Inside Carls Cranium

Food Aid and Medical Aids

2008-08-07T23:23:00.005+10:00

Hello Again,

For todays blogs I have no solutions only observations.............

Firstly I have noticed on the news about the distribution of food aid in African countries how there is only x amount of food to feed this lady and her 10 children etc.......... Well the first thing I would note, is that no matter what the country unless one is very rich one would need aid to feed from externally in order to feed 10 children. People in the west where food is readily available have the sense (on the whole) to limit the number of children they have to what they figure they can feasibly and reasonably provide a reasonable standard of living for. So the question is why does feeding an African family mean feeding 10 children - don't the African parents consider what they will be able to provide when they consider how many children to have?? If its a matter of contraception not being available to these families maybe that is where the west should be concentrating its efforts otherwise come the next generation the problem is going to be 10 times as big....... Food Aid should be given in times of genuine crisis, e.g. a drought, monsoon etc........ when it has to be provided ad-infinitem year in year out, and it is the only food source the children grow up to know and then they have just as large families assuming that the same food source will be provided for their children we are creating a problem that is just compounding. A fundamental principle to solving any crisis is to first prevent it getting worse and then to deal with the problem at hand. Historically large families were OK because of the high infant mortality rate, but now different Aid Organisations ensure that the infant mortality rates are lower hence creating the problem for the next Aid Organisation of how to feed all these people. This is a problem that is exponential in nature and so while there is no disputing it is currently a grave humanitarian crisis, to my mind we are creating a graver one in the future if we do not begin to address this problem of family sizes in countries where parents know they cannot and never will be able to feed themselves let alone large families.

A similar principle applies to the Aids Epidemic. I agree people dying of aids is terrible, but what is worse than people dying of aids is people passing Aids on. Now I am no expert and stand to be corrected, but as I understand it when anti-retrovirals are given to people with HIV/Aids they then get to live much longer and appear healthy and presumably keep spreading the aids virus. If they were not given the anti-retrovirals then they would look sick (hence be less likely to find a partner to infect) and would die sooner - tragic for them, but it would prevent how many others being infected?? It seems to me that we once again have things the wrong way around, with our current policies all that will happen is the demand for anti-retrovirals will continue to spiral up as will the cost of providing them, the percentage of the populations with the virus will continue to increase etc........ Maybe if the disease were left to take its course the rate of infection would naturally decrease over time........ Or if this is unacceptable from a humanitarian point of view maybe a choice should be given with the anti-retrovirals - you get the drugs but you also get medication that prevents you having sex and passing it on (admittedly this would only work for men not women, but at least it would solve half the problem) - so then at least while doing the humanitarian thing, we are preventing the problem getting worse. To me if I caught Aids off somebody I knew but for anti-retrovirals provided by an aid agency would have died a long time ago I would be wishing the aid agency had kept their anti-retrovirals to themselves!!

Thirdly I note Gwenyth Paltrow is on TV advertising for governments to do more in providing medication to prevent the transmission of the Aids virus from mother to child. Well given 1/3 of all pregnant women in South Africa alone (and I doubt these are the worst statistics in Africa) have Aids who is going to take care of all the orphans created by this policy - the African states in question certainly can't afford to, or if they are forced to then it will prevent them spending that money on education, infrastructure, healthcare etc........... and keep these countries in poverty and ensure they become more and more reliant on the west for aid.

To me Death is a natural part of life - simply because it is preventable doesn't mean it should be, simply because somebody has not lived to be over 80 doesn't mean they shouldn't die. Is the death of a baby any more tragic than the death of a 5 year old, 10 year old, 20 year old, 40 year old etc........ Death is Death it is a natural part of the cycle of life and can strike at any part of it. Keeping people alive in abject poverty simply for the sake of keeping them alive is not doing them any favours, merely prolonging their suffering so we have to begin to accept and allow people to die and recognise that as ugly as it may seem sometimes the right to life is dependant upon the economic ability of the person or country to provide what is necessary - be it food, or be it half a million dollar neurosurgery.

As a child I grew up in a household that belonged to the far religious right and we were taught that China's one child policy was evil etc...... something I think even the antithesis of the religious right, the catholic church, would agree with. But it is this policy that has made it possible for China to bring such large percentages of its population out of poverty, and those that are alive in China and reaping the benefits that this policy has enabled would no doubt much prefer to have their current standard of living than 10 brothers and sisters, but be in a hovel starving and relying on food aid. I think there is no doubt that Chinas economic success would never have been possible but for these policies and I think that Africas economic success will also never be possible unless something similar happens there either through nature taking its course or maybe governments there becoming more far sighted.

One thing that is for sure though, the current policies of the west in providing aid are already unable to meet the demand, and this will only get worse while these policies continue just to address the symptoms and not the causes. Its an ugly truth, but the truth it is - Sorry Gwyneth....

McCain has lost his Honour

2008-07-29T15:19:00.001+10:00

Watching what has been happening in American Politics over the last week is starting to give me that ill foreboding I had when it became apparent Georgie Dumbass Bush was going to be elected. At first I was a bit ambivalent between Obama and McCain, because I thought McCain was not your standard head up his arse looking for the sun republican, but was actually an honourable man and the election would really have been a case of the best man winning. Well McCain has given up all his principles and is using emotion, pride and one sentence sound-bytes to attract or scare the lowest common denominator of American (the dumb majority) into voting for him. I honestly thought McCain wouldn't stoop to that - he knows full well Obama isn't suggesting surrender or failure in Iraq and yet he keeps saying that, in the same breath he says he will fix Afghanistan when the Joint Chief of Staffs himself has said the only place to get troops for Afghanistan from is Iraq. This is what Obama is planning to do but McCain is making it sound like Obama is planning on surrendering in Iraq when he knows full well that Obama is really planning on winning in Afghanistan - which by the way in reality poses the bigger threat to America if they lose than Iraq does.

Also McCain states that he knows how to win wars and nobody seems to question or challenge him on this. To my knowledge he knows how to get a multi-million dollar jet fighter shot down and then be a POW in a Bamboo cage being eaten by leeches for four years. As far as I know he never made it to a military rank where he was involved in strategy, and his implementation of tactics was well........... less than ordinary. So as far as the strategy of winning wars I don't see that he has any more reason to believe he knows how to win wars than anybody else let alone Obama. Thats the craziest thing about American politics, it seems like the American Public considers anybody who made it to Second Lieutenant qualified to be commander in chief - I think that if they were in the military and they never made it out of the junior officer ranks that demonstrates that the military did not consider them worthy of making strategic decisions otherwise they would have been promoted to a level where they had that responsibility - so they are probably in actual fact less qualified to be commander in chief than somebody who has no military service.

Also McCain has admitted Economics is not his strong point - well how America performs economically over the next 8 years will have a much greater impact on the lives of Americans and the rest of the world than anything that happens in Iraq and Afghanistan put together - AND McCAIN WOULD KNOW THIS - so he is being disingenuous campaigning on Iraq which in the scheme of things is just a side show of the next presidency not the sole purpose of it as McCains Campaigning would lead one to believe, but he knows it will disproportionately affect the vote compared to its relevance and so is focusing on that which I consider totally disingenuous on his part and definately shows he puts his own ambition before the countries best interest (something I did not expect he would do)!!

Lets just hope the American public can get past McCains and Hannitys one line sound bites and actually consider Obamas positions and policy which unfortunately don't lend themselves to one liners to the same degree putting understanding them beyond the attention span of the majority of Americans. (After the last American election somebody made a table of the Average IQs of the various states and - this is no word of a lie - the bottom of the table were the states that voted republican and the top of the table were the states that voted democrat with only a couple of states crossing over in the very middle - which demonstrated that unfortunately in America the states with the dumbest populations are the ones with enough electoral college votes to decide who is to be president and they do - hence George Bush and probably McCain next!)

How to Solve the Low Organ Donor Rates

2008-07-04T07:57:00.000+10:00

Hello once again,

This time I thought I would give my ideas on how to solve the low rate of people signing up to be organ donors. The first part of my blog will be common knowledge to all those in Australia, but may be of interest to people in America and other countries and sets the premise for my idea on a solution.

In Australia health insurance is regulated such that no matter what one persons likelihood of needing medical care is they will not pay more for health insurance than somebody whose likelihood was much less - due to say a condition such as diabetes, or schizophrenia etc.........., until recently it also did not matter what age one was either - the law simply was that everybody paid the same for health insurance, with the only proviso being that one had to wait a year before the health insurance company had to pay towards the treatment of a pre-existing condition.

However, the last government came up with a great idea - basically for every year past thirty one delayed getting health insurance ones premiums went up by 2% for life. So somebody that first gets health insurance at 50 years old will pay 140% of what a 50 year old who had health insurance since they were 30 would. This was done of course to encourage people to sign up for health insurance at a younger age which would theoretically reduce and make more affordable health insurance for everybody, while still maintaining a system whereby those with medical problems are not discriminated against based upon those by having to pay higher premiums.

Now - How Does this relate to Organ Donor Rates.

Well I would propose a similar system for Organ Donors. The earlier in life one signs up to be an organ donor, should one then ever need an organ one gets some sort of additional weighting or preference when it is decided who is to receive an organ that many want. Now I do not know the process that goes into deciding who receives organs and I presume it is largely based on most urgent need. However given two people who need an organ equally as much, but one has been a registered organ donor all their life and one hasn't surely the person that was not prepared to give the gift of their organs should the situation have arisen they should not get to receive the organ over a person that had been prepared to offer their organs as a gift should they have been in the position to.

I am not about to even try and propose the formula or a formula for determining who receives organs, but I am proposing that just as the changes to health insurance were advertised heavily to induce young people to become members a similar campaign to say the earlier in life you sign up as an organ donor the greater your chances of receiving an organ should you need it than if you don't sign up till later. Personally I would also make it that if at the time of needing an organ you are not a registered organ donor than you have no right to receive an organ to save your life that you would not have been prepared to offer to save the donors life had the situation been reversed. But that is effectively sentencing somebody to death, so ethically is probably a bit dubious - but its not like the organ would go to waste, it would just go to somebody more deserving. I don't propose throwing an organ in the bin rather than giving it to somebody who had never registered as an organ donor.

There is a bit of a personal element to this for me, somebody close to me did not want to register as an organ donor when I suggested it, and I said that that was fine, but if they ever needed an organ I would not so much as pick up the telephone to try and help organise it. Now I guess maybe due to my ability to make things happen this person decided if they needed an organ they would want me on the phone and so changed their mind and registered as an organ donor. I made no judgement calls and did not say you must register, I just said that if you won't do it for others you cannot expect others to do it for you and I would not help you get an organ that I believed should belong to somebody else who would have been prepared to donate their organs.

So my proposal basically is that if people know that they may need an organ at 50, 60 , 70 etc.... and they will increase their chances of getting it if they sign up as an organ donor now at 20, 30, 40 I believe the rate of registered organ donors would increase quite drastically. And conversely if they know that if they don't sign up they can kiss any hope of getting an organ if they need it goodbye - well then you get both the carrot and the stick working for you to increase the rate of Organ Donors.

So whether you agree with me or not or think my proposal a bit harsh (this is only an introduction - I regard life and death as meaningless, there are 6 Billion soon to be 9 Billion so to say a life has value is ridiculous, but I regard SUFFERING as supremely meaningful, because it is experienced so intensely on an individual level, and that cannot be obscured with numbers) do the right thing and call the Australian Organ Donor Register on 1800 777 203 and register!!!

Saving Mortgage Insurance for First Home Buyers

2008-07-01T03:47:00.000+10:00

This blog is to publicise an idea I had that would reduce mortgage insurance for a large proportion of first home buyers. I have forwarded this idea to Arch Bevis my local Labour MP, but he just sent me back a letter saying that the government was spending $1.2 Billion here and $500 million there etc......... and did not address this idea at all. So I will explain it quickly to you, then include the letter I sent to my local labour member and hopefully if enough people see this and promote it maybe it will happen.

Firstly: At present a first home buyer can have no deposit, but provided they have somebody (typically a relative/parent) prepared to go guarantor for 20% of the value they do not have to pay mortgage insurance. NOTE: This money does not have to be provided as the deposit, they can still borrow 100% somebody just has to go guarantor so no actual money has to change hands.............

Secondly: Nowadays people tend to have been in the workforce for some considerable time before they buy their first homes and so will have accumulated some funds most probably significant funds in their superannuation before they go to buy their first house. So........

Thirdly: First home buyers should be able to use their superannuation to go 'guarantor' for as much of the deposit as possible reducing the amount they need to pay in mortgage insurance. This would not cause significant increases in demand for property prices where the extra money saved would simply be eaten up by increased house prices, and it would mean first home buyers have a chance of keeping some or most of their first home owners grant rather than simply handing it over in mortgage insurance as currently happens if they are not fortunate enough to have parents with the equity to go guarantor for the 20% deposit or are unwilling to. Just as per with the arrangement where parents go guarantor, no money actually changes hand and the money stays in their superannuation for their retirement. If the situation arose where they were going to lose their house they could access their super anyway so the net effect on super is essentially neutral - the main effect is that first home buyers pay much less in mortgage insurance (which I believe has to be one of the most profitable insurances and which is 'money for jam' so to speak).

Please find below the email I sent to my local Labour member and if anybody is interested I will post his reply.....

Dear  Arch,

Before explaining my  policy idea I need to lay the basis for it.  At present a person can get a 100%  loan on a property without paying Mortgage Insurance if they have a parent or  other such benefactor who has the equity and is willing to provide guarantor for  20% of that properties value, without any money actually changing hands and  which of course would only be called upon in the instance of a mortgagee sale  where the sale price did not meet the amount borrowed against that property  under which circumstances the person who went guarantor is liable for the  difference up to the pre-defined maximum of 20% of the properties purchase  price.

Given that on say a  modest $265,000 property the mortgage insurance is about equivalent to the first  home owners grant, I would suggest that in a large percentage of cases the first  home owners grant (given one has to have 20% deposit before not requiring  mortgage insurance) goes directly to fund the mortgage insurance of many first  home buyers.

Now I know there is  a principle that ones Compulsary Superannuation cannot be touched except in the  direst and very specific circumstances, I understand that suggesting anything  involving Compulsary Superannuation is almost taboo, but I would suggest that  Mortgage Insurance is one of the most profitable forms of insurance provided in  the market and any measure that reduces the amount that a first home buyer has  to pay in Mortgage Insurance is a good thing and that first home buyers are  getting older and may have significant amounts in their compulsary  superannuation I would suggest that just as a parent can go guarantor for a  percentage of the deposit without actually handing the funds over except in a  mortgagee sale, that one allows home buyers to provide their compulsary  superannuation accumulations as a form of guarantor, hence reducing the  exhorbitant mortgage insurance fees.  In most cases this would never be used,  and as I understand it if one stands to lose ones house one has a reasonable  chance of accessing their super to avoid doing so in any case - so I would  suggest that the actual affect on the nations superannuation savings would be  negligible by introducing a policy such as this, but the majority of especially  first home owners would benefit greatly in reduced mortgage insurance costs -  which is just dead money........... or easy money for the insurer.  I am sure if  the actuaries got to work and calculated the "Expected Value" of what the  average borrower would lose from their superannuation it would be miniscule in  comparison to the "Expected Value" of most first home buyers income insurance.   Noting that Mortgage Insurance definately and definitively reduces a persons  wealth by the amount paid - even more considering people effectively have to  borrow it and pay it off over the life of the mortgage making the actual cost  multiples of the original mortgage insurance amount.

In this proposal I  can only see home owners winning and mortgage insurers losing.  Of course most  superannuation is based on share market investments and so the amount calculated  as guaranteed will be smaller than were their superannuation held as cash in the  bank (a very conservative superannuation position unlikely to be held by most  young people) so there may have to be some derating of the actual balance of  their insurance when calculating how much of a guarantee it can provide, but I  doubt that would be a significant hurdle.

Also on another  note: The rental market:  My separated-wife and I still live together simply  because in todays rental market, both of us would have trouble finding anywhere  to rent (and it would be a significant step down for both of us).  Also tenancy  agreements are such that at the end of a lease a landlord need only give 2 weeks  notice that one must exit the property, which is all fine except when there are  no other properties for rent.  Even the property we are in we were extremely  fortunate in that the landagent knew it was coming onto the market and let us  apply before it had, and promised us not to submit or accept applications from  anybody else unless we were rejected, so our landlord only got to see our  application and accepted it.  But we had frantically been trying to rent  anywhere given the 2 weeks notice and were faced with what so many are, 10s, 20s  or 30s of applicants for every property we applied for and as I had just become  unemployed at the time our prospects of finding a property seemed very bleak,  even the property we got, had the landagent not taken pity on us we would never  have got it if we had been up against most other renters e.g. 2 Accountants, or  2 nurses or 2 anything else.  (Needless to say we bought him a bottle of very  nice red!!).  This is why even though we have separated fortunately we still get  on well enough to live together (in separate rooms now though) and treat the  household as any unrelated flatmates would.

I am unsure if you  saw insight last night, but the situation is dire out there and the fact that  Australia has Hundreds of thousands of people who are homeless, as well as the  fact that the very poorest are extorted in boarding houses, caravan parks  etc...... for an example given last night at a caravan park for a crappy little  1 room bungalow (and not bungalow like you imagine in Fiji, but bungalow like  you think of a expanded and converted outdoor dunny) and they have to pay $250  per week simply because that is the bottom of the market not based on any  concept of value for money - I mean if they paid double the money $500 they  could probably rent a property uncomparably better given the one they were in  was so shocking but for $500 I am sure they could get a multi bedroom house with  nice bathroom, good kitchen, multiple bedrooms so all the kids and parents don't  sleep in the one room is I am sure you agree repugnant.  I also know a few  people who lived in a boarding house on Merthyr Road that has just been sold (if  you are familiar with your eletorate I am sure you know the property), the new  owner kicked everybody out, and put up all the rents as far as I know - the  rents were already $150 for a tiny little room - how is even a single person on  the dole meant to survive when this is the cheapest accomodation out there and  it leaves them less than $100 a week for food and bills and transport etc.......  even a concession public transport ticket is 1% of their weekly income or about  2.8% of their remaining $100.  Whereas we pay about 2.5 times what they pay and  have a beautiful apartment.  So it is simply a matter of the poor being totally  extorted, the reality is in terms of percentage of income or value for money the  poor rather than paying the least percentage of income or getting the best value  for money pay the highest and get the least living in such deplorable conditions  and are totally at the mercy of predatory landlords who care nothing for the  welfare or standard of living of their tenants or providing them with  accomodation remotely justifiable to the price.

Here we go, my last  paragraph - the housing minister on insight last night probably came across well  to the average intelligence Australian, but if you had half a brain and listened  to her the poor people in these circumstances of limited intelligence or  education probably saw her as a white knight, rather than spitting her for what  she said.  Look at all the great Engineering Projects that happen in the world  in phenomenal time frames (I know I've been involved with some of them in  Australia) this whole "it took a long time to create, it will take a long time  to fix is bullshit".  I am sure if Kevin Rudd went to the Australian people and  said we have a crisis in this country 250,000 to 300,000 people live on the  streets every night in this country and most low income earners are paying over  50% of their income to live in third world conditions I am going to take $5  Billion dollars from the proposed tax cuts and fix this problem.  Not by  building low income ghettos, but by rapidly and sensibly creating a stock of  quality low rent properties (I measn you are going to give the $5 billion in tax  cuts, so the returns on the properties shouldn't be a major concern) to create  an Australia where we know more people are going to have a roof over their head  not less (which is the way it is leaning) and which would also force other low  income accomodation providers to clean up their act or go out of business - he  would be applauded by the Australian People not regarded negatively for reducing  the (stupid tax cuts that the Liberals forced you into) by $5 billion for such a  worthy cause.  These home saver accounts etc....... aren't going to do anything  for people who have nothing left to save, and nothing to prevent the number of  homeless increasing - you need to increase supply to fix these problems!!  And  $5 billion in the first year would be a good start - admittedly tradesmen would  be difficult to get hold of - but compared to the poor conditions construction  workers get in Arab countries I am sure they would willingly come here on  temporary working Visas if we treated this as another Snowy Hydro type endeavour  to make Australia a fairer place and reduce poverty (except of course unlike the  snowy workers these ones would have to go back, but at $35 to $40 per hour for  carpenters and plumbers I am sure they would come, we would just have to plan  this like a major project e.g. accomodation logistics etc.........  $31 Billion  in tax cuts as a core promise - if you don't want to break it, put it to a  referendum - I am sure you would find where Australian Hearts really lie - that  is why I couldn't stomach the Howard Government no longer when workchoices bad  enough when the economy was good, but if economic conditions changed and  unemployment rose would have been used ruthlessly by employers to the detriment  of practically everyone, except the very few still in a strong bargaining  position - and voted Labour, but I believe the problem was Howard not the Party  so much, (for instance unlike practically everyone else I liked Costello and do  believe he had a strong social conscience, but was forced to toe the Howard line  and did so faithfully - a flaw in his character I believe.  Hockey just lied and  lied and lied, but once again I believe he had no choice due to Howard.  But  anyway now you are in government and it is up to you to bring the humanity back  and how you can do that is by ditching in part if not in full the $31 Billion in  tax cuts Howard cornered you into promises - and as long as you use that money  wisely when the opposition comes at you about core and  non-core promises you can come back at them from the high moral ground  and say are you prepared to go around all these families that were living in  cars and third world accomodation and kick them out of their houses to live on  the streets or the way they were - if not then SHUTUP!!!  If you can find  equally worthy things to do with the rest of the $31 Billion do that too - send  a study to Holland to look at how they treat and look after their elderly and  then compare it to here - that would be another worthy cause that a portion of  $31 Billion (which is a huge amount of money!!) and if the opposition comes at  you ask them who would want their mother/grandmother to be treated the way it  used to be before you implemented these changes.  AS LONG AS YOU SPEND THE MONEY  WISELY AND WITH A HUMANITARIAN HEART THE ELECTORATE WILL NOT HOLD IT AGAINST YOU  THEY WILL ADMIRE YOU FOR BREAKING THIS PROMISE - EVERYONE KNOWS THIS IS NOT A  PROMISE KEVIN RUDD WOULD HAVE MADE WILLINGLY AND IF YOU HONOUR IT IT WILL SHOW  THE LABOUR PARTY STILL DANCES TO HOWARDS TUNE - WE WERE SICK OF HOWARD BECAUSE  ALTHOUGH TIMES HAD BEEN PROSPEROUS UNDER HIM WE KNEW THE COUNTRY WAS PAYING A  PRICE WITH ITS SOUL FOR HAVING HIM IN THE TOP JOB - AS LONG AS YOU SHOW THE  HUMANITARIAN SOUL WE HAVE ALL MISSED FOR THE PAST 10 YEARS BUT RELUCTANTLY HAD  TO VOTE FOR ANYWAY (I mean up till now Labour was a disaster and Beasley would  have fucked the economy faster than the spread of myxamytosis through a rabbit  colony).

Anyway I apologise  for it being so long, I hope you either reply with what is wrong with my ideas  or some feedback that demonstrates it actually has been read.  And if you take  up the idea on using super to reduce Mortgage Insurance can you please name it  the "Carl Louwrens" Bill so everyone knows who to thank  - ha  ha.......

Intro to Carls Cranium

2008-06-16T23:36:00.001+10:00

Hello Internet World and WELCOME to "insidecarlscranium.blogspot.com",

At this stage I have had a friend create this page and don't know if anybody will ever read or see it, but I intend to post my thoughts and philosophies about this world, how its run, whats right, whats wrong, HOW TO FIX IT, etc....... not details of what I did today. As I come across something in the course of my life, or on the news etc........ and think it worthy of sharing with all of you (a bit presumptive I know.....) I will do so.

At this stage I would like to kind of define some of my underlying beliefs, so that when you read my rants that may appear incredibly politically incorrect, or WORSE, you will hopefully have some understanding of me and so will not misinterpret my comments as those of a rascist, fascist, anarchist, or any other "cist".

So Firstly - I do not believe some races are superior or inferior to other races, but I think it silly not to acknowledge that different races are different and those differences can in certain circumstances create advantages or disadvantages for that race when compared to another. So when I make what appears to be a rascist comment it is not based upon superiority per say but merely an acknowledgment of a difference and my observed consequences of that.

Secondly - I do not believe life in itself has alot of value or is to be treasured at all costs - for christs sake there are 6 billion of us soon to be 9 billion (next 10 - 20 years) the only thing of value in those sorts of numbers is money. However I believe suffering, even if felt by only one person, is of great significance and is the tragedy of this world, and although many would rather be alive and suffer and won't agree with my opinions on life, death, and possibly suffering - remember we consider it only humane to put animals down if they are suffering severely yet do not apply the same rule to ourselves. On my blog I will consider human lives and suffering with the same respect we do a dogs - more than we do a humans in my opinion, but most will probably differ with my opinions on these matters - but I promise they will be well thought out and reasoned, logically flawless and hopefully interesting reading.

Thirdly - I will probably find occasion to make posts about companies I think are doing the wrong thing - I promise the information I provide will be factual and accurate, even if biased in its presentation. And if it costs the companies business please let me know because I like to let them know when I have cost them business if I consider they have F***** me, just so they know it goes both ways.

Any other qualifications I need to make I guess I will make along the way.

Also just a little info about me - I both suffer and delight from having Tourettes - in my case not such that I burst into profanities at random as is the stereotype, but it affects me in alot of other ways. Not to gloat because I am a remarkable failure despite it, but I have a ridiculously high IQ (not quite, but am pretty smart e.g. all internet IQ tests I almost always get their highest possible mark because I generally get all the questions right) - private intelligence testing by psychologists both medical and occupational has confirmed this whether it be through aptitudes (e.g. numerical, verbal, abstract reasoning etc.........) or an outright IQ number. I have both a Mechanical Engineering Degree and a Commerce Degree (done together and actually easier than doing a straight Mech Eng Degree, cause the commerce units had twice the weighting, half the contact hours at Uni and were much much easier). I am not working at present although pretty much ready to start again, why I have not is partially due to my tourettes, but is a long story so I guess I will wait to see who and what sort of Audience I get and whether it is of any interest before I tell it.......

On that note I will Sign my First Internet Blog Post Off!!

Cheers and be kind to one another... Drop some change in a homeless persons hat........

Carl

start posting

2008-05-07T20:38:00.000+10:00

rant and rave and scare everybody :)

the quick brown dog better get a move on...

start posting Carl... or we shoot the dog !!!