Well, Sunday afternoon and early evening was spent with my mother at her care home. After I fed her, we sat listening to music . . . Elton John and the Bee Gees. Then a small part of hell broke loose and I was on the run. Although I am a visitor, I am often another pair of eyes and know many of the residents by name. After breaking up a hitting match between two women, I was able to get one into bed and turn the lights out. Then firetrucks and ambulances arrived for something else entirely By the time I arrived home, I was bushed. So here I sit starting the next Open Thread, this one. And Monday was so busy that I won't get this published til just after 10 pm.
NOTE: The hyperlinks work however please right click on them and open in new tab.
Puzzle — Cat Boreon my time 2:55 (4:40) Click Here How did you do?
Short Takes
Huffington Post — The primary objective of Stephen Harper's absurdly-named Fair Elections Act is to prevent hundreds of thousands of Canadians from voting for the NDP, Liberals, Greens, etc.
The Conservatives are, in effect, "cheating" the electoral process again, just as blatantly as in the past. They know that a large number of people — students, marginalized people and First Nations — will have a hard time voting because of the changes. And they know those people would not likely vote Conservative.
Even though the Conservatives are trailing in the polls, it's much too soon to say they will lose the election. Harper's gang of strategists and pollsters have masterminded their way to victory three times, overcoming tough odds each time.
But efforts to help people to register to vote are not as strong as they could be. There needs to be close co-operation among groups to make sure that as many people as possible — particularly people in some 70 ridings where the Conservatives are vulnerable — have the identification they need to vote.
This is taken from the Huffington Post Canaduan edition. Do you notice any similarities to the US system? It would seem that conservatives would deny people the right to vote aka fix the election, or at least tilt the windmill in their direction, no matter what country.
Economic Policy Institute — h/t JL — Between 2000 and the second quarter of 2015, the share of income generated by corporations that went to workers’ wages (instead of going to capital incomes like profits) declined from 82.3 percent to 75.5 percent, as the figure shows. This 6.8 percentage-point decline in labor’s share of corporate income might not seem like a lot, but if labor’s share had not fallen this much, employees in the corporate sector would have $535 billion more in their paychecks today. If this amount was spread over the entire labor force (not just corporate sector employees) this would translate into a $3,770 raise for each worker.
So many corporations have an insatiable appetite for higher and higher profits. As they make more, they fail to recognise who helped get them there . . . their employees. American productivity has been high but corporations are cutting their own throats by growing the inequality gap. That's a pair of die that I would not want to roll.
Alternet — Some people believe that Kentucky—or even all of America—should be subject to biblical law rather than constitutional law. They believe public servants like celebrity clerk Kim Davis owe their highest allegiance to the Bible, which means they shouldn’t be forced to give out unbiblical marriage licenses—like to gay couples. The issue is contested by a host of liberals, secularists, Satanists and moderate Christians. But assuming that Bible believers and religious freedom advocates carry the day, public servants will need to know their Good Book. The following 15-item quiz can be used to screen applicants for county clerk positions or as a guide for those already on the job.
If Kentucky issues only biblical marriage licenses, to which of the following couples should a county clerk grant a license?
1. A man with a consenting woman, but without her father’s permission. No. Numbers 30:1-16 teaches that a single woman’s father has final authority over legal contracts she may enter.
A little bit of humour . . . well I thought so. Read the remaining 16 situations. And this article does not even touch on Davis' marriage record!
Huffington Post — A “humbled” Malcolm Turnbull will be sworn in on Tuesday as Australia’s 29th Prime Minister and has promised a “thoroughly Liberal” and consultative government "committed to freedom, the individual and the market".
The former Communications Minister stunned the nation late on Monday by ousting Tony Abbott in a Liberal party room ballot, 54 to 44, with one informal vote.
At just two years in the job, Abbott becomes the shortest serving Prime Minister since Harold Holt, while Turnbull will be Australia’s sixth Prime Minister in eight years, dating back to John Howard.
In one of TC's surveys, I remarked that with the number of Republican presidential wannabes, I expected some really cut throat action. It seems that Abbott's own party turned on him and he is no longer Prime Minister. I don't think it is so much the policies that will change, but rather the approach to governing. In many regards, Abbott and Harper are alike . . . a belief in their own omnipotence.
My Universe — A bear putting on his happy by dancing the Macarena!
