People today lead extraordinarily busy lives, or so they think. When people explain to me how busy they are, I come to one of two conclusions, the person is either one of the most successful people in the world, or they have very poor time management skills. As you can imagine, the later is most common.
The problem is, people are never bored anymore. Does is sound strange that I think it's a problem that people aren't bored? People aren't busy, they are just occupying their time with shit that doesn't need to be done. Today, there is no down time. While you wait for food at a restaurant, you are face down, staring at your phone. When you finish up with dinner, you stare at a TV. Before you go to bed, you stare at a tablet. When is the last time you were bored? It doesn't happen. There is always a Facebook post to like, a tweet to read, a show to catch up on, but none of it matters does it? This shit eats up your time, so that it seems like you are always doing something, when you are really doing nothing. If you went to work, and focused 100% on your job, didn't surf the web for your next holiday, check how many likes your shit got on Facebook, or look up what dumb thing Trump said yesterday, how long would it take you to finish the work it normally takes you 8 hours to do?
I understand that in this day and age there is a reliance on technology, and some people are required to be on social media for their jobs, but I think it's over done. I recently got my real estate license, and met another realtor that was constantly on Facebook. He said if it takes longer than 15 minutes to respond to someone on Facebook, don't bother responding because they have moved on. He had a huge following on Facebook, with thousands of people keeping up to date on his daily activities. He posted videos, how-tos, market stats etc etc. But I found it strange that if he didn't respond to someone within 15 minutes, it was a lost cause. How could that be? He is trying to sell houses. Did they buy a different house in that 15 minutes? Later I met another realtor that had no Facebook account. He said "Facebook doesn't sell houses". That can be taken a lot of different ways, and all of them are correct. The realtor with no social media presence was more successful than the one that lived on Facebook. I have a company manage my Facebook page and promote my listings and my name. I have never got a deal from Facebook. Who would do business on Facebook? Time to buy a house, better check Facebook? Time to order some office supplies, better get on Facebook? Need to hire a new employee, lets look on Facebook? Yes, people will check your identity on Facebook to see if you are a decent person, but if you don't have an account, that probably won't stop them from hiring you, and if it does, don't work there. The point I'm making, is I know two realtors, one spends his day responding to Facebook questions and is "super busy" doing that, then he needs to generate leads and sell houses, the other is generating leads and selling houses. The Facebook realtor is busier, the non-facebook realtor is successful because he does what matters, not what fills his time.
Back to being bored being good. Go back 100 years. What did people do when the work day was done? No TV, no internet, no Facebook, twitter, pinterest. You had time to think. You could sit down and think of the best way to apply yourself, think of a business plan, think of a solution to a problem, think of where you want to go with your life, think of how to educate yourself. When you were done thinking, you could do those things because you had time.
Try for one day, after work, shutting everything off. TV, internet, phone. What are you going to do? Whatever it is, it's better than any of those things. Maybe you go for a walk, or go to the gym, maybe you read a non-fiction book, maybe you meet with a friend, maybe you plan your next day, month or year, maybe you pack a healthy lunch for the next day instead of eating fast food again, maybe you start a meet up group. Whatever you do, it will be more productive, stimulating, educational and healthier than staring at that screen again. Now compound this over days, months and years. The time you spent "busy" in front of a screen can be leveraged into you being a better you. You ever meet someone that is truly busy. They run a business, run marathons, volunteer their time, speak at seminars, manage a number of properties, and still have time to be awesome parents. They maximize their time. Check their phone, I bet you think they have a thousand apps on it so they can manage everything and be connected. Wrong, they don't even have Facebook, or instagram on there. Look at people like Jesse Itzler. He runs ultra marathons, has started multiple companies that he has sold to the likes of Warren Buffet and Coca Cola, has written multiple best selling books, is a keynote speaker, managed musicians such as run DMC, and seems to have spare time. How? He doesn't usually carry a phone! He focusses on the task at hand and sets time blocks for when he will use social media.
People don't better themselves because they are too busy. If you took even just one hour a day of your time back from social media, pinterest, and TV, and spent it learning, or formulating a plan for the next day, or the rest of your life, or working out, or eating healthy, or a combination of all of those things, you would be 365 hours worth of better person in a year. And at what sacrifice? Not seeing some post your cousin made showing the trip they went on? Not knowing how game of throwns ends? At then end of the year none of that will matter, but being smarter, healthier and being able to manage your time better will have an incredible impact on your life.
Put social media on your desktop computer only, and make it necessary to enter the password every time you log in. If it's important, you will go to your computer and check in, it it's not, you won't. Having this shit at your fingertips in your pocket is why you are busy. You're busy getting nothing done. If you have Facebook on your phone, you aren't busy.
Tuesday, May 21, 2019
Thursday, October 4, 2018
Wanting VS Choosing
The words want and choose are too frequently interchanged with one another, and I feel that too many people fail to see the major significance in the difference between the two. Only recently have I discovered that a train of though containing the word want, and the word choose, requires very different approaches and thought processes. Want is just a thought, a day dream, an idea, a suggestion, but to choose something is a completely different animal. It’s a commitment, it’s written is stone, it’s both terrifying and empowering, it’s life altering.
When you learn to distinguish between the two, you gain control. Control over your finances, your health, your knowledge, your job, your happiness, your life. At first it seems like a scary concept, but it starts with taking ownership. You need to understand, that where you are in life, your social status, financial status, your health, are all results of your actions in the past, and that where you go in the future, is dependant on the choices you make for yourself from this point forward. People love to blame others, point fingers, and claim they got dealt a bad hand. Everyone thinks they are a victim, except people that choose to not be victims, choose to save more money, choose to go to the gym, choose to not settle at their job, choose a better life, choose to be a better person. Yes, life can deal you a shitty hand. You can throw your cards down and pout, stomp your feet, cry, complain how unfair it is, or you can accept it, play the cards you’re dealt to the best of your ability, and hope for a better hand next time. It’s a choice.
How much weight do you lose, if you want to go to the gym? How much money do you save, if you want to put 10% of your income in a savings account? How often do you get to drive a Ferrari, if you want to own one? How much money do you lose, if you want to blow $10,000 in Vegas? Read this paragraph again, but change all the “want”s to “choose”. There are lots of things we want and lots of things we don’t want, luckily, most of the time, we can choose those things to happen, or not to happen.
Understanding the power of choosing and the uselessness of wanting is pivotal. Choosing has consequences, some good, some bad. It’s up to you whether you want to live with those consequences or not. It’s 100% commitment.
I’ve always wanted a Ferrari. No, it’s not stupid to want one, it’s stupid to buy one. I’m going to leave that as a want, and who knows, maybe one day, it’ll be a choice, but for now, I see it as a huge financial setback, with very little reward. I want one, but choose to not have one. There are more negative than positive consequences by choosing to own an expensive, luxury car.
A few months ago, I started doing the “Miracle Morning”. It’s based on a book, that suggests that getting up really early in the morning, getting a bit of exercise, reading a bit, writing a bit, meditating, and eating a healthy breakfast, will make your days more productive, make you healthier, reduce stress, and help you be a better you. The book was true. I agreed with almost everything it stated. The author had evidence and facts to back it up. While I was doing the miracle morning, I was better in every way the book said I would be. I was on my toes, instead of my heels. I stopped doing the miracle morning. I hate getting up early. I want to, but every morning, I choose not to. Somehow, I’ve decided that sleeping in, outweighs all of the positives of getting up early. I really, really want to be a morning person, and be more productive, but wanting isn’t enough. As a matter of fact, wanting isn’t anything.
You can want something, but without a choice, it won’t happen. Choice takes desire, and will power. Choice means you wont accept less. Choice means overcoming your fears, your habits, your addictions, your laziness. Choice means taking action, because the status quo isn’t good enough. The status quo isn’t getting you where you need to go, or enabling you to be, who you want to be.
The wonderful thing is, choice happens in a split second. It’s so simple. To choose something means it’s going to happen. You aren’t suggesting that it might happen, one day, hopefully. And once you tell yourself, it’s going to happen, your brain will change. Say it like you mean it, and believe in it, and your brain will look for ways to make it happen. It’s no longer something the brain can dismiss. Your brain needs to come to terms with this, and make the decisions necessary to make it happen. It might involve actions you don’t want to take, but, if you’ve made the choice to accomplish something, you will take those actions. It’s so simple, but don’t confuse simple with easy. Making one simple, split second choice, might result in a few small actions, or might be more difficult than you ever thought imaginable, a lifetime commitment of a completely different life style, involving millions of subliminal choices, and setbacks. But you’ll have a course, you know where you’re headed, and even when there is a setback, your brain will recalculate the new fastest route to your goal, the same way your GPS does, when you miss a turn. The destination didn’t change, just the route to get there. Your brain still knows, you are going to get there, you made the choice to go there.
If you decide, that in ten years, you want to quadruple your net worth, nothing will happen. If you choose it, your brain will guide you in every decision from that point forward. You’ll question all of your financial decisions. Maybe you’ll realize that in order to accomplish your goal, you’ll need to work longer hours, cut costs, find a better job, invest your money better. These wont be choices you will have to make, they will just be the necessary steps to get where you know your going. Just be careful to understand that you can choose anything, if you are willing to live with what is needed to accomplish it. If you want to quadruple your net worth in 2 weeks, you might need to rob some banks. That’s up to you to decide, but you need to understand, that it’s an option to choose, albeit a poor one.
The reason I’m writing this is because I see so many people want things, and they don’t understand that it’s simply a choice to have them. If you choose to spend two hours a day, in front of a TV, choose to spend your income on a new SUV, choose a cheese burger and soft drink, you’ve chosen an uneducated life, with bad health, and no money. If you choose an hour of reading educational books, and an hour of exercise, choose a cheap used car, choose to invest the money you save by being frugal, and choose a salad, you’ve chosen to be smarter, to be better paid, to be financially free sooner, to be healthier and more energetic. What life do you choose? When you compound those daily choices over years, it’s easy to see how one person becomes overweight, unhealthy, depressed, broke, and bitter at the world because of who they are, even though they are the only person responsible for who they are. They aren’t a victim of anyone, or anything. The wealthy, upbeat, healthy person didn’t get dealt a better hand, or get fed by a silver spoon. The have nots will complain that the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. It’s completely accurate. Think again of the compounding effects of your life choices. Someone that chooses to watch a lot of TV, and eat unhealthy food, will gain weight, and in turn have less energy. Less energy will make them less ambitious. Less ambitious leads to reduced productivity, meaning less promotions at work, less money, more depression, being more likely to stay home due to lack of money. The person that has very little, will lose it all. On the contrary, the healthy eater, that gets exercise, and educates himself, will have more energy, be more ambitious and productive, make more money, be happier and more outgoing, which will cause him to meet more people like him, and more life opportunities will arise. The people that have, will get more, not due to some bullshit, diabolical scheme, but because they attract success, results, and opportunities. The healthy, positive, ambitious person is looking, and ready to seize the next great thing that comes into their life, the unhealthy keep their head low, and hope everything passes them by, failing to see opportunities. As the healthy, positive, ambitious person sees an opportunity, the lazy, underachiever braces for impact. The lazy hate the successful. They think it’s a system in which they can’t win, so they sit on the couch and eat cheesies, and complain. They chose their life, and you get to choose yours.
It’s easy to see why there are so many unhealthy, unambitious, underachievers. It’s hard to see the forest through the trees. Eating right, getting up early, going to the gym, wont make you rich tomorrow, or make you more energetic or happier in a week. It might make you more unhappy in the short term, and maybe it’s hard to link cause and effect, when it’s stretched over years. People want to take a pill, and be a better person by tomorrow, not give up junk food and TV for the rest of their lives. People might even think that it’s not in them to be successful, so why try? But we could all be more successful than we are, if we stopped doing the things we know we shouldn’t do, and did the things we know it takes to be better. When you get home from work, or wake up Saturday morning, or go pick out food to eat, ask yourself, “What would better me do? What would the person I want to be do?” Would better you binge watch reality TV, with a box of doughnuts, or would they read an education book, or even watch an education documentary with some carrot sticks? Would they sleep until 10:00am, or get up at 8:00am and get some exercise? It’s those daily choices that set people apart. Do you think the people at the top of the food chain were born smart and are naturally fit, or do you think they choose books over TV, vegetables over potato chips, wealth over poverty.
It all comes down to what you want and what you choose. What are you willing to give up, to get what you want? If you are willing to give up those things, then make the choice.
Monday, April 9, 2018
Housing crisis
As everyone in BC knows, there's a lack of housing in the lower mainland.. The cause of it, and the solution to it, are crystal clear to me, and yet it's left everyone, including the government, scratching their heads.
The cause: People want to live in the lower mainland. People from all over the place. Canadians know it's the nicest weather in Canada. People from other countries know it's beautiful, a good investment, and foreigner friendly. Refugees know it's a place that will take them. We invite people here. Through hosting things like to olympics, to our great tourism, people from around the globe know all about our great land, and want a piece of it.
Now what happens when people from all over the globe move to a desired area? The population increases in that area! What if lots of people move somewhere, but very few new dwellings are created? Holy shit, I just solved the cause of the problem! More people, but not more housing, equals not enough housing!
That was pretty easy to figure out, but people still seemed confused. We know the problem now, and the cause, but the thing most people are struggling with is the solution. I am so sick of the fucking politicians trying to get in the publics good books, by coming up with bullshit solutions, that they know will not work, and are just cash grabs. They implement foreign buyers tax, and speculation tax, vacancy tax, air B&B tax etc, as if taxing something will make it cheaper. Wake up people! It's a tax grab. Property taxes go through the roof, who gets the extra money? Government. Property transfer tax goes through the roof, who gets the money? Government. Now to curb pricing, they want foreign tax, speculation tax and all the other taxes, who gets the money? Yup, same government. The government is raking in literally billions of dollars on property, that they weren't three years ago, and they've done it by saying it's to help create "affordable housing". Now the general public thinks the government are heroes, because they are collecting billions extra from the public? When's that last time the government raised taxes, and people were happy? And how's that afforable housing coming?
Not sure if anyone is familiar with the concept of supply and demand. The government seems oblivious to it. There has been tens of thousand of people moving to the lower mainland, and yet minimal new housing. This has created a shortage, as discussed above. Just like anything else, when there is a shortage, prices go up. Things like diamonds are closely regulated on how many can be released to the public at a time. If they release too many, prices of diamonds drop. It's not that diamonds are worth what they fetch, it's just that there is limited quantity, which drives up the price, in the same way that a condo is worth million dollars in Vancouver. It doesn't cost a million to build it, but there are more buyers than there are sellers, so it will go to the person that is willing to pay the most. The same goes for rental units. The people that can't afford $3000 a month for a 2 bedroom condo, are pushed aside for people that can. It's not the landlords fault, or the people selling the houses. It's supply and demand.
Now, despite what the government will tell you, taxing property will not solve this problem. How can it? There are two solutions. One: less people, IE reduce demand. Not the easiest option when people want to live in BC. That leaves the only viable option, two: make more housing, IE more supply. Stop standing in the developers way. Stop making them jump through all the bullshit hoops and red tape, with the zoning applications, and bylaws, and green space set backs, and permits. I'm not saying let it be a free for all, but I personally know two developers, that walked away from multi-unit residential builds. After years of countless dollars on legal fees and applications, and bullshit, just to have it not be approved for a nonsense reason. I know of one developer that took the city to court, and successfully sued the city for $800,000 for intensionally delaying his applications to build an apartment building. How do you make more housing, when you reject and deny new housing? Don't get me wrong, I like green space, and hate over populated places, but lower mainlanders seem to be fine with it. I'd rather see less people but that's not going to happen, so you're going to need more housing, not more taxes.
Also, for all the people whining about affordable housing, you know you don't need to live in the lower mainland right? Don't go into a Ferrari dealership and cry that the cars cost too much. Yes, we'd all like a $300,000 car, doesn't mean we get one.
Friday, July 21, 2017
You're plan A sucks.
People fear that which they do not understand. People also fear change. I'm not sure why, but it causes people to become complacent and sedated. It also causes people to be paranoid, stubborn, racist, sexist, and narrow minded. People feel safe knowing everything will remain the same. They take comfort in the fact that there will be minimal variables, so that they can predict the outcome. The thing is, the more you learn about things, the easier it is to understand why they are the way they are, and how they work. As the mystery is peeled away, things don't seem so scary after all. The added benefit of learning about something you don't understand, is that it will truly help you predict the outcome, or how that thing will effect you, and allow you to adjust your strategy accordingly, instead of becoming a victim of it.
I recently began investing in real estate for passive income. I knew very little about it, aside from the basics. A good friend of mine had already began investing heavily, and his strategies seemed very high risk and scary to me. Every time I talked to him, I understood a little more, and the fear slowly became confidence. Not wanting to take all my advice from one source, I read books, listened to podcasts, joined forums and meet up groups. I heard from people that had succeeded and people that had failed. Again, my knowledge of the topic grew rapidly. With something as complex as investing in real estate, there are infinite variables and infinite avenues to approach it. I learnt about flips, BRRRs, small multi family, large multi family, financing, hard money lenders. I learnt what the difference between forced appreciation and natural appreciation was. I learnt about wholesalers, notes and leverage. I learnt what ROI, REI, REIT, cap rates, and cap exp all mean and why they are important. Every time I talked to my friend, the things he said seemed less scary. It started making sense. Perfect sense. I'd talk to family and friends that aren't involved in real estate investing, and all of them approached it with the fear I once did, because they didn't understand. It wasn't a light bulb that just turned on in my head, and then I understood. I was hours upon hours of reading, and listening to people that did understand. If you completely disassembled a cars engine and laid it out on a work bench, and asked someone to put it together, you'd get two responses. People would be stressed and in fear because that had no idea what they were looking at, or how to do it, and then you'd have people that would put it together, because they understand it. If you spent a week to teach the person that didn't understand engines, what the parts where, and what they did, they wouldn't be scared any more, because they would understand it.
The funny thing I have found with people that know very little about real estate, is they still offer their opinion, and yet would not offer their opinion on assembling and engine if they didn't understand it. Many people have explained to me how I'm going to fail at real estate, none of whom know much, if anything about real estate, except maybe a deal they botched in their past because they didn't do their due diligence, or understand what they were doing. People that know more than me about real estate, say I'm doing well, and should proceed as I've planned, and I will succeed. I might stumble and make mistakes, but it will just be part of learning as I sharpen my skills. People that know less than me about real estate, say I'm being risky, and I could lose everything. But what's really to lose?
Most people have the same plan for their lives. Go to school, find a decent career, work your way up the ladder at your job, get raises, buy a bigger house and a newer car, then after working for 40 years of your life, hopefully you've saved enough to live out your remaining years. That's it? Your plan is to bust your ass your entire life so the company you work for can get rich? That sounds like it should be plan B, and even then, that's a shitty plan B. That is also VERY high risk. You become specialized at your one job. Yes you improve your skills, but what if your skills are no longer required? You spend 20 years repairing crashed cars, only to no longer be needed because cars become automated, and no longer crash? Now what? Back to the bottom of a different ladder? Or what about the very real possibility of no longer being able to work? Maybe an accident, or illness prevent you from working at your current job, or maybe you won't be able to work at all? What then? What if at 40 years old, you lose your vision due to diabetes, or lose a hand in an accident. You aren't prepared for that are you? That doesn't fit into your plan to work until you're 65. But even if that doesn't happen, do you really want to grind your body down to nothing for 40+ years for someone else? I breathe paint fumes, and dust, and kneel on concrete, and wear myself sore sanding cars. What's left when I'm 65? Or maybe you work a high stress job, just to run into nothing but stress related health problems at 65. That's your plan A? That's not just high risk, it's fucking ridiculous.
Then there's banking on your planned retirement income. Maybe you have a pension plan at work. You work 30 years for a company, and then they will take care of you when you retire right? I just heard today that Sears, a major company that has been around for decades, is going bankrupt, and will no longer be paying out their pensions. How many people were banking on that money? How many people at 65 years old, were expecting to be set for the rest of their life because they gave 30 years of their life to a company, only to have the company fold, or be bought by another company that won't honour the pension plan? I guess that's "bad luck", but it's not, it's just something that happens. Or maybe you are relying on a government pension? Not sure if you are aware, but governments tend to over extend themselves, and then lie about it. Sooner or later, someone is going to call in their debt, or at least cut off their spending. It's not sustainable. In 2015, the Canadian government paid out over $40 billion dollars for the Canadian Pension Plan. As baby boomers retire in masses, are you still banking on the government being able to pay out? Or maybe you've got your money in some safe stock investments. In 2007, the companies that controlled these "safe" stocks decided to try to line their pockets. They took everyones money, without them knowing, out of the safe stocks and invested in hedge funds. The idea was they would take everyones money and pay them 3%, and invest it at 10% and take the 7% for themselves. You know how that ended. Everyone lost everything. People had to go back to work at 70 years old because their life saving had been wiped out, no fault of their own. You still banking on your money being where it should be in 20 years? I trust me with my money. I know me. I'm not out to screw myself over, or try to make a dollar off my back. I will control ever aspect of my investments. I'll choose, who, what, when, where and why. Trusting someone else to come through for you with money is high risk.
I plan to acquire assets. I've already begun. I have cash flow coming in every month from various real estate investments. When I go on holidays, they keep paying. When I break my leg and can't work for 6 month, they keep paying. When I get cancer and can work for 3 years while I battle for my life, they keep paying. When I'm sick of getting up every morning to go breathe dust and fumes, and work my fingers, knees and back until my joints are swollen, and I'm sore, so someone else can make money off my back, they keep paying. That's called being prepared. That's having a real plan A. And if I fail at real estate? I guess I'll have to go back to doing the same shit everyone else does. Work like a slave until I can't anymore. I'm really no further behind am I? But the thing is, I won't fail. The only people that fail are the ones that give up, and don't let their mistakes become lessons. I might lose large sums of money. People spend large sums of money on education all the time, and that's considered a smart investment. If I lose large sums of money, that's my tuition, I've learnt, and I'll do better moving forward.
The only thing that really grinds my gears, is that the Chicken Littles that believe what I'm doing is high risk, will never understand that they are wrong. When I succeed, all they will say is "You got lucky, you could have lost everything." Everything that happens in the world happens for a reason. Luck isn't a real variable. People that don't understand how something works try to comprehend things by applying a supernatural force like luck, or a miracle, or an act of god, but if you understand how things work, you realize that there is an explanation for all things that happen. If you educate yourself, you can predict outcomes, alter outcomes, or at least be able to prepare outcomes. Just like any craft or trade, people that educate themselves, do their due diligence, and commit to something usually succeed. I has nothing to do with luck. Investing is no different. Whether I succeed or fail will be determined by skill, research, education and commitment.
I recently began investing in real estate for passive income. I knew very little about it, aside from the basics. A good friend of mine had already began investing heavily, and his strategies seemed very high risk and scary to me. Every time I talked to him, I understood a little more, and the fear slowly became confidence. Not wanting to take all my advice from one source, I read books, listened to podcasts, joined forums and meet up groups. I heard from people that had succeeded and people that had failed. Again, my knowledge of the topic grew rapidly. With something as complex as investing in real estate, there are infinite variables and infinite avenues to approach it. I learnt about flips, BRRRs, small multi family, large multi family, financing, hard money lenders. I learnt what the difference between forced appreciation and natural appreciation was. I learnt about wholesalers, notes and leverage. I learnt what ROI, REI, REIT, cap rates, and cap exp all mean and why they are important. Every time I talked to my friend, the things he said seemed less scary. It started making sense. Perfect sense. I'd talk to family and friends that aren't involved in real estate investing, and all of them approached it with the fear I once did, because they didn't understand. It wasn't a light bulb that just turned on in my head, and then I understood. I was hours upon hours of reading, and listening to people that did understand. If you completely disassembled a cars engine and laid it out on a work bench, and asked someone to put it together, you'd get two responses. People would be stressed and in fear because that had no idea what they were looking at, or how to do it, and then you'd have people that would put it together, because they understand it. If you spent a week to teach the person that didn't understand engines, what the parts where, and what they did, they wouldn't be scared any more, because they would understand it.
The funny thing I have found with people that know very little about real estate, is they still offer their opinion, and yet would not offer their opinion on assembling and engine if they didn't understand it. Many people have explained to me how I'm going to fail at real estate, none of whom know much, if anything about real estate, except maybe a deal they botched in their past because they didn't do their due diligence, or understand what they were doing. People that know more than me about real estate, say I'm doing well, and should proceed as I've planned, and I will succeed. I might stumble and make mistakes, but it will just be part of learning as I sharpen my skills. People that know less than me about real estate, say I'm being risky, and I could lose everything. But what's really to lose?
Most people have the same plan for their lives. Go to school, find a decent career, work your way up the ladder at your job, get raises, buy a bigger house and a newer car, then after working for 40 years of your life, hopefully you've saved enough to live out your remaining years. That's it? Your plan is to bust your ass your entire life so the company you work for can get rich? That sounds like it should be plan B, and even then, that's a shitty plan B. That is also VERY high risk. You become specialized at your one job. Yes you improve your skills, but what if your skills are no longer required? You spend 20 years repairing crashed cars, only to no longer be needed because cars become automated, and no longer crash? Now what? Back to the bottom of a different ladder? Or what about the very real possibility of no longer being able to work? Maybe an accident, or illness prevent you from working at your current job, or maybe you won't be able to work at all? What then? What if at 40 years old, you lose your vision due to diabetes, or lose a hand in an accident. You aren't prepared for that are you? That doesn't fit into your plan to work until you're 65. But even if that doesn't happen, do you really want to grind your body down to nothing for 40+ years for someone else? I breathe paint fumes, and dust, and kneel on concrete, and wear myself sore sanding cars. What's left when I'm 65? Or maybe you work a high stress job, just to run into nothing but stress related health problems at 65. That's your plan A? That's not just high risk, it's fucking ridiculous.
Then there's banking on your planned retirement income. Maybe you have a pension plan at work. You work 30 years for a company, and then they will take care of you when you retire right? I just heard today that Sears, a major company that has been around for decades, is going bankrupt, and will no longer be paying out their pensions. How many people were banking on that money? How many people at 65 years old, were expecting to be set for the rest of their life because they gave 30 years of their life to a company, only to have the company fold, or be bought by another company that won't honour the pension plan? I guess that's "bad luck", but it's not, it's just something that happens. Or maybe you are relying on a government pension? Not sure if you are aware, but governments tend to over extend themselves, and then lie about it. Sooner or later, someone is going to call in their debt, or at least cut off their spending. It's not sustainable. In 2015, the Canadian government paid out over $40 billion dollars for the Canadian Pension Plan. As baby boomers retire in masses, are you still banking on the government being able to pay out? Or maybe you've got your money in some safe stock investments. In 2007, the companies that controlled these "safe" stocks decided to try to line their pockets. They took everyones money, without them knowing, out of the safe stocks and invested in hedge funds. The idea was they would take everyones money and pay them 3%, and invest it at 10% and take the 7% for themselves. You know how that ended. Everyone lost everything. People had to go back to work at 70 years old because their life saving had been wiped out, no fault of their own. You still banking on your money being where it should be in 20 years? I trust me with my money. I know me. I'm not out to screw myself over, or try to make a dollar off my back. I will control ever aspect of my investments. I'll choose, who, what, when, where and why. Trusting someone else to come through for you with money is high risk.
I plan to acquire assets. I've already begun. I have cash flow coming in every month from various real estate investments. When I go on holidays, they keep paying. When I break my leg and can't work for 6 month, they keep paying. When I get cancer and can work for 3 years while I battle for my life, they keep paying. When I'm sick of getting up every morning to go breathe dust and fumes, and work my fingers, knees and back until my joints are swollen, and I'm sore, so someone else can make money off my back, they keep paying. That's called being prepared. That's having a real plan A. And if I fail at real estate? I guess I'll have to go back to doing the same shit everyone else does. Work like a slave until I can't anymore. I'm really no further behind am I? But the thing is, I won't fail. The only people that fail are the ones that give up, and don't let their mistakes become lessons. I might lose large sums of money. People spend large sums of money on education all the time, and that's considered a smart investment. If I lose large sums of money, that's my tuition, I've learnt, and I'll do better moving forward.
The only thing that really grinds my gears, is that the Chicken Littles that believe what I'm doing is high risk, will never understand that they are wrong. When I succeed, all they will say is "You got lucky, you could have lost everything." Everything that happens in the world happens for a reason. Luck isn't a real variable. People that don't understand how something works try to comprehend things by applying a supernatural force like luck, or a miracle, or an act of god, but if you understand how things work, you realize that there is an explanation for all things that happen. If you educate yourself, you can predict outcomes, alter outcomes, or at least be able to prepare outcomes. Just like any craft or trade, people that educate themselves, do their due diligence, and commit to something usually succeed. I has nothing to do with luck. Investing is no different. Whether I succeed or fail will be determined by skill, research, education and commitment.
Sunday, June 25, 2017
Ambition>Intelligence
So I think all people will fit into four categories. 1: Stupid and unambitious. We aren't going to talk about them, because there's not much they can, or will do. 2: Smart and unambitious people. 3: Stupid but ambitious people. 4: Smart ambitious people. We aren't going to talk much about them either. We know who they are. I think the bulk of the population falls into category 2 and 3.
Let's talk first about group 2. I'll put myself in that category. I've never been an over achiever, content to do what I need to get by. Never doing my homework, or showing up to class, but still got Bs. I have a niece that fits in this category as well. She is very smart, and has now tested as "gifted". The problem is nothing seems to motivate her to apply herself. Why give 100% when you can give 50% and keep up with everyone else?
Now lets talk about category 3 people. I'll give you the pinnacle example of this group. Donald Trump. He's not smart. He makes decisions without a thought, or consulting an expert, or doing a moment of research. And yet he is massively successful. Yes he's failed, and lost his wealth many times, which proves my point because he always got his wealth back. How did he become president? Smarts or ambition? Have you ever worked for someone that you knew you were smarter than? Did you know you could run the company better than they could? Why were YOU working for THEM? If you could run the company better, why weren't you running the company? The food chain will always start with category 1 at the bottom, followed by category 2,3 and 4 at the top. Why are the smart category 3s working for the stupid category 2s? Ambition. Maybe the stupid people are to dumb to calculate risk, so they just do it. Just start a company, or apparently run for president. I know many people that are far more successful in life than I am, and it's not because they're smarter, it's because they tried. I know a real estate agent that isn't the brightest. She owns 10 rental houses. Her numbers aren't great on them. She could be making better margins if she bought in better areas, or knew her rental markets better. The fact is, each house still makes money. Maybe they only make 7% instead of 10%, but it doesn't matter, she has 10. 10 at 7% is infinitely better than none at 10%. She just did it, and it works. She has 4 kids, a full time job, and manages 10 rental houses. She's getting it done. Are you?
A lot of people mock self help books and seminars. I know I did. I wondered who would give money to people that want to tell you how great you are and pat you on the back. The thing is, these seminars are made for the category 2 people. Maybe you just need the confidence to be ambitious. Maybe you need to see that there is no reason a category 2 should be working for a category 3. If a stupid person can make it work, why can't you? I don't know why a smart person can see a successful company or person and think that's out of their reach. Most companies and people started at zero. All you need is ambition. If that's all you have, you might fail, or you might get by, but if you're smart, you will succeed, and if you fail, try again. Many hugely successful people fail, but they believe, and they prove themselves right. Steve Jobs go fired from Apple, only to later become the CEO.
So what's stopping you? If you tell yourself all the excuses why you can't, you'll always be right. Stop saying could have, should have, would have and be the person that did. Think of all the people you know that have pulled the trigger on something big. Most of them, even the idiots, succeed. The real idiot is the smart person, working for an idiot.
Let's talk first about group 2. I'll put myself in that category. I've never been an over achiever, content to do what I need to get by. Never doing my homework, or showing up to class, but still got Bs. I have a niece that fits in this category as well. She is very smart, and has now tested as "gifted". The problem is nothing seems to motivate her to apply herself. Why give 100% when you can give 50% and keep up with everyone else?
Now lets talk about category 3 people. I'll give you the pinnacle example of this group. Donald Trump. He's not smart. He makes decisions without a thought, or consulting an expert, or doing a moment of research. And yet he is massively successful. Yes he's failed, and lost his wealth many times, which proves my point because he always got his wealth back. How did he become president? Smarts or ambition? Have you ever worked for someone that you knew you were smarter than? Did you know you could run the company better than they could? Why were YOU working for THEM? If you could run the company better, why weren't you running the company? The food chain will always start with category 1 at the bottom, followed by category 2,3 and 4 at the top. Why are the smart category 3s working for the stupid category 2s? Ambition. Maybe the stupid people are to dumb to calculate risk, so they just do it. Just start a company, or apparently run for president. I know many people that are far more successful in life than I am, and it's not because they're smarter, it's because they tried. I know a real estate agent that isn't the brightest. She owns 10 rental houses. Her numbers aren't great on them. She could be making better margins if she bought in better areas, or knew her rental markets better. The fact is, each house still makes money. Maybe they only make 7% instead of 10%, but it doesn't matter, she has 10. 10 at 7% is infinitely better than none at 10%. She just did it, and it works. She has 4 kids, a full time job, and manages 10 rental houses. She's getting it done. Are you?
A lot of people mock self help books and seminars. I know I did. I wondered who would give money to people that want to tell you how great you are and pat you on the back. The thing is, these seminars are made for the category 2 people. Maybe you just need the confidence to be ambitious. Maybe you need to see that there is no reason a category 2 should be working for a category 3. If a stupid person can make it work, why can't you? I don't know why a smart person can see a successful company or person and think that's out of their reach. Most companies and people started at zero. All you need is ambition. If that's all you have, you might fail, or you might get by, but if you're smart, you will succeed, and if you fail, try again. Many hugely successful people fail, but they believe, and they prove themselves right. Steve Jobs go fired from Apple, only to later become the CEO.
So what's stopping you? If you tell yourself all the excuses why you can't, you'll always be right. Stop saying could have, should have, would have and be the person that did. Think of all the people you know that have pulled the trigger on something big. Most of them, even the idiots, succeed. The real idiot is the smart person, working for an idiot.
Thursday, November 10, 2016
Do the Donald
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.
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.
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.
Monday, June 1, 2015
Thanks Jebus
You know what really grinds my gears? People that thank Jesus for other peoples hard work, or even their own hard work.
There is one individual in particular that continues to frustrate me every time the spotlight is on him. His name is Trey Canard. He is a professional motocross racer. He has had a fairly successful career, and according to him, when it comes to motocross "this is what the lord made me for". From my understanding, Trey chose #41 as his career racing number, because of the movie Ben-hur. In the movie, slave number 41, has to fight an up hill battle, but meets Jesus, who helps him win a race and save his family. Trey's life isn't too far off the plot in a lot of ways. He has had very, very unfortunate, and unlucky incidents happen during his career. He broke his femur twice, and was involved in the worst racing incident I have ever seen, when another rider landed off a huge jump, directly onto Trey. Trey had spinal damage and had to have three vertebra in his back fused together. Every time Trey has met major adversity, he has fought back with astonishing determination to return better and stronger than before. He believes Jesus wants him to continue racing, so he does.
I have no issue with him worshiping god. Many riders do. What irritates me, is that he puts god above everyone else, even people that have directly influenced his life. When interviewed after winning a race, he always likes to "thank the lord above first and foremost."
First off, there is an incredible group of people that help Trey win races. Without them, he doesn't win, end of story. He has personal trainers that keep him in shape, help him recover from injures, and help him eat right. He has a personal mechanic that modifies, sets up and maintains Treys bikes to be the best they can be. Also, he has an entire team behind him, providing him EVERYTHING needed to partake in racing. They supply a semi trailer and mobile home to every event. His riding gear, bikes, food, and accommodation are all waiting for him at each event. Just so you understand, they don't just get the stuff there, they provide it all to him free of charge, including his race bike, which can be worth upwards of $200,000. Also, Trey gets paid somewhere in the vicinity of $2,000,000 a year to ride his motorcycle. So out of all the sponsors, trainers, mechanics, family, and other support he receives, Trey thinks that god is most deserving of gratitude? Trey seems to be under the impression that all this good stuff happens to him is because it's gods will, when in actual fact, it's the hard work of many individuals acting under free will, including Trey himself. People like to think that the lord controls luck, or chance. Having a motorcycle provided to you is not luck, or chance, it's a teams decision. I guess the luck or chance could come on the race track itself, but in Trey's case, luck has not played in his favour often. He has been on the receiving end of bad luck more times than most riders. Even still, the luck or chance people see on the race track is nothing more than one or more persons carless mistakes. Running out of gas on the last lap of a race isn't bad luck, someone just forgot to top up the tank. Being landed on by another rider, someones bad judgement of speed. Winning the race, hard work, and great skills.
Second, god doesn't care. I am an expert on Jesus Christ. I know every fact about him, which is none. No facts have ever been verified about the existence of a god of any kind, so that makes me as knowledgeable about god as anyone else. And what I know, is god has better shit to do than follow Trey Canards life, or any one persons. So many professional athletes thank god for their success, or pray to god so that they can win the next game or race. Well if both teams are praying to the same god to win, how will he ever decide?! All you can pray for is for is god to keep you safe, and one thing I've learned about professional sports, no one is safe, especially Trey Canard. I saw the leader and head rider of "Team Faith Racing" do a prayer service one morning before the first round of a race series. At the beginning of the very first race, he was involved in a first turn pile up. He was the only person injured, with a broken neck. He did recover though. Thanks Jesus? But really, there are people dying all over the world from disease, starvation, natural disaster, and wars. Atrocities happen around the globe every minute of every day. What does gods to do list look like?
1: Prevent major earthquake in Japan
2: Cure Ebola
3: Help Trey Canard with a race
4: Try to remember why I created earthquakes and Ebola
Third, Trey's riding style is sometimes erratic, aggressive and dangerous. This is possibly why he has sustained as many injuries as he has. But more importantly, it has caused him to cause crashes and injure other riders. In the last supercross season, he landed on another rider on two separate occasions. One of the riders suffered a broken collar bone. I believe that Trey rides the way he does because he thinks god will watch over him and keep him safe, or that god wants him to win, even if it means riding dangerously. If you want to believe for yourself, that's fine, but if your belief puts others at risk, that's unacceptable.
Blind faith is exactly that. You're failing to realize the grand scale of things around you. You're giving all your praise to something that hasn't effected you in a single way, when there are people that are much more deserving of your gratitude. You're putting your trust in something that has no bearing in any situation. To be so blinded by faith is to ignore reality, which is disrespectful to the people in your life, which are the real contributing factors. Lets face it, if Treys house caught fire, I bet he wouldn't waste a second praying for the good lord to put it out, he'd phone 911 and let real people do something tangible. The sad thing is, he'd then thank the lord for the fire department, instead of thanking the firemen.
There is one individual in particular that continues to frustrate me every time the spotlight is on him. His name is Trey Canard. He is a professional motocross racer. He has had a fairly successful career, and according to him, when it comes to motocross "this is what the lord made me for". From my understanding, Trey chose #41 as his career racing number, because of the movie Ben-hur. In the movie, slave number 41, has to fight an up hill battle, but meets Jesus, who helps him win a race and save his family. Trey's life isn't too far off the plot in a lot of ways. He has had very, very unfortunate, and unlucky incidents happen during his career. He broke his femur twice, and was involved in the worst racing incident I have ever seen, when another rider landed off a huge jump, directly onto Trey. Trey had spinal damage and had to have three vertebra in his back fused together. Every time Trey has met major adversity, he has fought back with astonishing determination to return better and stronger than before. He believes Jesus wants him to continue racing, so he does.
I have no issue with him worshiping god. Many riders do. What irritates me, is that he puts god above everyone else, even people that have directly influenced his life. When interviewed after winning a race, he always likes to "thank the lord above first and foremost."
First off, there is an incredible group of people that help Trey win races. Without them, he doesn't win, end of story. He has personal trainers that keep him in shape, help him recover from injures, and help him eat right. He has a personal mechanic that modifies, sets up and maintains Treys bikes to be the best they can be. Also, he has an entire team behind him, providing him EVERYTHING needed to partake in racing. They supply a semi trailer and mobile home to every event. His riding gear, bikes, food, and accommodation are all waiting for him at each event. Just so you understand, they don't just get the stuff there, they provide it all to him free of charge, including his race bike, which can be worth upwards of $200,000. Also, Trey gets paid somewhere in the vicinity of $2,000,000 a year to ride his motorcycle. So out of all the sponsors, trainers, mechanics, family, and other support he receives, Trey thinks that god is most deserving of gratitude? Trey seems to be under the impression that all this good stuff happens to him is because it's gods will, when in actual fact, it's the hard work of many individuals acting under free will, including Trey himself. People like to think that the lord controls luck, or chance. Having a motorcycle provided to you is not luck, or chance, it's a teams decision. I guess the luck or chance could come on the race track itself, but in Trey's case, luck has not played in his favour often. He has been on the receiving end of bad luck more times than most riders. Even still, the luck or chance people see on the race track is nothing more than one or more persons carless mistakes. Running out of gas on the last lap of a race isn't bad luck, someone just forgot to top up the tank. Being landed on by another rider, someones bad judgement of speed. Winning the race, hard work, and great skills.
Second, god doesn't care. I am an expert on Jesus Christ. I know every fact about him, which is none. No facts have ever been verified about the existence of a god of any kind, so that makes me as knowledgeable about god as anyone else. And what I know, is god has better shit to do than follow Trey Canards life, or any one persons. So many professional athletes thank god for their success, or pray to god so that they can win the next game or race. Well if both teams are praying to the same god to win, how will he ever decide?! All you can pray for is for is god to keep you safe, and one thing I've learned about professional sports, no one is safe, especially Trey Canard. I saw the leader and head rider of "Team Faith Racing" do a prayer service one morning before the first round of a race series. At the beginning of the very first race, he was involved in a first turn pile up. He was the only person injured, with a broken neck. He did recover though. Thanks Jesus? But really, there are people dying all over the world from disease, starvation, natural disaster, and wars. Atrocities happen around the globe every minute of every day. What does gods to do list look like?
1: Prevent major earthquake in Japan
2: Cure Ebola
3: Help Trey Canard with a race
4: Try to remember why I created earthquakes and Ebola
Third, Trey's riding style is sometimes erratic, aggressive and dangerous. This is possibly why he has sustained as many injuries as he has. But more importantly, it has caused him to cause crashes and injure other riders. In the last supercross season, he landed on another rider on two separate occasions. One of the riders suffered a broken collar bone. I believe that Trey rides the way he does because he thinks god will watch over him and keep him safe, or that god wants him to win, even if it means riding dangerously. If you want to believe for yourself, that's fine, but if your belief puts others at risk, that's unacceptable.
Blind faith is exactly that. You're failing to realize the grand scale of things around you. You're giving all your praise to something that hasn't effected you in a single way, when there are people that are much more deserving of your gratitude. You're putting your trust in something that has no bearing in any situation. To be so blinded by faith is to ignore reality, which is disrespectful to the people in your life, which are the real contributing factors. Lets face it, if Treys house caught fire, I bet he wouldn't waste a second praying for the good lord to put it out, he'd phone 911 and let real people do something tangible. The sad thing is, he'd then thank the lord for the fire department, instead of thanking the firemen.
Sunday, April 5, 2015
We are a strange bunch
So I've noticed a trend, that I was going to say was interesting, but it's not, it's just stupid, and very counterintuitive. It's the concept of making sure that the things you like, or at least claim to like, aren't liked by other people, or normal people. Apparently liking common music, common clothes, common cars, common restaurants, etc, is not cool, or "trendy" This doesn't seem very logical to me. You'd think that the most popular places to eat or shop, would be popular because they are the best, and the most downloaded music and best selling shoes would be the most sought after due to the majority of people approving of those things. Unfortunately, the "hipster" mind set is now preventing people from enjoying the things they love.
You can't like mainstream music anymore. The less known an artist is, the trendier they seem to be. You are looked at like an idiot that just "follows the masses" if you admit to liking a band like Nickelback or Eminem, even though literally millions upon millions of people have decided that these artists music is enjoyable.
You can't eat at a chain restaurant anymore. You need to seek out some undiscovered hole in the wall, and report how awesome the atmosphere and ambiance is on Facebook. Sorry, but chain restaurants became chains because of supply and demand. People liked their food and service, they made profit, and opened more restaurants.
I guess I shouldn't mention Facebook. I'm sure that's not acceptable anymore either. Seeing as how everyone is on Facebook, no one will admit to using it, and will mock anyone that does.
Then there's what you are allowed to wear. You can't try to look good. A nice pair of pants, and a collard shirt is out of the question. You need to try your best to look like you don't care, because caring what you look like isn't cool. People will spend hours to look like they put in no effort, rather than a few minutes to look normal.
Even hygiene and self grooming has become a total joke. People will spend time to make it look like they spent no time doing their hair, or will always trim their facial hair to make it look like they haven't shaved in a week. I guess it's cool to not care about shaving, because being clean shaven means you're "working for the man" or "conforming to societies expectations". Does it seem logical to spend the same amount of time to make it look like you haven't shaved as it would take to just shave?
This all reminds me of people that get tattoos of Chinese symbols because it's "different", except it's not different. It's the same as everyone else that got tattoos of Chinese symbols.
If it's trendy to act different, so everyone is trying to not be mainstream, wouldn't that make everyone not cool because they are still all doing the same thing? All they have really done is denied themselves the things they truly like because they weren't "acceptable" to like.
I had a conversation once with a friend of mine, and one of his friends. The topic of rap music came up. My friends friend was talking about how much he liked rap. I said I wasn't much of a rap fan, but I liked Eminem. Both my friend, and his friend went off about how horrible Eminem was and how he had no talent, and he wasn't a real rapper. (Even though I knew my friend liked Eminem, but would never admit it in front of a "true rap fan") It's strange because as one of the best selling rappers of all time, Eminem is clearly enjoyed by far more people than most rappers. So how do you gauge whether someone or something is likeable? The less liked they are, the more likeable they are? I'm going to go with the grain on this one and suggest that maybe people need to accept that things are popular for a reason, and that liking the same thing as someone else, doesn't mean you can't think for yourself. Skinny jean look fucking ridiculous, unknown hippy bands are unknown because they suck, and Sammy J Peppers has awesome steak bites.
Also, liking things that are not mainstream, makes them mainstream, which means you can't like them anymore, thus destroying them. Once it was nice to be able to wear a Fox Racing hat or shirt, then every douche bag started wearing them. Then it was nice to see an Alpinestar hat or FMF hat, but even those became popular, even though the people wearing them had no idea what the companies were! Please, take your John Deere hats off too. You don't live on a farm, you don't own any farm equipment, you don't even own a John Deere ride on lawnmower, but you'll wear the hat like it's the most original piece of clothing ever invented.
It's time to make a decision for yourself, even if it's the same one as the masses.
You can't like mainstream music anymore. The less known an artist is, the trendier they seem to be. You are looked at like an idiot that just "follows the masses" if you admit to liking a band like Nickelback or Eminem, even though literally millions upon millions of people have decided that these artists music is enjoyable.
You can't eat at a chain restaurant anymore. You need to seek out some undiscovered hole in the wall, and report how awesome the atmosphere and ambiance is on Facebook. Sorry, but chain restaurants became chains because of supply and demand. People liked their food and service, they made profit, and opened more restaurants.
I guess I shouldn't mention Facebook. I'm sure that's not acceptable anymore either. Seeing as how everyone is on Facebook, no one will admit to using it, and will mock anyone that does.
Then there's what you are allowed to wear. You can't try to look good. A nice pair of pants, and a collard shirt is out of the question. You need to try your best to look like you don't care, because caring what you look like isn't cool. People will spend hours to look like they put in no effort, rather than a few minutes to look normal.
Even hygiene and self grooming has become a total joke. People will spend time to make it look like they spent no time doing their hair, or will always trim their facial hair to make it look like they haven't shaved in a week. I guess it's cool to not care about shaving, because being clean shaven means you're "working for the man" or "conforming to societies expectations". Does it seem logical to spend the same amount of time to make it look like you haven't shaved as it would take to just shave?
This all reminds me of people that get tattoos of Chinese symbols because it's "different", except it's not different. It's the same as everyone else that got tattoos of Chinese symbols.
If it's trendy to act different, so everyone is trying to not be mainstream, wouldn't that make everyone not cool because they are still all doing the same thing? All they have really done is denied themselves the things they truly like because they weren't "acceptable" to like.
I had a conversation once with a friend of mine, and one of his friends. The topic of rap music came up. My friends friend was talking about how much he liked rap. I said I wasn't much of a rap fan, but I liked Eminem. Both my friend, and his friend went off about how horrible Eminem was and how he had no talent, and he wasn't a real rapper. (Even though I knew my friend liked Eminem, but would never admit it in front of a "true rap fan") It's strange because as one of the best selling rappers of all time, Eminem is clearly enjoyed by far more people than most rappers. So how do you gauge whether someone or something is likeable? The less liked they are, the more likeable they are? I'm going to go with the grain on this one and suggest that maybe people need to accept that things are popular for a reason, and that liking the same thing as someone else, doesn't mean you can't think for yourself. Skinny jean look fucking ridiculous, unknown hippy bands are unknown because they suck, and Sammy J Peppers has awesome steak bites.
Also, liking things that are not mainstream, makes them mainstream, which means you can't like them anymore, thus destroying them. Once it was nice to be able to wear a Fox Racing hat or shirt, then every douche bag started wearing them. Then it was nice to see an Alpinestar hat or FMF hat, but even those became popular, even though the people wearing them had no idea what the companies were! Please, take your John Deere hats off too. You don't live on a farm, you don't own any farm equipment, you don't even own a John Deere ride on lawnmower, but you'll wear the hat like it's the most original piece of clothing ever invented.
It's time to make a decision for yourself, even if it's the same one as the masses.
Thursday, January 22, 2015
The real cost of money is time.
As I'm realizing more and more, old sayings are far closer to the truth than they are given credit for. I guess "time is money" isn't a saying so much as a phrase, but is completely accurate non the less.
I like to view myself as a financially savvy person. Or at least a person that understands money. Not that I'm fantastic at making it, or even keeping it in my bank account, but I have a good concept of how it is used properly, and poorly, everyday, by everybody. A lot of my friends talk to me when they need advice on a big purchase, or need help getting out of debt. The problem is, it seems like none of them seem to take my advice. Is my advice not sound, or is it just that they don't like what they hear? I contemplated writing a self help type book. You know, the ones that go on and on about how awesome you are, and how you deserve anything you want? Except no one would buy mine, because it would be the last thing anyone wanted to hear. People don't want to hear that the best thing you can ever do is stay out of debt, and invest money wisely. People want to hear that they should buy a new car, because they deserve it.
Well I guess I'm going to try one more time here to paint a picture for everyone. It's going to get confusing, so put on your thinking caps and try to keep up.
Time is money. Literally. Keep that in mind.
Everyone makes a wage. It might be a lot or a little. You have your "gross" and your "net" or take home amount. But lets look at it differently. Lets say you have your "gross" your "net" and your "take home". Gross is before tax, simple. Net is after tax. ok. But take home is completely different. Lets say your take home is what you actually take home, at the end of each month, after all your bills are paid. Your "net" income might be lets say $2000. From that you pay $800 for rent, $70 for a phone, $130 for car insurance, $200 for fuel, $100 for cable/internet, $150 gas and electricity and $200 for food. So your actual take home is about $350 a month. This money if for luxuries. Things you want, but don't have to have. Eating out, coffee, going to the bar, new pair of jeans. And lets face it, at the end of the month, the $350 is spent. It doesn't make it into a savings account. When we have money in our pockets, we think that it's because we've done good and we deserve a treat, so we take ourselves out for dinner, or buy a new pair of sunglasses. Now lets take a different person, that has the net income of $3000 a month. That's a third more, so they have way more than $350 in the bank at the end of the month right? Well rent is $1150 because they want to live somewhere a bit nicer, their phone bill is $100 because they wanted the new iPhone. They have a new vehicle, because they can afford it $500. Insurance on a new vehicle is far more money $200. Fuel $200. Faster internet and more HD channels of course $150. Gas/electric $150. $200 for food. So for someone that should have an extra $1000 after all the bills are paid, they actually have the same $350 at the end of the month.
Ever notice that even after you get a raise at work, you never seem to have any more money in the bank at the end of the month?
The question is, what's the game plan? What are you working towards? Ever think about retirement? How much do you need to retire? You work from the time you are 18 until you are 65, and in that time you're supposed to have enough money in the bank, that you can afford to live for the next 30 years without working. Well lets say, you never buy property, and rent your entire life. How much does it cost per month to live when you retire? Well, the same as now I'm guessing. Rent, cable, food, insurance, electricity etc. Those bills won't stop will they? So lets say it's $1650, if you live the cheaper life style. Well you need $600,000 to retire then. We came to the conclusion, that your take home each month, when you are in the 18-65 year range is $350, after all your bills. So even if you put every penny of that $350 in the bank each month, which you don't, it'll take you 140 years to save enough money to retire. That's not good. Unfortunately, I'm noticing that almost all people today, are buying new cars, new phones, expensive sunglasses, going out for dinner, and going on nice holidays. They can't even afford these things, they just finance them. Not only are they not putting $350 in the bank, they are going further in debt every year. They are going backwards, even though, if they were going forwards as fast as they could, it still wouldn't be even close to what they need to be doing.
Now here's what I mean when I say time is money. If you buy a new car, at $50,000. How long does it take to pay that off? I don't mean how long do you make payments on it, I mean, how far back does it set you back finically. If you managed to put $850 a month into a savings account, but instead spend $500 on a new car, and only put it $350 a month, that's 8 years of not putting in the extra $500 a month. If you put the full $850 a month in, after the car is paid off, it'll take you 5 years to get that lost money back in the bank. That's 5 years you are behind. That means retiring at 70 instead of 65.
At the end of the day, the month, the year, we take home very little money. We have so much money we need to pay out every month, just to live. To put money in the bank seems like a near impossible task, and yet every month we spend money on things we don't need. Every thing you buy, costs you time. Your time at work. Time from the 18-65 years. When all you have left at the end of the month is a few hundred dollars, and you spend that on a night out, or a trip to the mall, your spending your entire months wages. You don't take home $2000 or $3500 a month. It takes you all month to bring home $350. You work 160 hours for $350! You're only taking home $2 an hour! You want to buy a pair of fucking sunglasses for $180? That's two weeks worth of work! Everything is paid in time. Don't ask how much something is, ask how much longer you'll have to work to buy it. 140 years and you'll be able to retire, what's 5 more for a new car right?
I like to view myself as a financially savvy person. Or at least a person that understands money. Not that I'm fantastic at making it, or even keeping it in my bank account, but I have a good concept of how it is used properly, and poorly, everyday, by everybody. A lot of my friends talk to me when they need advice on a big purchase, or need help getting out of debt. The problem is, it seems like none of them seem to take my advice. Is my advice not sound, or is it just that they don't like what they hear? I contemplated writing a self help type book. You know, the ones that go on and on about how awesome you are, and how you deserve anything you want? Except no one would buy mine, because it would be the last thing anyone wanted to hear. People don't want to hear that the best thing you can ever do is stay out of debt, and invest money wisely. People want to hear that they should buy a new car, because they deserve it.
Well I guess I'm going to try one more time here to paint a picture for everyone. It's going to get confusing, so put on your thinking caps and try to keep up.
Time is money. Literally. Keep that in mind.
Everyone makes a wage. It might be a lot or a little. You have your "gross" and your "net" or take home amount. But lets look at it differently. Lets say you have your "gross" your "net" and your "take home". Gross is before tax, simple. Net is after tax. ok. But take home is completely different. Lets say your take home is what you actually take home, at the end of each month, after all your bills are paid. Your "net" income might be lets say $2000. From that you pay $800 for rent, $70 for a phone, $130 for car insurance, $200 for fuel, $100 for cable/internet, $150 gas and electricity and $200 for food. So your actual take home is about $350 a month. This money if for luxuries. Things you want, but don't have to have. Eating out, coffee, going to the bar, new pair of jeans. And lets face it, at the end of the month, the $350 is spent. It doesn't make it into a savings account. When we have money in our pockets, we think that it's because we've done good and we deserve a treat, so we take ourselves out for dinner, or buy a new pair of sunglasses. Now lets take a different person, that has the net income of $3000 a month. That's a third more, so they have way more than $350 in the bank at the end of the month right? Well rent is $1150 because they want to live somewhere a bit nicer, their phone bill is $100 because they wanted the new iPhone. They have a new vehicle, because they can afford it $500. Insurance on a new vehicle is far more money $200. Fuel $200. Faster internet and more HD channels of course $150. Gas/electric $150. $200 for food. So for someone that should have an extra $1000 after all the bills are paid, they actually have the same $350 at the end of the month.
Ever notice that even after you get a raise at work, you never seem to have any more money in the bank at the end of the month?
The question is, what's the game plan? What are you working towards? Ever think about retirement? How much do you need to retire? You work from the time you are 18 until you are 65, and in that time you're supposed to have enough money in the bank, that you can afford to live for the next 30 years without working. Well lets say, you never buy property, and rent your entire life. How much does it cost per month to live when you retire? Well, the same as now I'm guessing. Rent, cable, food, insurance, electricity etc. Those bills won't stop will they? So lets say it's $1650, if you live the cheaper life style. Well you need $600,000 to retire then. We came to the conclusion, that your take home each month, when you are in the 18-65 year range is $350, after all your bills. So even if you put every penny of that $350 in the bank each month, which you don't, it'll take you 140 years to save enough money to retire. That's not good. Unfortunately, I'm noticing that almost all people today, are buying new cars, new phones, expensive sunglasses, going out for dinner, and going on nice holidays. They can't even afford these things, they just finance them. Not only are they not putting $350 in the bank, they are going further in debt every year. They are going backwards, even though, if they were going forwards as fast as they could, it still wouldn't be even close to what they need to be doing.
Now here's what I mean when I say time is money. If you buy a new car, at $50,000. How long does it take to pay that off? I don't mean how long do you make payments on it, I mean, how far back does it set you back finically. If you managed to put $850 a month into a savings account, but instead spend $500 on a new car, and only put it $350 a month, that's 8 years of not putting in the extra $500 a month. If you put the full $850 a month in, after the car is paid off, it'll take you 5 years to get that lost money back in the bank. That's 5 years you are behind. That means retiring at 70 instead of 65.
At the end of the day, the month, the year, we take home very little money. We have so much money we need to pay out every month, just to live. To put money in the bank seems like a near impossible task, and yet every month we spend money on things we don't need. Every thing you buy, costs you time. Your time at work. Time from the 18-65 years. When all you have left at the end of the month is a few hundred dollars, and you spend that on a night out, or a trip to the mall, your spending your entire months wages. You don't take home $2000 or $3500 a month. It takes you all month to bring home $350. You work 160 hours for $350! You're only taking home $2 an hour! You want to buy a pair of fucking sunglasses for $180? That's two weeks worth of work! Everything is paid in time. Don't ask how much something is, ask how much longer you'll have to work to buy it. 140 years and you'll be able to retire, what's 5 more for a new car right?
Friday, December 5, 2014
No News is Good News.
So I have a fantastic health tip for everyone today. It's free, it's easy, it involves literally no work or effort, and I promise, it will make you a happier, more positive person. Sound too good to be true? Well it's not. Step one: Stop watching the news and reading the news paper. That is all.
The news isn't what it once was. Strange that watching a satyrical comedy made me realize this. I watched Anchorman 2 and came to realization that the news used to be about things you needed to know. Important happenings around the world or in your own neighbourhood. It was things that effected you, things that mattered. But somewhere along the way, the media outlets realized that there are more effective ways to get peoples attention. They found that tapping into stronger emotions gets, and keeps peoples attention more effectively. People don't care about who got elected in a different county, or if the god particle has been discovered in Switzerland. People want drama. So that's what they give us.
The Black Eyed Peas have a great line in their song "Where is the Love"
I think the whole worlds addicted to the drama
Only attracted to the things that will bring you trauma
Are people really addicted to drama? We surely get our fair share of it every day thanks to media. When we get fed drama every day, do we start to need it? Drama gets our stronger emotions going. It gets us angry, it gets us upset, it gets us sad, and it gets us pumped up. When you hear the stories told by the media today, they peak your interest. That's why those things are in the news, to get you roped in. It's not because they are important stories.
Here's the part where I give an example! Todays news according to CBC is as follows: Some guy named Justin Bourque killed a RCMP officer. A 14 year old boy and 12 year old girl assaulted a woman and tried to steal her baby. Some branch of government is going bankrupt, so is planning to charge people more money to look up information. Killer whale J-32 died. 2 carjackings and chases where halted by police. <-This is the same formula the media uses every day to keep you coming back. Take news, add drama, mesmerize millions. It's the same thing every day. Someone got murdered, someone stole something, a politician is corrupt, the worlds getting to warm, there are dangers lurking in your home, and the sky is falling. Don't get me wrong. I believe that all those things happened, and will continue to happen. My problem is, it's the same shit every day. It's not intended to inform you, or protect you. It's designed to scare you, enrage you, provoke you and agitate you. None of these stories matter to you. You didn't get murdered, and if you did, you'd know. You didn't know killer whale J-32. You are shocked an enraged about the corrupt politician, but you will do nothing about it. You're car didn't get carjacked, and again, if it did, you already knew about it. Then they throw some stories into the news to make it feel like you're involved or effected by it, like "dryer lint fires are far more common than we know, are you at risk?" or "Do you have two ears, ten fingers, and 3 or more toes? You have a 4% greater chance of getting cancer!" They make you think something bad might happen to you to invoke fear because lets face it, you're going to have to tune into that to make sure you're going to be ok, but really, are you going to do anything about it? And does it really effect you? Yes there were 15,000 dryer lint fires in the USA last year, but there are 117,500,000 households in the USA, most with dryers, leaving you with a 1 in 8000 chance of having a dryer fire, which probably won't kill you anyhow. The "ebola epidemic" that had every media outlet on high alert, to keep the public safe and informed, was a hoax. 2 people died. It was a great story to get people freaked right out, and keep them glued to their TV for updates, but it was a complete and utter farce. How many people were talking about it? It was the only topic being discussed for days. 10 times more people will die of lightening strikes this year than ebola. While you were stuck to your TV, eating twinkies, watching the "ebola epidemic" you failed to realize, 1 in 150,000,000 people died of ebola, while 1 in 500 died from eating too much shit food and not getting enough exercise.
The news stories are chosen based on what is going to get the most viewers, not what is the most important. The best way to get viewers is to shock, scare, anger and engage them, so that's the media's goal. But what effect does this have on you? Is getting angry, stressed, horrified, and disgusted every day a good thing? I watched a story on the news once, that living with stress can take up to 4 years off your life. Ironic isn't it? Maybe the news media should have a disclaimer at the beginning of all their programs and on the front of the news paper: "Warning: contents known to cause extreme distress, side effects may include, upset stomach, elevated blood pressure, chest pain, and problems sleeping."
Wheel of morality, turn turn turn, tell us the lesson that we should learn! Todays lesson is: Turn it off. It doesn't effect you, and even if it does, there's nothing you can, or will do about it. What you don't know can't hurt you. I used to completely disagree with that statement, and thought it was extremely important to keep up to date on current happenings. I was wrong. As much a world happenings matter, they aren't worth ruining your life over. I stopped watching the news a few years ago and every now and then, I catch a bit of news from a friend or co-worker, and I remember why I stopped watching. I don't want to be angry, so why subject yourself to something designed to do just that.
The next time you sit down in front of your TV, you could watch a comedy, or the news. Ask yourself, do you want to be happy and laugh, or get angry and frustrated?
(If you caught my Animaniacs reference, you're probably on the right track to being happier, and less stressed already)
The news isn't what it once was. Strange that watching a satyrical comedy made me realize this. I watched Anchorman 2 and came to realization that the news used to be about things you needed to know. Important happenings around the world or in your own neighbourhood. It was things that effected you, things that mattered. But somewhere along the way, the media outlets realized that there are more effective ways to get peoples attention. They found that tapping into stronger emotions gets, and keeps peoples attention more effectively. People don't care about who got elected in a different county, or if the god particle has been discovered in Switzerland. People want drama. So that's what they give us.
The Black Eyed Peas have a great line in their song "Where is the Love"
I think the whole worlds addicted to the drama
Only attracted to the things that will bring you trauma
Are people really addicted to drama? We surely get our fair share of it every day thanks to media. When we get fed drama every day, do we start to need it? Drama gets our stronger emotions going. It gets us angry, it gets us upset, it gets us sad, and it gets us pumped up. When you hear the stories told by the media today, they peak your interest. That's why those things are in the news, to get you roped in. It's not because they are important stories.
Here's the part where I give an example! Todays news according to CBC is as follows: Some guy named Justin Bourque killed a RCMP officer. A 14 year old boy and 12 year old girl assaulted a woman and tried to steal her baby. Some branch of government is going bankrupt, so is planning to charge people more money to look up information. Killer whale J-32 died. 2 carjackings and chases where halted by police. <-This is the same formula the media uses every day to keep you coming back. Take news, add drama, mesmerize millions. It's the same thing every day. Someone got murdered, someone stole something, a politician is corrupt, the worlds getting to warm, there are dangers lurking in your home, and the sky is falling. Don't get me wrong. I believe that all those things happened, and will continue to happen. My problem is, it's the same shit every day. It's not intended to inform you, or protect you. It's designed to scare you, enrage you, provoke you and agitate you. None of these stories matter to you. You didn't get murdered, and if you did, you'd know. You didn't know killer whale J-32. You are shocked an enraged about the corrupt politician, but you will do nothing about it. You're car didn't get carjacked, and again, if it did, you already knew about it. Then they throw some stories into the news to make it feel like you're involved or effected by it, like "dryer lint fires are far more common than we know, are you at risk?" or "Do you have two ears, ten fingers, and 3 or more toes? You have a 4% greater chance of getting cancer!" They make you think something bad might happen to you to invoke fear because lets face it, you're going to have to tune into that to make sure you're going to be ok, but really, are you going to do anything about it? And does it really effect you? Yes there were 15,000 dryer lint fires in the USA last year, but there are 117,500,000 households in the USA, most with dryers, leaving you with a 1 in 8000 chance of having a dryer fire, which probably won't kill you anyhow. The "ebola epidemic" that had every media outlet on high alert, to keep the public safe and informed, was a hoax. 2 people died. It was a great story to get people freaked right out, and keep them glued to their TV for updates, but it was a complete and utter farce. How many people were talking about it? It was the only topic being discussed for days. 10 times more people will die of lightening strikes this year than ebola. While you were stuck to your TV, eating twinkies, watching the "ebola epidemic" you failed to realize, 1 in 150,000,000 people died of ebola, while 1 in 500 died from eating too much shit food and not getting enough exercise.
The news stories are chosen based on what is going to get the most viewers, not what is the most important. The best way to get viewers is to shock, scare, anger and engage them, so that's the media's goal. But what effect does this have on you? Is getting angry, stressed, horrified, and disgusted every day a good thing? I watched a story on the news once, that living with stress can take up to 4 years off your life. Ironic isn't it? Maybe the news media should have a disclaimer at the beginning of all their programs and on the front of the news paper: "Warning: contents known to cause extreme distress, side effects may include, upset stomach, elevated blood pressure, chest pain, and problems sleeping."
Wheel of morality, turn turn turn, tell us the lesson that we should learn! Todays lesson is: Turn it off. It doesn't effect you, and even if it does, there's nothing you can, or will do about it. What you don't know can't hurt you. I used to completely disagree with that statement, and thought it was extremely important to keep up to date on current happenings. I was wrong. As much a world happenings matter, they aren't worth ruining your life over. I stopped watching the news a few years ago and every now and then, I catch a bit of news from a friend or co-worker, and I remember why I stopped watching. I don't want to be angry, so why subject yourself to something designed to do just that.
The next time you sit down in front of your TV, you could watch a comedy, or the news. Ask yourself, do you want to be happy and laugh, or get angry and frustrated?
(If you caught my Animaniacs reference, you're probably on the right track to being happier, and less stressed already)
Monday, July 28, 2014
How does this equal rights thing work?
I completely understand the push for equal rights between men and women. It makes sense that a women, that is equally qualified for a job, should be paid the same as a man. A women's opinion should never be taken less seriously than a mans. Women should be provided all the rights and privileges that men have. My question is, when will men get the same rights as women? I can think of many circumstances in which men get the short end of the stick in todays society.
Lets start with jobs. If a man and woman are both doing the same job, and have the same skills, and can both accomplish the job, in the same fashion, in the same time frame, they should be compensated in the same way, without a doubt. The problem is, there are far more jobs that men do better than women. Almost all of the trades require physical strength. There are strong women, capable of accomplishing what most men can do, but the majority of women, are smaller, and have less muscle mass. This isn't discrimination, this is reality, or as I like to call it, fact. The average man is about half a foot taller than the average women and weighs 30+ lbs more. When it comes to lifting, hammering, dragging, pulling, or carrying anything of substantial weight, men are better. When it comes to being faster, stronger, more aggressive, men are also better. So whether it's carrying heavy piping up 14 flights of stairs on a job site, or trying to tackle a 300lbs linebacker, men are better equipped. So right of the bat, professional sports, and construction, goes to men. Add the fact that men either excel at, or at least have a much bigger interest in understanding how motorized things work, and almost all skilled trades go to men, and that's a huge percentage of the work force. Mens added strength and willingness to get down and dirty on a work site, make them more employable then women in a huge range of jobs, from firefighters, to cops, to mechanics, to plumbers, to professional athletes, to military. And when it comes to most other jobs, office jobs, sales, engineers, etc, men are at least as employable as women. So to demand that every employer higher an equal number of men and women is ridiculous and the government knows it. The government forces employers to higher a diverse workforce. A percentage of an employers staff must be a visible minority, to reflect the diversity living in the surrounding areas, but the government has implemented no such rule to include women. Why? Sorry but if you want to push for equal rights, then fine. A man that can lift more concrete on a job site, than the average women, therefore is more qualified, so the job must go to him.
The other point that interests me, is the legal aspect of a women rights when it comes to divorce and child custody. Approximately 85% of court cases result in the mother of a child, or children, winning full custody of the children. When trying to decipher why that is, it comes down to a few things. 1: That's always how it's been, so that's how it goes. 2: The mother doesn't work, and the father does, so the mother has the time to take care of the children and 3: The father makes more money, and can more easily afford to pay child support. Now of those things, where does equal rights for men come in? Men either work, or make more money, so they can't have their kids? I would think it would be pretty easy for a man to not work, or make less money, then could he get custody?
My last point, is on the home front. More and more of the work load that comes with children is being shared by both parents. I makes sense. It's both parents kids, so it should be both of their jobs. Traditionally, the man worked, made the money (being more easily employable as I've mentioned) and the women stayed at home and raised the children. Today unfortunately, the cost of living is high, and in order to afford all the shit we don't need, both men and women need to be employed. Again, it makes sense that if both parents are working 40 hours a week, they should both put in equal time to help rear the children. Men traditionally worked his 9-5 job, and maintained, the cars, and cut the grass, and trimmed the trees, did the renovations, and fixed the broken tap, and changed the hot water tank. Women vacuumed, did the dishes, cleaned the windows, did the laundry and spent more time with the children. There is one problem with this. Women want equality. They want men to do half the vacuuming, half the dishes, half the child rearing, which is all fine and dandy, but when is the last time the women in the house changed the oil in her car? Men still work 40 hours a week, and still do all of the "blue jobs" around the house, but are now expected to do 50% of the "pink jobs". How is equality sharing 50% of pink jobs, and leaving 100% of blue jobs to men? When did what men do for the household, become less important?
There was once a time when men were respected and appreciated for taking care of the household. The ability to keep a house in good condition, keep the car running smooth, keep the yard trimmed nice and keep food on the table was desirable quality. Now it seems the more desirable man, is the man that can change a diaper in 45 seconds, run a vacuum cleaner while holding a baby and put baby to bed at night. Oh, and he needs to make enough money to pay someone to do the oil change on the car, change the hot water tank and renovate the bathroom, because he doesn't have time for, or know how to do blue jobs.
Lets start with jobs. If a man and woman are both doing the same job, and have the same skills, and can both accomplish the job, in the same fashion, in the same time frame, they should be compensated in the same way, without a doubt. The problem is, there are far more jobs that men do better than women. Almost all of the trades require physical strength. There are strong women, capable of accomplishing what most men can do, but the majority of women, are smaller, and have less muscle mass. This isn't discrimination, this is reality, or as I like to call it, fact. The average man is about half a foot taller than the average women and weighs 30+ lbs more. When it comes to lifting, hammering, dragging, pulling, or carrying anything of substantial weight, men are better. When it comes to being faster, stronger, more aggressive, men are also better. So whether it's carrying heavy piping up 14 flights of stairs on a job site, or trying to tackle a 300lbs linebacker, men are better equipped. So right of the bat, professional sports, and construction, goes to men. Add the fact that men either excel at, or at least have a much bigger interest in understanding how motorized things work, and almost all skilled trades go to men, and that's a huge percentage of the work force. Mens added strength and willingness to get down and dirty on a work site, make them more employable then women in a huge range of jobs, from firefighters, to cops, to mechanics, to plumbers, to professional athletes, to military. And when it comes to most other jobs, office jobs, sales, engineers, etc, men are at least as employable as women. So to demand that every employer higher an equal number of men and women is ridiculous and the government knows it. The government forces employers to higher a diverse workforce. A percentage of an employers staff must be a visible minority, to reflect the diversity living in the surrounding areas, but the government has implemented no such rule to include women. Why? Sorry but if you want to push for equal rights, then fine. A man that can lift more concrete on a job site, than the average women, therefore is more qualified, so the job must go to him.
The other point that interests me, is the legal aspect of a women rights when it comes to divorce and child custody. Approximately 85% of court cases result in the mother of a child, or children, winning full custody of the children. When trying to decipher why that is, it comes down to a few things. 1: That's always how it's been, so that's how it goes. 2: The mother doesn't work, and the father does, so the mother has the time to take care of the children and 3: The father makes more money, and can more easily afford to pay child support. Now of those things, where does equal rights for men come in? Men either work, or make more money, so they can't have their kids? I would think it would be pretty easy for a man to not work, or make less money, then could he get custody?
My last point, is on the home front. More and more of the work load that comes with children is being shared by both parents. I makes sense. It's both parents kids, so it should be both of their jobs. Traditionally, the man worked, made the money (being more easily employable as I've mentioned) and the women stayed at home and raised the children. Today unfortunately, the cost of living is high, and in order to afford all the shit we don't need, both men and women need to be employed. Again, it makes sense that if both parents are working 40 hours a week, they should both put in equal time to help rear the children. Men traditionally worked his 9-5 job, and maintained, the cars, and cut the grass, and trimmed the trees, did the renovations, and fixed the broken tap, and changed the hot water tank. Women vacuumed, did the dishes, cleaned the windows, did the laundry and spent more time with the children. There is one problem with this. Women want equality. They want men to do half the vacuuming, half the dishes, half the child rearing, which is all fine and dandy, but when is the last time the women in the house changed the oil in her car? Men still work 40 hours a week, and still do all of the "blue jobs" around the house, but are now expected to do 50% of the "pink jobs". How is equality sharing 50% of pink jobs, and leaving 100% of blue jobs to men? When did what men do for the household, become less important?
There was once a time when men were respected and appreciated for taking care of the household. The ability to keep a house in good condition, keep the car running smooth, keep the yard trimmed nice and keep food on the table was desirable quality. Now it seems the more desirable man, is the man that can change a diaper in 45 seconds, run a vacuum cleaner while holding a baby and put baby to bed at night. Oh, and he needs to make enough money to pay someone to do the oil change on the car, change the hot water tank and renovate the bathroom, because he doesn't have time for, or know how to do blue jobs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)