Less equal

I have spoken previously about respecting one's elders. I was, thence, disappointed with the effort of a high school girl this week. She and her friends were sitting on some chairs and the train was rapidly filling up. The four girls, all of them aged approximately 15 years, were talking the sort of mindless rubbish that 15 year old girls talk about when they congregate. There was a lot of "I can't believe she wore that", "I wish I looked like Beyonce" and "He is soooooooo cute, I think I love him". Naturally every third word was "like".

These four chattering bundles of hormonal angst continued to sit in their chairs when a distinctly middle aged woman entered the train and had nowhere to sit.

Unfortunately, we are now at a period in society where we have to have signs tell us what to do and how to act. On the train, a regular commuter will see signs such as the one that says, "John is sitting down. Mary gets on the train. John sees Mary and stands up. Well done John."

Someone still needs to satisfactorily explain to me when we became a society of inward thinking amoeba, impervious to the needs of others. I don't understand why we need to have tax payer dollars go to promoting good manners, but that is another blog post waiting to happen, I think.

Anyway, there are signs on the train that are worded something like, "Students are to stand up for adult passengers." The gist is, if you are a student, get your sorry butt of the chair and let an adult sit down.

Thankfully, the lady in our story had the wherewithal to ask the 15 year old students to stand up for her, citing the sign that was in clear view. The 15 year olds did stand up, to their credit, but only after much grumbling. One of the more feisty girls was then heard to remark to her friend, "That's not fair that I have to stand up. Where is the equality?" If I had a more resolute backbone, I wold have said to her, "You, at age 15 are indeed equal to the 30something year old woman for whom you have just stood. It's just that you are less equal. If you want to be more equal, grow up and start paying the full adult ticket price, not the discounted student one."

It always amuses me that the best comebacks are so infrequently voiced. Needless to say, I obviously amused myself at this time.

But this 15 year old girls view of fairness and equality intrigued me. Throughout the history of the world, there have been a people searching, yearning for equality and equal status within their community. The pages of history are littered with the records of downtrodden peoples all over the world. I want to focus on one, about which I feel strongly. And that is the equality of the sexes.

As a man, I am proud of what the Suffragettes achieved in their efforts to, first, allow women to vote, and second, allow women to run for Parliament. I agree wholeheartedly with the ideals of the Suffragette cause, but some of the actions of the more aggressive or radical elements were nothing short of terrorism and I do not see how they can be condoned. And that it is where, for me, something good at heart turns rancid. Equality, it seems from a fanatical point of view, can come via the barrel of a gun.

Make no mistake, equality is good and should be striven for. I guess my question is, when is it alright to make an attempt on another person's life? Is it ok to kill someone in your struggle for freedom? Is it ok to kill someone in your fight for equality, to be free of subjugation? Is it ok to kill someone for whom you have to stand up when travelling on a train?

Equality, the definition thereof, should be the starting point of anyone's argument when fighting for their rights. The United Nations created a Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, in Article 1, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

The key for me here is that all human beings, and for the sake of clarity this includes gender, race, religion, sexual preference, education, wealth, etc, are born free and equal in dignity and rights. I cannot find where it states that all human beings have to have the same experiences to be equal. Rather it states that we are all equal in dignity and rights.

Lionel Trilling, an American critic born in the early 20th Century, once said, "We who are liberal and progressive know that the poor are our equals in every sense except that of being equal to us."

And that, for me, just about sums it up. We are all equal, some of us are just more equal. I do not say this to condone the dominance of one race, gender, religion, etc, over another. I think it is dangerous and obscene for someone to say I have a greater right to be happy and free than you because you are a woman, a Muslim, a homosexual, etc. I cannot and will not ever condone such attitudes. That being said, I do not think that equality lies in giving everything to everyone. What I mean by that is illustrated in the following example:

A bus driving friend of mine told me of his employer's new policy. The policy stated that the company must have a workforce that includes at least 40% female bus drivers. I was informed that at the time of that policy, the company had 20% female staff. This meant that the company needed to double the number of female bus drivers. A result of this policy was that male staff members had to be sacked. One male bus driver had 15+ years experience and he had to make way for a female driver with no experience behind the wheel of a bus.

Is that equality? To me it is bureaucracy gone mad. How equal is it for the experienced male bus driver to be sacked in favour of a rookie female bus driver so that the company can say they are an equal opportunity employer. I honestly believe that equal opportunity lies in being able to be considered for a job, not in landing that job. I am of the opinion that if you are qualified for the job, then you should get it. You should not get it solely based on your gender, or any other determinant of your existence on this planet.

If we want equality, we need to focus on the last part of Article 1 in the UDHR, as quoted above, acting towards each other in a spirit of brotherhood (and in the interests of equality, sisterhood, too).

Familiarise yourself with the brace position

Recently, I flew my family across the country. Sitting next to my 4 year old daughter was interesting for more reasons than the obvious. She was captivated by the airline staff playing out the safety instructions. Her favourite part was the display of appropriate use of the brace position. She would act it out for the first 25 minutes of the flight. She would hold the safety procedures card for the whole flight, continually pointing to the brace position diagram. She was telling me, "Familiarise yourself with the brace position", then would demonstrate for me.

Riding on planes has been a polemically different experience to riding on trains, as I normally do. There are some glaring differences; and I am not just talking about the height and speed at which one travels.

One of the things I notice most on trains is the people riding them. Naturally, the people on the plane did not go unnoticed by myself. I noticed that the people on the plane are much more civil, even considerate, when dealing with their fellow passengers. I have thought of a few possible reasons for this incongruity in interpersonal relationships witnessed on two different modes of public transport.

First, I thought that the difference in the way people treat each other may be due to the fact that on the plane you get free food and a TV to watch. Two basic principles in people management; feed them and entertain them and they will do what you want them to do. Julius Caesar knew this when he made sure that the Roman masses only needed to have their 'bread and circus' for them to love and obey him. True the 'bread' of Roman fare from some 2000 years past is vastly different to the menu offered by modern day airline companies, and the circus of pre-Christian Rome is not quite the same as the airing of an episode of 'How I Met Your Mother' (although some would say that dating is very much like being fed to the lions!), the principle remains the same.

Secondly, I ruminated on the fact that most people catch a train to go to work. Not really exciting, but necessary. The vast majority of people catching our plane were not travelling to work, rather they were going on holiday. This was definitely true for me. The destination, and reason for travelling, may well have induced a higher state of euphoria, and overall contentment, in the average passenger.

On the surface, riding on trains and riding on planes is similar in its experience. One simply boards a mass transit vehicle and is taken from Point A to Point B. Yet, when one delves deeper into the experience, some glaring differences come to light. And these differences would seem to produce a different reaction from the respective passengers. In the words of an unnamed friend, and work colleague, the experience is "exactly the same, but nothing like it."

In this period of holiday bliss I have considered something else that is exactly the same but nothing like a normal experience for many of us; shopping.

The Christmas period is normally full of peace, joy and a happy Christmas and to all a good night. Yes, there are some who do not have this joyous experience. There are those who can't revel in the pageantry due to that embarrassing incident at the office Christmas party. And others do not enjoy this season for different reasons. I think one of those reasons is the shopping.

Christmas shopping is a nightmare. It all starts with trying to find a car park at the local shopping centre. Along with the other 3000 people hoping to pick up a bargain or two. Now parking the car is normally not all that stressful. Difficult at times, yes, but not stressful. Throw in the Christmas shopping and you will see old ladies flipping you the bird, middle-aged men threatening to rip your innards out and every driver becomes a potential threat that must be destroyed completely.

After you have driven around for 5 hours, offended at least 7 people and torn out half of your hair and found that car park, then you have to go inside the shops. And they are FULL of people. I swear that the centre management hire people to walk around their shops. I think it gives the rest of us the illusion that there is something worth finding and purchasing. With people, come the elbows! You throw lots of people into the one space, all of whom are trying to buy the same item, and you are simply promulgating the principle of survival of the fittest.

It is funny, in the ironic sense, to me that a season that is marketed as joyous and festive turns out to be full of stress. I think it is due to the focus on buying our loved ones next year's landfill. My thoughts are that when we get caught up in the commercialism of Christmas we become participants of the circus, not the spectators. We become the grumpy commuters of trains. When we focus on family and charity towards our fellow man at this time of year, we find that the bread is sweeter and the circus more fun and vibrant.

In short, I am going to focus on my wife and kids in the hope that I enjoy the ride of the Christmas season. And if all else fails, thanks to my daughter, I am fully aware of the brace position should things not go according to plan.

Permission slip

George W. Bush once said, amongst many unintelligible, yet highly amusing things, "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people."

And with that he went and waged a war in Iraq, using trumped up 'intelligence', that is still being waged some 10 years later. Was there a permission slip? You can bet your life that there wasn't, because George W. didn't need one.

Some cynics will say that the war on Iraq was motivated by the great oil grab. Some sympathisers will say  that this war was waged to rid the world of a dictatorial, tyrannical leader and was a blow for freedom and democracy. I am not going to go into debating the pro's and con's of why this war was waged. I want to talk about one facet of the war that was utilised; the pre-emptive strike.

America, and her Allies, launched a pre-emptive strike on Iraq after "evidence" was uncovered that Iraq had stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). America feared that the leadership of Iraq was primed to utilise such weapons. They decided to strike first. To this day, to the best of my knowledge, no WMDs were found in Iraq.

The question that comes to my mind is, "When is it ok to launch a pre-emptive attack?" Another question that follows is, "What laws/social etiquette govern the use of a pre-emptive attack?"

Now, I know that some people around the world protested against the use of force against Iraq. Some still do. But the war went ahead, and to the best of my knowledge, George W. Bush did not get arrested for being the first person to fire a missile or drop a bomb. I can only assume that this is due to international tolerance of said actions? This is quite the precedent to set on an international level and I would like to think that the same leniency would be shown to me were I to, say, launch a pre-emptive strike on all old people on the train.

If I might take you back to my train journey this week. I was sitting on the train after a long day at work. I was reading my book, not being a nuisance or getting in anyone's way. An old lady was to be seen boarding a train and, as there were numerous vacant seats, I did not stand to offer mine. As she walked past me, she bumped my knee with her heavy bag and just kept walking. I thought she might acknowledge the accidental bump, but I was to be disappointed this day. She walked on.

My parents taught me to respect my elders, so i said nothing of her bump. My parents also taught me to treat others the way I would want to be treated. We all know the golden rule, even if we, evidentially, choose not to live by it. So does this then mean that this old lady would not mind if I bump my bag into her and just keep walking?

In my mind, she is Iraq and I am the United States of America. And I do not need a permission slip!

Bringing it all back to my earlier questions; would it be socially inappropriate for me now to launch a pre-emptive strike on all old people on the train based on this experience? If you are answering, "Yes it would be extremely inappropriate", I would have to ask why? I could tell you that the old people have Bags of Mass Destruction (BMDs) and cause an unacceptable threat to the safety of all middle-aged, white, male train passengers.  Would it then be acceptable?

Before we get too carried away, I am not going to launch a pre-emptive strike on all old people on the train. Do I feel like doing it sometimes? You bet I do. Admittedly, rude old people who think they can get away with banging into people without apologising would not be at the top of my list. That spot would be reserved for either the people who listen to music REALLY loud, or those who have those really obnoxiously loud conversations that are of no interest to anyone but projected so loudly that people have to turn their music up REALLY loud to drown them out.

I do wish to highlight here, as the purpose of this post, that a simple, open conversation will solve just about any issue. I know it's naive to think that a simple sit down would solve all of the world's problems. But it is reprehensible to think that we teach our school children to talk to a bully and tell them not to engage in a physical resolution to their problems, but we have world leaders dropping bombs on innocent people to strike a blow for freedom.

I just don't understand that logic, or lack thereof.

But then again, George W. Bush was not really ever known for clear, logical thought. This is the man who brought us such gems as:

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them." And,

"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test." And my personal favourite,

"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family."

That's Dirty

Just how much do we expect to be able get away with? I have been forced to ask myself this question whilst riding the train.

A conversation was overheard on the train that went a little like this:

Lady 1 - "My friend has a son who is on his P-Plates. He was pulled over by a cop for speeding, but the cop booked him for speeding, having the wrong colour P-Plates on and for not carrying his licence. He got done $200 for each infraction, for a total of $800. And to make it worse, he was only going half a kilometre down the road to get something for his Mum, who was sick."

Lady 2 - "$800. That's dirty."

Lady 1 - "I know. He wasn't even speeding that much."

There are two things that I took out of this conversation, and I hope that they are not a general indication of the views of the wider community.

First, both of these two women thought that the cop went too far in fining this kid for not adhering to specific road rules and conditions of driving for P-Plate drivers.

Second, both of these ladies excused the breaking of a law because the kid didn't "speed that much."

Both arguments are, in my humble opinion, ridiculous.

First, the cop was just doing his job. It is his job to pull over speeding drivers and then nab them for everything he can. How would one of these women felt if a cop pulled over a driver whose car was clearly defective, but let the guy go. Then the guy in the defective car kills one of the women's relatives in a car accident? What would the women say about the cop then? The cop is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

Second, the P-Plater broke the law. If the sign says 60, then you are only allowed to go 60. Now, we have all sped at some point, I am sure. And for those of us who have been caught, hopefully our reaction has been, "Fair enough, I was going faster than I should."

My question for these two women would be, 'When does speeding a bit become speeding too much?' Their argument was that this P-Plater was only speeding a bit, or not too much. Again, what would have happened if one of their loved ones was killed or injured by someone who was not speeding too much, or who was just running an errand for their sick mother? Would they still be so quick to forgive the indiscretion?

All of this causes me to ask, How much should we be able to get away with? How much can we break the laws of the land without going too far? Is it acceptable to speed just a bit? Is it acceptable to physically abuse your spouse/partner just a bit? Is it acceptable to kill just a couple of people? Is it acceptable to  steal just a bit? If not, why not? Do we tolerate the breaking of some laws, but not others? Should we tolerate the breaking of some laws, but not others? If so, which ones and who says which ones?

Pearl Jam sing a song called 'Alive'. It comes to mind within this train of thought. Some of their lyrics are as follows:

"You're still alive, she said. Oh, and do I deserve to be? Is that the question? And if so, who answers?"

For my two cents worth, I do not believe that we can have it both ways. Either the cops have to uphold the laws, even when it is unpopular, or they just let everything go. Either we all have accept the laws that are handed down, or we just ignore them. Whichever we pick, there will be things we don't like. But it comes down to choosing the lesser of two evils.

It proves, in my mind, that we can't have our cake and eat it. Especially not on the train, because there are signs that clearly state eating is prohibited in carriages!

I am the first Mammal to wear pants

Riding the train invites the lowest common denominator. You don't need a licence and you don't have to pass a test. Sometimes you don't even need a ticket or a Go Card to ride the train.

I saw a group of two guys and two girls board the train. They jumped on just before the train doors shut. The only thing that would have completed the picture would have been if one of them had have rolled on his/her back, shot his/her hand out of the door and retrieved his/her hat just as the doors closed! It didn't happen though. But I was still humming the Indiana Jones music in my head.

The only thing that this group didn't count on was that they jumped into the carriage where the ticket checking guards were operating. And, whoops, one of them didn't have a ticket.

Now, I have heard some pretty disparaging remarks about the ticket checking guards from my fellow passengers. I don't go for those kind of remarks. I have branded the ticket checking guards as 'the speed cameras of the rail system', though. You know, they are there for both regulatory and revenue reasons. This being said, I was happy to see this group almost literally jump into the arms of these speed cameras.

One guy was asked where his ticket was ad he gave some really lame excuse for not having one. He said something about having left his ticket in his other pants. "Don't worry buddy, we've all been there!" The speed camera said that if he couldn't produce a ticket, he'll cop a fine. The speed camera then asked the guy where he was going. It was everything I could do to not chuckle, snort or laugh, when I heard, "I'm going in to town to go to Court." Great impression on the Judge there boss. "Sorry your Honour, I'm running late because I was getting a fine on the train for not bothering with a ticket." The funny thing to me was that when this guy got his $150 ticket, he was mad at the speed camera. Not in front of the speed camera, of course. Only when the speed camera was out of ear shot did the profanity-laden tirade commence. But this guy was treating it like it was the speed camera's fault. It's funny how the simple mind works, sometimes.

Another ticket incident occurred when I got off my train and got on my bus. The young guy in front of me did not have  ticket and the bus driver asked him, "Did you just come off the train?" The young guy said, "Yeah." The bus driver said, "Didn't you have a ticket for the train?" The young guy came back with a pearler, "I didn't need a ticket. I only went two stops." Again, I had to work hard to control the laugh. But it has led me to ponder, how many stops must a person travel before one needs a ticket?

These two occurrences, both coming from the shallow end of the gene pool, have led me to ponder the world conquering dominance of the Homo-Sapien. It has also raised the question in my mind, "When is it ok to say, "The rules/laws just do not apply to me right now?"

I could not help thinking, when I witnessed both of the above situations, 'what would the world be like if we all just said "to hell with the rules/laws" and we just did what we wanted, when we wanted'? I know the first reaction would likely be, 'sweet, it's finally all about me', but think about it. I mean, I have to pay higher train ticket prices to cover the jokers who think they either do not have to pay at all, or that train rides of less than five stops do not require a ticket. I am sorry, but they do, and you need to pay instead of making me pay for you, you selfish little prat.

In the movie Spiderman, they say a line over and over and over. They say, "With great power comes great responsibility'. Corny, yes. Perhaps that's why I like it. But it rings true. Mankind rules the world. The most dominant species, etcetera, etcetera. But with that dominance comes responsibilities. I am sorry to sound like your Mum, but there are rules that must be adhered to, by everyone, if we are to co-exist and continue to grow in peace and unity. And that means you have to do things that you might not necessarily want to do. Like eat your greens, or stop stealing things, or shave when your wife tells you to even if you can't be bothered (I love you, Honey). That is what I like to think being part of a civilised society involves. I guess it could be considered the cost of living in a civilised society. That there is a little give and take in terms of us all doing our best to put ourselves aside for the greater good. Being a little less selfish and have a little more empathy.

We may be the first Mammal to wear pants, but that doesn't mean we can drop them and have a scratch when we have company over for dinner.

Silky smooth

It's been said that the only problem with public transport is that the public can use it. I catch the train to and from work every day and there are definitely times that the public make it... interesting. I like to think of riding on the train in the words of Forest Gump, "You never know what you're going to get." I have decided that riding on trains comes down to the age old optimist vs pessimist argument; is the train half full or half empty.

Owing to the fact that I am on the train every day, I see some interesting things. Some things make me laugh, others make me reflect. Yet others make me wonder about the world in which I live.

For those who have seen the show 'Cheers', you'll appreciate the analogy. For those who have never seen the show, please feel free to nod politely. For me, catching the train is like the theme song to Cheers. The difference is that everyone knows my face, not my name. Unless they followed me home, went through my garbage and stolen my mail. And let's be honest, I wouldn't put it past some of my fellow travellers.

I have decided that people are creatures of habit. Train users tend to have 'their own seats'. That is to say that people normally sit in the same carriage and in the same seat every day. For example, if I was to catch the 8:07am train and sit in the 3rd carriage, I could confidently and competently predict who would be getting on at each stop of my train ride. "Tattoo girl will get on at this stop". "Plaid shirt guy will get on here and sit near the door". And you do know that if you get on my train, I will give you a name. That being said, I do appreciate that others have named me. I imagine it would be something along the lines of 'Interesting without being a tool guy'.

A negative of this practice of getting on the same carriage and sitting in the same seat is that you become predictable. And there are those who would use this predictability against you. I like to sit in different carriages and in different seats. I do this to stay one step ahead of any terrorists who might be following me or tracking my movements. It's all part of being alert, not alarmed.

The positive of being predictable, and choosing the same carriage every day, is that your carriage becomes a surrogate family. When 'comb-over man' doesn't get on the normal train, at the normal time, everyone gets a bit worried. We all wonder if he was just running late or if something more sinister has happened. Of course we don't actually ask him when he next gets on the train, but I am sure he knows we were thinking of him.

Talking to people on the train is tricky at the best of times. As much as there is a family feel to the carriage, it's probably more of a dysfunctional family. It's like we have had Christmas together where one child has stolen another child's present and the parents of the first child have not reprimanded the child in a manner that appeases the parent of the second child. The problem then blows out when child two decides to exact revenge and punches child one. The parents of child one demand something be done, but Dad of child two says something like, "nice right hook son. He had it coming." By that time, it's all over. The turkey dinner is ruined, people swear they will not come next year and the grand parents are crying. You know what I mean. And that is how it feels in the train carriage family. We are together, and that is enough. We don't have to talk.

But the then you are sitting there, minding your own business, when someone decides to talk. The man who sat next to me began talking one day. The funny thing was he was not talking to me. He was muttering things under his breath. At first, I tried to casually look as though I was still filling in my Sudoku puzzle, whilst trying to listen to what he was saying. Then I understood what he said. "Silky smooth skin". He said it over and over again. At first, I admit, I was a bit freaked out by that proclamation. Then I reflected, and almost thanked him for the compliment. After all, I do try to take care of myself. I will admit that I was wary of a hand coming across to rest on my knee, but thankfully that never eventuated.

It was then that I decided that I needed to keep mixing up my carriage and seat arrangement. If not for the terrorists, for the crazy mumbling guys who wanted to get closer than I did. After all, that was only our first train ride together. And I'm not the kind of guy who goes there on the first train ride!