Baby culture

I grew up in a place where everything revolves around the family - having children; family activities.  If you don't have children, there's probably something wrong with you.  Having children is right; not having children is wrong... gay? medical problem?  It's not a choice; it's mandatory unless you have a valid excuse; a note from your doctor; people whisper.  So Facebook comes along and everyone's posting ultrasound photos.  Then someone invented the gender announce party.  I guess I wasn't really surprised to see the photo above.  What sorta surprised me was the amount of plastic involved in these pregnancy tests.  OK, maybe it's the equivalent of a toothbrush... nope - I looked it up - there are actually electronics involved in what could be a simple dipstick.  So not just plastic - electronic waste.  Inside is a CR2016 battery, three LEDs, the processor, and of course, the readout screen.  Seriously?!  This test could be performed by a simple dipstick, but in their moment of crisis (or aspiration?), people can't wait for ambiguity.  Except (see above)... three days in a row?  Because... ambiguity.

So while some places are considering banning plastic straws, in the land where having children is mandatory, I wonder how many of these pregnancy tests are going into the electronic waste bin versus landfill?  Why am I not happy for the young couple?  Why are environmentalists such killjoys?!  This device... well, it's slightly worse (more electronic waste) than the music-playing greeting card.  Of course I'm happy for them.  But I'm a bit shocked at the evolution of pregnancy tests from frogs to rabbits to whether it turns blue to... electronic waste?   Are environmentalists really killjoys?  Somehow we need to repackage the message to compete with the marketing of electronic waste - for the future of the children whose existence is being detected.

Global trade - autos; oil

This morning's trivia surrounding the notion of free markets and global trade... I was going to say the beginning of the end for the US auto industry was the oil embargo in the 70's. The acronym OPEC comes to mind, but guess what? It wasn't OPEC :-)

"The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) was founded in Baghdad, Iraq, with the signing of an agreement in September 1960 by five countries namely Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. They were to become the Founder Members of the Organization."  OPEC

How about... OAPEC?
"The 1973 oil crisis began in October 1973 when the members of the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries proclaimed an oil embargo. The embargo was targeted at nations perceived as supporting Israel during the Yom Kippur War. The initial nations targeted were Canada, Japan, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States with the embargo also later extended to Portugal, Rhodesia and South Africa. By the end of the embargo in March 1974, the price of oil had risen nearly 400%, from US$3 per barrel to nearly $12 globally; US prices were significantly higher."
Wikipedia

And just for the record:  (OAPEC*) "Member countries include Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the United Arab Emirates. (Egypt’s membership was suspended in 1979, but it was readmitted in 1989. Tunisia ceased to be a member in 1987.)"
Britannica

Here's a nice graph, with the results of the oil embargo being the blip in the middle.  Production in the US has risen substantially with the discovery of the Williston Basin, but the US is still not producing as much as it consumes.  And large vehicles are still as popular as ever.

*"Iraq initially declined to join, preferring to work under the umbrella of the Arab League, considering OAPEC too conservative. Equally the three founders considered Iraq too radical to be desirable as a member.  However, by early 1972, the criterion for admission had changed to oil being a significant source of revenue (rather than the principal source) of a prospective member nation; and Algeria, Iraq, Syria and Egypt had been admitted. Consequently, OAPEC became a much more activist organization, contrary to the original intention."    Wikipedia

Economics - ownership vs labor

Consider this scenario: a bicycle courier risks their life and works their ass off for close to minimum wage.  The owners of the internet-based courier company get rich. The venture capital company that takes the company public makes a handsome profit.  Shareholders  get a decent return (at least for awhile?).  What's wrong with the picture?  Who's taking the most risk?  Who's getting the most reward?

Unfortunately, I have no formal training in economics, but as a citizen I've been thinking about some of the various theories; from simple - raising minimum wage, to Universal Basic Income, to Modern Monetary Theory.  

To be honest, based on my experiences in Australia, I'm not a fan of raising minimum wage.  I've worked plenty of minimum wage jobs in the US - sometimes it was ok, sometimes it was just treading water and getting more into debt.  And though Universal Basic Income has some appeal, I think it would be far more beneficial to change the nature of the corporation and shareholding.  Why should a person who invests only money get a far greater return on their investment than a person who risks their entire life in a dangerous occupation?  

That said, I am not in favor of uneducated employees making decisions that well-educated business managers need to make.  So the answer isn't necessarily full-on worker-ownership and worker-management, but the answer is definitely more in the direction of shared investment return, when the investment on the part of some is their life, while the investment of others is merely financial.  I'm not even advocating for equal investment return. What I'm advocating for is that as long as there are dividends and ownership of any given enterprise, those who have poured their blood into that endeavor - including the workers - should be a part of the revenue sharing.   Of course many corporations fall by the wayside, but some may have made a handsome salary and even tidy profit before the downfall, while the only thing others received were wages and unemployment.  I'm not advocating for more equal wages, though the salary differentials have become absurd - I'm just saying that rather than all of that money going to financiers and managers, a portion of that needs to be shifted downward; not even necessarily into pay, but into long-term equity.

In some ways, these notions reduce the role of government in redistributing wealth.  Rather than arbitrary increases in minimum wage, or taxing to redistribute to the poor, this is a restructuring of the framework of a corporation, so that all inputs are given value that is appropriate.  Of course, while we're at it we might consider the environmental costs of obtaining raw materials, or industries that do not contain and recycle harmful byproducts.  But for now, the discussion is about ownership and labor, and the value of human life. 

Australia's quiet agenda

I've been in Australia seven years now and just now discovered that the bills before Parliament are made public.  Why did this take so long??  Because there is no journalistic coverage of pending bills, and I haven't encountered debate of bills specifically. Maybe they're considered too esoteric and boring. What gets reported are soap opera dramas about political personalities; who's up, who's down, and only vague statements about how the Prime Minister is trying to push something through. Few details are offered on the details of any specific bill. 

As a direct personal experience with how the system works, when I was approaching the date to apply for citizenship, the news reported that they were considering changing the requirement to an extra five years of residency.  There was no specific legislation or bill cited; just "The Prime Minister has said...".   Yet on the basis of that, I was told by the immigration department that they were no longer processing any applications pending resolution of this proposal.  I waited. And after waiting some more, decided I should just file my paperwork anyway.  I had to pay a processing fee, still not knowing whether that fee might be refunded.  Later I heard that it was definite - the required time as a permanent resident before one could apply for citizenship had been extended to five years.  It sounded like I was not going to be allowed to be a citizen for another three years.  But then, later, it was announced that those eligible by a certain date would still be allowed to apply.  Was it a bill that passed?  It all seemed like someone's whim.  Was the bill passed and then amended?  In spite of how important this issue was for many people, it was not reported, other than indirectly.

At least now I know there are bills, written down and published online - not just politicians in a back room debating things, and in public, shouting and accusing each other of malfeasance.
Bills before Parliament

Impeachment or jail?

I am trying to parse out which of the crimes of Donald Trump would merit imprisonment if he had never run for president. Prior to running, his were mostly financial shenanigans that were minor compared to the large scale fraud that Wall Street committed which damaged the global economy for a number of years - intentional mislabeling and repackaging of bad mortgage debt. No - Trump’s major crimes are related to running for and being president. But the actual crimes - paying off a sex worker with campaign funds; failing to properly deal with Russian efforts to assist him - those actual crimes are again minor compared to the massive flaws of his character - flaws which are not a crime, but have wreaked major damage and suffering via his arbitrary and capricious decrees. His incitement of violence might be be a crime - but it is only relevant in the context of his position. Otherwise it would just be the ranting of someone's cranky  grandpa or a fringe skinhead leader. 

His braggadocio about being above the law while a candidate - I could shoot someone and still get elected - may have been made true when he became president. But there is no actual law that a sitting president should not be indicted – it’s merely Justice Department policy that was formalized when Nixon was in office. Trump and his appointees have flouted and re-written many policies.

Trump’s possible violations of the emoluments clause of the Constitution may also be a crime. But again, any possible and specific violations are minor compared to his shifting of the notions around how a democracy should function. One of the founding principles of the United States was to create a form of government that could be a step forward from monarchy and despotism. But for a segment of the population, the problem has not been monarchy or dictatorship; their perception of the problem is that they themselves are not the king, queen, or dictator. The system of the United States has allowed a great number of capable people to rise up like kings, queens, or dictators – within their private realms. As long as their courtesans are freely consenting partners, what happens in the private realm is a matter between consenting adults. The issue is drawing the line between the private realm and the public sphere, especially when it comes to government or government protection of practices. And this is where the United States version of democracy historically has tried to rise above the whims of monarchy and dictatorship with the notion of the rule of law. Even many monarchies have been rendered toothless by the notion of the rule of law, though their royalty still profits handsomely.

Part of the problem is for most of the population, the law is something inflicted upon them rather than being seen as a structural necessity for civilized society. For some minds, possession of a weapon trumps any law, because it’s really just a jungle out there. The law is trivialized by every software consent form and seen as mostly a tool for those who can afford an attorney – or when an attorney smells blood and recognizes when there is money to be made. So the goal for some is not to improve the law, but dream of the day when a team of attorneys can make them above the law. Until that day, possession of a firearm will suffice. Trump is a hero for that mentality.

That mentality believes democracy means majority rules*. It doesn’t understand the caveat that rules cannot take away the rights of unpopular minorities. It believes that a slim majority somehow translates into a mandate from the people. In less developed democracies, winning means that one family stops stashing away the country’s wealth and another family starts the officially sanctioned looting. The relatives of Donald Trump aren’t socking away taxpayer dollars (ok, maybe in a few situations they actually are); rather, they’re using their positions to cement the position of their private business interests – see how superior that is to say, the oligarchs of Russia or the family members of Chinese revolutionaries?

So Donald Trump is the hero of a very specific component of the American Dream; which is that anyone can be above the law if they have enough money.  But even in that category, with a Justice Department saying he's immune and a majority of Senators cheering his bravado, he's been bested by... O.J. Simpson?

*or the majority of a dysfunctional electoral college?

Kiteboarding - launching into a hobby

I've invested in learning a new hobby - kiteboarding. Initially I was calling it kitesurfing, but I think the sport is evolving to differentiate between those words, as well as add a few new ones. So what have I learned so far and what are the surprises?

First, I would differentiate kiteboarding - that which is done on a board similar to used in snowboarding, from kitesurfing, which is generally done on a board more resembling a surf board. And as the name kitesurfing implies, that's done on waves, with the kite being an additional factor allowing the surfer to pull in and out of waves more easily. Kites are being specifically designed so they will drift - which is to say, continue hanging in the air with minimal input while the kitesurfer concentrates more on the wave than the kite. While I may kitesurf in the distant future, the surfing component adds to the complexity. As a sidenote, Wikipedia is now sending the kitesurfing page to the kiteboarding page, using kiteboarding as a more generic term.
What are the surprises I've found? Most obvious, to the casual observer it appears that the kiteboarder's propulsion is due to holding onto a bar. This observation is misleading, and becomes the first major point in learning to kiteboard. The power of the kite is transmitted to the kiteboarder primarily by lines that go to a metal hook worn on a belt near the waist. Beginners generally attach the hook with a harness similar to used in rock climbing. More advanced riders attach the hook with a belt around the lower waist, leaving the legs with more freedom. Since beginners generally spend more time with the kite higher in the air, the waist harness tends to ride up and press uncomfortably against the ribs. So the first lesson involves developing the instinct to let go of the bar, not hang onto it! And a second part of letting go is developing the instinct of activating the quick-release so that an out-of-control kite doesn't drag you somewhere unsafe.

Letting go of the bar leads to the first instance where I believe I wasted some money on the learning curve. I had read, and was convinced by the first kite shop I went to that I should buy a trainer kite (or at least rent one). To be honest, I think it was a waste of money. The rationale for a trainer kite is to learn how to steer the kite. The reality is two-fold against that. First, the training kite is much smaller and steers differently from the regular kite. Not only does the normal kite have some lag due to the larger size and longer lines; there is also a major difference in the power, and how you must react to and control that power. Second, the full-size kite will transmit its power to the hook connected to your waist, with the bar being used only for steering and trim adjustments. The learner kite I rented and bought had a center line for de-powering the kite, but this was very different from having a center line that's the primary power-connection to the kite. Unless you want a kite to use later for pulling snow skis or a skateboard (which cannot be done anywhere there are power lines), my advice is to buy yourself a lesson that includes equipment rather than buying a learner kite. This will give you a much better sense of whether the sport is for you.

My initial thoughts were to buy the kite from the store that would throw in a free lesson, and off-you-go to practice on your own. After dealing with a $300 learner kite, I decided to take a different route before investing another estimated $3000 in equipment. Another outlet offered a package deal of three lessons - or you could buy one lesson and then decide whether you wanted the package deal. That's what I did. After the first lesson, I definitely wanted more - because the first lesson was only on the beach! The second lesson was in the water, but I felt like I was going to drown several times coping with the kite as well as an instructor who was by necessity attached to me and not necessarily helping with my balance in the water. The third lesson was in a boat that took us out into the bay and followed us as we flogged around in the water. I was pretty nervous about being in the middle of the bay, but the boat driver was amazing and it was very reassuring having a boat with assistance via radio-helmet; ready to pluck us out of the water when we'd had enough flogging. One of the big lessons of that day was how far you drift in the water when you're trying to get your equipment together and kite back into the air.
Out in the bay, after four hours of previous lessons, I was probably up on the board for about three seconds. I spent a lot more time wrestling with the board trying to get it onto my feet. The big thrill / surprise / fright out there in the bay was accidentally looping the kite, causing it to yank my body from the water and shoot me across the surface 4-5 meters. I probably did this 3-4 times. I got a lot of practice re-launching the kite from the water, including one time when it landed on the trailing rather than leading edge. This requires different tactics for turning the kite over.
In the first two lessons - on land and learning to body-drag in the water without a board - it didn't matter whether the kite was slightly underpowered. But in the third lesson, the size of the kite and the size of the board had to be appropriate for the weight of the person. For this reason, they would generally take out two students of approximately the same weight so they could share equipment. The other guy with me had had previous lessons a couple of times and was much farther along the learning curve. He got up on the board a few times - though not for a long distance. The parting advice he was given: if you can find a place where there's water shallow enough to stand after you crash, you're good enough to practice on your own. The advice I was given? Keep practicing learning how to control the kite - which is something that requires a full-size kite to do. I decided it was time to buy equipment so I could practice on the beach or in shallow water.

I ended up getting a new kite, new harness, and used board. After having the board in the water, I am happy to report that the board I bought is thinner than the one used during lessons, so it has less flotation and is easier to maneuver to get onto my feet. Beginners usually use larger boards, and later, these boards can still be useful for lower wind situations. I bought a new kite because it came with a warranty, and a new harness because I liked the style and fit of a particular model.

I live fairly close to the water, but via the lessons and subsequently, I've learned more about critical weather factors. One big factor is though a kiteboard can go upwind, it cannot do this as effectively as a sailboat. This creates some critical safety factors which are common sense, but you don't think about going in. Until you are very experienced, you're going to be drifting downwind. This means for the duration of your session, the wind should be parallel to the beach or at an angle blowing towards the beach (completely perpendicular isn't optimal either). A kiteboarder must always be aware of what's a couple of line lengths downwind, or as you move farther into the water, where you will end up if something goes wrong and you are forced to either drift or swim in. Mind you, beginner kites currently have an inflated edge, so the kite can potentially be used as a float. And even if you're sitting on the kite, you can pull one edge up to make it into a sail. But the wind direction is what will take you back to shore, out to sea, or into a place you don't want to go.
I was aware when I took lessons that it was the end of summer. The reliable, thermal sea breeze driven by land heating up would be ending. In the weeks since then I've been watching the weather continuously, learning how the wind shifts directions as fronts pass through, and figuring out which beaches are best for which wind directions. Some of the people who give lessons have left the southern hemisphere winter and headed for northern hemisphere summer; following more reliable breezes.

Overall, kiteboarding is a sport that works best and allows you to progress if you live near a large body of water that offers non-turbulent wind (generally flowing towards the land). If you took a week-long holiday to somewhere with reliable wind; lessons were offered and you had access to equipment all week, you would potentially be up on the board by the end of the week. After three lessons, when I bought equipment and took it out on my own, I realized that the instructor had launched the kite for me every time - so I didn't have the critical details on launching. I watched some videos, but also, another hour of free lesson came with the purchase. This ended up stretching into 90 minutes, and the instructor also taught my wife how to help me launch the kite. Still, on our own we had trouble launching, but realized it was because the wind in that location was turbulent - part of it coming from over land and part of it streaming around a headland. Also in the post-purchase session, the instructor informed me that I had been attaching the lines incorrectly; a loop goes over a knot, but what happens when an end has a loop AND a knot?? I did do it consistently enough that the kite could fly, though maybe not optimally.
Why kiteboarding? I water skied when I was young. I love being in the water. I've also sailed, and who doesn't like flying kites?! It seemed like the best of all of that. When I first decided to learn I was living in a tiny apartment, so I was happy to pursue something with equipment that wouldn't take up much space. I can load it onto my motorcycle. Learning to control the power of the kite is a bit trickier than I expected. Having it accidentally launch you out of the water into the air is exhilarating. This could be fatal if it happens on shore, which is why lessons are critical. There are plenty of accident videos on YouTube - I would say it's best not to watch these before taking lessons. There are also lots of lesson videos, but the problem with learning through various videos is you don't know what details were left out of any particular video; it's better to use them as a review. A reputable instructor will cover and maybe even over-emphasize certain safety practices. Many of the accident videos are people who may have been self-taught or decided not to heed various safety practices. Also the new equipment has more safety and stability features built in than older equipment. The best spots to kiteboard near major cities are starting to get crowded - though still not as crowded as the surf breaks.

America's firearm-free zones: Congress, Courthouses, Stadiums...

This morning's thoughts were about issues surrounding terrorism and firearm-free zones. One terrorism-related matter is the question of strangers in our midst. There are those who promote xenophobia; fear of strangers, as the answer to terrorism. But some terrorists (especially the xenophobia-promoting terrorists) are well known to their community or victims. Some terrorists have long suffered abuse and seek revenge; others may even be seen as heroes doing battle against those outside their faith.

The social vibrancy of cities is in no small part due to the number of people seeking to escape social traditions and try something different. Of course, traditionalists point to this as the root of moral decay, but this breaking from tradition may also contain the seeds of social progress (which fundamentalists may loathe). Cities are essentially places where strangers converge for commerce or myriad other reasons. Those from smaller, traditional places embrace the commerce, sporting, and some of the artistic exchanges, but are uneasy surrounded by strangers, those of different ethnicities, and those from different moral paradigms or religions.

Few in the United States question why Congress, Court Houses, and sports stadiums need to be firearm-free. Such are places where the heat of rhetoric or competition must be settled without the intervention of fatal force, and civilization relies upon acceptance of the outcome. Though there is a problem with post-sporting event riots, the advocates for one team rarely scour the town killing advocates for the opposition. The ground rule of no weapons in Congress, Court Houses, and sports stadiums is rarely questioned, and reliance upon armed security guards to enforce the measure is accepted without heated debate.

Beyond this core of civic temples, the possession of firearms and right to kill one another becomes a heated debate. The thought that I had - what if a neighborhood wanted to make itself a firearm-free zone, and even extend this policy to those charged with security? One notion is that the zone would have to be car-free as well, since drive-by shooting would be an easy way around the rule. If a zone were to be serious, it might also require airport / courthouse / stadium level inspection of those entering and leaving the zone; suitcases x-rayed; metal detectors? Unless the zone contained a hospital, it seems this would be difficult to enforce 24/7 unless entry points were limited and the zone large enough to fund a 24/7 checkpoint. But like Congress, court houses, and stadiums, it might be worth making some larger zones firearm free. Everyone has seen the science fiction images of cities under giant domes - this would not be to that level, but it's an interesting thought. Related clickbait: Top 10 Car-Free Places in the World