The Tortures of Tort

Some thoughts on considerations of the sale of PDI to HydroOne

Much has been made about the sale of PDI to HydroOne recently. Most astounding to me is that there is not an established opinion on the effect this sort of deal has had on other communities. Have they benefited or not ? Do they not discuss it because they are bound by the sale contracts ? Why isn't this commonly known already ?

Firstly, I consider that no matter who 'owns' the hydro, the rates are generally set by the OEB, an arms length organization that is meant to liaise between HydroOne (or the provider) and the consumer to cater to the interests of both. This means that no matter who owns the utility, the rates are generally not set by the owner.

Secondly, we should consider that HydroOne would have NO interest in the sale/purchase if it wouldn't fatten their bottom line. This corporation has ONE motivation at its core and it is not to deliver the highest quality-lowest cost service to users. They are not interested in doing this to help the people of the city, no matter how emphatically they might present this pretense.

Finally, some basic accounting comes into play; So far we have spent hours of time and thousands of dollars to 'evaluate' the sale (in spite of popular opinion). This will go on ,and go through appeals, and on and on, until or unless we agree to sell. At the end of the day, if we decide not to, under trade laws like the TPP, etc., we could be forced to pay for HydroOne's losses from not "doing our part" to help their profits.

So when we consider that saying no to the sale will result in countless consultations (paid to be done outside the city), countless arbitration and suit after suit to prop up the sale... and then when we consider that HydroOne might sue us for infringing their rights to buy up every asset in the province - it is easy to see how saying "no" will be the least cost-effective solution for the citizens moving forward. THIS WILL, NO DOUBT, HEAVILY INFLUENCE THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE CONSULTANTS WE'VE NOW HIRED. Maybe it's all about more than today's bottom line though.

The only way to really protect this precious public asset from profiteering is to be emphatic. Will the sale produce some $50 Million up-front and a million every year thereafter ? Probably. Will this be a fraction of the long-term value of these assets. Probably. How will they city cope if HydroOne faces a disaster in some far-off place and we, in Peterborough, are forced to pay for it in increased rates (something we are, more or less, safer from today through city ownership)? Twenty years from now when our children cannot afford the price of these essential services, will the big-wigs in the Big Smoke, running HydroOne hear our plight ? How will local actions impact hydro decisions in the future if the people in charge are hundreds of miles away and buffered by millions of (our) dollars and armys of lawyers ? What leg will we have to stand on when the corporation, not the people, own the assets ?

When the founders of the area and the utility built this Electric City up, for pennies on the hour, do you think it was with an eye to one day selling out to massive corporate interests with a strong profit motive and little regard for the community - or did they hope for something more for us all ? Too often privatization takes assets from the public and then makes the public pay a premium for something they already, and by a right ought to have, owned.

Just look at the internet today. Public dollars developed it in research labs. The public made it big by creating a network of BBS services running out of peoples basements. Now go and try and get an internet connection from someone outside the big three providers and tell me how that goes. Astonishingly each of these companies charges pretty much the same exorbitant rate for something that costs almost zero to produce. There are more examples, but the main point here is that without serious commitment to the cause, we're going to lose ownership of our hydro services. Once that happens you can expect them to stop using any lube at all.

image through from: the warmonger blog:

http://thewarmongerreport.blogspot.ca/2013/10/how-public-services-are-better-than.html

DM

WORKING on The Moon

MASS MIGRATION, MANDATES, MONEY AND THE MOON
DMJ.MARCH

Whenever it is that we begin an earnest effort of colonization on our Moon, it will represent one of the few times that a completely new nation has been formed on a geographic region within the legal framework of modern times. 

the trail of tears is certainly one colonial example where the requirements
for qualification were low and the participation rates were high

Historically we can point to many examples of colonization where the consequences have been dire for the native peoples of said lands. All through Europe and Asia scores of peoples, indeed whole cultures, have severally been conquered, invaded and completely subjugated. In modern times there are some glaring examples of imperial/colonial policy as well. Russia, America and others redrew many maps and displaced many peoples throughout the cold war. Today we can see something similar (but uniquely new and different on it's own merits) in the middle-east again, whole peoples being uprooted and moved about. 

All this is just to say that the idea of colonizing lands "without sufficient contract", so that we should feel any need to be bothered with the legalities of the domain we intend to enter - exist already. In fact it might be fair to say that most of todays mass migrations are happening quite in-spite of existing legal barriers, but that is a discussion for another time entirely. 

this map is one example where colonization has proceeded on mass
in spite of native opposition and a lack of legal procedures allowing
it on behalf of those affected. If this can happen here, shouldn't it be
even easier to colonize a place with no such natives or legal barriers
i.e. the moon ?

So what does this mean for The Moon ?

When we look at large migrations historically there seem to be two main streams of action for the exodus'

a) people are sent as punishment (very little licensing is required on the part of the affected, vocational requirements are low. individuals are drafted. of those drafted very few are refused)

b) people go as a reward or to pursue social increase. (licensing and fees are required on the part of those migrating, vocational requirements are mid-upper tier. Individuals apply or volunteer. Of those who fulfill the applications, many are approved)

Military mobilization also seems to follow these lines. When requirements are low - barriers to entry are higher. When the situation becomes desperate more and more qualifications are reduced - up to the point that non-volunteers might even be drafted. 

don't worry kid, you're gonna straighten this whole Nazi's taking
over Europe shite straight out, okay ?

These examples of military recruitment, mass migrations and prisoner deportation are instructional when considering colonization efforts because they represent the maximum in human logistics up to this point. We have not yet engaged any policy or action of mass-exo-planetary-colonization so we must needs look at examples that are similar on our own Earth first. 


ACCEPTANCE AND DEMAND


There is an obvious correlation between acceptance of applicants and ready demand for said applicants. So herein, let's take a look at two types of demand - and please feel welcome to offer up others in the comments below. 

1) postive - primary:economic incentive // secondary:planetary defence

2) negative - primary:population relief // secondary:aggressive expansion (economic, territorial as a precurson to 1-p


In the positive stream there are a couple obvious paths. One being economic. If the moon had been discovered to be made of silver or "conflict minerals" there would likely have already been some greater efforts at colonizing the place. If we discover that there are minerals in space whose sales can justify the cost of initial exploitation - we are much more likely to pursue it, Under these circumstances there are still several factors that can influence the rates of migration.

-size of commodity stores
-ease of access
-available transit spacecraft
-available demand for commodity

here is one example of a situation with a reasonable amount of need
but extremely minimal colonial effort. cost-effective, but slightly insane.
very high barriers-to-entry at LunarIndustries I'm afraid

If all these can be said to be 'high' then migration restrictions would likely be low. Procedures for access would focus more on training than screening, for example. When we want participation, we are inclined to provide training and create barriers to entry that are the opposite of restrictive. 

If these factors can be said to be 'low' then the processes of selection are likely to be very restrictive. 

For example; in instances of 'high' factoring; only the most basic requirements of 
-functional health
-reading
-familiarity with technology
-comfort with spaceflight and operations

would be mandated. A person who is going to spend most of their time working a pick-axe and carrying rocks isn't going to need to be a PhD in human habitation technology. Obvious safety training would need to be completed, etc., still, but on the main, genereal labour jobs in space could be available to the same basic people who they are already on Earth.

In instances of 'low' factoring; requirements can be tightened extremely;

-excellent physical conditioning
-high literacy, numeracy and educational accomplishment
-some accredited medical/chemical handlers training 
-extreme proficiency with technology
-comfort under extreme stress situations

This is only a cursory example, but it is plain enough to see (once considered) that there is a great deal of flexibility in the effort itself. Vocational training is something that is seriously under-appreciated in our present society, but many, many corporations currently operate internal training apparatus that are required for job advancement, etc already. Just to say that someone might study veterinary math in college, but then end up working as a manager in an electronics store - where they will discover that as smart as they are they must still be trained and tested on internal policy - testing which someone without a BS degree might also, reasonable, be able to accomplish as well. 

just another astronaut farmer. barrier-to-entry for
illegal home-based space programs are examples of present-day
low restriction systems (forclosure, imprisonment, death)

Indeed some of the greatest successes in American capitalism already are people who began menial jobs in organizations, but through vocational training were able to rise to the heights of executive management within their domains. 



DROSS



It is not hard to see that the decision between low and high barriers to entry comes down to two deciding factors. 

1) the NEED for people to go

2) our EFFORT to send them


There are several mixes of these two notions however

a) NEED high, EFFORT low. - let us consider that we are, in the future, facing a severe shortage of H20 on the planet because of atmospheric attrition; let us also assume, however, that because of pre-existing legislation and cost-to-entry problems we are taking little action. In this example, even though there is some significant and legitimate demand, barriers are kept high. Educational (and therefore also financial) requirements are significant on the part of the applicant, low percentages of applicants are even considered, etc.

b) NEED high, EFFORT high - let us assume here that in the future there is a severe overpopulation problem. the effort from the governments of the Earth is high in response. suddenly it is very clear to see how quickly and severely the barriers to entry would be changed. In teh instance of a true biological pandemic the only barrier may be infection (whether we send them or leave them is not herein resolved). Either way it is an example of non-economic incentive and response.

c) NEED low, EFFORT low - this is basically where we are today. In almost all instances where the efforts towards colonization are low the barriers are high. In our present-day situation where no need is perceived as well, the barriered are extremely extreme. Even within the decade-delayed Virgin Galactic program, the financial barrier is still significant. There exists several plans to send some civilians for free through lottery systems, but again this bespeaks the barriers to entry if everyone on the planet can enter and only one is selected - the odds being some 7+Billion : 1 in this instance. 

d) NEED low, EFFORT high - this is similar to the situation in the Apollo era. We didn't really need to go (though some could argue this was plainly not the case as the cold-war demanded escalation of space efforts and I appreciate that position) for any direct practical purpose. We did not, for example, build an American military base on the moon to establish supremacy for the next century over the Soviets (at least not publicly). So while there may have been a military reason that was higher than presented - in general people were told they were going "To do stuff that is extrordinarily hard for no reason - to climb the mountain because it's there". We perhaps forget that the program was so presented as civil and exploratory even if there was an underlying reason in the cold-war. 

Okay, who's excited about their new life in
the beautiful "Australian colonies" ?!
*always read the terms and conditions of cruise-package contests

So what we can see here is that unless the efforts are increased, it does not matter if the need is large or small. Indeed, if learning about the powers of intention has taught me anything it is that our focus can largely determine our reality. So as long as we perceive low need, there will be low effort and thus high barriers-to-entry will remain. 



THE BAD AND THE UGLY



In the above example, both situations of high need were negative examples that led to much greater effort than we see today. Obvious parallels can be drawn between these examples and the English experiments with colonization of Canada and Australia. Population density-to-resources were high, the laws were very tight, people were sent to colonies for punishment. High need was created, and high effort was provided. 

Some unfortunate examples that can create a high need AND high effort for us to get into space are outlined here:

-predicted meteor impact
-overpopulation
-ocean acidification
-disease epidemic
-severe natural disaster (volcanism, techtonic shifting, etc)
-alien invasion
-extreme criminality
-extreme wealth disparity
-technological ascension 
-extreme weather phenomena
-genetic mutation

Some positive examples of high need creating high effort are outlined here;

-golden meteor passing
-overpopulation
-educational ascension
-technological dissemination 
-peaceful exploration
-extreme recreation
-planetary over-achievement 
-identification of rare resources
-alien contact / interaction / trade


So we can see that the negative incentives somewhat appear to outweigh the positive ones. Positive incentives being largely restricted to economic increase or population overdevelopment (either in number or success).

When we look at these outlines, we can see that the one, likely, marketable incentive that is positive is the "golden meteor". To my mind, this is one of the largest incentives. The meteor could be water, gold, silver, or something even more exotic; we should be, today, positioning ourselves for this in my opinion. As a follow-up to this article I will provide some numbers and some insight into the current meteor-capture ventures and information that is extant today. 

instead of destroying my world, this meteor will feed my people for a generation,
mwahahahahahaaaa !!

That being said I should also like to revisit the fact that most of the incentives were negative. This indicates that it is highly probable that at some point in the future - if we choose not to pursue easy access as a policy now, that we will one day. If we do not reasonably introduce these concepts to people today they may find themselves woefully underqualified for one of the most needed and productive vocations of tomorrow. We should already be trying to live like we're working to qualify for a mission in space that will save the race or planet, because every day it seems to get a little closer to a time when we just might need a fwe boatloads of people like that. 

When we consider that the people who signed up for a one-way to Mars might be some of the same people who would sign up for a one-way to a meteor on a suicide run to save the planet ala Armageddon... maybe these types of efforts are almost worthy of some serious consideration and financial donation by the people who are responsible for our collective good.  I'm not saying that people who sign up for MarsOne or any of these things should be compensated directly, only that perhaps it's almost time that out colleges and universities all start trying to reasaonble prepare us for lives that consist of more than just taking care of the indigent and needy on a day-by-day basis. Band-aid solutions have become the norm now. Lets begin to aspire again, shall we ? 

In the fictional film armageddon we see that when needs are perceived as HIGH
the response can be astounding, in the film they train a bunch of rag-tags
in a couple weeks and launch two shuttles at once !!!
In real life we scrapped the shuttle because the 1 in 10,000 chance of
another failure was greater than any perceived need. 

Running out of word-combinations & The Hollywood Remake Cycle

The great linguistic shortage of 2123


I remember when I was young, on the bus to highschool; saying to a person beside me that 'one day we will run out of ideas for movies and just start remaking old movies with new people'. At the time I was startled by the prescience of my discovery. It made complete logical sense to me that at some point, probably within my lifetime, we'd see more and more remakes of old movies. 

Though I didn't realize it at the time, it was an already not unheard-of practice. Tremendous classics ( that had often even started as radio plays ) had already be remade in several instances. Miracle on 34th Street, for example.

""Macy's department store declined any involvement with this remake, so the fictitious "Cole's" was used as its replacement. Gimbels had gone out of business in 1987; hence it was replaced by the fictional "Shopper's Express""

[[Already here we can see the medium revealing much more protectionist dis-interest on the part of the big corporations that had survived to the first 'hollywood remake cycle'. Very few companies survive to 100 years in the history of the world. After that the decrease in surviving businesses in exponential to where there are only about 2000 companies in the Western world that are 200+. Obviously in America this is quite rare aside from Banks and Petrolium Co's]]
http://i.usatoday.net/money/_pdfs/11-0615-centurions.pdf

However, even though the practice was not unheard of, it was far from a normative part of the Hollywood offerings as it is today. It seems that today, all you have to do is recast a movie that did well in the past and voila ! The truckloads of cash start rolling in. While I have enjoyed some of the remakes that have been produced, I have not particularily found that the practice holds much legitimacy to me. For example, one might hope that with such a re-make culture in the movies, there would be obvious and notable improvements in the story, casting selections or whatnot. Too often the only improvement is the quality of the CGI work - which has certainly advanced to tremendous levels. 

As someone who takes a more broadly cultural interest in cinema, I find the trend disturbing. We all know the old maxim that 'the medium is the message', well I cannot think of a more apt use of it than in consideration of this re-make culture we have at the cresting of the 21st century. 

When we examine the classics, we see strong and often (now) offensive themes. These movies are great because in many instances they actually spurned people into thinking about important cultural issues in new ways, or acted as a great artistic catharsis for a popular sub-cultural niche'. Watching them in reflection, we can also see the changes that have manifest in our own day, and make some insightful judgements about the validity of our notions of progress, etc. 

Today, American films seem concerned with absolutely no such pretence. Movies are too often, simply "vehicles" to get the starts and producers from the cozy life of a film-set to the cozy visits with their banker friends. 

While I certainly appreciate the plethora of opportunities that the film industry provides the serfs, both in edu-tainment value and spending of production budgets; I am herein only trying to address the shift from focusing on hard stories to the strictest sense of absolute motivation for profit. 

--

Many interesting movies have also emerged over this era. Movies that may purport to rebuff my thesis here; The Interview, Three Kings, Syriana, An Inconvienent Truth, The Insider,... it can be said of all these films that they represent new expressions of thought based on events that did not previously exist wherein to even be  expressed, etc; the basic idea here being that there are still some new and hard-hitting productions which receive wide acclaim and commercial success while maintining integrity that I percieve as lacking. Also there have been several interesting and completely new works to emerge like Fight Club or Birdman which are premised on topical material that was previously not employed. I must concede these points. There is still some excellent work that is produced. But as an overall tally of output, it must also be conceded that the % of material generated from the "remake" model has increased. 

Wherein, the truly new material must have decreased. 

Part of this whole problem seems to be linguistic to me. In a movie, you have person(s) x, who must go to place(s) y and perform z to have x2 happen, and so on. There are, linguistically, a certain number (though I am sure it is high) of truly interesting stories that we might consider worthy of filmographic record. Once that is reached, once enough wild and surprising stuff has happened to enough people, etc., we sort of have to start over with the whole thing. When considered in this way we can see that there are only enough variations of stories at present to sustain an industry of todays scale for about 20-30 years. 

So we might consider here a few things. 

World population in -35 years.

2015 - 35 takes us to about 1980.

4.44 Billion
Lets take a second to examine the film industry in 1980.

Best Picture - from 1979 (presented in '80)
Kramer vs Kramer - a film about some interesting new laws that were emerging at the time. 
From 1980 - Ordinary People - a film, again, about massive state apparatus now being a pivotal feature in elements that would have previously been considered personal affairs, etc.

So these movies, we can see, rely on absolutely minimal 'special effects'. They are story drived about new societal phenomena that many many people were starting to deal with (or hear about others dealing with). The full results of the massive expansion in federal agency that had exploded under the Nixon model - truly transforming the American cognitive and legal landscape for an - as yet - undetermined amount of time. 


So, legal dramas may continue to be a driver of new thought in film for some time. Also I would say new tales from new warzones (or even more recent ones that the population is generally unfamilliar with like American Sniper). Outside of this, the landscape looks bleak in the world of fiction. LOTR and GOT have provided some relief from the drought of new content through some revival of the fantasy genre, but these departures seem short lived for the viewing public. Indeed LOTR is quite an old story just being REMADE in the newest of mediums, and GOT relies on complete sensationalism as a heavy fundamental of it's TELEVISION production material. Now we even see here something new whereby the TV demands is outstripping the content creation - effectively completely sacrificing intellectual integrity strictly to produce more flash and smoke. 

no man, that's not The Rainmaker I meant at all :P

Lets take a look at the population and films of recent time; 
2013-2014

best picture 2013 
Argo: A film about a hostage situation in Iran, I think. I haven't watched it as I fear these sorts of movies like Hurt Locker and Argo are sort of propoganda pieces to keep people supportive of our efforts to occupy foreign nations in deserts far far away.

2014:12 Years a Slave. I did see this, I thought it was a touching and troubling portrait of an important historical era. I didn't 'enjoy' the film because it was very dark and highly sensational in nature and I felt that Brad Pitts character fell flat, but the rest of the cast, the emotional sincerity and the hard issues it attempted to tackle were all appreciated. Also - it's funny that the blackout thing is happening considering that 2 years ago the best picture was very greatly made up of a showing of a spectacular black cast who perfectly transported us through the complete atrocities of the injustices of the system of slavery in America. Also, Cuba Gooding Jr. won an Oscar once just for being a completely loveable character who perfectly portrayed his role in a transcendent way... he didn't win because he was Black and people don't always lose because of it either. (To completely digress here, I saw Straight Outta Compton and I think that it should really be at the heard of this debate as those guys produced and acted supurbly - but it WAS nominated for screenplay and the rest of it while well performed and produced is obviously not going to get much attention because they swear in it, portray the police as racist in a time of high tension already today, and all were very new to mainstream exposure of the likes of Oscar IMO. Being in that film should be a badge of honour they wear all through their careers. Also, the screenplay might win in a fair contest too, so then SOC would be an Oscarwinning film already.... but I digress)

And so we have circled back to the heart of the problem, wherein todays expression of the culture of film heavily transposes the notion that we are completely prepared to sacrifice all sense of story or helpful developments expressed through film- we will sell it out to make it flash-bang full of cash - in a heartbeat. 

CGI and absolute sensationalism rule the day today. A deep story and the dissemination of hardcore and useful information is far from the pulse that drives todays media.

However, again, this is simply a symptom of a culturally deprived society IMO. We can watch 1000 movies a month now for basically nothing. We're getting old-hat with this stuff. What will the next great endeavour of interest be once we've satisfied outselves on watching stories of others and porn. After that, what is there for these internets to do for us ? Personally I look forward to a potential future where computers connected to the interet are basically cash machines for the citizens of nations who's successful management by government will result in hearty Basic Income Guarantees for all citizens. Meaningful work and discourse amongst the general population, and a sincere effort to colonize off world - where the current and heroic tales of contemporary explorers of that day will drive a peaceful expansion of the human race deep into the stars.... then we'll have some new stories. And a new world right here to enjoy on many more levels - as our ultimately revered homeland - than we do presently. 

I really hope we all get our shit together and start talking and living with purpose. I really do. If not we'll be sitting ducks stewing in warm water for the other options that quickly approach. I still think there's time for this little blue dot to pull it's socks up. Here's to it.