I recently watched the movie Miss Congeniality (Sandra Bullock, Michael Caine, Candace Bergen) and I then did as usually do - checked out what a whole lot of other people thought about it on IMDB.
I came across an interesting discussion on one of the discussion threads, where some guy complained that the movie title was the worst marketing decision ever because "Miss Congeniality" was such an obscure word and no one he knew used the word "congeniality" in fact he didn't know what it meant, it was the stupidest marketing decision ever.
Naturally this thread had been started before Kraft had started the iSnack 2.0 campaign.
Well, of course some people leapt on him and told him to go spread a little dictionary on his toast, stupid, "congeniality" wasn't exactly that obscure a word. Exactly which bit of it didn't he get? It wasn't helped by the fact that his short posting was peppered with spelling mistakes.
What was odd was the fact that he likened the title to "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" - an ill-thought out title, a bad marketing decision because it used an obscure title that no one understood.
Umm, well I don't think it really hurt Harry that much, and I'm a little confused about the comparison. Which bit of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone doesn't he get? Does he not understand the word "Stone" or "Potter" or never heard of a "Harry" before? I'm totally confused. It wouldn't matter if you didn't understand what a "philosopher's stone" is but understood the word's separately - any dolt understanding the English language would be able to tell you if you've come across the word philosopher and you've come across the word stone, a philosopher's stone simply implies "stone of or belonging to a philosopher" and then of course the movie explains the significance of that to you.
Of course, there are some movies like "Snakes on a Plane" which use nice simple words and is ... well ... self-explanatory. But many of the movies that have been extremely popular are a little on the obscure side and have used words that are longer than one syllable. Like Superman, for instance, or Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (What the heck is an Indiana? Anyone? Anyone? And help me if I know what the Temple of Doom is!).
It could have been after reading this discussion board that it was decided to switch from two syllable words to one syllable words to increase popularity, and Batman was remarketed as The Dark Knight. 'Batman' was possibly considered just a bit too difficult for the attention span of some of the movie regulars nowadays.
One of the movie titles that has always baffled me is Die Hard. The fact that I have never quite understood the title hasn't stopped me enjoying the film though. Die Hard? Where in the movie is it about dying hard, as opposed, I suppose, to dying easy or dying soft? Or is that supposed to be a reference to when Hans Gruber dies, and he falls out and lands on the ground, which I suppose is quite hard? Then the next movie is called Die Harder, but I don't think anything could be much harder than splattering your brains out on concrete like that, and I don't think it even shows it to be ...
It's totally confusing. That is obscure.
Showing posts with label musings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label musings. Show all posts
Tuesday, 6 October 2009
Friday, 18 September 2009
A Man's Head on a Woman's Shoulders
Recently I had a rant a bit about racial discrimination, so now I'll switch to the old one, gender discrimination.
I was reading an article in a print newspaper which I unfortunately can't put a link to because they don't seem to have published it online. That's why they make you get the print copy, for gems of 300 words like that.
Anyhow, the writer was telling of how insurance premiums were higher on his car than they were for his wife, even though they both have a clean driving record and are both the same age, and the reason was because he's male. He asked the insurance company and they said this was because men made more claims than women. He asked if they discriminated based on race too, and they said no, because they didn't collect any data on that.
He said this was annoying as gender was one of the things you can't change. Age relates to experience. But you could get older, in fact you usually did. Or you could move to a different geographic region. But you didn't change gender.
Obviously he hasn't investigated certain operations you can do, but never mind.
Anyway, the poor bloke seemed put upon, and this was one of the terrible things about being a bloke. That and I just don't know how men live with a bobbing Adam's Apple. Doesn't it ever feel weird having a round thing bobbing at your neck? It looks weird on some of you. If I had one I would be thinking it was very strange. Especially since I'm a girl.
But I don't think it is all one way. For instance, in some cases, women pay more for just being a woman. For instance, I passed the hairdresser's and a Lady's Basic Cut, the cheapest was, more expensive than the most expensive Men's Basic Cut (they have a slight range based, I think, on length of hair).
Now that is outrageous. I have seen men with tangly long mullets and women with little bob cuts and still the women are probably paying more. Grrr!
In fact it annoys me more than the car premium thing, because I've got hair. I don't have a car. Your hair grows on you, man. You need to CUT IT to get rid of it, ok some people's just falls out. Whereas if you don't want to pay for insurance on a car you can choose to not buy one in the first place. Easy peasy. So in that way I think it is even WORSE.
I have thought sometimes that I should go into a hairdresser dressed in a suit and tie with a m moustache drawn on my face and talk in a deep voice and despite having past-the-shoulder length hair and wanting a side part with it nicely layered etc, I would demand bravely to have a men's cut! See if they would dare question my ... errrh ... balls!
They've changed it now - And now it is happily gender-unbiased - but they used to have two different specials at the Belgian Beer Cafe - one was half-price mussels for males on Wednesdays, and for ladies it was a free beer if you wore red. (They've changed it now so the mussels deal applies to everyone and the beer special has disappeared.)
But at the time it annoyed me because I don't drink beer and I like mussels! And dammit ... What do I have in my wardrobe that's red? Too much planning!
On the other time of course one uses the feminine advantage to every extent they can when the guys who are selling fruit at Paddy's Markets make their comments about throwing in an extra few apples into your basket "for the lady".
I'm not sure if we should jump up and scream about all this disgusting, awful, gender discrimination, or accept it will balance out in the end, and/or accept which gender we are and what tricks and advantages it gives us and use them to gain the best advantages where! It sounds pathetic and very cliche but I do think some people might help me more because I'm a pint-sized female, if something falls, if a stupid ticket machine won't work and I start growling at it I think there is someone who is male/taller/wider/more authoritarian looking who delights in coming up and trying to help out, more so than if I were a big tall, large male with tattoos all over me.
Of course there are some areas in which gender discrimination/abuse/unfairness is quite serious; on the other hand when it comes to a little freebie given or not given here or there, a small slant in prices, a slightly different treatment, should it be something we worry about overly?
Or is not worrying about them being lazy, and silently condoning or making way for the bigger abuses, or contributing to them? Is that person whom you let get away with dividing man's chores and girl's chores and you don't mind her emphasising it because you'd really rather not clean the car or put the mulch on the garden or re-tile the roof ... is she the next one who'll be giving disgustingly different pay to males from females or refusing to employ certain people based on gender and part of that is your fault?
And you could be one of those victims!
Hmmmm.
I was reading an article in a print newspaper which I unfortunately can't put a link to because they don't seem to have published it online. That's why they make you get the print copy, for gems of 300 words like that.
Anyhow, the writer was telling of how insurance premiums were higher on his car than they were for his wife, even though they both have a clean driving record and are both the same age, and the reason was because he's male. He asked the insurance company and they said this was because men made more claims than women. He asked if they discriminated based on race too, and they said no, because they didn't collect any data on that.
He said this was annoying as gender was one of the things you can't change. Age relates to experience. But you could get older, in fact you usually did. Or you could move to a different geographic region. But you didn't change gender.
Obviously he hasn't investigated certain operations you can do, but never mind.
Anyway, the poor bloke seemed put upon, and this was one of the terrible things about being a bloke. That and I just don't know how men live with a bobbing Adam's Apple. Doesn't it ever feel weird having a round thing bobbing at your neck? It looks weird on some of you. If I had one I would be thinking it was very strange. Especially since I'm a girl.
But I don't think it is all one way. For instance, in some cases, women pay more for just being a woman. For instance, I passed the hairdresser's and a Lady's Basic Cut, the cheapest was, more expensive than the most expensive Men's Basic Cut (they have a slight range based, I think, on length of hair).
Now that is outrageous. I have seen men with tangly long mullets and women with little bob cuts and still the women are probably paying more. Grrr!
In fact it annoys me more than the car premium thing, because I've got hair. I don't have a car. Your hair grows on you, man. You need to CUT IT to get rid of it, ok some people's just falls out. Whereas if you don't want to pay for insurance on a car you can choose to not buy one in the first place. Easy peasy. So in that way I think it is even WORSE.
I have thought sometimes that I should go into a hairdresser dressed in a suit and tie with a m moustache drawn on my face and talk in a deep voice and despite having past-the-shoulder length hair and wanting a side part with it nicely layered etc, I would demand bravely to have a men's cut! See if they would dare question my ... errrh ... balls!
They've changed it now - And now it is happily gender-unbiased - but they used to have two different specials at the Belgian Beer Cafe - one was half-price mussels for males on Wednesdays, and for ladies it was a free beer if you wore red. (They've changed it now so the mussels deal applies to everyone and the beer special has disappeared.)
But at the time it annoyed me because I don't drink beer and I like mussels! And dammit ... What do I have in my wardrobe that's red? Too much planning!
On the other time of course one uses the feminine advantage to every extent they can when the guys who are selling fruit at Paddy's Markets make their comments about throwing in an extra few apples into your basket "for the lady".
I'm not sure if we should jump up and scream about all this disgusting, awful, gender discrimination, or accept it will balance out in the end, and/or accept which gender we are and what tricks and advantages it gives us and use them to gain the best advantages where! It sounds pathetic and very cliche but I do think some people might help me more because I'm a pint-sized female, if something falls, if a stupid ticket machine won't work and I start growling at it I think there is someone who is male/taller/wider/more authoritarian looking who delights in coming up and trying to help out, more so than if I were a big tall, large male with tattoos all over me.
Of course there are some areas in which gender discrimination/abuse/unfairness is quite serious; on the other hand when it comes to a little freebie given or not given here or there, a small slant in prices, a slightly different treatment, should it be something we worry about overly?
Or is not worrying about them being lazy, and silently condoning or making way for the bigger abuses, or contributing to them? Is that person whom you let get away with dividing man's chores and girl's chores and you don't mind her emphasising it because you'd really rather not clean the car or put the mulch on the garden or re-tile the roof ... is she the next one who'll be giving disgustingly different pay to males from females or refusing to employ certain people based on gender and part of that is your fault?
And you could be one of those victims!
Hmmmm.
Wednesday, 16 September 2009
My First Holiday in a Long Time
It may sound strange to some people, but I haven't had a holiday in a long time. I mean a holiday out of Sydney, not a holiday from work. As a member of the unemployed ranks at the moment, you might say I'm constantly on holiday, although I'm studying. Kinda. And even then I had a mid-semester break just last week.
I also had my first holiday out of Sydney for what seems like a long time. I was just sitting around when my sister invited me to go to Canberra for two days because she was driving out there to meet someone for a chat, and would I come along? We could go in the morning, she'd go meet the lady while I spent time wandering about, we'd share a hotel room for a night, spend the next day looking around, then leave that evening. She'd do the driving. I can't drive. No way.
It seemed a good idea to me, and it was fun, but different from what I expected.
First, Sunday morning we headed out and we decided to use the Tomtom to navigate. We were out on the highway and we were gone about an hour and a half when we decided to take a rest break. We stopped, ate a piece of fruit and my sister had a little snooze, and then when we started up again ... yes, the darn TomTom wouldn't work again!
It's amazing how you rely on that silly lady's voice telling you to "turn right here". We panicked!
Eventually we decided we should keep going, after all we still could remember which direction to go on the highway and apart from that there wasn't too much else that could go wrong. But we kept squealing about "Oh darn, does this mean we'll have to find a MAP? Not one of those things!" like we were contemplating taking on a bucket of dead rats.
Finally - oh joy, I fiddled around with the TomTom enough that an hour later it jumped back to life and we both sighed with relief and swore that we would never do anything to cause it harm or want to leave us, ever, ever again. Precious baby.
I wasn't really sure what I wanted to do when we got to Canberra. Mel had to go meet her church-friend, and I was dropped off in Canberra, not daring to do anything too ... well, daring. I didn't dare catch a bus. I'm bad enough at navigation as it is, I was finding myself lost as I walked around, and I had this horrible vision of myself catching a bus and being stranded out in the outer suburbs and not knowing how the hell I'd got out there and how the hell to get back and my sister calling me and wanting to know why I wasn't back at the designated meeting place when we agreed.
So I crept carefully. I followed a sign saying National Film and Sound Archive.
Now, I don't know where they hide that place but I couldn't find it despite the signs or the strange directions people gave me. "Past the white building there's a place with a big dome on it" ... heck, I couldn't see a dome, or if that's your idea of a dome, you and I need to have talks. Big talks.
I ended up wandering around the ANU and admiring the grounds for a short while.
Then I checked out a few shops and bookstores. I can't help myself checking out bookstores.
After a good browse through the books, I managed to get myself to the Canberra Museum and Gallery where I saw a few really cool collections. The funniest was a great collection of record covers. It's hard to say what's so cool about quirky record covers, except you've just got to see it. Sometimes the names just speak for themselves - like "I fell in love with a prostitute" Sermon by Rev. Jasper Williams. Others, well the artwork was so "interesting" I just had to laugh.
But best of all, for me, was the children's activity table. There was a table with a bird chart and some coloured pencils and a bird picture book nearby, and a sign that said "Read the picture book and write your own bird story" with some little blank booklets provided.
Naturally I did as instructed. I don't think I draw as well as Julie Vivas (illustrator of the supplied picture book) but I rather liked my story. If I can improve my pictures I may be onto a hit picture book. And all that in just a few minutes of inspiration!
Later, I saw another smaller Art Gallery and some more bookshops before I was picked up and went off to church and dinner with my sister.
The next day went like this ....
I lay in bed thinking, gee, it's all dark, I think I must have awoken early, I won't get out of bed yet, specially as my sister isn't awake yet. I don't know how long I was thinking this.
Then I heard a maid knock on the door and say "HOUSEKEEPING!"
My sister drowsily called from her bed "Umm, later!"
I asked what the time was. My sister said quarter past seven. I replied, "Gee, that's early for housekeeping."
"Sorry, I mean it's almost ten," said my sister.
"Hmmm."
With checkout having to be eleven, this rather changed things.
We managed to get out and go to the National Gallery and it was fantastic, except that I think I may have walked in on a few tours. It's one of those disconcerting things about tours in galleries, you have all these groups being shown around by tour guides and if you're there by yourself and you want to just inspect a piece of art by yourself, you feel like you're getting in the way when you have a group of fifteen standing around in a semicircle with a guide marching in front of the painting pointing out features and explaining history and symbolism and stuff and you just want to have a good peer.
Still, peer I did!
I don't know, I don't mind some of the "modern" art there but I usually really prefer wandering in the sections where there are portraits of ladies or landscapes rather than huge canvases of solid colour with a few simple geometric shapes on them. I guess it's all a matter of taste.
After that we planned to go to Cockington Green, the miniature Village ... but my sister wanted to have a nap for twenty minutes before she drove ... and that twenty minutes became two hours ...!
So instead we drove straight back home ...
and right in time for dinner!
It mightn't seem like we did a whole lot but in fact it was just nice to get away for a couple of days, look at some beautiful art, have a wander, and not feel pressured to dash from place to place under time constraints. I enjoyed it!
I also had my first holiday out of Sydney for what seems like a long time. I was just sitting around when my sister invited me to go to Canberra for two days because she was driving out there to meet someone for a chat, and would I come along? We could go in the morning, she'd go meet the lady while I spent time wandering about, we'd share a hotel room for a night, spend the next day looking around, then leave that evening. She'd do the driving. I can't drive. No way.
It seemed a good idea to me, and it was fun, but different from what I expected.
First, Sunday morning we headed out and we decided to use the Tomtom to navigate. We were out on the highway and we were gone about an hour and a half when we decided to take a rest break. We stopped, ate a piece of fruit and my sister had a little snooze, and then when we started up again ... yes, the darn TomTom wouldn't work again!
It's amazing how you rely on that silly lady's voice telling you to "turn right here". We panicked!
Eventually we decided we should keep going, after all we still could remember which direction to go on the highway and apart from that there wasn't too much else that could go wrong. But we kept squealing about "Oh darn, does this mean we'll have to find a MAP? Not one of those things!" like we were contemplating taking on a bucket of dead rats.
Finally - oh joy, I fiddled around with the TomTom enough that an hour later it jumped back to life and we both sighed with relief and swore that we would never do anything to cause it harm or want to leave us, ever, ever again. Precious baby.
I wasn't really sure what I wanted to do when we got to Canberra. Mel had to go meet her church-friend, and I was dropped off in Canberra, not daring to do anything too ... well, daring. I didn't dare catch a bus. I'm bad enough at navigation as it is, I was finding myself lost as I walked around, and I had this horrible vision of myself catching a bus and being stranded out in the outer suburbs and not knowing how the hell I'd got out there and how the hell to get back and my sister calling me and wanting to know why I wasn't back at the designated meeting place when we agreed.
So I crept carefully. I followed a sign saying National Film and Sound Archive.
Now, I don't know where they hide that place but I couldn't find it despite the signs or the strange directions people gave me. "Past the white building there's a place with a big dome on it" ... heck, I couldn't see a dome, or if that's your idea of a dome, you and I need to have talks. Big talks.
I ended up wandering around the ANU and admiring the grounds for a short while.
Then I checked out a few shops and bookstores. I can't help myself checking out bookstores.
After a good browse through the books, I managed to get myself to the Canberra Museum and Gallery where I saw a few really cool collections. The funniest was a great collection of record covers. It's hard to say what's so cool about quirky record covers, except you've just got to see it. Sometimes the names just speak for themselves - like "I fell in love with a prostitute" Sermon by Rev. Jasper Williams. Others, well the artwork was so "interesting" I just had to laugh.
But best of all, for me, was the children's activity table. There was a table with a bird chart and some coloured pencils and a bird picture book nearby, and a sign that said "Read the picture book and write your own bird story" with some little blank booklets provided.
Naturally I did as instructed. I don't think I draw as well as Julie Vivas (illustrator of the supplied picture book) but I rather liked my story. If I can improve my pictures I may be onto a hit picture book. And all that in just a few minutes of inspiration!
Later, I saw another smaller Art Gallery and some more bookshops before I was picked up and went off to church and dinner with my sister.
The next day went like this ....
I lay in bed thinking, gee, it's all dark, I think I must have awoken early, I won't get out of bed yet, specially as my sister isn't awake yet. I don't know how long I was thinking this.
Then I heard a maid knock on the door and say "HOUSEKEEPING!"
My sister drowsily called from her bed "Umm, later!"
I asked what the time was. My sister said quarter past seven. I replied, "Gee, that's early for housekeeping."
"Sorry, I mean it's almost ten," said my sister.
"Hmmm."
With checkout having to be eleven, this rather changed things.
We managed to get out and go to the National Gallery and it was fantastic, except that I think I may have walked in on a few tours. It's one of those disconcerting things about tours in galleries, you have all these groups being shown around by tour guides and if you're there by yourself and you want to just inspect a piece of art by yourself, you feel like you're getting in the way when you have a group of fifteen standing around in a semicircle with a guide marching in front of the painting pointing out features and explaining history and symbolism and stuff and you just want to have a good peer.
Still, peer I did!
I don't know, I don't mind some of the "modern" art there but I usually really prefer wandering in the sections where there are portraits of ladies or landscapes rather than huge canvases of solid colour with a few simple geometric shapes on them. I guess it's all a matter of taste.
After that we planned to go to Cockington Green, the miniature Village ... but my sister wanted to have a nap for twenty minutes before she drove ... and that twenty minutes became two hours ...!
So instead we drove straight back home ...
and right in time for dinner!
It mightn't seem like we did a whole lot but in fact it was just nice to get away for a couple of days, look at some beautiful art, have a wander, and not feel pressured to dash from place to place under time constraints. I enjoyed it!
Tuesday, 25 August 2009
Effective Ticketing
(Warning All! I am gong to write about public transport. I was told once in a TAFE class by a fellow student that this was a boring crappy subject to write about. If you are of the same opinion of that lass, please stop reading now!)
I read this article in the Sydney Morning Herald about ticketing on public transport in Australia. According to the report when it comes to short trips in particular we commuters are paying some of the highest fares in the world - and I think a lot of people would say we aren't exactly getting the best value, what with complaints about safety, cleanliness, accessibility, on-time running blah blah.
For some of the longer trips, we are getting a better deal though.
Anyhow, what to do about it, if anything? Is this cool? I know a lot of people get all het up when they hear tickets are going up - again! Especially when you find services seem to be just the same or worse.
I always think it's an absolute rort that the way to make train stats better is just to change the definition of what "on time" is - like "within ten minutes".
Hey, why don't we passengers change the definition of "paying full price for a ticket" while we're at it so our stats for travelling legally look better? You IDIOTS. It seems all they have to do is fiddle with definitions but not serve up more, but the customers are meant to serve up more, and that's when people get very crappy about their fares going up.
Well, people get cranky about fares going up whenever, but especially when the service is not going up.
Anyhow, how to make fares fairer?
I remember a friend of mine said she believed in fully subsidised public transport. Naturally, this would probably mean a tax hike because money to run transport comes from somewhere, realistically. Either a tax hike or a decline in facilities elsewhere. But instead of a user pays system, a tax-funded system. Wold this deliver a better service to customers? In some ways it would do without the need for ticketing and it could be more efficient. It could also coax people into using public transport more. On the other hand, would it be economically viable, and could it also lead to a run-down system where only the minimum to sustain it would be delivered ... on the other hand, is that much different from what we're getting now?
I also remember some talk about different kinds of fares - at the moment we have different classes of fares. Adults pay full fare, there are concession tickets, pensioner tickets, school children get free school passes, and there are also special other passes for people who are veterans (I think)or who have certain disabilities. I'm not sure about other types of tickets.
Anyhow, sometimes when prices are hiked they are hiked in certain areas, others across the board, and I know some people have talked about inequities in these areas.
For instance, at a time when the pensioner daily travel pass was more than doubled, school children continued to ride free. It was suggested by some that it would be more fair if the pensioner travel pass was reduced by less and school children had to pay a fee (paid by parents), a once-off fee each school year for the privilege of holding a school pass. Or they could choose to not have one and pay a child's fare each time they travelled.
On the article I posted, a commenter mentioned that she thought a ticket based on time woudld be more appropriate than one based on distance. In that way it's really user pays. On the other hand this leads to several problems, and objections, including difficulties in estimating time - would you be fined if you bought a half hour ticket and got stuck on a slow bus? Surely you should be allowed to simply pay up extra at the other end, not be fined for carrying an invalid ticket.
And it hopefully wouldn't encourage your service to be excruciatingly slow in order to squeeze money from you. Would a breakdown in the middle of peak hour, forcing thousands of commuters to hang around for four hours and top up as they left, be a godsend to CityRail? many would argue no, as it would be a bad marketing strategy for them, but considering many of us have no viable choice but to catch public transport to the places we wish to go, and there aren't major competitors in the area, they don't worry too much about sweet-talking us.
Evidently, as the past over ten years has shown us.
I read this article in the Sydney Morning Herald about ticketing on public transport in Australia. According to the report when it comes to short trips in particular we commuters are paying some of the highest fares in the world - and I think a lot of people would say we aren't exactly getting the best value, what with complaints about safety, cleanliness, accessibility, on-time running blah blah.
For some of the longer trips, we are getting a better deal though.
Anyhow, what to do about it, if anything? Is this cool? I know a lot of people get all het up when they hear tickets are going up - again! Especially when you find services seem to be just the same or worse.
I always think it's an absolute rort that the way to make train stats better is just to change the definition of what "on time" is - like "within ten minutes".
Hey, why don't we passengers change the definition of "paying full price for a ticket" while we're at it so our stats for travelling legally look better? You IDIOTS. It seems all they have to do is fiddle with definitions but not serve up more, but the customers are meant to serve up more, and that's when people get very crappy about their fares going up.
Well, people get cranky about fares going up whenever, but especially when the service is not going up.
Anyhow, how to make fares fairer?
I remember a friend of mine said she believed in fully subsidised public transport. Naturally, this would probably mean a tax hike because money to run transport comes from somewhere, realistically. Either a tax hike or a decline in facilities elsewhere. But instead of a user pays system, a tax-funded system. Wold this deliver a better service to customers? In some ways it would do without the need for ticketing and it could be more efficient. It could also coax people into using public transport more. On the other hand, would it be economically viable, and could it also lead to a run-down system where only the minimum to sustain it would be delivered ... on the other hand, is that much different from what we're getting now?
I also remember some talk about different kinds of fares - at the moment we have different classes of fares. Adults pay full fare, there are concession tickets, pensioner tickets, school children get free school passes, and there are also special other passes for people who are veterans (I think)or who have certain disabilities. I'm not sure about other types of tickets.
Anyhow, sometimes when prices are hiked they are hiked in certain areas, others across the board, and I know some people have talked about inequities in these areas.
For instance, at a time when the pensioner daily travel pass was more than doubled, school children continued to ride free. It was suggested by some that it would be more fair if the pensioner travel pass was reduced by less and school children had to pay a fee (paid by parents), a once-off fee each school year for the privilege of holding a school pass. Or they could choose to not have one and pay a child's fare each time they travelled.
On the article I posted, a commenter mentioned that she thought a ticket based on time woudld be more appropriate than one based on distance. In that way it's really user pays. On the other hand this leads to several problems, and objections, including difficulties in estimating time - would you be fined if you bought a half hour ticket and got stuck on a slow bus? Surely you should be allowed to simply pay up extra at the other end, not be fined for carrying an invalid ticket.
And it hopefully wouldn't encourage your service to be excruciatingly slow in order to squeeze money from you. Would a breakdown in the middle of peak hour, forcing thousands of commuters to hang around for four hours and top up as they left, be a godsend to CityRail? many would argue no, as it would be a bad marketing strategy for them, but considering many of us have no viable choice but to catch public transport to the places we wish to go, and there aren't major competitors in the area, they don't worry too much about sweet-talking us.
Evidently, as the past over ten years has shown us.
Monday, 24 August 2009
Begging, the Dole, or an Honest Day's Work?
In the Daily Tele just the other day, there was this story about a guy who can earn $400 a day begging. Apparently he's not the only one. Slow days are when he clears about $75 or $150, but he's "disappointed" when he clears only $250. That's his standard.
He says he puts it in a bank account and he's saving for a friend who needs a liver transplant.
Now this story provoked outrage, plenty of people answered with declarations that they weren't going to pay the guy another cent, he was a leech and an idiot and he should get a job and why couldn't he pay rent and get off the streets.
My guess is many people were so mad because they felt they have been conned by him or others like him before, and they're mad because they don't clear money like that by what they think is 'easy money'. Though if you think sitting in shabby clothes on your bum in the street is fun, I'd think again.
And if you think it's easy money sitting around for 16 hours doing nothing ... well I can assure you it's not. My last job at the Industrial Relations Commission involved me sitting around doing nothing for long periods. I found it physically taxing and I wasn't earning $400 a day. I resigned and have less income than even there but it's a relief to be out of the sitting-on-butt business. Truly - sitting around all day isn't that great! I couldn't do it myself.
Others expressed the view that the guy should be paying tax, or that 'at least it was better than going on the dole'.
Anyhow, I don't know about tax, because if you're just giving him a bit of a donation, I don't know about that. Either way I wouldn't be paying tax if I could avoid it. I wonder if he has evaded birth and death too?
As for the guy being a leech on society, it seems that many people have forgotten that begging means that you choose to give someone something - albeit for nothing, or some might say, because they have inspired you or injected you with a feeling. It's a vague contract you make with them except they use guilt as a lever and don't give anything back that's solid except relief of that guilt. Or maybe self-image, or whatever.
Cake-sellers give you a cake in exchange for your bucks, but beggars just make you feel like you've done the right thing. Neither forces you to give anything. If you want them to die on the streets (or go bankrupt, whatever) just let them alone!
The last comparisons were the comparison of begging to the dole and to an 'honest job'. Not surprisingly, most people thought it was better for a person to 'get a job' than beg, not for his own sake but as if it were obligatory for him to do so. Many said it was 'good he wasn't on the dole' but some also talked about 'poor pensioners' who were taken in by his crap ... so there seemed to be a discrimination between pensioners and those on the dole (or different people feeling very differently about those on welfare, with the dole having bad connotations, but pensioners not having such a bad connotation. It's a lesson as to how to describe yourself if you're on welfare.)
It's also a lesson as to how to describe yourself if you've got a job. Remember, it's an honest job.
I'm not exactly sure what the heck a DIS honest job is. Professional liar? Working in advertising and political speech writing?
Anyhow, while we can parade our honest jobs, or some people can, I'm not exactly so sure why it's so great to have an honest job rather than to beg. Apart from the fact that you are obliged to pay taxes.
In both cases, someone agrees to pay you money. And when you think about it, some so-called honest jobs are pretty useless in function. Probably as useless as if you sat on your bum in the street. It's one of the reasons I've been disillusioned about many of the jobs I've read about, I feel like I am going to file files in a drawer that noone is ever going to look at again, shuffle paper off in a drawer that won't be seen again, pass paper to Mr B from Ms A which could have been passed directly from A to B if they had taken two seconds longer to do it, blah blah. It's boring boring crap!!!!!!!!
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
And yet that is what a lot of clerk like jobs are like, in my head I reason the main difference between them and not doing the job and letting the office run itself is someone actually pays you if you agree to do it. I didn't exactly feel like I was contributing to society at all. I just felt like someone thought I was.* And that was the reason to do the job.
Oh and someone will say you have an honest job and you are not a bludger.
So is the distasteful thing about people on the dole and begging is that they are collecting money and not only are they not doing anything but they also have been found out that they aren't doing anything?
As for begging and not being a dole bludger, basically, what's so great about saying at least you are not one but you are the other?
When you beg you play on someone's conscience or their image or their feeling of obligation or whatever. Many would call it a con. However, it depends on the day as to how much you are likely to get, and no one is obliged to give you a cent. There is however no cap on your limit, and you make a direct 'contract' with your contributors.
With a dole your claim is made to the State, not individuals in the street, and it's based on principles that assumedly Society agrees to/regulations that we agree to be governed under. And everyone's entitled to claim, but you have to make a disclosure under them and your receivable amount is capped.
Is it so much more principled to try one and not the other, and which one? I guess it depends on your principles.
*By the way I write this believing that many people who go on about their honest jobs do boring jobs that have very little impact on the world, like mine. On the other hand there are people whose jobs do have an impact on other people and if they don't turn up to work everyone gets frantic, or if they hadn't done their job ever, we'd be living in a world made of Stilton Cheese Towers and sipping funny green mucous speaking in beeps. Those people we have to thank for making the world we live in today possible. Not that a cheese tower wouldn't be interesting, for a holiday anyhow.
He says he puts it in a bank account and he's saving for a friend who needs a liver transplant.
Now this story provoked outrage, plenty of people answered with declarations that they weren't going to pay the guy another cent, he was a leech and an idiot and he should get a job and why couldn't he pay rent and get off the streets.
My guess is many people were so mad because they felt they have been conned by him or others like him before, and they're mad because they don't clear money like that by what they think is 'easy money'. Though if you think sitting in shabby clothes on your bum in the street is fun, I'd think again.
And if you think it's easy money sitting around for 16 hours doing nothing ... well I can assure you it's not. My last job at the Industrial Relations Commission involved me sitting around doing nothing for long periods. I found it physically taxing and I wasn't earning $400 a day. I resigned and have less income than even there but it's a relief to be out of the sitting-on-butt business. Truly - sitting around all day isn't that great! I couldn't do it myself.
Others expressed the view that the guy should be paying tax, or that 'at least it was better than going on the dole'.
Anyhow, I don't know about tax, because if you're just giving him a bit of a donation, I don't know about that. Either way I wouldn't be paying tax if I could avoid it. I wonder if he has evaded birth and death too?
As for the guy being a leech on society, it seems that many people have forgotten that begging means that you choose to give someone something - albeit for nothing, or some might say, because they have inspired you or injected you with a feeling. It's a vague contract you make with them except they use guilt as a lever and don't give anything back that's solid except relief of that guilt. Or maybe self-image, or whatever.
Cake-sellers give you a cake in exchange for your bucks, but beggars just make you feel like you've done the right thing. Neither forces you to give anything. If you want them to die on the streets (or go bankrupt, whatever) just let them alone!
The last comparisons were the comparison of begging to the dole and to an 'honest job'. Not surprisingly, most people thought it was better for a person to 'get a job' than beg, not for his own sake but as if it were obligatory for him to do so. Many said it was 'good he wasn't on the dole' but some also talked about 'poor pensioners' who were taken in by his crap ... so there seemed to be a discrimination between pensioners and those on the dole (or different people feeling very differently about those on welfare, with the dole having bad connotations, but pensioners not having such a bad connotation. It's a lesson as to how to describe yourself if you're on welfare.)
It's also a lesson as to how to describe yourself if you've got a job. Remember, it's an honest job.
I'm not exactly sure what the heck a DIS honest job is. Professional liar? Working in advertising and political speech writing?
Anyhow, while we can parade our honest jobs, or some people can, I'm not exactly so sure why it's so great to have an honest job rather than to beg. Apart from the fact that you are obliged to pay taxes.
In both cases, someone agrees to pay you money. And when you think about it, some so-called honest jobs are pretty useless in function. Probably as useless as if you sat on your bum in the street. It's one of the reasons I've been disillusioned about many of the jobs I've read about, I feel like I am going to file files in a drawer that noone is ever going to look at again, shuffle paper off in a drawer that won't be seen again, pass paper to Mr B from Ms A which could have been passed directly from A to B if they had taken two seconds longer to do it, blah blah. It's boring boring crap!!!!!!!!
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
And yet that is what a lot of clerk like jobs are like, in my head I reason the main difference between them and not doing the job and letting the office run itself is someone actually pays you if you agree to do it. I didn't exactly feel like I was contributing to society at all. I just felt like someone thought I was.* And that was the reason to do the job.
Oh and someone will say you have an honest job and you are not a bludger.
So is the distasteful thing about people on the dole and begging is that they are collecting money and not only are they not doing anything but they also have been found out that they aren't doing anything?
As for begging and not being a dole bludger, basically, what's so great about saying at least you are not one but you are the other?
When you beg you play on someone's conscience or their image or their feeling of obligation or whatever. Many would call it a con. However, it depends on the day as to how much you are likely to get, and no one is obliged to give you a cent. There is however no cap on your limit, and you make a direct 'contract' with your contributors.
With a dole your claim is made to the State, not individuals in the street, and it's based on principles that assumedly Society agrees to/regulations that we agree to be governed under. And everyone's entitled to claim, but you have to make a disclosure under them and your receivable amount is capped.
Is it so much more principled to try one and not the other, and which one? I guess it depends on your principles.
*By the way I write this believing that many people who go on about their honest jobs do boring jobs that have very little impact on the world, like mine. On the other hand there are people whose jobs do have an impact on other people and if they don't turn up to work everyone gets frantic, or if they hadn't done their job ever, we'd be living in a world made of Stilton Cheese Towers and sipping funny green mucous speaking in beeps. Those people we have to thank for making the world we live in today possible. Not that a cheese tower wouldn't be interesting, for a holiday anyhow.
Friday, 14 August 2009
Alien and Ripley
I watched Alien the other day with Mr Coffee. Ellen Ripley was voted 9th on the 100 Greatest Movie Characters of All Time List (compiled by Empire Magazine), the highest placing female on the list among only a handful of females, beating out Mary Poppins who trailed her in 20th position.
Basically, I thought Ellen was an ok character, but nothing to write home about. I wasn't that amazed by her and the guys who beat her out - Tyler Durden, Darth Vader, The Dark Knight, Han Solo, Hannibal Lecter, Indiana Jones, Captain Jack Sparrow etc deserved their position. I even think characters who didn't beat her such as Vito Corleone, James Bond, John McClane and yes, Mary Poppins, were more deserving.
Ellen's character was the typical gung ho person who starts off looking a little baby-faced and soft but then turns out to be a survivor. Kind of like Sarah Connor in the terminator Series except give me Sarah Connor any day. I thought she was better portrayed and the transformation was done better, and she had more of a sense of purpose, sometimes menace, and a bit of humour.
Female characters don't feature strongly on the list, not, I think, because, as some people mused, that women are incapable of portraying memorable characters or don't get meaty roles written for them. Or that Empire is basically sexist.
Some of those things might be true but I'd say the main thing is a trend that is evident in the voting: that voting on this list went in favour of action/adventure/sci-fi, and also you were more likely to get your face on the board if you were in a series or a set of sequels. People thought more of your character then. It seemed a lot of voters went "I liked that movie, what was the best character in it?" and voted, or "that character was really memorable as I've seen them in a series of movies" (which sticks in your mind more than one movie). Actions, adventures and sci-fi generally lend them more to a format of sequels, and tend to have stronger male characters in them, with a tendency to cater for more of a male audience.
Another way of thinking whether a character is good is to try to concentrate on the character regardless of whether the film was not that good - or not our favourite - and try to use criteria like whether the character was well-portrayed and evoked, and whether it was a great concept and did he/she stick in our mind, even if it was a one off film. For me many characters in comedies, romances, histories etc are characters like that. I personally would have voted in both Harry and Sally from When Harry Met Sally as fantastic characters.
Note that the listing is different for the Premiere magazine list, done in 2004 though.
Anyway, back to Alien.
At times I felt this movie was, errh, kind of boring. Maybe it's the passage of time but there was a lot of waiting around for things to happen and also a measure of predictability. I sat there thinking "Kane's going to spew a monster!" He didn't, it burst out of him but it was close enough for it to not be that exciting.
The scene here the black guy does was annoying me because he sacrificed himself for the woman who was too petrified to take the sacrifice as a good opportunity to save herself. his sacrifice was for nothing! That annoys me. At least one of them could have made it out of there and neither did. Oh damn!
Oh and that stooooopid cat! Please, I would have LIKED that alien to get the cat!
This is not meant to be a review but a vent.
To be fair, the movie is dated, like Ellen Ripley's hair. Sigourney Weaver does a fairly good job of transforming what seems to be an in-the-background Ripley to begin with to a force to be reckoned with, and does not miss out on the human touches. Unfortunately, that did mean going overboard with a cat. It's a cliche, now, having a silly pet that leads you to danger. I'm never quite sure why they have people on ships who would not breach quarantine to save their crewmate who's been attacked by an alien, who would watch their crew die, but would risk death to follow a ... cat and rescue it! And that always annoys me.
There is enough clang and action to make this still exciting towards the end, however I still feel it takes time to warm up and there are too many quite dull moments. It's amusing to watch the movie now and say "Ooooh, how young John Hurt and Sigourney Weaver look now!" but as the start is quite slow that's about all the fun you get for the first quite a few minutes.
The alien still looked pretty grotesque even now, to me - but heck, I am scared of everything. I felt it was a suitable amount of 'horror' - not gratuitous, but sent the message clearly and put more emphasis on the action, sci-fi and interaction (and breakdown) of the crewmates which is really how I prefer these movies to be constructed, rather than indulging in long shots of explicit damage to corpses and aliens eating up bodies and lots of blood and exposed organs, flesh, etc etc
Basically, I thought Ellen was an ok character, but nothing to write home about. I wasn't that amazed by her and the guys who beat her out - Tyler Durden, Darth Vader, The Dark Knight, Han Solo, Hannibal Lecter, Indiana Jones, Captain Jack Sparrow etc deserved their position. I even think characters who didn't beat her such as Vito Corleone, James Bond, John McClane and yes, Mary Poppins, were more deserving.
Ellen's character was the typical gung ho person who starts off looking a little baby-faced and soft but then turns out to be a survivor. Kind of like Sarah Connor in the terminator Series except give me Sarah Connor any day. I thought she was better portrayed and the transformation was done better, and she had more of a sense of purpose, sometimes menace, and a bit of humour.
Female characters don't feature strongly on the list, not, I think, because, as some people mused, that women are incapable of portraying memorable characters or don't get meaty roles written for them. Or that Empire is basically sexist.
Some of those things might be true but I'd say the main thing is a trend that is evident in the voting: that voting on this list went in favour of action/adventure/sci-fi, and also you were more likely to get your face on the board if you were in a series or a set of sequels. People thought more of your character then. It seemed a lot of voters went "I liked that movie, what was the best character in it?" and voted, or "that character was really memorable as I've seen them in a series of movies" (which sticks in your mind more than one movie). Actions, adventures and sci-fi generally lend them more to a format of sequels, and tend to have stronger male characters in them, with a tendency to cater for more of a male audience.
Another way of thinking whether a character is good is to try to concentrate on the character regardless of whether the film was not that good - or not our favourite - and try to use criteria like whether the character was well-portrayed and evoked, and whether it was a great concept and did he/she stick in our mind, even if it was a one off film. For me many characters in comedies, romances, histories etc are characters like that. I personally would have voted in both Harry and Sally from When Harry Met Sally as fantastic characters.
Note that the listing is different for the Premiere magazine list, done in 2004 though.
Anyway, back to Alien.
At times I felt this movie was, errh, kind of boring. Maybe it's the passage of time but there was a lot of waiting around for things to happen and also a measure of predictability. I sat there thinking "Kane's going to spew a monster!" He didn't, it burst out of him but it was close enough for it to not be that exciting.
The scene here the black guy does was annoying me because he sacrificed himself for the woman who was too petrified to take the sacrifice as a good opportunity to save herself. his sacrifice was for nothing! That annoys me. At least one of them could have made it out of there and neither did. Oh damn!
Oh and that stooooopid cat! Please, I would have LIKED that alien to get the cat!
This is not meant to be a review but a vent.
To be fair, the movie is dated, like Ellen Ripley's hair. Sigourney Weaver does a fairly good job of transforming what seems to be an in-the-background Ripley to begin with to a force to be reckoned with, and does not miss out on the human touches. Unfortunately, that did mean going overboard with a cat. It's a cliche, now, having a silly pet that leads you to danger. I'm never quite sure why they have people on ships who would not breach quarantine to save their crewmate who's been attacked by an alien, who would watch their crew die, but would risk death to follow a ... cat and rescue it! And that always annoys me.
There is enough clang and action to make this still exciting towards the end, however I still feel it takes time to warm up and there are too many quite dull moments. It's amusing to watch the movie now and say "Ooooh, how young John Hurt and Sigourney Weaver look now!" but as the start is quite slow that's about all the fun you get for the first quite a few minutes.
The alien still looked pretty grotesque even now, to me - but heck, I am scared of everything. I felt it was a suitable amount of 'horror' - not gratuitous, but sent the message clearly and put more emphasis on the action, sci-fi and interaction (and breakdown) of the crewmates which is really how I prefer these movies to be constructed, rather than indulging in long shots of explicit damage to corpses and aliens eating up bodies and lots of blood and exposed organs, flesh, etc etc
Monday, 10 August 2009
Are you ... no actually, I'm not?
One of my big problems with job ads is I take them very literally and I am too damn honest.
Honesty is supposed to be considered a good point with employers, that is, like don't steal from petty cash.
But you're not supposed to be too honest, like honest about what you really think about yourself, otherwise only the egomaniacs would have jobs out there, considering the way jobs are written.
Unfortuantely, I go through these weird dialogues in my head when I read job ads. Or maybe they should be called monologues because I am playing the job ad as well. (By the way my general lack of enthusiasm for writing job applications comes into play a lot here, I won't pretend that's not the case.)
Case #1
Do you have a PASSION FOR TAX and LAW ???
Ummm no. Who in their right mind does? Scratch that. Move on.
Case # 2
Good with numbers? Then ...
I think I found a number that didn't like me once. It was a thirty one. I said nice things to it and but it just didn't do anything I wanted. I don't know ...
Case # 3
Talented All-Rounder Wanted!
All around what?
Case #4
You must be a team player!
That reminds me of Mark who hated me on that fourth grade team, and the time I busted that group up at school, and how I didn't make the netball team, and fingerpainting in kindy when no one wanted me on their group because I wanted to do a red background, and how I prefer playing solitaire ...
I don't make the cut.
Case #5
Do you want to be part of our huge internationally respected firm?
(gulp) Actually I'd just like to know which firm it is, whether it's near a cheap sushi bar and a bus stop, whether the manager is a control freak or a nice persoon and whether there is a "free cookies" jar in the kitchen. Why are you hiding the important stuff? What is wrong with you. this is suspect. I don't care whether someone I don't know in Texas respects me. Why should I? Are you blabbering on about this irrelevant crap because you are hiding the fact that you supply those cheap black biros that never work to all your colleagues? I KNEW IT!!!!
Case #6
Must enjoy interacting with our large client base and working with colleagues!
Only if they aren't idiots, slackers, assholes, or arrogant bastards.
Case #7
Are you the FUN LOVING TYPE ???
I resent being called any type actually. Stop stereotyping me. It's demeaning. If I am fun-loving it's just because that's me not because I am a type. Don't insult me. Move on.
Case #8
If you're looking to build a career in law ...
I'm not looking to build a career in anything. I just want a job. Honestly, the thought of a career hasn't crossed my mind! One step at a time!
Case #9
Calling all PARRALEGALS!!!!!!!!!! Attention to Detail
Hahaha spelling mistake. Do they mean paralegals, or paralegals to work in Parramatta, or ... ho ho ho, I wouldn't work for such incompetents in a million years. maybe i should show them my attention to detail by sending them a copy of their ad with a big red circle around their "parralegals". Scratch them, move on.
Case #10
Are you flexible?
Let me see if I can still touch my toes. Damn!
Case #11
Cheerful, friendly graduates, we want you!
I haven't found a job yet. Not feeling too cheerful. Oh dear.
(Of course all this is just a really great procrastination technique, but it's never too early to begin procrastinating.)
Honesty is supposed to be considered a good point with employers, that is, like don't steal from petty cash.
But you're not supposed to be too honest, like honest about what you really think about yourself, otherwise only the egomaniacs would have jobs out there, considering the way jobs are written.
Unfortuantely, I go through these weird dialogues in my head when I read job ads. Or maybe they should be called monologues because I am playing the job ad as well. (By the way my general lack of enthusiasm for writing job applications comes into play a lot here, I won't pretend that's not the case.)
Case #1
Do you have a PASSION FOR TAX and LAW ???
Ummm no. Who in their right mind does? Scratch that. Move on.
Case # 2
Good with numbers? Then ...
I think I found a number that didn't like me once. It was a thirty one. I said nice things to it and but it just didn't do anything I wanted. I don't know ...
Case # 3
Talented All-Rounder Wanted!
All around what?
Case #4
You must be a team player!
That reminds me of Mark who hated me on that fourth grade team, and the time I busted that group up at school, and how I didn't make the netball team, and fingerpainting in kindy when no one wanted me on their group because I wanted to do a red background, and how I prefer playing solitaire ...
I don't make the cut.
Case #5
Do you want to be part of our huge internationally respected firm?
(gulp) Actually I'd just like to know which firm it is, whether it's near a cheap sushi bar and a bus stop, whether the manager is a control freak or a nice persoon and whether there is a "free cookies" jar in the kitchen. Why are you hiding the important stuff? What is wrong with you. this is suspect. I don't care whether someone I don't know in Texas respects me. Why should I? Are you blabbering on about this irrelevant crap because you are hiding the fact that you supply those cheap black biros that never work to all your colleagues? I KNEW IT!!!!
Case #6
Must enjoy interacting with our large client base and working with colleagues!
Only if they aren't idiots, slackers, assholes, or arrogant bastards.
Case #7
Are you the FUN LOVING TYPE ???
I resent being called any type actually. Stop stereotyping me. It's demeaning. If I am fun-loving it's just because that's me not because I am a type. Don't insult me. Move on.
Case #8
If you're looking to build a career in law ...
I'm not looking to build a career in anything. I just want a job. Honestly, the thought of a career hasn't crossed my mind! One step at a time!
Case #9
Calling all PARRALEGALS!!!!!!!!!! Attention to Detail
Hahaha spelling mistake. Do they mean paralegals, or paralegals to work in Parramatta, or ... ho ho ho, I wouldn't work for such incompetents in a million years. maybe i should show them my attention to detail by sending them a copy of their ad with a big red circle around their "parralegals". Scratch them, move on.
Case #10
Are you flexible?
Let me see if I can still touch my toes. Damn!
Case #11
Cheerful, friendly graduates, we want you!
I haven't found a job yet. Not feeling too cheerful. Oh dear.
(Of course all this is just a really great procrastination technique, but it's never too early to begin procrastinating.)
Tuesday, 4 August 2009
A Resistible Post.
I was at the train station the other day and I found out I missed my train to the city and I would have to wait another 15 minutes for the next one.
Then a train arrived to travel in the opposite direction.
I had this resistible urge to catch it and travel in the wrong direction, just for the heck of it, just 'cos, hell, at least it turned up. Unlike the trains to the city.
I say resistible urge because, yeah, I resisted it. I stayed on the platform and hummed and hahed for 15 minutes or so till my city train turned up.
I think resistible urges are very much underrated. We hear about irresistible urges all the time, irresistible cravings, blah blah. Also the 'almost irresistible urges' which is actually just a category of resistible urge just they don't like to admit it. It's an image problem.
On the other hand, there are plenty of resistible urges out there, from the strong resistible urges which sometimes get called 'almost irresistible' because they can't bear to be called 'resistible, it's like someone saying they are 'almost achieving an acceptably smaller body size for me' or 'almost employed' instead of saying they're a plump bum,
... to the easily resistible urges, where you might have a small urge to do something but easily dismiss it which happens all the time especially when you realise that your urge was going to kill you like that urge to cross the road and then you see that a bus is about to turn the corner in front of you. Whoops. Or those mild tweaks as you walk down the street that say "hmm, it'd be nice to buy x" except you don't end up indulging in every single thing down the road, otherwise you might end up sampling about fifty kebabs, 100 cupcakes, 60 stale sandwiches and 40 types of sushi each morning.
Anyhow I think we should celebrate the resistible urge more. There is no reason to think that it holds less staus than the irresistible urge. They are urges of equal class, and one shoudldnot be given more rights than the other, or made to feel superior than the other. Recognise your resistible urges and be proud of them!
Then a train arrived to travel in the opposite direction.
I had this resistible urge to catch it and travel in the wrong direction, just for the heck of it, just 'cos, hell, at least it turned up. Unlike the trains to the city.
I say resistible urge because, yeah, I resisted it. I stayed on the platform and hummed and hahed for 15 minutes or so till my city train turned up.
I think resistible urges are very much underrated. We hear about irresistible urges all the time, irresistible cravings, blah blah. Also the 'almost irresistible urges' which is actually just a category of resistible urge just they don't like to admit it. It's an image problem.
On the other hand, there are plenty of resistible urges out there, from the strong resistible urges which sometimes get called 'almost irresistible' because they can't bear to be called 'resistible, it's like someone saying they are 'almost achieving an acceptably smaller body size for me' or 'almost employed' instead of saying they're a plump bum,
... to the easily resistible urges, where you might have a small urge to do something but easily dismiss it which happens all the time especially when you realise that your urge was going to kill you like that urge to cross the road and then you see that a bus is about to turn the corner in front of you. Whoops. Or those mild tweaks as you walk down the street that say "hmm, it'd be nice to buy x" except you don't end up indulging in every single thing down the road, otherwise you might end up sampling about fifty kebabs, 100 cupcakes, 60 stale sandwiches and 40 types of sushi each morning.
Anyhow I think we should celebrate the resistible urge more. There is no reason to think that it holds less staus than the irresistible urge. They are urges of equal class, and one shoudldnot be given more rights than the other, or made to feel superior than the other. Recognise your resistible urges and be proud of them!
Monday, 22 June 2009
Mr Right: Have you got the Top Ten?
Women are often accused of having checklists when it comes to dating, well apparently this guy has made a checklist for us. In his book "How to Love", Gordon Livingston lists a top ten attributes a perfect partner must have most of in order for the relationship to succeed. They are kindness, optimism, courage, loyalty, tolerance, flexibility, beauty, humour, honesty and intelligence.
Well I fail the test and Mr Coffee has me so I guess that's Doom City for us.
According to the article, Livingston makes several key points:
a) He doesn't believe in love at first sight, in fact he believes that leads to bad relationships as we're automatically drawn to beautiful people but we need to get to know them better
b) He doesn't believe in traditional marriage therapy e.g. negotiating differences or working out what's wrong, he believes in choosing the right person in the first place rather than dealing with differences.
c) He pinpoints those ten "essential virtues" which I listed above as what your perfect partner will have most of
I don't have a whole lot of experience in relationships but from my very limited experience, here's a few thoughts ...
Basically I won't argue with a) too much. I have never felt love at first sight for a person. I do think gettign to know people is how I work; although attraction at first sight is often used as a filter to decide whether or not you're going to bother to get to know someone else better. It can also adjust your prejudices and make you feel good about yourself. Looks aren't everything, but I think they do count for something. This doesn't mean looking gorgeous, it can just mean looking approachable or friendly or fun or non-threatening or whatever suits at the time.
As for b), well I don't have too much experience as I said, but I would say ... let's not throw working on your relationship out the window. Every relationship needs work, as anyone whose been in a relationship knows. If you just float around trying to find someone who fits a checklist and when you hit a bump, think "instead of trying to negotiate this one, move on to the next person" you probably won't stay with anyone forever.
The trick is mainly to be able to recognise whether your differences are ones that are fundamental or superficial, whether they are worth the marriage or not, and not to have the stubbornness of saying "must stay together whether I die in the attempt" nor "one cross word and I'm outta here" attitude, but somewhere in between.
At any rate, when I saw Mr Livingston's checklist, I thought to myself, this guy would not be one to consult for marriage therapy. His 10 essential virtues may work for some people, heck, they may work for many people.
The thing is, he's narrowed down the list to 10 and disregarded the fact that there are some things that certain people just don't care about, in fact some people mightn't care about quite a few of those things. The phrasing is quite cague in the article - probably to cover his butt "a partner who possesses most of these" and then the virtues could be reinterpreted by someone to fit into a hypothetical situation, so that in any situation, an ideal partner might be desired to hold at least 7 of these virtues.
But that's more a sleight of hand than anything else.
In actual fact, if done like that it's not pinpointing a damn thing.
What really matters, as most people would say is either or both:
a) the person is someone who has qualities/traits that you value/admire/desire in another
b) the person has qualities you generally admire/value/desire and are compatible with your own values and traits
I don't know how many people actually believe all these so-called new theories for love; how many new ones can they come up with? I guess even if they don't believe them they have to come up with something new.
Really, I would prefer it if they stuck to the old ideas but had a neat story around it; instead they seem to forego the stories and try to rehash an advice book format under the guise that they have something new to say about love. It's shameful.
Well I fail the test and Mr Coffee has me so I guess that's Doom City for us.
According to the article, Livingston makes several key points:
a) He doesn't believe in love at first sight, in fact he believes that leads to bad relationships as we're automatically drawn to beautiful people but we need to get to know them better
b) He doesn't believe in traditional marriage therapy e.g. negotiating differences or working out what's wrong, he believes in choosing the right person in the first place rather than dealing with differences.
c) He pinpoints those ten "essential virtues" which I listed above as what your perfect partner will have most of
I don't have a whole lot of experience in relationships but from my very limited experience, here's a few thoughts ...
Basically I won't argue with a) too much. I have never felt love at first sight for a person. I do think gettign to know people is how I work; although attraction at first sight is often used as a filter to decide whether or not you're going to bother to get to know someone else better. It can also adjust your prejudices and make you feel good about yourself. Looks aren't everything, but I think they do count for something. This doesn't mean looking gorgeous, it can just mean looking approachable or friendly or fun or non-threatening or whatever suits at the time.
As for b), well I don't have too much experience as I said, but I would say ... let's not throw working on your relationship out the window. Every relationship needs work, as anyone whose been in a relationship knows. If you just float around trying to find someone who fits a checklist and when you hit a bump, think "instead of trying to negotiate this one, move on to the next person" you probably won't stay with anyone forever.
The trick is mainly to be able to recognise whether your differences are ones that are fundamental or superficial, whether they are worth the marriage or not, and not to have the stubbornness of saying "must stay together whether I die in the attempt" nor "one cross word and I'm outta here" attitude, but somewhere in between.
At any rate, when I saw Mr Livingston's checklist, I thought to myself, this guy would not be one to consult for marriage therapy. His 10 essential virtues may work for some people, heck, they may work for many people.
The thing is, he's narrowed down the list to 10 and disregarded the fact that there are some things that certain people just don't care about, in fact some people mightn't care about quite a few of those things. The phrasing is quite cague in the article - probably to cover his butt "a partner who possesses most of these" and then the virtues could be reinterpreted by someone to fit into a hypothetical situation, so that in any situation, an ideal partner might be desired to hold at least 7 of these virtues.
But that's more a sleight of hand than anything else.
In actual fact, if done like that it's not pinpointing a damn thing.
What really matters, as most people would say is either or both:
a) the person is someone who has qualities/traits that you value/admire/desire in another
b) the person has qualities you generally admire/value/desire and are compatible with your own values and traits
I don't know how many people actually believe all these so-called new theories for love; how many new ones can they come up with? I guess even if they don't believe them they have to come up with something new.
Really, I would prefer it if they stuck to the old ideas but had a neat story around it; instead they seem to forego the stories and try to rehash an advice book format under the guise that they have something new to say about love. It's shameful.
Breastfeeding in the Boardroom
On another blog, I read some people having a brief and petty discussion about breastfeeding in public.
It seemed to be that the favourite opinion was along the lines of - "I believe women should be allowed to breastfeed in public, but there are some places that they just shouldn't do it, they should know it's inappropriate, for instance in work meetings, like I was in a meeting recently and this woman whipped out her boob and breastfed and I just couldn't concentrate, so that is wrong. But otherwise I support breastfeeding in public."
Now this stance comes with a few problems, as I see it, but I think it's a popular one, mainly because many people like to think of themselves as very tolerant and liberal folk, but at the same time they don't want to see themselves as too liberal and they certainly don't want to be seen as too revolutionary and don't want to see boobies all over the place. This is a nice crowd-pleasing response.
I discussed this at length with Mr Coffee, including whether women ought to have rights or restrictions re: breastfeeding.
However, a conundrum comes to me from the so-called crowd-pleasing stance.
It is all very well to say "Breastfeed in public, dears, but in your place, and not in my sight" but then - it raises certain issues and questions:
Where is appropriate?
In whose sight, then? And if in no one's sight, then it's not exactly public, is it?
The "in the boardroom is inappropriate" argument is interesting because women have often be critiqued for:
a) women don't breastfeed enough, they give too much bottled milk
b) women work too much and don't take on a mothering role, they aren't truly feminine (which has a stigma in itself)
c) if a woman has lesser earning capacity than a man it's her own fault, because she took time off having children, and you can't expect a company to pay a person who has given less time and value to the workplace.
So you have several positions:
a) if the woman sits in the boardroom childless, there's a stigma: she's childless, what happened to her?
b) if the woman sits in the boardroom having shafted her kids to a nanny: what kind of mother does that? Not really mothering, is it?
c) if she brings them in and bottlefeeds them: there's the group that will sigh that bottle milk is not nearly as good as natural breast milk, is that a good way to raise children?
d) if she brings them in and breastfeeds them: that's inappropriate
e) if she stays at home and looks after the kids: she loses in the boardroom game and that's her own fault
It seems to be a rather silly game, and of course there are the sneers everywhere, and risks and stigmas attached to whatever choice you make, so what about someone just saying, what the heck, do what I want to do? And maybe some people recognising, especially other women, that their queasiness about breastfeeding could be stopping women from doing well in business.
It seemed to be that the favourite opinion was along the lines of - "I believe women should be allowed to breastfeed in public, but there are some places that they just shouldn't do it, they should know it's inappropriate, for instance in work meetings, like I was in a meeting recently and this woman whipped out her boob and breastfed and I just couldn't concentrate, so that is wrong. But otherwise I support breastfeeding in public."
Now this stance comes with a few problems, as I see it, but I think it's a popular one, mainly because many people like to think of themselves as very tolerant and liberal folk, but at the same time they don't want to see themselves as too liberal and they certainly don't want to be seen as too revolutionary and don't want to see boobies all over the place. This is a nice crowd-pleasing response.
I discussed this at length with Mr Coffee, including whether women ought to have rights or restrictions re: breastfeeding.
However, a conundrum comes to me from the so-called crowd-pleasing stance.
It is all very well to say "Breastfeed in public, dears, but in your place, and not in my sight" but then - it raises certain issues and questions:
Where is appropriate?
In whose sight, then? And if in no one's sight, then it's not exactly public, is it?
The "in the boardroom is inappropriate" argument is interesting because women have often be critiqued for:
a) women don't breastfeed enough, they give too much bottled milk
b) women work too much and don't take on a mothering role, they aren't truly feminine (which has a stigma in itself)
c) if a woman has lesser earning capacity than a man it's her own fault, because she took time off having children, and you can't expect a company to pay a person who has given less time and value to the workplace.
So you have several positions:
a) if the woman sits in the boardroom childless, there's a stigma: she's childless, what happened to her?
b) if the woman sits in the boardroom having shafted her kids to a nanny: what kind of mother does that? Not really mothering, is it?
c) if she brings them in and bottlefeeds them: there's the group that will sigh that bottle milk is not nearly as good as natural breast milk, is that a good way to raise children?
d) if she brings them in and breastfeeds them: that's inappropriate
e) if she stays at home and looks after the kids: she loses in the boardroom game and that's her own fault
It seems to be a rather silly game, and of course there are the sneers everywhere, and risks and stigmas attached to whatever choice you make, so what about someone just saying, what the heck, do what I want to do? And maybe some people recognising, especially other women, that their queasiness about breastfeeding could be stopping women from doing well in business.
Tuesday, 9 June 2009
An Argument for White Australia
And here we are ... baaaack to another racial commentary, brought to you by Maria.
I just had to get this in, I read it on a blog which was Muslim bashing. I can't quite figure out why it is that when we get to Muslims, the headlines always start going on about racial intolerance, because Islam's a religion, not a race. but they do. It's like this: Americans, Aussies, Japs, Greeks, and Muslims. Or something like that, go figure.
Anyhow, this was the one about the Muslim school in Camden which is now not going to be built.
Some guy made some weird comment in favour of a White Australia, and this was their not-so-comprehensible argument, let's see if you can figure it out, because I can't and maybe someone else can help me. The guy was called Jim T and obviously doesn't have the wit of TimT, fellow blogger of Will Type For Food, but did befuddle me, which TimT does, often. Just not in the good way.
Jim T started off by saying that he thought multiculturalism was a failure in Australia. It didn't work. He particularly was against Muslims. Why was it, he pondered, that every migrant group except Muslims could adapt to the country they migrated to? Except Muslims! And that's why we really shouldn't accommodate Muslims - worst of the lot!
Then Jim T started a new train of thought. Multiculturalism had gone really bad, and if you thought about it, lots of these migrants didn't adapt that well anyhow. Didn't fit in. So we should stop immigration for "other groups" anyhow, even if they weren't Muslims. Stop the Asians and the Lebanese and the Mediterraneans and ... oh, if you were caucasian, especially if you were British, then an exception was made, you would be allowed to migrate to Australia. Let's stop horsing around though and make sure that migrant groups other than whites did not come to this beautiful country.
Now, pardon me, but I have trouble figuring out Jim T's argument here.
He seems to have two points:
1. We value people who can adapt to whatever land/culture they migrate to, they are the type we should welcome.
2. We should stop welcoming anyone other than the whites, with special emphasis on British whites. Anglo-Saxons that is.
Now, if we're going to put "ability to adapt to land/culture they migrate to" as a group, down to past behaviour, the British Anglo-Saxons have shown themselves to be pone of the worst groups, and certainly one of the worst groups to land on the shores of Australia.
Other groups who have landed on these shores have done much better jobs of fitting in with the existing culture; the British way was to colonise and change the life to what they were used to back home. It's a bit funny when they then object to people being small mementoes and rituals of their life to comfort them when they brought a whole legal system and government structure with them because they couldn't hack it with the natives' way of life.
In fact, the Australian Aborigines who were here before the Britons have had to do much more trying to fit in with the British way of life than the Britons have had to with fitting in with the Aborigines, if you were really honest about it.
And then Jim T's argument is that the British are the ones we want to import more of, and leave the rest out.
Now I can understand he may be very pro-White-Australia - and sure, more English-speaking-Caucasians-used-to-a-Western-Way-of-life he may feel blend in better with the existing status quo once it's laid out for them. But let's get the reasons right - it's not because they're good at adapting to whatever society they go to. It's because they probably won't have to adapt much.
Other people who come out here from countries that are way different from ours often have to learn laws and social protocol and a new language, many have to cope with the stresses and strains of everyday life that we have to combined with things like homesickness, and many also manage to do things like have a successful career, make new friends, start families, maintain homes and manage businesses. I think that's pretty remarkable when you consider juggling all that; often some of us are bummed out trying to manage one job and a relationship and can't get it together to get dinner right at the same time! I think a lot of credit has to be given to such people, they are doing it against the odds, and many make a very good fist of it. So they might screw up every so often and they have funny accents? Who the heck is perfect?
By the way, I read a great story recently this weekend in a collection called The Seeds of Time by John Wyndham. It's called Dumb Martian, and it's about a man who buys a Martian and considers her dumb because she doesn't know the language or certain basic skills and speaks strangely at first - can't pronounce certain consonants. And he abuses her. It's obvious as the story goes on that she is extremely bright and given the right stimulus she can learn heaps - it's just that he thinks of her as stupid because she started on the backfoot and she's not one of his kind - he keeps calling her "Dumb Mart". In the end of course, she outdoes him.
A lesson to us all.
I just had to get this in, I read it on a blog which was Muslim bashing. I can't quite figure out why it is that when we get to Muslims, the headlines always start going on about racial intolerance, because Islam's a religion, not a race. but they do. It's like this: Americans, Aussies, Japs, Greeks, and Muslims. Or something like that, go figure.
Anyhow, this was the one about the Muslim school in Camden which is now not going to be built.
Some guy made some weird comment in favour of a White Australia, and this was their not-so-comprehensible argument, let's see if you can figure it out, because I can't and maybe someone else can help me. The guy was called Jim T and obviously doesn't have the wit of TimT, fellow blogger of Will Type For Food, but did befuddle me, which TimT does, often. Just not in the good way.
Jim T started off by saying that he thought multiculturalism was a failure in Australia. It didn't work. He particularly was against Muslims. Why was it, he pondered, that every migrant group except Muslims could adapt to the country they migrated to? Except Muslims! And that's why we really shouldn't accommodate Muslims - worst of the lot!
Then Jim T started a new train of thought. Multiculturalism had gone really bad, and if you thought about it, lots of these migrants didn't adapt that well anyhow. Didn't fit in. So we should stop immigration for "other groups" anyhow, even if they weren't Muslims. Stop the Asians and the Lebanese and the Mediterraneans and ... oh, if you were caucasian, especially if you were British, then an exception was made, you would be allowed to migrate to Australia. Let's stop horsing around though and make sure that migrant groups other than whites did not come to this beautiful country.
Now, pardon me, but I have trouble figuring out Jim T's argument here.
He seems to have two points:
1. We value people who can adapt to whatever land/culture they migrate to, they are the type we should welcome.
2. We should stop welcoming anyone other than the whites, with special emphasis on British whites. Anglo-Saxons that is.
Now, if we're going to put "ability to adapt to land/culture they migrate to" as a group, down to past behaviour, the British Anglo-Saxons have shown themselves to be pone of the worst groups, and certainly one of the worst groups to land on the shores of Australia.
Other groups who have landed on these shores have done much better jobs of fitting in with the existing culture; the British way was to colonise and change the life to what they were used to back home. It's a bit funny when they then object to people being small mementoes and rituals of their life to comfort them when they brought a whole legal system and government structure with them because they couldn't hack it with the natives' way of life.
In fact, the Australian Aborigines who were here before the Britons have had to do much more trying to fit in with the British way of life than the Britons have had to with fitting in with the Aborigines, if you were really honest about it.
And then Jim T's argument is that the British are the ones we want to import more of, and leave the rest out.
Now I can understand he may be very pro-White-Australia - and sure, more English-speaking-Caucasians-used-to-a-Western-Way-of-life he may feel blend in better with the existing status quo once it's laid out for them. But let's get the reasons right - it's not because they're good at adapting to whatever society they go to. It's because they probably won't have to adapt much.
Other people who come out here from countries that are way different from ours often have to learn laws and social protocol and a new language, many have to cope with the stresses and strains of everyday life that we have to combined with things like homesickness, and many also manage to do things like have a successful career, make new friends, start families, maintain homes and manage businesses. I think that's pretty remarkable when you consider juggling all that; often some of us are bummed out trying to manage one job and a relationship and can't get it together to get dinner right at the same time! I think a lot of credit has to be given to such people, they are doing it against the odds, and many make a very good fist of it. So they might screw up every so often and they have funny accents? Who the heck is perfect?
By the way, I read a great story recently this weekend in a collection called The Seeds of Time by John Wyndham. It's called Dumb Martian, and it's about a man who buys a Martian and considers her dumb because she doesn't know the language or certain basic skills and speaks strangely at first - can't pronounce certain consonants. And he abuses her. It's obvious as the story goes on that she is extremely bright and given the right stimulus she can learn heaps - it's just that he thinks of her as stupid because she started on the backfoot and she's not one of his kind - he keeps calling her "Dumb Mart". In the end of course, she outdoes him.
A lesson to us all.
Wednesday, 27 May 2009
Different Shades of Racism
OK, now my last post on Sol Trujillo went on for a bit so now I just want to move on and not move on at the same time.
Mainly (sorry amigo - hehehe) I'm not exactly that interested in Mr Trujillo right at the moment. I don't think I ever was or ever will be. I don't even have a Sol Trujillo label.
However, the real reason I brought up Sol's comment was to discuss racism, not to discuss whether Sol was being a whiney ass or not.
One interesting thing did come up when my Dad mentioned it over the table, and that was that there was no racism, yes he got called names but you just had to laugh at it.
Now, I have to say that my Dad does have certain beliefs about racial differences - that is, he comes right out and says things like he doesn't think Aborigines aren't as good as other people. But then he believes it's based in fact, so that isn't racist.
What I want to throw out here is - what really counts as racist? Is racism distinguishing between race? Is it believing in racial superiority/inferiority? Is it making assumptions based on race? Are there some assumptions that are acceptable to make based on race? Is it ok to be racist if it's a joke - and does it count as a joke if the other person doesn't get it?
For instance, if a person is Chinese, certain people might say it is more acceptable to assume that they will have dark coloured hair and skin. And that's not racist. But is it racist to also assume that they don't speak English and that they eat only with chopsticks?
I was at a TAFE class once and we went to a photo gallery. I liked a photo that was predominantly red in colour so I stopped to look at it, and my teacher came up to me and said "Do you like that photo because you're Chinese?" I said, "No, I like it because I like it. It's got a very vibrant, striking colour." She started going on about how she was sure it was because I was Chinese, and red was a very Chinese colour, and it was the colour of the Chinese flag and it was very symbolic. (I would like to point out that red is only one of the colours on the Chinese flag and red is also the colour most common on all of the flags of all the countries in the world. It's not very particular to the Chinese.)
I'm not sure if someone else would consider this singling out 'racism'. I didn't think it was a major attack, but I did feel she had made me feel awkward, and yes, she'd made a racist assumption and treated me according to my racial group rather than either treating me like everyone else or listening to me individually.
Are racist remarks and opinions based on so-called 'facts' still racist - and then who decides what 'facts' are valid? That is, many tests, surveys, and stats have been done testing racial groups and they have come up with certain results. Physical, social, intelligence, health etc related stats could lead someone to use a taunt and then claim that they backed it up with a stat.
"This guy's a black - more likely to have AIDS and do drugs," or something similar.
I remember a poster that was considered racist that was put up on campus that said "Don't have sex with blacks - Avoid AIDS". It was also backed up with stats that said more black men had AIDS than white men.
Do racial jokes count, and what's funny? And what's not? I don't want to live in a country where you can't tell a joke, but on the other hand, basically other people determine the funniness of any joke.
In my opinion, when you tell a joke you take a risk, but people take the risk because it's well worth the laugh! And you build up enough of a connection with the people you tell jokes to that it is not a big enough deal that you will end up being killed because you told a crummy one. Most likely if it's terrible you will just get some glares or blank looks.
Anyhow, I don't believe I've even touched the tip of the iceberg as to how racial tension, harassment, bullying and discrimination can be expressed, but I'm sure it can express itself in many ways. By omission as well as action. By making assumptions, by delegating work and roles of certain types to certain people.
The trouble is it's almost impossible to be colour blind, and in many ways we wouldn't want people to be because many of us are very proud of the racial backgrounds we embrace; what we don't want is for people to make us suffer because of them, and often it is difficult to know when what we may think is a friendly gesture could be interpreted as a racist or demeaning one that is singling them out, not as one celebrating race, or being curious about individuality or making a friendly joke. It isn't always easy to figure out how the other person takes it, and saying "they shouldn't be so sensitive" or "They should have a better sense of humour" or whatever ... well it doesn't really change the fact that they could be hurt or bemused at the time now, does it?
Mainly (sorry amigo - hehehe) I'm not exactly that interested in Mr Trujillo right at the moment. I don't think I ever was or ever will be. I don't even have a Sol Trujillo label.
However, the real reason I brought up Sol's comment was to discuss racism, not to discuss whether Sol was being a whiney ass or not.
One interesting thing did come up when my Dad mentioned it over the table, and that was that there was no racism, yes he got called names but you just had to laugh at it.
Now, I have to say that my Dad does have certain beliefs about racial differences - that is, he comes right out and says things like he doesn't think Aborigines aren't as good as other people. But then he believes it's based in fact, so that isn't racist.
What I want to throw out here is - what really counts as racist? Is racism distinguishing between race? Is it believing in racial superiority/inferiority? Is it making assumptions based on race? Are there some assumptions that are acceptable to make based on race? Is it ok to be racist if it's a joke - and does it count as a joke if the other person doesn't get it?
For instance, if a person is Chinese, certain people might say it is more acceptable to assume that they will have dark coloured hair and skin. And that's not racist. But is it racist to also assume that they don't speak English and that they eat only with chopsticks?
I was at a TAFE class once and we went to a photo gallery. I liked a photo that was predominantly red in colour so I stopped to look at it, and my teacher came up to me and said "Do you like that photo because you're Chinese?" I said, "No, I like it because I like it. It's got a very vibrant, striking colour." She started going on about how she was sure it was because I was Chinese, and red was a very Chinese colour, and it was the colour of the Chinese flag and it was very symbolic. (I would like to point out that red is only one of the colours on the Chinese flag and red is also the colour most common on all of the flags of all the countries in the world. It's not very particular to the Chinese.)
I'm not sure if someone else would consider this singling out 'racism'. I didn't think it was a major attack, but I did feel she had made me feel awkward, and yes, she'd made a racist assumption and treated me according to my racial group rather than either treating me like everyone else or listening to me individually.
Are racist remarks and opinions based on so-called 'facts' still racist - and then who decides what 'facts' are valid? That is, many tests, surveys, and stats have been done testing racial groups and they have come up with certain results. Physical, social, intelligence, health etc related stats could lead someone to use a taunt and then claim that they backed it up with a stat.
"This guy's a black - more likely to have AIDS and do drugs," or something similar.
I remember a poster that was considered racist that was put up on campus that said "Don't have sex with blacks - Avoid AIDS". It was also backed up with stats that said more black men had AIDS than white men.
Do racial jokes count, and what's funny? And what's not? I don't want to live in a country where you can't tell a joke, but on the other hand, basically other people determine the funniness of any joke.
In my opinion, when you tell a joke you take a risk, but people take the risk because it's well worth the laugh! And you build up enough of a connection with the people you tell jokes to that it is not a big enough deal that you will end up being killed because you told a crummy one. Most likely if it's terrible you will just get some glares or blank looks.
Anyhow, I don't believe I've even touched the tip of the iceberg as to how racial tension, harassment, bullying and discrimination can be expressed, but I'm sure it can express itself in many ways. By omission as well as action. By making assumptions, by delegating work and roles of certain types to certain people.
The trouble is it's almost impossible to be colour blind, and in many ways we wouldn't want people to be because many of us are very proud of the racial backgrounds we embrace; what we don't want is for people to make us suffer because of them, and often it is difficult to know when what we may think is a friendly gesture could be interpreted as a racist or demeaning one that is singling them out, not as one celebrating race, or being curious about individuality or making a friendly joke. It isn't always easy to figure out how the other person takes it, and saying "they shouldn't be so sensitive" or "They should have a better sense of humour" or whatever ... well it doesn't really change the fact that they could be hurt or bemused at the time now, does it?
Tuesday, 26 May 2009
Sol Trujillo's parting shot
I thought I'd write about something else today, like about how I'm insanely thinking of having even less sleep in the mornings and catching the EARLY bus just to get to work early to impress my boss who was late to court this morning (even though he criticises ME for being late!) and also when I'm having trouble staying awake in court as it is.
But then I saw this piece on Sol Trujillo's comments on Australia. Now, let's leave apart the fact that everyone can get a bit bitter when they've been done out of a job. Especially nowadays.
Sol called Australia 'racist' and then people came back and made the usual comments about how we aren't racist and we're the most multicultural country ever with the biggest and best anti-discrimination laws ever and that makes Sol's comments 'ridiculous'.
I've heard these kinds of comments many times before, so basically, neither side is being very original though both may be extremely sincere. Or not. Having not been outside Australia much, from experience I can't give my considered opinion of how other countries rate on the 'racist' scale.
However, here's some comments I 'd like to make:
1. According to this article, India is is the most culturally, linguistically and genetically diverse geographical entity after the Asian continent. Doesn't say anything about Australia holding any record.
2. Simply because a country has lots of people from different ethnicities and nationalities residing within it doesn't mean those people can't feel and exhibit racial tension and develop racial hierarchies. They can even be legally endorsed. So 'multiculturalism' in itself isn't proof of non-racism, per se.
3. It seemed to me that some people ... and this goes for lots of other things, like health and environmental policy too ... want to say something doesn't exist as a problem just because it's not that bad in Australia. "We're not racist in Australia ... because our anti-discrimntaion laws are better than anywhere else" "We don't need to improve our carbon emissions because we don't emit as much as anyone else" blah blah.
This is a very Aussie way of thinking - I can be slack and I don't need to improve or strive higher because everyone else is worse than me. It's a very mediocre way of thinking and it reeks of people who never want to get to the head of the class. like a B-grade student who doesn't try to get an A because all his friends are getting Ds.
Maybe some child genius had the cure for cancer in Australia but figured there was no point in revealing it because their friends were just turning in book reports for Morris Bleitzman books so they threw out their analysis. I wouldn't be the least surprised.
In Australia there are racist people and there are racist social pockets and racist public figures and racist policy etc. Some people don't feel it or realise it because they aren't the ones getting the hard stick. It mightn't be as bad as other places but not acknowledging it belittles the difficulties some people have with it.
Which leads me to ...
4. Racism has a lot to do with the individual experiences.
Anyone can experience racism, but usually it's people in minority groups who get put at a disadvantage or feel a burden because of racism. Just like any other discrimination or sneering. People have always behaved differently towards groups that are different from them - that is, there have always been groups in some societies who have gotten some schtick because they've been different - looks, race, gender, disability, sexual pref, religion, political beliefs whatever.
Some people haven't felt it as badly or haven't been as negatively affected by it, or felt they've affected others badly that way. They're fortunate, and often they believe that discrimination and those 'isms don't exist and those who cokmplain about them are paranoid harpies making a mountain out of a molehill to get attention.
They could well be people who fall into a 'minority' category of one or two - "I'm a Lebanese female and I've never been harassed and no one talks to me strangely and everyone's really nice to me, I don't know what anyone's complaining about, eeveryone who believes racism or sexism exists is a whinger!"
But you've really got to find out what the other person's experience is to find out whether they've got a valid gripe ...
Maybe they do.
That doesn't necessarily mean the whole country is a nation of racists ...
However it can point to why their point of view has been coloured, and also, that their really is at least an element of racism in a country, whether you count that as a problem of the country yet or not.
Racism and any form of discrimation, harassment, bullying etc can be so personal and so hurtful I think it's somewhat insensitive to say someone is ridiculous for feeling that they've been cut down and that they've received racist slurs. How objective can this be? Though I understand why the defenders are quick to jump up and make those comments in an effort to ensure the image of the nation is protected.
P.S. If we have strong anti-discrimination laws it may be because we don't value racism ... but it also probably is pointing to the fact that there is a problem. I'm betting we didn't put the laws in there as a pre-emptive strike just in case someone happened to be racist or discriminative, but they never are.
But then I saw this piece on Sol Trujillo's comments on Australia. Now, let's leave apart the fact that everyone can get a bit bitter when they've been done out of a job. Especially nowadays.
Sol called Australia 'racist' and then people came back and made the usual comments about how we aren't racist and we're the most multicultural country ever with the biggest and best anti-discrimination laws ever and that makes Sol's comments 'ridiculous'.
I've heard these kinds of comments many times before, so basically, neither side is being very original though both may be extremely sincere. Or not. Having not been outside Australia much, from experience I can't give my considered opinion of how other countries rate on the 'racist' scale.
However, here's some comments I 'd like to make:
1. According to this article, India is is the most culturally, linguistically and genetically diverse geographical entity after the Asian continent. Doesn't say anything about Australia holding any record.
2. Simply because a country has lots of people from different ethnicities and nationalities residing within it doesn't mean those people can't feel and exhibit racial tension and develop racial hierarchies. They can even be legally endorsed. So 'multiculturalism' in itself isn't proof of non-racism, per se.
3. It seemed to me that some people ... and this goes for lots of other things, like health and environmental policy too ... want to say something doesn't exist as a problem just because it's not that bad in Australia. "We're not racist in Australia ... because our anti-discrimntaion laws are better than anywhere else" "We don't need to improve our carbon emissions because we don't emit as much as anyone else" blah blah.
This is a very Aussie way of thinking - I can be slack and I don't need to improve or strive higher because everyone else is worse than me. It's a very mediocre way of thinking and it reeks of people who never want to get to the head of the class. like a B-grade student who doesn't try to get an A because all his friends are getting Ds.
Maybe some child genius had the cure for cancer in Australia but figured there was no point in revealing it because their friends were just turning in book reports for Morris Bleitzman books so they threw out their analysis. I wouldn't be the least surprised.
In Australia there are racist people and there are racist social pockets and racist public figures and racist policy etc. Some people don't feel it or realise it because they aren't the ones getting the hard stick. It mightn't be as bad as other places but not acknowledging it belittles the difficulties some people have with it.
Which leads me to ...
4. Racism has a lot to do with the individual experiences.
Anyone can experience racism, but usually it's people in minority groups who get put at a disadvantage or feel a burden because of racism. Just like any other discrimination or sneering. People have always behaved differently towards groups that are different from them - that is, there have always been groups in some societies who have gotten some schtick because they've been different - looks, race, gender, disability, sexual pref, religion, political beliefs whatever.
Some people haven't felt it as badly or haven't been as negatively affected by it, or felt they've affected others badly that way. They're fortunate, and often they believe that discrimination and those 'isms don't exist and those who cokmplain about them are paranoid harpies making a mountain out of a molehill to get attention.
They could well be people who fall into a 'minority' category of one or two - "I'm a Lebanese female and I've never been harassed and no one talks to me strangely and everyone's really nice to me, I don't know what anyone's complaining about, eeveryone who believes racism or sexism exists is a whinger!"
But you've really got to find out what the other person's experience is to find out whether they've got a valid gripe ...
Maybe they do.
That doesn't necessarily mean the whole country is a nation of racists ...
However it can point to why their point of view has been coloured, and also, that their really is at least an element of racism in a country, whether you count that as a problem of the country yet or not.
Racism and any form of discrimation, harassment, bullying etc can be so personal and so hurtful I think it's somewhat insensitive to say someone is ridiculous for feeling that they've been cut down and that they've received racist slurs. How objective can this be? Though I understand why the defenders are quick to jump up and make those comments in an effort to ensure the image of the nation is protected.
P.S. If we have strong anti-discrimination laws it may be because we don't value racism ... but it also probably is pointing to the fact that there is a problem. I'm betting we didn't put the laws in there as a pre-emptive strike just in case someone happened to be racist or discriminative, but they never are.
Friday, 24 April 2009
Trains don't respect the veterans!
I bring to you this shocking story.
The Daily Telegraph recently polled several ordinary Australians and asked them whether people should be allowed to trade on ANZAC Day.
"Of course not," was the response of one codger. "People died to save shops on that day! They died so that people would be able to work for our country on that day. We should show our respect for their deaths, show we understand why they made those sacrifices and learnt from history, and sit on our bums on that day!"
"We're celebrating Australian-ness on ANZAC Day, and it's plain un-Australian to go to work and make an honest buck," added another. "We shouldn't forget where we came from."
However, in alarming news, the train and bus services decided to rebel against the butt-sitting rules and will not only be out there pre-dawn ferrying people around, but will revel in - gasp - collecting money for tickets.
Show some respect, will ya, public transport? Taking money tomorrow is just plain wrong. All trains should be sitting around drinking beer and playing two-up in RSLs while people wander around in lots of one-minute sessions of silence, wondering what the heck they're going to do now that everyone shares their attitude. Which they're always whingeing they want, but now that it's happened, somehow it's all wrong.
The Daily Telegraph recently polled several ordinary Australians and asked them whether people should be allowed to trade on ANZAC Day.
"Of course not," was the response of one codger. "People died to save shops on that day! They died so that people would be able to work for our country on that day. We should show our respect for their deaths, show we understand why they made those sacrifices and learnt from history, and sit on our bums on that day!"
"We're celebrating Australian-ness on ANZAC Day, and it's plain un-Australian to go to work and make an honest buck," added another. "We shouldn't forget where we came from."
However, in alarming news, the train and bus services decided to rebel against the butt-sitting rules and will not only be out there pre-dawn ferrying people around, but will revel in - gasp - collecting money for tickets.
Show some respect, will ya, public transport? Taking money tomorrow is just plain wrong. All trains should be sitting around drinking beer and playing two-up in RSLs while people wander around in lots of one-minute sessions of silence, wondering what the heck they're going to do now that everyone shares their attitude. Which they're always whingeing they want, but now that it's happened, somehow it's all wrong.
Friday, 17 April 2009
Psycho cards
I usually hate psychological testing. I've hated it for job interviews. But just as I was reading this article about how our credit card debt has grown to over $45bn, I was thinking ...
Maybe we should have psychological testing for holding credit cards?
There are too many psychos out there with a walletful of cards mainly because they got duped by the pretty plastic.
(personally I am pissed off that Westpac's Ignite Card is not receiving applications at the moment because the bright red is so darn catchy!)
And then there are those great rewards schemes that you get suckered in to, where you have to save up about ten thousand points to get the tacky plastic cuckoo clock that they've got on their website.
I was standing inline to find out about a card recently and I heard a lady applying for her card. She wasn't earning a whole lot of money - OK, more than me but that is well below the average wage. (Darn I hate to admit that). She was also spending most of that on mortgage repayments each week.
Then she was also paying off a car.
She also had two other cards.
She was also paying off an appliance.
She admitted she didn't have much saved up.
She had middleish expenditures each week (I did some maths and figured that those expenditures would probably have to be on credit if she really did pay off the car and the house properly.)
How the heck does someone like this actually ever pay off a credit card?
What's more, there are certainly other people who are a lot worse - people who have lots more to pay off and then buy smokes and gamble on credit and then think it's kinda amusing that they go into the red. Hahaha.
Maybe that should be a psychological test - here's a mock bank account. It's yours. You have just gone below 0 balance. Are you laughing?
Anyhow, it all frustrates me how we've got so many whackos out there. Makes you ashamed to be a
person thinking about someday holding a credit card.
Maybe we should have psychological testing for holding credit cards?
There are too many psychos out there with a walletful of cards mainly because they got duped by the pretty plastic.
(personally I am pissed off that Westpac's Ignite Card is not receiving applications at the moment because the bright red is so darn catchy!)
And then there are those great rewards schemes that you get suckered in to, where you have to save up about ten thousand points to get the tacky plastic cuckoo clock that they've got on their website.
I was standing inline to find out about a card recently and I heard a lady applying for her card. She wasn't earning a whole lot of money - OK, more than me but that is well below the average wage. (Darn I hate to admit that). She was also spending most of that on mortgage repayments each week.
Then she was also paying off a car.
She also had two other cards.
She was also paying off an appliance.
She admitted she didn't have much saved up.
She had middleish expenditures each week (I did some maths and figured that those expenditures would probably have to be on credit if she really did pay off the car and the house properly.)
How the heck does someone like this actually ever pay off a credit card?
What's more, there are certainly other people who are a lot worse - people who have lots more to pay off and then buy smokes and gamble on credit and then think it's kinda amusing that they go into the red. Hahaha.
Maybe that should be a psychological test - here's a mock bank account. It's yours. You have just gone below 0 balance. Are you laughing?
Anyhow, it all frustrates me how we've got so many whackos out there. Makes you ashamed to be a
person thinking about someday holding a credit card.
Friday, 27 March 2009
Review: Fantastic Four
Last night I happened to watch Fantastic Four. This isn't a proper review except to say that the movie has a lot in common with The Incredibles and X-men and both the latter movies are better.
A quick summary is: Five people go into outer space, they are affected by a space storm, they are given magical powers. The backer of the project is the villain, the other four are the heroes. The powers they get are:
Heroes:
1. A body like rubber, he can bend, stretch, etc and is impervious to great heat
2. A big hulk of a rock man, he doesn't have much feeling in some parts of his body and he's strong heavy and huge
3. A guy who can turn to fire and fly around
4. A woman who can turn invisible and project force fields
Villain
His body is extra-strengthened with metal and he can generate electrical power - he can throw bolts of lightning - kinda
Anyhow, it was a middling movie. I find myself wondering about it later, as a whole lot was left unanswered, not that all questions are left answered in films usually anyhow, especially fantasy hero films. But there was too much here.
1. Why is it that the movie glorified saving a suicidal man's life, when the result was causing a huge carcrash on a bridge, endangering the lives of tens of people and with all that fire going on, probably killed a few people?
2. Why didn't the people look that amazed at the discovery that they had become superheroes after returning from space?
3. Why did they then want to reverse the process of, say, the ability to become invisible and put up a force field at will when it didn't seem to interfere with her daily life otherwise?
4. Why didn't anyone smack that little Human Torch annoying teenager in the gob? He was such a pain in the ass?
5. No one explained how the space storm did what it did ... or why Ben wasn't able to trn his powers on and off but everyone else could.
6. Why did Ben's wife just shriek and run away when she first saw him, but then later she came out specifically when he had become a hero, among the wreckage, on TV, just to drop her wedding ring off? She didn't want to talk, why bother?
7. Why did the Invisible Woman fall for the wimp?
Too many questions, too much unanswered. I really just don't get it.
A quick summary is: Five people go into outer space, they are affected by a space storm, they are given magical powers. The backer of the project is the villain, the other four are the heroes. The powers they get are:
Heroes:
1. A body like rubber, he can bend, stretch, etc and is impervious to great heat
2. A big hulk of a rock man, he doesn't have much feeling in some parts of his body and he's strong heavy and huge
3. A guy who can turn to fire and fly around
4. A woman who can turn invisible and project force fields
Villain
His body is extra-strengthened with metal and he can generate electrical power - he can throw bolts of lightning - kinda
Anyhow, it was a middling movie. I find myself wondering about it later, as a whole lot was left unanswered, not that all questions are left answered in films usually anyhow, especially fantasy hero films. But there was too much here.
1. Why is it that the movie glorified saving a suicidal man's life, when the result was causing a huge carcrash on a bridge, endangering the lives of tens of people and with all that fire going on, probably killed a few people?
2. Why didn't the people look that amazed at the discovery that they had become superheroes after returning from space?
3. Why did they then want to reverse the process of, say, the ability to become invisible and put up a force field at will when it didn't seem to interfere with her daily life otherwise?
4. Why didn't anyone smack that little Human Torch annoying teenager in the gob? He was such a pain in the ass?
5. No one explained how the space storm did what it did ... or why Ben wasn't able to trn his powers on and off but everyone else could.
6. Why did Ben's wife just shriek and run away when she first saw him, but then later she came out specifically when he had become a hero, among the wreckage, on TV, just to drop her wedding ring off? She didn't want to talk, why bother?
7. Why did the Invisible Woman fall for the wimp?
Too many questions, too much unanswered. I really just don't get it.
A Gay Question
I don't know much about gay culture.
So if anyone could give me answers to a question that's been troubling me for some time, I'd be extremely grateful.
In gay romantic films, does the lead character usually have an obligatory hetero female confidante who is extremely good looking and charming but presents no sexual entanglement problem because he's, well, gay, and she gives him sound measured advice about his gay problems when he's emotionally overstrung and consoles him and lets him sleep over when his lover is being unreasonable and she happens to be a good dancer and great to go shopping with too?
I didn't notice one in "Brokeback Mountain" but that may have been the exception to the rule.
So if anyone could give me answers to a question that's been troubling me for some time, I'd be extremely grateful.
In gay romantic films, does the lead character usually have an obligatory hetero female confidante who is extremely good looking and charming but presents no sexual entanglement problem because he's, well, gay, and she gives him sound measured advice about his gay problems when he's emotionally overstrung and consoles him and lets him sleep over when his lover is being unreasonable and she happens to be a good dancer and great to go shopping with too?
I didn't notice one in "Brokeback Mountain" but that may have been the exception to the rule.
Conundrums
1. Why do ladies who advertise gym equipment and work-out never look hot and sweaty and have mussed up hair like I did just now after doing 2 sit-ups?
2. How come they look so ecstatic about draping themselvs over a huge big inflatable ball? In fact, why have not more outraged Christian and morals groups come out and protested against these obviously sexually suggestive phallic photographs of women in latex with grins of pleasure draping themselves over huge inflatable balls?
3. Why is it so ultra-cool to pay over a thousand dollars for a machine that encourages you to run for ages and get nowhere?
2. How come they look so ecstatic about draping themselvs over a huge big inflatable ball? In fact, why have not more outraged Christian and morals groups come out and protested against these obviously sexually suggestive phallic photographs of women in latex with grins of pleasure draping themselves over huge inflatable balls?
3. Why is it so ultra-cool to pay over a thousand dollars for a machine that encourages you to run for ages and get nowhere?
Sunday, 4 January 2009
A Hairy Question
Myself, I'm an armpit shaver (mostly).
Mr Coffee is not. Yessir, I've seen the evidence. In fact, Mr Coffee claims that he has never shaved or plucked his armpit hair his entire life.
I think to myself, "My Lord! His armpit hair should be streaming to the ground by now! He should be Rapunzel from the armpits! We should be weaving ropes from his armpits and asking him to raise him arms and let us swing from them to amuse young children!"
The truth of it, while unruly, his armpit hair isn't even the length of a standard ruler.
Hmmm Hmmm.
On the other hand, if you ask most shavers of their armpit hair, it's a daily dilemma. Shave often. If you don't, it grows back and quickly. It's bristling at around a centimetre long if you neglect it for a week, and then you have to chop it back! And then the next week, another centimetre!
Oh damnation! If hair grows that quickly, the person who doesn't shave should have 50cm growths in a year and should have metres in 10 years!
But they don't. Not that I've seen. Mr Coffee tells me "Oh, after a while it seems it just stops".
Well, I've thought about it and thought about it.
Thought One
Human beings have a set amount of armpit hair they can grow. After a while they've met their quota which accounts for armpit hair just stopping.
But this would mean that after a while shavers, after having cut off a whole lot of hair, just STOPPED having to cut because there was not any more to cut. Not my experience, so far. Maybe I haven't reached my quota yet.
Thought Two
Maybe armpit hair just knows it's getting too long and stops. It thinks "what, I'm 8cm long now? time to stop growing!" But if you lop it it keeps growing.
This seems to be the experience most congruent with the experiences of shavers and non-shavers.
That the hairs have little demon minds that every so often think "What, I got CUT! Dammit, I will grow more! Darn YOU! I'll show you who can make 8cm - will, I will!" And keep pushing their little determined ways past your skin and getting longer and longer each time, whispering encouragement to their friends to FIGHTBACK!
But if that's so, does that mean each of your hairs is a little organism with an independent mind of its own (because by golly, my brain didn't give out those orders, I'm telling you) - and am I amputating living thinking creatures each time I cut a hair - are beauty salons and hairdressers really in the business of amputation, torture and decapitation?
If anyone has any thoughts on this, would like to know.
Meanwhile, I'm going off to shave.
Mr Coffee is not. Yessir, I've seen the evidence. In fact, Mr Coffee claims that he has never shaved or plucked his armpit hair his entire life.
I think to myself, "My Lord! His armpit hair should be streaming to the ground by now! He should be Rapunzel from the armpits! We should be weaving ropes from his armpits and asking him to raise him arms and let us swing from them to amuse young children!"
The truth of it, while unruly, his armpit hair isn't even the length of a standard ruler.
Hmmm Hmmm.
On the other hand, if you ask most shavers of their armpit hair, it's a daily dilemma. Shave often. If you don't, it grows back and quickly. It's bristling at around a centimetre long if you neglect it for a week, and then you have to chop it back! And then the next week, another centimetre!
Oh damnation! If hair grows that quickly, the person who doesn't shave should have 50cm growths in a year and should have metres in 10 years!
But they don't. Not that I've seen. Mr Coffee tells me "Oh, after a while it seems it just stops".
Well, I've thought about it and thought about it.
Thought One
Human beings have a set amount of armpit hair they can grow. After a while they've met their quota which accounts for armpit hair just stopping.
But this would mean that after a while shavers, after having cut off a whole lot of hair, just STOPPED having to cut because there was not any more to cut. Not my experience, so far. Maybe I haven't reached my quota yet.
Thought Two
Maybe armpit hair just knows it's getting too long and stops. It thinks "what, I'm 8cm long now? time to stop growing!" But if you lop it it keeps growing.
This seems to be the experience most congruent with the experiences of shavers and non-shavers.
That the hairs have little demon minds that every so often think "What, I got CUT! Dammit, I will grow more! Darn YOU! I'll show you who can make 8cm - will, I will!" And keep pushing their little determined ways past your skin and getting longer and longer each time, whispering encouragement to their friends to FIGHTBACK!
But if that's so, does that mean each of your hairs is a little organism with an independent mind of its own (because by golly, my brain didn't give out those orders, I'm telling you) - and am I amputating living thinking creatures each time I cut a hair - are beauty salons and hairdressers really in the business of amputation, torture and decapitation?
If anyone has any thoughts on this, would like to know.
Meanwhile, I'm going off to shave.
Tuesday, 15 January 2008
Advice from the disenchanted lawyer to the naive little lawyer
I am a newly admitted little lawyer. Clutching my certificate in hand I go to find a place where hopefully I will get a job, get a paypacket, and as some of my friends have said to me "this is a place where you can make a difference" and The College of Law tells you all about things like Professional Responsibility and Duty and so forth. So my eyes gleam for now not with little dollar signs but with candles of faith in justice and other honourable such and suches.
And then I was redirected to Lawyer Trixie's blog. Oh what a site it was! Naked people for Christmas parties at the Big City firm, not Fighting the Good Fight for the Weak and the Gentle.
I fear I have been seriously misled.
It is this kind of thing that leads lawyers to the bottle - either the disillusionment or the naked girls with the body paint. One or the other, it is a downhill path.
Then it is a spiral downwards and soon they will all either became sad lonely drinkers or investment bankers.
It is a path I have chosen now, I suppose, and I pray for strength.
And then I was redirected to Lawyer Trixie's blog. Oh what a site it was! Naked people for Christmas parties at the Big City firm, not Fighting the Good Fight for the Weak and the Gentle.
I fear I have been seriously misled.
It is this kind of thing that leads lawyers to the bottle - either the disillusionment or the naked girls with the body paint. One or the other, it is a downhill path.
Then it is a spiral downwards and soon they will all either became sad lonely drinkers or investment bankers.
It is a path I have chosen now, I suppose, and I pray for strength.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
