Laws Create Loopholes

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 purpose of a law? The whole purpose is, to create loopholes.

But wait! you cry, Surely a law is written to ban something!?

Wrong.

In The West Australian of 14 Apr 11 Kim MacDonald writes about the new drug, Kronic.

Kronic is, apparently, a synthetic cannabis. It mimics the physical and psychoactive effects of cannabis. According to ChemCentre forensic toxicologist Robert Hansson, it is "more potent than cannabis and sent users into an inattentive stupor, sometimes with hallucinations."

But Kronic is not banned... so it is selling like hot-cakes.

Better yet -- for Kronic users -- it cannot be detected by the standard industrial-site drug tests. You can turn up at work , stoned out of your mind, and happily fall into a stupor while operating heavy machinery. Oh dear. What can we do?

Well, naturally, there are suggestions that Kronic should be banned. Which brings me to my main point: Laws are passed in order to create legal loopholes.

Supply and Demand

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

It's a funny thing. Even economists understand "supply & demand". Yet no-one uses the concept when it does not support their own arguments. Even business managers claim to support "quality processes". Yet they ignore page one of the quality manual.

WA's resources sector must find an extra 33,000 skilled workers by the end of next year or face time and budget blowouts that could harm its international reputation as a competitive mining market. (WA needs extra 33,000 workers, by Gareth Parker, The West Australian, 14 Apr 2011)

Page 1 of the quality manual says, Do not commit to work unless you have the resources to do the work. WA's resources sector does not have the resources -- it is short by 33,000 workers -- so why is it committing to the work? Are they all idiots? Or is it pure greed...

Years ago, I worked for a company which tendered for a document management project. We didn't have the staff to do the work -- there were just four people in our office -- but that made no difference. If we had won the contract we would have hired the staff. From somewhere.

Other companies put forward similar bids. They also did not have the staff. Whoever won the contract would have hired the staff. Really?

No Surprise as Guggenheim Loses Money

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 (11 Apr 2011) West Australian, reporter Gareth Parker writes of "revelations its [Art Gallery of WA] Peggy Guggenheim exhibition attracted barely half as many visitors as the target set in its business case" (Art show failed to bring in crowds).

Is anyone surprised?

The Peggy Guggenheim collection is famous. It is also rubbish.

The exhibition at the gallery was not trying to attract "visitors". It was trying to attract paying customers. Why would anyone pay to see rubbish? You could visit your local primary school open day and see better art. And it would be free.

Have a look at a review by someone who paid money to see the exhibition. Or just read one paragraph:

For example... Have a look at the Enchanted Forest... It's by Australia's favourite scam-artist, Jackson Pollock. "In Enchanted Forest Pollock opens up the more dense construction of layered color ... by allowing large areas of white to breathe..." And he, "reduces his palette to a restrained selection of gold, black, red, and white." Why not just say, "He was running short of paint and time so he spread the paint quickly and thinly."