On The Dilbert Principle

In the workplace the majority of employees do an okay job, and for the most part things basically run. But as large as the umbrella of the typical bell curve is, there will always be the 4.66% that stray farther than two standard deviations from the mean. In cases where the person does more than is expected, the individual is considered exceptional. This has both positive and negative consequences for that person. On the positive side, the person may be given a raise and/or promotion, and possibly move up the social ladder. On the negative side, in most jobs the reward for doing good work is simply more work. Two employees may have the same title and pay, but the one who works faster and more efficiently will end up with the larger workload.
This is not the only negative aspect. A good worker that wants to move up in the company may be prevented from this by management. Managers like to keep good workers. For this reason, managers do not truly wish to see all of the good workers excel. For that would leave the management stuck with all of the leftovers. So good workers can get stuck as a "reward" for the hard work.
But this rant is not about the misfortunes of good workers. Rather, it is about a grave injustice that has been known to occur involving the poor workers. In many companies there are unions. The unions claim to fight for the workers. Although they never really seem to fight for higher pay, or better hours, or better benefits, they do have one main influence: it is harder to fire someone in a union. Those that do a horrible job continue to have a poor work ethic and retain their jobs. It is obvious to everyone who works with such an individual that it would be more productive for them to leave altogether.
But getting fired is out of the question, and unrequested transfers cannot single the individual out without a lawsuit. So what solution is reached? The answer is absurd. The individual that knows nothing and is a disgrace gets promoted. The promotion is always one that involves a transfer to another department or building. With the promotion the cancer is removed from the department, and there is no lawsuit. But this is one of the most unjust things that can occur. I am outraged when I see this happen, and it makes me feel like slacking off and becoming a horrid worker. Something inside of me prevents this, but I feel the injustice so intensely that it makes me cringe.
However, I must admit that it is an extremely clever maneuver. The first manager to think of such a thing must have been very cunning. Nevertheless, injustice is injustice no matter how clever it may be. I think that someone whose work product is exceeded by errors should be removed. Unions should stop fighting for those that do not work. Fighting for the one terrible worker is the same as fighting against all of the good and even semi-descent workers.
Bad workers need to be removed, but not through promotion. Give all of them the pink slip and let them freeze out on the streets. They were given a chance to prove themselves and they failed. Enough is enough. It is time to bring justice to the workplace.

On Elderly Drivers

Throughout most regions of the world, the automobile is a main form of transportation. Although driving is not very complex, it is still a skill that requires learning and practice. In most situations, experience is the best teacher-- this is usually true of driving as well. It is said that a person only truly learns how to drive after he or she has obtained a license.
Although I agree with this statement for the most part, I know of a situation in which experience does not imply better driving. I am speaking of the elderly. I have nothing against them, per se. There is a chance that I will be elderly one day myself. But there are facts that cannot be denied. As the body ages, senses such as sight and hearing (key senses that are needed for driving) deteriorate. People that no longer have vision and/or hearing conducive to driving should not drive.
I don't want anyone to think that I am blanketing the entire senior citizen community. I know perfectly well that many of them can still drive well. I just feel that at a certain age, it should be mandatory to retake the road test. Those that are still proficient would retain their license, but those that can no longer drive will have the license revoked.
Reckless driving is dangerous to a large number of people other than the driver. When I have discussed this with others, I have received some opposing responses. Questions such as "How can you tell someone that has been driving for 50 years that they can't drive anymore?" have been asked. I do not overlook the idea that someone who is told such a thing would be crushed. But should everyone else on the road be put at risk to spare this senile individuals feelings? I think not.
When a body has aged to the point where it can no longer drive, action must be taken. People that drink to the point of having blurry vision and impared reflexes are committing a crime by getting behind the wheel. Why then do we consider elderly people with the same blurry vision and impaired reflexes to be okay to drive? It makes no sense. Of course in the former case the impairment was self-induced by the individual. But if someone is hit and killed by an impaired individual, the cause of impairment becomes much less relevant.
In short, people unfit to drive should not drive. Many of these people do not realize that they are no longer able, and therefore take no initiative to stop on their own. As cruel as it may seem, something must be done. Feelings will be hurt, egos will be crushed, and some will feel like every shred of dignity has been taken from them...but the roads will be safer.

On Invasive Species Policy

Evolution-- it is an ongoing process. Groups of organisms change with the passage of time, and decendants differ both morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors. Through time different organisms become well-suited to their respective environments. Adaptations for climate, terrain, competition, and predators arise. The various defenses that arise are for predators in the area. But many species are very vulnerable to predators that have been introduced to the area.
Invasive species are typically defined as non-indigenous species introduced to an area (usually by human action) where it did not previously occur naturally. The effects, if any, are usually negative. The local flora and fauna do not know how to deal with the newcomer and local populations drop. In some extreme cases, species become extinct. In light of the problem with invasive species, many organizations have been formed to deal with the problems.
I have a bone to pick with these organizations. A problem was created through human interference, and now they feel that even more interference will make things better. This is simply not true. In many cases, the "solution" for an invasive species has turned out to be worse than the original problem.
In the 1900's, the giant African snail (Achatina fulica) was introduced to islands in the Pacific and Indian Oceans for a food source. The snail became an agricultural pest. The solution was to bring in another snail species to handle the giant African snail. So in their infinite wisdom, the ecological organizations decided to introduce a second species to the area: the rosy wolfsnail (Euglandina rosea). The rosy wolfsnail did not do what was expected. Rather than eliminating the giant African snail, it eliminated many local endemic species. Many snail populations in the Partulidae (tree snail) family are now in danger because of the rosy wolfsnail.
Another brilliant solution was the introduction of the small Indian mongoose (Herpestes javanicus auropunctatus) to Mauritius, Fiji, the West Indies, and Hawaii. The mongoose was brought to control rats, and has caused the local extinction of birds, reptiles, and amphibians. Now it threatens the population of the Japanese Amami rabbit (Petalagus furnessi). As a special added bonus, the mongoose is also a carrier of rabies.
Of course the list of examples could go on indefinitely, but I will mention just one more. The brown tree snake (Boiga irregularis) is native to Australia, Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, and the Solomon Islands. In the late 1940's it stowed away on a military aircraft and invaded Guam. Although it is a huge threat to the ecosystem in that region, the solutions being discussed sound even worse. The current plan is to develop a virus that will kill off the Boiga population in Guam. Considering the way some of the previous "solutions" have worked out, I would have to say that this sounds like one of the most bone-headed ideas to ever arise in the scientific community.
A question now arises: if introducing a second species is not the solution, what is? The answer is nothing. Leave well enough alone! Initially local populations may suffer when an invasive species comes to town, but there are usually survivors. Those that do survive probably have some slight variation that allowed them to live, even if just barely. Some of their offspring may handle the situation even better. My solution would be to stay out of it, and let the local species naturally evolve to deal with the invader. Are we so conceited that we think we know better than nature? Haven't we done enough damage already by introducing one species? Nature can come up with a better solution than any one of us. If we stay out of it and let it be, the problem will resolve itself.

On Stupid Customers

Whether shopping is a joy or a hassle, it is something that everyone must succumb to at some point. Some people consider shopping a hobby and choose to make a day out of it. Others, such as myself, prefer to be in and out of the store as quickly as possible.
While there have been cases where this quick shopping method has been executed, it is usually not possible. There are two main culprits that delay purchases: cashiers and customers. Sometimes it's the cashier, other times it is the customer, and for those even less fortunate it is a combination of the two.
A reasonable explanation for the slow cashiers was once given to me. A friend of mine claimed that Huxley's Brave New World held the answer. The people were divided into Alphas, Betas, and so forth to Epsilons. This was done because different intelligence levels were required for different positions. His claim was that a very intelligent person (analagous to an Alpha) would not be satisfied with the job, and so an Epsilon is needed. I agree to a point, but I believe that intelligent high school and college students would work as a cashier and should be given preference.
But the cashiers are not the main problem. The customers are the ones who cause the most delays. And the customers include everyone. To me this demonstrates that most of humanity lacks intelligence. A person that has to ask ten questions about each item should do so before they get to the register.
One of my main issues is with people on line at a fast food place. Everyone serpentines through the ropes taking anywhere from five to fifteen minutes to reach the register. When all is said and done, there are people that still have not decided what to order, and they are always the person in front of me! How can one be so indecisive? Even Sinbad has had to comment on these people in one of his acts.
The supermarket is even worse. People shuffle up to the register with a whole cart full of groceries, and after every single item is scanned they have to stop the cashier to ask the price. This is especially true of senior citizens. Many people will defend them and say that it is only because they are old. I don't think this is the case at all. I think that someone who acts like that has been an idiot for his or her entire life. Do you really believe that a rocket scientist will calculate complex physics equations for his entire life, and then suddenly become an imbecile on the day of his 65th birthday? I certainly don't, and neither should you.
Stupid, indecisive, questioning, pestering, haggling customers have turned shopping into a nightmare. In every store and on every line, it is always the same thing. Supermarkets already have express lanes for 10 items or less. Perhaps they should invent a new type of express lane-- for customers with IQs of 115 or higher.