"“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?
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.
"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.
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.
Sunday, April 23, 2017
Why, as a driver, I prefer the "Luddite" version of the taxi business.
When the pukers come out, en masse, usually around the government-mandated bar closing time, I would much rather be a non-exempt cab driver than a politically favoured Uber cab driver. This is because I don't have to rely on "pings" to let me know where the customers are. I already know where the customers are, and, go figger, that is usually where I direct my cab in pursuit of commerce.
But I have a big advantage over the Uber cabbie, at least the Uber cabbie who is mindlessly compliant with the Uber model, which dictates that they shall restrict their sphere of activity only to those who have a credit card on file, and who use their smartphone to hail a cab. (And, of course, Uber corp and their political cronies like to play up Uber's lack of payment flexibility as a positive, rather than the negative it really is.)
My advantage, given that I am driving a fully insured taxi, is that I can pick up anyone, regardless of whether they used a telephone, a smartphone, or a wave of the hand to hail a taxi, and remain confident that I am fully covered in the event of an accident.
Of course, it's common knowledge by now, except in the fantasies that occupy the minds of local legislators, that all cab drivers have the same incentive... to make as much money as they can in as short a span of time as is possible.
It's human nature.
Which means that some Uber cabbies will be enticed by the availablity of the greater payment flexibility enjoyed by fully insured cab drivers. Which means, cash trips. Regardless of the insurance implications. Uber drivers have an incentive to evade and avoid the "business model" that Uber restricts them to.
Due to Uber's rating system, as well as it's vaunted "business model," which implies total observation and control of every taxi ride, human nature will inevitably lead to attempts to circumvent that matrix.
In simple English, (if the use of that language has not yet become demonized as a form of "systemic racism," owing to its uniquely white, anglo-european heritage. "How dare you speak English, you must be a Nazi!") it means that Uber cabbies will learn to apply increased discretion as they troll for fares.
I don't think it is unreasonable for me to predict two trends, based upon two incentives.
1 - the trend to favour flexible payments, like cash.
and
2 - the trend to avoid pukers.
Experienced cabbies prefer the privacy of cash. And they eventually learn how to avoid pukers, by not picking up people who are obviously pissed to the gills.
The non-exempt cabbie, when hailed by a potential puker, can simply drive on by, without anyone knowing about it. The Uber cabbie, on the other hand, has to cancel the trip on his computer, which leaves a time-stamped record of the event, which he may have to explain later.
From the point of view of the cab driver, who the fuck would want to be strangled by the Uber model?
Not many.
And that is why, the Uber cab driver will, eventually, become the exact same person as the non-Uber cab driver.
Or, if he can't figure out how to avoid the pukers, he will quit being a cab driver.
There are certain, fundamental realities in the cab business that cannot be circumvented by dispatch technologies, nor ignorant or opportunistic politicians.
It's all so easy to understand. I don't know why I feel compelled to explain it.
I don't think it's right to make fun of fat people. As a person who has had repeated success in the practice of gaining unnecessary weight, I am veering perilously close to the threshold of being called a "fatso" myself.
Rather than trying to normalize or glamorize this unhealthy, and unsightly circumstance, I vote to continue the practice of "fat shaming."
Whenever I see a fat person, my opinion of that person's credibility tends to be diminished. Especially in the field of health or politics. My thinking goes parallel to the old last resort of people I am winning arguments with, "If you're so smart, how come you ain't rich?"
(I remember this one, fat, I mean morbidly bloated co-worker, who tried to shame me for smoking cigarettes while he stuffed his face.)
I guess if I *were* rich, my opponent might resort to,
"If you're so smart, how come you are so fat?"
I think there is a negative correlation between smartness and bloat. That's just my opinion. If it's allowed.
Oh jeezus, Suddenly I think of Michael Moore. Fucking stupid. And rich. And fat.
I guess my question to Michael Moore should be, "If you are so fat and stupid, how come you are rich?" (One guess: there is a market for stupidity.)
Well, maybe I can't be black, so I have to restrain my opinions in that area. And I am not a woman, so I have to be careful about what I say about commie feminists. But as my waist measurement tends to expand, I can say whatever I like about fat fucks.
Time to end "thin privilege?" And "systemic weightism?"
And then there is the question of fat immigrants.
Worst of all is the spectacle of the Uber corporation being maligned for stuff it is actually NOT guilty of. In view of their other nefarious activities though, I like to watch them stew.
Plus-Size Model Tess Holliday Vows To Boycott Uber After Being Fat-Shamed
And I think the next time I have a gathering at my house, I shall insist that, in the name of health and wellness, that any fatsos that come over shall be politely asked to eat outside, especially if there are children present.
I wrote my own commentary before I watched PJW's rant. What a pleasure it is to me to find my airy thoughts about smoker shaming and "thin privilege" were not, in the least bit, original. PJW already hit upon it over two years ago.
And I have to admit that I am a bit jealous to discover that this uppity, young, white man, is already eons ahead of me in his thinking.
Wednesday, April 19, 2017
Public School Brainwashing
About ten years ago, I asked my son, then in grade 8 what he was learning in science class. He replied, "Global Warming." That was one of many high blood pressure moments for me. They should be teaching science, not left-wing politics in publicly funded schools.
Around the same time while I was driving somewhere with my daughter, then about 12. One of those government funded bullshit propaganda ads came on the radio. I turned to my daughter and asked her if she'd ever heard of Al Gore.
"Yes, we watched his movie in school." Another BP spike followed. It was another example of public money being misused to reinforce a political agenda. At the time, I could not have imagined things could get much worse.
Boy was I wrong, as Allen Small demonstrates in this short video.
Sunday, April 16, 2017
A Non-Uber Rant
The petty crimes of local politicians, manifest by their obvious collusion with the Uber corportion, pale in comparison to the colossal crimes being committed by national governments.
Okay. So, Trump's Tomahawk missile attack on the Syrian air base is said to have killed 15 people. How do we know that any of those 15 people were, in any way, responsible for the *alleged* chemical attack?
How do we know they weren't just, for example, janitorial and kitchen staff?
Even if the 15 casualties were military personnel, how does that really "hit back" at Assad any more than taking someone's pawn in a game of chess?
And how can such an action possibly make Ivanka Trump feel better about the ten dead children?
And if 59 cruise missiles can be fired into a nation with which the United States is NOT at war, what if Ivanka had been shown pictures of Ebba Akerlund, the 11 year old school girl who was killed in the Stockholm truck attack? Should Ivanka's father then launch a proportionate number of cruise missiles ( 6 ) into Stockholm?
My enthusiasm for Trump has taken a big hit over the last week or so, because of his insane (IMHO) decision to launch the attack.
And this tweet from his daughter makes me absolutely puke,
"The times we are living in call for difficult decisions - Proud of my father for refusing to accept these horrendous crimes against humanity."
As if detonating 59 missiles, at $1.4 million a piece = $82 million taxpayer dollars, has ANY significance as to whether or not one "accepts" these specific horrendous crimes, as opposed to countless other horrendous crimes, happening every day., all over the globe.
It might have been a better idea to just blow $89 million dollars on a great fireworks show over Washington, D.C. At least some American citizens would have received a good show for their tax dollars, and nobody would have died.
And Ivanka could point to the show as an example of her father "refusing to accept these horrendous crimes," without there being a single fatality, nor the possibility of nuclear war.
Instead of 100 dead children, think about 100 million dead children. How would Ivanka like to have that on her conscience if it had resulted from her father's "refusal to accept" horrendous crimes?
Call me a conspiracy theorist, but the tools of analysis I have developed over the years have served me well, given the impossibility of knowing whether anything is true, these days, outside of the limited range of your own eyes and ears.
That is why I concluded, right from the start, that Assad was NOT responsible for the gas attack. Whatever you are hearing on mainstream media is either gross distortion, or outright lies.
I had a couple of passengers in my cab the other night. They were, roughly, in my age range, those who demographically still skew toward reliance on mainstream media for their "understanding" of the world. The wife was definitely smarter than the husband because she was clearly concerned with the possible consequences of political miss-steps, not unlike the decision of the Austro-Hungarian empire to launch a limited war against Serbia in response to the assassination. The guy, I assume he was her husband, remained silent.... probably because the conversation did not involve sports scores.
And when I told her, that I did not for one second believe that Assad was behind the alleged chemical attack that sparked Trump's idiotic missile attack, I noticed that, even though she was shocked at my assertion, and physically recoiled, briefly, the wheels of thought were rotating in her mind.
(This is an example of how I try to sway people into my way of thinking. I try to make them think.)
I chalked it up as a minor victory in the infowar.
Is Assad guilty of using chemical weapons?
I fucking doubt it.
I am confident I will be proved right.
As Ron Paul says, in the following excellent video by Sargon of Akkad,
"It makes no sense for Assad to have done this."
Warning: The contents of this video may make your blood run cold.
How do I know, or think I know, that Sargon is not just a Russian or a Syrian spy? Because I was thinking along the same lines before I even watched this report.
On the one hand, it could be denigrated as "confirmation bias." On the other, other, hand, it could come down to thought, observation, and analysis.
When it comes right down to it, the claim that acceleration due to the force of gravity on earth is 9.8 meters per second, per second, is itself, a manifestation of confirmation bias. (and if the leftists get their way, this belief too will come under assault as a mere construct of "White Supremacy.)"
