deicer

Donating Member
  • Content Count

    7,653
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    79

Everything posted by deicer

  1. Save the tears. Even the right wing papers in Ontario are saying that Doug Ford's conservatives and their policies are outspending Wynne. That's the kind of responsible government you want? That's why Scheer is running scared of having Ford out in public. Last week they had a cabinet meeting and they snuck Ford in and out through a back door to keep him away from the press. Some leadership.... This is why you vote anybody but conservative! Highlights are mine for emphasis. https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/doug-fords-ontario-government-spent-billions-more-than-wynne-had-planned-in-2018-19 Fiscal restraint? Doug Ford's Ontario government spent billions more than Wynne had planned in 2018-19 Opinion: At the current rate of spending, an additional $42 billion will be added to Ontario’s debt from now until a balanced budget in 2023 hey say, when delivering negative feedback, to use the sandwich approach: compliment, criticism, compliment. So when it comes to the Ontario Progressive Conservative party’s financial performance, let’s start by commending the government’s Fiscal Sustainability, Transparency and Accountability Act, which improves transparency in public reporting. That includes the recently released first quarter report. Fixing the fiscal mess in Ontario requires being transparent with the populace about just how dire their finances are. So great work there. However, if the report makes one thing clear, it’s that the government has a lot of work to do to get Ontario’s spending under control. Premier Doug Ford’s government was elected to clean up the fiscal mess left behind by its predecessors — $325 billion of debt to be exact, which marks a staggering increase of 134 per cent from the time the Ontario Liberals took office in 2003. At the time of the June 2018 election, the previous government was spending $40 million more every day than it was collecting in revenue. Let that sink in for a moment. Ontarians wanted spending restraint and hoped that a change in government could get the job done. Much to the chagrin of any Ontarian who waited 15 years for the province to spend less and pay down debt, the new government brought more of the same: increased spending and growing debt. To the surprise of many, the Ford government’s spending has surpassed that of its predecessor at its moment of greatest excess. In the lead-up to last year’s provincial election, it was not uncommon to hear of then-premier, Kathleen Wynne, satirically referred to as Santa Claus. Her government was, after all, offering all sorts of free gifts to Ontarians in an attempt to curry electoral favour. In its March 2018 budget, for example, she had added $20 billion in new program spending. In total, her budget was set to cost $159 billion, an increase of nearly 12 per cent from the previous year. But despite the goodies on offer, Ontarians rejected overspending in a decisive move toward restraint and placed Doug Ford in the premier’s chair. Shockingly, the budget that followed revealed Wynne’s plan could have been the cheaper option. In the 2018-19 fiscal year, the PC government spent a total of $163 billion — a whopping $4 billion more than the Liberal party had planned. The province’s debt rose by nearly $12 billion. In response, Moody’s credit rating agency downgraded the province from “stable” to “negative,” which made the debt burden even more expensive. Although the Fitch ratings agency has returned the province’s credit rating to “stable,” based on the government’s plan to return to fiscal balance by 2023, Ontario’s debt burden continues to grow. Current interest charges on the debt are projected to be over $13 billion this year, which will eat up approximately nine per cent of revenue from the 2019-2020 budget plan. Interest charges on its debt are now the fourth largest expenditure line item on Ontario’s books, higher than spending on “training, colleges and universities,” which amounts to just over $11 billion. Yet even with this all laid out clearly in its recently released report, the government has already spent an additional $182 million more than it budgeted for in April. Was this spending necessary? To take just one example — $12 million to “support Ontario grape growers, wineries, small distilleries and craft cideries” — the answer is clearly “no.” The dire and declining state of Ontario’s finances should concern everyone. Debt today means taxes tomorrow, and each Ontarian already owes more than $24,000 thanks to government overspending. Ontario’s debt grows by $523 each second. Ontarians pay $1.5 million every hour on interest alone. A recent report by the Fraser Institute estimates that at the current rate of spending, an additional $42 billion will be added to Ontario’s debt from now until the government balances the budget in 2023 — which isn’t, conveniently, until after the next election. Ontarians are counting on this government to control spending and pay down the provincial debt. There are many opportunities for savings — from corporate welfare to municipal waste — that the government needs to act on now, not in 2023. To end with a compliment, cheers to Ford on beer in corner stores.
  2. As the movie 'The Great Hack' highlighted, data is more valuable than oil now... https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/the-next-generation-of-aircraft-will-track-your-bathroom-visits-1.1314946 The next generation of aircraft will track your bathroom visits Technology Pursuits News Wire Company News Sep 12, 2019 The next generation of aircraft will track your bathroom visits Justin Bachman, Bloomberg News Bloomberg Americas Qantas Tests Whether Passengers Can Handle a 20-Hour Flight Aug.22 -- Qantas Airways Ltd. will run marathon ghost flights to Sydney from New York and London to see how the human body holds up during a 20-hour flight. Bloomberg's Annmarie Hordern reports on "Bloomberg Daybreak: Europe." 00:15 Rewind 10 Seconds 01:30 01:30 Show Info Share video Settings Fullscreen Qantas Tests Whether Passengers Can Handle a 20-Hour Flight Attention airline bathroom loiterers: The next generation of Airbus aircraft will track how long you’ve been in there. It’s all part of an effort to make commercial cabins a digitally aware domain. The program is Airbus’s bid to raise the Internet of Things — that buzz-phrase for connected household gadgets — to cruising altitude. The Airbus Connected Experience aims to give flight attendants a more detailed survey of the cabin, with sensors for such critical data as when bathroom soap is running low and how much toilet paper remains in each bathroom. But the rethinking of the passenger environment doesn’t just stop with the lavatory. At each seat, your belt will signal red for unbuckled and green when fastened. The goal is faster boarding and departure, dispensing with those lap-scrutinizing walk-throughs flight attendants must perform. The crew will also have access to information on what’s onboard and where, like which galley carts contain specific meals, such as preorders or vegetarian selections. “It’s not a concept, it’s not a dream: It’s reality,” Ingo Wuggetzer, Airbus’s vice president of cabin marketing, said Tuesday at an aviation trade show in Los Angeles. Airbus has begun flight testing the connected cabin on its A350 test aircraft and plans to introduce it on the A321 family in 2021, followed by the larger, two-aisle A350 series two years later. As cool as all of this may seem to you, the passenger, it’s just another way for airlines to squeeze more profit out of operations. While data from these various areas will be sent to flight attendant tablets or smart phones in real time, the crunching of that data over time is where the real value lies. The connectivity Airbus envisions for its cabins will provide an enormous trove of information airlines can use to analyze and optimize in their never-ending quest for cost efficiencies. From the time it takes a flight attendant to respond to a call button, to preferences for prosecco versus chardonnay, to which bathroom gets the most use — the information can help optimize all aspects of flight. “You can make the service more attentive,” said Ronald Sweers, an Airbus cabin-products director. While the digital doodads are expected to simplify flight attendant workloads, their true value may lie in giving airlines more insights about what happens in the cabin. That space, Wuggetzer noted, is a virtual “black box” to carriers once the plane leaves a gate. But not for much longer. Airbus also plans to offer airlines the option of cameras at each lavatory (on the outside, mind you) to count how many passengers are waiting, a feature which may help flight attendants redirect some of that traffic on larger jets. While certainly helpful to that man in 17C who had one too many sodas, the data will also show airlines the length of wait times on various flights, and on different aircraft types. More seriously, it can also alert a flight attendant that someone inside may be ill or need assistance, Wuggetzer said. Technology Pursuits News Wire Company News Sep 12, 2019 The next generation of aircraft will track your bathroom visits Justin Bachman, Bloomberg News Bloomberg Americas Qantas Tests Whether Passengers Can Handle a 20-Hour Flight Aug.22 -- Qantas Airways Ltd. will run marathon ghost flights to Sydney from New York and London to see how the human body holds up during a 20-hour flight. Bloomberg's Annmarie Hordern reports on "Bloomberg Daybreak: Europe." 00:15 Rewind 10 Seconds 01:30 01:30 Show Info Share video Settings Fullscreen Qantas Tests Whether Passengers Can Handle a 20-Hour Flight Attention airline bathroom loiterers: The next generation of Airbus aircraft will track how long you’ve been in there. It’s all part of an effort to make commercial cabins a digitally aware domain. The program is Airbus’s bid to raise the Internet of Things — that buzz-phrase for connected household gadgets — to cruising altitude. The Airbus Connected Experience aims to give flight attendants a more detailed survey of the cabin, with sensors for such critical data as when bathroom soap is running low and how much toilet paper remains in each bathroom. But the rethinking of the passenger environment doesn’t just stop with the lavatory. At each seat, your belt will signal red for unbuckled and green when fastened. The goal is faster boarding and departure, dispensing with those lap-scrutinizing walk-throughs flight attendants must perform. The crew will also have access to information on what’s onboard and where, like which galley carts contain specific meals, such as preorders or vegetarian selections. “It’s not a concept, it’s not a dream: It’s reality,” Ingo Wuggetzer, Airbus’s vice president of cabin marketing, said Tuesday at an aviation trade show in Los Angeles. Airbus has begun flight testing the connected cabin on its A350 test aircraft and plans to introduce it on the A321 family in 2021, followed by the larger, two-aisle A350 series two years later. As cool as all of this may seem to you, the passenger, it’s just another way for airlines to squeeze more profit out of operations. While data from these various areas will be sent to flight attendant tablets or smart phones in real time, the crunching of that data over time is where the real value lies. The connectivity Airbus envisions for its cabins will provide an enormous trove of information airlines can use to analyze and optimize in their never-ending quest for cost efficiencies. From the time it takes a flight attendant to respond to a call button, to preferences for prosecco versus chardonnay, to which bathroom gets the most use — the information can help optimize all aspects of flight. “You can make the service more attentive,” said Ronald Sweers, an Airbus cabin-products director. While the digital doodads are expected to simplify flight attendant workloads, their true value may lie in giving airlines more insights about what happens in the cabin. That space, Wuggetzer noted, is a virtual “black box” to carriers once the plane leaves a gate. But not for much longer. Airbus also plans to offer airlines the option of cameras at each lavatory (on the outside, mind you) to count how many passengers are waiting, a feature which may help flight attendants redirect some of that traffic on larger jets. While certainly helpful to that man in 17C who had one too many sodas, the data will also show airlines the length of wait times on various flights, and on different aircraft types. More seriously, it can also alert a flight attendant that someone inside may be ill or need assistance, Wuggetzer said. A carry-on bag space detecting overhead bin is demonstrated inside the Airbus SE Airspace connected aircraft passenger cabin during the APEX Expo in Los Angeles, California, U.S., on Wednesday, September 11, 2019. (Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg) The crew will also be able to control features such as window shades and public address volume from their mobile devices. The system will know which overhead bin spaces are open, with green lights along the cabin, much like the lighting schemes used in parking decks to signal drivers toward unoccupied spaces. That should, in theory, speed boarding, Airbus says. As far as Airbus is concerned, the cabin’s platform is open so customer airlines can attach their own crew applications or other software, Sweers said. Many large carriers have customized or proprietary software for such onboard tasks as catering. “The feedback we heard from airlines was, ‘OK, Airbus, we don’t believe you’re able to give us an application that will work with our systems,’” Sweers said on the trade show floor, discussing the galley equipment.
  3. While we get discount coupons like that in the GTA, the average price for a Big Mac combo is around $11. https://www.expatistan.com/price/big-mac/toronto
  4. Remember, when you point a finger, three point back at you... Sorry the pics didn't transver over, click the link to see the proof of Mr. Scheer's hypocrisy. https://www.narcity.com/news/ca/andrew-scheer-called-out-justin-trudeaus-india-trip-and-it-completely-back-fired Andrew Scheer Tried To Make Fun Of Justin Trudeau’s India Trip & It Completely Backfired Things definitely didn't go to plan for Scheer. Helena Hanson 1 month ago Updated on August 02 @ 04:24 PM 1.4K andrewjscheer | Instagram justinpjtrudeau | Instagram It is no secret that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Conservative opposition leader Andrew Scheer are not exactly the best of friends. Most recently, Andrew Scheer called out Justin Trudeau's India trip. That's not surprising, as the two are leaders of opposing political parties, and there's an election right around the corner. However, things don’t always work out the way you want when it comes to social media, where Scheer posted about Trudeau. In fact, things certainly backfired for Scheer this week when he tried to drag Justin Trudeau for ‘damaging Canada’s international relations’ during his 2018 trip to India. Despite Scheer's attempts to make a mockery of Trudeau, the public seemed to side with the Prime Minister, making Scheer look a little bit foolish himself. To make his point, Scheer shared a recent article from the National Post, which was criticizing Trudeau’s choice of attire during his recent trip to India. During the trip, the Prime Minister and his family were seen repeatedly wearing traditional Indian clothing, that was described by one website as “too Indian, even for an Indian.” While the tweet had more than 500 retweets and nearly 2,000 likes, the response from Canadians was probably not exactly what Scheer was hoping for. While it is common for political figures and their families to wear culturally appropriate attire during official visits, it is rarely done so often and so over-the-top as Trudeau did. Naturally, Scheer made the most of this opportunity to take aim at the Liberal leader, saying in a tweet that “he [Trudeau] has embarrassed Canada on the world stage.” However, Canadians were not having any of this from Scheer, and were quick to respond to his tweet with some pretty hilarious criticisms of their own. In fact, several users dug out some less-than-flattering photos of Scheer, and even his predecessor Stephen Harper, dressed in various cultural attires, taking the opportunity to call him out on his hypocrisy. pic.twitter.com/OjEeDyWvtR — Danked (@dankeddude) August 2, 2019 One Twitter user used Scheer's own trip to London as an example of his hypocrisy, writing, “Not nearly as embarrassing as when you went on a make-believe Canadian PM trip to the UK. Did you accomplished big things while you were out there, Agent Smart?” Another noted that Trudeau’s clothing could simply be regarded as respectful, writing, “ why is it that when you wear these same kinds of clothes, it was ok, but when the PM does it, you ridicule him? He was trying to show respect for the culture, what's wrong with that? Is this what you think a good leader does?” With the October federal election drawing nearer, it is no surprise the pressure is building between the two opposing leaders, and they are likely to continue to take aim at one another in the weeks to come. That said, after his latest attempt to call-out Trudeau back-fired a little, perhaps Scheer will be a little more careful before he hits the 'send tweet' button next time!
  5. Please don't forget the race to the bottom was created by American corporations pushing Regan, Mulroney and Thatcher to create conservative policies in the 80's to outsource labour for greater profits. (NAFTA). The seed sown is now blooming. https://www.businessinsider.com/what-happened-to-american-jobs-in-the-80s-2017-7 White House Trade Council head Peter Navarro was explaining what he sees as the biggest problem with the American economy since the 1990s that exacerbated inequality and left the American worker in the lurch. "Well, I think you start with the idea that we've had 15 years of subpar growth — 2 percent or below," he said in an interview with NPR to promote "Made in America Week." "Prior to 2001, we grew at 3 and a half percent. The big difference has been the entry of China in particular into the World Trade Organization and our markets. And we've just been hammered. What that does as a proxy, basically, is it drains essentially the lifeblood out of our manufacturing economy, out of our communities, out of our tax bases." So the narrative from the White House is that China's big push into global markets is the root cause for stagnant economic and wage growth since the turn of the millennium. But that narrative has a really basic flaw: It's only half the story. And with only half the story, you're not going to find a whole solution to the slow growth, low wage, low unemployment predicament we find ourselves in now. The problem didn't start in the 1990s, it started in the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan — a hero of the Trump administration — was president, and neoliberal economics were first making their mark on policy. Reagan and his ilk distrusted government and believed that the private sector could make the best decisions when left on its own. You've heard about this — it's called laissez faire economics. This ideology ultimately led to the financialization of the US corporation — the process of putting shareholders first, often at the expense of workers and consumers — and its emergence as an actor that takes resources from the economy rather than creating them. This, combined with a government zeal for lowering taxes rather than spending, means no one — not the government, and not the private sector — is investing enough in America to keep the economy strong across social classes. In short: Government cuts and changes in how corporations operate mean American workers are getting screwed by their own government and their own employers. Navarro and I end up with the same dire view of the current economic landscape. We just disagree on how we got there. An unstoppable force... But I'm jumping ahead — let's go back to the Reagan era. That was also the time Japanese manufacturers had developed a superior management style to their American rivals and, frankly, started eating our lunch. Instead of keeping a wall between management and workers, Japanese manufacturers adopted "organizational integration," which put technical specialists and shop-floor workers together. The result was better products made faster in Japan, and jobs lost permanently in the United States. The Financialization of the US Corporation, William Lazonick William Lazonick, an economics professor at UMass Lowell, describes the results of that transformation in his 2012 paper, "The Financialization of the US Corporation: What Has Been Lost, and How Can It Be Regained." It's a must-read for this kind of stuff. Lazonick describes the huge negative effect competition from Japanese manufacturers had on American manufacturing jobs: "The adverse impact of Japanese competition on US employment became particularly harsh in the double-dip recession of 1980-1982 when large numbers of good blue-collar jobs disappeared from US industry, as it turned out permanently (Bednarzik 1983). "Previously, in a more stable competitive environment, US manufacturing companies would lay off workers with the least seniority in a downturn and re-employ them when economic conditions improved. Now companies were much more likely to shutter whole plants (Harris 1984; Hamermesh 1989). "From 1980 to 1985 employment in the US economy increased from 104.5 million to 107.2 million workers, or by 2.6 percent. But employment of operators, fabricators, and laborers fell from 20.0 million to 16.8 million, a decline of 15.9 percent (US Department of Commerce 1983, 416; and 1986, 386)." Industries like consumer electronics, automobiles, machine tools, steel and microelectronics were all hit especially hard by Japan's advancement. Most never recovered. Some companies disappeared from the face of the earth, like consumer electronics maker RCA. In 1981 it was a global leader, by 1986 it was bought by GE and then chopped up and sold for parts. ...meets an immovable object Lawmakers watch closely as President Reagan signs into law a landmark tax overhaul on the White House South Lawn in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 22, 1986. Reagan called the bill a "sweeping victory for fairness." AP Photo/Bob Dougherty All of this was happening amid a wave of deregulation in the US. The head of the SEC, John Shad, was a former banker — something that hadn't happened in 50 years. He, like Reagan, believed that the private sector could channel funds better without regulation and so he wrote rules with that in mind. For example, in 1982 he made it legal for companies to repurchase their shares on the open market pretty much whenever they wanted. Previously, the SEC had considered this a form of stock price manipulation. This was also the era of the corporate raider, pushing companies to become leaner and more profitable as quickly as possible. The shareholder became the main thing for a company to worry about. Employees lost their status. Companies feared getting attacked, so they bent over backward to mollify the former at the expense of the latter. Those new stock repurchasing rules, for one thing, allowed them to shore up their defenses by buying back stock. But, of course, that meant spending money that could've gone to innovate, invest in new technology and equipment, or reward workers. That's when Lazonick says the financialization of the American corporation began in earnest, and blue-collar workers were left behind by corporate America and the government alike: "As secure middle-class jobs for high-school-educated blue-collar workers permanently disappeared, there was no commitment on the part of those who managed US industrial corporations or the Republican administrations that ruled in the 1980s to invest in the new capabilities and opportunities required to upgrade the quality and expand the quantity of well-paid employment opportunities in the United States on a scale sufficient to re-establish conditions of prosperity for these displaced members of the US labor force." Reagan's mission was to cut the budget — which meant not spending money investing in the future of these workers. In the decades after this process started, manufacturing workers would find their numbers diminishing as corporations sought ways to please shareholders, and the government sought ways to lower taxes and deregulate the private sector. No one had their backs. The rich get richer When corporations borrow money, one would think that money would go into investment in the firm. But according to the Roosevelt Institute, a left-leaning Washington think tank, since the 1980s, companies have invested less than 10 cents of each borrowed dollar. They've put far more effort into buying back stock which, thanks to the way executive compensation works, makes the C-suite richer and richer. From 2003 to 2012, S&P 500 companies used 54% ($2.4 trillion) of their earnings for stock buybacks. That has also contributed substantially to the inequality we're seeing, as the main beneficiaries of buybacks are wealthy investors. Meanwhile, the private sector has called on the government to invest in innovation. Back in 2010 the American Energy Innovation Council— which includes executives from Microsoft, Bank of America, and other massive companies — called on the government to increase its investment in alternative energy from $5 billion to $16 billion annually. Of course, as Lazonick pointed out in his paper, seven of the companies on the council had spent $228 billion from 2000-2010 on stock buybacks. To put this another way: big business is asking the government to assume the risk involved in innovation, so they can take advantage of the benefits. Navarro never mentions things like this. No one in the administration ever does. The way they tell the story, the only problem in corporate America lies with foreigners taking advantage of unfair circumstances and big multinationals that cut jobs domestically to tap cheap labor abroad. The administration thinks the remedy for that is punishing China — and other trading partners — who have a competitive edge. They look outward instead of inward. Navarro hammered on this trend: "...what's interesting is that with every different country that we have a large trade deficit with, we have a different set of problems — with Mexico, for example — cheap labor," Navarro explained. "With Germany, they have a misaligned currency. So if you address these issues of unfair trade practices, if you get better trade deals, if you stop things like forced technology transfer or the theft of our intellectual property, if you ensure that the sweatshops of the world live up to international standards for minimum wage and safe working conditions, if you have reasonable environmental protection, then American manufacturers can compete with anybody in the world." If this is the way you look at that problem, you're not going to find a sustainable solution. The world didn't take America's jobs, America let the world have them without investing in a path to new ones because politicians were more interested in tax cuts, and corporate America was more interested in short term gains.
  6. Mach 8.6!!! https://jalopnik.com/you-cant-even-see-this-hypersonic-sled-hit-6-599-mph-1838027056
  7. Marshall It is the lies and misdirection that are swaying Ontario voters, and the rest of Canada should take note. Here's more of the lies that were used to sway the faithful who don't think for themselves. So the increases in the debt and deficit are more of Ford's policy now than blaming the past. https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/2019/09/13/ontarios-deficit-last-year-was-74b-half-what-ford-claimed.html Ontario’s deficit last year was $7.4B — half what Ford claimed Ontario’s budget deficit was half of the $15 billion the Progressive Conservative government initially claimed after defeating the Liberals last year. Treasury Board President Peter Bethlenfalvy and Finance Minister Rod Phillips on Friday announced that the final deficit figure for 2018-19 was $7.4 billion. The Tory ministers said the change — down from an interim $11.7 billion figure disclosed by former treasurer Vic Fedeli who was demoted 10 weeks after his April budget — is due to higher tax revenues and lower than anticipated spending. “Our government’s strong fiscal management and smart policies mean we are overcoming the previous government’s record of waste and mismanagement,” said Bethlenfalvy. But the actual deficit could be anywhere from $1.3 billion to $2.6 billion lower because the Tories are still in discussions with Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk over how to include billions of assets in government co-sponsored pension plans. Lysyk used to account for the holdings in the Ontario Public Service Employees’ Union Pension Plan and the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan until a dispute with the previous Liberal government in 2015. A panel of independent experts hired by the former administration and led by the chair of the Canadian Actuarial Standards Oversight Council concluded in 2017 that she was wrong. The Conservatives’ independent “financial commission of inquiry,” headed by former B.C. Liberal premier Gordon Campbell, said last year the government should only adopt Lysyk’s accounting method on a “provisional basis.” “It would seem reasonable that the government should be able to recognize a portion of an asset it jointly controls with another party,” Campbell’s report concluded. “Given the risks and uncertainties involved, they may not feel it appropriate for the government to recognize its full 50 per cent share of the surplus. By the same token, however, it seems unlikely they would conclude the value to be zero.” Bethlenfalvy said negotiations are continuing with Lysyk to determine how the pensions could be accounted for in the future. That suggests if those assets are considered to be worth $2.6 billion to the annual bottom line then the government could claim a $1.3 billion benefit. Phillips emphasized that they are “non-cash” accounting items on the books so they do not affect borrowing or program spending. The finance minister, who took over from Fedeli after Premier Doug Ford’s massive June 20 cabinet shuffle, said the Tories still plan to balance the books within five years. While the shortfall last year was $7.4 billion, the deficit remains on track to be $10.3 billion for 2019-20, though Phillips is expected to revise that figure in November’s fall economic statement. After toppling Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals in June 2018, the Ford government determined the deficit had ballooned to $15 billion. That inflated tally included $5.7 billion in new Liberal election spending announced in the March 2018 budget even though the new Tory administration was not bound by those promises and cancelled most of them. NDP MPP Sara Singh said any savings being touted by Bethlenfalvy and Phillips are coming on the backs of Ontarians. “After the Kathleen Wynne government was finishing letting people down, Doug Ford barged in to make devastating cuts to services that everyday families really count on,” said Singh (Brampton Centre). Interim Liberal leader John Fraser said “by inflating the deficit, the Ford government created the context to cut $2.3 billion to services that families depend on like public health, education, child care, mental health and addictions services, among the many.” Green Leader Mike Schreiner said Ford “has overstated the deficit over the last year in order to pursue an ideological agenda of government cuts.” “Municipalities, children with autism, school programs, the arts, and community groups are all feeling the sting of Ford’s cuts, even while the government delivered tax breaks to the wealthy last year,” said Schreiner.
  8. I believe this is one of the major issues that needs to be addressed. It is the biggest drag on the economy and on society. https://pressprogress.ca/statistics-canada-percentage-of-canadian-workers-earning-minimum-wage-has-doubled-since-1998/ Statistics Canada: Percentage of Canadian Workers Earning Minimum Wage Has Doubled Since 1998 New data from Statistics Canada upends right-wing stereotypes about minimum wage workers September 13, 2019 Share Tweet Welcome to the new economy. A new study quietly released by Statistics Canada finds that between 1998 and 2018, the percentage of Canadians with minimum wage has doubled, with one-in-three minimum wage workers also holding postsecondary degrees. The data stands in stark contrast to the narratives pushed by right-wing think tanks and other business groups opposed to minimum wage increases who falsely claim the majority of minimum wage workers are teens working at mom and pop shops. Statistics Canada According to Statistics Canada’s data, in 1998, 5.2% of all Canadian workers had minimum wage jobs. Twenty years later in 2018, the most recent year for which data is available, that percentage doubled to 10.4%. That rise wasn’t steady either — in 2017-2018, the share of minimum wage workers rose from 6.4% to 10.4%. Statistics Canada According to Statistics Canada, that spike came from a rapid increase in minimum wage workers in Ontario — Canada’s most populous and wealthiest province — where nearly 15% of the workforce depends on the minimum wage. The data also proves minimum wage workers in 2018 are not low-skilled teens. Nearly half (47.7%) of Canada’s minimum wage workers are over the age of 25. And a little over one-third (34.9%) had a post-secondary diploma or above. There has also been an explosion of minimum wage jobs at large companies. From 1998 to 2018, the proportion of Canada’s large firm employees earning the minimum wage more than doubled from 3.4% to 9.4%. Meanwhile, the share at medium-sized firms rose from 4.8% to 9.7%, and it rose from 9.7% to 14.2% at small firms. Statistics Canada Statistics Canada commented: “These observations point to a potential erosion of the large-firm wage premium over time.” During this erosion, however, Canada’s largest corporations continued to gobble up assets. As PressProgress reported, the most powerful 0.8% of Canada’s corporations classified as multinational enterprises controlled two-thirds of all assets in 2016, the most recent year for which data is available.
  9. Any negotiation is give and take. Donnie likes to take. If this doesn't open up movement in negotiations, I expect the backlash from China will be interesting to watch.
  10. Now appears the Chinese are going to be the adult in the room. That, and I believe they are showing off that they are now far ahead of the U.S. in technological advancement. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeanbaptiste/2019/09/12/huawei-ceo-reportedly-offers-to-license-5g-technology-stack-to-american-companies-in-peace-offer-to-trump/#1f4c6c1d5324 Huawei CEO Reportedly Offers To License 5G Technology To American Companies In Peace Offer To Trump Correction: This post has been updated to clarify CEO Zhengfei Ren's comments reported in the New York Times. Zhengfei Ren, the CEO and founder of Huawei offered an olive branch to the Trump administration: License the Chinese telecommunications giant's 5G technology to American companies, with the caveat that the U.S. government "“the U.S. side has to accept us at some level for that to happen.” Currently, the use of Huawei equipment is banned from U.S. networks over concerns that it could be used by the Chinese government as a method to spy or disrupt telecom systems. The offer, which was reported earlier this week by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, would essentially allow the U.S. to finally get in the race for 5G supremacy which is now dominated by Chinese firms Huawei and ZTE, Ericsson of Sweden and Nokia from Finland. Note: Whether "Huawei is open to sharing our 5G technologies and techniques with U.S. companies, so that they can build up their own 5G industry. That would create a balanced situation between China, the U.S. and Europe,” told Ren to the newspaper. I reached out to Huawei's communications team who confirmed Ren's offer. Moreover, Ren added that the U.S. companies would be allowed to modify as they see fit the software code used to run any of Huawei's 5G equipment or even change it and use their own. Though this does not guarantee security against back doors, the implication is that this should allay fears that the Chinese company might be able to access these licensed American made 5G telecommunications gears to spy for the Chinese government. Further, the Chinese government would have to approve the deal. Today In: Innovation Ren added that the American licensees will be able to sell their 5G equipment based on Huawei's intellectual property anywhere in the world, except in China. Atherton Research Insights PROMOTED The CEO's offer of licensing Huawei's crown jewels—5G will be the core technology used in all of the world's telecommunications infrastructure for at least the next decade—came as a shock, both outside but also inside the world's largest maker of 5G networking equipment. Our sources close to the firm confirmed to us that Ren's announcement was news to the entire company, headquartered in Shenzhen, China. On the technology side—although there are many political ramifications to this, including the fact that the Chinese government might not like to see the most valuable assets of its most valuable tech company land in U.S. hands, my goal here is to discuss the impact this olive branch will have on the technology sector— this could be the one-time opportunity to make the U.S. a telecommunications powerhouse again and get back and win the 5G race. Today, there is no American 5G equipment maker. Lucent, which used to be part of A&T, was the last U.S. manufacturer of telecommunications equipment and is now part of Nokia, after the Finnish company completed the acquisition of Alcatel-Lucent three years ago, on November 2016. And Qualcomm is only making 5G modems and antennas for smartphones and is not building any telecommunications equipment. Although a company like Cisco—which already competes with Huawei in the enterprise and service provider networking market—would be a great candidate for this deal, smaller equipment makers including Arista, Juniper or a Silicon Valley startup could grab this opportunity to build the next U.S. telecommunications giant that could compete and win against Ericsson, Nokia and Huawei! An offer definitely worth considering.
  11. Another example of why you need to use trusted sources. Deepfakes are getting really good... https://9gag.com/gag/a5R7EjN
  12. Nothing but a bag of lies, and it's gonna hurt Scheer real bad.... http://www.michaelspratt.com/law-blog/2019/8/10/newly-released-documents-show-doug-ford-lied-about-legal-aid Newly Released Documents Show Doug Ford Lied About Legal Aid August 10, 2019 / Michael Spratt Back in April, after almost "hitting three telephone poles," Doug Ford called into a Toronto radio station to defend the government’s cuts to the legal aid system. The boiling public backlash seems to have gotten under his thin skin and at the end of that impromptu call Ford said that, "if anyone needs support on legal aid, feel free to call my office. I will guarantee you that you will have legal aid." New information, released under a Freedom of Information request, shows that Ford never had any intention of following through on his legal aid guarantee. But first some recent history. In the days before Ford’s frantic radio call-in, the Ontario government had just slashed funding to Legal Aid Ontario (LAO) by 30 per cent. To make matters worse, the $133 million cut took effect immediately – there was no advanced notice – despite the fact that LAO's 2019 budget had already been finalized. And on top of it all, the province directed LAO that no provincial money at all could be used to cover immigration and refugee law, meaning that vulnerable immigrants and refugees would face deportation hearings without any legal counsel. Ultimately, the scope of Ford’s cruel cuts stretched well beyond immigration hearings. Community legal clinics, which provide assistance to some of Ontario’s most marginalized people, were forced to roll-back services and close offices. Funding for indigenous specific sentencing submissions was slashed by more than 50-percent. And rollbacks to criminal court services sparked a crisis in the justice system. More and more people who can’t afford a lawyer are being denied legal aid. This is the context in which Doug Ford guaranteed that those people who need legal aid “will have legal aid.” And this week, in response to continued questions by the Huffington Post’s Emma Paling, Ford doubled down on his guarantee saying the he would “continue to help anyone who calls.” But internal government emails reveal that, despite his promises, Ford has not actually helped anyone. On April 23, the day after Ford first made his legal aid promise, I wrote to the premier to inquire how my clients, who are in desperate circumstances but have been denied legal aid, could take advantage of his personal guarantee. I received no response. So, over the following 100-days I wrote more than 40 letters to the premier and Attorneys General Caroline Mulroney and Doug Downey. It was a one-way pen pal relationship. I never heard back from Doug Ford. Ford may not have responded to any of my letters but the Ministry of the Attorney General (MAG), then lead by Caroline Mulroney, immediately took notice. On April 23, the day I wrote the first letter, senior team lead at MAG, Philip Klassen wrote to Caroline Mulroney’s director of communications, Jesse Robichaud, her press secretary, Alexandra Adamo, her issues management advisor, Jean-Philippe Chartré, her legal counsel, Genvieve Chiu, and a team of media relations personal alerting them that a “prominent Ottawa lawyer” had written to the premier about his “promise that anyone who needed legal aid will receive it.” Seven days later, issues and media relations officer Maher Abdurahamsn sent a follow up email alerting the team that it “seemed like Mr. Spratt is still going strong.” You can bet your ass I was. It appears that Ford was not expecting anyone to actually take him up on his legal aid promise. Over a week after his call to the radio station, the premier’s correspondence unit was still “waiting for input” on how to reply to my letters. But my request was not, as the Attorney Generals’ team noted, a “one-off.” It turns out Ford received at least half-a-dozen letters about his promise. Ford Passing The Buck on his guarantee On April 29, the premier received a letter from a constituent seeking help because they were denied legal aid and could not afford a lawyer. Despite his personal guarantee, Ford responded that the issue was not in his “area of responsibility” and shuffled the inquiry to Mulroney. The next day Ford received another email from someone “in desperate need of legal aid.” Ford again responded that this request fell outside his area of responsibility and forwarded the request to the Attorney General. Another emailer implored Ford for help saying, “You said no person would ever be without help and I am hoping that you will be able to help me.” Ford did not provide any help and again passed the request to Mulroney. NO government interference With Legal Aid And what was the Attorney General’s response to these pleas for help? Mulroney wrote that she could not provide any assistance, including “speaking with LAO staff on your behalf to secure a certificate” because LAO operates “independently and without government interference.” The heavily redacted government emails also show that in one case an immigrant or refugee wrote to Ford because they were denied legal aid. This time Ford, after expressing sympathy about the situation, suggested that any immigration related issues should be addressed to the Federal Minister of Immigration and Refugees and Citizenship, Ahmed Hussen. Promises Made, Promises Broken Ford promised that anyone who needed legal aid would get it but government documents show that no one who contacted Ford received legal aid or assistance of any kind. Those same documents show that no one in the Ford government even had the power to intervene with LAO’s decisions. Pick your poison, either Ford was so utterly incompetent that he made a promise he was incapable of keeping and then made it again or he is purposefully misleading the public to distract from his deeply unpopular legal aid cuts. Ford promised that anyone one who needed legal aid would get it. All they had to do was call him. And then, when people contacted him, he said it was not his problem and passed the buck. And when the Attorney General received that buck she said that LAO was independent so they could not provide any help either. And despite all of this, Ford doubled down on his disingenuous promise. A promise he was powerless to fulfil. A promise that he never had any intention of keeping. A promise that has now proven to be pure political hucksterism. A promise that proves Ford to be liar.
  13. As written by a guy who wants to get his hands on your money. DB plans per se aren't the problem. The greed of corporations is the problem. First they wanted to raid the pensions to get the money, now they want to divest themselves of the responsibility. But only for the workers. DB pensions would have been sustainable if all stake holders contributed through good and bad. But when times were good, companies took 'pension holidays' and in my opinion that took money away that could have shored them up when times were bad. One has to be grateful that in Canada the laws are different otherwise a lot of us would have ended up like United Airlines pensioners. And if DB pensions are so bad, why do executives and politicians have them?
  14. Will definitely be interesting to see if the narrative in the U.S. changes now that one of the Koch brothers has passed away.
  15. Here is an article that proves that we will have to be extra vigilant in verifying the truth of the media we consume in the upcoming federal election. https://www.thestar.com/edmonton/2019/09/09/federal-election-at-risk-of-interference-by-fake-social-media-bots-in-alberta-experts.html Fake social media bots in Alberta likely to interfere in federal election, experts warn EDMONTON — A federal report confirming the use of false social media posts to try to manipulate last spring’s Alberta election points to dangers for the upcoming federal vote, political scientists say. “Absolutely!” said Duane Bratt of Calgary’s Mount Royal University. “I think there are greater opportunities in the federal election. What the bots did is exploit already existing cleavages in society — and federally, there are great divides.” On Friday, Global Affairs Canada released a report from the Rapid Response Mechanism. Created after the G7 meeting in Charleboix, Que., it is intended to help monitor and understand how the manipulation of social media can influence democratic politics. Because the environment was expected to play a large role in last spring’s Alberta election, the agency decided to examine the province as a test case for the upcoming federal ballot. It found significant, organized use of fake social media accounts. “[We] identified communities that demonstrated a suspicious account creation pattern that is indicative of troll or bot activity,” the report said. “It was mainly comprised of supporters of the United Conservative Party. The pattern was not identified within communities of supporters of the Alberta Liberal Party or Alberta New Democratic Party.” Bots are social media programs that artificially generate social media posts that appear as if written by actual people. Trolls are social media users who intentionally initiate online conflict. The number of UCP-supporting Twitter accounts nearly doubled in the weeks before the election, the agency found. The report added that third-party lobby groups were also “spreading disinformation online” before the balloting. “It’s a distortion of the political process,” said Chaldeans Mensah, political science professor at Edmonton’s MacEwan University. “The basis for assessing political information becomes questionable. We’re relying on computer-generated, outrageous misstatements, outright lies and disinformation.” Bratt said such posts aren’t trying to sway opinion. “It may be used to suppress voting. It may be used to agitate those that are already in your camp.” Duff Conacher of Democracy Watch said such posts should be illegal. Social media companies should be required to verify the identify of anyone making political posts during an election. “A bot is a false scheme aimed at misleading voters,” he said. “So is anyone posing as 20 different people.” Conacher criticized the federal Liberals for weakening laws that would have helped control bot activity. He said Canada is heading for the kind of polarized, online free-for-all that characterized the last U.S. presidential election. Christine Myatt, spokeswoman for Premier Jason Kenney, downplayed the report’s significance. She pointed out his United Conservatives won with a large majority. “The growing number of inauthentic troll accounts online is a disturbing trend but, as the report states, there is nothing to suggest that these accounts in any way influenced the results of the election,” she said in an emailed statement. Bratt said he doubts UCP officials were directly involved in organizing the bots. But the response of party supporters to the report has been similar to how supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump or the U.K.’s planned Brexit reacted to criticism, he said. “They’re attacking the media for reporting it. They’re attacking Global Affairs for looking at it. They criticize the legitimacy of the entire exercise.” The UCP is initiating its own review of social media. As part of its inquiry into the influence and funding of environmental groups, the government will be referring to U.S. investigations into the activity of Russian social media bots. Democratic debate deteriorates if it starts off fake, said Mensah. “You want expressions of views on politics to be done in a way that is authentic, not something that is generated by computer.”
  16. Air Canada sales employees haven't forgotten 2011 when Harper used it to benefit Milton. They also used it against the pilots in 2012. It was also threatened against the IAM but a deal was reached before it passed. And on top of it, there was a walkout because Lisa the Rat got slow clapped walking through the terminal and she demanded the employees get fired. Just another reason if you're an AC employee to not vote conservative. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/air-canada-pilots-challenge-back-to-work-law-1.1131292 Air Canada pilots challenge back-to-work law Law breaches charter rights, pilots say Laura Payton · CBC News · Posted: Mar 20, 2012 1:05 PM ET | Last Updated: March 20, 2012 Air Canada union workers protest outside government offices in Ottawa on March 14. The union representing the pilots is challenging federal back-to-work legislation passed last week. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press) Air Canada pilots are challenging the federal government's back-to-work legislation, asking Ontario's Superior Court to rule that the law breaches their charter rights. A court filing by the pilots union says the legislation, which forces them to fly, conflicts with their legal obligations under the Canadian Aviation Regulations. The regulations prohibit pilots from flying if they have any reason to believe they are unfit to properly perform their duties. "A right to strike is a necessary incident for employees to meaningfully exercise their freedom to associate in the workplace including their right to collective bargaining," the pilots' application said. "The right to strike may only be restricted in the case of essential services where a work stoppage endangers the life, personal safety or health of the population. The right to strike is also an essential means by which employees convey information and raise awareness of the various issues in dispute between the parties. The impugned provisions limit both the liberty and 'security of the person' of pilots in a manner inconsistent with the principles of fundamental justice." Labour Minister Lisa Raitt introduced the legislation March 12. It passed through the House of Commons and Senate and became law on March 14. Raitt also referred the matter to the Canadian Industrial Relations Board, asking it to evaluate what a work stoppage would mean to Canadians' health and safety. Referring an issue to the CIRB bars the union and the airline from any work stoppage while the board investigates. The pilots' application to the court says union members "have been under a significant amount of stress" due to the dispute and "Parliament’s removal of their only means of engaging in meaningful collective bargaining." But the back-to-work legislation means they can be prosecuted for refusing work if they feel unfit, the application says. Raitt said Tuesday in Sudbury, Ont., that both parties can continue bargaining as they wait for an arbitrator to be assigned to conduct final offer selection, under which the sides submit offers and the arbitrator chooses between the two. She said the pilots were in talks for 18 months and had an agreement the union's members wouldn't ratify. "The problem is at some point, and it would be this point, the Canadian public interest does come into play," Raitt said. "I understand what is being said with respect to collective bargaining rights, and I understand that there's going to be challenges to it. And that's all appropriate, and that's going to happen. But as far as we're concerned, Air Canada is flying, there are no work stoppages, and the Canadian public interest has been satisfied." Public servants advised against legislation The government also used back-to-work legislation during Air Canada's contract dispute with customer service and sales staff last June. A secret report obtained by The Canadian Press under federal Access to Information laws shows an appeal last summer from federal bureaucrats to use back-to-work legislation only as a last resort appears to have fallen on deaf ears. The Department of Human Resources and Skills Development advised the governing Conservatives to use the powerful legal measure sparingly after the airline's customer-service and sales staff walked out last June. In it, senior officials urged the Tories to save the back-to-work law for emergencies. The bureaucrats were not convinced the walkout by customer-service agents constituted anything more than a nuisance to air travellers. The Conservatives threatened back-to-work legislation to end labour unrest between Air Canada and unions representing customer-service agents and flight attendants.
  17. On a related note... Here's an interesting read on the flaws in the American system. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/electoral-college-terrible/597589 The Electoral College Was Terrible From the Start It’s doubtful even Alexander Hamilton believed what he was selling in “Federalist No. 68.” Before we get to the Electoral College, can we talk about Alexander Hamilton? As a political figure, Hamilton was volatile, mercurial, choleric, vindictive, conniving, disloyal, and incontinent; those personal flaws eventually led to his death in a duel with Aaron Burr. We remember him because he was also smart, creative, dashing, and decisive. And if you’d had a case in front of a New York court, he’d have been the lawyer to hire. Brilliant doesn’t do justice to his advocacy skills. But an advocate is what he was. If he were a car salesman today, he could convince you that you really don’t want the backup camera in your family minivan, because this baby here knows not to back into walls. It’s in that context that we should read his panegyric, from “Federalist No. 68,” to the “mode of appointment of the chief magistrate of the United States” by the electors, a “small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, [who] will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.” The electors, he assured us, will be “men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.” I love The Federalist. It is like a particularly well-done brochure for a Las Vegas timeshare, written to sell more than to inform. Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay had one job: to ensure that the draft Constitution was ratified. The alternative, to these patriots, was disaster—the division of the new nation into hostile confederacies, and possibly the transformation of some or all of the states into clients of the European powers. There was no chance of a do-over; it was this Constitution or nothing. For this reason, The Federalist insists that every word, every comma, of the Constitution added up to the best of all possible rules in the best of all possible worlds. Garrett Epps: ‘The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it.’ However, the authors knew the document’s flaws. When Madison sent a copy to Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson discreetly replied: “In some parts it is discoverable that the author means only to say what may be best said in defense of opinions in which he did not concur.” As long as George Washington was on the ballot, the electoral system worked fine. But when Washington retired in 1796, it hobbled his successor, John Adams. The original Constitution made the electoral-vote runner-up the vice president—Adams’s defeated opponent, Thomas Jefferson. Poor, gallant Adams could have used a friend at No. 2 but instead got a cunning foe. In the next election, in 1800, the system turned on Jefferson; because he and his running mate, Aaron Burr, got the same number of electoral votes, the election went to the House of Representatives, leading to 35 ballots over seven days—and very nearly to civil violence by outraged Jefferson supporters. After that debacle, Congress proposed the Twelfth Amendment, ratified in 1804. It requires electors to vote for one president and one vice president. But it didn’t fix the real flaw: the electoral system is grossly undemocratic and devised in large part as a protection for slave states, which feared being outvoted in a popular-vote system. In fact, after Adams, what contemporaries called “the slave seats” ensured the dominance of slave-master presidents for the next quarter century. Then, in 1824, it gave us the first president to lose the popular vote, the unfortunate John Quincy Adams. In 1876, the system almost restarted the Civil War; a Republican-dominated “electoral commission” awarded a one-vote victory to the popular-vote loser, “His Fraudulency” Rutherford B. Hayes. In 1888, electors gave us another loser president, the forgettable Benjamin Harrison. More recently, in 2000 and 2016, the system produced popular-vote losers who rank among the worst presidents in American history. The misfire in 2016 was especially painful, in part because the beneficiary, Donald Trump, was so plainly unfit for office and in part because Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, the largest margin of any electoral-college loser in history. Turns out the U.S. really needed that backup camera; without it, “we the people” are still backing into walls. But so smooth was that handsome salesman that generations of Americans keep insisting everything is fine. In fact, between the 2016 election on November 8 and the scheduled electoral vote on December 19, a number of commentators assured Americans that it was for moments like this that the Founders had so wisely decided against a backup camera. The idea, they said, was that electors were to block unfit candidates. They could break their pledges to vote for their state’s winner, scatter enough votes that neither candidate would get a majority, and throw the election to the House, where high-minded lawmakers would surely choose someone other than Donald Trump. These mythical electors were called “Hamilton electors,” and the language of “Federalist No. 68” was deemed the “true” meaning of Article II of the Constitution. In Colorado, which Clinton carried, one elector tried to vote for Ohio Governor John Kasich instead of Hillary Clinton; state officials discarded the vote, removed the elector, and referred him for prosecution on state charges. In Washington, three Clinton electors voted for Colin Powell and one for the Native American activist Faith Spotted Eagle. Under state law, their votes were recorded, but the secretary of state fined each elector $1,000 for violating the Washington elector-pledge law. In May, the Washington State supreme court upheld the fines, reasoning that “the Constitution does not limit a state’s authority in adding requirements to presidential electors, indeed, it gives to the states absolute authority in the manner of appointing electors.” In August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a contrary decision, holding that Colorado’s actions violated the federal Constitution because Read: The electoral college was meant to stop men like Trump from being president I think the Tenth Circuit got it right. Electors aren’t state officials; precisely because they are such odd figures, staying close to the text of the Constitution is best. The text doesn’t tell us what an elector is (though we know he or she can’t hold any other federal office); it does tell us what states can do (control how electors are selected)—but it does not grant states any power after that. There is no context for any unwritten powers. Beyond the text is only chaos. And that leads us to my problem with “Hamilton electors.” First, as noted above, I don’t think Hamilton believed the high popalorum he was selling in “Federalist No. 68,” and if he did, he was wrong. The Princeton political scientist Keith E. Whittington recently demonstrated that electors have more or less always functioned as party agents, not independent figures. I cannot imagine that any voter in 2016 went to the polls eager to give some unnamed fellow citizen a free choice among Clinton, Trump, Bernie Sanders, Kasich, Ron Paul, Powell, and Faith Spotted Eagle. When Trump won the electoral contest, the republic was in danger. Would it have been saved by an Electoral College that sabotaged or reversed the result? Citizens should support such an electoral démarche, I think, only if they would also support a military coup to block Trump. Either alternative would inflict near-mortal damage on our system of elections. Meanwhile, the residue of the Hamilton idea is a system more, not less, prone to misfiring. In the event of a near-tie next year, I can imagine that a losing candidate, or powerful forces backing him or her, would use bribery, threats, violence, and blackmail to try to flip one or two electors. The Constitution should not be read to empower such corruption, or to open the door to such chaos. The electoral system is a disaster; those concerned with its dangers would do better to support the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, under which states bind their electors to vote for the popular-vote winner. That has its own risks—a rogue legislature might try to violate its pledge. But they pale beside the Hamilton alternative.
  18. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5cDR_chcvQ
  19. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/germany-unveils-zero-emissions-train-only-emits-steam-lower-saxony-hydrogen-powered-a7391581.html
  20. Then I guess you won't like the picture of the new White House dog....
  21. This will definitely take care of it
  22. A bit more information on the incident... https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/door-blows-out-during-ground-test-on-boeing-777x-jet/
  23. What I would like to question, is this a one of, or has it happened as well in previous tests? Having watched the testing videos, usually when they test to failure it is usually because they exceeded 150% of requirement. Did this failure occur before or after this point? If it happened prior to, then was it an engineering failure?