Litter Laws and Reserved Parking

Your problems? Solved. email nick leth at gmail dot com. No worries. Now.

A few years ago I was walking through a city car park. A driver deliberately dropped a large piece of rubbish out his window, onto the ground. His car was in a queue, not moving. I picked up the litter, passed it back to the driver with the comment, "You dropped this mate." And walked on.

That was years ago.

Last week I was walking through the car park of the local shopping centre. A car drove in and parked in a space reserved for "Parents with Prams". The driver climbed out and walked away: no pram, no children, no excuse to park in a reserved space, except laziness. I walked on.

I watched a lazy drongo take a parking space reserved for parents with children and prams. And I did nothing. What is wrong with me?!

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Not that a healthy, unencumbered adult is "evil" for parking in a reserved parents' space. Nor is it "evil" to drop litter. These things are just stupid. They are examples of people who do not think. Who do not care.

And I did nothing.

There are fines for littering.

There are fines for parking in a space reserved for handicapped people.

There may even be fines for parking in a space reserved for parents with prams.

People still drop litter. And I grimace but walk on.

People park in spaces reserved for others who actually need that convenient space. And I mutter and grimace. But walk on.

Am I an idiot? I do not drop litter. I do not park in reserved spaces.

Nothing to do with the possibility of being fined. I just don't want to add to an ugly environment. I don't mind that I have to walk a bit further in a car park, parents with prams and children may need that tiny bit of ease in their lives. Cripples in wheelchairs need that extra bit of space to manoeuvre as they get in and out of their cars; I can walk a bit further.

Wouldn't it be nice if we did not need to fine people for being lazy, self-centred and unthinking?

"I won't park here because a real parent may actually need -- or at least appreciate -- the convenience of unloading active children close to the safety of the footpath."

"I'll take this rubbish to the nearest bin because I don't want the place to look ugly."

"I will remind that stranger that the space is reserved for others..." But I didn't.

Because I did nothing, another drongo still believes that the world is built purely for his own benefit. He believes that whatever he can do, he must be allowed to do. If he thinks at all, it along the lines of, "I think therefore I don't give a stuff about anyone else".

And I have done my little bit to support that self-centred idiot.

All that is necessary for the triumph of thoughtless stupidity is that those who care... do nothing.

Forget about fines.

Idiots rule the world because people like me let them get away with it.

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

They said What?!

Your problems? Solved. email nick leth at gmail dot com. No worries. Now.

Gone are the starting blocks that launched many a swimmer to glory. So, too, the water treaded by learner and professional swimmers.

"Treaded"?!

The water is covered by tyre treads?

Thank you to reporter Beatrice Thomas (Old Beatty Park pool consigned to history, The West, 25 Oct 2011) for that gem of dubious grammar.

"This has widened students' horizons, boosted their confidence and provided a powerful stimulus for learning in our school."

This is a school principal's comment, quoted by Michelle Scott, Commissioner for Children and Young People WA (Creative thinking is vital for young people, The West, 25 Oct 2011). Is Scott unable to recognise overblown jargon when she reads it?

Why pick a quote which is clearly pulled from the Desperate Principal's Book of Acceptable Educational Jargon? Did no-one write, "The kids had fun, they learnt a lot and the teachers will apply what we all learnt from the experience"?!

Target your audience... or you will lose them.

And now... for something completely different: Sculpture in the city.

There's a new sculpture outside Wesley Church. There's a photo in today's West (Sculpture outlines millennium goals for nations, 25 Oct 2011). The sculpture looks like a giant metal golf ball sitting on a tee.

More than that, it looks like a children's toy. You may have seen them: a plastic ball with holes in it. Holes with different shapes. The child learns to poke the square peg through the square hole... The ball pulls open, to remove the successfully inserted pegs.

So now, in the city, is a sculpture of a ball... with various shaped holes.

I just hope that the sculpture pulls open. How else will we remove the variously shaped pieces of rubbish which will be inserted through the variously shaped holes?

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

How to be Positively Ignored

Your problems? Solved. email nick leth at gmail dot com. No worries. Now.

Here's a great way to be sure that your ideas will never be accepted:

• State your ideas, then
• Directly attack your audience
• Point out that previous ideas have failed
• Repeat your ideas with an added attack on the intelligence of your audience.

To see this approach in action, read "We must get away from failed political thinking" by Jim Morrison (The West, 18 Oct 2011).

• State your ideas

Morrison makes good points about Aboriginal youths, crime, and the Police Commissioner linking the two. Morrison's points can be summed up by the article's sub-header, "Invest in community initiatives before Aboriginal kids offend".

The key word is before.

The same day's paper has an article ("Remote cops build respect") about cops doing just that. There have been various stories about police, teachers, footballers and others helping Aboriginal and other children, before they get into crime.

Prevention is better than cure. Not as good at buying votes, perhaps. But an excellent idea.

Then...

• Directly attack your audience

Morrison attacks everyone-except-Aborigines... for colonising Australia. There's a lot of truth in his claim of "seven generations of compounding bad laws, a racially prejudiced Constitution and institutional and social racism."

Yet his attack is irrelevant to the here and now.

If a person has English heritage with one Italian grandparent -- that person is expected to make their own way to success. If a person has Italian heritage with one Chinese grandparent -- that person is expected to make their own way to success. If a person has Chinese heritage with one Aboriginal grandparent -- for some reason that person is totally unable to be at all successful, unless they are give government-funded support.

Morrison is attacking laws, Constitution, institutions and society. His "logic" is ridiculous. The only guarantee is that he will alienate any readers who support our laws, Constitution, institutions or society.

So we get angry. We prepare to defend against the emotional and illogical attack. We ignore -- or forget -- the good ideas which came earlier.

• Point out that previous ideas have failed

Sometimes this is a good idea. In Morrison's article it is simply a continuation of the attack on anyone-not-Aboriginal.

There are plenty of science fiction books set in a post-apocalyptic world. It's a standard setting for science fiction. One very average book provided an idea which -- in my opinion -- is excellent.

We -- people of every race, nationality and religion -- preserve our history. We preserve our history so that we can brag about how great we once were.

A side-effect of preserving history is that we also preserve the historic hatreds.

The rather average book presented a rather average post-apocalyptic world which had an above-average level of peaceful coexistence.

The secret? All records of the past were destroyed after ten years.

After ten years, the past is gone -- and forgotten.

No more bragging about how great we were. Only how great we are now.

No more hating strangers for ancient and possibly exaggerated wrongs. Past wrongs are gone and forgotten. Which leaves a lot more time to correct current wrongs.

No more blaming your neighbours for the actions of their remote ancestors, neighbours and rulers. More time for working with your neighbours to make today a better place to live.

• Repeat your ideas with an added attack on the intelligence of your audience.

Morrison began with a positive view and good ideas: focus on community initiatives rather than (post-crime) juvenile justice. He admits that these are not his own ideas; there's nothing wrong with that. Then he attacks the world for having done nothing to support those ideas.

Rather than coming up with positive actions, Morrison finds that it is easier to attack everyone else for not solving the problems. Then there is his concluding paragraph:

What do we have to lose in investing some of the resources spent on detention centres in community-based initiatives before Aboriginal kids start to offend -- or is this another "elephant in the room"?

Community-based initiatives are a good idea. Some are already in operation. Can you suggest any more?

Or is it easier to just suggest that the idiots (and racists?) in charge will continue to ignore the problem? Easier to insult the people that you need to convince? Easier to continue a fight than to stop one?

Far easier. And better. Unless you really do want to solve the problems.

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

Early Warning Signs: CEOs Moving Soon

Your problems? Solved. email nick leth at gmail dot com. No worries. Now.

Police Chief set to Move

Here's a prediction: Top cop Karl O'Callaghan will move on. Within the next two years.

Over the years, O'Callaghan has made some contentious public statements. Many of these -- the more disagreeable ones -- seem to attack his own employees. Remember when he said -- publicly -- that too many police were too fat?

Now he's taken his public pronouncements a step further.

He pointed to the obvious, that Aboriginal youths are severely over-represented in crime. Oh dear, how non-PC. He would have been clearly identified as racist if he had not had the statistics to support his statement.

Worse yet, this top cop stated that the problem should be tackled as an issue of crime prevention. Yet his job is to catch criminals after the offence. Way out of line, to suggest that the problem is more than just a police problem.

Then he said that police would remove delinquent children from the streets. Even before they have committed a crime (for that night) these uncontrolled children will be removed from the streets. Worse yet, the police will attempt to get parents to come and take some responsibility for their own children.

Bad enough that the police have plans to encourage parents to take responsibility for their own children. Many of these children are already the responsibility of the Department of Youth Affairs. Since that department clearly is unable to manage these children, they have a clear right to be offended that they were not consulted. (No, I can't see the logic there either.)

Anyway...

All this points to a top cop who is planning to move on. Enough kowtowing, enough nodding and smiling as his political masters do nothing constructive. Enough agreeing and supporting the opportunists who gain money and power from troubled children.

Time to speak out. Time to state the obvious and take positive -- but unpopular -- action. These are the signs of a CEO who is about to retire. Or who wants to make his mark, as a precursor to a new job application.

Or... it's the actions which will lead to his sacking.

My prediction: Karl O'Callaghan will be out of the top cop position. Within two years.

Bankwest CEO to get the bum's rush

My prediction: Bankwest CEO Jon Sutton will be out the door within a year.

How can I be so sure? Because I watched Yes, Minister.

You can learn something every day... From any source.

In today's West Australian (18 Oct 2011) there is an article headlined, "Bankwest says CEO not going anywhere". The article is one sure sign that a proposed action has now been confirmed, secretly.

A few years back there was a company called GECITS, managing several outsourcing contracts in Perth. There were internal rumours that GECITS was about to be sold... Senior management quickly denied that a sale was being considered. The company was sold within six months.

When senior people -- people in the know -- begin to deny rumours -- it is a sure sign that the rumours are true.

In the article in The West Bankwest chair Harvey Collins is reported to have sent a memo to senior staff. In the memo, "Mr Collins insisted Mr Sutton 'will be continuing in his role as managing director'."

The denials have been made. It's a sure sign that Sutton is on the way out.

Anyone want a slightly-used bank CEO? Or a somewhat shop-soiled top cop? Available soon.

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

Missing the Obvious?

Your problems? Solved. email nick leth at gmail dot com. No worries. Now.

Repeat year creates risk

(The West, 11 Oct 2011)

Journalists, eh. They don't train 'em like they used to. Probably never did, either.

Here's a press release. Summarise it, print it. No time to question it...

Students who repeat a school year are more likely to skip school, lose motivation and have low self-esteem, new research has found.

Did the research check the students' attendance, motivation and self-esteem in their first attempt at the repeated year? Did the repeat year cause the students' lower attendance, lower motivation and lower self-esteem? Or did the students fail to learn the first time because they did not attend, had poor motivation or low self-esteem?

The research -- as reported -- raises obvious questions of cause and effect. Was this covered in the research?

A "journalist" has written a brief report which raises more questions than it answers. Is this because the research was weak? Or is it just the weak reporting.

If the research was weak then a journalist with half a brain should have noted this. If the research covered the before and after aspects of cause and effect -- then the reporting still failed to provide a fair report.

Journalists, eh. If they had half a brain, they'd be dangerous.

A city ravaged by tower blocks

(The West, 11 Oct 2011)

Academics, eh. They don't train 'em like they used to. Probably never did, either.

Dr Linley Lutton has written an opinion piece, lamenting the ugly tower blocks replacing historic buildings in the City of Perth. Here's the last paragraph of his article:

Sadly, there are few gatekeepers to protect the City of Perth. The residential population in the city centre is so small and only a handful of these are owner-occupiers with any sense of belonging so there is no one to take up arms and protect the city. The barbarians have entered and now control the city and show none of the understanding or sophistication required to create a city for people.

At least you can tell that Lutton is really an academic. Just look at the length of those few sentences!

But...

Just look at the points made in that concluding paragraph:

1. The residential population of the city is small
2. There are very few owner-occupiers
3. Not many of the small city population want to protect the city
4. Barbarians now control the city
5. The barbarians will not create a city for people.

The gap in Lutton's logic is between points four and five. Just before the final point. The gap in the logic?

Lutton's final point assumes that the City of Perth should be for people!

Yet -- from the first few points -- very few people actually live in the city. Even fewer care about the city. So which "people" want a "city for people"?

Or do I mean, For which people should the city be designed?! Either way...

Lutton's logic has stated that the City of Perth is not for people. No people live there, no people care to fight for a people-friendly city.

Lutton has presented an argument -- then shot it down. Which is a pity, really, because I agree with the general direction of the argument. But the obvious fallacy spoils the point.

Academics, eh. If they had half a brain, they'd be dangerous.

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

Coles & Woolworths, Cat Food & Choice

Your problems? Solved. email nick leth at gmail dot com. No worries. Now.

For quite a few years we have been regular buyers of tinned cat food. Everyone who knows cats knows that cats are fussy eaters. Our cat would barely touch its tinned cat food. We were buying Coles home brand cat food.

I took a closer look at the cat food.

The tin contained some chunks of fish. It also contained jelly. In fact... most of the contents of each tin was jelly. Jelly is a lot cheaper than fish.

Perhaps our cat did not like flavoured, thickened water... ie jelly. Perhaps the fish itself tasted bad. Not being a cat -- nor an analytical chemist -- I could not tell. All I knew was, our cat would not eat Coles home brand tinned cat food.

So we bought tins of high-profile, widely advertised, long-established brands of cat food.

These more expensive brands contained more fish. Less jelly. In fact, no noticeable jelly at all... no cheap filler. Our cat did not object to the taste of the fish, either.

The Role of the Parent

Your problems? Solved. email nick leth at gmail dot com. No worries. Now.

Imagine that you have three children who are always fighting. They are just old enough to be left at home. Except, every time they are left at home without adult supervision -- they fight.

What do you do?

You already work long hours. There's no way you can spend time at home supervising the children. Your work is important to you. Your hard work provides food and shelter for your family.

When you are not at work, you just want to relax. You see enough fighting at work. When you're home you just wish that the kids would shut up and leave you alone.

Your partner has more time to manage the kids.

Your partner works but at a less important job. They have plenty of time -- and energy -- to manage the kids.

Your partner works eight hours a day. Their income provides jam on the bread: extra money for life's little luxuries. Your partner earned enough last year to buy a new tv. This year, your partner's wages will pay for a family holiday.

Bloody hell... Who would want to take a family holiday with those three monsters?!

The monsters -- your three kids -- are old enough to take care of themselves. The youngest spends most of the day at child care anyway. The other two spend most of their day at school. It's only a few hours each day when they are in the house by themselves.

Your oldest kid has taken to roaming the streets. Why can't the older kid take care of the two younger kids?! What the hell is wrong with kids today?!