Monday, July 17, 2017

Line-Up Phobia

There is a new form of mental disorder that seems to be spreading rapidly.

Have you noticed it?

Go to a nearby Tim Horton's or MacDonald's, or similar venue and you have a good chance of seeing this disorder in practice.

The other day, when I went to pay for a couple of items at a local Dollarama, I observed another example of this phenomenon. A lady was standing at the checkout having her goods tallied. I was third in line. The second person in the line was standing about 16 feet away from the first person. If not for the fact that we were standing in a narrow aisle stocked with last-minute items, it would have been impossible to determine whether this person was actually in line, or just loitering.

In a saner time, I would have politely asked the woman in front of me if she was in line, and if not, would she kindly excuse me for walking around her. But these are not sane times.

I have to admit, I was annoyed by this behavior. Maybe it's a sign of age. Or maybe it's because I like things to make sense.

Someone standing 16 feet away from the first person in line makes absolutely no sense to me.

Anyway, while standing there observing this situation, I begin to roll the issue over in my mind.

Perhaps this is a new form of etiquette. The only problem I see with this is that, if the third person in the line were to be a practitioner of similar etiquette and, correspondingly provide an additional 16 feet, and the fourth person .... and so on, the fifth or so person observing this rule would be about 80 feet away from the cash register.... somewhere near the back of the store.

The bigger the store, the bigger the line.

Right away, I think you can probably see a potential problem with this new form of line etiquette: confusion.

The greater the gap between line-up members, the more difficult it will be to keep track of the order of service.

Picture this: You are at a supermarket, and you are in the laundry detergent and shampoo aisle nearest the back of the store. With some difficulty, you conclude that this is the end of the line. So you stand there, leaving 16 feet for the shopper in front of you. Of course, someone else could be doing exactly the same thing in the pop and snack-food aisle beside you. He can't see you and you can't see him.

Can you see how this could lead to confusion, or even conflict, if the two shoppers arrive at the check-out at the same time?

A while back I went to the Delta MacDonald's. I noticed there was only one person placing an order at the desk. There was also a group of people standing on the other side of the floor-space in front of the counter. In a saner age, this group would represent those customers who have already placed their orders and are now just waiting for their food.

I walked up and stood behind the first person in line. Out of nowhere, some guy comes up to me and says "excuse me, but I was in line ahead of you." Except that he wasn't, otherwise we would have been occupying the same space. His claim to be ahead of me was thus demonstrably false.

Having already observed repeated instances of this collapse in line-up protocol, I could not help but reply, "Well then, maybe next time you should try actually standing in the line." He gave me a look of stunned non-comprehension.

I have been on this planet for over sixty years now and I have to say, this is a fairly recent phenomenon. I am old enough to have experienced standing in many queues over the decades. Movies. Rock concerts. Grocery stores. Amusement parks. Airports. Taxi ranks.

This pointless space gap is a new thing. I've only been noticing it for about two or three years. It seems to be getting worse.

Some would say I have too much time on my hands if I spend it on line-up dynamics. Maybe that is true.

On the other hand, whenever I notice changes in human behavior, I can't help but think that such changes are not merely random, but are instead indicative of broader trends.

So I decided to Google the phenomenon. The best I could come up with was that some people are afraid to stand too close to other people as a result of "social anxiety disorder."

This explanation does not satisfy me. If the reason for leaving a large gap between person 1 and person 2 is due to person 2's aversion to standing too close to other people, then person 2 should be expected to experience similar discomfort from the person standing third in line, or directly behind them, unless that person also suffers from the same disorder, in which case, that person is standing back near the electronics aisle.

But if person 3 does NOT have the same disorder, then person 3 would end up standing uncomfortably close to person 2, in which case, it would be reasonable to expect person 2 to move forward in pursuit of relief. In my Dollarama example, therefore, the lady in front of me should have moved her buggy ahead by 8 feet, thus splitting the difference between the feared adjacent line-up participants.

But if she did move ahead by 8 feet, I would have followed behind her leaving the customary gap of about two feet between us. And then she would have moved up another 4 feet, and so on, until the check-out line began to resemble the check-out lines we have all grown to know and love.

Conclusion

The bizarre phenomenon of excessive line-up spaces is not explained by "Social Anxiety Disorder."

This topic deserves further exploration. It could be related to the excessive use of smart-phones and other accouterments of the Internet age. As people increasingly live their lives interacting with electronic devices, they become less engaged with the real world that surrounds them.

And in a world where all you need to do is tap an app to satisfy all of your social and consumer needs, the need for active participation in life is correspondingly diminished.

And in a world where active participation is becoming obsolete, the value of one's natural assets - arms, legs, eyes, ears, brain - depreciates.

Which means, maybe the reason why some people leave a 16 foot gap between themselves and the cash register is because they are just plain fucking stupid.

---

Gee. There doesn't seem to be much social anxiety disorder in Venezuela these days.


Not to worry though,

There is a new app designed to help Canadians make healthy choices.

If successful, this technology can be adapted to all sorts of other government funded apps designed to control how we work, the information we consume, the politics we favor, the movies we watch, the music we listen to, the transportation we choose, and how many squares of toilet paper we use to wipe our asses.

Save the trees.

Wow! These guys were way off in their prediction that it would take until 6565 before you wouldn't need a husband or wife. And they sure never anticipated that it might come to a point where it would become common to inquire as to the gender of the spouse. Other than that, a brilliantly prophetic song.

Worth noting:

The core of McLuhan’s theory, and the key idea to start with in explaining him, is his definition of media as extensions of ourselves. McLuhan writes: “It is the persistent theme of this book that all technologies are extensions of our physical and nervous systems to increase power and speed” (90) and, “Any extension, whether of skin, hand, or foot, affects the whole psychic and social complex. Some of the principle extensions, together with some of their psychic and social consequences, are studied in this book” (4). From the premise that media, or technologies (McLuhan’s approach makes “media” and “technology” more or less synonymous terms), are extensions of some physical, social, psychological, or intellectual function of humans, flows all of McLuhan’s subsequent ideas. Thus, the wheel extends our feet, the phone extends our voice, television extends our eyes and ears, the computer extends our brain, and electronic media, in general, extend our central nervous system. [Source.]

Or corrupts it.


On other fronts:

This Week in Stupid (16/07/2017)
Sargon of Akkad

The Young Turks make me puke.

Thursday, July 13, 2017

Do Bike Lanes Save the Planet?

Cannon St. Bike Lanes Analysis

Purpose:

To examine whether the theory that reducing the efficiency of traffic flow can be reasonably expected to have an impact upon the Earth's changing climate.

Basis:

These are estimates derived from quick Google searches. They are designed to generate some ball-park numbers to determine whether the vehicle exclusion lanes along Cannon St. E., from Sherman Ave to Hess St., are actually saving the planet, (Assuming the AGW hypothesis is not a hoax.)

Traffic volume on Cannon St. East: minimum 9,000 vehicles per day
Excessive vehicular idling as a result of bike lanes: 1 minute per vehicle per trip (derived from experience)
Amount of CO2 emitted during politically induced idling: 69 g/min
Length of bike lanes (Sherman to Hess): 3 Km
Number of crack-head bicycle trips per day: 550
Total number of bicycle trips per day: 600
Average CO2 emitted by cyclist: 21 g/Km
Average CO2 emitted by moving vehicle: 185 g/Km

Assumption

For the purposes of this discussion, it will be assumed that the vehicles and the crack-heads cover the entire 3 Km distance of the route.

Analysis

The 600 daily crack-head bicycle trips along Cannon St. generate about 600 trips X 3 Km/trip X 21 g CO2/Km = 37,800 g CO2.

If these trips had been by automobile, the total amount of CO2 emitted would be about 600 X 3 Km/trip X 185g CO2/Km = 333,000 g CO2.

CO2 reduction as a result of cycling instead of driving: 333,000 g CO2 - 37,000 g CO2 = 295,000 g CO2.

The bicycle lanes thus reduce carbon emissions along Cannon St. E. by an impressive 295 kilograms per day.

On the other hand, the unnecessary idling caused by the vehicle exclusion lanes result in a total of 9,000 trips X 1 minute idling per trip X 69 g/min idling = 621,000 g of CO2. (621 Kg.)

Therefore, the politically sexy, but environmentally indefensible, congestion caused by bike lanes along Cannon St. E. results in an increase of 621 Kg - 295 Kg = 326 Kg. of CO2.

Conclusion:

The bicycle lanes along Cannon St. from Sherman Ave. to Hess St. result in increased CO2 emissions of about 326 Kg per day. Multiplied by 365 days, that yields an additional 118,990 Kg of totally unnecessary carbon "pollution" per year.

It appears that the claim by politicians, that they have the power to influence the Earth's climate, by screwing up traffic flow, is no more credible than their demonstrated expertise when it comes to road maintenance, or taxicab regulation, even if we assume that the AGM hoax is actually correct.

Were you expecting something different?


Video: Driving West on Cannon St. Pre-Vehicle Exclusion Lanes (A.K.A. - Bike Lanes.)

Note: Zero idling. Zero politically induced CO2 generation.

Saturday, July 8, 2017

It Ain't Always what you Say

I know this isn't supposed to be funny, but Gerald had me giggling all through it. Perhaps my jocular interpretation of much of this presentation reveals a certain crudity on my part, but I can't deny that his expressions closely mirror my own in response to much of what I see, or read, from "respectable" news sources, and the crud most politicians usually spew.

Besides, if I want to laugh, my last resort these days, is to watch so-called comedians. I tried that about a year, or so ago. I tried to watch five or six stand-up comedy shows on Netfix. They were all puke, especially Amy Schumer (gag.)

They weren't funny. And in the case of Amy Schumer, they weren't even remotely funny.

The best kind of laugh is one that happens unexpectedly because someone says something, or does something that just makes you blurt out a chuckle or a guffaw. Lionel is good at that.

Most will probably not see the humor I see, any more than I see humor in most, actually all anti-Trump "jokes" that cycle into my in-box these days. I don't know anything about the science of jokes, but I will go out on a limb here and conjecture that a joke must, at the very least, have a credible premise. Even slapstick requires some resonance with real life.

If the premise is false, then the joke just isn't funny.

Perhaps that is why I was never a big fan of the "Lucy Show." She was just too stupid to be stupid. At least when the Three Stooges (more like the Three Politicians,) were painting each other's faces and eating each other's paintbrushes, I could visualize such things happening in real life, and they probably have happened millions of times. (Especially at Hamilton's City Hall.)

I know Gerald is not trying to be funny. I believe he is deadly serious, and with good reason.

It ain't always about what you say, but how you say it.


Oh, one more thing I noticed this past week. A brand new set of stop-lights on the west side of the intersection of John St. N. and King William. More public money being pissed away on an airy-fairy agenda, no doubt linked to valiant efforts to prevent Earth's climate from changing, by converting the, already ridiculously narrow, King William St. into a two-way street so that the trendies who get drunk in the adjacent bars can persuade themselves that one vs. two-way traffic on that street is somehow, "progressive" even though the only logical result to be expected is increased congestion in the area.

What's next? A mandate that all door hinges in the neighborhood be switched to the opposite side so that the door will open the other way?

How the people of Hamilton can tolerate these repeated insults to their intelligence is a mystery to me. I think the government run public schools share a lot of the blame.

The Three Stooges: Politicians at Work.

"If you guys would watch what you're doing, you wouldn't make so many mistakes."

Saturday, July 1, 2017

My Encounter with an Uber Cab Driver

I had an encounter with an Uber cabbie this morning.

When I pulled into the parking lot at the front of my townhouse complex, I noticed this guy sitting in a small, Uber-like car, staring at this dash-mounted smart-phone, and looking confused.

He was sitting in front of unit #1.

I got out of my car and started walking toward my own unit which is also numbered. It's not a gigantic complex, so in my simple, low-tech, cab driver's mind, I figure that if you are looking for a unit number at an address, the first thing you should do is look at the number on the unit. If that number is "1" the next thing you do is look at the number on the next unit.

Often, though not always, that number is either a "2" or a "3" depending upon the numbering format. In my complex, the next number is "2" and so on. For a taxi driver that information can be critical.

So this guy looks up at me as I am walking by, and asks me if I know where unit number "100" is.

"Here we go," I thought, "this guy is an amateur Uber driver who has been lulled into believing that consuming his capital for a little bit of cash in the bank, is a new form of, "job."

Now, if I were a normal Canadian, all giddy with this 150th year of our nations's birth (Happy Dominion Day!) and so on, I might have simply explained to the man this,

"Well, the next unit is "2" and the next one after that is, "3" and so on, and so on, with a possible minor deviation here and there. So if you just drive around the loop, I feel confident that you will find the unit "100" without much mental effort.

But I was not in a good mood. I had just finished a Friday night taxi shift. Post Uber. (When most of the Uber drivers clog up the bar districts like Hess Village, Augusta, and King William streets to "share" their cars with people who need a taxi. While the "low-tech" taxi drivers sit around the same areas with their thumbs up their behinds, thanks to their local politicians.)

So my thinking was,

"Wait a minute, aren't you a representative of that marvelous high-tech wizardry that ingeniously connects riders with drivers? I thought you had an app for that?"

And my next thought was, "Yeah, and this is what all of those spineless, principle-less, cowardly, and blatently dishonest (See, for example, Hamilton Mayor, Fred Eisenberger's preposterous claim that selling out to Uber by creating a two-tiered taxi bylaw had the "backing of Hamilton's taxi industry!") politicians unthinkingly endorsed when they opted to award an unlimited number of taxi licenses to Uber, based upon the ruse that Uber was not involved in the taxi business. (!)

And what have we got? A bunch of freakin' amateurs who think that their own thinking, judgment, and experience, can be replaced by an app.

Before long, people will not even bother to get off the couch to go to the bathroom. They will just shit in their pants and then, tap an app, to summon a bunch of app-oriented nursing assistants to rush in and change their diapers.

Anyway, I just looked at this paragon of the new "sharing economy" and it's claim to rely upon "smart regulations" and so on, and so on,

So I asked him, "Are you an Uber driver?" To which he replied, "yes."

and I replied,

"Go fuck yourself."

That seemed to confuse him even more.

Poor guy. It was nothing personal.

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.

Health Crisis in Canada?

Before posting the link, below, on Facebook, I got another Nazi-ish warning from their nebulous "Fact Checkers" urging me to thi...