Greenland loses 11 billion tons of ice in one day

That sounds bad. Very scary! Should we run and hide?

Better yet what does that mean exactly? How much ice does Greenland lose to sublimation each day? That where the ice turns to vapor directly. How much does it lose to calving; Ice breaking off the sheet into the ocean. How much did it gain last winter from the snow that fell and did not melt away? See without perspective and additional information this is meaningless.

Hillary Clinton, the girl most of us want to cheat off of on the next test, she IS the smartest person in the room, tweeted that this rate of melt is not expected until 2070; and that is the cause for alarm.  I can accept that. You have a failed climate change model and you have no clue what is going to happen, but you are sure the model is correct, when each prediction is wrong but this surely means we are heading to the conclusion even faster? Maybe. Or the model we are using is useless and needs to be reworked and redone without the false assumptions.

What are we worried about Greenland and its ice sheet anyways? The worry is this, 10 000 years ago a meteor crashed into Hudson Bay and cause an enormous melt of the tundra and ice. This cold water flushed into the Atlantic and shut down the Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream is the warm water from Mexico and Caribbean that comes north to warm Europe and Scandinavia allowing them to have a less harsh winter. So let’s see, the warm water rushing north is causing Europe to burn with too much heat but we are worried that the cold water from Greenland will shut this down? Would not a little extra cold water ease Europe from the heat stroke it is collectively having this summer? The Gulf Stream is too hot, so it melts the ice cooling it down until they get back to equilibrium? Yes, sorry, it seems that is not how things work in climate science. Cause and effect are different when talking about the COMING DOOM.

1000 years ago, the Viking settled the island because it was green, hence its name Greenland. It froze over. Hence, today, it is not nearly as warm or as green as it was 1000 years ago. Farming ended on the island as people could no longer find viability there and returned to Europe around mid 15th century. By which time, their diet was not grown but fished and caught sea mammals. They could no longer farm perhaps for centuries due to the ending of the medieval Cooling period around 1250 AD. So Europe was cold, Greenland was warm enough to farm. Now Europe is burning and Greenland is melting. What’s your point here? When the climate was cooling, the island of Greenland could still have viable farming. When the climate in Europe was warming, the island of Greenland could no longer be farmed! Now both seemingly are melting or are they?

“The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.”

The last part is science code, Gt = gigatonne. (1 Gigatonne or metric gigatonne (unit of mass) is equal to 1,000,000,000 metric tons)

This works out to 200 billion tons per year due to calving. That is how much ice falls off the ice sheet per year. How much is that per day? 0.54 GT per day. So 11 GT on a single day is a lot. How much would expect to see melt on a normal day? 60-70 GT per month or about 2 GT per day. So between the two, we have a loss of 2.5 GT per day versus a single day’s loss of 11 GT. A significant increase 4.4 times greater than the normal daily average. Or we may sum this up as a shocking loss equivalent to 4 and half days in one. OMG! It is much scarier to say 11 billion tonnes lost in a single day they say it lost 5 days of normal melting. Remember too, this is the average amount lost, not account for the highs and lows such that a normal peak might be only half that found this day!

Why bother to do science when you can just scare people into buying whatever garbage you want to toss out!

11 billion tonnes! So? Put in this headline instead. Greenland loses in a single the amount of ice that they would have lost in 4.4 days! Ya, you can see it just does not have the same scare factor.

“It’s a complete final decision of not guilty. That is finally a fully just verdict,” said Conrad Black.

Denial is not just in Egypt.

By accepting his pardon, Black has confessed that he committed the crime and is guilty as charged.

He is unclear of what he has accepted.

In 1915, the Supreme Court wrote in Burdick v. United States that a pardon “carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it.” Pardons have no formal, legal effect of declaring guilt, however all legal matters are extinguish by accepting one. Thus a person found guilty to a crime, by accepting a pardon cannot return to prove their innocence. You get a ticket and pay the fine. By paying the fine, you accept you did the deed as stipulated on the ticket. Even if no court has proven your guilty because the matter is moot. You paid the fine. Black’s effort to claim innocence is moot, he took the pardon. Thereby by doing so, he has accepted that he has a need to be pardoned for his crimes. Otherwise, he would never have accepted a pardon, in the first place. And many people are still rotting in jails proclaiming their innocence as well. Black was innocent of crimes he was charged with and should have been found not guilty. However, with the pardon, he can never be found not guilty because the matter is settled once and for all with the absolution of this pardon; and thereby the chance to be found not guilty or innocent at a further court hearing.

No court will address the matter and no one will care to open a closed case. But forevermore, the verdict is guilty of which he was pardoned for. The pardon does not expunge the guilty verdict. It does not change that he was judged and found guilty in a fair trial. All that it does is remove any legal sanction that the State may impose upon a felon for having been so found guilty. The difference between him having confessed to a crime and his being found guilty are? He willfully accepted the pardon. Therefore, he willingly accepts that he had no (Further) legal chance of proving his innocence to any legal certitude before any impartial tribunal. Simply put, when you accept a pardon, you accept that you were found guilty, even if, in this case, Conrad Black was innocent of the original charges.

“The court meant that, as a practical matter, because pardons make people look guilty, a recipient might not want to accept one.”

In this case Black is guilty. Having been found guilty, there is no longer a path to exoneration. Since Black was innocent, but found guilty in a court or law, he can no longer prove to any court of law that his guilt was an incorrect verdict. As such, he is guilty. Casper Weinberger was indicted not convicted when he was given a pardon. As such, he was not found guilty. No one may gainsay his innocence as he was not found to be guilty in any court of law. Black, on the other hand, has been found guilty. He cannot sue me for saying he is a criminal because even with the pardon, he has still been found guilty by a court of law. Casper could sue me if I were to call him guilty.
Black was found guilty. With the pardon, he can never remove that finding. No matter what, even though, as I have said from the first, he is innocent. By accepting a pardon, he is accepting that (incorrect) verdict of guilty, i.e. he is confessing to the crime. Because he may never go back to any court and challenge the conviction.
I repeat; “In 1915, the Supreme Court wrote in Burdick v. United States that a pardon “carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it.” They are referring to a case over 100 years old why? It is because there has been no challenge to what they said so long ago. We cannot compare Casper and Black because one was convicted, the other indicted. Legally, apples and oranges. “More recently, MSNBC host Ari Melber taunted (Sheriff Joe) Arpaio by saying he had admitted he was guilty when he accepted Trump’s pardon.” A better comparison indeed, “in rare cases pardons are used to exonerate people…” very rare indeed.
If, this pardon of Black, made him innocent, I could not call him guilty and I have. He could sue me for defaming his character. He could always sue me, but it would be tossed out of court, because it is on the record that he has been found guilty. (Even as I have said all along he is innocent of that crime.) A pardon just locks the court system. Whatever it is, it will remain so. By accepting his pardon, he has accepted the court ruling of his guilt. The result would be the same as if he had confessed to the crime itself. He is as guilty now with the pardon, more so then he has ever been. Because before he could explain his reasoning for claiming innocent as he has done so in his written statement on his reasoning for accepting the pardon. And it would be a legally viable question, because so long as he breaths je can still go back to court to get this ruling overturned and thus allowing him to claim innocence in the face of the guilty verdict. Once he accepted the pardon, this is no longer the case.
So why did accept the pardon to begin with? He faced no legal sanction such as jail or fines. The reason is twofold. He was incorrectly told it would make him innocent. It does not. And he is a vain man. Sadly, knowing his case, taking the pardon, merely ends any chance of a not guilty verdict. He has just confessed to a crime he has not committed.

In Twitter:
John MacLean
‏@JohnMacLean14
Accepting a Presidential pardon is not an admission of guilt. With that pardon the effects of and the restrictions resulting from his conviction have been expunged. Why would he spend a further fortune on legal fees for no practical gain?

Nor is it, “It’s a complete final decision of not guilty. That is finally a fully just verdict,” said Conrad Black.”
With the pardon, “the effects of and the restrictions resulting from his conviction have been expunged.” But not the guilty verdict itself. That remains and always will. Else why need a pardon in the first place?
Yet Black believes he is innocent, as do I. Without the pardon, he can still appeal, he could still in some future date win a judgment showing him to be not guilty. With the pardon; “Why would he spent a further fortune on legal fees for no practical gain?” Because no one, except Black himself, would care that he is no innocent. Thus he has pleaded guilty to a crime he did not commit for he can never be proven innocent.
Black is mistaken in believing the pardon shows him innocent. It does not. Black is an old, vain man. Yet he is smart enough to know all of this, even if he would disagree with me, he would know these facts, or he could do the research and find them, if he was not fooling himself into wishful thinking. The very definition of a pardon is that the justice system must be circumvented to correct a miscarriage of justice. It is an absolute power of the executive branch over the Judicial. However, it does not change was has happened before its use. It cannot revoke a guilty verdict. All that it can do is prevent further harm to the person such as a prison sentence. Black has no further time to serve. Parole, if he had any, ended years ago, All that matters is, is he innocent or guilty. Without the pardon he may claim to be battling to clear his name in order to show he is innocent. With the pardon, there are no more battles to be fought. Just that he was found guilty in a court of law and his case was such that only a Presidential Pardon could remove his criminal conviction. Not that he was a wrongly convicted innocent man. If he was innocent and you called him guilty, he could sue you! With the pardon, he is still and always will remain guilty. Thereby cannot sue anyone who says he is guilty. There is no difference between where he is now and if he had confessed. Except now he has accepted the pardon, he might as well have said “I did it”
Homework
Search for a SCOTUS judgment that says a person becomes innocent if pardoned?
You won’t find one, because it does not grant absolution. It grants clemency.

It locks the legal process in mid-action! In Black’s case, he is locked in as guilty. Therefor to accept the pardon is to accept his guilty. His actions, show his guilt. Even if he is innocent.

While there are limited cases on the subject so to say it is the law, that a pardon is not a confession of guilt, would not be correct. The US Constitution says: (Art 2, Sec 2. Clause 1) “and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States,” and that is it. Not much at all as is the usual want of the Founding Fathers. Short and to the point, let future generations figure it out.
In Burdick v. United States (1915), the court specifically said, “Circumstances may be made to bring innocence under the penalties of the law. If so brought, escape by confession of guilt implied in the acceptance of a pardon may be rejected, preferring to be the victim of the law rather than its acknowledged transgressor, preferring death even to such certain infamy.”

The only full explanation of the issue is in this decision. Where they are saying exactly this, If you are innocent do not take the pardon, it all but certain that you are henceforth deemed guilty.

Below are quotes from Burdick v. United States (1915)
“The case is on the ability to turn down a pardon and why. “‘A pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power intrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed.”

“This brings us to the differences between legislative immunity and a pardon. They are substantial. The latter carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it. The former has no such imputation or confession. It is tantamount to the silence of the witness. It is noncommittal. It is the unobtrusive act of the law given protection against a sinister use of his testimony, not like a pardon, requiring him to confess his guilt in order to avoid a conviction of it.”
The WP may claim this is dicta but seems to strong point to why someone would not accept a pardon and that those who do are confessing they have a need for such an act of grace, name that they are guilty of the crime.

Last point, Black took this to be his “I am innocent” card. It is a foolish dream of a tired old man, proud of his life and his many achievements. Who long ago lost the will to fight these charges, so when offered a dream he accepted. Who would blame him?

Chemist Kate

Chemist Kate
Is Global Warming great?
The troublesome debate
Your views, please state
Assuredly, I will await
In anticipation and elate
But alas to date
No echo of the pony’s gait
I but sit and wait
Will I burn by carbon hate?
Should I learn to ice skate?
Please send me an update
To these questions I relate
Before it is too late
And the world earns its fate
Of trouble to un-crate
For true and straight
This problem on our plate
Surely does carry weight
Needing answers to checkmate

In a course lecture entitled “Global Temperature,” Dr Kate Biberdorf AKA Kate the Chemist uses a graph created by NOAA  to show global warming. The problem is that it shows the exact opposite. This is sadly typical of the whole Global Warming movement. They use data that is carefully selected and cherry picked to only highlight what they want it to show and not look at all the data. This example of confirmation bias is also seen in the recent Californian fires.
First, let us examine the claim of the entertaining Dr. Biberdorf to whom I saw entertaining us on Stephen Colbert! So I went to her web site and found her YouTube channel. Never one to turn down free educational videos, I started to watch them. Many are standard chemistry you expect from a first year class on the subject. When she reached the lesson on Global Warming I sat up to listen. Obviously, here is an expert and she should be very able to dispel any doubt I may have about the myth of Global Warming. She as a chemistry expert should have this subject nailed down such that even my doubts will be quelled. Sadly, I was so disappointed I wrote this.
The first error is that she uses the so called data from over the last 140 years or so from 1880. This overly used data is simply wrong. The quality of the readings and the location of where the readings have taken place are totally changed. It is one thing to take a reading in a remote location that is far from the micro temperatures of an urban setting. The problem is those remote locations are now right in the heart of urban sprawl. The measurements themselves are made by very different quality of instruments. Thus, making the data itself, very open to question. (But shhh don’t mention that to Global warming cabal they don’t practice science and certainly don’t understand the need for consistent measurements.)
Surely she had other evidence. She did. She had the ice core samples. Great stuff. Wonderful! Even amazing! The ice core samples are always the fall back position for this cabal. The problem is you have one localized source of information. Beware the man with only one book (Homo unius libri) is an old Roman maxim  I would update that to beware the man with only one Ice Core. Where is the ice core from say Italy? Florida? Texas? Or anywhere along the equator? I know there is no ice so there can be no ice core. So we only get them from the far north or far South. It’s like look for your wallet under the street lamp when you dropped it way over there because the light is so much better.
She presented evidence from and created by NOAA, I found it here,  (Graph 2)
The examination of evidence was to look at the right side where temperatures where very high. There, all the proof we need … to confirm our bias not to test this theory. If, as the theory goes, temperature is rising due to man made gases in the atmosphere, notable carbon gases, emissions and such, then surely we may test this thesis? When would be a good time to do so? Well, think of a time when there was much destruction, burning and explosions? Why a world war would have all the usual problems but only on a much larger scale as not only are things being moved and transported but there are so much more uses for carbon, such as weapons, fire bomb whole cities, the usual thing that we can expect in total war. Looking at that same chart in the Second World War, 1939-45 period we can see the temperature is indeed significant higher. There we go, theory tested and proven. The introduction of excess carbon in the air is causing Global warming.
Except, if we test again, since we looked at the Second, why not look at the first. Only we see the opposite. Significantly lower temperatures. What we would have expected to see was higher temperatures, perhaps not as high as seen in the Second World War but still higher than average. We do not see that at all. You cannot have a theory that gives two directly opposite results. Either anthropogenic carbon is causing Global warming or it is not. When looking at the sudden and magnitude difference from peace time to war, you should expect to see similar results. Only we do not see that at all.
Now the counter argument as seen above is that the older data is not as reliable as the modern version. Thus we can remove said data from consideration. But then they would lose the legitimacy in their scare tactics of Global Warming being shown over such an extended period. As well, we must consider that the accuracy of weather was a military necessity so the tracking in the war years would have been continuous and rigorous to ensure the best, most reliable forecasting for battle purposes. So that data should be seen as more reliable then pre and post war years.
The problem with this sort of tunnel vision enables the most foolish of claims. Take this year’s, 2018, California fires. Global Warming was the cry! It must be some mythical thing that no one lays blame upon anyone else; for if all are guilty none can be punished.
Except, by now, you must know better; California may be going through a drought but that is no reason to call on some false gods. The problems are numerous and they are certainly man made but they have nothing to do with Global Warming. Think horses, not zebras. The first problem is the water table. Whereas, California is rapidly draining water from its underground water table to produce agriculture and bottle water for export sales. The fruits and vegetables grown are very water dependent to sell to the colder and thus very lucrative markets in the north covered in winter’s snow and cold. They draw a lot of water from rivers and more from the water table, drying out more and more land as they suck it out for today’s market. As well bottle water companies are suck out billions of liters, a slight exaggeration, when they are only allowed to bottle in the millions. “The State Water Board says that of the 62.6 million gallons of water that Nestle says it extracted from the San Bernardino spring each year on average from 1947 to 2015, the company may only have a right to some 8.5 million gallons.
The other cause of the California fires? “A wild land–urban interface (or WUI) refers to the zone of transition between unoccupied land and human development. Communities that are within 0.5 miles (0.80 km) of the zone may also be included. These lands and communities adjacent to and surrounded by wild lands are at risk of wildfires. Since the 1990s, over 43% of new residential buildings have been constructed in this area. In some areas, the amount of new residences in those areas is 80%. In the past, when these areas burned, no residences were lost, but now residences are present, which end up being destroyed.”
Similar to the flooding in Houston Texas, if you build on a flood plain, expect to be flooded. If you build near a path for forest fires, you have to expect to be burned out. But SHHHHH these are real causes, with real solutions. But nah, it is so much better to point to the mythical deity called Global Warming so that nothing is can be done about the real cause of problems. And what little is done, won’t help the problem and certainly won’t solve it. Education is to educate. Not spread falsehoods and mythology as science.

Below is a discussion held with Merb34st today.

Just too much research involved to not publish it here.

Comparing modern homeless with ancient humans is a tad silly. If an ancient want to poo in the woods, no one would stop them. If a modern wanted to poo in your garden, you might have an issue. While it seems almost a certainty to blame homelessness on drugs, alcohol and lacking intelligence, serious as those may be, there are other factors to consider. Lack of affordable housing, lack of decent housing, (I mean clean, non bug infested dwellings commonly referred to as Slums.) But also consider the largely ex military personnel suffering from post traumatic stress disorder, seemingly abandoned by the government they fought for, and ignored by the people for whom they sacrificed mental health in service of. Domestic violence is another indicator of homelessness for women. Simply put; your understanding seems superficial and uniformed. The problem is not simply solved by mere speeches invoking the Protestant Work Ethics and strong motivation. The causes for homelessness alone need in-depth study and research. Merb, you are going into court without having read the file. The other counsel is going to clobber you with all the things you don’t know, have not study and thus far have not considered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_States#Causes

People in families made up 37.4% of the total sheltered and unsheltered homeless population in 2012 On a single night in January 2014, veterans accounted for about 11.3% of all homeless adults. During a 12 month period from October 2011 to September 2012, homeless veterans accounted for one in 156 veterans. In a 2014 survey of 25 US cities, 15% of all homeless adults were identified as survivors of domestic violence. All these facts take from:

https://www.nlchp.org/documents/Homeless_Stats_Fact_Sheet

By the same logic of preventing humans form pooing in the street, we should also be able to prevent dogs from do so?

https://www.cpha.ca/human-diseases-transmitted-dog-poop

Here is a list of possible contaminations:

https://www.sahealth.sa.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/public+content/sa+health+internet/health+topics/health+conditions+prevention+and+treatment/infectious+diseases/ways+infectious+diseases+spread

Taking your argument to the extreme, because you are far more likely to get an infection, is that a cold or flu you are recovering from? And was it spread by the lady in your office who coughed? Should we not then also take your argument against homeless people spreading disease to your own civil office where, one can assume, all members have homes?

Just as it is easy to point a finger at an identifiable group that lacks power, such as in the news now;

“They’re sending people that have a lot of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” –Donald Trump

Point the finger at homelessness is based on ignorance and fear. Threats of disease from pooing in the streets is fear mongering. I assure you that no one wants to take a dump on your street. They would, I am very sure, much prefer to do so in a  warm, clean bathroom with toilet paper. Living on the streets is no choice, not a lifestyle option and is certainly something that we can do to prevent and ameliorate today, should we have the political will based on information, knowledge and sufficient commitment. Jimmy Carter has been on a quest to help resolve the American affordable housing crisis. He started this back in 1977.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2690151/

The problem has only gotten worse.

Since families made up 37.4% of the total sheltered and unsheltered homeless people, the problem is not drugs or mental issues for them but affordable housing. They stay homeless while holding down jobs and going to school. Affordable house is a crisis in America

https://youtu.be/GZmUONxuZIE

The crisis is coming. From elderly, to veterans to the simple increase in rent, people are going to be forced to the streets. Ignoring the issue by creating some false divide that is not found in the statistics will not help the matter.

When the fact are against you, argue the law.

When the law is against you argue the facts.

When both the law and the facts are against you… bang on the table.

It is not so much as the house burned down, it is more they increased the rent and I cannot afford to pay it any longer so they kicked me out. In Some states, I heard this on a Rich Dad, Poor Dad audio book, so consider the source to be weak indeed, Arizona they said; “If your rent is not paid on the 1^st, they can take you to court on the 2nd and be out by the third.” Obviously an exaggeration of the timeline but the meaning is clear. Pay up or get out. This is a crisis.

Once you are kicked out, the next place will ask why? Or check and see, for non payment? Next renter pleases! Sorry we gave to someone else. And while there is a racial component here as well, such as Donald Trump and his father would not rent to black people until forced to by the DOJ. The people in crisis are of all ethnicities.

https://www.newsweek.com/fair-housing-acts-50th-anniversary-look-back-investigation-trump-familys-879437

The common factor is economic, the cost of housing, the increasing costs. The lack of living wages being paid and the lack of progress in wages despite a 20 fold increase in productivity by Americans, they received none of the benefits

But why take my word for this, let’s ask the American Bar Association. They might know a thing or two about court rooms?

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/gpsolo/publications/gpsolo_ereport/2018/march-2018/solving-affordable-housing-crisis-key-unleashing-americas-potential/

New York times?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/27/us/politics/hud-affordable-housing-crisis.html

https://www.investors.com/news/economy/affordable-housing-crisis-housing-bubble/

US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447149/

https://www.thenation.com/article/give-us-shelter/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesrealestatecouncil/2018/04/16/how-you-can-help-fix-americas-affordable-housing-crisis-and-earn-returns-in-the-process/#4703f2a23228

https://www.fastcompany.com/40504605/americas-affordable-housing-crisis-is-driving-its-homelessness-crisis

“There’s a clear link between a lack of places to live and the number of people sleeping out of doors at night. And the solution is clear, too: Cities need to double down not just on homeless services, but on building more affordable housing, and quickly.”

Your notion of homelessness being a result of social defect such as drugs and alcohol or mental issues is rapidly being outpaced by reality, the people who were promised the middle class dream of a house in suburbs are now living in shelters, in their cars parked at Walmart or in a tent with a small blanket so they can carry it around as they are forced to move by police.

Without a fixed address many cannot even vote to get effective change. So who brings a voice to the voiceless unless people stand up who have a platform to speak? You have such a platform, so speak up.

 

 

The union, CUPW shut down Toronto mail processing facility for 2 days. Canada Post issued a 72 hour lockout notice.  The Federal Government 2 hours later appointed a federal Mediator. Why?

Lots of whys…

1) The union by closing Toronto cut the country in half. 80% of all packages and letters go throw TO. So the company reacted with a 72 hour lockout notice… so again why?

2) The union provoked the company by pushing them for the lockout notice and thus the mediator.

The lock out notice itself? It means nothing, once we went on strike last week; they can lock us out at any time without additional notice… but 😄

They cannot order us back to work unless we agree. They cannot legislate us back to work.

The Supreme Court says we have a right to strike. So they need a very compelling reasons to order us back in: as such to maintain the balance of power that being on strike would have on the employer. The back to work law must maintain the rights and power that we have in a strike in the new set up for bargaining. The Harper government tried to screw Canada Post Employees over in 2012 with final offer selection, i.e. one side will win and one side loses as the Arbiter cannot find a middle ground. This is the same thing as Doug Ford will try to do in Ontario. The result is this lasting gain. We go on strike, they cannot legislate us back in… Or they have to pass the test established by the Supreme Court. And best of all, if they pass that back to work law at 1201 am we have an injunction at 1202 and the law tossed the very next day by a judge because it takes away our strike power and does not meet the Supreme Court test.

3) So why the lockout notice? Mere threat. I saw the web site from Canada Post with it up on Tuesday. It is gone today. “Threat? What Threats they say now say! We did not make any threats.”

4) So why the mediator?

Mediation is designed to assist in reaching an agreement that both side would have reached eventually… ya sure.

The mediation is always physically conservative and socially liberal.

They are conservative on cash. You are not going to get rich from mediation. But then we don’t want to. Our issues are all about the social side of thing. This just happens to be where mediators are socially liberal. They don’t care about language as it costs nothing. Future flexibility is not a worry for today’s negotiation.

So for the last 9 months I would attend a meeting at another place and get paid to drive there and back. One hour each way. The plant is on the other side of Montreal. Add in my breaks for another hour and a 5 hour long meeting, so an 8 hour day to be paid. They stopped that in September. So next week, in order to be paid all 8 hour I must drive to work. Park and go in. Get either a set of keys for a vehicle, which since they are often short of trucks, they don’t have, in order to drive to the other work station. Or. They will pay for a taxi. It cost me 15$ to get to work from home. That takes 5 km and 5 minutes. The trip to the Plant takes me an hour to 80 minutes due to high volume of traffic; it is rush hour after all. The cost? We are guessing 80-100$ each way.

So to avoid paying me 60$, they are going to end up paying me that money anyways and a taxi for 200$

WTG to screw the employee… And best of all… once I do this once, I do it forever and my mandate is good for at least 2 more years…

Oh even better, last winter we asked for hats for like 12 people. Not part of our uniform. We argued it for 3 months. It would set a dangerous precedent to give us hats… They fought tooth and nail to not give us hats last winter, even going so far as to bring the matter to the union. They sent it to the union not on our side. We were only asking. Okay fine… So they are now going to give hats out to the drivers who can already get hats from the company by their uniform points. We who cannot get then and thus need company hats for winter… Are told nope…. Those hats, by the way, cost for each about 2$

Go figure….

Now tell me just how smart they are? Sounds like a lot of petty, mean spirited childishness from people in power who follow Lord Acton’s dictates, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Good Morning Prime Mister.

Another sleepless night from those on the front line of the coming postal strike, as some of us are not rich, and need our jobs to pay for things like rent, mortgages, food and medication. But we have no choice but to push for a strike in order to gain some ground and some respect. You might not have heard the technical side of this strike. One thing is the volume. A mailman will now, today, have to try to deliver some 100-150 parcels in a single day along with the flyers and mail. This amount is projected to increase 20% each year without additional compensation or added delivery time. For my part, the problem of being part time is my wages are based on the hours I work, but as a shop steward, I have to bring forward the issues of my fellow workers. Since I am part time, the retaliation I face is Canada Post and its administrators will try to intimidate me by cutting my hours. Those hours that I worked that they won’t pay me? I will have to wait for the pay, as the union could take as long as 6 months before they can get my money for me, so much for instructions to Canada Post to be nicer to employees. As a worker, I have no power. I can only name and shame people, hence this letter. One of the obvious reasons, we are going on strike would be to increase wages but also to remove those wage gaps and the ability of petty people to illegally pay games with my wages.

My point begins with something called Appendix “P”. I am very sure you have heard nothing about this. It means nothing to anyone really. What it means to me, is the ration of full time to part time to temporary employees, hardly the stuff of gripping novels, I‘m afraid. Here is my story and why it means something important to me.

In July of 2017, working as a part time employee, my hours and all the other part timers in my unit, 5 of us, were increased from 25 to 40. We were working full time hour at part time status. This worked out well for all concerned. The unit was hitting all its company targets such as budget. However, at the start of this September, 2018, right when contracts negotiations were getting busy, suddenly we were back to part time, 25 hours. For the last year, whenever there was a problem with my fellow employees, I would tell them to not rock the boat, working 40 hours, outweighed the problem they were having. And they agreed. But now we were back to lower hours, a floodgate opened and they had issues to resolve. As shop steward, I collect their issues and brought them forward, thus started the harassment attacking me, which is not supposed to happen. I believe you clearly stated on February 22, 2018, that the bullying at Canada Post stopped as of now. That memo never made it down as far as I am. The first thing that happened, I presented my member’s issues to my Superintendant. Now remember how I said I worked 25 hours? In that meeting, where as I was trying to get them to correct our payroll to reflect the correct hours that we worked, for our vacation and sick day would be missing hours when the system was incorrect as it still is. I was told, almost word for word, “Oh yea, you were working 25 hours that was a test so now you work 24 hours.” A clear threat, that not only did my fellow shop stewards agree was intimidation, the union local also agreed and  presented it to the his boss. The unit manager felt it was over the top. So we had to re-do the whole meeting all over again, only without the threats and intimidation. Sadly, it is so ingrained in the culture that even when warned not to make threats and not to try and intimidate me, the superintendant failed to follow instructions. The threats were minor and petty. But there were more threats as well.

I work on the Health and Safety Committee. Part of that means once a month I have to travel some 30 km between locations to attend the meeting. Up until this month, (September) I would be paid 8 hours. The travel is an hour there and back for 2 hours, a 5 hour meeting and an hour for lunch and breaks. The travel time is covered in our collective agreement, (art 32.01), it is covered in the Terms of Reference for Health and Safety, (art 5) and finally, it is even covered in the Federal law under the Labor Code, (art 135.1). Yet, surprise, surprise, I am not covered. Canada Post refused to pay me. See they are still trying to put me in my place. The funny thing is? All those issues I presented in September? None of them were mine! But now, all grievance Inquiries that I file have my name and only my name on them. I will not let administration have the chance to bully, intimidate and harass others as they are trying to do to me.

Long story short, what does this have to do with negotiation and Appendix “P”? If we had a better Appendix “P” that clearly forced Canada Post to live up to its obligation for staff of full time to part time, the people in my unit would already be full time and would not have to suffer this sort of intimidation, harassment and bullying that I have.

I, as a lowly worker, have no power. All I can do is name and shame people. So for my bullying, I will make it known to the union, maybe they can help. I will make it be known to local management higher up than my manager to shame them. And lastly, I will send my story to you. So you can see just what is at stake in these negotiations. Real people, real lives are being really bullied while working for the Federal Government. Don’t you think it’s time we ended bullying? Make Canada Post give us a fair shake to the negotiating table to help eliminate the petty abuse of power like detailed in my story above where they tried to steal 3 paid hours. Hardly a lot of money compared to the National Debt. But still, that 60$ or so was mine, not mine in 6 months from now, but mine yesterday when I should have been paid it.

Thanks for your time and anything you can do here!

Donald Trump insulted Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels for losing a part of her law suit against him. He called her “Horse face.”

All I have to say is that considering who was doing whom, vis-à-vis Trump and Stormy Daniels, if Trump visits your horse ranch, don’t leave him alone in the stable.

And like Shakespeare’s Richard the Third, Trump wonders around the White House wondering aloud; “A horse, my kingdom for a horse!”

Or at least  he will pay 130 K for one anyways.

Brett Kavanaugh was sworn in as a Supreme court Justice yesterday but he should not have been. I don’t refer to some conspiracy to cast him as being horrible by the democrats, though this likely happened. I don’t refer to his having lied to the Senate, though this likely happened. And I don’t refer to his near rape of a Dr Ford near 40 years ago, though this also likely happened. No. I refer directly to his behavior in the hearing itself. Here is what he should have done:

“Thank you for hearing me today. Dr Ford’s testimony was extremely persuasive and extremely moving. Her pain seems as raw today as it must have felt for her 40 years ago. Her words describing the event are shocking and even the most extreme opposition to her coming forward must acknowledge that this single event 40 years ago has shaped her life and not in a positive direction. But it is to her credit that she has had the strength to carry on, to make a life and a successful career despite her trauma and pain. To those out there who would do her harm, or threaten her, let me be clear, you will be doing me and yourself no favors to attack this women. Leave her alone. She has been through enough. For my part; Dr Ford, I offer you my sincerest expression of sorrow, sympathy and apology for my part as the cause of your pain. I am truly sorry you have had to carry this burden for all these years!

Yet, I maintain my innocence, even as I strongly encourage you to believe her story. How is that possible in light of what she has said and what I have said here today about fully believing her story? And I do believe her story. Someone many years ago attacked a very young woman and tried to rape her. I believe her in all that she says. Except the identity of the person who tried. It was not me. I know this, because I was not there. So how then can I both believe her and not agree with her identification of me as the rapist? Witness identifications when faced with such a shock, trauma and probable post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are often the most unreliable testimony allowed in court. To wit: A women in New York was raped by a man with a mask on while the TV played an interview in the background to her horror. She fixated on the man being interviewed live in LA, California. When she reported her rape to the police, she had the sketch artist draw the exact picture of the man being interviewed. He happened to be a scholar who had just released a book on low reliability of witness identification. He could not be in both places at once. The rapist was caught and convicted by DNA evidence, but the victim and her identification was never swayed she had pointed at the wrong man.

I don’t know why she focused on me, maybe I was smiled at the wrong time, maybe I was nice to her at a low moment or maybe I made a cutting remark at an off time. It was high school, but whatever the reason, for whatever the cause, I am sorry that I am the face of her horror and trauma. I am so very sorry I am involved in a lifetime of her pain. Please forgive me for my part, but more importantly, forgive yourself and allow your scars, raw and re opened for the world to see today, to heal and fade away into the past where they clearly belong. Please allow them to finally heal, allow yourself to heal and move on with a wonderful life. Thank you Dr Ford for the courage and conviction to come forward and tell us your pain and the story of how it has affected you over these last 40 years. Please be healed and live out the rest of your days at peace. I wish for you all the best.”

Words to that effect; acknowledging the pain and suffering of this woman, offering a defense of her and her story in a manner befitting a nominee for the Supreme Court. Showing that a judge for the highest court of America is not an emotional basket case with a grudge against a women he raped 40 years ago or tried to and how dare she come back to haunt him at the very moment of his glory? How dare his drunken rages of his over privileged youth come back to be tossed into his face like that? Who does she think she is? Does she not know how self important, at any rape (rate) he is? See the testimony he gave after was exactly that. There is no doubt in my mind that Brett Kavanaugh is a drunkard guilty of attempted rape. Not by the testimony of Dr Ford, but by his own words and actions. He sounded like a liar and acted guilty. He was the exact opposite of what you would want to have as a judge of the Supreme Court. And he convicted himself in acting so.

At Judge Kavanaugh’s SCOTUS hearing, former law clerk Zina Bash held an Okay sign for cameras. Social media accused her of being a racist, saying the sign has been co-opted by the racists to indicate white power. In the article below, Dylan Matthews traces the origin of this myth to its source to claim that Zina Bash was not doing so. Here is my rebuttal to his article. I sent him a copy by email.

No, a former Kavanaugh clerk didn’t flash a “white power sign.” Here’s what really happened.​ 

By Dylan Matthews

My reply sent to this writer.

Great article
Lots of research. Well done.

2 Problems. What and where the sign might have started matters not, as it is now becoming a sign for White Power. Most people have not and won’t do any research similar to you. They just follow things that trend. Same for racists.
14 words did not arrive graven in stone. They have to be proposed and adopted, first as the words themselves then as the code/slang 14 or 14 words.

Lastly, the rush defense of Zina Bash has a few extra elements to it. 1) She has been called Kavanaugh’s Mistress, prior to or engaged in due to body language. Nice slight.

Next the “she was rest her fingers” argument is spacious. Just try it with your own fingers.

But lastly, you will admit there has been some controversy, true or not true. That even her friends and husband have weighed in on the matter. So the chances are that she knows nothing of this discussion are seemingly impossible.

So why is it on the second day, after all this fuss, she flashed the white power sign a second time? She is either trolling libs with a racist sign or she is a racist. In either case, those who are and those who help the racists even if only by trolling are still racist. You don’t get a little bit pregnant with racists and racism. Even if your job was to flash the okay sign at a bank robber, you still get the full ten years as everyone else, cause you are a party to crime.

Thanks for the article it was a good read, even if I disagree with you on some major points.

CAQ says it would expel immigrants who fail to learn French in 3 years

‘”Speaking early Friday, Legault said new immigrants would be given a temporary permit upon entry and then have three years to take free language courses and pass a basic French-language test. Those who fail would not be granted permission to stay and would be considered to be in the country illegally, he said.  I will be open to accommodations, if someone has learning difficulties,” he told reporters.’

The benevolence of his racism, is he not kind to those people? That but for his proposal, it is he who will be putting them into such jeopardy. Not only will they fail the test, they will be removed from Quebec because of it. I can see the video now, Storm trooper dragging elderly minority women into the streets all the while screaming at them to “parle français” as they kick and punch peacefully resisting people for the crime of not being adult learners.

Seriously, the legal implications of this ethno nationalist racist are overwhelming.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right

(a) to move to and take up residence in any province;

So once admitted to the province they should be able to pick up and leave for other places. I am so very sure there will be new residency rules against this if there are not already.

Let us do go on:

13. A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.

Don’t take the test…

Since the test will put you into legal jeopardy of being illegally tossed from Quebec, you can refuse to take the test as legitimate fear of self incriminating.

Would the courts hold that such a government “Test” to be seen as a form of testifying? Or as a form of medical test like a breath test for DUI? However, the certain thing is the jeopardy inherent in the answer. Fail the test and Language Brown Shirts are beating on your door to deport you.

So is this even a viable plan? The answer is of course not. The reason why they are proposing it in the first place is because it is a wink and a nudge to the racists’ side of Quebec who hate any immigrants as being “les Autre”. In other words, they are trying to score points with the xenophobic racists.

For shame upon you all.

The CAQ is not ready for prime time.