The Profit Problem

A very simple one this.

"What's good for capitalism is bad for the purchaser".

That's the simplest I can boil it down to.

If profit is the main motive of any business transaction, then extracting the most money from the payee is the goal.

It's bad enough if you're an individual on a budget trying to get by. You may have seen some of my early posts on the junk we all get sold at "low, low" (actually as high as we can get away with it) prices. If you keep your wits about you, you'll notice these days it's actually only a percentage of goods at the supermarket that are actually cheap. If you wanted to stretch your money as far as possible, you can often find cheaper deals for specific items in local pet centres, hardware stores, butchers, veg stalls, even sometimes in the corner shop. No I'm not saying everything they sell is cheaper. But certain items often are.

So your ideal shopping route in the UK (cost wise) would now involve darting around all local shops and the supermarket, then buying up what you actually wanted at the best deal from each shop. Not going to happen is it?

I'm getting distracted. I just hate the supermarket model. It doesn't provide nearly as much locally recycled income and work. I digress ...

Privatisation. That was my point.
There's an insane view that privatising things makes them somehow more efficient. In one very narrow term of the word efficient this is true. They become efficient at maximising profit. It doesn't automatically make them any safer, faster, easier or anything that might actually matter to the end consumer "efficient".

This somehow seems to have got extended to a capitalism v socialism argument. Socialist want unions and the state running things, capitalists believe the free market can do a better job.

Hang on a minute. If we are talking about a provision that can be opened up to multiple effective competing companies, then yes, ok, we can argue capitalism might do a good job. Trouble is there are very few examples of this actually happening in the real world. When it comes to things like railways, electricity, water, gas, phone lines, one of two things tends to happen ...

You either get entirely false competition (say UK railways here) and replace unions with incredibly limited providers subsidised and in bed with the government interests in making profit. OR ... You get something like the current UK electric provider farce which manages to get what should be opposing companies collaborating behind the scenes on price setting for mutual profit.

The problem isn't state funding / union power vs free market capitalism. The problem is effectively controlling either solution to prevent profiteering at the expense of the consumer.

The kicker? If you want to go the free market way, you have to invest in a government funded and effective regulation system. I don't mean the jokes we have like offcom, the PCC, the IPCC, even HMRC Tax Offices! They all get cut back to a point where they are inefficient an unable to control the sector they are supposed to, or find it's easier to get by jumping in bed with the sordid crew they are supposed to be monitoring.

Free market solutions come with a cost that free market idealists are not willing to pay.

State provided solutions come with the exact same problems .. but at least you're removing one step in the profit chain of pain to the end user.

What it keeps coming back to is ... motive for profit, either in a state funded or free market system is the killer. Greed. Money. Unreasonable earnings for what eventually becomes sub-standard provision.

As a species, we don't yet seem to have a way round that.
Once again I seem to find myself in a lonely place watching most of humanity arguing about socialism v capitalism, and shouting in to the wind .. "Guys? It's greed and corruption screwing us up whichever way we do it!"

Rape II

This is getting weird.
I've had the joy of discussing what I'd call morning sex on Twitter yet again.

Before we get to that let me explain a few things call it establishing credentials:

Yes I really did get the chance to help convict the rapist of a girl I knew, and yes I was horribly aware of what it did to her.

I do sometimes get blocked by people on Twitter because I will sometimes point out to people that continually making rape jokes adds to a culture where rape is taken lightly and a bit of a joke. They don't tend to like it when I do this. I get arguments about free speech back and told I can't take a joke.

I have a tumblr account in which I've posted a couple of items pointing out things like the problems women face reporting a rape and being taken seriously, or that in some school playgrounds kids have modified "tag" games to "rape" games ... See my comment on joking about rape all the time above.

So I like to think of myself fairly well placed on the side of trying to nudge the world to a place with a lot less rape in it. I'm not in the "I never think about it" set. I think I'm quite firmly in the "Oy! Maybe think a bit about the rape culture you're perpetuating mate" set.

However! Back to Twitter judgement on rape & morning sex...

I am .. apparently .. a multiple rapist.
I have in my long past, had morning sex a few times, with an established lover, without first waking them up and asking them, or asking them the night before if it would be ok. This. In the black & white judgemental world of Twitter labels me 100% a rapist with no room for argument.

I'm a little upset by this.

I've pointed out that morning sex isn't with a partner that's asleep the whole time. In fact your partner will normally wake up very early on in the process, and have plenty of time to tell you to sod off. Yup. I've been told to pack it in before and have. That's life. It's not like I'm trying to force myself on my lover here, I just thought it might be nice. Most of the time it seems to go down rather well actually. You end up with a lover who feels cherished and wanted from breakfast onwards. Not a bad start to the day .. and pretty much totally at the opposite end of oppressing women.

That doesn't matter. The Twitter lords hath spoken. I didn't get consent. It was rape.

So then I point out, they woke up, didn't say no at all (I'd stop if they did .. see above), and everything seemed to go fine ... Is that rape then oh experts of Twitter?

YES. That's rape. How can I not understand this? I did not get prior consent!

Hmm ... Ok. So what if this morning sex happened .. and she was fine about it, no complaints during or after?

Ah .. in that case. I'm a 'lucky' rapist.

Apparently, I could do that .. with the best intentions in the world, and that woman could still decide a day or so later to go to the police and report a rape. That's her right as a woman who had sex without giving explicit consent.

Oh!

So I'm sat here today with a new found knowledge. I am in fact a multiple rapist according to the people I keep clashing with on Twitter. I have no excuse, I have in actual fact committed rape several times in my life, and I'm only lucky none of those women decided to report it as rape days later despite saying nothing to me about it. Had they chosen to? I should be charged as a rapist, and presumably put on a sex offenders register and jailed.

That's not exactly what you want to find out about yourself is it?
It's also the first time in my entire life I find myself having trouble staying on the same side as the "No means No" brigade. As I see it? I've only intended good things for the girls involved. There's no hint of malice in wanting a woman to feel loved and cherished all day. I don't feel like a rapist. Yet I am one. I'm still not sure how that works, but that's the message I've had several times now...

Odd. And rather unpleasant.

Sat and thought about this post for a few minutes and wanted to add this:

The sad thing is. The people who seem quite happy to label me a multiple rapist because of the above will think "Good. He has realised he's a rapist" ... Without thinking ... "Why are we labelling a guy who supports women's rights, has never forced himself on a woman, and always without fail stopped if need be a rapist?"

It's pretty darn offensive actually from where I'm sitting. Women's rights for me now have a problem. An innocent man can be labelled a rapist apparently when no intent to commit, or knowledge that a rape has been committed has occurred. That seems deeply unfair and wrong to me. I don't care how hard you stamp your foot and point at your simple definition of rape. I still don't think I'm a rapist.

[For the sake of clarity: I'm well aware that the UK definition of rape includes for the fact that the defendants belief consent was given can be a valid defence, and that in most cases I believe that would be for the jury to decide. Not some self appointed expert on Twitter. The point of this little piece is to point out how utterly nuts the rape debate has become in recent days. If you don't understand the laws on rape, don't go calling people multiple rapists! It's bloody annoying!]

Rape

Thanks to Assange accusations, this one has come to a bit of a boil. This little blog bit isn't about that Republican nutter. Pretty sure we can all agree he knows nothing about rape or the female anatomy. This little probably much hated piece is about something that I'm getting the feeling cannot be rationally discussed in the current climate of hysteria about rape.

It's because, at the moment, I'm getting a rather weird message from the "rape is rape" brigade. I'm getting two things: Every single time I'm about to have sex, even with an established partner, I *must* get verbal consent to penetrative sex. Otherwise she is perfectly entitled to decide it's rape and she never gave consent. This also rules out early morning sex. A bit of a pain, since I've known a few girlfriends over time who have loved being woken up like that occasionally.

Lets set up a hypothetical...

I've met a girl, we've had sex a couple of times with no worries. We joke, we chat, we eat, we go to bed ... you know ... normal relationship stuff. I sleep over, and in the morning wood, decide to see if I can carry on where we left off last night. Of course she wakes pretty quick, but it's lazy and nice, and we chat, have breakfast, I leave ... As far as I know .. We had a nice time.

Now she decides a day or two later to go to the police and tell them she didn't consent to that sex in the morning. True. She didn't. But does that make me a rapist?

I know "rape is rape" love to see things in black and white, but isn't intent also involved here? If the intent is to have a nice morning and leave a smile on a face, even if a misunderstanding does occur and she later decides "actually I wish that hadn't happened" ... If I've had no signal of lack of consent before, during and after ... No chance to stop because she said "stop" ... Am I a rapist?

The worrying thing is .. according to the hysterical and well meaning messages in support of rape victims I keep seeing on Twitter. Yes. Actually. That would make me a rapist.

I'm not buying it so much. The hysteria of black vs white thinking isn't allowing any sane debate over what's reasonable and what isn't.

If anyone does read this ... I bet I get called a "rape apologist" in seconds flat.

This brings up a second point I've seen scroll past: Apparently, me saying "I've been there and witnessed the damage rape has done to a girl first hand and I utterly hate it". Is inexcusable in the new climate. Apparently that's me justifying my "rape apologist" attitude. That seems utterly bonkers to me.

I've actually been able to testify in court to help convict a rapist and been damn proud of it! ... I guess mentioning that makes me an even worse monster for hiding my rape apologist attitude behind the poor girl's suffering or something?

Uhm. Hang on. Why is the alleged rape apologist proud of helping to convict a rapist exactly? Just WTF level 10 right there!

The ability to discuss this issue rationally is dangerously close to vanishing entirely. It's even managing to make me fall out with people I share in general very similar anti-rape views with! What the hell is going on people? When did we loose sanity and the ability to question and discuss? When did it become a culture based entirely on accusation and hate?

It's very sad and very worrying.

To bring it full circle and back to Assange:

As far as I'm aware (and I've read the testimony's) two girls went to the police a day or so after Assange was with them. One of the girls refused to complete and verify her testimony. The other was interviewed on the phone later. Her testimony was later edited after she verified it. Having issued an arrest warrant for Assange on this basis, within hours ... another higher power checks the statements and retracts the arrest warrant and rape charges. Something along the lines of "sexual misdemeanour" remains as a possible charge. It's not "A serious sexual assault" as the BBC will repeat loudly at you.
So...
I'll ask you again all of you that have already decided Assange needs to face serious sexual assault allegations in Sweden ... What the fuck are you talking about? And why won't you look at the facts for yourselves? You're buying in to hysteria, denying the ability for anyone to discuss it rationally, and accusing people of being rape apologists left right and centre for pointing out that in this particular case, it's not that simple.

And one final point that virtually no one wants to consider:
*IF* the charges against Assange have been cooked up under political pressure? Then that does a sh*tload of damage to the reputation of every single woman who has been raped and wants to report it. Probably the worst scenario of all, because by US pressure kicking up rape accusations to snatch a whistle-blower, you've ended up with this whole mess of argument, accusation and bad feeling, accused people of being rape apologists who might actually be talking sense on this one, possibly produced inflated false charges to get one man, and turned the rape hysteria dial up to max.

All thanks ... to the US wanting to gut Assange. Yet. I'm the guy putting rape victims in a bad light?

I'll leave you with this:

Released on 2012-02-28 15:00 GMT

Email-ID	389793
Date	2010-12-10 03:34:36
From	mongoven@stratfor.com
To	morson@stratfor.com, defeo@stratfor.com, pubpolblog.post@blogger.com

A hero?
Avaaz is right. It's not illegal but it does make you accessory to being
an asshole. Real people are being tortured by governments that Avaaz and
Assange probably like more than the US, all the while the two of them
denounce US 'torture' at Guantanamo.
They are like the crazy IPS/CISPES/SDS people who were so full of hate
that they could not see that they are doing so much more bad than they at
doing good.
I'm in favor of using whatever trumped up charge is available to get this
guy and his servers off the streets. And I'd feed that shit head soldier
to the first pack of wild dogs I could find.
Or perhaps just do to him whatever the Iranians are doing to our sources
there.

Like an onion.

As humanity has managed to shuffle in to 2012, lets have a quick check.
Onion layers of problems.
Got the theme?
Limited scope here, I'm just going for one aspect in onion land...

Boundaries. A main purpose of being a parent is setting and sticking to boundaries.
This is how kids know right from wrong, how you eventually get a good nights sleep, and why your kid isn't still breast feeding at age 6.
Mother's are traditionally bad at this, don't shoot your mouth off and call that a fault. Mother's will also kill a grizzly bear that attacks the kids for the exact same reason. Like everything, caring too much is good and bad. To some extent this is why having a Dad is important. They tend to be the one's that say "No! They can't keep creeping in to our bed!" and set some boundaries out where mum would tend to let things slip a little out of love.

Yup that's the short version. Many hole's can be picked in it. But fundamentally, this is why a loving couple (male / male. female / female, male / female I don't care!), are better at kid rearing than a single parent. In a couple, one person sets rules the other doesn't, and kids need rules! Right?

[Later Edit: Occurs to me months later I left a case out here. Single parents. I'm not anti single parents at all, it's a fact of life these days that there are many of them. I just think they have a much harder time bringing up children. I'd even go as far as to say those single parents that do bring up loving balanced kids are true heroes of the modern world.]

Hello onion.

Why? .. What? ... Why rules? Uhm .. kids need boundaries to be socially acceptable and not end up in prison in later life. Uh huh. And?

Many of the boundaries, and the act of being the authority (the parent) that imposes those limits, reinforces the messed up boundaries and limits of the politicians and law makers of this world.

Step back a little. How many millionaires got there by respecting all boundaries in the world? Very few indeed. If you want your kid to have a chance in this messed up world, you have to teach them to disrespect the boundaries they can get away with.

WOAH! Hang on. How am I supposed to instill boundaries in my children and yet teach them to be rebellious at just the right times?

You can't.

Onion layers bites back.

In this 2012 messed up world. The true path to fiscal success is to cheat and ignore rules. You can't teach that to your kid unless you have the power and money to bail them out again and again, then give them a job with a friend of Dad that gives them a leg up to keep cheating. The rest of us proles? Kinda screwed. You let the kid loose and it's a vandal with a criminal record and you're a bad parent. You teach them rules and respect? And they are stuck living the tax payer life for eternity who never rocks the boat.

Ah noooo way .. I'm exaggerating! I am?

Take a working / lower class kid. Let them go trash a restaurant, or dress up as a Nazi and sing racist songs for a night out. Result's aren't good are they? Criminal record? Nice! Ok now lets try that at the rich end of the scale. Call it the Bullingdon Club. Trash a few restaurants and throw cash at the owner, go for the Nazi themed party and oh noes! The public school / University might say your social club isn't recognised by them ... But it's ok ... You can still become Mayor of London, Prime Minister, hell you can even run the entire country's finances if you like.

You can pause there and spend a few minutes trying to reconcile it all in your mind if you like. But it doesn't fit. There are very basic structural problems of unfairness in society that if anything are getting worse not better, and there's no solution. No political party that even recognises the problem. There isn't even a current philosophical position on what's right and what's wrong in the above.

You're on your own kids in an impossible position. That's life. What do you want to do about it?