Stalled

I am very self-critical about my performance in Martial Arts.

My many years of Karate training were great, but I never fooled myself into thinking I was anything other than mediocre. Eventually, my old knees induced me to stop training.

I am also a student of Gracie Jiu-Jitsu, and although I am not brilliant at it, I would rate myself as above average. I just seem to be better able to do what is required than I ever could at Karate.

None of that is really what this blog entry is about. The topic today is a phenomenon that people usually call "a plateau."

What this refers to is a period of time where progress seems to stall, regardless of effort and hours of training. Some people actually report feeling a loss of ability. Almost everybody has experienced this situation, and typically have found it very demoralizing.

In 5 years of Jiu-Jitsu, and 30 years of Karate, I have never experienced a plateau.

Perhaps it is that I always expect progress to come at a glacial rate even at the best of times. When it goes better than that, I am pleasantly surprised and excited, and when it remains ploddingly slow, I am where I expect to be.

I am firmly convinced that plateaus are not really a lack of progress at all.

My friend, Tobias, felt he had stalled recently. He was wrong.

He is one of the guys I measure my skill against. Sometimes he is better, and sometimes it's me, but it has always close.

I am a better Jiu-Jitsu-ka than I was a year ago, and better then that I was the year before. It has been that way though each of my 5 years of training. The current version of me could easily defeat any version of myself from the past. All along, Tobias has been right there beside me.

This has changed in the last couple of months. Tobias has been taking private lessons with an excellent Black Belt instructor in Vancouver. I noticed the differences in him immediately. Now, although our rolls are exciting, and entertaining, Tobias is clearly better than me.

How could it be that I am better than ever, with Tobias now a superior mat monkey than me, and for his plateau to be real?

Another fine example is Colin's return to the mat. He's been gone for well over three years. He is a Blue Belt, as I was at that time. Although he feels rusty, he has retained a remarkable amount of his skills. He can still do all of the things that we used to know how to do. However, in those missed years, we have moved on. We have gotten better; a lot better.

There's clear evidence in Colin's return that we've all kept growing. When Colin left, Tobias was far junior to him, and likely easy for Colin to defeat. Now, I can control Colin easily, and Tobias even more easily that can I.

What I think happens is that a person can see just how much there is to improve upon. Any invested effort makes such a small impression on the huge momentum of this mass that it seems like nothing is happening.

If this happens, it would help to focus on a single, discrete unit of material, and focus just on that. Let's say it's a single guard pass. Do it a hundred times, until it starts to seem really slick, and then switch and do a hundred more with the other leg. Work on executing the movement explosively, and without warning. Do this for several training sessions. The next step is to get yourself caught up in your opponent's guard when sparring. Give your new move a full-speed try. Keep drilling it, and keep using it. You will have improved, but not a little bit spread out over everything, but rather in a small, spearpoint of focused progress.

There ain't no plateaus...

Planes, Ships, and Cars

We live in a beautiful place, in a nice community.

The climate is great once the weather starts to warm up. April is always grand. It's all good until near the end of October.

Then it gets cold. Not Canada cold. We very rarely get snow at all, or temperatures like the rest of the country. However, it certainly stops being comfortable, and it gets really, really wet. The sky is grey for days on end.

That's why Helen and I travel to warm places between the months of November and March.

I'd like to stay someplace warm for the whole time, but would miss my home greatly. For my wife, December is off the table so that we can be with family for the holidays. That means we can travel in late fall, and winter after New Years.

We usually find get away during either period, or both. Last winter, we got to LA for a couple of weeks, and to Arizona, and this fall we spent a couple of weeks in Hawaii, although that trip ended up mostly in October for assorted reasons.

I digress. Since retirement three years ago, we've been to LA a few times, and to Mesa Arizona twice, and Hawaii. We went to Florida and for a Caribbean cruise, and to Austria and Italy with another cruise in the Mediterranean.

All are clearly warm places, except perhaps for Austria and Italy, but compared to our home in November they were like summer. We did need light jackets, but were never cold, and often meltingly hot.

We have other European travels in mind, and some California, and even Singapore.

What we have during the cold, wet months is a record of lovely breaks. In that season, we've been away for over a third of the time. Doing this removes eliminates the feeling of a long haul of unpleasant weather. It also means that most of the time we're actually home, enjoying our house, and friends, and activities, and community. It does, however, feel like we're always about to take off, or that we've just gotten back, and sometimes it's both. I highly recommend it.

The funny thing is, we travel at the same kind of rate in the rest of the year, too. The difference is that we stick close to home. We visit friends and family in other cities, cruise out of Vancouver, and even go camping sometimes.

So big, warm-weather travels in the winter and late fall, and short-range trips sprinkled through the spring, summer, and early autumn.

A fine system.

Boneheads

I don't say that there are not a lot of very smart business people.

There are also many who do very bone-headed things.

Let's looks at the UFC. For years, they have been accused of underpaying and undervaluing the fighters that the sport is built on.

Let's look at a concrete example.

George St. Pierre is one of the biggest money makers that the UFC has ever had. About three years ago he decided to take some time off, and is now ready to return. In spite of all the wealth he had generated for the UFC in the past, and the potential future riches that might still come from his fights, the organization gave him a hard time about his return.

They played hardball with him, likely over the money that he wanted. He was still under contract to them, and they had to offer him a fight by a certain date, or they would be in default. They offered a nonsensical fight, with none of the conditions worked out just hours before the deadline. St. Pierre and his legal team decided the organization was in default, and declared that St. Pierre was now a free agent. Keep in mind, during his career, St. Pierre has fought everybody that the UFC asked him to, and never complained about money or treatment.

You see, fighters have a limited shelf-life. St. Pierre is 35, and can't afford to waste a year of two trying to negotiate his deal. This is what the UFC has been banking on. They pretend that they don't care about all the money that St. Pierre will bring in. It is a game of chicken, and they have proven many times that they'd rather miss out on huge paydays than to pay a penny more than they want to.

However, St. Pierre didn't fold, he left. Next the UFC said it would tie him up in the courts to prevent him from fighting for anybody else.

Then the company-man St. Pierre pushed back. He, and a number of other big-name fighters, have declared the formation of a fighters association. Dare I say union.

The UFC could have negotiated in good faith, and made a deal that would have benefitted them far more than St. Pierre, but also left him content. Instead, they have thrown their weight around, and ended up with a fighter who has gone free-agent and who is being instrumental in a potential fighters union.

Suddenly, Dana White, the UFC front man, is taking all lovey-dovey about St. Pierre, and how certain it is that a deal can be made. Strangely, for months all White ever said about St. Pierre was negative.

Not only did the behaviour of the UFC belittle one of their most loyal and successful fighters, they were willing to do so in a way that would not only have cost them huge amounts of fight revenue, but they have also managed to cut that potential revenue to zero by driving St. Pierre away, and might have been instrumental in the formation of a fighters union.

It would seem that they are now running in terror. They say that the fighters don't need or want a union. That would be true, except that due to the crappy treatment they have been getting they actually do want and need protection from the UFC's dictatorial no-protection and no-benefits system.

Can the UFC afford to support fighters more? Well, Dana White is just the front man, and receives a salary of 15-20 million bucks a year (sources vary), and made $180,000,000 from the recent sale of the UFC. His 9% ownership of the UFC ran from 2001-2016, and so he made $27,000,000 a year from that alone. Add on his salary, and he has been hauling in up to $50,000,000 a year. The major shareholders are worth billions.

The UFC has plenty of wealth that it could be sharing, and they would still be an incredibly profitable organization.

If they'd thrown perhaps an extra million bucks or two at St. Pierre, they would already be pulling in many times that due to his return, and still have him on their side, and in their stable, and not backing a union.

Well played, UFC.

Well played.

Plan Ahead

Travel plans for 2017 are shaping up nicely.

Both Helen and I like setting these things up well in advance. That way we can think about them for months and months before they actually occur. Anyhow, all the big trips for that year are on the calendar. We will be sticking to our usual pattern of two big vacations, plus a cruise-with-friends to Alaska.

The Alaska trip is always the easiest to figure out. Bernie and I pour through the offerings of our favourite Cruise lines, looking for interesting itineraries and price points. Our acceptable lines are Princess, Holland America, Celebrity, and Royal Caribbean. This year, it looks like a lean towards Holland America, as everybody's trips are pretty much the same, and they are coming in as the low bidder.

The first of the big trips on the docket involves a couple of weeks in California, and a month in Arizona. It will be our third such expedition down to retirement-community land, and might just be our last. We have enjoyed them greatly, but Helen is ready to move on to something else. She might change her mind once we're there. I am good either way.

The last of our major trips involves a lot more planning. We are heading off to a few days in Paris, followed by a few weeks in Britain, and topped off with a couple of weeks on a cruise ship out of England that pops down to the Mediterranean and back. The cruise was the first part that we committed to.

I've been watching flights, and they are just starting to fill up, so it's time to book the air travel. My rules for such a trip are to go non-stop if humanly possible, and with an airline that I trust to not make it more of an ordeal than absolutely necessary. I will run the flights past Helen, and give her a last chance to think about adding a couple more days to the trip, and then to book the flights.

The last step will be to nail down the hotel rooms. I've already decided on our London hotel. It's funny; people say that it's an expensive city, but the room rates seem just fine. Maybe that's because I am looking at small places recommended by travel writer Rick Steves. I read his descriptions, and then go online to get information about nearest underground station, precise prices, and to see hotel photos. It's a good system. I even look around the neighbourhood using Google Street-View.

Anyhow, that's the big travel stuff for 2017. We're already dreaming about going to Singapore the following year. Nothing in stone yet about that one; just wistful thinking.

Phone voyage

Well, the iPhone expedition all went well.

We got the car to the dealer for servicing a bit ahead of schedule. The wait was reasonable, and they had a supply of pastry and fancy coffees to keep us entertained.

The next stop was a brief stint for Helen in a massive fabric store. Then it was iPhone time.

Got right downtown. That wasn't the original plan, but the supply of model I wanted ran dry in all of the six Vancouver-area Apple Stores except for the place smack dab in the centre of the city. I therefore made the purchase online with pickup at the Pacific Centre location.

They whisked it out of the back for me post haste, and it sat in my big pocket for the rest of the day.

We also hit the downtown Costco, followed by a Walmart a bit closer to home. We were in the ferry lineup with a healthy time buffer for the 3:30pm boat.

A walk into Horseshoe Bay was therefore called for, with a lunch at Trolls restaurant.

Rode the boat, and another drive, and we were home.

A couple of days have passed, and the phone is everything that I was expecting. It has taken over most of my technological attention.

Yesterday evening, I headed off to Jiu-Jitsu as usual. Normally, I'd a have an iPod for music and audio books in the car, and my iPad Mini for possible use at the school. This time, all I had with me was my phone. It did the music/book chores better than the iPod could, and is large enough to act out the iPad's role as well. Instructional videos are fabulous in it, as are web surfing and all that sort of thing.

It's a keeper.

iPhone

I am a major psycho when it comes to my hobbies, or perhaps I should call them my addictions.

It is that way with Jiu-Jitsu, and Karate before that.

I'm also a major tech geek. I can't even accurately count the number of computers I've owned, but it comes in at something around 15. That works out to a new one every two years on average.

It doesn't even include all of my assorted other tech do-hickeys.

Within that category, there have been a great many Apple devices. I've owned 3 iPods, and 4 iPads.

The funny thing is; I've never owned an iPhone, although my wife has one.

Helen has an iPhone 6s, and before that had a 4s, and has loved them both from day one. We don't even have a land-line. Helen's phone is our only phone.

I have had a couple of cell phones over the years. Way back I had one about the size of a cinder-block that I needed for work. Only had it for a couple of years. More recently, I had a little clamshell shaped model cheapie, but hated it, and didn't keep it even as long as the first. The closest thing I've had to a phone since 2013 then has been my iPad Mini, which is hooked up to cellular data, and can that I can text with.

On Monday, we are going into the city for a car servicing, and I've decided to take the plunge and visit the Apple Store. My goal; a brand new iPhone 7+, with a stupid amount of memory.

Colour? Rose Gold, which means pink. This is for visibility. I misplace things and like bright items to minimize this. It is one of the largest phones around.

So what are some of the features that I'm looking forward to?

The iPhone 7+ has an absolutely stupendous camera. Actually, there are two of them. One is the same as in the smaller iPhone 7 model, and the other works as a magnifier to bring things closer. There are also a bunch of times when the two cameras do things together that will be fun to explore.

My wife has last year's model of the smaller version; an iPhone 6S. It has good battery life, and my new monster will have all of that, and a few more hours on top. An advantage to a big phone is room for equally big batteries.

The iPhone 7+ that I'm getting is huge, which means that I'll be using it more like a tablet than a phone. A regular iPad has a 9.7" screen, and a mini like mine is 7.9". My wife's phone is pretty big, and has a large 4.7" screen. Mine will have one that is 5.5" and somehow that is just over the line in making a device seem iPad-like. Of course, that is how if feels with the limited use of suck machines within an Apple Store. Only time will tell if it works that way in the real world. It is the right size for me in any case, as the typing keys on Helen's phone are just a hair too small for my fingers.

It also has all the regular Apple features, like unlocking with a fingerprint, and Siri.

What I am hoping for is a gadget simplification. My normal load when out for the day includes a shoulder bag with my extra-huge iPad Pro (12.9"), my iPad mini, and my iPod.

I use the iPod for my music in the car or when running or biking. My other devices are too big and clumsy. My new phone is still small enough to take on these chores.

My iPad Mini is hooked to cellular data, and is how I text with Helen, and with friends. I try and keep my bills small on that device, and only rarely use it for other online tasks when away from wifi. The new phone will take over all of those tasks. Our cellular provider has a great deal on right now where you get double data when signing up a new phone. I will no longer be on a low-calorie cellular diet.

The iPad Pro is for serious typing, and drawing, and watching movies and such, or even web surfing when I've got wifi. The model I own does not hook up to cellular. This is stuff the phone won't do.

So, going to Starbucks for coffee will see me with my huge iPad, and my iPhone. Going for a run will have me carrying only the phone. Out for shopping or chores? Also iPhone only.

I'll let you know how it works out.

Coal Miners Despair

Saw a story on a news magazine show the other night. It was one that our pvr collected, and patiently had waiting for us while we were in Hawaii. It was aired before the American election.

It showed a small town in West Virginia, that use to be booming when coal was king, but is currently only a shadow of what it was. Most of the place was boarded up, and the remaining population is mostly subsisting on welfare and food stamps. The best off were perhaps those old enough to be collecting social security.

They aren't expecting miracles, but in desperation were throwing their support overwhelming in favour of Donald Trump.

Over and over, townspeople said, “what have we got to lose?”

I felt for this town, and its people, and their desperation. They saw Clinton as being a continuation of an economy that had left them behind, and a government doing nothing for their situation. No wonder they were hoping that Trump, as an unknown quantity, would help them. Surely he would have to?

They were banking on hope, thinking that anything new would be better, except it won't.

Why would Trump care about resuscitating the coal mines?

But surely it won't get worse?

Trump is all about cutting taxes on the super rich, and selling it as repackaged trickle-down economics. This is a justification by rich folks for paying less than their fair share, and has been repeatedly debunked as nonsense.

To pay for Trump's tax cuts for the super rich, he is going to cut existing programs, and cut deep.

He and his cronies want to do away with Social Security, slash welfare programs, and do away with Medicare and Medicaid, and to gut education. They are also anti-union, and want to eliminate the minimum wage.

The desperate people in places like West Virginia have voted for the very person who will do everything he can to destroy what remains of their communities and their lives.

Moving

Every so often in martial arts training there occurs a major disruption.

Sometimes it can be a good thing, but more often it is not.

A few years back, our academy moved from its old location into our present facility. This was a great event. There was room for a truly epic mat, and change rooms, and the whole place just had a huge, open feel.

Now, the lease is up and it's time to move on. I am not sure when the moving day will be, but it is still a month or two away, and the search for a new place is underway.

Odds are that it will be a smaller venue; we've been so lucky for these few years. No small school ever gets such a great space.

Anyhow, it's one of those major disruptions I mentioned earlier.

Perhaps it will be positive, perhaps negative, and most likely a mix of the two.

Trump

So here's the deal.

It could go one of two ways.

The first is how almost everybody is hoping it will go. Trump takes over, and turns out to do a far more reasonable job than can humanly be expected.

Let's say this happens, and he doesn't ban Muslims from entering the USA, and doesn't try and get his Mexican wall built. Let's say he just cuts billionaires' taxes to the bone, raises the age on Social Security benefits to 75, halves Medicare, and a few other things like that. Let's say he doesn't even screw up foreign policy.

What would happen in the long run? Well, his base will feel betrayed, but even so, in four years he'd stand a very strong chance of re-election.

The other, much more likely scenario, is that it is bad; really, really bad.

He will immediately take over the Supreme Court by appointing some legally-blind right-wing fanatic into the current opening, and will keep doing so throughout his term.

He, along with a Republican Senate and Republican House will disassemble Social Security altogether, and Medicare, and Obamacare, and Planned Parenthood. They will strip public education, and veterans' benefits, and keep cutting taxes on the rich, and cutting, and cutting.

Minimum wage will freeze, at best, and perhaps even vanish altogether. Entire swathes of the population will have their rights stripped away.

New wars are started, and many will die..

Some are pinning their hopes on the Democrats taking the House away from the Republicans, but the entire system is so Gerrymandered that regardless of the will of the people, it will be an uphill battle. The Republican majority is so massive, that they will likely retain control in 2018, giving Trump a totally-free hand for his entire 4-year term.

It will be bad.

However, this is perhaps exactly what the American people need to see; rampant racism, Wall Street unregulated, incompetent foreign policy, with the aged forced to work until they drop, and privatization run amok.....every nightmare.

Let's assume this is how Trump's four years go.

Then, he either runs for re-election in 2020, or some other radical right-winger does, along with every seat in the House and 1/3 of the Senate.

I can see a ground-swelling of anger striking hard. I see a nation getting behind whoever is running against him in a way unseen since 1932.

You see, back then, the Republican Party ruled supreme. Harding had won the presidency in 1920 with 404 electoral college votes against the Democrats 127, followed by Coolidge in 1924 with 382 as opposed to the Democrats with 136, and Hoover in 1924 who won by 444 against 87. There really was no wing other than right wing. It didn't seem to matter that the Republicans made up the people in power who sought to legislate morality in an unprecedented manner called Prohibition, or that it almost destroyed law-and-order in the US, or that they were eventually forced to repeal it. What did matter is that the rampant, unregulated, stock market had collapsed, ushering in the Great Depression.

It also mattered that President Hoover, and all the right-wing government types, could do when the entire economy collapsed was to wring their hands and say that the same system that had destroyed itself, and the economy, would magically reverse and all would be well. It was a pity, they said, that so many were destitute, and were starving to death.

The voters rebelled.

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, won the 1932 presidential election with 472 electoral votes over the incumbent, Hoover's 59. He promptly went to work trying to inspire the nation, and implementing programs in an attempt to do something, anything, to help; right-wing wisdom be damned.

Back then, it seems, people had longer memories than they do now. Now, they think the economy sucks, and that it's Obama's fault. Back then they knew who had caused the grief, and how those same economy destroyers had not even tried to help fix it.

When election time rolled around again after four years of effort, Roosevelt won re-election with 523 electoral votes; failing to carry only two states, Vermont and Maine, and their 8 electoral votes. In fact, the people continued to hand Roosevelt two more impressive wins in 1940, and 1944, making him the only man to ever win the presidency more than twice.

That's what needs to happen. The American people need to get so motivated for real change that they reject the fallacies foisted on them by antiquated right-wing thinking.

What they should have done this time if they really had wanted change was to have thrown out every single incumbent in both House and Senate, and to NOT have elected a loose cannon as President.

The problem is, they still seem to think that the right-wing nonsense somehow still makes sense. "Trump will stick up for us." Really? Have you seen pictures of where he lives? He has absolutely nothing in common with working folks, or the middle class, or even with most rich people. He thinks he's the Emperor Caligula. He travels with a security team, and a cloud of go-fers, and lackeys. Do you think he carries a wallet with cash in it, and maybe a visa card? I seriously doubt that. He's more like the Queen. Things are done around him and for him. I doubt he dresses himself.

That's the man who will save the common people? Sure he will.

It has to get so bad that the voters need to reject this kind of stupidity forever. They need to see how critical it is that people earn a living wage, and receive proper medical care, and can retire with dignity, and have control over their own bodies, and are not persecuted for their ethnicity, or gender, and to have access to quality education.

It needs to get so bad that the voters scream for what they have in Germany, and France, and Norway, and Canada, and the rest of the western industrialized world.

A wave needs to sweep this all into being, for now and for always.

Strangely, Trump just might bring it all about.

Just Short

I am pretty darn proud of myself in overcoming my petty, little problem.

You see, my wife and I travel quite a bit, and I have had a few injuries, and that all plays havoc with the mandatory minimum attendance requirements. There is also a number of months a student has to remain in rank as well.

For me, the time was going to be up 3 days from today, on October 26^th. With nearly perfect attendance, the minimum of 100 appropriate classes can also be attained, and boom, new rank is qualified for.

My total, however, was not looking good.

I didn't notice how very bad it was until a few months ago, and I started taking steps to tighten things up. If I hadn't done so, I wouldn't be ready for promotion until February 1^st; over three months late.

I moved some travel dates around to be less disruptive, attended a Vancouver training seminar, and did a number of private lessons. This changed the very ugly February 1^st date up clear to December 5^th. I reclaimed almost two months.

There wasn't really anything else practical that I could have done.

I could have cancelled some travel plans altogether, or added travel to someplace that has more training that would have counted, such as the main LA school, or even to Vancouver.

To save the last month that I am short by doing something like that didn't make sense.

Take the nearby Vancouver school, for example. To attend, I would have had to miss sessions here at home. Perhaps I could have collected more that would have counted on my card, but would have had to give up equally valuable training here.

You see, I train far more than the 100 class requirement suggests. If everything counted, I would complete the total attendance requirement in no time, as I am on the mat, on average, for 9 sessions a week. Of these, only 3 “count.”

For example, the easiest out-of-town class to get to is on Saturday morning in North Vancouver. I would have to get up by 5am to catch the early ferry, hang around at some coffee shop until the class, attend for an hour, race for the ferry back, and get home around suppertime, all at a cost of well over $100. A hidden cost would be that I would miss about 2 hours of training at my home school. All this just to get to an hour of training that comes with a little check-mark on a card, instead of two hours of training that does not.

So I've done what I can so far. It also looks like soon, a few more private lessons might be possible. It looks like my current December 5^th date might sneak up a little more to around November 28^th; yet another week shaved off.

I do what I can, and won't let this happen again.

Petty Delay

It was going to be close getting all my requirements for Jiu-Jitsu promotion completed on time, but it was just possible. I'd moved some holiday dates around so they would less interfere with my attendance, and arranged for a number of private lessons.

Just possible, with not even a single class absence to spare.

Then I had a minor surgery, and then my bicycle decided to try and kill me, and then I came down with the flu.

Thinks didn't look so rosy anymore.

So why does it matter? That all has to do with being old. I am currently 60.

All is fine right now. I don't get hurt all that much, and for an old fart I heal pretty fast. Been managing to keep up with the young folks. The trick is that on my road through the Jiu-Jitsu ranks I will be facing two more major evaluations. They will judge me to pretty much the same standard as the youngsters, and it all has to do with rolling ability. To be ready to go on those test days, years from now, I will have to have accumulated all the requisite skills, and honed them over hundreds of hours of rolling.

I'm doing it at 60, but how much longer can I keep it up. No sweat for a few more years, but how about more than just a few, and there are so very many intermediate levels left to get through along the way.

Realistically, I will have to slow down at some point due to the ravages of time, but that then exposes me to more of that same ageing to reach the same levels. It's kind of like trying to improve at gymnastics when old, with people trying to rip your arms and legs off.

That's why I want to go progress as quickly as I can now, and get as far as possible before any slowdown occurs. It is my intention to push as close to the theoretical limits to promotion rate as I can, and hope to maintain at least the pace I've been able to achieve so far.

That's why the classes missed due to my tiny surgery, my bike crash, and my flu are so annoying. I was on track for theoretical-speed stripe promotion a couple of weeks from now, but now it looks like a one-month, or even a two-month delay.

I don't want any delays at any level.

Pea Brains

The USA has nuclear weapons, and it's very important that whoever is running things there has a good idea of what their use would mean.

In total numbers, they have 1790 deployed (sitting on fuelled and ready ICBMs), and more than another 5000 piled up, but that would need a bit of preparation prior to use. The active ones are currently all aimed at Russia. These have to be ready to go at a moment's notice, as an ICBM launched from Moscow towards Washington would arrive in between 20 and 30 minutes. If they wait until after incoming missiles actually arrive, there ability to strike back will be hugely compromised. The USA maintains fleets of spy satellites constantly watching Russian missile silos for evidence of a launch, and also watching world trouble spots for evidence of nuclear weapon use. So do the Russian.

To give you some idea of how deadly the US nuclear arsenal is, detonation of 100 average-sized nuclear weapons would be enough to extinguish all human life. They wouldn't need to go off over any particular target. That many going off anywhere on earth would paint the planet with radiation, and eject enough material into the atmosphere to trigger a blocking out of the sun world-wide. This is called nuclear winter, and would destroy all the crops on earth. Even those not killed by the explosions or radiation would starve to death in the cold and dark, which would last for years. The USA could do this easily 17 times over with their deployed warheads, and 50 times more with their stockpiles. They could kill us all 67 times over.

So could Russia. They have 1790 deployed warheads and 7300 in reserve. I bet somebody reading this will compare the Russian numbers to the American and say, “The USA is behind. They should make more.” What are you, stupid? The USA can kill us 67 times over, while the Russians can do it 90 times over, but that doesn't matter. Once you are comfortably past the ability to kill everyone on earth, no greater capacity makes any sense at all.

Next on the list is France. They can kill us all almost 6 times over. Britain can do it almost 4 times over. China could kill us all more than twice.

Then come the more recent members of the nuclear club. India can kill us all (110-120 warheads), as can Pakistan (120-130 warheads).

Israel is the only secret member of the club, although it's a very open secret. Estimates put their pile at anywhere from 60 to 400 warheads.

The newest and wackiest nuclear power is North Korea, with most likely less than 10 warheads. A strange thing about the North Koreans is that the world is worried about their ability to produce long-range missiles. The world is missing the point. If they just set the warheads off where they are, within North Korea, they would pretty much devastate Japan with the resulting clouds of radioactive dust. Japan is down wind of North Korea.

But I diverge, and will get back to the thesis of an American president needing to understand things about nuclear arms.

New presidents have lots of people who try to get them to understand, and so far they all have. None have threatened to use nuclear weapons, let alone used them other than the two atomic (small) bombs dropped on Japan in World War Two.

The USA and Russia (originally the Soviet Union, but the policy continues in Russia) keep their missiles aimed at each other and have made it abundantly clear that should either launch even one, it would be met with full retaliation. What that means is that if Russia launches a single shot at the USA, every available American nuclear weapon would be fired at Russia in response, and vice versa. They have also made it clear that a nuclear weapon used against an ally would be considered a direct attack against the USA or Russia. If Russia launches missiles at, say Italy, it would be met by complete US retaliation.

This policy is called Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) and has keep the nuclear powers too afraid of destruction to use their arsenals at all.

Every so often there is some crisis somewhere in the world, and somewhere in the USA some pea-brain will suggest nuking the bastards.

Let's say there is just such an event, in some country Russia cares nothing at all about, and American President Pea Brain launches a single nuclear missile at that country's capital city. It is kept secret. The Russians detect the launch, and in the handful of minutes available to them for analysis, they have to wonder about possible undetected parallel launches, and almost undetectable launches from ICBM-carrying submarines. Is it an American launch against them? The most likely result will be full retaliation, by Russia, met by a full launch by the USA.

Same scenario, but this time the USA says they're going to do it. Very likely the Russians will say that if they do so Russia will launch full retaliation. If they don't get the USA to back down, the genie is out of the bottle and will never go back in. Will the USA back down and not launch? If President Pea Brain was stupid enough to do this in the first place, there is an excellent chance he will push ahead. The most likely result will be full launches by both Russia and the USA.

A very realistic version of the scenarios would be regarding Iran. Elements within the USA are so afraid of the Iranians getting nuclear weapons that they want to stop them militarily. The unspoken threat has been American use of nuclear weapons. Let's say they make some kind of prior deal with the Russians, and blow up the Iranian capital of Tehran. Neighbouring Pakistan panics and launches all of theirs, which are currently aimed at India, who launches back. The world dies a couple of times over.

Or another one. President Pea Brain decides to go after North Korea's nuclear capability with nuclear strikes. They try and get Russian agreement, and also neighbouring China. Why on earth would either of them give a green light to the USA nuclear bombing North Korea? The most likely outcome would be the world dies again.

And if, in any of the scenarios, if the world doesn't end, is there an upside? Let's assume the USA uses a nuke on somebody small, and nobody launches anything else at anybody else.

The result would not be even slightly good. The only countries safe from President Pea Brain's treats of power would be those with nuclear arsenals. Countries may be stupid, but they are smart enough to see that. It might mean that, say, Jamaica would have to put up with a new reality, but many countries wouldn't. How long to you think it would take any of the western industrialized countries to go nuclear if they wanted to do so in a hurry? Japan? Germany? Canada? Within months the number of nuclear powers would grow from 9 to dozens. How lovely would that be, especially in a world where use of such weapons has become the status quo?

Fortunately, in the real world the genie is in the bottle. Use of nuclear weapons has been off the table for over 70 years.

Best to keep it that way.

Tax and Spend

You probably are aware that the USA has the lousiest social programs of all the western industrialized nations. Were you also aware that most American citizens consider themselves to be incredibly highly taxed?

Let's look at all this.

How heavily taxed are Americans really? According to the Central Intelligence Agency, the total rate of all income taxes, fees, payroll taxes, excise fees comes to 8.46% of GDP. That seems like a lot of scratch, but how does it compare? Certainly it is higher than Burma's 3.27%, but also less than Algeria's 45.26%. Perhaps it will make sense if we only include in the comparison western industrial nations.

35.05% Denmark

31.67% New Zealand

28.46% Britain

28.20% Norway

25.55% Belgium

24.17% Australia

23.61% Hungary

22.91% Ireland

22.78% Netherlands

22.62% Italy

22.13% Portugal

21.44% France

21.39% Finland

20.17% Austria

19.83% Greece

19.00% Sweden

18.59% Turkey

15.81% Brazil

14.82% Czech Republic

14.20% Argentina

12.93% Canada

11.94% Japan

11.79% Germany

10.71% Spain

10.00% Switzerland

8.46% United States

Interestingly, the figure for the USA would be quite different and more realistic if it were to include fees for things that are not charged for in the other countries on the list. For example, a university education carries no fee in the Netherlands, but is incredibly expensive in the US. In Britain there is no fee for medical care, but in the US there is. In a very real way, medical care does carry a fee either by taxation, or by user fee, or by payment to an insurer who then pays the fee. Interestingly, in the United States when people complain about the high tax rate they are talking about their 8.46% of GDP, and not what they pay as individuals for education, health, and such.

Of course, it doesn't seem like only 8.46% to them, as that is not what it feels like to the ordinary joe. Taken in this way, it most likely seems to them that taxes take about 1/3 of their income. However, even with this illusory point of view, their taxes are still nowhere near the highest of the industrialized western nations.

They do, however, get the least return on their dollar in terms of tangible benefits. What they do get is a bloated military.

The following are the ten countries with the largest military budgets; USA, China, Russia, Britain, France, Japan, Germany, India, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia.

Did you know that the highest spender on the list is the United States, and that they spend 12% more than all the other countries on that list combined? (in 2011 $682 billion versus $608.5 billion for all the other countries)

Beyond the top ten list of spenders, there is really no serious threat. The remaining 186 countries of the world have a combined military budget of $385.5 billion.

Do they really need to spend that much? Let's just play another little numbers game, and add up all the world's military budgets other then the USA, and then remove a few that it would be ridiculous to consider a potential enemy to the United States (long-time NATO allies, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea and a couple of others). You then have three piles of money to compare; USA budget at $682 billion, super-friendlies at $540 billion, and the entire-rest-of-the-freaking-planet at $454 billion.

Can you even think of a fictional scenario whereby the USA has to fight the entire planet that movie goers could swallow? Neither can I, but if it were to happen, leaving out the super-friendlies, the USA has almost a 50% superiority over the rest of the world.

Let's devise a non-batshit-paranoid-level of spending for the USA to maintain and call it just regular-paranoid spending. Let's take the top ten spenders who are not on the super-friendlies list (four countries), and then have the US match that amount. It comes to almost exactly half of what the USA is spending now.

That implies a 50% slashing of the US budget with no real-world weakening of the US in terms of world power, at a saving of over $1000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States per year, forever.

That could easily mean improving government programs, along with bitching tax reductions.

Say, for a family of four. A few thousand more in their pockets to spend, and the kids get to go to college free.

Draft

I think I've come up with a solution to a pile of the world's woes.

What we need is universal conscription; you know, a draft.

I bet that isn't something you'd expect to hear from a left-leaning, freedom-loving, liberal kinda guy. Let me explain in more detail before you click off to someplace else on the internet.

Our young people head off to school from the ages of 5 to 18. This used to be considered enough, but with shrinking job markets, it rarely is. Typically, kids head off to years of trades training, or college, or university after they finish their regular schooling.

I would suggest that between completion of grade 12, and any further schooling, that our young people be universally required to serve their country.

A key to this cunning plan is that this service should be truly, universal. None of that nonsense about deferments for married folks, or for parents, or for those not perfect physically. The only exceptions should be for those who are truly incapable of serving in any way. The system would need to be designed to be as immune from gaming as possible. Political influence, and family wealth should not be able to buy the conscript into either a cushier spot, or out of the system altogether.

For the majority, this should be military service, but not for all. When my wife's German cousin was required to do his service many years ago, there is no way he belonged in the army. He did his time working in a regular, civilian hospital. He was required to serve for a little longer.

This service should be done as far from home as possible, and with a minimal sort of wage. All needs must be met for the conscripts; food, shelter, training, clothing.

You might be recoiling in horror at the expense, but you shouldn't. Every one of those young people is already being fed, sheltered, and clothed.

Let's look at a couple of examples.

The USA currently produces about 23.3 million 18-year-olds per year. Let's say that 90% of these are able to perform service of some kind, and that half of those are suitable for military service.

Let's adopt the Austrian model. They are one of the few western countries to currently have conscription. Their young people are inducted for 6 months of training, and then placed into reserve status for the next 8 years (they go home and resume their lives, but can be called up in an emergency)

That means that a country the size of the USA would have 2.5 million draftee soldiers at any one time serving, and 2.5 million or so people doing other service.

Currently, the American military consist of 1.37 million men and women. This professional core would need to be re-purposed to become a training cadre for the young recruits, rather than as the nation's primary combat force. They would provide the officers and NCOs, rather than the riflemen. They would also occupy specialist roles that short-term recruits could not.

For a country the size of Canada, the numbers would be even more staggering. Our small population would be producing 250,000 military and 250,000 non-military conscripts every six months. Our current goal military strength is only about 59,000.

For any country, the 6-month mobilization of their youth seems incredible, and daunting, but it shouldn't.

Think of all the high schools in your area. Every kid in there is, in effect, conscripted into school. Nobody thinks anything of that. My suggested program would be somewhat similar to having every student spend an additional 6 months in school, except it wouldn't be in school.

There is a lot of moaning about how the current generation of young people has been spoiled by over protective parents. A stint in service would likely both eliminate any such tendencies, but likely also shut up the complaining from an older generation that was sparred any such service.

Suppose you had a small business, and had a choice between two job applicants. One had only finished high school, while a second had also served 6 months of service in the army. Based on nothing else, which would you hire? How about a grade 12 grad, or somebody who had also done 6 months of janitorial work in a care home?

If you are picking the same as I would, we are already in agreement as to the positive effects that such an experience would have on those people.

Would it hurt the conscripts in any way during normal times? I can't see how. They leave home, are sent someplace new to live, are taken care of, given a little money, and hang out with same-aged people in an adventure.

Could it hurt them in non-normal times; say during a time of military conflict? Here, you've got me. For those doing military training, it could easily cost them their lives.

I contend that isn't a bad thing. In a true emergency, such as the Second World War, it would mean that a country such as Canada would be able to recall up to 8 million trained individuals (500,000 per six month period who could be recalled along the Austrian model for up to 8 years). This is far more than would ever be required. In the USA, it would mean up to 80 million. In either case, that would be over 1/4 of the population.

In a lesser, and much more likely event, it would still be a good thing. There is altogether too much military adventuring these days. The reason that governments are able to get away with it is that the fighting and dying is all done by the country's professional forces. Under my system, it would be conscripts nearing the end of their training who would be sent, and if more were needed, then reservists from previous groups would be pulled from their lives and sent.

It would be much harder to get a nation's voters to accept sending people off to kill and die if they might be the voter's own kids, or might even be the voters themselves. That is also why it is necessary that the system be universal. I wonder if George W Bush would have been as keen to invade Iraq for no reason if either of his own twin daughters were likely to be sent off to fight.

Citizens, however, would be willing to support realistic and understandable military intervention. After 911, the citizens of the US were clamouring for action in Afghanistan, and likely would have done so even if citizen soldiers were put in peril. Canada, too, sent troops into that conflict and it was widely supported by the citizenry. It seemed important, and worth doing.

In the case of a military intervention overseas, it wouldn't be more people dying, just different ones. Far less regular soldiers would be put in peril. In their place, a random cross section of the nation would be doing a fair share of the suffering. As this would discourage that type of activity, it would mean less death overall.

So I say, draft them all, and put them to work. If they are not right for the army, put them into alternative service. Give them an adventure away from home. Then, if needed, they would serve in time of war.

They would not only be there to serve their country militarily, but to discourage their country's use of force.

Political Teams

There is a term used for serious devotees; they are called fans.

I would say that the American people are the biggest fans on earth.

They have their chosen teams; often having favourites in each of many popular team sports. The root of the word fan, is the more intense word, fanatic. American sport fandom truly approaches the fanatical. Any loss can be a cause of rage, and an important loss is a time for tears. They scream at television screens across the nation on every game day.

They love their teams with an incredible level of commitment. Often, they will follow their team from cradle to the grave, longer than they are with any spouse, parent, or child. It takes a lot for a team to break this tie. Wins certainly don't do it, nor do losses. Criminal behaviour by players is overlooked, as are cash grabs by management. About the only thing that can end the affair is if a team leaves its home base and relocates somewhere else far away.

I don't understand or feel this kind of commitment to any sort of sports team, but I can certainly see that it is a very real thing. One would have be blind not to.

Even stranger to me, is that Americans treat political figures and parties with the same kind of fanaticism. They do it with the as much commitment and intensity as they do their sports loyalty. This would be fine, except that politics is a much more important endeavour.

Their 2016 election is plagued by exactly this type of team loyalty.

The two sides are called Republicans and Democrats. It is this way in every election, and the outcome is largely decided by a very small category of voters known as the undecided. This year it is quite different.

A while back, the two teams picked their candidates, and they were Trump and Clinton.

The loyalty damage hit right away. A lot of younger Democrat supporters had wanted Bernie Sanders to be their party's representative, and in a huff decided to vote for a third-party candidate. This would make some sort of sense if the third-party choices were not anti-everything-that-the-young-Democrats-liked-in-Sanders. Sanders himself seems unable to convince them of this, although over time the third-party candidates have been doing a pretty good job doing so all on their own.

On the other side, an even bigger split has been occurring. Typical Republican Party and voter behaviour is to support their boy with pit bull-like intensity. However, the candidate himself seems to be unlike any before. As the months have gone by, a great many extremely stalwart Republicans have felt themselves unable to support Trump. For example, there are two living Republican former presidents. Neither publicly supports Trump, which is unheard of.

Many other prominent Republicans have also come out as not supporting Trump. Doing this means that they are actually saying they want Clinton to win, which is also unheard of. The list is growing constantly, and includes a great many Congressmen, Senators, former presidential candidates, Governors, party members, and other notables. There are likely more than are known about, but who are doing so privately.

At the recent debate, Trump did very poorly, and has since been acting very unstable. He has been lashing out at irrelevant adversaries, and in ways that weakens his own appeal.

It is becoming harder and harder for Republican supporters, and even for Trump fanatics to stick to the plan. Do you follow the official Republican line that Trump is the one, or do you follow the significant part of the party that says he isn't? Can you stick to Trump regardless, and really think that you will be voting for an acceptable candidate?

It is like making the decision to stop supporting a beloved football, baseball, or basketball team, but also quite different. There can be something noble about sticking with a team, and not abandoning them just because they have been having major troubles, and have no chance of winning. There is nothing noble about sticking with a candidate who is having major troubles, wither they have a chance of winning or not.

If the candidate is turning out to be a horrid choice, sticking with them is exactly the wrong thing to do. Doing so is even a worse decision if they actually have a possibility of winning.

I think a great many Trump supporters find themselves in just such a situation. I suspect there is a great deal of soul searching going on right now, or at least I hope there is.

There will always be hard-core Trump fans who will vote for him on November 8^{th regardless. They} will do so even if it turns out he attends Satanic religious services, gets arrested for rape, admits to incest, is found to be on Russia's payroll, and is a drug addict, and switches back to pro-choice, and to pro-gun-control, and admits he actually isn't rich at all. “Trump all the way!”

It is the other Trump supporters who are suffering right now. It is the ones who have it in their DNA to stick with their candidate, but who are seeing too many flaws in his behaviour and character. When do they pull the plug? It certainly doesn't look like he's going to start looking better between now and election day. When will enough be enough? What if he is clearly the wrong man, they vote for him, and somehow he manages to win? That would be the exact the opposite of an optimal outcome.

I feel real empathy for these people, and hope that they can reconcile everything in a way that works for them, and for their country.

Wages

Here's the real deal with raising the minimum wage.

Let's say somebody is considering opening a burger joint in a town that doesn't have one. Rent for the facility is figured in, and a reasonable profit, and the cost of the ingredients, and power, and advertising and everything is worked out.

Right now, it seems to be popular opinion that minimum wage should be $15 an hour. Let's work with that. I don't know if that's really enough to really live on, but let's say it is. Don't be one of those old farts who says things like, “when I had a minimum wage job it only paid $3.50 an hour, and I got by.” I did, too, but candy bars were about a dime, and they are now a buck-and-a-quarter. On that scale your olden-days $3.50 minimum wage would be worth over $40 in today money, so stop it.

So our businessman figures out that to pay his workers a $15 minimum wage, the burgers would end up costing more than anybody would be willing to pay.

Simple, if people are unwilling to pay enough at a restaurant for burgers so that the workers can have decent lives, then they can make cook burgers themselves at home.

But they want to go out for burgers.

This is economics 101. If people will pay enough for something, the market will provide it, and if not, then the market will not. All that a healthy minimum wage does is prevent people's consumption being subsidized by the underpaid workers who provide the products.

Let's say that the minimum wage is raised to a decent-living level, and that it boosts the prices in restaurants and stores. It could well mean less business due to the higher costs, but that's just too bad.

How much money could you live on? I don't mean living high-on-the-hog; but rather a decent place to live, food, and a bit of fun. Dare I even suggest that store clerks should be able to have a car, or that burger shop workers should?

A full time (37.5 hour a week in BC) at $15 comes to $2437 a month, or $29250 a year. The poverty line in Vancouver is $24460 per year. The radical plan of a $15 minimum wage merely boosts our lowest-paid workers to less than $5000 a year above poverty. Why should they be poor? They should be living above the poverty line.

The math is even less generous when the job is less than full-time. Many employers to this so that they can save money on benefits. Let's make it a 20 hour a week job. They will still be almost $9000 a year below the poverty line, even at $15 an hour. It is literally true that people currently working a 20-hour-per-week job are better off unemployed and on welfare.

So I say raise that minimum wage, and while we're at it, make it applicable to all workers. The current exception for waiters is ridiculous. Did you know that tipping is a largely a custom only in North America, and has been so only since the 1930s? Most of the world doesn't do it at all.

So pay people decently, and if you can't, then stop expecting them to work for nothing.

Voting

There are things I am really proud of that my country does.

We are one of many democracies around the world, and our citizens get to vote.

That sounds simple, but it really isn't. There are many, many questions that have been raised in the world's democracies about that privilege.

Who should be denied that right? In the past, it was not extended to various racial groups, or to women. This is considered to be insanity, but this it was not always that way. Now, this is considered a no-brainer.

There also used to be property restrictions. Wouldn't want poor people voting, now would we? Those are now long gone, but this isn't true for citizens of every country.

It wasn't until 1988 that federally-appointed judges would legally vote. What was the deal with that all about? In theory they were supposed to be considered impartial to such matters, but in reality it was just plain stupid.

But what about criminals in prison? Should they retain the power to vote? What about after their release? In our good neighbour to the south, 5.8 million convicted felons are denied the power to vote, and in 13 states they are permanently disenfranchised. They are not alone, as there are other countries that do this also.

What about people considered mentally incompetent? In 30 American states there are limitations put on the voting rights of this group. Again, the US is not unique in this.

What about people who are unable to get to the polls on election day? Are they going to be able to vote?

How about citizens who are not only unable to attend on election day, but who are not even resident in Canada?

I love the solution Canada has chosen to all of these issues.

If you are Canadian, and 18 years of age, you will be able to vote. We have learned from all the racial, and gender nonsense of the past that nobody should have the power to restrict a citizen's right to vote.

If you are in prison, you will be able to vote. Your ballot will be counted in the district where you were last resident before your incarceration. Once released, you are exactly like everybody else. Interestingly, polls show that incarcerated voters pretty much vote exactly like citizens on the outside.

Nobody ever gets to deny your right to vote based on mental competence anymore. You have every right to show up and poll, or to send in a distant ballot, and people will be available to assist you.

If you cannot get to the polls on election day, or even if you just don't want to, you may register an early vote by mail.

You don't even have to be resident in the country to do this, and Canadian expatriates around the world retain this right, although only a small percentage take advantage of it.

A recent prime minister decided to remove voting rights from Canadians who had been living abroad for 5 years or more. This affected 1.4 million citizens, although typically only about 6,000 on average cast ballots in any federal election. This sparked general outrage, and it was an issue that helped him to lose the next election by a landslide.

In fact, the only Canadians who don't vote are those who can't be bothered to make the effort, are under 18, or who don't want to.

Except for two people in the entire country. The Chief Electoral Officer, and the Assistant Chief Electoral Officer are not able to vote, as they are supposed to remain impartial at all times.

I say let those last two bastards vote. Make it a totally clean slate.

Home Team

Last night the turnout wasn't really big on the mat. This is pretty normal for a small school like ours. I had exactly four people to spar with, and rolled with them all.

Even on a well-attended night, there might only be about 8.

The good side of this is that we are all really comfortable with each other, and are perfectly willing to try out any weird or new stuff. The chance of getting hurt is pretty low, and our egos certainly don't mind getting owned by our good friends.

The down side is that it can be all too easy to think we're doing well, when in a larger world we may not be.

Some of us worry about this. I don't.

I have been to a number of seminars that were open to everybody. I have also trained at several schools other than ours, including the huge Gracie Academy in Los Angeles. I have had literally hundreds of partners from outside of our little circle, a fair number of whom were not even from our branch of Jiu-Jitsu.

What we do in our little school is just fine. Others of us have not had my experience in the outside world, and so feel less sure.

What I've experienced has been both good and bad. The good is having lots of other partners with different mannerisms and different technique. There have also been negatives as well.

Overall, my outside experience falls into two categories.

The first has been training and rolling with people from our lineage of Jiu-Jitsu; based out of The Gracie Academy organization under Ryron and Rener Gracie.

We are all white-gi people, with a high-level of hygiene. Uniforms are treated as single-use between washes.

We all have the same basic understandings about learning technique. Things are demonstrated, and then learned with a partner, taking turns. There is no resistance when starting out on a new movement, and only very slowly ramped up. The idea is that it is all for the partner whose turn it is to succeed in the movement, and then to drill within that success.

When rolling, the majority are in it to flow. There are exceptions, but even so it always feels safe.

The other category of outside experience is that of training and rolling with people from other lineages of Jiu-Jitsu.

Here, there are also white-gi people, but also back gis, blue, and pretty much everything else. I am sure some just like the look, but some clearly do it to hide the grime. Hygiene levels vary greatly. Some people re-use gis more than once, and some clearly wear uniforms much too much between washes. This is not merely gross, but very dangerous. Bacteria and fungus thrive in such an environment.

Some are great partners for learning technique, but not all. Some insist on doing things the way they've always done it, rather than as taught and demonstrated by the session's instructor. Some do everything possible to thwart their partner when it is the partner's turn to try and perform the technique. When working with some partners, pain and injury is quite possible.

I am yet to experience a flow roll with any partner from outside of our lineage. It's as if they think they are going for a gold medal and a million-dollars in prize money in every roll, injury be damned. I like it that way occasionally, but for some of these folks it is their only setting.

It is a big enough difference that I always try to prearrange a partner whenever attending a seminar. That way I'll come home having learned as much and as thoroughly as possible, and without unnecessary injuries.

Now don't get mad if you are a black-gi, hard-rolling person. I've also had great partners with those leanings and background. I'm sure you aren't the problem.

It's just that I've only ever had a handful of know-it-all, chatty, dirty, smelly, lesson-ignoring, bad-drill, injury-causing partners, and the vast majority have been from outside of my greater Jiu-Jitsu family, and none from within my own wee school.

Therefore, I like working with them best, few as we are.

Electoral Stuff

I am scared about this American election. One of the candidates, Clinton, is pretty boring, but can do the job, and the other is Trump. There is no way he can be trusted with control of a superpower, especially one with thousands of nuclear weapons.

There are two things about this that spark my terror. The first is that Americans often often too apathetic to vote, especially if they think their vote isn't needed. Clinton has been ahead in the polls through much of the campaign, and is currently sitting at around a 3% ahead. This goes up and down, and I'm scared that if it seems too one-sided by election day, the Clinton voters won't bother to vote.

The way it works is that the win goes to the candidate who can get the most electoral votes. In most states it doesn't matter by how much they win, as all of that state's votes go to the winner. Some states are more sensible, but not the majority. Win a state by one vote, and it is as if their entire population voted for the winner. Winning by more than that doesn't change a thing.

National opinion polls don't take this into consideration.

What matters are the winner-take-all states where things are neck-and-neck.

Trump voters, behind in the polls, know that their votes are critical, and will turn out in better numbers. It won't matter in the Clinton states, or in the Trump states, but might control the swing states.

The other thing that scares me are the people who don't want Trump, and don't find Clinton appealing enough, and won't vote for either.

A significant number of life-long Republicans fall into this category. They refuse to vote for Trump, but can't bring themselves to vote for Clinton. The reality of the American system is that responsible voters only have two ways to vote.

Let's say some winner-take-all state has a vote split 44% for Clinton, 45% Trump, 9% for tiny parties, and 2% Republican that do NOT want Trump. It will swing on what happens to those disenchanted Republican voters. Let's say they all decide to either not vote, or to vote for one of the tiny parties. Sure, they are not supporting Trump, but they are not stopping him either. In this example, Trump wins the state and all of its electoral votes. If those Republicans were to understand the danger of their actions and instead vote Clinton, the win and the electoral votes would go to her.

There is also a body of disenchanted Democrats who wanted Bernie Sanders for president, and who are refusing to pick the better of Trump and Clinton, and will throw their votes away.

It will all depend on how the vote lands on election day. Surely you remember the vote of 2000, when George W Bush took the presidency with a smaller overall vote than the loser, Al Gore. It came down to one incredibly close vote in the state of Florida. They recounted there over and over. When the dust cleared, Bush got the nod. He had received 50,456,002 votes to Gore's 50,999,897 in the country as a whole. Bush won with 271 electoral votes to 266. If even the tiniest state had flipped the other way, so would have gone the election.

Out of all the things that Americans could do to strengthen their democracy, getting rid of the electoral college system should be front and centre. There should be one ballot for president cast by every voter, and they should be all counted together in one huge pile.

Almost as bad is what will likely happen with the other voting that day as well. All of the seats in the House of Representatives are up for grabs, along with 1/3 of the Senate. For any president to be fully effective, it is critical that they get a House and Senate they can work with.

A potential mess.

Alicia Keys

The projected 2016 gross revenue of the US cosmetics industry is $62.46 billion dollars. That works out to about $385 for every female human being in that entire country. If it is assumed that about 1/4 don't use any (babies, little kids, crazed hippies, and the elderly), it is more like $514 per consumer.

As, of course, there will be many women than that who don't use any, or who spend significantly less money, it means that a great many women are paying a great deal more for their greasepaint.

Most men say that they are not attracted to women who wear makeup, and get scolded by wearers whenever they say this. These women typically respond that they do not wear cosmetics for that reason, but that they do it for themselves (whatever that means).

Recently, Alicia Keys attended some big la-dee-dah gala even sans makeup, and it was immediately noticed by the media and greatly commented on, mostly negatively. How dare this celebrity walk a red carpet without her face being painted up like Kewpie doll? To many others she's being hailed as a hero for her courageous act. Courageous? For not caking up her face?

Something is clearly all ass backwards.

I am lucky in that I live in Canada, where makeup is less of a thing. It is still around, just not as much. The vast majority of women I see on a daily basis are not wearing much if any makeup. Some wear it, but certainly not all.

However, even here, there is something wrong.

It isn't just a fun and perky thing to do.

I have known women who never, ever go out in public without full makeup. I don't mean they choose this, but it seems to have chosen them. They refuse to be seen without makeup. If they had none available, they would hide in their homes, likely with the blinds drawn. Some of them, I have never seen without makeup.

Even our language is somehow twisted. Media stories supportive of Alicia Keys stand say she is, “beautiful even without makeup.”

Really? If you are beautiful, then by definition you are beautiful without makeup, and likely beautiful with it except greasier. Why would it be a shock that a beautiful woman would be beautiful without cosmetics?

If I were to wear some kind of mask that made me look like a real hunk from a distance, would that mean I was a handsome guy? The response would be more along the lines of, “Hey, Quasimodo, cool mask you've got there.” Nobody would confuse the mask with me.

This is all pretty sad, as makeup likely is a fun thing for many, many women. Let's say somebody shows up at work with no makeup; fine. Let's say she wears bright red lipstick; fine. Black would be fine, or a subtle shade of something. Nobody would think she really had crimson lips, or blue, or whatever.

Eye makeup can also be jolly, but somehow it can also be a problem. I bet a lot of makup-junky women would have no difficulty going to the mall without lipstick, but would be unable to do so without their raccoon eyes caked up. Such eyes are often the exact opposite of what the wearer thinks they are. They are not mysterious, and exotic, and beautiful. They are usually just plaster-like, gross, and creepy.

If you are one of those eyebrow removers who paints on fake ones, just stop it. You're scaring the children.

The worst makeup in my opinion is the crap that gets layered all over the skin in general, be it base, foundation, blush, or whatever the heck it gets called.

A year ago I was in Austria. Generally speaking, the women in Vienna were very stylish indeed, in dress and haircut. They also wore little eye and lip makeup. On their facial skin, it was a different matter. They use much, much more of that kind of thing than anything I've seen in North America. It wasn't an isolated thing at all, but rather the norm.

Somehow, they just weren't looking right at all. It was really bothering me, and I didn't know why for a couple of days, then it hit me. Their faces looked more like store mannikins than they looked like real, live people.

You see, there is a translucent property to real skin that can never be duplicated in a flesh-coloured cosmetic concoction. These women had faces that were perfectly the right colour for skin, but it didn't look like skin at all. Their hands did, and their arms, and legs, and even necks, but it was as if they had pasted manikin faces over their own. Creepy.

Many North American women do the same thing, just not to the same degree. They are painting their skin with things meant to look exactly like the skin underneath, but better. They always fail, as they are only making themselves look less human.

Don't get mad about my observations please. If you like makeup for fun, go right ahead. If you are addicted, and nobody has seen your real face in years, I am sorry for you. If you use cosmetics daily, maybe you are in the later category, rather than the former.

If you are paying $514 a year or more for the crap, then you be crazy.

And if you are one of those bold men blazing the trail into male makeup use, I have one thing to say to you....Donald Trump....