Christmas Message

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

It's all very well to say that we must remember the lessons of the past. As long as we listen to what we are actually saying...

Far too many people remember the past rather that the lessons of the past.

If we remember the past then we will remember the fun, the love... the fear, the hatred... And there is a horrible tendency to maintain and repeat, the fun, the love, the fear and the hate. The fun and love of the past were great at the time. I prefer to live, love and enjoy the present and the future.

If we remember the fear and hate of the past -- we tend to still feel those same emotions, of fear and hate. If we destroy the present with our fear and hatred of the past then what have we learnt? Nothing. But if we remember the lessons of the fear and hate of the past then we may just get to be better people.

What lessons may we learn from the past?

How about: This particular action, or situation, or person, caused us fear, or hate, or love...? Close...

How about: This type of action, or this general situation, caused us fear or hate or love...? Better. Why are these better lessons? Because the action is in the past but we may be affected in the future by a similar type of action. Because the situation has come and gone but a similar one may lie in the future. Because we may want to avoid being in that type of situation and we should learn to not cause that type of situation...

More importantly: an action or a situation may be good or bad -- but a person may have changed.

We need to deal with the actions and situations that have occurred. This may include "dealing with" people who did the action or who created the situation. (Remembering that we may be the very people who did, or who created.) Then we need to move on.

Deal with the past -- then live in the present -- and prepare for a better future. Don't avoid the issues of the past but deal with them. Then let the issues go.

Remember the lessons of the past. Use the lessons to learn to have a better present. With good will and some luck, this will lead to a better future.

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

Lies, Damn Lies -- and CEO Statements

Zoltan Kovacs reviewed a book on the misuse of English. Sure, there's a lot of waffle used but often enough it's just the language of that particular social or work group. The multi-paragraph example that he gave made -- to me -- a lot of sense. If you know the words, the meaning is clear... Though I'll admit, it could have been said more concisely.

What I do not like, is simple language which is a simple lie.

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

English grows. It changes. Some bits die, new words and phrases are introduced. Would you trust a doctor who told you, "You're a bit crook"? No -- you would prefer a diagnosis in the language of doctors... You would hear the jargon, gain faith in the doctor's expertise then -- if you were really interested -- ask for a clearer explanation.

That's the way that all "professional" areas work: they have their own language, it makes sense to them. If you deal with them, you hope that they are able to translate into your own particular jargon.

Then you have the "professionals" who use everyday English -- but they are lying. Or deluded. Or just plain confused.

Take, for example, Peter Flett.

Flett was the boss of Health in WA, after the last bloke was kicked out for dodgy practices. Now Flett has resigned, "because," he says in an interview in The Sunday Times (20 Dec 2009), "clearly communications between the Health Department and Treasury had broken down." As one person commented (it may have been the president of the AMA), it's a bit weak to quit as soon things get a bit tough.

Still...

What else is wrong with this Flett person?

It's only a short article. How many mistakes can we find, in this one, short article?

1. "It became obvious to me it was time to move on because clearly communications between the Health Department and Treasury had broken down." Communication is a two-way street. Is Flett so incompetent that he is unable to deal with difficult people?
   
2. Is his real boss -- the minister for health -- so incompetent that he cannot defend his own health CEO? Or does Flett believe that he -- Flett -- is the be-all and end-all of Health... reporting to no-one but willing to give up if a different department gives criticism.
   
3. "I learnt the necessity of hard work to get results." He apparently also learnt to give up in the face of opposition.
   
4. "Dr Flett said he came out of retirement to become the Health Department boss." Is this just poor phrasing -- or understanding -- by the reporter? The next paragraph provides a different story: "I was contemplating retirement..." So was he working through his retirement? Or confusing an inadequate reporter? Or just spouting a load of bull...
   
5. "I came into this job because of my experience with managing people." Remember this claim while reading Flett's view on the "Four Hour Rule".
   
6. "When I took this job I took it with some particular things that I thought needed to be done." Actually, I heard him on TV from his first days in the job. He spouted the standard motherhood statements, about emergency waiting times, aboriginal health, the usual problems. No solutions, just the standard list of problems. Whoopee-do.
   
7. "That's why I initiated the Four Hour Rule." That's the one that tells doctors, you will get patients out of the Emergency Department within four hours of their arrival. How do they do that? There are no suggestions, no extra resources, no hints... Just an order: Do it. This from the man with "experience with managing people"!
   
8. So... How do doctors manage within the Four Hour Rule? Well... Patients are stopped from entering Emergency -- you've heard of ambulance ramping? And patients who manage to get in are dumped out the other end -- asap. Have you heard of the Acute Assessment Unit? Too sick to go home, nothing we can do with them -- get them out of ED and dump them in AAU. Less time in Emergency -- more time in other areas. Oh, great.
   
9. "I also initiated ... a major screening program of Aboriginal communities... We're doing it within the health budget. Not with extra funds." Let's just look at that lying logic... Within the health budget. You have a $100 budget for a barbecue. You decide to spend $99 on beer -- within the barbecue budget. You use no extra funds... except that you now have only $1 left for meat. Yes, you have paid for an extra service -- beer -- "within budget". But the rest of the barbecue is buggered. So other areas carry the pain but you get popular for providing ... beer.

So we have misleading statements. Absolute bulldust. And lies. This is the style of the ex-CEO of Health. Oh my.

I don't care about specialist jargon and incomprehensible verbiage. If only we could hear straight talk and the truth.

I wish.

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

WA Diners do not Tip

It seems that, "WA restaurant diners are among the worst tippers in Australia," according to "a national poll" (The West, Wed 14 Oct 09, page 13). Hmmm... this is "News". That's what it says at the top of the page, anyway.

Why should we tip a waiter?

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

Rob Broadfield writes -- in a "comment" article with the "news" report -- that we should tip when, "a waiter has clearly gone out of their way..." What a load of old bollocks!

If I go to a "cheap" restaurant then I expect to have my order taken, my food delivered and dirty dishes cleared away. If I go to an "expensive" restaurant then I expect exactly the same. I also expect the food to be better quality. I also expect that the waiter will fawn all over me, smarming around, asking if sir has enjoyed the meal, pouring drinks as fast as I drink them. Yes, it's awful, it's just the price that the customer has to pay when eating at a "high-end" restaurant.

Please do not ask me to pay a tip -- on top of the expected high prices -- for the displeasure of having a waiter constantly hovering at the table and asking stupid questions.

When I want a "high-end" meal with "high-end" ambience I am happy to pay "high-end" prices. The restaurant owner has paid to ensure that the food and ambience are better than average. If the owner is happy to employ surly staff who provide poor service, well, that's their decision.

If I praise -- or complain about -- food, ambience or staff, that is between me and the owner. The owner may choose to take action, following my comments on food, ambience or staff; that is their decision. If I like the food, the ambience and the staff, I may dine there again. If I dislike the food, or the ambience or the staff then I may choose to not eat there again. The owner may -- or may not -- care.

Choice of good or bad staff... style of service offered by staff... are the responsibility of the restaurant owner.

If I am expected to bribe the waiter in order to get service -- please do not expect me to also pay the restaurant owner for the cost of staff.

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

Hawkins' Breasts Bulge with Photoshop !

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

Last week Paul Murray, in a fit of altruistic sarcasm, denied that The West uses the front page for teasers and advertising. Today (Wed 14 Oct 09) the front cover contains:

• one serious story
  
• one large photo and two sentences as a teaser -- sorry, lead in -- to a "Report, P3".
  
• weather overview ("Details, P69")
  
• small ad for an "8-page liftout inside"
  
• very small ad for newspaper home delivery
  
• another teaser headline
  
• a larger ad "for our new liftout"...

... and it's that final ad which leads into the headline for this blog. After all, it's not just The West which can misuse headlines to grab your attention :-)

Have a look at the photo -- Jennifer Hawkins in a bikini top, for those who don't have the newspaper. The ad is for an "exclusive photo shoot" in the new style liftout.

Then turn to the style liftout. It has the same photo on the cover. Or does it?!

The front page "teaser" photo shows a distinct bulge to Jennifer's left breast. There is a shadow, to emphasise the size and shape. There is -- thanks to the strong shadow -- a hint of overhang... This is clearly a breast which is large enough to jut and hang....

None of which is visible on "the same" photo on the cover of the style liftout.

A tiny touch of extra shadow is all it takes. I use the words, "breasts bulge" in an attempt to catch your attention. The West uses a visual version of the same thing, to catch your attention. It works for The West.

I hope that it works for me...

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

Only Ask, if you Want to Know the Answers

There is one good thing about surveys: they make you think. Actually, that is not always a good thing. Thinking may be good; the resultant thoughts may be -- to say the least -- counterproductive.

Survey and response

Years ago, I was an employee within Water Corporation, a major government organisation. The organisation decided to run an "employee satisfaction" survey; they were all the rage, at the time. As I completed the form, I began to think.

"Is the work rewarding?" I wondered, because that was the question.

"Is my manager competent?" I wondered, because that was the general thrust of several questions.

"Is this a good organisation in which to work?" I wondered.

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

All good questions. All questions that the organisation hoped to answer. Two out of three of my thoughts -- my own answers to the employee satisfaction survey -- caused me to think, "I am not satisfied here; why do I stay here?"

Up till then, I had felt quite happy in my work. I had never really questioned my motivation to work, never wondered if there were better things that I could be doing.

The employee satisfaction survey had brought -- to my conscious mind -- all of the points which made me a dissatisfied employee.

Interestingly enough, I was not alone. At least, I was not alone in being dissatisfied. Within a few months, the organisation had begun various actions and activities which were intended to raise employee satisfaction within the organisation.

No matter that, within two years, a large percentage of the employees had been sacked, made redundant or transferred out with outsourcing contracts... The organisation had noted the problems and taken positive action.

As for me... I had been made consciously aware -- by an "employee satisfaction survey" -- of the large number of unsatisfactory aspects of my employment.

Survey and deny

Several years later I had been outsourced: my employment transferred to GECITS, a large, multinational, private enterprise. This was part of the contracted outsourcing of services. The multinational ran its own employee satisfaction survey.

Once more, the survey questions made me think. Is the work rewarding? Is my manager competent? Is this a good organisation in which to work? This time the answer to all three was, "No."

Again, I was not alone in my views: the majority of employees were highly dissatisfied with the employer. How did we -- employees -- know about the general dissatisfaction?

Well, for one thing, the survey made "employee satisfaction" a matter for discussion. Because we had been asked the questions, we thought about our answers and we discussed, in general terms, our responses.

There was a second, even stronger, indicator that this large, multinational, private enterprise had discovered high levels of employee dissatisfaction: we heard nothing of the results. There were senior management denials. Top management evasions. Vague promises of future publication of analyses. (The survey had clearly promised that all overall results would be distributed to all employees.) The topic was gradually glossed over, no results were ever published. Managers -- but not employees -- gradually moved the topic from the back-burner to right off the stove.

Oh, and a few of the worst managers were promoted.

Survey, whitewash, repeat

This multinational had proudly announced, that every employee was surveyed for satisfaction and the results published, every year. It was one of the things that made the organisation such a great place to work. Well, after the bad results of the first survey, it was two years before we were surveyed again.

Again, the survey questions made me think -- negatively. Again, the feeling at ground level was not good. This time, some broad and bland, high level results were published. There was no obvious action to improve employee satisfaction. (Except the usual, "publish an employee newsletter," which went nowhere.)

A few years later, the organisation solved its employee dissatisfaction problems: we were sold.

Survey and so what

A few years later, I was working for government again, at ECU, a university. There was another employee satisfaction survey.

This time -- as the questions caused me to think about my employer -- there were just a few issues. In general, I was happy in the work, but the survey reminded me of areas where I was not happy.

Overall, I was satisfied. Other employees in this university seemed to have a similar attitude: some complaints, but overall satisfied. The management response matched the employee satisfaction: "Oh, okay, we'll do nothing."

I was left with a vague feeling of dissatisfaction, though I had started the survey with an overall feeling of employee satisfaction.

Thinking about higher education

Which brings me to my latest survey. It was just last week...

I graduated with a Doctorate from a so-so university. A group of universities are asking their "higher degree" graduates, "Was it good?" Once again, the detailed questions made me think.

"Was it a good course?" Yes! The content was interesting and challenging. The lecturers were competent and knowledgeable. I found that the study was worthwhile -- for personal learning.

"Did the degree help you in your work?" Well, no. My first -- undergraduate -- degree helped me get my first job. After that, employers were not interested in degrees. What is your work experience, they wanted to know. (Just a few times, I had tried to use some of the methods learnt at university. "We don't do that here," was the standard response.)

"What advice would you give to potential students?" the survey asked. Get one degree, get a job, I responded. Get the experience, stay in a standard career path. And suck up to the boss.

That's the trouble with being asked a question. You start to think about the most appropriate answer. And that can be either dangerous... or depressing.

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

What is the Business of the Business?

In order to justify a budget, the business needs to know that the money will be spent on efforts to achieve desirable outcomes. In other words, know what you want to do then spend money on doing just that. Going back to consultant blather: define your organisational mission then budget to satisfy that mission.

Let's imagine that times are tight. Perhaps there's some sort of global financial crisis going on. For whatever reason, you decide that you need to spend less money. Where do you cut your budget?

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

The area to reduce budgets is, anywhere that money is spent that does not support the organisational mission.

The links are broken

From the Health Department website: "Western Australia's public health system aims to ensure healthier, longer and better lives for all Western Australians and to protect the health of our community by providing a safe, high quality, accountable and sustainable health care system." (http://www.health.wa.gov.au/about/)

Write that on a whiteboard. Draw a circle round it. Think. How do we satisfy that mission?

"The six strategic directions or priority areas WA Health follows are: Healthy Workforce, Healthy Hospitals, Healthy Partnerships, Healthy Communities, Healthy Resources and Healthy Leadership." Write each of those on the whiteboard. Draw a circle round each. Draw a line between the first circle -- the mission statement -- and each of these six priority areas. Now we're starting to understand Health. For example:

Link the Healthy Workforce circle out to the next relevant statement, "Our health system workforce is the foundation of the delivery of health care..." This expands out to several aims and commitments. And then the published explanation ends. Let's look behind the scenes, to the land of endless possibilities...

"We commit to: Developing and deploying a statewide strategic workforce plan." Who is this "We"? Rather, who is actually developing and deploying? If there is a group within Health that has been told, "Develop and deploy a statewide workforce plan," then that group is essential to the mission of Health. If the government decides to scrap that particular commitment then that group may safely be sacked... Sorry... Their budget for development and deployment may be reduced to zero.

Who else is essential for this particular commitment?

Start drawing more circles and lines... Perhaps there is a need to document statewide workforce needs? Link it in to the mission statement. Identify who does that documentation. Give them a budget. Or, if the basic commitment goes, reduce that budget to zero.

Will we develop the plan through extensive consultation, or by central decree? Add the appropriately labelled and linked circles, link the circles to the people and groups required to do the work, budget accordingly. Does "workforce" include health professionals? internal and external professionals? support and ancillary staff? accountants, administrators and managers? Make the decisions, determine the scale of the effort, identify people and groups to do the work. Budget accordingly.

The key requirement is to link each and every commitment, direction, key area, task... to the people and resources required to do it. Then develop a budget.

If you want to cut dollars from the budget, look at the links back to essential commitments, back to the mission statement for the organisation. Which commitment will you cut? That is where you can reduce the budget.

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

Old Enough to Fight and Die, Old Enough to Drink

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

Should the drinking age be raised to 21? On the Letters page of The West today (4 Sep 09), Bernie Brown reminds us of the 1970s logic for reducing the drinking age to 18:

"Eighteen-year-olds were being conscripted to fight overseas... Man enough to die for their country but not man enough to handle alcohol."

Why are 18-year-olds selected for conscription? Because they are young and foolish and have not learnt to fear their own death. Because they are not so old that they have learnt to value their own life above all else. Because they are young enough to accept orders without asking questions based on their own life experiences. Because they may not yet be fixed in their belief that thou shalt not kill. Because they have not yet learnt that those in authority can still give stupid orders.

Actually, I have no problem with the preference for young soldiers. Though I am against conscription.

On the other hand... None of those reasons for selecting 18 year olds as soldiers seem to be good reasons for allowing 18 year olds to drink alcohol.

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

Fighting Fire

When a bushfire threatens, do you attempt to fight the fire, or flee to safety? If the SES (or whichever group of appointed experts) decide that everyone should "flee" -- should that decision be enforced? Regulations have been suggested, to give Police the authority to force home-owners to flee. Some home-owners demand the right to remain and fight.

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

What are the problems?

• Home-owners may, in fact, be able to save their homes by staying to fight the fire.
  
• Home-owners who stay may die in the bushfire.
  
• Firefighters want to protect people from being burnt. Their lawyers demand that they do all that they can, to protect people from being burnt.
  
• If you flee too late, you may be at more risk than if you stayed near your home.
  
• It takes time and effort to remove a home-owner who does not want to move. This time could be better spent helping people who want to be helped.

Solution: allow freedom of choice

If a home-owner really believes that they want to stay and fight to protect their own home -- let them. Allow them that freedom to choose. At the same time, we need to allow the emergency services to get on with saving people who do want to be saved.

Provide a sign saying, "All people on this property have chosen to stay on this property and fight bushfires." (Better make it a fireproof sign.) The sign must be displayed prominently at the entrance to the property. People on that property will not be forced to move.

Emergency services will still warn them, that the recommendation is, to flee. The home-owners may, on being given the warning, choose to flee. After that warning, end of story: emergency services move on to protect those who want to be protected.

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

Paying Peter to Stop Paying Paul

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

"Private firms to find public sector cuts" says the headline in The West today (4 Sep 09). What a great idea, spend a heap of money on consultants to make meaningless cuts in the public service. Here's how it works:

1. Government tells Police to cut 3%.
   
2. Police offer cuts which will either (a) visibly reduce the effectiveness of practical policing, or (b) threaten public safety. The examples of (a) were a couple of months ago. The latest example of (b) was the decision to do high speed car driver training on public roads.
   
3. Public are horrified at (a) the possible rise in unsolved crime, or (b) the threat to public safety.
   
4. Government recognises possible loss of votes and is forced to back down on budget cut demands. Possibly to be followed by,
   
5. Police cut a few areas that they had already wanted to dump.
   
6. Government accepts the token gesture towards savings.
   
7. Police get the money back by showing justification for extra funding in other high public profile areas.
   
8. Accountants demonstrate savings "in identified areas", government publicises savings, total budget is the same or higher.

The demands for 3% budget cuts have several failings:

• The cuts are initiated by accountants who do not understand the business.
  
• Actual cuts can only be substantiated by accountants, who do not understand the business.
  
• People who actually understand the business are too busy "doing" -- policing, treating, teaching, etc -- to waste their own time looking for costs to cut.
  
• The obvious source of savings is to cut unneccessary services.
  
• No-one has actually defined the necessary services from any government agency. So no-one knows what is not necessary.
  
• So agency accountants are left to squabble with Treasury accountants who want to look good with government ministers who have passed the buck to external consultants. Who know even less about the business, so will make even more nonsensical cuts to possibly essential services.

Realistic Step One

Define the actual government requirements of an agency. (More on that in a later post.)

Realistic Step Two

Cut costs in areas which are not required by the government.

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

Demands for a Nanny State

It's said -- okay, I won't claim to know by whom -- that Western Australia is a "nanny state". Even The West has occasionally mentioned this. Usually in negative terms, suggesting that being a nanny state is, a bad thing. Okay, again, I can't quote any of the articles that I have noticed. They may have been opinion pieces by the regular columnists.

Anyway... regardless of the facts...

On Tuesday 1 September 2009 The West, in its editorial, made demands for more nanny-state restrictions!

Under the headline, "Phone laws for drivers need to be consistent", The West discusses the suggestion that WA should ban mobile texting while driving. "It is," they write, "hard to argue against such a move." Which is another way of saying, "We need more nanny-state laws."

What do we really want?

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

There seem to be two main thrusts in nanny-state laws against drivers: protecting the driver and passengers from themselves, and protecting other drivers from dangerous driving. In the first category are laws banning smoking in cars, insisting on use of seat belts, keeping arms inside the car. In the safety category are all the things which lessen our ability to drive safely: drinking, drugs, mobile phones...

In the safety category: what do we really want?

What we want, is to ensure that drivers drive safely enough to not cause accidents. As time goes on, we discover more and more ways in which drivers act to lessen their ability to drive safely. So what do we do? We pass laws to cover each and every potential cause of dangerous driving.

Back to basics

Most of us -- most of us drivers -- have a drivers licence. To get that licence we passed a driving test. The test was a means to test whether or not we could drive reasonably safely.

The driving test sets a standard. We pass the driving test by driving with an acceptable level of ability. We are given our drivers licence because we demonstrated the ability to drive without causing an accident.

When we drink, we run the risk of losing our ability to drive safely. If we can drive just as safely drunk as sober -- there would be no reason to ban drink driving.

When we take drugs, we run the risk of losing our ability to drive safely. Various drugs affect various people in various ways. Combinations of drugs (including alcohol) affect our ability to drive safely. Because of these combinations, it is difficult to write laws to accurately control our combinations of drugs and driving.

When we speak on the mobile phone, we may drive less safely. When we send an sms, we may be driving less safely. When we change the volume of the radio, we may be driving less safely... Where do we stop the nanny-state laws?

How many laws do we really need!

What do we really need?

There is a group of laws which aim to stop us driving dangerously. We have a set standard of acceptable driving: the level at which we can pass a driving test. Why not combine the two?

Pretend that you -- or, "someone else" -- is spotted driving dangerously. Worse yet, you have crashed your car. Were you breaking the law? Or, the real question, were you driving in a fashion which caused the accident? That is the real question.

Our current crop of nanny-state laws provide a list of "don'ts". What we really want to know is, were you driving worse than when you gained your drivers licence?

Here's the law that we need: "It is illegal to do anything that, if you did it during a driving test, would cause you to fail that test."

In practice: You are spotted doing "something" that looks risky. You redo your driving test -- while doing that same "something". If you pass the driving test then you were not breaking the law. If you fail the driving test then the "something" -- whatever it was -- is against the law.

If you can drink then drive safely: fine. If you can phone and text while still driving safely: no worries. If your driving becomes dangerous when you just tune the radio: then you tuning the car radio is dangerous driving and against the law.

One law covers every possible source of driver risk. That one law also takes account of individual abilities and of all the possible combinations of actions. You can, for example, be retested while drinking, talking and tuning the radio -- if that's what you were seen doing.

One simple law. And it tackles what we need. Not just the latest fad in driving distractions.

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

Headline Marketing for Twits

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

Have you noticed a big media push for Twitter, over the last few months? Articles, stories, opinions... For and against the use of Twitter but mostly emphasising that Twitter is the hot choice of your favourite celebrities.

Why would we use Twitter? To keep up with the latest, just-breaking news, apparently. (This despite its origins as a social networking -- gossip amongst friends -- communication tool.) Each article includes an example or two of how quickly news has been spread by Twitter.

DJ signed off on Twitter

There, doesn't that headline give you the feeling that some person -- the "DJ" in question -- used Twitter to make an important announcement? Wrong! Okay, it's just the Gossip pages of The West (31 August 2009) but still... that is a very misleading headline!

"DJ signed off on Twitter". The DJ -- disk jockey -- in question was found dead. Did he make a pre-death announcement via Twitter? Well, no... How did he sign off on Twitter? Well... his "last know remarks on ... Twitter" were three days before his body was found. Were those last remarks relevant to his death, to his signing off? Not as far as we are told. Why is Twitter mentioned in the headline?!

As soon as the man was found dead, his "celebrity friends" rushed to Twitter, to gain quick publicity for themselves, as quickly as possible. A kind interpretation would say that this explains how he was "signed off on Twitter".

A less kind interpretation would say that the headline invented the significance of Twitter in the death. Free marketing for Twitter? Or just a lazy use of the software fad du jour? Who knows.

And -- if I hadn't been so annoyed that I posted this blog -- I would have added, Who cares!

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

Poor Literacy a Hazard

"Poor literacy among workers has become a serious productivity and safety issue," according to Heather Ridout of the Australian Industry Group (The West, 31 August 2009). It seems that some workers can't read the instruction manuals, so they use machinery "inefficiently".

I have to guess, that Ridout is a highly literate non-"worker" who has never tried to read and follow an instruction manual. Here's a better thought:

Write better manuals

Sure, "workers" have relatively poor literacy levels. They are employed to do things, not to read War and Peace. A bit of training would not go astray -- if the employer cared to "waste" that valuable time.

But the worst problem is with badly written instruction manuals. They are thick, to cover every possible use of whatever it is being used. It used to be said that IBM manuals were written to tell you how to use the IBM software. Then re-written by IBM lawyers so that nothing was actually promised. (It's easier with Microsoft manuals. The information you need is spread across several dozen separate sources. But that's no worry because it's all out-of-date as soon as it's written.)

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

Also, manuals are written by people who are experts. So obvious problems are not explained -- the experts did not even realise that such problems could exist.

What this means: Instruction manuals are too thick to read and understand. They cover everything (or, sometimes, nothing) so it is very hard to find instructions for just what you want to do today. The instructions do not relate to "real life", that is, the stuff that you are expected to do here, now, for this particular employer.

Quite a few instruction manuals are designed for use in an office. Even if they are for machinery to be used in a workshop.

I once spent a few weeks instructing fitters -- people who work with large spanners, hammers, grease, heavy cutting tools -- in use of a computer system. Instructions on ordinary paper would soon disappear: ripped, torn, lost or covered in the normal muck of an engineering workshop. It's hard to turn pages while wearing heavy, protective gloves. It's hard to even see instructions when you wear safety glasses rather than reading glasses.

So I created instruction sheets which suited the intended use. Laminated, to last. One A4 sheet per standard task, so no need to turn pages. Large font, to be read without reading glasses. A series of steps -- with no options -- to get the job done.

Sure, every employee should be able to read. Simple warning signs, for example, must be understood. But you did not hire your fitters to read War and Peace.

Write instruction manuals which are suited to their intended use. Who will use them? Where will they use them? How will they use them? Then back up the instruction manuals with suitable training and support.

And now, just for fun, let's have a look at a typical set of instructions...

Washing machine: operating instructions

The cover page says, "Read these instructions before switching on the washing machine! Also follow the separate installation instructions. Follow the safety instructions on page 11!" So I need to read these twelve pages. Plus the separate and missing installation instructions. And the best place to start appears to be on page 11.

So I start with the safety instructions on page 11...

Most of it seems fairly standard: Some pointers on safe use of an electrical appliance; warning of the risk of posioning (sic) from detergents; an instruction to not climb on the washing machine. I'm a bit worried by the warning, "Caution when draining hot detergent solution." I use cold and dry powder. Where is this dangerous "hot detergent solution"?!

I skip back to page 9: Detergent-solution pump. This tells me how to drain a "Detergent-solution pump". What?! What is a "Detergent-solution pump"? When would I drain it? Why would I drain it... whatever it is?! Whatever it is, it does seem to introduce a "Risk of scalding!" -- which is a new risk, not mentioned in the Safety instructions of page 11.

Oh well, back to page 11. "Risk of explosion"... Perhaps I should avoid using this machine. It seems to be very dangerous. Specially since I have not been properly trained in its use.

Ah... forget it... Let's just follow the instructions for use...

Page 2: Your washing machine

"Congratulations..." Okay, I made a good choice. Must have, the instructions tell me so.

"Environmental disposal: Dispose of packaging in an environmentally friendly manner" -- with a picture of a wheelie bin -- with a big X through it. What? Do not put the packaging in the bin? What am I supposed to do, dump it on a vacant block?

Okay, ignore that, too. Let's see how to wash clothes with this washing machine...

"Programmes". This looks good. It's a list of all the pre-set combinations of wash/soak/rinse/spin cycles. Yes, a list... with instructions to "see Page 7" for a detailed overview. (By the way, this short list of programmes is split across pages 1 and 2. Just for your reading inconvenience.) So, I turn to page 7.

The first line of page 7 says, "See also page 6".

Page 6 is "Important information". Including -- the second section -- "Before washing for the first time".

Enough!

I close the instruction manual. Shove in some dirty clothes. Click the selector knob to "Mixed load". Put laundry detergent into one of the three possible spaces (hoping that I picked the right one) and press go... (Actually, it's worse than that because the "go" button is touch sensitive. Sometimes it ignores the touch. Sometimes it flicks on and off several times, if it's feeling really sensitive. But that's another issue.)

Then I walk away and hope for the best. And start to read War And Peace, because it's much clearer than the instruction manual, and makes a lot more sense.

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

The Art of War

Long periods of extreme boredom interspersed by short bursts of extreme violence. That's the way that war has been described. Now it's art.

Okay, I've only read the review. Not seen the movie. Never will, I hope.

The movie reviewer in The West just loved Quentin Tarantino's latest gore fest, Inglourious Basterds. A slow but tantalising start to the movie... nothing happens and you begin to wonder what it's all about, I guess. Lots of pop culture references... the movie title, for example... probably quite humorous, if you happen to be a fan of 1970s Italian war movies. Three long hours of talking heads.

Interspersed with sudden bursts of extreme violence.

Tarantino's warmest and funniest movie yet, apparently. What, was it even funnier than the Hogan's Heroes Auschwitz special?

Three hours of extreme boredom interspersed by short bursts of extreme violence. War as humour, art as war. I can hardly wait to see it.

Oh. Yes I can.

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

Lawyers are Crooks, say Anti-War Activists

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

Anti-war activists in LA have demanded that a law professor be "dismissed, disbarred and prosecuted for war crimes". What was his crime? He gave a legal opinion. (See The West, Law professor in hot water over torture, 19 Aug 09.)

Professor John Yoo, it seems, "went to Washington and created the ideological, political and legal basis for the torture of innocent people." That's the words of civil rights lawyer Dan Siegel. In less strident terms, Yoo defined a legal position within which "harsh interrogation techniques" were legally acceptable.

So, what does a lawyer usually do for a client?

A lawyer is employed -- in many cases -- to use existing law to defend the past actions of the client. To search existing law for justifications, possibly for loopholes, which -- in hindsight -- show that past actions were perfectly legal. You punched someone and they died? Not murder but an unforeseeable accident. You physically attacked a policeman? Perfectly legal, it was "self" defence of your poor, aged and infirm father.

That's what lawyers do. They interpret the law. Lawyers interpret the law on behalf of the person who is paying the lawyer.

If John Yoo found legal justification for torture then that is because the law appears to allow torture. The final decision requires a court judgement. (Followed by as many appeals as the protagonists can afford.) If John Yoo found legal justification for torture then he did exactly what he was paid for (I guess).

Dan Siegel has his own legal opinion. As a lawyer -- a "civil rights" lawyer -- that is Dan Siegel's job. It is what he is paid for. Has Siegel had his legal opinion tested in court?

All lawyers are crooks

Okay, a lot of people believe that heading... Nevertheless...

According to Siegel, "There is little doubt that John Yoo is a war criminal." Yoo is a war criminal for presenting a legal opinion. For acting on behalf of his clients.

By Siegel's illogic, every lawyer is a criminal.

Lawyer A presents the opinion that action A is legal. Lawyer B presents the opinion that action A in not legal. One is right, one is wrong (possibly). By Siegel's illogic, the "wrong" lawyer is, in fact, a criminal.

No wonder we respect lawyers just a little bit less than we respect politicians.

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

Just when You Thought it was Safe...

Just when you thought it was safe to send your children back to school, we have a new "national education expert".

"Drop A to E grades for the sake of the kids" says today's halfwit (The West, 15 Aug 09, page 7). Geoff Masters is said to be the chief executive for the Australian Council for Educational Research. Chief drongo could be more apt.

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

WA has been suffering -- is still suffering -- from outcomes based learning. Every student is evaluated according to their potential. If you're really, really stupid then you can get an A for effort. Meaning, you're doing as well as could be expected, for such a stupid student.

What is the purpose of a school? Is it to provide some sort of education? Or is it to make students feel good about themselves. I'd like to think that education is somehow related to a school's objectives.

Let's just pretend that a school provides an education. How do we measure a student's success at gaining a school education? Let's measure how much they have learnt!

Here's the real problem

People like Geoff Masters have a serious problem. They believe that what you know is the only measure of success: if you do not learn then you are a failure. They compensate for this in-built bias. "How can I tell this student that they have failed to learn? That they are an absolute failure because they are unable to learn! How can I tell this student that -- in my opinion -- they are a useless burden on society because they cannot memorise facts as well as I can?"

Geoff Masters is a softie. He believes that his ability to learn makes him a better person than the people who are too stupid to learn. But he won't tell them that... He would rather lie. "I'm not going to tell you how stupid you are," he says. "That way, you can go through life believing that you are really just as good as me. But somehow you missed out on the overpaid sinecure that I have gained through my own... well... ability to learn..."

Geoff Masters -- and his fellow "education experts" -- appear to believe that the ability to learn is the only measure of success. Anyone who cannot learn is a failure. And they don't want to upset these failures by pointing out what to them -- the self-proclaimed experts -- is obvious.

There is more to life than passing exams

Isn't it great, that some people are able to pass exams?! Look at me: I have several university degrees. Does that make me better than you? I doubt it!

There are great sports players with less brain than brawn. (And some with more.) There are plumbers who do work that I would not even attempt. There are electricians who do work that I could not comprehend. There are teachers -- with less university qualifications than me -- who are willing to teach in schools... enough said.

Being a great human being is more than being able to learn at school. Sure, education is valuable. Essential, even... according to me. But lack of education does not make a lesser human being.

Persistent low grades may make a student lose learning motivation. So what! Perhaps they are not suited to learning. Perhaps there is something better that they can do!

I do believe that education is worthwhile. But people have different capacities for learning. If we refuse to accept this -- we refuse to tell the student whether they are learning or not -- then we are downgrading their other potential.

We pretend that all students are equally capable. This reinforces the idea that a school education is the only measure of success. With our worry that academic inability is bad, we reinforce the view that academic ability is the only measure of success.

Educational "experts" -- wake up! Allow students to know how they are doing at school. And allow them to feel good about whatever other abilities they may have.

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

Recycled University Thinking Fails to Lead

UWA, the University of Western Australia, is a training ground for the leading thinkers of tomorrow... Or, is it just a factory for recycling of yesterday's fads?

Actually, that may be a bit unfair. It was the University Student Guild which recently demonstrated its lack of thought leadership. It did it in such an uninspiring way that it was only Inside Cover which found anything newsworthy in the latest Guild activity.

Look, said Inside Cover, A poorly worded caption on a photo! Ah! the excitement!

The photo was from a politician's newsletter. The photo accompanied a story about UWA Guild placing recycling bins around the campus food facility. It would seem that the student guild has finally realised that rubbish can and should be recycled.

It's a bit late, though!

The last year has clearly demonstrated that recycling does not work. Sure, we struggled to recycle a percentage of paper, plastic, glass, metal... Then we were hit by a financial crisis and recycled scrap failed to sell. So now we are gaining mountains of scrap. Sure, it's nicely separated by type of material. But no-one wants it. So our carefully recycled scrap is piled up -- on the premises of recycling companies -- and is no longer being re-used.

"Recycle" sounds good. "Re-use" is what is really worthwhile.

So the UWA Student Guild has implemented on-campus separation of scrap. So what? Recycling was the flavour of the month several years ago. It struggled and then it died, as soon as the recycling money ran out.

New ideas from UWA? You have to be joking!

Reduce the need for recycling

Every time that we recycle, we put off the inevitable. By just a little bit... There's a limit to the number of times that material can be recycled and re-used.

Use your brains, UWA: reduce the use of resources!

Does the Student Guild sell chips in plastic packets? Drinks in plastic bottles? Sandwiches in several layers of plastic? Perhaps it sells batteries for calculators and cameras, wrapped in plastic, backed by cardboard, held together with a metal staple or two? All of these are a waste of our non-renewable resources.

Be brave, Student Guild! Avoid the popular and pointless follow-me fads. Become a thought leader for conservation! Reduce what you waste!

No matter how well we recycle, every use of a resource will lose some of that resource. No matter how well we recycle, we are using up a little bit more of an irreplaceable resource. The best way to reduce waste is to not use it at all.

Make a stand. Be clever... be brave.

Garbage in... garbage out

Reduce the garbage in: less packaging, less use of wrapping. That will reduce the garbage out. Less garbage out, less resources lost.

And then -- because it's better to be late to the bandwagon that not get on at all -- you can still recycle the reduced volumes of garbage out.

Mining "Approvals" Hit Wrong Note

On the front page of Western Australian Business news for August 6-12, 2009: "Junior miners are upbeat but still frustrated by perennial bugbears such as slow approvals..."

What is wrong with that statement?

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

What is the role of our Environmental Protection Agency? Is it to give approval for new mining activity? Is its role, to give approval for major, destructive, possibly permanent damage to our environment? If the role of our EPA is to give approval to environmental destruction -- then the EPA is a waste of time and money.

The true role of the EPA should be to protect the environment. Environmental Protection Agency... get it?! If a new mine would destroy irreplaceable environment, if a new mine would wipe out an endangered species -- then perhaps that new mine should not go ahead.

If we refer to the "approvals" process of the EPA then we are denying the true role of the EPA. The EPA is there to assess and then to approve or to not approve. If we talk only of "approvals" then the EPA is a hurdle to be overcome. If we talk about "assessment" then the EPA gets a valid role.

The EPA exists to protect our environment. If a new mine would destroy valuable evironment then that new mine should not be approved... not by the Environmental Protection Agency. By referring to the "approvals" process, we deny the right of the EPA to refuse approvals. Which makes a paper tiger of our Environmental Protection Agency.

A better option

The EPA exists to protect the environment. Yet its employees are accused of deliberately acting against new proposals. Surely that anti-environmental-destruction activity should be an essential role of the EPA? Denial of that role emphasises the current true role of the EPA: to support development -- or not -- as dictated by government policy.

EPA should be be an independent body for environmental protection. It should not be a decision-maker.

Pass the decision-making to a group for project evaluation. EPA will put in a submission. The mining company will put in a submission. Economic and financial agencies can submit opinions. The government of the day will provide its policy of the day.

Within current government policy (preference to environment, money, climate, kudos, whatever...) the decision-making group will make its decision. If today's policy supports environment then the EPA submission will gain weight. If today's government policy supports profit then EPA issues may be downplayed.

EPA as it exists now is an environmental protection agency with no power for environmental protection. It can say, "Stop!" but that can be bypassed or overridden. When the government supports "profit" then EPA is only an obstacle to be overcome.

Pass actual decision-making to an unbiassed group. Clearly state current government policy and priorities. Let the EPA do its best to protect the environment.

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

The Problem with the World Today...

There it is, on page 22 of The West today, the reason that the world is in such a parlous state...

Okay, I don't really believe that. But the letter headed "Antisocial move" is a definite indicator of one major source of problems.

Gavin Mooney, co-convener, WA Social Justice Network, writes that, "We all want this to be a State where we have a Government which looks after our kids." Where's the problem with that? you ask... Try, "a Government which looks after our kids."

What I would really like, is a state where the families look after their kids. Better yet, a community where the parents look after their own kids.

Parents have children. Parents should look after children. Sure, some parents have problems. So "the State" can give them help. Perhaps even support. Maybe "the State" could even take over looking after the children of problem parents. But first responsibility for children is -- and always should be -- with the parents.

Please think again, Mr Mooney.

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

Sit Still & Be Active !

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

Isn't it funny. Australians are -- we are told -- overweight. Governments spend millions on efforts to get us all to Be Active!

So where does the big money get spent?

The AFL wants our government to spend many, many millions on a football stadium. Not on a football oval, we already have Subiaco oval and the players have no trouble with the size of the oval. No, the problem is with the stadium.

The AFL wants our government to spend many, many millions of dollars on somewhere for 60,000 or more people to sit.

Yes, the AFL thinks that space to sit is the most important part of their commercial enterprise... (I am reluctant to call AFL football a "sport".) Without seats, football is -- it seems -- doomed to fail.

Forget about being active. "Sport" is all about more room to sit and watch.

Are you overweight? Well, you should come and pay to watch highly paid professionals actively fighting in an enclosed space. Forget about lots of smaller spaces to actually play the game. It is far more important -- for the AFL -- that we just sit and watch.

Funny, isn't it.

Well, no.

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

OECD says: Youth Unemployment a Future Issue

I was in Hungry Jacks the other day. Wanted an Aussie Burger. You know, the burger that includes beetroot, so that you know it is an Aussie Burger, or Pommie Burger, or Dutchie Burger, or Name-of-Your-Own-Country Burger. Anyway, I was there to buy, one Aussie Burger.

The burger was for my wife. My own meal was KFC: grease-on-the-wing, three pieces of instant diet buster. Although -- according to my possibly biased tastebuds -- relatively low in salt. So my meal was slowly congealing in the car, while I went to Hungy Jacks for a burger for my wife.

It was 6:16 pm.

How do I know it was 6:16? There were several large displays of the time, all part of the fast food ethos of the takeaway burger joint.

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

First thing to get my attention was the women at the left hand end of the counter. "Uh-oh!" I thought, "It'll be a long wait behind those two!" They already had a dozen or so cups of calorific drink, with an equal number of freshly squeezed, just add water, sugar flavoured iced confection. (I hesitate to call the instant stuff "ice cream".)

Service was, however, fast. The two women were soon presented with their large paper bags, stuffed to the top with burgers. "Have a good evening," wished the pleasant chap providing the service. "I hope you have friends to help you eat all of that," I thought. It was possible -- judging by the size of the women in question -- that the large, lard laden meal was intended for just the two of them. Oh well. My only worry was, that they had been served quite quickly.

6:18 pm

Then I noticed the older woman behind the counter. Keys on a lanyard around her neck. Lanyard flipped behind her back, to keep it out of the way. Serving fries with one hand. Holding her mobile phone to her ear with the other.

"Where are you?" she growled. "We need you here! Now! I have to use my own mobile so that I can help out while I'm talking. Where are you? Why are you not here?" She paced backwards and forwards, scooping chips, muttering instructions, demanding answers.

6:19 pm

"Could you re-enter all of this onto your machine?" This was the counter-hand to the right, asking the counter-hand in the middle. "My machine won't work." The order was re-entered.

"I'm sorry," said the middle counter-hand, "We have lost our connection to the eftpos facilities." "I used the card earlier today," said the customer. "Oh, no, it's not your card, it's our connection. The whole store has lost its link to the card services."

"Do you have some cash?" asked the woman. "Any excuse to get me to pay," replied her husband with a smile, handing over cash. "Thank you, I'm sorry for the inconvenience," said the polite counter-hand in the middle.

6:20 pm

"No, I'm sorry, we are not hiring anyone older than 17. Can you fill in an application form? Would it be possible for you to come back tomorrow? Thank you." The calm counter-hand in the middle, again. The job seeker left.

6:21 pm

"He's not rostered to come in till 7!" said the lady with the phone. She had now finished with the phone. "I'm due to leave at 7," said the calm one. "Who made the roster for today? It's not very good," said the right-hand counter-hand." "We'll just have to get by," said the phone woman, probably the store manager. Then, to the two women -- girls -- in the kitchen, "Are you two coping okay? Is she doing okay?" "Yes, I'm fine. She's doing okay." It seemed that one girl was reluctant to speak, or light on in English.

6:22 pm

A girl filling cardboard cups with ice-cream: Pull the handle, a flow of ice-cream -- which stops. Push the handle back, pull again, a bit more ice-cream flows out. Repeat: push, pull, push, pull... until several cups are full.

6:23 pm

The calm young man had a quiet moment away from the counter. Took some milk from the fridge... The milk lid was open, milk spilt over his arm, leg, the floor. A quick glance at the spill, at the counter, at the new customers arriving. Shake the milk off his arm, load the milk container into the drink machine, back to serving at the counter.

6:24 pm

Manager returns from delivering burgers to the drive-by window, sees milk spilt on floor. Pauses. Sees customers, service, cooking... carries on.

6:25 pm

Calm young man hands me my packet with one Aussie Burger. "Have a good night," he says, with a friendly smile. "Thank you," I reply, returning the smile. I leave Hungry Jacks, burger in hand, back to the car where my own chicken meal is slowly cooling. Impressed by the way that the HJ staff were serving and coping.

The OECD believes that young people will have more and more trouble getting employment. Well, if they're under 17 years old, they can apply to work in Hungry Jacks.

I'm unemployed but I'm too old. So my own employment prospects seem to be even worse that those of younger people. Even Hungry Jacks don't want me!

On the other hand, I don't think that I am suitable. Could I cope with the controlled chaos of rush hour at the takeaway joint? Could I remain as calm and polite as the young staff behind the counter?

I admire them. I hope all goes well with them. The staff remained polite, friendly, efficient through imminent chaos.

Well done!

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

Suicidal Rights

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

There have been articles and letters in The West recently, about the suicide of Erin Berg. Despite care and attention, Ms Berg committed suicide in Mexico. The current situation is, that Ms Berg's sisters want access to full details of the pre-death care given to Ms Berg by the WA Health Department.

There are plenty more issues which are being avoided.

There is very little information on the actions of the sisters, prior to Ms Berg's suicide. What were they doing, to help their suicidal sister?

My own view is that they should have -- could have -- done very little. Support, care, love, listening... time. That is what one person can give to another. Beyond that, you should not force your opinions on someone else.

Nor should the Health Department force someone to act against their own will. Yes, you prevent harm to others. But suicide is a choice, an option -- an individual's right.

Which leads to the main, missed point: If Erin Berg wanted to commit suicide -- why should she be prevented? Were there good reasons? We are not told. Was her life too painful to continue? We are told that she was depressed; was there no "cure" other than suicide? If so -- then suicide should be an acceptable option.

We have been informed, that Ms Berg had to hide her intention to go to Mexico.

So this poor woman -- depressed, suicidal -- has no option but to trick everyone, to sneak off, to end a miserable life in lonely misery.

What happened to sympathy? to caring? to sharing the burden so that the end, at least, is less miserable?

Yes, it's a hard decision to make. But which is worse: Being watched, perhaps locked in or drugged, so that you are forced to continue what to you has become an unbearable life? Or, to have the support and kindness of friends and family, as you make a valid choice to escape -- the only way that you know how.

Perhaps that honest, caring and sharing support would make the end easier. Provide closure, at least, for friends and family.

Perhaps such care would even have shown Ms Berg that life was, in fact, almost worth living.

Who knows. But the lock up and prevention approach, certainly failed.

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

Virgin on the Ridiculous

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

With apologies -- for the ridiculous headline -- to Carry on Henry...

Have you seen the big ad for virginblue -- the one that says, "a whole airline working around your schedule"? There's a sample on page 17 of my edition of Monday's West.

What's wrong with that ad?

"a whole airline working around your schedule". The ad graphic and text indicate a whole lot of planes flying between brisbane, sydney and melbourne. (My use of all lower-case letters is deliberate; I'm copying from the ad.)

Perhaps I should provide a hint: "a whole airline working around your schedule". With a graphic and the text bragging about lots of virgin planes flying between brisbane, sydney and melbourne. This ad is in The West Australian. Do you see the problem?

Do you think that the virgin ad men are not sure where The West Australian is published? Or perhaps they don't realise that "brisbane", "sydney" and "melbourne" are across the continent from Western Australia?

Or perhaps virgin just does not care. Sure, they have to advertise. But the West Australian market is small. There is no need to write a new ad -- with new ideas, or with lies about the frequency and importance of flights to and from Perth. Just run the same old rubbish from the eastern states.

Who cares about Perth, anyway.

Geographic awareness arises

Well, well, well... Ad men can notice the obvious!

4 May update: The virgin ad men have updated their ad. Under the tag line, "connections in all the right places" is a picture of planes and some text which claims that "We've got it covered with 2900 weekly flights..."

Perhaps they have realised that there is, in fact, more to Australia than just Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. They've realised that the west does exist. Soon, they may even remember the name of one of our cities...

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

Air Fare Wars

Key points

1. Airlines put up just enough "cheap" tickets to get you into going-on-holiday thinking.
   
2. They depend on you checking prices first (to see if the fare war stories are true) -- committing to the holiday next -- and leaving actual ticket purchases until major portions of the holiday are confirmed.
   
3. By then it is "too late" for you to back down. Everything else is arranged. You bite the bullet and pay for the expensive tickets which, now, are all that are available.
   
4. Sucker!
   

Long-winded logic

A few of us were discussing air fares. In particular, the recent news that airlines were offering huge discounts on air fares because people were not flying. The global economic crisis and all that.

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

We only had two examples of the "air fare war". On that limited evidence -- there is no air fare war.

Is the public being conned? Yes.

The limited evidence

1. One person had seen some cheap seats to Brisbane. He suggested that family members could all fly to Brisbane. Going back to the airline the next day -- the cheap fares were gone.
   
2. In March, I bought tickets to Dublin. A week after the "air fare war" was declared, I checked current prices. The cheapest ticket now costs more -- $600 each more -- than it did in March. Oh, and the flight goes the long way -- an extra eight hours longer.

So what happened to the "air fare war"? Here's my guess:

There was one cheap ticket for sale. Possibly two. Few enough that they disappeared very quickly. (Bought by the airline boss, perhaps.) But there were just enough cheap tickets on sale that they lasted for, perhaps, 24 hours.

What then?

The cheap tickets are gone -- or withdrawn -- but only after enough people have seen that they exist. Perhaps there were just enough cheap tickets to show the gullible journalists and travel writers? People who did not check the earlier ticket prices read the news of an "air fare war"; think, okay, it looks expensive but it must be cheaper than it was... and buy tickets at the usual -- or higher -- prices.

The real catch

Surely, plenty of people know that the available tickets are not really cheap... So what? How do people plan a holiday:

1. Check air fares
   
2. Talk to friends, family, relatives to be visited... that is, build an expectation that the holiday will happen
   
3. Make sure that holiday accommodation is available, add up all the costs, decide that a holiday is feasible, then...
   
4. Go back to the airline website... find that the "cheap" tickets have disappeared... but...
   
5. Decide that all the preparations have been made -- that holiday expectations have been raised -- friends and relatives are eagerly awaiting your visit -- so you may as well go anyway...

You were committed to the holiday because of the cheap air fares. Those fares are no longer available -- but you are committed -- so you accept the inevitable and pay more.

Sucker!

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

Easter and Eating Out

Over Easter, pubs may only serve alcohol with meals. Why? say pub owners, Why can we not serve alcohol to drinkers? After all, it's a public holiday, we're not very religious, people want to drink...

More correctly: Pub owners want to sell drinks. Any time, any day. That's where they get their profits.

One pub owner was reported as saying that Easter is just a public holiday... why should drinking be restricted... Australians are not very religious anyway.

Do you see the paradox?

Australians are not very religious. So Easter is just a public holiday... Hang on... If we are not very religious -- then why is Easter a holiday?!

As I understand it -- not being very religious myself -- Easter is a Christian celebration. If we do not want to celebrate a Christian event -- why do we need that holiday? To take the pub owner's logic to its reasonable conclusion: There should be no Easter holidays...

Sorry, mate -- you can't have it both ways!

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

Shop Hours and Competition

Quick points

(1) Multinational chain store coporations want extended trading hours. Forcing all shops to be open longer will destroy the smaller, "family run" shops. This will result in a clear benefit for the larger shops -- less competition, more market control, more profits.

(2) Coles have recognised that they cannot defeat Woolworths. Instead, they aim to gain market share at the expense of smaller, "family run" shops.

Logic and waffle

Why do shopkeepers want longer shopping hours? Is it to allow their customers more choice in when they shop?

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

Well, even the kindest of us would not expect that rich businesses want changes solely to benefit their customers. So what is the benefit to the shopkeepers?

Do they expect us to spend more money in their shops because we have more time to spend it? That's possible. Though I would hope that extended shopping hours would lead to more time to choose... More time to browse and compare. Total spending may go up -- but there is (I hope) a limit to how much people are willing to spend just because there is a shop open.

Does every shopkeeper support extended shopping hours? Not really...

Extended shopping hours are supported, largely, by the larger shops and chains. By the businesses which can easily afford a few extra staff, if there are commercial -- or strategic -- benefits.

Then there are the "small" shopkeepers. The family-run businesses. Where the shop is your life and the rest of life fits in between shop-open hours. How will they cope with longer shopping hours? They won't...

Imagine that you are a small trader, owner and manager and sales assistant etc etc etc... for a local shop. You work long hours: behind the counter when the shop is open, in the office, stock room, etc when the shop is closed. Now imagine that the shop is open for more hours each day...

You must now spend more time behind the counter. You have a choice: less time planning, managing, restocking, etc -- or less time for a life outside the shop.

Sure, you could hire extra staff. An easy decision for a chain store -- just tell Personnel to hire more staff. For the sole trader, hiring and managing staff is just one more burden.

So what happens? You want time for a life of your own. You sell the shop to a multinational conglomerate. They demolish your shop and build extra parking at their not-quite-so-local shopping centre. You get a job there, as a sales assistant.

And that is the basis for wanting longer shopping hours: competition. Or, rather, reduction of competition.

Larger companies have all the office organisation set up to hire more staff, to be open longer hours. Their smaller competitors cannot handle the extra work; they will be forced to close. The result will be, less competition for the larger shops, larger market share for the larger shops, in the long run more profit for the larger shops and less choice for us, the customers.

Footnote on Coles

Coles are opening a "new style" of store. Flasher, with more emphasis on fresh produce. Why are they doing this?

Coles' major competitor is Woolworths. Coles -- according to their boss, as reported in the paper -- are not able to take market share from Woolworths. Instead, they will compete with the local butcher, the local deli, the local grocer...

You thought that competition was good? Only when it can be destroyed...

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

"Public" TV

I was at the airport tonight. Had to wait a few minutes for the plane, so I sat down. Happened to be facing the tv set.

On tv was one man hitting another with a cricket bat. Hit him once, paused. Hit him again and again.

I tried staring out the window.

Looked back at the tv. There were people partying: snorting whatever tv actors snort; dancing with topless girls. I have no problems with the latter, an improvement to most parties.

It just doesn't seem to be the right sort of stuff to show on a "public" tv set. In an airport, where anyone passes by.

To tell the truth, I avoid the "violence and drug references" on tv at home.

It's just a bit harder to avoid it on a public tv at an airport.

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

Cash handouts for new TVs

The government is giving us all money! Woohoo!

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

But we will all waste it on new plasma TVs, made in China, shout the naysayers. No we won't, reply the economic experts, we will spend it on items produced locally, thus boosting the local economy! Stop arguing and just give us the money, cry the tax-paying public.

We are all going digital, cries the media-funded government. You must all throw out the old analogue TVs and buy new digital TVs!

There's even an ad campaign: Buy a new digital TV now, before it's too late! The ad campaign is starting in the east, where analogue TV will start to disappear a bit sooner that elsewhere.

Is this stupid, or what?!

The government has been criticised for giving away $900. One of the grounds for criticism is, that we will just spend the $900 on a made-in-China digital TV.

Then the government starts to advertise, Buy your new digital TV now -- before the old-style analogue is switched off. Why is analogue about to be switched off? Because the government said so.

On the one hand, the government says, Here is $900... I'm sure that you will spend it on local products and not on new digital TVs. On the other hand, the government is saying, Now you must go out and buy a new digital TV.

Cut out the middle man

The government could give each and every tax payer a new, made in China, large screen plasma digital TV.

Think of the discount for such a bulk purchase! Why, it would probably only cost about... $900... per set...

And solve two problems with one decision. So simple. So obvious.

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

What Standards do we Expect?

"Our young and not so young... are not sure what is expected of them." (Letters, The West, 3 Apr 09)

Now there you have the core of the problem.

Is it okay to swear in public, at a person trying to do their job? Is it lawful for the government to give taxpayers' money back to taxpayers? Is self defence a good justification for hitting a policeman? Are you allowed to shoot an intruder in your own house? All of these are questions which have been answered by the courts.

To me, some of them seem obvious. Yet lawyers have spent hours -- or weeks -- debating the issues. In some cases they debated the "facts", such as the way that people usually speak, or the probable thoughts of an accused at the time of an attack. Other cases debated the meaning of existing laws, or of the constitution.

At the time of the "alleged offence", what were the thoughts and decisions of the accused?

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

Legal explanations

"Hmmm... Under the precedent set by the case of The Crown vs Dick Turpin, I believe that it is legal for me to act to defend myself from an over-violent attempt to restrain me in my pursuit of a violent conclusion to this current fracas. Therefore I am perfectly correct to assume that I may use excessive force in order to further my chances of causing bodily damage to this uniformed officer who is attempting to restrain my alleged partner in this alleged physical confrontation."

Or perhaps, "I f*ing disagree with this f*ing public f*ing officer and it is my f*ing right to f*ing shout in his f*ing face in order to f*ing express my f*ing disagreement in the f*ing usual f*ing way that I f*ing talk."

Does anyone -- other that a lawyer -- really believe that people think that way?

Lawyers decide what society requires

The law is set up -- perhaps -- to maintain, reflect and reinforce standards of acceptable behaviour. The law is also set up to allow lawyers and judges to interpret it, in terms of phrasing, precedent and the legal view of the common man's standards and expectations. The result is, that the law is a self-sustaining system which operates entirely separately to society.

But what is it that society really wants?

Apparently we -- society -- want the right to swear in public and swear directly and forcefully at public officers attempting to do their job. That's the legal interpretation. The next case will probably aim to prove that the accused do not, in fact, normally speak like that...

Apparently we -- the public -- want the right to bash police who are attempting to stop a brawl.

Apparently we -- you and I and our neighbours -- want the government to have the right to take away our money as taxes and give it back as economy-saving cash handouts. Apparently we do not want the government to save a lot of time and money by simply charging us less tax.

Has anyone asked you what you really want?

The law is a self-contained system, constantly evolving, under the control of lawyers, judges and the occasional politician. When will someone ask the public what they really want?

Ask the public: What do we really want?

How easy would it be, to create a public opinion website. "The law currently allows self defence against an intruder in your own home. Do you support this?" "The law currently allows self defence against an intruder in your own home. You are allowed to use only enough force that a lawyer and judge -- who were not there, who will never be in that situation -- believe was just enough to defend yourself. Do you want these limits removed?" "The law currently allows people to swear loudly and threateningly at a public officer. Do you support this?"

Sure, the list is endless. But at least we could make a start. Ask a few questions, get some actual opinions from society. Publish the results.

What are our standards for our society?

"Our young and not so young... are not sure what is expected of them." We have the technology to ask the questions. We have the technology to publish the answers.

Find out what society really thinks -- outside the law courts. Discover what standards society would really like to live by.

Discover what society really does expect, of the young and of the not so young.

Perhaps even build a legal system which reflects society's standards, rather than the cleverness of lawyers.

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

Why do we Crash our Cars?

According to Paul Murray, speed does not kill. At least, it does not kill as much as inattention, carelessness, fatigue, failure to give way and recklessness. (Same tired message won't save more lives, The West, 28 Mar 09.)

In fact, that's not just, "according to Paul Murray". His article uses statistics of actual car crashes in WA. His main message is, that speed is not the prime cause of accidents -- so why do we focus on catching speeding motorists?

Aside: I just removed a freudian slip from my typing. I had typed "innattention" as the first cause of fatal car crashes. That double-n would have been clever, if intentional. Alcohol has top score in Murray's list of causes.

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

Murray is able to give "attitudinal factors" top ranking in the car crash cause statistics. He uses the simple expedient of grouping several causes into one, so the numbers add up to the top score. No worries: This dubious use of statistics is not the point that interested me... Anyway, is there any journalistic use of statistics that is not dubious?

The road toll in WA has increased, writes Murray, over a period in which "cars and roads got a lot safer".

Is this the real problem?

Is this the real problem: that cars and roads are getting "safer"?

Cars are safer, easier to drive. Roads are smoother, well designed, easier to drive along. We can afford to let our attention wander... Until the unexpected happens and we crash.

We take a few risks, we're feeling a bit tired, no worries: the car has all sorts of safety features, the roads are smooth and well designed, with safety in mind. It's okay to be a bit reckless, a bit careless, a bit sleepy -- until we crash.

There is no challenge to driving! There is nothing to demand our attention. Nothing that demands our full driving effort. Nothing to keep us concentrating, awake... Nothing -- until that sudden error, that sudden, unexpected danger. By then it is too late.

Spend less, save more

Stop spending millions on "safer", smoother, better planned roads. Let them deteriorate. Replace road repairs with signs, "Warning, bad road ahead." Save a lot of money on road building. Force motorists to be constantly aware, constantly on guard.

This has an extra -- proven -- bonus: automatic road calming. "Road calming" generally involves deliberate attempts to make roads more difficult to navigate. Small roundabouts, narrow roads, extended pedestrian areas to cause chicanes for drivers. All this has been found to slow traffic -- and to reduce overall use of cars! So let the roads get rougher, design for less traffic flow rather than more. And watch the use of cars -- and fuel -- decline.

Then remove some of the "safety" features from cars. The simplified suspension can't corner at high speed? Great! Drivers will feel uncomfortable enough -- while attempting to corner at high speed -- to slow down. You feel a bit uncomfortable, driving with a crumple zone which is only good for speeds up to 30 kph? Great, you may be uncomfortable enough to drive more carefully...

Safety features mean less safe driving

As we demand more safety features in our cars and on our roads, we drive less safely. Why bother paying attention, when our environment has been made so much safer?

At work, at school, on the sports ground, we are encouraged to strive to the limit of our ability. On the road, we do strive to the limit of our ability -- and to the limit of the ability of the car and road to protect us. Humans like to push the limits.

Make the roads and cars inherently dangerous. The limits that we push will be easier to reach -- at slower speeds.

Leave the obvious dangers in our driving environment. Every bump, every pothole, every sickening thump of the suspension, will remind us: pay attention, take care, keep awake...

Leave the risk and keep the drivers awake. Save money, save lives, save fuel. All good. All cheap.

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

Bribes Continue Despite Alleged Success

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

Well, isn't that strange. "Drug firms splashed out $16 million on dinners, drinks and travel for doctors in just six months despite" (my emphasis added) "despite criticism such events influence medicos over what they prescribe." (The West, $16m prescription for doctors' hearts: report, 28 Mar 09)

Why do you think that drug firms splash out this money? From the goodness of their warm little hearts? Of course not!

Drug companies provide doctors with dinners, drinks and travel. In exchange for these freebies, doctors are expected to prescribe drugs from that company. Consciously or unconsciously, the doctors are influenced.

Why do you buy a particular brand of toothpaste? Because you saw it advertised, you saw a nice person on tv say that it was good, because you received a free sample with your gardening magazine... These are tried and true marketing techniques.

Why does a doctor prescribe a particular brand of drug? Because they saw it advertised by the sponsor of an excellent dinner, because they heard that nice person at the free seminar (with free drinks) say that the drug was good, because they received free samples (along with free air tickets to the next free seminar). Tried and true marketing techniques. And they work.

Drug companies market to doctors. Doctors are influenced by the advertising. Why would the companies stop? Why would they stop despite criticism that it works?!

Is this undue influence?

While it works, drug marketing will continue. Is there a reason for it to stop?

Is this marketing -- or is it bribery? Is it an attempt to inform doctors of the latest in effective products -- or is it an attempt to buy a customer? Is this legitimate provision of essential information -- or is it undue influence?

I don't know.

But I am not surprised that it continues, despite criticism. It continues, because it works.

If you want to surprise me, make decisions: is this unethical bribery or legitimate marketing? Is the drug company acting unethically by offering bribes, or is it being helpful by providing information? Is the doctor being unethical by accepting bribes, or being proactive by learning about new drugs?

Is there a body which claims responsibility for the ethics of the medical industry? Surprise me: make decisions, actual decisions on ethical behaviour.

Then take action, one way or the other. Don't just pretend to be surprised.

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

What I Dislike about "Daylight Saving"

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

I don't really mind that it's still dark, if I get up before 7 am. I mean, if I have to get up before noon, that's bad enough. A lack of light doesn't make it any worse.

I don't really mind that it's still hot and sunny at dinner time. I mean, if it's that hot, we'll have the air conditioner running.

I don't really care whether we're two hours different to the eastern states, or three. I don't really care that we spend three months with a two hour difference and one week with a three hour difference. I've been dealing with Ireland, setting up a visit, and they are nine hours behind WA. All it takes is the internet and some thought before the occasional phone call.

It doesn't bother me that countries which were once touted as being major trading partners -- and which are in our, WA, time zone -- spent three months with a one hour time difference. I don't deal with them. Businesses which do, have adapted with no complaint.

I don't care that there are a lot of young voters who have not had a chance to vote on daylight saving. If they turned 18 in the last few months then there is an entire legal and political system over which they have had no influence. Capital punishment, corporal punishment, shopping hours, federation, constitution... Take your pick, they have not voted for (nor against) any of those.

This is what really bugs me:

"Before going to bed tonight wind your clock back one hour." (The West, 28 Mar 09)

Wind "your clock" back! Your "clock"! Riiight...

• Wind back the clock on the bookcase.
• Wind back the clock by the TV.
• Wind back the clock by the other TV.
• Wind back the clock in the video recorder.
• Wind back the clock that's part of the oven.
• Wind back the clock in the microwave.
• Wind back the clock in the car.
• Wind back the clock in the other car.
• Wind back the clock in the camera.
• Wind back the bedside alarm clock.
• Wind back the clock on the other side of the bed, the one for the short-sighted partner.
• Wind back the clock which we only use when on holiday.
• Did I miss any? Probably...

On the other hand, there is some good news...

The grandfather clock does not need to be wound back. It gave up the ghost -- stopped running at all -- after being wound backwards -- and forwards -- several times.

The mobile phone clock does not need to be wound back. I'm not sure which worries me more: That I could not find out how to change the phone clock, or that it changed itself without telling me...

Which reminds me:

• Wind back the clock in the house phone handset. (It's okay, I'm sure that I still have the instruction book.)

That is what really annoys me about "daylight saving"!

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