no news today

There's an interesting article in today's paper, I decide to save it for later re-reading. I could cut it out but that would remove whatever is on the back of that page... oh, not to worry, on the back is an ad.

It's easy enough to remove the entire sheet of paper, four pages of the daily paper. But what other articles will I be removing?

The article of interest is, perhaps 20% of its page. There are two other articles, a generous estimate gives them another 20% of this page. The remaining 60% is ads.

What about the other three pages? What will I lose, to get my one article to keep?

The facing page is 100% advertisement. I look at the back of the sheet. The back of that sheet -- two pages -- is 100% advertisements. One page advertises huge savings one day only. The other pages pushes betting on cricket.

So... articles on 20% + 20% of one page. Plus zero % of three pages. That gives articles on just 10% of this four-page sheet of paper.

Good news: I can remove the entire sheet -- this is the simple option -- without losing any important stories. Bad news: 90% of this sheet of paper is ads. Good news: selling ads lowers the price -- to the reader -- of the daily paper. Bad news: that's a lot of trees destroyed to gain profit from a paper.

Here's my suggestions:

Don't waste the paper, it makes good garden compost. Also useful for wrapping up dog shit, though that is generally considered unsuitable for garden compost.

Don't depend on the daily paper for "news", ads are more important to the publishers. Check the ABC news site for better quality news -- though limited in scope -- but with no ads. And check The Onion for its very limited stories with no relevance to local news... but at least they *intend* to be funny.

Dr Nick Lethbridge / Consulting Dexitroboper

...        Agamedes Consulting / Problems ? Solved

===

"Experience is the comb life gives you once  you're bald" … per Ginger Meggs

===

Dying for you to read my blog, at https://notdotdeaddotyet.blogspot.com.au/ :-)

childhood lost

I almost feel sorry for Laura Newell. Her daughter in no longer a baby, she is growing up so fast. How does Laura know this? She sees it on a photo sent from daycare.

At home, does the daughter still sleep in a baby's cot? Laura doesn't mention it. She may not know. Perhaps the nanny has yet to send a photo.

Laura is worried about her daughter's future job prospects. Fast forward twenty years. Oh look, she will say, looking at the university social media site, Look, my baby is graduating! I wonder what she studied. My, hasn't she changed since I last saw her. As a baby.

Then Laura can spend the rest of her life wondering why her daughter -- you know, what's her name -- never bothers to visit.

===

Not to worry, at least it will cost nothing to bring up that daughter. If, that is, politician Patrick Gorman has his way. "Many parents (like me)," he writes, "already use long day care where education curriculums help social and brain development." Thank goodness for that, I can't imagine the poor kids would get much social or brain development in a politician's house.

"Give us a child till he's seven and we'll have him for life." Well worth the investment in "free education" eh Patrick?

Some poor devils, he continues (and yes, I paraphrase), some poor devils can't afford daycare so they are forced to work part-time. What, look after their own children? Horrors.

===

Here's a thought: look after your own children. Can't afford it? Don't have children. There are already more than enough people in the country.

Nick Lethbridge  /  consulting dexitroboper
===
"If we really did profit from our mistakes, I'd be rich" … per Ginger Meggs
===
   

death and democracy

An opposition politician -- Nick Goiran -- is doing his best to delay the passing of a "voluntary assisted dying" -- euthanasia -- bill. Goiran has religious objections to euthanasia. The West -- a daily rag which is the degenerate descendant of a daily newspaper -- says that Goiran is acting undemocratically.

Sorry, but Goiran is acting within the rules of our democratically elected parliament. Not within the spirit, perhaps, but well within the rules. That is our democracy: we elect people, they set rules, we all follow the rules.

If we don't like the rules, we change them. How? By getting our elected representatives to change the rules. If that requires the election of representatives who will change those rules well, that's how our democracy works.

What if we want to change the rules but there is not the required majority of elected representatives? Well, the rules will not change. That's democracy.

Meanwhile, Goiran is acting within the rules of our democracy.

So to Goiran I say: carry on. It's good to see a politician thinking for himself, doing what he believes is right. I hope that he will ultimately fail -- I support the individual's right to euthanasia. But time is not of the essence, there will be a never-ending supply of people who want the right to choose the manner of their own death.

===

Various politicians mutter in support of The West, they claim to want the bill to be passed. Or, at least, dealt with and out of their hair. Really? Maybe.

I have yet to hear those politicians -- or the daily paper -- making suggestions about changing the rules of parliamentary debate. No-one, apparently, is learning from this experience. Or perhaps they are learning? Learning a new way to delay the acceptance of bills with which they disagree.

To these politicians I say: stop attempting to score points -- and change the rules. Ask me, I can suggest several ways that will improve parliamentary debate. And if you don't like my ideas, vote against them. Because that is democracy.

===

Meanwhile, the leader of Goiran's party claims that yes, she does want this euthanasia bill to be passed. Unfortunately, it seems, she has no control over the member of her party. Really?

Try this: tell Goiran that he is no longer the party spokesperson for (or against) this bill. Do you really want this bill to be passed? Remove Goiran's official imprimatur as the party representative. No, it won't stop his stalling tactics. At least it will show that you half-way support what you say.

Do you disagree with Goiran just this one time? Or do you truly believe that his approach is wrong... Make sure that he is not preselected by your party for the next election. He can still run as an independent. As a member of your party, Goiran represents your party views. Preselect him again and you are supporting his stalling tactics. For this and other bills.

===

And in his electorate: if you like Goiran's tactics and support his views -- vote for him again.

That's what our democracy is all about.

Nick Lethbridge  /  consulting dexitroboper
===
"If we really did profit from our mistakes, I'd be rich" … per Ginger Meggs
===
   

It's not a newspaper

The West Australian is no longer a newspaper. Half of its articles are opinions, not news. Half of what's left -- in today's paper -- is drooling and salivating over the sad details of the murder of three young women. Sick stuff.

Of course the bulk of the paper is advertisements. Nothing wrong with that, it pays part of the cost of the paper. Except that quite a few of the "articles" are really advertisements. Or biassed. There are plenty of stories which are really teasers for channel seven.

Of course there are also the stories that never get to print. The court case which channel seven lost, for example, where "reality show" contestants successfully sued channel seven. No mention of that case in the seven-owned daily paper.

A different tv channel had a minor upset when morning show presenters were moved on, walked out, were moved back...  The paper wrote several snide articles about those difficulties. There were also a couple of articles which were very sympathetic towards the female presenter... and guess what? Now she's working for channel seven. No surprise at all.

===

Today there is an article -- another opinion piece -- about Qantas. Written by a man who does seem to know about marketing. His opinion is, that a Qantas 100-year birthday celebration could bore the average consumer. The writer has missed the point.

Qantas will spend all year celebrating 100 years of operation. You can bet that sick children and orphaned animals will be flown -- free -- all over the country. There will be non-stop flights from A to B -- with journalists writing loving articles about the joys of flying first-class. And yes, consumers will lap it up.

Meanwhile, a standard Qantas flight leaves me with my knees poking into the seat in front. On the non-stop flight to London -- with extra leg-room -- I still have no room to bend down. Drop the pillow? Too bad, it's lost forever.

Flights are cheap, Qantas shares paid a small dividend. But guess what? Maintenance is no longer done in Australia. Where are the people who used to earn a living maintaining Qantas planes? Overseas, bankrupt or on the dole, I guess.

Doesn't matter, at least the investors get a dividend. Not that that helps Australia. Qantas is no longer "the Australian airline", Australian ownership went out with the wings on the kangaroo. Not to worry...

None of the uncomfortable history will be reported in the daily paper. We'll have happy stories of airline journalists flying first class. Top chefs designing superb menus... for first-class passengers. Extra leg room... for first-class passengers. New flight records, new flight technology, continuing safety records (I hope) -- for the foreign airline which started -- 100 years ago -- in Australia.

It will be published but it's not news. It will be published because The West Australian in not, in reality, a "news"paper.

Nick Lethbridge  /  consulting dexitroboper
===
"If we really did profit from our mistakes, I'd be rich" … per Ginger Meggs
===
   

Lesson from TV

Here's a lesson from TV's Yes Minister series: Once a politician denies a fact -- that fact is guaranteed to be true.

Federal parliament is attempting to pass what is referred to as, "Christian Porter's union-busting Bill" (The West, 26 Nov).

"The PM rubbished Labor claims the Bill would have unions deregistered over paper-work." The PM rubbished claims?! That's as good as a denial...

So it seems to be true: Christian Porter's "Ensuring Integrity" Bill -- an excellently sarcastic name -- will allow unions to be deregistered over shoddy paperwork.

Nick Lethbridge  /  consulting dexitroboper
===
"If we really did profit from our mistakes, I'd be rich" … per Ginger Meggs
===