FPA och en liten räkneövning

För ett par dagar sedan uppmanades jag skriftligen av Folkpensionsanstalten (FPA) att omgående bevisa att jag inte arbetat under sommaren. Underlåter jag att göra detta dras mitt arbetslöshetsunderstöd in - retroaktivt om jag förstod rätt. Detta kan ju låta kusligt för en som mest lever på gärssoppa (taggiga och jävliga djur - gärsarna), men lyckligtvis verkade problemet fixa sig genom att jag per telefon konstaterade samma sak som jag tidigare uppgett skriftligt: Jag har inte haft jobb.

Antagligen insåg fröken i FPA:s telefon det absurda i begäran och lovade sätta ett kryss på rätt ställe i mina handlingar. Det är naturligtvis omöjligt för mig att bevisa att jag inte haft jobb. Om jag haft jobb hade jag visserligen kunnat bevisa det medelst ett papper i form av t.ex. ett lönekvitto. Men motsatsen är dessvärre omöjlig att bevisa. Sådana papper står inte att få någonstans. Se även Spede show - Yritysavustusvirasto där hjälten tvingas bevisa att han inte varit gift.

Som socker på jordgubbarna ringdes jag nyss upp av något fruntimmer på FPA som ville att jag skulle delta i en telfonundersökning om hur deras telefontjänst fungerar. Nu är det ju allmänt känt att det är väldigt svårt att nå FPA per telefon och t.o.m. per e-post. Detta beklagar de själva (ibland) på sina nätsidor. Betjäning på svenska kan man se sig i månen efter men det beklagar de inte heller. Lagen må säga vad den vill.

Jag finner det konstigt att FPA som är så överarbetat och resursbrustet har tid att ringa upp folk mitt i deras fisksoppa och ställa frågor om - just det - sina resursbrister. Till saken hör att jag förbjudit all form av marknadsföring och intervjuer per telefon. Bl.a. krävde detta ett telefonsamtal till befolkningsregistret som i annat fall säljer medborgarnas telefonuppgifter till företag som sysslar med s.k. direktmarknadsföring. Jag deltog i undersökningen mycket kort och kraftigt - på finska.

Som svenskspråkig har jag börjat lära mig att aldrig försöka ringa någon myndighets svenska servicenummer. De svarar helt enkelt inte. Lyckligtvis kan jag också finska och behövde i detta sällsynta fall bara köa någon minut. Myndigheternas telefonköer kan bli jävligt dyra.

Låt oss anta att det finns tio servicepunkter av vilka en, d.v.s. 10 %, betjänar på svenska och finska. Resten betjänar bara på finska. Vidare antar vi att 10 % av de köande kunderna är svenskspråkiga. De finskspråkiga och de svenskspråkiga kunderna står alltså i samma kö, men de svenskspråkiga blir förbigångna av de finskspråkiga vid alla servicepunkter utom en där de är likvärda. Om den genomsnittliga kötiden för en finskspråkig kund i detta system är 10 minuter, vilken blir då den genomsnittliga kötiden för en svenskspråkig kund? Svara mig den som kan.

I kyrkan

Jag bor ju lite avsides och det blir lätt en smula ensamt så jag har tagit för vana att gå i kyrkan andra söndagen i månaden när någon präst - antagligen som disciplinär åtgärd - skickas till den närmaste byn. I dag talade den kvinnliga prästen god svenska och, trots att hon saknade tillstymmelse till skägg (3 Mos 21), var hennes budskap intressant. Predikningar brukar väl inte vara särskilt analytiska och filosofiska så de går ganska lätt att summera på någon rad. Budskapet gick ut på att "man skall lyda den världsliga överheten, vilken den än är, eftersom den fått sin makt av Gud." Påståendet motiverades med några bibelverser som jag inte ids slå upp just nu.

Det var enligt prästinnan även viktigt att betala skatt. Det faktum att Jesus slarvade lite med att betala sin skatt i tid förklarades lämpligen av att han kanske inte på länge varit hemma i Kapernaum där skatten skulle betalas. När han då äntligen kom och stack sig i Kapernaum uppmanade han Petrus att plocka ett silvermynt ur munnen på en fisk och betala skatten för sig också, när han en gång var i farten.

Jag är ju inte särskilt religiös av mig och i synnerhet den lutherska kyrkan är mig ganska främmande så jag vet inte hur det brukar gå till. Det slog mig ändå att prästinnan kanske misstänkte att medlemmarna av just denna församling inte var särskilt begivna på att lyda "överheten" och betala skatt om de bara kunde låta bli. Hon hade räknat ut att den årliga tempelskatten på Jesu tid motsvarade lönen för två dagars arbete. I dagens Finland ligger kyrkoskatten på 1-2 % av inkomsterna, d.v.s. ungefär det dubbla. Man har åtminstone frångått betalandet av tionde som kyrkan i enlighet med Gamla Testamentet införde på medeltiden. Kyrkoskatten ska förvisso även vi betala, men enligt prästinnan gör man det bara om man hör till kyrkan. Hon glömde tydligen bort samfundsskatten.

Dessvärre är det skralt med fisk såhär års och jag har aldrig sett en fisk med silvermynt i munnen (spånakärringar förekommer), men jag lade hur som helst en slant i kollekten.

Pissed

Since I ain't wrote in a while, just a couple of days back I was fixing to write a post about how I'm not pissed enough, neither in the English nor the American sense of the word, to write anything. Lossihront is an angry motherfucker who writes about all the shit he sees in this world, but truth be told, I'm so happy here (and I don't read the world news regularly) I can't get inspired to write a god damn thing. Well, Asus to the rescue. Now I'm good and pissed (American).

Back in May I got me a shiny new Asus G75 with hybrid graphics and what not. Turns out the motherfucker comes with UEFI instead of a regular BIOS, which means I'm in a world of shit if I want to run a real operating system on it. See, Microsoft is preparing the world for what they call "secure boot", which is really "restricted boot" and this apparently has something to do with UEFI. Ok, I done paid the MS tax, so I'm running this fuck of an OS that came with the machine, waiting for my favorite Linux distro SolusOS to start supporting UEFI. Just when the update is about to be released and I'm supposed to help out testing the new OS, the bitch of a computer breaks down. Fucked keyboard? Check. Fucked DVD drive? Check. Fucked motherboard? Check.

So I try returning the cotton picking thing to Asus. They refer me to a subcontractor - Letmerepair in Sweden. (I live way out on an island in the Gulf of Finland, so this whole business of shipping stuff around the world is kind of difficult for me. I don't even got a mail box on my island. Got electricity last year, though.) Anyway, I travel to the city, Helsinki, wrap the computer in a bunch of newspapers and ask a lady friend to let UPS pick up the package at her workplace. She is in a shitty mood and gives me some lip, but agrees. After a while I get the verdict. The fucking UPS don't reckon I packed the machine good enough so they won't take it. Well fuck! I go and get the computer back, rewrap it so it can withstand a fucking tsunami and get it shipped off the next day.

Asus told me fixing the computer would take about 2-3 weeks so I'm pleasently surprised when I actually get it back in two. It's only snowing a little bit and just a bit below freezing when I take my little boat to the nearest village to pick up the package with the presumably fixed computer. (I stock up on rolling tobacco and kerosene while I'm there, so no trouble.) When I get home I put some more wood in the fireplace and prepare to boot. A piece of paper that came with the package says they replaced the keyboard and the motherboard. It does boot up. They didn't destroy my Linux. But here is the thing. The DVD drive is still broke! These fucking guys!

Rhetoric

Ok, I'll tell you what's wrong with the conversation(s) in "What's wrong with this conversation?"
I did receive a couple of responses to my previous post, but no answers. Some anonymous lady, I presume, ranted on about the blessings of feminism. Not a word about communism, though. My initial reaction was, fuck this troll, I'm deleting the post. Then I thought about it and realized that, even though my post already contained some of the fallacies found in the responses, this was genuine, whereas mine was a laboratory example.

Here are some classic fallacies worth considering for this conversation:

Ignoratio elenchi
No true Scotsman
Misleading vividness
Overwhelming exception
False dilemma
Cherry picking
Argumentum ad hominem
Appeal to flattery
Association fallacy
Argumentum ad consequentiam

Below I have analyzed the statements of A and B.

A: I don't like feminism. They want to force a special tax on people with penises and they make a fuss about how society wants them to shave their armpits.

The conversation is initiated by A who states that he doesn't like feminism/communism. He then justifies this view by saying that "they" do so and so. He doesn't say that the -ism in question (henceforth "feminism") entails any definitive views, although this is implied. Neither does he say that he dislikes "feminists". This could be due to the fact that he doesn't want to say that he dislikes his conversation partner. What we have here is two different statements - one about A's feelings towards feminism as a doctrine as perceived by him, the other about what A thinks feminists are like. If the ensuing conversation were to be meaningful it would concentrate around the question of what feminism actually is and, if this were the case, A would quite possibly have to re-evaluate his views or at least reformulate them.

B: No, we don't.

So far, so good. B admits to being a feminist and refutes A's statement about what feminists are like.

A: Well, Gudrun Schyman does.

A tries defending his view by giving an example of a famous person of rather extreme views who calls herself a feminist.

B: Not all feminists do.

Good. It does not follow that, if one feminist holds certain views, all feminists do.

A: So, what kind of feminist are you then?

A agrees with the above and asks for a description of the kind of feminist B claims to be.

B: I want equality for everybody.

This is where B starts going wrong. The proposition is almost meaningless as it holds very little information. It is actually comparable to A's initial statement.

A: Who doesn't want that?

A notes the lack of meaning in B's argument and implicitly asks for a better one.

B: Some men don't.

Instead of providing a better argument and giving relevant information as to what kind of feminist she is, B chooses to interpret A's question literally.

A: Ok, some men are assholes, so are some women, but what does feminism have to do with it?

A again notes the lack of information from B and asks for it more explicitly. Note the use of "more" in front of "explicitly". Human conversation seldom follows a strict logical form.

B: I want equal opportunities for men and women.

Again, B repeats herself.

A: You already said that, and so do I. Where does the feminism come in, though?

The conversation is going nowhere. Both A and B notice it but take different approaches. A stubbornly repeats the question.

B: Now you sound like a real chauvinist pig, you know that?

B insults A.

A: Ok, I'm popping down to the pub for a while.

A wants to end the conversation.

B: Yeah, you go drink yourself silly, why don't you!

B implicitly insults A, possibly knowing A has a drinking problem. Ironically, B instructs A to do just the thing he said he would, only accentuated.

What's wrong with this conversation?

A: I don't like feminism. They want to force a special tax on people with penises and they make a fuss about how society wants them to shave their armpits.
B: No, we don't.
A: Well, Gudrun Schyman does.
B: Not all feminists do.
A: So, what kind of feminist are you then?
B: I want equality for everybody.
A: Who doesn't want that?
B: Some men don't.
A: Ok, some men are assholes, so are some women, but what does feminism have to do with it?
B: I want equal opportunities for men and women.
A: You already said that, and so do I. Where does the feminism come in, though?
B: Now you sound like a real chauvinist pig, you know that?
A: Ok, I'm popping down to the pub for a while.
B: Yeah, you go drink yourself silly, why don't you!

***

A: I don't like communism. They want to take people's land away from them and put so called "kulaks" in concentration camps.
B: No, we don't.
A: Well, Lenin did.
B: Not all communist do.
A: So, what kind of communist are you then?
B: I want equality for everybody.
A: Who doesn't want that?
B: Some rich people don't.
A: Ok, some rich people are assholes, so are some poor people, but what does communism have to do with it?
B: I want equal opportunities for rich people and poor people.
A: You already said that, and so do I. Where does the communism come in, though?
B: Now you sound like a real capitalist pig, you know that?
A: Ok, I'm late for work.
B: Yeah, you go work for the system, why don't you!

Om vetenskap

Vetenskap är inget annat än systematiserat bondförnuft.

Preskriptiv grammatik kan med fördel jämföras med preskriptiv fysik.

To those who study the "philosophy of life" instead of the academic kind

I study the "energy of life". Hire me to fix your electrial wiring, why don't you.

Klassamhälle

Jag vill inte leva i ett samhälle indelat i en klass som övervakar och betalar och en annan som övervakas och får allmosor.

Closed source

This dude I know is running for public office. He isn't very computer savvy, but he's a good ol' boy. The party he is running for (SFP) sent him some material to fill out and edit in the ridiculously expensive Adobe Indesign format so he asks me to help him out. I tell him the format is a closed one and can only be edited with the paid blessing of Adobe. So this dude asks the central party office to make the material (templates for posters and such) available to him in some format he can edit. Now he happily writes me and tells me that their "Project manager for new media" - no less! - has promised to get him the material in ... wait for it ... PDF! How the fuck is that any better?

WMD

Who gives a shit if Iraq, North Korea or some other "rogue" nation possibly, maybe is trying to develop weapons of mass destruction when the US has not only admitted to having them but also on several occasions used them in combat. I don't get it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Second post

Due to public demand, I hereby submit my second post. This one is easy.
Fuck anybody who uses closed document standards. Especially those in public office or representatives of political parties. What kind of an idiot requires the candidates for his party to purchase expensive closed software like Adobe Indesign in order to produce a simple introduction of himself? Fuck you! Fuck you very much!

First post

This here is my first blog post. Let's see how this thing works and if I have the discipline to keep writing meaningful stuff here.

First of all I want to say a big, fat "Fuck you!" to all patent law makers. So here it goes: Fuck you and the horse you rode in on!

Second, to whom it may concern: Get your heads out of your asses and stop that idiotic "War on drugs" of yours that's only putting money in the pockets of organized crime lords. And, while you're at it, stop the rest of your "Wars on ...".

Third: Religion in all its forms is an abomination. Stay away from it, or at least let the abominable snowmen of the world pay their own way. Stop handing out decent folk's hard earned money to Nessie and the Cookie Monster.