Friday, December 23, 2011

The Brat Before Christmas

It was the night before Christmas
and all through the house,
I couldn't hear myself thinking,
there were kids in the house.

Hmmm, not sure I want to continue with this idea :-)

I hope you all have a great Christmas, holiday season or whatever it is you choose to have at this time of year.

On Christmas Eve we'll be going to the movies and then down the road from our house for the neighbor's traditional BBQ and booze up. Home is a short walk but my head doesn't recover like it used to from alcohol.

None of our family live in the same state as us so we'll be having an orphan's Christmas lunch at a friend's house.

If we are lucky the Christmas Platypus will make an appearance to distribute the $10 Chris Kringle.

Before that though we'll have had breakfast at another friend's house and afterwards we'll be having dinner (yeah right) at another neighbor's house.

I am not sure I am going to survive the day. I suspect I may explode. I will be pacing myself but suspect the lovely goodies available will be my undoing.

All our presents have been shipped (ages ago now) so the recipients should have them under their trees, unopened, awaiting the excitement of opening them on Christmas day (oh dear).

It sounds like quite an amazing and busy Christmas to me. :-)

And they say you need kids to appreciate Christmas. Bah Humbug!!! ;-)

Monday, December 19, 2011

Swedish parenting at its finest...

By Sandra...

And, in the latest news, in the country where paid maternity leave is sooooooo wonderful, here is an example of Swedish parenting at its finest:

Yes Sweden. The greedy-breedies love pointing at Sweden as an exemplar of leading edge social policy big wads of cash for breeders.

“Ooooh,” the breeders coo in unison, “in Sweeeeden mothers get two years paid maternity  leave!  If Sweden does it, so should Australia!” (eg <>)

Yep. What a rational and logical way to support a position. They do it, so should we!  Anyone who has studied policy analysis – or more correctly – has an ounce of common sense knows that just because a policy works in one jurisdiction does not mean that it will work in another.

Hang on.

Does the paid parental leave in Sweden actually work? Sure, it exists, but does it WORK? Does the policy achieve its objectives (other than a regressive redistribution of income from the childless working poor to the childed professional middle classes).

Well, what should paid maternity leave do? The greedy-breedies really want it only so that they can have their baby and pay off their mortgage without having to actually get off their newly stitched up behinds and getting back in the office. We know that already. But, in an effort to find problems to justify their preferred solution, the greedy-breedies claim that paid parental leave MUST be available to two years to address ALL kinds of social ills. Apparently paid maternity leave will allow or even encourage people to have a kid or two, facilitate mother-child bonding which – apparently – prevents problem-children/adolescents in the future (wow!), brings about equity for women….and unicorns and rainbows and rivers of chocolate.

Yep. Paid maternity leave is often presented as some kind of holy ark of the covenant that will catalyse gender equity, yet after 30 years of paid parental leave Swedish women are not equal to men in terms of earnings or representation in executive positions, the birth rate is not much higher than Australia’s and less than 18% of men bother to use their paternity leave. Meanwhile, working class Swedish women are better off on sick leave than going to work. As a social policy, the child-maker lobby can forget about the nebulous claims that somehow, paid parental leave is some magic panacea that will transform society into some kind of huggy-kissy utopia.  Sweden has the same problems with juvenile delinquency as Australia, the divorce rate is the world’s highest (despite marriage being more difficult to dissolve there than in Australia) and their suicide rate is higher than Australia’s. There has been one advancement for gender equity; incarceration rates of Swedish women has increased 50% over the last 5 years. It's probably not the kind of policy outcome that was in mind. And yes, perhaps none of this anti-social phenomena is linked at all to paid parental leave –  but no more so than spurious claims that very generous paid parental leave is the magical silver bullet that brings about a social utopia.

Sandra is a policy analyst who looks to bonafide evidence-based policy rather than faith-based solutions created to justify confected policy problems.

Thursday, December 15, 2011

Mummy as a victim...

Mother forces her 10 year child to strip nude on Skype in front of a stranger to win "mother-daughter bikini contest"....and when she is arrested for child endangerment, she claims SHE is the victim!

I'll victimize her arse! Unfrickenbelievable!

Read the story here:
A 41-year-old Massachusetts mother is facing child endangerment charges after she allegedly forced her daughter to pose nude in front of a web camera. Ann Lussier, of Attleboro, says that a man impersonating a Florida photographer used the Internet phone application Skype to dupe her into thinking s...

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Strictly no kids! Woo-hoo!

From the forum:

"Hey all,
I just came across this:

Strictly no kids! Woo-hoo!

Here are some more CF holidays in Australia:>

Just a note, I would probably avoid the ones in northern Queensland until after the cyclone (typhoon) season ends around May."

Family Friendly means stay away

Family Friendly pubs means "stay away <insert your name here>"...

Here's a chapter from our book one "Child Free Zones" :-) Enjoy, David

Child-free zones
Most child-free people do not go out of their way to avoid contact with children. However, most appreciate the opportunity to enjoy adult company without them. As Fiona, 32, put it: ‘We avoid family restaurants and G rated films – though we both love a good toyshop.’

‘I avoid situations where I might encounter [children], for example picnic grounds or holiday venues outside school terms,’ said Kate, 55.

Last year we were looking forward to treating Mum to a nice birthday lunch at a beachside restaurant with a reputation for excellent food. We were seated at a table for three in the centre of the restaurant, surrounded by large tables, each with a small child or baby in a carrier. Each of them screamed throughout our lunch and totally ruined the experience. Parents will talk of the need to be tolerant and understanding, while non-parents may feel that their needs and feelings are disregarded. It is considered poor form to complain about the poor behaviour of children or their parents.

‘I think that a lot of parents are very inconsiderate when it comes to taking their children out in public places,’ said Jan, 34. ‘They should think about where they’re taking the kids and how their behaviour can affect other people. I don’t want to listen to a screaming child when I’m at a nice restaurant, at an art exhibition, watching a movie or when I’m at band practice. Small children playing chasey around expensive musical instruments is a recipe for disaster and yet it seems politically incorrect to say anything.’

Public places such as restaurants cannot advertise themselves as ‘child-free’ and not allow children, probably due to anti-discrimination laws. Lynch’s Restaurant of Melbourne caused a stir when it displayed a sign in the window saying that babies were not allowed. A couple took them to court over the issue and they made prime time news with their child-free stand. The result could not be technically called a win for Lynch’s as discrimination was found to have occurred. However, Lynch’s didn’t have to pay any court costs and didn’t have to alter their policy. They were advised to put a sign in the front window indicating that they reserved the right to refuse service to people under the age of 12. Lynch’s told us that they received over 400 letters of support, endless congratulatory phone calls and only two letters that were opposed to their stance. One of our survey respondents kindly sent us a postcard from Lynch’s that features a cartoon of a screaming baby and the words ‘Baby Free Zone’ on the front.

The manager of a tourist facility in the Hunter Valley region of New South Wales wrote that they simply note on all promotional literature that they have ‘no facilities for children’. She says that during the school holidays, they are always fully booked with schoolteachers. ‘Word has got around that we offer adult accommodation, and it is greatly appreciated by all our guests. This is not easy to do – in fact I am technically breaking the law, so I have to be Very Careful with my bookings.’
Some of the more exclusive Barrier Reef island resorts cater specifically for couples and make it clear that they do not cater for children under 16. An increasing number of bed and breakfast style guesthouses do the same.

As some of our survey respondents pointed out, there are ways to enjoy activities without the interference of misbehaving children. After all, when you are there you don’t have a choice in the behaviour of the children who also happen to be there. It is easiest to avoid all of them.

We have learnt to not even contemplate taking holidays during school holidays. This has an added bonus of being cheaper than peak times and the roads are considerably safer with less traffic.

 The flexibility of child-free travel, both internationally and domestically, can provide considerable savings for a variety of reasons. Recently we visited Disney World in Orlando, Florida. This destination may sound like a total mistake for the child-free, child-avoiding couple. After all, these places are made for kids. Despite this we were determined to satisfy the children within us.

We visited the park in the off-peak season so crowds were at a minimum. When we went to the theme parks we went very early in the morning, before most families could get organised, or late at night when most families were worn out. We managed to avoid queuing for all but one major attraction. It was amazing.

We exhausted one theme park per day. Families we spoke to were on their third and fourth visits to a single park, and told us that they needed that many visits to cater for the slower progress made by larger family groups.

We were also able to apply some strategy to our visit. We knew that we were only there for a short time so we pushed the sleep envelope. We did everything we could all day every day, planning to do our catch-up sleeping on the way home in the plane. You can’t do this with kids. When they get sleepy and whiney there is nothing you can do but let them rest.

Another simple strategy we have is to avoid ‘family’ restaurants where possible. Not only is this label an indicator that vast numbers of children will be present, but it also tends to be a flag as to the quality of the meals available.

There are coach trips and cruises that advertise themselves as catering for adults. We suspect this is to do with the licensing laws and free availability of alcohol more than the intention of catering for adults who don’t want to interact with children. If the world is your pub then everyone has to be of drinking age.

Often our stamina alone eventually provides us with the sort of child-free experience that we appreciate in public places. For example, most parents with children will leave a restaurant well before we need to.

The true ‘child-free zone’ is very rare. Many adults are far more childish than children, and not in a particularly flattering way either. Many of our survey respondents have pointed out to us by that they are happy to interact with well behaved children, just as they prefer to interact with well behaved adults. It is fine to choose who your adult friends are, but when you try to choose your children friends you are in big trouble. You have to love them all!

We’d like to provide a list of child-free facilities, restaurants, activities, organisations, clubs and holidays, but few of these facilities are advertised as such in guides or brochures. Many generate awareness through word of mouth.

If you have some information that may be of benefit to child-free people in this regard, please contact us via any of the methods outlined in the back of this book. We are happy to collect this information and use it for future revisions of this book or put it on our web site.

Turds squared - John Howard and Ian Pilmer
CLIMATE sceptic Professor Ian Plimer is arming children with 101 questions for teachers, in his new book How to Get Expelled from School.
I heard this on the radio this morning. What a pair of turds (Ex Prime Minister John Howard was there too). Luckily it will be their kids, not mine, living in the world they create.
I've said it before and I no doubt will say it again, science is as flawed as every human endeavor.
However, climate change is not about science, it is about taking a huge risk with the only planet we have.

Your turn breeders, do you really want to fuck up the only place your kids have to live?

I don't care, I'll be dead before the shit really hits the fan.

Sunday, December 04, 2011

From the CFZ forum:
"Here's a great article explaining how you've got to be careful when you read "studies"
because you shouldn't interpret the findings as they appear first hand ....... you'll
understand when you read the article.

ie. What came first ..... the chicken or the egg?"
"The study itself has been published.

They did make this caveat:

Although this pilot project has provided valuable insight into these childless women’s physical and mental health and wellbeing, it is not without its limitations. This pilot study was based on a small

convenience sample of childless women in Victoria, Australia, thus these findings must be considered with caution and cannot be generalised to the wider population of childless women. Accordingly, the physical and mental health and wellbeing of the women could not be compared by the types of childlessness. However, it is possible that there are physical and mental health and wellbeing differences between the types of childlessness [40], which are masked in the current analysis.

What I liked about this study is that the writers acknowledged the stigmatisation and marginalisation of women who are childless. The researchers were not setting out to say to women “have babies or else suffer the consequences you deserve” like so much of the anti-abortion/pro-natalist medical literature. Instead, it looks as though the writers are seeking to promote social acceptance of female childlessness to treat causes of depression et al.

See the published study (which has been highly accessed, apparently) here

and the provisional pdf here"
P.S. I like the way the "childless" woman is completely on her own on the beach. You know, on the barren sands alone FFS!

Saturday, November 26, 2011

Teenage lunch party

On Friday I had lunch with some teenagers.

I know, I am as shocked as you are.

It was to support The Beacon Foundation's "Polish Program".

If you have noticed my sense of humour and tuned in to it, then you are probably thinking the wrong thing right now.

As with everything Beacon do, it is about getting teenagers ready for the real world. It isn't school work, it is real life - getting a job, interacting with adults, public speaking and more besides.

The kids I had lunch with had just been trained in public speaking, interview skills and strangely enough, how to use cutlery and other table manners.

I was asked to come along to be one of several token adults and business representatives.

Seeing as my own high school experience is a big part of why I chose not to have kids i.e. I fucking hated school from the day I walked in to the day I walked out, I decided I'd go along to this. I thought that if I could make someone else's high school experience slightly less fucked than mine then it would be worth it.

It went OK. I survived, they survived and we had some lunch. Phew!

So there you go, maybe I am not as evil as I seem :-) Naahhhhh!

Thursday, November 24, 2011

Bindi Irwin...

This week I got some stick because I made comments about Bindi Irwin.

I find her precocious and totally obnoxious. I cannot watch her on TV or see her face on a magazine without feeling the need to slap her into line.

Of course she's only behaving the way her stage parents (and mother in particular I suspect) have told her to.

I actually feel sorry for her (when I don't have to see or hear her).

The reason she's popped up on the radar again this week is because she's been talking to the media about population control.

Media whoring aside, the Irwin's have always been on the side of the environment...well, except for Steve who thought it was fine to taunt animals (Stingray 1, Steve 0), and that ain't so bad.

If this is what it takes, or even helps a bit by educating the kiddies on the world Mum and Dad are making for them, then I suppose I'll tolerate it..a bit...maybe ;-)

NOTE: I thought long and hard about putting a picture of her here. I was convinced that I would only be able to find her pulling that stupid forced chinny grin I call "headjob face". Seems I was wrong. She does have a normal face. It seems there may be a chance for her yet.

Thursday, November 17, 2011

SBS Insight program

We've been at this so long now that we turn down interviews more often than we accept them.

It isn't arrogance. It is boredom.
We get asked the same questions over and over again and rarely, it seems, get listened to.

But recently we spoke to Jane from the SBS TV Australia "Insight" program.
Jane is researching the idea of a program around the child-free movement.

I must confess I've not seen many episodes of Insight. I'm the guy who watches any old comedy in preference to "intellectual" programmes.

Our discussion with Jane was enjoyable and fruitful.

I have high hopes that the program can get off the ground.

If you think you have something to offer the program by way of a unique and interesting perspective on the subject, then I encourage you to drop Jane an email and let her know.

Being SBS, Jane is particularly interested in cultural influences and impact on the decision to remain child-free.

NOTE: This is for Australians only I'm afraid. Others can send ideas but they shouldn't expect to be interviewed or asked to come on the show :-)

Jane Worthington
Producer Insight
SBS TV Australia

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

that is hilarious

Over the last 18 months I've started dabbling in stand-up comedy.

It isn't what you think. I've done workshops, read books and actually worked quite hard on not just being a twonk who thinks he's funny and really isn't.

I still have a long way to go and a lot to learn, but I am not just the funny guy at a BBQ any more :-)

My material has to be original and as a result I decided the easiest and best way to guarantee that was to draw entirely from my own personal experience.

Initially I picked on my childhood and my parents. It was exaggerated reality shall we call it. If you follow me on FaceBook you can find some snippets of my performances.

But now I am wanting to use my child-free experience and choice. I am finding it tough to integrate this stuff into my act.

I've seen many female comics use the old "I hate kids" stuff with uproarious results but not so much from the guys.

To make things tougher one of the local comedians has disappeared off the scene after a very public court case regarding certain illegal images found on their computer. While I haven't heard the court's verdict, the accusations are what you think.

Me making jokes about disliking kids could be taken the wrong way.

So for now I am treading slowly and carefully into that minefield of material.

Stay tuned.

Monday, October 10, 2011

Childless by choice couple for TV interview (Australia only)
For the 7pm Project.
If you are interested, please contact Serge on mobile 0421 466 835 or email snegus @ 7pm (without spaces of course)
It isn't about beating up on the childfree.
He's the environment reporter so one of the main angles is why not having kids is a better choice for the environment.

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Discrimination - Racism - WTF?

Every now and then a person will make a wild connection in their mind when they hear I've chosen not to have kids.

No points for guessing the association - they decide that I must be racist.

Wow! I don't know how they get that. I'm not.

Somehow, because I don't have kids of my own, I also automatically don't like people of other nations and cultures.

That is just plain weird to me.

I also get comments from businesses who express concerns that they've had trouble, or are scared of, declaring that their business is a "child-free" endeavour.

The word that pops up here is discrimination. Parents seem to get quite pissed off with discrimination against their kids until such time as they want some alone time themselves.

It is an interesting double standard.

It seems to me, as too the dictionary definition, that discrimination is just about differentiating between things. It is about making choices based on criteria that suit the chooser.

Discrimination is not inherently bad but recent generations have decided that IS how it will be used and interpreted.

Discrimination is essential to staying alive and just being human. Imagine how bland and horrible the world would be if everything was the same so that there couldn't be any discrimination.

There are numerous examples of positive discrimination, and I am not talking about those examples where one person's race is put in front of another to redress some ancient wrong enacted upon their race. I am talking about the things that protect all of us.

A good many of the laws we have are discriminatory for our own protection. People under a certain age aren't allowed to drive on our roads, drink alcohol, gamble, have sex and many, many other things.

Yet I don't hear too many people complaining about age discrimination there. No-one calls the law makers racist because of these rules that discriminate against young ones.

I discriminate against certain types of foods; those that I don't like the flavour of, that that don't have an appealing texture and those that may well pass the first criteria but just sound icky.

And while good natured ribbing of my pallet may call my sexuality into question no-one is calling me a racist because I don't like the pink donut...and strangely I felt I had to choose the colour of that example donut very carefully.

When someone starts, runs and grows a business they will find that a big part of success is choosing what NOT to do. It is about choosing the customers you want and focusing on them. It is about choosing what products and services you are happy to deliver and in fact are good at delivering. It is about outsourcing and delegating the tasks that distract from individuals doing the things they are good at.

For example, I loath and detest bookkeeping. Yet when I started my business I felt I had to do it. Eventually I got sick of it and paid someone else to do it. If I didn't I wouldn't be in business, it was that simple for me.

Yet I don't hear anyone call me racist because double entry bookkeeping makes my blood boil. I don't hear anyone calling me racist because I choose to focus on Windows based computers over Apples. Fruitist yes, racist no.

So when a business person chooses to run a business that focuses on providing a service to adults that isn't alcohol, gambling or sexually related, why do they get a hard time?

Honestly I don't know. It makes no sense to me. When a small country B&B provides adult double bed accommodation only because that is what they can afford, what they want to do and what the physical layout of the building lends itself to, why do they have to be careful about how they say that? They'll be sought out by the parents trying to escape their kids one week and the same parents will complain the next week when the kids aren't catered for.

Instead of going to a suitable place we humans tend to want to change others to our way of thinking and "needs".

Most discrimination is a good thing. Without it we'd be dead. It is that simple.

I am convinced some moron will read this, fail to understand it and hence abuse me and again accuse me of being racist. In that case I choose to discriminate against their ill-informed comments :-)

Monday, August 15, 2011

"Please open a cafe..."

Over the weekend we took our dogs to Kingston Doggy Beach (south of Hobart, Tasmania).

They love it and I love watching them go nuts in the sand.

They seem to experience what the wife and I call "change of surface madness". Whenever there is a new sensation under foot they go a little mental.

Everyone is really friendly and there is always an amazing cross section of breeds to spot and laugh at. They are all having so much fun.

Over the last couple of visits our older girl has been demonstrably protective of our 11 month old puppy.

There have been a couple of instances where a more boisterous dog has played the chasing game with our pup. She doesn't quite get it despite taunting her older sister into the game on a daily basis at home.

This weekend she got chased and the big girl ran interference. It is sweet to see her looking after her sister. :-)

That isn't why I am posting today though.

I am posting because of a plea we got while saying hello to a curiously pretty dog on the beach.

The dog's minder got half way through telling us the dog's name and breed before changing topic and saying "Oh, are you the childfree people? You should open a cafe. Please, please open a cafe".

I laughed and said that we didn't have the skills for the job. I agreed it would be a good idea.

He went on to say that the kids could be relegated to a park across the road. I jokingly suggested they could be left there tied to a stake with a bowl of water.

We were heading in opposite directions and as a parting comment he said "I love the childfree sticker on your car too".

It was a lovely and amusing encounter. We couldn't work out if our new friend was a visitor to our blog, a reader of the book or had just put the pieces together from the stickers on our vehicle.

Regardless it was a pleasant surprise and one that got us thinking.

Imagine if we did open up a CFZ cafe.
Can you picture the stink it would kick up...but talk about free publicity!

Wow, does anyone want to do it? We'll help with the branding and other stuff where we can :-)

Monday, July 18, 2011

Where are the facts?

For a long time now I have been asking myself "just what are the facts here?".

For nearly as long I've found that there usually aren't any and it is most likely that there is no such thing at all.

Today I was prompted by the term "peak oil".

My understanding of this term is that it relates to the "fact" that soon, or already depending on who you ask, humans will reach their peak oil consumption and thereafter the supply will start drying up. We won't be able to consume it so fast any more.

Well, this sounds familiar. I remember hearing the same thing when I was a kid 30 odd years ago.

Back then the oil was going to run out altogether before the turn of the century. Somehow we found more.

This isn't about justifying the continued use of oil, it is about how often humans get things wrong. Things we all too readily label as facts.

Another example which pisses me off is "Time Team" the TV show.

Time Team dig up some ground, find a bit of crockery, a coin or a dog's bone and before you know it they've sketched out an entire village, the plans for the houses, the jobs of the residents and how they lived.

It seems a long bow to draw most of the time. Often they cite precedent in that a similar village found somewhere else had similar stuff in it despite how little "evidence" they are actually holding.

I've often wondered if the referenced villages were created in the same fanciful way. I am sure a proportion are, so where does that leave the Time Team village? Completely in la-la land if you ask me.

Still more scientists are peering into the cosmos. Further and further with even more powerful telescopes across all sorts of visible and invisible spectrums.

The conclusions they arrive at amaze me. They are fantastic. Yet we still really only know BUGGER ALL about our nearest neighbour. We've not brought any samples back let alone visited the place and had a good look around.

Yet cosmologists are happy to declare alien life impossible or inevitable with equal certainty. They can discern so much from a shift in colour and a the slight wobble in an observation.

They can say what they like. We'll never get there to prove them wrong.

Scratching the surface...asking questions seems to quickly uncover no verifiable source, valid background, actual precedent, impenetrable logic, proper investigation...

So just what are the facts?

The only fact I can tell you is that I pretty much never take anything I see, read or hear at face value.

Chances are if it came from a human it is bullshit.

News = bullshit
Statistics = Bullshit
Studies = Bullshit
Someone said = bullshit
Survey = Bullshit
Did you hear = bullshit
Science = Bullshit
Web site = bullshit
The Church / Religion = Bullshit
Movie = bullshit
Documentary = bullshit
Politician = bullshit^100
TV = bullshit
Michael Moore = Bullshit
Greenpeace = Bullshit
Climate Change = Bullshit
Global Warming = Bullshit
Not Global Warming = Bullshit
President = Bullshit
Government = Bullshit
You = Bullshit
Me = Bullshit
Everyone else = Bullshit

So what are we all worried about?
Bullshit, that's what :-)

Thursday, July 14, 2011

The dating world of the child-free

Recently in our yahoo group and facebook forums there's been some comments about the types of people who are "out there" and "available".

Unlike my local paper I am not using quotation marks excessively. I'm truly quoting someone and expressing some doubt about their availability.

It seems that a lot of singles on dating sites are approached (virtually) by parents of one form or another...married, divorced, single...whatever.

Despite the CF person's profile being very clear on the subject of children in the relationship at any point in time, it seems many parents still see them as fair game.

It got me thinking about why people would ignore these choices from another person.

It also got me wondering (again) about how I got so lucky.

I know I can't possibly have magical insight into why the predators in this scenario choose to behave the way they do. Their motives are many I am sure.

Maybe they see the child-free single person as a pre-doomed relationship.

By that I mean, if, and that is a big if, they manage to land a date with a child-free person they know up front that the relationship has a use-by date. They know that whatever they can get out of the relationship permanency is not one of those things.

Because of the internet it has become a much simpler numbers game. In the old days we had to go outside and go places to meet lots of potential partners. Now we just roll out of bed and log on.

This is a fantastic thing for those seeking partners. It is also a boon for those wanting to play games.

Imagine being in a relationship that includes children. Imagine that you aren't getting much in the way of loving from your partner. They may be dead, too busy, too tired, too pregnant, too unattractive now, too with someone else and quite probably just too uninterested anymore. Imagine that for some retarded reason you choose to remain in that relationship.

Right now any attention you get from anyone of the opposite sex is looking pretty damn good. So you logon on, get yourself an account on a dating site and start looking.

BOOM! Right there you have the reason why the childfree are targeted on dating sites. Right there you have the reason why all the CF stuff in their profiles seems to be ignored.

It isn't being ignored. It is being factored in people...FACTORED IN!

Maybe, just maybe, the way to find "the right person" through online dating is to NOT mention your CF status? Maybe that should be saved for face to face. That is what I had to do and it worked for me. Internet dating didn't exist for me.

When I met Susan the most amazing thing was our honesty. We gave completely of each other (perhaps even too much too early some may say) and found out pretty fast that we shared the child-free thing.

There was never a point when we didn't trust each other. We had some frank discussions and covered some scary ground but there was never any dishonesty involved.

What do I know about online dating? Not much I suppose in the final analysis. I've never had to do it. I know that if it had been available and socially acceptable when I was single I probably would have used it.

What I do know is that dating was a way to connect with people, spend time with them and find stuff out.

Back then dating was a physical thing where I tried to hide the real me as much as possible lest it scare people off. I certainly would not have advertised any flaws or socially awkward opinions.

It wasn't until I was truly "being me" that dating became simple. It wasn't until I had the confidence to "sample and reject" dates that the door opened.

Don't get me wrong. Statistically I am probably low on the dating success scale. Women mostly rejected me. :-) But when it worked, boy did it work.

So my conclusion?
I think online filtering combined with a high dose of face to face rejections might just get you to an acceptable partner faster than using online dating as your primary filter.

Maybe factoring face-to-face disappointment in will make it easier to sample and reject? Maybe expecting perfection makes it hard to sample because in your heart you know the odds are slim?

Head towards the people you like, not away from those you don't and if you see a light at the end of the tunnel remember it could be heaven or it could be an oncoming freight train ;-)

Wednesday, July 06, 2011

Carbon tacks - did you mean "carbon tax"?

I am totally opposed to any form of carbon tax, levy, charge or whatever you want to call it (you squirming spineless pricks we call politicians).

It isn't because I think polluters should not be punished or at least pay fair compensation for the clean up of their mess.

No, it is because the whole idea is fundamentally flawed.

Sadly this seems to mean I accidentally align myself, to a significantly lesser degree, with Tony "gob-shite" Abbott. As politicians go this guy is beyond the pale...but I digress.

The main reasons I object to a carbon tax are as follows:

1) The creation of new taxes requires the creation of new administration to handle them i.e. more public servants.

2) Point 1 comes at a significant cost. So already the tax isn't going where it should.

3) The semantics of who does and who doesn't pay what carbon tax and why is a joke. They are already talking about giving people back some of the tax. What? Why take it in the first place then you fucking idiots! How much energy, both physical and mental, is being wasted on these arguments? For fuck's sake, just put the GST up by a couple of percent and bypass the whole drama.

...and finally, this is the big one...

4) It won't work. It won't stop pollution, it won't reduce carbon use, it is focusing on precisely the wrong end of the problem. The consumers are already here and producing carbon. They'll just have to pay more for it.

Carbon is but a tiny proportion of the mess humans are making of the planet.

It is not news that I think the simple and obvious answer is to educate humans to be smarter about reproduction.

Humans need to understand that, whether they like it or not, they WILL eventually be held accountable for their decisions...or their children will (no, not the childrun! they are the fewcha!).

How about basing the carbon tax on the number of people in your nuclear family?

One person - bugger all tax because you aren't likely to asexually reproduce and create another carbon producer.

Similarly for those who are capable of breeding but have been surgically fixed.

Those with one child pay more carbon tax. After all, under normal circumstances this third person will continue to produce carbon long after your decomposing corpse has stopped it.

More than one child...well clearly you aren't helping but neither are you hindering the movement of birthrates in the sensible direction. More tax you shall pay!

Three or more kids. You are just taking the piss now. Clearly you have decided that everyone else is wrong and you'll do what you like. Good for you. More tax!

Hey, if the politicians can come up with stupid ideas that piss us all off why can't I?

Carbon tax - NO!
Carbon Tacks? Now there's an idea!

Thursday, June 30, 2011

It takes a village to raise a child...

...but then the village can mind its own business.

Our on Yahoo Group recently the old "it takes a village" chestnut has been raised again.

This is trotted out when parunts want to get everyone else to help raise their child.

The amount of help required varies from a little to "do the fricken lot, I can't be bothered".

A few questions spring to mind.

When is the last time any of us saw an actual village let alone lived in one? I'm not talking about those quaint ones in the UK where people like Doc Martin and James Herriot live, I am talking about a proper third world village where clothes are optional and everything is communal BECAUSE IT HAS TO BE?

I am pretty sure this is NOT the village these parunts are talking about because if it was I'd be happy for them to fuck off there and raise their kids. It would be a lot cheaper for the community and better for the kids than what they are really asking for.

Another question is, knowing full well that what they mean is "your money, give it me", what say can the community expect in the deployment of the funds and the raising of the child?

Can the village expect a well behaved child? Can the village expect a contribution from the child in the future? On both counts the evidence for and probability of said outcomes is quite low.

It is quite clear that while the village is expected to help raise the childrun that this arrangement is a one way street (which would be very inconvenient for most villages I've seen).

If I am a villager and helping to raise a child, either against my will or not, I expect to have a say in how my investment is managed.

So the next time you are playing breeder-bingo and here "it takes a village" ask them what their definition of a village is, can the village discipline the child and what can the village can expect in return for their investment?

Chances are you'll be stared at blankly or abused.

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Where can we escape?

This just came across my desk so I thought I'd post it up ASAP.

We often get asked "where can we go for a child-free holiday?".

The problem is the laws around whether you can actually say "no kids" seem vague at best.

Most child-free venues, resorts, hotels, B&Bs or whatever just feel afraid to say it.

Of course you can design and locate your business, any business not just accommodation, any way you like.

If you choose not to cater for children or charge a per person rate (as opposed to an adults/kids rate) then that is your right as a business owner.

So here it is, "No kids allowed! Adults-only getaways" article on the NineMSN web site.
Enjoy and Getaway...

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Tax the stupid and tax them hard

This whole middle-class welfare issue pisses me off.
I could only watch Q&A briefly last night because it shits me so much.

Partly it was the show but mainly it is becuase politicians should not be allowed on the show.

All they do is parrot their policies with total discregard to what is happening on the show around them.

Maybe the show should be called Q&P or just Q...

It did make me think though.
I've decided the best way to collect taxes is stupidity based.

I hate stamp duty on house purchases. To me it is criminally high and arbitrary.
For example, rather they crying that a family in Sydney on $150,000 with 3 kids and a million dollar home are poor, they family should be taxed for being stupid.
On way to tax this stupidity is to charge the stamp duty on house purchases based on a couple of simple criteria (criterion??), e.g.

1) You want to buy a million dollar house in Sydney (this is dumb to start with). People should be encouraged to reduce population density rather than fight it.

2) How big is your loan? If the loan is stupidly large then you pay MORE stamp duty. E.g. if your mortgage $900,000 of your million dollar home you are stupid.

3) You have 3 kids. This is unsustainable and stupid. You should pay MORE stamp duty on house with more than 3 bedrooms.

4) The lower the combined household income the MORE stamp duty they should pay. Why? Because when the shit hits the fan and they can't afford the loan anymore at least some of their stamp duty can go towards their welfare payments.

The key to this is to communicate loudly and clearly to home buyers that buying beyond your means will be penalised.
If they still choose to do so, then penalise them i.e. a stupidity tax.

Another example of a stupidity tax is gambling.
While it may be argued this is already a stupidity tax, gamblers should be taxed at the point of betting.
For example, 50 cents from every dollar bet irreversibly goes in taxation. No returns, do not pass go.
If you can afford to gamble you can afford to pay that tax. Simple.

Smoking, drinking...wanna kill yourself, fine but let's not have those who don't pay for it.
Stop wasting money on anti smoking campaigns, anti drink campaigns.
They won't listen until it htis their back pockets anyway.

Hit the over-indulger's in their back pockets and hit them hard.
Exclude them from health care or at the very least have their taxed habit income go directly to medical care services.

While I am at it, if you want to be a politician you should have to pay more tax.

If you are going to waste our fucking money then you should know how much that sucks.
I am pretty sure politicians would be more careful with OUR money it a larger proportion of it was theirs too!

While the fundamental activities that are fucking this planet are encouraged at a political and policy level nothing will change.
It is that simple.

While the folks who are responsible and live within their means are the most heavily taxed I think we'll see a trend for those folks to drop off the taxation radar one way or another.

They find a way to make less of their funds available for waste in the first place.
Some clever people are already living sustainably.
That means there's not much leftover for squandering ;-)

If we can't tax them then let the idiots sort themselves out.

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Why don't we have a kids day?

Granted this post may not be what you expect from a child-free blog but stay with me...

This morning I discovered that Mother's Day (or is it Mothers Day?) is just around the corner.

These days I see it as a commercialised piece of crap, but when I was a kid I was into it. What choice did I have? I didn't know any better :-)

I remember asking my parents why there wasn't a "kid's/kids day"?
My Dad's response was that "every day is kids day".
I thought that was bollocks then and now more so.

After all, it is the parents who choose, on one level or another, to have kids. The kids have no say in it.

Is a small token of thanks too much to ask for? We, as kids, put up with all their crap and shonky parenting skills.

Christ, most of us grow up screwed up in one way or another. What kind of thanks is that?

Yet there is no day when I get a present or even a card from my mother just letting me know she loves me. Whether she does or not is a whole other thing.

If I have to fake it she bloody well can too!

Sure there is the Decemberish celebration of some mythical guy's birthday. But everyone gets presents so that doesn't really count.

There is an international children's day of some kind but that is more about charity and general awareness of the even shitter lives some kids have (thanks to their parents stupidity...mostly). It isn't like Mothers Day or Fathers Day at all.

Maybe it should be Offspring Day as opposed to Kids Day? What about Spawn Day? Maybe it should be named so that it doesn't end with a person's passage through puberty.

Our parents expect us to look after them in their old age having brought us here without our permission. The least they can do is remind us that they want us on some level, hell I'd even be happy with the slow accumulation of guilt related gifts! :-)

Happy Fricken Mothers Day ;-)

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Dick Smith - Wilberforce Award

"So today I am announcing Dick Smith’s Wilberforce Award – $1 million to go to a young person under 30 who can impress me by becoming famous through his or her ability to show leadership in communicating an alternative to our population and consumption growth-obsessed economy. I will be looking for candidates whose actions over the next year show that they have what it takes to be among the next generation of leaders our incredible planet so badly needs.

Candidates will need to have a firm belief that we can have a viable and strong world economy that is no longer obsessed with growth for its own sake, but instead encourages both a stable population and sustainable consumption of energy and resources. They must be able to communicate that we cannot continue to squander the resources that will be needed by future generations, and they must also be able to communicate a plan that offers an alternative to our growth addiction.

Thursday, March 17, 2011

A lesson on population density

It strikes me that the disaster in Japan may serve as a lesson on the perils of high density population.

I am not trying to say it is any one's fault or in any way make this bad situation any worse.

I am merely noting that if the areas hit by the Earthquake and Tsunami had been less densely populated that there would be significantly fewer ramifications.

For example, in a densely populated area you may have to put your nuclear reactors near your people.

In a densely populated country single events affect a higher number of people simply because there are more people there.

In a densely populated country just where do you send the homeless when the rest of the country is full or devastated? Do these people have to leave their homeland, their country?

Imagine if a bigger event took place. An event that affects more than just one country. Maybe it affects many or half the world...maybe even more!

One day such an event will occur in the form of a meteor strike.

If the world is full of people where do the affected masses go? The Space Shuttle is retiring you know and even it only carries 8 people max and it can't even reach the moon.

So, a sustainable population density means that we humans can endure such disasters much less painfully.

As long as we cram ourselves into every ridiculous danger zone on the planet we can expect to witness human suffering on a great scale.

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Earthquakes,Tsunamis and the end of the world

I feel terrible for the people of Japan.
Only a little over a year back my wife and I visited Japan.
The people are lovely and the place is magnificent.
I can't comprehend what they've been through and I can't see how they'll recover..but I know they will.

As a side effect of all this I've seen and heard a lot of daft talk about "the end of days", "the planet's revenge" and so forth.

Of course this is all bullshit.

As the image above shows, Japan has a grand history of Earthquakes and Tsunamis. They knew it was coming and they prepared as best they could.

But we all know the Earth is far more powerful than anything we can prepare for.

On a planetary scale this stuff is quite normal. It has been going on for as long as the Earth has been around and it will keep happening for as long as we'll be around to notice.

The science of this is well documented and clearly explained.

Yet for some reason we humans are surprised when those of us living on fault lines experience Earthquakes. We stare in awe as those of us who live at sea level get inundated by rains and Tsunamis. We can't comprehend that the town at the base of a volcano gets engulfed by ash, molten magma and mud.

So, in the surprise and shock of it all some of us start to notice a pattern. The Earth is bored with us and is evicting us...

She's sick of us, our pollution and our global warming.

The problem is that the human brain likes order and links unrelated events. It also doesn't do mathematical probability all that well. It thinks "co-incidences" are more than random happenings that kind-of look related.

Mind you, if the dummies want to think global warming has made the Earth mad then fine.

Doubly fine if it makes them think twice about polluting and reproducing.

Global warming is most likely real, but there are doubters. Nothing like a few global omens to make up for where logic and brain power fails ;-)

Monday, February 28, 2011

The vandals won't ever read this

Why are we wasting our breath?

I am betting that if you are reading this are probably already of a mindset that finds what I am talking about acceptable at some level.

I am preaching to the converted.

This was once again driven home to me when an intelligent couple I know announced that they were having their third child.

I love them to death but for the life of me I couldn't muster anything but anger. All I could think was "vandals".

I suffered in silence. It was too late. The baby is already on its way. Anything I said would just sour the relationship. But that's not the point.

The point is, these people have been close to us, listened to and understood our choice. They understand the plight of the planet. They recreate in areas affected directly by human pollution and over population.

They probably know on some level that what they are doing now will directly affect the lives of their own kids. Their kids and their kid's kids will live in the mess...if living is possible.

Yet they choose to reproduce for growth rather than sustainability (or better still reduction).

While the "experts" pretty much always get it wrong, I think the perceived risks for the future are enough to take precautionary measures.

So tell me, if intelligent people don't get it, what hope is there that the dummies will cotton on? So that is everyone but you and me right ;-)

Just what the hell has to happen for the global sustainability message to get through?

Friday, February 25, 2011

Carbon and kids

The carbon tax rears its ugly head in the news again today.

Twonk politicians think that taxing people for their carbon emissions will help reduce global warming.

Whereas, in reality, all it will do is green-light polluting at a price on a whole new scale.

Those who can afford to pollute, will, those who can't will be subsidised to pollute.

For the politicians it is like one face doesn't know what the other is saying.

Is it just me or does it seem completely retarded to pay people to create carbon consuming entities i.e. kids?

In a country where our per-capita carbon output is ranked about number two in the world, we then propose to tax those very same people for the carbon that the taxpayer funded offspring produce.

It isn't me. It is completely fucked up!
It is pure madness.

This is by no means a new idea or a recently spotted aberration.

In 2007 Barbara Millar, an academic of note and a woman you may note, suggested we "put a carbon tax on babies".

Of course this was really about scaring people into thinking about reproduction.

A caption on the photo accompanying the article says "Experts say population growth accounts for about 1.2 per cent per year of energy-based emissions in Australia."

So that's just the growth, not what is already going on.

The Earth can clean up our carbon, just not if there are too many of us.
It is that simple.

Giving humans room to squirm on action is a politicians key skill.

Exhibiting some uncommon sense and tackling a problem at its root simply too scary for them to even consider.

Pathetic weaklings the lot of them!

Tuesday, February 01, 2011

The Age of Stupid and the oldies

Last weekend we watched the movie The Age of Stupid.

It is a movie I wanted to see but had put off because I thought it would depress me and I thought I probably wasn't the target audience.

I was right - mostly.

Thinking about it, I don't know how you would get the people who should see it to watch it.

It occurred to me that the aging population, which is itself quite a separate debate, directly feeds into the whole climate change problem.

My thinking goes like this...

1) The older people get the less they worry about things perceived to be "outside their lifetime" in the future.

2) As the majority of the human population gets older this future blindness becomes more profound.

3) With climate change well and truly in the "outside of their lifetime" category*, it seems an ever growing majority of the population will tend to do nothing about it.

It has been stupidly suggested (note the nice link here) that the aging population "problem" can be rectified by...wait for it...having more children now.

So, with humans being the fundamental problem, it is suggested that more of us will solve the problem? Really? FFS! No!

It also occurred to me that every generation seems to have faced their own "end of the world" scenario.

When I was a kid I was scared shitless by the potential for a 3rd world war...a nuclear war.

AIDS was supposed to wipe us out at one stage.

Before that there was an actual world war or two. Before that there were plagues and other wars and other disasters.

On and on it goes.

Scientists too have a habit of getting things very wrong and kicking off some major stuff ups in the name of "fixing things". Cane Toads leap to mind (no pun intended). Nuclear power too was supposed to be some sort of saviour for the planet.

Bloody hell, any superficial analysis of humanity as a whole will reveal our past as primarily being mistakes.

All this does is numb us to the likelihood of the Global Warming "scare" being real...and don't think that card is being played hard by the ignorant.

What's my opinion?
Global warming can't be ignored, but it will be and I think humanity will have a whole swag of crap to worry about in another 25 to 50 years time. It's what we do.

* not that it IS necessarily going to happen outside their lifetime, that is just their convenient perception.

Tuesday, January 04, 2011

The shiny way to end the World

I've said it before, I'll probably say it again.

The human species is in pursuit of no higher ideal than that of obtaining shiny things.

That's right. It isn't about "the fewcha", it isn't about "the childrun" it certainly isn't about "the planit" but it is about "oooh, shiny!".

Every Christmas and New Year we prove this on a massive scale.

Humans go out on mass and buy a bazillion shiny things while browsing through shops that have been especially decorated to be extra shiny.

Christmas lights, decorations and displays are about as shiny as things get.

While we are distracted by that which we desire the most, we spend!

We buy the shiniest of shiny - iPads, TVs, x-boxes, play stations, lovely things, china, silverware, glassware and on and on it all goes.

Aside from the odd pair of socks and undies I dare you to find anything bought/given at this time of year that isn't shiny.

Then, to cap it off, we take our shiny new stuff out on December 31st to watch the powers that be attempt to blow up the sky.

Usually they fail but do often succeed in hiding it for a while in a veil of smoke.

Fuck you global warming. Fuck you pollution. Fuck you carbon footprint.
I've got my shiny and watched big explosions, which were very shiny in the sky thanks very much.

Don't get me wrong. I like shiny and I like fireworks.
I simply think it is all fantastically daft.

Happy 2011 everyone.