Why aren't workers talking about AI...

 

Note:  I used OPEN AI to help write this... but I am deeply conflicted.  I am no longer sure that just ignoring it or refusing (as much as possible) to use it is the answer - But looking for debate.  

AI for the People, Not the Bosses

Every time a new technology comes along, employers/owners are promised “efficiency” and "cost savings" while workers pay the price. From time-clocks to online surveillance, most so-called innovations have been used to squeeze more out of us, while letting wages stagnate. Now we’re told artificial intelligence is the next big thing. But here’s the truth: AI looks like it will be another management tool - another tool of exploitation. Can it possibly be a tool for liberation, as a few are suggesting?  I worry this is going to be fait accompli before we even begin the fight back or demand what we need as workers.  Capital is in charge of development - is there any hope for workers?  What should we be demanding?  We know that it will do layout and rewrite so designers and editors are at risk - while people are still required to do laundry, clean  and cook. 

Take the Grunt Work, Leave the Soul

Workers already know where AI could help. We don't wake up excited to spend hours filling out forms, moving data between systems, or drafting the same document for the hundredth time. But we do like to get a paycheck.  This is the grunt work that eats our lives, stresses us out and for some remains incomplete (looking at social workers!) AI can take some of that that off our plates—if it’s deployed with workers in mind. That means more time for the work only humans can do: caring for patients, teaching students, designing solutions, building community, and creating art. But we would have to fight for this and I don't see a struggle starting! 

No to Stolen Creativity

Right now, much of AI is built on theft. Tech giants scrape writers’ words, artists’ images, and workers’ data without permission or pay. They claim it’s “innovation,” but it’s actually wage theft on steroids. If we don’t demand rules and regulation,  and soon, AI will deepen inequality: our labour stolen to fuel systems that replace us. That’s not the future we want— and should not accept! It is hard to fight locally - it takes an international push. 

Workers Must Lead

The only way forward is for workers to take control of the conversation. We need unions and community organizations at the table where AI decisions are made. In our capitalist system is that kind of collaboration even possible - or are we just going to be left in the dust?? We need guarantees that AI will support jobs, not eliminate them. We need transparency about how these systems are trained, and protections against surveillance and exploitation.  So much happens outside of Canada - it is hard to know how we can ensure our working lives in the future. 

Fight for the Future

AI can be another management tool,  being developed and used in capitalism. Outside it, it probably could be a tool for work freedom. The difference is whether we organize. We have to demand that AI is built to eliminate drudgery, not dignity; to free our time, not strip our livelihoods; to amplify human creativity, not steal it. This means resisting capitalism's and neo-liberalism's excesses at least - and maybe no point in "fighting" AI separately,  but I am feeling frustrated and unsure these days... 

The future of AI belongs to to all of us, (I mean it SHOULD!) and we need to fight for it!!!   (and until GAI takes over and eliminates us!) 

A Duty of Loyalty and Obedience.

 People are celebrating what is perceived as a "win " for democracy,  in that Trump is gone. (we hope. . .  given that no one has heard from him?) Criticizing Biden can be left for another day (go ahead and cleberate,  the wicked witch IS dead) and so today there is time for reflection. I have been reflecting on democracy for a few days. 

https://www.npr.org/sections/pictureshow/2020/11/08/932646868/photos-after-2020-election-a-nation-divided-reacts

I think the idea that we can work together and, with majority rules, decide most things - although all systems have to figure out what to do with the minority to ensure that their rights are protected, is an OK idea.  I do not have a true vision for anything else - like worker councils and democratic centralism.  But I do undertand how worker co-ops work.  And they have a LOT MORE democracy. Especially worker co-ops where non-"owners" (often there is a delay in getting to be a full share owner) are also represented by a union.   The majority cannot choose to take away rights from minorities.. .   But, again today -- not my point!

I am thinking about democracy at work. . . and why there is for the most part . . . none.   As you read this -- keep in mind I am not talking about how it should be -- this is descriptive NOT prescriptive!! 

My son, who is a law prof,  mid-sentence in a TV interview just happened to say "the duty of loyalty and obedience that workers owe to employers". . . I blanched. . . the what?! I called him. And he pointed out that when you go to work -- you do as you are told.  This might not be micro-management but unless you are in senior management or own the place, it is likely that you will be told what to do and even how to do it. Even many professionals (esp in traditional "female" roles -- e.g. nurses, teachers, midwives etc. are managed this way compared to say physicians and engineers.)    But most people when they leave for work, are not going anywhere where, what they "think", or how they "belive things should be done",  has any impact, or where there is any actual form or forum for feedback or disagreement.  

So workers do owe, in our present legal and regulatory environment, a duty of obedience to their employer. 

I worked for many years for a union and it is the one thing we had to tell workers over and over -- just do your job (even if they are instructing you to do it badly, management are "allowed" to be incompetent, and assholes, as long as they don't violate the Collective Agreement)  -- there are limits to employee "obedience" -- but basically only if you are asked to do something illegal, something that might harm you or another person, or something that is "patently unreasonable" which was described to me as "something a reasonable person, would find unreasonable, given reasonable circumstances!" (My example was always to do with being made to clean floors with toothbrushes or stand in the corner with gum on your nose - but there are much more realistic examples and I only know about the ones where people had unions to fight for them.)   At any rate - most of the time you just have to do what you are told. That is: Obedience. 

Then,  if they want you to do your job inefficiently or badly,  or don't let you look after people the way you think neccessary, especially if you work in healthcare or social services.. .  you must not call them out or whistle blow.  That is why we need special "whistle blower legislation" which allows people to "tell on" their  - esp public sector -  employer without repercussions. (yeah right - some get protection, some do not)   At any rate - you must be publicly loyal.  To call out or criticize your employer publicly,  and/or on social media,  is something you can be fired for. . .and plenty of people have already been terminated, because you have a "duty of loyaty" to the employer which is held up by both unions and the courts (well held up by unions because of the court decisions, to be accurate) 

There is some mitigation of this duty of loyalty, if you have a union, but not much.  It tends to just make the rules clearer. One benefit of course,  the union can speak with a voice when individuals cannot! See for example NSGEU and Long Term Care workers/nurses. So it helps.  But why do we not demand democracy at work?! 

https://democracy-at-work-shop.myshopify.com/collections/all-items/products/richard-wolff-quote-t-

I think that these rules should only be enforceable if employers have a pledge from you,  when you take the job,  to a duty of obedience and loyalty.  (This is mostly a mental exercise, not sure that this would not backfire on me!)  Imagine if people had that put in front of them along with the TD1. People would understand where the power lies, and maybe would resist a little. I do think that people will sign it in order to work, but at least the rules would be clear and people would start to have some idea how they are oppressed at work.  And make no mistake - we are essentially "wage slaves" -- we have no choice,  but, it is to me,  very stark when it is framed as the "Duty of loyaty and obedience" that Canadian workers owe to their employers.   Eastern European/Soviet style Communism always gets the rap for not being "free" but really it is Capitalism that has essentially made people into slaves of their employers. I mean the "loyalty" promise, means that you are controlled even in your "off hours".  As a retiree (and the union never censored me anyway!) I use my real name everywhere and don't worry about repercussions. No employer to owe that loyalty too! 

Joining a union or forming a worker coop can mitigate effects,  but capitalism and its valourization of "ownership" ( I have a piece of paper that says I get all the benefits and you must struggle)  rules the workplace, and so owners and senior management get to set the rules and monitor them. 

Did you know that under Canadian/provincial law you owe a duty of obedience and loyalty to your employer?  What do you think about that? 

Bond GIrls - thoughts on the death of Sean Connery.

 

So Sean Connery died today and I had a few thoughts because he was a bond (ha!) I had with my father and I had a different "Bond" experieince,  I think. . .   Other than what is written here I have no defense for the misogyny but sometimes intentions do not thave the effect or outcome they are supposed to. . . 

Bond girls are always written about, these days, as if they are exploited, objectified  and subservient, and they certainly were to an extent. But my first Bond movie (I think I was around 12, and it was Dr. No) was actually the first time I saw women with any power or authority.

My mother and most of the women that I knew stayed at home and were “home makers”. Some had worked at interesting jobs before they were married, or had kids, but working women were not part of my life generally. Lilly McGrath, whose husband was an RCMP officer, was eventually secretary to Canada’s official languages commissioner, but stayed at home with her kids before they went to school. Jean Roberts was a childless social worker, and there was a woman or two that worked with my father. But most of the women I knew day to day were housewives or home makers – or worked at home – whatever you want to call it – they were “domestic goddesses”. I was not male identified I did not want to be a man but somehow I understood I did not want my life to be like the women I saw around me.

I guess before Bond, there was Mary Poppins and Maria in the Sound of Music. . . both out at approximately the same time. And, even then Maria was just moving from God to a man, and had a traditional – wife/look after children role - though she was unique in her methods and so a “rule breaker”, and Mary Poppins came with magic but still used it to look after children. Still pretty close to the domestic sphere. – But with James Bond - Dr NO, and soon after Goldfinger – Pussy Galore was also a strong woman who could fly a plane. . . changed my view of women for the better. Maybe I did not understand before the movie, that women could be villains, or evil, or not just be trying to “please” a man. But it did make me feel that I could be powerful, as a woman!

In Dr. No, the first woman we see, who appears to be some kind of “agent”, or possibly evil, is a woman taking photographs at the airport. She would have seemed to me “exotic” but also seemed in charge of herself.

In the film we see a dark haired woman (Miss Taro) playing a betting card game – she is the only woman at a table with men, and again seems to be sure of herself – and makes “advances” at Bond and speaks in double entendres. 

 I think, up until then, I thought women had to sit back and wait for men to come to them. The whole "waiting for the phone to ring" trope. Suddenly there is a woman gambling, seemingly suspicious (if not evil) and coming-on to an adult man. Later she invites Bond to her house and expects him to be killed on his way to her. When he arrives safely she is surprised, we now know she is evil, and will try and kill him, but once again she has more agency than any woman I had seen until then.

Although Honey Ryder is “saved” by Bond and is the “good girl” in the film, she is also on her own, (i.e. without a man) on a forbidden island, breaking the rules, free diving for shells and carrying a knife at her waist.

Somehow that film forever changed my view of women and the possibilities. (Note I acknowledge problematically women of colour were "evil" and the very white one was the good girl.  Not sure if that affected my unconscious, but I seem to have successfully grown out of it consciously! Although not denying inplicit bias!) These women were professional, sexual on their own terms and aggressive not passive, and had incredible agency – no man was in charge of them! Suddenly it became clear, I did not have to be a housewife. I did not have to be subservient to, or wait for men to come to me. It was life changing even though “bond girls” are not traditionally thought of as feminist icons!  You had to find your power in odd places in the mid-60's! 

Can we have some more "wins" for the people, please?

When I initially understood that some things about the world needed changing, I was young. The minute I realised it was not “fair” I was very young, and I think it is obvious,  if you are paying attention, that it extends into the wider world. So, people are poor because that's how it is. . . It takes a while, however,  to realise that some things are caused and are not just "natural".  Not natural that some people have so much and others barely enough to survive. 

I was always bold and not afraid – a compliment to my immigrant parents who provided a supportive, nurturing family.  I always thought it unfair if anyone had less than me. It took me a long time to realise that the poor kids at school, and people being beat up by cops and the military ( I was watching civil rights actions in the southern U.S. at 10 and 12 years old) was not just life unfolding as it should but was about changing things to make them fair - that children could go to schools that were not segregated and that were in good repair with excellent teachers etc.  That this was created. . .  inequity and desegregation . . . was a "good thing", they can be changed. But my thoughts were oppressive and patriarchal - I thought of saving people, not liberating them.  And kids dying, literally dying of hunger and preventable disease, in other parts of the world. I bought the “happy noble savage” thing, or thought that they chose to live without running water etc. – til I was in my late teens.

However, I never stopped asking questions.  My proudly devout Catholic father created a monster (In his eyes) when he sang this to me as my lullaby every night (well just the chorus)

Goodbye Little yellow bird I'd rather face the cold 

on a leafless tree than a prisoner be in a cage of gold. 

Goodbye Little yellow bird  I'd gladly wait with you. 
I love you little yellow bird but I love my freedom too.

And the yellow bird is a "boy" and the sparrow a "girl" - so it was the woman refusing to stay locked up for a man. I think I had taken it all to heart by the time I was 4. The rich were not be trusted and I should look after keeping my own freedom regardless of the attractions on the "rich" side. LOL 

It is from Portrait of Dorian Gray. . . Movies (esp black and white)  I remember watching with my father - that one (eventually. . .  he was singing this long before I saw it or we had a TV) and Great Expectations, Treasure Island etc.  

One of the other things it did - and I was pretty old before I realized it is that it made me think of "freedom and personal liberty/independence" as a very  important and laudable goal.  I was shocked later when I discovered that safety and staus quo that made people feel safe were higher desires for most people. 

By 16, though, it was pretty clear to me that racism and sexism were ruining the world. By 20 I understood that capitalism was a problem. But through the years from 1970-2000 I worked on a number of social change (commonly not socialist just reforms) projects that were won.  Social attitudes changed enormously. Many were good - women more equal (at least in law) same with racist laws - but clearly it was not enough. 

THAT is one of the big differences between myself and millennials. I was thinking about it, because a while back, a millennial mentioned to me that I had seen “wins” that they had never seen. That all they had known was capitalism. True, I thought, that's all I have known but I saw neo-liberalism and global capitalism take over in my lifetime. 

 I kept seeing "wins", though, in small ways,  because I worked as a union organizer and saw people organize their work place, join a union, massively increase their power and usually incomes, too. Some were dramatic income changes, and eventually most got benefits and pensions too.  So I keep experiencing "wins", even in the last 20 years but it is very local, not social change.  It came up again because in the last couple of months,through COVID, here in NS and Halifax, we have in fact had some wins. We have had terrible tragedies, however, there are some bright spots. Not huge but they all add up and they give one a sense of momentum that fuels itself.  We could change things if we wanted to, as a people. 

So first 6000 people showed up for a BLM protest/March in downtown Halifax – not a win in itself but a pretty good showing! Again momentum! Then we had the tank purchase by the city, rescinded. Then we had a “secret review” turned into a full up inquiry – which everyone wanted. These are not huge wins but they are wins and they do demonstrate the power of organizing people and having them respond.

When I was young we felt that protesting won the pull out from Vietnam. It felt like protests stopped Canada from entering Iraq with the U.S. I was around for protesting South African Apartheid – the days when knocking over a case of south African wine in the liquor store was an “oops”. . . and then we fought for and got some sanctions, and then – we won. S.A. was no longer an apartheid state.



When I was young, abortion was illegal – I was 16 before birth control was legal. I was part of a group planning for the start of abortion clinics in Vancouver and Toronto and lived through days of having to take women through a gamut of protesters to enter clinics. Now abortion feels normalised though there still are groups trying to take it away,  and access is not guaranteed across the country (esp in NB and PEI) Lots of work to do - still compared to 1969 -  I count it as a win.  Women fought but full credit to Dr. Morgentaler who set up clinics - not secretly but out in the open and defied the gov't to stop him -- which it did - in fact sending him to jail but he never waivered that women should be able to control when and if they wanted to reproduce. This choice was not available to me until I was in my twenties and even then - it was not very available. 

When I had my kids, at home with midwives, it was not “legal”, but only “illegal” if something went wrong. But now midwifery is legal and provided as part of the publicly funded health care system across most provinces in Canada. It is a support and gives women control over what can be a non-medicalized process. (With a system that provides lots of medical support when required.) I fought hard for midwifery (including being the bureaucrat in the gov't of Ontario tasked with making it happen) and getting regulated, funded midwifery seems like a win.  (Although I have had to - over 25 years later -  give evidence for the midwives about their pay as the gov't has never really increased it and they have fallen badly behind other health professions in Ontario. )

There are a myriad of other things that I was involved in that either got organized (daycares/after school care/women’s shelters/housing co-ops/Credit union/  etc. ) and all felt like “wins”. . . not the individual service but the IDEA of having it available, public  and funded at all!!  So, demonstrated!  It is not impossible that we can make demands and have them met. But for the last 30+ years it has felt bleak – until now. . .

Just wanted to say – Hey thanks Millennials!!! I have some optimism that you can make it happen, where there were eventually too few of us to make it happen!~ 

Postscript – It is not all good – we protested and demanded an end to violence against women and it has got worse not better (or at least more of it is public)

The Sense of Community and the Cost of Housing

I just read a tweet from someone complaining about losing their housing, but also their sense of community, as they are driven out of the spaces they know and the people they are connected to, by rent increase.

In the last few years the cost of rental accommodation in Halifax has gone into the stratosphere for most people. The cost to buy does not seem to have increased at the same rate, but is affected by location,  and peninsula Halifax is still very pricey.   The rental rates on the other hand have seen lack of availability and pressure for units which has in turn allowed the landlords (do they collude?) to jack up rents a lot.  The rents have increased, in every area connected by reasonable transit, to downtown.  Once you pass Musquodoboit Harbour, heading east from Halifax, you can buy a house for under $100,000 and, closer to the city, for under $200,000, but that does not help that rents, in the city, where the jobs are, are high - un-affordably high.

House for Sale - Mushaboom - $74,900.

When we moved to Halifax in 2005/6 (it was a process -- took us a year to get it done!) one of the things I said to people was that house prices dropped precipitously once one left the centre, and so you could still buy a house, in the region, for a reasonable price. There were expensive neighbourhoods but there were still also lots of neighbourhoods that were not considered THAT desirable and so were less expensive.   Whereas nothing was affordable for literally 100's of kilometers in southern Ontario!   We were very happy to be able to buy a house in Lawrencetown with an ocean view for far less than downtown.

Not sure why Halifax became more desirable. But the pressure for housing, esp rental housing,  has been rising, and the price rising even faster. Apparently much of it is in migration from other parts of Canada, but also the world, as we attract and keep more Int'l graduates from all the N.S. degree granting institutions. Also - we have almost no public housing with years long wait lists. The private sector tends to build "luxury accommodation" if they build rental, (with high rents and well resourced tenants)  not affordable buildings and they want to make as large a profit as possible from people's housing. THAT is the problem.   So available stock is too low and prices are too high.

A few years ago in Spryfield or Dartmouth North it was not that hard to find a one bedroom apt for something between $500 and $800.  MY grand children and their mother lived in a three bedroom for $800 ($950 when they left, third floor - no elevator - but immediately put up substantially, as there are NO controls on rents here - except it can only be raised once every twelve months on the same tenant.)  Minimum wage has not kept up with increases in rent.   Now around $1100 is about the cheapest until you go into an area that requires a car to get around.  Minimum Wage is $12.55/hr - if you get 40 hours a week (and that leaves out a lot of people who cannot work more than one job at a time, or who have not got child care) - that is about $2175 per month - if taxes are at 30% that leaves you about $1500.  A transit pass is $82.  and rent is going to take $1100 of that (assuming you do not have children and need more than a 1 bedroom.) So that leaves about $200 for food, medicine, school fees, etc etc. If rent was lower, people would not struggle so hard.  Searching today (June 2nd 2020) on Kijiji - there was one apt. for $1095 in Dartmouth (actually looked nice but has been for rent for 40 days so must be some problem - or no one is moving during COVID - also possible)  and literally NOTHING ELSE under $1100!

Just one more thing - rents are now so high that even middle class, but single Mom,  teachers and nurses cannot find or afford to rent these days - not without difficulty - and even in communities on the periphery (that's just FB data as friends look for a place they can afford)

Anyway this is not meant to be about rents and home prices directly. . . instead I was thinking about the people that have to move out of and possibly far away from their neighbourhoods and/or live with large numbers of people in small spaces.

One of the "side effects" of driving people with lower incomes out of neighbourhoods (and in the case of Halifax - I guess low income people will be driven to shelters - cause there is no place to go! and shelters are bad for COVID) - Their/Your neighbourhoods - the place where you may have friends or even family, where you know the people that provide services, where you know you can count on your neighbours to help you - you will have to leave. Whether it is a ride, borrowing items,  or watching the kids for a while, or coming together for holidays and celebrations, just knowing how long you can sit with one cup of coffee, and where to get the best ? . . .    When you have to move because you can no longer afford the rent - you lose not just your housing but potentially all of these other connections as well.  That  can include friends.

So North End Dartmouth (I horn in on that community 'cause mine is a mall and highrises -   on the border) has a real neighbourhood spirit/character.  The neighbourhoods "between the bridges" is for lack of a better word - poor and middle class - but neighbourly, and filled with self-help. 

There is the family centre and the food centre - now called North Grove (recent name change)  The Library and community centre and the Local MLA (Susan Leblanc) is a community focused, very smart, social justice seeking, peach of a woman who helps do it all. 

Last summer there was a "neighbourhood play". . . that wandered through the community.

There are "community gardens" where the food centre grows food - but some boxes are just for anyone from the community to "pick" from. . .


Imagine, then having to move to a different neighbourhood away from your friends, your garden, your weekly get together's (there is a Dartmouth north knitting circle, parenting drop ins, and more!)  and all the things that you have helped build and taken advantage of, in your community. The restaurant you like with reasonable prices and where the serving staff know you and your likes and dislikes.

A community with a lot of low-middle income people.  So now,  it is the closest to "the peninsula" (just a bridge or ferry ride away - think Brooklyn to Manhattan) AND now everyone seems to be contributing to the gentrification of the area. Buying houses and renting all the apts.  On the one hand its great but it drives up rents.   And if it takes a professional to rent an apt. in Dartmouth North - where are the income assistance, low income, working poor etc to go?   It adds pressure to the lack of affordable housing.

Halifax is late to the game of high rents and evictions and renovictions. A word I added to my vocabulary within the last year. With no rent controls,  and no controls  on property speculators, things are booming for the landlords.  In other big cities in Canada like Toronto and Vancouver - they put in controls on property speculation/owner non-residents. The speculators had to find other possibilities. Montreal was first with rents spiking massively once Vancouver and Toronto put in place rules to try and shut down speculators.  We seem to be next.

So I watch in horror as people cannot afford to live any longer in "their community", and often have no idea what happens to people, some who I saw regularly, who got "renovicted". Not friends, necessarily, but other regular folks out and about in the community.  I believe the evictions have stopped for the moment (COVID has meant holding no hearings to make them legal) but I fear for the community post-COVID. Worried landlords are still looking to throw on some paint, raise rents and drive people out of their communities.   The very character that makes those communities attractive will be eroded.  This commodification-writ-large in housing - is simply not sustainable.   We are very quick to complain about healthcare in the U.S. but in Canada, we have healthcare, (some and maybe less on reserve)  but way too many people on the street, in shelters, crowded into small units with too many people, and suffering trauma from the anxiety that you and your children, or your mother, or the love of your life, will have no place to live!  Can I make the rent? IMagine the numbers asking at this time. 

Just a side rant on landlords esp "commercial landlords" who did not take up the loan program to help small business get through the plague shut down - almost no landlords took it - it involved them giving up 25% of the rent, gov't providing 50%  (but getting rent) but most just prefer to to say no - I am owed 100% - blood from a stone?  too bad!   Landlords really are the scum of the earth. (I am not directing this at people who rent out a basement suite to pay the mortgage but hope you are being reasonable in this unreasonable time or you can be a cockroach along with the big commercial outfits!)

We need to remove housing from "markets", and speculation, (same with food and power and internet and phones and water - basically, necessities to live should not be marketed "commodities".   But that is a long way off  -- or maybe not - now's the time!!??) and simply make housing guaranteed for all.

As a start,  we need housing first, rent controls, mortgage backing & down payments for new co-ops, and new public (govt'ment owned and managed) housing. That is - we have to control the rents on what we have, and start building housing - through coops and public housing.  No more subsidies to landlords (except as short term interim til housing is built)  Oh and we better include housing for seniors and improved (single rooms for starters) LTC which means building new buildings. 

Why, when money is available for "job creation" is it always roads and bridges?  Why not daycare and housing?  We need a massive injection into public and co-op housing,  (and LTC),  rent controls,  and to stop housing as a "market commodity."

2019 Election and the Critiques of the NDP.

I have been thinking about how the NDP are faring in #Elxn2019 and why.  The platform this time is the best in a generation.   But no one seems to see it.

I have seen people put it down to Jagmeet is incompetent,  or party staff in Ottawa are too tame and MOR.  That the party, or Jagmeet are not well organized, that fundraising is failing etc. I have seen it put that Jagmeet just cannot catch fire and then. . .  there is the racism question.

I believe that racism is a large factor -- if one more critical NDP supporter, who is putting him down,  tells me - "Its not his Turban, its his suits".  Jeepers he learned to wear the suits to try and offset stereotyping from the turban!   Not to be mistaken for a Bay St Banker!



So there are a few things no one is talking about much.  

Vote subsidies, union organizing and Liberal unions. At one time NDP got assistance from unions.   The CLC and the CCF were the founding partners of the NDP. Then some years ago the Liberals in office,  did away with the right of both corporations and unions to  donate to political parties.   This seems to me wrong because corporations are bodies meant to extract profit from average people,  and many are foreign owned.  Whereas unions are groups of Canadians coming together for mutual benefit.  BUt, fair enough. . . its done.  We lived with that and the removal of the donation options was replaced by a per vote subsidy. This was designed to level the playing field.  We weren't getting PR but we were getting a subsidy that would help every party that got votes. If,  as was the case for the NDP (and the Greens),  your vote was often scattered across the country with support in every province but was only concentrated enough to win seats in a few places you still benefited from those votes and voters through the per vote subsidy.

Harper did away with the per vote subsidy and acted in a way that made many Canadians feel like there is just no point in voting.

Now the unions cannot donate and they seem to have got very shy about being partisan.  The NDP is, or rather was,  the party of labour - the Canadian Labour Congress was a founding member of the party but can no longer help financially -- fine -- but now labour has abandoned the party altogether.  Except for UNIFOR and Hassan Yussuff, Head of the CLC  (who are clearly Liberals and support the Liberal Party) abandoned to emptiness - to no endorsement of any political party.  I believe that CUPE, IAMAW, and Steel are partisan - still supporting the NDP - but will be watching to see what they do to help (if anything) after writ drop.    So,  now we have Labour - basically kind of saying don't bother voting or vote Liberal?   So most of labour - in terms of unions - Labour has abandoned the NDP ( dear God I hope THAT defection is not turban related!!!)

The Turban

The NDP is also not getting support, because, for some reason, although I do not believe that most Canadians would reject a leader or PM because of their religion, people are terrified of a turban,  and a Sikh. Some people confuse Sikh's with Muslims, and when called a Muslim - Singh refuses to say he is not - as that would suggest that being racist against Muslims is OK!  Too many people think that they are racist only if they are hate filled.  But just seeing someone in a turban as not PM material is racist. Everyone does not have to look like you. 

I think Singh is actually less religious than Sheer or Trudeau but their's is "acceptable" religion, in what turns out to be a pretty racist/discriminatory country. I mean both Scheer and Trudeau are practicing Catholics (remember when people used to worry that they would get their marching orders from ROME?? Guess most are too young to remember JFK having to explain being a Catholic to Americans.) and no one is worrying about their religion (well some people worry abut Scheer as he seems to be a bit of a Catholic extremist and is filled with hate) except for Scheer on abortion and LGBTQ++ Legitimate concerns to be sure!!!   But not a concern re: Jagmeet Singh.   I have heard only trolls worry about his "religion" which is,  by the way,  similar in history to Hinduism,  as Protestantism is to Catholicism.   Sikhs also give a call out to the Qu'ran.

On Sept. 3rd 2019 - Some members of the NDP in NB switched to the Greens.  Partly,  they said,  because NB was not going to provide a path to victory for a party with a leader in a turban.  So guess we can put some of it down to racism - certainly in the east. They basically said something like -- "I would stick with the NDP if NB voters were not so racist".



Then today it appears that 7 or 8 of the 14 who supposedly "defected" did not. . . oops. . . Green party seems to have screwed that up.

So all this talk about turbans esp in Quebec where they keep repeating that Bill 21 (Secular Bill) indicates how racist and xenophobic people in Quebec are. . . (are they really?) and Jagmeet put out a video directed at them!  Identity matters in Quebecois(e) and to Jagmeet.



You can see it with english subtitles here.

The media

Almost all the articles about the NDP and or Jagmeet in this election, are negative.  Even where they open with a paragraph that is not an attack -- it soon gets down to it.   Very soon it is discussing why the NDP are losers, or losing.  The coverage is all horse races (Hey NDP did you know you are low in the polls?  LOL  although the polls have a nine point spread much greater than the margin of error in any of them!)  and turbans/race - does it matter?  NO discussion of the platform (that I expect Canadians could warm to quickly if presented to them in digestible bites) or the vision,  or the commitments  -- any of the things that Canadians support in large numbers and yet do not know that they NDP is taking that position/offering/committed to . . .

Some policy. . . 

We know Canadians are supportive of a wealth tax  . . .   and yet how many know that the NDP has committed to a wealth tax of 1% on wealth of 20million or more. 

"So we know It found a staggering 67 per cent of all Canadians support or somewhat support the proposal. Only 14 per cent were opposed or somewhat opposed, while 17 per cent were unsure or felt they didn’t have enough information to respond."

"60 per cent of those who indicated they planned to vote for the federal Conservative party in this fall’s election supported the proposal

Fully 82 per cent of those who identified themselves as being on the left of the political spectrum supported the proposal, as did 64 per cent of self-described centrists, and 58 per cent of those who say they’re on the right."

But we know that Canadians have little idea that this is part of the how the NDP plans to pay for expansions of healthcare and housing.

Canadians also support pharmacare in large numbers and the NDP is the only party committed to a universal pharmacare program. Pretty sure the Liberals "thinking about it" will result in a patchwork. . . they will not want to hurt their friends at insurance,  and pharma,  and large pharmacies.

• 88% agree it is better to have a simple cost-effective prescription drug coverage program that covers everyone in the country than to have a patchwork program.
• 85% agree it is worth investing public money for prescription drug coverage.
• 84% think prescription drugs should be covered as part of our public health care system.

Pink pussyhats, inclusive feminism and changing the mind of old ladies.

An "older woman" (alright I am a "senior" ) suddenly "gets it". . .. . . at least a little. . .

So first,  where I was. . . 
I was concerned.  There were a lot of attacks on "pink pussyhats" from the women's march. . .  and I felt like - wait a minute. . . 1) that was a great organizing tool. . . women made them and then wore them and it looked great at demo's. As someone who has done a lot of organizing - anything that helps people feel included is a good thing. . . and 2)  if you saw someone wearing one on the street, it made me a feel a little "warm". . . like they were on "my side". 

So then I started to hear the complaints and arguments. . . women of colour do not have pink pussies.  Trans women do not have pussies (necessarily) at all. 

Then, the  mulling it over, and hearing the discussion. . . 
Well I thought - that is true - black women in particular tend to have brown or purple vulvas rather than pink . . . but, I thought to myself,  all women have pink vaginas and I have often heard the hats called "vagina hats". . . (yeah rationalize some more - M.A.  - even I knew I was defending something I should be questioning. . .) When people say vaginas, that way, they mean vulvas, and I know that. . .  My other rationalization was that I actually had assumed that they were pink "pussyhats" - that is pussy's of any colour, but pink hats. . .  that is also what the Asian American woman -- do I point that out in my defense?  Gee I hope not --  who came up with the idea says she meant - that "pink" is the colour assigned to girls and women, in general, and nothing to do with actual "pussy" colour.  A great compromise but it means that everyone has to use my interpretation - one of those - "oh you are offended, look at it this way. . ."  Yikes! Though, thank goodness,  in the U.S. they did ask people at many marches not to wear them, in order to be inclusive. There were few in Halifax, but I did note that tons of people in Toronto were still proudly wearing them.

Racialized women, esp women of African descent, tend to be marginalized in every way.  Whatever I am doing as a feminist,  better put their struggles first or I am not an ally.  I know that - I do support Black Lives Matter, and when able -bodied I did attend Black Lives Matter, First Nations and Indigenous,  demos and protests (including visiting Elsipogtog First Nation and the Water Protectors of Shubie. . .I do not mention those to toot my own  horn but to explain that I thought of myself as a "good ally" and someone who "gets it", but who was definitely struggling - though it took me a while to realize how much. ) 
 
Oh dear. Then,  I also thought, well, maybe not all trans women have pussies, but still cis women (who are more than 95% of the woman population) have pussies,  and how else are we going to define "women" if not by their pussies, Periods, pregnancy, menarche and menopause etc.  etc.  'cause I always thought women were just their biology (NOT!) So why was I wanting to do that now? Don't trans women want into that category "women" and that category includes pussies,  whether they individually have one or not . . . I thought that,  even while simultaneously thinking that trans women are women.  Two of the trans women I know I cannot think of as anything other than a woman - I do not wonder what their cis gender is, I do not wonder what their "plumbing" looks like.  They live in the world as women.  But, I realize that  it is not always the case, and it is hard for many trans women who seem spurned much of the time by any and all genders.  It is personal choice - theirs, not mine.  People do their own "categorizing" or resisting categories. I can only support them.

Even though I am totally in support of gender queer people and those who want to be genderless, AND trans people.  I have tried to be an ally . . . but what this whole discussion made me realize is that I cling very hard (too hard ) to gender categories.  I find it amusing when I meet someone or see someone who is very androgynous.  I love it when I cannot determine someone's gender - but I had, until a few days ago been treating it as a puzzle to be solved - as some point I would identify a cis' or trans' gender -- even though I know not to ask . . . but why do I feel like I have to put people in one of those categories?  No wonder I struggled (though just in practice not in philosophy) to use "their" instead of his or hers.   Have I not spent my life fighting as a feminist and a woman and a socialist, to end capitalism, to make women more equal,  to fight for peace and justice and equality,  and elimination of violence against women? The urge to categorize is (wrongly) strong in me! 

So I started to talk quietly (and with some trepidation) to people about those hats and my discomfort,  and out of those conversations I came to realize how much I cling to gender categories.  I do not for a moment,  not put trans women in the woman "category" I have no trouble doing that - but have come to realize over the last few weeks that I still want the categories.  Why?  Because I have fought for women, and I want there to be a definition of that. . . and I am scared of the category "men" defining the category "women".

Conclusion and new thinking . . . 
But, I am slowly realizing that there is no reason to cling to those hard gender boundaries - what makes me uncomfortable is something I can learn from . . .  I am trying very hard to get away all together from those categories.  We do not need to define "woman" by body part, (and I would have sworn I did not do that until I examined by discomfort with an attack on pink pussyhats)  I think in the near future (at least in the privileged north) there might be people more masculine,  or more feminine, without such clear boundaries,  and I think that there will be a lot more androgyny/genderlessness.  Millennials seem to  find it easy.  I can imagine it. I had no trouble with the Left Hand of Darkness.  Navigating sex in that world is something I won't have to do (too old) but what an adventure.  I have never had sex with anyone whose "genitalia" I could not categorize in advance.  More or less I knew what I would find "down there" (including a lot of individual variation)  I think in "The Kin of atta is waiting for you" there is a scene about that, or maybe it was Marge Piercey. . .  - but otherwise, than fictional experiences. . . it is a new thought for me. 

So the big realization is that I really don't need to care about what is in anyone's pants.  Including my own.  I do not need to identify with a category of "female sex" and who is in the category "woman", or the "genderless/queer" category,  is of no real consequence. . . I should just get over it - which means right away being more inclusive. It is backward thinking -- like seeing the increasing equality of black/African Canadian as somehow taking something from white people.  (all those white nationalists/racists I do not see myself as among!) Expanding "categories" rather than using them to exclude people,  expands us all and takes nothing from me. (or you!)

Animaniacs, Intuitive Eating, defining "research" and Amy Cuddy

First,  Hulu is "rebooting animaniacs", and letting the back catalogue be available. . . . Used to love those cartoons and "Pinky and the Brain" -- and some other related. . .





_____________________________________________________________

So complained about something on FB using the word "research" (that is I did a short - not exhaustive lit review on pub med) but some people objected to "looking things up",  including published "research",   being referred to as "researching a subject" - only doing the actual trials counts as "research". Please let me know in the comments what you think.  I think this is "hard science treats everyone else as an idiot" bias - but perhaps I am protesting too much. It means in law and sociology and history there is very little "research".   Even in heavily "evidence based" midwifery school "research paper" meant doing a lit review of the best evidence for certain practices.  Using cochrane database, pub med etc.  But that is not "research", according to my Science PhD's.  It is in the dictionary definition but makes some people howl.   It has, at this moment, changed my use of the word so as to not get involved in semantic arguments. I was surprised to be "corrected" that a lit review is not "research" but there you go. . . what do you think?
________________________________________________________________


I have been following and studying critiquing and collecting info on (not "researching" which I otherwise might have used here)    intuitive eating and non-diets. Most (literally most of it) nutrition advice is bogus and we actually have no idea what size people should be, or that there is a proper size,  but have a bias to thin (and white, and straight and tall,  but that is neither here nor there. . . for my purpose here).  Over weight people are often blamed for all their problems regardless of how they eat and exercise and what their actual state of health is. . .

My ND/dietitian no longer coaches people on weight loss - it does not work to lose weight or to increase health in the long term.   95-97% of diets fail - They may often work in the short term but people don't keep the weight off more than 12 months.   Everybody loses.  You don't get satisfaction from eating - but deny yourself things. . .   This approach of body acceptance and intuitive eating reminds me of a program called mindful eating that was not popular but around years ago, but it had little research/evaluation/critique/science behind it. Not sure the new one does either but I am going to give it a try. It is not just at what you want but figure out when you re really hungry and what really satisfies. . . Over time you get what you need. . . and you stop dieting and decreasing your metabolism

So here's a few pieces on this "new" approach to weigh loss and no weightloss/size acceptance. Don't think about losing weight.  Get rid of your scale - figure out what makes you satisfied, happy and feeling good.  Maybe not the same for everyone. . .

Here's an overview where 13 Experts Explain Why Diets Don't Work And What To Do Instead                ". . . Even if we could, [determine what size people should be]95–97% of purposeful weight loss attempts fail. Instead, I help my clients build sustainable habits that aren't built on restriction, and let their body settle at whatever size it's supposed to be."  

or. . . "Weight is not the issue — whether or not the body loses weight is up to the body, not up to the client or me, for that matter. Food can be a comfort, a source of nourishment, and a source of joy. It’s a part of life, just like movement."

 If you prefer listening,  this streaming or podcast from CBC The Current is also interesting - Forget everything you've heard about 'bad food' to avoid, says doctor - although he does think that you should avoid sugar . . . 

I have not read it yet, but apparently the book that started some of this (and is NOT available at the Halifax Public Library - anyone got a copy, I can borrow?) is Health at Every Size.  

And lastly  - although the web is full of stuff about Intuitive eating -  here's another titled "what thin people don't understand about dieting".  If you are not "over weight" and are judgmental of those who are, or if you are a practitioner still trying to coach people to sustainable weight loss, this outlines some of the issues. . . (not "science" just popular info)  

____________________________________________________________

Final musing today is about Amy Cuddy - speaking of research. . . I showed  this Ted talk, about power poses,  to lots of people and found it fascinating - especially to Stewards to build confidence before their first meetings.  I had no reports of whether people used it or found any benefit but tons of people were fascinated by it. . .   

So today I learned (although I was slow to catch up) that a larger study was done and they could not replicate the results and found no effect. . . LOL  So I think "science" is broken! And I will stop using this talk!

Wind, Cannabis, apprehension of children, minimum wage and more

So made it thorough a wild night of crazy wind (up to 120km an hour gusts) - no snow though.  Trees down in front of/beside our house but all belong to neighbours. . . although two are in our driveway they are on the house side of both cars - Assume eventually construction workers building new house next door will deal with it --   on Monday if not before.  We have power and warmth and light and internet etc. (113,000 NS Power customers without power this morning - never privatize your power company!!!!) )   All happily in place with one son, wife and grand child, and waiting for the other son and family to arrive for another "Christmas" at our house.   So happy. 
 _______________________________________________________________

Well thank goodness for the occasional judge that can literally see through the DCS judgment.


"An impoverished Halifax-area couple have regained custody of their toddler daughter, after a judge declared: "There is a difference between parents who are poor, and poor parents."   . . .
"The province's community services minister argued in court there is a "real chance" of harm if the girl is returned to her parents.
"But the judge noted the woman has had no mental-health crises for 17 months, and previously sought help when needed. She said the woman works as a babysitter, and has extensive experience caring for five younger siblings, and is "a confident, competent and capable care-giver."
"Parents who have poor mental health are not deprived of their children: parents whose poor mental health puts their children at risk and who do not seek needed treatment are," Jollimore said in her ruling."
 ________________________________________________________


Lots of blow back in Ontario on minimum wage increase. . . and media playing their part by publishing lots of articles about how the increase will hurt minimum wage workers.

Although I cannot find the article this second - many news articles were about how 50-60,000 thousand jobs will be lost because of it - but the truth is that they are only predicating a slow down in job growth, NO job losses in fact.  And yet many headlines repeated this error. . . 

Michael Coren wrote a great piece (will wonders never cease - not the first time - amazing watching his views change over the last decades) saying in part: "The response seldom has anything to do with economics but is about control and even humiliation. Critics believe that those earning minimum wage somehow deserve to go without, need to pay a price for some imagined sin of failure or lack of ambition. Minimum wage is in their eyes punitive. Listen to talk radio, read right-wing columnists and we see a contemporary Calvinism, a perverse form of predestination where the undeserving poor need to know their place.
. . .
"When, for example, it’s revealed that business leaders are to receive bonuses on already astronomical salaries we never hear that this will lead to inflation or the need to reduce the number of bosses. On the contrary, the same types who oppose minimum wage increases explain that only such munificence will attract the best, even though the evidence indicates otherwise."

Tons of other great pieces on the minimum wage defense.  . .

___________________________________________________________

This article in Wired is from the summer,  but I just read it and found it fascinating: https://www.wired.com/story/this-pill-promises-to-extend-life-for-a-nickel-a-pop/
Metformin - that is used primarily to stabilize blood sugar in diabetics  may be the key to living, maybe not longer,  but healthier for longer - so more years of good health and ability - still perhaps getting cancer or heart disease,  but much later. . . Sounds good to me - I would love more years of health to enjoy the world. 
__________________________________________________________-

There seems to be an assumption in this story that Cannabis use is way worse than alcohol.  Why is it any different than not allowing people to be drunk on the job?  Why need different methods or processes? It uses language like

Do you want some bozo driving a tank to be strung out? No," said Stuart Hendin, a lawyer and instructor at the Royal Military College and Canadian Forces College.

"strung out" on weed? Miriam Webster describes strung out as addicted or physically debilitated from long term drug use.  Cannabis does neither of those things on its own.   You can develop a "habit" but there are no physical symptoms from stopping use -  just psychological ones. . . there seems to be real panic as if there is not much difference between cannabis and heroin (a la Jeff Sessions) The Military seems a little panicked and the press are not asking questions about their lack of science/medical knowledge.

Women, Work, Palestine and Carnival Games

The worst jobs. . . the most dangerous jobs. 

 Global TV published a piece about the "worst jobs" citing the most dangerous (with death as the outcome) but with a focus on jobs (like healthcare) where mental health is a big issue. 

Most people think of "dangerous jobs" as the ones where there might be violence like policing and corrections, but death (although it happens and is always a tragedy when anyone dies at work) is not an issue statistically for those professions - they do not even make the list of most dangerous professions and yet they are compensated for that risk.  Police Officers in Halifax now (in large numbers and including overtime) make over $100,000/yr  -- and that list was compiled before they got an arbitration decision of 2.75% increases each year for 5 year.   Basic requirements - physical requirements, a pass on a basic knowledge (GED equivalent) test, a high school diploma and a good character with no criminal record.  Compare that to nurses, (basic requirement now - 4 year degree and working unpaid under supervision) and teachers, (require two degrees and working unpaid under supervision) and librarians (many with master's degrees) There is history at work here - as historically,  male occupations were unionized first and for along time we existed in a world where "men are the bread winners" and "men have to be able to support a family",   which set up a lot of these dichotomies.   But it is not any kind of "pay for work of equal value" which we are supposed to be working under/toward (for the last 25 years) 

The worst thing for your health as a workers is to work mixed day and night shifts - where do they still do this?  Healthcare for sure.    And have you seen the pics of the violence that Educational Assistants put up with?    My only point is that job compensation is not related to actual danger, or pre-reqs like education,  but, in fact, are segregated and compensated by union density, year they got organized,  and gender.   Lest you think I do protest too much about gender, there is evidence from the New York Times. . . When the number of women in an occupation increases, the pay for that occupation drops.

"Women, for example, are now better educated than men, have nearly as much work experience and are equally likely to pursue many high-paying careers. No longer can the gap be dismissed with pat observations that women outnumber men in lower-paying jobs like teaching and social work.

A new study from researchers at Cornell University found that the difference between the occupations and industries in which men and women work has recently become the single largest cause of the gender pay gap, accounting for more than half of it. In fact, another study shows, when women enter fields in greater numbers, pay declines — for the very same jobs that more men were doing before."

Not like it could not be fixed - just requires political/social will.   In Iceland, as of this year, it is illegal to pay women less than men. 

'Iceland is not waiting for the gender pay gap to fix itself.
Starting January 1, 2018, it is now illegal for employers to pay women less than men. In Iceland, both public and private employers with 25 employees or more will need obtain government certification of equal pay policies. Organizations that fail to obtain the certification will face fines.
_______________________________________________________________

 Machetunim

Was reminded of something today from a Facebook "memory" of us meeting my son's,  in-laws for the first time (and we really love them!) There is a word in Yiddish for the relationship - our "machetunim" -- thanks to Yiddish for having a word we do not have in English!  But need.

______________________________________________________________________

Palestine. 

Gideon Levy - a journalist and Israeli Human Rights Advocate writes about the arrest and detention of Ahed Tamimi and how much Palestinians have become non-human to most Israeli's.   Yes there are Human rights Abuses all over the world and Israel always wants to us "whataboutism" - - what about Russia, what about the Philippines, what about Indigenous People in Canada?  Well I decry all of them too - but I think Israel gets the brunt because they keep saying they are a democracy and have the rule of law etc but in fact it is only for some, jut like it is in some Arabic/Muslim countries. . . . We object to rule by religion in other countries. But Israel expects a pass.  Click on photo for link to full article.

"Yet even Ahed Tamimi’s “non-Arab” appearance hasn’t managed to touch any hearts here. The wall of dehumanization and demonization that has been built through vile campaigns of incitement, propaganda and brain-washing against the Palestinians has trumped even the blonde from Nabi Saleh.              . . .

"Tamimi is a Palestinian, that is to say, a terrorist, and therefore, she doesn’t deserve any feelings of sympathy. Nothing will crack the defensive shield that protects Israelis from feelings of guilt, or at least discomfort, over her outrageous arrest, over the discrimination by the justice system, which would never have paid any attention to her had she been a Jewish settler.         . . .

"Israel hides behind an iron curtain that it’s no longer possible to pierce. Nothing Israel does to the Palestinians is still capable of rousing any compassion. Not even the poster girl, Tamimi. Even if she were sentenced to life in prison for a slap, even if she were sentenced to death, her punishment would be greeted with either open joy or indifference. There is no place for any other human emotion toward any Palestinian.

______________________________________________________________________

Science of Carnival Games

Have not got time today but someday I am going to take this and write the same info about Capitalism scams!  LOL

https://kottke.org/17/12/the-art-and-science-of-carnival-games-and-how-to-win-them