From the Desk of Michael Ross

Is Higher Education All It Is Cracked Up To Be?

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Fri, 08 Jul 2005 09:59:00 +0000

The standard flow of students these days is...

Go to school until Year 12
Then go to university and get a degree
Then use that degree to get a job

But is this sequence the ideal sequence - or - has everyone been sold a bill of goods and is everyone being lead down the garden path?

Personally, I think that latter. And for a variety of reasons you will see in a minute.

When I went to uni - yes, yours humbly did go - I could not understand WHY I was being taught a bunch of stuff I would not be using. In fact, I thought this before uni. I thought this in highschool.

In highschool I wondered why I was being forced to memorize so much "history" of which I had no interest. Sure it was interesting to learn about WWI and WWII. But I couldn't see how knowing this stuff to a level to pass a test, would be of benefit to me in the big wide world. The only use I could see of being FORCED to learn this history was if I wanted to go to university and learn to be a history teacher, or some kind of historian.

I had the same view of the math I was learning. I thought those who were doing "Math in Society" were learning far more practical math that had everyday applications. While I was not learning that and was, instead, learning higher level math that had no real immediate use other than learning even higher math at uni.

So while doing my B.Sc/DipEd. you can understand how I was puzzled as to WHY I would need to learn such a high level of science when the degree would enable me to only teach lower school-level science.

It's pretty hard to be enthusiastic about something that doesn't make a real lot of sense to you. So I deferred my studies. And something interesting happened. I was sent a results card half way through the year - even though I had NOT enrolled for that year. Of course, because I wasn't there and had not sat any test, my results were all "Fail."

At the end of the year I got another results card. Same result - Fail. And there was an additional note. Because I had failed the same subjects for two semesters, I was not allowed to do those particular subjects for 12 months. Well, because I had "failed" ALL subjects, I was not allowed to do any for 12 months.

Anyway. I looked at the possible rewards of continuing on. And what I had to look forward to was a $30,000 a year job - which was ok at the time. But I did some calculating and it went like this...

If I left and made $25,000 a year (the average wage), by the time I finished my degree after four years (it was a four year degree) I would have earned $100,000.

If I complete the degree I can get a $30,000 a year job - only $5,000 a year more. And at $5,000 a year more, it will take me 20 years to make up for the lost income of $100,000 I could have earned during those four years.

And if I factor in the student loan I would have to pay back should I stay, it might take an additional five years to make up the short fall. So I was looking at spending 25 years to catch up what studying for four years would cost me.

How many other business/income opportunities would I miss in those four years while I was holed up trying to learn subject matter I would never use?

And what if I wanted to do something else besides being a science teacher. Such as a Park Ranger. I'd need a science degree, but WHY. How would such a degree help me be a better ranger? How would such a degree help me be a better fighter pilot - if I joined the airforce? I could see no way it could, and all these years later I still cannot.

Police in my state have to do 12 months of uni before going to the academy. Why? How does that enable them to be better police officers? How does that enable them to interact with the public better? I cannot see how it does. And so if I wanted to be a cop, I would be doing something I felt had no bearing. So would not be enthusiastic about it. And so wouldn't do it to the best of my ability, and probably would drop out as I view it as silly.

Most staff in an office have a degree. How many tasks performed require that degree? I cannot think of any. After all, a short course in typing and using Word or Excel would teach them most of what they need to know. And the rest would be taught on the job as they learn how that business uses Word or Excel. Which means, the student loan taken to get the degree, as well as the time spent in its attainment, were not wise investments.

And of that loan... migrants tend to be more successful than people born in a country because they arrive without any ability to get into debt - even if they wanted to. And so, being forced to remain debt free, debt free becomes a habit. And instead, they invest their money.

Picture the poor student. Fresh out of uni with a debt of $20,000. They are behind the eightball. They may earn a little more than a migrant in a $25,000 process working factory job - BUT - they are paying off a debt which sets them back in more time and effort.

If you want to know something for your own sake, study it. You don't need a piece of university paper to say you studied it. Just do it.

And if you want to obtain a skill, then it can be self-taught (just like how I learned to program in Visual Basic and Delphi, how I learned to type (does it show?:o)), how I learned to code webpages by hand, and so on). If I wanted to get a job working for someone, I would present my "evidence of ability" as my way in, not some piece of university paper which doesn't let the potential employer know I can do anything other than pass a test.

I cannot see a valid reason for most people going to university. The degrees they get don't make them better able to do anything. And if anything, cost them in time, effort and money, and put them into debt before they earn anything.

AWOL

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Sun, 26 Jun 2005 19:49:00 +0000

Since my last entry a tad shy of two weeks ago, I've been absent from the blogosphere. Not only haven't I written, I haven't even visted my usual blogs to see what's what.

To some, it could have appeared as if I had abandoned all of blogdom. I am sure this would have made certain people happy, and others wondering.

For those who wish I had gone first let me say, thanks for reading. For the others out here in blogsville, let me add, I will be back to regular blogging in a little while.

My absenteeism has been due to a new project I have nearing completion. As the 80/20 rule states, 80% of the work is done in the last 20% of the time. Or to put it another way, the last 20% takes up 80% of the time.

Either way, the new project has been a time drain in its creation and launch. Time I would have spent blogging, has been spent doing fiddly things to get this new beast moving.

One of the laws of motion states that is takes more energy to get a reting body moving than it does it keep it moving. And the same can be said of projects - it takes more time and effort to get them going than it does to keep them going.

All should be completed some time within the next two weeks. And normal blogging shall return - as if I (or my actions) have ever been what could be called normal.

Slave To The Govt

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Mon, 13 Jun 2005 18:48:00 +0000

YOU are a child. YOU are worthless and weak. YOU must do what you are told by your betters. For you don't know how to do what's right all by yourself. You have no brain with which to form a thought to do the right thing. So says the govt.

And to demonstrate this attitude the South Australian state govt is banning plastic bags. Yep. The people of South Australia - the only state to offer money for recycled plastic bottles - has decided enough is enough. It cannot be bothered waiting for the trend to see people switch from plastic bag use to calico and those green heavy-duty plastic bags everyone is using theses days. The switching trend is happening way to slow.

And so in their parental wisdom, they are banning plastic bags.

Businesses will no longer be able to give you a plastic bag with your purchase. Otherwise THEY will be breaking the law.

And bag makers will lose what had become a nice little cash cow for them. Their investment in machinery will be worth zero. I wonder if the bank will still want the money on the loan paid back?

It's kind of funny when you think about it....

South Australia - where it is LEGAL to grow pot, but don't you dare have a plastic bag.

Many people will be in agreement with what that state govt has done. But they will fail to see the principle behind it.

If it is ok to ban plastic bags, why not all plastic used in packaging? What would rice and bread be sold in? How about the liquid laundry detergents? Bottled water? The wrapping on boxes of tea? The wrapping that covers meat. What would butchers (which is a store that sells just meat, for my American readers who don't have butcher stores) put the meat in? What about those naughty sealed magazines at the newsagents? How will people pick up their dog's poop? What about trash bags in offices, and even at home?

Logic would suggest we move to paper bags. But that requires trees to be cut down. And the same dickhead greenies who don't want plastic bags would jump up and down about that too.

I know. Why don't we just all turn our backs on modern society and go and live in a hole in the ground and wear clothing made from leaves. Greenies are such fuckers.

But back to the govt. What else does this set a precedent for? What is next on the govt hit list to tell us what to do? Mandatory "anti-smoking" injections (don't laugh, I see it going that way)? Compulsory anti-fat injections once the chemical has been perfected some more? A ban on all meat in case we could get mad cow disease? Hmmm... the meat board might be too powerful for that one.

How about gas rationing. Can only fill up on odd and even days and only put a maximum of $20 in the tank. Say good bye to courier work across the state as they all run out of gas - unless they buy directly from suppliers in 44 gallon drums and fill their vehicles at home, or pay for a permit for unlimited gas filling - now there's an idea for the govt to raise extra revenue.

The South Australian govt is now on my official "Fuckers" list.

Blairy Poppins To Use Oldest Con In The Book To Steal From The Productive

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Tue, 07 Jun 2005 19:53:00 +0000

The people of the UK are heading down a big brother road like no-one else, it seems, if this latest infringement is anything to go by.

We used to cringe at the idea of having to carry around papers to present to any authority figure upon request, as was the case in the USSR. But Britain and their National ID Card have now made that ok - with the US to follow with a National ID Card shortly (although they won't call it that, it will effectively be the same, regardless of what they call it).

Well, Britain will soon be tracking WHERE its citizens go, constantly.

In moves I can only describe as the greatest infringement yet, on privacy and freedom of movement, Britain will soon have tracking devices in all cars. Their reasoning is simply this: There is too much congestion on the road, and some people drive more than others, so it is only fair they pay for the roads more than other people, so let's have a "driver pays" system in place.

I am all for user pays systems. However, what this Brit govt is about to do is use the idea as a leverage tool to gain something else, and/or take extortion-level amounts of money from people.

With the device in your car, you will be charged varying amounts of money per mile, depending on which road you drive and what time of day you drive - though why the time of day should matter is not explained.

Some roads would charge you 2 cents a mile while others would charge you $1.30 per mile! With the high-priced roads being the motorways and highways.

As those main roads are designed to move a lot of traffic fast, I can see a lot of people using the cheaper side roads - effectively negating the high road fee and negating the effectiveness of the motorways in the first place, bringing congestion to side roads.

Imagine, for a moment, you need to drive from one side of London to another side. Some of the roads you travel on are the cheap 2 cent roads and others are the $1.30 roads, with some other roads being somewhere between those prices. A simple trip like this, as Sky News in England showed, would cost the driver $157! And that's just one way!!!

Oh they [the govt] say they would get rid of registration (or greatly reduce it) and the same with fuel tax (removed or reduced). But look at the numbers...

Even if you only have to pay an average of $0.30 per mile you drive, someone that drives 20,000 miles a year will pay $6,000. Which is more than the cost of their fuel and car registration combined, at the current prices, let alone that amount being how much tax they pay in registration and fuel tax.

And while everyone is in shock at this proposal, and up in arms as well, they are about to have the oldest trick in the book used upon them. As Maxwell Smart would say, it's the old "don't ask if, ask which" trick.

Everyone will jump up and down about this. And so the govt can then give "better" options to placate the people. Either reduce the per mile fee, or introduce a Public Transport Levy to improve Public Transport so more people will use it. And as the British govt is a leftist socialist one, then this seems more like their end goal.

Once presented with this option, the people will welcome the public transport levy. And their con will have been pulled off.

If the govt had announced an introduction of a public transport levy, the people would have jumped up and down about it. But by proposing this stupid idea, the people will welcome any alternative that is less severe.

It's the very same trick our local govt used. Previously, it was free for buses and mini-buses to drop off people at the local airport. The local govt announced at the beginning of April that ALL such businesses now had to pay an annual permit fee to drop people off at the airport. And this fee was going to be $2,500 for the small operators and as much as $6,000 for the larger operators who drive larger buses. And all operators had less than one month to ante up.

Well, as you can imagine, there was an outcry from the business owners. Where were they supposed to come up with that much money on such a short notice. It would be the smaller guys out of business. And yadda yadda yadda.

So, the local govt in their graces, reduced the fee to $2 per trip onto the airport grounds. And they all lapped it up.

If the govt had announced a new $2 per drop-off, where it had previously been free, there would have been outcry. But by announcing a huge and stupid fee, the outcry stopped being one of "why do we now have to pay" to one of "please, we will pay anything but that."

The people are presented with the appearance of a choice. You can have this stupid tax, or this greatly reduced tax. But either choice still represent a tax being paid where once there was none. They haven't been asked IF they want to pay a tax, they have been asked WHICH tax they want to pay.

Here is how this gambit is used in negotiating...

Let's say I am looking for investors to buy a small block of units. And let's say I want each investor to put in $15,000. I would approach someone with the idea and let them sleep on it overnight. When I visit them the next day, or a few days later, they are in the mind of negotiating DOWN the investment required. So to head that off I say, "Bob, I told my partners what I had offered you and they were furious. They said the number should have been $25,000 and not $15,000. So we really should be asking you for $25,000 instead."

Bob's immediate reaction will be to forget trying to get me down in price from the $15,000 and all he will now want to do is hold onto that price. And he will then argue to let me let him be in it for $15,000. To which I can play along and pretend to go outside and make a call to my partners who reluctantly agree. And Bob will then be thankful I let him pay full price.

My prediction for Britain is this: This usury-rate pay as you drive tax will give way to a public transport levy, and then the pay as you drive tax will be phased in at greatly reduced amounts over the coming years. The registration and fuel taxes will be reduced initially, but will not be removed, and will slowly increase over time as well.

I also see a blackmarket in turning the devices off. And more money being needed to add extra police and other such people to "inspect" cars to make sure the devices are being used. Which means more govt bloat.

Time will tell if I am right.

More From The Dept Of Silly Grants

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 22:41:00 +0000

In more silliness from our ~~stupid, moronic~~ beloved govt, we have this... "A Gold Coast midwife and lactation consultant (what the heck is a lactation consultant? Putting a baby's mouth on the tit is natural. No so-called consultants needed here.) has been given a $10,000 state government grant to find out what is going on [with women who stop breastfeeding early] and what can be done to help."

On the surface this sounds like a noble thing to do, right? But then you discover the areas to be researched...the physical difficulties moms and babies experience, the mothers attitude to breastfeeding and their support system - public, family. And the information will then be used to improve post-natal services so moms breastfeed for longer.

This nutjob do-gooder who wants to impose HER view of how long mothers should breastfeed says, "I'm very passionate about this because it's every baby's birthright to be breastfed."

In more idiocy, she is a baaing sheep lapdog for the World Health Organization and regurgitates what they reckon - that mothers should breastfeed exclusively for six months and then slowly introduce more solid foods while continuing to breastfeed into the second year and beyond.

Picture in your mind some two and a half year old kid still getting breastfed. Odd image, isn't it? I mean, were are talking about a kid with a set of teeth here.

Hey listen up you doinks at WHO, if an animal (us included) has teeth, it means we should be masticating our own food and not living off food that BABIES are designed to live on so they can grow. And how arrogant of you to want to impose what you reckon onto other women. How about letting THEM decide for themselves?

Anyway. This useless research will involve four phone calls over the course of twelve months to help determine why moms might not have been able to breastfeed the way they had planned. And to ask those who did not achieve their breastfeeding goals, what would have made it easier for them. (And you just know, the answer to this question would then become another thing the do-gooders would want to petition the govt about to get funding for.)

For example, "It could mean we have to look at more ante-natal preparation". (And we all know where the funding for THAT would come from, don't we?)

Obviously, any of these questions could be asked of any mother. Just print up a small one page questionnaire, hand it out on the street to mothers with young children (or do the damn survey on the street), and ask them to mail it back. She only wants to do this research with 200 mothers. And I'm sure it could all be done face-to-face on the street within one week and would cost MUCH less than $10,000 of my tax dollars.

But the icing on the cake is her real reason for wanting to do this... "I just want to find out." Meaning, so then she can push to suck more money out of us tax payers to fund her good works.

I have a name for people like this. I call them "fuckers."

Utopia Sucks

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Tue, 31 May 2005 11:08:00 +0000

I often rant about the nanny state, govt intrusions, the left socialists, and so on and so forth. I add how the market will provide, if given half a chance. And free trade would see us advance in leaps and bounds. For the game of capitalism is currently being played at only half speed - thanks to govt restrictions and taxes and rules and regulations. But let's take a moment to imagine a utopia world...

There would be no govt intrusion on business. Businesses would be free to trade amongst themselves as they saw fit. Many would self-regulate, and those that didn't would not stay in business due to word of mouth, and other businesses who had set themselves up as "Reviews of businesses" businesses - where a prospect could go to find out about a business before doing business with it.

Everyone would be treating each other with respect and as they wanted to be treated. As such, there would be little crime and no real need for a police force. There would be police BUT they would act more in an advisory role to help people sort out their own differences.

Everyone would have pretty well equal wealth and "things." This is because there would be no tax paid on money earned.

We could hire people to do bothersome tasks - such as cleaning - while we pursued out pleasures.

Sounds blissful, doesn't it?

I have another word for how it sounds...

BORING!

Imagine if there really was no socialist or group of people trying to take from you to give to some low-life they want to help. Imagine no govt forcing itself upon you. Imagine everyone being totally courteous.

It'd be like going back to pleasantville. It would drive us all batty.

It is only because we have these "obstacles" that we become strong people - with healthy egos and self-esteems. It gives us drive to achieve. Otherwise, we'd be living in some odd utopia mediocrity. Where everyone was equal and no-one else was especially better than anyone else.

Currently, the education system tries to paint a utopian picture to the students. Where you study hard, get good grades, go to university, then get a good job.

But none of this teaches people about the really real world. And so they enter into it as adult adolescents. As far as interacting in the real world is concerned, they are immature. Some grow up, most do not.

What if, instead of going to university, students had to have a job for a year or two? Maybe a factory job as a process worker or something.

In a factory you will meet nearly every type of person you can think of. Different shapes and sizes as well as personalities. A factory is like a microcosm of the world at large. And as a menial process worker, there is a good chance the stuck up student will come down to earth a bit.

Then, after a year or two of such work, they will have fulfilled the university pre-requisite and be allowed into their course, if they still want to go, that is.

Many will not want to go. Many will have come to realize that uni is the big con. Where you waste three to four years of your life, and spend loads of money, getting a degree so you can get a job that won't pay much more than the process worker was making.

Further, what if it turns out they don't like their career? They will be reluctant to throw it in because of the time and money they invested in it.

I recently had a chat with a young dentist client. He HATED being a dentist. When I asked why he didn't go do something else, he mentioned that he'd spent too much time and money to become a dentist to throw that all away.

Yet he was willing to throw more time away in a career he despised.

But getting back to the process work experience and other obstacles. They make us then realize how much we want something else. And then we would really strive for it. And when we achieved it, it would be all the more sweeter of a triumph.

We would not experience this in utopia land. In utopia land we would have no obstacles to overcome. So the triumphs would not really do it for us. We would become, in essence, kind of pod like. Dull and boring.

Utopia sounds kind of interesting, until you think about it. But as long as we never achieve it, trying to, does make for an interesting life's journey.

Experience The Road Rage - I Did

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Fri, 27 May 2005 19:02:00 +0000

I can now proudly proclaim that I am a member of the Victims of Road Rage club - as in, someone who has now personally experienced genuine road rage as opposed to a toot of the horn and a fuck you with a flip of the bird as they drive away.

Let me tell you all the juicy details...

I was coming down a hill that had a small, nothing speed bump half way down. I was about to hit the speed bump and a guy up ahead on the right was parked in his driveway looking at me. He then back out right in front of me and stopped in the middle of the road. As it was a road that allowed overtaking, I simply went around him and kept going. I turned left a couple hundred yards further up, then left into a gas station another couple hundred yard further up.

As I put the nozzle into my car, the guy pulled in front of me, got out and yelled "I oughta punch ya fuck'n head in."

I calmly looked at this moron and he yelled it again, "I oughta punch ya fuck'n head in" as he walked towards me.

As he approached me I was contemplating how I was going to hit him IF he made a move. And having figured out what I was going to do, kept pumping my gas.

He got a couple of feet away from me and yelled again that he oughta punch me out. I just quite calmly looked at him. Which must have set him on edge because I didn't flinch, blink, back away or look in anyway intimidated. Then he said, "ain't cha got noth'n ta say?"

I paused, took a step towards him!, looked him square in the eyes and in a direct, firm voice full of control, and at a volume only he could hear, said, "I see no need to justify anything you said by replying" and turned to watch my gas numbers.

Well, that sent him into a deeper craze. He went off about how I came down the hill and blah blah blah. I took another step towards him and said, "It's ok. There was no danger. I could see you and what you were doing and you could see me. No danger." And went back to my gauges on the bowser, while watching him out of the corner of my eye.

Ah. That response sent him into froth-at-the-mouth mode. "Danger? Danger? I'll tell you about fuck'n danger." He came right up to me, a couple of inches away from my face and again threatened to punch my head in. Then it dawned on him that I wasn't the slightest bit perturbed or concerned by him. I had a look in my eyes of complete and utter self-assuredness that I would take him out in a heart beat if he pushed it. (Remember, I had already decided how I was going to finish him off. And that my martial art is BaGua Zhang - the martial art of overkill that concentrates on deathpoint blows and inflicting grievous bodily arm.)

He, now not sure of himself, took three steps back and yelled, "I'm gonna get your number and give it ta me mate at the cop shop and he's gonna come visit cha."

I asked, "And which police station does he work at?"

He replied, "Southport. I'm gonna give him ya number and he'll come visit cha."

I then asked, "Oh, would that be So-And-So, the officer in charge?" (Little does he know I am on a first name basis with a dozen or so of the police at that station as well as the officers in charge of two other stations.) But he was fart-assing around in his car looking for a pen.

I walked in to pay for my gas and he came storming in and tried to tell the cashier what I was guilty of - that I went around him after he backed out of his driveway and stopped in the middle of the road - and walked around the counter and grabbed a pen.

I went outside to offer him a piece of paper from my notepad but he already had one, so I jotted down his tags instead and went back in to pay for my gas.

I asked the cashier if he was a friend of her's and she replied, "We don't have friends here." I asked "What is he then?" and she replied, "Just a regular customer." I paid, got my receipt and drove off.

The interesting thing is, during the entire confrontation - even when he was inches away from my face - I was totally calm and had no adrenaline coursing through me. And this only comes about because of complete self-assuredness.

Think of it like this... the first time you do something new, such as go over a jump on your bicycle, you will feel an adrenaline rush. And maybe again for the first few times. But after a while that rush is not there and you now know you have the situation under control.

It was the same with me in this instance. If he had made a move I was going to strike his throat, crushing his windpipe and putting him out of action. And this is possible in BaGua Zhang thanks to what we call Fa-Jing (explosive energy ). It is an explosive move that resembles sneezing.

When you sneeze, the body gives a quick, sharp jerk. Using that same principle, there is no need for withdrawing the striking arm to cock it in readiness to release. Tere is no need to get into a stance to strike. There is just full-powered release from any angle, with the entire body moving and the force of the blow fully directed at the target. (BaGua Zhang is the only martial art that does all its strikes while in full motion - no stances.)

You may have heard stories of warriors going into battle and being completely calm - and therefore devastating. Or you may have heard how the founder of Aikido experienced this calmness during a fight he was experiencing, and upon that moment he became machine like with computer speed - his actions and reactions so fast as if he could read the opponent's mind and know beforehand where the blow was going to be.

This calmness is very real. And to someone who faces such an opponent, it is very unsettling. Because it gives them total 100% self-doubt about the confrontation.

And this is what happened in my example. He reverted from threats of physical harm to telling me he was going to tell on me, just like any scared child will do when they realize they are powerless to do something - they threaten to tell someone they deem to be in authority who can deal with it for them.

Maybe this is what Bruce Lee called, fighting without fighting.

Why The World Will Never Be At Peace Without Mass Death

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Thu, 26 May 2005 05:10:00 +0000

There are some things that are impossible to do... flap our arms and fly like a bird, lift ten times our own weight unassisted, and reason with someone speaking nonsense.

There are certain levels of nonsense. There is nonsense we all agree with and there is nonsense that some people think isn't nonsense. And it is this latter type of nonsense that is specially insidious. For most people do not know how horrid it is until it is too late, if they do realize at all, that is.

Regular readers will know I am anti-religion. Which is to say, I do not believe in religion and am against it. Organized religion has, as its base, that a man is not worthy and must bow down to the higher authority stance. A type of slave/master deal. Where values are not produced or created but leeched from others.

Within the religious frameworks and dogmas there are some that are worse offenders than others. For example: the puritan work ethic vs praying to Allah five times a day.

When you have a look at the world, you will notice there are countries that create values and produce goods and services, there are countries who could but do not and instead make use of those who do, and there are countries who cannot under any circumstances.

And when you examine the countries who cannot create or produce values of their own, you begin to see a few patterns...

Pattern # 1: They are muslim countries.

Pattern # 2: They are poor countries.

Pattern # 3: They are often some form of dictatorship.

Pattern # 4: There can often be terrorist activities going on, on a somewhat regular basis.

The poorest country in Europe is Albania. Albania is a muslim country. Albanians outbred the Serbs in Kosovo and then the shit hit the fan.

There are no muslim countries that create or produce values of their own. Besides the oil which just happens to be under much of the Arab section of the globe, those muslims create and produce nothing of significance for the world. There are no medical breakthroughs. No technology breakthroughs. Nothing. And they are repressive "do as you are told or else" type countries.

When you look at the countries which lead the way in technology and medicine and industry, you see that they are NOT muslim countries. And the frightening thing is this... the value creators and producers do not breed at a rate that even replaces them. A value producing and creating couple will have one child, sometimes two. The muslims have half a dozen.

Look to Kosovo again. The Albanians were having families with an average of 7! That's average, meaning some were lower and some were higher. The Serbs were lucky to have 2 children per family. The christian Serbs were being outbred by the muslim Albanians.

And this is not just restricted to Albania. Look at other muslim countries. Besides producing nothing of value off their own bat, the families breed like crazy. They pop out more and more muslims who also producing nothing and add nothing to the globe. (Which would explain why Islam is the fastest growing religion according to Islam - they breed faster than any other religion.)

And this is the scary thing. They are value leeches that breed like rabbits who also see non-muslims as infidels who deserve to die. It's scary because this has been going on for a long time - 1,000+ years. And now they have access to weapons of greater power and destruction, it is a matter of time before they use them.

I do business with muslims. And the ones I do business with are more your assimilated, free range type who have intimate relations with non-muslims. No praying five times a day, and all the other malarky. But they believe in Allah and that makes them a muslim. Some of those types are value producers - BUT - they live in a value producing country. The muslims I am talking about in this entry are those practicing muslims who live abroad, or non-assimilating locals who sympathize with the abroad way of life.

There are hundreds of millions of them. And they breed like rabbits. They cannot function in a modern world because their faith is not able to adapt to a modern world. Instead, they want us to change to their backwards ways.

The ONLY possible outcome is one of confrontation. The small skirmishes will give way to larger and larger skirmishes in this thousand year war. And, unfortunately, due to their massive breeding and our lack of breeding, the ONLY way for there to be an end to the hostilities is if massive amounts of people die.

Because you cannot reason with nonsense, you therefore cannot reason with the staunch muslims who want us to become one of them. And either we will all perish to give way to a world run by Imams and Muftis and Ayatollahs - at which point all progress will cease, what progress had been made will decay, and we will all become like 10th century peasants fighting each other in little warlord groups. Or, they will perish to allow us to flourish and to keep progress going full steam ahead.

There is no, nor can there be a, middle ground. In the movie Independence Day, Bill Pullman, playing the POTUS (President of The United States), asked the captured alien if their was a way to co-exist. He was told "No." And when he asked the alien "What do you want us to do" the alien said "Die."

Now look to the muslim world. There is no way to co-exist with non-assimilating practicing muslims, and specially the Shiites and the Wahhabis. And they want us to die, or be under their control (which is really the same thing).

If this world is to have peace, massive amounts of people will need to die. There is just no way the muslims will be able to change their mind-set, because they live in fear of their non-existent Allah, who was made up by Mohammad. And they perceive self-sacrifice as a virtue and that when they blow themselves up, and us, they are doing a good thing for themselves and us. This mindset cannot be reasoned with because it is nonsensical. The only way is for them to all die.

I am not advocating for anyone to go and kill a muslim. Nor suggesting that muslims should kill us until we subjugate ourselves to their Mohammad-created god. I am merely stating things as I seem them to be... that the forces of Islam and Non-Islam are diametrically opposed and cannot exist together and that the only way for there to be true peace is if one side or the other is totally obliterated. The likelihood of total obliteration/annihilation of one side or the other is highly unlikely in the immediate future, or in the more long term future, as our evolved sensibilities won't allow such wanton slaughter of them, and there are too many of us for them to get it over on us totally. So in the interim, this thousand year war will continue on, possibly for another thousand years, or more. With more pointless deaths of millions of people sacrificed for both sides.

The U.S.'s foray into the middle east is pointless. There has been talk about winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqis - we won the war but had no strategy to win the peace. Unfortunately, that is not possible. They are non-value-producing muslims who see us as second class beings who would be better off dead. As they believe in wars of attrition, whenever the US and co leaves Iraq, they will claim it as a victory that we couldn't take it anymore and ran away. This will only strengthen their resolve against us. Yes, this thinking is total nonsense, but remember, you cannot reason with nonsense and it is pointless trying. It is an exercise in futility.

As much as all the belly aching from the left about the U.S.'s invasion of Iraq, it is only one small battle in a long line of battles of this war that has been going for a thousand years. Sometimes they hit us, sometimes we hit them. Sometimes many people die and sometimes only a few do. Sometimes the battle lasts longer than other times. But in the final write up, no side makes progress against the other. It could be deemed to be a stalemate. The never ending war. If there is really a world war, then this is it. This is the true world war. World War I, and it has not ended, nor will it any time soon. The other wars we learn in school as WWI and WWII were merely distractions.

It's funny, if all the Islam vs Non-Islam incidents were revealed in chronological order, in quick succession, it would be quite obvious to all that this is a war that has been going for a thousand years. But when the battles of the war are here and there a year or two apart, it is not so obvious. We can look back at the crusades and what really started them and see it for what it was, even though many years separated the events. We need to apply that same hindsight to the more modern events to see them clearly.

I can only imagine what the world of the future will be. If there is peace, it means many hundreds of millions (possibly billions) of people from one side or the other have perished. And we will be living wonderful lives taking advantage of all modern advances - or - we will all be muslims living like peasants in a dead and decaying world of depravity. Only time will tell.

Asthma - Big Pharma's Golden Goose

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Mon, 23 May 2005 08:46:00 +0000

Big Pharma must love this modern world of ours. They must love it because it makes people sick and then they go running to the doc for a Big Pharma Pill to hide their symptoms so they can carry on. Carry on until their body is overwhelmed some more and a symptom shows, at which time they run for a big pharma pill again.

The best business models are those where the customer keeps buying over and over again. The more frequent the purchase, the better for business. You save on marketing costs - it is always harder to land a customer than to market to an exiting customer. And even better if you don't have to market to existing customers once you have them, and they keep coming back anyway.

One such big pharma windfall is asthma spray. Once a person has asthma, they keep buying the asthma inhaler forever and a day. And each time they do, big pharma makes some more money.

Obviously, with such a situation, it is NOT in big pharma's interest to actually cure your asthma. And nor is it in the doctor's interest as he won't get his cut for writing the prescription. To cure asthma you need to do it yourself. And the first step in doing so is knowing WHY you have problems breathing.

The all knowing eye told me today - on a health show - that one in four children have asthma. That's 25% of children. And that is a frightening number. Not because that's how many have it, but because that is how many will be taken to the doctors by their parents and given "medication" to help them. And that is a lot of children to subject to big pharma's vice-like "til death do us part" grip. And specially when it is all unnecessary.

Our body is a wonderful thing. It knows how to fix us when we are sick, and to get rid of stuff that is making us sick. Health, you see, is a natural state. Illness is not. If we are sick, and we remain sick it is only because we keep subjecting ourselves to the thing that is making us sick.

The body has many wonderful ways to keep us healthy. It raises the body temperature to keep nasties from multiplying while at the same time it speeds up the immune system. It forms small deposits of fat around objects (cysts, lipomas, and other lumps and odd growths). It places toxins in our skin until it can deal with them (we know this as a rash or reaction). It sometimes excretes the toxin through the skin (as in the case of certain childhoods diseases). It places toxins in mucus and releases the mucus (phlegm in the lungs, runny nose, etc.). It protects our eyes by watering. And so on and so forth.

So IF you are having some kind of reaction (illness) it is because your body is dealing with something. If the reaction continues it is because the thing causing the reaction is still in your environment.

When I was young I had bronchitis. That anti-biotics did not clear it up suggests it was NOT bacterial. It suggests it was caused by something in my environment. And in an effort to stop that something getting into my body, my body enveloped it with mucus in the lungs. Then waited for me to cough the toxin up and spit it out. The same toxin that was inflaming my bronchial tubes.

What could have been in my environment? Car exhaust as we lived on a main road; chemical fertilizers as we lived near farms; carpet fibers and lino fumes as they were fairly new items in the home and in their fume-making height when I was born; cigarette smoke; talcum powders; fragrances from deodorant and room fresheners; and so on and so forth.

As I was home all the time - being a baby and all - I surmise it was something within the home. And my bet is carpet fibers, lino fumes, cigarette smoke and smelly stuff in the house. When we moved and I began attending school, my exposure was less and my bronchitis went away.

Now let's come back to the "one in four kids have asthma" claim. And let's look at all the ways this breathing difficulty could be happening...

Carpet fibers; lino fumes; formaldehyde fumes from foam mattresses; fumes from laminated kitchens and cabinet type furniture; fumes from paint on the walls; fumes from the plastic boxes TVs and computers are made from; a proliferation of air fresheners (plug in, automatic sprays, oil burners, toilet bowl flush fragrance dispensers, fragrant air strips in plastic containers, and so on and so forth).

In short, the air in the house is laden with toxic fumes. And seeing as windows and doors now have better seals and don't allow airflow. And that more and more people close their hours up tight. And the children do not play outside anymore and sit inside, breathing the fumes while playing the playstation or Xbox, and you have a recipe for breathing problems.

A person cannot breath in those kinds of chemicals in the air all the time without the body reacting. And it normally reacts by producing mucus to trap the chemicals and not let them into the lungs. This could allow less air into the body. The lungs will breathe more. And possibly, as one researcher theorizes and my own experimentation verifies, we over-breathe. The result is an carbondioxide/oxygen unbalance in the lungs and we feel short of breath - as the body doesn't want to breath as much in an effort to increase the CO2 to even out the balance. Welcome to an asthma attack, or general feeling of shortness of breath.

Instead of rushing to the doctor for an asthma medicine, open the bloody windows and stop filling the air with toxic chemicals. This act alone will see the asthma numbers drop.

In addition, examine the preservative numbers on food stuffs. Many are known to cause breathing difficulties. (This is avoided by only buying fresh fruit and vegetables and meat and not buying anything that has been processed by someone else.)

It's also wise to examine the air where you live. I know one couple whose three kids all had asthma. It didn't appear in the hospital but it did when the kids got home. It took this couple a few years to figure out it was the chemicals in the air from the experimental farm across the road from their home. They sold up and moved a mile away and the asthma of ALL their children was totally gone within the month! No more asthma medicine. No more worrying when a child had an asthma attack.

If the lungs are playing up, it is because there is something in the air the body does not want to enter the body. Your job is to identify that thing - usually a man made chemical of some kind - and get it out of the environment.

It's also a good idea to look for possible air-borne mold. As might come out of an air-conditioner. This can also cause breathing problems.

One thing asthma is not, is a disease that needs medicine to treat for life. Doctors know this. And so does big pharma. That they are keeping quiet about it shows the corruption of the medical system. If you cannot trust a doctor to tell you the truth about something like asthma and/or breathing problems, what can you trust them to tell you the truth about? Anything?

And They Call Themselves Fans

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Sun, 22 May 2005 08:25:00 +0000

There is stupid, and there is totally moronic. And the Manchester United fans who are opposed to their club being owned by an American, fit into the later Moronic area.

You have a guy who has bought shares in a club. While so doing, the value of those shares have gone UP. Meaning, anyone else who owns shares is now richer.

But some doinky fans don't like that. They say he will ruin the club and make all kinds of lame excuses why he shouldn't own the club. But what it really comes down to is they are bigots and racists. They don't want him owning the club because he is an American. And the flavor of the month is to hate everything American.

To get their point across they propose to NOT buy any club merchandise and to boycott all club's games.

And now let me ask you WHO is the one doing harm to the club? Is it the guy who has millions of dollars to invest, who has already increased the club's stock price, and who will inject new life into the club with his money - or - is it the idiots who want to deprive the club of its revenue?

If you said, the idiots who want to deprive the club of its revenue, go to the top of the class. Their actions are akin to the actions to be expected from Marxists and other socialist types. Those who are against capitalism - unless it is done by one of their own, such a Bromovic (from the former communist Russia) buying Chelsea.

I'd like to see Manchester's owner call them all out. To tell them right to their face for all the world to see, that their protest is NOT about Manchester having a new owner who is not an avid soccer fan, but it is, instead, about him being an American. And if he was a British millionaire, or a Russian one like Chelsea's owner, there would be no outcry at all. So all those protestors are actually bigots and racists.

I'd like to see it called what it is, then watch them scream bloody murder at him. But it won't happen, because at this stage its the typical political game. And calling it what it is, is just not done and might piss of real fans who would take the side of the protestors, in sympathy for the harsh words thrown their way.

Just your typical situation where a few bad eggs are making a lot of noise and gathering around them a bunch of blithering idiots who haven't had an original thought in their head for ten or twenty years. So they can spew forth rhetoric their "leaders" have filled their empty brains with.

How Honestly Are You Applying Your Analytical Skills?

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Fri, 20 May 2005 08:25:00 +0000

I've been accused sometimes of "Thinking Too Much". "You think too much" I've been told. And it's rather an odd thing to say.

Imagine not thinking. Your mind would be blank. No memory jog as you hear a song on the radio, no thought process of what to wear, or what's on the all knowing eye. Just total nothingness.

We'd be walking zombies is what we'd be. Susceptible to anyone else's thoughts and opinions as our mind would be blank and ready to allow in almost anything. (Kind of how most people are, isn't it?)

Ok. So what if we just stop thinking a little bit? Same result really.

What these people mean when they accuse me of thinking too much is, usually based on my tendency to wonder about all kinds of things and how they are often connected. If someone doesn't like my conclusions they will either call me a name or tell me I think too much. Because they would rather not be faced with something that might disrupt their view of the cosmos.

And I try to apply the same level of questioning of things, to all areas. Even areas I enjoy. But I wonder how much of that goes on with other people.

Let me give you a brief example and then a more extensive one...

Iraq War. Where the USA invaded IRAQ under the pretence of disarming it of Weapons of Mass Destruction. At this moment those on the right will begin to feel their blood starting to rise in anticipation of me "having a go" at them. Those on the left will begin to smile at where they think I am headed. And yet, all I have done is state a fact. The war was based on the idea that Iraq lied about its weapons of mass destruction and we had to go in and take them away. And we were authorized because the UN resolution breaking allowed it.

Further facts are: This war was called operation Iraqi Freedom. Which is a sly political ploy to name something that doesn't sound so bad.

Since this war began it was found that there were no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction within Iraq. The left have hounded the right over it. And in response, the right claim that 25 million Iraqis are now free of the murdering Saddam, and isn't that a good thing?

And while I do agree it is a good thing. It doesn't negate that the reason for invading the country in the first place was to get rid of its weapons of mass destruction. But the right wing cannot accept that blunder from their fellows. More on this later.

Onward.

Another example is in the shape of two different online articles and the right-wing view of both of them.

The first is an article about a woman who claims to have been on a flight in which a very scared looking man was brought on. He was apparently gagged with tape around his mouth and was handcuffed and treated with disregard (roughly).

The rightwing was up in arms about this article. It was riddled with inconsistencies. And reeked of the usual leftist "poor innocent criminal" stuff they often write about.

The second article was about a child who was taken from school, driven to an abortion clinic where she underwent an abortion, without consultation with her mother who had found out about it and was yelling inside the clinic for her daughter to come out. The article makes the clinic out to be monsters. And the rightwing jumps up and down at the injustice the left has brought upon us with legal abortion.

And yet, there is something odd going on here. The story from the leftist journalist, which was published in a known leftist publication, is actually full of holes and inconsistencies. Too many to have been an actual event that actually took place.

Upon close inspection of the abortion story - written by a righty - a bunch of holes and inconsistencies are also evident. Too many to have been an actual event.

And it is interesting to note. The righties see the holes in the lefties stories, but the lefties do not. And the lefties see the holes in the righties stories, but the righties do not. It is almost as if both sides are in denial about their own sides shortcomings.

As exemplified by the Iraq War. Excuses are made, from both sides, when valid arguments are put forth concerning the invasion.

The left denies any good has come of it for the Iraqi people. The right denies the original reason for going in has been proven to be wrong. But the facts are clearly this...

The reason for the invasion - and it was an invasion, as going into any country who is sitting doing nothing clearly is an invasion - was to get rid of weapons of mass destruction, coupled with regime change due to the badness of the regime.

No weapons of mass destruction were found, hence evidence of guilt to pin upon the regime to justify its removal is not available.

Attention is quickly drawn away from those bothersome aspects and it is proclaimed that the Iraqi people now enjoy a freedom they could not have enjoyed under Saddam. Silly muslims can now do that long walk while hitting themselves with whips, and other insane things. They can have elections deemed to be valid by our standards. And go through the bullshit appearances of freedom and democracy like we do.

As much as the right will hate to admit it, these are the visible facts. There can be no denying them.

The right will harp on about Saddam being a bad man. And he may well have been. But if that is a reason, why not go into every country in which a bad man is in power and subjecting the country's citizens to all kinds of horrors, and remove them? Who decides what is "bad" anyway? Why not go into Zimbabwe? Congo? North Korea? Iran? Syria?

This is the tangled web of bullshit you enter when using the "he was a bad man" excuse.

On the other hand, the left will not accept that Saddam did anything wrong. Saddam's people starved (or were killed by him) while he lined his pockets with money and built monuments to himself. Mass graves, etc. All undeniable. Yet the left will not acknowledge any of it. And will try to excuse it away in some fashion.

So both sides are guilty of self-denial of reality. Hence my question to start this entry off, "How honestly are you applying your analytical skills?"

Can you see the fault in your side's articles, politics, views and opinions? Can you think independently?

The Results Of Our Wonderful Brainwashing Education System

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Tue, 17 May 2005 21:03:00 +0000

The left loves a cause. Specially one that ceases progress in any way, shape or form. The anti-progress stances they take are usually based around "saving" the environment in some way. And what's interesting is that their stance is usually hypocritical.

Take the sleepy Brisbane bayside area known as the Redlands Shire. This is made up of some older suburbs and some newer suburbs. With the newer suburbs being your typical housing estate with windy roads and culdesacs - all built on land that was cleared enmass.

In that shire there seems to be a constant battle raging between the land developers and those who do not want the land developed. And the hypocritical part of it is, those who do not want the land developed, are living in houses built on land that was developed only a few years earlier. It's as if they really don't want anyone else to come and enjoy living in the area, or something like that.

You will also notice that those people never volunteer to give up their house so the bush can reclaim it. Nope. They just want to force their views onto other people. And usually in areas that have no effect on them. Such as in developments 20 miles away.

Anyway. In my local paper is the following "Letter to the editor"...

OUR class, 6R at Pacific Pines State School, opposes the building of the proposed cruise ship terminal at The Spit.
We disagree with the need for the terminal for a number of reasons:
Ships would pollute the area around the terminal with grey water, oils and exhaust.
And the terminal would take away public space that is now being used for swimming, fishing, accessing South Stradbroke Island and other activities.
Instead of a cruise ship terminal, why not make the area a place where people can enjoy themselves? Shade, toilets, barbecues and bike paths would be a much better alternative.
CLASS 6R, Pacific Pines State School

This is a sixth grade class - full of eleven year old children, and some 12 year olds. And "The Spit" is the name given for a point of sandy land which juts out from the mainland. It has a road on it and at the end of that road is a sand-pumping jetty which keeps the entranceway into the waterways clear of build up. There are some shops and small shopping centers near the mainland part of it, but for the most part it is barren sand dunes with some sand-growing bushes on it. The area proposed for the terminal use is not used by anyone for any reason, despite what the "children" write in their letter. Also, the suburb of Pacific Pines is a 15 minute drive away (that's driving through 50 mile an hour zones) and is up in the coastal hinterland not anywhere near The Spit.

The reality of the situation is this: The brouhaha was started by a group of residents in a suburb called Paradise Point. These residents have the furthest north livable area in the city - that is, livable and with direct water access. Any further north and they are in the water.

Initially, they were against the terminal being built on a nearby island, or they didn't want the island to be taken away to make way for the terminal. And at first, it sounds like a viable argument. Until you realize, the island is nothing more than a glorified sand bank with some bushes growing on it, and is not used by anyone for any purpose - AND - the suburb in which they live is ALL built on reclaimed land and what used to be small islands similar to the one they want left alone. In fact, if you look at old aerial photographs of the city and new ones, you can see how the vast majority of land and canal-front property used to be small sandbanks and similar.

And what of this Pacific Pines where the school is? Ten years ago it didn't exist. It was pristine hinterland native bush. And the school was only completed two years ago.

So it appears it is alright to strip a thousand acres of natural bushland, but not ok to build on a small nothing sandbank.

The claims of polluting the area around the terminal are somewhat laughable. I'm not disagreeing that some kind of pollution would take place, but at the idea this will make a difference. This city is a water-front and beach-front tourist city. There are canals and boats everywhere. And on the weekend, a flotilla of boats descends on the area to go fishing, skiing and so on. A cruise ship that may dock once or twice a month is hardly going to make a lick of difference to whatever pollution is already in the water due to the existing number of boats.

But my biggest beef with the letter is who it is supposed to have come from... sixth graders.

A sixth grader (11 and 12 year old) does not have the mental faculties to understand what is going on with this development. They have no understanding of economics as they relate to a city, and what certain infrastructure can mean to a city. All that matters to children of that age is whether mom has a Kinder Surprise waiting for them at home after school, or some such thing.

Let's have a closer look at the letter...

"Ships would pollute the area around the terminal with grey water, oils and exhaust."

Exhaust? Hmmm. Maybe we should all move out of the city because there is a LOT of exhaust created in a city. And I don't see these kids complaining about the exhaust fumes which comes from the eight lane highway that runs right past their suburb.

Grey Water? What 11 year old kid knows what grey water is? How many reading this even know what it is? My wife didn't even know. A sixth grader doesn't know about grey water. And grey water is not something that is on their mind, nor is it something a sixth grader has any concern about.

A sixth grader who lives miles away from the site doesn't know what the area is used for. And we come to the most obvious bit that says this letter did not come from the kids...

"...why not make the area a place where people can enjoy themselves? Shade, toilets, barbecues and bike paths would be a much better alternative."

How do I know no kid wanted these things? Because there is no mention of a playground or park with playground equipment in it like swings and slippery slides. It is those things a kids wants. Not toilets and shade.

Imagine if this rosey view of things was applied to all progress. We wouldn't have the world we have today. We would just have a world full of shade and toilets and bike paths. A world where people could have barbecues and do nothing else.

No. Sixth graders did not write this letter. This letter was a creation of their teacher's who has FORCED her views of the matter onto the children. The teacher doesn't want the terminal to go ahead, so convinces and brainwashes the children the same. I can picture it... she talks about doing a class project to help the community. And this is the result.

If I was a parent with children at that school, I would be outraged. I would be questioning WHAT my children are being taught besides the basics, which is all they should be taught. I'd be on the buzzer to the principle, writing letters to the Minister for Education and calling the minister's office. And would pull my children out of the school and begin home schooling them.

Home schooling is no guarantee a child won't be brainwashed either by idiot parents. But at least the parent knows what the child is learning.

Those in favor of stopping the terminal would be glad their child was part of such a project. While those in favor of the terminal being built would be annoyed.

The teacher is an abomination of a human being to use 11 year old school children to push her personal agenda. And she is not fit to teach any young children at all. But the situation will not change. She is a govt employee and govt employees tend never to be fired. Their actions are excused and justified by the other members of the club (govt employees in the same profession who may be slightly higher up). And the worst that will happen is she will be moved to another school - but only if parent outrage is too loud and continuing.

Of this, I am feeling the outrage baby.

Every "K" Over Is A Killer

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Mon, 16 May 2005 07:13:00 +0000

Every now and then our govt runs TV campaigns trying to get people to slow down. These ads usually depict someone speeding, and then show the results of the speeding. With the tag line, "Every K over is a Killer". Meaning every Kilometer over the speed limit is a killer. We say "K" because that is Aussie short-speak for kilometer. And for those in the US it would be "Every mile over is a killer."

Anyway. The latest ad shows a father going to get gas for the BBQ. He's weaving in an out of traffic. He weaves behind a car which hits the breaks. His is going too fast to stop, swerves onto the sidewalk and collects a mother pushing a pram - the mother turned away as the car hits. The mother is dead in the bushes and the baby, while alive, is covered in blood.

The ad is pointless.

Sure it is designed to get us to think and to graphically show us the results of that speeding. But speeding is NOT to blame for the crash.

Other ads tells us 50% of accidents involve alcohol (which means 50% don't, and thus have no excuse, right?). And other reports talk about "speed" being a factor. But all these ads and reports are missing one vitally important thing that underlies all of it...

Not Paying Attention

Accidents happen because drivers are not paying attention to what is going on, on the road. If they were paying attention, they would know they are approaching traffic too fast, or that the car up ahead has hit the breaks. They would see the tight corner coming, or that bump in the road. They would see the oncoming traffic and not overtake into it and have a head on crash.

All you need to do is watch the other drivers on the road when you are out and about. They take their eyes off the road and look at passengers they talk to; they get rubber necks and watch what is going on on the side of the road - maybe a sexy girl walked by, or they are driving past a car yard that has cars they would like to own, or some construction is going on, or anything; they fiddle with CDs in the car's CD player; fart ass around in the glove compartment; adjust their hair; put on make up; try to write stuff down they are getting over their cell phone; try to write text messages on their cell phone; sit at green traffic signals unaware they changed until someone toots a horn at them; and so on and so forth.

It is not speed that causes crashes. It is not alcohol. It is a lack of attention to what is going on that leads to speeding and bad judgments on the road. Lack of attention to the road conditions, traffic conditions, and anything and everything that a driver needs to be aware of.

Instead of spending millions of dollars telling us to slow down, the govt would be better served telling us to PAY ATTENTION when we drive because we are in control of lethal weapons.

Feel The Outrage

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Thu, 12 May 2005 20:09:00 +0000

It's outrageous. That's what it is. Fancy someone thinking that way and writing about it. Why they should have their head read. They must be mental to think that way. What vile horrid filth comes out of their mouth and from their fingers on the keyboard.

Me? I just don't see it. I'm like, "Oh, he's going off again" and I flick the channel, turn the page or click the link away. I don't need to subject myself to it. But I am not like others. They seem to revel in being outraged.

It's true. They read online articles written by journalists they cannot stand. They watch TV shows that are hosted by people they cannot stand, who push agendas they are against. The listen to talkback radio on subjects that drive them nutty. But they don't turn away. They keep coming back for more, and then they complain about it. And that's the bit I don't get.

Why subject yourself to something you don't like? You should never complain about something you need not subject yourself to. It's just plain silly.

Recently, some journalist - I'm not sure if he is one or just some guy who wrote a piece - wrote that he hoped the insurgents in Iraq would win and beat the US. He also said he would hope that, even if his son was over there fighting.

Well. You should have heard and read the outrage. Oh. It was everywhere. Coming from the right. After all, the right loves Dubbya and Dubbya can do no wrong. And anything that is anti-American is taken personally. And you get the idea.

I had switched off when reading the piece because it was obviously written to get a reaction - which is did. But was quite amused at the railings of the right-wingers as they wished all kinds of abominations on the writer. It was like reading a gathering of crazies. Where all sense of rational thought had left, and all that remained were insane blathering idiots.

They spread the outage around too. Letting each other know of the hideous man who wished bad things upon the US soldiers in another land. Suddenly, righties were linking to it from all over the web. Sending ever more and more craziness into the area. All spouting more and more vile words of condemnation. And I'm thinking of those words spoken by Murphy Brown when she would encounter someone who hated her and her show and the segments she did. And she would say to them... "Thanks for watching."

I can just imagine that journalist sitting behind his keyboard. If he was reading what they wrote about him and his article he'd be thinking... Thanks for reading.

Me? I'd shake my head and click away. Next. I just don't feel like being outraged. It's not productive. Why make myself miserable? For what? I don't gain. If anything, I give power over to the one who wrote/said the thing I became outraged over. I don't need that shite in my life. I'd rather have Peter Pan Happy Thoughts. And I don't mean to imply I wish to escape reality. Far from it. I simply choose what I will listen to and read. And listening to people who I know are irrational socialists and/or who wish death and destruction upon value producers, has no purpose to me. I won't change their mind, nor do I even care to try. I won't even link to those bad things I comment on, if you notice, because I don't want to send traffic, readers, and energy their way. I don't want to spread it around.

I can understand getting outraged over something you might stumble upon. And fair enough too. But the puzzle to me is, those who go out of their way to feel the outrage. THAT, I do not get. I don't know what is worse, the doink who wrote the piece that outrages people, or the people who flock to read it so they can get outraged.

Maybe I'm just all outraged out? Like the outrage only goes down so far, and then nothing more. No more outrage. Just a kind of mild amusement of those who are outraged and those who do the outraging. Maybe it's a matter of learning to ignore it, or letting it go. For in the grand scheme of things (not there is a grand scheme, but you know what I mean), none of it matters one jot anyway.

What the journalist wrote doesn't matter. What any doink politician lying bastard says doesn't matter. What any socialist student union leader wants doesn't matter. Nothing matters. In fact, if being outraged causes mental discomfort, then it is certainly something we should avoid for our own health's sake. For to live, to truly live, we should strive to do things we enjoy. To do them for ourselves. Selfishly. To hell with anyone else. And being outraged isn't that enjoyable, really.

See. I can't even get outraged at this. It's merely an observational diatribe about, what I consider to be, a mindless behavior. Where people are letting their feelings get the better of them.

The outragees over at FreeRepublic love to link to anything and everything Robert Fisk writes so they can all feel the outrage. And I don't get it. Do they get a kind of good-guy badge by showing each other how outraged they are?

It's like those battered women who keep going back to the guy who battered them. We all scratch our heads and wonder why. This is the same... they keep going back to be outraged by the same people over and over again. Failing in their fundamental survival mechanism of not subjecting themselves to things they don't enjoy. Heck, an animal learns this real fast. Humans? They seem to ignore it. If anything, they seem to prefer self-destruction. And in this case, mental destruction as the outrage tests their sanity, as they try to hold on to their emotions and only manage to do it by a very thin thread.

So some guy reckons WWII was really started by England and the only thing Germany was doing was having a simple, nothing-much-really, border dispute with Poland. Just par for the course.

Another guy reckons society should be based on needs. I need more so you should provide it for me. Hmm mmm. Same old same old.

Dubbya/Howard are fascist dictators. Yep Yep Yep. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Maybe that's it too. There is nothing new to be outraged at. I've heard it all before. It's not your fault; someone else is to blame; right wingers are all Nazis; tax the rich value producers and distribute the money to the value leeches; blah blah blah. It was a load of bollocks then and is a load of bollocks now. So what?

Turn, walk away and get on with your life. You cannot reason with nonsense. And you'll just get frustrated trying. Let go of the outrage and you feel a whole lot better.

How To Solve The UnEmployment Welfare Problem

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Wed, 11 May 2005 19:58:00 +0000

"We're moving to Tenant Creek", they said, "to work on a construction project."

"Both of you?" I asked.

"Yep." he replied.

"What jobs will you be doing?" I asked.

"I'll be driving a site truck and Janey (not her real name) will work in the office", said Joe (not his real name).

"Did you need special qualifications to work in the office?"

"Nope" said Janey, "I've never done any secretarial course. All they care about is can I answer the phone and type the few things they need typed. That's what it's like out there. As long as you can do the job you're hired. And if you've done work out there on any site before, you are guaranteed of getting work on other sites."

They told me they would be away for two years and their stuff was going into storage. Their house would be rented out.

Now here was a couple who were going to move to a location about a thousand miles away from where they lived, and a place where there was no city or city conveniences. They would be living on a construction site in the middle of nowhere. Getting a place to sleep and food to eat on top of their high rates of pay due to the isolation. They were willing to do something no welfare bludger is willing to do.

Onward.

My BaGua Zhang (the martial art of overkill) instructor had been away for a month. He'd been picking fruit and vegetables. Beans, carrots, that kind of thing. It was outside work. Physical work which was hard at first but easy once you were used to it and had shrugged off the city flabbiness. Work that added variety to his life.

Onward.

With the camera in her face, she was asked by the reporter why she collected unemployment welfare, instead of picking fruit which was so readily available in her area. She said she was too busy to pick fruit.

Too busy? She was unemployed! How could she be too busy to work? Busy doing what? Sitting at home sucking down beer and smoking cigarettes?

Onward.

"How does it work?" I asked.

"I put my name down for work. When someone calls them they call me and ask me if I can be at the location within 30 minutes. I say "Yes" or "No". If it's "Yes" then I go and I work for four hours. It's four hours minimum. The client pays them $25 an hour and I get $15 an hour from that. I can put my name down with as many agencies as I can and don't need to have a full time job cause I get all the work I can handle from that."

He owns a pair of steel-capped boots and a hard hat and that is all. He was talking about having his name down with Workforce Agencies. Not job finding agencies but the agencies that businesses call when they need someone for a day, or half a day or what have you. He puts his name down with the Manual Labor agencies and with the agencies that have manual labor categories. Sometimes he does cleaning jobs, sometimes its yard work, other times its work on a building site.

Onward.

He called the company and told them he was looking to work, and could he put his name down with them for when they needed someone. He was asked to come fill out a form. And once the form was filled out, instructed to call in each week to see if work was available. This, he did. And he started that weekend.

On the day he hopped in his car and drove about 50 miles (80km) ready to start at 6.00am. His job was simple. Walk up and down the seating isles of the sporting arena picking up the trash - discarded cigarette packets, drink containers, food containers, and so on and so forth. When his bag was full, he tied it in a knot, pulled out a fresh empty bag and continued. He was one of about 20 or so.

After his "shift" he asked if he was needed next week. And was told "Yes" and when and where to be.

He noticed the group of workers was like a family almost. Because they were all willing to do what most people were not. Some of the workers got to prepare the arena for game day. Some got to work at the arena on game day - emptying trash cans. And some were making $25,000 a year just doing this part time, weekend and evening work.

Onward

You know that large 20 storey high-rise going up on the old Sundale site? They are desperately looking for people to work. And they can't find anyone. Even though they are offering $1,000 a week, in hand (after tax).

Month's later, I get chatting to a couple of guys who have just walked out of the door of one of my client's businesses. They tell me they have traveled up from Sydney (about 625 miles away; 1,000 kilometers) to work on the building scraping the gunk off of the inside of the windows. They are both about 45 - 50 years old. They are willing to "move to work." To "go where the money is."

And therein lies the secret. They are WILLING. All the people in this story were WILLING - except the dole bludger, who wasn't willing to do anything.

The dole bludgers complain about no work being around. And yet here, in this entry, is revealed many ways to get work...

Picking fruit and vegetables
Putting your name down with labor hire agencies
Contacting construction sites and letting them know you are looking to WORK
Contacting the local sporting arena and asking about joining the after-game cleaning crew
Being willing to travel to isolated locations where labor is so hard to come by.

All PROVEN methods of getting money coming in.

There is a saying. It goes something like... it takes money to make money.

This saying is wrong. It should be, someone else must have money and be willing to spend money before we can make money. And the most fundamental thing we have to exchange for that money is our effort.

The basic effort is physical labor. But office jobs aren't that much different. They are still an exchange of effort. Just not as physically demanding. And usually not as high paying either - and require pieces of paper before you can do them.

This fundamental principle of money getting needs to be drilled into the heads of the dole bludgers. And then once they get it, tell them all the ways they can get work (they may not know). And then, cut off their unemployment money.

They won't starve. They will get off their butt and pick fruit and be willing to do labor work on building sites. If they need food because they ran out of money before their job money comes in, charity organizations will give food coupons. If they need a few bucks for rent while they wait for their job money, the charity organizations will provide a check made out to the landlord. Charities which are funded by private citizens and businesses - just like during The Great Depression before there was government welfare to support an army of leeches.

The Scam of Mother's Day

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Tue, 10 May 2005 20:15:00 +0000

The once a year shop-fest called Mother's Day has just passed. And I cannot help but wonder what a load of bollocks it is.

Throughout the western world society has been trained, like an obedient dog, to buy a whole bunch of gifts and cards on this day. And to send/give those gifts to their mothers. To show how much they appreciate their mother, or something like that.

I need to ask... if you think your mom is so special, why do you need a special day of the year to show it? Wouldn't you be showing your appreciation throughout the year?

I notice the concept is like religion. Religion wants us to all worship the thing they said created us (their god). Mother's Day wants us all to worship our mothers. (Both see that WE had no say in our existence but expect us to worship the creator - interesting.)

There is a lot of pressure on children to conform to the societal norm and get something for their mom on Mother's Day. With moms getting upset if they receive nothing or are not acknowledged. But I think... no-one forced you to be a mom. That was done of your own volition. So why get upset that someone doesn't "praise" you for something you did of your own volition. You should never do something for another person of your own volition, then get upset when you get nothing back in return - unless you had an agreement to the contrary.

People who do complain about "all I've done for you" when you didn't ask for it and they did it of their own volition, are known as Psychic Vampires. (Psychic Vampires want to make you feel guilty somehow, so you "owe" them something. Often giving gifts without a supposed reason, but then will act hurt if you don't do something for them when they ask and remind you of the gift. Often also known to off load their problems into you, behaving as if they cannot get by emotionally without your support and by using you as a crutch - but when you want something from them they don't want to know and will quickly move on.) Psychic Vampires are a vileness in our society. Get rid of them out of your life, whenever you encounter them. They will suck the emotional energy out of you.

That's what Mother's Day is about. And the world has been conned into it. All to the betterment of business - such as restaurants and florists.

Another thought I've had about this day - and Father's Day - is, why isn't their a Child's Day?

Some would say it is Child's Day every day. And I beg to differ. Ask any child if they think they are treated as if it is Child's Day every day. The answer will be "No."

There are a whole myriad of "days" - Mother's Day, Father's Day, Secretary's Day, Professional Worker's Day, Valentine's Day, and so on and so forth. But no Child's Day in amongst them.

And how about the gifts people buy on Mother's Day?

"Here mom, to show how much I appreciate you, here is an iron (so you can iron my clothes better)." And for fathers it would be, "Here dad, to show how much I appreciate you, here is a pair of work gloves and a push mower (so you can work in the yard)." There are almost no gifts promoted that see the parent pampered. The gifts almost always are related to the parent doing more work around the house.

Oh sure. Going to a restaurant to "give mom a night/day off" is considered a pampering thing. As if to imply it is mom's sole job to cook. But notice how the restaurant trip doesn't just give mom time off, it also gives dad time off too. It's not like dad does the cooking is it? Dad doesn't want to do the cooking so the "gift" is to eat out.

Sometimes comfy clothes are bought. But I think clothes are a personal thing. And should be left to the individual to buy. Boxes of chocolates can be bought any old time. As can food processors and other bullshit gifts so mom can work.

If you want to give your mom a gift, then just do it. Don't wait for one day in a whole year when you feel you have to due to some kind of society pressure. But do make sure the gift is not a tool for her to use in the kitchen or something for the house like lightbulbs. Gifts should be personal. Which creates a problem because only the receiver of a gift knows what they really want, and most gifts from other people don't even come close. Which makes a voucher for $X to spend in a certain store as probably the best gift you can give, not just your mom but anyone. But then, giving such a thing any old time is kind of odd, isn't it? It's like giving a $50 note for no apparent reason. Imagine going up to your mom, handing her a $50 note and saying, "Thanks for being so wonderful."

If we didn't fall for the Mother's Day con, there would be a lot less money spent in florists and restaurants. Stores like K-Mart, Target and so on, would not have as much turnover nor make as much money. And the effects would filter through the economy. But then again, we would all have more money to spend on our own interests, or to invest with for our future. So the money would be spent, just not at florists, restaurants and department stores.

Somehow, I don't think the con will end any time soon.

Sorry For/To [Insert Bullshit Here]

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Sun, 08 May 2005 21:55:00 +0000

Picture this... it's 8pm at night. You're just settling in to watch some drivel on the idiot box. The phone rings. You get up, pick up the receiver and say "Hello" into it. The person at the other end says, "Sorry for calling so late" and then gets into what they want.

Sound familiar?

It might be late at night, or early in the morning, or on a public holiday, or weekend day. But whatever it is, it starts with a "Sorry for..." apology. An apology that is totally and utterly bullshit.

Fact: People only call you when they want something from you. And we only call other people when we want something from them.

It is okay to admit this. The world won't end. And the dash of honesty might free you up a bit as well.

When we make that call, we don't give a toss what the person on the other end of the line is doing. We want something - information, favor, product, service, whatever. And because we don't care if our call is convenient or not, it makes no sense to start the call with bullshit.

Sorry for calling so late...

Bullshit. If you were so sorry for calling so late, you would NOT have made the call in the first place.

Whenever someone calls me and gives me the "sorry for..." line I tell them, "No you're not" and wait for their reaction. Their reaction is usually stunned silence. Stunned silence I should be so honest.

One caller said something about not getting off on the wrong foot. I told him to not apologize for things he wasn't sorry about. And that if I didn't want to answer the phone I wouldn't have. And asked him what he wanted.

This leads to another one of the phone's bullshit speech patterns. When people say they hope they weren't interrupting something, or do I have a minute, or words to that effect.

Hey! If I was in the middle of something that could not be interrupted I wouldn't answer the phone. If I didn't have a minute I wouldn't answer the phone. I would let it ring out, or will have diverted it to voicemail to let voicemail take a message.

"How are you?" the voice said, then continued on without a pause to tell me what it wanted. And while it did I said, "I'm excellent, thanks." The voice stopped, said "What?" and I said, "You asked how I was, and I answered you." The voice said, "whatever" and continued to tell me what it wanted.

This is something you will not find me doing... asking people how they are. Why? Because I can honestly admit that I do not care how they are. They are voices on the other end of the phone. People I don't know. Faces I pass in a store. How can I possible care one iota how they are? The answer is, I cannot. So I don't even pretend to.

If I ask someone how they are, it is because I genuinely do care how they are and want to know. But most of the time you never have to ask this question anyway as people are so willing to tell you how they are, without needing a prompt.

I was in the print shop the other day and the printer made a call to a customer to let them know their printing was ready. The call went like this, "This is Joe from Better Copies R us, how are you? [pause for answer]. I'm just calling to let you know your printing is ready."

Two things about this call. One is the "how are you" line. The other is the use of the word "just". To me it is a word to use when unsure of oneself in a call. It is a word almost all people use and one I never do.

I tend not to beat around the bush with inconsequentials. I come out and say why I am calling. If I was the print shop guy my call would go like this... "This is Michael Ross from Better Copies R us. I'm calling to let you know your printing is ready."

No useless, "Sorry to call you so late" or "Hope I didn't interrupt something" or "Do you have a minute" or "How are you" bullshit. Just direct, straight to the point, concise communication.

I overheard a secretary making follow-up phone calls to car service clients. All calls went like this, "This is Sue from Jibble Motors, how are you? I'm just calling to..."

The nature of my business saw me being near her location for about 30 minutes. And by the time I was done I was ready to scream at her. For being so bloody fake and phony on the phone. For asking someone how they were when it didn't matter about their answer, because their answer wasn't being listened to.

I got an email. It started with, "Sorry to bother you on your email".

Huh? Email is specifically designed for communication purposes. If I did not want email communication I would not give out my email address.

My reply began like this: "First, please don't apologize for things you aren't sorry about. If you were sorry, you wouldn't have sent me the email in the first place. I'd rather we dispense with such nonsense. Agreed?"

A guy was getting driving directions from me. He kept making turns I hadn't told him to make and getting lost, and so called me four times in thirty minutes. Each time he called he asked me how I was. And when he finally arrived the first words out of his mouth were "how are you?" I told him I was the same as I was the four other times he asked me in the last thirty minutes.

The thing is, people don't even realize they are doing it half the time. It has become a habit of their speech, and now text. It is not a communication from a conscious, thinking human being. It is mindless noise coming out of their mouths. Noise from a pod person who does it because they have heard other people doing it. They don't even know if what they are saying makes sense. You can tell, because if they had thought about it they would come to the conclusion that it doesn't make sense to say it, and so wouldn't say it.

Meet The Newest Addition To Indonesia Zoo, The Corby

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Sat, 07 May 2005 21:24:00 +0000

Shapelle Corby is the girl whose bodyboard bag was found to contain marijuana. She was subsequently arrested, thrown in jail and has been undergoing a trial for her freedom.

Many believe she is innocent of trying to import dope into the country. And I am just baffled. I cannot understand any reason why a person - even a drug cartel - would want to import dope from Australia to Indonesia, when there are much cheaper sources of the drug in and around that country. It's just darn odd.

But the thing that fries my grits is how Australians are treating Corby like some kind of zoo attraction. They go to her jail and want to visit with her. What's with that?

They don't know her. They are nothing to her. They say they want to offer their support. But what good is a visit from a stranger. It's not support. It's a sick and twisted kind of voyeurism. Like a real life reality TV show. Where they want to see her for their own need to be a part of the controversy. So they can tell friends back home, "We saw Shapelle Corby in jail. Oh, what's that? No, She really is a lovely girl... blah blah blah."

They want to take up her precious time, time she could be spending with her own thoughts in deep contemplation, maybe coming up with items for her defense. And they want to absorb that time away from her. So they will feel better about themselves. As some kind of good-guy badge. So they can boast how kind they are because they went to see her.

Those people are vile creatures. They masquerade as offering support. But want to feed off of her energy and the energy around the incident. By becoming part of it.

It's a scenario played out repeatedly in any controversial incident. Let the church or whomever make a lot of noise about some movie or book or what have you, and people flock to watch the movie or buy the book, so they can feel a part of the controversy.

Watch a news reel. When there is nothing to report, they are having interviews with the nextdoor neighbor's friend's brother, who once was in the same bar as the person involved. So we can all feel closer to the controversy.

Corby is not an animal put in a cage for all who have the inkling to go have a good old gawk at. She is a human being who is in a position no other human being would ever want to be in. And you just know, if there was some kind of Corby doll or t-shirt or other such thing, these energy leeches would be buying it. As proof positive they were there. As a kind of trophy to show their friends.

I Know What I'm Doing ==> Oops, Guess I Didn't, But It Wasn't My Fault

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Thu, 05 May 2005 07:32:00 +0000

Kids are FIERCELY - I can do it - independent. Parents quickly drum that out of all but the most determined ones. Turn them into sheep kids who never grow out of being sheep. They, in turn, do the same to their children. And round and round it goes.

Some children are immune to it. They mentally resist sheepdom. They keep their independence. And it comes out, at some point. The sheep might think of them as "fringe people" or "eccentric" or "odd" or any number of words that really mean, "not like us."

The interesting thing about those independent ones is they have a tendency not to be pig headed. They can quite readily admit they do not know everything. And will accept new information if it makes sense - while they will stick to their guns until otherwise.

The sheep, on the other hand, never change their minds. They can't. Because as I previously wrote, they are really shells of other people's opinions, thoughts, images, etc.

You get funny results when you see a sheep trying to be independent. They fight for their independence and won't accept assistance from outside. They are the true "know it alls" we see around us.

A client of mine was like this. They just "knew it all" about their business. So much so, they are now out of business.

It all started with their job. They worked for a prestigious business in Sydney, doing managerial/supervisory type of work. They sold their house in Sydney and came to The Gold Coast to make their fortune. Bought a business in the same line as the one they had worked, and were set to take on the Gold Coasters and show them how the Sydney-ites did it.

Two years later they closed their doors and whimpered off to non-existence in a country town of 30,000 people. Hoping to salvage what little money they had left and start from the ground up.

During their two year experiment as business owners, I constantly asked them for discount vouchers I could give my other clients as "Thank You for doing business with me" gifts. They never printed them. They told me once they had some coming, but that never eventuated. They never marketed their business. Never ran ads or mailed "please come back" letters to their customers. But they did drive around in a new BMW and hired a mobile care detailer to detail it every week.

So what really went wrong here?

The total lack of marketing should give you a clue. While they knew how to manage such a business because they had managed someone else's in another state. They knew bupkiss about getting customers in the door. And while they might have been able to manage the business, they didn't really understand money management - otherwise they would have been driving a less expensive car and devoting the weekly car detailing money to something that would have brought customers into the business.

As a result, they slowly watched their money dwindle away over two years.

They did try to sell the business, to recover some of what they had spent. But no-one wants to buy a money-losing business without a customer list. So in the end they just closed the doors and walked away. And moved to a small country town where they could run the same kind of business but on a much smaller scale where they could even save additional money by doing most of the work themselves.

But even there they will be doomed to fail - UNLESS - they learn how to bring customers in the door. But that just won't happen. And it won't happen because they are sheep. They are the A-typical look at me and what I have yuppie. Image is important no matter the cost. I know best and no correspondence will be entered into. Even though I have never owned and run a business before and am a person with an employee mindset.

Michael Gerber would call them employees who had an entrepreneurial seizure. They THINK they can run a business because they know a certain part of someone else's business. In all cases, they are doomed to fail unless they can let go of their "I know how to do it" ego and accept hands-on wisdom from those who have done what they want to do.

Whenever they saw another business like theirs that appeared to be doing very well, and I asked them about it, they would say that such a business cannot be run like that. And trying to do so would see their customers disappear, if they did it. And yet, they never actually asked their customers what they wanted, or tested it to see if their customers would disappear. They "just knew". With the result being they closed their doors while the businesses they said couldn't be run that way, stay open and thrive.

The funny thing is, there was a business like theirs whose owner had tried before and gone bust. But he had learnt his mistakes and didn't make them again. He re-opened with a way to get customers into the door and kept doing the "customer generation" thing. Now he has five locations throughout the city and is doing fine thank you very much.

His products aren't any better than others who sell the same thing. But he markets his business. He has, what associates of mine have termed, a "PCGS" - Perpetual Customer Generation System.

You can have problems in every other area of your business and still get by - as long as - you have a way to get customers into the doors on a continuing basis.

My clients didn't have such a system. Nor did they have the slightest desire to have such a system, or discuss such a system, because they knew what they were doing. I think they believed in the mythical "open it and they will come" mumbo jumbo. As if somehow the ether would plop customers on their door step.

It reminds me of another "couple" I was speaking to in another city, who had opened the same type of business. I was told, "We know what we're doing. We've worked in six other business previously." And that was their downfall. Working in someone else's business doesn't mean you can run your own. Six months later they too closed their doors.

And so it is kind of ironic. The independent people who cannot be dictated to, are willing to admit they do not know it all, and to accept outside information, if it will help them in their independence. While the sheep, who are renowned for absorbing everyone else's opinions on all manner of things and not thinking for themselves, become incapable of accepting outside information, all to their own detriment.

Maybe it is, as one self-made multi-millionaire told me, they don't think they deserve success and undermine and sabotage their own efforts. While independent people do think they deserve success and endeavor to enhance their chances of achieving it.

One thing I do know. Those sheep who fail, always blame outside forces for it. It is never their own bad judgment to blame. It is always "market conditions".

Like the business I talked about. $100 a week on car lease fees and another $100 a week on cleaning the car, saw $10,800 a year disappear down a hole. I could do a LOT of marketing for $10,800 a year. But it wasn't their fault no-one wanted to come to their business, because no-one knew their business existed. It was "market conditions". Might make 'em feel better, but won't allow them to learn from their mistakes.

Intriguing Mystery Around Us Every Day Remains Mystery. Scientists So Baffled They Don't Even Attempt To Discover Reason Why

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Wed, 04 May 2005 07:14:00 +0000

When we are babies, we explore and get into everything we can. At first, this is whatever is in arm's reach. But as we gain the ability of motion, our exploration widens. We get into cupboards, draws, everything. We are exploring machines. Everything is a thing to be explored.

As we get older, our exploration should move from the physical (what we see) into the mental (wondering why). We move from climbing trees to wondering why their leaves are green, or shaped like they are, or shiny on one side and less so on the other side, and so on.

Most adults don't get into the mental exploration too much. And it isn't because they can't, or haven't thought about it. It's due, I think, to a complete and total lack of interest in anything outside of pody life, or a drive of not wanting to stand out, which their mental exploring might see happen to them.

I don't suffer those pody afflictions. I find wonder in all kinds of odd things - odd as far as pody people are concerned. I know because I've been told by them. After expressing an observational question about something in our world, one pody told me, "You are really quite odd, aren't you?" And my local fruit shop guys tells me "You're not like anyone else." Which is all fine by me. I've seen how other people are. I'd rather not be like them, thanks.

Anyway. One question has been running around in my head for a while and I cannot find any scientific explanation as to why. Yep. It would seem that scientists have not bothered to ponder this mystery. No research grants have been given to find the answer. Nothing. And so I am left to speculate as to a reason why.

And the question?

Why is dust gray?

Whenever I sweep our floorboards, the dust swept up is gray. You can't see it, but after a sweep and pushing it all together, it forms large clumps of fluff-like dust. And it is gray. Even wiping down the top of the TV or whatnot reveals a gray dust. And this is puzzling.

We wear all kinds of different colored clothing. Curtain and carpet fibers all different colors. Airborne dust particles from outside are a different color again. And yet, when they accumulate to be seen by us, they are all gray.

I have a client whose business is dance instruction. And when visiting you can see dust clumps in the corners of the dance floor. And they are gray in color. And when they sweep their dance floor, the resultant large clump of dust is also gray.

What makes this even more puzzling is, when you put clothes into a clothes dryer, the fluff caught is not gray. It is usually white or almost black - depending on whether you did a light or dark load.

There may be a reason why dust is gray. And this is pure speculation on my part, as no study has been published that I can find.

What if, dust really is not gray at all? What if it is a multitude of color - BUT - it is so small we cannot see the individual specks of color. And what if, the light bouncing off of all those particles interferes with each other and becomes "blended" into an overall average of color? Just like load of lights in the dryer gives white fluff, and a load of darks give very dark fluff, even though there can be small specks of color in the fluff.

The mix of colors turns into a mix of light and dark which blends to form a gray, which we see.

The closest thing I can find in science to this is something called "Mie Scattering" - the scattering of light (without regard to wavelength) by larger particles, such as those of dust or fog in Earth's atmosphere. But Mie Scattering is more about small spherical shaped particles in the air than the random shapes of dust particles laying close together on the ground. Though the principle (the scattering of light waves) could be the same. And where we see white clouds due to Mie Scattering in the atmosphere, we see gray dust when the light scatters off of odd shaped dirt granules, clothes and fabric fibers, skins cells, bits of hair and the other elements that go into making up household dust.

Another funny thing is when you wash a window or floor, the dirty water is also gray. Maybe for the same reason? Or maybe we are so overwhelmed with brake-pad dust (which is gray) it taints everything else?

Who knows for sure? I only have a theory. And you may have a different one. And if you do, please leave it in the comments. Together we can get to the bottom of the mystery of why dust is gray.

Justice Done, At Last

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Tue, 03 May 2005 11:22:00 +0000

Graffiti is an abomination. And those who do it are GUILTY of a criminal offense. That of willful destruction and damaging of other people's property. That the property can be "fixed" doesn't make it any less of a crime than smashing a car's window or putting a hammer to a car's door. As those items can also be "fixed."

For too long we have seen a court hamstrung by liberal-minded do-gooders making excuses why "children" do graffiti. And trying to reason why we cannot punish these poor little darlings for the crimes they commit.

Well. Praise be to the all knowing Brazil nut god for dropping a Brazil nut pod onto the head of some people and knocking some sense into them. For I have just heard of a wondrous graffiti solution being actioned in the town/city of Bundaberg.

It would appear that Bundaberg used to have a problem with graffiti. And that problem is disappearing rather fast. You see, when graffiti value-destroyers in Bundaberg are busted, their punishment is to clean up all the graffiti they did.

Recently, a city magistrate ordered six "youths" to clean off all the graffiti they had committed, and to have it done within two weeks. A reasonable request, if you ask me.

Well. As you can imagine. The parents of those little preciouses were not too happy about it. How dare a magistrate order their most angelic little-uns around. And fancy ordering them to clean up their own damage. Why. That's just not liberal-minded at all. After all, it wasn't the fault of those most endearing teenage toddlers for doing what they did. Oh no. It was the invisible jibble man what made them do it. And so, they complained to the magistrate and DEMANDED a meeting with him - to tell him a thing or two, as you can imagine such injustice, right?

So the magistrate had the meeting. And for all the parents' trouble, he slapped them EACH with a $100 fine for having no duty of care!

HA! Don't ya just love it?

Future Value - What It Is, Where It Came From, And Why It Drives Our Species Forward, In More Ways Than One

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Sat, 30 Apr 2005 02:27:00 +0000

Stonehenge is somewhat of an enigma. No-one knows who truly built it, or why. And considering that is was built over the course of some 1,500 years, in three stages, the puzzle just grows.

While watching a documentary on it, some boffin reckons that it was not built for sun worship, it was built for moon worship. He reckons it went like this...

We used to worship the moon. The moon was associated with women, and the sun with men. Men would hunt during the night. And everything was hunky-dory. Until, that is, the ice-age gave way to a period of global warming. For then, the large herd animals, which he reckons we fed on, all went away and we found it too hard to hunt small animals, like rabbits. And after a thousand years of trying to live off animals like rabbits, we gave up. And we were forced to begin farming - planting seeds and growing them. This shift required us to pay attention to the sun and not the moon. So we began worshiping the sun. Therefore the men became the dominant party, and not the women like it had been when we worshiped the moon, and fighting between rival groups of the "owned" land began. In an effort to show the people the moon was still a good thing, Stonehenge was built by a secret cabal of priests. And the proof is, if you imagine it as how some believe it was when it was in its prime; and if you stand at a certain place; then once a year you see the sun pass through a small gap between a certain set of rocks, and once every 18.6 years you see the moon pass between a different but higher gap. And thus, this was to show the people that the sun was copying the moon, but could only do it once a year while the moon did it every month, every 18.6 years.

Apart from the fact we are not nocturnal. And if we didn't have enough plant foods to sustain us, how was there enough to sustain large herds of animals. And if there was enough to feed them during the ice-age, why did they go away when the thaw happened and food for them would have been even more abundant. And how did we survive for a thousand years hunting rabbits if it wasn't enough to provide us with food. And who were this secret cabal of priests that appear in no records anywhere. And how come this "let's show the people it's still ok" took over one thousand years to achieve? And, better not ask too many questions of that theory for fear it will fill it full of holes like a sieve.

Despite the craziness of his theory - that Stonehenge was built to calm down the citizens and show them the moon was still okay - he said a few things about other monuments built around that time. And that got my old gray matter onto a line of thought that leads to the wonderful world we have around us of today. And explains why other third world countries seem doomed to not join us in our evolved society.

The essence of it all is one of events and technology improvements based on our lifestyle, and why.

First, I don't believe we were forced to develop farming as much as he thinks we were. I think more that we did it because we could. It was somewhat easier to plant a crop, let nature do her thing, then eat it. Easier than trying to hunt large game animals that were dwindling in number due to the extensive hunting of them throughout Europe, by a gradually increasing population and due to climate change which may have seen the larger ice-age animals not be suited to a warmer environment.

As farming increased and we became more settled and less nomadic, our territorial claims became more fixed. We fought over our territory, like all animals do, and like we would have done while nomads and hunting our wide territory. The increase in farming also meant, we could increase the size of the population. Because a large population cannot be nomadic, it can only be fixed. And fixed populations tend to grow in size.

The dead which had been left on the side of the road, so to speak, when we were nomadic, now had to be put somewhere. And in the initial instances, they were simply placed in mass-like graves (burial caves). As our societies grew, people began being buried individually. And here in lies a key to a fundamental mind shift. And it is at this point in time we begin to see the mega-structures being built.

To fully understand this you need to know of the Bi-Cameral mind. Without going into too much detail about it, just realize, consciousness as we understand it to be, did not exist way back then. Back then we were nothing more than highly intelligent animals. We had no feelings of remorse or regret as we understand them to be today, just like an animal has no feelings towards other animals of its kind. This is seen in the disposal of the bodies - just dumped with the other dead bodies.

BUT, as we developed consciousness... the mind most of us have today, a realization and self-awareness of the individual takes place. And when dead, individuals are buried individually.

The catalyst to make this happen was larger society. In small groups our minds didn't need the consciousness of today. But to be able to function in a large group, with what we would call right and wrong, we needed to develop a conscious mind.

Now it is interesting that this mind shift can only take place when we are forced to live in larger groups as a society. And this is only possible due to farming.

There is another element that farming brought into our existence. And that is the concept of Future Value.

Future Value, as I use it here, is the idea of trading something today, right now, for a payoff at some point in the future. And this is evident with farming - you trade time and effort now, for food crops later on.

Up until this point, we operated like all other animals - for the now. If we were hungry we hunted and fed our bellies. To satisfy the immediate urge to eat. This mind-set would not allow farming to take place. Only a concept of future value would allow that.

And once future value was a concept that was accepted and understood, we begin to see large structures being built. Because the time and effort devoted to the building now, would have a future pay off.

If we look back to Stonehenge as claimed by this new theory, and even accept some of it, we can appreciate that it was built to give future pay off. And as the society then was heavily reliant on farming, my conclusion is that it was built to monitor the time of the year and the year in general.

Hence, by looking at the stones it could be determined when the summer solstice (longest day) was. And this would have great importance for the planting of crops. And the fact the building was built over many hundreds of years shows a continued use and refinement to "get it right".

This, to me, is a more-easily acceptable theory of why it was built.

Now getting back to future value. If you are reading this, you subscribe to the idea. You go to school for years, for a future job payout. You get a home-loan to live the great dream of home ownership - you are planning for your future. Businesses invest NOW for a hope of future profits. The idea of future value drives our world. And has its origins in farming.

Now look at the third world desolate countries. There is no concept of future value there. There is only immediate values.

Take the middle east, for example. The blatant disregard for life, shows no concept of future value. The nomadic way of life signifies no concept of future value. And the fact all middle east countries that are in the pits, are also those countries without a farming history, and thus no concept of future value.

Look at the dump countries in Africa. Again, tribal conflicts without a farming/agriculture history, and the countries do not progress. They stagnate.

China used to be like that. But as it went agricultural many years ago the country progressed.

In fact, as I look at the countries that previously led the way in technology and those who continue to do so, I see a history of farming. And as I look at countries with continual strife and terrorist activities, I see countries without a history of farming. Without a history of farming there is no concept of future value. And without that, effort is not made today for a future pay off. Effort is made today for a pay off today. Otherwise no effort is made.

Have a look at the Australian Aborigines. They did NOT farm. Hence they did not have a history of future value. And thus created nothing. They did not advance technologically at all. Still not even having invented the wheel by the time Europeans discovered them! And why should they have? They were about satisfying the now, not putting in effort for a future pay off. And sadly, this is reflected in their race today.

Have a look at the American Indians. They too did little farming. Hence, they advanced little because they never learned the idea of future value. And their state today reflects that of the Australian Abos.

Pick an advanced nation and you will see one with a history of farming. Which means a history of future value.

Pick a desolate country and you will see one withOUT a history of farming. Which means no concept of future value so no effort now for a payoff later.

Future value meant people would sit down and spend time and effort to create better tools and equipment and larger buildings, because of what it would mean to them further down the line. And this was only possible with a conscious mind and not an animal-like mind as we used to have.

It is no coincidence that as we developed farming as a result of the idea of future value, and developed a conscious mind as our societies grew as a result of the farming, we advanced technology wise. Because the technology was a direct result of an understanding of future value - time and effort spent now creating more advanced tools because there would be value to be had from doing so, and that value would be had in the future.

The thing with future value and its link to farming is important because our survival was dependent upon it. And, our lifestyle became better because of it. There was an "Action = Reward" in play here.

If there was fighting, as the previously mentioned theory suggests, it wasn't because we suddenly worshipped the sun, it was because those who had no sense of future value needed to satisfy their immediate needs and so would fight against those who were farming for a better life. Your typical band of savages coming to take what isn't theirs. And in a world undergoing such a change, you would expect this to happen. (Typified by the Vikings being attacked and slaughtered by nomadic natives when they first landed in Nova Scotia and set up little farms. Whites being speared by Abos when landing in Australia.)

And in the world of today it is still happening. And mainly in the middle east. Where those who have no sense of future value on this planet, want to take and/or destroy what isn't theirs, to satisfy some immediate desire. It's like... kill and get rewarded; die as a martyr and get rewarded; aim for reward in heaven because no reward was experienced on Earth.

And herein lays a problem with the Muslims. Their entire focus is one of worshipping a deity for a future reward in heaven. But having no experience of a future reward on Earth, which farming would have given them as a society. But because they were not farmers and were nomads and wanderers, their society grew unbalanced. To a state of warlord-dom. Where the gang with the biggest stick rules the day. They are, in essence, adult teenagers with demands of the now. Immature.

Imagine a Palestinian couple. There will not be a thought of, "Honey, let's save enough for a deposit for a house so we can have a place of our own; a sense of belonging." There might be an encouragement to blow one's-self up for a few shekels for the family - so their immediate need is met while too much energy had been spent in looking forward to a time with a deity.

And this ain't gonna change any time soon what with bowing down to a deity five times a day and having that deity be an integral part of existence 24/7.

At least the other religions gave a person a reprieve. Bow down to the deity once a week and farm your land the rest of the time. This enabled those people to experience future value here on Earth. And it was a harder sell to get them to devote their entire being to a future value with a deity. (Yes, the realization of future value was also the beginning of religion as we know it, for religion is all about future value.)

So which came first, future value or a conscious mind?

Future value came first. It had to. Without it we would not have begun to farm. Farming enabled larger societies to form. It was living in those larger societies which saw the release of the conscious mind to help deal with living in a larger society. That conscious mind could then fully exploit future value and technology began to advance in earnest from that point on.

Archaeologists talk about an explosion in advancement. And the conscious mind's awakening is why. Coupled with the awareness of future value the conscious mind was free to create whatever it thought of.

If that meant a structure of stones to help predict time of year so better farming could be done, then so be it. If that meant building large mounds with select holes to observe certain times of the year - for farming practices to be better - then so be it. If that meant experimenting with fire and dirt until metal was created then so be it.

Some researches suggest that as we began to farm our overall health declined. They blame farming directly for this. Whereas I say, it was the larger concentrations of people living together without the usual sanitation, which is to blame. As that problem got sorted out, lifespans increased accordingly.

So anyway. We have a situation where some boffin reckons Stonehenge was built by a secret cabal of priests to worship the sun and the moon. I say it was built as a result of our realization of future value in an effort to know the times of the year for better farming, as farming was our way of life now.

That farming gave us all a sense of future value. And that future value is what gave way to all advancements in our society, as all advancement depends on time and effort being spent now for a value in the future. We spend time in school for better grades for better opportunities to make money with which to save for a better tomorrow. Always with an eye on the future.

Take this entry as an example. I have spent my time and effort to type these thoughts so that someone, at some point in the future, may gain something out of it. They too may realize the truth of what I have written here. And maybe will see the world in a new light of future value. A realization they can pass on to their children and further down the line.

On the other hand, the hunting tribes in Africa, the Australian Aborigines, American Indians, those of the middle east, and so on, do not have a history based on farming and future value. As a result, they have NOT advanced and have stagnated instead. Anything modern they have is a result of someone bringing the advancement to them and showing them how to use it - they did not create it themselves.

But those native people's aren't the only ones to lack a sense of future value. Many teenagers also lack it. This is the basis behind all that teenage angst. Exemplified by the Sex Pistols lyrics in their song "God Save The Queen, "no future, no future, no future for you; no future, no future, no future for me..." With no sense of a value in the future, destroy today to satisfy that passing whim. Go on the dole, get paid sit down money. Prove to yourself there is no future. And why not, mom and dad did the same. Everyone owes me. You know how it goes. All of it stemming from a lack of sense of future value.

That you are reading this is an indication you are the result of a sense of future value. But don't take my word for it. Think about it yourself. Look back at your life and see how you have come to where you are today because you believe, without realizing it, in the concept of future value. Money you put aside for investing or business building or home owning or retirement, is all the result because you believe in future value.

(For an interesting observation on the idea of the Bi-Cameral Mind, see Tim Boucher's entry "Cults and the Bicameral Mind". I especially like his final concluding paragraph, and the one preceding it.)

Classic Example Of Local-Govt Waste And Idiocy

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:31:00 +0000

Our local council has spent the last two months upgrading a very heavily congested road. A road that sees four lanes of traffic, from two different locations (both main roads), merge into two lanes.

At the beginning they took away the curb and we all thought "Hooray, another lane is coming." And we were right, but not how we thought.

As they re-did the curb I thought the road looked too narrow for a third lane - even when taking the wide median strip out and replacing it with a narrow one. But what do I know, right? I mean, once the lines are drawn I might see that there is room for three lanes after all.

Alas, three lanes for cars it was not to be. Nope. They have spent the last two months - and who knows how much money - upgrading this road, resealing it, redoing the curb, for a bike lane. So now cyclists will have somewhere to ride their bikes.

Here's the craziness of this... I have never seen a cyclist along that road. Of course, I will be told, "that's because there was no bike lane." And they may be right. But the road is not near anything a cyclist would ride to. So once on it you are riding for about four kilometers before getting to anything else.

There is a bike lane further up. But it is NEVER used. So creating this bike lane to link with the other one, still won't make them be used. Why can't the council just face it and admit that cyclists don't need a bike lane there. And certainly not at the expense of the main arterial road that goes smack bang through the middle of the city.

But that's not the full story. It gets worse. Much worse.

You see, that entire section of road they just spent loads of money and time on, is in the plan to have an extra lane added to it, and for that lane to be a bus lane. Meaning, when the bus lane is added in the next year or so, the road will have to be ripped up again. And all that work they just did will have been a complete and utter waste of time, effort and money.

And when they add the bus lane, they will still not be giving the cars a third lane to drive on. By then there will be an extra 25,000 - 40,000 people living in the city. All trying to squeeze onto those same inadequate two lanes.

There is NOTHING in the plan for the next ten years to upgrade that road so it carries more cars. Just a bus lane.

This govt is mental, I swear. They all need their heads read or something. Of course, it might just be a case of no-one in authority living near that road so they don't experience it and have no incentive to fix it up.

Then again, after they so brilliantly made two three-lane roads into two two-lane roads, added a couple of extra traffic lights causing a traffic jam for all daylight hours and a nightmare at peak hour, and told us they had improved traffic, then I expect anything from these dimwits.

Meet The Shell People

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 03:58:00 +0000

There are a few of us. We experience the same frustrations, if you will. We wonder why people can be so pod-like. Why they seem to have the ability to be a non-thinker. Why a conversation with them is like talking with a broken record. Why any kind of inductive reasoning is beyond them.

For example: Recently, someone commented about the need for tolerance from those who would like a separation of church and state. He said we should be respectful of other religions and opinions. And I am sure we would all agree with this. However, he then said the govt should promote a religious stance regardless.

So what he is basically saying is, everyone be tolerant, but I won't and I expect you to be tolerant of the govt doing what I want it to do, because it is what I want and to hell with you.

I pointed out the error in his logic and all I get back is some drivel about communism and the country being founded on judeo/christian malarky and one nation under god.

I gave examples that the country shuts down on Christmas day and Easter, and those are Christian events being forced down my throat. I gave an example of those who want the nativity scene removed not being tolerant of those who enjoy that scene.

Again, I get communism comments back at me, and I opted out of the discussion. With someone else advising not to bother because you cannot reason against circular logic. Something I agree with.

But it begs the question, WHY? Why can't you discuss something with someone using circular logic? Why are they so unable to grasp your point?

I think Ayn Rand has the answer. Let me quote Howard Roark from "The Fountainhead". To set the scene, Howard is a staunch individualist architect who is frustrated at every turn by podies. He designs unique buildings that are copies of nothing. A woman comes to him to design her a building which she so aptly describes. He tries to talk to her and then comes to this conclusion...

There was no Mrs Wayne Wilmont; there was only a shell containing the opinions of her friends, the picture-postcards she had seen, the novels of country squires she had read; it was this that he had to address, this immateriality which could not hear him or answer, deaf and impersonal like a wad of cotton.

This analysis so aptly describes the majority of people. They are merely shells that contain the opinions of others, bits and pieces of stuff they have read, seen or heard. Hence they are unable to form a valid opinion. And discussion cannot be had with them because they don't have the full set of opinions in their shell. So they just repeat the bits they do have.

Later in the week Roark encounters a similar situation. Someone wants him to design a house EXACTLY like the house of the wealthy Randolph family from the area he grew up in. Of this discussion Roark concludes...

Roark felt again a bewildered helplessness before unreality; there was no such person as Mr Mundy; there were only remnants, long dead, of the people who had inhabited the Randolph place; one could not plead with remnants or convince them.

To me, this sums up the podies nicely. There are no people. Just shells containing the opinions, memories, pictures, images, sound bites and remnants of other people. There is nothing in that shell of the person who claims ownership of that shell.

Try this: Ask someone, anyone, if it is okay to lay a fridge on its side. You will be told "No" the gas will leak out, or some equally oddball reason. If you ask, "where did you hear that?" you will not get an answer. If you ask, "How can the gas leak out if the pipework is sealed? After all, if it could leak out it would do so already, wouldn't it?" You will get "I don't know" type answers.

Here is the truth. You CAN lay a fridge down on its side. Lay it down so the pipes that come out of the condenser point up and the gas, in liquid form, will stay in the condenser. If you lay it down the other way, the liquid gas will flow into the pipes out of the condenser. You will then need to let the fridge stand for an hour or two to let the gas flow back into the condenser so there are no air bubbles in there. BUT, you cannot convince people of this because their shell is already full of fridge information from some unknown source long ago, and there is no-one there that can think for themselves, and the "fridge thought" from long ago cannot give a new answer.

Maybe there are some vague vestiges of the people who once lived in the shell. And when they reach a certain age that vestige cries out. And somehow directs the shell to "find itself." And so the person goes on a long journey of "self discovery" and "personal growth." But alas, they have been a shell for so long, they simply absorb more of other people's opinions and text blocks from books, in readiness to regurgitate them back out to anyone who will listen, as some kind of proof they have "grown." And the "seeking" becomes more important to them than what they seek. And you see them sit around with others in the same boat and they talk about spirituality and one-ness and vague notions of universal laws of abundance, while they aren't abundant. And they pat each other on the back and congratulate each other for absorbing more of someone else's opinion. And they all feel the energy vibrating and consult the rune stones to make sure this was the right thing to do. And they talk about manifesting this and that, while they hardly have enough money for rent.

I had a chat with such a person. The shell she was told me all about "Prosperity Thinking" and "Manifesting" and the usual bollocks. When I asked her for examples of people who live by this prosperity thinking, trusting the universe to provide, all she gave me were examples of people who work darn hard for their money. When I asked how this was the result of prosperity thinking she could not answer. And when quizzed about her own situation she admitted she was not prosperous, but still claimed *I* didn't get it. The shell she was could not grasp the idea that she was trying to teach me a philosophy as TRUTH but she could not find a single example to show me, and it wasn't working in her life either. As the opinions of others in her shell had not encountered my questions before, she could not answer and so ended the discussion. (I could almost here her brain shutting down from confusion.)

So there you have it. Next time you feel the frustration rise that a person - or group of people - just don't get what is so plainly obvious, you know why. They aren't there. There is only a shell full of the opinions and thoughts and sights and sounds of other people. For them to actually be able to answer any question it would require the originator of the thought to be present to answer for them. But as that isn't going to happen, you feel like you are talking into a vacuum.

Why do people become shells? Ahh... that is for another entry and another time. But it should give you something to think about. And if you know why people become shells, please leave it in the comments.

Ethanol, The Other White Meat

noreply@blogger.com (Michael) — Mon, 25 Apr 2005 10:44:00 +0000

Oh to be driving around in an ethanol-powered vehicle. No toxic exhaust. Fuel made as needed - need more fuel, crank up production. Money saved on oil exploration. Wouldn't the world be a blissful place?

At first, the idea of driving solely on plant-derived ethanol (not oil-derived ethanol) sounds appealing. Until you realize the problems that need to be solved to make this a viable option.

Problem # 1: Current engines cannot run on ethanol-only, only part ethanol (10%). For an ethanol-only vehicle, the engine needs to be an ethanol only engine. This would require a complete rework in the manufacturer's workshops. And as they are only geared up for gasoline engine making, they won't be changing any time soon.

Problem # 2: Selecting the source plant. Ideally, it would be what would grow best in your particular location. However, sugar cane produces more ethanol than corn. So those locations where sugar cane will not grow are forced to use corn. But using corn as the plant leads to problem number three.

Problem # 3: Finding yourself in a negative energy situation where it takes more energy to create the ethanol than the energy gotten out of the ethanol. Even if you burn the corn husks to help create heat for making the ethanol out of corn, you don't get enough. You need to bring energy in from the outside to turn the corn into ethanol. This leads to problem four.

Problem # 4: Ethanol from sugar cane would have to supply shortfalls in problem 3, or be imported by those locations who experience problem 3, yet this would place a much greater burden on ethanol makers who use sugar cane. That increased burden creates problem 5 in greater amounts than it otherwise would have.

Problem # 5: It takes land to grow sugar cane. The more land devoted to growing sugar cane for ethanol production, the less land available for food crops.

As it is now, we have food crop land, feed growing land (land devoted to growing feed for meat animals), animal growing land, and unused land.

If greater demand is placed on ethanol makers, their only real recourse is to get more sugar cane. And the only way that will happen is by growing more, and that requires more land.

That land has to come from somewhere. If it is existing food land, then the food must be grown somewhere else. But no farmers would want to bother growing food if they know they have a guaranteed market for their sugar cane. As it is now, some farmers plough their ready-to-harvest crops back into the ground because it costs more to get them to market than what they will get for them at the market. This would be compounded if sugar cane was the ethanol source. This would result in food having to be imported, where it currently may not be. Placing increased burden on the food growing areas.

If it is new land, then that needs to be cleared. And look out you don't squash an environmentalist greenie, who is trying to protect the trees and bugs and other little critters, in the process. And when it comes to rainforest, there is concern because the rainforest is linked to itself. Such as Brazil Nut trees will NOT produce nuts in logged forest.

That leaves animal land. And that might be possible but for one thing... people eat meat and that land is used for them.

One solution is to put animals into feed lots, like the chickens, so they take up less space. Imagine cows and pigs caged like we all know the chickens are.

Another is to build sugar cane growing factories. Multi storey high. Growing hydroponic sugar cane. A one acre building of 10 floors would be producing the same as a 10 acre farm, for example. And hundreds of these buildings could be built around ethanol-producing factories. (Or growing the animal's food in this way near the meat growing factories, and the sugar cane in the ground.)

The other thing with growing the sugar cane on the land is that of no diversity. If the only thing growing in soil is sugar cane, that soil will be depleted of everything sugar cane needs to grow. Artificial gunk will then be added to "make" it grow. And our land deteriorates more.

As it stands at the moment, our food is grown on the ground and our energy source comes from under the ground. If both were above ground, we could be in trouble.

For example: It is estimated that if ALL the available growing land in Germany was given over to sugar cane growing for ethanol, the ethanol would provide all of Germany's energy needs. However, ALL food would need to be imported into the country.

Multiply that concept by all countries... and take into consideration the HUGE energy requirements of countries like India, with reduced land capacity... and you start to get a picture of the realities of using ethanol and the problems that must be over come.

Some would argue that there would be no problem if we replaced our source of electricity to something less energy demanding to make. Such as the amount of energy used to burn coal to create electricity. And that an efficient ethanol plant should throw off additional electricity which could go back into the grid. But the greenies don't like alternatives. They just know what they want gone.

For instance: We could all have nuclear powered electricity. The same power stations could convert sea water to drinking water. And it'd be pretty darn cheap. But greenies don't like nuclear power. Reasoning is not their strong point. As is evidenced by their push for full ethanol powered cars without any thought to the problems mentioned in this post.

I'd love for us to all drive ethanol cars if for no other reason I won't ever have to follow smoke bombs spewing out thick plumes of smoke as they drive on the road. Forcing me to somehow avoid breathing in the toxic gases. But I am also a realist. And know that throwing the baby out with the bathwater is silly. It is silly to cover energy shortfalls of ethanol manufacture by burning more energy over there, and to ruin our food growing land which would lead to mass starvation at some point in the future, just for the sake of driving on ethanol.

I'm willing to wait until nuclear fusion is accomplished. Then we can all tip a cup of water into our engines and drive around on the energy for 20 years or more. THAT is true green energy.

Or a more efficient form of hydrogen extraction. Again, tip water in, let the converter get the hydrogen out, and then use that to power the engine.

But as it stands... ethanol, while being praised as "renewable" fuel, comes across as a cumbersome way to go about getting energy and I question its renewablness as land degradation, of long term single crop growing, would put an end to it as a fuel source. And certainly an end as a transport fuel source in the growing world of the future.