Election 2010: Boring, boring, boring...

Agamedes finds that his own ranting is out-classed by people with a vested interest in politicking.

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

This is not a good time for Ranting, Raging and Raving. Or, rather, it is a good time -- but everyone else is doing it. So what's the point?!

Yes, it's election time. The newspaper is half full of election "news" -- vote-catching lies presented to a media pack who are hungry enough to swallow anything. (Hmmm... Interesting analogy: Reporters swallow anything then publish the digested results... No wonder the published election "news" is so on the nose.)

The paper is half full of politicians' lies. The rest of the paper is full of opinions and responses. Talk about Ranting, Raging and Raving!

Anyway... amongst all that rubbish there is not much room for yet another carefully reasoned opinion running counter to the unthinking masses... I'll save myself the effort of writing...

Here's a thought: Go to any of Paul Murray's opinion articles. For example, "Julia's great carbon switcheroo" in The West today (31 July). Murray writes well. Since the election was announced he has written even more acerbically than usual. (Nice word, acerbically. I just double-checked my understanding and corrected my spelling. Yes, it means, "sourly; bitterly, or, In a sarcastic or cynical manner", according to Wiktionary.)

Anyway, read any Paul Murray article, for your fill of ranting, raging and raving. In a well-researched, fact-based manner. Murray's conclusions and opinions may be wrong but his research is solid. He gives enough information to allow debate... and he can be interestingly acerbic.

But is it funny?

For more reading, try Gary Adshead's At Large articles in The West. Adshead did quite well in an earlier stint as Inside Cover. Far more interesting -- less up himself and less interested in name dropping than the present incumbent. Adshead has also written some good investigative articles. With At Large, he attempts to inject humour into politics.

And fails miserably.

I mean, just look at today's article, "Forget polls, cover girl Julia's talk of the town". Adshead does his best. But it's like... well...

Many years ago I set myself a target: Name any topic and I will tell you a joke on that topic. I was doing quite well, with a large repertoire of jokes and the ability to quickly adapt an old joke to fit a new target.

Then I thought, "Salt & pepper shakers." I was inspired by a short story, where the salt & pepper shakers were central to the plot. "I will do," I told myself, "A joke on salt & pepper shakers."

Years later and I have almost given up.

"A salt shaker & a pepper grinder walk into a bar..." No. (Hmmm... Has potential, though.)

"Why was the salt a shaker? Because the pepper... ummm. Oh."

The current election campaign is like salt & pepper shakers: Try as hard as you like, it is just not funny.

But I thought of it first!

I really would like to rant and rage about today's news. But it's all politics. And politics is just done to death. Still, there is one small point that I would like to make:

Years ago I was a public service manager. Before that, I had been in private enterprise. I found that public servants were every bit as good at their jobs as private employees. There were, however, differences.

In the public service -- as a manager -- I had to avoid thinking aloud. "I wonder," I said, "If we could do this task this different way..." I expected some discussion. There was none.

A week later, I found that the task was being done this different way. "But you said to do it this different way," I was told. I was a manager, my every word was an absolute command.

Not that that has anything to do with this article...

As a manager, I had to attend many, many committee meetings.

"Why not," I thought, carefully, to myself, "Why not send a level 1 clerk to attend these meetings?" Very few decisions were ever made. The meetings were to document, via minutes, that discussions had been held. Occasionally, ready-made decisions were brought to the meetings in order to be officially documented.

I could save myself a lot of time, I thought, if I sent a level one clerk to these meetings. If anything interesting really happened, the level 1 clerk would simply say, I have to check with my boss, and avoid making a commitment. Why not?

Now I see that prime ministers have stolen my idea.

Now-ex-PM Rudd sent underlings to security meetings. Now-PM-then-deputy-PM Gillard sent underlings "to attend highly sensitive security meetings on her behalf" (PM hit by new leak allegation, The West, 31 Jul 10).

So what?!

"Highly sensitive"?! If it were really highly sensitive -- why would you invite a politician? Politicians, apparently, leak like sieves.

"Meetings"?! Are they meetings -- where decisions are to be made? Or are they simply briefings, where a disinterested and uninformed PM is told of decisions that have already been made. Read the minutes!

So the PM and the ex-PM stole my idea. Good luck to them.

And I think I'd trust "a former bodyguard and junior staff member" more than any PM.

Lie detector online

I recently heard that a website provides an online lie detector. It may have even called it a "political bullshit detector". Sorry for the vague reference... I was not really listening.

But I can tell you how it works:

A political lie detector is simple. Get a motion detector. Point it at a politician's lips. If the motion detector detects motion -- light up the big lights: "Political lie detected."

Politics, eh.

Sorry to have bored you for so long.

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

Jolly Japanese Get Gas

Agamedes stomach churns, as emotion bypasses fact.

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

Good grief! What a stomach-churning exercise in blatant manipulation of the mind! Are we really stupid enough to believe this rubbish:

Oh gosh! The Yoshida children are so full of energy! And so cuuuute, too! Aaaahhh, shucks...

And there's that little logo, down below the cutesy picture. A little logo for the oil company which did not spill oil in the Gulf of Mexico. That friendly oil company which just wants to help the oh-so-cute Yoshida family to prepare tonight's bowl of warming noodles.

Oh please.

Shell are a multinational company. They are in the business of making money -- the more, the better.

But what if they blow up a processing plant? Or pour oil into otherwise clear waters? Or leak huge volumes of gas into the atmosphere?

Shhhhh... don't even think it... Just look at the nice Japanese family.

What if there's a delay getting the next environment-destroying plant up and running? Oh dear, that cute little Japanese girl will be so sad! Boohoo! You're not going to put the nasty environment in front of those sweet children who may have children of their own, surely...

I mean, there's so much more environment that we won't have destroyed, yet... So why stop and think? And just look at the cute children!

Are we really that stupid?

Well, the Shell marketing people certainly think so.

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

Burqua and Bull

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

From London, the apparent centre of oblivious idealism, Nesrine Malik allows only one eye to peer from behind her full-face anonymity (Revealing view from behind the black veil, The West, 19 Jul 10).

After three years, the "abaya and niquab became a comfort and a delight. It was a relief not to have to think about what to wear." So far, so good.

"The uniform black costume has a charming egalitarianism about it." Sound nice. Unfortunately, Malik was not listening to what she was writing.

"Fashion-wise... the smallest details count." From egalitarianism Malik has jumped to a fashion statement.

"Subtly embellished... Light fabrics and slim-line empire silhouettes..." So much for the plain uniform of egalitarianism... "My uniform is better than your uniform!" she shouts.

"Eye make-up and footwear took on extra significance." I'm better than you! Just look at my expensive and tasteful extras!

"The outfit became empowering, enabling reclamation of one's sexuality..." Wow! Whatever happened to "the Islamic requirement for modest dress"?! Someone is just asking for a stoning...

And let's have a quick look at the "charming egalitarianism" of the "uniform black costume":

Egalitarianism? Wikipedia introduces egalitarianism as, "a trend of thought that favors equality of some sort." Wearing a black sack makes everyone somehow equal, does it? Equal to whom?

Equal to every other person who wears the same black sack.

Not equal to the women who can afford to and who do tailor their outfits.

Not equal to the women who wear expensive shoes.

Not equal to the women who paint their nails, in order to better display their sexuality.

And certainly not equal to the 50% of the world -- men -- who are never required to wear either abaya or niqab.

It can be had to be objective about subjugation when you have finally learnt to shut up and accept it.

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

Politicians past and present

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

Politics, politicians, elections... topics hardly worth the effort of the rant. Still, good for a couple of good chuckles:

Sign of impending election

How did Andrew Probyn confirm that an election would actually be called? "The Prime Minister's Canberra-based make-up artist was advised not to make a planned trip to the ski-field town of Jindabyne today" (The West, 17 Jul 10).

Yep, that's worth a good chuckle. Unless you seriously believe that politicians should be selected on their ability to run a country. Otherwise, it nicely highlights the important issues of the current election campaign.

Probyn's phrasing does raise some other questions: Does the PM have a dedicated make-up artist based in other cities? Or is this one make-up artist a member of the Canberra-based groupies who follow the PM around the world...

Memories fade fast

It seems that journalists' memories may fade faster than old prime ministers...

Paul Murray has a spray at the aged root rat (Murray's words) who used to be Australia's PM. In general, I agree with Murray's article (Hawke legend crashes to earth, The West, 17 Jul 10).

I do have some sympathy for the old root rat. I mean, read Murray's description of d'Apulget: "[she] looked like an Easter Island statue with rubber lips on speed..."

Hawke is an ex-PM who used his position of power to screw everything in sight, including the country. Now he's just a silly old bugger with a Lifelike Rubber Doll with Mobile Lips. What a sad come-down.

Where I disagree with Murray is his opinions that Hawke was popular due to "his intuitive feel for the national good".

No. Hawke had no interest whatsoever in "the national good". He sat firmly on the fence, on every issue. Worse yet -- he kept a foot on either side.

Hawke had no visible opinions of his own. Whichever side of the fence needed a bribe -- Hawke would offer it. He tried to buy votes and popularity from everyone.

Which may have been why he was popular. Unfortunately he -- and Australia -- were going nowhere.

Keating, though...

I disagreed with most of Keating's ideas, actions and policies. But I did admire the fact that he had ideas, actions and policies.

Keating knew what he wanted to do and pushed people aside in his efforts to get it done. Hawke just sat on the fence with a foot in every camp. And, apparently, a hand up every skirt.

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

Urgent call for "child" therapy

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

Various experts in child care are calling for "urgent action" to support children in need of therapy (Urgent call over child therapy, The West Australian, 17 Jul 10). Dr Trevor Parry, Michelle Scott and Fiona Stanley are raising concerns that "children were falling through the cracks because WA lacked a co-ordinated approach to early intervention."

Actually, the next paragraph of Cathy O'Leary's article blames delays rather than lack of co-ordination. Still, the two may be related.

What is it that has all these experts so worried? Speech therapists? Physiotherapists? Educational specialists? No.

The concern is that children may have to wait up to a year to see a clinical psychologist.

I'm sorry, all these experts seems to have missed the problem. By the time a child needs a clinical psychologist -- in many, many cases -- it is too late. Okay, you can help the symptoms but the cause is a separate issue.

Stop the problems before they happen. Insist that adults obtain a "suitable for breeding" certificate before they have children. And I don't mean money and physical capacity.

Are these adults fit to be parents? Will they love, care for and support their future children? Will they take responsibility for caring for their own children -- at least to the extent of hiring capable, long-term parent substitutes?

Ensure that parents will provide the time, the care and the attention that children require. That will shorten the waiting list for childhood clinical psychologists.

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

Threats from a Committee for Self-Interest

Agamedes despairs, as another planner avoids the hard problems.

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

Oh look, another little bit of nonsense from a "planner" who wants to sell his own services.

Sydney architect and urban planner Craig Allchin says that packing people into high rise sardine tins is inevitable (City high rise, suburban apartments 'inevitable',The West Australian, 13 Jul 10). Bugger you, says this "expert", I'm going to build concrete blocks over your dreams of a pleasant suburban life-style.

In his own words: "One of the big problems is every time someone sees a development application for a big change we all erupt into an angry mob and form a no-development group and try to stop the change."

So, in his own words, "we all" have no rights if a developer wants to make a lot of money.

How stupid is this man? He makes a heap of money from planning to build concrete jungles. Then he acts upset because people do not want to exist in a concrete jungle.

Manage population growth

I just put that headline in there to remind you of the real problem: The population is growing past an acceptable level yet we accept that population growth is inevitable.

Living in a high rise concrete jungle is not "inevitable". Not if we tackle the correct problem, of population growth. "We all" seem to be against over-development. Stop population growth and we will stop the need for constant growth of concrete blocks. Destruction of our preferred standard of living is not "inevitable" -- as long as we tackle the real problem.

So what is this "expert" doing in Perth anyway? He's here to support the concrete growth view of the Committee for Perth.

Another self-interest group, the Committee for Perth

The Committee for Perth, "aims to ensure that Perth’s future is planned and coordinated in a way that maximises the use of our geographical positioning, the business and intellectual resources available and the strength that our resource based economy provides" (from their website, 14 Jul 10). All very good. What do they really want?

The Committee wants a "vision" for Perth. In a research publication they write,"Historically, Perth has looked elsewhere for models but the city is big enough, old enough and sophisticated enough to be able to develop its own vision." The report then goes to other cities -- elsewhere! -- to see what other cities have in the way of city vision.

btw: The report's author gained the bulk of her experience in Ireland and New Zealand. Always safest to avoid local talent, isn't it.

The report looks for vision statements from the fifty top-ranked on a city "liveability ranking". Twenty visions were found. Twenty?!

To my maths, that means that 60% of the top-ranked livable cities of the world do not have -- do not need -- a vision statement. Is Perth on that list? Well, actually, yes...

Perth already ranks eighth on the list. Not bad, I think. Not bad at all, with no "vision" to back it up... Perhaps Perth is just a good place to live! Already a good place -- as it is now.

Can we improve? Sure! How would the Committee for Perth have us improve? Let's look at their publications... For example, "A tale of two cities that need to be integrated" by Marion Fulker, the CEO of Committee for Perth. It was published in The West on 18 Mar 10 and is available on the Committee website (A tale of two cities).

The article invents conclusions from an informal survey of a selected audience.

Attendees at a sponsored lunch were asked to name their favourite places around Perth. The surveyees liked rivers, beaches and parks. They also liked "our energetic urban spaces. Fremantle, Subiaco, South Perth..." So "we" -- the people invited to the lunch sponsored by Committee for Perth -- like natural spaces and they like city spaces.

This, apparently, is a "contradiction".

"We" like open spaces and we like closed spaces. To you and me, this means that "we" like a variety of different spaces. To Committee for Perth, this means that "what we truly treasure... are those intimate nooks that give our city personality and vibrancy." Eh?! What happened to the wide open beaches, parks and rivers?!

More and more, with less and less good sense

Having dismissed any thoughts of natural assets -- beaches, rivers, parks -- Fulker's article continues on its descent into pre-arranged conclusions.

Fulker wants to link the city centre with Northbridge: "we may be able to create a link between the two currently opposing values of open spaces and intimate urbanity. The city centre is critical." So... Which is the "open space"? City centre or Northbridge? What a load of nonsense Fulker has packed into just one paragraph!

But wait! There's more!

That same paragraph continues. "Yet what is underdeveloped is the potential of the waterfront." Oh. I see. Northbridge is a festering rat-hole. Linking it to the city centre will magically transform it into a pleasantly nooky little place to visit. And if we put a lot of buildings on the edge of the river, we will somehow transform the very popular open space, into... another bit of concrete jungle!

You like the open and natural spaces of parks and rivers? Tough! The Committee for Perth wants to build buildings.

The Committee for Perth wants parks and rivers converted to buildings. They want "flexible shopping hours, a dynamic arts and cultural scene and approvals processes that support and encourage these," these development-at-all-costs-as-long-as-it-brings-us-profits proposals by committee sponsors, I guess.

Forget about the "we all" who -- according to Craig Allchin -- do not want development. Forget about Perth as already being the eighth most livable city in the world. Marion Fulker is paid to support development.

Development at all costs, as long as the cost is borne only by "we all" who are already happy to live in Perth. Development that will destroy the current "open space" amenities of Perth.

But that's okay. Fulker and the rest of her committee will have gained huge profits. They will be able to move somewhere else.

Away from the concrete jungle that they hope to see in Perth.

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

Tokyo Drains offer Pilbara Water Solution

Agamedes goes down the Tokyo drain -- and pops up again in the Pilbara.

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

At last! A good idea that is not my own!

"Tokyo offers toilet water for Pilbara", is the headline (The West, 13 Jul 10). A Japanese research company -- Nomura Research Institute -- has suggested that recycled Tokyo sewage could be used to damp down the iron ore dust of the Pilbara.

Large ships carry iron ore from WA to Japan. They then return to WA -- empty. Why not send them back... full of recycled water?! Brilliant!

Just a few days ago I called for better solutions to our water "crisis". As I pointed out (Water Strategy Misses the Point) the problem is with demand rather than supply. There is plenty of water -- but we place too many demands for its effective use.

Well, I may have to back down on that assertion... I would guess that the supply is even larger than I thought. There must be a lot of used water available from a city as large as Tokyo!

I suggested that we look for better, alternative solutions -- solutions that did not waste good, drinking water. What we have from Nomura is a better alternative to the supply of water. Yes, there will be problems with avoiding the potential for importing diseases along with the water. There may be lots of other problems. But...

It's a great idea. Work with it. Solve the problems and avoid the wastage of good Pilbara water.

Well done that think tank!

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

Buying Uniform Votes

Agamedes sees the personal touch in vote buying.

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

The federal government is out to buy votes. Quickly.

Education is a hot topic. After years of being ignored, education is suddenly -- so it seems -- a vote winner. Will the government offer money to schools in order to get better education for our children? No way!

Give money to schools -- or to teacher training -- and where does it go? To schools and to teacher training. How many votes in that? Well... how many people will be directly affected?

Give money to schools and all it does is to improve the standard of education. The response will be, "At last!" And that response will only be from people with a specific interest in education.

Give money to improve teacher training? The same lack of impact -- but even slower, because it takes a while for better-trained teachers to have an impact. (If they can even have any impact at all, against the built-in deterrents to educational improvement.)

How can we buy most votes with the least money? Give it directly to the voting parents!

Better yet: (1) Tell the voting parents that the parents will get money, (2) delay the handout till next year, (3) make the parents beg for their money.

The government is promising that -- if re-elected -- it will pay for school uniforms:

1. "You will get money for school uniforms." How much more personal can the vote buying be? Every time that this particular pork barrel is pushed, the individual voter will be affected. So much more personal than buying votes with money to a school.
   
2. When will you get the money? Not yet! Pay with your vote now and you get your money much later. If we get elected. If we care to remember this "promise".
   
3. How will you get your money? Beg for it! Contact the government, fill in forms, prove all sorts of things. This has two effects: (a) Every time you fill in a form you are reminded of the government's "generosity"; (b) Most people will fail in the form-filling, so the actual cost will be reduced.
   

By the way: what is the actual cost of a school uniform?

If you're careful, your children wear the uniform only at school and you pass a uniform down through the family... you can keep the cost down. If your school has a "uniform exchange" system -- outgrown uniforms are available for cheap sale to other parents -- you can save even more. Schools with a standard grey-on-grey uniform reduce the cost even further.

If you send your children to a private school, with a unique uniform, your costs will be higher. If you throw out a uniform because it is faded, outgrown, last-year's style, your costs will be higher.

The more you spend on uniforms, the more you stand to gain from the government's vote buying handout. Waste more, win more.

What benefits will all this have on education?

None whatsoever.

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

Employment Opportunity: become a very small cog

Agamedes sees no room for "clever" in the tightly meshed business machine.

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

Every so often I make the mistake of getting interested in an employment opportunity. After all, Australia once wanted to be "the clever country" -- was that really way back in 1990?! -- and I am clever. Or am I? Perhaps I just have a very high IQ.

Here's a job ad from Rio Tinto, for a Senior Business Analyst. Look at that long list of "Key Skills / Knowledge Required"!

For those who don't want to look -- and for readers after the job has disappeared -- here are some examples:

• Sound financial and business acumen.
  
• The aptitude to identify business risks and opportunities through analysis.
  
• Excellent verbal and written communication skills.
  

Etc, etc, etc. There are eleven dot points, plus the requirement for a degree and to be a team player. The eleventh -- the last -- dot point is:

• Manage the Hyperion Solutions relationship.
  

Well, I thought, I could satisfy most of those requirements. Except...

I phoned the contact number.

"Am I reading this correctly?" I asked, "This requirement for Hyperion...?"

"Yes, we need someone who can hit the ground running..." replied the pleasant-sounding woman in HR.

There are eleven dot points of requirements. Plus the requirements to have a degree and be a team player. Do any of them really matter? No.

The correct, sole and sufficient criteria for this position is, Must have already implemented a Hyperion Solutions system.

Come in, plug in exactly what you have done before. It may not fit but no worries, we'll force our staff to follow whatever you used in your last position. Knowledge and experience? Irrelevant. Have you done exactly this before? Come in and do exactly the same again.

Rio have built a machine. They have defined one small cog as, Hyperion Solutions enforcer.

Want to be a very small cog in a massive machine? Apply now!

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

Water Strategy Misses the Point

Actually, the grass is greener on our own side of the fence. So why should we work so hard to dig it up? wonders Agamedes.

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 newspaper there is an opinion piece on future water supplies for Western Australia (Water strategy is to hope it rains, 7 Jul 10). The opinion is that of Robert Taylor who -- according to Inside Cover several months ago -- writes in an "ironic" style.

Let's hope that Taylor was being "ironic" as he discussed water supplies. The alternative is that he is being "stupid".

Some people, he writes, find it hard to believe that a Government would sacrifice a scarce water resource for boating. He's referring to Logue Brook Dam.

Logue Brook Dam has been a recreation area for many, many years. It has never supplied drinking water to Perth. A few years ago, the government of the day -- on the advice of Water Corporation -- was ready to sacrifice a recreation area in order to provide for the increasing demands of the over-grown metro area. Why should people be allowed a recreation area when industry and economists demand expansion, expansion, expansion?!

The attempt to destroy the recreation value of Logue Brook Dam was a typical exercise in political cynicism. Check out the section headed The facade crumbles, for a description of the false premise of the government's so-called "public consultation" on the political decision.

Given that Logue Brook Dam has been a recreational facility for as long as it has existed. Given that the Perth metropolitan area has outgrown all of its own water resources. Why would Taylor refer to the "sacrifice [of] a scarce water resource"? The real problem is, that the government wants to sacrifice a public recreation area!

The problem is not water supply

Taylor quotes objective number one from a Water Department planning document: "ensure security of water supply for the current and future needs of all water users".

The problem is not water supply. The real problem is with water demand. There is plenty of water -- if only we will manage our use of that water. This is true of the Perth metro area. It is also true of the entire state.

There are several aspects to the real problem:

• There are too many people. People use water. More people use more water. If we are really worried -- stop population growth. If we are afraid to do that, move on to the next point.
  
• Each person uses too much water. Find out how much water was used, per person, 100 years ago: it's a lot, lot less than now. If we are afraid to reduce per-person water consumption, move on to the next point.
  
• A huge proportion of our good drinking water is used by industry. Stop wasting water in industry! Or is that also, too difficult...
  

In Karratha, Taylor tells us, between one third and one half of the good, drinkable scheme water is used by "big miners". Used for what? To damp down the dust of their operations! What an absolute waste of water.

In Perth, Water Corporation are expected to draw even more water from the Gnangara Mound underground source. This is going to dry out wetlands and kill native flora and fauna. This sacrifice of our natural environment is likely, according to Taylor, to "get a fair hearing". By "fair hearing", does he mean that Water Corporation will be told to bugger off and stop destroying natural resources? I doubt it.

Here are some answers

Western Australia has enough water to support industry and a good lifestyle for a reasonable number of people. Water "shortages" are one indication that we are exceeding that reasonable number.

Should we continue to destroy our environment and erode our lifestyle? Is profit for the rich more important than life for everyone? Sure there is a flow-on benefit from industrial growth. The bulk of the benefit flows on to people who come to an area because of the industrial growth. So the benefits per person are heavily diluted.

Water supply is fine. Water demand is excessive. Here are some answers:

• Limit population growth. The first rule of quality is, make sure that you have the resources before you commit to the project. How many people are already in WA? Only start projects which can be run by those people.
  
• Reduce water use per person. Water Corporation have already reduced water pressure in some suburbs. This slows down the use of water. Extend this to all suburbs. We will adapt, even if the lawns all die.
  
• How serious are we? Each house / dwelling could have a water restrictor. The house is designed for X people, you can draw enough water per day to support X people. Expecting visitors? Plan ahead, or buy expensive water from an external source. Are we really that serious about saving water?
  
• Allow each industry enough water to support the number of its employees. Not enough for that industry? Perhaps it is the wrong industry for the area.
  
• Encourage alternative solutions. There is dust from iron ore? Use a tarpaulin! Look to better solutions: There is a serious dust problem with wheat storage but they don't damp down the wheat with scheme water... Find out what wheat farmers do and adapt it to iron ore.
  
• Limit the number of projects and industries. As above, if we don't have the population / water / money / time to start a new iron ore mine -- then don't. Do we need to make all possible profits now?! Take a ticket and wait your turn.
  

We don't have a problem with the available supply of water. We have a problem with unfettered demand for the available water.

Manage the demand.

Solve the actual problem.

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

Youth of Today Destroyed by the Internet!

Doomed! Doomed! Doomed! The youth of today are Doomed! thinks Agamedes. Not!

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

Neil Tweedie reports that the Internet is destroying young minds (How the internet lures and then distracts you, The West, 6 Jul 10).

Actually, Tweedie's article is quite well balanced. He points out that "the worriers" are seeing internet users losing their ability to apply themselves to a single task for an extended time. (Note that I politely said, "themselves" rather than "ourselves"?) He then points out that similar worriers have proclaimed the end of memory / thinking / discussion / etc, for various earlier innovations. Writing, books and newspapers, for example.

I, however, see a great benefit, if the worriers are correct:

Way back -- perhaps twenty years ago -- I read of research into the attention span of senior managers. Remember, this was way back before the internet was invented... This was what the researchers found: Senior managers spend eight minutes or less, on any one topic.

Senior managers change topics at least every eight minutes. They switch their mental gears perhaps sixty times in each working day. This ability to quickly switch trains of thought was considered to be not only good but essential to effective management.

Want to be a senior manager? Learn to switch into a topic, make a decision, switch to the next topic... Every eight minutes or less.

Guess what?

Internet users are being brain-trained to switch between ideas much faster than every eight minutes. Internet users are better that senior managers -- okay, of twenty years ago -- at considering a multitude of topics in a single day.

Leave the extended task focus to the worker drones. Old senior managers, move aside. The quick thinking, multi-processing internet trained youth -- are ready to take over.

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

Teachers Rule, Okay!

Agamedes is pleased to see a good news story about school teachers.

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

Here's a quote from the daily paper:

Georgia was diagnosed with diabetes after her Year 1 teacher noticed she was drinking a lot of water, going to the toilet a lot and was lethargic during the school day. (Georgia rises to challenge of diabetes, The West Australian, 6 Jul 10.

Teachers are expected to do a lot more than teach. Teachers often come under fire, over some error or omission. Some parents demand that teachers provide a full baby-sitting service during -- and sometimes after -- school hours.

Here is a good news story about a teacher. A teacher who noticed, who cared and who acted.

Well done that teacher!

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

Paternalistic MySuper

Who is supposed to benefit from superannuation funds? asks Agamedes.

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

A government-sponsored review of superannuation funds was released today. The West offers an overview (MySuper to boost nest eggs,and Retirement takes a back seat to footy, 6 Jul 10).

Apparently, most Australians are not interested in managing their super funds.

The Cooper review of Australian superannuation has "backed the creation of MySuper -- a default super fund." Interesting phrasing: "backed" the creation... Was this an independent, fact-finding review -- or was it a typical example of outside experts called in to justify a management decision? No worries, let's look at the reaction to MySuper.

MySuper is intended to be "a default super fund for the 80% of Australians who take almost no interest in the day-to-day management of their retirement." It will offer no investment options and low fees. Every super investment company will be required to offer MySuper.

The idea is, the average super contributor will be able to compare the MySuper offerings from various investment companies. The only variables will be the annual fee and overall performance.

So what could be wrong with that?

The Investment and Financial Services Association (IFSA) says that the MySuper proposal is paternalistic.

Now there's a surprise.

What does the average punter know about superannuation?

• It's a compulsory payment -- by the employer, so who cares.
  
• The super money can't be touched till you're about ready to retire -- so who cares. Except for the few who are about to retire.
  
• The super investment funds can lose half of your 40 years savings in just one year of global financial crisis. And there's nothing you can do about it.
  
• You can select a tailored mix of investments -- if you believe that your guesses can out-perform the knowledge of finance industry "experts".
  
• Perhaps the average punter also realises that the government encourages super so that it -- the government -- will pay less in pensions.
  
• There are so many options that it's impossible to compare investment funds -- so why bother.
  
• If you get advice from a financial advisor -- you will be paying the advisor for that once-off advice -- for the rest of your investing life.
  

For the average punter, you may as well ignore your super "investment". There's nothing much you can do about it. If highly paid "experts" can't make a profit, who can?

Oh, yes. The companies represented by IFSA can make a profit. For you? Maybe. For themselves? Definitely!

The article is not explicit but you have to guess, that IFSA represents super investment fund companies. Companies which invest enormous amounts of your money. Companies which may -- or may not -- make a profit for you each year. Companies which are almost guaranteed to make a profit for themselves.

Do those IFSA companies care about the investors? Why should they!

The IFSA companies want to keep you -- for your money. Any suggestion -- such as a simplified and universal My Super -- will allow you to make an informed choice. You may choose to do something else with your money. Oh dear!

Of course IFSA don't like the MySuper concept. Calling it "paternalistic" is -- in their view -- "bad". Giving the customers more -- clearer -- information may shift the power of choice to the customer.

And that -- for IFSA -- must be a bad thing.

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

ABC Launches its Election Campaign

Agamedes claims to have heard the sound of the first kookaburra, laughing its head off as it announces the arrival of an election.

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

I was listening to AM this morning (1 Jul 2010), on ABC Radio. There was an article on the latest compromise on the new mining tax.

You know how radio is... An intro, such as, "The Prime Minister today said that X Y Z." Followed by a sound bite of the PM saying, "X Y Z." Then there are a few more sound bites from possibly relevant people, covering various aspects of the story. All linked by the ABC reporter adding their two cents' worth.

Today's mining story was different.

First, there was the intro: "The Prime Minister today said that...", followed by a summary of the latest deal. So far, very standard. The intro was followed by the expected sound bite, of the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, announcing the compromise.

I waited for the reporter to offer interpretation, followed by a switch to various sound bits offering various views on the news.

I waited.

And I waited. And I waited.

After what seemed like five minutes -- at least in comparison to the standard five second sound bite -- I gave up.

What the ABC was broadcasting was -- as far as I could be bothered listening -- the full speech given by Gillard as she praised herself for forcing an agreement. This is not news. It is not even the standard AM magazine-style report and analysis.

ABC radio was broadcasting a party political broadcast on behalf of Julia Gillard and the Australian Labor Party.

The electioneering has begun.

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

Intelligent Children, Unwanted Adults

Agamedes identifies the disadvantage of a good education.

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

In The West Australian of 1 Jul 2010, Steven Martin writes a plea for better education for gifted children. Martin has been a teacher for more than 30 years. He specialises in teaching gifted children.

Unfortunately, Martin is a teacher. He deals with children as they are learning. This isolates him from the reality of business and adult careers.

To succeed in business, you need strong ideas. These ideas need not be "good" ideas, they just need to be seen as good. A further essential is, that you need to be able to strongly push your own ideas.

An intelligent person will often be able to see more than one side to an argument. The less intelligent will see only one side, their own. If you are able to see the benefit of other people's ideas, you may weaken, and allow other people's ideas to be go ahead.

If you allow other people's ideas to go ahead -- you lose. Your idea was never tested, so your idea gets no credit. You will not be a source of successful ideas. You will not be promoted. You fail.

If you are stupid, you will see only one idea -- your own. If you are really stupid -- and thick-skinned -- you will push your own idea and trample on any other ideas. After all, you "know" that your idea is good, so every other idea is "bad". What happens then?

Perhaps your idea works. You gain glory, credit and promotion. Perhaps your idea fails to work. You may be able to blame circumstances beyond your control. You may be able to change jobs before anything untoward hits the fan. If worst comes to worst, you rejoin the pack of mindless drones and wait for your next opportunity to push a mindless idea.

The ultimate source of success

Who is it that has the very best ideas? Your boss.

An intelligent employee may listen to ideas and see alternatives. There may be weaknesses to be avoided or strengths to be further exploited. There may even be better alternatives.

If the idea came from your boss -- there is no such thing as "a better alternative".

If you question, you are not a team player. If you raise issues, you are being negative. If you suggest better alternatives, you are a trouble-maker.

Anything other than complete agreement with the thoughts of your superiors is a CLM... a career limiting move. As Sir Humphrey would say, "Very courageous, Minister."

If you are stupid -- or under-educated, or adept at concealing your intelligence -- you will agree whole-heartedly with every decision by your boss. You will never question, just obey. You will be seen as a team player, with a positive attitude. You will be an asset to your team. You will be promoted.

Business, success and education

So to get ahead in business, you need to agree with your boss. When you have a good idea, make sure that it agrees with your boss' ideas. Then push that idea as hard as possible... preferably, over the dead bodies of your competition for promotion.

Were you a gifted child? Did you have a good education? Were your intellectual abilities identified and encouraged? You will fail.

You only hope is to be born into power and money. And to have a very thick skin and no awareness of the rights and feeling of others. That may help you to overcome the disadvantage of being able to think for yourself.

Did your education teach you to fit in? To act dumb? To act as though you were of average or below average intelligence? There may yet be hope for you.

Good luck.

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