Just Don't Tell Me

For full appreciation of this post, read it after you read two other posts...

Post 1: Outraged But Why

Post 2: Lynch Rummy.

Odd, it is. People willingly and consciously choose to be ignorant. Even fight to remain so. Scream and yell to remain so. They prefer not to know.

How does the meat get onto the meat tray in the supermarket?

They would rather not know. Don't want to think about it. Let someone else grow the cow, feed it, look after it, make it fat, kill it, gut it, chop it into bits and put it on a nice foam tray. Let me buy the tray but don't dare tell me how it got there.

Chicken? Tell me nothing. I don't want to know that they get hung upside-down and have their throats slit so all the blood runs out and that's how they are killed. Just give me the nicely presented chicken wings in BBQ sauce. Let me buy it ready-to-cook but don't dare tell me how it got there.

But it doesn't end with food.

How do these people think the country is kept safe? By magic?

No. It is kept safe by "roughians" doing unspeakable things to those who want to kill us. All of it undocumented.

This "abused prisoners in Iraq" thing. Let's not be so naive to think this is isolated and doesn't normally go on. Of course it does. That's how information has been extracted for years and years. It's just now, for the first time, some idiots took photos of it and let those photos get out. And now that they are out, the powers that be need to act surprised and upset and someone has to take the fall.

If the photos had not made it into the public limelight, no-one would be any the wiser and we would be living in our ignorant world, not even thanking those whose actions we deem despicable for keeping us safe.

Just keep me safe but don't tell me how you are doing it. That's what the public want. Anything else is too much to bear.

It's far better and more comfortable if we just don't know how we are kept safe. What we don't know won't hurt us, or upset us.

UPDATE: The "Un-Bloody-Believable" Files: Government Endorsed Porn

The GM of The Yellow Envelope called me back today!

We had a nice civilized discussion about unsolicited sex material in the snail mail box, the irony of a government business distributing it while another government business tries to prevent the same thing online, and other issues of censorship and the like.

He told me that they have decided that they will NOT be distributing any more pornographic marketing materials because they want to remain "wholesome." - Not his words exactly but it is their gist.

I commended him and his business for taking the moral high-ground and refusing to have any more dealings with "sex industry" businesses just for he sake of a buck. And thanked him for the call.

I was re-assured that my call wasn't the only reason for their decision, and they had been considering it anyway. And that may very well be true. But one thing is certain, if they were considering it, then my call would have pushed them over the edge (yesterday it was a consideration, today after my call it was a made decision). After all, they would be faced with a backlash from their other advertisers leaving them only with smut ads to distribute. Down would go their name and then no-one would open their envelopes. Effectively finishing off their business.

Sometimes complaining does work.

Lynch Rummy

Consider this: A checkout operator at Walmart reaches over the counter and slaps the customer in the face. Maybe even calls the customer a fatso.

What would normally happen in this situation is, the employee would be fired.

What would NOT happen is the CEO of Walmart resigns.

Now replace Walmart with The Military. Replace the employee with a few soldiers. And replace the customer with a captured enemy combatant.

The Democrats want Donald Rumsfeld - the head of the US Defense Department - to resign because some grunt mistreated a captured enemy combatant. And that is, to put it bluntly, sheer lunacy. It's like wanting the Police Commissioner to resign because of what a beat cop did. Like asking the manager of a sporting club to resign because an athlete did something wrong.

But what's even more down right moronic about it is, they also stand behind John Kerry who is a self-confessed violator of the conventions of war.

Somehow, the Democrats think John Kerry, who personally violated the conventions of war, is suitable to hold the highest office in the land, while simultaneously thinking Donald Rumsfeld is not fit for any kind of office because a subordinate, so far down the chain it's not funny, did something wrong.

Any normal thinking person can see the hypocritical double standards they are applying. Yet they (the Democrats) still think they hold the moral high-ground? Go figure.

I've Seen Hell

My dictionary defines Hell as: any place or state of torment or misery.

Using that definition, living on this planet is Hell. Birth is painful. Eating meat is painful - at least to the animal being eaten. We swat some insects and step on others - pain. From a "Goths" point of view, Love is Pain.

But how about this: Hell is a place where nobody says what they mean, and nobody means what they say.

Using this new definition, then hell definitely is on Earth. Because hardly anyone ever says what they mean, or means what they say.

A classic example was related in my previous blog about the way bosses ask their employees to do stuff - which can be read here. In that case - saying "do you want to..." instead of "would you...", the boss isn't saying what they mean and neither do they mean what they say.

Effective communication is paramount.

People have a habit of skirting around the points when they speak, leaving the meaning and interpretation up to us. And on top of that, half of what they say they don't mean - they are not being genuine.

Case in point: I was discussing a point with a very religious person of the Christian faith. At some point in the conversation they proclaimed some kind of affection for me and exclaimed they would pray for me out of the goodness of their heart - or some such rubbish.

Phooey. In all honesty, they couldn't give a damn about me. They didn't know me before the couple of minutes spent talking. And there is no way they would spend their precious time "praying" for me. They didn't mean a word they said.

In an example of not saying what was meant, a client needed some work done. It was extensively discussed. After the work was completed they complained that the job wasn't done correctly. In further discussion it was discovered that during the description of what they wanted done, they had actually meant something else. They didn't say what they meant.

As a person who means what I say and who says what I mean, I get terribly frustrated when dealing in the world of muddle that everyone else operates in.

Effective communication is paramount.

Sometimes clients will tell me what they don't want done. I'll ask them what they need done and they immediately tell me what they don't need done. It takes a while but eventually they get the idea that telling me what they don't want, doesn't tell me what they do want, and I can only provide them with an estimate on what they do want done.

People will talk about a lounge "suite" when they mean a single sofa. They will talk about a mattress when they mean the mattress and the base. They will say "a couple" or "a few" when they mean a dozen or more.

If they promise anything, they don't mean it and never keep their promise. A pet hate of mine. You are only as good as your word. And if you haven't got that, then you've got nothing.

"I'll try" some people say. Then make absolutely no effort at all. As if their "I'll try" excuses them. And if anything is said they can counter with, "But I tried". Bollocks.

Effective communication is paramount.

Going back to the original definition of hell... as being a place or state of torment... not meaning what you say and not saying what you mean, is something I feel tormented by. Hence... I've seen hell... it's a place where nobody says what they mean, and nobody means what they say... I live that hell every day of my life.

The "Un-Bloody-Believable" Files: Government Endorsed Porn

A yellow envelope cunningly called "The Yellow Envelope" was delivered by the government owned/run postal service - the only entity allowed to deliver mail in envelopes from person to person.

Inside this envelope were flyers for various products - clothing name labels, stick on labels, exercise equipment, vacuum cleaners, record player, inner sole inserts, hand bags, gloves, socks, leather seat cushion, children's books, portable sewing machine, etc. In addition to these flyers was a flyer offering six pornographic videos which claim to show the viewer how to have better sex! (Better sexual techniques, Advanced sexual techniques, Sexual positions for lovers.)

I don't buy smut and I am not on any smut mailing lists. So the last thing I want is to get it in my snail mail box. And especially delivered by the government!

I called the postal authorities to complain. I was told that the flyer was within the law for something the government monopolized postal service can deliver because it didn't have a pornographic image. As long as the image on the flyer wasn't pornographic, it was okay to deliver.

I tried talking common sense with them. That I had never asked to get porno stuff in my snail mail box, and that it wasn't really the right kind of thing the government should be delivering.

Nothing worked. I just kept getting the "we aren't responsible" and "it's within the law under which we operate" spin. I was also told to contact the people who had the flyer. It didn't seem to matter to the postal worker that if the person who owned the flyer and wanted it spread hadn't cared about the general public getting the flyer in the first place, they weren't going to care if I called them.

I asked for the phone number of the company who owns The Yellow Envelope and they wouldn't give it to me. Quoting some "privacy" mumbo jumbo at me.

Finally, I was told to contact my local member of parliament.

I called the people who were selling the sex tapes. Their answer was, "Put a 'No Junk Mail' sign on my letter box." I told them I had never asked for sex stuff in my mail box and shouldn't have to halt all advertising material for fear of getting more sex stuff in the box. They verbally shrugged and said they would pass on my complaint. (Yeah right.)

Next, I found The Yellow Envelope company's phone number (thanks Google) and called them. Their first response was, "Put a 'No Junk Mail' sign on my letter box." I told them I shouldn't have to halt all mail for fear of getting sex stuff. I told them that somewhere someone has to be responsible and take the moral high ground and say NO to putting sex material into the mail boxes of the general public who never asked for sex stuff. My name and number was taken and I was promised a return call from the general manager. We will see if such a call comes.

Next, I called my local member for federal parliament. The first response I got was, "Put a 'No Junk Mail' sign on my letter box." (Arrrrggggghhhhh.)

I asked the man if there was anyone anywhere who had common sense not to see anything wrong with a government service distributing unsolicited sex marketing materials to the general public. And, if anyone could make a decision without fobbing it off as "within the law"?

My local member's assistant (that's who I spoke with) said to put my complaint in writing, voice my concerns specifically, mention how I want the law changed, and it would be passed on to the minister for the postal service for him to address.

I can just picture it. I will get a return letter which fobbs off my complaint some more. Tries to justify why the government distributing sex marketing material unsolicited is ok. And basically end up with nothing changing.

But change the law? That's a bit drastic of a step. All I had hoped was to talk sensibly to someone. Alas, it seems there are no sensible people within any party involved. They all tell me they are within the legal boundaries and that's all there is to it. And no one is responsible either. I have mysteriously received porno marketing material distributed by the government and no one is responsible. Humph.

If someone wants to watch porn they need to be an adult to be able to get it from the video store. They need to be an adult to get hold of "girlie" magazines from a news-stand. And there is an effort being made to cease the sex spam getting into the email boxes of children. We even have a government campaign aimed at stopping it. And yet, we have the very same government itself aiding in the distribution of sex stuff - without safeguards to prevent it getting into the hands of children.

And what of the sex tapes? Oh, they are trying to masquerade as "educational" by teaching people how to have sex. Well, golly gee. I guess that's something we all need. (NOT) It's a miracle we have managed to breed for hundreds of thousands of years without these tapes. And probably a good thing countries like India and China don't have widespread video and DVD players otherwise they would breed more. [end sarcasm]

If the "general manager" of The Yellow Envelope calls me I'll update this sorry saga of depravity in the mail. Otherwise, all I can do is shake my head and make an addition to The Un-Bloody-Believable Files - of which more entries will follow.

One thing is certain, if I was one of the other businesses who had paid for my flyer to be delivered within this yellow envelope (specially the one who was selling children's books), I would be very upset with my marketing material being lumped in with porno stuff.

Do you want to...?

Everyday, all over the nation, people go to work in jobs they do not like. Spend a reluctant bunch of hours doing their duty, then trundle home again in annoyance at what has become of their life. - Only to repeat it again the next day.

The interesting thing is, when they first started work they didn't think it was a hell-hole. They actually liked it. But over time, the dislike grew - compound style.

Why is that? Why does someone go from enjoying a job to not enjoying a job?

I can't answer for everyone. I can answer how *I* would react. And how I do react/feel to a hidden work-hating-creating phrase. And what I deduce.

First. Variety is the spice of life. The same thing the same way all the time does become dull and boring. And a job is not different. If there is no variety at work, then work begins to suck. This is why I think you are better off mentally if you have two part-time jobs of four hours each, instead of one job which goes for eight hours. Four hours is not long and the time will seem to fly by.

And if you do have an eight hour job, then that jobs needs variety for it not to feel tedious. And for the job-dissatisfaction not to take a hold.

Second. Even though I own businesses I am able to work for someone else in an employer/employee situation only under certain circumstances. And those circumstances are basically, "leave me the hell alone to do what needs to be done." This is merely an extension of the typical childhood "I can do it" response to parents trying to dress a child.

Dictate to me (tell me how to do what I am doing, without me asking), and I switch off real fast.

Third. It's all in how an employer ASKS an employee to do something. I personally find it very annoying when someone says to me, "Do you want to...?" when they want something done.

For example: Imagine working for a cafe with canvas shade umbrellas. And that the umbrellas haven't been treated with water repellent. It starts to rain. The boss wants you to bring the umbrellas inside out of the rain. Instead of saying, "Would you bring the umbrellas inside out of the rain" he actually says, "Do you want to bring the umbrellas inside?"

It's raining and he has asked me if I want to go out into it and take down shade umbrellas. My mental answer is "no". But I know what he wants and so now grudgingly do it - grudgingly because I have already mentally decided I didn't want to do it.

Over time (months/years) this constant "Do you want to..." resentment-creating question builds up. Gradually causing greater and greater dislike of your job. As you see yourself doing things you mentally decided you didn't want to do.

When people ask me a "do you want to..." question I answer one of two ways...

Way # 1. With a "No".

Way # 2. By asking in return, "Would you like me to do it?"

And sometimes by saying, "No, *I* don't want to it - BUT - would YOU like me to do it?"

Some could say I am being somewhat pedantic. That I know what the person means by what they say. But understanding what someone means cannot be assumed. And even if we don't consciously answer the "do you want to" question, it is answered subconsciously. Adding to the annoyance you feel at work in general.

Death In The Work Place Addendum

I've had a few emails regarding the "Death In The Workplace" entry. Some stating the usual "what if we all thought like you, then..." And some actually making sense and pointing out a few things I had not considered. (Thank you. I appreciate all emails.)

First, to the "what if we all..." questions. Let me start by saying, we all wouldn't think this way. Period. So using that "what if" is ridiculous. Second, if we all did think my way, then, in the case of applying it to military, there would be no need for military - because the enemy would likewise all think this way. But like I said, we don't all think this way so the "what if" has no basis as an argument.

Second, to what many consider "high risk" jobs and professions. Those who do such work are often called "low reactive." They need something we deem as risky, for them to feel a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction. But those doing those jobs are not silly enough to do them without proper training. Even those people care about their life and take precautions to prevent it from ending. And, if they truly thought they would die doing their job, then they wouldn't do it.

As an example if this. I myself would be considered a "low reactive" person. And while carrying on one of my businesses would regularly see myself dangling over the edge of a 40+ storey building. Almost everyone could NOT handle doing something like this - suspended 40+ floors up by a couple of thin cables - and would think it risky. I deemed it quite safe - safer then being in a lift if for no other reason than a cable-to-suspended-weight ratio. But I didn't venture out without full training in the equipment and safety procedures. In short, while others thought of my actions as risky or dangerous, they only appeared that way to the uninitiated. I wouldn't have done it if it wasn't safe. Doing something that isn't safe is reckless, in my opinion.

Third, there is the question of military personnel and those others who "put their lives on the line" while performing their roll in society (police, fire, emergency service, etc.).

I don't think any person goes into such service really thinking they will die whilst performing their duty. And if it wasn't for those people and the sacrifices they have made, we wouldn't have the freedoms and relative safety we enjoy today. So we owe all of those who serve, a debt of gratitude. And I'd like to reprint a poem which reflects that...

I am a small and precious child,
My dad's been sent to fight.
The only place I'll see his face
Is in my dreams at night.

He will be gone too many days
For my young mind to keep track.
I may be sad, but I am proud.
My daddy's got your back.

I am a caring mother.
My son has gone to war.
My mind is filled with worries
That I have never known before.

Everyday I try to keep
My thoughts from turning black.
I may be scared, but I am proud.
My son has got your back.

I am a strong and loving wife
With a husband soon to go.
There are times I'm terrified
In a way most never know.

I bite my lip, and force a smile
As I watch my husband pack.
My heart may break, but I am proud.
My husband's got your back.

I am a soldier,
Serving proudly, standing tall.
I fight for freedom, yours and mine
By answering this call.

I do my job while knowing
Thanks it sometimes lacks.
Say a prayer that I'll come home.
It's me who's got your back.

Death In The Work Place

I have no loyalty to any "employer" when it comes to doing something for them if it could in any way jeopardize my health. And further to that, I also have an aversion to doing anything which could likewise put my health a risk - even if that something is something for myself.

No amount of money is worth injuring yourself for. And dying at work is the epitome of what I am against. To me, dying for your job is a waste of life and perhaps the most stupid thing anyone can do.

And that Australian who was shot in Saudi Arabia has wasted his life. He died for no noble cause or noble gesture. He died by choosing to work in a deadly part of the world because he could make more money there than at home.

Dying at work sucks. But I have no sympathy for the man. And, in fact, don't like him.

I know it is strange to not like someone you have never met, but I base my decision on the man's actions. His actions tell me more about the man than any newspaper expose` could.

So what are his actions which lead me to disliking him?

The actions are: choosing to work in Saudi Arabia building buildings.

On the surface those actions appear harmless. But it is the underlying aspects of it all.

Saudi Arabia is a despicable place. I know this even though I have never been there. The fact non-Muslims are not allowed into some cities. The fact women aren't allowed to drive. The fact the Barbie Doll has been banned for fear it would corrupt young impressionable female minds. The fact the women have to walk around in a black shapeless synthetic bag with eyeholes.

Saudi Arabia is a backward shit-hole. To put it bluntly.

And anyone who willingly goes to such a place to make money from such a system is, by association, condoning the way Saudi Arabia treats women. And anyone who condones such treatment of women scores a big fat zero in my book.

Look. We had embargos and sanctions on South Africa (S.A.) due to the apartheid and the way different peoples were treated. Yet Saudi Arabia (also with the initials S.A., coincidentally) can treat women like shit and that's ok?

It's a sad state of affairs that a country in this modern world can treat 50% of its citizens like garbage and we all stand by and keep quiet. I wonder if things would be different if Saudi Arabia didn't have any oil?

To Agree Or Not To Agree

Thankfully, we live in a world where people have varying opinions on the same subject. It enables us to have a conversation and to discuss the finer points of a topic. Maybe even leading to a third alternate idea. For this reason, healthy disagreement is good.

But healthy disagreement only seems to apply to people on the right, politically. That is, two people on the right can disagree about something, discuss it civilly, and still remain amicable even if they both still disagree in the end. This doesn't happen with people on the left.

With people on the left, however, you are either shouted down, made fun of, belittled, your intelligence insulted, the source of your information is ridiculed, and invariably somewhere in amongst all that the leftist will proclaim their rights and that you are infringing upon them. They may even label you a fascist. Or a racist. Or both. And after all is said and done, you are in no way amicable towards that person. In fact, you would probably class them as your enemy from that point on.

And to top it all off, the leftist didn't even make sense or elaborate on any of their points.

For example, in the paragraph above I gave examples of the kinds of things that a leftist will do in a "discussion." This helps my case and proves my point. The leftist would merely say, "right wing people are dickheads" and leave it at that - no explanation, no example, nothing.

Perhaps a better example would be to compare the current political campaign going on in the U.S.A.

The Bush ads will mention Kerry's voting record precisely. An ad might go something like this, "John Kerry has voted to increase taxes 372 times, yet he expects you to believe he will reduce taxes if elected."

In response to this, instead of a factual rebuttal Kerry will simply say something like, "Bush and his political hit-squad are lying to the American people again." No example. No proof of his claim they are lying. Just an out and out statement with nothing to back it up.

Another example: Two people on the right can have opposing viewpoints about guns and gun ownership. They will be able to rationally express their points of view in a civil manner. And after the discussion is over, there are no hard feelings. Just a deeper understanding of the other person's point of view.

If a right wing pro-gunner chats with a left wing anti-gunner, the lefty will shout down the righty and the conversation will be far from civil.

Could it be that right wing people simply have better manners and respect for people overall. Whereas left wing people don't have manners or respect for anyone other than themselves. It certainly seems that way.

Defying The Primary Law Of The Jungle

The first, foremost and most important law of the jungle is, survival. As animals, we must do whatever it takes to survive. Thankfully, due to our evolved sensibilities, that does not include killing other people to take their stuff, or to reduce competition for the available resources.

As part of our set of equipment to help us survive, mother nature has seen fit to give us two forward facing eyes to better judge distances (for prey or to help avoid being eaten, or for maximum manoeuvrability through the jungles), an opposing thumb and forefinger to we can grab, an upright posture for height and manoeuvrability, ears for hearing potential threats approach us, and for maximum survivability... a brain capable of abstract and rational thought.

If you were walking through the jungle in the wild, your eyes would constantly be scanning the undergrowth, trees and everything else. You would do like most other animals do - pause every now and then just to listen. Your ears would be on high-alert as you walked. And you would probably be carrying some kind of weapon (for self defense as well as attack) because we humans don't have built in weapons like teeth and claws or strength or speed.

You would not, under any circumstances, walk through a jungle with earmuffs on so you couldn't hear anything because, you wouldn't be able to hear any approaching danger.

And yet, this is precisely what people do on a daily basis. They nullify their senses on purpose and then walk through a dangerous jungle. And they do so simply by wearing headphones and listening to music on their "walkman."

With music blaring in their ears, they can't hear anything. An out of control car tooting its horn will not be heard until it hits them. A mugger running up behind won't be heard until it's too late. Nor will they hear someone who is trying to match their footsteps as they approach.

You can argue that in a civilized society a person should be able to walk down the street without fear of these things. And that may be true. But we aren't living in such a fantasy society. We are living in a reality society where muggings take place; where drunk drivers get behind the wheel of their car and lose control; where it isn't 100% safe 100% of the time. Where bad shit does happen to nice people.

As such, the prudent thing to do is treat our urban jungle like you would a wild jungle. Consider a trip out as a trip you need to survive. Lose the headphones and start paying attention to what's going on around you. The extra few seconds warning you get about an approaching danger could save your life.

The Right To Manage

There are two growing trends taking place in the world of residential complexes - which includes high-rise buildings.

Trend # 1. Outside body corporate management businesses. These businesses usually handle the money aspects of the body corporate and leave the running to the complex's body corporate members.

The way these work is like this: Say you did some work for the body corporate. You then submit a bill to the management business for the work you did. They double check with the body corporate committee head that the work was actually carried out, and then send you a check.

They are also supposed to have a list of preferred tradesmen the complex can use if they want to. But the complex can also arrange their own tradesmen. And they are supposed to look out for the interests of the body corporate and help them increase their body corporate fund.

The idea behind this is to stop abuse of body corporate money. And to remove full control of the body corporate money from one individual. This prevents a body corporate head from taking all the money out of the body corporate account and fleeing. It's also useful in case members of the body corporate committee change. As none of the members were signatories for sending checks, nothing needs to be changed at the bank.

It can seem complicated - but - there is a growing trend for complexes to utilize these services.

Trend # 2. Selling Management Rights. The idea is a person buys the right to manage a complex. They collect all body corporate monies, pay all necessary body corporate bills, and pocket the appropriate amount as stipulated in their agreement. As part of the deal, they usually are also buying a dwelling within the complex.

It's this second trend which is of most concern.

In my experience, every single owner of management rights becomes a "little Hitler." They act as if they own the complex and have a tendency to boss people around. Almost to the point of ordering people to do certain things. The minute amount of power they have as the manager goes right to their head.

I feel this would not happen in the old fashioned way of hiring someone to manage the complex. When you hire someone, they know they are staff and that if they stuff up, they will be fired. They also know, the residents are the ultimate bosses and that as manager they are in a service position.

But when someone buys that service position, they also become a resident. But not just an ordinary resident. A resident with a job to do and with a bit of power. AND, they know they cannot get fired because they bought their position.

To put this into a different perspective, think of your local supermarket and the checkout operator. As a staff member, the threat of being fired is always present making sure the job is done as it should be and the customer treated as they should be. But if that checkout operator bought their job, and thus couldn't be fired, then their attitude would change. They wouldn't like being "bossed" around and would treat the customer differently because their position would be secure. They would become this way because they would OWN their position.

This is what happens to people who buy management rights. They can't get fired. And they feel they own the position so won't accept being told anything by other residents.

Selling the management rights might be good for the developer - they don't have to worry about hiring a manager and they get a large amount of money instead. But it is bad for the residents as they end up being treated like children who should do what the manager says, or else.

The manager's job is to serve the residents. By allowing that person to buy that job, the manager's roll changes almost to one of a police-state big brother type of roll - of course it doesn't change in reality, but this is what it becomes due to the manager's perception.