"It is what it is." I've mentioned this defeatist mantra and how much I hate it in these blathering bloggages before. I've had conversations about it too trying unsuccessfully to clearly convey exactly why I despise this philosophy and the battered and bullied generations that have been forced to adopt it. "Hate" might be too strong a word for how I feel about the pathetic downtrodden population that has been securely yoked and whipped by the ruling class into trading their lives to keep the wealthy in haute couture and bon-bons. But I don't like them and I'm one of them. What exactly is it that keeps us from doing what we all want to do?
"It is what it is." It's much like "A rule is a rule." It is no coincidence that after Bryson Dechambeau was penalized two strokes for accidentally improving his lie yesterday in The Open he said, "It is what it is." I don't want to get too deep into this but listen, as long as you don't move your ball, you are not improving your lie. Dechambeau walked into tall grass, stood behind his ball to see where he needed to hit it, then hit it. Well, MUCH later it was ruled by the stuffed shirts that comprise whatever governing body is in charge at The Open that stomping down the high grass behind his ball made his backswing easier and therefore "improved his lie." No. Just no. It improved his backswing and did nothing to affect his lie. You cannot argue that logically so you need to revert to, "A rule is a rule." "It is what it is." I can't tell you how many times I have rearranged foliage on golf courses to improve my backswing and watched my fellow golf partners do the same. It never occurred to any of us that we were cheating because we weren't. Improving your backswing doesn't amount to cheating in the minds of golfers worldwide. But evidently it's a rule.
Here's another: You are not allowed to ground a club in a bunker. Why not? It's about preserving the sand in the bunker and maintaining the hazard. It's much like raking the trap after you mess it up. They don't want folks practicing swings 3 or 4 times blasting sand out of the bunker and onto the grass. Understandable. So when someone grazes the sand accidentally while preparing to hit their shot, it shouldn't be a penalty, right? Logically that's right. But logic and justice so often take back seats to The Rule! Probably the worst injustice ever was Dustin Johnson in the 2010 PGA Championship who took a practice swing beside his ball that had come to rest in a strip of bare dirt with no grass growing in it. Well here come those stuffed shirts again with their crotches bulging at the prospect of being OBEYED by a celebrity golf professional. "That was a bunker!" they screamed.
You might be thinking, "Oh Dave you conspiracy theorist, they're just trying to stop golfers from cheating." Nope. I'll give you another rule that proves the rule-makers are not just punishing cheaters, they're also just punishing for the fun of it. If you make a mistake on your scorecard there are two things that can happen: 1. You can be disqualified if you write a score lower than the one you got. 2. You will be forced to keep the higher score if you (or your golfing partner keeping your score) writes down a larger score than the one you got. In the 1968 Master's Roberto De Vicenzo's playing partner Tommy Aaron gave him a 4 when he actually got a 3. This cost him a chance at a playoff to win the tournament. Obviously there was no attempt to cheat. So why the punishment? Nothing justifies it. So we have to try to mitigate the injustice with a brainless non-justification, "Well, them's the rules." "It is what it is." De Vicenzo had his own way of phrasing it, "What a stupid I am!"
Why does nobody have the balls to change the fucking rules? Whether you think Dechambeau was breaking the rule or not, it's a fucking stupid rule. How can you avoid stomping down grass near your ball? You have to get close to your ball to shoot it! The rule should be that as long as you don't touch or move your ball, doing ANYthing to improve your backswing is NOT improving your lie. Kudos to Dechambeau for being one of the VERY few with the courage to fight stupid rules in our world. It can be done but few of us stand up to The Man.
Since returning to Canada I've noticed an outrageously gross societal wave toward this blind acceptance and obedience, almost worship of rules, no matter how stupid. If Canada were a sport, it might be golf. Here's a rule that has already cost me two jobs: If somebody is outside of Canada for 5 years, driving or not, his/her license expires and he/she completely forgets (inexplicably exactly at the 5 year point) how to drive necessitating more than just driver's license renewal, they must make their ways through the graduated driving programs of the provinces in which they reside as if they had never held a license or driven before. I settled in Sarnia hoping to get work with a friend who has a vending machine business. This requires driving around town and stocking vending machines with snacks and drinks. Pretty simple. Unfortunately, even with my clean driver's abstract and proof of 25 years with no accidents or insurance claims against me in hand, when I went to the appropriate keepers of the rules to plead for an exception all I got was, "A rule is a rule. No exceptions. It is what it is."
Here's another one: Despite our culture that is consciously forcing Canadians to own vehicles and drive, did you know there is excise tax on fuel? Excise taxes are for luxuries and dirty pleasures and they are designed to limit consumption of such products and services as alcohol, tobacco, gambling, marijuana, certain luxury vehicles, etc. You find me a Canadian who thinks gas isn't essential to their lives and I'll show you... me. I don't drive so I don't use gas. This tax does not affect me, right? WRONG. I take the bus and taxis and Ubers. I eat food that is delivered by truck. I buy all kinds of things that have gone up in price (and with Trump's bullshit war with Iran will go up in price much more) that involve oil in manufacturing, delivery, or somewhere along the supply chain. ALL Canadians are dependent upon oil and since the early days of recognizing its potential when a super rich asshole like William Knox D'Arcy could go to a poor country like Persia (Iran) and buy 30 years of land and oil drilling rights for some paltry sum like 20,000 pounds, Big Oil has been manufacturing oil addiction into cultures like Canada. If you've ever wondered why Canada sells its oil cheaply to the US then buys back the refined product more expensively, it ain't because we don't have the ability to refine it here. It's the same assholery that made William Knox D'Arcy pretend he was helping the Persians, not fleecing them. Here we add to "It is what it is," and "A rule is a rule," another euphemism that has proven quite functional in the creation of our oligarchic world, "It's just business." I could spend a long time on this but will instead refer you to this well-researched video:
The rich control our lives and how we live them. There was a short period of time after the poor fought a couple of world wars and saved the businesses (and arses) of every last one of what George Carlin calls "our owners" and they allowed the peasants to enjoy a little bit more of the wealth. Taxes on the rich were in the 70 percent area. Ordinary folks could live very well on one salary. People could send their kids to college, buy their homes outright, AND retire! We had those wonder years not just because of the greatest generation fighting in the wars, but also because they fought for workers' rights.Anybody know what holiday is celebrated on May 1st? If you're Canadian or American you probably don't, yet it's a big deal in over 160 countries around the world. It commemorates the Haymarket Affair during which people were wounded and killed after a peaceful protest erupted into violence. It eventually led to the adoption of the 8-hour day worldwide and where did it happen? Chicago! Ask anybody in the US - hell ask anybody in CHICAGO what the Haymarket Affair was or even what is celebrated on May 1st or the first Sunday in may in most countries and they won't know. The rich don't want them to know and, yes, after 25 years in the industry you can take it from me, the rich are even trying to control what we know. Why wouldn't they want us to know about the heroes who fought for labour rights to which we are now entitled?
The obvious projected logic is that maybe the captains of industry and those who make the rules (which ARE the rules) might not want us to know about those rules and our rights enshrined within them because they are trying to slowly erode them, and this includes the 8-hour day. Let me give you one example from my new life in Canada. I just signed contracts to work security again and I will probably start training by the end of this week or if not, most likely this upcoming weekend. Amongst the various papers and documents I was hastily given to sign was the expected averaging agreement. I had one of these in the last security job I worked in Trail. THERE I was asked if I would sign it and agreed simply because I wasn't getting any weeks when I worked enough hours to get overtime. I don't think I ever did there. But if I HAD, I wouldn't have agreed to the averaging agreement. Here in Ontario these things were not legal until just 7 years ago when Doug Ford signed the (need I even say "euphemistic" when it comes to politics?) Restoring Ontario's Competitiveness Act or Bill 66 which allowed employers to bypass government regulation in this respect.
You see, if a person works more than 44 hours in a week, that person is entitled to overtime pay which is paid at 1.5 times the worker's wage. People fought and DIED for this right ffs! With the Labour Standards Act it was expected that employers consult the Ministry of Labour and get approval for these "agreements." The approval required a bona fide reason for the averaging agreement. Here's what they are: If a worker works, say, 4 12-hour shifts in a week, that's 48 hours and that worker is entitled to 4 hours at the rate of 1.5 times their usual pay. However, if they have an averaging agreement the scheduler can give them only 3 shifts in the next week (36 hours) making the average weekly number of hours 42 for that pay period, and since a 42-hour week doesn't qualify for overtime pay, the company doesn't have to pay it. Now, you might be saying, "What an evil thing to do! Especially to a security guard who's only making minimum wage!" You're right! But the Ministry of Labour said, "Now hang on here, if the business has a good reason for it, we'll allow it." I can't imagine any legitimate reason for one of these averaging agreements and the employers usually couldn't think anything up, so they generally were assumed to be doing it to save money by denying workers' overtime pay. This did not qualify as a legitimate reason. Well now that Ontario has the new legislation, that now IS a legitimate reason. A rule is a rule. A law is a law. It is what it is. It's just business.
You see how these things happen? This is not legitimate, honest, natural, evolutionary, or anything like that. These things happen when greedy rich people arrange things so that they can steal more from the poor.
We have to stop acquiescing to Draconian, Machiavellian, Gordon Gecko, Greed is Good rules, laws, and customs. We're already reverting and if we don't watch ourselves we'll be back to the era when kids could work 18-hour days in the fucking coal mines!
It ISN'T just business; A rule is NOT a rule; and it is NOT what it is! Thank God for people who question these 1984isms like Bryson Dechambeau and others like him. If we were all like that we'd have a far better world. Leastaways, that's what I reckon.
No comments:
Post a Comment