Friday, 30 September 2016

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.



Saturday, 17 September 2016

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.




Wednesday, 14 September 2016

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.



Sunday, 11 September 2016

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.



Saturday, 3 September 2016

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....




Friday, 2 September 2016

Koko and Koala

This week Koko and I have been working hard on a thing I shall call, “deep half guard.”

Different people think part of what our style of Jiu-Jitsu calls, “deep half guard” isn't anything at all, but is just a transition into it. I am going to stick to that name for all of the stuff I'm talking about.

Part of it is review. We learned the early part as a string of moves and options performed when underneath an opponent when you have one of his legs trapped between yours. It was both interesting and useful, but not revolutionary in any why, nor inspiring. It was our first scratching of the surface of “deep half guard”. We learned what was presented to us, and moved on to other stuff.

Just recently, new material was released to us, including stuff which builds upon our earlier “deep half guard.” It started with a surprising move that took our earlier “deep half guard” into something we'd never seen before, at least on purpose. You end up with your head sort of nestled in your opponent's lap, while all of your arms and legs cling tightly to one of his legs. Did I mention that he's sitting on top of you? From that position, you can fling him off in a shockingly large number of directions.

At that point, both of us were intrigued, but we needed some kind of terminology to distinguish what we'd been calling “deep half guard” for several years from the new four-limbed cling on the opponent's leg. I forget which of us said it, but the word “koala” was thrown out, and stuck. We now can't call it anything else.

So we had our “koala” position, and the sweeps and throws and escapes it gave us. In no time we were doing it with astounding speed.

“Look at me trapped underneath this big lug, and now my-arm-moves-and-my-legs-whip-and-I-cling-and-throw-you-to-the-side-and-am-on-top-of-you bitch.....”

Then the lessons showed us how to get the same effect when underneath a full mount, or an opponent has us pinned by knee-on-stomach. BANG-on-top-of-you and you don't know what we did.

Overnight I studied the ways that the Gracies provided to defeat our new, cunning “koala” moves. We worked them a little, mostly to understand the weaknesses of what we'd been learning. Together again we worked on minimizing the risks to our “koalas” from those same highly-effective defences.

If it sounds stupid, it really is. Doing it in any real fight will get you killed unless they have a deep religious conviction against smashing your face in with their fists or elbows. That doesn't really matter when we roll with each other, and it's just so darn much fun.

For me, discovering and loving a technique like this can be a game changer. They have come for me every great once in a while, but for about the last six months the rate has greatly increased.

We've had the first level of advanced material since before I was a Blue Belt, so I've never know a time without it being around. A few things in there set off my fireworks, but not many. It was mostly a slow process to learn it and make it work.

The second level has been around for about two years, and again it was mostly slow and steady, with only a very few revolutions.

This year, we've also had level three, and it is packed with stardust. I've hit explosion after explosion of inspiration. Over and over I've radically changed how I do things. It has been wonderful.

Also interesting, is that I've found it so exciting that I literally can't wait for the lessons to be presented in class. I push ahead, and learn them ahead of time. Much of the time it's been hard, with nobody to work with.

I got lucky, as about 4 months ago Koko was around for a few weeks exactly when I needed a partner who was eager to work on whatever I wanted. It was time to work the new bottom-of-side-mount stuff. Fireworks all over and a huge reconstruction of both my game and hers. Lucky again this week, as it was exactly the time when a partner was crucial to work up the “koala.”

A true partnership. Both times I would learn it the best that I could solo, then show Koko, and then we'd work it until we were both fluent. We would both find things, and holes, and strengths.

An example happened a couple of days ago. Koko was doing things faster and tighter than me, over and over. She saw a pattern towards the end of the sweep resembling a leg-lock submission, but one of her own legs was positioned in a way that made the move impossible, and fixing it at that point would be much too slow. She saw the move, but not quite how to get there.

As I'd been the victim a whole bunch of times, I'd been observing her moving into that spot over and over. Instead of trying to figure out how to get where she wanted to be, I got her to get into her desired finish and then pulled her backwards through the move until almost the beginning. At that point, we could both see a spot where her offending leg could be simply moved a few inches to end up precisely where desired when going in the original direction. We ran the move a bunch of times forward, and it worked just fine. Neither of us would have been able to figure that out alone.

Part of the fallout of all this is that I've offered to teach this section to the class when the right time rolls around. Scott would do it fine, but will not have had all the repetitions, and fun, and excitement with the moves that I will have had. He's said it's OK with him.

Will try and spread the enthusiasm and fireworks.