Marketers Fail to Proof

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

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

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

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

No Surprise as Uni Students Drop Out

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

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

Is anyone surprised?

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

Is Change an Enemy of Success?

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

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

France gets smoked out in the euro crisis

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

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

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

Confusion over Role of Schools in Education

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

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

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

Tell The Teacher just What to Teach

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

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

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

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

Perhaps we do need to Decriminalise Drugs

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

I'm in two minds about this:

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

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

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

You are Wrong because I Say So

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

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

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

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

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

NBN: Logic Failure

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

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

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

But why?

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

I exceeded my monthly data download limit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now here's an idea...

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

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

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

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

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

If it's really worth the effort.

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

Tourist Trap

Tourism WA is marketing the empty box, says Agamedes.

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

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

Oh, great.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now here's a thought...

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

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

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

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

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

Perth needs to step up

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

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

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

Let's have a look at that opinion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please forget about copying other cities.

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

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

Sycophantic Self Service

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

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

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

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

Who wrote the letter?

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

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

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

Still, there is some good news

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

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

And it worked.

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

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

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

Allow teachers to teach.

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

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

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

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

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

Rudolph Offers True Life Lessons

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

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

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

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

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

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

Check out the next verse:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Santa -- the Boss -- promotes Rudolph!

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

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

What to do?

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

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

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

"Won't you guide my sleigh tonight?"

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

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

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

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

Then all the reindeer loved him!

"All the reindeer"?

Yes, All the reindeer loved him. Now.

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

What has changed?

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

No way!

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

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

Isn't that an awful message.

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

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

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

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

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

Homeless or Hopeless

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cars and Carnage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Schooling Starts before School Starts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A good lesson.

Thank you, Susan Sheridan.

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

Wiki Why Worry?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Australians on US terror list

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minerals from WA considered vital to US

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

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

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

Bizarrely?!?

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

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

Bizarre? Or just journalistic hysteria.

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

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

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

Our links with China still strong, says PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

So why all the fuss!

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

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

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

Talk about making the power-brokers look foolish!

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

Assange has thumbed his nose at people in power.

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

What a bunch of incompetent fools.

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

Rich Parents make for Golden Boy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But now...

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

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

Then something went wrong?!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you ever wish that you too had insider information?

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

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

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

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

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

Now that I can believe.

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

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