Discriminate against women, pay the price. Qualcomm, one of the largest digital chip-makers in the world, is paying out
nearly $20 million to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by a group
of former employees who accused the company of gender discrimination. The suit claims bosses at Qualcomm condoned casual and overt workplace sexism.
“We’re huge fans of the warriors who have battled or are currently battling breast cancer, plain and simple. In an effort to raise awareness, Elite Team and Cristiano decided to include a black and pink option in the CR7 Collection.
A certain amount of all proceeds from the sales of the CR7 Breast Cancer blankets will be donated to Breast Cancer research. We thank you for your support”
Of course, what’s bizarre about all this is the tacit admission that allowing ridesharing and letting bars stay open late while buying liquor on the free market won’t cast Philadelphia into a dystopia of dissolution and misery.
In fact, it’s almost like—and I know this sounds crazy—these rules aren’t actually necessary?
Or, as Brown asks, “if these cities can handle ridesharing and 4 a.m. last-calls at a time when tens-of-thousands of out-of-towners have descended, mightn’t they be able to handle them when the hubbub dies down, too?”
Common sense would say yes, but the approach to governance that created these inane laws does not operate by that principle.
Still, for the rest of us yearning to breathe free, there’s at least a lesson here: invite a political convention to town. The people it nominates will almost certainly seek to restrict your liberty, regardless of their party affiliation. But for a few glorious days, you’ll get to share in the privileged freedom of the ruling class.
Quintessentially Victorian periodical Punch, the illustrated ‘London Charivari’ of political satire and middle-class humour, celebrates this week its 150th anniversary, first published on 17 July 1841!
Here are a few choice examples from Punch issues of the 19th-cen, some great as art, others as comedy, and others as artefacts of a historical world we can best imagine through small windows such as these:
Months ago, after the DNC suspected its computer network had been breached, it hired a cybersecurity firm, CrowdStrike, to investigate. The investigators found the electronic fingerprints of two groups previously associated with Russian intelligence services. At the time, the intrusion seemed like an intelligence collection operation. The documents stolen included opposition research material, arguably a legitimate target for a spy agency trying to develop a psychological profile of a potential head of state. But that theory was blown to bits last Friday.
It seems probable that whoever hacked the DNC did not do so simply for intelligence collection. The leak was timed perfectly to sow discord among Democrats immediately before their convention. It’s as if the thieves were using the stolen material as a political weapon. And the one nation that has perfected using information as a weapon is Russia.
Since Russia’s cyber warfare campaign against Estonia in 2007, and its invasion of Georgia in 2008, the Russian military and intelligence services have been using the Internet to sow discord and discredit legitimate political institutions as a way to weaken rivals. The Russian government has refined this type of information warfare, often as a complement to kinetic military action by conventional or unconventional forces, into a hybrid warfare doctrine. Russia employed this doctrine against Ukraine in 2014, to weaken the legitimate government and take control of eastern regions, including its annexation of Crimea. Russia has never hesitated to employ information warfare techniques against foreign journalists critical of its policies. Russian President Vladimir Putin has lost all inhibition in letting loose his trolls of war.
While Donald Trump’s inviting rhetoric may have served as a catalyst for Russian meddling, including Trump’s expressed admiration for Putin, as well as his suggestion that NATO allies facing Russian aggression may not be worthy of U.S. support, such bombast should not preclude bipartisan unity in response. Our politics may be ugly, but they are still a reflection of our society, and not any one person. We must stand together in the face of external threats.
Information warfare tactics are intended to confuse and divide one’s adversaries. Sadly, this type of information warfare is here to stay. And while the threat of terrorists killing scores of our citizens is disturbing, attacks resulting in tragic losses of life do not pose a threat to our institutions the way this type of subversion does. This is why the nation must come together to back a firm response.
As the classic New Yorker cartoon reads, “On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.” In other words, the same anonymity that empowers hateful trolling against social media users gives the hackers plausible deniability. However, that should not deter us from holding the saboteurs accountable. The stakes are too high. We must not let this precedent stand or our institutions will remain at risk.
Both parties should support a firm response by the Obama administration. If the intelligence and law enforcement communities are able to attribute these actions with confidence–as they were able to do for the North Korean breach of Sony Pictures–the administration should refer this matter to the U.N. Security Council, and if necessary, consider unilateral measures against Russia in response.
The nation’s adversaries have traditionally underestimated the unifying effects of their attacks on our shores. This operation was as much a violation of our sovereignty as previous physical attacks, but the long-term risk to our political institutions may be even more consequential. It demands an equally unified response.
This entire article is essentially a PR piece for the White House; a call to support any and all retaliatory action to come from the Oval Office over this ‘cyber terrorism.’
Back in 2008, and in 2012, we were told that we must vote for Obama to stop McCain or Romney; that if we allow a Republican in the white house we will have poverty, war and a string of problems. Almost every reason cited as why we need to stop the Republicans even if we do not like Obama’s policies, happened with Obama’s policies. We are still in Iraq, still in Afghanistan, and now we are also in many countries like Syria, where Obama recently added hundreds more troops. We toppled countries we were not in, before Obama’s presidency, directly or indirectly, like Libya and Honduras. We are in countries like Somalia, Pakistan, and Yemen doing inhumane acts of destruction and mass murder. We killed Osama and now we have ISIS. Things did not get better. We, in particular Hillary Clinton, sent weapons to dictators like the Saudi kings, Hosni Mubarak, and Abdullah Gül. “You have to vote to stop McCain/Romney from destabilizing the world!” — we got the same thing anyway by voting for a Democrat. The world has remains and continues to be destablized, not because Bush messed up so badly, but because Obama’s policies mimic Bush’s policies of imperialism and militarism. The problem with George Bush’s policies were not that they were “too militaristic”, “too imperialist”, etc, but they were imperialist, militarist and jingoistic. It is necessary to realize the difference between the Democrats and Republicans is not in fundamental differences; it is in very marginal ways. Democrats do coups and small military invasions; Republicans just go all out but we get the same results of death, destruction, imperialism, colonialism and chaos.
What is Hillary Clinton’s plan for Syria? More weapons, more war.
Hillary’s plan regarding Syria is to increase the support to Syrian rebels. Hillary calls herself a “progressive that likes to get things done” — but by “things”, she means getting a no-fly zone over Syrian airplace in order to start war with Russia, Syria, etc. This is a third force-esque resemblance of when the USAsupported Ngô Đình Diệm for his anti-communist stances despite him being an oppressive authoritarian; but I bet the rebels this time actually are moderate (sarcasm). My point being, there are no moderate rebels in Syria. If we aid Syrian rebels against Assad, we are going to topple Syria and create the same type of geopolitical power vacuum that we created for the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot to occupy Cambodia but for ISIS. Which is actually already happened in Libya because Hillary Clinton decided to go on an imperialist rampage of death and destruction. If it is actually not her goal to help the rebels destroy the Syrian government, but actually a plan to equalize the battlefield in hopes of forcing Assad to the bargaining table, what makes anybody think that is going to work? That did not work historically and we have only ended up dumping more andmore money, lives and energy into this than we were originally told it would cost. With the ground that Assad has been able to accumulate back, why would anybody think pouring more money into the industrial military complex would solve the problem? It did not work then, it is not working now, it will not work later.
Anwar al-Awlaki after 9/11 was invited to the Pentagon to give a lecture on how to improve relations between Muslims and Christians, as a “moderate muslim” in the U.S.A. After it, as the U.S government increased spying on muslims and mosques, he became “radicalized”. After some time, he went to Yemen and began to fight against the U.S with terrorists. He, an American, was killed by a drone strike, without due process by Obama’s administration. You may say: “Well, he was a terrorist, who cares!?” or say he denounced his citizenship therefore he gets no due process. That is a completely different conversation to be had about due process, constitutionality of the “hit list” and drone strikes but that is not why I am telling you this. I am telling you this because he had a son. His son’s name was Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. He was a 16 year old American citizen. He was not a terrorist. But Obama’s administration assassinated him, just a few weeks after they killed his father — his father, that he did not see for years. This is how the administration defended that.
We were told we cannot have another Republican because the economy will be horrible — newsflash: it is still horrible. After the economic crash, poverty rose to 15%. Since 2010, it has steadily been about 14%–15%. Income inequality reached an all-time high, velocity of money reached an all-time low, poverty is still high, and although unemployment was cut in half, it does not matter that much. There is still soaring levels of underemployment and economic growth and low unemployment rates did not reduce poverty. It is not about how many jobs are added to an economy if those jobs cannot give the working class people a minimum standard of living, free of poverty. The U.S economy is not all that great and the global economy is far worse — and ours has no signs of getting better and the global economy is getting worse.
Income inequality has been on the rise for nearly half of a century and with all of the Democratic presidents or congresses we have had, did not fix it. There is no reason to believe another one will. If anything, we should understand another one, will not. Does the president have the ability, through Dodd-Frank, to break up the banks? Yes. But Obama has not and Hillary has made it clear she will not. Current legislation mandates the large financial institutions to submit a plan that they can quickly and swiftly liquidate assets in lieu of systemic risks; they have routinely failed to submit an adequate plan for years — and no action has been taken, they are still posing a systemic risk to the economy. Hillary Clinton’s policies are no better and given her relationship to corporate and bourgeois interests, there is no reason to believe she will be any different. It will be all talk, no show. There has been and will be no accountability for financial institutions.
The banks that pose the largest systemic risk to the economy; the banks on the G-20 stability board’s watch list of banks that pose a systemic risk, are the banks that donate to her campaigns. You cannot decry Republicans taking donations from these same interests, saying it affects how they vote but then turn a blind eye, foolishly saying it does not affect Hillary’s decisions. She praised Dodd-Frank and given that her husband, with her by his side, deregulated the hell out of the economy in the 1990’s, was okay — but only because there was such little to begin with that almost anything was good. Her refusal to support a reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act is because of who her donors are. Dodd-Frank to actual standards, not compared to the status quo, is pathetic and weak.
Will immigrants be safer under a Clinton presidency? No. Do I fear Trump more than Clinton? No. His border wall is unrealistic for varying reasons, his plan to deport ‘every illegal immigrant’ is unrealistic and given all of the checks and balances via courts and branch powers — there is no reason to believe any of it would or could actually happen. Democrats in congress would oppose both for being anti-immigrant and Republicans in congress would (and many already do) oppose both for being too expensive and unrealistic. Anything Trump says he will do, in his aggressive xenophobic tongue, Hillary will do also but with a smile and flowery words.
Here’s the problem: “Rust Belt” is out-of-date, derisive and simplistic. The lazy narrative of a region in decline, littered with abandoned factories, doesn’t reflect the far more nuanced socioeconomic reality in the region, where some cities are thriving and industries from technology and biotech to health care and advanced manufacturing are flourishing.
The use of Rust Belt also lumps together a large geographic area – including parts of New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin – with a wide range of economic circumstances and challenges.
“To say that ‘Rust Belt’ is dated is an understatement,” said economist Diane Swonk, a principal at Chicago-based DS Economics, who added that use of the phrase always gets a boost during election season from politicians trying to appeal to swing-state voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan, as well as pundits trying to explain voter behavior. “These taglines stick whether they are appropriate or not.”
The decline in manufacturing that inspired the phrase began in the 1970s, even after the sector staged a brief resurgence once “Rust Belt” took hold in the 1980s. The term originally referred to the steel and auto industries, and the decline in question was powered mostly by automation that boosted productivity and reduced the need for labor – and less by globalization, the demon Trump has promised to slay with better trade deals.
Today, Rust Belt is often used as shorthand for a broader malaise that goes beyond manufacturing, Swonk said. It evokes parts of the country that are trapped in the economic past, populated by people who feel left behind. The phrase is sometimes tinged with nostalgia for the era immediately after WWII, a time of unparalleled economic growth in the U.S. It reaches across industries, from steel and autos to shoes, textiles and leather goods – products that are still made in the U.S. but with far fewer workers.