Taken from the KSP Mini Con Blog
It's Official!
It's been a while but there will be a Mini Con in 2010. Planning is underway and this blog will be updated as things develop.
Where: Katharine Susannah Prichard Writers Centre
When: Sunday 2 May 2010.
There'll be panels, booksellers and a chance to meet local speculative fiction writers.
Keep the day free to come and join the fun.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Sunday, November 01, 2009
Politics.
I've been trying to avoid writing this blog - my normally low blood pressure tends to sky rocket when it comes to politics - but... the Premier has announced his intention to introduce extended shopping hours by regulation because he couldn't get a majority of Members of State Parliament to pass legislation approving it. Parliament can disallow the regulations but the Government intends to introduce them shortly so they will be in force for about two months during the Parliamentary recess.
This is quite extraordinary in my opinion.
In Western Australia a few years ago we had a referendum in which we were asked if we, the voters of the State, wanted extended retail trading hours. We said no - not for the first time. Since then the major retailers have conducted a campaign to have trading hours extended. According to them people don't have long enough to shop, they want choice and - the one that reduces me to helpless laughter every time I hear it - tourists won't visit Perth and/or Western Australia because the reason they come here is to shop until they drop. We live in a very expensive State and it will stay that way. We are isolated and everything that comes here has high transport costs tacked on to it. Why would anyone come here to shop when there is all of South East Asia pretty much next door where goods are infinitely cheaper?
The other arguments are just as flawed. Unless you work seven days a week twenty four hours a day - which is impossible - anyone with a modicum of intelligence can shop and have their needs satisfied as the shopping hours now stand.
There is another highly insulting argument advanced. It's the old 'everyone else is doing it so we should'. There's a saying I remember from my childhood. Whenever I tried the 'everyone else is doing it/wearing it/ buying it' I was asked 'If everyone else was jumping off a cliff would you do it?'. Obviously not. So instead of falling for the 'change for the sake of change' argument or because everyone else is doing it may be we should think it through and decide for ourselves if it is to our benefit or not.
So should we change our relaxed lifestyle, the thing that attracts people to live and visit here, because other parts of the world have? Well actually we (that is the people of Western Australia)were asked that. We thought about it and we said 'No.'
This is why I have gained considerable respect for the leader of the National Party in this State. When the Liberals tried to push the change in retail trading hours through he announced that the Nationals would not support it. This is a politician respecting the will of the electorate as demonstrated by the referendum result.
The Premier, who leads a coalition government, meaning the party he leads doesn't have the numbers to govern in its own right, sees it as progress. I see it as him forgetting that a politician is supposed to be a representative of the electorate, not to tell the electorate what to do according to his personal views.
This is quite extraordinary in my opinion.
In Western Australia a few years ago we had a referendum in which we were asked if we, the voters of the State, wanted extended retail trading hours. We said no - not for the first time. Since then the major retailers have conducted a campaign to have trading hours extended. According to them people don't have long enough to shop, they want choice and - the one that reduces me to helpless laughter every time I hear it - tourists won't visit Perth and/or Western Australia because the reason they come here is to shop until they drop. We live in a very expensive State and it will stay that way. We are isolated and everything that comes here has high transport costs tacked on to it. Why would anyone come here to shop when there is all of South East Asia pretty much next door where goods are infinitely cheaper?
The other arguments are just as flawed. Unless you work seven days a week twenty four hours a day - which is impossible - anyone with a modicum of intelligence can shop and have their needs satisfied as the shopping hours now stand.
There is another highly insulting argument advanced. It's the old 'everyone else is doing it so we should'. There's a saying I remember from my childhood. Whenever I tried the 'everyone else is doing it/wearing it/ buying it' I was asked 'If everyone else was jumping off a cliff would you do it?'. Obviously not. So instead of falling for the 'change for the sake of change' argument or because everyone else is doing it may be we should think it through and decide for ourselves if it is to our benefit or not.
So should we change our relaxed lifestyle, the thing that attracts people to live and visit here, because other parts of the world have? Well actually we (that is the people of Western Australia)were asked that. We thought about it and we said 'No.'
This is why I have gained considerable respect for the leader of the National Party in this State. When the Liberals tried to push the change in retail trading hours through he announced that the Nationals would not support it. This is a politician respecting the will of the electorate as demonstrated by the referendum result.
The Premier, who leads a coalition government, meaning the party he leads doesn't have the numbers to govern in its own right, sees it as progress. I see it as him forgetting that a politician is supposed to be a representative of the electorate, not to tell the electorate what to do according to his personal views.
Monday, October 26, 2009
And the Winner of the Writing Race Is...
Glenda Larke with 17320 words, followed by me at 16601 and Carol Ryles with 16000. Given the sudden out pouring of obstructive energy by the Universe - we all were hit in various ways - I think we did well. We each have a large wodge of new words down and, in my case at least, I managed to resolve some plot issues I hadn't thought through properly. So I think the experiment was a success - and even more important, it was fun and encouragement and all those other things a solitary writer can lose sight of. No NaNoWriMo for me this year because of other commitments but this makes up for it.
Monday, October 19, 2009
More on the Writing Race.
My grand total for the weekend is 1466 words and some plotting fix ups. It might not seem much but given the problems I'm having physically typing at the moment I'm not really unhappy with what I've achieved. This race has got me back to my usual writing pattern which is a good thing. It had been under stress for lots of reasons given this has not been a good year. Ah well the next must be better.
My fellow racers, Glenda and Carol, have also had their own problems distracting them. Did we set off some kind of jinx? I suppose anything is possible.
Despite everything I'm not giving up - and nor are they. I'm off to crank out a few more words. My poor characters don't know what they're in for. I do. Hehehe. Rubs hands with glee.
My fellow racers, Glenda and Carol, have also had their own problems distracting them. Did we set off some kind of jinx? I suppose anything is possible.
Despite everything I'm not giving up - and nor are they. I'm off to crank out a few more words. My poor characters don't know what they're in for. I do. Hehehe. Rubs hands with glee.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Writing Race Update.
So it's now the beginning of Day 6. I've managed a total so far of 8969 words in five days - and day four was a dead loss because I was out all day. That sadly puts me just over 1000 words behind target - and that means head down, tail up and frozen pizza for dinner - unless Pisces gets inspired and decides to cook. Nah, that won't happen.
Friday, October 09, 2009
Writing Race.
I'm in a writing race with Glenda Larke and Carol Ryles to see who is the first to reach 30,000 words. Yesterday was the first day and I surprised myself with a total of 2,364. Maybe this is the kind of spur I need.
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
What Were They Thinking.
In Western Australia there is a system whereby if you have your your driver's licence suspended for an offense and can prove exceptional hardship you can be given permission to drive in certain situation. For example if it is impossible for you to get to work any other way you might be permitted to drive to certain places at certain times of the day. Whether this is a good thing or not is sometimes questioned but personally I think keeping someone productively employed could qualify as a valid reason. One would assume that such cases would be rare and that the decision would be made only for those who were truly unable to travel any other way and would otherwise lose their job. At least that's how I assumed it would work. Apparently not.
Recently a young man lost his licence for a well reported series of offenses involving alcohol. Fair enough, you might say. I certainly thought so. It would cause him a degree of inconvenience that he might learn from but not jeopardise his employment. He could use buses and trains like the rest of us when he couldn't get a lift with his work mates. That's when we stepped out of the real world. He applied for a restricted licence because of hardship because he can't get to work.
His reason - he doesn't know how to catch public transport! What? Millions of people all over the world catch public transport every day - old, young, even school children - and he can't learn how to catch a bus! It gets worse. He - a strong, tall, fit man - doesn't feel safe waiting at a public bus stop at a well lit bus station in the early evening. Wait, there's more. He doesn't like to travel on public transport because people ask him about what happened.
So being presented with these bizarre reasons does the Court say 'Tough. Punishment is supposed to impact on your life so you will learn and not repeat the offense'? Nope. He's given permission to drive to training and games.
I'm astounded.
Recently a young man lost his licence for a well reported series of offenses involving alcohol. Fair enough, you might say. I certainly thought so. It would cause him a degree of inconvenience that he might learn from but not jeopardise his employment. He could use buses and trains like the rest of us when he couldn't get a lift with his work mates. That's when we stepped out of the real world. He applied for a restricted licence because of hardship because he can't get to work.
His reason - he doesn't know how to catch public transport! What? Millions of people all over the world catch public transport every day - old, young, even school children - and he can't learn how to catch a bus! It gets worse. He - a strong, tall, fit man - doesn't feel safe waiting at a public bus stop at a well lit bus station in the early evening. Wait, there's more. He doesn't like to travel on public transport because people ask him about what happened.
So being presented with these bizarre reasons does the Court say 'Tough. Punishment is supposed to impact on your life so you will learn and not repeat the offense'? Nope. He's given permission to drive to training and games.
I'm astounded.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)