What is D.E.I

So, What Is D.E.I.?*

Like many, I initially embraced the idea that something was finally being done to ensure fairer treatment for those who fall outside the so-called "accepted standards" that shape our lives. It felt like long-overdue progress.

However, the problem for many was the extreme legislative measures that followed, forcing knee-jerk reactions from governments and companies alike. As one official told me:

"We all kind of went overboard with the adjustments and changes we made. Everything became an exaggeration of what was almost there. Many companies had already taken steps to improve hiring practices and workplace environments, but legislation forced us to jump through more hoops than was really necessary."

Then Donald Trump came into office and repealed many of the policies that had shaped D.E.I., sparking outrage. How could someone—especially him—undo years of hard-fought progress? Yet, at the same time, companies wiped the sweat from their brows, relieved to be free from what they saw as excessive regulation. That sparked even more outrage.

The truth is, while I personally do not like the man, this rollback was probably overdue. Too much had been implemented too quickly, without enough thought given to the real-world consequences and the complications that followed.

For those unsure of what D.E.I. is, here’s an official description from Wikipedia:

In the United States, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are organizational frameworks that seek to promote the fair treatment and full participation of all people, particularly groups who have historically been underrepresented or subject to discrimination based on identity or disability.[1] These three notions (diversity, equity, and inclusion) together represent "three closely linked values" which organizations seek to institutionalize through DEI frameworks.[2] The concepts predate this terminology and other variations sometimes include terms such as belonging, justice, and accessibility. As such, frameworks such as inclusion and diversity (I&D),[3] diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging (DEIB),[4][5][6] justice, equity, diversity and inclusion (JEDI or EDIJ),[7][8] or diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility (IDEA, DEIA or DEAI)[9][10][11] exist. In the United Kingdom, the term equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) is used in a similar way.

That said, the total eradication of D.E.I. initiatives may have been Trump's biggest mistake—one among many. While excessive bureaucracy is a real issue, the core principles of inclusion and non-discrimination remain essential.

Rather than abandoning the idea entirely, we need to think more deeply about true inclusion—how to make all environments fairer and less discriminatory. Instead of reacting emotionally to policy changes, why not lobby representatives to create smarter, more effective measures that truly address inequality?

Cheers.

👁️ Views (0)

Religion and why we need it

The Evolving Nature of Belief*

 As I get older, I can’t help but reflect on my mother’s perspective as she aged. She wasn’t religious, but she’d begun attending church more often. She explained that she wasn’t sure one way or the other.

That intrigued me at the time, and I wondered if I would eventually feel the same.

Religion, it seems, is an integral part of being human. It serves as a means to explain the unexplainable. When we lack a reliable source of comfort or support, religious faith provides both guidance and reference.

This becomes particularly apparent when we’re suddenly thrown out of our familiar comfort zone—when we find ourselves in a completely new and foreign environment, especially one that involves a different culture, language, and location. What do we do when we don’t even speak the language?

For many, the language of life is still so unfamiliar. Few are taught to explore the ‘spiritual’ side of existence, the part of us that strives to battle the primal, animal instincts of man. What is right and wrong differs greatly from culture to culture, as do the belief systems that dominate each.

So much of what we do, how we behave, and what we believe is prescribed to us by others. Indoctrination plays a key role in this—whether through the law, religious institutions, or societal expectations. This framework helps maintain a homogenous group that is easier to manage.

Religion is essential, yes. But it manifests in many different forms. The traditional view of attending church regularly to show one’s faith has become akin to attending your favorite team’s games at their designated stadium—yet another form of religion.

I’m not sure why, but I haven’t reached the point my mother did. I still don’t feel the need to claim a specific religion. I respect my wife’s faith because it’s essential to her, and she, in turn, respects that I don’t feel that same need. We both support each other in our differences.

We support different football teams, come from completely different backgrounds, were born in distinct conditions and countries, yet we don’t feel the need to fight or hate each other because we believe in different things. There is so much that we agree on that there’s always space for the things we don’t.

So, my rant today is this: The world must learn to accept diversity in belief. We need to stop fighting to impose our beliefs on others.

Cheers.

👁️ Views (0)

AI - Actual intelligence

AI, Learning, and the Lazy Gene*

As an old fogy, I’m not supposed to know these things. I mean, what do I know about AI?

Well, according to a famous entrepreneur, I was born with AI—and he’s right. We all were. The real question is, how many of us actually use it the way it’s meant to be used?

I grew up in New Zealand, knowing little about the world beyond my backyard. Like any kid, I had a child’s perspective—life was about playing, going to school, and understanding that I would eventually have to work. NZ, isolated as it is, was even more cut off back then, lacking the technology that connected much of the world. Events like the Cuban Missile Crisis? Never entered my radar. We knew only what the two television channels told us.

But leaving NZ and engaging with the wider world gave me a fresh appreciation for what I had been given as a child. I now believe that the New Zealand education system wasn’t just about stuffing young minds with information—it was about teaching us how to learn.

And that, right there, is what so many people around me seem to have missed: the ability to learn and to refine the process of learning itself.

In an earlier post, I wrote about the Lazy Gene—humanity’s tendency to oversimplify everything, turning daily tasks into effortless, thoughtless processes. And education is no exception. Too many systems focus on what to learn instead of how to learn.

Take the U.S. as an example. A lackluster leadership is currently dismantling the Board of Education, but to replace it with what? A better system or just more of the same? The population has already been dumbed down enough—do they really need another round of it?

What we need is an education system that teaches people to think, learn, and think critically before they waste their hard-earned right to vote on the kinds of disasters we see unfolding today.

Oh, and back to AI—yes, its widespread adoption has a lot of people worried, mostly thanks to the usual flood of negative hype. But that’s a topic for another day.

Until then, keep learning.

Cheers.

👁️ Views (0)

National Pride

Couch Potatoes vs Coaches*

I come from New Zealand and reside in Brazil—two countries deeply passionate about their national sports: rugby and futebol. But both suffer from the same affliction: crippling embarrassment every time they lose.

In a previous post, I criticized journalists for their lack of critical thinking and failure to analyze situations before rushing to publish their content. But when it comes to national pride, it’s not just the media—it’s an entire nation of armchair coaches, all convinced they could do a better job.

Meanwhile, elite players, each honed by their own club systems, are thrown into an arena where they must survive under relentless scrutiny. The best of them understand teamwork and the need to adapt, but which team?

At the club level—whether Real Madrid, Barcelona, Palmeiras, Santos, Corinthians, or São Paulo—players benefit from a consistent system: an experienced coach, a familiar playing field, and a strong support structure that ensures less-developed players are brought up to speed.

National teams, on the other hand, are built around individually brilliant players who have been coached in vastly different systems, played in entirely separate competitions, and often lack the experience to gel quickly in a new team dynamic. This challenge isn’t unique to football—it happens in rugby, and even in team-oriented sports like Formula 1.

If national teams are to succeed, something must change in how players are selected and how coaches integrate such diverse talent. Speculation needs to take a backseat so that players and coaching staff aren’t under constant pressure. If a team loses, instead of launching into a witch hunt, we should first ask: Why did the other team play better? How long have they played together? What was their selection process?

Watching Brazil lose to Argentina was tough, but when you look at the young, inexperienced faces of so many brilliant Brazilian players, it’s clear they were simply outclassed by a better-organized, more experienced opponent—one that had just won the World Cup.

Is Brazil’s coach really incompetent? Hardly—he just led his club to a title they hadn’t won in nearly 20 years.

Give these teams a chance. Support them with real national pride—not by nitpicking every little mistake.

Okay, rant over!

Cheers.

👁️ Views (0)

The Lazy Gene

I am not lazy, just physically challenged*

How do you change the channel on your TV? How do you get from place to place? How and where do you eat?

Most of us instinctively answer: The remote control. A car or some other motorized transport. And, for those with access, food delivery services.

The rise of food delivery became essential during the pandemic and, soon after, conveniently catered to the “Lazy Gene” lurking in most of us. But food isn’t the only thing being delivered to our doorstep—so is our entertainment, our information, and even our education.

Remote controls, streaming services, robot vacuums, scrolling news feeds, AI-generated content—technology has found a way to indulge our every whim while keeping us perfectly still. We no longer need to seek entertainment; it’s handed to us. We don’t need to engage with the world outside; it streams right into our living rooms. Reading books in a library? Watching a play at the theater? Cheering on a team at the stadium? These have all become optional, nostalgic relics of effort.

Don’t get me wrong—at my age, going out and participating the way I once did has become harder. But that’s precisely the point. If everything is handed to us from the start, we take it for granted.

We visit zoos and feed the animals what we think they should eat, giving them little choice in the matter. And yet, we fail to see that the same thing is happening to us—but instead of zookeepers, our feeders are faceless corporations and political strategists deciding what is socially acceptable, ethically sound, politically correct, and—most importantly—most profitable.

We’ve become passive consumers of whatever they serve up. Influencers nudge us toward trends we didn’t ask for. News cycles churn out narratives we don’t question. Entertainment algorithms shape our preferences before we even know what we like. And as we sit back, indulging in this curated reality, our minds quietly slip into autopilot.

Of course, the Lazy Gene defends itself well. These tools give us more time for important things, we tell ourselves. But are we truly making use of that time, or are we simply feeding the machine that keeps us sedated? If this trend continues, perhaps we really are just batteries in The Matrix, sustaining a system that thrives on our passivity.

If any of this resonates with you, then now—more than ever—is the time to reclaim control. The key isn’t rejection, but moderation. Convenience should serve us, not define us. We can embrace technology without surrendering to it.

It’s time to switch off autopilot and start living like the humans we were meant to be.

Cheers.

👁️ Views (0)

F1 Carfuffle

Unpredictable, predictability*

This old fogy loves Formula 1.

The problem is that so-called journalists are driving their content with as much biased speculation and woeful critical thinking as the rest of today’s media.

After just one race, Ferrari was declared to have missed the boat because they hadn’t made enough visible progress to challenge for the championship. Haas, too, was written off as underwhelming. Meanwhile, other teams were prematurely deemed to be on the fast track to success—all based on a single weekend out of 24.

What happened to the careful analysis pundits used to pride themselves on? Why are they pandering to the preconceived notions of those who barely grasp the complexities of the great F1 circus?

Yes, I know I’m ranting unfairly.

The first race weekend was wet and unpredictable—far too chaotic to draw meaningful conclusions. Traditionally, the F1 season only started to reveal its true form once the European races began. Now, drivers and teams are written off before the first race even reaches its final lap. Shameful, really.

What’s bugging me most is the mistreatment of the swimmer treading water in the deep end of an RB misstep. Even Max Verstappen has admitted that the car is tricky to drive, yet the media is eager to tear down anyone struggling with it. Every lap has turned into a live test session, with constant setup changes unsettling even the most seasoned drivers—just ask Sergio Pérez last year.

So what, exactly, is a 23-year-old Liam Lawson supposed to do right? According to the media, nothing. They’re so blinkered that they can’t see the wood for the mechanics.

So, let’s take a breath. Give these drivers and teams the time to find their feet instead of cutting them off at the knees. Put your critical thinking caps on, check all the facts before jumping to conclusions. Let them race, let the season unfold, and for once, let patience take pole position.

👁️ Views (0)

Back to the Future

The White house or the Wrong house?*

It seems Disney World has relocated. This Mickey Mouse operation—controlled by Goofy and led by Donald Duck—is turning what was once a respectable empire into a global farce.

A land built by immigrants who fought for the right to swindle the original inhabitants out of their land now appears to be on the warpath once again. Pointless rules and deliberate chaos are throwing the world into disarray, while a bullying wannabe emperor barrels toward the infamy he so richly deserves.

Like all Disney rides, this one will leave your head spinning as we lurch from one Fantasyland to another. And if nuclear war doesn’t drag us back into the Dark Ages, the fallout from this twisted carnival ride surely will.

Welcome to Back to the Future—the Muskrat and Bullwinkle edition.

👁️ Views (0)

Labels

Sticky or not, they're still labels*

So, I’m an old fogy.

What about you? Do you have a label? And do you wear it proudly?

Labels are tricky things—used both to define and divide, to elevate and exclude.

I am areligious, apolitical, asexual, and a silly old fart. People see my unmarked skin, my unlabeled clothes, my lack of a car, and they judge. The possibilities are endless—am I someone they might want to talk to? Or not? That is, if I speak their language and understand their secret signs.

We’ve always chosen friends based on a mix of traits, just as we’ve rejected those who don’t fit our preferences. The trouble is, rejection has now become discrimination—at least, according to the labels people assign to it.

You don’t like me because… what? I’m a woman? I’m gay? I support the wrong football team? I’m Protestant, Catholic, atheist? I’m too short, too tall, too thin, too fat, too young, too old, too weak, too strong? Because I have red hair, curly hair, no hair? Because I have tattoos, or I don’t? Because I walk with a cane, or I have no legs, no arms, bad breath, body odor? The list never ends.

No, I don’t like you because—I don’t particularly like anyone.

I prefer cats.

I know where I stand with cats. They don’t judge me. They don’t care what I wear, what I believe, or what labels the world slaps on me. They like me for who I am—or, let’s be honest, for the food I provide. They purr when they feel like it, scratch me for the same reason, and never pretend to be anything they’re not.

They are, quite simply, less complicated.

👁️ Views (0)

This Crazy Old World

In the beginning...*

There’s so much happening right now that it defies not only description but, more importantly, belief.

Was life simpler when I was young? Did having fewer choices make things better? Was it really so hard to mind our own business? And where, exactly, has all the respect gone?

It’s easy for older generations to reminisce about the Good Old Days—a time that seemed safer, when we could walk wherever we pleased, play wherever we wanted, and simply live life on our own terms.

But much of that nostalgia is a relative myth. We walked because we had no car and public transport was scarce. We played because open spaces hadn’t yet been swallowed by malls, roads, and an ever-growing population. We lived the way we wanted to because our choices were fewer and life was less distracting.

Perhaps the past wasn’t as simple as we remember—just different.

But then again, what does this old fogy know? 

👁️ Views (0)