Non-Jobs Nonsense

In the midst of our new era of "change" in the US, unemployment rates are going up all across the country. Not exactly the kind of "change" that most people had in mind, but it's change none the less. Tomato, tom-ah-to, what are you gonna do? (See, that's why I like details. I like to know what I'm getting and I like to be clear about what I'm asking for. If you just ask for "change" you're opening yourself up to good "change" and to crappy "change". Guess which one we're working our way through right now?) But if we start doing things like they've done over there in Britain, I figure that we could have this whole unemployment thing resolved within weeks at the most! What could possibly go wrong if we started hiring people for jobs such as roller disco coaches, ceremonial sword bearers and the much in demand trampoline coaches. Wait. Those are jobs?

Correct. Not only are they jobs, they're jobs that folks get paid for! The Mail Online reports about an audit of local government positions which was done by the Sunday Times. The information about the various jobs was "obtained under freedom of information legislation" and the Sunday Times claims that it reveals several instances of jobs which "appear to be of questionable value." I like that phrasing. It's journalism's way of using a more polite way to say, "WTF is this?!"

I can believe that there are some positions which exist throughout any governmental system that are of questionable need, let alone value. But I think that I've always thought of it not so much as the job itself being of questionable value, rather than the person attempting to perform the job who is of definitive non-value. (I know that they didn't hire those 37 people at the DMV to just stand around and watch two other people do all of the work, yet that's always the scenario at every DMV across the country. It's like they're all practicing for when they get promoted to "Watching Paint Dry Supervisor" positions or something.) That is not the case in Britain. In Britain, it is most definitely the job.

Some of the local government positions that caught the attentive eyes of those at the Sunday Times were the likes of:

• Trampoline coaches ("Jump!" There. I qualify.)



• Skate park attendants ("Roll!" Qualified again! Man, I am good!)


• Flower arrangers (For the government?)


• A “befriending co-ordinator” (What? Like Facebook friending?)



• A £15-an-hour yoga instructor. ("Sit! Hum!" Yep, qualified.)
  

In Newcastle upon Tyne (for those of you in the US, I couldn't tell you if that's a city-state thing or some sort of a, um, provincial-region thing....orrr....I dunno what it means. But they're bad there! That's all I know! Very, very bad!) they have employed a "breastfeeding peer support co-ordinator” whose purpose in life is to "give mothers advice on how to feed." Huh. You'd think they'd want to offer that sort of advice to the individual who is doing the eating. I know it doesn't sound all that complicated, but they're babies. They're new. They don't know. But if you're just the feedbag, how hard is that to sit there with a breast all lopping out and looking delicious (to the baby! Looking delicious to the baby! Geez.). Doesn't sound hard enough that there needs to be a job to help that sort of thing along.

Also employed (and at the rate of £23,470 per year) is a “composting supervisor” whose job it is "...to run a facility that turns garden waste into compost." Um, doesn't garden waste turn itself into compost?

But that doesn't even come close to comparing to the "part-time sword bearer and mace bearer." Their jobs are "...to clear the way for David Wood, the mayor, on ceremonial occasions." Wow. Your own personal mace bearer. I have got to get me one of those! How cool would that be? Pretty cool! (By the way, the mayor also gets not one, not two, not three, but four, "four chauffeur-butlers, collectively paid more than £60,000 a year." A butler would be pretty cool too. I'd definitely name mine Jeeves. Absolutely. What? They already have names when they come to slave work for you?! I did not get that memo. Or, at least, that's what I'm telling my new butler, Stan Jeeves.

"Tewkesbury council in Gloucestershire (See my explanation for Newcastle upon Tyne for what that means.) deemed it necessary to appoint a “falls prevention fitness adviser”, primarily to help elderly people." Fitness adviser? To help elderly people to not fall down? Here's a tip: Knock off the fitness! They're elderly! It says so right there! Unless they're Jack LaLane, no fitness! They're frail and weak.

Angus in Scotland has an undefined "bouncy castle attendant” for the low, low yearly salary of £13,000. (Those blow-up things for children's parties or drunken adult barbecues?) Falkirk has a part-time “toothbrush assistant” whose job entails "teaching nursery children how to clean their teeth." (OK, wait. That one might be legit. I think I had two of those when I was growing up. One of them I called 'Mom' and the other one I called 'Dad'. They worked for free. Thank God.) There is also a “cheerleading development officer”.

If I lived in Glasgow, it wouldn't be for long. Especially after I found out about the taxpayer funded “street mediator” "to deal with children hanging around on street corners" at the cost of £17,000-a-year. Even if I stuck around with that, I'd definitely be packing my bags or looking for ways to be deported after learning of the career opportunities available for one as a “chewing gum removal labourer."

You'll find that those of Windsor & Maidenhead in Berkshire "cannot do without the services of a “roller disco coach” every Saturday night." "Tendring council in north Essex has recruited a part-time worker to compare tea dances at a leisure centre." (Really? So, like 'Dancing With the Stars'? Only without 'Stars'? Do they have to shout like that Bruno guy? That'd be fun to watch. I could see the entertainment value in that one. Other than that, I couldn't find a shred of usefulness if I tried.) And in Redditch council in Worcestershire you will find that they have "...put a Punch and Judy performer on the payroll as part of a programme of summer activities." (Punch and Judy, according to Wikipedia, which I'll grant can be written to say anything that anyone bloody wants it to say, describes Punch as "The stereotypical view of Punch casts him as a deformed, child-murdering, wife-beating psychopath who commits appalling acts of violence and cruelty upon all those around him and escapes with impunity; this is greatly enjoyed by small children.")

While I was rather appalled at this sort of thing seeming to be widespread across Britain, I'm not from there and I don't live there. However, I would have hoped that there would be some sort of comparable outrage to that which I would definitely have if I did live there. As it is now, I'm not so much filled with rage as much as I am fear that these non-jobs will start appearing more frequently in the US as a result of "change". But when I read the article on the Times Online, I was surprised at the comments. First of all, there were only 10 comments. And of the measly 10, 7 of them were in favor of the 'non-jobs' and staunchly defended them. The other three comments were not necessarily against this sort of thing, though. (One person simply wrote "I know a chap who was a toilet inspector." I had no idea whether or not to classify that as 'for' or 'against' asinine jobs that waste taxpayer money.) Click on over to a story about Susan Boyle and find 48 comments.

::: sigh :::

A spokesman for the Local Government Association justified these positions by stating: 'From lollipop ladies to street cleaners and librarians, town halls employ people that provide more than 800 vital services that many local residents rely on to get through the day." Yeah, how we'd all make it through the day without our "lollipop ladies" is beyond me. Seriously, does anyone really wonder about the fiscal mess that all levels of government seem to be struggling with? Is anyone at all perplexed as to how things came to be as they are? It seems pretty obvious, yet it continues. Odd. Well, good luck with this one, Britain. You're going to need it.

Sphere: Related Content

It's a Recession! Everybody Have Sex!

Today, what many people have known for quite some time (and what others have been trying to avoid accepting as fact) was officially confirmed: The United States is in a recession. (In other news, water? Still wet. The sun? Still hot. Back to you.)

Oh, and this recession didn't just pop up the other day or anything. No, apparently, the US has been in troubled times far longer than we were aware! We've been destitute since December 2007! The nerve of them not telling us for an entire year! We wasted 12 months of panic time! We've just lost an entire year of over-hyped media coverage portraying the situation as ten times worse than it is! That's stuff we'll never get back, you know. Never. It's gone. Those days are over, my friend.

And it's not just in the US where problems are just running amok. Britain isn't having all that great of a time either (despite being called "Great Britain"! The irony!). But if the British papers are any indication of how the Brits are coping with their own economic debacle, it comes down to two things: Humor and sex. (Sometimes, those are easily one and the same. But this time they really are two separate subjects!)

Over there at The Sun, we learn about a one Andrew Shaffer, an artist who says that, “Humour is essential to make it through tough times." (Again, just a reminder, this is separate from the sex! That's not what Andrew is referring to here. Hard for some to imagine, I know!) So Andrew has created some greeting cards with themes straight from the Great Depression! Wait. What?

He designed this fine card, guaranteed to make any destitute acquaintance of yours have a good laugh, just before his home is foreclosed on.

He also designed this winner, giving the recipient a moment to pause and reflect upon what their life without solid food will be like.

Right about then is when I got off on my little sex tangent. (It doesn't take much. Obviously, if I ended up there after reading Great Depression cards.) In the sidebar of "Interesting Stories" was a link that read "Top Ten Reasons to Have Sex". (There are nine other reasons besides "It's SEX, for cryin' out loud!"? Who knew?) Who the heck needs reasons? (I barely need permission!)

I didn't bother to click on it. (Again, no need for reasons. "I want to have sex" is reason enough.). But I did want to read about where sex fits in during these troubled, troubled economic times. And according to The Sun, if you're in Britain (and The Sun is, so you'd think they'd probably know), "Britain humps through slump." Dear God, I love the foreign press.

They make that statement based upon the recent revelation that sales of condoms have really gone up. (Yeah, yeah, pun intended. What hasn't gone up? Not much if they're buying all of those condoms!) "Experts reckon the reason is that a night in under the covers is cheaper than a night on the tiles." (It's also much more comfortable that way as well. Tile is cold and you're always slipping around or getting your head knocked into the side of the tub when you're....never mind. What were they saying about condoms?) Another expert surmised that "...another reason was that people were becoming concerned they couldn’t afford more kids." Oh, can we only hope and pray that concern spreads to the US? Soon! Please?! What a novel thought! Being able to afford the children that you expel out of your uterus when the creatures are done using you as their alien host. Brilliant!

And this "stay at home and have sex instead of going out" theory isn't just based on the fact that condom sales have increased. "Further proof is our tea light candles are up 50 per cent, champagne 20 per cent and oysters eight per cent and slippers and dressing gowns 22 per cent.” Wow. So not only are these guys staying home instead of taking their potential sexual partner out, these guys are having to convince their partner at home as well! Always a trade off, I suppose. (But here's a tip guys: Chicks aren't that into oysters. They look like snot. And they don't taste much better. Slurping down a shellfull of snot is not going to get many ladies "in the mood". Just so you know.)

According to an adult retail establishment in London, Private Shops, sales have been phenomenal lately and they are attributing it to the crappy economy. Seems Londoners are now staying in and doing it a whole lot more than when they had a bunch of money to toss around. And what money they do have, they're spending on "accessories" for their romping. According to a one Sally Barker ”With all the uncertainty over jobs, mortgages and savings, men are clearly turning to sex to have some fun." How nice. Now if only the women could have a little fun at the same time,eh? ”Our London outlets have seen the biggest sales spike. We've had to bring in extra supplies to cope. Sales are up 420 percent across the capital." Holy crap! 420 percent?! What are they buying? Sex can be fairly accessory-free (for the most part. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for a little accessorizing. I'm just pointing out the frugal aspects during these troubled, troubled times.). ”French maid and fireman outfits, nurses uniforms, rubber and leather - they are all flying out of the stores." Wow! Flying nurses in rubber and leather?! That must be a sight! (Why am I reminded of the Wizard of Oz? Fireman and nurses and maids! Oh, my!) Oh, my indeed.

Another headline in The Sun that caught my eye read: "Pair having sex in the woods were beaten by shaven headed yobs." Good Lord, I don't even know what a "shaven headed yob" is, but it doesn't sound good. And while I may be in the dark about that, I do know what being beaten is and I know that isn't good! The photo below accompanied the story and had the following caption beneath it: "Attacked - Keely Hill was attacked while romping." There ya go! Tell it like it is, Sun guys!

And finally, just when things seemed to be going so well during the times of recession in the land of British sex, I then had to read the whole dealio of the guy who had sex with a horse! But again, The Sun does not disappoint as they inform us that "A PERVERT has been jailed for having sex for a second time with the same HORSE." I found it interesting that they chose to capitalize both "pervert" and "horse", as I would have thought that the emphasis would have been on something like "second time." Having sex with a horse, in and of itself (not literally, for God sakes!), implies that someone is, in fact, a pervert (as does have sex with a horse the first time, but we needn't quibble). Emphasize the "second time" and now you've painted a picture of a whole different kind of pervert. The kind that's all stable-rific.

Oh, but about the pervert. It would seem that one pervert, a 46-year old Leeroy Le Gallais had been on probation for "molesting a gelding." (He was caught after leaving his underwear in the stable of a horse named Calico. See, that's the one good thing about perverts. They're not real bright. Makes it easier to catch them and that gets all of us one step closer to having our street pervert free!) "But the drunken weirdo returned and committed further indecencies with the same horse."

I would pay good money for one, just one, US newspaper to use "the drunken weirdo" in a story. (You want people to read what you write? String some words like those together and you're off to a good start.)

"Calico’s owner found a mounting stool (My God! They have special stools for that in Britain?!) next to the animal the next morning. Calico was also “box walking” — moving sideways — a sign of stress." (It is also the sign of an unfortunate encounter with a drunken weirdo, it would appear.) "Le Gallais said he meant to go home but went and “played around” with Calico." Meant to go home?! But instead your found yourself fornicating with an equine beast?!?! It's hard for me to imagine how those two things ended up as options for one another! Look, I went to the store the other day and I meant to get Diet Coke, but I mistakenly ended up getting regular Coke instead. See how that works? I didn't go to the store and mean to get Diet Coke but ended up fornicating with a horse instead!!

"He admitted having sex with a horse and was jailed for three years." Well, at least there was a semi-happy ending. Well, probably not for the horse.

Sphere: Related Content

The War Against Advertising

Well, there's one good thing about the current "recession" that I definitely did not see coming. It is making it easier to spot morons and softheads around the holiday shopping season. How can a recession provide such a needed public service, you ask? Well, unfortunately, finding out who the morons are can only occur when they act in a way that only morons can. That is to say, moronic, as it were. And once you know who the idiots are, you'd think you'd feel pretty good about knowing who to avoid having a conversation with and/or who to avoid just in general. But it's really kind of a depressing feeling as you attempt to grapple with being the only non-moron with some common sense who is surrounded by a sea of idiots.

Because of the "recession", parents are finding themselves needing to cut back on the amount of money that they spend on holiday gifts this year. (I use quotes because if I can't find a parking space at the mall, I question the presence of a "recession". Aren't people supposed to be saving their money during a "recession"? If so, then how come I can't find a place to park because everyone else is at the mall spending their money? So until I can find a place to park in under 5 minutes, the quotes stay.) Using the basic principles of economics (and basic math) you'll realize that when you spend less money on gifts, you tend to end up buying not as many gifts as you would if you had spent more money. That is when using the basic principle of "Because I said so" or its sister principle "Just because" should be applied to any discussion a parent feels the need to have with their child about why they may not be getting as many Christmas presents this year as they have in previous years. But those two principles have been inexplicably lost somehow, somewhere. And parents are looking for a new way to cope with this "tragic" situation.

At least 1,400 members of Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood have come up with this method of dealing with not having as much money to spend on Christmas gifts for their children: According to those over there at the AP "They have have contacted 24 leading toy companies and retailers to express concern about ads aimed at kids." Wait. What?

Correct. These softheads are asking toy companies to please stop directing their television commercials at their children because then their children want all of the toys that they see advertised and these weak, weak parents won't be able to buy them everything that they want. Uh-huh. And? Oh, wait. Is that a problem? I'm sorry, I misunderstood, being as how I grew up not getting everything I wanted, Christmas time or not, and not being entitled to an explanation as to why. It's just how it was. You never got everything you wanted. Ever. Yeah, instead I was taught how to be appreciative and thankful for any gift that someone was taking the time and effort to give me. How misguided was my childhood, eh?

Are these people out of their freaking minds?! They're actually SO worried that they won't be able to afford every single toy that their child sees an ad for that they're willing to write letters to the toy companies and ask them to stop running all of their toy advertisements? What Utopian planet did these folks beam down from? They better get a head start on their letter writing campaign to all forms of media for when their young children become teenagers, as that's when they're really going to start wanting everything that they see AND, from how this seems to be going, expecting to get it.

Let's take a gander at one letter that one softheaded parents wrote, shall we? A one Todd Helmkamp, a resident of Hudson, IN, penned this charming request: "Unfortunately, I will not be able to purchase many of the toys that my sons have asked for; we simply don't have the money. By bombarding them with advertisements ... you are placing parents like me in the unenviable position of having to tell our children that we can't afford the toys you promote." Um, WTF is that?

The "unenviable position of having to tell our children that we can't afford the toys you promote"? You mean "being a parent and having to tell your kid NO on occasion"? The horror that a parent should be placed in a position of not giving their child everything that they want. I cannot believe this actually happens in this day and age and right here in the United States, too! (Please try not to get any of the sarcasm that was oozing off of that last sentence on you. It's hard to get off.)

Apparently, this attitude is fostered in part by other softheads who enable the moronic and greatly misguided. Take one Amanda Almodovar who is a social worker in Alamance County, NC. She says that "...she encounters such families in her work as an elementary school social worker where homelessness and unemployment are rising." OK, so where does the enabling come in? Right about when she says "I had one parent who said she'd prostitute herself to get what her child wants. It's heartbreaking. They feel inadequate as parents." Um, am I supposed to feel sorry for you that you because you're willing to whore yourself out so that you don't have to tell your kid no? Look, if you want to be a hooker for whatever reason you can come up with, knock yourself out. Aim high! Become a paid whore! That will be a great story to tell your child someday, won't it? ("And remember the Christmas of 2008? I had to turn tricks on a cot in the garage just so that we could afford that Nintendo Wii for you that year. I wasn't thrilled about being a whore-Mom, but it was better than telling you 'no.' " Aahh...just like the tales of childhood that I remember!)

She continued along those same lines with "I try to tell them, worry about your home, your heating bill — but they're the ones who have to look into children's faces, the children saying 'I want this, I want that.' " Um, yes, yes they are the ones who have to look into their children's faces. That's because they're their children! And children, regardless as to whose they are, tend to want everything that looks cool. But these people are so against telling their children 'no' or not giving their children everything that they want that they are willing to whore themselves out like a cheap hooker out turning tricks for crack money. Don't portray that as "heartbreaking". Portray it for what it is. Misguided. Enabling. Entitlement. And really effing stupid.

Meanwhile, over in Columbus, OH, a one Erin Beth Dower Charron (seriously?) In Columbus, Ohio, Erin Beth Dower Charron "...has been trying to brace her 4-year-old son and 8-year-old daughter for more subdued gift-getting this year as the family begins financial belt-tightening. 'My 8-year-old is still holding out hope that Santa will get her that one special gift, but understanding this year may be different. My son doesn't understand. Everything he sees, he wants. Toy ads on kids' TV shows make the process harder. The onslaught seems to be more intense this year.' "

You're trying to "brace your children" for what exactly? Getting anything instead of nothing? No, it doesn't sound like that. It sounds like you're trying to "brace them" that they will not be getting everything that they want and that it's perfectly fine that they're not happy that they won't get their way. But see, that interpretation is coming from someone who wouldn't be having a conversation like that with a 4-year old because, well, how do I put this? Oh, yeah. Because they're FOUR!

But here's the kicker! The director of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, and one Susan Linn who is a psychologist who would seem to have a rather idealistic and Utopian view of these sorts of "dilemmas." She has said that she doesn't "...expect toy companies to stop advertising." (Well, that's good, because they're not going to. Finally! Some realistic and rational thinking!) "...rather, she want the ads directed at parents." (Never mind. I take it back. Realistic and rational just left the building. We're back to moronic again.) She claims that "It's cruel to dangle irresistible ads for toys and electronics in front of kids — encouraging them to nag for gifts that their parents can't afford. It's just not fair." I think my head just exploded.

It's not fair?? The person who uttered that statement is a psychologist?! Did she study at the College of "Am Not! and Are So!"? Did she major in "I know you are, but what am I?" What was the topic of her thesis? "Takes one to know one?" FAIR?! It's called advertising. If you really want to teach those kids who think that they should have everything about "fair", what say you take them someplace where the kids aren't worried about not getting everything, but are instead worried about not getting anything? How "fair" is that? Not very.

So just the very act of a child watching an ad for a toy that they may or may not want is now considered to be "encouragement" to "nag" their parents for something that the parents can obviously not afford? First of all, children don't "nag", they whine. (Are we sure she's a psychologist? You think she would know that.) Second, how is the mere act of a commercial a form of the encouragement of anything other than to purchase the product? That's kind of the basis of the commercial in and of itself. You know, to encourage consumers to buy a product. (It sounds crazy, I know! But I've come to accept it and you'll have to also! Commercials want you to buy something! And I'm still a little surprised whenever I hear that. You know, because it's so shocking.)

But really, I want to know how exactly the toy companies are supposed to gear their toy ads toward the parents instead of the children. How would that work? It's not like the kid won't SEE the toy on the screen. It's not like the kid won't HEAR the words spoken in the ad. Would each commercial have a warning before it aired? "Parents! We're about to show you a really cool T-O-Y, but we can't talk about it in front of the K-I-D-S. Please clear the room so we can tell you, the adult, about our great T-O-Y now!" What do they want?! I don't get it. And neither do they, obviously.

What have we learned? More than we wanted to. Here are the basics: There are people out there who want to give their children everything that the child wants. Those same people apparently want to make sure that those same children never experience disappointment and thus, never learn how to deal with it. Those same people do not seem to place value upon the concept of the bigger meaning behind the giving and receiving gifts. Those people are also known as morons. You can tell because they're also committed to writing letters to toy companies and asking them to stop being unfair to their precious little snowflakes by running ads for toys directed at the children.

We also learned that some people are willing to whore themselves out and become a hooker so that they will not have to find themselves in the "unenviable position" of having to tell their child "no" on occasion (and that's not just the position that they'll be in if they become a whore in the first place, which will definitely be an "unenviable" one that is also going to be "uncomfortable" at times as well). That is a phenomenon otherwise known as "being a parent", something that most of these people seem to be unfamiliar with.

When I read articles like the one cited here, I always wonder why someone didn't ask these people (you know, like the lady who is willing to become 'hooker-ific') what they thought about teaching their children about the spirit of Christmas and the spirit of gift giving? Why weren't they asked why they are raising their children to focus on the materialistic aspect of things? (Don't get me wrong, getting gifts is awesome, but giving gifts is more awesome in a lot of ways. ) And why no one was asked what makes them think that giving a kid everything that they want is a good thing. It's not. And it has nothing to do with being "fair".

Sphere: Related Content