Look at this face.
Man, when that cat gets out of that pool, someone is going to be in a world of pain 
Less
More
Archive for the 'Life' Category
Greg Knauss discusses Richard Dawkins’ views on two opposing worldviews or magisteriums - that of science and that of religion. Basically, Dawkins holds that nothing lies outside the realm of science - that the nature of Deity and faith can be discussed scientifically.
Dawkins mentions a third Magisterium - that of the Stupid. Knauss claims it as his own:
Just because something is stupid, doesn’t mean that it can’t make lots and lots of money. Just as scientists claim dominion over their magisteria, and theologians claim dominion over theirs, a huge and empty space is left for the stupid questions. Who claims dominion over them?
Starting now, I do. I declare myself the world’s primary expert in questions so stupid that they lack any sort of meaning other than reasonably correct grammar.
I hereby also demand co-equal attention with the other magisteria. If there’s a debate to be had about evolution and both science and religion are represented, then so should stupid questions, in the person of me. If government money is to be divided between science and religious (“faith-based�) functions, then meaningless twaddle should get a share of the loot. And any news story from a supposedly objective source must now include the perspective of the ridiculously idiotic to be considered impartial. I’m available for quotes and press-shoots by request.
Good on him! Someone needs to be able to explain the following:
- Happy Meals,
- The Spice Girls,
- people who grow obese watching sport on TV,
- the popularity of MySpace,
- Chardonnay,
- the continuing existence of mainstream advertising,
- Australian Idol, and
- Chihuahuas.
Is there anything I’ve missed?
Craig commented on my Big Brother Law post:
A couple of questions;
do you wonder just how deeply Coonan is connected with the issues of modern communication networks? (I know I do.)
Do you wonder why legislation like this is proposed when there is already sufficuent legislation in place to deal with these issues (if they really are issues.)
And lastly, from an IA POV what do you think about the proliferation of legislation dealing with exceptions rather than the big issues. Coulod democracy do with a knowledge manager?
I replied:
Hi Craig,
thank you for your comment.
I am fairly sure that Helen has some good people advising her - and in this instance, advising her that a little wowserism will go a long way to appeasing people that have extreme views on the place of nudity on TV. I take your point (by inference) that she probably doesn’t know a lot about the communications needs of the average Aussie.
I believe that the issue is one that has been created purely to maintain the 1950s family orientation of those people with extreme views.
It has been said that if it’s on the news, it isn’t important - because road accidents, heart failure and cancer deaths happen every single day. If it’s on the news, be sure that someone will legislate for or against it. There is more media kerfuffle at the moment around a 12 year old model than there is about the thousands of Australians who will die in terrible pain this year - there is evidence that the cancers with a high profile get more funding, and are eventually better treated.
I do not think that democracy needs a knowledge manager - I think that we all need to take it upon ourselves to think about what the real issues are (and I include myself in this, absolutely). We need to be our own IAs - filtering out infospam and soap operas (including BB) and looking behind the bread-and-circuses piffle to what is really important.
What do you think?
Cheers, Andrew
So what’s important? 12 year old models or road deaths caused by truckies who are being worked to extremes by big supermarket chains? Kevin Rudd’s night out on the town or “fashionable” cancers getting more funding than others? Paris Hilton exposing her genitals or the sad state of our health system?
For me, it is about improving the quality of life for as many people as possible - that’s social responsibility 101. Everything else is a distraction - and when we forget that it is a distraction instead of the main game, people die needlessly. We can blame whoever we want, but there is a personal responsibility that we can all take to stay informed about the real issues. I’m as guilty as anyone on this - perhaps more so, because I know enough to know that there is a difference.
I know I have.
I’m worried about the implications of their security breach, and if you have applied for a job through Monster.com, you should be worried too. It’s not every web-based service provider that can claim to have exposed the personal details of 1.6 million people to identity thieves.
…that my partner Helen and I are now engaged.
Taking Steve’s advice on announcements, I put off making any sort of public announcement until we’d covered off the family announcements. These are now (mostly) done so we can now talk about it…
Most of my blog friends are on Facebook now - I announced it there first (a couple of minutes ago). If I didn’t get to tell you in person first, please do not be insulted - it has been a busy time, and I know I have not got to everyone that I would have liked to.
When we’ve gotten over the immediate rush of excitement there will be a party and the announcement of a date and all that good stuff.
A question for you, my friends and reading public: hypothetically, if you had a piece of major news, would you tell non-blog-reading family and friends prior to making any reference to it on your blog? We’re talking major life event stuff here (hypothetically).
I should be most grateful for your thoughts.
I wrote about a sensitive topic in Gender in the workplace: On Confrontation and Flirtation - that of dating co-workers:
Flirtation is an easier line to draw in the sand: any unwelcome advance is unlawful harrassment. For myself as a consultant, clients are off-limits. This is an easy call to make. For the last year-and-a-half I’ve worked on a client site where there are thousands of employees - anecdotally 80% women - and if that reduces my dating pool, then so be it.
With colleagues, I tend to agree with Tim Bray - within the geek community we spend a lot of time in work and afterwork - accordingly, there are fewer opportunities than previously available to find a partner. Gloria infers that women never want to date anyone else in the office, so everyone should forget about office romances - and while this is usually a good practice, I believe that it is incorrect to say that it never happens. It’s still possible, just not easy or practical. That said, as always, any approach to a potential love interest should be done with decorum, tact, and respect - otherwise it is predatory, and wrong, regardless of where the approach takes place or your gender/orientation. Gloria’s example of the married middle-aged man hitting on the 17 year old woman is a prize example of wrongness - but to extrapolate this to the premise that all women are always offended by more than professional interest in the office is taking it a little too far.
Penelope Trunk wrote this today in her own blog:
Date coworkers.
I can see how 40 years ago, when it was still legal to ask a woman what her husband thought of her career, it would’ve been bad to date coworkers. Back then, women felt powerless in the workplace.But today, young women feel they have equal power to men. And they aren’t deluding themselves — women and men receive equal pay in business until they have children (after which woman are penalized for having kids more than men are). So men and women approach dating at work as equals.
The bigger issue here is that if you’re working 40 hours a week, you’re more likely to meet the people you want to date when you’re at the office. If you tell yourself that all men at work are off-limits, you put yourself at a huge disadvantage.
And if you want to have children, you need to make getting married a higher priority than your career. This isn’t some radical statement — it’s backed by a lot of research, not the least of which is that you can’t tell your biological clock to wait while you refuse to date all the men you come in contact with.
So the adage to not date men you work with is totally antiquated. It assumes that women aren’t equal to men, can push back childbearing indefinitely, and should put their career ahead of getting married. All of these are bad assumptions.
I’m not sure that I agree entirely, but it is interesting that she puts it so directly. Time will tell if this is a general change in perception - or perhaps it is misplaced nostalgia on her (and my) part for the “My goodness, Miss Simpkins, without your glasses you are beautiful!” good old (bad old) days of 1960s movie office romance cliches in a world where our real relationships may not be all that we could hope for.
PS: My goodness, Penelope - who do you know that only works 40 hours a week?
Craig Childs talks about the advantages of giving up TV on LifeHack. He suggests YouTube as a substitute.
There are days when I could go one better and just give up television altogether. Then I compromise, and think about the movies I watch once in a blue moon. And the odd interesting documentary. This slow backsliding progresses until I’m watching Home and Away. Peh
What would you be doing with your life if you lived without TV?
According to the Sunrise program (Australia) on Sunday 22 July, the dating game is changing here:
- Australians are marrying later in life,
- They are having children later, with a second or third child not coming along until the mother is in her late 30s/early 40s, and
- SLIMs (single low income males) are losing what attraction they had as marriage/family prospects.
This could mean that a fine Aussie tradition, the Bogan (AKA Westie, Booner, Hoon or Lout) could be a dying breed. They are the epitome of the SLIM ideal.
I cannot imagine an Australia without Bogans… a world without beat-up VK Commodore cars with home-made body kits and oversized tachometers, without Jim Beam labels in car windows, without obscene bumper stickers, without mullet haircuts, without Victoria Bitter, and without torn western shirts/tracksuit pants/Ugg boots. The demise of the Ugg boot alone could force a glut in the sheepskin industry (and New Zealand jokes aside, there is a limit to alternative uses for sheepskin).
I believe that we need a Bogan Preservation Society. If we cannot conserve these Aussie icons in the wild (in garden spots like Macquarie Fields) then they must be preserved in captivity.
I’m not sure how to structure the captive breeding program, or fund it, but I do know that something must be done. Otherwise we will one day have to answer to our grandchildren…
“Grandad, what’s a Bogan?”
I suppose it had to happen - in the inevitable and continuing backlash against Bratz dolls and wider concerns about the sexual objectification of children - the other side of the argument now have their own range of action figures:
 I am not sure how I feel about the Messengers of Faith action figures. I believe that parents are allowed to raise their children in their own faith along with other cultural and moral guidance - I am not sure that dolls are an appropriate channel. What do you think?
Recent Comments