Marketers Fail to Proof

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Gosh, it must be tough to be in Marketing! No sooner does a competitor start a new campaign -- you are expected to produce a counter-campaign. The more the rush -- the more the chance of errors...

Coles announced that all of their meat is free of artificial hormones. How can Woolworths counter that? With a new range which is produced without the aid of added hormones, of course.

Unfortunately, Marketing failed to proof-read their copy...

No Surprise as Uni Students Drop Out

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

In Today's West (29 Dec 2010) Bethany Hiatt reports that more students are dropping out of university. Almost 19% of students who started uni in WA in 2008 did not return in 2009.

Is anyone surprised?

Edith Cowan University (ECU) appears to have set the record, with 23.03% of its 2008 first year students not returning in 2009. I wonder if the ECU V-C really believes the spin that he puts on that figure?

Is Change an Enemy of Success?

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

This post looks at an area where I am not an expert. Now there's a surprise! Instead, I begin with a quote from an expert:

France gets smoked out in the euro crisis

Somehow France has managed to get itself grouped along with Germany as one of the strong euro nations. But it runs a bigger budget deficit than Italy. It has chronic unemployment and little growth. Crucially, it has the greatest resistance to reform. The merest suggestion of extending working hours, or retirement ages, or reforming public services, prompts massive demonstrations.

(part of light-hearted predictions for 2011 by Matthew Lynn, The West, 29 Dec 2010)

Here is the problem: Lynn is taking accepted dogma and treating it as an absolute truth. Instead, he should be looking at the actual evidence.

Confusion over Role of Schools in Education

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

There were a couple of letters in the paper this morning, about education... (in The West, 28 Dec 2010). Teachers are confused, from Robin Clarke, says that development of a positive attitude to learning is an essential part of "the early years". Mike Armstrong, in Clear evidence, says that outcomes based education is the cause of falling year three literacy and numeracy.

Both writers make good points. One writer misses a key point: The role of a school in a child's education.

Tell The Teacher just What to Teach

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

What is a curriculum? It is, "the set of courses, and their content, offered at a school or university" (Wikipedia, 28 Dec 2010). To me that means, this is what you teach.

A teacher friend told us of the "curriculum" for the final year of high school. It included something like, "the basics of particle physics". This teacher managed to cram the absolute bare essentials of particle physics into just a week or so of very crowded lessons...

Well, then came the external exam, based on that curriculum. (Is it TEE? TER? Sorry, I forget what it's called, this year.)

Perhaps we do need to Decriminalise Drugs

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

I'm in two minds about this:

• Drugs are evil, we should do everything in our power to stamp out the use of drugs. And you know I mean "illicit" drugs, such as heroin, ice, marijuana...?
  
• Drug dealers make excessive profits selling illegal drugs. So we should make drugs legal and cut off the illegal profiteering.
  
• While drug-taking is illegal, drug-takers are afraid to come forward to be supported. This makes them easier prey for drug dealers.
  

As you can see... I'm actually in more than two minds about drugs... Today's paper has swayed me -- for today -- towards legalisation.

Drugs handout gamble pays off, in The West, 28 Dec 2010. Portugal took a chance -- and it appears to have paid off.

You are Wrong because I Say So

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Tourism blow as hotel rejected, reads the headline in The West (28 Dec 2010). Short-sighted council swayed by NIMBY crowd, is the headline of Beatrice Thomas' opinion extra.

Damn those nimbies! How dare they try to protect their own back yards! If not for the nimbies, I could make a (larger) fortune...

• NIMBY: For those who don't know, NIMBY stands for, Not In My Back Yard. So a nimby is a person or group who reject a proposed development largely on the grounds that the development would destroy their own standard of living.
  

Now we have a new hotel rejected because the stupid nimbies are being stupid... according to Thomas.

NBN: Logic Failure

Agamedes wonders just what is the real reason for rolling out an NBN.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

The government is all excited, it plans to roll out a new NBN, a National Broadband Network.

But why?

A couple of weeks ago, Agamedes discovered a new download site. So, in a frenzy of excitement, I downloaded a few things. Not realising how close I was to disaster...

I exceeded my monthly data download limit.

I'm not one of these people who get sucked in and end up paying huge amounts for excessive data transfer. No, I'm one of the people who prefer to have my internet connection "shaped" -- slowed down, that is -- when I have exceeded the monthly limit.

So, I've spent the past couple of weeks with a very... veeery slow internet connection. And I now have more sympathy for my relatives in the bush. The ones who don't see any great benefits in the internet.

Now the government plans to set up an even faster internet, the "NBN". But why?!

Apparently, we will be able to use the NBN to download movies. Which we will pay for. And they will, no doubt, delete themselves after a few days. Thus providing a healthy and continuous profit to the movie rental companies.

Hang on a minute... I can already duck out to the video shop and rent as many movies as I want.

Will we have a broader range of movies available? Doubtful. The movie companies already restrict the movies that they allow us to watch. That's not going to change.

So we will spend billions of dollars to get the same service as at present but saving that small effort of getting out of our chairs and down to the video shop.

And guess what? People in the bush will get that same "service" -- but much later. Because you can bet that the NBN will roll out first to the already over-serviced cities. And if the money runs out -- before the bush gets all the promised NBN "benefits" -- tough.

There is, however, one clear benefit of an NBN, of a National Broadband Network. People in the bush may actually get the same internet services as we already take for granted in the cities. If the NBN really works, the bush may get internet speeds as fast as we are already getting in the city.

Now here's an idea...

Forget about the current NBN rollout plans. Forget about the cities.

Is there any hope that the NBN is really intended to bring benefits to consumers? As opposed to movie sellers? So start where the benefit will really help.

Roll out the NBN to the bush. Get fast internet access to all areas which are currently slower than our state capitals.

Allow people in the bush to gain the same benefits as we already receive in the cities.

And if there really are some benefits to having extra fast internet connections... Let people in the bush test and demonstrate those benefits first. And then roll out an NBN for the city.

If it's really worth the effort.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Tourist Trap

Tourism WA is marketing the empty box, says Agamedes.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

I see that Tourism WA has "restructured" itself. What they mean is, they have sacked 30 percent of their staff and closed regional offices. Now they plan to spend the "saved" money on marketing.

Oh, great.

A whole lot of expensive ads. Perhaps Elle again? Or Oprah? Maybe just bouncy Bingle... And what will the ads be selling...

"Come to WA," the ads will say. "Come to WA and see WA."

Okay, so what will the tourists do when they get to WA? Perhaps they will want to know, Now what? And who will they ask? Well...

Perhaps the post office will have some ideas. After all, they know all the best addresses.

Perhaps the local real estate agent will have some ideas. After all, they will know plenty of places to live, places that just need some tlc, will suit a home handyman, good for entertaining.

Perhaps the local tourist office will have some ideas. After all, they know all the best local places for a tourist to visit. Oh! Wait! The tourist offices have just been closed...

"Come to WA," the ads will say. "Come to WA but first, go online and print a few brochures. And make sure that you print all of the brochures that you will need for your holiday... because we've just sacked every local tourist office employee who could have helped you."

Tourism WA wants to spend $30 million to get people to WA. Once the tourists arrive -- who cares... Certainly not Tourism WA.

Now here's a thought...

Keep all the local tourism experts. Sack a few of the head office paper shuffling drongos. Create a small but effective marketing campaign.

Make WA so attractive to tourists -- so easy for tourists -- that word gets around.

The word that gets around is not so good? Well, all the advertising in the world will not help that...

Make sure that tourists who do get here are able to get a lot of local and expert help. Make sure that the word that gets around is good. And more tourists will hear about it. And come to WA.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Perth needs to step up

Apparently, Perth is "struggling to make its way in the world" -- but does this really mean that we must follow others, wonders Agamedes.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

The Editorial from The West of 21 Dec 2010 reports on a survey of attitudes to Perth. It seems that Perth is, "a city which despite its natural charms is still struggling to make its way in the world."

Let's have a look at that opinion:

A city -- yes. Natural charms -- yes. Still struggling -- yes. To make its way in the world -- reflects the cultural cringe which constantly nags at the self esteem of the wankers of WA. And by "wankers" I mean, the "influential business people, policy makers and academics" who were apparently surveyed.

Many of these surveys find the same things. We are not as vibrant as New York, or even Sydney. We lack the small bars and coffee shops of Melbourne. (When my wife and I visit Melbourne and find nothing open in the evening, we are told, Oh, you were looking in the wrong place! So our rather nice hotel was in the dead heart of Melbourne?)

This is another pseudo-survey from the self-named "committee for Perth". A more accurate name could be, "committee for making Perth look a lot more like some other big city where I regularly go for a company-sponsored working holiday".

There's a letter in today's West (22 Dec 2010), Magical evening, from Mary Colliss of Fremantle. "Thank you ... for the beautiful Christmas decorations in the city," writes Colliss. So far,so good.

Why does Colliss then have to write, "We felt as though we could have been in a European city"!?! Which European city is she dreaming of... The ones where "independence fighters" blow each other up? The ones where "the last dictator in Europe" crushes protests? The ones where students protest over whatever upsets them today?

Or is Colliss dreaming of one European city where she spent a pleasant Christmas holiday, in her long-ago youth. A city which, perhaps, she still dreams of. As her ordinary, everyday life in Fremantle drags its feet through the reality of a humdrum existence.

Fine, let's learn from other places, other people, other cities. I bet that some of them wish for our climate, our lifestyle, our beaches and bush and even our spread out suburbs. Let's get ideas from other cities -- and enjoy what we actually have.

Surveys regularly show that WA has a better lifestyle than many other cities. It's not the coffee shops, it's not the Christmas lights, it's not the vibrant nightlife. What is really good about Perth, is the Western Australian lifestyle -- as it already exists.

Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Don't slavishly copy what makes other cities appealing.

We have a great city. It can be improved. But not by copying things which we like when we visit other cities.

Please forget about copying other cities.

Take what already makes Perth a great city. Make those factors even better. Change only the things that are "bad". Do not change things which are simply "different".

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Sycophantic Self Service

The only surprise in the letter to the editor, thinks Agamedes, is that the editor published it.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

There's a letter in The West Australian today, 20 Dec 2010: 'One-stop shops' a winner. The letter writer supports an announcement by premier Colin Barnett that school sites will become centres for all sorts of child support services.

So what's wrong with that? It's a good idea! It deserves support.

Who wrote the letter?

The letter is from Michelle Scott, Commissioner for Children and Young People WA. ("From" Scott. I won't claim that she actually wrote the letter.)

Wouldn't a "Commissioner for Children and Young People WA" be a paid employee of the WA state government? Isn't there a rule that state government employees should not make public comments on government policies?

Isn't there a rule of good behaviour that employees should not kiss their boss' arse in public?!

Still, there is some good news

On 18 Dec 2010 The West published an opinion piece by Alannah MacTiernan. MacTiernan, it seems, believes that schools should teach.

MacTiernan refers to a trial where a primary school dropped the educational theory and actually taught children the basics. Forget about exposing children to a learning environment... This school -- Challis Early Education School -- brought back teaching of basic facts. Challis assumed -- and this is my own interpretation -- that their children were not really interested in learning, that they had already had their minds closed to learning, that bad habits had already been instilled. So Challis brought control into the classroom, allowed for fun and taught the very basics of the three Rs.

And it worked.

Barnett's "one-stop shops" on school sites is a good idea. We often need to help the parents in order to help the children. (See my post, Schooling Starts before School Starts, to see how one teacher has already provided a practical example of Barnett's theories.)

At the same time, we also need to provide good schooling at the schools.

Spend a heap of money providing parent-and-child support services on school sites. Make sure that this takes the "social services" responsibilities away from teachers: Improve the parenting skills of parents so that teachers are no longer de facto parents.

Allow teachers to teach.

MacTiernan is half right, that current educational theories do not work. Our schools are forced to provide social services rather than education. If the children were all better students, if the teachers were not wiping noses, stopping fights and being threatened by parents, perhaps the theories would apply.

Meanwhile, we need to allow teachers to just teach: "Here are things you need to know, practise it, repeat it. We will then measure what you have learnt and -- if you are ready for the next step -- we will move on to the next step."

If the one-stop shop allows teachers to teach, that's great. If it simply crowds more buildings onto the one site and adds more baby-sitter responsibilities to the teacher's work load... then I won't be at all surprised.

The role of schools is to provide education. Let's hope that that is not further diluted, when Barnett adds more social services with no matching offers of better education.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Rudolph Offers True Life Lessons

With such a manipulative message, it's no surprise to read that Rudolph was invented by an ad man, thinks Agamedes.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

It's that time of year again. Good cheer, happy children, eager anticipation. Messages of spiritual hope, stronger messages of commercial opportunism and the annual reminder of reindeer prejudice.

Yes, it's the time of year when we are bombarded with the negative message of Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer:

Rudolph, the red-nosed reindeer
had a very shiny nose.
And if you ever saw him,
you would even say it glows.

So what's wrong with that? Nothing... so far...

Check out the next verse:

All of the other reindeer
used to laugh and call him names.
They never let poor Rudolph
join in any reindeer games.

Here we have prejudice. Blatant prejudice: Rudolph had a shiny red nose, all else is standard reindeer, yet the other reindeer laugh and call him names. Is this a message that we want to give to children?

Rudolph is just an ordinary reindeer except for the genetic difference of a shiny red nose. Does that make him a lesser reindeer? Does a shiny nose make Rudolph unfit for normal reindeer company? Apparently so, because, They [the other reindeer] never let poor Rudolph join in any reindeer games.

Poor Rudolph, indeed. Even the author of this awful story has recognised the unfairness of the situation.

So what happens? Do the other reindeer realise that Rudolph is a reindeer -- just like any reindeer -- despite his shiny red nose? You wish!

Rudolph leads a lonely, sad life, the butt of all the jokes of his fellow reindeer. Until...

Santa -- the Boss -- promotes Rudolph!

Boss Santa has let his reindeer bully and ostracise Rudolph. Is Santa blind to the negative workplace culture? Or does Santa simply not care. Until the day that Santa is, as they say, up North Pole Creek without a paddle.

It's foggy, too dark to drive a heavily laden sleigh. All the batteries are pre-packed with the children's toys. Why did Santa never spend that little extra on rechargeable lighting for his sleigh?

What to do?

Time for Santa to notice the runt of the reindeer work team:

"Rudolph with your nose so bright,
won't you guide my sleigh tonight?"

Riiiiight... Ignore the situation, year after year. Allow workplace bullying, with not even a hint to the workers that Rudolph has an equal right to join in the reindeer games. Until the red-nose runt proves to be the only solution to poor management planning.

"Won't you guide my sleigh tonight?"

As if the little runt had a choice! Have you ever read a reindeer workplace agreement?

At this point of the story, the little children have received only half of the message of the story: Your miserable workplace conditions will be ignored... unless and until you have something which management requires. You will then be required to provide your services to management (even with no prior training nor experience). You have no real choice.

(Alternate ending: "No, I won't," says Rudolph. "You tormented and ignored me, I'd rather resign." And so they chopped off his head, mounted the shiny nose on the front of the sleigh and had reindeer steak for supper.)

So Rudolph the slightly different low level employee did as he was told. And discovered the second message of this organisational morality tale:

Then all the reindeer loved him!

"All the reindeer"?

Yes, All the reindeer loved him. Now.

All of the reindeer who, "used to laugh and call him names." All of the reindeer who, "never let poor Rudolph join in any reindeer games." These are the same reindeer who now "love" Rudolph.

What has changed?

Have "all of the other reindeer" seen the light? Have they all realised that Rudolph is just another reindeer, despite his very shiny nose?

No way!

The boss -- Santa -- has noticed and praised Rudolph. That's what has changed.

Santa's pet? The boss' pet! Quick! let's all suck up to Rudolph!

Isn't that an awful message.

First, no matter how bad things are, people in power will only help if they themselves will benefit. Second, you have no power so you have no choice. That's not explicitly stated; it goes without saying.

And third, the best way to make friends at work, is to be supported by the boss.

Poor little children, bombarded from birth with negative messages of support for prejudice and sycophancy.

Poor adults, who have to work in that same environment.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Homeless or Hopeless

There may be worse problems than being homeless, says Agamedes.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Yet another call to "support the homeless and finally eradicate homelessness" (The West, 7 Dec 2010). This time, in a letter from David Whelan ("We must help").

I don't know about, We must help. As a civilised country we should help. Perhaps a pedantic difference there.

Yes, we should help to support the homeless. The homeless are still Australians, they are our fellow citizens. Charity begins at home, and all that.

Okay, not all of the homeless are Australians. Not all of the non-homeless are Australians, so "fellow citizens" may be an inaccurate claim. Still, it would feel nice to support the homeless. It may also make the streets just that little bit more comfortable for the rest of us. So...

How can we help the homeless? With food, shelter and protection.

Does that mean that we should provide a house and a bed for everyone? Should we attempt to eradicate homelessness? No way!

Some people are homeless for a good reason. It may be that they are between jobs or between houses or between supportive families. Some may be so antisocial that they cannot live with other people. Others may have been thrown out by families who, for whatever reason... have thrown them out.

Not everyone wants to live in a house. Not everyone wants to live with other people. We need to make homelessness acceptable -- for both the homeless and for others.

Somewhere to sleep: There are nooks and crannies, there are bridges for shelter. Homeless people are forced to hide themselves where they can to get a place to sleep.

Formalise the situation... Set aside nooks and crannies where the homeless are allowed to sleep. It may be purpose-built areas. It does not have to be a house. Allow the comfort of sleep with the knowledge that there are even better options.

What about using carparks? Especially the ones which are empty overnight: After midnight, roll out temporary shelters -- something as good as a doorway -- and allow people to sleep there.

Something to eat: This is the easiest. There are already soup kitchens in operation. Keep up the good work; extend it.

Somewhere to shit and shower: The first is essential -- for the homeless and also for the people who will walk or work or visit in the area. The second is for those who want it. So build public toilets, with showers, near the sleeping areas.

Somewhere safe for belongings: Homeless people may not own much but that will make the little, even more precious. Provide safe lockers.

Physical safety: The streets are dangerous. Even for people with a home to go to. If you are on the streets 24 hours a day, it is very hard to avoid the dangers. Include police patrols in the safe sleeping areas... Homeless people are allowed to sleep there; criminals are not allowed to prey there.

Homeless people should have protection from criminals, just as everyone else has. And if homeless people are criminals, they should be dealt with by the law, just as everyone else is.

We need to accept that there will always be homeless people, for a variety of reasons. It would be nice to provide a home for those who want it, for those who could handle it.

Meanwhile, we should support the homeless. Being homeless is problem enough. If we care, we can help.

Being homeless is not a crime. Homeless people should not be punished by harassment, starvation or disease. They should not -- simply because they are homeless -- be unprotected from crime.

If you are homeless, it may not be the best of all possible worlds. On the other hand, neither should it be an unbearable hell on earth.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Cars and Carnage

Agamedes can see why road accidents occur: the roads are just too safe for drivers.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Cops call for motorists to stop carnage (The West, 7 Dec 2010). How often have you heard the same cries? How successful are we at reducing road deaths? Not very...

You know what the problem is? Our roads are just too safe.

Have you ever hear of "traffic calming"? Make the roads narrower. Add small chicanes. Make it just a little bit more difficult to drive from here, to there. And what happens?

Use traffic calming and -- according to research -- the traffic simply goes away. Doesn't go somewhere else, just goes away. People avoid the "calmed" roads -- the more difficult roads. And they don't go anywhere else.

So traffic calming reduces traffic, simply by making roads more difficult for driving.

Now let's take that a step further...

Add a few potholes. You're driving along -- through a narrow, winding road -- and you just know that the road is badly maintained. There could be potholes... anywhere... So you drive even more slowly, on the lookout for potholes.

You drive more slowly -- and more carefully. The last thing you want to do is to damage your suspension on a pothole. Damaged suspension is very expensive to fix...

And why do we build cars with such great suspension systems? Just use simple springs... Let the driver feel the road under their wheels. Let the driver feel every bump, every pothole... Let the driver be so uncomfortable that they slow down to avoid the jarring and banging.

What happens if you drive your car straight into another? Seat belts grab you, air bags soften the impact, crumple zones keep most of the impact away from the driver... No matter how fast you crash -- the car is designed to save your life!

Remove all those expensive safety features... Let the driver appreciate the thrill of danger... Let the driver understand that, if they crash, they will likely die.

If you are driving a car which will kill you in a crash, a car which jars you over every bump, which threatens to break in every pothole -- you will drive more carefully.

Forget about insisting on superior computer-assisted braking systems, do not legislate for tyres which can safely corner at any speed. Ban the lot!

Build cars which are simply a means of transport. Remove all the cocooning features; they only serve to make the driver feel invulnerable. Build cars which remind the driver that they are driving a potential death trap.

Ensure that every car is a death trap -- if they crash. Support the threat with roads which demand constant attention to driving. Make the driver aware that damage and death are their constant companions, as they navigate a ton of metal along the winding streets.

Crash your car and you will be injured... at the very least.

And people will, without conscious thought, drive more carefully. They will drive within the limits of their vehicles, within the limits of the roads.

Remove the safety cocoons. Let every driver take full responsibility for their own safe driving. Watch the road carnage disappear.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Schooling Starts before School Starts

Agamedes realises that education starts at home -- but it may need help.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

A few weeks ago there was a short snippet on TV -- possibly on the ABC's Landline -- describing efforts to help indigenous people get work. Essentially, it showed efforts to teach them to dress neatly to match current fashions, to walk without slouching, to keep their hair neat and tidy... The sorts of things which are traditionally taught at a posh girls finishing school.

The sorts of things which are taught by family life -- if your family is part of mainstream Australia.

And I thought, Oh, that is a problem. We can tell people to dress neatly, sit up straight, speak politely... but what does all that mean? How can you know what all that means if you have no-one to actually show you?

Now a school teacher in Tambellup has seen the same problem. And taken steps to solve it.

Susan Sheridan has just won an award for her work with indigenous families (The West, 7 Dec 2010). In essence, Sheridan has brought children and their parents into contact with the school, several years before the children are ready for formal schooling.

Have the parents had a successful schooling? Probably not. Have the parents learnt the essentials of sitting still when required, of listening to the teacher, of following simple school rules? Probably not. So how can they prepare their own children for school!

All I have read is the one brief article. Here is my extended understanding:

Sheridan brings parents and children to the school. She helps them -- both parents and children -- to become familiar with the school. To learn the "simple" things which will allow the children to benefit from, later, going to the school as students.

It's all very well to say, the parents should teach them to behave. What if the parents themselves do not know the rules?

The parents may be able to see the benefits of schooling for their children. They have no knowledge of how to prepare their children to gain those benefits.

People like Sheridan are able to step out of their classrooms -- possibly out of their comfort zones -- to help solve the actual problems.

Education allows choices. Children need both teachers and parents, to allow the children to gain an education. To help the children we may need to also help the parents.

A good lesson.

Thank you, Susan Sheridan.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Wiki Why Worry?

Wikileaks is part treason, part embarrassment and largely media-driven hysteria, thinks Agamedes.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

When I first heard of Julian Assange I thought, the man is a traitor, putting lives and security at risk. Then the story grew, and became more complicated.

Sure, the man -- through Wikileaks -- is publishing information which governments have decided should not be published. But what sort of information is it? Is national security -- for any nation -- really at risk?

Not that it's easy to tell... The West reports only what it deems to be of interest. In its own interest, that is. And a web search is just too hard -- for a casual reader -- since the actual Wikileaks site has been closed down.

So I will do what any good blogger would do. I will write from minimal information bulked out with personal opinion.

Australians on US terror list

It seems -- from a leaked cable -- that 23 Australians are being watched by US security services. The 23 may have been recruited by anti-US terrorists. Many of the 23 are women.

Ooh! Top secret! The western world is about to crumble on that news! Or is it? Really!

Terrorists attempt to recruit new terrorists. I think we could all guess that. Does that knowledge affect us? or national security? or the terrorists? Well, it may annoy terrorists to find out that 23 of their potential recruits have been spotted. Or it may please them, that others have not been spotted. It may make tourists a bit more careful, to know that the friendly and exotic stranger may, in fact, be a terrorist recruitment agent. Unless that is exactly the person that the tourist is hoping to meet.

At a personal level, none of the 23 are named. Either Wikileaks or the newspapers have decided to not publish names. So the individual 23 are not at risk of sudden public scrutiny. Though -- if they really are now terrorists -- they may be more careful of their activities. Which should suit the security agencies, if prevention is their aim.

It seems to me that the leaked cables have confirmed something that we may have already guessed, or heard as rumours. We -- the public -- now have more facts. To me, that is good. To security agencies, it should also be good: the public can now appreciate the work that is being done to protect us.

The headline in The West ("Australians on US terror list") is written to cause excitement and possibly fear. The facts... are rather boring.

Minerals from WA considered vital to US

That's a headline which I would classify as, "nice to know". Manganese mines, an undersea communication cable and an antivenom manufacturer are considered to be crucial to continuing US power and wellbeing. Isn't that nice! Especially if you own one of those items.

So what is so scary, so much a threat to national security? No... I don't know, either.

The reporters (Nick Butterly and Andrew Probyn) do say, "But bizarrely, high security military installations such as Pine Gap... fail to make the long list".

Bizarrely?!?

Diplomats were asked to create a list of infrastructure which would be missed if destroyed. If I were a diplomat, I think I would read that as, stuff that's in the country, that we/US don't control, that provides goods or services vital to our/US security. Stuff that we should be aware of, that we may not be aware of.

Pine Gap? Hmmm... I think that US security agencies already know about that one. Already manage that one. Already have it in their list of US-controlled vital assets. If I were a diplomat I would think, hmm, everyone already knows about that one. We should look for what may be missing from our lists.

Bizarre? Or just journalistic hysteria.

And who cares whether the list is gathered secretly or not? Lots of people, governments, companies, all have lists. Perhaps of infrastructure that they would like to own a bit of.

When someone leaks the plans to "protect" these resources by taking them over by use of force -- then I will actually be worried.

Well, it already worries me. Perhaps an actual threat will be less worrying, if it puts the threat out in the open.

Our links with China still strong, says PM

"A leaked secret US cable showing that Kevin Rudd suggested force should be used against China..." (The West, 7 Dec 2010). Read on:

Rudd actually suggested that the US should be prepared to use force, "if everything goes wrong." My estimation of Rudd has just gone up a notch! Still can't stand him, but can't stand him a little less than before.

China already has a history of invading neighbouring countries. Of using force against its own citizens. Of stifling dissent with threats and actual violence.

If China decides that force will have better results -- for China -- than peace, will China use force? I would not be surprised. Neither, it seems, would Rudd.

I only have third- or fourth-hand reports of Rudd's comments. When there are direct quotes -- again, only of the reported conversation, still not a guarantee of actual words spoken -- Rudd has said that the US should be prepared to use force. If everything goes wrong. I don't read of Rudd saying, "Invade China." What I hear is, "If China hits out, be prepared to hit back."

And that, to me, seems to be a sensible precaution.

So why all the fuss!

What we have -- whatever we may think of Assange's actions -- is an over-reaction in response. Why?

Because he has caused huge embarrassment to people who believed that they had all the power.

Assange has broken all the rules of establishment secrecy. He has released information without the approval of people who have dedicated their lives to power and control. Talk about cat among the pigeons!

Talk about making the power-brokers look foolish!

And that's the real problem. Assange has made a mockery of institutionalised power. He has published information which people in power had decided to keep secret... for whatever reasons.

Assange has thumbed his nose at people in power.

Now they want to punish him. For making them look like incompetent fools.

What a bunch of incompetent fools.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Rich Parents make for Golden Boy

Agamedes is surprised by a journalistic assumption, that all rich people are absolutely honest.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Has the world become a better place? Have all public stupidities been intelligently resolved? Is the newspaper reporting only honest fact?

Never fear, the answer is, "None of the above".

This blog had temporarily silenced its Ranting and Raving (and its Raging) while Agamedes went on holiday. It's hard to maintain the rant when enjoying a good holiday. It's even harder to maintain the blog, when internet access is restricted to two lots of twenty minutes while waiting for a meal to be served in an excellent cafe with free internet access.

Yet rest assured, the world is still full of unthinking stupidity.

Agamedes noted and Agamedes cared but for a short time Agamedes was not driven to rage back at an uncaring world... Your blog author was on holiday and the world could embarrass itself without being seriously challenged.

But now...

On Friday 3 December 2010, The West Australian published an article headlined, Golden boy trips on insider trading conviction. This is a story by Stuart Washington, of a rich man sentenced to jail for insider trading. The story begins:

From one of Sydney's best suburbs. Schooled in Sydney's most prestigious schools and universities and from one of Sydney's leading families. Then something went wrong.

Then something went wrong?!

According to the article, John Joseph Hartman was earning $350,000 a year in his first job after graduation. Did daddy pull strings to get him this job? Or was he employed because of the scent of success and power which he brought to his employer. A scent of success and power which would have clung naturally to the son of a rich and successful "celebrity obstetrician".

Whatever the reason, the best way to become rich and famous is to start off rich and famous.

And this -- starting off rich and famous -- guarantees an honest and law-abiding approach to business. According to journalist Stuart Washington. Who is surprised that Hartman went into insider trading.

First off, a question for all of you who have considered trading in shares but worried that you don't know good shares from bad: Where do you go for advice? To someone who knows, of course. And who has the best advice on what shares to buy and sell? Someone with close-up -- inside -- knowledge, of course.

Do you ever doubt that insider trading is the best way to get rich on share trading?

Do you ever doubt that successful share traders routinely seek out and use insider information?

Do you ever wish that you too had insider information?

Do you wonder at what point -- and why -- insider trading suddenly becomes illegal?

So a rich kid becomes a well-paid employee, then uses information from his work to make himself even richer. So what's surprising? What's surprising is only that he was caught.

The real surprise is, that he was from a rich family, that he was well educated, that he was hand-picked to be a salaried "playboy who enjoyed trips to Las Vegas and luxury cars in his go-go life" -- and that he was caught!

Being rich and being well-bred makes you a "golden boy"? Come on, get real!

Perhaps being rich and being well-bred makes you careless. Makes you believe that you can flaunt your insider trading. Makes you believe that you have a right to cheat and steal.

Now that I can believe.

Poor bloke. I just hope that he blames his parents for training him to be rich and powerful. And careless.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Regulation Manners

Agamedes prefers common sense to regulation -- but can see why rules are written.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Early in October the Town of Cottesloe gained itself some free publicity. On the 9th Zoltan Kovacs wrote of, "the prevailing cult of over-regulation, a set of proposed rules ... controlling the behaviour of people on the local beach." Apparently these proposed rules, "revealed a control-freak appetite for oppressive restrictions that is a mark of officialdom." (The West, 9 Oct 10)

First, note Kovacs' use of emotive language. Cult is clearly bad. What would be wrong with writing, "the prevailing culture of over-regulation"? Nothing wrong with "culture" except that "cult" is more likely to sway us -- perhaps unconsciously -- to Kovacs' negative view of the proposed regulations.

Then the proposed rules "revealed a control-freak appetite for oppressive restrictions." "An officious appetite for detailed restrictions" would have been vaguely insulting without the strongly negative connotations of Kovacs' highly emotive words. If he wanted to present a logical -- rather than emotional -- argument, Kovacs could even have written, "a strong preference for detailed instructions." But the role of a columnist is opinion, not fact.

So what are these "oppressive restrictions"? What new regulations are being proposed? Who cares!

Kovacs certainly doesn't care. His opinion piece tells us that the proposed "petty bans ... attracted deserved protest and derision." What were these "petty bans"? Why does Kovacs not entertain us with an example or two? Perhaps the facts would detract from the emotional arguments that he is presenting.

Here are some reported facts:

(from The West online).

"No cigarette butts": Dropping cigarette butts is illegal. Anywhere in this state. Is Kovacs objecting because he wants Cottesloe to be a unique area where dropping butts is allowed?

"No leaving on taps": This one has raised general ire in the letters pages. Okay, I doubt if anyone wants to encourage other people to leave taps running. But why is such a regulation even considered? Perhaps because taps are left running... And quite a few of these rules seem to be similar: We don't want it to happen but we don't expect to need rules to tell us to not do it.

And that's the real problem with the proposed Cottesloe regulations: They are common sense but not everyone has common sense.

"No fundraising" We're here to enjoy the beach. Take your rattling tin out of my face. "No toy vehicles" Probably means, no large, remote controlled vehicles. No-one wants to be run down by a noisy model car being badly controlled through a crowded beach. "No sitting or loitering to obstruct steps or pathways" Get out of my way, I want to get down to the beach.

These are all things which are common sense -- common courtesy. So why did Cottesloe consider setting them down as regulations? Perhaps because some people lack common sense and common courtesy.

"Please don't dig a big hole in the beach where people may fall into it." "It's not a big hole." "It's big enough to fall into." "It's my beach, I can dig a hole if I want to." Differences of opinion so the law steps in.

"A big hole is more than 2m x 2m." "My hole is 2m x 1.99m. So there."

The more rules we write, the more loopholes we create. The purpose of laws is not to restrict our actions -- it is to allow actions.

"A big hole is more than 2m x 2m." "Oh, good, then I can dig a hole 2m x 1.99m. And as deep as I want."

A better answer

Kovacs writes that, "laws and regulations gradually have replaced common decency and courtesy".

Why? Perhaps because a law is an enforceable expression of our will. Common decency and courtesy are simply accepted standards of behaviour; they do not demonstrate our power of control. They allow freedom to be non-courteous.

But the main problem is: we have no clearly defined standards of common decency and courtesy.

In our efforts to be accepting to all, we allow anything.

If -- in Cottesloe -- we agree that we do not want to have big holes dug in the beach -- then say so! Not as rules and regulations but as suggested standards of behaviour.

Publish a small booklet: "You are a stranger to our beach: this is the way we would like you to behave". You may choose to be courteous and fit with our standards of acceptable behaviour. Or you may be rude.

Nothing enforceable, except by peer pressure: You are not acting within our standards so we will sneer at you. In a polite way, of course.

Why would this work?

Well... Do you know what are the accepted standards of behaviour at Cottesloe beach? At Swanbourne beach? In Balga? In Peppermint Grove? No?

We all have standards of behaviour that we would like others to follow. Why will those others follow our standards -- if they do not know them?!

Set the standards for expected behaviour. And let people -- visitors, strangers, our own friends and family -- know what we expect. In a public area such as Cottesloe beach -- it is worth putting our expectations in writing. So every knows what is expected.

Emily Post felt it was necessary to document guidelines on ettiquette. It's been done before, we can do it again. Don't attract ridicule by writing regulations for common sense and ettiquette.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Stability May Support Success

A clever aphorism may be more than a simple prop for stagnant thinking.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Anything which is not growing is dying.

That concept has stuck in my mind. It's amazing the way in which people can pick a point to support their own views. And miss the contradictions.

You can't see the forest for the trees.

There's another nifty little aphorism. Let's consider the two together.

A tree grows. Then it stops growing -- because it is dying. The tree dies.

A forest is made up of a lot of trees. A forest may have mountains on one side, desert on another, ocean at every other boundary. The forest has no room to grow. Yet it is not dying.

A forest is made up of a lot of trees. Individual trees sprout, grow, then die. Yet the forest is not dying.

A forest is not affected by the growth and death of individual trees. A forest may continue -- live -- successfully without any overall growth. The individual parts -- trees -- grow and die but the forest does not. Yet it is not stagnant.

A forest may be a vibrant, living organism, even though it is not growing. Perhaps change -- of individual trees -- may help the forest to thrive, as environmental conditions change. In a prolonged drought some trees may die. When it rains, trees may grow faster. But the living forest is not "growing".

We can do the same.

Look past the individual. Look at society as a living entity. There is no need for continuous growth.

What is important is life.

A living society -- like a living forest -- can be vibrantly successful without the need for constant growth of the society. Individuals may change and grow and die. Society can be successful -- a successful environment for the life of individuals -- with no need for continuous growth.

Don't just use the aphorisms. Think about them. Understand the broader possibilities. Open your mind. Think, learn and only then, act.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Economic Mayhem at the Battle of the Bulge

Tighten our belts, do our best, ride it out -- and the problem will go away.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Traditionally, population formed a pyramid by age. There were more young than middle-aged, more middle-aged than old. The middle-aged supported the old, perhaps indirectly via taxes. There were enough middle-aged -- active income earners -- to fully support the smaller number of non-earning, sit-in-the-sun older people.

Funnily enough, no-one ever questioned the fact that the middle-aged were also supporting the even larger number of non-earning, play-in-the-sun young people...

Now we have a different shape to worry about. Thanks to the "baby boom" after World War II, there is a bulge in the population pyramid. With a self-satisfied smirk, statisticians have identified a new shape: the population coffin.

See where the shoulders fit in the coffin? That's where the baby-boomers are swelling the population in their own age group. See how close the baby-boomers are to becoming "old"? That's where the problem lies.

After years and years of supporting our economy by working, earning and spending, the baby-boomers are getting old. Very soon, they will be old and sick. Then the next generation -- the current crop of "young" -- will have to support the aged and infirm baby-boomers.

After all these years of work and success and growth and income -- you are thinking -- the government will have a huge stash of cash set aside, to deal with this very problem. After all -- you may be thinking -- we have seen this problem coming, since a year or two after the original boom. It has been a matter for public concern and discussion for decades.

Unfortunately we are dealing with government. And government plans only as far ahead as the next election.

Oh no! What can we do?!

Let's just wait a few years. And the problem will solve itself.

How will the problem solve itself?

First, the cost of medical care will reduce. That's a natural effect of development, invention, mass production and competition.

Take another look at that coffin shape. Notice that it gets narrower below the baby-boomer level? There are less post-baby-boomers. And there are even less very young people.

If we can maintain that shape -- we will be saved!

Less young people, so less young people for the post-boomers to support. Money saved. Money which can be redirected to the aging baby-boomers.

And then, in twenty years -- or in thirty... or in fifty -- all of the baby-boomers will be dead. (Except for the very few, very rich. They will be not-quite-dead, in the deep freeze. With luck, they will have left enough money to pay for their ever-increasing power bills. That's all they'll need.)

So, given enough time, the population bulge will have died away.

Unless we try something really stupid, like breeding or importing people for another bulge to follow the baby-boomer bulge. But that would simply create more problems as we are forced to deal with the next population bulge.

Surely we would not be that stupid.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

The Ponzi Population Theory

Agamedes blasts off again, against the economic mantra of "growth, growth, growth".

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Shane Wright, economics editor for The West, wrote (18 Oct 10):

I don't think anyone is advocating a one-child policy for Australia or the shipping of elderly people off to New Zealand or Britain to ease population pressures, so there is no avoiding a bigger country.

In other words, instead of wringing hands, many of us have to start thinking about how to deal with more people and the benefits that flow from that.

On the one hand we have people who can see the immediate profit to be gained from more people. For example: bring in skilled immigrants and it saves the cost of training our own people. Or, bring in unskilled immigrants and they will work for peanuts because the large numbers of desperate job seekers will weaken the bargaining power of unions.

Then there are the economists, like Wright. They see that more people is a cheap and quick method of increasing the market for the goods that those extra people will consume. A Ponzi scheme with people. And economists are so divorced from reality that they cannot see the end result of continued growth.

How can these people support their dangerous views, when there are loud voices calling for a halt to the disasters of over-population? When logic fails, try emotions.

"I don't think anyone is advocating a one-child policy..." One-child policy? Doesn't that just hit at the heart and gonads! No-one is -- seriously -- advocating a one-child policy for Australia. Wright just uses the phrase as a red rag, to stir up unthinking resistance to... whatever... could be done to limit population growth.

"Shipping of elderly people off to New Zealand..." What?! They (whoever "they" are) can't just ship old people / dear old granny / me... off to some foreign place! Oh my, can't you just feel the anger building...

Has anyone actually suggested "shipping of elderly people off to New Zealand"? Other than the economically myopic Shane Wright, that is. No... I didn't think so.

When logic fails, resort to emotional threats.

Yes, you're right. The tone of this blog post is more emotive than my usual. A natural response to emotional non-logic is to reply in kind. Sorry about that.

So what can we do?

Population growth may bring economic growth. It can also bring growth in crime, more crowded cities, more pollution, increased destruction of the environment, increasing divide between the haves and the have-nots.

What do we actually want?

Do we want population growth? Not as far as I can tell... Even the economists see population growth as merely a means to an end. Is there an alternative means to whatever end we desire?

Let's just guess that we all want a better standard of living. For ourselves and, if possible, for others. How can we achieve a better standard of living?

Economists say, grow the population, which will grow the economy, which will... perhaps, for some of us... improve our standard of living. But that's a simple Ponzi scheme: We grow, we grow, we grow, until there is no more room for growth. And then, like overcrowded rats, we kill each other.

Is there an alternative?

What we really need, is a better way to improve our lives. A way which will actually improve the lives of as many people as possible. A way which will not result in eventual destruction of what we already have.

There is no point in increasing population just for the sake of growth. We are already suffering from population pressure. Vague economic theories do not balance the actual loss of what we once enjoyed.

Forget the easy -- and false -- promises of economic growth theorists.

Let's look for solution that give us what we actually want.

Let's look for ideas that will actually work.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Growth towards Death

Agamedes sees that continued growth may lead to death by suffocation.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

"It is also one of the most basic laws of nature that anything that is not growing is dying." That's from a letter published in The West (2 Nov 10), a letter supporting the right of and necessity for banks to make as much profit as they can. It is also a standard economic mantra in favour of continued growth. Growth of national economy, growth of business scale, growth of population.

A website called TeamRocks uses an analogy: Cut a rose off its bush and the rose immediately stops growing and begins to die.

Let's look a bit more closely at that idea, that you are either growing or dying.

Cut a rose off its bush and yes, it immediately begins to die. But what happens to the bush? The bush continues to both grow and live.

The rose gardener wants to have more roses -- the flowers -- next year. So what happens to the rose bush? It is pruned! Heavily!

The reason for growing a rose bush is to get rose flowers. In order to get better and more flowers -- the bush is regularly cut back. Yes, the rose bush continues to grow but it is not allowed to grow any bigger. A rose bush grows and then is cut back... reduced in size.

Strict limits on growth provide the best results in terms of what we want from the rose bush. Because what we want is not thorns, not size, not green leaves and solid stems. What we want from a rose bush is flowers. And to get the most and the best flowers -- we prune and control.

For those who do not understand the analogy

What do we want from the population of Australia? We do not want growth, numbers, increase just for the sake of it. What we do want is a good -- or better -- quality of life.

Quality of life may improve with more money, with better (or more) houses, with cleaner air... Feel free to choose your preferred improvement.

Did anyone say, "All I want is more and more people living in Australia?"

I doubt it. (If you did, please let me know.)

Our preferred quality of life improvement may require growth of some kind. A growing population may be seen as a simple means to the actual preferred end. But a growing population brings problems. In particular, a growing population means that we need to share our gains with more people... which reduces the effect of our gains.

Is there a better way?

Is there some way by which we can improve our quality of life without a growing population? The rose bush produces more and better flowers when its size is tightly controlled. Is there an equivalent way in which we can stop population growth -- and still gain quality of life?

Like the rose bush, our population will grow and grow... unless we control it. As the population grows, it will produce less and worse of what we really want and need. Like the rose bush, we can improve our quality of life by limiting growth.

Stop encouraging rampant growth of thorns, leaves and stems. Control the population and produce more -- and better -- beautiful flowers.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

CCC, Bugs and Loopholes

Agamedes sees an easy way to stop CCC phone taps.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

First we have the public service, including police and other public watchdog organisations. Then we have the CCC, the Corruption and Crime Commission, to watch the public service. Then we have the CCC Parliamentary Inspector, to watch the CCC. Then we have Paul Murray, to watch both the CCC and the CCC Parliamentary Inspector.

Goodness! All these watchers watching watchers, just because no-one trusts anyone!

In The West of 14 Oct 10, Murray watched -- well, attacked -- the CCC. Too many bugs in the CCC system, was his headline. According to the rules of "legal professional privilege", you can tell your lawyer, "I am guilty" but that this is not allowed as proof of guilt. It's something about being a lawyer that gives you the legal right to lie and cheat.

Lawyers, eh! Who'd have thought that letting lawyers write laws would result in laws that supported lying cheating lawyers? Amazing! Anyway...

It seems that the CCC has tapped phones. One phone tap was of Suspicious Person A talking to Relative B. Relative B then handed the phone to Lawyer C, who continued the conversation. Using a transcript of this phone conversation was -- writes Murray -- a very bad thing. Why? Because the lawyer part of the conversation should be protected by "legal professional privilege".

So here's what you do when you suspect that your phone is being tapped by the CCC:

"Oh yes, I certainly did commit all those crimes. I'm as guilty as sin."

"Gosh, that's terrible! The CCC could use that statement as an admission of guilt. Wait... I'll pass the phone to this lawyer who is conveniently sitting next to me."

"Your friend wants to know, did you really commit all those crimes?"

"Oh yes, I certainly did commit all those crimes. I'm as guilty as sin."

"Well, thank goodness I'm a lawyer. Now we can discuss your guilt with your friend and work out what lies to tell to the CCC."

Huge benefits for criminals: include a lawyer in all conversations, as a protection against CCC phone taps.

Huge benefits for lawyers: every criminal will have a lawyer in their pocket, for those times when they plan to discuss their crimes. Lawyers, lawyers everywhere. Charging by the hour.

What a simple yet brilliant idea, for a lawyer-led GFC recovery.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Local Industry Fails to Boom

If you over-water your garden, the weeds will spring up lush and green. As soon as the water runs out, the garden will die.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

What is it about "boom and bust" that is so hard to understand?

In The West Australian of 14 Oct 10, Simone McGurk completely misses the point, that the "bust" of boom and bust is when business slows down...

McGurk is secretary of Unions WA. Her article -- Overseas firms reap rewards of WA's boom -- makes a perfectly valid point: when major WA projects source most of their contracts outside WA, WA businesses are missing out on a major source of potential profit. If WA businesses miss out then WA workers (including members of Unions WA) will also miss out.

So far so good.

McGurk then suggests "strong legislation" to force major projects to include a lot of local contracting. That is, pass laws to force major WA projects to spend a lot of their investment as contracts with WA businesses. Baldly stated, that's ridiculous. But a workable compromise could be developed.

Then McGurk puts her foot in the hole in her logic:

"We shouldn't be fearful of putting up something which will set our local industry in good stead for the period of the boom and long after."

Let's follow the (faulty) logic:

• Major project business is being contracted overseas rather than to WA firms.
  
• We can guess that this is because WA firms are either too expensive or not able to do the work or lack the capacity to do the work.
  
• If WA firms are not able to do the work then that's it. End of story.
  
• If WA firms lack the capacity to do the work then they are already working to capacity. So that's fine. End of story.
  
• If WA firms are too expensive then local-content legislation would force major projects to pay more than they would if they contracted overseas. But the WA firms would be able to grow and profit and employ more workers. But...
  
• If the boom is followed by a bust -- or even by a period of lower project investment -- those WA firms will have more workers, high prices and no business.... That's where McGurk's logic fails.
  

Yes, we can use legislation to force business to WA firms. Those WA firms will profit and, hopefully, employ more people. Then they will go bust.

What work will these businesses do if the boom is followed by a bust? Their prices will be too high to be internationally competitive -- thanks to the legislative support. WA local-content legislation will not help when there are no local projects.

Yes, we can support WA firms during a boom. Yes, we should support local businesses during a boom. But if that support simply allows local businesses to charge uncompetitive prices -- then those businesses will fail when the boom has finished.

If and when there is a boom in WA then yes, we should take advantage of the boom to support WA businesses. If we pass laws to encourage uncompetitive bids to win tenders -- simply because the bidders are based in WA -- then we are encouraging future business failures.

While the boom is bringing money to WA we can use some of that money for real, long-term business support. For example:

• Improve education. WA education is already quite good. Make it better. We will then have a well educated population for the future development of the state.
  
• Provide apprentice-style training. Yes, it's cheaper to buy in new staff -- from overseas and interstate -- as required. That leaves local people unemployed. And in a few years -- when job requirements change -- the new migrants will also be unemployed. Training and retraining is a far better social option.
  
• If we do legislate to "buy local", add a condition: A WA firm can only get "buy local" support when it has sold similar services overseas. That is, the buy local legislation supports WA firms which are already competitive in overseas markets. That supports local firms now, once they have proven their future post-boom viability.
  
• Save something for tomorrow. Every company wants its profit now. That's one reason for the local skill and supply shortages: demand is way above available supply. Develop only the projects which can be sustained by existing resources. That way, there will still be projects -- and profits -- to pursue into the future.
  

We could build WA with artificial support for local businesses. This would last through the boom. Then we would crash when the boom ended.

Or we could pace ourselves. Take what we have and make it better. Use today's profits to solve existing problems. Make a steady profit through the boom times. And have enough in reserve to make a profit after that.

It's like a garden...

When it rains, you could apply even more water. Plant rice, water lilies, everything that needs a whole lot of water to survive. And your garden will look lush and green, even though most of it is just weeds.

Then, when the rain ends, most of your garden will die.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

The Trouble with WACOT

Agamedes bypasses the waffle and goes straight for the throat of just one problem.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

In today's West Australian (29 Sep 10), Bethany Hiatt describes some of the current problems with WACOT. According to its website, "The WA College of Teaching registers all K-12 school teachers in Western Australia and aims to raise the status of teaching by recognising, promoting and regulating the teaching profession." Hiatt's report follows the release of a government report on the WACOT Act.

Now don't get me wrong! I'm as disinterested in the government report as the next person! But I did think that I should at least look at it...

At least, I thought, I should look at the section on "the relationship of the College with the Minister" and "the appropriateness of the organisation’s governance arrangements". This should be interesting, I thought. A report to a minister as to whether or not a group should be under the control of that minister... A report written by one of that minister's underlings. I can see where this one is going, I thought!

Actually, I may have been wrong...

As far as I can tell, the report is going nowhere at all.

The report writers decided to base their analysis on a report by someone called Uhrig, a commonwealth government report into the corporate governance of statutory authorities and office holders. And on an equally fascinating model from Webbe and Weller, a "Public Interest Map for Government Bodies".

At this point I was beginning to see several major problems with the WACOT review:

1. It assumes that a professional registration body must be managed by government. This ignores the examples of, for example, doctors and engineers.
   
2. It is not a review of the Act. It starts from scratch and tries to determine what should have been done.
   
3. The WACOT review reaches no practical conclusions.
   
4. Then, on a more practical level: However the report is stored -- it is not searchable. So -- without reading the entire report -- I could not search to find why Uhrig and Webbe and Weller were selected as the ultimate authorities.
   

As a past academic I have seen plenty of waffly reports. I understand the need to justify lack of original ideas with plenty of references. Still, it would be nice to have found a one-page overview of recommendations. Or even, some recommendations to do something.

Okay, I just skimmed the report. There may be actual gems hidden behind the academic research smokescreen.

Having now exhausted my interest in the actual WACOT report, I'll move on to my own solution for one of WACOT's outstanding problems.

Registration of teachers

Why should a teacher be registered? Here are some possible reasons:

• to ensure they are suitable qualified
  
• to ensure that convicted paedophiles do not become practising teachers
  
• to ensure that teachers are able to communicate in English
  

Those are paraphrased from a WACOT Membership Policy publication.

What happens if a teacher is charged with being a paedophile?

Some people would say, Get them away from children -- immediately! Others would say, Even teachers are innocent until proven guilty! What does WACOT say? Nothing, as far as I can tell from the website...

WACOT needs a registration status of "under review". No need to say why, just "under review". This could be a teacher whose new qualifications are being checked... whose record of Professional Learning is being confirmed... who has been accused of abusing children...

The WACOT site allows principals to check the current status of a teacher. Is the teacher Registered, Provisionally Registered, Limited or Associate. To each category add a status, "confirmed" or "under review".

A principal finds that a potential new teacher is "Registered" but "under review". What do they do? They contact WACOT and discuss the reason for the teacher status being under review. In a private and confidential discussion the principal can then -- with all available information -- decide whether or not to employ the teacher.

The essential WACOT registration will be quick: here is my application, here is my supporting paperwork, here is your "under review" registration. Or, just as effective, Yes you are a registered teacher but the new situation has put you "under review".

The "under review" status flags a possibly relevant situation -- without presupposing guilt or innocence; without waiting for final checking of paperwork. Whatever the situation is, it is flagged: people who need to know, can then find out.

Many situations are shades of grey. WACOT needs to recognise this, and allow for a shade of grey in its teacher registrations.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Representative Democracy... what is it ?

There's only one person that Agamedes would trust as a politician and that's Agamedes.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

It would seem that Australia does not operate under a representative democracy. Not in the sense expected by media reports and letters, anyway.

"I voted for so-and-so yet they do not support my views!" is the cry of the masses.

Tough!

Representative democracy comprises a form of democracy wherein voters choose representatives to act in their interests, but NOT as their proxies - i.e., not necessarily as directed but with enough authority to exercise initiative in the face of changing circumstances, much like a power of attorney. That's from Kids.Net.au, a short and simple explanation.

Note that it is not necessarily as directed. Our politicians are our representatives, not our puppets.

It gets better. Or worse, depending on your viewpoint.

Politicians are our representatives -- on a wide range of matters. Do our elected representatives match our views on every single issue? Not likely! So how are our representatives selected?

Politicians get together and choose a range of issues and stated opinions. Each politician may begin with a general preference for each decision that may need to be made. The final platform for an election is selected to support the election of a candidate.

Does the platform -- the political hopeful's stated view on various issues -- match the view of each elector? Of course not! If the political view matched the elector view -- there would be no need for an advertising campaign: Just tell us your view, if we agree then we will vote for you...

Politicians are elected on a range of issues. Each elector votes for the politician with whom they mostly agree. Our representatives are then free to represent us but not necessarily as directed. We -- the electors -- provide, through our votes, to politicians -- our representatives -- enough authority to exercise initiative.

Remove the rose-tinted glasses

Australia operates under a system of representative democracy. We elect politicians who are then expected to represent us in parliament.

There are dozens -- hundreds -- of issues which must be resolved each year by our representatives. They do their best -- at least we still live in a democracy!

Remember that our politicians are our representatives not our puppets. If we are not satisfied with our representatives -- we can put ourselves up for election... and find out how hard it really is, to win the hearts, minds and votes of electors.

What we are really doing is, asking a bunch of politicians to do the heavy politicking. Sure, we only get to vote for the people who put themselves forward. Sure, we get to choose only from politicians and wannabe politicians. Tough.

As electors in a representative democracy, our only role in running the country is to vote.

Okay, we can also let our representatives know what we want on any particular issue.

Have you already informed your elected representative on your opinion on every single issue to be decided? No? Have you checked the opinion of every single person who is also being represented by "your" elected representative? No? Well... Stop complaining that you are not being "accurately" represented on the one issue that is the media's current flavour of the day.

Is there a True Democracy?

Again, from Kids.Net.au: A democracy is a form of government in which the people, either directly or indirectly, take part in governing. In Australian democracy we take part indirectly, by voting for our representatives.

A democratic government involves the people -- somehow. If you want government just for you, you want individualist anarchism. To me, that sounds much better. Still, Australia is a democracy, not an anarchy.

At its best, democracy is where 51% of the people can tell 100% of the people what to do. If you are outside that 51%, you agree to go along with the majority decision.

In order to get that 51% decision, 1% of the people can spend a lot of money on very convincing advertising... but that's another problem.

For today, just remember that we live in a "representative democracy". You are entitled to your own opinion but your actions are governed by majority decisions.

And your elected representatives are just that: representatives.

Stop whining. Start thinking. Make your views known. And if you don't like your representative -- start now, planning your own election campaign.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Un Sustainable Over Development

Agamedes takes advantage of another person's well-written words, in support of Functional Stability.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

The following is reprinted -- with permission -- from an occasional enewsletter from Keith Lethbridge, a Councillor with the City of Armadale. I support his views. Keith keeps his focus on the local impact of unsustainable development...

G'day folks.

Before the dust has settled on our most recent "infill" program, before the Armadale Redevelopment Authority has rolled its swag & departed, before the necessary infrastructure, the jobs, the health, education & policing services are in place ... look out, here comes the next wave of development.

According to the Minister for Local Government, this could be lawfully thrust upon the unsuspecting Percy Public, but he knows we'll cooperate, because the benefits are clear & obvious. Without growth, business stagnates & we run into a heap of problems.

According to that logic, growth must always continue. Perpetual growth, forever! In Armadale, in Australia, in America, in Bangladesh & in China! Of course we're talking about the growth of human population. Human beings: the only creatures on this little green planet that can't survive without perpetual growth. The only boofheads never to achieve Functional Stability.

The Minister's message is actually two-fold: On the one hand, we'll achieve that much-loved dynamic, vibrant, forward-thrusting economic status, the apparent dream of every upwardly mobile politician. On the other hand, we have no choice, because people from all those other dynamic, vibrant & forward-thrusting countries are currently experiencing a most unfortunate run of bad management & require somewhere to live & something to eat.

Whatever the spin may be, it appears obvious that perpetual growth has us spinning towards disaster. Environmentalists agree. They say we have to change our ways; learn to live on less, to utilise our resources more effectively. That's true. And every 45 years as population doubles, we'll have to become twice as efficient, in every way. We'll have to use half as much water, produce twice as much food & cram twice as many people into the same space ... every 45 years. Come on folks, we can do it!

Scientists tell us that the population will level off in the future, as people (especially women) become better educated, want less children & demand a higher standard of living. (With their better education, wouldn't they agree with the economists that perpetual growth is the only way to achieve, or even maintain a high standard of living? Wouldn't they fear the stagnation & recession that we are told goes hand in hand with Functional Stability?)

Looking at India, Mexico, Africa & Indonesia, it would seem that we have a long way to go before that levelling-off occurs.

Functional Stability was achieved in Australia for many thousands of years with very little technology. Modern Australians have shown, through Permaculture & other innovative methods, that Functional Stability can be achieved along with a much higher standard of living, using appropriate technology. Australian Permaculturalists have shown the way in many struggling countries. As appropriate technology develops, so we can all live in greater comfort, without the need for growth.

The perpetual growth economic theory would be quite comical if it wasn't so dangerous. We all know it's a bad idea, so why not have the courage to say so? We all know, for just one example, that reduction in total carbon emissions can never be achieved if we continue to double our population every 45 years (in Armadale, read "every 15 years"). It would eventually be necessary for everyone to stop breathing out! We love trees because they "breath out" oxygen, but that stuff we breath out is called carbon-dioxide, as everyone well knows.

But enough of the "bleeding obvious". While we may or may not think globally, the very least we should do is to act locally. We can do this in a small & totally harmless way by having the City of Armadale adopt the simple Population Policy I have suggested. It would be a start & would allow & encourage us to monitor the situation. In doing that, we might just become less likely to fall into the spin cycle of perpetual growth that currently threatens our beautiful home town.

Best wishes.

Keith Lethbridge

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Real Women, Pretend Inclusion

Agamedes finds that his bulldust meter has hit the extreme end of its dial.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Oh! Look! "Real" women are involved in this year's Perth Fashion Festival! How do I know? Because Jerry Hall "called in briefly" to have her photo taken.

There's Jerry Hall, watching amateur models. No photos of the amateur models, though. Not famous enough, not photogenic enough, I guess.

Mariella Harvey-Hanrahan is the festival director. "Giving real women representation in the fashion industry and supporting plus-size models was perhaps her proudest moment," according to The West, on 11 Sep 10. The rest of her life must have been a really miserable disaster...

"Giving real women representation in the fashion industry..." The models in the Every Body Counts show are all amateurs. No professional models. Why not?! Perhaps because no woman with a "real" shape can get a job in the fashion industry?

"Plus-size models"? Is that the only unfashionable shape that Harvey-Hanrahan can imagine? To be fair, the "face" of the festival is an anorexic who seems to have spent time on a rack. With that as a role model, 99.999% of women are "plus-size".

So how successful was the Every Body Counts parade?

Sorry, I can't tell you.

There's a photo a Jerry Hall. Proud words from the festival director. Some words from Natalie Wakeling, "Perhaps Australia's best known plus-size model..." Who seems to be denying that this event is both tokenistic and a publicity stunt. Several photos of "real" models -- most of whom do look rather good.

No actual report of the Every Body Counts show, though. Just a passing mention that all 12 models were "styled" by one person... Does that mean that none of the well-known fashion designers were interested?

The fashion industry occasionally claims to be interested in designing for real people and using real women as models.

Perhaps it's time for some action that is more than a tokenistic publicity stunt.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Oakeshott Turns Down Token Ministry

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

"Mr Oakeshott said he had decided to turn down Ms Gillard's offer of a ministry..." (The West Australian, 11 Sep 10). Smart move there by Oakeshott.

Can you imagine: a ministry set up purely and simply as payment to a malleable "independent". The minister -- probably -- not even a member of cabinet. An office, staff, some money to spend -- and no say in anything else whatsoever. No input to the secret cabinet discussions. Forced by the terms of the "power-sharing" agreement to not disagree in public.

If Oakeshott were worth a ministry it should at least be a real ministry. Not just a means to pass him some personal profit and power.

Let's see if any of the other negotiated "agreements" are worth more than the offer of a pretend ministry.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Gnangara Mound can Set the Standard

Agamedes can be brutal when our environment is being destroyed.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Why is it that when we want someone to not do something, we first let them do it, then we charge them money for doing it, then we leave them free to do it again?!

Water use over limit by billions, shouts the headline in The West Australian, on 6 Sep 10. The Department of Water has found that "96 of the 436 licence holders [licensed to pump a limited amount of water from the Gnangara Mound] ... had exceeded their limits." So an already over-drawn source of water has people draining it even more, by stealing water.

What will we do about it?

Probably, nothing at all. Look at our record:

An alumina refinery pollutes. They deny that they polluted. For the day on which pollution was measured, they claim that it was a one-off, that it will never happen again. They are, perhaps, fined a small amount which will hardly affect their annual profits.

I say, they broke their environmental agreement. The refinery should be closed down.

An oil well burns, explodes, leaks oil into the environment. I say, they broke their environmental agreement, written or implied. They should pay every cent of cleanup then the company should be banned from every drilling in the area again.

A tourist resort pumps tourist sewage to... somewhere... near a dolphin sanctuary. Raw sewage leaks into the dolphin sanctuary. I say, they broke their environmental agreements, the resort should be closed until the operator can guarantee that no more raw sewage will leak into the environment.

People and businesses put the environment at risk. Businesses do it in order to make money. An official smack on the wrist does not affect income. A fine can be written off against profits and is probably tax deductible.

A business agrees to not damage the environment. It then damages the environment. The business cannot be trusted. It should be closed down.

If you want to be nice: The business should be closed down until (a) all damage has been fully repaired and (b) clear action has been taken to prevent a recurrence. If (a) takes a long time, well, that's why it should not have happened in the first place. If (b) is expensive, well, that's a valid consideration when the business considers its future financial viability.

What about the Gnangara Mound?

Now businesses -- or individuals, or councils -- are drawing well beyond their licence limit of water. This affects all of us, because Water Corporation also depends on Gnangara Mound for metropolitan water supplies. It also affects the environment because drawing on the Mound lowers the water table which kills plants in the area.

A smack on the wrist is pointless. A fine is simply another cost to the business, to be passed on to customers. The bores must be turned off.

Someone draws too much water. So stop their bores. Now! To be kind, just stop their bores until consumption has caught up with their licensed allowance. You drew twice your allowance for this year? So you draw no water at all for the next year.

This is not about the cost of water. It's about the use of water. There is a limited supply. It must be managed.

Avoid fines and punishment

The real point is, we must use less water. (The obvious answer is, we should have less people needing to use the water. That's another debate.) At the very least, each of us must use no more than a fair share of the available water.

So put a limiter on each bore. When the annual (or weekly, or monthly) limit is reached -- the bore stops pumping. Start with the people who have already exceeded their limits. They have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted.

Forget about punishment. Aim for prevention.

The rules are in place. The limits have been set. People who cannot work within those limits have been identified. Prevent them from -- help them to avoid -- future illegal pumping.

Prevention is better than cure. Water wasted today will never come back.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com