Are drunk drivers who inadvertantly kill guilty of murder? To even ask this question smacks on the border of naievete, as far as I'm concerned. The sad thing is Australian law more often than not say 'No'. According to Australian law if the intent is not there, then the driver is not guilty of murder. And since drunkedness impairs your ability to think properly, the deduction is that there was no intent, hence a drunk driver will rarely be found to be guilty of murder. The law is full of 'loop holes' and 'technicalities' like this which let people get away with murder. Not long ago, I wrote about a thug who head butted a police officer from behind which left him paralysed through half of his body and got away with it. 'Not Guilty' was the returned verdict. It's full story here:http://damien-crankyramblings.blogspot.com/2009/03/violence-against-our-police-force.html
One case here in Perth involved a 24 year old hoon drunk driver by the name of Benjamin Butler who was 3 times over the legal alcohol limit, when he decided to drive his high powered V8 Holden Monaro down a quiet suburban road, over taking two cars, clipped one of them mounted a curb, became airborne and landed in a front yard abruptly killing an 11 month old baby girl named Grace. Baby Grace was thrown several feet and eventually found under some rubble, she didn't stand a chance. That fateful moment changed the course of this young family's lives forever. That was not the worst of their nightmares. The worst was that the killer received a mere 22 month jail sentence for his heineous crime, a typical sentence for this type of crime in Australia, while the family got a life sentence. As the pain was too much to bear, the family have sold their home and are currently living in a caravan in a friend's yard. The judge described it as an 'inevitable accident' which irony is astonishing. If it's inevitable, then how could it be an accident?
In Australia the truth in sentencing laws automatically reduces your sentence by a third if you plead guilty. This is what Benjamin Butler did to reduce his sentence. To me it was a get out of jail card for him as he was caught red handed. This just shows a flawed system. Any defence lawyer can go to court and say his client is 'deeply remorseful' and that he is a 'good bloke' and sadly many a court buy into this garbage. Why do we even listen when people say it was a bad mistake?
Australians are asking why can't Australia be more like America when it comes to cracking down hard on crime. America used to be a dangerous place but with their tough stance on crime has improved significantly over the years and violent criminals once caught do not see the light of day for many years. One tough prosecutor in America recently secured a murder conviction on a similar case to that of Benjamin Butler with the drunk driver getting a 18 year sentence. Now that's what many people in Australia want to see happen here.
There can never be a question of a person's intent when he gets behind the wheel while intoxicated. As far as I'm concerned, the intent is there if you decide to get behind the wheel while knowing you are drunk. A car is a deadly weapon and if you use a deadly weapon when you know you are drunk, yeah then it is murder. There is little doubt that the choice is there not to get behind the wheel, and if you do get behind the wheel, you have chosen to put other peoples lives at risk including the possibility of causing death. This constitutes intent any which way you look at it. I am guilty as anyone after a few drinks and thinking I'm ok to drive home not wanting the hassle to take a cab. However, if we are to be serious with this, there should be little tolerance for drunk drivers and the laws will have to be amended to protect the public from the drunken hoons who have a depraved indiferrence to human life. We must send a clear and strong message to our law makers that this is not acceptable and we should not live in fear that one day the lives most precious to us will be violently taken away because we failed to act when we had the chance. We must as a society appropriately criminalise drunk driving.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
Gutter Politics in Malaysia
Before we begin the thorny subject of politics, let me clarify that I am apolitcal but my ramblings eminate from my searing inability to see injustices done to the weak and average person. When governments are corrupt and citizens are oppressed I feel it is my duty to make some noise irrespective of who or what political party is doing the wrong.
Malaysian politics is anything but boring. From accusations of murder to charges of sodomy, there isn't a day that goes by in Malaysian politics without an attention grabing headline or two.
We have heard of how the current Deputy Prime Minister Najib who is on the verge of becoming the sixth Prime Minister of Malaysia is linked to the murder of a Mongolian woman. We have also seen how an up an coming politician was filmed by her boyfriend having sex and the tape distributed to the press. Then there is the allegation against the prominent opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim of sodomy and what many believe to be false allegations to derail his bid to topple the government. Previously Anwar was charged for sodomy but was cleared of it but still spent 6 years in jail for corruption, in which his supporters claimed were trumped up charges manufactured by then Prime Minister Mahathir. It is interesting to note that in this latest sodomy charge against Anwar, his accuser met with Anwar's bitter rival and the DPM of Malaysia and soon to be PM of Malaysia, Najib before going to the police. Najib later said he was 'giving career advice' to the school drop out and had nothing to do with the sodomy. Does he really think people will buy that? But then again Malaysian politicians are like that, they talk like the Malaysian public are stupid. There is also an independant medical examination performed on the accuser that concluded that there was no sodomy. Apparently, the anus was still in tact. What more, Anwar's accuser is a young 6 foot tall man whereas Anwar is a sixty year old five foot plus man with a chronic back pain. Nevertheless, the police insisted on pressing ahead with the charges. One can only wonder, the motives behind it and who is pulling the strings to manufacture a case on the popular Anwar.
The recently concluded UMNO General Assembly voted in the UMNO persident (went unopposed), Vice persident's post, youth leader etc etc. Many who lost who had more experience and did better in the last General Election accused the winners of money politics. For those who don't know, money politics is actually corruption but they cannot call it corruption as corruption is illegal and money politics is not and is only against party rules, go figure! Anyway the sore losers accused the winners of money politics. I think most Malaysians know 99% of the politicians in Malaysia are corrupt, so no point accusing somebody of money politcs when you are no better yourself. You can pick any politician in Malaysia and dig up dirt on them. It's that easy. In this sense, the politicians will need to tow the party line otherwise they will be investigated for corruption and booted out into the political wilderness.
Then there is the MACC (Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission) which is supposed to mirror their counterparts in Hong Kong. They both have the word 'corruption' in their names but sadly there is where the similarities end. They are the spin off from the ACA (Anti Corruption Agency) which had lost the confidence of everyone because of its ineffectiveness and corruption from within its own walls. So came the setting up of the MACC with the accompanying fanfare that were accorded to most rock stars. However here is the funny part, the people are the same the director is the same. I'm no Einstein, but if you think just by changing the name of the organization, you could get a cleaner more effective organization to investigate corruption in a fair and unbiased manner, one it had never been able to achieve in its previous life as the ACA, then I'm indeed Einstein! There have been allegations that the MACC are swift to investigate opposition politicians with minor allegations like buying cows with public funds but take years to conclude investigations on the ruling elite over millions of ringgit worth of corruption. There were hundreds of reports lodged against the former Chief Minister of Selangor who I think everyone knows is a crook, but todate according to the MACC chief, there is insufficient evidence. The MACC chief likes to say give us the evidence then we'll investigate. I'm afraid if he was given the evidence, then we don't need the MACC, as there is little to 'investigate' and we would be doing his job for him. Unfortunately you get fairly low level calibre individuals like these sitting on top posts in many government agencies, like the Chief of Police, Election Commission, Home Minister and so on. It is an open secret that these people are just the running dogs of the government.
There was the case where an opposition politican was placed under the Internal Security Act 'for her own safety' (The ISA is a draconian Malaysian law that permits the government to detain a person indefinitely without trial). Now the Home Minister who uttered those words should get his head examined. Her life was in danger after she alledgedly touched on sensitive Islamic issues and instead of giving her the protection needed, she was locked up!
When onced asked why an opposition gathering was not given a police permit and a government gathering was, a top police official uttered that the government has certain priviledges and when the opposition becomes the government then they too will be accorded similar priviledges (in Malaysia a gathering of more than 4 people requires a police permit). So in essence this top police officer is saying you can't break the law unless you are the government, confirming what a lot of Malaysians have have known all along, that there is no rule of law when it comes to the government of Malaysia.
While all the gutter politics are happening, Malaysia goes down the path of economic destruction. Only months ago the new Finance Minister Najib proclaimed Malaysia's fundamentals are strong. What a load of bullocks. Not long after he made that comment, thousands of people were retrenched and Najib had to stimulate the economy with RM60 billion worth of government spending. How much of that is going to the ruling elite and their cronies, is hard to tell but if history is to repeat itself, the Malaysian public may never see much of it.
Malaysia is not a thriving democracy, it never was. With the kind of sub standard politicians running the country and the kind of opressive draconian laws that still exist, there is little hope that the country's abundance of natural resources can be fully realised to increase the wealth of the general population. The country has been plundered and raped by those linked to the political power that is called the Malaysian government. They use the draconian laws to their full extend and put those who attempt to expose their corruption in jail. Singapore was born from Malaysia some forty years ago. Today a Singaporean's average income is ten times that of a Malaysian, even without having any of the natural resources that Malaysia has. They buy water from Malaysia at 3 cents a gallon, process the water and sell it back to Malaysia for 3 dollars a gallon! What can I say, the citizens can only blame themselves for not voting off the government in the last General Election.0
Malaysian politics is anything but boring. From accusations of murder to charges of sodomy, there isn't a day that goes by in Malaysian politics without an attention grabing headline or two.
We have heard of how the current Deputy Prime Minister Najib who is on the verge of becoming the sixth Prime Minister of Malaysia is linked to the murder of a Mongolian woman. We have also seen how an up an coming politician was filmed by her boyfriend having sex and the tape distributed to the press. Then there is the allegation against the prominent opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim of sodomy and what many believe to be false allegations to derail his bid to topple the government. Previously Anwar was charged for sodomy but was cleared of it but still spent 6 years in jail for corruption, in which his supporters claimed were trumped up charges manufactured by then Prime Minister Mahathir. It is interesting to note that in this latest sodomy charge against Anwar, his accuser met with Anwar's bitter rival and the DPM of Malaysia and soon to be PM of Malaysia, Najib before going to the police. Najib later said he was 'giving career advice' to the school drop out and had nothing to do with the sodomy. Does he really think people will buy that? But then again Malaysian politicians are like that, they talk like the Malaysian public are stupid. There is also an independant medical examination performed on the accuser that concluded that there was no sodomy. Apparently, the anus was still in tact. What more, Anwar's accuser is a young 6 foot tall man whereas Anwar is a sixty year old five foot plus man with a chronic back pain. Nevertheless, the police insisted on pressing ahead with the charges. One can only wonder, the motives behind it and who is pulling the strings to manufacture a case on the popular Anwar.
The recently concluded UMNO General Assembly voted in the UMNO persident (went unopposed), Vice persident's post, youth leader etc etc. Many who lost who had more experience and did better in the last General Election accused the winners of money politics. For those who don't know, money politics is actually corruption but they cannot call it corruption as corruption is illegal and money politics is not and is only against party rules, go figure! Anyway the sore losers accused the winners of money politics. I think most Malaysians know 99% of the politicians in Malaysia are corrupt, so no point accusing somebody of money politcs when you are no better yourself. You can pick any politician in Malaysia and dig up dirt on them. It's that easy. In this sense, the politicians will need to tow the party line otherwise they will be investigated for corruption and booted out into the political wilderness.
Then there is the MACC (Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission) which is supposed to mirror their counterparts in Hong Kong. They both have the word 'corruption' in their names but sadly there is where the similarities end. They are the spin off from the ACA (Anti Corruption Agency) which had lost the confidence of everyone because of its ineffectiveness and corruption from within its own walls. So came the setting up of the MACC with the accompanying fanfare that were accorded to most rock stars. However here is the funny part, the people are the same the director is the same. I'm no Einstein, but if you think just by changing the name of the organization, you could get a cleaner more effective organization to investigate corruption in a fair and unbiased manner, one it had never been able to achieve in its previous life as the ACA, then I'm indeed Einstein! There have been allegations that the MACC are swift to investigate opposition politicians with minor allegations like buying cows with public funds but take years to conclude investigations on the ruling elite over millions of ringgit worth of corruption. There were hundreds of reports lodged against the former Chief Minister of Selangor who I think everyone knows is a crook, but todate according to the MACC chief, there is insufficient evidence. The MACC chief likes to say give us the evidence then we'll investigate. I'm afraid if he was given the evidence, then we don't need the MACC, as there is little to 'investigate' and we would be doing his job for him. Unfortunately you get fairly low level calibre individuals like these sitting on top posts in many government agencies, like the Chief of Police, Election Commission, Home Minister and so on. It is an open secret that these people are just the running dogs of the government.
There was the case where an opposition politican was placed under the Internal Security Act 'for her own safety' (The ISA is a draconian Malaysian law that permits the government to detain a person indefinitely without trial). Now the Home Minister who uttered those words should get his head examined. Her life was in danger after she alledgedly touched on sensitive Islamic issues and instead of giving her the protection needed, she was locked up!
When onced asked why an opposition gathering was not given a police permit and a government gathering was, a top police official uttered that the government has certain priviledges and when the opposition becomes the government then they too will be accorded similar priviledges (in Malaysia a gathering of more than 4 people requires a police permit). So in essence this top police officer is saying you can't break the law unless you are the government, confirming what a lot of Malaysians have have known all along, that there is no rule of law when it comes to the government of Malaysia.
While all the gutter politics are happening, Malaysia goes down the path of economic destruction. Only months ago the new Finance Minister Najib proclaimed Malaysia's fundamentals are strong. What a load of bullocks. Not long after he made that comment, thousands of people were retrenched and Najib had to stimulate the economy with RM60 billion worth of government spending. How much of that is going to the ruling elite and their cronies, is hard to tell but if history is to repeat itself, the Malaysian public may never see much of it.
Malaysia is not a thriving democracy, it never was. With the kind of sub standard politicians running the country and the kind of opressive draconian laws that still exist, there is little hope that the country's abundance of natural resources can be fully realised to increase the wealth of the general population. The country has been plundered and raped by those linked to the political power that is called the Malaysian government. They use the draconian laws to their full extend and put those who attempt to expose their corruption in jail. Singapore was born from Malaysia some forty years ago. Today a Singaporean's average income is ten times that of a Malaysian, even without having any of the natural resources that Malaysia has. They buy water from Malaysia at 3 cents a gallon, process the water and sell it back to Malaysia for 3 dollars a gallon! What can I say, the citizens can only blame themselves for not voting off the government in the last General Election.0
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Anthony Robbins vs Steven Covey - Who Is The Better Teacher?
Well today is my birthday so I thought I'd write a little to finish a great and wonderful day. Unlike other days, everybody treats you so well on your birthday, which is why I only hoped everyday would be my birthday. But then again if that was the case, I'd grow old pretty fast. Anyway today I thought of changing the pace a little. There would be no current affairs type topics like executive salaries or police bashers but a more philosophical discussion on the teachings of the two giants in the personal improvement arena, namely Anthony Robbins and Steven Covey. Both men are synonomous with teaching life skills and have been successfully doing so for decades. Anthony Robbins started young and Steven Covey started older but as we stand today both have an enormous amount of following.
I was introduced to AR some twenty years ago, during a cold autumn night (not unlike tonight really) when I had nothing to do but watch the late nigh time slot reserved for informercials. As these time slots were the cheapest in the day, many an informercial were aired during this time. Anything from magic dusters to a million properties in 20 months (or was it the other way round) was shown during this time. Sadly to say, most of it was utter crap and a waste of money. But this AR informercial caught my eye some twenty years ago and I signed up to buy the tapes, as I wanted to learn more of what this 20 year old plus young man had to teach. He promised to 'transform' me as a person and I was all up for the idea. I got the tapes and I'm happy to conclude that I have been a fan for many years thereafter.
With Steven Covey, I had heard of him for several years through his book 7 Habits of Highly Effective People but only got intimately familiar with his teachings after I took his 5 day course a year ago. I totally related to his teachings of inner change before any real change in a persons life could occur.
Todays question if you may for those who know the teachings of these two men, is who is the better teacher? I know you say they're both good and teach well in their own way but they have fundamental differences. For example AR teaches PR skills to in a way 'manipulate' the person who you would like to align/ agree/ support you. Now in AR's own words, he had been accused of manipulation but he argues that it is not manipulation and he gives his reasons as to why. To me, it sure seems like manipulation although not in a way that it would hurt anyone, so a good kind of manipulation if you may. With SC, he teaches change from within as a primary form of change and change on the outside as the secondary form of change. That is change your inner self. Have self respect, be independant and sincere, then only change your personality for the better. Compelling examples of great individuals who lived these principles are Mother Theresa and Mahatma Ghandi.
I used to believe unreseverdly the teachings of AR until recently when I began to be sceptical of some of his teachings. Most of his teachings however, are very useful and even if they are not true science if you believe it and it helps you, then he has done his job. One example of something he taught that I had followed to the letter and failed me recently was the principle of not mixing your proteins and your carbohydrates. While his teachings were based on facts, however I believe that when it comes to the subject of healthy eating, there is no conclusive conclusion on any side of the story. So to advocate a certain teaching in this complicated area as definitive needed a bit more care. It was said that if I tried this healthy eating regime for the next few days I would see the difference in the morning, which I did not. Still not to bag AR, alot of his other teachings were very useful and till this day have helped millions of people.
The other thing that AR teaches that had gone under some scrutiny recently was the fire walking 'phenomenon'. This is where the participants who put their mind to focus could do the seemingly impossible feat of walking on fire. However, when a sceptical journalist tried to put this to the test, he deliberatley did not put his mind to it, he still managed to walk on the bed of coals without getting burned. He deliberately would not listen to the pre-fire walk prep talk and still he came off unscathed. This was further made into an episode of the 'Mythbusters' where they concluded that the bed of coals were hotter under (approx 700 deg C) than on top (approx 200 deg C) and that the walk was too fast to cause any serious damage to the skin. The mythbusters team all tried the feat with not one of them getting burned. But then I've learned from AR for too many years to just dismiss his teachings, as I said earlier, if he had made people better then more power to him and his job is done.
With SC, I had recently become a true believer that by changing from the inside first, true change can happen. One example is you need to be a truly honest person before people can think of you as honest and believe in you. There is no point being honest only when the need arises or when people are noticing. If you 'appeared' honest but weren't it was just a matter of time before people caught on, even if you hadn't caught on that they had caught on. This is how people get certain tags like 'a kind guy', 'a loving father' etc. not because they acted this way but because they truly were this way. Lasting change comes from within.
But at the end of the day, I think both men teach invaluable lessons that can be learned and applied to make our lives so much better. Whether you believe in AR or SC or both, it sure is better than being ignorant of them. What do you think?
I was introduced to AR some twenty years ago, during a cold autumn night (not unlike tonight really) when I had nothing to do but watch the late nigh time slot reserved for informercials. As these time slots were the cheapest in the day, many an informercial were aired during this time. Anything from magic dusters to a million properties in 20 months (or was it the other way round) was shown during this time. Sadly to say, most of it was utter crap and a waste of money. But this AR informercial caught my eye some twenty years ago and I signed up to buy the tapes, as I wanted to learn more of what this 20 year old plus young man had to teach. He promised to 'transform' me as a person and I was all up for the idea. I got the tapes and I'm happy to conclude that I have been a fan for many years thereafter.
With Steven Covey, I had heard of him for several years through his book 7 Habits of Highly Effective People but only got intimately familiar with his teachings after I took his 5 day course a year ago. I totally related to his teachings of inner change before any real change in a persons life could occur.
Todays question if you may for those who know the teachings of these two men, is who is the better teacher? I know you say they're both good and teach well in their own way but they have fundamental differences. For example AR teaches PR skills to in a way 'manipulate' the person who you would like to align/ agree/ support you. Now in AR's own words, he had been accused of manipulation but he argues that it is not manipulation and he gives his reasons as to why. To me, it sure seems like manipulation although not in a way that it would hurt anyone, so a good kind of manipulation if you may. With SC, he teaches change from within as a primary form of change and change on the outside as the secondary form of change. That is change your inner self. Have self respect, be independant and sincere, then only change your personality for the better. Compelling examples of great individuals who lived these principles are Mother Theresa and Mahatma Ghandi.
I used to believe unreseverdly the teachings of AR until recently when I began to be sceptical of some of his teachings. Most of his teachings however, are very useful and even if they are not true science if you believe it and it helps you, then he has done his job. One example of something he taught that I had followed to the letter and failed me recently was the principle of not mixing your proteins and your carbohydrates. While his teachings were based on facts, however I believe that when it comes to the subject of healthy eating, there is no conclusive conclusion on any side of the story. So to advocate a certain teaching in this complicated area as definitive needed a bit more care. It was said that if I tried this healthy eating regime for the next few days I would see the difference in the morning, which I did not. Still not to bag AR, alot of his other teachings were very useful and till this day have helped millions of people.
The other thing that AR teaches that had gone under some scrutiny recently was the fire walking 'phenomenon'. This is where the participants who put their mind to focus could do the seemingly impossible feat of walking on fire. However, when a sceptical journalist tried to put this to the test, he deliberatley did not put his mind to it, he still managed to walk on the bed of coals without getting burned. He deliberately would not listen to the pre-fire walk prep talk and still he came off unscathed. This was further made into an episode of the 'Mythbusters' where they concluded that the bed of coals were hotter under (approx 700 deg C) than on top (approx 200 deg C) and that the walk was too fast to cause any serious damage to the skin. The mythbusters team all tried the feat with not one of them getting burned. But then I've learned from AR for too many years to just dismiss his teachings, as I said earlier, if he had made people better then more power to him and his job is done.
With SC, I had recently become a true believer that by changing from the inside first, true change can happen. One example is you need to be a truly honest person before people can think of you as honest and believe in you. There is no point being honest only when the need arises or when people are noticing. If you 'appeared' honest but weren't it was just a matter of time before people caught on, even if you hadn't caught on that they had caught on. This is how people get certain tags like 'a kind guy', 'a loving father' etc. not because they acted this way but because they truly were this way. Lasting change comes from within.
But at the end of the day, I think both men teach invaluable lessons that can be learned and applied to make our lives so much better. Whether you believe in AR or SC or both, it sure is better than being ignorant of them. What do you think?
Friday, March 20, 2009
Executive Salaries - Beware of Con Men
You know what gets me hot under the collar nowadays? The daily barrage of news regarding obscene executive salary packages and Golden Handshakes at a time when most shareholder wealth has halved. At a time when your average mom and pop wishing to retire can do so no longer and may have to drag their poor selves back into the work force to 'make ends meet' (that is if anyone is willing to hire them), we see and hear of executives paying themselves fat bonuses. And you know what gets me even hotter? Some of these 'business leaders' even in the face of strong public sentiment against excessive salaries and irrefutable evidence that some of these executives are not worth the toilet paper they use to clean their executive arses, still insists that high executive salaries are justified. "Oh if you don't pay the best, you don't attract the best", "Oh it's not that easy to put a cap on executive salaries, there are many factors that need consideration" yada yada yada....
Before these so called leaders of business start yaking more and show how detached from reality they are, have they asked themselves that it is these 'talents' that got these companies in the mess in the first place. So they are paying for the best? Look at Telstra where the CEO and his henchmen are walking away with millions of shareholder dollars after wrecking one of Australia's biggest companies. They have not achieved what was set out from the onset and they have put Telstra in the worst position possible in recent memory. And they leave the company with a hefty bonus, how nice. If ever there was a case of executives blatantly taking a company for a ride, this had to be a prime example. What is the moral of the story? Failure pays and the sad thing is the Telstra board are still justifying the payouts. These guys are from a different planet!
How about the sorry tale of the third largest mining company in the world, Rio Tinto? Now Rio Tinto projected that the 'China phenomenon' was going to elevate the company beyond the realms of our stratosphere. They were overly bullish on China, to the extend that they added a few zeros to the government's forecasts. Their growth graph looked to be something not unlike a parabola. Was a China or world slowdown so inconceivable that no one even bothered to ask what if it happened? Obviously not, as they went on to accumulate an uncomfortable level of debt, hoping to apply the 'Macquarie model' that debt is good. When economy turns to shit like it did, the company got in trouble and their employees, most of whom had no involvement whatsoever in making those bad decisions in the first place, were the first ones to go. No surprise, the CEO gets to keep his job to go on another day to make more bad decisions. My friend once told me, that during boom times, you could put a monkey in the CEO position and there is a high chance of it outperforming and it is during the bust times that we see how good these executives are, and sadly the conclusion is not very good.
Now I can go on to give more examples of executive excesses and corporate stuff ups, but I'm afraid that would take all night to write about (and it's now 1.05am) as there are so many. AIG, Citi Group, Bank of America are just three examples of the worst of the worst cases. Citi Group bought a 45 million corporate jet after getting bail out money from the US government and came out with an excuse that it was a contract entered before the crisis and 'bailing out' of the contract would cost them money. Well how much would it cost them to not honour the contract? Even if it's $44,999,999.99, they should not go ahead with it as it's still cheaper to pay the penalty than to go ahead with the purchase. I'm sure many would remember the auto executives going to Capitol Hill asking for a handout in their private jets. Well enough said. You get the point and I did say I would not give any more examples as it would be too long to do so (as though it isn't already too long but what can I say, I'm pissed off).
Now my conclusion as to why we see these kinds of stuff ups in the corporate world happen time and again bores down to greed and the short term objectives taking precedent over long term objectives. As long as they get their fat checks and more who cares about the long term care of the company. Warren Buffet they are not. Even after dropping by half, Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway's share costs about $75,000 (US dollars) each, while Citi Group is about a dollar. As long as they can go back to their million dollar mansions at millionaires row, who cares about the shareholders? Con Men? you ask. Definitely in my opinion.
Before these so called leaders of business start yaking more and show how detached from reality they are, have they asked themselves that it is these 'talents' that got these companies in the mess in the first place. So they are paying for the best? Look at Telstra where the CEO and his henchmen are walking away with millions of shareholder dollars after wrecking one of Australia's biggest companies. They have not achieved what was set out from the onset and they have put Telstra in the worst position possible in recent memory. And they leave the company with a hefty bonus, how nice. If ever there was a case of executives blatantly taking a company for a ride, this had to be a prime example. What is the moral of the story? Failure pays and the sad thing is the Telstra board are still justifying the payouts. These guys are from a different planet!
How about the sorry tale of the third largest mining company in the world, Rio Tinto? Now Rio Tinto projected that the 'China phenomenon' was going to elevate the company beyond the realms of our stratosphere. They were overly bullish on China, to the extend that they added a few zeros to the government's forecasts. Their growth graph looked to be something not unlike a parabola. Was a China or world slowdown so inconceivable that no one even bothered to ask what if it happened? Obviously not, as they went on to accumulate an uncomfortable level of debt, hoping to apply the 'Macquarie model' that debt is good. When economy turns to shit like it did, the company got in trouble and their employees, most of whom had no involvement whatsoever in making those bad decisions in the first place, were the first ones to go. No surprise, the CEO gets to keep his job to go on another day to make more bad decisions. My friend once told me, that during boom times, you could put a monkey in the CEO position and there is a high chance of it outperforming and it is during the bust times that we see how good these executives are, and sadly the conclusion is not very good.
Now I can go on to give more examples of executive excesses and corporate stuff ups, but I'm afraid that would take all night to write about (and it's now 1.05am) as there are so many. AIG, Citi Group, Bank of America are just three examples of the worst of the worst cases. Citi Group bought a 45 million corporate jet after getting bail out money from the US government and came out with an excuse that it was a contract entered before the crisis and 'bailing out' of the contract would cost them money. Well how much would it cost them to not honour the contract? Even if it's $44,999,999.99, they should not go ahead with it as it's still cheaper to pay the penalty than to go ahead with the purchase. I'm sure many would remember the auto executives going to Capitol Hill asking for a handout in their private jets. Well enough said. You get the point and I did say I would not give any more examples as it would be too long to do so (as though it isn't already too long but what can I say, I'm pissed off).
Now my conclusion as to why we see these kinds of stuff ups in the corporate world happen time and again bores down to greed and the short term objectives taking precedent over long term objectives. As long as they get their fat checks and more who cares about the long term care of the company. Warren Buffet they are not. Even after dropping by half, Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway's share costs about $75,000 (US dollars) each, while Citi Group is about a dollar. As long as they can go back to their million dollar mansions at millionaires row, who cares about the shareholders? Con Men? you ask. Definitely in my opinion.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Violence Against our Police Force - A Dangerous Precedent
Yesterday, Perth was rocked with the news that the 3 thugs who viciously and brutally bashed a police officer on the call of duty was set scot free by a jury. Australia has a very bad reputation of being soft on crime but this takes it a step further. White collar crime is punished more severely than violent crimes in Australia and I think the people are fed up with the bull shit. Heck you can bash and kill a guy and get 3 years or 1.5 years for time spent waiting trial and for being a good boy while in prison. You write several bad checks or fill your tax forms wrongly and you could end up in jail for up to 10 years.
Anyway getting back to what happend in Perth with these three thugs. It was the father and his two sons drinking in a pub in the northern suburbs of Perth. According to the news reports they were alledgedly trying to keep the peace inside the pub during a ruckus and when things adjourned in the open air outside the pub these keepers of the peace were not acting very peaceful themselves (this is what alcohol does to you). Police were called and they were greeted with a chaotic scene not unlike a free for all on the football field. Not knowing who were the good guys (if there were any in such a case) and who were the baddies, the police obviously tried to ensure calm and order. Part of their job involved restraining the loudest and most aggresive person whom confronted them, the father. Not being very cooperative, the police tasered him and restrained one of the sons. The son having seen his father being tasered, broke free from the clutches of the police and ran towards the cop who had his back facing him and head butted the police officer with such force that it lifted him several feet off the ground and knocked him out cold. The public prosecutor described it as the most sickening incident he's witness in so many years in the business. This left the police officer blind on one eye and permanently paralysed on the left side of his body. His left arm and leg will be rendered useless and he would be in a wheel chair for the rest of his life not to mention that phychologically, the trauma this policeman went through would have been unimaginable, all for doing his job.
When the verdict came as 'not guilty' the police union and even the prime minister were in disgust. Several police officers resigned from the force in disgust. How could this happen? According to the defence lawyer, the police did not act in accordance with the law and used excessive force during the night in question and obviously the jury bought this argument. The defence claimed that the father had a heart condition and the son was only acting in self defence as he thought his dad would die while being tasered.
Now this sounds like a plausible line of defence especially in light of the recent cases of police brutality. However, when we look at things with some clarity, the jury should not have bought into this line of defence. Reasons being:
- Police brutality is an exception and not the norm. The very rare cases of police brutality are broadcasted world wide and this makes the occurence usually more prominent and frequent than it usually is. The police force in Australia generally are very professional and do their job well.
- Police have a legal right to use tasers especially when they think there is a physical danger to themselves. Any form of physical obstruction disallowing the police to carry out their jobs is deemed illegal. So what the son did cannot be justified as the police were only using their discretion to do their jobs.
- The son head butted the police officer which is illegal and excessive in nature, no matter what his argument to do so was.
- From the video, I can only see violent drunks and police acting professionally by trying their best to restore calm and order. If the police were using excessive force, would one of the sons be able to break from their clutches and attack the police officer? Were the jury seeing another video from what I saw.
- If the defendants cooperated with the police there would neither be a need for the police to use their taser nor any force that may be alledged to be 'excessive'.
So the official explanation was that the police used excessive force and the retaliation was justifiable. However, there is a fine line between not enough force and excessive force especially when it comes to drunk thugs. Do the police not have a right to ensure their safety too when carrying out their duty? I've seen how thugs like these abuse and spit at police while the law says that the police cannot touch these guys. How ridiculous is that? Surely there is a fine balance in the law and common sense should prevail, during deliberation of such cases. How about the 70 year old geezer who shot an intruder after warning the intruder he had a gun and being physically attacked by the intruder. He was almost charged but in this case, common sense prevailed. Good on this old geezer, I say. If the law does not protect the keepers of the law, then who will?
The thug and his sons will go on to bash another day, while this policeman who was only doing his job is left with the physical and emotional scars for the rest of his life. I echo what his wife said after the verdict was announced. "Next time let these animals fight amongst themselves and the police should not bother". If this is the case, the community were the losers of the week.
Anyway getting back to what happend in Perth with these three thugs. It was the father and his two sons drinking in a pub in the northern suburbs of Perth. According to the news reports they were alledgedly trying to keep the peace inside the pub during a ruckus and when things adjourned in the open air outside the pub these keepers of the peace were not acting very peaceful themselves (this is what alcohol does to you). Police were called and they were greeted with a chaotic scene not unlike a free for all on the football field. Not knowing who were the good guys (if there were any in such a case) and who were the baddies, the police obviously tried to ensure calm and order. Part of their job involved restraining the loudest and most aggresive person whom confronted them, the father. Not being very cooperative, the police tasered him and restrained one of the sons. The son having seen his father being tasered, broke free from the clutches of the police and ran towards the cop who had his back facing him and head butted the police officer with such force that it lifted him several feet off the ground and knocked him out cold. The public prosecutor described it as the most sickening incident he's witness in so many years in the business. This left the police officer blind on one eye and permanently paralysed on the left side of his body. His left arm and leg will be rendered useless and he would be in a wheel chair for the rest of his life not to mention that phychologically, the trauma this policeman went through would have been unimaginable, all for doing his job.
When the verdict came as 'not guilty' the police union and even the prime minister were in disgust. Several police officers resigned from the force in disgust. How could this happen? According to the defence lawyer, the police did not act in accordance with the law and used excessive force during the night in question and obviously the jury bought this argument. The defence claimed that the father had a heart condition and the son was only acting in self defence as he thought his dad would die while being tasered.
Now this sounds like a plausible line of defence especially in light of the recent cases of police brutality. However, when we look at things with some clarity, the jury should not have bought into this line of defence. Reasons being:
- Police brutality is an exception and not the norm. The very rare cases of police brutality are broadcasted world wide and this makes the occurence usually more prominent and frequent than it usually is. The police force in Australia generally are very professional and do their job well.
- Police have a legal right to use tasers especially when they think there is a physical danger to themselves. Any form of physical obstruction disallowing the police to carry out their jobs is deemed illegal. So what the son did cannot be justified as the police were only using their discretion to do their jobs.
- The son head butted the police officer which is illegal and excessive in nature, no matter what his argument to do so was.
- From the video, I can only see violent drunks and police acting professionally by trying their best to restore calm and order. If the police were using excessive force, would one of the sons be able to break from their clutches and attack the police officer? Were the jury seeing another video from what I saw.
- If the defendants cooperated with the police there would neither be a need for the police to use their taser nor any force that may be alledged to be 'excessive'.
So the official explanation was that the police used excessive force and the retaliation was justifiable. However, there is a fine line between not enough force and excessive force especially when it comes to drunk thugs. Do the police not have a right to ensure their safety too when carrying out their duty? I've seen how thugs like these abuse and spit at police while the law says that the police cannot touch these guys. How ridiculous is that? Surely there is a fine balance in the law and common sense should prevail, during deliberation of such cases. How about the 70 year old geezer who shot an intruder after warning the intruder he had a gun and being physically attacked by the intruder. He was almost charged but in this case, common sense prevailed. Good on this old geezer, I say. If the law does not protect the keepers of the law, then who will?
The thug and his sons will go on to bash another day, while this policeman who was only doing his job is left with the physical and emotional scars for the rest of his life. I echo what his wife said after the verdict was announced. "Next time let these animals fight amongst themselves and the police should not bother". If this is the case, the community were the losers of the week.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
An Example of Singaporean Materialism - Really Nauseating!!
Now before I start I want there to be no misunderstanding that this is just another Singaporean bashing session, however I don't blame you if you do just that.
While I was at work today, I received an email from my auntie with a newspaper attachment from a Singaporean newspaper. In this article the writer wrote about a 16 year old 'spoilt' brat who got everything and anything she wanted from her parents. Apparently, she buys Luis Vuitton handbags and the latest mobile phones even though she is only 16 and unemployed. But mama and papa will spoil her silly. She goes on to boast that in spite of the recession her 'spending habits' will not change and seem to be basking in the glory of her five minutes of fame boasting like there was no tomorrow, that mama and papa are rich and there is nothing that they would not buy for her.
Now, while I was reading this article, I was waiting for the 'punch line', like why this behaviour was unacceptable or how kids today have lost all focus on humanity, service to society or contribution to mandkind, but to my utter surprise that was it. Nope, nada, tada...that was it. The article just (in my opinion) glorified this ugly brat (her picture was enclosed). How can the newspaper be so void of newsworthy articles that they have to put this kind of garbage on? The worrying part though, is that this Singaporean neswpaper was probably thinking the information contained was not garbage and was indeed newsworthy.
I can only put it down to the shallowness of the writer and editor that somehow the materialism of the kids with rich parents who spoil them silly is indeed newsworthy. How do they even know that what this girl told the paper is true? I can say that too! Mum's buying me a Ferari next week, (...I wish!). I would expect to read about the environment, economy, child truancy, abuse in the home, racism in sport, the increasing road toll, the rort in the judiciary etc etc. but not about about a spoilt brat. Wtf, is the writer hoping that the reader will go 'Oooh' 'Waah' in envy? Who cares!
While I was at work today, I received an email from my auntie with a newspaper attachment from a Singaporean newspaper. In this article the writer wrote about a 16 year old 'spoilt' brat who got everything and anything she wanted from her parents. Apparently, she buys Luis Vuitton handbags and the latest mobile phones even though she is only 16 and unemployed. But mama and papa will spoil her silly. She goes on to boast that in spite of the recession her 'spending habits' will not change and seem to be basking in the glory of her five minutes of fame boasting like there was no tomorrow, that mama and papa are rich and there is nothing that they would not buy for her.
Now, while I was reading this article, I was waiting for the 'punch line', like why this behaviour was unacceptable or how kids today have lost all focus on humanity, service to society or contribution to mandkind, but to my utter surprise that was it. Nope, nada, tada...that was it. The article just (in my opinion) glorified this ugly brat (her picture was enclosed). How can the newspaper be so void of newsworthy articles that they have to put this kind of garbage on? The worrying part though, is that this Singaporean neswpaper was probably thinking the information contained was not garbage and was indeed newsworthy.
I can only put it down to the shallowness of the writer and editor that somehow the materialism of the kids with rich parents who spoil them silly is indeed newsworthy. How do they even know that what this girl told the paper is true? I can say that too! Mum's buying me a Ferari next week, (...I wish!). I would expect to read about the environment, economy, child truancy, abuse in the home, racism in sport, the increasing road toll, the rort in the judiciary etc etc. but not about about a spoilt brat. Wtf, is the writer hoping that the reader will go 'Oooh' 'Waah' in envy? Who cares!
Monday, March 9, 2009
Daylight Savings and Sunday Shopping for idiots!
Now for the life of me I cannot understand why the majority of West Australians are opposed to daylight savings and Sunday shopping. Maybe I've been out of WA too much of my life to think like a typical West Aussie as I swear the majority of 'true' West Aussies I speak to are hell bent opposed to daylight savings and Sunday shopping. Now you can argue both ways till the cows come home (and actually some do use cows as a reason to oppose daylight savings but we won't go into those details here otherwise it will be ten pages long), but my view is plain and simple. During summer the days are longer and the nights are shorter and this should be reflected in our clocks.
And how about those who say Sunday shopping is not for Perth. Now I'm a bit more sympathetic to this cause due to my personal association with the retail industry but nevertheless if Perth is to grow as a city, for the life of me stop choking the growth of the city by so called do gooders who claim they are only looking out for the quality of life of West Australians. I would like to have the shops available for me when I need to buy something. When I leave work, I can't go to the shops as they are already closed. They are only open when I am at work!
Now why I say I have some sympathy (albeit it a small one) with the opposition to Sunday trading is because sometimes there are no one willing to work on Sundays and the regular weekday worker will need to do the Sunday work, hence their quality of life may suffer as they will have less time with family etc. which usually occurs on Sundays for a working family. However, I believe the onus is on the employer to get the resource balance right and with the economy as it is, I'm sure there should not be any problems. Also with the economy as bad as it is and the government asking consumers to spend, spend, spend, isn't it only logical to give the consumer as much chance to spend as possible by opening the shops on Sunday. I have to admit the most money I have spent on non-grocery type shopping is always on Sundays.
C'mon West Australians, grow up from the 'kampong' (village) mentality.
And how about those who say Sunday shopping is not for Perth. Now I'm a bit more sympathetic to this cause due to my personal association with the retail industry but nevertheless if Perth is to grow as a city, for the life of me stop choking the growth of the city by so called do gooders who claim they are only looking out for the quality of life of West Australians. I would like to have the shops available for me when I need to buy something. When I leave work, I can't go to the shops as they are already closed. They are only open when I am at work!
Now why I say I have some sympathy (albeit it a small one) with the opposition to Sunday trading is because sometimes there are no one willing to work on Sundays and the regular weekday worker will need to do the Sunday work, hence their quality of life may suffer as they will have less time with family etc. which usually occurs on Sundays for a working family. However, I believe the onus is on the employer to get the resource balance right and with the economy as it is, I'm sure there should not be any problems. Also with the economy as bad as it is and the government asking consumers to spend, spend, spend, isn't it only logical to give the consumer as much chance to spend as possible by opening the shops on Sunday. I have to admit the most money I have spent on non-grocery type shopping is always on Sundays.
C'mon West Australians, grow up from the 'kampong' (village) mentality.
Where's my invite???
The latest so called 'incident' me and my friends were discussing about was how one of our mutual friends invited some of us to his wedding and not others. The reason why I'm writing about this is because I was one of the 'friends' who was not invited. Should I get upset, we asked. Now, to put things into perspective my friend we theorize would have had one hand tied behind his back (normally happens when you get married) and many other friends were also not invited, not just me.
Now the question is should I have been upset. In all honesty, I would have dreaded to go to a wedding on a Sunday evening, especially when its hard to find any baby sitters for my kids and I basically do not like weddings much in the first place. Should I be upset when I myself had not invited this friend to my wedding. Should I be upset when I have not attended several of this friend's invites to gatherings, dinners, lunches etc. in the last few invites? Should I be upset when I have not seen this friend for a social gathering for the last 2 years?
Hell yes, I would have liked to have the choice not to go, don't you think so?
Now the question is should I have been upset. In all honesty, I would have dreaded to go to a wedding on a Sunday evening, especially when its hard to find any baby sitters for my kids and I basically do not like weddings much in the first place. Should I be upset when I myself had not invited this friend to my wedding. Should I be upset when I have not attended several of this friend's invites to gatherings, dinners, lunches etc. in the last few invites? Should I be upset when I have not seen this friend for a social gathering for the last 2 years?
Hell yes, I would have liked to have the choice not to go, don't you think so?
Welcome to Blogging Damien!
I would just like to welcome myself to my very first blog. I got the idea of blogging from a friend who had been doing it for years. I thought what a great way to let off some steam and it could very well be therapeutic as well. I love to write and am a great contributor to many other blogs and websites like ask me dot com where I used to give relationship advice and was ranked in the top 5 in the category. Unfortunately, I have moved on and that mantle of cyber relationship guru has been taken over by another creative cyber soul.
I'm hoping this to be an interesting blog for me and will be blogging about current affairs, affairs of the heart, things that stink, politics, life etc etc. Basically nothing will be off limits and if you have anything you like to be blogged/ discussed, do drop me a line and we shall do it.
Take care and let's start blogging.
I'm hoping this to be an interesting blog for me and will be blogging about current affairs, affairs of the heart, things that stink, politics, life etc etc. Basically nothing will be off limits and if you have anything you like to be blogged/ discussed, do drop me a line and we shall do it.
Take care and let's start blogging.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)