I got my driving license a long time ago. At that time, you presented yourself to an examiner who checked that you met the requirements. If you did, you got the driving license.
You might have, I suppose, lost your license if you subsequently no longer met the requirements, such as might happen after serious injury that impaired your driving ability or even just aging.
Now of the countries I have lived and worked in, it seems there has been a common transition in those where english is the first language.
I twigged to this when I heard of what to me was something quite odd in Australia.
A fellah had been out on a boat with mates. He had been drinking, but not all of them had. They came up to the slip and prepared to put the boat on the trailer which was hitched to the RV that his wife was driving. Up steps Mr Plod and breathalyses him. "You are done, mate". He lost his car driving license.
Along the way it seems that the idea that your ability to meet requirements when driving has changed. Previously it was justification for the issue of a license. Now, the license is something different - it is a permit. It is permission to drive which can be withdrawn at any time and for any reason. And this regardless of you having met the requirements for what was once a qualification.
So, say you have a degree or, better, a doctorate. You obtained it as a qualification by satisfying the requirements. Heaven help us if the day comes when it is regarded as a permit to be withdrawn at any time for any of a growing number of reasons.
Please note, I am aware that honorary doctorates have been withdrawn when institutions felt that the behaviour of the recipient cast a shade on the reputation of that institution. This is different. The analogy would be getting your driving license in a box of breakfast cereal, which was a common comment at one time in South Australia.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Statistics
You can do anything with statistics. It has been said often and truly.
A mate of mine insisted, this is in the early '70s, that he and his recent bride were avid supporters of the breast-feeding of children.
He was so adamant I had to press him further. He told me that 80% of people in prison at that time were bottle-fed.
I mentioned that at the time those people were children the decision to bottle-feed babies accounted for some 90% of cases (from my information gathered as a mid-wife from my fellow mid-wives).
Taken together those figures would seem to indicate that there is more likelihood that a breast-fed child would end up in prison.
I suppose you have guessed that I don't have many true friends. But then, who does?
An advert, or, rather, item of propaganda (**), on Australian TV claimed that in 45% of boating accidents alcohol was involved.
I've done my time in boats and on the waterways with mates in Australia. I have to tell you I estimate that in more than 55%, much more than 55%, of boating adventures, alcohol is involved. Oh yes.
So how come the non-drinkers are causing a disproportionate number of accidents?
(OK, it is nowhere near rigorous, but I could not resist it).
** I say "propaganda" because an advert advertises products and services. A government version of what looks like the same thing seeks to change ideas, influence public opinion, and not to promote sales. It is qualitatively different.
A mate of mine insisted, this is in the early '70s, that he and his recent bride were avid supporters of the breast-feeding of children.
He was so adamant I had to press him further. He told me that 80% of people in prison at that time were bottle-fed.
I mentioned that at the time those people were children the decision to bottle-feed babies accounted for some 90% of cases (from my information gathered as a mid-wife from my fellow mid-wives).
Taken together those figures would seem to indicate that there is more likelihood that a breast-fed child would end up in prison.
I suppose you have guessed that I don't have many true friends. But then, who does?
An advert, or, rather, item of propaganda (**), on Australian TV claimed that in 45% of boating accidents alcohol was involved.
I've done my time in boats and on the waterways with mates in Australia. I have to tell you I estimate that in more than 55%, much more than 55%, of boating adventures, alcohol is involved. Oh yes.
So how come the non-drinkers are causing a disproportionate number of accidents?
(OK, it is nowhere near rigorous, but I could not resist it).
** I say "propaganda" because an advert advertises products and services. A government version of what looks like the same thing seeks to change ideas, influence public opinion, and not to promote sales. It is qualitatively different.
How to have a baby
Sometimes couples experience problems getting a baby on the way.
A woman walked into a bar late afternoon and sat down on a stool at the bar next to a fellah. He was drinking champagne. She too ordered champagne.
He comments, "Champagne, eh?".
"Yes," she relies, "I'm celebrating."
"What a coincidence," he returns, "I'm celebrating too."
"Yeah, right," she thinks but asks, "What are you celebrating?"
"I'm a chicken farmer and hen breeder," he answers. "For a long time I have not been happy with the number of chicks I have been getting. Now that problem is solved and I am celebrating. Why are you celebrating?"
She smiles and replies, "For a few years I have been trying to get pregnant and my husband and I have had loads of test, followed a heap of advice. We were at our wits' end. I have just come from the doctor's and I'm pregnant!"
"What a coincidence, " he replies.
"But tell me," she asks, "how did you solve your problem?"
He smiles and says, "Changed the cock".
"What a coincidence," says she.
There are some who say that when it comes to procreation we are merely transport devices for our genes. It is our genes that know what the match is going to be. If you, young lady, listen to your genes and they say "that one", then you will have a child without any problems at all, sometimes on just one encounter.
And it does not matter whether the fellah has a job, or money, or good looks, or a great build, or a sense of humour or even youth - that is the fellah that will do it. Just go for it.
Of course, partnerships are more than this. We mate for life, right? So your life companion had better have other qualities if it is going to work for years and years. Fine. The two requirements are often in conflict. Solve the two requirements separately.
My work colleague married this lovely woman. I got the "spark" when I first saw her and it was returned. This is not lust, this is not desire, this is genes calling to genes. You have to be aware of it but one you are it is unmistakeable. Mind is not involved. Desire is not involved.
They tried for a family for a while. It so happened that my colleague went away for the weekend and she and an long-time female friend of mine called round at my house and invited me over for a party. My female friend was interested in some fellah and I realised it was just going to be the four of us. OK, I spent the night there.
She had a lovely daughter.
Of course, she, her husband and my friend had colluded together and arranged the whole episode.
The genes matched up. Everyone knew.
A woman walked into a bar late afternoon and sat down on a stool at the bar next to a fellah. He was drinking champagne. She too ordered champagne.
He comments, "Champagne, eh?".
"Yes," she relies, "I'm celebrating."
"What a coincidence," he returns, "I'm celebrating too."
"Yeah, right," she thinks but asks, "What are you celebrating?"
"I'm a chicken farmer and hen breeder," he answers. "For a long time I have not been happy with the number of chicks I have been getting. Now that problem is solved and I am celebrating. Why are you celebrating?"
She smiles and replies, "For a few years I have been trying to get pregnant and my husband and I have had loads of test, followed a heap of advice. We were at our wits' end. I have just come from the doctor's and I'm pregnant!"
"What a coincidence, " he replies.
"But tell me," she asks, "how did you solve your problem?"
He smiles and says, "Changed the cock".
"What a coincidence," says she.
There are some who say that when it comes to procreation we are merely transport devices for our genes. It is our genes that know what the match is going to be. If you, young lady, listen to your genes and they say "that one", then you will have a child without any problems at all, sometimes on just one encounter.
And it does not matter whether the fellah has a job, or money, or good looks, or a great build, or a sense of humour or even youth - that is the fellah that will do it. Just go for it.
Of course, partnerships are more than this. We mate for life, right? So your life companion had better have other qualities if it is going to work for years and years. Fine. The two requirements are often in conflict. Solve the two requirements separately.
My work colleague married this lovely woman. I got the "spark" when I first saw her and it was returned. This is not lust, this is not desire, this is genes calling to genes. You have to be aware of it but one you are it is unmistakeable. Mind is not involved. Desire is not involved.
They tried for a family for a while. It so happened that my colleague went away for the weekend and she and an long-time female friend of mine called round at my house and invited me over for a party. My female friend was interested in some fellah and I realised it was just going to be the four of us. OK, I spent the night there.
She had a lovely daughter.
Of course, she, her husband and my friend had colluded together and arranged the whole episode.
The genes matched up. Everyone knew.
Voting?
I love the way the voting system works. You get a vote, and just the one vote. Really?
While a government is in power, representing the wishes of the electorate, allegedly, there are numerous influences on the decision-making process. There is of course lobbying. A kind of horse-trading agreement where benefits might accrue to a politician or a party, be it even enhanced public image, if only a certain course of action is favoured. Someone is getting an extra vote.
Or what about the case in Australia where after election, the Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, arranged - as promised - discussions with unions and business on issues of labour and capital. Someone is getting to vote twice.
But this is really of no consequence whatsoever. The real voting takes place in another way.
Every time you spend a dollar, you are voting for the lifestyle, monetary consequences, cultural consequences, ethics and more by where you choose to spend that dollar and what on.
Every time you choose to buy something, you are voting with your dollars.
It is this that more dictates the choices available to everyone, the life-style choices available to all, the ethos and culture of the country and, to some extent, the laws that are made.
Spend your money wisely to support only those businesses, outlets, products, manufacturing practices, business ethics and , let's face it, countries that you truly wish to support.
Otherwise - well, you are just wasting your voting power.
While a government is in power, representing the wishes of the electorate, allegedly, there are numerous influences on the decision-making process. There is of course lobbying. A kind of horse-trading agreement where benefits might accrue to a politician or a party, be it even enhanced public image, if only a certain course of action is favoured. Someone is getting an extra vote.
Or what about the case in Australia where after election, the Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, arranged - as promised - discussions with unions and business on issues of labour and capital. Someone is getting to vote twice.
But this is really of no consequence whatsoever. The real voting takes place in another way.
Every time you spend a dollar, you are voting for the lifestyle, monetary consequences, cultural consequences, ethics and more by where you choose to spend that dollar and what on.
Every time you choose to buy something, you are voting with your dollars.
It is this that more dictates the choices available to everyone, the life-style choices available to all, the ethos and culture of the country and, to some extent, the laws that are made.
Spend your money wisely to support only those businesses, outlets, products, manufacturing practices, business ethics and , let's face it, countries that you truly wish to support.
Otherwise - well, you are just wasting your voting power.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Sexism and Language
I supported the anti sexist language advice of the '70s. I obtained a copy of the ABC (Australian TV) guide for their announcers and copywriters that was produced and issued at that time. Very useful it was.
But you have to understand that sexist language is a feature of the english language.
The english language has several rather interesting features.
For a start, it is not a phonetic language. Not like Czech for example. Hear a Czech word and you can write it down. See a word and you can pronounce it. Well, the first part is a little less accurate considering the "i" and "y". But it is pretty damn close to perfect.
(Parenthetically, they used to teach children to read english at primary school by recognition of the word as a unit. Later in life people's nervous system would have derived the rules behind the language. Nowadays, teaching to children uses a lot of sounding out the components of a word. Too fine, too fine, to produce people who can really read, write and spell in english).
Second, it stands, to my knowledge, apart from other languages that have gender-based words in that the gender words of english refer to the reality whereas the gender words of, say, french or german or italian, refer not to the physical reality but to the gender of the words being used.
I was watching an episode of Columbo in France. Colombo arrived at the scene, as he does, and asked "Ou est la victime?". The answer was "Elle est la". The coarse translation is: "Where is the victim. She is there". The murdered person was male. "Elle" or "she" had to be used because the noun "victime" is feminine.
This is the easiest example I know.
So talking to non english-speakers about sexist language is a different thing altogether. In a sense, they do not have it, cannot have it.
By the way, in "A Fish Called Wanda" ("Un Poisson Nomme Wanda"), the english version has the judge say "She has known him all her life". The french was "... tout sa vie".
Had it been "She has known him all his life", guess what - exactly the same. Because the "sa" refers to "vie" and has nothing to do with the gender of the actual real life persons.
So if your first language is english, before you slag off to someone, whose first language is something else, about their sexist language - hold your tongue. First, learn their language. Then judge, if judge you must.
But you have to understand that sexist language is a feature of the english language.
The english language has several rather interesting features.
For a start, it is not a phonetic language. Not like Czech for example. Hear a Czech word and you can write it down. See a word and you can pronounce it. Well, the first part is a little less accurate considering the "i" and "y". But it is pretty damn close to perfect.
(Parenthetically, they used to teach children to read english at primary school by recognition of the word as a unit. Later in life people's nervous system would have derived the rules behind the language. Nowadays, teaching to children uses a lot of sounding out the components of a word. Too fine, too fine, to produce people who can really read, write and spell in english).
Second, it stands, to my knowledge, apart from other languages that have gender-based words in that the gender words of english refer to the reality whereas the gender words of, say, french or german or italian, refer not to the physical reality but to the gender of the words being used.
I was watching an episode of Columbo in France. Colombo arrived at the scene, as he does, and asked "Ou est la victime?". The answer was "Elle est la". The coarse translation is: "Where is the victim. She is there". The murdered person was male. "Elle" or "she" had to be used because the noun "victime" is feminine.
This is the easiest example I know.
So talking to non english-speakers about sexist language is a different thing altogether. In a sense, they do not have it, cannot have it.
By the way, in "A Fish Called Wanda" ("Un Poisson Nomme Wanda"), the english version has the judge say "She has known him all her life". The french was "... tout sa vie".
Had it been "She has known him all his life", guess what - exactly the same. Because the "sa" refers to "vie" and has nothing to do with the gender of the actual real life persons.
So if your first language is english, before you slag off to someone, whose first language is something else, about their sexist language - hold your tongue. First, learn their language. Then judge, if judge you must.
Just and Victims
There is a word in the english language "just". It is used in lots of ways.
One way is when you are upset with something someone does or is doing and you mention it.
"Oh," they say, "I was just ...".
Apparently, that makes it alright in their eyes.
Has this happened to you?
I think that the problem is one of semantics. The word "just" meaning "only" is the same as the word "just" meaning "rightful". Like in the root of the words "justice", "justified" and so on.
So in the perpetrator's mind there may be semantic leakage leading them to believe that they have a perfect right to do what they are doing. And, by the way, who are you to complain.
So if it happens, why not "correct" them. Rephrase what they say as "I was only ...".
Funny how pleading that makes it sound.
This is related to a fairly common practice in the english-speaking world - when you are the victim of something and you make a comment or a stand, the perpetrator immediately takes the victim role.
"Can you please stop thumping my desk? I am trying to work"
"Oh? And what about all the times you have done things that annoyed me? "
I am not going to enumerate the examples. If you have them you will know what I am talking about and if you don't then you won't know what I am talking about anyway.
It is pure and simply a learned strategy. Maybe it worked with their parents in a development of "that's not fair". Maybe not. But however it develops, it is a winning strategy in most cases.
When it happens to me I borrow a phrase from London - "Never mind about that".
You say, "Right now, we are dealing with your hurt to me. After that I will listen to your complaint. But first we deal with what is happening now, not stuff from the past. Anyway, you should have mentioned it at the time."
Takes presence of mind amongst the possible emotions to deal with things that way, but don't let people con you with a winning strategy rather than person to person in the now communication.
Ironically, I am not communicating with you person to person in the now. I would rather do that than this.
One way is when you are upset with something someone does or is doing and you mention it.
"Oh," they say, "I was just ...".
Apparently, that makes it alright in their eyes.
Has this happened to you?
I think that the problem is one of semantics. The word "just" meaning "only" is the same as the word "just" meaning "rightful". Like in the root of the words "justice", "justified" and so on.
So in the perpetrator's mind there may be semantic leakage leading them to believe that they have a perfect right to do what they are doing. And, by the way, who are you to complain.
So if it happens, why not "correct" them. Rephrase what they say as "I was only ...".
Funny how pleading that makes it sound.
This is related to a fairly common practice in the english-speaking world - when you are the victim of something and you make a comment or a stand, the perpetrator immediately takes the victim role.
"Can you please stop thumping my desk? I am trying to work"
"Oh? And what about all the times you have done things that annoyed me? "
I am not going to enumerate the examples. If you have them you will know what I am talking about and if you don't then you won't know what I am talking about anyway.
It is pure and simply a learned strategy. Maybe it worked with their parents in a development of "that's not fair". Maybe not. But however it develops, it is a winning strategy in most cases.
When it happens to me I borrow a phrase from London - "Never mind about that".
You say, "Right now, we are dealing with your hurt to me. After that I will listen to your complaint. But first we deal with what is happening now, not stuff from the past. Anyway, you should have mentioned it at the time."
Takes presence of mind amongst the possible emotions to deal with things that way, but don't let people con you with a winning strategy rather than person to person in the now communication.
Ironically, I am not communicating with you person to person in the now. I would rather do that than this.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Half a Bed
I have half a bed to rent.
Thank you Susan for this gem from your father.
Had one prospect last week, but she did not fancy any of the optional extras during the test drive.
And the rental bond was optional!
Thank you Susan for this gem from your father.
Had one prospect last week, but she did not fancy any of the optional extras during the test drive.
And the rental bond was optional!
Micro Manager Gardners?
Yes.
They walk around the flower beds and vegie plot each day. They uproot every plant, check the root growth and put them back.
You should see the gardens they produce.
They walk around the flower beds and vegie plot each day. They uproot every plant, check the root growth and put them back.
You should see the gardens they produce.
Number Facts
The school my children were attending invited parents along to find out how subjects, particularly maths, were being taught in the then present day and age. It was a chance for parents to learn something that might help them help their children with their learning. After all, learning is not just the responsibility of the school, is it? There are the parents, and there is the community at large, at the very least.
So I went along. It would be rude not to.
And oh, shock, horror! In maths, these primary school children were being taught 'number facts'.
For example, if the sum of the digits of a number divides by 3, then the number divides by 3. And so on.
No. No. No. Too early.
First spend some time with the numbers and their behaviour and addition and subtraction etc etc. Allow time for the way of numbers to become entrenched in the nervous system. Then, for some, the 'facts' would emerge without having to be told.
Not for everyone, mind you. But by teaching these 'facts' too early, you risk impeding the process of emergent discovery. The nervous system will pattern what it takes in. And that gives the wonder of discovery, the glow of realisation. Teaching 'number facts' too early will deny some children that wonderful experience.
There was a savant, I am really, really sorry but I know longer have the reference details. Anyway, he stopped work - probably pissed off with it like we all could be at some time or other - and spent all his time reading aand reading and reading multiplication tables.
And guess what - he can now give you the product of any two large numbers in a few moments.
No. This is not from memory. He performs equally well with number products that were not included in his reading and memorising.
What had emerged from all of his memorising and reading was the pattern. The pattern of multiplication of two numbers.
So when given two numbers, he just applied the pattern as a process.
Here's a thought. Start watching the lottery draws each and every week. Memorise the numbers in the order in which they are drawn. Keep building that up for two years.
There is no such thing as randomness. Actually, I proved it in my philosophy course. So a pattern will emerge from your wonderful nervous system doing what it does best - seek out patterns in experience.
So then start going down and putting in lottery tickets. The numbers will "come to you" without having to think about it.
I'll accept 1% of what you win for the tip. OK, be pedantic. I'll pay you back 1% of what you had to pay out.
But - come one - both of these are only when you win ...
So I went along. It would be rude not to.
And oh, shock, horror! In maths, these primary school children were being taught 'number facts'.
For example, if the sum of the digits of a number divides by 3, then the number divides by 3. And so on.
No. No. No. Too early.
First spend some time with the numbers and their behaviour and addition and subtraction etc etc. Allow time for the way of numbers to become entrenched in the nervous system. Then, for some, the 'facts' would emerge without having to be told.
Not for everyone, mind you. But by teaching these 'facts' too early, you risk impeding the process of emergent discovery. The nervous system will pattern what it takes in. And that gives the wonder of discovery, the glow of realisation. Teaching 'number facts' too early will deny some children that wonderful experience.
There was a savant, I am really, really sorry but I know longer have the reference details. Anyway, he stopped work - probably pissed off with it like we all could be at some time or other - and spent all his time reading aand reading and reading multiplication tables.
And guess what - he can now give you the product of any two large numbers in a few moments.
No. This is not from memory. He performs equally well with number products that were not included in his reading and memorising.
What had emerged from all of his memorising and reading was the pattern. The pattern of multiplication of two numbers.
So when given two numbers, he just applied the pattern as a process.
Here's a thought. Start watching the lottery draws each and every week. Memorise the numbers in the order in which they are drawn. Keep building that up for two years.
There is no such thing as randomness. Actually, I proved it in my philosophy course. So a pattern will emerge from your wonderful nervous system doing what it does best - seek out patterns in experience.
So then start going down and putting in lottery tickets. The numbers will "come to you" without having to think about it.
I'll accept 1% of what you win for the tip. OK, be pedantic. I'll pay you back 1% of what you had to pay out.
But - come one - both of these are only when you win ...
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Dirty Dishes
Oh no! Dirty dishes in the work kitchen again!
OK. You start with a kitchen and all the dishes are clean. People use the dishes. Some wash up afterwards and some do not. There is an imbalance.
So, do nothing until all the dishes are dirty. Leave them that way as the default. Then everyone washes the dishes they need in order to use them. Balance restored.
It's like the difference between snooker tables in a club and pool tables in a pub.
The pub pool tables are clear of balls. Each time you want to play you set up, play and walk away, leaving the table once more clear of balls.
In the club snooker hall, the tables are all set up ready to play. You play, set them up again for the next players and walk away.
Robert Benchley famously said: "There are two kinds of people in the world: those that think there are two kinds of people in the world and those that do not."
If the two cases described above were determinants of the kind of world we want to live in, which would you prefer?
OK. You start with a kitchen and all the dishes are clean. People use the dishes. Some wash up afterwards and some do not. There is an imbalance.
So, do nothing until all the dishes are dirty. Leave them that way as the default. Then everyone washes the dishes they need in order to use them. Balance restored.
It's like the difference between snooker tables in a club and pool tables in a pub.
The pub pool tables are clear of balls. Each time you want to play you set up, play and walk away, leaving the table once more clear of balls.
In the club snooker hall, the tables are all set up ready to play. You play, set them up again for the next players and walk away.
Robert Benchley famously said: "There are two kinds of people in the world: those that think there are two kinds of people in the world and those that do not."
If the two cases described above were determinants of the kind of world we want to live in, which would you prefer?
Wine Invents Nothing
"Wine invents nothing, only lets things out"
You will find this little gem in the New Testament of the Bible. Now I'm not a Christian myself, more Christian-friendly, but I do like to find little gems here and there in the scriptures and writings of any religion.
Let me tell you why I like this one.
From many years of observation I have come to several conclusions about the intake of alcohol in various forms by various people.
And from my reading and studies I know a tiny bit about the effects of alcohol on the human system.
It seems to me that one of the effects of alcohol on a person is to diminish or neutralise the effect the "censer" - that part of us we internally build up after a while that lets us know what is and what is not appropriate behavior in this or that situation. Yes, it is situational. I did not speak the same way to my friends as I did to my parents. My friends would just find that too weird for words.
Anyway, as this censer become less and less able to act, we see the unmodified behavior of the individual coming through.
Putting it bluntly, the pisseder you get the more truly you show your true self.
I don't mean mumbling and falling over. I mean your demeanor, the way you are with yourself and others.
Some get pissed and their smile getts bigger and bigger. And maybe they get a bit silly, but they are definitely geared to fun and the funny side of life.
Some get serious about the topic of conversation, mounting good or not so good reasoning for their part in the discussion.
Some become belligerent, spoiling for a fight with someone.
Some just fight, hit out, damage people and property.
But whatever it is, I maintain that you are seeing what that person is like at core - from self-assured and jubilant to insecure and aggressive.
So I can't help being disappointed when I read in the papers or hear on the news that the government is taking a serious look at youth drinking, because of the aggression and fighting. Or at drinking generally because of domestic violence.
Look. You will never solve these problems because you are looking in the wrong place. Alcohol is not the cause, merely the thing that highlights it.
Ask not why there are so many drunken people who are therefore aggressive. Ask rather why society is becoming more aggressive - as shown by the hard clear light of the effects of the alcohol. Address that rather than merely clamping down on drinking. That will only sweep the problem under the carpet.
Unless, of course, that is exactly what you want to do.
You will find this little gem in the New Testament of the Bible. Now I'm not a Christian myself, more Christian-friendly, but I do like to find little gems here and there in the scriptures and writings of any religion.
Let me tell you why I like this one.
From many years of observation I have come to several conclusions about the intake of alcohol in various forms by various people.
And from my reading and studies I know a tiny bit about the effects of alcohol on the human system.
It seems to me that one of the effects of alcohol on a person is to diminish or neutralise the effect the "censer" - that part of us we internally build up after a while that lets us know what is and what is not appropriate behavior in this or that situation. Yes, it is situational. I did not speak the same way to my friends as I did to my parents. My friends would just find that too weird for words.
Anyway, as this censer become less and less able to act, we see the unmodified behavior of the individual coming through.
Putting it bluntly, the pisseder you get the more truly you show your true self.
I don't mean mumbling and falling over. I mean your demeanor, the way you are with yourself and others.
Some get pissed and their smile getts bigger and bigger. And maybe they get a bit silly, but they are definitely geared to fun and the funny side of life.
Some get serious about the topic of conversation, mounting good or not so good reasoning for their part in the discussion.
Some become belligerent, spoiling for a fight with someone.
Some just fight, hit out, damage people and property.
But whatever it is, I maintain that you are seeing what that person is like at core - from self-assured and jubilant to insecure and aggressive.
So I can't help being disappointed when I read in the papers or hear on the news that the government is taking a serious look at youth drinking, because of the aggression and fighting. Or at drinking generally because of domestic violence.
Look. You will never solve these problems because you are looking in the wrong place. Alcohol is not the cause, merely the thing that highlights it.
Ask not why there are so many drunken people who are therefore aggressive. Ask rather why society is becoming more aggressive - as shown by the hard clear light of the effects of the alcohol. Address that rather than merely clamping down on drinking. That will only sweep the problem under the carpet.
Unless, of course, that is exactly what you want to do.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Ask someone
I hired a car the other day. The guy at the counter asked if for a little extra did I want a GPS.
I said: I've been married. I have served my time with someone giving me directions I did not want. So no, thanks.
There was a web site, ages ago, that was set up so that musicians could showcase their work to a larger audience without having to go through the hassle of agents, record labels, distributers and so on.
The music was free to download. The site noted that 10% of downloaders subsequently purchased a performer's works. But that is beside the point.
One lovely track I got from there was called "I'm not lost, I'm exploring". What a perfect description of the way a bloke gets from A to B in a strange city.
I was working in UK and one of my workmates asked: Does anyone know a panel beater shop near here? No one did - except me. I said there is one on such and such a street.
How do you know that?! was the response.
Well - I took a "wrong" turn and so was exploring. I still got to my destination, but armed with more information than if I had "asked someone".
So here's to exploring and not getting directions.
I said: I've been married. I have served my time with someone giving me directions I did not want. So no, thanks.
There was a web site, ages ago, that was set up so that musicians could showcase their work to a larger audience without having to go through the hassle of agents, record labels, distributers and so on.
The music was free to download. The site noted that 10% of downloaders subsequently purchased a performer's works. But that is beside the point.
One lovely track I got from there was called "I'm not lost, I'm exploring". What a perfect description of the way a bloke gets from A to B in a strange city.
I was working in UK and one of my workmates asked: Does anyone know a panel beater shop near here? No one did - except me. I said there is one on such and such a street.
How do you know that?! was the response.
Well - I took a "wrong" turn and so was exploring. I still got to my destination, but armed with more information than if I had "asked someone".
So here's to exploring and not getting directions.
Multiculturalism
How do you overcome the culture in which you were raised when you go to reside in another country?
Well, multiculturalism says you do not have to. Does that work?
I don't know.
I was working in England with some people from different countries - haha, like myself.
I noticed something. Among the people working on the project who were from India, there were some who took absolutely no notice of what their manager, english in each case I noted, required of them. They covered themselves expertly though.
So I observed more closely their interactions among themselves and between themselves and members of the host and other countries.
I found an explanation for what I observed - the caste system.
If you have in your home culture a set of rules, observations, etc that let you know where you are in relation to others and what you can and cannot with propriety do, it is likely that you will bring it with you to your host country, unless you deliberately do something about it.
So if you are, say, from India (and I have other examples and observations from other countries too, not singling out India), then you may well, without thinking about it, assess those around you in your terms of where they sit in relation to you. You might judge this on a variety of things like their appearance, their demeanor, the way they are with others, and so on. And again, without thinking about it, you will begin to act towards them as though they were of such and such a status according to your own cultural upbringing.
And so if they are assessed "lesser", then even though a manager, there will be no need to put value on what they say or require - perhaps.
Whether this assessment is sound or not does not alter my original question: How do you set aside your cultural norms when living in another culture?
Does it matter?
A friend of mine, female, german, went to work in Wellington after the horrors of the Christchurch earthquake. She started work at a back-packers - so there was money and an accommodation deal, which suited her fine.
Her supervisor did not believe she had come from Christchurch. He said outright that he thought she was only saying that to get sympathy and help get the job.
To me this says more about his cultural norms than hers. Yes, she was there. Yes, she escaped the flying books and falling bookcases in the library when the 'quake hit.
And, the person concerned is not a kiwi, he comes from Japan. He has later intimated that he has a problem with german women.
Whacky-do. But I'm afraid, my friend, that you are running counter to the employment laws of the country you are living in.
So yes, there can be a clash between your own cultural upbringing and the law of the country you now reside in.
There was mass migration into Australia in the '60s. The immigrants found a lot of resistance to them if they tried their own way of doing things and if they did not make an effort to speak english.
They were, perhaps forcibly, integrated into the existing society. And in becoming Australians, they added to the culture of Australia with their own traditions, foods, style of doing things - once they had made that first effort to be accepted.
Hey, I have worked and lived in a number of countries and I always felt it was downright rude of me to talk loudly in public with same-tongued people while a guest in my host country. I'm a nomad, but if I had a home country I would not like to be immersed in the loud public language of another country.
In multiculturalism, which came along later for Australia, there is no requirement to make any adjustment whatsoever, other than required by law. And so there is no merging of cultures into the one, as before. There is separatism.
When there is a major issue for the host country nationals: the newsreaders will tell you that "the indonesian community commented that ..." or the "mulsim community commented that ...". I never hear the words "the Australian community commented that ...".
It is just like in my home, wherever it may be. I have guests. There is a protocol for hosts and guests. I make space and allowances for them being there at my invitation. I'll go out of my way for them. On the other hand, I do not expect any of my guests to comment forcibly on the way I do things in my own home. And I certainly am not going to be happy if different guests start laying the law down with each other about how to behave in my house.
It's easy for me I suppose - I am at home wherever I go and yet a guest at the same time. I always respect my hosts, as one should.
Think on it.
Well, multiculturalism says you do not have to. Does that work?
I don't know.
I was working in England with some people from different countries - haha, like myself.
I noticed something. Among the people working on the project who were from India, there were some who took absolutely no notice of what their manager, english in each case I noted, required of them. They covered themselves expertly though.
So I observed more closely their interactions among themselves and between themselves and members of the host and other countries.
I found an explanation for what I observed - the caste system.
If you have in your home culture a set of rules, observations, etc that let you know where you are in relation to others and what you can and cannot with propriety do, it is likely that you will bring it with you to your host country, unless you deliberately do something about it.
So if you are, say, from India (and I have other examples and observations from other countries too, not singling out India), then you may well, without thinking about it, assess those around you in your terms of where they sit in relation to you. You might judge this on a variety of things like their appearance, their demeanor, the way they are with others, and so on. And again, without thinking about it, you will begin to act towards them as though they were of such and such a status according to your own cultural upbringing.
And so if they are assessed "lesser", then even though a manager, there will be no need to put value on what they say or require - perhaps.
Whether this assessment is sound or not does not alter my original question: How do you set aside your cultural norms when living in another culture?
Does it matter?
A friend of mine, female, german, went to work in Wellington after the horrors of the Christchurch earthquake. She started work at a back-packers - so there was money and an accommodation deal, which suited her fine.
Her supervisor did not believe she had come from Christchurch. He said outright that he thought she was only saying that to get sympathy and help get the job.
To me this says more about his cultural norms than hers. Yes, she was there. Yes, she escaped the flying books and falling bookcases in the library when the 'quake hit.
And, the person concerned is not a kiwi, he comes from Japan. He has later intimated that he has a problem with german women.
Whacky-do. But I'm afraid, my friend, that you are running counter to the employment laws of the country you are living in.
So yes, there can be a clash between your own cultural upbringing and the law of the country you now reside in.
There was mass migration into Australia in the '60s. The immigrants found a lot of resistance to them if they tried their own way of doing things and if they did not make an effort to speak english.
They were, perhaps forcibly, integrated into the existing society. And in becoming Australians, they added to the culture of Australia with their own traditions, foods, style of doing things - once they had made that first effort to be accepted.
Hey, I have worked and lived in a number of countries and I always felt it was downright rude of me to talk loudly in public with same-tongued people while a guest in my host country. I'm a nomad, but if I had a home country I would not like to be immersed in the loud public language of another country.
In multiculturalism, which came along later for Australia, there is no requirement to make any adjustment whatsoever, other than required by law. And so there is no merging of cultures into the one, as before. There is separatism.
When there is a major issue for the host country nationals: the newsreaders will tell you that "the indonesian community commented that ..." or the "mulsim community commented that ...". I never hear the words "the Australian community commented that ...".
It is just like in my home, wherever it may be. I have guests. There is a protocol for hosts and guests. I make space and allowances for them being there at my invitation. I'll go out of my way for them. On the other hand, I do not expect any of my guests to comment forcibly on the way I do things in my own home. And I certainly am not going to be happy if different guests start laying the law down with each other about how to behave in my house.
It's easy for me I suppose - I am at home wherever I go and yet a guest at the same time. I always respect my hosts, as one should.
Think on it.
Encounters with Nature
I was outside the warehouse and heard this strange sound in the trees. So I asked someone what it was. Oh, that's the tui bird.
Well, imagine the sound of a sweet note saying "tui, tui". And that is followed by the sound of an asthmatic cough into plastic down pipe. This is followed by a sound like hitting your cupped hand on the opening of the same down-pipe. Interesting.
It reminded me of my mate on an island in Moreton Bay.
He has decking out on the first floor of the house. That's the one above ground level, in case your english is different to mine.
He has the barbie out there and near where you would but the bin with the beer there is plastic down pipe attached to the outside of the railing. It terminates just above the recycle bin below on the ground.
When you finish your tinnie, you get another one and drop the empty one down the pipe. That is exactly the sound this bird makes.
Fond memories of lost afternoons on the island.
Well, imagine the sound of a sweet note saying "tui, tui". And that is followed by the sound of an asthmatic cough into plastic down pipe. This is followed by a sound like hitting your cupped hand on the opening of the same down-pipe. Interesting.
It reminded me of my mate on an island in Moreton Bay.
He has decking out on the first floor of the house. That's the one above ground level, in case your english is different to mine.
He has the barbie out there and near where you would but the bin with the beer there is plastic down pipe attached to the outside of the railing. It terminates just above the recycle bin below on the ground.
When you finish your tinnie, you get another one and drop the empty one down the pipe. That is exactly the sound this bird makes.
Fond memories of lost afternoons on the island.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)