Close Call

Jeeeezzzzzzzzuuuuuussssss. Man that was a close call. I nearly heard a Kylie Minogue song (shudder) on Music Max. Luckily, I managed to find the remote control in time and flick it onto Channel V instead. A disaster was averted.

I am baffled by what appears to be her popularity. Specially down here in Oz.

First, she can't sing to save herself. All songs she sings - going back as far to her cover version of Locomotion - see her voice altered electronically. Even with that and autotune she still sounds bad.

Second, she can't dance. Even with all the choreography the music companies throw at her, she can hardly do the left/right side-to-side shuffle thing.

Third, she can't act. Which is pretty bad for someone who was supposedly an actor.

Fourth, she abandoned the country. She spends ALL her time in England. Only comes to Australia for award shows and concerts. So she has no loyalty to the country at all. Yet many people here are loyal to her. Go figure.

Fifth, she is an alien. Just look at her. She is 37, or something, and doesn't look like a 37 year old. She's had surgery to "maintain" her looks. But it results in something unnatural looking. Something alien. I get the creeps every time I see her. (Eeeeewwwww.)

Sixth, she can't write songs. A football club hired her to sing Locomotion - someone else's song. After seeing the success of it, and knowing of how popular Neighbors was in the UK, the songwriters Stock, Aitken and Waterman hired her to sing their songs. The music company handled everything. She just becomes the puppet - do this, sing this, go there.

Seventh, she can't play an instrument. Not even the recorder. So has no musical ability whatsoever. Even though they were pathetic, at least the Sex Pistols played their own instruments.

She has nothing redeeming about her. But someone is buying her shit. What are they.... brainless?

Good Business Bad Business

In our day to day dealings with businesses, we come across an entire range of interactions that leave us with a good taste in our mouths or a bad taste, as well as a mix of those two extremes.

Unfortunately, we tend to remember the bad tastes and forget the good tastes unless they are exceptional. It doesn't help that ALL the current affairs shows portray businesses owners as con artists and rip off merchants.

A Bad Taste For instance: Years ago I bought some birds - Finches. The pet store guy said, "If there are ANY problems, just bring the bird back and we'll GIVE you another one in its place."

The next day, one of the birds was DEAD! So I took it back and he REFUSED to give another back. Said *I* had killed it by making it over excited with children (we had no children at the time); putting the cage in a drafty doorway and the draft killed it (the cage was in a corner). And he offered to sell me a bird for a discount. I asked about the PROMISED he had made the day before and he said nothing. The other customers in the shop just looked at me blankly. I repeated the entire thing to be sure all could hear... "Yesterday you told me if there was a problem to bring the bird back. Today the bird is dead. I call that a problem. Look at its legs. It looks like it had an illness before we even got it. I spent over $150 bux here yesterday and you will not give me a $2 bird as your promised."

I left the bird, in a clip lock plastic bag, sitting on the counter for all to see, and walked out.

On the other hand, we have this wonderful example of winning over customers when you screw up.

All businesses make mistakes. Even though we try to do things right, mistakes will happen from time to time. I am so impressed with how this business handled its blunder I am adopting their approach when my business makes a mistake in the future - gift with note in addition to fixing it up and apologizing at that point in time. I had always used something extra, but not quite like how this business did it.

It's funny. When screw ups happen, all the customer wants is for the problem to be fixed. They usually don't want anything else. And they certainly do NOT want excuses, or the "it's not my fault" thing. And most definitely do not want to be told it is their fault they had the problem and so tough luck.

I'm Richer Than You. I Gave Time. Aren't I Wonderful

Musicians appear to love jumping on the bandwagon and "donating" their "time" to "worthy" causes. And a couple of recent examples spring to mind...

The re-hashed "Do they know it's Christmas" song, and in Australia, "Wave Aid" - a concert put on to help raise funds for tsunami people; which was the brainchild of lefty left John Butler.

I actually find these things the epitome of hypocrisy from the musicians. Think about it...

They (the famous musicians) most likely have truckloads more money than those who attend their concert or buy their CDs. But instead of giving some of their money, they give time. Whereas those who buy the tickets to the concert have to give time to earn the money, then give the money to buy the ticket, and then give more productive time to attend the concert. So they give three times as much as the musician who could afford to give loads more money. Of course, the musician doesn't give money, only time, and then makes out what a wonderful person they are. HA! (Remember, the musician's money is based on Royalties - so the money comes in regardless, once they have released a CD.)

I see through their little sharade. Through their phoniness. If they were truly so noble they would give their money too. Money and time and effort. Then, and only then, can they say they are really helping. But this, "I gave my time so those poor people could benefit" it just another crock-pot full of baloney stew.

You're Fired, For Smoking

A company in the U.S. has fired seven workers for smoking. And the A.C.L.U is not happy about. And as could be predicted, the media highlights the plight of one of the workers - a single mom of two - to make us think the company is extra big and bad. As well as making the excuse that the mom only smokes to help calm her nerves.

The first initial reaction to what the company did might be one of "how unfair" or something like that. However, with these things we must view it from a "property rights" point of view. And when we do we see nothing wrong.

Think of your house and that you do not smoke. If someone comes over, YOU are the one who decides whether they can smoke inside your house or not, or even just outside your door, because the house and land is your property. It's your property so you are the one who decides what behavior can be carried out there.

It's the same with the company. It's their land, their building. And by allowing smoking, they are charged higher insurance premiums for their employees - like you might be charged higher insurance to insure your house if you allow people to smoke in it.

So ultimately, it is THEY who have the final say about what actions they allow to take place on their property.

What the A.C.L.U would love is for the govt to force the company to allow smokers to work on their property. For it would just be another element of control put into place. Leading us down the fascist road - where you can own it but cannot control it.

See, if the A.C.L.U. practiced property rights, then they wouldn't be able to jump up and down about this. For they would see the hypocrisy of infringing upon someone else's property rights while trying to supposedly champion another person's rights.

The interesting thing about the sackings is, all the staff were given 12 months notice of the changing company policy - and - offered funded treatment to help them quit smoking. When the 12 months had gone by and they were tested for nicotine on their breath, those found to still be smoking were fired.

So it isn't as if the company decided the new rule today and enforced it tomorrow. The company did everything in its power to be "fair" to those who may have been effected by the new rule.

The single mom who was fired said, "I want to give up smoking - BUT - I want to do it on my terms." Which means, "I don't really want to give up smoking at all, and am just saying I do so it looks good for the cameras, what with being a single mom and all."

We need to uphold property rights because it is the foundation upon which all progress and advancement is built. Without something as fundamental as being able to own our own property and do with it as we wish, all incentive is gone out the window. There is then no point striving to get ahead because you cannot. No desire to do overtime or build a business. We will revert to doing the minimum required to get by in our new roles as slave to the state. The economy will suffer and economic ruin will follow.

It is only when we accept the rule of property rights that we get ahead. Suddenly, with the ability to own more and more stuff and to keep the fruits of our efforts, people will strive to get ahead. They will accumulate things. And the economy will prosper.

The moment the govt might force a company to accept smoking on its property, is the moment we open the doors to total control. Because where do we then drawn the line? Does the company need to then accept any old clothes being worn? Any old hair style no matter how dangerous it might be around machinery? And if that should be a matter to be decided in court, then we are giving control to judges to decide what a company can and cannot do with its own property.

I'm pretty darn sure YOU would not like things forced onto you, so why should you accept - and even back - things being forced onto someone else?

And the entire situation is kind of a joke. The A.C.L.U wants the company to be forced to allow smoking while at the same time, cheers that restaurants are not allowed to allow smoking. Go figure.

But you know, the govt can never acknowledge the existence of property rights. For it might see the population wake up to the fact that the govt is the biggest infringer of property rights. And that wouldn't make the govt very popular.