A Drunken Madman

Episode 5

Episode 6

 Yes, it's true. Meryl is an HIV denier too. She's tried to paint herself as an honest questioner, but after she's been handed evidence and research and is still asking the questions that research has answered, the only applicable label is "denialist".

So, there we have it. Meryl Dorey: conspiracy theorist and AIDS denialist.

Ooooooh, That Meryl!

[Here's a post I wrote and never published a while ago. My job has since changed, but you can't escape the voodoo]

I'll get this out of the way immediately. I do not like formal "business dress". Shirts, ties and proper trousers shit me to tears. I feel uncomfortable and as a result I am less effective. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one. I also don't trust "suits" as far as I can throw them.

I work in IT. I do complicated magic with computer software, for which I'm paid quite a lot of money. I've been doing this for over ten years and in all that time I've probably only spent two or three months at proper "shirt and tie" businesses. I just don't feel comfortable and if a new opportunity has come up elsewhere, I've taken it. The job I'm in right now looks like it might become the longest-lasting "dress-code" post I've ever held. I quit a slightly more formal job which hypothetically paid more money in order to take this one.

Most of my days are spent in a cubicle or a server room, grinding away at documentation or software configuration or arcane architecture considerations. When I'm not doing that, I might be developing code, doing housekeeping like timesheets or corporate training, or maybe researching what's new in the field. Sometimes, I'm just slacking off waiting for some kind of response from somewhere else. Maybe one or two days a month I have some kind of meeting that might require formality. Occasionally, that may become more frequent, but I still don't meet with anyone outside the business for days at a time. I have many compatriots in the industry who are in the same boat. I am surrounded, every day, by people who do complicated magic with software completely out of sight, and what the fuck? They're all wearing shirts and ties and business slacks.

Because there's a blanket policy that says "this is what you'll wear".

But I am, most of the time, invisible. No-one outside of my business unit sees me for days on end, weeks even. Most of my interaction is done by phone, or email, or chat.

Why, then, do I need to labour under the "smart corporate dress" policy if I'm, for most of my career, a voice at the end of a phone line, or a smartly-typed string of characters? Why, indeed, does this policy exist in the first place?

My conclusion is this: It's a corporate superstition.

Let's look at the rational reasons why one may want to present a so-called "professional face"

• Meeting with a client, or may be called unexpectedly to a client meeting.
• Doing some kind of public event.
• ...

Sitting at a desk punching code or designing technical documentation? No suit required.

Even the above examples fall down to some extent. I'm a techie. A software engineer. Who's going to really care at a public event if I'm wearing a t-shirt with a SharePoint logo on it?  I'm the guy who rolls up his sleeves (when I'm wearing sleeves) and builds shit, or fixes it when it's broken. Most of the people around me are remote workers. They don't even meet the customers they're labouring away for.

Why, then?

I think it's done because "that's how business is done". That's the way business has always done it. In other words, tradition. And what do we call a tradition with no rational purpose or foundation? Superstition.

It's corporate voodoo. An unfounded belief that a workforce in ties is somehow a more effective workforce.

I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but I am less effective when I'm uncomfortable, and business clothes, frankly, make me uncomfortable.

The concession I'm willing to make? Smart black denim jeans, and an open-collar black shirt. No tie. Think yourselves lucky you're getting that. This is not a fashion parade. If it's a very important client, I'll wear a jacket, but it's a no-lapel pinstripe, and I won't be keeping it on beyond the handshakes. OK?

So far it seems to be getting me by. I suspect the entire business unit also thinks shirt and tie is a dumb idea. I live in hope for a day when the decision makers realise that their clever, expensive, effective IT guys can be trusted to choose their own outfits*, but I don't hold out a lot of hope. Superstitions have a way of hanging around.

*exceptions must be made for some people I know in the industry. There ARE people who can't be trusted...

Ethics Trial a Rees Throwback: Catholics

A telling headline if I've ever seen one, as a representative of the local Catholic lobby attempts to tie the NSW Secular Ethics education trial, which has just begun, to Nathan Rees's premiership. The implication is of course that since Rees was forced out by a secret ballot orchestrated by the current party faithful, that obviously this is somehow a "bad" policy of a "failed' premiership that's only snuck through by the skin of its teeth.

The truth, of course, is far from the fantasy promoted by Mr Robert Haddad and the church generally*. The ethics trial has enthusiastic backing from parents, teachers, community groups and parliamentarians. A far more telling piece of nonsense follows later in the article:

Mr Haddad said Baulkham Hills North, where all parents were told about the ethics classes, not just those whose children had opted out of scripture, was ''an example of the abuse that will inevitably follow. There was a 47 per cent uptake [of the ethics class] and that eroded into the number of students who are going to SRE, so our case is borne out,'' he said.

I don't see how this can possibly be an example of "abuse". Honestly, I'm trying to wrap my head around this. 47% of students have opted for secular ethics rather than middle-ages dogma, and somehow that's abuse?

Mr Haddad, let me just try and explain something to you. Forcing children into Special Religious Education, or forcing those who opt out to forgo productive activity is an unethical, counterproductive and outmoded policy better suited to a madrassah culture, which itself belongs to a bygone age. Time to wake up and smell the secularism.

Here's a fact, Mr Haddad. As of the 2006 census, religious affiliations in Australia were as follows

MAIN RESPONSES FOR AUSTRALIA	Australia 2006 Census	% of total persons 2006 Census	Australia 2001 Census	% of total persons 2001 Census
Catholic	5,126,882	25.8%	5,001,624	26.6%
Anglican	3,718,248	18.7%	3,881,162	20.7%
No Religion	3,706,557	18.7%	2,905,993	15.5%
Uniting Church	1,135,422	5.7%	1,248,674	6.7%
Presbyterian and Reformed	596,668	3.0%	637,530	3.4%

That's right, Mr Haddad. Not everyone in Australia is a cathoholic, and in fact the market share of religions is eroding. It is frankly unfair to compromise the education of the non-christian proportion of public school children in favour of sectarian, narrow and poorly-regulated SRE classes. The statistics suggest that religion is on the wane, and that the next generation will be even less likely to believe the fairy tales told to them by the men in dresses, turbans or shiny suits.

With the introduction of secular ethics classes, there is now a more equitable landscape in NSW schools, and while it's hardly perfect it's certainly a large stride in the right direction.

So, in short, Mr Haddad: Cry more. Every one of your bitter tears is a confirmation that what the secular lobby is doing is right.

*there's a generally applicable sentence if ever I've written one

Yes, if you have a mobile device, hit up http://m.skepticator.net/ to view the latest news from the skeptisphere. GWT will be added later, as will search capability.

Here we see it running on my slightly battered HTC Touch Pro. It's the basic basic theme as its big brother, with the rounded corner fripperies removed and the left-hand navigation gone, ad it also cuts down on showing the opening paragraphs of stories, just the title, where it's from and when it appeared. It's also the first of my sites to go out on .NET 4.0.

At the moment, it's ad-free as I've not yet found a good way of getting an ad onto the small format screen, but well, if it drives adoption of the main site, that's fine by me.