The Bulgarian Mafia

I read in the paper the other day, that Bulgaria has suffered an epidemic of killings -- of mafia leaders. Suspicion has fallen on the government managed secret police, well known for their history of high profile assassinations. The story is that Bulgaria is trying to clean up its act as a precursor to joining the European Union. The mafia gives Bulgaria a bad name so the government is having mafia leaders killed. Sixty so far in the last few years. The problem is -- continues the report -- that this activity will discourage investment in Bulgaria... Investment by who? you may ask. (Or by whom? if you want to follow traditional rules of grammar.) My guess is, these killings will discourage investment by other mafia, from outside Bulgaria. The killings will discourage investment by other murderous, criminal thugs. After all, it's the mafia that is being targetted. Oh dear oh dear oh dear...

..o0o..

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

Honesty is the Best Policy (rofl)

A recent column in The West despaired of the falling level of truth and honesty in society. Why are we more prone to lying? the columnist asked. Is it the declining standards of honesty displayed by politicians? I don't believe that politicians are lying more. It's just that the lying is more visible... With more media coverage, more people have a chance to see the lying. And why should we be honest when those in power are as crooked as a dog's hind leg? When I was a low level employee, I was happy and content. I did my job, did it to the best of my ability, believed that everyone else was doing the same.

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

After a series of gradual promotions I became a senior professional and a low level manager. As a professional, I did my best with my work and believed that others also did their best. As a manager, I was involved with other managers... and the more I saw, the more disillusioned I became. Working with other managers opened my eyes to a world of self-serving dishonesty... Sure, there were some very honest managers. There were also all shades of "less honest" managers -- right up to the ones who had already sold their own grandmothers to attain their current positions. Because that's what it's all about: doing whatever is necessary to win. (Though to be fair, most would sell someone else's grandmother before their own.) To succeed in business there are -- from what I saw -- several options:

• Outstanding ability. This would work best if tied in with...
• Willingness to agree with the boss. Disagreement is a "CLM", a career limiting move.
• Work hard, harder than the next person. As long as you are clearly seen to be working on what the boss wants.
• Tear down the opposition.
• Lie about your accomplishments.

What I saw was that dishonesty -- in its various forms -- was both the key to success -- and as common as muck. Why did I see this? I saw it because -- as a low level manager -- I mixed in with the other managers... I was there, so I saw what was happening. How does this relate to honesty (or dishonesty) in society? Politicians -- or their equivalents, the earlier, less "democratic" rulers -- were a mixture of good and bad. What did the average person know about this? Next to nothing -- politicians and the people moved in completely different circles, there was no overlap, no communication between the two groups. Now we have a different situation: the daily newspapers need to fill their pages, they are quite happy to discuss -- in excruciating detail -- the lies and corruption of politicians. For those who cannot read, TV and radio offer similar services. When political lies are thin on the ground -- there is always big business. With all this evidence of dishonesty, what is the average person to think? What are they to do? It's not a case of, Mum'd kill me if I lied about this, or, The boss'd sack me if I didn't do my best. Now it's, This politician and that business leader did worse, perhaps I can get ahead if I stretch the truth a bit... We have the influence of family and friends, to be good, be careful, be honest. Against that we have the obvious success stories -- the people who have gained power, influence and money... and are now very obviously corrupt. It must be true, we see it in the papers every day. It must be acceptable, TV bombards us with stories of "successful" people who act dishonestly. That is what is wrong with us, why ordinary people seem to be less honest than they were. It's because we are more able to see how our "leaders" act... we can see what it -- apparently -- takes to succeed. And if that's how "our leaders" get ahead -- why should we not do the same?

Can we change this?

Well, we could ask our politicians to be more honest. (Then they would not win party pre-selection, let alone elections. So they would tell us.) We could ask our business leaders to be more honest. (Then they would be sacked, or go bankrupt. (So they would tell us.) There is an easier solution: Ban TV news and stop teaching people to read. Without TV and without newspapers, ordinary people would not know about the corruption amongst their leaders. They would then -- knowing no better -- assume that honesty is, indeed, the best policy.

..o0o..

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

OBE: What do the *Students* want?

OBE -- objective based education -- is all the go in WA. Schools are being pushed into OBE, ready or not. It's a better basis for education. Better than what?

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

Students study to pass exams. Passing an exam is an "objective" -- the objective is, to get 50% (or possibly better) in the exam. With continuous assessment the objective is, to get 50% or better by the time the last piece of assessment has been marked. What is new with OBE? Why is it better? Apparently we need objectives such as, Understands the deep societal significance of adding two numbers together. Whether or not you can actually add those numbers together is irrelevant -- as long as you understand the significance of the activity. How are these objectives measured? Well, the teachers can spend a lot of time discussing the task with each student, to see what is being understood... There may also be a little test, to test that minor, secondary objective of, Able to add two numbers and get an accurate result. How do we test that objective? We can ask the students to add up a whole lot of sets of two numbers then see how many they added correctly... Oh dear, a test. And with objective, measurable, comparable results, too! That can't be any good. The first objective is wishy wasy, the teacher can phrase the result in any fashion -- in particular, the results will be subjective and with no fear of failure. After all, it's far better to have a society full of ignorant, uneducated fools than to have any students feeling that they are less able than others...

---

Here's a largely irrelevant anecdote: I was a university lecturer, at a university where attracting fee-paying students was more important than education. I was a lecturer for seven semesters, presenting one particular unit for nearly all of those semesters. This gave me the opportunity to test all sorts of ideas to keep the students interested... Each semester, students evaluated the lecturers. It was generally accepted that evaluations were influenced by assessment: if a lecturer failed a student, the student failed the lecturer. Lecturers then had to explain to the head of school, why students did not like the lecturer. My own students consistently gave me poor evaluations. I tried lecturing with a lot of interaction, explanations, questions and answers. I tried setting tasks, so that students found out the answers for themselves. I tried just standing up and telling the students the facts that they needed to know. Guess what? In the semester when I simply stood up and talked -- the students loved it! My student evaluations were so good that the head of school mentioned me at a staff meeting as a good example! What had I done right? The way I see it, I presented what the students wanted to hear: information that was relevant to what they had to learn. Students wanted to pass the unit. To do this they needed to learn a bare minimum of facts, ideas and understanding. I stood in front of them and provided exactly those facts and ideas, with perhaps some understanding. They could read the text, they could listen to me, the information was the same. I was providing a very clear, very straightforward explanation of what they needed to know. I provided simple information, students appreciated that. They knew why they were listening to me. No confusion about learning to learn, no deeper significance, just an obvious link between my lectures and the requirements of the unit. Did they learn anything worthwhile? Of course they did! They learnt the material relevant to my unit. At the end of my unit they were all better ablt to do what I was trying to teach. My objectives were simple: students should learn my unit material. I presented lectures to support that objective. It was all very simple, measurable an even com[parable amongst the students: learn more and your mark will be higher. Did the students appreciate the direct, no-nonsense, "just learn this" approach? Apparently they did. Not only did the students appreciate it... I found it a lot easier to prepare lectures. And the head of school appreciated the improved results of my student evaluations... Satisfaction all round -- through a very simple, traditional approach to teaching and learning.

..o0o..

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

Arms for the armless

China under fire on the Western front, The West, 16 April 2005, p.28:

"German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said the European Union would not go ahead with plans to lift its arms embargo on China unless it saw concrete steps from Beijing on Taiwan and human rights."

Let me see... If China stops threatening to attack Taiwan, if China stops stamping on its own people, Europe will sell weapons to China. So where will the weapons be used? Why will China then need weapons?

The message is, if China is not going to use these weapons, we will be happy to provide them... Oh yes, I can see the logic in that... not! What a load of two-faced rubbish!

..o0o..

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

Is sport only a game?

Baseball boy beaten to death for game taunt, The West, 15 April 2005, p.28: A 13 year old boy "became enraged when his team was ridiculed for losing a game, took the [baseball] bat out of a bag an attacked." The boy's team had won every previous game, this was its first loss of the season. One person is quoted as saying, "when you know other baseball players, you give them a hard time. It's called razzing."

"Razzing", eh. Not taunting, not insulting, not trying to make a player feel like a fool and a loser. Just "razzing". Is that meant to make a player feel good? Is that meant to make sport more enjoyable? Remember: this is a team of 13 year olds, they have won plenty of games. This is their first loss.

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

There are other suitable words, such as: taunting, insulting, verbal bullying. It's unfortunate that a boy had to die for being such an unthinking, mean-spirited member of the mob. But his attitude to sport will be no great loss to the world.

Sport -- for children, especially -- should involve some enjoyment. So what if they lose the occasional game? So what if they lose every game? Are they enjoying playing? Are we enjoying watching the game? And what about the team that did win -- surely they deserve some congratulations?

Children's sport should be about participation and enjoyment. Enjoyment will encourage participation. Let's not lose our children -- and their sports -- to a vindictive must-win attitude. Let's encourage everyone to enjoy the game... and celebrate the play... no matter who wins.

Dockers out of excuses, The West, 18 April 2005, The Game liftout:

The Dockers have lost three games in a row. They are "out of excuses", according to the front page headline. No they're not! What about the ultimate excuse, "We are not a winning team"?

There are more AFL teams than I can remember. Must they all be winners? I'm a Dockers supporter -- and I'm happy with their performance. Sure, they don't win. But that's part of the attraction... I'm glad when they win -- and still support them when they lose.

The AFL -- and all AFL teams -- are commercial enterprises. There is no real representation of a particular area, they buy players from wherever they can, there is no entitlement to local-team loyalty. So what? I'm not betting money on the Dockers winning, I'm just enjoying claiming to be a supporter.

When it's your own child playing in the team -- whether it's football in Australia or baseball in America -- sure, you feel a strong loyalty to that team. You hope that they will win, because it will make your child feel good. But what if they lose?

If your child's team loses -- does that make your child a loser? In every game there is always one team that will lose! Does that mean that half the players are losers?

AFL players are paid to play, you expect them to try hard. If they lose, well, someone has to lose. You can hope they will do better next time...

Children's sports teams are there to learn and to enjoy. If they win -- that's great. If they lose -- well -- that means that the other team won -- and that is great for them! If you can't bear to cheer for a losing team -- then cheer for the winners.

Just don't razz... taunt... insult... bully... the players who did not -- today -- win this otherwise enjoyable game.

..o0o..

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

My morality must be the only morality

Everyone has their own view of what is right and wrong; that's fine: individuals live by their own standards. Some things are considered to be not acceptable at all in whichever country you live in; that's fine: you live there, you live by the rules. Some issues are still being debated, there are opposing views within the one country -- that's where we have problems...

Catholic hospitals block tests, The West, 15 April 2005, p.5: "WA's Catholic hospitals say doctors should not offer early prenatal screening to pregnant women they believe would abort an abnormal foetus."

The Catholic church is against abortion, so hospitals owned by that church are told to avoid actions that could lead to abortions. To me, that makes sense: the church has a particular moral stance, they should stick by it. I would even be happy if they were to extend their ideas, to entirely ban the prenatal test. After all, in the matter of mortal sin, it could be better to be safe than -- in the hereafter -- eternally sorry.

"Association for the Legal Right to Abortion Margot Boetcher said it was wrong for the Catholic Church to impose its beliefs on hospital patients which included many non-Catholics." What a load of rubbish! If I eat at a vegetarian restaurant, I would not demand steak. If I eat at the home of Muslim or Jewish friends, I would not demand pork. If I stay in a Catholic hospital -- I would not demand an abortion.

It's not as if there were no choice! If I were a charity case and the Catholic hospital were the only one willing to treat me -- I would expect that their charitable attitude would make some allowance for my non-Catholic views. Some allowance, anyway. But there is plenty of choice in Perth, plenty of public hospitals that do support whatever the law allows in the way of abortions.

The big Catholic hospitals in Perth are not charity hospitals. They are profit-making concerns with a Catholic ethos. They are rich, they are expensive. They cater for patients who can afford the high level of care that they offer. They do not accept emergency patients -- I once tried -- they only accept patients who have had the opportunity to decide to attend at that particular hospital.

If you want an abortion -- go to a non-Catholic hospital.

Cardinals at conclave must accept the need for change (Editorial), The West, 18 April 2005, p.15

The editors of The West state that the Catholic church must -- through its choice of the next Pope -- embrace change. What a load of rubbish!

The Catholic church is based on beliefs handed down over the centuries. If the church changes its beliefs to suit public opinion -- what kind of loose morality does that indicate?! If we change our moral standards to suit our environment then they are not standards, they are simply a convenient reflection of public opinion.

"Disturbingly... Cardinal Ratzinger [current front-runner to be next Pope; a strict conservative]... seems to be telling Catholics that they must fall in line, or leave the Church." What is wrong with that? It is not disturbing -- it is a strong indication that there is a Cardinal who supports the stated beliefs of his own Church!

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

Being a Catholic is -- as I understand it -- optional. If you choose to be a Catholic then you have chosen to accept the Church and its beliefs. If you do not support those beliefs then you have the option of not being a Catholic. If you believe that not being a Catholic will lead you to eternal damnation -- then accept and follow the Catholic rules! It's as simple as that.

What if you chose to play football... You like the Australian Rules style of play -- but soccer is an international game. You join a soccer club in order to (possibly) play overseas. Does your personal preference for Australian Rules give you a right to hand-ball in a soccer game? No way! If you want to play hand-ball, play Aussie Rules. If you choose to join a soccer club -- you play by all of the rules of soccer.

Don't get me wrong: I am not a Catholic. (Nor am I a footballer!) I strongly support the right to individual choice. But that does not mean that you can choose to ignore rules that do not suit you. If you choose to join a particular Church -- or football club -- then you must be willing to follow the Church -- or club -- rules. If you don't like them, feel free to try to have them changed -- from within.

If you represent the Association for the Legal Right to Abortion, or are the editor of a newspaper -- you have no say in Church affairs.

Abortion is legal, it is not compulsory. If you want an abortion -- go to a hospital that is willing to provide that service. If you choose to be treated in a Catholic hospital -- you should neither expect nor demand that that hospital will break its moral codes, just for you.

..o0o..

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

Clark pushes maverick to make an exit

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

From New Zealand comes an interesting report on democracy in action (The West, 12 April, p.21): MP John Tamihere is stupid enough to publicly state his derogatory views of various people. He upsets many people, including his boss, the prime minister, Helen Clark.

"Tamihere should consider finding a new job, according to Prime Minister Helen Clark." Tamihere has already been sacked from Cabinet after earlier fraud allegations. "She made it clear that... [he] would not be back in the fold after the election due later this year."

Now wait just a minute! He will not be back in Cabinet after the election?! If Tamihere is such a maverick -- why should he expect to voted back into parliament at all? Surely -- in the NZ democracy -- the people in the democracy will be voting. If he has really upset people, he will lose the election. If he is elected -- then 51% of the voters still support him!

If a politician is democratically elected to parliament -- does the prime minister have the right to deny that result? Okay, he will still be in parliament. But if he is successfully elected -- surely it's a messge that the electors support this man as a politician! Given this support -- what right has the prime minister to deny Tamihere a position in Cabinet?

If New Zealand is a democracy then "the people" should have some say. If the people put a man in parliament -- they may expect him to do the job to the limit of his ability. The prime minister may disagree with his views -- but they are supported by electors. the PM must remember the basis of democracy -- majority rule.

..o0o..

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