Why?

WHY?  

Why does Sci Fi always have to get clumped in with Fantasy?

WHY???

Goodbye Osama

Okay. Controversy. Don’t hate. It’s just another way of looking at things.

The debate over Osama bin Laden’s death (execution) continues to rage on. 

I have to say, I found the celebrations over the man’s death a little offensive (I am not a lone voice here – back off). 

Yes, he was – without a doubt - a very bad man. And sure, the world is better off without him.

But to watch American’s cheering in the street, it just makes me wonder what value that we, the western world, actually place on human life ourselves. Isn’t it hypocritical to cheer the death of a human being, when it was the deaths of other human beings that made him so wanted in the first place? 

Weren’t we all horrified when in Iraq, we watched insurgents cheer at the death of American soldiers, and then drag their bodies through the streets? How are we different if we celebrate the death of Osama? 

Death of an enemy, sure. But the ENEMY is relative, isn’t it, depending on where and how you grew up, and which government’s propaganda you are listening to? Don't forget, Osama was America's friend when the CIA trained him and supplied him with weapons and funds.

Personally, I would have liked to have seen him rot in jail. 

And one more thing… with the ‘ENEMY’ watching all that cheering, do you think that will make them think twice before attacking again – or will that incite them to plan more revenge? 

Just think about who the civilised world is, and what human life means to you.

STOP! Before you forward that email...

It was in the newspaper, so it must be true…

Remember when we used to believe those words? But news media has evolved to become just an empty shell of what it used to be. We don’t necessarily believe everything we read anymore.

Do we? Well, we do if it’s forwarded around on email.

I’m a self-confessed kill-joy when it comes to all those interesting but nonfactual little tidbits, stories and supposed historical accounts that get passed from inbox to inbox, without nary a thought for the truth.

Yep, if it doesn’t sound right, and even if it does, I will not hit the forward button, no matter how interesting, without first looking up the accuracy before I decide whether to forward, delete, or perhaps amend / correct and then forward (if I’m feeling particularly finicky).

And by looking up the accuracy, I don’t mean citing the thousands of copy/paste blogs and websites out there that just repeat what they’ve heard somewhere else (a bit like modern media outlets).

Is it my writing / journo background? Maybe. Is it because I’m anal? Possibly. Is it because I believe in truth, justice and the Aussie way? Don’t think so. Just because it’s wrong. I do not disseminate wrong information. And perhaps that’s why I’m always right! (I am so).

I don’t know, call me crazy… I just have an affinity for accuracy. I’m just saying… before you give your friends and colleagues another reason to hate Muslims, or email the British Prime Minister about banning the teaching of the Nazi Holocaust from schools, or get a hunting license for setting mouse traps, JUST CHECK IT OUT FIRST.

You don’t have to look too hard. If the email has been around the traps for a while, it will likely have already been researched by the likes of SNOPES, or URBAN LEGENDS (About) or similar online destinations.  

Just Google a few key words from the email, or search on SNOPES or a similar site, and there you have it! In the amount of time it takes to hit forward and add all those email addresses, you will know the truth status of the historical origin of the word SHIT or GOLF you’re about to send to everyone. You will find out it is crap (or shit) and have saved yourself the trouble. Not to mention saved your workmates from a distraction from their work, for which they will be no doubt grateful.

And while I’m on the subject of forwarding distracting emails, do you know who the people you are forwarding your emails onto are forwarding them on to? And them? Protect the privacy of your recipients and ensure their legitimate email addresses won’t be used for spamming-evil by using the BCC field (Blind Carbon Copy). Don’t forget to delete any forwarded meta-information, and send just the body of the original email. (Once you know it’s true, of course!)

And so ends lesson 1, email best practice 101 (or, STOP! Don’t forward that shite) with Rach!

Now forward this blog to everyone in your address book and something lucky will happen at ten o’clock tomorrow morning, Microsoft will pay 1c towards abolishing dwarf throwing for every email sent, and then ninjas will dance across your screen.

Thanks, Rach

(Shameless, unsolicited plug for snopes.com, the definitive Internet reference source for urban legends, folklore, myths, rumours, and misinformation.)

Protectionism in Australian Publishing Lunacy?

Well, I have been busy; Busy working, renovating and writing of other kinds. But not writing on my blog, obviously. Have no fear, however! You will be ecstatic to know I have saved up my list of annoyances and things that make me want to move to Mars. I think I’ll start with this little gem. Protectionism. 

Is it Lunacy? Is it the federal government's fault book stores are closing?

We lovers of reading and writing in Australia have heard of the recent demise of Borders and Angus & Robertson book store giants. Both owned by the same parent company, Redgroup Retail was put into voluntary administration by private equity owners Pacific Equity Partners on February 17, and as of April has closed 49 of its 231 company-owned stores. 

Since then there have been enormous sales on books. Seems counter-intuitive, when some stores are remaining open.

During the kerfuffle of the announcement in February, I read an article online at The Australian titled 'Lunacy of protectionism writ large', by Bob Carr (premier of NSW 1995-2005 and a member of the Dymocks board).

Read the full article here; http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/lunacy-of-protectionism-writ-large/story-e6frg6zo-1226008423635

Here’s an extract; On Thursday, the country's largest bookstore chain, Angus & Robertson, and Borders bookstores were placed in voluntary administration. They cited this policy [protectionism] as one of the reasons. In other words, to protect 300 jobs in one manufacturing plant, the federal government decision helped cause the loss of 2500 jobs in the retail sector. The old story. Protectionism plugs a gap. But in the end you see a net loss.

By ‘this policy’, Bob Carr is talking about protectionism, and when legislative reforms were narrowly defeated in Federal Cabinet in 2009.

All due respect Mr Carr, you’re an intelligent man, so you know that the headline is inflammatory, and the story one-sided and perhaps a little opportunistic.

While the company's financial woes aren’t related to those of the US Borders chain, which are run independently, it’s interesting to note they also started closing down sales for 200 Borders book stores in 35 states across the USA after filing for bankruptcy in February. 

And this was without protectionism.

In fact, back in Australia, when Redgroup announced a full-year loss of $43 million in October 2010, they said it was mainly attributable to non-cash inventory as it completed its integration of Borders. Not to mention retail earnings pressure due to higher interest rates and drop in consumer spending. And there’s the affect of the transition from print to digital products, which has reportedly cost Borders millions in recent years.

Yet, here in this article is a well respected man practically blaming Federal Labor for the loss of 2500 jobs to come from the pending closures of the stores in Australia. All with a loose and dubious connection. I’m a bit giddy from all that SPIN, Bob.

Mr Carr argues that the price of books in Australian bookshops should come down, and protectionism prevents the local bookshop from importing books and selling them at lower prices, thus competing with online retailing.

But my research has shown (and I’m sure some industry specialists could verify or refine this) that bookstores actually end up with up 50% of the RRP of a book, while an author receives as low as 10%.

So perhaps there is room for improvement in the market despite protectionism, Mr Dymocks-Board-Member Carr?

I’m not going to weigh in (at least not here and now) on the debate or the pros and cons of this particular piece of legislation. You may already guess which side of the fence I lay on (emerging Australian authors!). I just thought the connection was dubious as an opinion piece and a bit of a non-story, really. And here's the counter-perspective.

Sorry Bob.

Rach