justice system: time to revisit the social contract?

Interesting concept of justice described to me a few days ago in the carpool:
In small simple agglomerations (e.g., tribes or villages), peace and order was maintainable through personal relations (peer pressure and/or threats of emotional and/or physical harm, e.g., lynching). Organized religion is a natural outgrowth of that phenomenon as agglomerations grew in size and complexity.
Today's "western" society is too highly complex, anonymous yet interdependent, and educated for religion (through promises of heaven and hell) to work effectively. The responsibility for maintaining social harmony is transfered to the state in what is called a "social contract."
If we feel (fear?) that violent crimes are getting out of hand today, it may be time to review the terms of the social contract we have with the justice system (incl law enforcement and correctional services).

mgmt hypocrisy

I'm a contrator/consultant/temp/etc. The (client) department I work for is under strong pressure to keep headcount down so they hire contractors/consultants/temps/etc like me, then impose restrictions on our job conditions to avoid appearance of employer/employee (ER/EE) relationships, which could put them on the hook for benefits/pensionable time etc. Avoidance of ER/EE rel'ps is also advantageous to independent contractors who pay taxes at corporate (as opposed to personal) rates. I'm not independent so that doesn't apply to me.

A few weeks ago the directorate sent an email asking all EEs to submit their personal contact info for emergencies. I ignored it believing that it wouldn't apply to contractors, and if I complied, it would counter efforts to avoid ER/EE relationship appearance. I thought it was in the managers' best interest and left it at that.

Yesterday my boss' boss blasted an email at three of us contractors (cc: our bosses) accusing us (inappropriately strongly) of not being team players and inconsiderate because if we're in an airplane that crashes they will phone the body shop and hit a machine after hours so they won't be able to inform our families.

WTF? Besides the fact that scenario is stupid for a number of reasons, my boss, all my colleagues and the boss' boss' secretary all have my personal coordinates.

And today I find out that in 5months time it won't matter anyway because rather than contracting with one or two body shops to provide a team of professionals, they will prequalify a number of body shops and award each individual position to the lowest bidder.

So they give us shit for playing by their own friggin rules, with a patronizing note stating we've caused "very deep disappointment" because we're "not team players." Meanwhile, they've been secretely crafting a new structure for a follow-on professional services contract that will make it very difficult to get re-hired as a team.

Double WTF.

centsless

I don't get folks who are attached to the penny. "prices will go up because businesses will round up." balderdash. obviously these people underestimate competitive forces (either that or they are too lazy to change their buying habits).

I mean, i can understand why we needed a penny when it was worth say 1/50th of minimum wage. but now that the NDP is talking about raising minimum wage to $10, what the hell do we need a 1/1000th coin for? I mean, it takes more than four hundred of these stupid things just to buy a medium popcorn at AMC. C'mon people, let it go once and for all so i don't have to wait in line behind you while the cashier counts up her 1/400th-of-a-grande-latte coins!

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2007/10/10/penny.html

first greenwashing, now pinkwashing

whatever happened to marketing ethics?

Pinkwasher: (pink'-wah-sher) noun. A person or company that purports to care about breast cancer by promoting a pink ribbon campaign, but manufactures products that are linked to the disease.

http://www.thinkbeforeyoupink.org/

monarchy by any other name

"The Americans, with their penchant for firsts, are attempting the political equivalent of Olympic synchronized swimming, a sort of political double helix manoeuvre - father-to-son (the Bushes), interwoven with husband-to-wife (the Clintons), and all this seamlessly, in just 20 years."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/reportsfromabroad/murray/20071004.html

obey democracy - support our troops!

Ottawa City Hall bowed to pressure (from exactly where I can only guess) to alloworder Support Our Troops decals to be applied on city police cruisers.
This strikes me as being wrong, in a way very similar to the way the PATRIOT act was passed - the unspoken message being "this may be a bad law, but if you don't support it (we'll make sure that) you'll be perceived as unpatriotic/against our troops."
Why do I think this is a bad idea? well, for practical reasons really:
1. cost - of ordering, applying, and eventually removing/replacing faded decals. you ever try to remove an old bumper sticker?
2. divisiveness - those who aren't displaying decals MUST be AGAINST our troops!(???)
3. forcefulness - city hall ordered ottawa police to apply decals to all vehicles - what are our troops fighting for again, freedom?
4. partiality (opposite of neutrality?) - if a city is to function smoothly, it has to make everybody feel welcome. Branding city assets with decals for various non-charity-event causes that highlight one particular segment of the population, no matter how legitimate, undermines the faith in the institution that is necessary for other segments of the population to feel like their ideas will be welcome; worst case, they'll shrink away from the table and spiral their frustration into a tight little explosive Waco-style knot that nobody will have seen coming. what's that other thing our government sent our troops out to Afghanistan for - democracy? Can't have democracy without dialog, and you sure can't have dialog without trust.

PS. I realized that the title was a little off-point and misleading so I changed it. Just to be clear: I do support our troops. I think its very important for our troops to know we (the general public) care about them, and that we aren't tearing them away from their families willy-nilly. I also think that *forcing* displays of affection robs them of their emotional impact.

Battle of the (Youth) Bulge

wow - shocking, politically unsavoury, but surprisingly sympathetic and logical:

We have two million jobs that we cannot fill - and a welfare-dependent population of six million, and the two do not meet. The welfare group grows each year because of new babies, but the vacant job slots are not filled.
...
Some American strategists are beginning to question whether the USA, with its one-son families, ought send out troops to fight populations with many sons. That is the mistake we have committed in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you have to go in because you have been attacked, then you must do it, but as soon as the danger has been defeated, it is necessary to withdraw. It is up to the Iraqis and the Afghans themselves to ensure that there is a balance between the size of the population and the number of positions society can offer. And as far back in history we look, we can see that this balance has been maintained by young men killing each other. We have done it in Europe, and it has happened elsewhere. We cannot allow them to send their young men over the borders to kill others.

German sociologist Gunnar Heinsohn, who believes that the game is over for Europe. See full interview at
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/06/continent-of-losers.html