Not sure if anyone heard, but Donal Trump got elected to run the US of A. I, like most people was surprised by his win, but in recent weeks, I found myself transitioning from a firm Democrat supported to being an "undecided voter". I know that undecided voters are among the dumbest people out there, so to put myself in that boat is troubling, but hear me out, and at least you'll be able to understand why Trump won, or at least why the Democrats lost.
Reason one: Polls. Seriously, is no one picking up on how, inaccurate, flawed, and harmful these things are? I think they should be made illegal. If you were told that the person you wanted to vote for was almost certainly going to win, would you bother voting? Who cares? Millions of people vote, your candidate is way in the lead, your vote won't matter. Now if your candidate is behind in the polls, do you think you might be more willing to vote to try to save your candidate from losing? Trump was behind, and people came out in droves to help him. The polls effect voter turn out, that's why they are so often wrong and why so many "sure things" are going the other way.
Reason two: Millennials. Too dumb and lazy to vote. They probably made dozens of tweets, and Facebook comments about it being election day, but didn't both voting because they are like so busy and stuff. They are the ones yelling the loudest now though. There's no do over in the real world you retards. You'll find that instead of making all your comments on social media, actually doing physical shit, accomplishes something.
Reason three: No one wanted Hilary. The bullshit Democrat was of electing their representative is horribly corrupt. Hilary has been in the white house for many years, both with her hubby and the Obama administration. She has made many connections in the political world because of it. When it came time to elect a leader, Hilary had the money and power to push the competition aside. Instead of the people choosing a leader, you had a select few people veto the many. They propped up Hilary, who no one wanted. With 300 million people to choose from, Hilary was the best choice? "Oh, but she was the most qualified". Don't care. It's not about qualification, it's about representing the people. People view her as a rich, entitled, bitch, that knows nothing about what the working class want or need. Is that true? Doesn't matter, it's what people think. Bernie Sanders would have beat Trump. Now maybe the Democrats will rethink their electoral process.
Reason 4: Donald Trump does what everyone is thinking. It's funny, the world has become so politically correct, that people aren't allowed to have an opinion, and yet Donald has one, and people are ok with it. Can you imagine a video surfacing showing Barack Obama saying he can grab women by the pussy? Or Hilary talking shit about Mexicans? They don't because it's not PC. People don't think in PC. At some point, every man in the world has made a derogatory comment about women. Doesn't mean every man is sexist. At first I was blown away at what Trump had said on the bus, but then I realized, if every minute of everyones life was filmed, you'd see all sorts of shit coming from people you wouldn't expect it from. I'm positive, at some point in Barack Obama's life, he has been with a friend, walked past a hot chick, and said to his friend "That is one fine piece off ass, I'd would like to...blah blah blah...to her". Does it make him a bad president? Does it make him sexist? It's how we all think, but we aren't allowed to say it. It's like we aren't allowed to admit we are humans anymore. The Democrats thought that Donald's racist, sexist, anti islamic rants would end him for sure. But they didn't. Maybe it's time to recognize that we don't think in PC. Mexican cartel are entering the States, and bringing guns, and drugs, and hurting Americans. Mexicans also enter the states illegally, and work under the table for cash, taking jobs from Americans, and not paying their share of taxes to enjoy the privileges that Americans enjoy. That's not racist, it's real. Here in BC, Chinese people have caused serious problems in the economy. They buy up real estate, and let it sit vacant, causing inflated housing costs. There's a lack of people shopping in local stores. They don't pay income tax in the area. They also take over entire cities. In certain places, there are no store signs in English, only Chinese. No politician will ever take a direct stand on solving these problems because it's not PC. We celebrate diversity! Fuck that. I want signs in English. I want to be able to afford to live in my own country. I have no problem with any individual Chinese person, but I do not like the problems they have caused where I live. (Used to live, suck it mainlanders) I'm a racist! Or am I just seeing the same problem everyone else is, but no one is allowed to acknowledge the elephant in the room. According to our PC world, Donald Trump is a racist, and so am I, and so is the bulk of the US of A. What's your point? They have millions of jobs being lost to China and Mexico. That's a problem. People want to go back to making their own shit, in country, to create jobs, and help the economy. That's a very valid desire. I mean you need to be a racist if you want that though? Hilary wanted a "global market" with lots of free trade, and out sourcing. Is that best for the economy? I don't have that answer. Who wins when jobs are out sourced? We get stuff cheaper, but lose jobs. It is a global market now. You don't have to work harder, better and faster than Johnny next door anymore, you have to work harder, better and faster than everyone in the world. I can see why people don't want to compete with people that are willing work for $5 a day. People want to go back to a local economy. Can it be done? I don't know. North America is rich, much of the rest of the world is poor. North American wealth is going to those poorer countries, as we out source more and more. Americans want to keep their money at home. Trump says he can do it. Is that racist? Is that greedy? Yes. What's your point? Americans enjoy their first world lives. Donald Trump doesn't dislike Mexicans or Chinese people, he dislikes the problems they present to the US of A. He's got the balls to say it, and people agree.
At the end of the day. He won. So shut up. Stop protesting. Stop screaming bloody murder. No one wants to admit they voted for him, but a whole lot of people did, because people don't think in PC! It wasn't PC to vote for him, but behind a closed curtain, Americans voted for what they believed, not what was PC. We now owe it to Trump, and everyone that voted for him, to let him try. All he has are ideas right now. Some of them seem like really bad idea, and some of them seem like they might be really good ideas, if they are executed perfectly. I've decided to hold my judgement until they fail, or succeed. That's all we can do, because boohooing isn't going to help anything right now. My only real concern is the hit the environment is going to take.
I didn't think there was a hope in hell Trump would become the Leader of the Republicans. He did. I didn't think he had any chance of becoming president. He did. I don't think he will be able to succeed in steering America in the right direction. Maybe he'll go 3 for 3.
Thank you to all the service men and women in this country for your sacrifices both past and present.
Thursday, November 10, 2016
Friday, July 15, 2016
Playing dumb in the name of political correctness.
I am a firm believer that political correctness has forced society to do away with common sense. I am a believer in science, numbers, physics, facts, statistics and well, reality. To me, proof is proof. If you can prove something to be true, then it is fact. The problem is, the facts aren't always politically correct, so we have to abandon those facts, or risk being considered an immoral, or bad person.
I know I've touched on racism in one of my previous blogs titled "Hug a Racist", but recent events in the world are bringing on the urge to restate my position, and point out the obvious, which people seem to either be blind to, or are unwilling to accept.
Police profile people. It's their job. It's what they are trained to do, and it enables them to be effective, and efficient at their job. But recent events have not only called those practices into question, but are causing people to ask for a ban on them all together.
Now, before we go any further, I'd like to test your common sense, or your sense of reason. Now, let me give you a statistic. People are three times more likely to die driving a Chevrolet Camero than they are a Chevrolet Malibu. Now, you might assume that the Camero, is a less safe car. It must not hold up as well in a crash, but that's not the case at all. This statistic is a product of it's conditions. The Camero has more power, and is owned by a much younger demographic. So what you have is a very fast and powerful car, driven by inexperienced drivers, therefore it's more likely to be involved in a crash, and a high speed one at that. Now do you condemn the Camero for being the cause of more deaths than other cars, or do you realize that the safety of the car isn't to blame, as the statistic is just a product of a different demographic of drivers.
Now how about a scenario, there is a car, that has just had it's window broken, and some change stolen from it. There are only three people in the neighbourhood that could have done it. One is a 40 year old man, that is wearing a clean business suit, was walking by the car on his way home from his office job. The second suspect is an 78 year old women, who just came out of the nearby grocery store. The last suspect is a 30 year old man, that looks to be wearing the same clothes for the last week, and appears to be high or drunk. Who is the most likely suspect? Your job right now, is to profile. Common sense. Granny didn't smash out a car window, and most people don't smash windows for change on the way home from their 9-5. Unfortunately, political correctness is suggesting that all three suspects be treated equally, even though, we know who did it. We are forced to throw all previous experience out the window, as well as common sense, and statistics. Who wins in that scenario? Who wins by wasting an hour questioning granny about a crime she didn't commit?
Now, I'm sure you know where I'm going with this, and maybe you don't like it, but please read on, and hopefully I can lead you to the big picture. For years police have been told, by governments, to crack down on crime, in high crime ares, where drug trafficking, firearm possession, murders, rapes, thefts etc are the heaviest. Makes sense to me. These are the rough neighbourhoods, the "ghettos". So the police targeted these areas, which in the states, are predominately populated by black people. Now black people in the states only make up about 12% of the population, and yet make up 35% of people that are incarcerated. Now that stat offends people. They claim it's due to profiling, and that more black people are arrested than white people due to racism. In reality, the highest crime areas, are more densely populated by black people. So when a cop goes out on duty for the day, he can go to a middle class, suburban neighbourhood, which will probably be predominately white, where reported crime is very low, or he can head to the part of the city that has far more reports of gang crimes, murders, drug trafficking and the likes. Now if the crime riddled neighbourhood is predominantly black, does that mean he is profiling, and/or a racist? Or is he just using common sense?
I have a friend that lives in northern Alberta. In his area, there are many Indian reserves. I've talked to him many times about this, and he explained to me the experiences he has had dealing with natives. He says they fit the stereo type. They are quite often drunk, or high. They are dirty and usually poor. He crosses the street when he sees them, to avoid being hassled for change, or cigarettes. Now, I guess he is profiling them when he chooses to cross the street. Maybe he should wait to see if the person does hassle him before passing judgement, or maybe he should respond to his previous experiences and cross the street. What's the right thing to do?
I'm not going to say I know where to draw the line. I know questioning a 78 year old women about smashing the window out of a car seems like a waste of time, and assuming the crack head did it, will probably save a lot of time. But what if a middle class neighbourhood has been complaining of recent break ins, and as a police officer, I see a young black male, dressed in dark clothing walking around that neighbourhood at 1 am. Should I question him? Is that profiling? Will it help prevent more crime? Will it cause outrage in the black community that another black male has been profiled for no reason, other than he is black? What if statistically he is 5 times more likely to be the culprit than a white male? Is the cop a racist if he does stop a black male, but not a white male, or is he using statistics to help him solve a crime?
Now the flip side of the coin is how profiling isn't fair to innocent people. That's a given. Why should a black male be stopped, and searched, when he has done nothing wrong, when a white male is left alone? I'd call bullshit on that too, and after so many years of oppression, it must seem like things are never going to be fair for the people that are being profiled, but this doesn't change the fact that profiling is a very important tool. In Alberta, young men pay more for insurance that young women, regardless of their driving record. That's profiling. Good young male drivers are getting screwed, and bad young female drivers are getting it easy, but clearly you can understand why insurance companies do this? Statistics. Men crash more. So it's clear cut, legal, profiling, based on numbers. We have to deal with it. After writing this last example, I have to apologize for comparing car insurance prices with police brutality, racism, and years of oppression.
Now, on to the big picture. I don't have an answer for the problem. I think profiling is a tool that police have to use to be effective at their job, and I also think that many people have suffered unjustly at the hands of profiling. I don't have the answer for the problem, but I do know what the problem is, which seems to be something everyone is over looking.
Are natives under achieving, drunken, deadbeat criminals, or are people that were torn from their homes, stripped of their identities, murdered in the thousands, abused, introduced to alcohol, and left with nothing, under achieving, drunken, deadbeat criminals? If the roles were reversed, do you think white people would be in any better condition than the indians are in now? Natives are a product of their circumstances. Their circumstances are something white people caused. Just as black people are a product of being slaves, having no rights, being considered less than equals and treated like animals. When they final gained equality, they were in bad neighbourhoods, unable to find jobs, and resorted to crime. I don't care if you are black, white, yellow, or red, if you are born in the ghetto, and all you know is crime, and to be poor, that's how you will grow up and continue to live. Black people aren't criminals because they are black, they are criminals because of their circumstances. You round up all the white people, take away all their money, and drop them in bad neighbourhoods, and they will turn out just the same. Profiling natives or black people isn't the problem. Breaking they cycle is the problem. How do we help people, stop being a product of their circumstances?
I know I've touched on racism in one of my previous blogs titled "Hug a Racist", but recent events in the world are bringing on the urge to restate my position, and point out the obvious, which people seem to either be blind to, or are unwilling to accept.
Police profile people. It's their job. It's what they are trained to do, and it enables them to be effective, and efficient at their job. But recent events have not only called those practices into question, but are causing people to ask for a ban on them all together.
Now, before we go any further, I'd like to test your common sense, or your sense of reason. Now, let me give you a statistic. People are three times more likely to die driving a Chevrolet Camero than they are a Chevrolet Malibu. Now, you might assume that the Camero, is a less safe car. It must not hold up as well in a crash, but that's not the case at all. This statistic is a product of it's conditions. The Camero has more power, and is owned by a much younger demographic. So what you have is a very fast and powerful car, driven by inexperienced drivers, therefore it's more likely to be involved in a crash, and a high speed one at that. Now do you condemn the Camero for being the cause of more deaths than other cars, or do you realize that the safety of the car isn't to blame, as the statistic is just a product of a different demographic of drivers.
Now how about a scenario, there is a car, that has just had it's window broken, and some change stolen from it. There are only three people in the neighbourhood that could have done it. One is a 40 year old man, that is wearing a clean business suit, was walking by the car on his way home from his office job. The second suspect is an 78 year old women, who just came out of the nearby grocery store. The last suspect is a 30 year old man, that looks to be wearing the same clothes for the last week, and appears to be high or drunk. Who is the most likely suspect? Your job right now, is to profile. Common sense. Granny didn't smash out a car window, and most people don't smash windows for change on the way home from their 9-5. Unfortunately, political correctness is suggesting that all three suspects be treated equally, even though, we know who did it. We are forced to throw all previous experience out the window, as well as common sense, and statistics. Who wins in that scenario? Who wins by wasting an hour questioning granny about a crime she didn't commit?
Now, I'm sure you know where I'm going with this, and maybe you don't like it, but please read on, and hopefully I can lead you to the big picture. For years police have been told, by governments, to crack down on crime, in high crime ares, where drug trafficking, firearm possession, murders, rapes, thefts etc are the heaviest. Makes sense to me. These are the rough neighbourhoods, the "ghettos". So the police targeted these areas, which in the states, are predominately populated by black people. Now black people in the states only make up about 12% of the population, and yet make up 35% of people that are incarcerated. Now that stat offends people. They claim it's due to profiling, and that more black people are arrested than white people due to racism. In reality, the highest crime areas, are more densely populated by black people. So when a cop goes out on duty for the day, he can go to a middle class, suburban neighbourhood, which will probably be predominately white, where reported crime is very low, or he can head to the part of the city that has far more reports of gang crimes, murders, drug trafficking and the likes. Now if the crime riddled neighbourhood is predominantly black, does that mean he is profiling, and/or a racist? Or is he just using common sense?
I have a friend that lives in northern Alberta. In his area, there are many Indian reserves. I've talked to him many times about this, and he explained to me the experiences he has had dealing with natives. He says they fit the stereo type. They are quite often drunk, or high. They are dirty and usually poor. He crosses the street when he sees them, to avoid being hassled for change, or cigarettes. Now, I guess he is profiling them when he chooses to cross the street. Maybe he should wait to see if the person does hassle him before passing judgement, or maybe he should respond to his previous experiences and cross the street. What's the right thing to do?
I'm not going to say I know where to draw the line. I know questioning a 78 year old women about smashing the window out of a car seems like a waste of time, and assuming the crack head did it, will probably save a lot of time. But what if a middle class neighbourhood has been complaining of recent break ins, and as a police officer, I see a young black male, dressed in dark clothing walking around that neighbourhood at 1 am. Should I question him? Is that profiling? Will it help prevent more crime? Will it cause outrage in the black community that another black male has been profiled for no reason, other than he is black? What if statistically he is 5 times more likely to be the culprit than a white male? Is the cop a racist if he does stop a black male, but not a white male, or is he using statistics to help him solve a crime?
Now the flip side of the coin is how profiling isn't fair to innocent people. That's a given. Why should a black male be stopped, and searched, when he has done nothing wrong, when a white male is left alone? I'd call bullshit on that too, and after so many years of oppression, it must seem like things are never going to be fair for the people that are being profiled, but this doesn't change the fact that profiling is a very important tool. In Alberta, young men pay more for insurance that young women, regardless of their driving record. That's profiling. Good young male drivers are getting screwed, and bad young female drivers are getting it easy, but clearly you can understand why insurance companies do this? Statistics. Men crash more. So it's clear cut, legal, profiling, based on numbers. We have to deal with it. After writing this last example, I have to apologize for comparing car insurance prices with police brutality, racism, and years of oppression.
Now, on to the big picture. I don't have an answer for the problem. I think profiling is a tool that police have to use to be effective at their job, and I also think that many people have suffered unjustly at the hands of profiling. I don't have the answer for the problem, but I do know what the problem is, which seems to be something everyone is over looking.
Are natives under achieving, drunken, deadbeat criminals, or are people that were torn from their homes, stripped of their identities, murdered in the thousands, abused, introduced to alcohol, and left with nothing, under achieving, drunken, deadbeat criminals? If the roles were reversed, do you think white people would be in any better condition than the indians are in now? Natives are a product of their circumstances. Their circumstances are something white people caused. Just as black people are a product of being slaves, having no rights, being considered less than equals and treated like animals. When they final gained equality, they were in bad neighbourhoods, unable to find jobs, and resorted to crime. I don't care if you are black, white, yellow, or red, if you are born in the ghetto, and all you know is crime, and to be poor, that's how you will grow up and continue to live. Black people aren't criminals because they are black, they are criminals because of their circumstances. You round up all the white people, take away all their money, and drop them in bad neighbourhoods, and they will turn out just the same. Profiling natives or black people isn't the problem. Breaking they cycle is the problem. How do we help people, stop being a product of their circumstances?
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
Trump: The best thing to happen to politics in decades?
Love him or hate him, Donald Trump is having a massive impact on politics. You might agree with his ideas, and support his boldness, or maybe you're intelligent, and see a completely unqualified, uneducated, narrow minded, ignorant fucktard. Either way, he has forever changed who a politician can be, and that is of huge importance.
Previously, presidential candidates played the game a very different way than the Donald is playing. Candidates spent all their time and energy saying as little as they possibly could. Negative publicity was viewed as far worse, than good publicity is good. You were better off saying nothing, than saying something that might offend. Both the Democrats and the Republican did everything they could to stay in grey areas. No one wanted to be too left wing, or too right wing. Abortion, gay rights, gun control, freedom of speech, freedom of privacy etc, were all tip toed around. No politician was ever willing to give a black and white answer. If you were to say for example, that you were in total support of gay marriage, you might make all the gay people happy, but that doesn't mean they are going to vote for you, however, all the bible thumping, hill billies, that hate gays, will definitely not vote for you, so you've lost votes, but not necessarily gained any. It's better to stay neutral, and not offend anyone. Unfortunately, this means that it's impossible to know what any politicians views are, because they aren't willing to risk disclosing them. In the end, you have a Republican, and a Democrat, that seem to have almost identical opinions, so who do you vote for?
Then came the Donald. He is more than willing to speak his mind, no matter how outrageous. He has offended pretty much everyone, including women, and all minorities, which is a pretty large demographic. So knowing what we know about politics, he would have no chance at getting any votes, and yet he captures the Republican nomination to be the next president of the USA? In some ways, Trump is like Ralph Nader. Nader was willing to speak his mind, and was further left wing than the Democratic nominee. As a independent, Nader was able to draw a lot of votes away from the Democrats because he was willing to be more bold, take a stand. Maybe that was foreshadowing. Maybe people want something to vote for, instead of something to vote against. Donald Trump is showing us that offending people isn't the worst thing you can do as a politician, and that speaking your mind, no matter how against the grain your thoughts might be, can earn you respect, even if people don't agree with you. Trump has said that Mexicans are rapists, thieves and murderers, and that a member of the supreme court is not capable of doing his job, specifically because he is mexican, and yet Trumps approval rating amongst Hispanics is still at about 11%. Yes that low, but still, after saying that, 11% will still vote for him, and you know that 98% of racists will vote for Trump because of those statements. So maybe Trump has changed the way the game is played? Maybe there is more to gain, and less to lose, by making a statement. Maybe instead of staying neutral, politicians need to take a stand on their beliefs and let people be the judge.
HA! Just kidding. The only reason Trump is getting support is the fact that Republican voters are uneducated, narrow minded, ignorant fucktards. No intelligent person is capable of seeing Trump as anything but laughable. USA! USA!
Previously, presidential candidates played the game a very different way than the Donald is playing. Candidates spent all their time and energy saying as little as they possibly could. Negative publicity was viewed as far worse, than good publicity is good. You were better off saying nothing, than saying something that might offend. Both the Democrats and the Republican did everything they could to stay in grey areas. No one wanted to be too left wing, or too right wing. Abortion, gay rights, gun control, freedom of speech, freedom of privacy etc, were all tip toed around. No politician was ever willing to give a black and white answer. If you were to say for example, that you were in total support of gay marriage, you might make all the gay people happy, but that doesn't mean they are going to vote for you, however, all the bible thumping, hill billies, that hate gays, will definitely not vote for you, so you've lost votes, but not necessarily gained any. It's better to stay neutral, and not offend anyone. Unfortunately, this means that it's impossible to know what any politicians views are, because they aren't willing to risk disclosing them. In the end, you have a Republican, and a Democrat, that seem to have almost identical opinions, so who do you vote for?
Then came the Donald. He is more than willing to speak his mind, no matter how outrageous. He has offended pretty much everyone, including women, and all minorities, which is a pretty large demographic. So knowing what we know about politics, he would have no chance at getting any votes, and yet he captures the Republican nomination to be the next president of the USA? In some ways, Trump is like Ralph Nader. Nader was willing to speak his mind, and was further left wing than the Democratic nominee. As a independent, Nader was able to draw a lot of votes away from the Democrats because he was willing to be more bold, take a stand. Maybe that was foreshadowing. Maybe people want something to vote for, instead of something to vote against. Donald Trump is showing us that offending people isn't the worst thing you can do as a politician, and that speaking your mind, no matter how against the grain your thoughts might be, can earn you respect, even if people don't agree with you. Trump has said that Mexicans are rapists, thieves and murderers, and that a member of the supreme court is not capable of doing his job, specifically because he is mexican, and yet Trumps approval rating amongst Hispanics is still at about 11%. Yes that low, but still, after saying that, 11% will still vote for him, and you know that 98% of racists will vote for Trump because of those statements. So maybe Trump has changed the way the game is played? Maybe there is more to gain, and less to lose, by making a statement. Maybe instead of staying neutral, politicians need to take a stand on their beliefs and let people be the judge.
HA! Just kidding. The only reason Trump is getting support is the fact that Republican voters are uneducated, narrow minded, ignorant fucktards. No intelligent person is capable of seeing Trump as anything but laughable. USA! USA!
Friday, January 22, 2016
Envy, the most useless emotion.
Why do we become jealous or envious, of other people, or their material items? Envy is a very strong emotion. People have different ways of expressing envy. Some might be happy to see other people do well, but for the most part, it creates hostility.
I recently bought a piece of property. It is a beautiful piece of property. The pictures look like they could be from a high end resort. It's a park like setting, complete with a pool, hot tub, beautifully built house, and a second guest house. I'm very proud and exited. I think it's going to be a spectacular place to live. I can't help but want to tell everyone I know, and show them pictures, and explain how awesome it is. I'm not sure why I feel compelled to tell everyone of my good fortune. It seems like a strange trait that we humans have. The thing is, I feel I shouldn't. I feel I need to be modest, or even humble. The problem is, what's the difference between telling people of your good fortune, and bragging?
I feel a lot of people spend their lives, trying to impress everyone around them. To me, that seems like a waste. Why someone else's envy is relevant in your decision making process is lost on me, but the big shiny SUV, with chrome 24" rims, Rolex watch, or Prada purse isn't for you. It's for everyone around you to see. People want everyone around them to be envious. If Prada, Oakley, or Mercedes Benz stopped labelling their products, their sales would plummet. Why? Because no one will spend $200 on a pair of sunglasses if they can't brag to their piers that they spend $200 on them.
And lets face it. Most of use don't like people that brag. Personally, I can't stand it. It shows how phony and superficial someone is. I think people that need to spend every dollar they earn trying to impress people are missing out on what is important in life. How does making someone envious make you happy? No one likes having money rubbed in their face. I can't respect anyone who's goal in life is to convince the general public that they are better then them.
That being said, I did not purchase the property I did, based on how much envy I could generate with it, and yet I run the risk of being the asshole that brags about it.
I've learnt from various people growing up, that you should always pretend you don't have very much money. It seems like a strange concept, but I've done my best to embrace it. I came to the greatest understanding of this concept during the purchase of my new property. During the purchase process, I had to deal with many different people. I had home inspections, septic inspections, dealt with real estate agents, notaries, tenants, and insurance brokers. Some of the people had no issues with me, but I noticed some under toned resentment from others.
I'll use the insurance broker as an example. I originally only talked to her over the phone, and she was very helpfully and eager to assist me. She was familiar with the property, as it was already insured through her company. However, I eventually went into her office to sign some paper work. That's when she realized that I was much younger than she had expected. Even though she didn't know how much I paid for the property, she knew it was very nice, and likely, very expensive. At that point I assume she realized, that someone, clearly much younger than herself, had accumulated much more wealth than she had at her age. My dealings with her from that point on changed. She was short with me, slow to respond to emails, or faxes, and at times even rude. Maybe something else made her act that way, but I assume it was envy, or jealously.
I noticed different responses from people I dealt with during the purchase of the property. When a hard working individual would show up to do an inspection, they looked at me, and the property, and I guess maybe felt cheated, that they didn't have what I do, at my age. It kind of made me feel like a pompous ass. Like some entitled piece of shit punk kid. The thing is, that wasn't my intent when dealing with people. It was hard to be modest when the people were there, looking at the property.
Showing signs of wealth also has another negative side effect. Don't expect people the give you any breaks on anything. When you can clearly afford expensive things, people will not hesitate to sell you the most expensive of what ever they have to offer, and not give you any sort of discount. The gentleman that did the septic inspection on the property had no problems explaining all the extra things he thought I should splurge on for the property. Things that cost thousands of dollars, that he wouldn't have recommended, had I been buying a cheaper piece of property.
Some people brag, in an attempt to make others envious, and others do it unintentionally.
You'll never earn respect making people envious. A little humility goes a long way.
Sunday, January 10, 2016
Are we aloud to complain?
It's been a while since my last blog, and I guess my blogging in general has been slowing down. I thought that maybe I had run out of things to rant about, but that's not it. It's because I've come to a realization. First world problems aren't problems at all. The things I see going on around my home town, and that I see on the news throughout north America, don't matter.
I've started playing a fun new game with myself. It's a fantastic game. It makes you feel better about yourself, your situation, your social status, or any of your problems really. It's quite simple, and I invite you to play too! All you have to do is, the next time you are upset, or angry, or depressed, or stressed, stop. Take a quick breath, and then, in your head, call yourself out, through the eyes of a person that is much worse off than you. It sounds a bit confusing, so I'll give some examples:
You get your electric bill, and it's quite high. You realize, that the electric company has increased their rates, yet again. You realize you're going to have to be a bit tighter with your money, until payday, to make sure you can afford the bill. Stop! Now, say it in your head, through the eyes of a rickshaw driver, who lives in India, and has his three children and wife living with him in a 400 square foot shack, that doesn't have running water. "Oh, so your dishwasher, big screen TV, washing machine, oven, and air conditioner are costing you a bit too much money, so you might need to cut out the $6 Starbucks coffee tomorrow morning, or god forbid, due without those new designer shoes you've been eyeing up. Life is tough for you. I sure wouldn't want to be in your shoes."
Or how about, your car breaks down on your way to work. Now you're going to be late, you need to pay for a tow truck, who knows how much your repair bill will be, and now you'll need to share your spouses car until yours can be repaired. Stop! Through the eyes of a Darfur refugee, who lived in a small village, but was forced to leave everything he has ever known, to flee rebel forces, that will kill him, his wife, and his children, if he doesn't flee fast enough. "Oh, so one of your families many vehicles has inconvenienced you. Now a very small portion of you annual salary will need to be used to pay someone else to fix it for you. Not to mention the stern talking to you will receive once you get to your place of employment, where you have, a roof, heat, no people with AK-47s trying to kill you, water that runs through a cooler, because lets face it, room temperature water is almost undrinkable. Then you will need to leave for work 10 maybe even 15 minutes early for the next few days, because you will have to be in the same car as your spouse for the commute to AND from your job. I know I spend 80% of every day, just trying to put food in my families bellies, but dealing with a car breaking down would be horrible. Sucks to be you right now."
See how it works now? Next time you have a problem, try looking at it through someone else's eyes. Someone that has REAL problems. Maybe a single mom, that is working 2 jobs, and is 2 month behind on her rent because she had to miss work to go for chemotherapy. I know that's grim, and dark, and not something to joke about, but that's the point. Some people have real problems. All your drama in life is pretty laughable through the right eyes. If you can have a different perspective, it's easy to make light of a shitty situation. This little game I play is a way to gain instant perspective, and maybe laugh at your situation, instead of cry. Feel free to call others out on their bullshit too. Next time you get a sob story, just say "first world problem". Shuts them up real quick.
I've quoted it before, and I'll quote it again. "And somewhere around the world, someone would love to have my first world problems." Matthew Good.
I've started playing a fun new game with myself. It's a fantastic game. It makes you feel better about yourself, your situation, your social status, or any of your problems really. It's quite simple, and I invite you to play too! All you have to do is, the next time you are upset, or angry, or depressed, or stressed, stop. Take a quick breath, and then, in your head, call yourself out, through the eyes of a person that is much worse off than you. It sounds a bit confusing, so I'll give some examples:
You get your electric bill, and it's quite high. You realize, that the electric company has increased their rates, yet again. You realize you're going to have to be a bit tighter with your money, until payday, to make sure you can afford the bill. Stop! Now, say it in your head, through the eyes of a rickshaw driver, who lives in India, and has his three children and wife living with him in a 400 square foot shack, that doesn't have running water. "Oh, so your dishwasher, big screen TV, washing machine, oven, and air conditioner are costing you a bit too much money, so you might need to cut out the $6 Starbucks coffee tomorrow morning, or god forbid, due without those new designer shoes you've been eyeing up. Life is tough for you. I sure wouldn't want to be in your shoes."
Or how about, your car breaks down on your way to work. Now you're going to be late, you need to pay for a tow truck, who knows how much your repair bill will be, and now you'll need to share your spouses car until yours can be repaired. Stop! Through the eyes of a Darfur refugee, who lived in a small village, but was forced to leave everything he has ever known, to flee rebel forces, that will kill him, his wife, and his children, if he doesn't flee fast enough. "Oh, so one of your families many vehicles has inconvenienced you. Now a very small portion of you annual salary will need to be used to pay someone else to fix it for you. Not to mention the stern talking to you will receive once you get to your place of employment, where you have, a roof, heat, no people with AK-47s trying to kill you, water that runs through a cooler, because lets face it, room temperature water is almost undrinkable. Then you will need to leave for work 10 maybe even 15 minutes early for the next few days, because you will have to be in the same car as your spouse for the commute to AND from your job. I know I spend 80% of every day, just trying to put food in my families bellies, but dealing with a car breaking down would be horrible. Sucks to be you right now."
See how it works now? Next time you have a problem, try looking at it through someone else's eyes. Someone that has REAL problems. Maybe a single mom, that is working 2 jobs, and is 2 month behind on her rent because she had to miss work to go for chemotherapy. I know that's grim, and dark, and not something to joke about, but that's the point. Some people have real problems. All your drama in life is pretty laughable through the right eyes. If you can have a different perspective, it's easy to make light of a shitty situation. This little game I play is a way to gain instant perspective, and maybe laugh at your situation, instead of cry. Feel free to call others out on their bullshit too. Next time you get a sob story, just say "first world problem". Shuts them up real quick.
I've quoted it before, and I'll quote it again. "And somewhere around the world, someone would love to have my first world problems." Matthew Good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)