I'm rebuilding this from the ground up as I can only remember the theme and the punchline.
A groom and his best man were called upon to sign a document after the wedding service.
The groom, who had never learnt to write, inscribed a large 'X'.
The best man, at his turn, wrote 'XX'.
'What's the second X for?' asked the groom.
'Oh, that's my economics degree.'
Wednesday, 30 April 2008
Tuesday, 29 April 2008
geelong
Upfront! I'm nowhere near a footy expert.
I know a lot about many sports but AFL isn't one of them.
However, I think that sometimes I notice little things that smarter followers don't.
The Geelong team is playing footy on a different level than other teams and, if their form continues, they'll prove it against all the rest.
This is my contention.
I've listened to maybe 80% of their first six games this year - on the radio - and watched about 15-20% of their total gametime.
It's become increasingly obvious to me that, if a footy team can be compared to a car, Geelong has something like an extra cog, a supercharger, nitrous oxide … a 'blitz factor' they can use for around 15 or 20 minutes per game - and call upon at will.
This sets them apart.
Until the other teams achieve the discipline, intellect and physicality to recognise and effectively respond to this phenomenon, Geelong is unbeatable.
I'm inclined to give most of the credit to their coach, 'Bomber' Thompson.
Case in point: last weekend's encounter with Fremantle.
I reckon Freo matched Geelong for about a third of the game and were actually 'the better team' most of the time.
But, when the Cats really needed points, they collectively reached into this mysterious place and simply overpowered the Dockers.
When the Cats are on song, they can win by 100 points without raising a sweat.
And when they're playing badly, they do enough to win.
They've shown this time and time again.
In due course we'll all find out if their current dominance is sustainable.
In the meantime I'm going to enjoy it!
I know a lot about many sports but AFL isn't one of them.
However, I think that sometimes I notice little things that smarter followers don't.
The Geelong team is playing footy on a different level than other teams and, if their form continues, they'll prove it against all the rest.
This is my contention.
I've listened to maybe 80% of their first six games this year - on the radio - and watched about 15-20% of their total gametime.
It's become increasingly obvious to me that, if a footy team can be compared to a car, Geelong has something like an extra cog, a supercharger, nitrous oxide … a 'blitz factor' they can use for around 15 or 20 minutes per game - and call upon at will.
This sets them apart.
Until the other teams achieve the discipline, intellect and physicality to recognise and effectively respond to this phenomenon, Geelong is unbeatable.
I'm inclined to give most of the credit to their coach, 'Bomber' Thompson.
Case in point: last weekend's encounter with Fremantle.
I reckon Freo matched Geelong for about a third of the game and were actually 'the better team' most of the time.
But, when the Cats really needed points, they collectively reached into this mysterious place and simply overpowered the Dockers.
When the Cats are on song, they can win by 100 points without raising a sweat.
And when they're playing badly, they do enough to win.
They've shown this time and time again.
In due course we'll all find out if their current dominance is sustainable.
In the meantime I'm going to enjoy it!
Saturday, 26 April 2008
shark fin soup II
(Might be helpful if you do a little
Homework
first.)
I'm not a Buddhist. I'm an atheist. (Owned up to that one ages ago.)
But I really like the way Buddhism works, if you know what I mean!
Without getting even slightly mystical about it, I feel compelled and, equally, determined to integrate every element of my life - work, relationships, eating, sleep, leisure - into a single, contiguous and internally consistent philosophy.
Segué …
I'm not an expert on permaculture; I'm not even what you might call an adherent.
But I really like the way it works - and I use bits of it pretty much every day.
Why?
I appreciate efficiency, elegant design, appropriate technology, optimising resources, allowing 'nature' to do its thing … but helping it along if required.
It's an integrated, wholistic, systematic approach to making things work better - both Locally and Globally.
Back to shark fin soup!
The following extract is lifted from the 'homework' link above.
I've deleted a few points to avoid complexity - leaving us with only five (but plan to revisit these principles again).
Selected extracts are in italics; my comments are appended to each in Roman; 'shark fin soup' is abbreviated to 'sfs'.
Holmgren's 12 design principles
These restatements of the principles of permaculture appear in David Holmgren's Permaculture: Principles and Pathways Beyond Sustainability
…
Apply self-regulation and accept feedback - We need to discourage inappropriate activity to ensure that systems can continue to function well.
Where is the incentive for the sfs industry to 'self-regulate' if consumers don't do anything to 'discourage inappropriate activity'?
The Market God is blind to all evils until the Market God itself - you and I - shoves a red-hot poker up its own backside.
This method shut down the ivory and fur trades so transforming the shark fin trade should be a doddle.
Use and value renewable resources and services - Make the best use of natures abundance to reduce our consumptive behaviour and dependence on non-renewable resources.
Produce no waste - By valuing and making use of all the resources that are available to us, nothing goes to waste.
These two principles, both packed with value, merge.
Rather than controlling nature, we have every 'right' to manage its renewable resources in a genuinely sustainable fashion.
In doing this, we should waste nothing. If killing sharks is sustainable - and, under a quota system, it should be - then we have an an obligation to waste none of it. As matters stand, the market for sfs is anything but sustainable.
As for "our consumptive behaviour and dependence on non-renewable resources": refer to my earlier comments regarding Greenpeace's wasteful and indulgent activities.
It's run by smart, capable people who can and should do better once they get over their addiction to fame.
…
Integrate rather than segregate - By putting the right things in the right place, relationships develop between those things and they work together to support each other.
Refer to my opening statement.
Seriously, the only hope for our planet is "the getting of wisdom".
Every act we undertake as individuals has consequences. Most of them impact on others.
I feel we should seek, at all times, to ensure our actions offer a nett benefit to our fellow six billion "travellers" - even those yet to be born.
Let's make an effort to get these relationships right.
…
Creatively use and respond to change - We can have a positive impact on inevitable change by carefully observing, and then intervening at the right time.
It's great to finish on a positive note!
(I'm the first to admit that my posts contain a lot of criticisms. I use the analogy of "The Emperor's New Clothes": before a problem can be fixed it must be recognised as such.)
Just as the philosophy of Permaculture accepts and even embraces change, we all need to do the same.
Peak Oil has come and gone over the past few years and the reality is finally sinking in.
The knee-jerk reaction was bio-fuels as a solution, but - for a change - the Reality Check kicked in pretty damn quickly!
Dedicating agricultural resources to fuel means less food (and / or dearer food - for those who can still afford it).
Well, sorry, DUH!
It might be an idea to bite the bullet and start weaning ourselves off the teat of self-indulgence (a.k.a. overconsumption).
To close the current discussion for now …
In simple terms: if a large shark fin equates to a single meal for one wealthy, self-indulgent person, how many needy people would the whole animal feed?
Doesn't it make sense to meet the nutritional requirements as many as possible from a decreasing pro rata food supply?
Bottom line: let the tossers have their sfs under a quota system.
But make the bastards pay for it, Bigtime, ensuring the rest of the animal goes to the hungry at a subsidised rate.
(Could the Coalition of the Willing start doing something useful for a change, like maintaining an economic blockade along other than racist, ideological lines? I have my doubts.)
Homework
first.)
I'm not a Buddhist. I'm an atheist. (Owned up to that one ages ago.)
But I really like the way Buddhism works, if you know what I mean!
Without getting even slightly mystical about it, I feel compelled and, equally, determined to integrate every element of my life - work, relationships, eating, sleep, leisure - into a single, contiguous and internally consistent philosophy.
Segué …
I'm not an expert on permaculture; I'm not even what you might call an adherent.
But I really like the way it works - and I use bits of it pretty much every day.
Why?
I appreciate efficiency, elegant design, appropriate technology, optimising resources, allowing 'nature' to do its thing … but helping it along if required.
It's an integrated, wholistic, systematic approach to making things work better - both Locally and Globally.
Back to shark fin soup!
The following extract is lifted from the 'homework' link above.
I've deleted a few points to avoid complexity - leaving us with only five (but plan to revisit these principles again).
Selected extracts are in italics; my comments are appended to each in Roman; 'shark fin soup' is abbreviated to 'sfs'.
Holmgren's 12 design principles
These restatements of the principles of permaculture appear in David Holmgren's Permaculture: Principles and Pathways Beyond Sustainability
…
Apply self-regulation and accept feedback - We need to discourage inappropriate activity to ensure that systems can continue to function well.
Where is the incentive for the sfs industry to 'self-regulate' if consumers don't do anything to 'discourage inappropriate activity'?
The Market God is blind to all evils until the Market God itself - you and I - shoves a red-hot poker up its own backside.
This method shut down the ivory and fur trades so transforming the shark fin trade should be a doddle.
Use and value renewable resources and services - Make the best use of natures abundance to reduce our consumptive behaviour and dependence on non-renewable resources.
Produce no waste - By valuing and making use of all the resources that are available to us, nothing goes to waste.
These two principles, both packed with value, merge.
Rather than controlling nature, we have every 'right' to manage its renewable resources in a genuinely sustainable fashion.
In doing this, we should waste nothing. If killing sharks is sustainable - and, under a quota system, it should be - then we have an an obligation to waste none of it. As matters stand, the market for sfs is anything but sustainable.
As for "our consumptive behaviour and dependence on non-renewable resources": refer to my earlier comments regarding Greenpeace's wasteful and indulgent activities.
It's run by smart, capable people who can and should do better once they get over their addiction to fame.
…
Integrate rather than segregate - By putting the right things in the right place, relationships develop between those things and they work together to support each other.
Refer to my opening statement.
Seriously, the only hope for our planet is "the getting of wisdom".
Every act we undertake as individuals has consequences. Most of them impact on others.
I feel we should seek, at all times, to ensure our actions offer a nett benefit to our fellow six billion "travellers" - even those yet to be born.
Let's make an effort to get these relationships right.
…
Creatively use and respond to change - We can have a positive impact on inevitable change by carefully observing, and then intervening at the right time.
It's great to finish on a positive note!
(I'm the first to admit that my posts contain a lot of criticisms. I use the analogy of "The Emperor's New Clothes": before a problem can be fixed it must be recognised as such.)
Just as the philosophy of Permaculture accepts and even embraces change, we all need to do the same.
Peak Oil has come and gone over the past few years and the reality is finally sinking in.
The knee-jerk reaction was bio-fuels as a solution, but - for a change - the Reality Check kicked in pretty damn quickly!
Dedicating agricultural resources to fuel means less food (and / or dearer food - for those who can still afford it).
Well, sorry, DUH!
It might be an idea to bite the bullet and start weaning ourselves off the teat of self-indulgence (a.k.a. overconsumption).
To close the current discussion for now …
In simple terms: if a large shark fin equates to a single meal for one wealthy, self-indulgent person, how many needy people would the whole animal feed?
Doesn't it make sense to meet the nutritional requirements as many as possible from a decreasing pro rata food supply?
Bottom line: let the tossers have their sfs under a quota system.
But make the bastards pay for it, Bigtime, ensuring the rest of the animal goes to the hungry at a subsidised rate.
(Could the Coalition of the Willing start doing something useful for a change, like maintaining an economic blockade along other than racist, ideological lines? I have my doubts.)
shark fin soup 1
Background info here:
"ego, pride, exhibitionism, hubris..." a strong case for retrospective abortion.com
As always, never accept my word for it: Google is your friend.
The increasing demand for shark fin soup during an accelerating global food crisis serves, in many ways, to encapsulate the intellectual vacuum manifest between the tokenistic 'sustainability mantra' and a less-than-smug reality.
To supply the decadent demand for a bland and occasionally toxic product, whole dorsal fins are cut from live sharks before the animals are dumped back into the ocean to die slowly or to be torn apart by their cousins.
Now, I'm no fan of Japanese whaling 'research'. Everyone knows this 'research' nothing but a Big Lie.
Governments and diplomats would do well to call Japan's bluff, literally, by 'shirtfronting' the lying, hypocritical bastards and giving them a few smacks for fibbing.
In mitigation, however, at least the whales aren't being mutilated and thrown away. The entire whale is the product, not a tiny piece of it. It's killed; it's used.
Although the jury's still out, whale harvesting may even prove to be sustainable.
Given these two parallel realities, why do people get all warm, fuzzy and concerned about the latter but not the former?
Why are there quotas for whales and not for sharks?
How many sharks are being butchered alive for every whale killed and eaten?
How many tens of millions of dollars, tens of thousands of litres of fuel, thousands of hours of human resources, are invested in the annual Greenpeace Anti-Whaling stunt?*
Is it possible these resources might be invested more wisely?
Perhaps in one of dozens of third-world countries where people are literally starving?
Hmmm, the lying-hypocritical-bastard syndrome is catching on!
Boycott shark fin soup. Boycott restaurants that serve it. Boycott people who eat it.
*In the interests of balance re Greenpeace activities:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4495790a6031.html
(But who died and annointed them cops?! If I wanted another pack of interventionist bully-boys I'd become a US citizen.)
"ego, pride, exhibitionism, hubris..." a strong case for retrospective abortion.com
As always, never accept my word for it: Google is your friend.
The increasing demand for shark fin soup during an accelerating global food crisis serves, in many ways, to encapsulate the intellectual vacuum manifest between the tokenistic 'sustainability mantra' and a less-than-smug reality.
To supply the decadent demand for a bland and occasionally toxic product, whole dorsal fins are cut from live sharks before the animals are dumped back into the ocean to die slowly or to be torn apart by their cousins.
Now, I'm no fan of Japanese whaling 'research'. Everyone knows this 'research' nothing but a Big Lie.
Governments and diplomats would do well to call Japan's bluff, literally, by 'shirtfronting' the lying, hypocritical bastards and giving them a few smacks for fibbing.
In mitigation, however, at least the whales aren't being mutilated and thrown away. The entire whale is the product, not a tiny piece of it. It's killed; it's used.
Although the jury's still out, whale harvesting may even prove to be sustainable.
Given these two parallel realities, why do people get all warm, fuzzy and concerned about the latter but not the former?
Why are there quotas for whales and not for sharks?
How many sharks are being butchered alive for every whale killed and eaten?
How many tens of millions of dollars, tens of thousands of litres of fuel, thousands of hours of human resources, are invested in the annual Greenpeace Anti-Whaling stunt?*
Is it possible these resources might be invested more wisely?
Perhaps in one of dozens of third-world countries where people are literally starving?
Hmmm, the lying-hypocritical-bastard syndrome is catching on!
Boycott shark fin soup. Boycott restaurants that serve it. Boycott people who eat it.
*In the interests of balance re Greenpeace activities:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4495790a6031.html
(But who died and annointed them cops?! If I wanted another pack of interventionist bully-boys I'd become a US citizen.)
Sunday, 6 April 2008
st kilda
I emigrated from Sydney to (far) East Gippsland in 1983.
A few days after I completed the relocation it was made clear to me that, although this wasn't mentioned on the induction paperwork, the choice of a Footy Team had now become mandatory.
At the time violence for non-conformance was colourfully implied (but not, fortunately, ever enforced).
Gotta love those Border Security bogans.
As I had no plans to seriously engage in lemming-like behaviour I chose the team-least-likely-to-ever-win-anything-again - just to shut these wankers up.
Yes, I went with the Saints.
Incidentally, this decision balanced nicely with my League team, St George, who had enjoyed many good years.
(John Howard and me on the same bandwagon: the symmetry is complete!
Moreover, the atheist in me relished the irony.)
Despite myself, over the years I started to engage in the fortunes of St Kilda.
For the remainder of the Twentieth Century, I became increasingly depressed with every thrashing 'WE' received.
I twitched when any of the boys 'got done' for anti-social behaviour. (I shuddered a lot.)
My eyes brimmed when Plugger Lockett, Big Bad Barry Hall and Spider Everett moved on.
Y'know, a fan can only take so much!
Then, at some stage (what? four or five years ago?) the bastards started winning more games than they lost.
It's amazing what a couple of decent coaches, bags of money and a newfound culture of maturity and accountability can do!
Despite myself, I was forced to flirt with the idea that St Kilda could actually become A CONTENDER.
This really messed with my mind for quite a while, especially when they actually 'contended' once or twice.
However, in my heart of hearts, I knew the Sainters wouldn't let me down.
They haven't and they won't. Feel free to bookmark this.
When push comes to shove, St Kilda lack the heart to win a premiership.
PS. Robert Harvey? ABSOLUTE LEGEND, mate.
A few days after I completed the relocation it was made clear to me that, although this wasn't mentioned on the induction paperwork, the choice of a Footy Team had now become mandatory.
At the time violence for non-conformance was colourfully implied (but not, fortunately, ever enforced).
Gotta love those Border Security bogans.
As I had no plans to seriously engage in lemming-like behaviour I chose the team-least-likely-to-ever-win-anything-again - just to shut these wankers up.
Yes, I went with the Saints.
Incidentally, this decision balanced nicely with my League team, St George, who had enjoyed many good years.
(John Howard and me on the same bandwagon: the symmetry is complete!
Moreover, the atheist in me relished the irony.)
Despite myself, over the years I started to engage in the fortunes of St Kilda.
For the remainder of the Twentieth Century, I became increasingly depressed with every thrashing 'WE' received.
I twitched when any of the boys 'got done' for anti-social behaviour. (I shuddered a lot.)
My eyes brimmed when Plugger Lockett, Big Bad Barry Hall and Spider Everett moved on.
Y'know, a fan can only take so much!
Then, at some stage (what? four or five years ago?) the bastards started winning more games than they lost.
It's amazing what a couple of decent coaches, bags of money and a newfound culture of maturity and accountability can do!
Despite myself, I was forced to flirt with the idea that St Kilda could actually become A CONTENDER.
This really messed with my mind for quite a while, especially when they actually 'contended' once or twice.
However, in my heart of hearts, I knew the Sainters wouldn't let me down.
They haven't and they won't. Feel free to bookmark this.
When push comes to shove, St Kilda lack the heart to win a premiership.
PS. Robert Harvey? ABSOLUTE LEGEND, mate.
Saturday, 5 April 2008
more jed stuff
I needed to 'share' an image a while back and set up a Flickr account.
Here's the address:
over yonder, hiding behind the punkins
Have a look.
I'll be updating it from time to time, with a mixture of personal and professional images.
(Uploaded quite a few today; each has its own little editorial.)
Here's the address:
over yonder, hiding behind the punkins
Have a look.
I'll be updating it from time to time, with a mixture of personal and professional images.
(Uploaded quite a few today; each has its own little editorial.)
Everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die
Ever since sustainability became 'fashionable' and entered the mainstream - over the past year or two - this song has been kicking around in my head.
What am I getting at?
Most of us have good intentions. Flush once a day. Use more moderate settings on the reverse-cycle. Separate our waste (and maybe even value add it through a compost bin). Minimise using the car. And so forth.
Simple, good, enviro-friendly stuff.
At this level, society has no problem with sustainable practices.
However (and I don't enjoy pointing this out), in the current global context most of this stuff is feelgood tokenism.
Yes, I consciously and actively boycotted 'Turn-Off-Your-Lights-For-An-Hour' Day.
Face facts. None of this micro-behaviour will deliver a more liveable planet - that is, 'heaven' (what it was at some stage and what it still can be) - unless we are prepared to change our MACRO-habits.
Face facts II. OUR beloved market economy is working continually against a sustainable planet by inciting us to spend, consume, replace, upgrade … whatever it takes, including accumulate debt and, yes, fuck up the future.
As a society, what are we doing to resist?
(It's OUR economy at the end of the day, since it couldn't function without us.)
You tell me.
What is sustainable about buying a new car (or computer or TV or whatever) every three years?
Without delving into the issue of increasing fuel prices, I see a nett benefit in the disincentive to consume. HOWEVER, as long as work-related vehicle expenses are tax-deductible there is no real disincentive for many, is there?
Don't get me started on discounted airfares!
Can anyone else see the elephant in the room? (She's wielding a baseball bat.) Where is the disincentive to consume?
Look, I'm not out to spoil the fun - and everyone is entitled to travel now and then - but a single extra flight, created from the demand / supply relationship, probable cancels out dozens of lifetimes of 'micro-improvements'.
Many posts ago I wrote a little on the subject 'governments just don't get it'.
Well, they don't.
As they toy with sustainability - spraying our money around on warm, fuzzy confabs - they remain paralyzed like rabbits in the floodlight of the Future train.
Addicted to revenue, they desire both a boom economy and a green future but can't decide which is more important. WTF??
None of them can get its head around the compelling need to enforce lower consumption … by reducing production first and foremost as well as by implementing genuinely progressive policy and proactive legislation.
Interest rates and the stock market don't exist to serve people; governments do.
The market economy is simply not sustainable. Further, since it's largely managed by profiteers servicing an addiction to overconsumption, it simply can't be trusted.
When the carrot approach doesn't work, get out the stick.
Example: legislate to remove tax-deductibility from all unsustainable business practices.
Example: as with fuel, tobacco and alcohol, apply a massive (non-deductible) 'excise' to airfares and inefficient vehicles.
To get to 'heaven', we all need to 'die' a little.
[Phew! That was exhausting. I wanted to briefly address 'carbon trading' from my Backyard point of view, but that will have to wait for another day.]
What am I getting at?
Most of us have good intentions. Flush once a day. Use more moderate settings on the reverse-cycle. Separate our waste (and maybe even value add it through a compost bin). Minimise using the car. And so forth.
Simple, good, enviro-friendly stuff.
At this level, society has no problem with sustainable practices.
However (and I don't enjoy pointing this out), in the current global context most of this stuff is feelgood tokenism.
Yes, I consciously and actively boycotted 'Turn-Off-Your-Lights-For-An-Hour' Day.
Face facts. None of this micro-behaviour will deliver a more liveable planet - that is, 'heaven' (what it was at some stage and what it still can be) - unless we are prepared to change our MACRO-habits.
Face facts II. OUR beloved market economy is working continually against a sustainable planet by inciting us to spend, consume, replace, upgrade … whatever it takes, including accumulate debt and, yes, fuck up the future.
As a society, what are we doing to resist?
(It's OUR economy at the end of the day, since it couldn't function without us.)
You tell me.
What is sustainable about buying a new car (or computer or TV or whatever) every three years?
Without delving into the issue of increasing fuel prices, I see a nett benefit in the disincentive to consume. HOWEVER, as long as work-related vehicle expenses are tax-deductible there is no real disincentive for many, is there?
Don't get me started on discounted airfares!
Can anyone else see the elephant in the room? (She's wielding a baseball bat.) Where is the disincentive to consume?
Look, I'm not out to spoil the fun - and everyone is entitled to travel now and then - but a single extra flight, created from the demand / supply relationship, probable cancels out dozens of lifetimes of 'micro-improvements'.
Many posts ago I wrote a little on the subject 'governments just don't get it'.
Well, they don't.
As they toy with sustainability - spraying our money around on warm, fuzzy confabs - they remain paralyzed like rabbits in the floodlight of the Future train.
Addicted to revenue, they desire both a boom economy and a green future but can't decide which is more important. WTF??
None of them can get its head around the compelling need to enforce lower consumption … by reducing production first and foremost as well as by implementing genuinely progressive policy and proactive legislation.
Interest rates and the stock market don't exist to serve people; governments do.
The market economy is simply not sustainable. Further, since it's largely managed by profiteers servicing an addiction to overconsumption, it simply can't be trusted.
When the carrot approach doesn't work, get out the stick.
Example: legislate to remove tax-deductibility from all unsustainable business practices.
Example: as with fuel, tobacco and alcohol, apply a massive (non-deductible) 'excise' to airfares and inefficient vehicles.
To get to 'heaven', we all need to 'die' a little.
[Phew! That was exhausting. I wanted to briefly address 'carbon trading' from my Backyard point of view, but that will have to wait for another day.]
Thursday, 3 April 2008
functionality II
Last month I mentioned applying for a few jobs.
As one who treasures autonomy, all I can say is that you do what circumstances dictate.
If any of these applications had been successful I'd be back on the chain-gang, earning up to 300% of my current income, paying my bills comfortably, conquering the mortgage … and probably drifting away from what I really want to do.
Best outcome: one company asked me if I'd consider relocating interstate. I was chuffed but had to decline.
Worst outcome: an employment agency declined to respond to either of my emails.
(I was surprised that they demonstrated such contempt to a job-seeker - but enjoyed the irony.
I'm going to suggest they employ someone with appropriate skills to respond to emails.)
It can be difficult living literally month-to-month, not knowing what's around the corner in terms of income or how to meet that next batch of bills.
I've seen a lot of new grey hairs this year! (And, despite renewed efforts, my business is still far from sustainable.)
Yet, there's a wholly different set of stresses involved when you work for someone else.
You and I both know it, so don't argue. Just don't.
As a realist, I know I'll never be 'master of my destiny' in the purest sense - but working for yourself comes close.
I seriously love hard work.
Yes, I'm actively disengaging from physical hard yakka - I've seen more than my share over the past 35 years - but I'm happy to power away at any 'office' jobs indefinitely.
When I say 'happy', I mean it! I love doing illustration, design, typesetting, copywriting and the rest.
I love my little network of three computers and three printers. I even love the frequent challenge of keeping them functional.
I love turning a job around quickly.
I love looking after my clients - and take a genuine interest in their business operations, as well as in their success.
I love the efficiency and immediacy of modern equipment and telco services, as well as their dwindling enviro-footprints. Appropriate technology at its best!
Fair dinkum, if I had a reliable revenue stream I'd do most of this stuff for free.
As one who treasures autonomy, all I can say is that you do what circumstances dictate.
If any of these applications had been successful I'd be back on the chain-gang, earning up to 300% of my current income, paying my bills comfortably, conquering the mortgage … and probably drifting away from what I really want to do.
Best outcome: one company asked me if I'd consider relocating interstate. I was chuffed but had to decline.
Worst outcome: an employment agency declined to respond to either of my emails.
(I was surprised that they demonstrated such contempt to a job-seeker - but enjoyed the irony.
I'm going to suggest they employ someone with appropriate skills to respond to emails.)
It can be difficult living literally month-to-month, not knowing what's around the corner in terms of income or how to meet that next batch of bills.
I've seen a lot of new grey hairs this year! (And, despite renewed efforts, my business is still far from sustainable.)
Yet, there's a wholly different set of stresses involved when you work for someone else.
You and I both know it, so don't argue. Just don't.
As a realist, I know I'll never be 'master of my destiny' in the purest sense - but working for yourself comes close.
I seriously love hard work.
Yes, I'm actively disengaging from physical hard yakka - I've seen more than my share over the past 35 years - but I'm happy to power away at any 'office' jobs indefinitely.
When I say 'happy', I mean it! I love doing illustration, design, typesetting, copywriting and the rest.
I love my little network of three computers and three printers. I even love the frequent challenge of keeping them functional.
I love turning a job around quickly.
I love looking after my clients - and take a genuine interest in their business operations, as well as in their success.
I love the efficiency and immediacy of modern equipment and telco services, as well as their dwindling enviro-footprints. Appropriate technology at its best!
Fair dinkum, if I had a reliable revenue stream I'd do most of this stuff for free.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
