Well, that's a bummer,,,

Client I'm working at had a bad financial year - no rain out in the fields, budgets slashed. Come November, there won't be space in the budget at this client for me. Several people are being put on part time, but they're employees of the contracting company so they get priority.

( the good, the bad, and the ugly )

In other news, my chooks (Aussie slang for "chickens" for all you sad cases living beyond our borders) are arriving in the next week! (After hearing nothing from the company for far, far too long.) Hopefully just in time to keep the fruit flies down...

Direct Benefit

Now, I don't know how the people reading this feel about direct cash transfers to those in need, but in the wake of Harvey, Give Directly will be running a small operation in Texas.

Blog Post at Give Directly

I realise that we're more comfortable generally with donating to relief organisations, but, frankly, sometimes it's more direct to hand over the money and let people work out what their priorities are instead of making them jump to the requirements of relief organisations.

(For those of you who object to religious charity - a.k.a. giving that asks for someone to fit religious requirements or to listen to a talk in exchange for food; direct giving also bypasses such hoops.

For those of you who object to 'enabling the poor to by beer and prostitutes', this post is not for you, carry on.)

Is it still a handout? Yes. But it's one that's intended to give people the chance to work out what they need, rather than presuming comfortable, middle-upper class know what they and their families need, or elongating the chain of 'is this something that we think they really need?' Does it rely on good supply chains that then provide the things which people need? Yes. But America has those supply chains and enough people to make it reasonably worthwhile to maintain them.

Could be interesting. Also in the execution of it, how many non-white families get the direct cash transfer as compared to white ones.