and New Zealand’s extortion in the pacific are available online.

Although NGOs wanted more time and more consultation John Howard and Helen Clark pushed through the Pacific Plan. “I believe the work that is being done to build a region-wide consensus about what the priorities are will in turn then influence national plans and give people guidance on how to take that development further,” stated Clark pushing ahead priorities that Professor Jane Kelsey has linked with a strategy of colonialism and exploitation in the South Pacific. Kelsey in her reader friendly A PEOPLE’S GUIDE TO PACER, The Implications for the Pacific Islands of the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations points out that “Pacific people were excluded from debating these developments because of the secretive way that trade negotiations are conducted and the willingness of governments to buy into that anti-democratic process. Regional NGOs, especially PANG, challenged the lack of transparency and‚ civil society input when they discovered what was happening in 2001. Their voices were ignored.”

Kelsey has also been involved in a number of other studies of recolonisation in the Pacific and her major reports concern the Economic Partnership Agreements and PACER.

Dev-Zone, an Aotearoa NGO resource Centre on international trade and development, and the Global Education Centre’s sister organisation, has a number of different resources available on their website concerning trade in the Pacific.

In the lead up to the Hong Kong WTO conference in December Kelsey has said in a press release for the Action, Research & Education Network of Aotearoa (ARENA) that, “Those of us whose governments are making these outrageous demands (through PACER, PICTA and the WTO) need to find ways to challenge their role in that process.” Kelsey further highlights the need for sustained campaigning around the WTO conference in regards to the behaviour of the WTO and the role New Zealand and Australia play in the South Pacific.

For further articles about the Pacific Plan check out Arena and Scoop.

This Article and Photos were published on Indymedia on October 28, 2005.

Greens shouldn’t waste time with immoral greed merchants

Wednesday, October 12th, 2005

Cameron Walker

Despite a well intentioned and highly publicized meeting, big business still finds the Green Party scary. By the way the media has portrayed this it seems like we are all supposed to be worried that the anti-business Greens’ may well form part of the next government.

On the contrary I would be more worried if big business and their lobbyists weren’t afraid of the Green agenda.

Policies which place the best interests of the business leaders and lobbyists present at the meeting, such as Telecom CEO Theresa Gattung and Business Roundtable Executive Director Roger Kerr, don’t necessarily co-incide with the best interests of the majority of New Zealand’s people or indeed the nation’s economy.

New Zealand’s telecommunications network was built up by the taxpayer, a form of economic collectivism the likes of Roger Kerr would no doubt oppose today. In 1990, as part of New Zealand’s neo-liberal reforms, Telecom was sold off for the small sum of $4.25 billion to two American multinational corporations Bell Atlantic and Ameritech. Considering the fact that every year since 1990 Telecom has posted profits well into the hundreds of millions of dollars makes the privatisation seem like an act of corporate welfare.

Thousands of technical staff were layed off, to be replaced with contractors on worse pay and conditions. Meanwhile the ranks of management, many with no specific knowledge of telecommunications, and their pay packets ballooned. Theresa Gattung receives a pay packet of 2.9 million a year. Yet just three years ago many Telecom technical staff, found out that if they wanted to keep their jobs they would have to apply to work for a contracting firm and lose their sick leave and redundacy payments that they’d built up over many years. Telecom claimed it needed to do this to remain viable.

According to Statistics NZ only 22 percent of Telecom shareholders are New Zealanders. This means the majority of Telecom’s profits go to wealthy overseas shareholders rather than being re-invested in the New Zealand economy or in the telecommunications network.

When they act like this it’s not suprising that these so called business leaders’ would oppose Green proposals to limit foreign control of the economy, strengthen workers rights and to increase the minimum wage.

Roger Kerr, and his organisation the Business Roundtable, have spent much time, effort and resources over the past two decades, supporting basically every government policy that has increased big business profits, at the expense of workers and the poor. He is also noted for opposing policies which help the majority of people, such as four weeks annual leave.

In the 1980’s the Business Roundtable viewed Pinochet’s Chile as a suitable economic model for New Zealand to follow.

In 1988 after TV One’s current affairs programme, Frontline, exposed that the workers employed by a New Zealand forestry company in Chile were axing trees, while wearing open toed sandals and living in rat infested huts, then Roundtable Chairman Ron Trotter, argued that New Zealand needed Chilean style’ labour laws.

A few years later the Roundtable got their wish when the Employment Contracts Act was passed, leading to less bargaining power for unions and worse wages. Its not suprising that one commentator dubbed New Zealand’s free market reforms Pinochet without the gun’.

Despite the well documented evidence that New Zealand’s neo-liberal reforms greatly increased poverty and inequality Kerr says we need to go back to the days of Pinochet without the gun’.

The Greens shouldn’t waste time trying to reassure the Roger Kerrs and Theresa Gattungs of our nation. To do so appears to be appeasement. If the party is to keep its principled policies then it should expect oppostion from such unscrupulous people and organisations.

Fahrenheit 9/11 - Review

Tuesday, June 14th, 2005

By Corrina Howland, age 14, Wellington

fahrenheit_photo Fahrenheit 9/11 is Bush-bashing at its cinematographic best. The documentary provides an insight into Michael Moore’s many theorems about George Dubya and takes viewers step by step through the scandals and subsequent cover-ups made by the Bush government upon the issue of the Iraq War. Although each allegation was supported with varying amounts of incriminatory evidence, it left the sceptic in me wondering whether these assertions were substantiated or whether the rule of six degrees of separation had been misused. However, the full scope of the damage in Iraq is not something to be disregarded. During the documentary, the viewers are confronted with extensive and often disturbing footage of the war. Special mention must be made to the GI Joes who gladly shared with us the trials and tribulations of killing innocent civilians, and of course, their favourite choice of combat music. It seemed as if they were still little boys, playing with their Playstation rather than with human lives.

I would recommend this movie, as although it did not highlight any new issues for those who are familiar with Moore’s campaign, it did provide a consolidation of facts and strike yet another blow in the heart of the Bushdom.

Learn More
Find out more from the man himself: MichaelMoore.com
The success of the movie: Fahrenheit 9/11 Tops $100 Million

And the other side:
MooreWatch - Watching Michael Moore’s Every Move
Micheal Moore Hates America