I realised something today (not only that, but I just realized that I don't know if I write in American or British English!). Let's call it a re-realisation, because it is something that I have been thinking about for the past 2 years or so.
When you go back to the beginning, I always wanted to run a business. In fact, when I entered the Faculty of Accounting, it was under the advice of an older student that this is where you would learn the most about how to run a business. Initially, this desire was purely entrepreneurial in nature. Over the past ten years (or possibly less??) my attitude has changed from being a person inspired with the entrepreneurial spirit, to a person that is disgusted by the employment regime that we all live under.
This attitude has grown slowly for a few years now, and my interest in "anti-corporation" for the good of mankind (and my own sanity) has grown with it. This has been fostered by watching such films (they weren't always documentaries) about how the corporations poison our society, and most recently (and probably most profoundly) by reading a book called Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn.
Now I am not one of those "giver vs. taker" soldiers that read it like a bible and use its glossary of terms as a dictionary for life. However, the principles in the book really lay out where we went wrong.
But...this post isn't about that book. It is about the 40 days of overtime per year that some people have to work, as shown in this article. Another article claims that residents of the UK average 7 hours and 42 minutes of overtime per week. That is essentially like working 6 days a week. What happened to the five day work week?
Even when it comes to a regular work week, or work day, things have changed. Anyone remember the song, and movie called 9 to 5? What happened to this 9 to 5 idea? And how did it get so easily replaced by 8 to 5 or 8:30 to 5:30 with nobody asking any questions? How did we let this happen?
Today I heard my boss say "I can't right now, but I will have time to look at it tonight." That was it. I was thinking "when does he not work?" I remember one day finding out he got a phone call at 3 am from the USA regarding an issue at work. Is that normal? I mean, if you are in the CIA, maybe then OK, but just a normal manager? Where has his life gone?
I have decided that is the road I am going to avoid. Why should I give up my life for someone else to succeed? Why should I miss out on life to further the life of the investors in the company I work for? The only way that it makes sense to do that is if the investor in the company you work for is you.
Forget safe pension plans, monthly salaries and overtime just to keep my job. I am willing to do overtime, but it has to have a purpose. When it is my place, my bank account and, essentially, my ass on the street if I fail, then the purpose is clear.
And so...
Anti-employment has become my purpose in life; the climax of all I hope to achieve. It is simply really. I don't want to be a slave (so to speak). I don't want to be involved in the politics of the office, or the destruction of the earth for the sake of money.
And I don't want to work overtime for nothing.
This is my goal. I just hope I reach it before I retire!
Monday, March 23, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Police are the Enemy: Reality or Perception?
Today I am not writing about where I live, but about where I used to live. The article entitled
Officers found not guilty of assault on homeless man on the cbc.ca website outlines the decision made in court yesterday by a judge on the fate of 2 Calgary policemen, Dino Izzo and Roland Stewart. They were charged with assaulting a homeless man back in December 2007 in a police administration building stairwell.
Now you can check out the related articles on the page to give you a better idea of what happened, but I would like to just characterize the situation.
The Setting:
Calgary, Alberta, Canada...one of the fastest growing cities in the world in the last 15 years. This is a city that has been overrun with money, business, and opportunity. What does that create? Chaos. Along with the opportunity in career terms, comes the opportunity on the streets for very profitable illegal activities. The city's crime rate has risen yearly, along with its average income, and news of violent crimes almost became a weekly occurence by the time I left in 2008.
The city was, and still is, exhausted for resources, both in infrastructure and service. This includes police service. The battle against crime in the city became so overwhelming that at one point, the city's mayor had decided to organize mercenary help for the police to help clean up the streets. Respect for the police, on the part of criminals, is quite low, when the consider the fact that there is never enough of them to make a difference.
The Players:
The accusation comes from a man with a long history with the police, a homeless man that has serious addictions to narcotics and possibly other chemicals. Possibly at one point, he had a job, a home, and a family, but his personal history was not revealed aside from the fact that he was a homeless drug addict at the time of the alledged crime, but now has housing (although his addictions are still there).
The defendants are 1. Dino Izzo, a 9 year veteran of the force. No real details about either officer were offered up in the reports aside from their professional creds. 2. Roland Stewart, now a 3 or 4 year vet on the squad.
When looking at this case, I had a much different perspective than any other police case in the past. I know Roland Stewart. I don't know him, in that we are buddies, and used to go for beers. However, I grew up with him. We used to play street hockey. He was on my minor hockey team a few years.
This made me think: Could a friend of mine ever do something like that? Could he be an abusive cop, like the ones that we would throw to the wolves if given half a chance because, for many, they represent fear and opression as opposed to the "serve and protect" idea they like to push on society. But which are they? The Enemy, or the Protector?
Reading some of the comments on the page, I noticed that many poeple are grouping all the police into one group. Specifically, all the police that have been charged with something are in the same group. I may have done this before, too, just assuming that they are all the same.
But is a policeman that beats someone near to death the same as someone who breaks someone's ribs with one single kick? Is this policeman also the same as someone who simply lets someone out of a car in inclement weather while they are intoxicated without laying a finger on them?
At the same time, when police in Los Angeles have to deal with automatic weapons artillery vs. the pistol or knife that the Calgary policemen were suspecting the plaintiff of carrying, does this give them liberties that can't be granted to cops in smaller, less "dangerous" cities or towns?
The main issue always seems to be "was the force used excessive or merited?". What determines the level of force needed in every situation? It is all opinion. There is no book on force level, as levels of force are all relative. The same force put on one person may affect them totally different than that force applied to another. It could break a bone on one man but not even bruise another. And how do you determine this possible outcome in the heat of the moment?
All these issues where nobody has the answer, while, at the same time, too many are experts in the field and all have pre-determined the cops are guilty without even knowing the general details of the story, let alone hearing any actual words out of the mouths of those involved.
One posted comment on the website said "The whole thing, both sides included, is part of a disease that just keeps growing with no end in sight." But are the involved parties responsible for this disease? Or are they simple the victims?
Officers found not guilty of assault on homeless man on the cbc.ca website outlines the decision made in court yesterday by a judge on the fate of 2 Calgary policemen, Dino Izzo and Roland Stewart. They were charged with assaulting a homeless man back in December 2007 in a police administration building stairwell.
Now you can check out the related articles on the page to give you a better idea of what happened, but I would like to just characterize the situation.
The Setting:
Calgary, Alberta, Canada...one of the fastest growing cities in the world in the last 15 years. This is a city that has been overrun with money, business, and opportunity. What does that create? Chaos. Along with the opportunity in career terms, comes the opportunity on the streets for very profitable illegal activities. The city's crime rate has risen yearly, along with its average income, and news of violent crimes almost became a weekly occurence by the time I left in 2008.
The city was, and still is, exhausted for resources, both in infrastructure and service. This includes police service. The battle against crime in the city became so overwhelming that at one point, the city's mayor had decided to organize mercenary help for the police to help clean up the streets. Respect for the police, on the part of criminals, is quite low, when the consider the fact that there is never enough of them to make a difference.
The Players:
The accusation comes from a man with a long history with the police, a homeless man that has serious addictions to narcotics and possibly other chemicals. Possibly at one point, he had a job, a home, and a family, but his personal history was not revealed aside from the fact that he was a homeless drug addict at the time of the alledged crime, but now has housing (although his addictions are still there).
The defendants are 1. Dino Izzo, a 9 year veteran of the force. No real details about either officer were offered up in the reports aside from their professional creds. 2. Roland Stewart, now a 3 or 4 year vet on the squad.
When looking at this case, I had a much different perspective than any other police case in the past. I know Roland Stewart. I don't know him, in that we are buddies, and used to go for beers. However, I grew up with him. We used to play street hockey. He was on my minor hockey team a few years.
This made me think: Could a friend of mine ever do something like that? Could he be an abusive cop, like the ones that we would throw to the wolves if given half a chance because, for many, they represent fear and opression as opposed to the "serve and protect" idea they like to push on society. But which are they? The Enemy, or the Protector?
Reading some of the comments on the page, I noticed that many poeple are grouping all the police into one group. Specifically, all the police that have been charged with something are in the same group. I may have done this before, too, just assuming that they are all the same.
But is a policeman that beats someone near to death the same as someone who breaks someone's ribs with one single kick? Is this policeman also the same as someone who simply lets someone out of a car in inclement weather while they are intoxicated without laying a finger on them?
At the same time, when police in Los Angeles have to deal with automatic weapons artillery vs. the pistol or knife that the Calgary policemen were suspecting the plaintiff of carrying, does this give them liberties that can't be granted to cops in smaller, less "dangerous" cities or towns?
The main issue always seems to be "was the force used excessive or merited?". What determines the level of force needed in every situation? It is all opinion. There is no book on force level, as levels of force are all relative. The same force put on one person may affect them totally different than that force applied to another. It could break a bone on one man but not even bruise another. And how do you determine this possible outcome in the heat of the moment?
All these issues where nobody has the answer, while, at the same time, too many are experts in the field and all have pre-determined the cops are guilty without even knowing the general details of the story, let alone hearing any actual words out of the mouths of those involved.
One posted comment on the website said "The whole thing, both sides included, is part of a disease that just keeps growing with no end in sight." But are the involved parties responsible for this disease? Or are they simple the victims?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
