CHINA GETS INCENSED AUSTRALIA DUCKS FOR COVER

In the past couple of weeks we have seen how when China fumes, Australia ducks for cover. I'm referring to the controversy surrounding the jailing of Chinese Australian Stern Hu, the head of Rio Tinto's operations in China along with three Rio Tinto colleagues who happen to be Chinese Nationals. They were accused by China of bribery and corruption in obtaining 'state secrets'. What are 'state secrets'. Well, that in itself is a state secret.

Australia's Foreign Minister had to resort to scouring Chinese news websites to get updates on the fate of Stern Hu and the most senior Chinese official he managed to get clarification from apparently was a junior minister in the foreign department. The opposition have been demanding that Australia's Prime Minister Kevin Rudd pick up the phone and speak to his counterpart, the 'Even Sterner Hu', China's president Hu Jin Tao. Kevin Rudd has so far refused citing 'quiet diplomacy' as the way to go. The opposition have pointed out that Kevin Rudd's self proclaimed 'special relationship' he has with China as worthless.

It's been more than three weeks and Stern Hu lingers in a China jail awaiting charges. It must be noted that so far no charges have been laid, making it difficult for the Australian authorities to make sense or further commentary on this issue without risking offending Australia's largest trade partner. Australian's have to know that if you visit or do business in a foreign country, then you abide by the laws of that country. In this perspective it is hard for the Rudd government to push for the release of Mr Hu because of the lack of information on what laws have been broken. Rio Tinto have issued a strong worded statement rubbishing the allegations by the Chinese Authorities and proclaiming to be steadfast in support of their employees.

The interesting point to this whole saga is this. Even at the face of such blatant abuse of the human rights of an Australian citizen, the Australian government has chosen 'quiet diplomacy' which to me means weakness and even as unsophisticated my anaylsis is of the whole situation, is it that far from the truth? Of course Australia is showing weakness, what other observations can we make? Under intense pressure to do more, Kevin Rudd came out and stated in his press conference that the way China handled this investigation 'would be watched and judged by the whole world'. How would this make a difference, considering the world has been watching China abuse Tibet for decades and this doesn't seem to be affecting much the way China conducts itself. Moreover, coming from Australia, a country that is dominated in the economic relationship with China this 'warning' must surely be mute as far as the Chinese are concerned. Sure enough twenty four hours later, a Chinese Government spokesman came out guns ablaze asking Australia to butt out if it knew what was good for it. The US, in support of Australia and maybe having gone through this many times before thought it be helpful to help out it's 'younger brother' by asking China to conduct investigations in a fair and transparent manner without further delay.

To see Australia limp through this speaks volumes for the economic dependance Australia has on the Chinese and their demand for Australia's mining resources, mainly iron ore. Australia's numbness in dealing with what on the surface appears to be a human rights issue is surprising but I would ask anyone willing to condemn so willingly to take a step back and understand the 'other issues' that may be affected by pushing the boundaries with the Chinese Authorities on the Stern Hu issue. Yes, you would like to think that Australians would sleep in a tent first before letting one of it's own linger in prison without trial but unfortunately life is not as clear cut as that. Analyst on both sides of the economic spectrum have so accurately surmized, Australia needs China more than China needs Australia. Protecting the econmic prosperity of Australia's other 24 million and their future generations may have something to do with.

MICHAEL JACKSON - Legend or Whacko...my thoughts.

26th of June would be a day that I would never forget till the day I die. Just like the time when Elvis and Princess Diana died, it was one of those 'where were you' moments. Unless you've been living under a rock the last couple of weeks, you would undoubtedly know that that was the day that Michael Jackson collapsed in his rented LA mansion from a massive heart attack and died. He died at around 3pm LA time (about 6 am Perth time) but I only heard about it at about 10am. I just couldn't believe what I was hearing as not only was Michael Jackson the King of Pop, he was also relatively young at just 50 years old.

My first friend on Facebook posted MJ's death on their page at around 4pm (LA time). That's impressive considering I only heard about it at 10am, some four hours after the fact! Since then, facebook, myspace and other social networking websites had been inundated with messages of condolences to arguably the greatest entertainer the world had ever seen. As they say, you never know how much you miss something/someone until you've lost it/ them.

That was how MJ's life was. From his early teens till about his thirties, he was adored by his millions of fans for his extroadinary musical talents to the later parts of his life where he was dogged with controversies like allegations of child molestation to weird behaviour bordering on lunacy. Some of his weird behaviours included a strange relationship he had with his pet monkey, changing the colour of his skin and his unorthodox marriages to Lisa Marie Presley and Debbie Rowe to name just a few.

In 2003, when I saw Martin Basheer's interview with MJ in the documentary "Living with Michael Jackson", I have to admit I was thinking that MJ was as whacko as anyone living on this earth could be and that he was plain lying to many of Martin's questions, especially about coming out into the open about his marriages (more specifically the marriage arrangement he had with Debbie Rowe) and his skin problems he allegedly blames for his skin changing to white. He also said that he had no more than 2 plastice surgeries in his entire life and only on his nose, despite being put to him that his face has actually changed in shape and structure from when he was younger. I remember at the time I just couldn't take him seriously.

I'm not sure if it's the fact that MJ has passed away or that I'm a better more understanding person now, but I saw the 2003 interview again and my perception of the man completely changed from one of scepticism back in 2003 to one of an innocent even naive man being manipulated by Martin Basheer and by the media in general his whole life. I felt sorry even for what I saw was a man, who was accorded the status of the King of Pop, the best entertainer the world has ever seen but still had the innocence of a young MJ. You felt he did not know how to deal or respond to the plethora of media representatives who wanted to see him fall from his high perch. In a clever move though MJ used his own crew to film Martin while Martin interviewed and fimed him. It showed how Martin was heaping praise towards MJ's love for his kids while later in the produced documentary questioned MJ's ability to be a responsible father. It showed Martin to be a manipulative journalist who would do anything to get the story to represent what he would think to be a 'good story'.

Now the stuff he said about his skin and his marriages still sounded as evasive and dishonest as it did in 2003 but instead of thinking this man is a blatant liar, I just thought this was a man like any other who was backed into a corner who did not want to reveal everything he knew about these subjects being forced into stumbling for an answer due to his inexperience in dealing with a manipulative tough interviewer like Martin Basheer. So what if he changed his skin colour? So what if he had 100 plastic surgeries instead of the two that he admitted to? So what? Who is Martin to make it like MJ was doing something wrong if he admitted to it? So what if MJ lied? He never wanted to reveal too much about these subjects in the first place but instead of not answering the questions, he tried to answer and in doing so appeared evasive and dishonest.

The facts are he like you and me has the basic human right to choose what he wants to do as far as altering his looks are concerned. His marriages were so unconventional but only because he was Michael Jackson, every aspect, every angle of it has been put under the media microscope and questions about his 'manhood' has been made into an issue. MJ was without a doubt a lover of children and if he wanted children without the sex, then so what. It's no secret and MJ had admitted it himself, he feels uncomfortable in an intimate situation with women. Why should it be an issue to anyone if he wanted to artificially inseminate a woman to have his kids? It happens everyday but because it's MJ and sensationalizing the story to make him look like some sort of wierdo sells stories and toppling MJ from his high perch would also sell more stories, the media have been grilling every aspect of MJ's 'unorthodox' marriages hoping to dig up dirt that would show him to be a whacko. What he had done was not conventional, I'll admit that but neither was it wrong.

"Living with Michael Jackson" was the documentary that saw the beginning of the end for MJ. The district attorney took the story about MJ sharing his bed with a young boy named Gavin Artizo (see pic below) to inititate criminal proceedings against MJ. He never recovered from that.







One of the main reasons MJ was mired in such high controversy till the day he died was without a doubt due to the allegations of child molestation and as everybody knows a paedophile is two rungs below a rapist turn serial killer in the most hated ratings. However, the allegations were never proven despite millions being spent by the LA District Attorney to leave 'no stone unturned' in trying to nail MJ to the wall. My despise for celebrities getting away with no good is known. I've made strong opinions against OJ Simpson, Phil Spectre and a host of other celebrities getting away with no good including murder because of their money being able to buy the best lawyers to defend them. In MJ's case though, nobody really knows what happened except MJ and the child involved. The DA does not know, MJ's lawyer do not know, you and I do not know. What I do know though, is that in LA extortion cases are plenty. Because MJ was such a huge star, it made him a huge target too. In all of these cases, it was the parents who were mounting the attacks on MJ and many of them had been proven gold diggers. MJ had not done himself any favours previously when he paid one of his accusers an alledged $30 million to "leave him alone". The two edge sword saw him looking guilty like he had something to hide and left a dangerous precedent for future extortion attempts by other kid's and their parents by making himslef look like an easy target. He finally learnt his lesson and went to court to fight the battle and was finally exonerated by the courts. MJ though was the eventual loser as his life had never been the same since. He'd had to sell his home, go to Dubai to escape the mounting pandemonium his life was putting on his young family and in essence heading towards a path of no return.

I feel MJ was a hugely misunderstood person. I feel the media had made him look like a weird, whacko paedophilia maniac and many, me included bought it but from his passing we now see that the people who knew him best have only the best of things to say about him, about his genius, his passion and most of all about his love for his family, friends and fans. After considerable reflection about the man and his life, I believe he had an extreme love for children and his kindness was taken advantage of by the low life gold diggers hoping to strike it rich by extorting his money. As MJ's brother so succintly put it during his memorial..."Maybe now Michael, they will leave you alone..."

Budget Airlines A True Rip Off!!

Geez, we're half way through June and this is my first posting for the month. Either I've been pretty busy with my life or I'm running out of things to complain about. The former seems more plausible and the latter would be a nice to have but hardly reality as far as my whinging ways are concerned. Let's see, we've had the crookish banks raising interest rates again even though the Reserve Bank had not done so. Some of these banks have been caught out holding their office functions in plush hotels like the Sheraton and some even taking staff to overseas luxury trips for meetings as if all the hotels in Australia were fully booked out. We've had oil companies colluding with one another to 'fix' the prices at the bowser and we've had Madonna bribing her way in Malawi, finally getting what she wants with her adoption application by 'donating' $16 million to the orphanages of Malawi and getting a resultant favourable ruling on her case to adopt. Money does indeed make the world go round.

Well I won't be writing about any of those annoying things but something else that has been bugging me for the last couple of weeks. I'm talking about the budget airlines who on the surface appear cheap but use unethical ways to get more money off their unsuspecting customers. Notwithstanding the numerous 'delays' and flight cancellations, I'm referring to something more sinister and morally wrong. I'm referring to a premeditated attempt by the budget airlines to cheat their customers during the booking process.

During the booking process (on their website), one 'Air Asia' will prompt the customer if they want to buy travel insurance? There is an option to click on 'ok' and 'cancel'. Now here is where the dodgy part comes in. If you click on 'ok', you would have declined to buy the insurance and if you clicked 'cancel' you would have agreed to buy the insurance. Obviously, Air Asia have worked out that there would be more people NOT wanting to take on the insurance and would click 'cancel' than there would be people wanting to take it on by clicking 'ok'. So they just reverse the meaning of each button to get more clicks, hence more sales. Although, they have a notice to state that by clicking 'cancel' you would want insurance and by clicking 'ok' you would not want insurance, it can be easily missed if you went about clicking fairly quickly and did not read all the words that appeared on the computer screen. The deceit here is blatantly obvious by using reverse intent. They do not care if you really wanted/ needed insurance or not but aim to deceive to maximize revenue for themselves. Their unethical attempt here to deceive and maximize revenue is nothing short of cheating!

Take one Tiger Airways where you would need to pay a fee of $5 per passenger per sector for using your credit card. This would mean for a family of four travelling from Perth to KL would have to pay $80 for the previledge of using your credit card (there are 2 sectors from Perth to KL for one passenger one way and 4 sectors two ways, 4 passengers return hence would be 16 sectors). Now in Australia it is illegal for businesses to charge customers for using their credit cards if they have no other payment options. However, Tiger has got around this 'little inconvenience' by giving passengers the option to pay via a debit card. We can only guess how many people have taken on that offer. You might as well have a payment option using a Mc Donald's card! You'll probably have more people who have that than a debit card! Now that is $80 for the priviledge of using a credit card!!! I've paid $5, or even $10, but $80 is like saying, they haven't charged you enough on your ticket and this is just another way to make up for the cheap ticket. That's $80 pure profit for nothing!!! No service, no valued added, nothing!!!

Another Tiger Airways scam is with regards to baggage. Taking the example of the above family of four travelling from Perth to KL would have to pay a whopping $160 for 15kg baggage allowance each. That's a huge addition to the cost of the flights, considering the ticket itself is not much more than the cost of the baggage. You do not have the option to choose which sectors you want baggage and which you don't. For example you can't have the option to have baggage from Perth to Singapore and not have baggage from Singapore to KL. Once you click yes on the option, they apply it to all your sectors in effect multiplying $10 by all the sectors on your booking (16 for a family of 4 travelling from Perth to KL), even though you may not want to have baggage on certain sectors. You have to choose to have it all or none at all but most people are somewhere in between. Adding to their perfect form of unethical predatory behaviour, if you noticed that you had added the baggage option and chose to undo the choice, it would allow you to choose the 'No Baggage' option but guess what, the price of the baggage option still remains in the final price. If you did not check this you would have thought that the costs of baggage would have dissappeared since you unpicked that option. You needed to do some fancy clicking before the initial baggage pricing went away. Just another way to cheat you unknowingly.

With all the desperate attempts of the budget airlines to rip you off any which way possible, you probably need to ask the question, are budget airlines actually cheap? With all the additions and all, does it actually work out cheaper? Sadly, the answer to that question is still 'yes' which is probably why people still go back to the budget airlines to be further treated as suckers and continue their unending cycle of budget airline complaining.

Well there you have it. My gripe about Budget airlines and only about the booking process. Don't get me started about customer service, lost baggage, flight postponement, cancellation and 'we only have Maggi Mee left sir' and a host of other 'cost cutting strategies' budget airlines use to make more money.

Malaysia's Sedition Act - A Law which Should Never Be In Existence

When I saw a status change the other day from my Facebook friend Uncle Lim Kit Siang, supreme leader of the Democratic Action Party that the police was after him, I had to dig deeper as to why a beacon of Malaysian politics for four decades was being sought after by our 'esteemed' Malaysian Police force for an alledged crime against the Malaysian government. I managed to read a news update from the Malaysian Insider website that the police wanted to question Uncle Lim for his political speech during campaigning a couple of days ago linking Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak to the political impasse in the state of Perak. It was later discovered that the people who made the police report that led to the police wanting a statement from Uncle Lim was none other than the police themsleves. Now, since when did police take political sides? However, if you've been a follower of Malaysian politics over the years, you'd be naive to think that the Malaysian police was anything but impartial.

The authorities are considering charging Uncle Lim for Sedition for linking Najib to the political crisis in Perak in his speech. You can imagine my reaction like most rational, logical, like minded people who heard of this news was little short of shock and disbelief. What business has the Malaysian police got to do poking their noses into political speeches in the middle of a political campaign? Is speaking the truth deserved of being charged for a crime and thrown into jail? If they were lies, then why not sue Uncle Lim for defamation? I went back further and found out that the crime of Sedition was more common than I originally thought.

In the US, the Sedition Act of 1918 was enacted by President Woodrow Wilson during the time of war to quell dissent against the US government at a time where harmony from within was crucial in winning the war. This act however was later challenged in court and the Freedom of Speech guaranteed by the First Amendment made this act no longer constitutional. Before that in 1798, it was also in existence in some form or other while the US was under threat of war from France. Fast forward about two hundred years at a time of peace in Malaysia and not a day goes by since Najib had taken over the helms of the highest office in Malaysia that he hasn't used this draconian law to intimidate and put his political opponents out of action. In fact he has used both the Sedition Act and the Internal Security Act to quell dissent and protect his battered reputation precipitated by his links to the murder of Mongolian model Altantuya and the 2002 Submarine scandal while he was Malaysia's Defence Minister.

All this talk of Sedition being a crime beggared belief especially when the definition of the word was less than clear and led me to investigate further what the exact meaning of Sedition meant. The Thesaurus' definition of 'Sedition' is varied but the few I found even relevant to the possible 'crime' that took place are:
rebellion
Synonyms:
agitation, defiance, disobedience, dissent, insubordination, insurgence, insurgency, insurrection, mutiny, revolt, revolution, treason, uprising

In other words, if the government found you to be rebellious and disobeying, they can charge you for Sedition and throw you in jail! Does this mean if a bill is tabled in parliament and the opposition lawmakers thwarted the government proposal by opposing the bill, they are guilty of sedition as they have defied the government? Does this mean you cannot dissent against the government? Would this make Malaysia on par with Burma, Fiji and Zimbabwe? Does this mean you cannot show insubordination towards the government? This would certainly make Malaysia rank below Thailand, Indonesia and the Phillipines in democratic principles. Does this mean you cannot agitate the Malaysian Government? This would certainly make Malaysia the laughing stock of the international community. Malaysians must surely realise the longer these laws are in placed to be used and abused by the ruling elite, Freedom of Expression would be just that, an 'expression'.

Some Things in Australia Just Ain't Right

Well the week has not ended just yet but already I feel that this is one of the longer weeks, with negotiations with debtors, a late night debate with friends about how to live our lives, an intense discussion about monopoly in the market place and the company I work for coming down hard on employee expenses part of the highlights so far. I’m worn out already but I guess I can count my lucky stars I did not experience a repeat of the disaster I had last week. Read it here if you missed it: http://damien-crankyramblings.blogspot.com/2009/05/another-bad-week-to-complain-about.html

I also received a link to an article written by Alexander Downer, former foreign minister of Australia which I thought was quite brilliant, though I would have preferred for him to say it while he was in high office instead of out of it but the reality of modern politics would have rendered that political suicide. It was titled "Idiot Aussies: Grow Up and Take Responsibility. Read it here: http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,,25531441-5006703,00.html. I thought he stated his points plainly and bluntly and that they were valid as far as I was concerned. He basically wrote that while he was the foreign minister of Australia he had to be responsible for Australians travelling abroad and while that was ok if they faced extreme unavoidable circumstances (e.g. the Bali bombings), he questioned why those who travelled and ignored the travel advisory and at the same time being dumb and irresponsible demanded that the Australian government ‘bail them out’? He gave the example of a mother who wanted him to rescue her son who was trapped in the hurricane Katrina disaster while many Americans died in the tragedy. What could he do, he questioned. Fly a helicopter all the way from Australia to America and pick her son up while leaving the Americans behind? I can’t help but agree with Alexander Downer as Australians are famous for expecting the government to do everything for them. Retrenched from your job? Government’s fault! Economic Crisis? Government’s fault, never mind the whole world experiencing the Global economic crisis not seen since the days of the Great Depression. Pensioners not enough money? Government’s fault! Never mind they only had 40 years to save up for their retirement.

Take the recent example of a mom who went to Thailand and was put in prison for stealing a bar mat. While I think that going to prison for stealing a bar mat was harsh, the reality is that it is the law of the country and for the life of me can’t understand why Australians travelling abroad don’t believe that the laws of the foreign country apply to them and they expect the Australian government to rescue them from their stupidity and irresponsibility every time they get into trouble. While the Thai governor went out of his way to apologise (although there was no need to) and pay her fine, instead of saying thank you publicly she had the gall to say that she would not return to Thailand, ever! Our bad Aussie manners overseas never seem to amaze me. You can go back further to Schapelle Corby and the Bali Nine all asking the Australian government to do more, although they were found guilty of being drug couriers and are the scum of the earth.

I also had a discussion on the way large Australian companies are slowly monopolising our markets and the Australian government do not seem to want to get serious about curbing this predatory behaviour of our largest companies. In retail we have two mammoth companies like Coles and Woolies who are dominating not only the supermarkets but also the petrol outlets. They will drop their prices, ruin their competition and when they are out of business increase their prices once again. They also come up with their brand of products and deliberately raise the prices of the other brands, making consumers buy their brand and making the other brands slowly fade from the shelves. They will then raise their prices and the consumer once again will have to pay higher prices.

How about those oil companies like Caltex and Shell. When come the long weekend (like the one coming up this weekend), then price will magically go up by twenty cents a litre! And if you can believe them, they put it down to the normal price cycle. But why always a long weekend or a normal weekend and not a week day? Because more people fill up on the weekends than they do on the weekdays. Take for example Caltex is selling petrol at $1.10 a litre and so is Shell. If Caltex raises their price to $1.29 and one day later so too does Shell, this is an unwritten, unspoken complicit price fixing which happens all the time in Australia and should be deemed illegal. I’m not sure about Australia but if this happened in America, the CEO of both companies would be spending time in jail. Here in Australia, there has been a lot of rhetoric by the government and the petrol watchdog but the results so far have been wanting to say the least. What makes me even more incensed is that the government can and should act but are not doing so as they are probably making more money than anyone else on this.

How about the banks? If you wanted to ruffle any feathers amongst Australians, you just mention the money grubbing banks and you almost always get a vile response. Anything from bullies to crooks and I tend to agree. They have gotten so big that they have merged with or bought out all their smaller competitors to the point that we’re left with just four major players in the banking sector. Recently the Reserve Bank dropped interest rates by 0.25% and one bank decided to not pass on any of that to their customers, meaning the 0.25% interest rate drop by the Reserve Bank was to go straight to their bottom lines. The reason for the Reserve Bank to drop interest rates was to stimulate the economy but this bank chose to be greedy and keep it all for themselves. While many companies have felt the full brunt of the recent economic downturn, the banks are still making their customary billions of dollars in profit and they still give us their age old excuse of ‘higher international funding’ to justify not passing on the rate cuts.

Lastly, it was discovered this week that Malcolm Turnbull, the Liberal opposition leader was worth a whopping $175 million dollars. When confronted by the media, he was almost apologetic and shies to admit it and gave a decrepit response like the figures were plucked from the sky and is not accurate. He may be right but if anything the figures were conservative as these were his known assets only. Anyway if this happened in the US people would be asking ‘geez how’d ya do it pal? Let me in on ya secret’. In Australia however, the tall poppy syndrome is still alive and kicking and if you had $175 million, then you’re sure to have screwed someone on the way to amassing this fortune. Being brilliant and hard working would almost never be the first thought on their minds. Malcolm would probably argue that being known for his wealth would make him be perceived as not as in touch with the battlers as needed. Who knows?

Another Bad Week to Complain About!

If you have been following my blog, my first entry in May was about my top ten worst gripes in life. I have since been told that some of them on the list would not even make it on other people’s top one hundred gripes in life. After thinking for awhile and re-visiting what I wrote, I must admit albeit reluctantly that I was a bit too petty with my list. I do stand by my list, though which only means that I’m a petty guy.

Anyway, today’s entry is more of the same pettiness. It’s about the blaringly idiotic, incompetent and unreasonable behaviour of people we deal with in our everyday life, except that in my case it all happened to me last week.

The first incident was when I noticed a charge of $84 towards my credit card for child care services. Now, we are regular users of child care and I usually do not question nor go to too much detail with their charges. When they automatically charge the costs to my credit card I usually accept and pay it, but this one stuck out like a sore thumb as I knew I had not booked child care services for this term. This one was an easy one to solve, so I thought.

I called the child care to enquire about the irregularity and I was promptly told they would investigate and get back to me. Two days later, to my utter surprise and disgust, the accountant from the child care called me up and told me that there were further irregularities on my account and the computer actually shows that I owed them in excess of a thousand dollars. She gave some feeble excuse about their old system not being very good and she is new taking over the previous accountant etc. etc. but never once conceded that they stuffed up nor offered an apology. She told me she would tidy up our account and e-mail me the details (or bill) and I would then have to pay up. The mistakes apparently had been occurring since the very first day we had been using their services. Now what further complicates things is the tie in between the government rebates/ family tax office and the child care billings which is going to cause unnecessary nightmares for all involved. So, because I had queried the $84 charge, I am confronted with a billing mistake in excess of one thousand dollars, which I owe. I’m expecting the statement next week and they’re going to get a surprise when I tell them that I need as long to pay back the amount owing as the time in which the mistake has been going on. How incompetent can they be? Year two maths at most.

Second incident was yesterday when I was sending the kids to school. We drove up to our usual ‘drop off’ area and while approaching the spot, I noticed two cop-like men standing close to the entrance of the school. My first thought was that the school was so dedicated to the safety and protection of the children that they engaged security during the early drop off times. But then from the rear view mirror I saw one of the men take out his little digital camera and snapped a picture of the car. I was then told that the area that I had been dropping my kids off for the last 3 years is a ‘no standing’ area and a fine of $50 was on the way. It was then that I knew those men were the mean council rangers going about giving fines willy nilly to raise revenue for the council and not security men as I had initially thought.

I asked my daughter Kathleen, who is a school councillor to try to find out from the vice principal if she knew about the rangers outside. We pretty much concluded after her talk with the vice principal that the school had called the ‘authorities’ to harass parents and issue fines. Now, I’m upset about this not because I got a fine. I’m upset not because the rule of law does not apply to me. When I took a closer look, there was in fact a ‘no standing’ sign there and I was indeed breaking the law, and so too were loads of other parents. What I was upset about was the school did not have a designated ‘drop off zone’ and the area which we normally dropped the kids off was the closest to the school. No parent would like to drop their kids off far away from the school entrance, where the kids will have to navigate the dangers on the roads like 4 WD vehicles and weirdos looking to harm our young and vulnerable. Surely, we would drop them off as close as possible. Furthermore, for the last three years using that entrance to drop the kids off, we’ve never had a safety or congestion problem of any notice. Why would the school have a need to call in the rangers and cause this unnecessary rift between the school and the parents is beyond me. The school needs to educate instead of using heavy handed tactics to harass by calling in the ‘authorities’ to issue fines when they themselves have not got their act together by providing the proper designated drop off spots.

The last incident happened at work where we have a parking problem. Too many cars not enough parking spots….sound familiar? I’ve received numerous fines just by parking my car on the roadside to go to work. To avoid the fines, people normally park in the office car park but you could be blocked in as there are not enough spaces for everyone. Anyway, that was what I did yesterday and I was blocked in by someone. When it was then time to go home, this car was still blocking me. I then proceeded to call the number that was left on the windscreen but the business card was thrown on the car dashboard in such a way that the view of the person’s mobile number was obstructed by the corner of the windscreen. I then proceeded to call the land line number on the business card twice but there was no answer. While I was doing all this the rain was pouring down on me. I then proceeded to ask the reception to try to get in contact with this person. She managed to find a mobile number for the car, called it three times and left three urgent messages and after 15 minutes still no one turned up. I then managed to track down the person who had his mobile phone on his table but was sitting around another colleague’s table having a ‘chat’. I then proceeded to explain to the guy that he was blocking me in and the inconvenience he had caused and that he should answer his phone and put his business card on his car dashboard in plain view so people could see the number and he just ignored me. He rushed to his car, drove it to another spot, went back to what he was doing and did not utter a word of regret or apology. He gave me the impression that he felt I had interrupted his ‘social chat’ with his mate and that I was the one inconveniencing him. Not only was the incident annoying the resultant attitude and behaviour of this idiot was even worse.

So beware pricks and idiots are everywhere, especially this close to me. My apologies to all as this is another one of my whinging entries but I feel a little better now that I’ve got it out in the open.

Perth Votes 'NO' to Daylight Savings - the DATA show they should have voted 'YES'

Well then, the results of the Daylight Savings referendum is in and Perth has voted a resounding 'No' to daylight savings 55% against and 45% for. I believe this is the fourth referendum where the daylight savings bill has been blocked. For the life of me I can't understand why Perth continue to have this backward, self defeatist attitude towards an issue long adopted by others around the world as logical and beneficial. Look at how we view Sunday shopping, extended retail hours, high rise development etc. etc.

Now almost every man and his dog in Perth has an opinion on daylight savings and it ranges from the effects daylight savings have on the stock market, on cows, on children, on crime, on road accidents etc etc. I heard it all. Most are illogical arguments but that's what an emotive subject can do to you. You spew crap just to win an argument you feel you must win. Well I'm no different, though I would like to stick to more scientific facts. Here's my take on this.

Now like a respectable writer, I did some research on this via a meteorological website and found the following data for the summer months of Dec- March.

Month Sun rise Sun set (add one hour if daylight savings applied)
Dec 5.04 19.18
Jan 6.25 20.26
Feb 6.54 20.06
Mar 7.16 19.35

and winter months:

Month Sun rise Sun set
Jun 7.14 17.19
July 7.15 17.19
Aug 6.53 17.49

The above times are sun rise and sun set times for the summer and winter months. Note, March is not an official summer month but would be included as a daylight savings month in the referendum, though some say if daylight savings were adopted, they would move to have it removed. Also the times stated are data taken for the fifteenth day of every month e.g. 15 Jan, 15 Feb etc. and lastly, the times shown above are non daylight savings times and you would need to add one hour to the summer months if daylight savings were to apply.

The reason why I went through the trouble to get this data is because as they say the numbers never lie (but people do). From the data above, it is plain and obvious, we have more sunlight during summer and less sunlight during winter and I believe our clocks should reflect this.

Let's take a look at the sunrise times. During the summer months, apart from March the sunrise times are anywhere between 2 hours plus to 20 minutes earlier than the winter months. Those that argue that if daylight savings applied, they would be running in the dark! What the data shows us, is even if one hour was added to the summer times shown, they would not be too far off the winter months sunrise times, so they should be complaining about running in the dark in the winter months as well. By adopting daylight savings, this effectively maintains the status quo. Imagine if there was no daylight savings as shown in the times above, the sun would rise at 5.04 (for December)! Most would be sleeping at this time and those saying they would be running in the dark are just kidding themselves. In fact, some nocturnal beings would be turning in for the night at this time. So my view is that there is no point of having daylight at a time when most people are in bed sleeping. If you want to use the children argument, then you could argue that the sunlight would wake your children up and they in turn will wake you up at 5 in the morning! Great! Who wouldn't like to wake up at 5 in the morning.

Since the daylight hours are longer during summer, I say take full advantage and shift it to the more productive evenings where quality time is hard to come by after work. Nowadays, when people are working from dusk to dawn, adding an additional one hour of sunlight in the evenings would do wonders. Quality time spent with the family outdoors and outdoor works around the house can be done even after work if daylight savings were adopted. Those finishing work in the late evenings and taking public transport could get a safer passage home as they find their journey home under the security of daylight. Whatever the reason, the effect is having more hours to do more outdoor activities in the evenings, whatever they may be.

Anyway, I'll keep my article short, as Perth has voted and it's too late to make anykind of stance right now. We might have to wait another few decades before the mindset of Perth changes and progress with the times. I hope I'll be around to see it, but I won't hold my breath.