A Day at the Water

Recently I wonderd why provide Internet at the workplace the argument often presented is that the Internet would increase productivity and make it easier to share information. But it is also true that it is a great deal easier to do anything but work if Internet access is provided a lot of the information sharing can easily done in a big Intranet which would be safer from a security stand point. And of course people would not be able to check their e-mail and access their facebook or similar accounts from work never mind the checking of such websites as failblog.org or general entertainement sides. It makes you wonder if this increases productivity or if it actually causes more of an efficiency problem.
Employees have always had ways of spending their time differently but it seems that interenet is making it even easier then ever before.

Which leads me back to the question is it better or worse to provide internet access at the workplace. To me it seems a lot more efficient to use Intranets and cut Internet out of the Professional world entirely.

Revived!?

Hey,

Yes this Blog is being revived. be

Due to some Professional time constraints as well as private I did stop posting for a year and a bit. I will resume posting. Not quite sure what just yet since I may posts some pictures and some random articles as well as jokes not quite sure as to what just yet.

Facebook

I was bored out of my own mind and began to simply browse my shortcuts and landed on Facebook eventually after going through a few forums. Which I hadn't visited in...a long long time. So I landed on the website and couldn't get over the number of personal service ads that were supported as well as cars and 'We need Testers'.
But of course if you are bored sufficiently you will start borrowing deeper and deeper into the website and eventually given enough boredom you will start uploading pictures...or doing something else revealing more and more about yourself to the international Internet community.
Of course the beauty of doing so is it does keep you busy during those long boring evenings when nothing has to be done really and all you are doing is staring at the ceiling in utter boredom...or write on a blog, Forum or other online site.

We create terabytes of unique information per year...actually far more then that but how much of this information is generated by utter boredom. In all probability most of it and yet we still seem to think that the people who we meet online are relevant to us in our real life's we reveal our most private facts to them. Not that the necessarily care to know those things, it is most similar to a state of intoxication in which we open our secrets to some poor soul near us. Are we really that starved for person to person interaction these days that we need the online world or is it simply a product of us being so bored since we have nothing left to do for the rest of the day.
The reality of it is that we use Facebook and the number of friends on our friends-list as a status symbol. "I have 117 people on my friends-list!" But how many of those people do you know and how many of those do you actually want to talk to? Many times the friends-lists are nothing but a pile up of mutual friends or just names which over lap with people that you used to know once upon a time. The biggest argument for those social networks is that they help you to socialize in a time of stress and lack of time, not that e-mails would do the same or IM Services (Instant Messaging) aka MSN Messanger, ICQ (The old veteran), Skype etc.
How many people do we need in our lives to be happy since we don't need hundreds of friends but only a few close ones. Maybe then again its just another frenzy for something new and fancy which will die off eventually again and be replaced by owning a big collection of teddy bears and cars.

Vegatrainism an excercise...

Vegetarianism and Veganism seems to be really a futile exercise in ignorance and/or hypocrisy. Now let me explain, Vegans and Vegetarians say that it is bad to eat animals for reasons of how they are kept before being eaten and of course the eating itself. Now Vegans go so far as to not even eat animal products whats how ever without realizing that is nearly impossible.
Firstly the keeping, the keeping is not only to make the feeding/milking and subsequent slaughter easier but also it allows direct access to by-products for example cows provide a great deal of shit which is used to fertilize fields. This accounts for most animals of great seize which are kept in closed quarters.
Of course the Vegetarian extremists the Vegan is a contradiction on two legs, they don't eat anything stemming from animals, almost no sweets...well most of those apply to the Vegetarians to because many gummies as well as some chocolates are made with animal tissues. Now they don't eat honey, eggs or milk. How is that an issue? Well, honey comes from bees as is commonly known but they do not only produce honey they also pollinate fruit farms in the process allowing them to grow apples, oranges etc. As a matter of fact all farms that grow something that needs to pollinated need a great number of bees to insure quick pollination. The kind of numbers you could only achieve with the help of bee farms. So in keeping with not eating honey they also shouldn't eat any food pollinated by those bees in captivity. The same of course accounts for all farms which once or more a year fertilize with animal excrement's, but this would apply again to all Vegetarians.
Overall the fact is that in today's food production the elements are interdependent, and you can barely eat any food if you were really serious about not being cruel to animals or insects...this brings me to a last point. Almost all farms use barriers and several chemicals to protect their crops this harms animals nearby who get caught in the netting's of fruit farms or who simply inhale or eat food covered with the named chemicals which would mean that you can't eat good 99% of crops grown either...
So how does this track with being against animal cruelty, or protecting animals in the end all they do is not eating them harming or even killing them all the same though.

Alignment

Today what do we do as first order of the day? We align ourselves with something, a brand or idea maybe some stars/starlets on the way? We do not develop our own ideas we simply assimilate the ideas which we are confronted with since who would want to be different being different in a herd society is bad after all. We want to know what the stars do since our own lives are not exiting enough. We follow stars and starlets we want to know all their secrets today its almost normal to know everything about those whom you are a fan off. Then again the origin of the word Fan comes from Fanatic the Fanatic could also be called extremist. Now then why do we life in a world were extremism is all that we know? If religious, political, economic or simply listening to music. We consume not only the art we consume the artist we consume everything if alive or dead as long as it entertains and as long as it feeds that hunger that can never be satisfied the need to belong to a group. A group that consists only because of an obsession with something or other but why is that so? Why does the human need to create these extreme groups which inevitably cause friction with other groups. Soccer and music Fans are great examples and they often enough cause riots. They will fight with the other side's fans just because they do not share they view of which team is better. But why have things that trivial become that central to our world. Now of course some will say religion is more important then a sport but realistically they are on equal footing they respective fans are willing to fight and even kill those who do not share their view.
Could it be that today we are unable to actually see a true difference between people so we align ourselves along more and more artificial lines. Lines based on anything to create a new herd to belong to something to be with something to be part off if its the fan club for some star or that for some religion is entirely unimportant as long as we do so right? Why not fight each other on some other ridiculous ground? Since as long as our life focus on something on anything really as long as that is center is provided everything is alright...isn't?

Soldiers

War, a most unpopular issue. We often complain about war but what do we do about it? I can remember the stories of Veterans returning from Vietnam and Iraq and many other wars or from North Korea and Afghanistan to include non-US armed forces. These stories often include that the people blamed the soldiers to for the war. Now that is a bit odd considering that soldiers join for many reasons however very few do so with the declared goal of killing people they never met before. Most want to defend they nation or don't see another way out of their situation be it social, educational or a career. Others want to be trained to respond and serve not just to defend the nation but also to respond in emergencies, since the armed forces are among the first to respond to catastrophies which exceed the regional capacities. (Bushfires excluded)
If anyone would be to blame for a War its the people who did not stop their government and the government which includes many people who never wore a uniform and don't really know what they send their soldiers into. While the Military/Intelligence complex prepares for contingencies it does not mean that they wish to fight wars but rather want to be prepared and ready. I have heard of many wars or military decisions which were made against the advise of the military leaders. Soldiers are the ones who are also wronged not only the people of an attacked nation, we have to remember that while soldiers swear to fight and defend for a country they also expect to be used for those purposes only.
If their trust is violated then are these soldiers not equally victims?
They however can not dissobey because of what they agreed to, which is them being soldiers it lies with the people of their respective countries to insure that soldiers are not used in any wrong manner which would violate their trust in their government and the people. Blaming a soldier for serving is not fair considering that they may want to protect their country but once they are soldiers then they have no choice but to obey.

Shopping?!

We by now buy extreme amounts of anything and everything. However how is that connected to some of the current world issues? For example Pirating is a reaction to this we are told to have the music, movies and games as well as books. However we are also limited financially, so if want everything does consumerism not encourage hacking and pirating because we simply 'WANT' if not even 'NEED' all these many things. Adds are everywhere and we are also taught as children that we 'WANT' or 'NEED' these things. Why not spend a christmas without spending obsene amounts of money. Simply spending time together as family? No instead its one of the shopping frenzy times. We associate products and objects with love and feelings which are not really existend.
Owning is something that we think we need today and to have movies and the stream off entertainment. You want to fit in and thus you watch the movies and shows also buy the 'IN' things.
Many people today are actually clinically addicted to buying things. Even though North America is one of the few areas without officially denying this clinical addiction. Objects and entertainment are dominating our daily lifes more and more overriding actual interpersonal relations and interaction.

Are you ok?

I was asked by one of my professors recently 'Are you ok?'. I of course answered the standardized 'Yes'. I left his office a short time later and considered this what does actually mean to be 'OK'? Does it mean to have money is it a certain state of being; could it be that just being happy is this being 'OK'? I continued and wondered on if being ok is what we want. Then wouldn't everyone have to know what 'OK' in that case means? The challenge at this point of course would be the question of standards what is that elusive 'OK' standard? Could it simply be that it is a state of peace a state in which we do not question ourselves as strongly? The challenge most young adults face these days is the question 'What do I want to do?' We have all seen the news articles saying that todays youth has it hard because everything has already been done and discovered; but is that really true? I mean ultimately we face new set of challenges today we still have ignorance and prejudice doing damage everywhere we look. Today's challenges are the challenges of a modern age. We can still fight for freedom; just now we fight for freedom of information and thought. We can fight to protect the environment which seems to be tethering near the brink of collapse. We can discover ways to life in symbiosis and learn to understand the rest of the planet. We still know less about the sea life the we do about the nearest solar-bodies. But in all of this information flooding at us what does it mean to be 'OK'? In the modern world we are told that we should do this and that is that what allows to be 'OK'? Is being OK being in a good financial standing? Is it happiness? Is it being content? Is it a positive mixture of everything?
For me personally I would say that being 'OK' stands for being anywhere from content to happy. However instead of answering such questions in a state of trance why not consider what it means? Maybe think 'Am I really OK?' 'Are you OK?' is not a simple question as it seems but rather a very meaningful question which common use and conversation does not receive any or only little consideration.

What is our reality

The question came up when I was watching 'A Dinner with Andre', what is reality? We create such a great amount of our environment but is that good? We have certain odd standards which seem to distort our interaction with people, habit becoming a way off life. For example teachers and professors create this collection of information and repeat the course again and again after they did it once. They know when to make jokes and know already what to say at the beginning of the year. The average human in western society lifes in a dreamworld created by others we do not try to be within our environment but simply choose to enjoy while not even attempting to break out of this dreamworld. How many people break out of habits? How many people really attempt to see something they do not see? Most people today are filled with apathy and disinterest in actually taking actions. We might as well call the modern man who lifes in a dreamworld the sleeping man, they do not attempt to do something different. People use heating, and other tools to distance themselves from the environment and reality by doing so the times of the years become less and less impacting.
What causes the continuous boredom of people these days? Watching TV? The living after the rule of money? Talking about leaving a city or place but never doing so?
For example just ask yourself the question 'What actually affect me?'

Free Speech

Free Speech has been a hot topic ever since the first conflicts between religious groups mostly. Some joke or idea is brought forward which then offends the other side. The best recent example is still the incident with the Comic coming from the Danish newspapers criticizing the Muslim extremists. This has of course triggered a wave of attacks and threats against that newspaper originating from the Muslim camp, many of those threats probably came from that very extremist camp however there is one issue that is often silenced to death in that matter. Western culture is build on the believe that Free Speech is a fundamental right and as such we are free to say anything anywhere because that is the right we have and many of our ancestors have fought and died for it. Is there any reason to castrate such a right? If we limit Free Speech then its not really Free Speech any longer is it? It becomes Free Speech within these boundaries and if you happen to leave these boundaries then you are in a no-man's land and can be punished for venturing there. However what is more important is were the criticisms coming from both sides in the form of comics right or wrong? The Comics coming from Denmark dealt with the hypocrisy of these extremists who do these killings in the name of a religion and they points were valid and good. The same can be counted for the points made against Christianity by the counter comics coming from the Muslim newspapers a few days later. Neither of them were telling lies and I can't recall many Christians getting worked up over the Muslim comics depicting Christ in same questionable actions. And how do we know that it wasn't only the extremists, the ones doing the bombing and the ones criticized by the comics who screamed and threatened. They after all are the loudest but they do not represent more then a fraction of the people following the Muslim faith. If now you argue 'Well yes, but how do we know who?'. Well we don't but neither did we of those who were in IRA or the members of German terror groups or KKK, etc there have always been many extremist groups with different aims and goals however if we start prosecuting the people or the faith they come from then we are no better then they. We are doing them a favor by creating the new meat for their recruiting, Free Speech is not just a tool for criticism its also a tool to allow us to understand another side, and maybe see similarity instead of some small differences between people. After all isn't that what many things we do to day focus on? Free Speech is after all one of the core believes in Western culture and society.

John Yoo...NARG

Now John Yoo is known to pretty much any person who reads the news and if you are not one of them Yoo bashing is in. Now of course I had traced that event to his book, but honestly considering the bashing I decided it wouldn't require me to join in. Well that was until one of my professors told us to read Yoo...I did not get past page 17. Now why was that? Simple really reading Yoo makes you feel as follows: You just came home to realize that your girlfriend/wife left you with your best friend, you house just burned down and your mother and brother(s)/sister(s) got hit by the bus all at the same time, your dog died while trying to eat a squeaky toy just seconds before your arrival and the house burned down as you arrived, the car was in the garage (thats what you get for walking) your friend chose your best friend and your girlfriend/wife over you and have excommunicated you and any other relative you might have had died in accidents as well. I would say that about sums up the negative effect of the first 17 pages. I would have insisted on a sticker stating 'Read this on your own discretion suicide may result out of reading this material.' But now instead of bashing the horse further I will bash the book, of course as always as I' am human in concept I might be mistaken, while that rarely occurs it does occur. And as such you can as always post and point out how horrifically wrong and lost I' am.
If I tell you to take a hike then don't take it personal its simply that I know that I' am right and you are not if I do that...well ok I like to believe that I consider the other sides points. But Yoo is pushing it and his book is something that should come with a nurse of the suicide ward just to make sure.
Now I will go down through those horrifying 17 first pages point by point and say what I think is wrong in them.

1. The title is completely wrong he called the book 'War by Other Means' now after those pages I would say it should be called 'War by Any Means' because that is what it promotes in those pages. (He might contradict everything he says in those pages in the rest of the book but honestly there is only so much I can take of that book.)

2. He claims in the introduction that Alexendar Hamilton, or rather uses a quote of Madison's to claim, that Hamilton was a Anti-Republic Pro-Democrat, but as far as I can recall Hamilton is a Pro-Republican through and through. I would base the quote on the falling out Madison and Hamilton had after writing the Federalist papers.
Considering that the US today is a warped form of the Republic, but yet it still is not a 'through and through' Democracy because that would make any Representation by elected officials unnecessary the people would make every choice directly by voting on any given issue.

3. Then on Page 2 he quotes Joyce Appleby '...Terrorism is a method, not an ideology; terrorists are criminals, nor warriors.' What he fails to address with this quote is why people revert to Terrorism. First Terrorism means that you attack your enemy not with conventional weapons but Terror to achieve your goal. What could Al-Quaeda want? Well they have stated repeatedly that they want those they consider 'Invaders' to leave the Middle East in other words us, the Westerners. Why would they want this? Because they want to handle their own affairs, many countries are not happy with the influence a military base of another country has on a region. For example Germans have often protested and wanted the US bases closed, the reason why that did not go through was because the government was afraid of what might happen economically when the business of those bases left the country. But overall those bases are causing many problems, the locals are boarded out and the Soldiers stationed there do not try to fit in and expect the locals to speak English instead of speaking the local language. The children those soldiers have are often angry at being put in this environment which they do not necessarily like because they want back to their home country. And that anger often is released in vandalism.
I would not be able to name any Terror group who did not have any aim because its a tool only desperate people use if they see no other way out any more. If those who command the soldiers will not listen to you what do you do?

4. Yoo claims that 'War is too important to be the subject of partisan politics.' I would have to answer that it is far to important to not be considered carefully, to not be analyzed by everyone involved to insure that the war is not fought over some pride issue. To attempt to see the other sides view maybe they are right and they are being pushed in a corner and they see no other way out anymore but lashing out at those they see to be the aggressors.

I would like to point out two things here, first the US projects the image of being democratic not a Republic, by doing so every citizen is to blamed as well for the actions of the country. In a democracy the people of the country are part of the decision making process and thus are to blame for any action taken by the government.
Second the US often acts only and purely on self interest ignoring the people who are living in the local area. This causes a certain dislike while at the same time bombarding the world with Hollywood movies showing how good the US citizens have it.

Seeing as I have already written so much I will retain the other points for responding to critics. I had intended to make 30 points and stop there but this is already long enough.

The lost Rebel

The lost Rebel is a pet concept of mine, it refers to the idea that we know that we are supposed to rebel against something just that we have no idea what it is we actually are rebelling against. In today's world we know that rebelling is good, but why and how do you rebel? By buying a product that claims to be rebellious? Well in reality we in this western world do not rebel any longer. It almost seems as if the western population is to old for that now, but not just that maybe to passive too. The trouble is that you are not a rebel by conforming to the system and buying goods, that is not what a rebel does a rebel rebells against the system against the products and tries to sabotage this with the goal to achieve a better environment. Does this mean that we do not have the option off achieving anything better then the system we have now? We have all the luxuries and doesn't that mean that we have the best way of life? We can drive cars instead of walking, we can watch movies and TV instead of thinking but is that really good or is it simply a self-propelling system that doesn't stop until a wrench is thrown in? The last wave of rebellious behavior dates to the hippies, which were the rebells they fought the system but ultimately became part of the system, mending their beliefs to what was needed to life comfortably again. Is a comfortable life all it takes to dissuade all the rebells that this society claims to have?

The Underdog?!

It is curious how interested we are with Underdogs, we consider suicide stupid and not worth mentioning however, if someone is willing to die for ideals for something 'special' then this suicide or be it 'Last Stand' can easily become a legend.
Take for example the movie 300 it does portrait a Last Stand fight which has interesting stories however we like to make it seem more heroic then it was as like to do with many battles during the movie many odd creatures appear of which we know many would not have appeared but it would have been a fight between man and man only not with mis-formed creatures that seem to resemble something that came back from hell and which can take many hits without falling.
However we do seem to like that concept of the underdog winning or at least putting up a severe fight this concept in fact seems so attractive that we create new stories if they are based in Fantasy, History, Present or Future we love the concept of the 'Righteous' winning and seem to always have of course the Righteous is determined by the society in which we live at that time. This Underdog might simply remind us of the 'fact' that if you are fighting for the 'Good' side then we can win or at least severely harm our enemy it also seems to remind us of us being able to be able what ever we want or of our own power really it does not matter why but it is certain that we like to believe certain things of our 'Side'. That 'our' own Side is the 'Good' and 'Righteous' side.

Hmm, yeah well

Now computer safety is a hot topic, especially since there those nice ads which imply or support certain believes concerning Mac and Windows PCs. Before I continue both Mac and Windows systems are PCs, Personal Computer is what PC stands which encompasses all computer systems that are such.
Now interestingly enough it was actually a Virus that attacked Macs that was the first Virus out there and that was because at that time in the market of the personal PCs the Mac OS was leading. A lead which Mac has lost for a long time, that is not because Windows is inherently better but because Windows had a better ad Campaign not to mention aimed at the right user group in the right manner. Mac has simply become more of a tool for a very specific purpose with which there is nothing wrong. But the Windows machine and most Linux machines can easily be upgraded while it is admittedly harder to find drivers that work well for some version of Linux. Also the Windows machine as the Linux machine are both more versatile for example you can custom build your own computer legally and install your old OS from the old machine on there and simply stop using the old set-up while a Mac has to be bought with the computer something that naturally makes it less attractive for the people that build computer systems. Then there are other past time activities for which Windows is most suitable such as gaming and the likes, now Macs are most useful for Graphic and Sound Design an area in which I might add Windows and Linux machines can not compete. But that means that the Mac is the most useful to people that simply want to do either of those things. In the other areas it is just as good as Windows or Linux, while Linux offers more flexibility to the advanced user but often is confusing to the beginner. Windows is fairly simple, offers versatility which allows it to be used for internet and other work related issues as good as the other two and also allows the user to play games which by now are a very important part of the industry. Macs simply are not better as a general statement but rather cater to the needs of a special group which needs something like that. But for other purposes that involve work All systems are equal now, a corporation is under those condition most likely to be the OS that comes it the cheapest and if the corporate IT people know that the best choice is an OS that allows upgrades to come from them because it will be cheaper then they only have Linux and Windows as choice and most people know Windows because it is on most computers sold why? Because they managed to become popular enough. Thus Windows is the logical choice. Now if Mac was the cheaper choice you can bet that Companies would start using Mac but as long as they have to buy entire systems with the OS it makes little or no sense to use Macs.
To the most contested issue of hacking/viruses and spam, Unix based systems (Linux and Mac) are known to be safer then Dos based (Windows), but it is also known that there is no such thing as a totally safe system Macs and Linux machines can be hacked but you have to remember that hackers and spammers go after the most common OS since that is what brings them the most information and Victims which either results in fun or money or even both. If say mac would have the greatest market share tomorrow within a month the internet would be swarming with Spam and Viruses for Mac and hackers would suddenly start taking an interest in Macs.
But since Macs are a small group they have remained fairly safe for the time being.
Thus saying Macs are safer because they are is not perse the entire answer but rather they are safer because they represent a minority and that means that Windows is actually protecting Macs by being the main target.

Education...

Now, this is basically the continuation of a response I gave to an article.
My point was how many of todays students actually want/need University/College education. I' am not saying need education for a job, what I mean is education that is logically needed to perform a job. Now we don't need the garbage man or cab driver with anything beyond a High School degree. It is not as if you wanted to argue with your garbage man, or with your cab driver.
We can admit that most people do not need so many degrees nor do we need for some professions degrees.
We now face an enormous inflation of educational degrees, an inflation that is caused by people thinking that they need degrees when they often are simply not necessary.
Now if say the people would do what they wanted and head straight there they would easily be able to do so in many cases without needing to go through University or College, it is not as if the education provided there does not offer something useful but in many cases it is also very harmful to the mind and of course to the wallet which often does not have the strength to support that strain forcing students to go into a specific profession into a profession they may only chose for the money and its compatibility with their degree. That is where problems then start people that then find that they are not happy in the chosen profession do not change for many reasons and this sadness will then be carried into their family lives this (if they have children) is likely to cause certain pain to children and of course that is entirely unnecessary for the simple reason that sometimes people want to do something specific like driving a boat, now more accurate would be saying captaining it. That does require certain specialized training but it does not require a degree of a university in some abstruse area the same counts for pilots or other specialized professions that require a BA or MA by job description but which are really unnecessary because that person wants to do something quite specific and if that person would then be trained in that specific direction which in this case would be shipping, ship design maybe, etc. things which a captain should know. Which make a captain a interdisciplinary but also insure that his/her knowledge is quite specific to the duties a captain has. The problem today is the over valuing of the university degree which quite honestly is not that great and in most cases not needed for many professions.

Those curious little things...

Now, many often say that I tend to be a bit judgmental or at least use nationalistic ideals very often to provoke. The reason I' am saying this is to warn you before you read on in this post since this could be considered a rant once more inspired by...what else could it be? Talking...
Now there are many little things that make Canada a curious country especially so since Canadians for some reason only compare themselves with the US. Not other countries the reason for that is that the US is the closest country to Canada and the loudest country. Of course that can be understood, now Canada is country which is besides another country that manages to use even more resources wastefully of course if that is your measuring stick then you are most of the time in a good light and if only in your own eyes that is enough since when other countries then tell you that you should change your ways you simply point south and have so pointed at the country that wastes even more then the your country does. Of course that is a very regional way of thinking a way which I may add is somewhat...well outdated. Since we have to consider that you can travel around the world within less then a day...presuming you have the money to do so of course. Now there seem to be some very interesting differences between European countries these days and North American countries. Now for example a little things would be the fact that the wire antenna on the car is still legal in North America while it has become illegal in most of Europe. Now of course the next thing would be the efficient engines which are completely computer controlled and for some reason the engines build in most cars in North America are not quite as efficient as the cars in Europe. Of course you can't perse blame the people exclusively in North America since Europeans did not do it any better until it got bad and until Europe was out of resources, land and air. Now of course you could suggest that other countries could learn from the mistakes made in Europe and that that way it would be possible to with some problems before they occur; problems that are known. Of course there is the limitations that government and certain other forces have imposed upon the advancement of energy efficiency in North America as well as some odd believes concerning certain ways of power production such as wind-power seems to be considered primitive by some people while it really one one of the most efficient ways off producing electrical power. Of course there is also the thinking or lack of information that stands in the way of more efficient means of producing energy and also conserving energy. Such as good heat insulation and many other things that are not used to the full extend in North America. Yet, of course there is then the contrast of certain other areas in which North America is one of the leading areas of expertise. It is not that North Americans are dumb or unable but rather that North Americans do not always see or if they see often do not realize that resources are actually limited and that eventually they will have to conserve of course North Americans also do not look at Europe for lessons concerning this specific issue since the Europeans have had to deal with these problems and had rivers which were entirely dead thanks to the industry waste that was being pumped into it. From that point on the Europeans had to learn and had to adjust but North Americans do not seem to wish nor think that they need advice on those issues, of course it is not a bad thing to turn to a someone with more experience.

The question...

Now I have been asked a question, in a conversation recently, I was asked...well actually all the guys in the guys at the table were asked "Why, we (guys) do not understand a simple but gentle rejection but rather need something overly direct that would be to brutal in some peoples eyes?"
Now why do we not understand those 'soft' 'friendly' rejections do not work is simple really they might be 'gentle' but while that is the case they do often cause a problem such as that the 'soft' rejection often causes the issue of the guy not sure of what is going in the girls mind. Now of course I would like to add that that most often holds true for women in general. Now back to the main issue when a woman tells a guy the 'soft' or 'gentle' rejection that means for the guy that he does not quite now what she means after having been bombarded with the media telling him that a girl means this or that by saying that or this. Now this combined with the fact that a guy most often has no clue or only a very limited understanding of what a girl wants, never mind means. Leads to the true confusion at which point the guy knows barely anything that would help him decode any of those secrets or understand what a 'soft' rejection means. Thus when he is being rejected in such a confusing manner he can only be confused. Thus I would suggest to avoid those confusing problems that women should simply use clear and not confusing language. Allowing the poor confused man to understand at least some of what woman are trying to tell them. Now of course you have to understand that this article is based on my own observations and not on research done in a clear and controlled environment. Thus it means that I can only write my own personal opinion and not anything else.

Surreal Reality and Taxes

The time of the Tax Return is upon us once more, yet this time I actually had to do them myself...while attempting to understand what the Canadian Government wanted to know from me and how I could make them understand what I had made or not made over the last year. Well, I noticed a most interesting fact which shocked me a bit, this fact was that the organization of the Tax forms seemed to defy all logic and that it seemed to be designed to do nothing but to confuse the victim. This victim then would have to try to mule through the enormous amount of cross referencing that would seem more then unnecessary, further while trying to make sense of this most evil piece of confusion and illogic I further noticed that for some inexplicable reason all these lines in my specific case could be reduced to circa asking basic questions, thus questions that could more easily be answered and would not cause problems: How much have you made over the passed year? How much have you spend for education and similar? etc.
Yet, the sheet seems to be less designed for ease of use then for complicating the use, thus making it more difficult for the victim to claim any money for themselves and if they become to confused in the marsh of cross-reference then the victim might even have to pay extra since that is 'fair'. What does the victim get from paying those taxes? Well interestingly enough if a several corporations would take over the areas for which we pay the government then we suddenly would be likely to see improvement, now the reason for that would less be that the corporation would care about the victim or that the corporation simply is better then the government. No, the answer is far more simple, the corporation would try to keep the customer by not confusing them unnecessarily by simple stating how much is due, this would also mean that you would only pay on the services that the individual actually wishes to receive. For example as heartless as it may seem a married couple with double income but without children is illogically paying for services that they would never require such as schools. If this couple had the choice they could continue to do so but would not be forced to do so, now in the capitalistic system this would actually be something to be desired since logically if they have more money available they are also more likely to invest more and spend more.
Of course there is another interesting feature concerning taxes, something history professors and students like to point out with equal vigor which are the facts that many of the taxes today are a) not necessary Canada does have a very thick surplus today b) was promised to be a temporary obligation to make the war effort possible, yes the World War 2 war effort c) that historically people if percieve the governing body to be in such a place rightly that the government then is always right and that the person that would deny the government would automatically be thus in the wrong. If that is the case the people can not deny the government the payment of taxes.
Ultimately it is curious that taxes have become something so very accepted that the government has gained more and more power over the last hundred years, and not just in Canada but in many countries.
This is a form of tribute that we pay to the government for what? Protection? Good Roads? Payed Schooling? The main part of these taxes of course is absorbed by the monstrous bureaucracy which such a government creates, more then 40% of the Canadian population actually is employed by government. Now some of those people provide services for which people are paying anyhow such as the postal service.
Yet, there are things that could be significantly simplified if attempted to do so first of all of course taxes that were necessary during World War 2 for the war effort are more then unnecessary today and the government is responsible to cancel such taxes aka income tax. Now of course it has to be noted that the government of today does provide in some areas more services then it did before but it is not neccessary for any government to make money that is not the mandate of ANY government that is the mandate of a Corporation, which at least is honest on that aspect, but any government is only responsible to request money that is necessary to maintain services required by the public, and to expand services if necessary but not to make money beyond the needed.

Birthday

Since today I became old I decided to keep this post short here is a link to the best Birthday song ever made,...by Die Prinzen (yes it is a German Pop-group).
Die Prinzen Heute Ha-Ha-Habe Ich Geburtstag

The US and how the administration deals with problems...

The US Government is attempting to 'solve' the problems of the Middle East with the help of military force. This reaction appears very familiar since the British government tried to solve the problem in Mesopotamia (Iraq) with the same tools. The only thing they found that was more problems, the tension they created prevailed until today. Now trying to solve a problem that was created by ignorance and violence now the question is can such a problem be solved by even more of such problems.
The US military leaders seem to deny this problem as well.

US commander denies Iraq failure