Abusing "Solution Providers" Doesn't Solve Your Problem

Our business world can be summed up simply... it provides solutions to problems.

Need clothes? Solve your "lack of clothes" problem by going to the solution providing clothing store.

Need to wash those clothes? Solve your "dirty clothes" problem by going to the solution providing washing machine seller.

Need to fix your broken washing machine? Solve your "broken washing machine" problem by going to the solution providing washing machine repair man.

As a washing machine repairer, need more parts? Solve your "lack of washing machine parts" problem by contacting a solution providing washing machine parts provider.

As the washing machine parts provider, need a way to get parts to your customers the washing machine repair men? Solve your "delivery" problem by going to the solution providing haulage/transport/courier solution provider.

And round and round we go. All of us making money by helping others solve their problems, in some way. Employees help bosses solve problems of getting things done, for example.

As all of my businesses are based on solving existing and identifiable problems, I have an edge. Because it is better to solve problems people are already concerned about and looking to solve (they search for you), then trying to educate people about problems and teach them they should care about them.

And yesterday, one client was in need of my solution. She had been "booked in" for three days. And yesterday was the day she was due to have her problem solved by my solution.

Two hours before her scheduled time she called to ask if it could be put back another hour - to 5pm. And then gave me some big sob story how she wasn't ready yet and blah blah blah.

It actually suited me better at this time and I agreed. (Note to employees working 9-5, yes she is getting serviced AFTER knock-off time. That's one of the types of things you might have to do if you want to make more money than just employees working 9-5.)

Then forty five minutes before time she called again. She wanted to put it back to 6pm!

I told her "No." She gave me a song and dance then asked for 5:30pm. Again I said "no, because I have other previous obligations."

More song and dance and sob story. I said, "Listen, I am not here to solve your personal problems. I just do X. That is all. If you like, I'll give you the number of two other 'solution providers' who might be able to help you at that time."

She agreed and I gave her the first number. At that point, she went schizo. Started yelling at me. Told me she doesn't have personal problems. And blah blah blah. Which garnered the reaction from me of "I don't need to be abused" click.

Unbelievably, she called right back. All calm this time as if nothing had happened? And said, "What about the second number?"

"What second number?"

"You said you had two people's numbers to give me."

"You abuse me and now you want me to help you? Well, I'll tell you what..."

And then she just started blabbering on and wouldn't let me get a word in edgewise. It didn't matter how many "listen"s I put in, or tried to get her to stop and listen, her mouth was in gear and she was revving the engine. In the end I said, "Listen. Shut up and listen and I'll tell you..."

Another outburst erupted... "Don't you dare tell me to shut up..."

Click. I hung up.

You'd think that'd be the end, wouldn't you?

Not to this psycho. She calls back a few minutes later. Whines how the guy whose number I'd given her couldn't help and the number he gave her couldn't help either. And now she had - sob sob, hold back tears - no-one who could help.

"I'm sorry. We cannot do business. Find someone else." Click.

And that was finally the end.

I was utterly amazed at this. If you want a problem solved which you cannot solve yourself, that last thing you do is abuse the solution provider. Because, as in her case, when the solution provider - who is another human being who deserves to be treated like a human being and not a slave - decides not to deal with abusive customers, the customer is left with zero options. It's like burning your bridges in front of you.

Feminism's Fundamental Flaw

I am woman hear me roar, could be considered the battle cry of feminists all over the world. Where they are, with one voice, declaring their equal status and power. Equal to that of men, that is.

And as a motivator it certainly got a lot of women involved into the "movement". A movement which seems to be run and controlled by socialist lesbians - but that is besides the point, or maybe it is all part of the point as you'll see later.

Anyway. Feminism is built on a flawed foundation.

If a woman truly thought of herself as strong and powerful and equal, would she then go running to the govt to change the rules so she had it easier? Doesn't the very act of running to the govt to change rules in your favor, indicate a self-acceptance of weakness and inability to "compete" without help? And doesn't that therefore mean, the entire philosophy of feminism is flawed from the get go?

A truly free and sovereign woman would not want "equal treatment" forced onto people from daddy govt. If people wanted to discriminate against her, then she would simply take her business elsewhere. She would exercise her "power" and "control of her own life" and do business with those who did not discriminate against women. She'd start her own business, or find a non-discriminatory job, or find non-discriminatory investors, and get on with her life. With the self-assuredness of her ability to compete.

Only someone who has accepted their weakness and inability would go running to daddy govt to force someone to give them "equal treatment". And doing so would be a self-admitted slave act. In fact, they would be double-slaves. Slaves of their perceived oppressors as well as slaves of the daddy-govt they have gone running to.

Considering that the socialist is all about power and control over other people, and ever bigger and bigger govt, it would make sense for the feminism movement to con women into running to the govt for help. For doing so would result in the govt forcing itself onto others and telling them what they can and cannot do, as well as creating more govt departments to oversee the anti-discrimination-against-women stuff they are complaining about.

Women, you have been hoodwinked. You aren't "strong" and "independent" when you run to daddy govt to force people to give you "equal treatment". You are, in fact, opposite. You are nothing but a weak slave. And the more you buy into the entire feminist movement, the worse it becomes for you.

You want to see strong an independent and sovereign? Then you need look no further than China - where women are considered second class citizens, right? Well, it just so happens the owner of the largest restaurant in the world is a woman. Her restaurant is so big it can seat 4,000 people. That's 4,000 people choosing what they want to eat from a menu. Well over 100 chefs cooking like the dickens in the kitchen. A very successful woman who didn't need any govt to force others to give her "equal treatment." She just went ahead and exhibited her true power as a sovereign woman.

Oh. And by the way. Everything here applies equally to all minority groups who would also run like chicken-little to daddy govt trying to get daddy govt to force other people to give them "equal treatment". You are all weak and pathetic, pretending to be strong. You're all a bunch of double slaves.

Why Do People Have Children?

It's a sad fact of life, most people do not know why they do anything. They float through life doing things they have been raised to do. They eat and drink certain foods because that is what mom/dad fed them. They never question the stuff they eat or drink.

Why do they drink coffee? Why alcohol? Why eat candy? They don't know. It is just something they do because they have always done it.

The same applies to having children. People have them without fully understanding what's involved.

They want to "start a family". No thought is given to what is truly involved. How much time and money they will need to commit to the act.

Think about an ad for the job...

Wanted - person to devote 20 hours a day without pay, plus $100+ a week out of their pocket for the next 15 - 20 years. Chance to become frustrated, aggravated, upset, and so on. No free time for self. Severe loss of sleep mandatory. Call 555-555

Sounds appealing, doesn't it? NOT! And yet this is the reality of choosing to have a baby.

If you know this in advance and still choose to have a baby, then that is a different story. But most people don't know what they are getting themselves in for. They are not ready to have a baby emotionally or financially. And you must be prepared in both areas.

A client had a baby a while ago. And the reality has hit her, which she denies by spending her way out of it. You see, all she can manage is two days a week looking after her own child! And she doesn't know how those who do it full time are able to. If it wasn't for daycare centers and baby sitters she wouldn't be able to handle it, she says.

And even when the child is home, she sits it in front of the TV watching some kids show. Of course, the child gets bored with that and quickly gets up to mischief - which she knows nothing about because she isn't supervising her child, she is elsewhere doing her own thing.

Most people's solution to the reality of a child is to fob it off onto daycare. As that costs more money, both parents work. With much of the income going to daycare.

Why do both parents need to work in this day and age but not years ago?

Because they are keeping up with the Jones. They have to have the new car, new furniture, latest fashions, be seen at the coffee shops, have the "jogger" stroller so they can be seen being fit while they show off the fact they have a kid, the kid needs all the latest and greatest toys, and so on.

With so much money spent on their "image" it is little wonder they have no money left for the basics of having a child. So instead of getting rid of some of their un-necessary expenses, they choose to work and make more money instead.

And the entire situation creates something I am against... infringement upon my property rights.

Our govt gives new parents $3,000 just for having a kid. Well heck. That money has to come from somewhere... right out of the taxes I pay. So I am funding someone else's misguided desires to have a child for reasons they don't know.

Our govt funds daycare centers. Oh yes. On top of the money the parents pay. So that means more money out of my pocket, in the form of taxes, to fund the looking-after of someone else's kids. Kids they gave no forethought to having.

When they decide to buy a car they "run the numbers" to make sure they can afford the repayments. When they buy a house they "run the numbers" to make sure they can afford the repayments. In fact, they are unable to buy these items if the numbers show they cannot afford it.

Yet. This does not apply to kids. People just pop them out without a second's thought about how they are going to pay for it all. And if they can't pay for it, they just get support money from the govt. Which means, the govt takes money out of my pocket to give to these people so they can have a kid. So I end up funding other people's child-having desires because they never gave it thought or prepared financially for it.

Does this mean we should never have children?

Good heavens no. It doesn't mean that at all. If you are fully aware of the repercussions of having a child. Are fully aware of what you are in for - in terms of time and money and responsibility - and you are fine with that, then by all means have a child.

I am saying, most people don't give it any thought. They bring a life into the world without knowing how they will support it or what they will do with regards to loss of their freedom. And when reality hits home, they then expect other people to fund their bad choice.

Money for having a child, money for sending a kid to daycare (which goes straight to the daycare center), money monthly to "help" with affording the child, and so on. It's one big rort foisted upon value producers by a govt wanting to curry favor from value leeches, whose only addition to the country is another value leech mouth to feed.

If the govt support was taken away, not only would the birth rate drop, but children up for adoption would increase, and couples financially able to support a kid - as you must be before you can adopt but not so to give birth, ironically - will not have to wait. And life for those children will be much better than a life on welfare. And better than a life of being sent to daycare and babysitters like my yuppie client does - and many others do too.

The Wishing Tree Is A Load Of Bollocks

Down in the land that everyone forgot (Australia), Target and K-Mart stores are running a promotion that we can all be Santa. All we have to do is buy a gift and place it under the wishing tree. The gifts will then be distributed to those in "need."

I see a few things wrong with this promotion...

Thing # 1: Who defines "need"? Consider the homeless person. They might not have a home or a car, however they also have no debt. Compared to the wannabe-rich yuppie who has the ornamental magnifiers of big house, flash car, schmicko clothes and goes out to coffee all the time, the homeless person is actually better off. Because the wannabe-rich yuppie probably has a negative net worth of over $500,000. The homeless person with $10 in their pocket has a positive net worth of $10. So is the person who is better off the one who is worth negative half a million or plus ten?

Thing # 2: A homeless person has a few needs - such as a place to live - however, our ancestors wandered around the globe without a fixed abode, so there is no real big deal here. As long as there is a roof overhead to sleep under, people are fine. Clothes are another need. But once again, a few clothes can last many years. And we don't all need a wardrobe full of clothes. Which leaves two basic things that the homeless person truly needs - food, and money to buy food.

But this Wishing Tree is about giving them a gift. The homeless person would rather have food, or money, than a stupid gift - like a toy or some such crap.

And if the tree is not designed for homeless people but others who are in "need" again, please define "need". And I am sure, they would also rather have food and/or money instead of dumb plastic toys that have no real use for them. Same goes for DVDs, CDs or anything that is not food/money.

Thing # 3: Those who give are hypocrites doing this for nothing other than a goodguy badge. If they were truly altruistic and truly wanted to do good - whatever do good means - they would sell their possessions and give the "needy" the money. They would take homeless people in and give them food and shelter. They would start a Soup Kitchen or work in one, instead of buy another stupid figuring or Franklin Mint plate. They would send their child to public school and also help fund the education of a child in need. They would shop at the Salvation Army store instead of buying designer label clothes. And so on.

But they don't do any of that. They provide "charity at a distance" so they can wear a goodguy badge around their friends. And they can all um and ah about how altruistic they are with each other. And what wonderful good things they are doing.

Thing # 4: Target and K-Mart are trying to make money out of it. Target and K-Mart are being hypocritical about the entire thing. Oh sure they are making out like they are the good guys. But this has nothing to do with Target and K-Mart being good. Because Target and K-Mart are trying to CON us into giving them money and then giving the item to someone else. They get to keep the money we spend with them, while we get nothing other than a goodguy badge to wear, figuratively speaking of course. We don't really get a badge... except a badge of honor. We can tell our friends we gave at the Wishing Tree, and thus show how much we hypocritically care.

Thing # 5: If people really cared like they make out they do, why do they wait until Christmas to show it? Why do they show no caring all year but then, when Xmas is here, buy a few silly items, give them away and then feel good for another year?

It's like the "Feed The World" song. Re-released so another generation can claim to have helped the starving millions. While never asking what the country those millions live in is doing about its starving people... or asking why the problem never goes away no matter how much food is thrown at it... or why people who are starving continue to have children compounding the problem. Nope. Easier to plonk down a few bucks, buy a CD and claim to be altruistic.

If Target and K-Mart were are generous as they make out, they would give X% of each sale to those in "need" and give them food and/or money. But, of course, we know that will never happen. Not as long as the Earth continues to spin anyway. And why should it? They are in business to make money. It would just be nice not to use duplicity to do it, is all.

Come Join "The National Association of White Journalists" Today

Years and years ago, back in the dark ages of the internet, there was a show produced by MSNBC called "The Site." Each episode focused on new and cool things about the internet.

New and unusual websites where you could find useful stuff - like house prices in your area, website tools that would tell you what was wrong with your site, various calculators (normal math, distance between two cities, etc.) and a host of other nifty stuff.

The name of the host of the show was Solidad. She is a journalist who currently works for CNN and is a member of the National Association of Black Journalists - and - the National Association of Hispanic Journalists.

Of course, as is the usual hypocritical way with these things, there is NO National Association of White Journalists. Oh no. If there was such a thing that would be racist.

A National Association of Black Journalists and a National Association of Hispanic Journalists is ok. So too is a Native American Journalists Association and a group called Journalists of Color.

They can have their own associations and it is not discrimination or anything like that. But if a white group should form. Oh bloody hell. You'd never hear the end of it. There would be an outcry in the press. Minority groups would express their disappointment about how "backward" such a group is. And blah blah blah.

See. There can be a National Association of Black Journalists, a Miss Black America, Black Only Bars and Clubs, Black Pride, Black Entertainment Network, and so on. And that is NOT considered racist.

BUT, if there was a National Association of White Journalists, a Miss White America, White Only Bars and Clubs, White Pride or a White Entertainment Network, then the talk shows and talk-back radio would have a field day. There would be stories "from the street" of what the "average" American thinks. How it effects kids, how we thought we left segregation behind, how it is a backward step, and so on and so forth ad nauseum.

And when you raise the point of all these black-only groups, your argument will be swept aside as if you had never raised it. So you will have to be strong and ALWAYS come back to that question... WHY is it ok for a National Association of Black Journalist or a Black Entertainment Network to exist and not a white one? Why can we have Black Pride but not White pride?

Your house will be rocked. Your car trashed. You will be blamed for these things and not the people who did them. You will be blamed for inciting race violence - even though all you did was form a group and question why blacks can have these groups but whites cannot.

Your biggest crime will be to expose the hypocritical nature of the lefty-do-gooders. The press will give you a hard time because they are lefty-do-gooders who can operate within this doublethink quite all right thank you very much.

Some members of the right-wing press will have you on their shows - like Rush Limbaugh. And others, like Ann Coulter, will mention you when they are on other people's shows. But for the most part, you will be vilified as some kind of Satan incarnate. And all the woes of the blacks and other minorities will be lumped on "people like you". YOU will be attacked while your MESSAGE will be ignored - a standard tactic, attack the messenger to discredit the message.

And if you say anything against this "attack" you will be told it is "freedom of speech". While your same words won't be considered "freedom of speech" your words will be viewed as "attacks."

Just your typical doublethink from the wonderful (cough - bullshit - cough) left.