Wasted Dead Days

Today, as I write this, the entire country has shut down. It's "Easter Friday" you see. Easter being a Christian (achem) celebration. And so, we must all suffer - those of us who are of other faiths, those of us who are of no faith. All because some Christians want to celebrate a bastardised date.

Businesses are all closed. So my business cannot serve the business clients it has.

Employees are enjoying their "paid day off" (something us business owners do not get) and aren't conducting business. They are "out" for the day - BBQs, Beach, Picnics, etc.

So that means that days like today are wasted and dead days. An entire economy shut down for the sake of the belief of a few of its citizens - to hell with the rest of us.

Sure there are some businesses open. Namely, petrol stations - so the employees can tank up on their trips to the beach, or wherever they go.

But if you want stuff from the supermarket, you are shit out of luck. Want to "eat out" in a restaurant? Sorry.

So not only do all business fail to generate revenue on such days, they are FORCED to pay their staff for the day off. A day which is also FORCED upon them by the govt. And if a business does want to open for business - not that there will be anyone walking about to give that business any business - then they have to pay their staff quadruple rates - cheaper to close for the day and pay staff for not being at work.

We are supposed to live in a FREE country. But it is obvious, that this freedom means, "free as long as it is what we, the govt, say is free."

Onward.

Just got a knock on the door from some child abusers. Oh. They call themselves Jehovah's Witnesses. I call them Child Abusers because they drag their young children around the streets with them while they bible bash every person they come into contact with. They force their religion down the throats of their children - removing the child's freedom of choice to be involved in the religion or not. They deprive the child of its own journey of discovery. Force the child to come face to face with strangers and talk about points a child has no reasoning ability to comprehend, let alone talk about. THAT is child abuse, to me.

They didn't come right out and tell me who they were either. She, the mother, started prattling on about wanting to talk to me for a moment and blah blah blah. I asked her to get to the point. While she prattled on some more about nothing, she removed a booklet thing from her carry-folder. I looked at her child, the husband then appeared with their other child, I asked if they were the Watchtower people, to which they responded in the positive. I told them I have all their stuff (which I do... their bible, their red and blue books) and bid them a day. They didn't argue and quickly left. To drag their kids to the nextdoor neighbor's house to preach their beliefs some more, and brainwash their children all the while.

Organized religion (which is what all religions are) is EVIL. While one version sees the entire country close down and money be drained from the entrepreneurs of the nation, another abuses their children.

Millions of people have been killed because of organized religion. Even today, people are being killed in the name of religion. Islamic terrorists... killing in the name of Allah... leave bombs behind to blow people up, and even kill themselves by strapping bombs to their own bodies. And teaching their children the same thing. As Pascal said... "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."

I don't care what religion you are - Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, Scientologist, Raelian, whatever. Just do NOT force it on to me. Forcing my business to close down due to your religious beliefs is forcing it onto me. Knocking at my door to preach your religion is forcing it onto me. And it is all done thanks to religion.

If religion was free form, we would see philosophies merge and grow. Instead, we see some person manipulate the faithful by controlling the religion and then using those people as a source of free labor and finances - which create an even bigger power base for those in control. Something that would be impossible if religion was free form. (If religion was free form, there would actually be no religion... just various theories that would merge over time and possibly grow to become larger more accurate concepts.)

I used to think religion was ok, in moderation. I now think otherwise. Religion is the scourge of the planet. It infects people like a virus, destroying their free will and destroying their ability to think and reason. As my wife often says, "I am anti-religion."

Religion is nonsense. And it's dangerous believing in nonsense.

As Nature Intended?

At the moment, there is a lot of debate on whether removing the feeding tube that keeps Terri Schiavo alive, is the right thing to do, or not. With much of the argument being based on what makes someone feel good about it - though they call it a "moral" issue. (Whenever situations require us to look at a part of ourselves without emotion, and we don't like what we see by way of answer, we ignore the answer and call it a moral issue.)

What do I mean by this? Simply that, much of the argument to keep her alive is based on how the person wanting her to live feels about it. THEY feel better if she is alive, so want to keep her alive.

Oh sure, they then argue she is making improvement, or that she responds to people she knows. As if that proves she has some cognitive ability and that she just lacks the ability to communicate what is on her mind. But their motivation behind saying those things is how it makes them feel. And they feel better if other people think well of them. So they want her to live in the state she is in, for their own reasons, and merely dress it up as if they are doing it for her.

Same goes for her husband - and those who would see her feeding tube removed. The hubby wants to get on with his life and he cannot while she is still living in limbo. It doesn't matter if he has found himself another woman or not. From his point of view, as long as she is being kept alive, he is tied down.

Ok. Having said that - and I will come to a conclusion that I am sure both sides would be in agreement with - let me say a few things you might not like...

Remove the tube and let her perish. Because... she has NO ABILITY to sustain herself in any way. And self-sustaining is a thing we all have inherent in us. Even a baby knows how to suckle. And they gradually learn the "food in mouth, then swallow" thing. But Terri doesn't even have that.

You cannot leave an apple on her table for her to pick up and eat. You cannot feed her like you would feed a baby, where she chews and swallows. She has to be feed with a tube directly into her stomach because she has no ability to consume food in any other way.

In nature, such an animal would perish. It is no different here, as far as I see it. After all, we are still animals.

She has zero cognitive ability. If she only had a physical disability, she could still be a value-producing member of society (like Stephen Hawkings or Christopher Reeve). If all she could do was control her ability to blink, then a set of glasses could be placed on her head which read where her eyes are looking. A large keyboard could be placed in front of her, and she could communicate by looking at letters and blinking to select the letters she wants. In that way, not only could she communicate, she could also create values for others - be that of her written thoughts, or books to enjoy and read. But as it is, she doesn't have any such ability. At this moment, she isn't even living on "lower brain" functions which take care of the absolute basics - like eating - let alone a "higher brain" function like communication. Her current condition is no more than that of a bunch of living cells which is in the shape of the animal we know as human. But all traces of humanity - the stuff that makes us different from a bunch of cells in a human shape - are NOT present.

Such a person is a drain on the herd. And should be allowed to perish, as nature would have had it before our evolved sensibilities called it a "moral issue".

Imagine a small tribe of people. All producing values for each other and the tribe. Now one of them becomes like Terri. She will quickly be left to die.

Imagine where such people are not left to nature's laws of life - where self-sustaining is the ultimate ability, without which you perish. How many such people do we say enough is enough. 100? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? At what point do we say these people are a drain on our society and if we keep it up we will be sacrificing our own survival and values for no gain, so let's pull the plug?

For those who would want to keep her alive, I need to remind you I am talking about Terri and her situation. Not some hypothetical situation you make up which is not Terri's situation. So don't bother trying to come back at me with anything that is not Terri's situation. And Terri's situation is a total lack of the inherent ability to keep one's-self alive with even auto-response actions like swallowing - and - zero cognitive function while being awake. And being in such a state for a pro-longed period without any significant signs of a change in condition.

Some would argue, "do you think she would want you to unplug her, if you asked her and she could answer?" To which I say, "No." Then again, if she could actually understand such a question and answer it, the question wouldn't be asked in the first place. So it is a silly argument to use and is a question to divert the obviousness of the truth - that she is in a state that would see her perish in the wild, that any other animal would such perish, and to think that way upsets us.

Some would say, "Don't you want people in comas to live?" To which I reply "yes... BUT... Terri is NOT in a coma and people in comas are not in Terri's condition." As I said, this is about Terri and her condition and NOT hypothetical situations or situations which are not Terri's situation.

Anyway. I realize my position (to let her perish) doesn't bode well with some people. It upsets their sensibilities. And so I offer this solution...

Freeze her until science has discovered a way for her to be fixed up. And let those who want her to be saved, fund it all.

This not only serves the purpose - giving her the capacity to be fixed up at some point in time - it is also humane from her point of view. As it does not subject her to a needless vegetative state of being alive without existing, while her cells age and become less likely to be able to be fixed. If she is frozen, her cells will stay in their current young state, which is better for her if/when a solution to her problem is discovered. And she could be fixed as a young woman and not an old one who is about to die of old age anyway. And let those who want to "save" her set up a "Save Terri Schiavo" fund where those who want to do so, can give money to help her. (Let them put their own money where their mouth is.)

But before such people set up a fund, I would ask them "why just Terri?" Aren't there many other people in all kinds of situations who could do with a fund being set up to help them? Why ignore them and not Terri? Could the answer be because it is only Terri's situation you find upsetting and not the others, and so to make you feel better you want to help Terri? Could it be due to the media? The more they show of Terri the more the podies want to get on the "save Terri" bandwagon and earn themselves a good-guy badge? Would a black girl in the middle of Africa be getting the same level of support from these people as Terri is getting? Why do I seem to be the only one suggesting to freeze her? Could it be the others want to keep her awake for their own selfish reasons as I outlined - it makes them feel better?

Sure these questions are hard to answer. That's because they make us look at aspects of ourselves we might not like. They make us maybe admit things we don't think we should. So we discard such questions, call it a moral issue, and argue from there.

Saddam's Gift To Australia

It is reported that in Saddam's Iraq was a building which housed information on Iraq's citizens. A dossier depository, if you will. Where a govt authority could look up information on each and every citizen at will. To find out when and where they were born, who they were married to, where they worked, how many jobs they had had, how many dwellings they had lived in, and so on.

We, in the civilized world, find such a place appalling. It reminds us of Stalin's USSR, or gives us Nazi (Nationalist Socialist) nightmares. And for those of us who have read the book, brings George Orwell's 1984 to mind.

But in Saddam's Iraq we have a working example... and an accessible one at that, now that the war ousted him from power.

Now, some two years after the war began, the Australian govt is looking to compile similar dossiers on each of its citizens. The govt body known as the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) has proposed linking records to individual names and addresses in future census surveys (thanks to Patrick Hawke for bringing this to my attention).

What this means is, a govt official will be able to type in your name and see all the addresses you have lived at, how often you move, complete details about your family, how much money you make, everything.

Granted, a govt official could find out all this information anyway. By cross referencing electoral roll information with motor vehicle records, tax records and so on. But it would take time and effort - something govt employees really don't like spending.

What I find interesting is how the leftist opposition party has said nothing about this. And how the left-leaning TV media have also kept quiet about it.

This is, perhaps, the greatest threat to our civil liberties this country has had to face - amongst such threats as the national ID card known as The Australia Card, which was discarded due to public outcry. But there is silence about it. Instead, we get news of what Kerry Nettle (Greens senator) thinks of the Iraq war. Seems she is against infringing upon the rights of Iraqi citizens but compiling dossiers on each and every Australian citizen is ok with her.

The fact ALL political parties are remaining quiet about this tells me they condone it!

Of course, if such a proposal goes ahead, and isn't just a test proposal to see how the public react to it, then I foresee a lot of misleading information being submitted in future census surveys. Even though there is a threat of a fine for providing misleading information.

Some people will give false names. Others will say they were at a friend's house on the night of the census survey and all their information is on the friend's form. Incomes will be under-estimated. Religions will be made up. And so on.

And what would have seen Joe Bloggs, the bricky's labor assistant, be honest, will see him put his name down as Zaphod Beeblebrox who earns $12,000 a year and whose religion is Jedi (like the 300,000 or so Britons who said they were Jedi in their last census) and with an occupation of Jibble Inspector.

Last census, some people were forced to fill out additional information after the census had been conducted. I was unfortunate enough to be one of those who was forced to fill in the form. When I told them I didn't want to I was informed I would be fined something like $100 a day if I didn't. So I reluctantly filled it in.

Even then, the census collector wanted additional information "about one of the people" at that address. I told them they had moved away and I don't know where they are. And never heard any more of it.

As someone who has been targeted as a person to fill out the extra forms, I wonder if I will also be targeted next time as well. All I know is, I considered it a gross violation of my privacy.

This new proposal is even worse. For the data would stay with you from birth until death.

Anyway. I called my Federal Member for Parliament to voice my objection to the proposal. I was told the proposal had been knocked on the head. When I asked WHEN, I was told, as soon as it had been proposed. I have asked for WHERE I can see that it has been knocked on the head and am awaiting a return call to let me know where I can view the apparent head knocking. I will update this entry when I find out more.

Gold Just Ain't Worth The Tools Used To Dig It Up

There is somewhat of a gold-fixation amongst survivalists. Many acquire gold - in the form of coins - in case the economy collapses. They believe that having the gold will enable them to buy goods. I have a different take. A take that hints that gold's value after a collapse will be worse than useless. And not even worth the value of the tools used to dig it up.

If you have a gold coin, take it to the bank and ask them to give you cash for it. After you get a "no" take it to another bank. And then another. And all the banks in town. You'll still have your gold coin at the end of the day.

Next day, walk into a store and ask to buy something with that coin. In all stores you'll be told "no". And if you do happen to find a store willing to do a deal, it is only because the salesman might have a bit of cash in his pocket which he will put in the register - effectively buying you the product with his cash, in exchange for you giving him your gold coin. He will then try to sell the coin and make a bit of money. And the reality is, you won't get anywhere near the real value of that coin.

Take your coin to a coin dealer. He'll probably tell you to come back in a week after he has had it fully checked out.

Now seeing as a collapse is something that happens fast, the above should be a clear indication that holding onto gold coins is not a quick way to survive an economic collapse. And certainly not a way to get a wad of cash, or consumer goods, quick.

So what WOULD be worth something in an economic collapse?

Consumer goods and tools with a function. Shovels and spades. Cookware. Needles and threads. Shoes. Axes. Headache tablets. Etc. Because all these items can be exchanged/bartered for other items.

If someone approached you with a gold coin and asked to swap it for your cooking pots, you'd tell him to get stuffed. But if he offered a pair of shoes for a pot or two, then you might actually go ahead with it.

And what this means is, in a collapse, gold coins would actually be a burden. And the effort to carry them around will prevent you from carrying around other items more able to be traded. So gold coins are worse than useless.

You'd be better off buying surplus consumer goods to hold onto in case of a collapse instead of gold.