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.