The Human Cost of Uber and Lyft: Life in the Dying Taxi Industry
The article I have linked to below details some of the destructive impact that has resulted from the cowardly, opportunistic, malicious, and often just plain ignorant decisions lawmakers have made by radically revising the taxi bylaws.
Some of the terminology used in the report is misleading. For example, the title itself is misleading.
The taxi industry is not dying. Uber and Lyft are taxi companies that are exempt from most taxi regulations because of their political pull, and they are quite definitely not dying.
It is not Uber and Lyft that are killing the drivers of non-exempt taxis, it is their local politicians.
The politicians in most North American jurisdictions have slyly, and dishonestly revised their taxi bylaws in order to give Uber and Lyft a massive competitive advantage over smaller operators with less pull.
Despite their nauseating virtue signaling over just about every other marginalized identity group, most politicians did not hesitate for one second to sell the marginalized people in the non-exempt taxi sector down the river.
Or, not so lately, there has been an alarming increase in examples of racism against white people.
It's okay for any other designated group to vilify a collective based on skin colour, so long as the colour is white.
And I've been aware of the subtle planting of the seed of white evil for decades now.
I found it amusing at first. Overt racism was being accepted as anti-racism. In it's earliest stages it was called, "affirmative action."
affirmative action
Origins
The term "affirmative action" was first used in the United States in "Executive Order No. 10925",[9] signed by President John F. Kennedy on 6 March 1961, which included a provision that government contractors "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin."[10] It was used to promote actions that achieve non-discrimination. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 which required government employers to take "affirmative action" to "hire without regard to race, religion and national origin". This prevented employers from discriminating against members of disadvantaged groups. In 1967, gender was added to the anti-discrimination list.[11]
Affirmative action is intended to promote the opportunities of defined minority groups within a society to give them equal access to that of the majority population.[12]
It is often instituted for government and educational settings to ensure that certain designated "minority groups" within a society are able to participate in all provided opportunities including promotional, educational, and training opportunities.[13]
The stated justification for affirmative action by its proponents is that it helps to compensate for past discrimination, persecution or exploitation by the ruling class of a culture,[14] and to address existing discrimination.[15]
Notwithstanding the "stated justification," what this policy ushered in was a precedent for the government to become ever more deeply involved in the allocation of goodies using race as a criterion. And what resulted was an increase in the racialization of every aspect of life.
The result was easily predictable.
Race became a commodity. It was like having a special card. It could get you a job, or a government "job," or admission to a racially allocated university program.
In a free market it would have been worthless, but in a political market, it can be worth a lot. It becomes a product, with a price attached, just like a driver's license.
This has emboldened those who see themselves as possible beneficiaries of state involvement in wealth distribution along racial lines. (Mostly those with a communist bent. Like Hamilton's Mathew Green.)
Therefore, it ought come as no surprise that we now see a growing effort amongst those of the communist persuasion, (whether they are aware of it, or not,) to focus upon the group who's ancestors are allegedley responsible for all of the evils in the world.
White people.
I have been white all of my life. That's how I was born. I find the notion that I was saddled with guilt from the moment I entered this world just as offensive as the idea that today's newborns are already saddled with the debts the liberal politicians have bequeathed them.
It makes me want to puque.
This is my declaration:
I was born white.
There is nothing wrong with that.
I refuse to accept any form or level of guilt for any alleged crimes committed by other white people in the past.
And if and when anyone dares to order me to stiffle my opinion, or "check my privilege" because I happen to be white, I am going to tell them to go and fuck themselves.
It's about time white people started standing up for themselves.
It's one thing to go all bravado with phony pride. "I am a Canadian, I watch hockey, and drink beer, and get plastered and walk around yelling, 'Yippee, my team won the game!'
It's quite another to go around declaring that, as a Canadian you are ashamed of your country, and it's Anglo-European history, and the fact that the people who built this country were mostly of Anglo-European origin, is a reason to abolish this country and replace it with third world immigrants.
I say fuck you. Go to Africa or the Middle East. Take your fucking "diversity" with you, and make those countries "strong."
Man. Sometimes I feel like Donald Trump when it comes to negotiating skills.
To wit.
I just finished off a bottle of wine but was not ready to quit celebrating.
My son had one tall can of beer in the fridge.
When I first asked him if I could have it, to complete my work for this day, he refused. "It's my last beer," he said.
So I decided to appeal to his conscience, using the tools I have learned from the left over the years.
"But what about all the times I suffered in this life? What about all the times I have been ripped off by people."
and so on.
It worked.
I am drinking that beer right now.
Saturday, February 10, 2018
Ya ya ya. We keep hearing this bullshit from Uber.
In a statement to CBC News, an Uber spokesperson called the allegations "deeply upsetting."
"As soon as this was reported to us, we removed this driver's access to the app. We have provided information to the Waterloo Regional Police Service and will continue to fully support their investigation," the spokesperson said.
Yeah. They removed this driver's access to the app, as if they don't have enough "skilled" people to fill the void.
Just wait until something happens and remove the driver from the platform. Talk about a dirt cheap (and brilliant) way of avoiding any liability for the business model our politicians have aided and abetted.
Funny enough, to date, I have not heard of one single Hamilton politician acknowledging that in their zeal to embrace the future, they might have forgotten to consider the implications of endorsing a taxi service which operates anonymously due to their lack of identifying numbers and decals.
And when you think about it, how many other legitimate businesses in Ontario prefer to operate with so much public anonymity? Surely not Dominoes Pizza, nor Joe's Sewage Solutions, nor Bell or Cogeco, nor the various towing companies. Nor Sparkie's Tires.
Nope. They all like to advertize their presence.
All, except for Uber. During a recent conversation I had with one of Hamilton's new "Mobile Enforcement Officers," when I asked him how many Uber drivers he had harrassed, he expressed frustration that they were too hard to find. Well, that ought not to surprise anyone since the ammendments to Hamilton's taxi by-law basically gave Uber a pass on taxi vehicle identification. Sure, they mandated a sticker be placed in the window, but few Uber drivers bothered to comply. And, again, it makes enforcement difficult for FUCKING OBVIOUS REASONS!
And when I asked the duly appointed guardian of public safety, while engaged in his zealous pursuit of non-exempt taxi cabs with glowing "check engine" lights, whether he was issuing a commensurate proportion of fines to Uber drivers who were not in compliance with the bylaw, he informed me that they were not. Instead, they were going to Uber, hat in hand, and asking (politely, no doubt) why their drivers were ignoring the law.
Now remember. Hamilton's politicians promised they would "level the playing field" between Uber and non-exempt taxi cabs. And a lot of people believed it. I didn't buy it for a second, because I understand the true character of most politicians. Corrupt, weak, spineless, dishonest moral hypocrites who care only about their political careers and don't give a rat's ass about the people they supposedly "represent." (I mean, did you see that puke about former Mayor Bob Morrow?)
So now we have this new taxi phenomenon that attracts a huge turnover of amateur taxi drivers who think Ubering is a great way to pay off their gym club memberships, or to pay off their student loans, or to meet a bunch of drunken chicks instead of staying home and jerking off to internet porn.
All the while destroying the livelihoods of thousands of individuals who just want to earn a living as cab drivers. What could go wrong?
I don't blame Uber. Uber is just another taxi company that will do whatever it is allowed to get away with. It's just business to them. I blame the politicians for their knee-jerk accommodation of this well financed taxi brokerage.
Other stuff.
Tuesday, February 6, 2018
Tuesday's Puke
Yeah. He really cared about "the little guy. Particularly for new Canadians" - Like those in the taxi business.
I'll never forget the meeting I attended at city hall where one cab driver appealed to the city to stop recklessly issuing taxi licenses because the market was already flooded and drivers were suffering.
Mayor Morrow was so concerned, or might have been, had he not been up there snoozing on his throne. It was obvious he didn't give a shit about the "little guy" who was speaking.
Monday, February 5, 2018
Your Monday Puke
I have been waging my own "take a knee" campaign for about forty years by refusing to stand for, or sing the national anthem. I had my reasons. Mostly, it was a protest against the lies I had been told as a youngster in government-run private schools, about Canada being a free country.
I realized the truth in 1974. Since then, it has only become increasingly obvious. It has come to the point where freedom of speech is being denormalized, just as tobacco has been. Criticizing a certain religion has become taboo as well. Free speech zones on university campuses are the new smoking areas. Give it a few more years and you will see signs that prohibit free speech within 27 meters of all hospital and government building entrances. The surveillance technologies for enforcement are now ubiquitous.
The bogus claim that second hand smoke is harmful to bystanders is now being used to claim that there is no safe level of exposure to free speech either.
The new communist lyrics to the national anthem just gives me even more reason not to stand in the future.
That is, until the government makes it mandatory.
More Puke
Further evidence that Canada is not a free country comes in the form of general acceptance of the idea that citizens do not have the right to negotiate wages (see minimum wage) and that government should play an increasingly intrusive role in hiring decisions.
I'm not really too put off by the Muslim practice of having more than one wife, but it does lead to the question, how does that add up?
Assuming the gender balance is about 50-50, notwithstanding the plethora of new genders that have been recently introduced, if some guys have more than one wife, others will have none. It's a zero sum game. Maybe balance could be achieved by allowing women to have more than one husband.
I'd be cool with that. So, I would expect, would be Kathleen Wynne. Whether such a policy would garner much support from Muslim voters remains an open question.
Warfare, where most of the dead are males, could also relieve the imbalance, along with life-like robots and cloning.
I don't have a problem with Islam. Many of my coworkers in the cab business are Muslims. I am fortunate to be friends with many of these people, and to learn that they are the same as everyone else, or perhaps more precisely, as unique as everyone else.
On the other hand, I don't ever want to have anyone's religion shoved down my throat. After all, I think that all religions are nothing more than superstitious bullshit. To be commanded to respect what is, in my opinion, a bunch of irrational horse-shit, is highly offensive to me. And don't I have the right not to be offended? Or is that "right" to be portioned off to certain identity group members, in proportion to how many votes sleazy politicians figure this identity-group gerrymandering will earn them?
There-in lies my dilemma, and the core of my concern about immigration policy.
I am an Islamaphobe. I am also a Christianityphobe, a Judaismphobe, and a phobe of any similar system of thought that attempts to enslave the mind of man with any arbitrary series of edicts or rituals, the stated goal of which is to guarantee moral stature, personal fulfillment, and possible immortality. But the result of which is the cultivation of a bunch of compliant sheep. I don't want to be a part of anyone's flock.
Which, by the way, is also why I fucking hate communism.
Sunday, January 28, 2018
Politics 101
I'm sitting here watching "The Peaky Blinders."
It's not for everyone, but I love it. The musical accompaniment is worth the price of admission alone. Especially if you add a little of that, soon to be legalized, recreational spice.
Anyway, in one scene this guy came up with one of the best descriptions of politics I have ever heard.
"Politics is deliberately making things better for some people, by deliberately making them worse for others."
So simple, yet so true.
Think of Kathleen Wynne and her Ontario Liberal party, for example.
Or bike lanes. A few avid cyclists, (and crack-heads) get their very own special bits of road space, while countless drivers rip their hair out of their heads. Pollution increases from eons of pointless idling. And there's the excessive brake dust generation from a multiplication of unnecessary, and pointless stops.
"Politics is deliberately making things better for some people, by deliberately making them worse for others."
Brake dust. Especially unnecessary brake dust, makes things worse for anyone who happens to live in the area. It's probably not a big threat to the locals but hey, why do it in the first place if it accomplishes nothing? Why not just hand out free smokes? At least some people would be thankful.
Who was that comedian that popularized the joke, "She: Mind if I smoke? He: No. Mind if I legislate a little extra brake dust into your living room?"
While I am on the subject I think I will go a bit further.
Think about all of those new stop signs, stop lights, speed bumps, bike lanes, and bollards etc.
In theory, they are all about preventing grannys from getting hit by cars, and of course, about saving the planet from a changing climate, like that hasn't been a problem for the last 4.5 billion years.
In reality, what they do is impede traffic flow. Every driver knows this to be true. The countless hours wasted in compliance with government mandates.
No left turn. Why? Because in the next thousand years there is the possibility that some crackhead, or Hamilton's mayor, who is "all about using bike lanes," might be whizzing down the bike lane to your left, and if you turn, well, he is going to crash right into you. And it will be your fault.
One more time.
"Politics is deliberately making things better for some people, by deliberately making them worse for others."
Take those words to heart. Roll them around in your mind. I promise you will never look at a politician the same way again.
Thinking of Kathleen however, makes me want to add that the best politicians are those who are adept at fooling the greatest number of people into believing they are in the first group, like the poor buggers who will lose jobs and hours, and those who will never find work in the first place, because of Ms. Wynne's wave of her magic wand to raise the wages of some Ontario workers.
In my simple mind, the game of politics is less than a zero sum game. It is a negative sum game.
Because my math tells me that, in addition to making things better for some people, politicians also tend to make things better for themselves. I seek balance. It's a habit of mine.
And if politicians are making things better for themselves.............
Finally, as if to confirm that the one hand of government literally does not know what the other hand is doing, the City of Hamilton, which has been promoting unnecessary idling for going on twenty-five years now, has an anti-idling bylaw! This kind of stupidity can't be by accident. It's part of a psyop that derives its effect by barraging citizens with diametrically opposed mandates. The end goal, is to create apathy so that voters will accept any insulting lunacy that politicians can dream up.
