Comments (1)

By Les Scammell, October 29, 2007 2:47 pm

A little late today and only eight sites visited by the radical blogger. I am pleasantly surprised at how many sites are very good. It’s not until you undertake a task like this that you really look closely at sites. I think sometimes we visit and look without actually seeing. Today’s victims are:

My best site for the day? Today’s choice was even harder than yesterday – however after some considerable thought I have nominated The Busy Dad Blog – I am probably biased as I relate so well to it. Blog review catalog will soon be published. Would you like a radical review of your site. Just ask.

Comments (5)

By Les Scammell, October 28, 2007 7:29 am

After my last post I have decided to do something a little more constructive. I am starting the radical blog reviews. As I am visiting sites everyday, I am going to review them and place my thoughts on this site. If you receive a message in your comments regarding the Radical Blogger, then you will know I have visited and that a review awaits you here. Today I have visited the following blogs – click on the link to see the review. Comment if you wish. Once I have completed a few reviews I will publish the radical blog review catalog.

The radical bloggers site for the day? It was a hard choice but Moonbeam McQueen won it by a hair. More tomorrow. I am working on the Blog Review Catalog.

Comments (9)

By Les Scammell, October 27, 2007 2:15 pm

If I offend any potential visitors – tuff. This is my rant on blogging and bloggers in general. I enjoy blogging. I enjoy visiting the blog sites from my friends lists on the various blog sites. I try to visit around ten sites per day, if I find something that really appeals to me then I will leave a comment. I probably leave about six comments each day. I notice that I am getting close to 600 hits on this site, I know for some people they would say so-what, or else they would say they get close to that each day – well I know I am not up there with the best – no where near it – but to me 600 is exciting – another milestone. 1000 will be my big milestone. However, after almost 600 hits I have received all of seven comments.

I know a lot of people are trying to monetize their sites. Why are they ignoring one of the best resources available – and that is the comments. When you leave a comment you can often also include a link to your page (site). This link is highly regarded by search engines like google and helps to improve your page rank. As it is first, a one way link and second, a deep link (not just a link swap on the home page) the search engines place a higher value on the link. The more links like this, the higher your rank can become.

Another aspect of blogging that rankles me is the blog directories where you can submit your blogs. These are valuable resources when used correctly. Most people use these directories to surf blogs, make contacts and communicate occasionally. Most directories allow you to contact all your “friends” and send messages. I notice on one directory that I belong to that whilst people are sending messages, there are very few responses. Why?I am not sure! I sent a message to all my ‘friends’ and didn’t get one response – I think I may have had three or four visitors looking at the page. I wonder, does anyone else ever get to a stage where they say – why bother!

When it comes to monetizing your site, what would like visitors to do. Obviously click on some of the links, the advertising etc. However, how often do you click on someones advertising when you see it. I don’t mean random clicking, I am talking about clicking on areas of interest. I can guarantee that of all the visitors to this article, only one or two will click on a link. I guess its human nature. Everyone wants you click on their $ earning links but forget to do the same when visiting other sites.

I would love for someone to come up with a simple series of well written advice articles for bloggers on how they could improve their blogging routine each day. If anyone knows of one please let me know. I will happily read it, and link to it if it sounds good.

Blogging is a great way to get your message across, have a rant like this, provide useful information, the list is endless. It is also a great way to discover information, get help or just for pure entertainment. Our blogging experience could be so much greater.

That’s my rant. If you have any comments then I dare you leave them – with a link to your pages. Until next time – I hope you enjoy your stay on this site, please tell others if you do.

Comments Off

By Les Scammell, October 26, 2007 1:32 pm

While surfing and reading other blogs it is really great to see how many individuals can use personal experiences to defy the so called scientific experts. I refer of course to my article on ‘positive thinking and cancer”.

The following blogs are well worth a read as follow ups to what I have written. In fact they are far more eloquent than I will ever be. Check them out:

Comments (4)

By Les Scammell, October 24, 2007 2:03 am

I find this not only hard to believe but also a very negative approach. One problem with research such as this is that it is too narrow in its approach and to its original question. Surely the question should be, does negative thinking and depression reduce the life expectancy of a cancer sufferer.

Cancer is probably one of the hardest illnesses to live with. It can be a long, slow and painful condition which if not dealt with early, leads to death. Quality of life is an important issue for both the sufferer and their friends and families. Being able to approach things in a positive way obviously makes life a little easier on everyone. Being negative often leads to depression which in itself has many effects.

My personal thoughts are that scientist really need to think about how the outcomes of their research findings are going to effect people suffering from various illnesses. In this case, if they had researched the effects of negative thinking on life expectancy of cancer sufferers, the results would have had no negative impact on those sufferers. If negative thoughts reduces life expectancy, the action is to try and improve their feelings; if negative thoughts had no effect, then no action would be required.

As it stands now, sufferers and their families look at these types of reports and come away with the feeling that it is all hopeless, it doesn’t matter if I help them feel good, it has no long term effect; or, the sufferer feels more depressed etc etc etc.

Time to think researchers – there is an obligation to think about how you going to report your findings, what effect your findings are going to have on the broader community, and whether or not you could better phrase the question.

Comments (1)

By Les Scammell, October 20, 2007 1:01 pm

As Australia moves closer to election day it is becoming more apparent that Labor leader Kevin Rudd will defeat current Prime Minster John Howard, probably by a big margin. The question is why? Why will they will dump one of their most popular Prime Minsters for many years.

The answer, while sounding simplistic, involves in depth psychology. The very fact that John Howard is so popular is also going to be his downfall. Kevin Rudd has one very strong thing going for him – he looks, sounds and acts like John Howard. He looks like a father or grandfather (not that he is that old) – he is confident and compelling in front of the media without looking arrogant – finally, he is down to earth, your regular everyday ‘aussie’.

John Howard on the other hand has become arrogant. Gone are the days when he looked like reliable father/grandfather. He now looks desperate that desperation is showing as arrogance. Some of the legislation that has hurt workers over the last 12 month is also starting to sting – particularly when he insists that no-one has been hurt.

Finally everyone knows that he is not in it for the long haul – he has stated that he will quit after about 12 months and the job over to his deputy, Peter Costello, who is not particularly well likes. For John Howard and the Australian Liberals, it looks like it is going to be their turn on the opposition benches – probably for quite a while.

Comments (1)

By Les Scammell, October 17, 2007 11:55 am

Drugs in Sport? A controversial issue at any time and with the Olympics just around the corner it is sure to rear its ugly head again, and again, and again. myLot User Profile

I wonder if it is really worth the fuss. Athletes, more to the point, drug manufacturers are constantly finding ways to and drug types that can enhance the performance of athletes while beating the drug tests. It would not surprise me to learn that these same drug companies are then developing the testing procedures to discover these drugs – talk about perpetual funding. I would love to own a business like that – earn an income by creating a problem then double that by delivering a solution – wow – cash flow.

The reality is that where money is involved, prestige and public status, people will try to beat the system. The only way to resolve the issue is to stop fighting. Athletes are always going to try and find a better way to perform. The human body is capable of doing so much naturally – drugs are one of the only options available that enable an athlete to push their bodies beyond what it has been designed to do. If we remove the bans on performance enhancing drugs then perhaps we can at least ensure that the drugs themselves do minimal harm.

Even the professional in sport are now starting to come out either in favor of legalizing, or they are at least admitting that winning this battle (substance bans) is a lost cause. Don Talbot, one of Australia’s former leading swim coaches now believes that legalising may be the only solution. You can see his opinions here - http://www.abc.net.au/canberra/stories/s2060567.htm?backyard.

John Fahey, the new president of the World Anti-Doping Authority (WADA) believes that winning the battle is not possible – see his article here – http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/17/2062092.htm.

The problem with banning performance enhancing drugs is that it is not only the drug itself that is banned – in fact there are really only a handful of drugs that are banned. It is the drugs used to hide the performance enhancing drugs that are also banned that lead to problems. Drugs commonly used for pain relief, contraception, weight control (eg diruetics), epilepsy and even coffee (caffeine in higher than normal doses) are also banned. In fact, some chemicals found naturally in the human body are also banned. One of the common problems some male athletes experience is that of raised testosterone levels – these levels may raised naturally or as the result of illness, over training, injury, sexual activity and many other factors. However these raised levels often lead to problems when it comes to ‘dope testing’.

Athletes have in the past been banned from sport due to high levels of caffeine – because they drank that third or fourth cup of coffee in the morning, pain relief medication – because they had suffered severe pain such as a migraine in the days leading up to competition or testing, or because they had used diuretics to help control weight. It should be noted that none of these drugs are on the banned list because they enhance an athletes abilities. No, they are on the list because they could be used to mask the performance enhancing drug.

I say enough is enough. It is the athletes body. Let them do what they want with it. Do people really care whether the winner is on drugs or not? The answer is yes – but only because of the scandal or because they feel the person that finished second or third should have won. Athletes that have been caught out in the past have been happy enough to give back their medals – you never see them offering to give back the money have made – so really – its not so much the sport these days – its that holiest of holly grails – the DOLLAR.

Comments (1)

By Les Scammell, October 14, 2007 1:35 am

A recent article on allergies and asthma rates should be causing concern to all, particularly if you are raising children.Some reports suggest that up 70% of the current generation could suffer allergies of some type. It is important to clarify that I am talking about allergies, and not just food intolerance’s. An allergy is where the body actually reacts against a substance causing secondary problems. Some of these problems include, asthma, anaphylactic shock and skin disorders such as hives.

There are many theories in the medical (and not so medical) world regarding the cause of this increase in allergic reactions. Some of these include breast feeding (see article here), the ‘hygiene hypothesis’, (see my article here), pollution and gene technology. I have even seen stories that blame space flight and imported pathogens from either the space craft or space junk entering our atmosphere.

The second area that I think is more likely to cause problems is the hygiene hypotheses which basically says that the more we sterilize our environment, the more ‘good’ bacteria we are killing. If you consider what we are doing in today’s world; antibiotics (kill good and bad bacteria), sterilize everything in the house (kill good and bad bacteria), prevent our children from having contact with anyone who is sick (not building natural resistance) and immunizing our kids (artificial immunity); you can see that our little ones are not getting the opportunity to develop strong natural immune systems. I cover this topic in full here – please feel free to read and comment.

The third area that does need addressing of course is pollution. Probably the one area that can be statically measured is the increase in air/water/ground pollutants and the increase in allergies, particularly asthma. In developing countries that do not have these pollutants, they have a much lower incidence of allergy. (This statistic is also true for the hygiene hypotheses). It is also interesting to note that in developing countries where pollutants are increasing, so too are the incidence of allergic reactions – unfortunately often leading to death as they don’t have the medical facilities to match.

In conclusion, we really do need to be concerned with this problem. I have not flooded the article with boring statistics, I don’t believe I need to. We all probably live with individuals who suffer allergies. Perhaps you suffer as well? And the numbers are growing. Will mankind kill itself off because it becomes allergic to its own environment? I am sure we wont be the first species to become allergic to our own environment – and perish!

Comments (1)

By Les Scammell, October 10, 2007 10:34 am

The Australian Dingo is under threat of extinction. At present there are no plans to help conserve this Australian icon. Why? Perhaps because in the true sense the dingo is not a native species having been introduced some 4-5000 years ago. I don’t know how long a species needs to live in a region to be considered a native but the Australian dingo no longer resembles any of its cousins in the Asian region.

One reason for the lack of protection for the dingo is its reputation and the perceived risk to humans and livestock. Its interesting that over the last two hundred years there have been a massive four attacks on humans. Yes – just four. Meanwhile there are around 14000 domestic dog attacks on humans – per year.

Another reason for the lack of protection for dingoes are the attacks on livestock. However, dingoes, being canine, can and do breed with domestic dogs. These cross breeds are the animals that hunt in packs and destroy livestock. By all means, lets hunt and eradicate these animals – they are certainly not native and they do destroy both livestock and native fauna.

The dingo itself is a fairly solitary animal. When it does hunt in packs it is generally only with its own family, the female and her pups from the last year or two. The dingo is actually quite a shy animal and in the wild will often leave an area rather than confront a human. There are a couple of exceptions to this.

One of these exceptions is an area known as Frazer Island. This island has had quite a checkered past having seen many protests over sand mining in the past. It is now a national park and permits are required to visit. Despite the permits, and having access limited to guided tours or four wheel driver vehicles, the island is frequented by thousands of visitors every year. The last couple of dingo attacks have occurred on Frazer Island. Why? The visitors treat the dingoes like pets and offer them food and of course try to pet them. It had reached a point where visitors where being approached by the dingoes for food. If none was offered, well they would help themselves. This caused two problems, first the reliance on ‘human provided food’ and not their own hunting, and secondly, with so much food available, huge population growth. The feeding of dingoes is now banned and some order is starting to return. Eventually population numbers will fall as they have to hunt for their own food.

There is now talk of putting up dingo fences at picnic grounds to protect the visitors from the dingoes. After all, there have been so many attacks on humans by these animals (four in two hundred years).

The dingo is a necessary animal in Australia’s ecosystem. It is extremely effective in controlling feral cats, foxes and rabbits (none are native). It provides a balance in the system being the largest of the few hunting native animals on this continent.

As to the dingo fence, the dingoes need the protection, not the humans! If they decide to put up a fence it needs to be called a human fence – to protect the dingoes from our follies.

Comments Off

By Les Scammell, October 8, 2007 2:25 pm

Here in the land of Oz (in case you don’t realize it, I live in Australia), we are about to hit election time. The current Prime Minister, John Howard, is so far behind in the polls that it will probably take a miracle to win. But, he has done it before.

One of the dangers he is facing at the moment is that everyone knows the election is looming, in fact unofficial campaigning has started. Herein lies his problem. By the time he calls the election most people will be so sick of the campaigning that they will switch off totally – if they haven’t already. If he goes to the election now, he will lose – no question about it.

The last two elections have been come from behind wins. But in each of those elections there have been major dramas around the world. We had 9/11. We had Iraq and Afghanistan. We had the Bali bombings. These dramas really did help him get re-elected.

One can only think of a couple of reasons why he hasn’t called the election yet. One, he is just hanging on and hoping. Two, he is hoping for another major event that will save him, or three, he is just hanging on long as possible because once the election is called, his political career may well be over.

Number one, he has no hope. Number two, I don’t even think a major drama can save him this time. The people of Australia have come to see through his manipulation of these events come election time. Number three, well it sounds about right – the last gasps.

Having said all this of course, the opposition party needs to be very careful. If they start to feel they are unbeatable, mistakes will happen and I believe the only way John Howard can win this election is if the opposition leader, Kevin Rudd, starts to make major errors.

Somehow, I cant see that happening.