I'm back. It's been a while and this post is not on women...mostly.

Life as a traveling Contractor

There is a lot to be learned going into peoples' homes and businesses on a daily basis. From the lower class areas of town to the richest people in a metropolis you see it all. Here is some observations that might warrant an expanded post or two on the nature of people in general.

1)Black people I know, you're expecting some racist rant, but I suppose that immediate assumption says more about your intuition of our society than anything I can write. For starters, nearly everyone believes that you are there to service them. Not in an employee-employer relationship, but in a you do things for me because I exist as that is how everything else in my life works. This society has in many ways created sociopaths out of them as they see others as mere objects in their lives to be exploited or used in some way.

For starters, every phone call involves some variation of reading their mind. They cannot explain a simple situation or what they need done. If they want a big load of trash hauled away, they cannot give you a size estimate. If you ask for a pic, that is too much work. If they need moving help, they literally can't be bothered past a few sentences to make sure we understand each other. Any price quoted is like you are robbing them. They literally cannot comprehend how real economics works so anything over $20 is a bridge too far. Their house are universally filthy in some way or another. I've been in homes where trash was everywhere. I mean everywhere. They had maggots in the kitchen. I've been to homes where they decided that walking ten feet to the trash was too hard so simply dumped it behind the couch. For months... 50% of my home clearouts are due to a black person leaving and not taking any of their stuff with them. They ruin fixtures and walls. Everything is sticky. After a while, no matter how open you are, you kind of turn off when one calls you as there is going to be a problem.

2)poor white people This can go either way. SOmetimes they have the cleanliness issues of above, but at least can communicate what they need done. They also understand what costs what and are usually agreeable to terms as they just figure everything is going to be expensive. SOmetimes they tip well. I'm a pretty big guy and one time some redneck half joked that he wasn't going to pay me excepting for how big I was. He was 20 short and wound up giving me something in trade. The houses I go to like this that have a daughter with a black boyfriend/baby daddy are literally depressed beyond all measure and going through the motions.

3)middle class whites These can be the best clients or the worse. Some of them are so status obsessed that they can barely enjoy life. Others are penny pinchers. Others will literally tip you better than anyone. Generally good communication wise and universally safe.

4)Rich whites

Test Run. I'm still here and will be constructing. Life through the Eyes of a Craiglist Everyman soon.

Stuff Women Don't Like -- #1 Accountability

In light of the last few years phenomenon of "don't like" sites, I found a dearth of anything related to probably the number one cause of our nation's progressively worsening struggles : women's mental makeup and our society's embrace of it's every whim.

With that being said I am going to do some numbered posts on here and if it goes well and doesn't suck, I might set up a site called that and drop them all in there. Until then the 2 or 3 readers I have can be entertained here.

We'll start with the most obvious and most generic: Women's inability to be accountable.

Since it is such a broad topic, I will simply list contrasting examples of men and women's reactions to the same event and please let me know if you disagree. I've seen a lot and lived through a lot, but I'm not imune to gross misinterpretation on a few things.

1) I was fired or laid off from my job.

Men - If it was a layoff, they try to get whatever pay and benefits they can before leaving and they apply for unemployment while they begin to look for new gainful employment. If they were fired for cause, they might say a few expletives directed at the employer or to themselves and begin to look for new employment.

Women - If it was a layoff, get as many women as possible in the same boat together and petition the media, lawyers, etc. to get back their jobs regardless of whether they perform a vital function or not or even if the company can remain economically viable if they stay on, on the basis that women are vital to diversity and other mumbo jumbo and that a big stink will be made if their demands are not met. If they are fired for cause, they will complain to all of their friends that XYZ was out to get them, that someone harassed them, or that it is a chauvanist company that hates women. They will try to seek out any avenue-lawsuits, media, etc. that will force their way back in regardless of what they might have done. There will be no introspection and they will take forever to find another job, relying on the government or the men in their lives for support until they can find another cushy office job up to their liking.

2) My marriage is failing and I have underage kids to think of.

Men - If I still love my wife and want it to work, I will try whatever I think is necessary to keep my family intact. If this is not possible, I will try to work out a compromise where the kids are top priority and taken care of and my wife and I take an equitable share of our assets. (This can sometimes be comnpounded by adultry, but since 50% of all marriages today end in divorce, many of them no fault, I am going to overlook such a delicate example). If my wife is at the very least not a danger to herself and the children, I will want to allow her partial custody so that our children can still see both of us. I am open to flexibility in dates with good reason and see little need to involve the courts in every minutae of our lives. I will do what I say I will do and if I make far more money that you, I have no problem giving money to help with the kids continued upbringing.

Women - If my husband makes way more than I do, I consider how my lifestyle will be effected by a divorce. The kids are all mine is a given, because why would it be any other way. It doesn't matter what faults I have, I should be taken care of and so I want the heavily female-friendly courts involved in everything. Alimony of course will come to me and it will be in the amount of (as much as I can get). The children also require (as much as I can get) which of course I will use to take care of them but any excess is my well deserved reward for putting up with that pig for so long. I will say anything in court in order to make this happen. I will say he watches child porn, I will say he touches our kids inappropriately, I will construct domestic abuse stories that don't need to be proven, and I will do this without a hint of conscience, since that is what is expected of me. Who cares that children from single parent homes are 4 times more likely to get into trouble or have drug problems? I'm in it to win it because it is a contest, not a dissolution of a family. Another man (or 10) will come along that I allow to hang around my children.

3) Times are tough, we need to buckle down

Men - I will try to budget better and make sacrifices. A second job is an option if necessary.

Women - Credit cards were meant to be used. I absolutely have to have the best clothes, makeup, shoes, etc. to be seen in public. Why aren't you making more money? If it gets too bad my eyes will begin to wonder and I might leave you for a wealthier man. Of course I expect the kids to remain in my custody and you pay to support them. Why aren't we going on vacation again?

The one thing that becomes apparent from this small sample and would hold true if I did 50 of them is the size of each post and the directness and efficiency differences between the sexes. Emotion is not nearly as big a factor for men and hence a more concise course of action is established. However, the main factor here is a selfishness that overrides all other consideration for the modern women. This transcends to voting habbits, discipline of children, and the breakdown of family order. I can go on. My next post I will try to provide more concrete examples and studies, but for now you get the jist.

A few notes on women...

I don't want to give the impression that my blog is all about women and their flaws. Only 47% of it will be, I promise.

1) Women routinely call men dogs. I can see this as nothing but a compliment. Dogs are universally loyal, content with those they love, and have simple wants and needs. They will let you know openly and honestly what they are thinking and what they want and will always stand by you. When a cat gets run over by a car, you shake your head and move on. When Lassie dies everyone cries.

2) Why do women love daytime talk shows so much? Could it be that the groupthink of many women is how an individual woman bases her thought process? Does she feel the need to have her whole character proofread by the prevailing social norms before saying to herself "This is what I believe and what I will stand for!" Men's talk shows are virtually non-existant and the few short-lived ones are mostly for fun like The Man Show. Oprah is a billionaire.

3) As bad as it sounds, on paper women are a quatifiable economic good, amazingly beholden to the laws of supply and demand. A 22 year old hottie can ask a high price for her attentions (money, good-looks, status) and still have many potential buyers. A 42 year old lawyer can want the same, but not reasonably expect much of a bid and from only a few (if any) potential buyers. There is another good that works very much like this: a 1982 Datsun. Back in the day it was seen as a pretty cool foreign car, now only poor people looking for a cheap ride for the short term will even consider it. Such is life.

4) On the reverse side, men work in the opposite of this. Almost like wine or a good scotch. When we are young, we are fairly awkward and immature, with little money and stability. As we age, confidence and status grow, while our looks do not diminish. The demand increases. No this is not fair. Neither is death, but no one has been able to successfully legislate that yet. Sorry.

5) There are three things a woman can do to keep a man enamored. Stay in reasonable shape. Brush her teeth. Ask him to do something she can't do once in a while and say thank you for it. That's basically it. I would post the list for men, but a 1500 page blog entry that I am constantly having to edit would be ridiculous.

6) Women - if you want to be independant and have an attitude like a man, then act like a man and live with a man's consequences. If you want to be loved and treated like a lady, act like one. We men instinctively know one when we see one and act accordingly. There is no middle ground.

7) If you choose option one from above you forfeit your right to ever get upset about men and their sexual behaviors. It is in a man's nature to want to be with many women and hence it is your job to convince us otherwise by your actions. If you want to act like a man and sleep around like a man, you are only making our basic instincts easier to satisfy, while sounding like a spoiled hypocrite.

8) If you really love a man, you will talk dirty to him. I may not speak for the lot of men, but I judge my intamacy with a women by how much she allows herself to let go with me and vice versa.

9) Not a single straight man has ever noticed your shoes, fingernail/toenail polish, purse, or jewelry. However we keenly observe dozens of round asses, ample chests, and pretty faces everyday. Perhaps only 4 pairs of shoes and a gym membership would be better if you are looking to find and or keep a man.

10) When you hear a brave enough man say that women should have never been given the vote, stop and think about why he is saying that instead of automatically dismissing him as a woman-hater. He may actually have legitimate reasons. Ask him sincerely to explain. You might even fall in love with him. Or not. Who cares?

More as I see fit later...

I'm back! And why women are killing the banking system Part 1...

I've recently had a career change and now have more time to start and hopefully maintain a semi-competant and possibly even entertaining blog. I remembered I started this one more than three years ago and never got back to it. Shame on me, but I still like the name and template so I will try to post when I can. Comments and suggestions are always appreciated.


I recently left a large bank that I had been working in for three years and want to put some thoughts down in general and expand on them later. For the sake of brievity I will list them and move on as I could probably write a book on the subject if need be and most people reading blogs can''t stomach more than 500 words at a time (myself included). Note that you can probably exchange "banking system" for any other industry that has been inundated with women in the last 3 decades.

1) There is no such thing as accountability anymore.

--- It used to common practice that if you were in sales that the number one decider of whether you keep your job or not, much less receive promotion, was determined by your sales numbers. If you made the company money, you were valuable and they wanted to entice you to stay. If you broke even, as long as there wasn't an economic downturn or tons of more qualified people looking to take your job, you usually stayed on, albeit in the same position. If however, you were substandard for long enough you were almost always terminated or put into a different position that you might be better suited for. Seems simple right? Well, nowadays you would be wrong.

Let's move past the now firmly established quotas and affirmitive action policies that ushered this in. It is old hat and every thinking person that is true to reality understands the problems inherent to these policies. What really pushes things over the edge is a sense that women have to be there and that other people i.e. men will make up the slack. This is unspoken, but is an undercurrent to everything that goes on. This of course is not just tied to sales, every position now functions this way. Managers on the retail level who are female can justify their high pay and existance in the job by making reports for staff, having self-esteem meetings, and constantly getting their employees to move furniture around. Haven't had a single sale in two months? No worries as long as the three male personal bankers make numbers I can go to three hour lunches and make pretty pictures on the white board for our female area managers to applaud us for.

Now as for accountability, if a male does not consistantly make his numbers he will be reprimanded, sent for additional ( and often useless training), or pushed out through whatever uncomfortable means the bank can contrive. He is expected to wear a suit and tie, be respectful of all clients, and not step on any co-workers toes or feelings. This really isn't out of whack as being a banker one should think that this is a requirement. If a woman does not make her numbers consistantly, the consensus is that she is not being utilized properly or she is being held back. CLients are geared toward her so that she gets first crack or it must be the male manager's fault for not training her properly. If she continues to fail, they often will promote her to some marketing or management position where she can make more money wasting company time or having the men beneath her prop her up.

Tellers are a good case in point about how this lack of accountability seeps into all things banking. Tellers are still traditionally considered to be a woman's job despite the growing number of men who work in this line (it sounds bad, but I would venture that close to a third are gay) and as such the tellers in general are treated as a whole like women. I have seen good tellers that can run almost 400 transactions a day, point clients in the right direction, give off a good attitude, and not be consistantly out of balance. On the other hand I have seen lazy Marys do next to nothing, play on the internet, and take as much time as they want to help people. I have seen bad attitudes and unhelpful service. Routinely these people are out of balance which can cost the bank a great deal of money until they are terminated, which of course takes months. There is no difference in pay among these people. Any slight differences in wage are due solely to tenure and what you were hired in at. Even an economics dullard could tell you that a marginal character person or even simply someone who just thinks of the job as just a paycheck will choose the easiest option if there is no incentive to do otherwise. Even the hope of promotion only entails more work as a lead teller at a slightly higher pay wage, but now you are accountable to the whims of your manager and if anything ever goes wrong you are on the spot. Seldom has a teller in my experienced ever been given the option to rise above teller unless they leave and go to another bank. What this breeds is a culture of getting by and doing the minimum all the time. Want to know why your bank screws up some of your accounts from time to time? Or why you have huge lines in the bank at certain times? The reason is tellers have no incentive to treat you like you are their livelihood. They know that if you get screwed over and leave that simply means less work for them to plod through.

2) Clients expect results, women expect happiness.

We all have bank accounts. Most of us rarely ever have to go into a branch unless there is a problem, we have money to invest, or we need a loan of some kind. This is basically it. Some people are regulars because it is their job to make deposits for their employers and some people aren't terribly well off and need to cash weekly checks to pay bills. However, with drive-thrus and the prevalance of online banking, more than two or three yearly visits are uncommon for the majority of people. With that being said, when you actually do go into one, you expect efficient action to take place on your behalf. You entrust a lot of money to their safekeeping or you make the bank a lot of money with loans you have taken out. Even simple checking accounts with a check card make them money everytime you use it. So why does it seem like you can hardly ever get competant, knowledgeable serice? Simple, the bank no longer recruits from college econ or finance departments. It no longer has the option of taking 10 out 10 professional minded intelligent men if they are the best qualified for the jobs at hand, but rather a mix of the requisite sexes and races that it can brag to the press about.

The banks stress customer service and greeting a lot now. They put melodramatic commercials on radio and tv talking about dreams or living solid or whatnot that nobody pays attention to. It has always been my experience that when a client comes in, they simply want something to be done well on their behalf. If an account is in error, they want it corrected. If they are looking to buy a house, they want information and options. If they just came into some money, they want safe options until they can speak to a broker or financial advisor. etc. etc... The banks have lost sight of this. The profitable clients value prompt, knowledgeable, and efficient service above all else. If you are smiling the whole time that is incidental. A millionaire has no use for the smiling idiot who can't tell the difference between APR and APY, much less why FDIC insurance is basically fluff now or why rates are plummeting. Clients at heart want the polished banker who may be a bit of an asshole or the somewhat dorky number cruncher everytime over the minority hire or 23 year old cheerleader for the bank who knows next to nothing. Money is a good distiller of basic qualifying. Would you want to put 200K of your money in the hands of a pretty and smiling young girl or in the hands of a guy who looks like the jackass boss from Office Space? I'll leave tat for you to ponder.

With this in mind as the customer service surveys, greetings, and happy feeling days become more common, clients ironically begin to view banks with more suspicion. Used car lots and retail merchants stress happiness and fake niceness. Banks should stress hard facts and reality. A good used car salesman will smile as he tells you what you want to hear in order to get you to buy a lemon. A good banker should tell you calmly and without reservation that taking out an equity line on your home in order to buy a Lexus is not a good idea if you can barely make payments on the home to begin with. etc. etc... You might not get your Lexus, but you will thank you banker for keeping you financially sound for the next 5 years.

More when I get around to it...

Reasons why I reluctantly support disclosing accusers identity.

Rape shield laws are designed to protect the victim and assure that said victim will be willing to testify in a grimly trial against the accused. In most cases, it is a good thing. In high profile cases, it is nonsensical and may actually hinder the pursuit of justice. In any rape trial, the accused already knows who is accusing him. If he or his cronies want to cause harm to the victim or bully her into silence, he already knows her identity and is only prohibited from doing anything illegal by the police. In small towns, rape shield laws allow for her embarrassment to not go beyond her inner circle and at worst the whole small town. This is good, as if she feels too stigmatize after the trial she can move. In high profile cases, the whole country knows and any nut can look up her info on the internet, regardless of any shield law. Now, allow to give 3 reasons pro and con for lifting rape shield laws in high profile cases.

Pro lifting the shield law:
1) The main reason the public should know the accusers identity ESPECIALLY in high profile cases is the possibility of gaining more complete information in a case. Anyone who knew the accuser or the accused that might have seen them that night has already come forward or been interviewed by police. However, strangers that may recognize a face or remember something shady, might not put the big name case together with something minor they might have seen, if they don't see an image of the accuser. Example, if someone driving around the Kroger late that night that wasn't from the area saw the 2nd stripper and the accuser laughing in a car at a traffic light, he might think nothing of it, even with the trail publicity. However, if he saw that same girls face plastered all over the news, he would have valuable info for police.

2) It would seem like the justice system is assigning values to how bad a crime is. Rape is a horrible crime. False accusations of rape are also a crime. While it is true that when comparing their wickedness, rape outweighs the other. However, since we live in a country that values innocent until proven guilty as a mantra, technically both parties are innocent of both crimes until proven otherwise. Therefore, it stands to reason that the justice system is valuing crimes that technically haven't been committed and allowing one side to be exposed while the other hidden. You either show both parties as potential lawbreakers, or you shield both of them as innocent. Since again, we value innocent until ... , it would seem that the shielding of both parties until the conclusion of proceeding is logical. Unfortunately, they have already shown only one side and now must make amends by showing the other side. If only that the public can get a more balanced view of the situation.

3) While proponent of shield laws say that its existence promotes more rape victims coming forward, it also has joined forced with our lawsuit culture to create an evil monster. Kobe Bryant's case was tossed, yet he still paid the accuser a rather large sum. In this case, Jesse Jackson will pay for her schooling regardless of the outcome. Often times if a woman wants money badly enough, or she is enraged by a man, she need only wait for the right time and victim to strike, knowing that she will receive all of the sympathy and protection from the limelight. Even if she loses the court case, if she has chosen a wealthy enough man, she can be assured of a large payday. Removing this cover from media scrutiny, removes the advantage from any future false rape allegation.

Cons to removing shield:

1) As much as I can quote evidence and logical theories, the facts are some people do not act logically. A woman who has just been raped may not be thinking very clearly. She may so scared of exposure as to never file a complaint. This is indeed a terrible situation, remedied only by the comforting nature of shield laws.

2) Predators know that there are plenty of women who fit reason #1. Therefore, all they have to do is find a shy woman and then take their chances. The shield is in many ways a viable
deterrent.

3) Finally high profiled men (politicians, celebrities, etc.) are in a better position to prey upon women from reasoning #1. If they think that chances are even slightly higher that someone will file charges because of a rape shield, they are less likely to commit rape.

In conclusion logic, fairness, and the law dictate the removal of shield laws in high profile cases. However, the arguments against are valid. However, since we live in a country governed by the rule of law, illogical actions and emotions are best left out of the equation. We see their negative effects in many other areas of life already.