Forgiveness is hard. I’ve been talking to someone about that today and dug up these posts from around the blogosphere.

• A sermon from dad last weekend
• Some snippets from a Jewish woman who “forgave Hitler”
• This one helpfully defines what forgiveness is not
• Here’s one on When not to forgive
• An article on what our forgiveness (not God’s) looks like.
• … a response to that post
• And another response to that post

I’d call any charitable work “antibono” because I think Bono gets too much free publicity in social justice spheres already.

I’m just saying.

Turtles are the best pets. They’re funny. Clean. And they do cool stuff. Like this. Most of the fun finishes about halfway into this video. But it’s only 48 seconds.

There have been many articles popping up the last few weeks on gender pay inequality, and I have noticed many contain the following analysis:

Women:

1. Get paid less.
2. Work fewer hours around the work office as they undertake more family related duties.
3. Generally have less work-related experience compared with a man of the equivalent age, due to having a more disrupted career (due to family commitments).
4. Have less super at retirement, due to working/earning less.
5. Have difficulty getting into higher work positions, sometimes linked to the impact of family duties on work commitments or a disrupted career path.
6. Are worse off financially, and do not have the same career progress as men.

Further, this can lead to second-degree problems, such as women being financially disadvantaged when involved in a relationship breakdown, due to losing the financial security built into the family unit and having lower savings/lower future earning capacity/less superannuation than the male counterpart.

This is all fair enough. However, I think it is important to recognise that the characteristics above are not necessarily evidence of different earning realisations due to pure gender-related pay discrimination. It seems that most of the arguments that stem from these points is misdirected, often mistaking inequality of opportunity or pure wage discrimination based on gender with different earning capacities due to circumstance leading to inequality of outcomes. A true example of discriminatory pay rates would be if, for the same inputs, there were differing outputs, as in for the same factors (including hours worked, qualifications, experience), there was differing pay. and at present, with the recognition of the above factors, I think the evidence being spread doesn’t align with the suggested problems, or required solutions, being touted.

However, the main point I want to make is that currently it seems that the pro-equality groups direct their anger at the businesses/employers for failing to ignite gender equality. Why is it the employer’s role to do this? Businesses should not be required to fulfil social welfare redistributive role. Employers should be required to pay an employee what their work-related characteristics require. Employers shouldn’t have to act on the idea that 10 years of life experience is equivalent to 10 years of on-the-job experience. If, as a society, we want to undertake wealth redistribution on whatever grounds, there are better institutions and better ways of doing this.

It is unclear exactly what the ultimate goal/solution of recognition of gender wage inequality will be. However, I think it is important to recognise the above distinctions, and most importantly, be careful what solutions are implemented, and not use business enterprises as a blunt weapon for attempting to right the perceived wrongs in society.

My grandfather (aka Fafa aka Donald Howard) wrote a book. About preaching. I’m reading it. It has been helpful. When I finish reading it I’ll post a proper review. In the meantime you should know that it did not win the 2009 Australian Christian Book of the Year – but it was an equal joint second prize winner with two others. A little like Townsville’s Rachel Finch in the Miss Universe competition…

It was self published. It features chapters from plenty of well known preachers. You can buy it here.

A while back I posted a bunch of novelty toilet paper designs. You should check out that post – and these other fantastic bathroom fillers.

Sometimes you just really have to go at night. And finding the light switch is hard. Glow in the dark toilet paper is there in case of emergency.

Some people like to read while sitting on the toilet. My mum always warned me about hemorrhoids that occur as a result. You can take that warning, or leave it. If you leave it perhaps you’d like to have some brainteasers at hand (which reminds me of the one about the constipated mathematician – he worked it out with a pencil*).

Other people like to jot down thoughts and journal ideas on notepads. Artist Michael Gondry turned his notepad doodlings into toilet paper – I assume only the bad ideas made it.

*Not even my favourite toilet humour joke – which is “a doctor was walking the corridors of the hospital when a pharmacist approached and said “doctor, doctor, there’s a suppository behind you ear,” the doctor paused, checked his ear and said “oh no, some bum has got my pen.”

Polaroids are dead. Apparently. They’re no longer being made. Which is sad. Who doesn’t like a bordered photo that you have to shake?

Turns out lots of people do. So much that you can get an iPhone app that turns your iPhone into a polaroid camera – you even have to shake it for it to develop. It’s called ShakeIt.

Then, thanks to the magic of the internet and the extensive collection of iPhone apps to cover every unimaginable possibility – you can mail it to yourself as a postcard. Using ShootIt.

Failing that you can jump onto Rollip – an online service that turns all of your photos into electronic polaroids. There are a few extra effects you can add…

I posted the passive aggressive signs set on Flickr a few weeks back. Posting a sign doesn’t have to be an act of passive aggression. It can be down right aggressive…

From Bits and Pieces.