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Sure, the man -- through Wikileaks -- is publishing information which governments have decided should not be published.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

Regulation Manners

Agamedes prefers common sense to regulation -- but can see why rules are written.

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

Early in October the Town of Cottesloe gained itself some free publicity. On the 9th Zoltan Kovacs wrote of, "the prevailing cult of over-regulation, a set of proposed rules ... controlling the behaviour of people on the local beach." Apparently these proposed rules, "revealed a control-freak appetite for oppressive restrictions that is a mark of officialdom." (The West, 9 Oct 10)

First, note Kovacs' use of emotive language. Cult is clearly bad. What would be wrong with writing, "the prevailing culture of over-regulation"? Nothing wrong with "culture" except that "cult" is more likely to sway us -- perhaps unconsciously -- to Kovacs' negative view of the proposed regulations.

Then the proposed rules "revealed a control-freak appetite for oppressive restrictions." "An officious appetite for detailed restrictions" would have been vaguely insulting without the strongly negative connotations of Kovacs' highly emotive words. If he wanted to present a logical -- rather than emotional -- argument, Kovacs could even have written, "a strong preference for detailed instructions." But the role of a columnist is opinion, not fact.

So what are these "oppressive restrictions"? What new regulations are being proposed? Who cares!

Kovacs certainly doesn't care. His opinion piece tells us that the proposed "petty bans ... attracted deserved protest and derision." What were these "petty bans"? Why does Kovacs not entertain us with an example or two? Perhaps the facts would detract from the emotional arguments that he is presenting.

Here are some reported facts:

(from The West online).

"No cigarette butts": Dropping cigarette butts is illegal. Anywhere in this state. Is Kovacs objecting because he wants Cottesloe to be a unique area where dropping butts is allowed?

"No leaving on taps": This one has raised general ire in the letters pages. Okay, I doubt if anyone wants to encourage other people to leave taps running. But why is such a regulation even considered? Perhaps because taps are left running... And quite a few of these rules seem to be similar: We don't want it to happen but we don't expect to need rules to tell us to not do it.

And that's the real problem with the proposed Cottesloe regulations: They are common sense but not everyone has common sense.

"No fundraising" We're here to enjoy the beach. Take your rattling tin out of my face. "No toy vehicles" Probably means, no large, remote controlled vehicles. No-one wants to be run down by a noisy model car being badly controlled through a crowded beach. "No sitting or loitering to obstruct steps or pathways" Get out of my way, I want to get down to the beach.

These are all things which are common sense -- common courtesy. So why did Cottesloe consider setting them down as regulations? Perhaps because some people lack common sense and common courtesy.

"Please don't dig a big hole in the beach where people may fall into it." "It's not a big hole." "It's big enough to fall into." "It's my beach, I can dig a hole if I want to." Differences of opinion so the law steps in.

"A big hole is more than 2m x 2m." "My hole is 2m x 1.99m. So there."

The more rules we write, the more loopholes we create. The purpose of laws is not to restrict our actions -- it is to allow actions.

"A big hole is more than 2m x 2m." "Oh, good, then I can dig a hole 2m x 1.99m. And as deep as I want."

A better answer

Kovacs writes that, "laws and regulations gradually have replaced common decency and courtesy".

Why? Perhaps because a law is an enforceable expression of our will. Common decency and courtesy are simply accepted standards of behaviour; they do not demonstrate our power of control. They allow freedom to be non-courteous.

But the main problem is: we have no clearly defined standards of common decency and courtesy.

In our efforts to be accepting to all, we allow anything.

If -- in Cottesloe -- we agree that we do not want to have big holes dug in the beach -- then say so! Not as rules and regulations but as suggested standards of behaviour.

Publish a small booklet: "You are a stranger to our beach: this is the way we would like you to behave". You may choose to be courteous and fit with our standards of acceptable behaviour. Or you may be rude.

Nothing enforceable, except by peer pressure: You are not acting within our standards so we will sneer at you. In a polite way, of course.

Why would this work?

Well... Do you know what are the accepted standards of behaviour at Cottesloe beach? At Swanbourne beach? In Balga? In Peppermint Grove? No?

We all have standards of behaviour that we would like others to follow. Why will those others follow our standards -- if they do not know them?!

Set the standards for expected behaviour. And let people -- visitors, strangers, our own friends and family -- know what we expect. In a public area such as Cottesloe beach -- it is worth putting our expectations in writing. So every knows what is expected.

Emily Post felt it was necessary to document guidelines on ettiquette. It's been done before, we can do it again. Don't attract ridicule by writing regulations for common sense and ettiquette.

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

Stability May Support Success

A clever aphorism may be more than a simple prop for stagnant thinking.

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

Anything which is not growing is dying.

That concept has stuck in my mind. It's amazing the way in which people can pick a point to support their own views. And miss the contradictions.

You can't see the forest for the trees.

There's another nifty little aphorism. Let's consider the two together.

A tree grows. Then it stops growing -- because it is dying. The tree dies.

A forest is made up of a lot of trees. A forest may have mountains on one side, desert on another, ocean at every other boundary. The forest has no room to grow. Yet it is not dying.

A forest is made up of a lot of trees. Individual trees sprout, grow, then die. Yet the forest is not dying.

A forest is not affected by the growth and death of individual trees. A forest may continue -- live -- successfully without any overall growth. The individual parts -- trees -- grow and die but the forest does not. Yet it is not stagnant.

A forest may be a vibrant, living organism, even though it is not growing. Perhaps change -- of individual trees -- may help the forest to thrive, as environmental conditions change. In a prolonged drought some trees may die. When it rains, trees may grow faster. But the living forest is not "growing".

We can do the same.

Look past the individual. Look at society as a living entity. There is no need for continuous growth.

What is important is life.

A living society -- like a living forest -- can be vibrantly successful without the need for constant growth of the society. Individuals may change and grow and die. Society can be successful -- a successful environment for the life of individuals -- with no need for continuous growth.

Don't just use the aphorisms. Think about them. Understand the broader possibilities. Open your mind. Think, learn and only then, act.

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

Economic Mayhem at the Battle of the Bulge

Tighten our belts, do our best, ride it out -- and the problem will go away.

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

Traditionally, population formed a pyramid by age. There were more young than middle-aged, more middle-aged than old. The middle-aged supported the old, perhaps indirectly via taxes. There were enough middle-aged -- active income earners -- to fully support the smaller number of non-earning, sit-in-the-sun older people.

Funnily enough, no-one ever questioned the fact that the middle-aged were also supporting the even larger number of non-earning, play-in-the-sun young people...

Now we have a different shape to worry about. Thanks to the "baby boom" after World War II, there is a bulge in the population pyramid. With a self-satisfied smirk, statisticians have identified a new shape: the population coffin.

See where the shoulders fit in the coffin? That's where the baby-boomers are swelling the population in their own age group. See how close the baby-boomers are to becoming "old"? That's where the problem lies.

After years and years of supporting our economy by working, earning and spending, the baby-boomers are getting old. Very soon, they will be old and sick. Then the next generation -- the current crop of "young" -- will have to support the aged and infirm baby-boomers.

After all these years of work and success and growth and income -- you are thinking -- the government will have a huge stash of cash set aside, to deal with this very problem. After all -- you may be thinking -- we have seen this problem coming, since a year or two after the original boom. It has been a matter for public concern and discussion for decades.

Unfortunately we are dealing with government. And government plans only as far ahead as the next election.

Oh no! What can we do?!

Let's just wait a few years. And the problem will solve itself.

How will the problem solve itself?

First, the cost of medical care will reduce. That's a natural effect of development, invention, mass production and competition.

Take another look at that coffin shape. Notice that it gets narrower below the baby-boomer level? There are less post-baby-boomers. And there are even less very young people.

If we can maintain that shape -- we will be saved!

Less young people, so less young people for the post-boomers to support. Money saved. Money which can be redirected to the aging baby-boomers.

And then, in twenty years -- or in thirty... or in fifty -- all of the baby-boomers will be dead. (Except for the very few, very rich. They will be not-quite-dead, in the deep freeze. With luck, they will have left enough money to pay for their ever-increasing power bills. That's all they'll need.)

So, given enough time, the population bulge will have died away.

Unless we try something really stupid, like breeding or importing people for another bulge to follow the baby-boomer bulge. But that would simply create more problems as we are forced to deal with the next population bulge.

Surely we would not be that stupid.

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

The Ponzi Population Theory

Agamedes blasts off again, against the economic mantra of "growth, growth, growth".

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

Shane Wright, economics editor for The West, wrote (18 Oct 10):

I don't think anyone is advocating a one-child policy for Australia or the shipping of elderly people off to New Zealand or Britain to ease population pressures, so there is no avoiding a bigger country.

In other words, instead of wringing hands, many of us have to start thinking about how to deal with more people and the benefits that flow from that.

On the one hand we have people who can see the immediate profit to be gained from more people. For example: bring in skilled immigrants and it saves the cost of training our own people. Or, bring in unskilled immigrants and they will work for peanuts because the large numbers of desperate job seekers will weaken the bargaining power of unions.

Then there are the economists, like Wright. They see that more people is a cheap and quick method of increasing the market for the goods that those extra people will consume. A Ponzi scheme with people. And economists are so divorced from reality that they cannot see the end result of continued growth.

How can these people support their dangerous views, when there are loud voices calling for a halt to the disasters of over-population? When logic fails, try emotions.

"I don't think anyone is advocating a one-child policy..." One-child policy? Doesn't that just hit at the heart and gonads! No-one is -- seriously -- advocating a one-child policy for Australia. Wright just uses the phrase as a red rag, to stir up unthinking resistance to... whatever... could be done to limit population growth.

"Shipping of elderly people off to New Zealand..." What?! They (whoever "they" are) can't just ship old people / dear old granny / me... off to some foreign place! Oh my, can't you just feel the anger building...

Has anyone actually suggested "shipping of elderly people off to New Zealand"? Other than the economically myopic Shane Wright, that is. No... I didn't think so.

When logic fails, resort to emotional threats.

Yes, you're right. The tone of this blog post is more emotive than my usual. A natural response to emotional non-logic is to reply in kind. Sorry about that.

So what can we do?

Population growth may bring economic growth. It can also bring growth in crime, more crowded cities, more pollution, increased destruction of the environment, increasing divide between the haves and the have-nots.

What do we actually want?

Do we want population growth? Not as far as I can tell... Even the economists see population growth as merely a means to an end. Is there an alternative means to whatever end we desire?

Let's just guess that we all want a better standard of living. For ourselves and, if possible, for others. How can we achieve a better standard of living?

Economists say, grow the population, which will grow the economy, which will... perhaps, for some of us... improve our standard of living. But that's a simple Ponzi scheme: We grow, we grow, we grow, until there is no more room for growth. And then, like overcrowded rats, we kill each other.

Is there an alternative?

What we really need, is a better way to improve our lives. A way which will actually improve the lives of as many people as possible. A way which will not result in eventual destruction of what we already have.

There is no point in increasing population just for the sake of growth. We are already suffering from population pressure. Vague economic theories do not balance the actual loss of what we once enjoyed.

Forget the easy -- and false -- promises of economic growth theorists.

Let's look for solution that give us what we actually want.

Let's look for ideas that will actually work.

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

Growth towards Death

Agamedes sees that continued growth may lead to death by suffocation.

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

"It is also one of the most basic laws of nature that anything that is not growing is dying." That's from a letter published in The West (2 Nov 10), a letter supporting the right of and necessity for banks to make as much profit as they can. It is also a standard economic mantra in favour of continued growth. Growth of national economy, growth of business scale, growth of population.

A website called TeamRocks uses an analogy: Cut a rose off its bush and the rose immediately stops growing and begins to die.

Let's look a bit more closely at that idea, that you are either growing or dying.

Cut a rose off its bush and yes, it immediately begins to die. But what happens to the bush? The bush continues to both grow and live.

The rose gardener wants to have more roses -- the flowers -- next year. So what happens to the rose bush? It is pruned! Heavily!

The reason for growing a rose bush is to get rose flowers. In order to get better and more flowers -- the bush is regularly cut back. Yes, the rose bush continues to grow but it is not allowed to grow any bigger. A rose bush grows and then is cut back... reduced in size.

Strict limits on growth provide the best results in terms of what we want from the rose bush. Because what we want is not thorns, not size, not green leaves and solid stems. What we want from a rose bush is flowers. And to get the most and the best flowers -- we prune and control.

For those who do not understand the analogy

What do we want from the population of Australia? We do not want growth, numbers, increase just for the sake of it. What we do want is a good -- or better -- quality of life.

Quality of life may improve with more money, with better (or more) houses, with cleaner air... Feel free to choose your preferred improvement.

Did anyone say, "All I want is more and more people living in Australia?"

I doubt it. (If you did, please let me know.)

Our preferred quality of life improvement may require growth of some kind. A growing population may be seen as a simple means to the actual preferred end. But a growing population brings problems. In particular, a growing population means that we need to share our gains with more people... which reduces the effect of our gains.

Is there a better way?

Is there some way by which we can improve our quality of life without a growing population? The rose bush produces more and better flowers when its size is tightly controlled. Is there an equivalent way in which we can stop population growth -- and still gain quality of life?

Like the rose bush, our population will grow and grow... unless we control it. As the population grows, it will produce less and worse of what we really want and need. Like the rose bush, we can improve our quality of life by limiting growth.

Stop encouraging rampant growth of thorns, leaves and stems. Control the population and produce more -- and better -- beautiful flowers.

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