the electricity issue in ontario is indeed bad.

i've been over this. but to be as terse as possible: we used to have a monopoly on generation. but, we switched to a private/public mix. and, what we did was guarantee private producers a revenue stream, to ensure the system had sufficient generation.

there's a lot of what ifs.

1) had we just built this generation ourselves, instead of relying on private industry, we wouldn't have this problem. but, we'd have more debt. in fact, this works out to a shifting of manageable debt to unmanageable rates. most people will argue it would have been better to keep the system entirely state-run - but that would have meant the government taking on debt. and, conservatives would of course not like that.

2) but, if we had met the demand that was projected, we wouldn't have this problem, either. very specifically: if we had shifted to electric vehicles, we wouldn't have this problem. that was the precise reason that the province went out of it's way to ensure such a high capacity. it projected a nightmare in demand for electrical vehicles, which it saw as inevitable, and signed what today look like absurd contracts. if demand had risen as projected, these contracts would not look so crazy; rather, the architects would be being praised for their foresight.

3) had the government realized the problem earlier, and taken the steps to eat the error rather than pass it on to consumers, we wouldn't have this problem. there are several approaches. instead of passing these fees on to consumers, they could pay it and add it to the debt. they could buy the contracts out. or even refuse to honour them. or, they could go back to the drawing board and nationalize.

however, the idea that market liberalization would have prevented or will resolve this problem is incorrect. when you remove price controls, the prices always go up. in this particular case, taking away the energy board would almost certainly raise prices across the board to the level of the contracts. the energy board is what is keeping the prices down. i know that this is counter-intuitive. but it's not the board that sets the fees; the fees are determined by subtracting actual demand from the guaranteed payouts. in fact, the lower the board sets the rate, the higher the fees are going to be; the higher the board sets the rate, the lower the fees are going to be.

we're just not anywhere close to projected demand...

so, there is somewhat of a cautionary tale in centralized planning, here, it's just not what the right is throwing around. the lesson is that if you're going to plan your economy deep into the future, you need to ensure that you do not rely on private interests. centralized planning has to be public sector. otherwise, externalities and profit motives will invariably fuck everything up.

but what is absolutely beyond any debate is that this is purely a provincial issue. and, the media that is attempting to tie it to the federal government is dishonest.

july 9, 2014

it's funny how, the more a piece is practiced, time begins to slow down. i wonder if anybody's really studied this...

it's just perception, of course. but time is weird. relativity theory suggests (and suggests is the right word. the experiments that supposedly uphold this part of it are kind of weak. for example, they sent a plane around the earth a few times and noticed the clocks came back differently, in a way that sort of verified einstein's predictions. but, in fact, it was in the margin of error. i don't doubt einstein was on to something, and it's not like i found an error in the math or anything, but i'm a little iffy on some of the assumptions. relativity theory is an axiomatic system, built at the precise moment that axiomatic systems were being abandoned as unreliable. so, this is a perilous way to build a theory up. any future corrections to the axioms, and they're perpetually inevitable, may drastically alter the conclusions.) that time is not as constant as we perceive it as, but we're not accelerating to fractions of the speed of light very often, either, so it's not really wrong to think of it as a constant in day-to-day non-experimental life. i mean, playing my guitar isn't anything like synchronizing satellites.

but, there's no question that an ant or a fly must perceive of time as faster than we do. i mean, flies wouldn't be so hard to catch, otherwise. i guess it's just simple physics if you think about it: shorter paths for the electricity to follow. and it's true that insects are roughly comparable to primitive robots in terms of consciousness, it's just action/reaction, so that's not a totally useful comparison. but, if we could somehow be the proverbial fly on the wall, we would probably have difficulty understanding what was being said, because the waveforms would come in to us as slowed down, elongated messes. i don't even know if flies can "hear" or not...well, i guess they get vibrations of some sort but i don't know if that's actually sound or just noise.

something like that seems to happen when getting locked into the groove of an instrument. after a while, playing at 360 seems like playing at 250. it's not just a question of getting the mechanics right, it's the entire computation process. at first, the notes are blurry and it's difficult to think and play at the same time, but eventually the separation of the notes is as clear as it is at slower tempos and the ability to process the whole thing - finger movements, next notes, etc - slows down as well.

and i'm wondering if it might have something to do with higher aptitude to do various mental tasks amongst musicians. i mean, i'm not actually modifying time. my guitar is not a frame of reference. i'm not increasing my velocity. it must be that i'm thinking faster, getting my brain to work at a faster speed. physically, that would have to be synapses being built - that's what it *means* to think faster, right? to have more synapses, shorter paths, faster electrical responses. maybe the brain reuses those for math problems...

i'm rambling, just thinking out loud. but it really is remarkable how we're able to lock in and change that perception of time, whether it's the result of increasing transmission speed or something else.

there's this unfortunate tendency recently to think of intelligence as something genetic, but the brain is a highly plastic organ that is constantly changing with experience.

your current brain is not the brain you were born with. it's a highly individualized culture of cells that was built solely for you as a reaction to the experiences you've had in your life.

and it will continue changing for as long as you live.

--

well, somebody's studied it.

i don't currently have the time or interest to review the literature, but this is quick survey.

http://www.demneuropsy.com.br/imageBank/PDF/v4n4a05.pdf

Jul 7, 2014

if you follow the logic in the statement he made last year about it being contingent on a state department review, the reality is that he has already approved the pipeline. and, in fact, it's already pumping. he's just waiting for the right political moment to announce it.

you have to understand that this is a national security issue. the oil is going to china. and, what does the united states focus it's entire foreign policy around? controlling the oil supply. this isn't an economic argument. environmentalists are trying to engage in a debate about the ecological problems, while correcting people on the economic value, but they're missing the point. from the government's perspective, it's not about this...

if canada doesn't ship it through the united states, it's going to be shipping it through british columbia, which is a national security problem because it's draining resources out of an area it considers it's backyard and towards a country it considers it's dominant rival. the military will not allow that to happen. the oil is going through the united states, and harper is going to be removed if he throws any wrenches into it. but, he's not actually throwing wrenches into it. the terms of conditions for the bc pipeline are going to take a decade to work out, the courts are going to slow it down, and by then the oil will be pumping from the south. so, harper can go to his chinese investors and say his hands are tied. it's no accident...

....because if they pump the oil through the united states, the military maintains control over it, including the ability to block export in the event of sanctions or war. this is what is going to happen whether anybody likes it or not.

it's also the reason canada is not allowed to build refineries, or airplanes or anything else. that would provide us with too much independence.

he'll probably announce it after the midterms, but he might wait as long as the end of his term, or even dump it off to a republican successor, if the politics allow for it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVM2qOl144c

July 7, 2014

line 9 goes through the state of michigan (allowing the americans to block the line in case of sanctions or war against china) and has a proposed terminal in portland, maine - giving them ultimate control over exports.

http://www.thestar.com/business/2014/06/13/if_keystone_gets_nixed_canadian_pipeline_operators_have_a_plan_b_olive.html

this is about the americans controlling the supply, and harper being stuck in a tug-of-war between chinese buyers wanting to control it and the americans seeing that as a security threat.

for a long time, i was worried that harper was giving in to those chinese interests and possibly putting western canada under threat of american occupation.

thankfully, he seems to have stepped back from the brink.

if he wanted the western pipelines built, he wouldn't have approved them with hundreds of conditions.

it's going to be decades before anything gets done, and by then the other lines will be operational. it's not worth the cost. they won't be built.

but, what harper can do now is go to his chinese investors and say his hands are tied. which is true. it's just that they're not tied by regulators, they're tied by the americans.

the oil is already pumping south through the keystone. if obama doesn't approve the wider pipe, his successor will. it's a matter of time.

in the mean time, the line 9 will ship it through michigan and out to maine.

it's all about controlling the oil supply. we know that this is what the americans spend billions on their military to do, but we think of ourselves as special.

there's nothing more obvious than that the americans will insist they are in control. and it seems to be that what that means is having the oil pumped through their borders.

so, keystone is allowed because it goes through the us. line 9 is allowed because it goes through the us. the western pipelines get drowned in bureaucracy because they don't go through the us. and the chinese get stuck with an unstable investment.

that's the cost of doing business in the shadow of the elephant.

and it has nothing to do with ecological concerns.

do you want to know the primary reason that the program is unpopular, barry?

it didn't work. it left people uninsured. it was expensive.

and, these failures were predictable - because you cannot use a market system to deliver a product like healthcare. it will fail. every time.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-obamacare-idUSKBN14Q2E5

also, let us be clear on this point. i believe that these definitions are explicit, in legislation.

ethics: a set of pre-approved codes of conduct and best practices that are defined by the ethics committee.

ethics committee: a body of political appointees, tasked with determining ethics.

i don't think that this is the line the government will take, but it's the line they ought to take.

and, you can imagine the opposition's response, right.

"the prime minister can't just change the rules!"

....except that that's actually what the prime minister's job is - to change the rules.

i still don't see a story, here.

rrrrrrrring

"hi. ethics office."

it's justin, again.

"it's 3 am, sir."

i know. but, i had to pull over at the gas station and the tp isn't branded in the stall. what do i do?

"you'll have to sit there and wait until the committee meets in the morning. we'll try and get the memo to your office before lunch. and, yes, you need it in writing."

what if i just...

"well, we'll have to launch an investigation if you take matters into your own hands, sir."

rrrrrrrring

"hi. ethics office."

it's justin, again.

"the right honourable...."

indeed. i'm just at the store and i need to know: what is the preferred brand of toilet paper? ethically speaking. are these green brands acceptable, or is it just greenwashing?

"we'll have to take it to committee."

do i need this in writing?

"of course."

actually, i think it's very draconian that the prime minister can't take a helicopter ride without express permission from the ethics committee. that's ridiculous. that rule should be wiped out.

so, apparently christopher steele is low energy.

this is the best he can do, guys.

i bet this bugs him:

donald trump? the guy's a one-hit wonder. no innovation. can't write a new song, just keeps playing on the oldies station. and, people are getting sick of it, already.

it is an obvious empirical fact that white rappers exist, and an obvious empirical fact that a white market for rap exists, too. i am aware that the market for rap has more whites than blacks in it. but, that implies less than is usually assumed. numbers pulled from nowhere, but if the black rap market is something like 4%/8%, and the white rap market is something like 6%/70% then that is half of black people but only a tenth of white people. and it is no doubt more than half and less than a tenth.

i don't claim to know why these white people feel an attachment to an inherently black form of protest. i guess that solidarity is meaningful. but, if you're listening to music out of solidarity then you're missing the point of what music is. there are other aesthetic factors. and, of course, there are white people that grow up in black neighbourhoods, too, and don't feel that exclusion, or feel included by the exclusion. but, i wouldn't be the first to claim that a large percentage of them just honestly don't get it, and are operating on some kind of vacuous "cool" factor that most people don't operate on.

the reality is that most white people are going to listen to the form and find themselves unable to relate to the topics being discussed because it doesn't reflect their life experiences and therefore be disinterested in delving deeper into something that was obviously not made for them. and, why should they want to delve into it if it wasn't made for them?

i know that this idea that hip-hop was going to be the new mainstream was widely circulated around fifteen years ago, but the reality is that it never got there and that the window has since long passed. it's never going to get there, because it's never going to make sense to the majority demographics as anything besides a form of ethnic protest that does not belong to them.

rock music was initially always about dancing - and itself evolved out of earlier dance forms. over time, it hybridized, but it never lots it's purpose as soundtracking a party. it eventually evolved into different dance forms. but, because it is about dancing, it is inherently inclusive. hip-hop was always about protest. and, because that protest is so heavily tied into an identity, it is inherently deeply exclusive.

"but rock music was black."

except that it wasn't. it was a synthesis. and in the sense that it was partly black, it never identified that way. early rock musicians were sometimes black, but they rarely made their blackness central to their art.

hip-hop was constructed for the sole purpose of exploring black identity. it really doesn't make sense when you separate it from it's blackness. so, how can it make sense to white people? what does it have to offer people that aren't black?

the beatniks became hippies, and the hippies became punks, and the punks became emos and ravers. then capitalism swooped in, and the counterculture stagnated as it stabilized into a set of markets. but, the current evolutionary end point for the beatnik dance parties is the rave scene. bongos have become drum machines; marijuana has become mdma.

hip-hop is in a different cultural heritage. i don't want to talk about appropriation; the reality is that it actually has essentially no appeal to white culture, because it is so inherently black. which isn't to say that white people shouldn't, but to say that they overwhelmingly don't want to. it has not and will not work it's in way into the above lineage, except in the form of an outside influence.