Hacked by parasitic greedhead scam

There are some jobs that I don't think need to exist at all. These include, among countless others:

• Baby-seal pulverizer
• TSA crotchprober/deathray technician
• Telephone scamvertiser
• Realtor^(R)

That little ^(R) is there so that no one else can say they do what a realtor does, so if all the realtors demand outrageous fees, what can you do but accept it?

an·ti·trust
adj.
Opposing or intended to regulate business monopolies, such as trusts or cartels, especially in the interest of promoting competition

-- http://www.thefreedictionary.com/antitrust

A cartel is a formal (explicit) agreement among competing firms. It is a formal organization of producers and manufacturers that agree to fix prices, marketing, and production.

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel

REALTOR® members [...] are the only ones who have the right to list your property on the MLS® Systems of their local real estate boards.
[...]
MLS® and the corresponding web site www.REALTOR.ca have changed the way people search for homes, and it's hard to court buyers without it.

-- http://www.howrealtorshelp.ca/faq.php

---

Let us consider the economics of realtor fees. For a $400,000 house, the standard realtor fee will run you 4% of the house value (it's higher for less expensive houses). If you move houses several times in your life, you're skimming one 25th of your house value every time, and giving it to someone who has "earned" that much of your property by helping you sell it.

What does that number mean in conceptual terms? Suppose you have a 25-year mortgage on your house. Every year you pay off one 25th of the house. Pick one of those years, and say "This one's for my Realtor." Then go to work every workday that year, and start the day thinking "I do this for my Realtor." Put a smiling picture of them on your cubicle wall for motivation, if it's getting you down.

To be fair, you don't devote all your time to work, and you don't devote all your income to your mortgage. So maybe think "Here's some for my Realtor, here's some to feed my kids.*"

And remember, it's only one year of your life you'd need to do this for! One... for each time you move, I mean.

But perhaps it's worth it. Perhaps your Realtor will devote a year of work to selling your house.


* If you do choose to think of it in terms of food, you may wish to calculate how much is going to your kids and how much to your Realtor. If you spend $300 per month on food for the kids, it will take 4.44 years, not one, to add up to our example realtor fees. So you may choose to spend 4.44 years devoting equal time to your realtor and to feeding your kids, or you may wish to for example dedicate the first hour of work to your kids, and the next 4.44 to your realtor. Again, that's only for one tiny insignificant year of your life.

MPs Really Get Behind Seal Hunt

Canada's embattled sealing industry has been suffering these past few years, bleeding like a dead bag of meat left out on the snow (Photo Gallery with the Huff Post story).

Some conservative MPs are lending their support this year by participating in the seal hunt. MPs donned clubs and enthusiastic smiles as they paused for photo ops in between manic sessions of bashing in the brains of some cute baby seals.

"It's a lot of fun," said one MP, catching his breath and wiping some spattered blood from his lips. "Maybe we could expand the industry with an adventure-tourism aspect. I think that for many people, if they had a chance to bash in the face of one of the little critters, they wouldn't have such negative feelings towards it."

The MPs pinned dead seals to their lapels. "It's quite patriotic, I think, almost like a Canadian flag really. All that red and white."

One of the MPs held out a baby seal carcass to members of the press, offering it for sale. When there were no takers, the MP remarked "Well that's certainly odd. The market for dead seals is actually quite healthy."

Oh, the silent majesty of a winter's morn

I like Edmonton in the winter because I can watch a beautiful sunset while I'm on my lunch break.

Stephen Harper resurrects War on Terror for 9/11 anniversary

The Conservative government will reintroduce controversial anti-terrorism measures that were allowed to expire amid privacy concerns and Charter rights complaints, Prime Minister Stephen Harper confirmed to The Post Picayune Tuesday.

In celebration of the tenth anniversary of 9/11, Harper plans to help everyone remember and relive the days of racist fear-mongering, unjust persecution, and suppression of human rights that we all enjoyed over the past decade.

"We must look back to 9/11 and remember all that we've lost," the Prime Minister said, pausing to wipe a tear from his eye. "We've really lost a lot of government power these past few years. We used to be able to lock up people just for saying the wrong thing or having a 'foreigney' name. We used live in constant fear of our neighbors. Our fears kept us safe... they kept us wanting to be safe. We must never forget, never get complacent and let ourselves idly enjoy a life without totalitarian government power over the people. Without its protection and it making us do what's best for it and for this country, just imagine what a scary world that would be! We must remember the fear, and the hatred. Terrorism strikes right when you least expect it, and if you're not being vigilant by constantly living in terror, that's when terror will get you."

In what will surely go down in history as a great address of the nation, Harper said "The only thing we have to fear is... terror!, terror!, terror!!! And Islamicism, which as you all know is worse than Islam, Islamics, and even Islamism. We cannot sleep peacefully until the Islamicists are all hidden away in a secret prison and preferably tortured a little for good measure."

The Prime Minister later commented on his uncharacteristically emotional display during the speech. "I just think back to 9/11 and can't help feeling sad. I really miss those days. I really do."

Source: American Splendor

Takin it off here, boss. Wipin it off here, boss. Drinkin it up here, boss!

Do you ever notice yourself making decisions based on the outcome of essentially random events? For example, "I will only stop for coffee if the light turns green in the next five seconds," or "If it's heads, then I'll do some housework," or even "If the stock market's up, then it's a good day."

I think this might be happening as a result of being used to or even wanting an authority figure to make decisions for us. In the absence of such a figure, rather than allowing or forcing ourselves to make every decision that needs to be made, we invent authorities to make decisions for us.

Imagine a case where you've quit your job to write a novel. You are your own boss and get to decide what to do and when. Imagine also that you have writers' block. Now you are in a situation where you have sole control over your own actions and productivity, yet your decision-making feels ineffective. I believe the tendency will be toward making more and more "rules" to steer your actions -- an imaginary boss to fill the authority void -- until you fully replace the freedom of working for yourself with a level of control and restriction that you're used to in a job.

Not all such rules are "bad". For example, "I will write between 10am and noon even if I have nothing to write" can help force yourself to deal with procrastination. It can help inspire ideas that only come by doing, and not just by thinking.

Meanwhile, other rules like "I will only stop for a snack if the last digit on the clock is a zero" is an irrational and arbitrary rule that has no connection between the deciding factor and the outcome. Such rules are used to avoid judging for ourselves whether we deserve something or not. It is also used to try to avoid guilt: I didn't decide to eat this cookie; the clock did.

The key measure of whether a given rule is good, is simply whether the expected outcome of the rule is the desired outcome. All other rules should be abandoned, and replaced with a conscious acceptance of yourself as your own boss.

(Turn and face the strange)

Evolutionarily speaking, 'change' is both a good thing and a bad thing. Change is the very essence of evolutionary refinement. Change is also what kills dinosaurs. The difference is the rate at which change happens. Evolution involves adapting to a changing environment, and the process of adapting involves the changing of a species. As long as the latter can keep up with the former, everything's copacetic.

It is no surprise then that we have evolved both a fear and psychological need for change. Too much is chaos, and too little is stagnation. Any process of improvement by definition involves change, so change should only be avoided when things are perfect. But even then, the human mind does not enjoy constancy. The brain works on differences. Stare long enough at an unmoving point and a scene will begin to disappear. Remain motionless and you'll begin to stop feeling what you're touching. Spend a few months in a fixed routine and you'll have very little memory of that time passing.

So we should be constantly (or perhaps only often?) seeking change. One pro tip is to be more aware of what can be changed. Form a habit of checking yourself: Contemplate what you are doing in any random moment; notice the details, and ask yourself why they are that way. Then consider what can be changed (and why that might be an improvement). Then -- don't forget this step! -- ...do it.

As for the big changes: Rather than fearing and avoiding them, find ways to stretch them out into a slow, gradual, and manageable process. Acclimate yourself to everything. A new job or new location, even if you win the lottery: only fools rush in.