There's been a lotof talk about divorces lately. The media (well, that media) has taken its usual spin, "huge increase of divorces in the last fivehundred years, the sky is falling!"
Dear media, that's because twohundred years ago, divorces were punishable by stoning, and fivehundred years ago all that lived here was a pulk of wild pigs and an eremite.
So we have the proposal of the catholic church, basically "divorce should be illegal". The opposing proposal is to allow of homosexual marriages.
Kids. Both of you have a deadfire reason what's wrong with the world, and both of you have exactly one thing that needs to be changed to save the sky from falling so fast. I can actually sympathize with both positions: First, when you marry, you shouldn't marry to evade taxes, or did you notice that the small bars of butter cost almost the same as the large ones? That's what I call the supermarket singles tax, (imposed by corporations not government, though when you ask them they'll have totally bulletproff reasons why it's my fault again). Well, see, you should not marry to save at the supermarket checkout (go shopping with your neighbor, how hard is that?) but because you promise not only to each other but all the world (and me, and Pastor Felix) that you will not run away at the first signs of trouble or bigger boobies or whatever makes you people divorce. I know that things change, but please, people, at least make an effort. I also don't make a difference for gay marriages. Same for you.
But I don't like the messengers. So, I simply go with the oddball proposal by John Black, Author of the X are from Y, Z are from ... errr. W are from X, Y are from Z series of bestsellers. Did you know why we call them bestsellers? Because you read books but buy bessellers. Ha! Anyway, here's the decree: Call your spouse 'darling' once a day, or get fined.
Yes. He says, it will save many marriages. I really don't know. But I do know that you have to develop things that belong neither to you nor to your spouse, but to your partnership. How often in your life did you think "Well, he's five years younger, he's got a real job and the sex is better, but I miss the way my ex said 'good morning, darling' after brushing his teeth"? Never? Here's your chance. It can't hurt to call each other Darling once in a while, even if it's hard. Remember our motto: "We Build You".
Also, I want to be one of those oddball countries with these crazy laws,and that's my chance. The fine can only be requested by one of the spouses, so you can happily live without ever saying "darling" to each other, and noone can complains. Unless of course, the Need-More-Surveillance guys get their way.
Dienstag, 18. August 2009
Montag, 17. August 2009
Should Democracy Be Compulsory?
Of course, that's how media works. the actual issue is: Should voting be compulsory?
As if voting is the means and ends of democracy. Our ancestors have made great sacrifices to allow you to take no particular interest in the skills of the touched-up photographs you use as a base for deciding your pown future - and STILL live a sheltered life.
So here are the positions:
Well, that's easy. We won't come to your door and beg you for your vote. If watching two seasons of "Six and a Kitty" end-to-end on election day is more important to you than voting for me, I don't want your vote.
If it was me, I'd make voting harder. You'd have to solve a tricky math question that involves percents and fractions. You'd have to climb a rope or lift some weights, or help a old lady carry that piano to her new apartment. You'd have to know the leaders and the economy of our neighbor countries. You would have to pass tests, and to help out in your community to just earn your personal right to vote.
In turn, we'd celebrate you. You'd get the best seats at the yearly soccer match against the Tivertonian Devils. You'd be the guy to hold the opening speech for the new and improved purification plant in your community. Ladies would smile at you. Hotly. It would be awesome.
Because you value things more when they are harder to achieve. I want you to be ambitous, to have goals in your life.
So, it's 1.
As if voting is the means and ends of democracy. Our ancestors have made great sacrifices to allow you to take no particular interest in the skills of the touched-up photographs you use as a base for deciding your pown future - and STILL live a sheltered life.
So here are the positions:
- No - because you can't force people to be free.
- Yes - because some people vote mroe than others, so distribution is not fair.
- Abolish elections - saves everyone a lot of time.
Well, that's easy. We won't come to your door and beg you for your vote. If watching two seasons of "Six and a Kitty" end-to-end on election day is more important to you than voting for me, I don't want your vote.
If it was me, I'd make voting harder. You'd have to solve a tricky math question that involves percents and fractions. You'd have to climb a rope or lift some weights, or help a old lady carry that piano to her new apartment. You'd have to know the leaders and the economy of our neighbor countries. You would have to pass tests, and to help out in your community to just earn your personal right to vote.
In turn, we'd celebrate you. You'd get the best seats at the yearly soccer match against the Tivertonian Devils. You'd be the guy to hold the opening speech for the new and improved purification plant in your community. Ladies would smile at you. Hotly. It would be awesome.
Because you value things more when they are harder to achieve. I want you to be ambitous, to have goals in your life.
So, it's 1.
They call me Phoenix!
OK. Vladimir - Volodja. That's two different names, that's often enough two different persons. I will remember that. Anyway. I'm back. The proud people of Finsterberg-Dodeleben have elected me to be their leader.
Montag, 5. Februar 2007
Revolution!
Well, not really - unless there actually was one, but noone told me. That would be typical - making a revolution and failing to inform me. I could have tqaken the day off, maybe decide whether i want Jessica back. But if she can't take... where was I?
Well, a small revolution: The upper class demands a union! They've been blocking main streets (probably purchased protesters, again) with their Segways, and they had a few mobile snack bar serving fried caviar (to greasy if you ask me, but the champaigne was ok).
I can't stand another union. Either the other unions have lost their bite so the bossses seek a new enemy to blame, or they just wanted to have a street party, and tried to evade the traffic congestion fees by calling it political. Trying to cheat on me! I told the Vladimir to get them off the street.
Now that I write it.. Vladimir is the head of the traffic police, isn't he? I always have tea stains on that part of the org chart. There was this other Vladimir - at least .. it must be another Vladimir who likes to talk about the cool stuff the US tested in the middle east recently (Nice chap, this Vladimir, but a bit talkative, doesn't knwo when to shut up). I'll check. Tomorrow. Good night.
Well, a small revolution: The upper class demands a union! They've been blocking main streets (probably purchased protesters, again) with their Segways, and they had a few mobile snack bar serving fried caviar (to greasy if you ask me, but the champaigne was ok).
I can't stand another union. Either the other unions have lost their bite so the bossses seek a new enemy to blame, or they just wanted to have a street party, and tried to evade the traffic congestion fees by calling it political. Trying to cheat on me! I told the Vladimir to get them off the street.
Now that I write it.. Vladimir is the head of the traffic police, isn't he? I always have tea stains on that part of the org chart. There was this other Vladimir - at least .. it must be another Vladimir who likes to talk about the cool stuff the US tested in the middle east recently (Nice chap, this Vladimir, but a bit talkative, doesn't knwo when to shut up). I'll check. Tomorrow. Good night.
Donnerstag, 18. Januar 2007
Public Nudity
Yes, compulsory nudity is the rage in our neigbour countries. But ahhh... First the winters.
Others "just" want the freedom of walking around naked.
And they can't accept that the other others find that disgusting.
They have all kinds of explanation, like" puritanism", "prison bars made of cotton", "not natural" etc. Lady, may I tell you: these silk bed sheets don't grow on trees, but crude oil, multiple sclerosis and seven-days-dead-in-the-sun-fish is very natural. "Natural" isn't a quality brand from the office of consumer protection.
Nudity is a personal issue. We have a blossosming nude beach culture, and "textile beaches" for those who prefer to cover up - and, more importantly - want to see you covered up only. You got your freedom, they got theirs, and inbetween a "nude beach" sign.
Case dismissed.
Others "just" want the freedom of walking around naked.
And they can't accept that the other others find that disgusting.
They have all kinds of explanation, like" puritanism", "prison bars made of cotton", "not natural" etc. Lady, may I tell you: these silk bed sheets don't grow on trees, but crude oil, multiple sclerosis and seven-days-dead-in-the-sun-fish is very natural. "Natural" isn't a quality brand from the office of consumer protection.
Nudity is a personal issue. We have a blossosming nude beach culture, and "textile beaches" for those who prefer to cover up - and, more importantly - want to see you covered up only. You got your freedom, they got theirs, and inbetween a "nude beach" sign.
Case dismissed.
Surveillance
Crime is well under control, but there is always room to improve.
So, proposed to me, was a plan to install surveillance cameras, tofollow the girls in summer skirts around monitor public places, to increase safety.
May I present you the following studies:
http://www.notbored.org/cameras-not-effective.html
http://p10.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/blog/2005/02/public_cctv_surveillance_schem.html
If someone publishes a contrary study, you might find it here: http://www.google.de/search?q=Surveillance+camera+efficiency+study
Surveillance opens a few cans of worms. First, the efficiency is debatable. Some experts have estimated the efficiency of a public surveillance camera in crime deterrence is equivalent to that of a street lamp, but the latter comes at a fraction of the cost (esp. if you potty mouthed youngsters wouldn't always use them to eschange grafitti messages what mom does).
Second, the effect seems temporary, but the upkeep cost is permanent. Do you want to pay more taxes for this? (No, don't ask me to cut back something else).
Third, they create new circumstance in privacy invasion. Do you trust the people who spend their days watching the tapes? New laws have to be made. When may the evidence be used in court?
It is also a well known fact that we trust unfocused dizzy moving pictures more than a serious and solid talsk of a witness. The consensus here seems to be that a camera is impartial, there is no distortion by messenger in it - but we forget that we distort it when we see it.
So, installation of new surveillance cameras is outlawed in all public places and places where the public has access to.
We might expect a rise in crime from that decision. Prepare yourself - locks, mobiles, dogs, this might also help our stumbling economy. But don't hold your breath our police force will answer with it's well-known speed and efficiency.
So, proposed to me, was a plan to install surveillance cameras, to
May I present you the following studies:
http://www.notbored.org/cameras-not-effective.html
http://p10.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/blog/2005/02/public_cctv_surveillance_schem.html
If someone publishes a contrary study, you might find it here: http://www.google.de/search?q=Surveillance+camera+efficiency+study
Surveillance opens a few cans of worms. First, the efficiency is debatable. Some experts have estimated the efficiency of a public surveillance camera in crime deterrence is equivalent to that of a street lamp, but the latter comes at a fraction of the cost (esp. if you potty mouthed youngsters wouldn't always use them to eschange grafitti messages what mom does).
Second, the effect seems temporary, but the upkeep cost is permanent. Do you want to pay more taxes for this? (No, don't ask me to cut back something else).
Third, they create new circumstance in privacy invasion. Do you trust the people who spend their days watching the tapes? New laws have to be made. When may the evidence be used in court?
It is also a well known fact that we trust unfocused dizzy moving pictures more than a serious and solid talsk of a witness. The consensus here seems to be that a camera is impartial, there is no distortion by messenger in it - but we forget that we distort it when we see it.
So, installation of new surveillance cameras is outlawed in all public places and places where the public has access to.
We might expect a rise in crime from that decision. Prepare yourself - locks, mobiles, dogs, this might also help our stumbling economy. But don't hold your breath our police force will answer with it's well-known speed and efficiency.
Dienstag, 16. Januar 2007
Shame on us
12 million people, but still only place 16 in "Largest pizza delivery sector"?! Come on guys, you can do better.
Montag, 15. Januar 2007
Taxes
It had to happen. Whatever you do, don't argue about taxes. But no, you had to go there. So here's the deal.
Taxes have increased 2% for most people, that's not much given we started out at 34% already, and noone of you is willing to give away his or her privileges.
If you remember (you probably don't): the tax raise went into early funding of the education reform - so we have the smartest kids, the best school books and the brightest future ahead, and an stipulation to improve TV shows. And what are you, my beloved citizens, concerned at? That our kids can say phuket 50 times in a row, while our evenly beloved neighbour kids only make it up to 20 before being smacked on the head?! I mean, where are your priorities, guys! And gals!
So here are the proposals I get: Away with taxes. I can understand that. We are paying way to much. I know that feeling.
You know what they charged me for my pack of Woofleonian Style Waffles yesterday? 7 rivets. It says 6.01, but of course that's seven, because we only have whole rivets, remember? And to add insult to injury, what did they say when I said "that's a bit steep"? "It's because all of your taxes, Sir. " Now I have to pay seven rivets for a small pack of Woofleonian Waffles that are - double insult - produced cheaply in the Kingdom of Immutability, I just hope our friends at Woofleonia at least get some woofles for the recipe - and tnow it's also my fault. Where was I?
Oh yes, this argument is invariably followed by lower all taxes, cut back this and that, but not the one thing I benefit from. You know what this is? Kindergarden games.
As an example, lets take one of our IT guys. He says healthcare, education and social welfare for the less fortunate subsidies aren't important, because because people just need to be a bit more like him and they are instantly easy. But Subsidies for IT Investments In Rural Areas (SIIIRA) must remain, because that's really hard.
You know what's funny about it, Mr. Oh-So-IT? You are not an expert on social welfare, not on education, nor - you guessed it - healthcare. But you claim to be an expert on IT, and your mom comes from a rural area.
So you are basically saying: you can't do what you claim to be best at without my money.
Listen, guys (and gals): Unless the Book publishers industry unanimously votes to do without Subsidies For Large Lettered Books For The Elderly (SFLLBFTE), I won't cut back taxes on anyones wish. Period.
So the next option on the table? Tax the rich more, the poor less.
To be true, the really rich pay 50%, some more, of what they cannot hide. I would tax them a lot higher, because all people I met that were richer than me were arrogant stupid assholes thinking they know how the world works and all, but couldn't feed a pig without getting their hands dirty.
But there's the first problem: "rich", for most people, is relative, it usually means "richer than me". So the argument comes out as: "tax everyone but me".
Two more reasons speak against it: Future generations need someone to tax - think of the rich peopel as "Money Zoo". Second:
Tax Evasion Balance. This means: Every percent they are supposed to spent more on taxes will instead be spent on clever schemes to avoid that. All extra rivets in the game go to a bank in Buckold, and the King of Zommer will mock me about my tax rate. We would just breed businessmen that excel at tax evasion.
Note to self: devise a scheme to export tax evasion specialists to those in need, determine target market and suitable prices.
Taxing the poor less: The very poor don't pay much anything beyond the sales tax, luxury tax etc. they pay when buying stuff from their government subsidies - so this is a null sum game fur us, and a secret fundung of McBurger and CheapoBeerCan Inc, again. The majority is the biggest source of income, to lower their taxes and still breaking even, I'd need to increase the highest tax bracket to about 178%. I still have to figure out a way to do that.
So third option? Let everyone decide where taxes go.
I trust you, I really do. But I don't know whether I should trust you to think of tomorrow, to think of the country as a whole. You can argue with most individuals, but if you start to put them together, funny things start to happen. They kiss and throw cutlery, but most importantly, they spent most of their time making sure noone is more fortunate than themselves. Weird, eh?
So, I am torn on this. I wish I just could dismiss this. That would probably be the best.
But Jessica says I should show more decisiveness, I am a leader, after all. So I decide: there will be a tax reform, and with the next tax return declaration, you can vote on where your money goes. (Not literally, of course, we let the numbers run through the guy you always harassed in high school, because he's good at math).
And I trust you, may dear lazy Tivertoniasensis who are to lazy to fill out their complicated tax thingie, to give me some wiggle room. And to complain that tax return sheets jsut got more complicated.
Sigh. Life of a leader is hard. I need a backrub.
Taxes have increased 2% for most people, that's not much given we started out at 34% already, and noone of you is willing to give away his or her privileges.
If you remember (you probably don't): the tax raise went into early funding of the education reform - so we have the smartest kids, the best school books and the brightest future ahead, and an stipulation to improve TV shows. And what are you, my beloved citizens, concerned at? That our kids can say phuket 50 times in a row, while our evenly beloved neighbour kids only make it up to 20 before being smacked on the head?! I mean, where are your priorities, guys! And gals!
So here are the proposals I get: Away with taxes. I can understand that. We are paying way to much. I know that feeling.
You know what they charged me for my pack of Woofleonian Style Waffles yesterday? 7 rivets. It says 6.01, but of course that's seven, because we only have whole rivets, remember? And to add insult to injury, what did they say when I said "that's a bit steep"? "It's because all of your taxes, Sir. " Now I have to pay seven rivets for a small pack of Woofleonian Waffles that are - double insult - produced cheaply in the Kingdom of Immutability, I just hope our friends at Woofleonia at least get some woofles for the recipe - and tnow it's also my fault. Where was I?
Oh yes, this argument is invariably followed by lower all taxes, cut back this and that, but not the one thing I benefit from. You know what this is? Kindergarden games.
As an example, lets take one of our IT guys. He says healthcare, education and social welfare for the less fortunate subsidies aren't important, because because people just need to be a bit more like him and they are instantly easy. But Subsidies for IT Investments In Rural Areas (SIIIRA) must remain, because that's really hard.
You know what's funny about it, Mr. Oh-So-IT? You are not an expert on social welfare, not on education, nor - you guessed it - healthcare. But you claim to be an expert on IT, and your mom comes from a rural area.
So you are basically saying: you can't do what you claim to be best at without my money.
Listen, guys (and gals): Unless the Book publishers industry unanimously votes to do without Subsidies For Large Lettered Books For The Elderly (SFLLBFTE), I won't cut back taxes on anyones wish. Period.
So the next option on the table? Tax the rich more, the poor less.
To be true, the really rich pay 50%, some more, of what they cannot hide. I would tax them a lot higher, because all people I met that were richer than me were arrogant stupid assholes thinking they know how the world works and all, but couldn't feed a pig without getting their hands dirty.
But there's the first problem: "rich", for most people, is relative, it usually means "richer than me". So the argument comes out as: "tax everyone but me".
Two more reasons speak against it: Future generations need someone to tax - think of the rich peopel as "Money Zoo". Second:
Tax Evasion Balance. This means: Every percent they are supposed to spent more on taxes will instead be spent on clever schemes to avoid that. All extra rivets in the game go to a bank in Buckold, and the King of Zommer will mock me about my tax rate. We would just breed businessmen that excel at tax evasion.
Note to self: devise a scheme to export tax evasion specialists to those in need, determine target market and suitable prices.
Taxing the poor less: The very poor don't pay much anything beyond the sales tax, luxury tax etc. they pay when buying stuff from their government subsidies - so this is a null sum game fur us, and a secret fundung of McBurger and CheapoBeerCan Inc, again. The majority is the biggest source of income, to lower their taxes and still breaking even, I'd need to increase the highest tax bracket to about 178%. I still have to figure out a way to do that.
So third option? Let everyone decide where taxes go.
I trust you, I really do. But I don't know whether I should trust you to think of tomorrow, to think of the country as a whole. You can argue with most individuals, but if you start to put them together, funny things start to happen. They kiss and throw cutlery, but most importantly, they spent most of their time making sure noone is more fortunate than themselves. Weird, eh?
So, I am torn on this. I wish I just could dismiss this. That would probably be the best.
But Jessica says I should show more decisiveness, I am a leader, after all. So I decide: there will be a tax reform, and with the next tax return declaration, you can vote on where your money goes. (Not literally, of course, we let the numbers run through the guy you always harassed in high school, because he's good at math).
And I trust you, may dear lazy Tivertoniasensis who are to lazy to fill out their complicated tax thingie, to give me some wiggle room. And to complain that tax return sheets jsut got more complicated.
Sigh. Life of a leader is hard. I need a backrub.
Sonntag, 14. Januar 2007
Why doesn't the church read my blog?
My post about freedom of speech is still fresh, and what do I get today? "Parents for law-abiding education" wants me to remove Harry Potter from schools. Because he summons 'demons' to do 'his bidings'.
So, yes, Parents for law-abiding education are serious religous nu... errr... are seriously reality challenged. (Or - if you don't believe in a reality that is independent of our minds - they are at least sensory challenged).
Children read fairy tales. period. The church is allowed to run sunday schools, and tell the kids everything about the bible they want to know. Besides, Saffra TV just won the our price for positive depiction of minorities for what? A priest with a women shoe fetish. That's all your screen time for today, guys. You can ask again next week, but if you don't bother with the Tivertonian State News channel, at least read my blog!
To all tolerant and open minded christians out there: I am sorry. I am sorry that a small group sheds such a bad light on you. Even if you don't like these fantasy books: If you want your children to believe by heart, not just because they don't know anything else, they need to learn to handle these.
P.S. Personally I find Harry Potter boring. It's an easy read, but somehow.. long.
So, yes, Parents for law-abiding education are serious religous nu... errr... are seriously reality challenged. (Or - if you don't believe in a reality that is independent of our minds - they are at least sensory challenged).
Children read fairy tales. period. The church is allowed to run sunday schools, and tell the kids everything about the bible they want to know. Besides, Saffra TV just won the our price for positive depiction of minorities for what? A priest with a women shoe fetish. That's all your screen time for today, guys. You can ask again next week, but if you don't bother with the Tivertonian State News channel, at least read my blog!
To all tolerant and open minded christians out there: I am sorry. I am sorry that a small group sheds such a bad light on you. Even if you don't like these fantasy books: If you want your children to believe by heart, not just because they don't know anything else, they need to learn to handle these.
P.S. Personally I find Harry Potter boring. It's an easy read, but somehow.. long.
Free Speech followup
If I find that bleep who did cost us the first place in "nicest citizens of The Codeproject lands" with his bleeping comments about the pattern on my tie at the inauguration ceremony, I will bleep his bleeping bleep until he can bleep no more. And smack him on the head.
Free Speech!
Yes, we have reinforced the principles of free speech.
The argument for it goes like this:
"Free speech allows ideas to be explored, challenged, and discussed in a productive, open forum. It teaches our kids to be critical thinkers. And dirty words, of course, but that's just the price you pay."
Which is a bit misleading. It sounds like it would somehow magically create a "productive, open forum" - but that's not true. If we had a open forum, free speech would surely help - but since free speech is more or less included already in the "open" part of an open forum, then whole thing looks like a snake biting its tail. (Which is called Ouroboros. Look it up.)
Reminder: Fori are never productive. They are there to figure out what to produce.
And teaching our kids to be critical thinkers? Our teachers do that. As said, free speech makes people think they get away with calling their mom a slut. (sorry, mom). This is not the case, it just stops me from making a general law about what you cannot say anytime anywhere in this country. It is still not ok to tell people on the burial of your grandma with how many men she lived and that she smelled bad. But it is ok in an medical emergency when the doctore asks you specifically about it.
But there is the reason I am all for free speech:
I personally don't want to sit down and think whether it's ok to fart in a plane given you are digestionally challenged, but not ok to tell the stewardess. Thats just to complicated.
I wanted to go with the "free speech, but smack them if they use bad language" choice, but that got the parliament all confused. Ahh well.
The argument for it goes like this:
"Free speech allows ideas to be explored, challenged, and discussed in a productive, open forum. It teaches our kids to be critical thinkers. And dirty words, of course, but that's just the price you pay."
Which is a bit misleading. It sounds like it would somehow magically create a "productive, open forum" - but that's not true. If we had a open forum, free speech would surely help - but since free speech is more or less included already in the "open" part of an open forum, then whole thing looks like a snake biting its tail. (Which is called Ouroboros. Look it up.)
Reminder: Fori are never productive. They are there to figure out what to produce.
And teaching our kids to be critical thinkers? Our teachers do that. As said, free speech makes people think they get away with calling their mom a slut. (sorry, mom). This is not the case, it just stops me from making a general law about what you cannot say anytime anywhere in this country. It is still not ok to tell people on the burial of your grandma with how many men she lived and that she smelled bad. But it is ok in an medical emergency when the doctore asks you specifically about it.
But there is the reason I am all for free speech:
I personally don't want to sit down and think whether it's ok to fart in a plane given you are digestionally challenged, but not ok to tell the stewardess. Thats just to complicated.
I wanted to go with the "free speech, but smack them if they use bad language" choice, but that got the parliament all confused. Ahh well.
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)