Anyway, we have better things to talk about today, my pretties. Yes, yes. First, the obligatory work whinging. We've started using a program called "SupportLogix" for tracking defects in the system. It's a nice little set-up that allows you to enter "tickets" for tracking defects, bounce them around between various developers, track their status, make comments, et cetera.
The problems with it are as follows: 1) It runs a different type of back end database, while everything else we do uses Oracle. This causes surl among the IT folks, since the company just recently shelled out to put them all through Oracle classes and everything, only to promptly assign them non-Oracle problems. Hoop. 2) It's somewhat annoying when you get tickets entered for multiple occurrances of the same problem.
Number two would not be such an important thing, if it weren't for the fact that someone got the bright idea of doing a metric chart of number of problems currently waiting versus number of problems fixed. This metric was, to say the least, painfully weighted towards "not completed". At which point it was observed in a rather sardonic manner that yes, of COURSE it's weighted towards incomplete when you enter the same problem into the system SIX TIMES.
But then, I don't worry too much about it. I just go down the list of things that need doin' and do them. S'what I'm paid for, after all.
But that's not the big issue of the day.
No, no, the big issue of the day is a big, shiny red button. Shiny, lovely, red shiny lovely buttony thing.
You see, I'm not a liberal. I discover this quite often. I similarly discover that many of my associates are liberal scum, who are certain to be up against the wall when the revolution comes, but hey, they're welcome to believe what they want. It's (currently) a free country, after all, despite their best efforts to the contrary.
I sometimes wonder if I'm a libertarian, but I can never stop laughing long enough to figure out what they actually stand for.
But regardless, our topic of the day is the Boy Scouts. You see, someone with an axe to grind somewhere in one of the local Scout heirarchy uncovered someone in a leadership position at one troop who happened to be gay, and this fellow (the gay one) was shortly thereafter unceremoniously booted.
This being one of the things that gets liberal panties in a bunch, a big fuss ensued, and a great legalistic smack-down was unleashed on the Scouts, mainly centering on the fact that they're a de facto public institution rather than a private one, not that it would matter anyway because private institutions can't get away with that stuff either, most times.
Granted, the Scouts tend to be rather self-righteous about this sort of thing, but hey, so is the opposition.
It's at this point that matters of principle get a bit confused. Namely, to be truly free, you have to accept that there are things you don't like. But, which step then takes precedence? Which right is more important: 1) Making sure people have equal access to absolutely everything, despite that other people might not like something they do. Or 2) Making sure people have the right not to have to interact with things they don't necessarily like, and still be able to leave their houses.
Now, when we're talking about government services, welfare, home loans, car loans, college, public schooling, et cetera, damn straight everyone should have utterly fair access to that, with vigorous smack-downs imposed on anyone who might seek to hinder this.
But Boy Scouts? I'm sure that someone's life is just going to be absolutely ruined if they can't take part in Boy Scouts. After all, there's just nothing else to do, at all. They'll be ruined for life. Yep, yep.
Somewhere along the line, we've moved from mandating acceptance of everyone for the essentials of life: education, public services, jobs; and moved into mandating acceptance of everyone in everything.
It's a free country, fer cryin' out loud. If you don't like how someone does something, then start your own organization to compete with them. We've gone from that competitive ethic to "We'll just throw lawyers at them until they're forced to play with us." We've turned into little house-cats, mewling at any closed door we find, not because we're particularly interested in what's on the other side, but simply because we're not allowed in.
It's almost like a post-war problem. Pretty much all the barriers that are actually important have been bulldozed (and their remnants are being vigorously battered at with mattocks), so the great levellers of the world are busy attacking ever more trivial problems.
But hey, at least it provides plenty of things to be surly about.
I guess we're all a product of our experiences, and my experiences have led me to the observation that anyone who ever makes the comment "We can't exclude anyone because it would be just wrong; it's simply a matter of principle." in any non-essential situation is either deluded, hopelessly idealistic, or terminally stupid.
But, as Dennis Miller says, that's just my opinion... and I could be wrong.
Rant 'o the day contains no additives, preservatives or small woodland creatures of any kind. Use only as directed. Do not expose to direct sunlight. Do not fold, spindle, multilate or remove identifying tags. Handle with care. Contains less than 3% milk fat by weight, not by volume. Squeeze the lemon.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT