So various exhortations show up to the effect of "stop trying to kill people by taking away their healthcare" in reference to the current American political situation. ("debate" would be going somewhat too far.)
This is a reasonable thing to complain of, but I think misses the point.
"To spend is to tax", to quote Milton Friedman. What's going on is the continued assertion that the government has no right to tax.
It has no right to tax because it spends money for bad reasons (that is, to benefit those whom God has judged and found wanting; you can tell because they're poor, or not pale, or female) and because to remove the wealth of good people (to be rich is to be good, and let us pass lightly over those who aspire to goodness but have yet to achieve it) is itself a sin.
That's it. That's the whole thing. It's internally consistent, and it's easy, and it copies itself into the future really well. It's a looters ethos, indifferent to the simple fact that looting is destructive. (You might get the gold and the jewels out of Lindisfarne, but you still burnt it down in the process. People died. People will freeze and starve.)
This seems to be an inevitable response to wealth concentration; insecurity management by wanting more money is not effective in the long term, because it will eventually break the economy, and then the money can't buy anything.
So right now there's a view that "you know, decency and efficiency and an awareness that we can't predict the future all indicate we ought to have a carefully regulated single-payer health care system" and a view that health and wealth indicate virtue and if you haven't got those things God doesn't want you to have them. (Yes, this has something to do with White Supremacy the economic system, but it's not quite that. It's more about who is allowed to be holy (wealthy, same difference) than it is about the direction of resource flow.) It's not about healthcare or decency or even the strange and terrible religion that money is proof of holiness; it's about the legitimacy of taxation, which must be strongly asserted.
There's a simple fix -- coming up with a better distributed rationing system than money isn't simple, though I'm sure we could and I'm sure we need as good a rationing system as we can possibly obtain because food security's going away at a great pace -- which is to re-monetize, but not at one to one. If you're rich, you stop being rich. (If you're a Russian gangster with bales of US hundred dollar bills, well. You're an idiot, and now you're an unhappy idiot, which might not be an argument against.) (This is, after all, why FDR is hated with such a complete hate; FDR effectively did this, and made the money less holy thereby.)
Easy, no, not easy, but if any outcome involving a surviving civilization is going to take a certain vehement insistence that the very wealthy participate in the statistics of doleful outcomes anyway, might as well try for better long term stability.
 cap income at 10 times the lesser of the mean or the median income; cap assets at fifty times the income cap. (That is, you worked from 20 to 70, maxed out every year, and kept all of it.) With a median income around 50 k, that's 500k and 25 million, respectively. Not a threshold of suffering.)
26 July 2017
So various exhortations show up to the effect of "stop trying to kill people by taking away their healthcare" in reference to the current American political situation. ("debate" would be going somewhat too far.)
25 June 2017
Ok, look. I absolutely possess incompetence at humaning. People who like me express non-rhetorical doubt about my material humanity. Anything that involves being any good at politics is precisely what I can't do for half a distant squeaky noise at an antique hinge convention.
And I know that "change the system" is inherently nonsense; the point of a system is that you can't change it. (If you can change it, it isn't a system; it hasn't got feedback that keeps it stable.)
What you can do is replace the system. The way you replace the system is by finding the people who experience uselessness in the current system and convince them that your proposed change gives them use and significance. People will do almost anything not to be useless. (Most of the current anglosphere political struggle is over whether non-white, non-male people can have inherent utility, as distinct from the derivational utility of making white, male people happy.)
So, not only would Bernie not have won, arguing that Bernie would have won is a way to avoid acknowledging that the voting is not fair and open so it really doesn't matter who would have won a free vote; the core threat from Hillary is not personal incompetence but demonstrating non-white, non-male inherent utility in unequivocal ways. (Guess why the votes are free and fair. Go on, guess.) Can't have that; there's a clear majority of folks who the current system insists are inherently useless, and they're way more numerous than the middle aged white males who figure their uselessness is someone else's fault and stop thinking there. (It's not obviously a false conclusion, but stopping there and blaming who you're told to blame isn't especially clever.)
There's another bit about La Dauphine and whether it's real desire for post-patriarchal power structures or the cynical appearance of such a desire. And still a third bit -- of course we want a different system. The current system has failed utterly. We're having a self-inflicted existential crisis for the next hundred years because that was apparently easier and better than not being quite as rich.
19 June 2017
Ok, first off -- the people complaining about privilege are (generally) complaining about a real thing.
They're not complaining about it effectively, in part because they're (generally) utter strangers to the exercise of actual power and in part because they're (at risk of being) violently suppressed if they speak frankly. The whole notion of "privilege" is passive-voice and lacking actors.
(Rather like "Black Lives Matter"; absolutely about just complaints, but if you have to call it that it's not going to work.)
I'm going to ignore how the power structures got there. I'm just going to talk about what they do.
There's two kinds of things that the power structures do. One is not interfere; basic levels of participating in the power structure mean your daily business doesn't get interfered with.
Two is suppress opposition to your preferences; on a big scale, this is something like who the Dakota Access Pipeline gets routed over (or how Roundup somehow doesn't have safety data filed with the government of Canada), and on a moderate scale this is how highways get more money than transit.
You need a lot of social standing to exercise Type Two power. You don't need much at all to exercise Type One power. (This is what members of the valorized category get for showing up.)
Thing is, this stuff isn't passive; this works by hurting people if they complain until they either die or stop complaining.
So the question is NOT "do I have privilege?" (a question that descends into moral taxonomy very rapidly, becoming entirely useless in the process), but "did I (or am I) trying to compel this person to change their behaviour?"
 the point of "driving while black" stops is to insist that nobody, no matter how nice their car or how stable their income, can participate in the power structure while black. You will get your daily business interfered with. There are a whole lot of other examples. None of them are fixable without replacing the mechanism of categories.
17 June 2017
Beauty isn't a property. Nothing is beautiful. Beauty exists as a thing is apprehended as beautiful. Right then. In the apprehending mind and not otherwise. It's not some sort of quantum entanglement with God or Truth or any other delusion. There is no beauty in the properties of matter. Beauty doesn't apply outside the apprehending mind. (At all. Ever. Any other apprehending mind may perceive some other beauty, but it isn't this one. All apprehension is fleeting.)
The impossibility of self-knowledge if you're thinking of beauty as a property is one of the things that makes me sad, because the mistake is ubiquitous, profitable, and enforced. (Profitable behaviours are enforced. The folks arguing for the general utility of markets have some explaining to do.)
13 June 2017
|Air temperature and wind intensity 2017-06-13 looking down on the North Spin Pole|
|Ocean currents and Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly 2017-06-13 looking down on the North Spin Pole|
Look at another time and you might see warmish air flowing between Fram Strait and the Beaufort Sea, clean over the Pole.
08 May 2017
|female red-winged blackbird on grass|
|male red-winged blackbird with reflection|
|female red-winged blackbird on rough concrete|
23 April 2017
|Sleepy black cat in cat-loaf pose facing the camera|
19 March 2017
Condos as a form of land tenure got invented in New York State to get around a new, strict, builder liability law. If the builder of record is the condo corporation, all the liability falls on whoever bought in, rather than the actual builder, and so the actual builder -- on this scale, developer -- is safe from the legal consequences of their shoddy practices.
Note that the people "buying a condo" -- buying a share of the condo corporation that entitles them to live in a particular portion of the structure -- don't get design input. The actual building is built to maximize the profit of the developer, and has almost nothing in it that referenced the preferences of the people who are going to live in it. (Observe the increasingly tiny size of condos as the optimal small-investor-attracting price stays roughly constant and real estate markets get pricier and pricier as low interest rates shift the price associated with a particular monthly payment.) There is basically no feedback from the people who are going to live there.
The other part of this is that there's not really a housing market; one of the things required for a market is buyer knowledge, and hardly anyone buys houses often enough to have the necessary knowledge. People buying something to live in are not participating in a market. (The building trades might be, but there you get issues of concentration and number of participants and functional monopsony.) Houses, as a broad general class of things, are built right at the limit of the local building code in ways where the developer is seeking to maximize their profit at the expense of the building trades and the buyer gets all the liability for the result. This sort of feedback can't give good results.
What could we do instead?
Well, let's look at where the collective structures are. (The human trick is ganging up on problems; if you want to find the problem being solved, look for the co-operating group.)
There's a group of developers who exert political influence through the concentration of money. There's a much more diffuse group who are complaining about the perverse incentives and unfortunate consequences of the developers seeking to "maximize their profit" as a form of political opposition. The second group is, well, losing. Everybody believes success means a house in a suburb with a lawn and a two car garage.
So part of this is PR (though keep in mind there's a chunk of the population who _likes_ knowing they're getting more out than they put in, and never mind how the system breaks in time), but part of it is finding some way for the people who live in the housing stock to provide direct feedback into what kind of housing stock it is, where it is, and what it does.
First off, it does need to be collective; hardly anyone has enough money to go buy a chunk of land and get just what they like built on it. Secondly, it has to meet the needs of the people involved. Thirdly, it should, from a public policy perspective, recognize that there's a housing density of less than one per ten hectares and a housing density of more than ten per hectare that make sense, but the stuff in the middle doesn't. (It's ecologically unwise and it's expensive to service. Remember that roads are a service. So is sewage.)
So how many people does it take to have something that can build good housing -- the kind where the soundproofing between units is an insulated gap between concrete walls, and the plumbing has been put in with the expectation of paying for the next fifty years of maintenance, and so -- with some day care spaces and some senior assisted living spaces and just generally function, not as a condo, but as a really full service credit union; housing and child care and retirement planning/investment as well as financial and insurance services? Most of your income would go into it; your taxes would have to fall as this means took over from current public means of meeting those needs. And, yes, you have to deal with other people, but dealing with other people is a consequence of being a social primate.
If we want better communities, we must want better feedback, which means collective organization because individuals aren't communities and can't individually afford the services of communities. That means we can't permit a system where the feedback is driven by developer profit.
 this means "shift as many costs on to the defenseless as possible" at least as much as it means "get the largest difference between our expenses and our income as we can"; many of the costs (infrastructure) of the most profitable forms of development aren't borne by the developer, but the tax base. There's an argument that "most profitable" and "largest share of costs borne by the public purse" is an identity relationship.
 not literally everybody; it's generational. Sure. But the "don't tax me and I want more highways and less traffic and more convenience and services in my suburb" voter is a very reliable voter.
18 March 2017
The next Canadian federal election is in 2019.
Just exactly when solar got less expensive than coal as a means of generating electricity I'll leave to future historians; it might have been 2016. It might be this year, or 2018. It really isn't going to be later than that. The Chinese are investing very large sums -- equivalent to hundreds of billions in USD -- and good for them. They need to solve their smog problem. Solar getting cheaper for everybody else in the process is hardly bad, either.
About a quarter of everything, market-value-wise, sits on fossil carbon. Thereabouts of 70 trillion-with-a-T USD. Even if you completely ignore climate change, anthropogenic climate forcing with atmosphere dumping of (mostly) carbon, all of that 70 trillion is overvalued. When the market puts a sustained excessive value on something, we call it a bubble. This one is the Carbon Bubble.
It's going to pop before the next election. It's, well, there's no reason to suppose it isn't going to make 2008 look like a modest price adjustment. Trudeau's government will have low odds of re-election, because generally Canadians won't vote for the government if the economy is bad.
(On a scale from "downturn" to "abandon capitalism as a failed experiment", it's going to be much closer to "abandon" than "downturn". Everybody's political energies for the next few years in most of the developed world are going into trying to hang on to a vaguely tolerable status quo in preference to a neo-con death cult; the will and the ability to do something sensible about the economy isn't going to be there. So we're going to go off the cliff.)
Are we going to vote for the NDP in 2019? Well, it depends on the leader. If the NDP elect another leader who is sober and respectable and runs to the right of Brian Mulroney, very probably not. Voting for the austerity candidate in an economic crisis is a terrible plan. (Voting for someone out for moral purity of doctrine is a terrible plan, too.)
So it's somewhere between plausible and highly likely we're going to get a Conservative government in 2019, EVEN IF the Conservative leader is some sort of seriously detached from the consideration of facts. People will not let go of the expectation Conservatives are good at the economy, no matter how much contrary evidence they get.
March 27th is the last day you can buy (for 15 CAD) a Conservative Party membership, enabling you to vote for Conservative Party leader. There's one choice -- Michael Chong -- who is engaging with facts. The other dozen choices are at least as blessedly free of the taint of factual knowledge as a bunch of new-hatched chickens. (They are, for example, nigh-all climate deniers. What they think this will do for Alberta's bitumen economy after the Carbon Bubble has burst I can't imagine.)
If you're Canadian and not particularly politically committed, I urge you to buy a Conservative Party membership and vote for Michael Chong. We really don't need someone who can't do arithmetic or face facts running the country in a crisis, and that's otherwise what it looks like we'll be getting.
 Canada, too. Both our largest trading partner and some of our federal politicians keep having what amount to excursions from consensus reality.
 DO NOT completely ignore climate change. Food security goes first, and will go before the sea rises and the coastal cities drown because we can't move them uphill if civilization has collapsed due to starvation.
 don't use a pre-paid credit card. There's an ongoing something-or-other with fraud being alleged involving pre-paid cards.
 in a worrisome "markets are great!" sort of way. Markets _can_ be great, if they're properly maintained (which is to say, regulated); they don't get or stay great on their own. Of course, if you're running for CPC leader, you had better not go saying you think markets require regulation to function, and let people read between the line in your policy papers to make up their own minds about whether or not you're sane.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_bubble Note that this is talking about "we can't burn it!" more than it's talking about "the markets are going to undergo a correction"; the plummeting price of solar is going to get there and cause the correction long before carbon pricing or other regulation driven by governments shall.
16 February 2017
People keep presuming diversely on the net that Putin has compromising pictures of Trump.
I think this is unlikely.
Trump is reputed to have done this -- surreptitiously take compromising pictures of guests -- in Trump's own hotels, Trump has never lacked for low cunning, and it's about impossible to make pictures or video really stick these days. Any state actor can fake just about anything, and that possibility makes any kind of blackmail image doubtfully effective. It might work, but it might not. It probably won't, given the GOP unwillingness to stop going La La La so long as they stay in power and get their tax breaks.
Really tight proof of Trump's economic misdeeds -- it's not like Putin needs to be especially concerned for being prosecuted for any financial misdeeds on his own part -- is a possibility, but that can be disclaimed, too. "State actor" calls into a great deal of question just what can be false-flagged about financial fraud claims.
What Putin can have on Trump relies on it being something Trump's staff wouldn't think of guarding against, which generally means something that requires a state actor; either the capability before it would have been generally known as a risk or to get away with doing it. (Or both.) To be useful, it has to be an inescapable demonstrable material fact that's nigh-guaranteed to revolt Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell beyond any question of political calculation. (Plus a sufficient fraction of the right-wing media.)
So either Putin's kiting Trump with no actual kompromat -- not impossible, by any means; that appears to be what Bannon's doing -- or it's something that fits those two criteria. It has to be a demonstrable material fact and it has to revolt Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. It also has to be something Putin could get, that Trump would believe Putin had, and that Trump can't correct, obscure, or dispose of once Trump knows Putin has it.
There really isn't much in that category. The only obvious candidate is the paternity of Trump's grandchildren, which is a horrible thought to think.
14 February 2017
The point to the fifties was that the 1940s -- and to a considerable extent the 1930s -- had seen a big upswing in women's agency, if not formal rights. Running munitions factories lead to getting the vote after the Great War -- you just can't claim someone who handles picric acid isn't capable of political decisions, not if you have any self honesty at all -- but after Hitler's War, all the progress was undone. Women were removed from jobs and financial independence; the collective child-care (utterly necessary to factories staffed by women) was abolished; a whole lot of "you must stay at home for your child" propaganda got produced. And it worked, in that time and in that generation.
I think the American hard right; the supremacists, the fascists, the deplorable and demented and delusional with no just claim to the name of a man, are really really into the fifties as imagery because it is indescribably important to them to put "women, cattle, and slaves" back into operation. An environment when women can tell them no hurts too much to live in, and they don't want it. (Even the white supremacy has a whole lot of forced-birth nativism in the supremacist mix; it's white male supremacy. White women aren't meant to be anything other than a particular class of chattel.) The fifties were time when a long period of increase in women's agency and rights were reversed. Perhaps that can be done again.
I don't think such a thing is possible this time; I think given the choice between being returned to a condition of reproductive slavery, and killing a lot of people until the demand ceases to be made, enough of the current generation of women are going to pick killing a lot of people. (And a lot of the millennial men, too, but the politically crucial thing is what the middle aged women chose to do.)
I really, really hope this doesn't happen. (Though it would be a better thing than putting "women, cattle, and slaves" back into operation.) I very much wish I could believe the Pence wing of the GOP (or pretty much any but perhaps two of the Canadian CPC leadership candidates) recognized this as a possibility. (Or, if they do recognize it, could imagine losing.)