Motivation Is Key

A lot of people advocate for responsible environmental practices.  This is all good, as we all should look after our surroundings.  It’s what motivates such calls that can be disturbing.

People don’t seem to be promoting these ideals out of an ingrained responsibility to look after the environment. Rather they are advocates based on the vain claim that we can change a climate that has been continually changing on it’s own for millennia.

There’s a plethora of examples where people are flouting the environment.  Many need to be stopped.  Not because we may be able to change temperature by a fraction of a degree, but because it is good for the environment to do so. 

We are so up ourselves as a species thinking we can change and ever-changing climate.

We’re To Blame

There is much controversy about gambling advertising.  But there is a reason why gambling agencies are able to do so much advertising and sponsorship.  And it’s not their fault.

Much of the population is very willing to throw away money into such institutions.  If these people think that gambling is a money making venture then they are quite mistaken.

Seeing the growth in advertising and sponsorship by agencies such as Centrebet, Sportsbet, Unibet, TAB, Tom Waterhouse shows which direction the money is going.

This industry is not to blame.

If you want less gambling advertising then individually and collectively we need to decide not to gamble, and to support those trying to end a dependence on gambling.    This will diminish their profits and therefore their ability to advertise.

Banning the agencies from advertising their product is not the solution and ignores the real problem.  The problem being us.

Fed Frauds

The Teachers Federation say in their advertising that your children will be worse off under a potential Abbott government

Even though Tony Abbott stated in his budget reply speech,

“the key to better schools, at least as much as money, is better teachers, better teaching, higher academic standards, more community engagement and more principal autonomy”

The Teachers Federation isn’t for improved education.  They are for having as many teachers in jobs as possible regardless of quality as long as they are paying their union dues.

The Gonski review delivers on more paid teachers therefore any variation is bad for students according to the Teachers Federation.

Unfortunately for the Teachers Federation, what they want increasingly seems to contradict what the students need.

The coalition is offering a holistic approach and the Teachers Federation wants more money.

It’s little wonder that unions are in decline.

Not Buying It

We’re told a lot that there is a great divide in health due to a person’s low socioeconomic status (SES).  That is that someone’s low income and education affects their ability to make positive health choices.

This is rubbish and I’m not buying it.  Low SES people can’t avoid the same campaigns as the rest of us.  They are everywhere.  Most low SES people have televisions and watch the ads, they see the billboards, and they see the warning posters that pubs and clubs by law have to display.

Low SES people know that smoking is bad for their lungs.  They see the warnings on every packet they purchase.  But they smoke willingly and expect the health system to fix any health concern.

Low SES people know that fatty foods are bad for their heart.  But they eat it willingly then expect modern pharmaceuticals to keep their heart pumping forever.  Were told that fresh food is expensive, yet I saw broccoli for 99c and a 1kg bag of carrots for $1.49.  Plus there’s an Aldi supermarket everywhere that could help you create dinner for four people for less than $10, probably with leftovers.  That is, if you could be bothered.

You can’t even say that basic dental care isn’t accessible.  Toothbrush and toothpaste available anywhere for less than $3 and would last for a month.

The problem isn’t really education or low SES.  The problem is our lazy culture.  People cry poor yet can spend upwards $20 per week on cigarettes and $40 per week on beer.  There are some major priority issues.

They know better, they just don’t want to.

Our Turn

Further to my post on charities crying poor. 

I received a letter from a charity I support regarding their government grant being cut.  The shortfall in their budget meant that 1 in 4 children could not be assisted by their programs.  This of course is a shame.  But neither individuals, nor organisations, nor corporations ought to become dependent on government handouts.  Their government assistance was called a grant, but it may as well have been called welfare.

It points to the sad truth that our generosity has declined as our government dependence has increased.  This situation was portrayed as a travesty of compassion.  Instead it could be the best thing to happen to the charity.  There will be a financial shortfall, but if their service is considered necessary then the community will step up and contribute greater than the government ever would. 

The financial hole for charities isn’t for the government to fill.  It’s a reality check to us as a community.  It’s our turn to step up.

No Freebies

The Project last week featured a story on “Freemium” apps on smartphones and tablets.  Freemium combines the words Free and Premium.  They are so called because they are free to download but to get the most out of the app you have to purchase further items at a premium price.

They are quite a money winner as these apps are usually very addictive and easy to play.  Hence they are very appealing to children.

The panel mentioned examples where children have racked up hundreds or thousands of dollars on their parent’s credit cards after playing these games.  The panel asked their guest how to best avoid this predicament.

There were valid solutions given such as using gift cards instead of credit cards and changing settings to require a password each time a purchase is requested.

I was surprised that no one suggested this: ‘not letting your smartphones or tablets into the hands of your children’.  How about setting some boundaries and saying no to some things?  Why is it considered a given that we will hand our technology indiscriminately to our children?  Is it also considered a given that young children will have their own smartphone or tablet?  I can’t see why this should be.  Parents shouldn’t rely on them as entertainment for their children.

Parents need to grow a backbone and set some rules regarding these devices, then enforce.  It will save a lot of potential problems.

Popcorn Lungs

A random piece of ridiculousness was witnessed on an American breakfast program.  It was the ultimate display of refusing to take responsibility for ones actions.

A man engorged himself on microwave popcorn day after day, year after year.  He ate so much popcorn that he developed a new lung condition nicknamed “popcorn lung”.  It will eventually take his life.

Instead of accepting his fate as completely his own doing he did what some Americans seem to do best, he sued the manufacturer and the retailer.

Apparently it was the manufacturer and retailer’s responsibility to inform this man that eating that much microwave popcorn was not a good idea.  The way the world is these days common sense wasn’t as common as it should have been and he won a massive $7million.

The man is declaring that he will give most to charity.  This does not make him a generous man as he has robbed two businesses of money that belongs to them.

Such behaviour needs to be declared abhorrent whenever it appears.  It needs to be stamped out of society.  Responsibility needs to be taken for your own choices.

Keeping Right

‘Keep left unless overtaking’ doesn’t seem to exist anymore.  It now appears to be ‘keep right for as long as you deem necessary and do whatever speed you think appropriate.

On occasion it has been the left lane that moves freely while the right remains slow.  This shouldn’t happen.  There’s something lacking, somewhere.  Training? General attitude?  Culture?

It’s a quickly forgotten rule post gaining a licence.  From that point self importance takes over and no other drivers on the road at that moment in time matter.  What they have to do is obviously very important.

People need to get over themselves.  You’re no more important than the next person on the road.  So relax, consider others, and most importantly if you want to go slow then keep left.

Not Right

I don’t mind sounding like a broken record when referring to this pamphlet I found in the Medicare office.  Emblazoned on the cover was “Have a Medicare card – it’s you’re right”.

Please government stop peddling this message.  This is what has led to the demise of the health system.  It’s having people think of health services as rights instead of privileges.  It’s the lack of respect for health services that leads to the endless demands from the masses for government to ‘fix it’. 

Government will never be able to fix anything until there is a collective attitude adjustment, and it starts with how we regard our public services.

Continue to view them as a right then enjoy a health system that will continue to decline.  Adjust the attitude and regard health services as the huge privilege it is and you will see an improvement.

It’s up to you, not the government.

Changing Minds

Watched the documentary called ‘I Can Change Your Mind On Climate Change’.  It was followed by a Q and A panel on the same topic.

It featured Anna Rose, co-founder of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition, and Nick Minchin, former coalition senator. Both participants invited the other to speak to a selection of experts of their choice, in an effort to convince them to change their mind.  It was an interesting yet futile concept.

Rose would be considered an alarmist.  She appealed to emotion very often.  Asking viewers to think about future generations or those in third world countries.  She wholly believes that the world will end if we don’t act on climate change.  She is very naïve and idealistic. 

Minchin is less emotive.  He’s labelled a sceptic despite saying that he agrees that the climate is changing.  He takes a common sense approach and is disappointed about the lack of a fair dinkum debate that has long been stifled by a supposed consensus in the science.

The stifling of debate and alarmism over ‘the science’ seems to have been counterproductive, the by-product being the growth of a dismissive apathy from the general public.  This infuriates the alarmists, as they can’t stand the fact that there are people who disagree with them.

Washington DC journalist, Marc Marano, disagreed with her.  But Anna wouldn’t engage in discussion due to her assertion that Marano is involved in dodgy practices in his efforts to discredit climate scientists.  Her strongest defence was that Marano appeared to have links to a certain tobacco mogul. Minchin later rightly pointed out that such a defense was tenuous in that it had no direct bearing on the climate change debate, much less Marano’s involvement in the same. There was no rebuttal from Marc as the documentary moved on, although he appeared miffed at her behaviour.  Not surprising as it was rude, childish and cowardly, and certainly not exemplary of the accepted rules of civilized debate.

Anna’s uncle is a farmer near Moree.  She took Nick there to hear his views.  To Anna it is land like this for which she is fighting.  Her uncle reported that by his own measurements his land is warming - so much so that he is planting his summer crops up to three weeks earlier than usual.  Anna would contend that this is a sign that the science is true; that the earth is warming dangerously and the world will cease to exist with inaction.  Another view is that him planting crops earlier is a great example of adapting to the already changing climate and that earlier crops may mean more crops, or perhaps even a competitive edge in the agricultural market, if there are other regions of the world requiring what he plants, when they’re all waiting for their warmer season to arrive.

Both extremes were on display during the documentary and the panel.  On one end is the alarmism view held by Anna Rose, although even she seemed not to be able to sustain such a tiring stance. At the end of the documentary she stated, “the Science is never 100%”. So the question is, can even she trust the zealous approach she currently takes on climate change, when the data underneath her are turning on a dime? Even Rose herself did not appear entirely set on her stance.

At the other end is dismissing that the climate is even changing.  Fortunately no one on the panel held this view, as this would be to blatantly deny all the fluctuations we have experienced since records began. Like most issues the truth might be somewhere in the middle.

The documentary did manage to crystallise my views on this issue.  The climate is changing as it always has.  It is always active, warming or cooling, currently warming (even though we remain in an ice age).  Therefore causes of warming are mainly natural with a small role played by human forces. The world will not end through inaction but we ought to be good stewards of this planet by looking towards alternate sources of power.  Nuclear should be considered if you’re serious about quitting coal.  In the meantime other sources need to be developed to make them cost competitive and capable of managing base load power.  Our economy should not be harmed unnecessarily in the process.

Sensible decisions are needed - not emotion driven alarmism.

Who’s The Racist??

A man apparently requiring emergency medical care spat on the floor of an ambulance and later punched the paramedic multiple times. But just because the patient was from an ethnic minority and the treating paramedic called him a filthy pig post the spit the magistrate, Pat O’Shane, dismissed the case. Read more about it here.

It should have been a clear-cut assault case. Yet it was muddied by inferences of race based discrimination. O’Shane asked the paramedic, "would the Court be correct in inferring………..that you don't like blacks?" The paramedic protested against the assertion yet O’Shane appeared to have made up her mind.

Race was never the issue at hand until O’Shane cast aspersions on the character of the paramedics and police officers involved. Ironically the aspersions were cast against those whom she is supposed to protect against criminals.

You could be the most racist person on earth but if you have not antagonised a person into violence based on their ethnicity then the racism is irrelevant. Was the paramedic assaulted or not was on what Ms O’Shane was supposed to rule.

I doubt she even realises that she has committed racial discrimination by favouring the “black” criminal against the “white” paramedic. Would she have come to the same ruling had the skin colours been reversed?

In For Surgery

A 103-year-old lady requires surgery for a fractured hip. Unfortunately she’s been put down the priority list. The family claim it’s due to her age. The hospital claims that it’s due to her general health. Both are probably correct, but what does it matter who’s right?

Either way the risks involved with an elderly person going under general anaesthetic are very serious. Yet they seem to be glossed over in the media. I doubt whether the lady’s niece thought through the risks before whinging about the health system to the media throng.

Next week we might hear that she passed away while receiving the risky hip surgery. It’s a realistic outcome. Yet the supposed disgrace at having to wait for her turn is all that seems important.

Perhaps there was a lack of communication. The risks involved may not have been emphasised. The delay not explained fully. So far she has had to wait five days. Some would think that she’s lucky for only waiting that long.

Even if the delay were due solely to her age, would that have been a problem? To me it shows a prudent surgeon wanting to be cautious. He probably has the best patient outcome in mind.

Good on Jillian Skinner for backing the health professionals. Families need to be more realistic about such matters. There is more than one person requiring surgery in the facility. There are so many variables with every case.

Of course it’s not good for this lady. She’ll be in pain. She should have been fed when delayed. But it’s the reality of a modern day world-class facility – demand high yet resources finite.

Bully Ban

Heard a call this week to ban bullying in the workplace. Sounds like a good idea. No one likes being bullied. It’s a noxious and repulsive practice. Yet enough people seem to get some sort of sick enjoyment out of the misery of others. Especially the misery that is of their creation.

Unsurprisingly this call came from a legal firm that just happens to specialise in workplace law. Sounds like they are trying to drum up some extra business. They know better than most that it’s difficult to define bullying. There would be so much left to interpretation and nothing will be black or white. What might have been a fair but negative performance review could potentially be misconstrued as bullying.

It would open the floodgates to litigation. It will be considered the ‘easy’ route to help fix a poor situation.

To a degree people do need to have more resilience instead of being quick to jump on the legal action train. There are long-term ramifications, not just the short term ones. Will legal action actually fix the problem or just create different problems?

Perhaps one tough situation is teaching you resilience. Maybe having the courage to find another job is a better course of action. What a relief it will be once you find that your experience is not the norm.

Bullying says more about them than it does you anyway. We could do without it and any action that leads to the promotion of healthy workplace practices is a good thing. It takes some leadership and guts. Bullies are hard to budge. Acts of bullying should be out in the open and persistent bullies outed and dealt with. But to call for a blanket ban is just plain ridiculous.

Pedestrian Safe Cars

Saw a report on crash tests to determine which cars were safest for pedestrians. Some were better than others. Those that didn’t fare so well have apparently received recommendations to lift their game. As well as upgrade to the Australian standards to account for safety to pedestrians.

Yet the safest place for a pedestrian is where there are no cars, the footpath. If a car encroaches into that space no amount of engineering brilliance will save you from serious injury.

What about promoting pedestrians being wise about their decisions. Changing car design for pedestrian safety is implying that it is all right for pedestrians to continue with their reckless, dangerous and risky decisions when crossing roads. It doesn’t allow the individual to take responsibility for their own decisions.

It’s always the fault of someone or something else. For this report it seems the fault lies with the car.

“The Science”

“The Science” has become the latest buzz word used widely in social and political circles. It’s used to refer to any scientific or pseudoscientific finding that derides humans as the main cause of climate change. It is used to give the impression that all of “the science” states the same thing.

“The science says…” or “I've read the science” you might hear people say. But what science? What sciences says what? What have you read? Worthy questions indeed. Ross Garnaut’s report or the latest book by Tim Flannery? Hopefully a specific answer comes and one can investigate for themselves. Putting the comments into perspective.

The problem for “the science” is that there are many credible climate scientists who bring plenty of evidence to suggest that the human element and the predicted effect of the carbon tax are both grossly overstated. Ian Plimer and Bob Carter are two Australian examples. No doubt followers of “the science” would disagree with this assertion.

Real science should welcome comment on their findings. Yet “the science” lambasts any criticism.

Why? Oh why?

In our country we have had our share of natural disasters. One thing that is sure to come up in conversation with those suffering is why did this happen? Some take things further by asking God, why did you let this happen?

There are so many theological answers to this question but generally it’s not what the grieving individual wants to hear at that time.

An interesting observation though is that it seems to take a natural disaster to bring out the best in people. A generous spirit that should be there all the time but doesn’t seem evident or prevalent. People stop and think about others first for a change. They gather to help clean up en masse. It makes a huge difference to the morale of those affected.

We live in a culture that is inherently selfish and in inward looking. The generosity is immense yet brief, until the next disaster occurs.

The nations media with their blanket coverage are in awe of the multitude of feel good stories to tell. It needn’t be the case as this immense sense of community should be the case all the time.

Not Free At All

Saw this sign outside a local primary school

Free delivery

Quality education

No conditions

I wasn’t impressed. The idea of “free education” should not be pushed. By free they actually mean no direct cost to the public, it’s all taxpayer funded.

Saying the education is “free” followed by “quality” is really an oxymoron, those two terms just don’t go together. Whatever you get for free out there is of low quality.

Plus having a service advertised as “free” doesn’t place any value on the product. Education is the greatest thing we can attain. So have it as “free” if you must but don’t push that angle. One should gladly pay the minuscule voluntary fees charged by our public schools, especially if you expect continued “quality” education.

Anti Unions

I used to think of the unions as a necessary evil. A backstop, a support network, if situations in the workplace went pear shaped. In my two careers as a teacher and a paramedic where litigation can occur, having that support seemed a wise thing to attain.

Not anymore. I no longer consider unions as necessary – just evil.

This has been the case since I left the health services union (HSU) in 2008. They are supposedly representing paramedics and have our best interests at heart.

Instead they show themselves as having no heart and being severely self-serving. The amount of ex union officials in Labor party ranks is testament to that.

Within the last week the HSU has outlined a wage claim that it was going to present to the industrial relations commission. They say they are going to fight for a 27% wage rise in an effort to catch up for a lack of wage increases over the years. Sounds good so far, but wait there’s more. They snuck in that the wage rise should only apply for financial HSU members.

This spits in the face of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 which says, amongst other things, that, “a person cannot be compelled to become a member of an industrial organisation” and that “an employer must not victimise an employee because the person does not belong to an industrial organisation”. It’s illegal under the act to have minimum wage claims apply to only part of the workforce as non-union members are being victimised for exercising their freedom of association.

It also spits in the face of the hard working highly skilled health professionals that just want a fair go. Luckily we still have a voice in our apolitical professional association, EMSPA (emergency medical services protection association). We growing and the union is rightfully concerned.

Sensationalist Rubbish

The Daily Telegraph reported this on Thursday 6th May 2010 from research commissioned by the National Heart Foundation of Australia.

I’ll Die Before I Pay
Heart attack victims delay calling costly ambulance
By Sue Dunlevy
ONE in five people would hesitate to call an ambulance if they were having a heart attack because of the high cost, a study has found………

Some thoughts….

Stubborn pensioners – they would delay an ambulance regardless of the circumstances. That’s just the way they are. Avoiding a bill is not in their motivation. They have survived through real periods of upheaval, such as World War 2. What’s little bit of chest pain or abdo pain is their attitude. More people should show an ounce of this attitude instead of calling an ambulance for every stubbed toe.

Expectations – so much is given to the general public for free, which really means no direct cost to the public. This creates unrealistically high expectations of the public health system. Endless demand yet limited supply and people want it at their beck and call in their timing.

The Bill – what people are charged (if you don’t have a pension card or private health) is only a fraction of what it costs to put highly trained, highly skilled health professionals on the road. NSW is the most subsidised Ambulance Service in the country.

Adding value – if $300 is too much to pay for highly trained highly skilled health professionals to be at your door within 10 minutes in the Sydney metro region and then transport you to hospital then your priorities are severely mixed up!! Good health comes before money. If not that then perhaps you don’t really need an ambulance after all as your situation is not an emergency.

Just pay something – people take for granted the costs of ambulance services. Fitting out the vehicle alone costs upwards of $100,000. Then there’s training, equipment, uniforms and most importantly, wages of the highly trained, highly skilled health professionals. People need to pay something to realise these services don’t come cheaply and that they are privileged to have such a service so readily available. Perhaps a variable fee scale based on the triage category at hospital could work.

Universal coverage – a good idea in theory but I fear it will result in further abuse of the system as there is no value placed on the service by the general public

The Drama Queen

A particular creature unveils itself to emergency health care occasionally. Predominantly it comes in the form of a female, of no particular age.

An incident occurs, usually a fight or break up with a husband or boyfriend. This sets off a chain of events that leads to the presentation at hospital or the calling for ambulance services.

There was one such incident the other night. An 18-year-old girl had just been dumped by her boyfriend. Being swept up in the emotion of it all she proceeded to refuse to eat for three days. Her parents called for an ambulance (when perhaps she needed a psychologist) and all were whisked off to hospital. The parents appeared distraught when they were sent to the waiting room until a doctor could see them.

There is a reason why such cases don’t receive much sympathy from health care workers. It is because these people are drama queens and are manipulating those around them to feel sorry for them. This is apart from the irrational outbursts of emotion. Parents or former partners are sucked into the performance and made to feel guilty for what is going on because generally they are decent people. When really all they need is a dose of tough love and a reality check. Sure, be hurt but don’t be ridiculous. Believe me, we’ve all been there, done that.

The drama queen never seems to consider that it may have been such acts of irrational behaviour that led to the break up or argument in the first place. This latest course of action can merely justify the break up. Instead the guilt-ridden dumper may be led to continuing the relationship, as it was before, unknowing that the manipulating behaviour has now been given positive reinforcement. This will only lead to more drama and an even harder break up in the future.