Autoconform not found. Please try again.

Time and time again I was asked, by different counsellors; "Why do you care what other people think?"

Now, a reason for me to be getting all this counselling over the years is that I've never been good at the whole human interaction and conformity thing. It's not for want of trying. When I go out of my way to fit in, I don't. When I don't go out of my way to fit in, I still don't. It seems to come so naturally to other people, but I don't appear have that gene. My behaviour does not seem to me to differ from that of 'normal' people, but that I can't discern in what way I differ from them does not seem to matter at all. I still don't fit in.

I'm not so very different, and I have learned ways to camoflage my oddness in the short term. Adaptable vocabulary. Body language matching. Silence. Humour. Avoiding humans in general. It makes life a little easier, but essentially, I behave the way that feels right to me. To adopt un-me changes too for the sake of being popular with people whose lifestyles I find peculiar is very un-me. And I have a right to be myself.

In counselling, it's almost an inevitable question:
"So, why do you care so much about what other people think?"
"You don't have to care, you know."
"What does it matter what other people think of you?"

To which I respond:
"I care because people with whom I interact have influence in my sphere. Their opinion of me effects my reputation and standing in the eyes of the community. Negative perceptions of me on their part impact my life opportunities, social, employment, big and small. That's why I care. That's why it's distressing to be seen as wrong and strange by others."

I'm coming up against that again, recently. I hate that I have to jump through hoops to give the appearance of being competent by standards that are contrary to my way of life. I hate having to contort myself to achieve respect for being what I am not, in the eyes of people who could never concieve that I might be judging their ways and finding them wanting. These kind of people who autoconform are the ones who would ask me "Why does it bother you what other people think?"

More Clever That.

To compete in the labour market on the world stage, it is necessary for Australia to have people prepared to work longer for less - in line with China and India, it's been said. People will, however, resist having their entitlements stripped. We aspire in life to earn more and more for our efforts, and will be outraged when the opposite is proposed in government policy. If I were to try to think up a 'What the Government can do to get Labor Elected' plan, it would look much like the IR reforms.

So, how do the government plan to do it and not get ousted?

Well, to subdue your populace (a), give everyone a mortgage, then prod them into having lots of children. Thus they are at the mercy of interest rates and employers if they wish to maintain their standard of living to any extent.

When condition (a) is met across a suitable portion of the community, initiate the IR reforms:

Longer hours. Reduced entitlements. Less representation. Less power. Less recourse. Lower wages.

The only unfortunate thing for the government in implementing these policies is that at the moment, there is not high unemployment. If there were, the government could say that the IR measures were aimed at reducing unemployment.

I wonder what the stats are like on teenage mums voting habits? Each year there is a greater financial incentive to breed. Each year more kids do. That money must seem like a fortune to the very low income. Perhaps with the poor begetting hordes of kids, competing with China and India on labour costs will be feasible in three generations. After all, that's only fifty years or so, if puberty = baby bonus earning ability.

I'm just going to sit on the porch in my rocker and clean my gun until the revolution comes...

Unusual Blocks.

When I was younger I used to play with Lego(tm) blocks. Not so much lately, but I've been thinking about them a lot. There are two or three common basic kinds of block: two four and eight knob rectangular blocks in an assortment of colours. As useful as these blocks are, they are far more so when other less common blocks are incorporated. Base plates, pyramid shapes, odd, angular, extra tall/long, half height. Incorporating these blocks into a construction allows greater versatility and complexity. Any fool can see that.

Why then, in communities, do we discriminate against unusual blocks? Not all of us comply with the two, four, eight rectangular specifications. Some blocks are so odd looking that they appear to be of little use, but appearances can decieve. Insisting that such unusual blocks perform the function of common blocks is counter-productive in many cases. The distortion invloved in trying to conform impairs or destroys the unique qualities that make the unusual blocks so useful.

Ingenuity and opportunity combined with awareness of as many of the available blocks as possible leads to optimal building solutions. Opportunities offered by unusual blocks can not be realised without their use.

Unfortunately, majority blocks, knowing how they themselves work, and having that functionality reflected back to them by so many similar blocks who agree with them, form a very solid opinion about what a block should look like, what a block is for, and how it should be used. Unusual blocks cannot often perform the function of a common block, so are viewed as defective by the majority, who cannot, from their limited experience and capacity, understand the unusual capabilities of the unusual blocks.

Unusual blocks who have the capability to perform common block functions are more easily allowed to express their potential to do unusual things, but unusual blocks that can perform those functions are not often able to do truly extraordinary things. Truly extraordinary blocks are often 'rectified' to a point where they can function as slightly defective common blocks, which dramatically limits their potential.

On reflection, I see that unusual blocks often aggregate, and in such a company of examples of other unusual blocks, despair of ever conforming to common-block expectations can recede.

This kind of concentration of the unusual can give rise to some truly extraordinary structures, good and bad.

Still, it seems unfair to me that, to be accepted socially, unusual blocks are expected to comply with common block standards. I feel that there is a need for recognition and support of unusual blocks. Awareness and acceptance among the common block majority would reduce the potential-inhibiting pain that unusual blocks suffer, benifiting the whole lego box, in the end.

Bad Laws.

Disturbing story on Dateline entitled "The National Interest" (I don't know how long that link will live.)

Being in posession of a "thing" that pertains to the planning of a terrorist act is an offence with a penalty of up to fifteen years imprisonment, even if the person who was in posession of the "thing" did not themselves participate in the planning of the act. They do, however, have to have been aware that the "thing" pertained to the planning of a terrorist act. Okay. Sounds reasonable, right? They had knowledge of a terrorist plot, and as such, should have informed the authourities.

How it is determined whether they were aware that the "thing" that they posessed pertained to a terrorist act is concerning. The defence of a person charged with being in posession of a "thing" will hinge on whether those defending them can gain a security clearance to have access to Asio-sourced or other sensitive source evidence pertaining to the case. The security clearances are given under the purview of Asio/the Governor General's office.

....

....

....

So.

The prosecution essentially gets to decide whether the defence gets to know what the "Thing" is, what the alleged terrorist plot consisted of, and how that proves that the defendant had knowledge of it. I cannot see how an effective defence can be mounted if security clearance is not granted.

I find it disturbing that someone charged with being in posession of a "thing" can be jailed for fifteen years without knowing what it was or why it was illegal.

As for "collecting or making a document likely to facilitate a terrorist act", (the next line below the highlighted "Posession of a thing" line in the link below.) the wording is so very vague. Given that it does not require intent, that passage describes almost any useful document. Maps, bus timetables, high school science texts... don't be collecting or making any of those!

I know that what I say is absurd, but only as absurd as the law as written.

I can't seem to find a legal definition of the term "thing" as used in the legislation. I would love to see one.