Friday, June 16, 2017

Oh, this is sweet.

A lottery for accessible taxi licenses, in a city which has just decimated the taxi industry by granting unlimited free taxi licenses to Uber... and what do we get?

Whomever is designing policy for the City of Hamilton has come up with this ridiculous idea of a lottery for accessible taxi licenses... that would require the applicant to spend about $45,000 for an accessible vehicle, in order to have access to a taxi market that has been utterly decimated by the stealth introduction of unlimited taxi licenses to the Uber cab company.

(Compare that to Uber's sweet deal. Instead of even spending the $45,000 to provide even ONE SINGLE accessible Uber cab, all Uber has to do is pay an annual $20,000 for an exemption to the AODA law. It's a nice law if you can buy it.)

My first guess is that most of the people on the taxicab priority list, who have been waiting for 25 to 30 years for a standard taxi license, thumbed their noses at the city's dastardly bait and switch offer for a taxi license, conditional upon the license being for an accessible taxi. In other words, for a license that is virtually worthless. (my guess is that almost 100% of those who DID accept this pathetic offer have already made informal arrangements to have someone else actually operate those vehicles.)

Let me spell it out for you in simple terms.

Even though the taxi market was restricted to a limited number of providers, Pre-Uber, the market was already saturated. The existing supply of licensed cabs remained idle 75% of the time.

When the city government decided to grant access to Uber to the Hamilton taxi market, the equivalent of taxi owner's licenses for micro-pennies on the dollar, the earnings per licensed taxicab were reduced by 30% to 50%.

And in the face of impending disaster for the non-exempt taxi operators in Hamilton, the City is casting a net in anticipation that there will be enough IDIOTS who will be lured into this "deal." They are calling it a "lottery" but the odds of winning are even worse than the "Cash for Life" scam. This is a lottery where the ticket buyer has absolutely zero chance of winning.

I know a guy who was victimized by the pre-Uber accessible license scam. Instead of being offered the standard taxi license he had been waiting for 28 or so years for, he was offered a conditional license. His license would only be granted if he spent $45 G's of his own money on an accessible vehicle. Right off the bat, that just isn't fair. But who cares about "fairness" when it comes down to politics?

And he fell for it. (In his defense, he didn't really have much choice. The loving government made him an offer he couldn't really refuse. It was either a wheelchair plate, or nothing. "Accessible transportation is a right, not a privilege." Therefore, the guy who waited 28 years for a license finds he has, no rights, no privileges, only obligations. By the way, that is the essence of liberalism.)

So now, he finds himself being singled out to drive unreasonable distances, because he is the only accessible cab "available" at certain times, for short, unprofitable trips, all because, under the AODA, disabled people have rights, and he has to pay for them.

Poor guy. He doesn't know what hit him. He probably even votes Liberal.

I derive no pleasure in seeing how badly this man has been screwed by the ideology he probably unwittingly votes for. In a way, I almost admire him for his ability to carry on, despite knowing that he is the victim of a grave injustice.

And now they want to sucker people into buying MORE accessible taxis, even as the market shrinks.

Never before has the IGNORANCE, or blatant sociopathy, of Hamilton's political decision-makers been so openly displayed.

I know some very resourceful and clever entrepreneurs in the Hamilton taxi business. Maybe one of them will come up with some kind of scam whereby they offer to lease those accessible licenses, under the table if necessary, in order to squeeze some marginal profit out of the enterprise.

But anyone who would accept one of these licenses, with the intention of incurring the massive expenses involved in buying and operating their own accessible taxicabs....

Is fucking nuts.

Accessible Taxicab Owner Licence

"The licenses were initially offered to individuals on the Taxicab Priority List and there are three remaining accessible taxicab owner plates available for 2017. As a result, an electronic lottery will be held for all individuals who are qualified to hold a taxicab owner licence."

Read it and puke.


Saturday, June 10, 2017

Poor Uber Driver

Oh my. This is a sad story. Here is an Uber driver voicing his concerns in the Uber driver's forum about whether or not his "sharing economy" gig is paying off.

It's possible that this is not a genuine post from a genuine Uber driver. I see that. It's the kind of schlopp I would write if I were in a mischievous mood.

On the other hand, given what I already know about the Uber scam, and the people it exploits in order to get them to employ "assets they already own," in Tim Hudak's famous phrase, it's entirely reasonable to believe that this is a REAL Uber driver, who is just beginning to figure out who is making money, or should be making money, and who is getting royally boned. (See my story about the Uber driver who drove a football player from Chicago to Buffalo for minus $38.50.)

I knew it was a scam from the beginning. That is why, when people asked me why, instead of tolerating the City of Hamilton's demonstrably absurd taxi regulations, I didn't simply switch to Uber, i already knew that I would never drive a cab for Uber. It was an obvious sucker job. They match riders with drivers and, instead of merely charging a "booking fee," they claim an additional 25% of what the rider pays, at zero cost to Uber! Talk about the Marxist objection to capital exploiting labour, the Uber concept has suckered hundreds of thousands of people into using their own capital to exploit themselves.

Pardon me for my use of profanity here, but that is FUCKING INGENIOUS!

And when people finally begin to understand the magnitude of the con, I hope they don't forget how quickly and easily their political representatives adopted Uber's seductive jargon by trying to be "trendy" and by pretending that Uber's angle was technological rather than simply exploiting innumerate drivers and, and by pressuring weak, opportunistic, dishonest, and cowardly politicians into turning long established taxi regulations upside-down in order to provide Uber with the opportunity to extract a significant percentage of the gross taxi revenues in the targeted jurisdictions.

And I hope they don't forget that I pointed it all out to them from the start.

"I have taken my car for lease till 40,000 km. Now I am crossing extra km company will charge me .18 cent per km. Now I am worried how will I drive uber. I normally drive 700 km in week and earn 500 dolar. It mean $125 I have to pay company $80 for Gas forget about my car premium, insurance ,car service cell phone bill and wear and tear I will go negative. Ptesently In 30 hours I am making $ 305. Which is $10 per hour. Today I got a ride for bolton return no ride I drove 50 km return. I face same problem in airport return no ride. Any advice guys I do not want to drive 200 km extra but if I wait in one place then no request I need to come to main road and happening places. Or else I just have to work 50 hours and It will very low dollar per hour. One more thing I want to mention when ever sucharges going to start like friday and satuday 1.30 am to 3.00 am uber give me a ride which is 10 km away from surcharges. If I am in border of surcharges then I get request of no surcharges. Some days were good I made $65 per hour. But that happen once in blue moon."

Source.

More Uber News


Here is an interesting interview from Canada's government propaganda network's Anna Maria Tremonti, and Uber executive, Adam Lashinsky. I sent a message to Anna asking to invite me onto her show to provide a different perspective on the Uber taxi phenomenon. I will let you know if I get a response. I'm not holding my breath.


Here are a few of the videos I sent to various political decision makers, none of which received a single response:


Also of Interest

San Francisco Is Investigating Whether Uber And Lyft Are Public Nuisances.

Yeah, "Safety is a priority for Uber."

A top Uber executive, who obtained the medical records of a customer who was a rape victim, has been fired.

You know, when I read these reports, the first question I ask myself is, have the politicians in my city, well, all of Ontario, for that matter, really done their homework before deciding to comply with Uber's mandates, rather than stand up to them?

From my point of view, the answer is clearly, "No." And I will go further. They don't know, and they don't care."

"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
George Orwell

Hamilton Mayor, Fred Eisenberger, lies about city's deal with Uber having the "backing of the taxi industry."

He later confessed that he was referencing a "stakeholder team," consisting of, as far as I have been able to determine, three taxi brokers and a taxi school official that worked with Licensing in writing the bylaw that screwed the other, approximately, 1,196 taxi industry stakeholders who were not consulted. He admitted it to me in an email by stating,

"I realize that not all drivers, yourself included, are fans of the compromise that was ratified and put into place."

It should be noted, that the taxi brokerages, and the taxi school, have interests that are often diametrically opposite the interests of the other 1,196 drivers, operators, and license owners.

So much for unanimity.

"Contrary to the fanatical belief of its advocates, compromise [on basic principles] does not satisfy, but dissatisfies everybody; it does not lead to general fulfillment, but to general frustration; those who try to be all things to all men, end up by not being anything to anyone. And more: the partial victory of an unjust claim, encourages the claimant to try further; the partial defeat of a just claim, discourages and paralyzes the victim."
-- Ayn Rand

Final Entry: Uber Driver gets Ripped off on Trip from Chicago to Buffalo

This driver was was saved by the tip.

Using the AAA as a source, and assuming the Uber driver was driving a small sedan, it would have cost this driver somewhere in the ballpark of 1,100 mi. X $.464 $/Mi = $510 to run this trip.

The rider was charged $632 for the trip. The Uber corporation would extract $2.50 + .25 X $632 = $160.50 in brokerage fees (what I call the Uber Income Tax,) leaving the driver with a payout of $632 - ($160.50 + $510) = $632 - $670.5 = *negative* $38.50.

It's lucky for this Uber lackey that the rider tipped him $300. That helped cover the $38.50 loss this driver incurred leaving him with net earnings of $261.50 for the 16 hour round trip, or about $16.35 per hour.

So, if all Uber passengers were to tip their drivers 47.5%, it would be a decent job.

That rarely happens, though.

By contrast, here is an example of how Uber drivers calculate their "earnings," from UberPeople.net:

"$632 - $2.50 = $629.50 × 75% = $472.13 plus $300 = $772.13 - $100 gas = $672.13 over 16 hours is $42 per hour is worth the drive."

So now you know part of the reason Uber is able to miraculously charge so much less than taxis.

See the new item here.

Thursday, June 8, 2017

Or.... you could just call a taxi.....

For some time now, I have been trying to draw the attention of politicians in some Ontario jurisdictions to certain dangers attending their suspicious embrace of the Uber taxi company. In addition to Uber's obvious disregard for the law, and dubious insurance coverage there are also issues of passenger safety.

So far, I have not received a single reply from a single politician, or hired bureaucrat, addressing the obvious and predictable safety concerns I have attempted to warn them about. (Toronto mayor, John Tory, has even blocked me on Twitter.)

Given their often repeated claims that one of their core values in deciding whether to award Uber an unlimited number of taxi licenses is safety, I might have expected at least one response.

Not a single response.

Dead silence.

I have tried to point out the dangers associated with the use of distractive devices for taxi dispatch. The reply was,

Zip, zero, zilch.

And I have tried to point out the dangers associated with using unmarked vehicles as taxis because the practice provides ample opportunities for criminals and stalkers. As I've said many times, Paul Bernardo would have loved Uber.

Not a single reply, challenge, question, or rebuttal.

From what I have seen, the politicians and bureaucrats who have complied with Uber's demands that their bylaws be amended to comply with the Uber business model have given nothing but empty lip service to their claim that safety is one of their "core values." The evidence suggests that safety is barely an afterthought when it conflicts with corporate privilege.

The evidence keeps rolling in. I keep sending it to the politicians and, predictably, there is no response.

Clearly, the professed fealty to public safety is nothing but vacuous virtue signaling, or as Rush Limbaugh used to say, "symbolism over substance."

The reports are rolling in almost daily about the rat's nest the politicians have opened up with their knee-jerk obeisance to the Uber cab company. This one just came in,

Man Assaulted, Stabbed After Getting Into Car He Thought Was Uber or Taxi

For a list of Uber incidents, click here.


Here are a few of the videos I sent to various political decision makers, none of which received a single response:


Also of Interest

San Francisco Is Investigating Whether Uber And Lyft Are Public Nuisances.

Yeah, "Safety is a priority for Uber."

A top Uber executive, who obtained the medical records of a customer who was a rape victim, has been fired.

You know, when I read these reports, the first question I ask myself is, have the politicians in my city, well, all of Ontario, for that matter, really done their homework before deciding to comply with Uber's mandates, rather than stand up to them?

From my point of view, the answer is clearly, "No." And I will go further. They don't know, and they don't care."

"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
George Orwell

Hamilton Mayor, Fred Eisenberger, lies about city's deal with Uber having the "backing of the taxi industry."

He later confessed that he was referencing a "stakeholder team," consisting of, as far as I have been able to determine, three taxi brokers and a taxi school official that worked with Licensing in writing the bylaw that screwed the other, approximately, 1,196 taxi industry stakeholders who were not consulted. He admitted it to me in an email by stating,

"I realize that not all drivers, yourself included, are fans of the compromise that was ratified and put into place."

It should be noted, that the taxi brokerages, and the taxi school, have interests that are often diametrically opposite the interests of the other 1,196 drivers, operators, and license owners.

So much for unanimity.

"Contrary to the fanatical belief of its advocates, compromise [on basic principles] does not satisfy, but dissatisfies everybody; it does not lead to general fulfillment, but to general frustration; those who try to be all things to all men, end up by not being anything to anyone. And more: the partial victory of an unjust claim, encourages the claimant to try further; the partial defeat of a just claim, discourages and paralyzes the victim."
-- Ayn Rand

Final Entry: Uber Driver gets Ripped off on Trip from Chicago to Buffalo

This driver was was saved by the tip.

Using the AAA as a source, and assuming the Uber driver was driving a small sedan, it would have cost this driver somewhere in the ballpark of 1,100 mi. X $.464 $/Mi = $510 to run this trip.

The rider was charged $632 for the trip. The Uber corporation would extract $2.50 + .25 X $632 = $160.50 in brokerage fees (what I call the Uber Income Tax,) leaving the driver with a payout of $632 - ($160.50 + $510) = $632 - $670.5 = *negative* $38.50.

It's lucky for this Uber lackey that the rider tipped him $300. That helped cover the $38.50 loss this driver incurred leaving him with net earnings of $261.50 for the 16 hour round trip, or about $16.35 per hour.

So, if all Uber passengers were to tip their drivers 47.5%, it would be a decent job.

That rarely happens, though.

By contrast, here is an example of how Uber drivers calculate their "earnings," from UberPeople.net:

"$632 - $2.50 = $629.50 × 75% = $472.13 plus $300 = $772.13 - $100 gas = $672.13 over 16 hours is $42 per hour is worth the drive."

So now you know part of the reason Uber is able to miraculously charge so much less than taxis.

See the new item here.

Saturday, May 27, 2017

South African political leader says there is no call for the slaughter of white people

For now.

All of this reminds me of when I was working as a security guard at the Commonwealth Games in Edmonton back in 1978. I was stationed in one of those white guard boxes on the perimeter of the "Athlete's Village." Our job, if you can believe this BS, was to protect the athletes from a repeat of the Munich massacre in 1972.

I enjoyed the job for the week or so that I did it. I used the opportunity to read a book. I think it was, "The Virtue of Selfishness," by Ayn Rand.

And I got to thinking about the job I was doing. My box was behind a tall Frost fence. I was equipped with a two-way radio that was on the same frequency as the Edmonton police. And I was wearing a uniform.

So I started asking myself, "if there really is a terrorist attack, do I have sufficient training and tools to stave it off?"

If a terrorist attack were in the works, how hard would it be for them to take me out of the picture? A gun with a silencer? A crossbow? Someone pole-vaulting over the fence and slitting my arteries before I could grab my radio?

Even at the tender age of 24 I didn't really believe that this so-called "security" was anything more than political theater. It didn't bother me though because,

1 - I didn't really feel that a terrorist attack was imminent, and,

2 - I was being paid $5.00 an hour to participate in this charade.

So I just kept reading.

Then this young kid came wandering by on the other side of the fence and we had a short conversation.

The first thing I noticed was he had an English accent.

"Are you from England?" I asked.

"No, I am from South Africa."

I had an immediate gut reaction. I felt so sorry for this kid.

There he was, polite as hell, in his clean clothes and short pants, innocent white face, and my instant gut reaction was, "Oh my. This poor kid has a target on his back."

At the time, and still, I knew zilch about South African politics and history. All I was going on was something the saintly Pierre Trudeau had said about Canada being too decent to accept white refugees from South Africa in the event of a rebellion. (And the stuff I was reading in Ayn Rand's book.)

It occurred to me that a similar standard might be applied to me if, as a Canadian, I were to apply for refugee status in a foreign country, only to be turned down because of the policies of Trudeau.

So I was looking at this innocent kid and thinking, "If the shit hits the fan in your country, my asshole of a Prime Minister would likely NOT allow you into this country as a refugee."

It was a sad moment for me, and one which I remember to this day.

Fast forward to today, and I am amazed at how relevant my initial gut feeling was about the likely future of that kid, given the dominant philosophy of our age. (Hmmm, Rand?)

And I am left wondering if the anointed younger Trudeau would agree with his father in denying refugee status to the "privileged" targets of any possible, or pending, genocide in South Africa.

And now I come across this interview with a South African politician who is waging his own campaign against "White Privilege."

He said, "There is no call for the slaughtering of white people, for now. Of course, I can't tell the future. I'm not a profit."

I clipped that part from the full interview, which you can watch here,

Update: Oh my. I was just reviewing my blog entry and what do I discover at 5:02 A.M. on May 27, 2017?

The video won't play. The message is, "This video is unavailable."

Go figger.

Doesn't it strike you as a little bit odd, that almost immediately after I posted my blog, the interview with Julius was suddenly removed?

Don't worry though. If you really want to see the interview from which this clip was taken, I have downloaded a copy to my own computer. Of course, I had to, in order to extract the clip I published on my own channel.... for as long as it lasts.

My interest in the topic was sparked by this discussion of South African history and politics between Stefan Molyneux and Simon Roche,

Also of interest is this documentary of the Boer War.

At the time, I figured that kid might have been about ten years old. That would make him about fifty years old today.

And I wonder if that kid and his family saw the writing on the wall and got the hell out of there.


This just in:

Students demand firing of college professor who objected to event that kicks white people off campus


Why Leftists Submit to Terror

Thursday, May 25, 2017

The Staggering Hypocrisy of Politicians

"“These are all people who are loved,” she said. “These are brothers, sisters, parents, grandparents, and I think this is a staggering loss of life of a preventable cause.”

This from an article on the Toronto Star website.

It's typical of the left-wing, crypto-communist, virtue-signaling, and downright bullshit crud that emanates from that disgusting rag on a regular basis.

The reason I selected that quote was because of the irony of the suggestion that all of these unfortunate victims of human mortality seem to have received no help from the people who supposedly "loved" them.

And since the people who supposedly loved them had done nothing to stave off the "preventable" cause of death, it is a failure of "all of us," according to City Councilor Joe Cressy (Trinity-Spadina).

That's you and me. We are guilty of the deaths of 27 homeless people, and we didn't even know it. For similar reasons, many of us are also guilty of benefiting from "White Privilege," even though we didn't know that either(!)

Don't you just love it when a politician, who's job is basically to sit on his ass and opine about how he and his colleagues should spend other people's money, uses the word, "US," when what he really means is "YOU," the taxpayer?

Here's my advice to Councilor Cressy.

If you REALLY feel responsible for the deaths of homeless people, as an individual rather than one who prefers to hide behind the relative comfort, and lack of tangible commitment, that is afforded by blending one's own degree of devotion into the collective, "US," I recommend you pick up a hammer and some boards and start building houses for these people.

Anything less than that is just just meaningless virtue signaling.

Anything more than that?

Don't expect it from a politician.

And this just in from the City of Hamilton. Local politicians who sit on their asses and wag their tongues for a living are now talking about spending money, which is NOT their own money, on providing free air conditioners to poor people. Isn't that big of them?

27 homeless deaths in Toronto in just three months

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

Finally, someone other than me is questioning the safety of Uber's distractive technology.

Evidence of the thing I have been warning politicians about since at least July 23, 2016 on video, and at least, since one of Hamilton's local taxi firms decided to adopt computerized dispatch technologies in 2008 during my first meeting with Hamilton's Taxi Advisory Committee, is finally starting to garner headlines.

Computer dispatch for cabs is dangerous, for many of the same reasons cell phone use while driving is dangerous.

Mobile Data Terminals, whether deployed on tablets by Taxi Company A, or smartphones by taxi company Uber, are DISTRACTIVE and, thus DANGEROUS.

I tried to warn the politicians with some YouTube videos.

Like this one....

And this one

In the faint hope, that all of their phony declarations about "safety" had the slightest grounding in fact. Of course, I knew all along that "safety" was the last thing on the minds of the politicians and their bureaucratic underlings. The primary factor in determining whether to grant Uber it's desired exemptions from existing taxi regulations was politics.

Safety was the last thing on any politician's mind.

Political hypocrisy is enough to make a decent person sick to the stomach.

Now read this:

After much probing, it has now been established that Uber’s drivers cannot respond to the app - for instance, to confirm they have accepted a booking - without using their hands. The European Transport Safety Council’s “Making Taxis Safer” report spells it out: “Ideally taxi drivers should receive information on their next client order with the minimum amount of distraction using hands-free communication and not via a hand-held mobile phone”. -- source.

By the way, it ain't about "using their hands." And it is more than misleading to focus on the hands while ignoring the simultaneous necessity of using the eyes. Unless it's to press a button on a microphone, which requires zero visual involvement. I drove a cab for decades using two-way radio taxi technology, and yes, you needed to pick up the mike from time to time to give a location and say the word, "Roger." While this was going on, all of the relevant taxi information was derived by using one's ears. The eyes were reserved for driving.

The truth of the matter is, politicians don't really give a shit about you or me. And they sure as hell don't give a shit about safety.

'Hard-to-beat' distracted driving tickets shock drivers who think they're safe at a stop

Wednesday, May 3, 2017

Uber gradually cementing its cronyist reach.

"Cronyist" may not be a real word, but I think most people understand what I mean.

Uber would have been nothing more than one of many taxicab dispatch software vendors if not for the massive fault lines created by government regulation of taxicabs in the first place. Those regulations erected structures that were highly vulnerable to political caprice. As some of Hamilton's taxi regulators warned those who relied upon their taxi licenses for old-age pension incomes, "Everything you have worked for can be wiped out at the stroke of a pen."

That deadly stroke finally came when a cash-laden U.S. corporation with oodles of political influence [1],[2],[3],[4], in mad pursuit of yield for its investors, decided to exsanguinate the global taxi industry.

In Hamilton, majority of city councilors didn't bat an eye when they voted to wipe out hundreds of local taxi license owners in order to appease a foreign corporation.

Here is yet another example of Uber colluding with a willing local government in order to enrich its investors.

I missed this report when it came out. (April 3)

"The town of Innisfil is partnering with Uber."

So much for Uber being all about free enterprise. In Innisfil, taxpayers will be subsidizing Uber's profits.

Uber's MO reminds me of certain creatures found in nature:

10 deadly parasites


A few views of crony capitalism:


Back in the 1970's a small group of us became very enthusiastic about drinking wine, smoking herb, listening to music, and playing games of strategy.

One of our favorite games was "Diplomacy."

It was unlike any other game I had ever played, except for chess.

But chess relied almost entirely upon applying a certain mathematical logic, whereas Diplomacy required certain other disciplines, like negotiation, psychology, manipulation, calculation, and outright mendacity.

Chess was like free markets. The rules were well understood, and, though there could be surprises that could result in instant wins, or losses, the fairness of the outcome was rarely questioned.

Diplomacy, on the other hand, was all about politics and mixed economies. Lies could be told with impunity, and promises could be repeatedly broken, as in the real world. The winner would be the one who was most adept at employing the right combination of strategy, dishonesty, sociopathy (it was just a game,) and psychology.

I have to admit, on occasion, I rather enjoyed the use of psychology. Psychological skills allowed you to pretend you were friends with someone, while fucking him up the ass, without him ever catching on. Kind of like the way Uber/government collusion has boned the taxi industry.

It just occurred to me that the hours I spent in my 20's playing Diplomacy provided me with with valuable insights that I carried with me throughout my life, and that gave me the skills required to see most politicians for who they really are.

For anyone that has never played Diplomacy, I highly recommend you try it.

Product Description

The classic game of negotiation, cunning, and deceit is back. Through negotiations, alliances, and intrigue, expand your empire over pre-World War I Europe. Form alliances and unhatch your traitorous plots as you negotiate and outwit- in a delicate balance of cooperation and competition- to gain dominance of the continent. Your success hinges not on the luck of the dice, but your cunning and cleverness.

haha. Now this!

"An Uber spokesman told The Information: "We recognize we need to improve our relationship with drivers and their experience using Uber. We're working on a range of improvements across our products, our policies, our customer support and how we communicate.""

After all of the BULLSHIT we had to listen to from Uber shills, like Tim Hudak and his poster girl granny, Esther Nerling, about making money from assets you already own, and funding your grand-daughter's university education in Sweden, we were supposed to expect that every wanna-be cab driver who couldn't be bothered with getting a cab license, would be able to circumvent the evil "taxi cartels" and rake in the cash. All they had to do was "tap an app" and the joys of being pioneers in the phony "sharing economy" would come their way.

And the fucking horseshit we had to suffer from the mouths of slimy politicians parroting the "new technology" and "Uber is here to stay," mantras, as if the taxi business were a new idea. (In some ways, I am convinced, from a lifetime of observation, that most politicians are so fucking clueless, that they actually DO believe that taxi transport is a brand new idea.)

The reality finally begins to hit home.

"Only 4% of Uber drivers remain on the platform a year later, says report"

No wonder we see so many, MADD Canada-endorsed, Uber drivers performing amazing circus stunts on city streets, like sudden turns from the wrong lanes, and driving the wrong fucking way up one-way streets.

Yep. These ignorant politicians really know what they are doing. No wonder they think think they can legislate the Earth's climate.


Tempo