• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании325
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы129
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации27
      • Показать ещё
      Показатели7
      Люди35
      • Показать ещё
      Разное89
      • Показать ещё
      Сферы1
      Формат4
      Издания9
      • Показать ещё
Выбор редакции
13 января, 16:05

Shaw Communications (SJR) Q1 Earnings Lag, View Intact

Shaw Communications(SJR) reported weak financial results for the first quarter of fiscal 2017 wherein the bottom line missed the Zacks Consensus Estimate.

10 января, 18:38

The Fight To Save Entitlement Programs In Trumplandia

What Is a Country For? Cross-posted with TomDispatch.com Many of the folks I know are getting ready to play serious defense in 2017, and they’re not wrong. Before we take up our three-point stance on the national line of scrimmage, however, maybe we should ask ourselves not only what we’re fighting against, but what we’re fighting for. What kind of United States of America do we actually want? Maybe, in fact, we could start by asking: What is a country for? What should a country do? Why do people establish countries in the first place? Playing Defense There is, without question, much that will need defending over the next four years, so much that people fought and died for in the twentieth century, so much that is threatened by the ascendancy of Donald Trump, the white nationalist right, and the Republican Party. The twentieth century saw the introduction of many significant laws, regulations, and -- yes -- entitlements: benefits to which we have a right by virtue of living in, and in many cases being citizens of, this country. We could start earlier, but let’s begin with the 1935 National Labor Relations Act. It established the right of workers to collectively negotiate wages and working conditions with their employers and made collective bargaining the official “policy of the United States.” This policy faces an immediate threat. Identical Republican-sponsored bills in the House and Senate would end the right of unions to require the workers they represent to pay union dues.  These bills would, in other words, reproduce at the federal level the so-called right-to-work (more accurately, right-to-starve) laws already in place in more than half the states. If -- or as seems likely, when -- they pass, millions of workers will face the potential loss of the power of collective bargaining and find themselves negotiating with employers as lonely individuals. Then there was the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, which guaranteed a minimum wage and overtime pay to many workers (although not, notably, those laboring in agricultural fields or inside other people’s homes -- workplaces then occupied primarily by African Americans, and later by other people of color as well). Andrew F. Puzder, Donald Trump’s pick for secretary of labor, opposes the very idea of a minimum wage. This shouldn’t be too surprising, since his current day job is as CEO of the parent company of two fast-food franchise operations, Hardee’s and Carl’s Jr. We could mention other New Deal-era victories under threat: Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps (now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP), and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (now known as TANF for Temporary Aid to Needy Families, or more commonly simply as “welfare”), which was created to promote the wellbeing of children in families facing poverty. In the coming Trump years, we can expect predation on all these programs -- from renewed efforts to “privatize” Social Security to further restrictions on welfare. Indeed, former Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert, Trump’s transition team point man on Social Security, is a firm believer in “privatization,” the idea that the federal government should encourage people to gamble on the stock market rather than rely on a guaranteed government pension. The one entitlement program that will probably survive unscathed is SNAP, because its primary beneficiaries are not the people who use it to buy groceries but the giant agricultural corporations it indirectly subsidizes. It’s no accident that, unlike other entitlement programs, SNAP is administered by the Department of Agriculture. Then there was the 1937 Housing Act, designed to provide financial support to cities so they could improve the housing stock of poor people, which eventually led to the creation of the department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In Ben Carson we are about to have a HUD secretary who, in addition to having announced that he’s not qualified to head a federal agency, doesn’t believe in the very programs HUD exists to support. And so it goes with the victories of the second half of the twentieth century. In Jeff Sessions, for instance, we have a potential attorney general staunchly opposed to the civil and voting rights won by African Americans (and women of all races, in the case of the 1964 Civil Rights Act). In Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, we’ll have a climate-change denier and fossil-fuel advocate running the Environmental Protection Agency. Medicare entitles -- there’s that word again -- older people and some with chronic illnesses to federally subsidized healthcare. Its introduction in 1965 ended the once-common newspaper and TV stories about senior citizens eating pet food because they couldn’t afford both medicine and groceries.  That program, too, will reportedly be under threat. There’s more to defend. Take widespread access to birth control, now covered by health insurance under Obamacare. I’m old enough to remember having to pretend I was married to get a doctor to prescribe The Pill, and being grateful for the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade that guaranteed me a legal abortion, when a gynecologist told me I couldn’t conceive.  (He was wrong.) Then there are the guarantees of civil rights for LGB (if not yet T) people won in the 1990s, culminating in the astonishing 2015 Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges granting marriage rights to same-sex couples. All of this could be wiped out with a couple of Trumpian Supreme Court picks. Nor should we forget that in addition to people’s rights, there are actual people to defend in the brave new world of Trumplandia, or at least to help defend themselves: immigrants, Muslims, African Americans -- especially young black men -- as well as people facing poverty and homelessness. One potentially unexpected benefit of the coming period: so many of us are likely to be under attack in one way or another that we will recognize the need for broad-based coalitions, working at every level of society and throughout its institutions. Such groups already exist, some more developed than others. I’m thinking, for example, of United for Peace and Justice, which came together to oppose Bush-era wars and domestic policies, the Grassroots Global Justice Alliance, a national coalition of community organizations led by people of color, and National People’s Action, another effective coalition of community organizations, to name just three. On the state level, there is the powerful work of the Moral Mondays project, led by the North Carolina NAACP and its president, the Reverend William J. Barber II. In my own backyard, there are the many community groups that make up San Francisco Rising and Oakland Rising. Such multi-issue organizations can be sources of solidarity for people and groups focused on important single issues, from the Fight for Fifteen (dollars an hour minimum wage) to opposing the bizarrely-named First Amendment Defense Act, which would protect the right of proprietors of public accommodations to refuse service to people whose presence in their establishments violates “a religious belief or moral conviction that: (1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.” Defense Matters, But We Need More  As important as such defensive actions will be, we're going to need something beyond a good defense: a coherent reason why all these disparate things are worth defending. We need to be able to say why black lives, women’s lives, workers’ lives, brown and immigrant lives matter in the first place. We need a vision of a society in which not only do all people’s lives matter, but where they all have the possibility of being good lives. We need a picture of what a country is for, so that as we fight, we understand not only the horrors we oppose, but what it is we desire. Fortunately, we don’t have to start any description of what a good human life consists of from scratch. People have been discussing the subject for at least as long as they’ve left written records, and probably far longer. In the third century BCE, for example, Aristotle proposed that the good life -- happiness -- consists of developing and using both our intellectual and moral capacities to the fullest possible extent across an entire lifetime. The good life meant learning and then practicing wisdom, courage, justice, and generosity -- along with some lesser virtues, like being entertaining at a dinner party. Aristotle wasn’t an idiot, however. He also knew that people need the basics of survival -- food, clothing, shelter, health, and friendship -- if they are to be happy. Not surprisingly, he had a distinctly limited idea about which human beings could actually achieve such happiness.  It boiled down to men of wealth who had the leisure to develop their abilities. His understanding of the good life left a lot of people, including women, slaves, and children, out of the circle of the fully human. Although it may sound strange to twenty-first-century American ears, Aristotle also thought that the purpose of government was to help people (at least those he thought were capable of it) to live happy lives, in part by making laws that would guide them into developing the capacities crucial to that state. Who nowadays thinks that happiness is the government’s business? Perhaps more of us should. After all, the Founding Fathers did. “We Hold These Truths...” Where should we who seek to defend our country against the advance of what some are now going so far as to call “fascism” enter this conversation about the purpose of government? It might make sense to take a look at a single sentence written by a group of white men, among them slaveholders, who also thought happiness was the government’s business. I’m referring, of course, to the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence. Its much-quoted second sentence reads in full: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” Political philosopher Danielle Allen has pointed out that modern versions of the Declaration’s text “update” the original punctuation with a period after “happiness.” But that full stop obscures the whole point of the sentence. Not only do people self-evidently possess “unalienable” rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but the very reason we form governments in the first place is to “secure” those rights. Furthermore, when a government -- rather than protecting life, liberty, and happiness -- “becomes destructive” of them, we have the right to abolish it and put a better one in its place, always keeping in mind that the purpose of any new government should be to “effect” the people’s safety and happiness.  Of course, beginning any conversation with those words from the Declaration raises the obvious question: “Who’s ‘we’?” Can those of us who are women, people of color, descendants of slaves and/or slaveholders, all claim participation in that “we”? Should we want to? Allen, who describes herself as biracial and a feminist, addresses the contradictions inherent in claiming this document for our own in her valuable book Our Declaration. She concludes that we not only can, we must. There is too much at stake for us to cede equality to a white, male minority. Life, Liberty... What would it mean to take seriously the idea that people create governments so they can enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? What would the United States look like if that were its purpose? Let’s start with life. It’s reasonable to think that the Declaration’s authors were following the ideas of another dead white man, John Locke, who believed that people create governments so that they don’t have to spend all their time and energy preventing other people from hurting them, or taking revenge when they’ve been hurt. Instead, people delegate this authority to governments. But what has the U.S. government done with those delegated powers? Over the last 15 years of what we still call the “war on terror,” Americans have been told repeatedly that we have to choose between life and liberty, between “security” and freedom. We can’t have both. Do we want to be safe from terrorists? Then we must allow mass collection of our telephone and Internet-use data. And we must create a registry of Muslims living in this country. Do we want to be safe on our streets? Then we must allow federal and state governments to keep 2.2 million people locked up and another 4.5 million on probation or parole. Ours is the largest prison population in the world, in raw numbers and in proportion to our population. Safety on the street, we’re told, also demands an increase in the amount of daily video surveillance Americans experience.  And that’s just to start down a long list of the ways our liberties have been curtailed in these years. At the same time, successive Congresses and administrations have cut the programs that once helped sustain life in this country. Now, with the threatened repeal of Obamacare (and so the potential loss of medical insurance for at least 20 million Americans), the Republicans may literally cut off the lives of people who depend on that program for treatments that help them survive. The preamble of the Constitution also establishes the importance of life, liberty, and happiness, with slightly different language. In it, “We the people” establish that Constitution for the following purposes: “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…” Is it possible that our common “defence” is not, in fact, aided by maintaining the world’s most powerful military, garrisoning the planet, and endlessly projecting power across the globe? After all, the United States is protected by an ocean off each coast and friendly countries on our northern and southern borders (although we may not always deal with them as friends should be treated). Certainly, I want my government to defend me from invading armies; on the other hand, I’m not convinced my safety is increased when the United States does the invading. It’s useful, too, as we think about the purpose of government, to consider the idea of the “general Welfare.” This phrase implies something important: my welfare, my good life, is bound up with yours. The people established the Constitution to promote the welfare of all of us, and not of a tiny, mega-rich minority, which is now running our government. We could do worse than reclaim the importance of the general welfare, with its suggestion that it is the primary business of any decent government to promote our wellbeing. ...And the Pursuit of Happiness Surely the definition of the good life, of happiness itself, is such a personal thing that it can’t be the subject of legislation or the object of government. Perhaps that’s true, but I’d like to introduce one more thinker here, also white, and, sadly, deceased: the political philosopher Iris Marion Young. In her Justice and the Politics of Difference, she offered a definition of a good human life. We can say, she argued, that a society is more or less a just one depending on the degree to which it satisfies basic physical needs, and equally importantly (as Aristotle also believed), “supports the institutional conditions necessary” for people to participate in self-development.  To her, that means “learning and using satisfying and expansive skills,” as well as the expression of “our experience, feelings, and perspective on social life in contexts where others can listen.” But self-development and expression, she says, are not sufficient for a good life. We also need self-determination -- that is, participation in the decisions that affect our lives and how we live them. We have much to defend, but we also should have a vision to advance. As we fight against a secretary of education who abhors public schools, we should also be fighting for the right of all of us to develop and use those “expansive and satisfying skills” -- from reading and writing to creating and doing -- that make life worth living. In a society with less and less demand for non-robotic workers, education will be more important than ever, not just so people can earn their livings, but also so that their lives are valuable and valued. As we fight against an administration of generals and billionaires, we should also be fighting for a country where we are free to express ourselves in language, dress, song, and ritual, without fear of finding ourselves on a registry or all our communications in the files of a spy agency. As we fight against a president elected by a minority of voters, we fight for a country in which we can take part in the decisions that affect all aspects of our lives. For many years I’ve opposed most of what my country stands for in the world. As a result, I often tended to see its founding documents as so many beautiful but meaningless promises spoken in our time to convince us and the world that the coups, invasions, and occupations we engaged in do represent life and liberty. But what if we were actually to take those words at face value? Not naively, but with the bitter nuance of the black poet Langston Hughes who, recognizing both the promise and the sham, wrote: “ O, let America be America again --   The land that never has been yet -- And yet must be -- the land where every man is free. The land that’s mine -- the poor man’s, Indian’s, Negro’s, ME -- Who made America, Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain, Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain, Must bring back our mighty dream again.” Maybe it’s not so strange that, in these dismal times, I find my hope in a dream, now hundreds of years old, of a country dedicated to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I guess it’s time to develop those satisfying and expansive skills of thinking, organizing, and acting to bring back that mighty dream again, that dream of a land that never has been yet -- but will be. Rebecca Gordon, a TomDispatch regular, teaches in the philosophy department at the University of San Francisco. She is the author of American Nuremberg: The U.S. Officials Who Should Stand Trial for Post-9/11 War Crimes. Her previous books include Mainstreaming Torture: Ethical Approaches in the Post-9/11 United States and Letters from Nicaragua.  Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, John Feffer's dystopian novel Splinterlands, as well as Nick Turse’s Next Time They’ll Come to Count the Dead, and Tom Engelhardt's latest book, Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

10 января, 18:38

Fighting For The Good Life In Trumplandia

What Is a Country For? Cross-posted with TomDispatch.com Many of the folks I know are getting ready to play serious defense in 2017, and they’re not wrong. Before we take up our three-point stance on the national line of scrimmage, however, maybe we should ask ourselves not only what we’re fighting against, but what we’re fighting for. What kind of United States of America do we actually want? Maybe, in fact, we could start by asking: What is a country for? What should a country do? Why do people establish countries in the first place? Playing Defense There is, without question, much that will need defending over the next four years, so much that people fought and died for in the twentieth century, so much that is threatened by the ascendancy of Donald Trump, the white nationalist right, and the Republican Party. The twentieth century saw the introduction of many significant laws, regulations, and -- yes -- entitlements: benefits to which we have a right by virtue of living in, and in many cases being citizens of, this country. We could start earlier, but let’s begin with the 1935 National Labor Relations Act. It established the right of workers to collectively negotiate wages and working conditions with their employers and made collective bargaining the official “policy of the United States.” This policy faces an immediate threat. Identical Republican-sponsored bills in the House and Senate would end the right of unions to require the workers they represent to pay union dues.  These bills would, in other words, reproduce at the federal level the so-called right-to-work (more accurately, right-to-starve) laws already in place in more than half the states. If -- or as seems likely, when -- they pass, millions of workers will face the potential loss of the power of collective bargaining and find themselves negotiating with employers as lonely individuals. Then there was the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, which guaranteed a minimum wage and overtime pay to many workers (although not, notably, those laboring in agricultural fields or inside other people’s homes -- workplaces then occupied primarily by African Americans, and later by other people of color as well). Andrew F. Puzder, Donald Trump’s pick for secretary of labor, opposes the very idea of a minimum wage. This shouldn’t be too surprising, since his current day job is as CEO of the parent company of two fast-food franchise operations, Hardee’s and Carl’s Jr. We could mention other New Deal era victories under threat: Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps (now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP), and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (now known as TANF for Temporary Aid to Needy Families, or more commonly simply as “welfare”), which was created to promote the wellbeing of children in families facing poverty. In the coming Trump years, we can expect predation on all these programs -- from renewed efforts to “privatize” Social Security to further restrictions on welfare. Indeed, former Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert, Trump’s transition team point man on Social Security, is a firm believer in “privatization,” the idea that the federal government should encourage people to gamble on the stock market rather than rely on a guaranteed government pension. The one entitlement program that will probably survive unscathed is SNAP, because its primary beneficiaries are not the people who use it to buy groceries but the giant agricultural corporations it indirectly subsidizes. It’s no accident that, unlike other entitlement programs, SNAP is administered by the Department of Agriculture. Then there was the 1937 Housing Act, designed to provide financial support to cities so they could improve the housing stock of poor people, which eventually led to the creation of the department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In Ben Carson we are about to have a HUD secretary who, in addition to having announced that he’s not qualified to head a federal agency, doesn’t believe in the very programs HUD exists to support. And so it goes with the victories of the second half of the twentieth century. In Jeff Sessions, for instance, we have a potential attorney general staunchly opposed to the civil and voting rights won by African Americans (and women of all races, in the case of the 1964 Civil Rights Act). In Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, we’ll have a climate-change denier and fossil-fuel advocate running the Environmental Protection Agency. Medicare entitles -- there’s that word again -- older people and some with chronic illnesses to federally subsidized healthcare. Its introduction in 1965 ended the once-common newspaper and TV stories about senior citizens eating pet food because they couldn’t afford both medicine and groceries.  That program, too, will reportedly be under threat. There’s more to defend. Take widespread access to birth control, now covered by health insurance under Obamacare. I’m old enough to remember having to pretend I was married to get a doctor to prescribe The Pill, and being grateful for the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade that guaranteed me a legal abortion, when a gynecologist told me I couldn’t conceive.  (He was wrong.) Then there are the guarantees of civil rights for LGB (if not yet T) people won in the 1990s, culminating in the astonishing 2015 Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges granting marriage rights to same-sex couples. All of this could be wiped out with a couple of Trumpian Supreme Court picks. Nor should we forget that in addition to people’s rights, there are actual people to defend in the brave new world of Trumplandia, or at least to help defend themselves: immigrants, Muslims, African Americans -- especially young black men -- as well as people facing poverty and homelessness. One potentially unexpected benefit of the coming period: so many of us are likely to be under attack in one way or another that we will recognize the need for broad-based coalitions, working at every level of society and throughout its institutions. Such groups already exist, some more developed than others. I’m thinking, for example, of United for Peace and Justice, which came together to oppose Bush-era wars and domestic policies, the Grassroots Global Justice Alliance, a national coalition of community organizations led by people of color, and National People’s Action, another effective coalition of community organizations, to name just three. On the state level, there is the powerful work of the Moral Mondays project, led by the North Carolina NAACP and its president, the Reverend William J. Barber II. In my own backyard, there are the many community groups that make up San Francisco Rising and Oakland Rising. Such multi-issue organizations can be sources of solidarity for people and groups focused on important single issues, from the Fight for Fifteen (dollars an hour minimum wage) to opposing the bizarrely-named First Amendment Defense Act, which would protect the right of proprietors of public accommodations to refuse service to people whose presence in their establishments violates “a religious belief or moral conviction that: (1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.” Defense Matters, But We Need More  As important as such defensive actions will be, we're going to need something beyond a good defense: a coherent reason why all these disparate things are worth defending. We need to be able to say why black lives, women’s lives, workers’ lives, brown and immigrant lives matter in the first place. We need a vision of a society in which not only do all people’s lives matter, but where they all have the possibility of being good lives. We need a picture of what a country is for, so that as we fight, we understand not only the horrors we oppose, but what it is we desire. Fortunately, we don’t have to start any description of what a good human life consists of from scratch. People have been discussing the subject for at least as long as they’ve left written records, and probably far longer. In the third century BCE, for example, Aristotle proposed that the good life -- happiness -- consists of developing and using both our intellectual and moral capacities to the fullest possible extent across an entire lifetime. The good life meant learning and then practicing wisdom, courage, justice, and generosity -- along with some lesser virtues, like being entertaining at a dinner party. Aristotle wasn’t an idiot, however. He also knew that people need the basics of survival -- food, clothing, shelter, health, and friendship -- if they are to be happy. Not surprisingly, he had a distinctly limited idea about which human beings could actually achieve such happiness.  It boiled down to men of wealth who had the leisure to develop their abilities. His understanding of the good life left a lot of people, including women, slaves, and children, out of the circle of the fully human. Although it may sound strange to twenty-first-century American ears, Aristotle also thought that the purpose of government was to help people (at least those he thought were capable of it) to live happy lives, in part by making laws that would guide them into developing the capacities crucial to that state. Who nowadays thinks that happiness is the government’s business? Perhaps more of us should. After all, the Founding Fathers did. “We Hold These Truths...” Where should we who seek to defend our country against the advance of what some are now going so far as to call “fascism” enter this conversation about the purpose of government? It might make sense to take a look at a single sentence written by a group of white men, among them slaveholders, who also thought happiness was the government’s business. I’m referring, of course, to the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence. Its much-quoted second sentence reads in full: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” Political philosopher Danielle Allen has pointed out that modern versions of the Declaration’s text “update” the original punctuation with a period after “happiness.” But that full stop obscures the whole point of the sentence. Not only do people self-evidently possess “unalienable” rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but the very reason we form governments in the first place is to “secure” those rights. Furthermore, when a government -- rather than protecting life, liberty, and happiness -- “becomes destructive” of them, we have the right to abolish it and put a better one in its place, always keeping in mind that the purpose of any new government should be to “effect” the people’s safety and happiness.  Of course, beginning any conversation with those words from the Declaration raises the obvious question: “Who’s ‘we’?” Can those of us who are women, people of color, descendants of slaves and/or slaveholders, all claim participation in that “we”? Should we want to? Allen, who describes herself as biracial and a feminist, addresses the contradictions inherent in claiming this document for our own in her valuable book Our Declaration. She concludes that we not only can, we must. There is too much at stake for us to cede equality to a white, male minority. Life, Liberty... What would it mean to take seriously the idea that people create governments so they can enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? What would the United States look like if that were its purpose? Let’s start with life. It’s reasonable to think that the Declaration’s authors were following the ideas of another dead white man, John Locke, who believed that people create governments so that they don’t have to spend all their time and energy preventing other people from hurting them, or taking revenge when they’ve been hurt. Instead, people delegate this authority to governments. But what has the U.S. government done with those delegated powers? Over the last 15 years of what we still call the “war on terror,” Americans have been told repeatedly that we have to choose between life and liberty, between “security” and freedom. We can’t have both. Do we want to be safe from terrorists? Then we must allow mass collection of our telephone and Internet-use data. And we must create a registry of Muslims living in this country. Do we want to be safe on our streets? Then we must allow federal and state governments to keep 2.2 million people locked up and another 4.5 million on probation or parole. Ours is the largest prison population in the world, in raw numbers and in proportion to our population. Safety on the street, we’re told, also demands an increase in the amount of daily video surveillance Americans experience.  And that’s just to start down a long list of the ways our liberties have been curtailed in these years. At the same time, successive Congresses and administrations have cut the programs that once helped sustain life in this country. Now, with the threatened repeal of Obamacare (and so the potential loss of medical insurance for at least 20 million Americans), the Republicans may literally cut off the lives of people who depend on that program for treatments that help them survive. The preamble of the Constitution also establishes the importance of life, liberty, and happiness, with slightly different language. In it, “We the people” establish that Constitution for the following purposes: “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…” Is it possible that our common “defence” is not, in fact, aided by maintaining the world’s most powerful military, garrisoning the planet, and endlessly projecting power across the globe? After all, the United States is protected by an ocean off each coast and friendly countries on our northern and southern borders (although we may not always deal with them as friends should be treated). Certainly, I want my government to defend me from invading armies; on the other hand, I’m not convinced my safety is increased when the United States does the invading. It’s useful, too, as we think about the purpose of government, to consider the idea of the “general Welfare.” This phrase implies something important: my welfare, my good life, is bound up with yours. The people established the Constitution to promote the welfare of all of us, and not of a tiny, mega-rich minority, which is now running our government. We could do worse than reclaim the importance of the general welfare, with its suggestion that it is the primary business of any decent government to promote our wellbeing. ...And the Pursuit of Happiness Surely the definition of the good life, of happiness itself, is such a personal thing that it can’t be the subject of legislation or the object of government. Perhaps that’s true, but I’d like to introduce one more thinker here, also white, and, sadly, deceased: the political philosopher Iris Marion Young. In her Justice and the Politics of Difference, she offered a definition of a good human life. We can say, she argued, that a society is more or less a just one depending on the degree to which it satisfies basic physical needs, and equally importantly (as Aristotle also believed), “supports the institutional conditions necessary” for people to participate in self-development.  To her, that means “learning and using satisfying and expansive skills,” as well as the expression of “our experience, feelings, and perspective on social life in contexts where others can listen.” But self-development and expression, she says, are not sufficient for a good life. We also need self-determination -- that is, participation in the decisions that affect our lives and how we live them. We have much to defend, but we also should have a vision to advance. As we fight against a secretary of education who abhors public schools, we should also be fighting for the right of all of us to develop and use those “expansive and satisfying skills” -- from reading and writing to creating and doing -- that make life worth living. In a society with less and less demand for non-robotic workers, education will be more important than ever, not just so people can earn their livings, but also so that their lives are valuable and valued. As we fight against an administration of generals and billionaires, we should also be fighting for a country where we are free to express ourselves in language, dress, song, and ritual, without fear of finding ourselves on a registry or all our communications in the files of a spy agency. As we fight against a president elected by a minority of voters, we fight for a country in which we can take part in the decisions that affect all aspects of our lives. For many years I’ve opposed most of what my country stands for in the world. As a result, I often tended to see its founding documents as so many beautiful but meaningless promises spoken in our time to convince us and the world that the coups, invasions, and occupations we engaged in do represent life and liberty. But what if we were actually to take those words at face value? Not naively, but with the bitter nuance of the black poet Langston Hughes who, recognizing both the promise and the sham, wrote: “ O, let America be America again --   The land that never has been yet -- And yet must be -- the land where every man is free. The land that’s mine -- the poor man’s, Indian’s, Negro’s, ME -- Who made America, Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain, Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain, Must bring back our mighty dream again.” Maybe it’s not so strange that, in these dismal times, I find my hope in a dream, now hundreds of years old, of a country dedicated to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I guess it’s time to develop those satisfying and expansive skills of thinking, organizing, and acting to bring back that mighty dream again, that dream of a land that never has been yet -- but will be. Rebecca Gordon, a TomDispatch regular, teaches in the philosophy department at the University of San Francisco. She is the author of American Nuremberg: The U.S. Officials Who Should Stand Trial for Post-9/11 War Crimes. Her previous books include Mainstreaming Torture: Ethical Approaches in the Post-9/11 United States and Letters from Nicaragua.  Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, John Feffer's dystopian novel Splinterlands, as well as Nick Turse’s Next Time They’ll Come to Count the Dead, and Tom Engelhardt's latest book, Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Выбор редакции
10 января, 16:31

January 10, 49 BCE: Did Caesar Even Cross the Rubicon?

This January 10, let's take a look back at the alleged deeds of Julius Caesar before and after he started a civil war with his crossing of the Rubicon and question whether the imperator ever really even noted that with the crossing of the Rubicon, "alea iacta est": "The die is cast."

10 января, 10:23

Reframing Our Perspectives About Change and the Future

Humans have a tendency to believe that their initial experience with a situation is the first time that it has occurred. The reality is that virtually every change that makes you nervous, uncertain, and sometimes a little crazy has occurred in some form before. New technology has always been a disruptive and beneficial force in how people work and live. The folk legend John Henry, for instance, was a steel-driving man who raced against the steam-powered hammer that revolutionized the building of the railroads. Business has always looked for ways to do things faster, better, cheaper, or friendlier. Technology has played a major role. Why would that be different today? Globalization has existed since the beginning of time. Overland trade routes between western Asia, the Mediterranean region, and China date to the second millennium BCE. The travel took longer and was much more precarious, but it brought imports, exports, new jobs, and competition for existing jobs among countries and individuals. The opportunities and threats of globalization today are the logical extension of a history of expansion into new markets to sell, purchase, and produce goods and services. The banking and mortgage crisis of 2008 shares a lot in common with the Dutch Tulip Bubble of 1637. Tulips were the speculative currency of the time in Holland. Fortunes were made and lost daily as tulip traders speculated on what appeared to be an investment that would only increase in price. Then someone didn't show up to pay for his tulips. Widespread panic ensued. Tulip prices plunged to virtually nothing, and the Netherlands was forced into a depression that lasted years. History repeating itself doesn't make us feel any better as we are experiencing it for ourselves. In fact, it can make us feel stupid and out of touch. Before you get too angry or frustrated, take comfort in knowing two things: You are not alone. Most people and organizations miss the big changes that affect their lives until it is too late to do anything other than play catch up. There are some aspects of change and disruption today that make the "new normal" different. Specifically, the impact of 50-plus years of exponential increases in technology mean that changes happen more quickly and your ability to keep is continually pushed to the limit. How Disruptors are Different Those who see the potential for technology to disrupt and remake entire industries share something in common with those who saw the looming Great Recession, the rise of cloud computing, and the revolution in healthcare: Their perspective is not held hostage by what works today or has worked in the past. They know that past success only proves that you were right ... once. Their willingness to view - and act on - today's reality through the lens of tomorrow's opportunity allows them to see further and adapt quicker. The result is that they are more relevant to their customers because they stay ahead of most changes and are more nimble when forced to react. Acting on Your New Perspective Many things are out of your control when it comes to flourishing in the future. You can't, for instance, control the actions of your competitors. Likewise, you may not be able to control government regulation (unless you are POTUS), your company's policy (unless you are the CEO), and a host of other factors. The one thing you can control is your own behavior and performance. Here are three action items you can take today to increase your opportunity to remain relevant in the future. 1. Continually focus on value given and value received Investors run toward value in uncertain economic times. Your customers do the same. Your challenge is to add so much value that doing business with you is an easy decision. You must be crystal clear about the return on their investment you will deliver, and most important, continually work to be faster, better, cheaper, and/or friendlier. This principle applies to your career as well. If you aren't creating more value than the cost of keeping you, why should the company bother? 2. Strategically invest in your future Your customers are asking, "Why you? Why now? What makes you relevant?" Your employer is asking the same questions. Now is the time to strategically invest in the areas that will make you successful five years from now while continuing to add value today. That could mean investing in a new product, service, or piece of equipment. It could also mean learning a new skill. The best in every field of endeavor actively manage their futures. This is more important today than ever before. 3. Prepare for the worst and look for the best Long-term anxiety and instability breed a lack of confidence. That lack of confidence closes our minds to opportunity. The Great Depression of the 1930s saw the demise of many companies, but it also gave us companies such as Motorola, Texas Instruments, Hewlett-Packard, and Converse. The same will be true of today. Fifty years from now, we'll look back on this time as the crucible that spawned legendary brands and businesses. All change creates moments of instability and anxiety. Substantial change that comes at you in waves can either make you timid or bold. Now is not the time to be timid. Timid companies don't anticipate the future. Timid people don't invest in themselves or take the actions that enable them to flourish in the face of change. It's a matter of perspective that is crucial to your success. Randy Pennington is an award-winning author, speaker, and leading authority on helping organizations achieve positive results in a world of accelerating change. To bring Randy to your organization or event, visit www.penningtongroup.com , email [email protected], or call 972.980.9857. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Выбор редакции
09 января, 15:16

BCE downgraded to sector perform from outperform at RBC Capital

This is a Real-time headline. These are breaking news, delivered the minute it happens, delivered ticker-tape style. Visit www.marketwatch.com or the quote page for more information about this breaking news.

Выбор редакции
23 декабря 2016, 00:35

Telecom Stock Roundup: Verizon May Revise Yahoo Deal Terms, Rogers Communications Opts for X1

The telecom industry saw strong performances by most of the key stocks last week.

22 декабря 2016, 20:30

The Management Ideas That Mattered Most in 2016

Juan Díaz-Faes for HBR One of our favorite parts of the HBR year is looking back at what we published to find the ideas that, in retrospect, stand out the most — articles that taught us something truly new or surprised us with wholly new ways of thinking about topics we thought we were tired of, as well as the articles our readers found most interesting or useful. In 2016, the Venn diagram of what we were proudest of and what you spent the most time reading overlapped more than ever. And this year it was particularly easy to see themes emerge. Many of the ideas that stood out fall roughly into two categories:  1. streams of management research that gathered momentum or brought new data to an old debate and 2. management thinking applied outside the sphere of what we ordinarily think of as management to help make sense of global risks, political choices, and economic, social, and technological shifts. 2016 was a worrying and unpredictable year. But the articles below — and many others we published this year — give me as much faith as ever that good, principled, innovative management can help us solve our way out of even the most difficult problems.   Income Inequality Puts All of Us at Risk Income Inequality Makes Whole Countries Less Happy Corporate Inequality Is the Defining Fact of Business Today Western Middle Classes Have Been Left Out of Global Growth What So Many People Don’t Get About the U.S. Working Class Computers Create Jobs and Inequality at the Same Time   The Distant Past, Disputed Present, and Uncertain Future of Globalization People Are Angry About Globalization. Here’s What to Do About It  What You Won’t Hear About Trade and Manufacturing on the Campaign Trail The Case for Trade and Why American Leaders Need to Make It A Brief History of Britain’s Relationship with Europe Starting in 6000 BCE In Defense of Cosmopolitanism   We’re Obsessed with Good and Bad Leadership A 10-Year Study Reveals What Great Executives Know and Do A 2×2 Matrix Explains Good vs. Great Leadership How to Deal with a Boss Who Behaves Unpredictably Why We Keep Hiring Narcissistic CEOs Why We Pick Leaders with Deceptively Simple Answers When Charismatic Leadership Goes Too Far Good Leadership Is Contagious   The Art — and Science — of the Deal How to Negotiate with a Liar A Definitive Guide to the Brexit Negotiations What Donald Trump Doesn’t Understand About Negotiation The Secret to Negotiating Is Reading People’s Faces Setting the Record Straight: Using an Outside Offer to Get a Raise   Why We’re Failing at Diversity Why Diversity Programs Fail If There’s Only One Woman in Your Candidate Pool, There’s Statistically No Chance She’ll Be Hired Diversity Policies Don’t Help Women or Minorities, and They Make White Men Feel Threatened Why Your Diversity Program May Be Helping Women But Not Minorities (Or Vice Versa) Why Subtle Bias Is So Often Worse Than Blatant Discrimination Gender Equality Is Making Men Feel Discriminated Against   It’s Time We All Understood Machine Learning and AI The Simple Economics of Machine Intelligence Algorithms Need Managers Too What Artificial Intelligence Can and Can’t Do Right Now Why You’re Not Getting Value from Your Data Science Fixing Discrimination in Online Marketplaces Artificial Intelligence Could Give Managers Half of Their Time Back   What’s an MBA Worth?  Generalists Get Better Job Offers Than Specialists MBAs Are More Self-Serving Than Other CEOs Which MBAs Make More, Consultants or Small Business Owners? How Having an MBA vs. a Law Degree Shapes Your Network Why I Tell My MBA Students to Stop Looking for a Job and Join the Gig Economy   Millennials Are Just Like Older People, Except More Anxious Why Your Late Twenties Is the Worst Time of Your Life What Do Millennials Really Want at Work? The Same Things the Rest of Us Do Labels like “Millennial” and “Boomer” Are Obsolete Millennials Are Actually Workaholics, According to Research   The Consequences of Scandal The Scandal Effect The Leadership Blind Spots at Wells Fargo What 100,000 Tweets About the Volkswagen Scandal Tell Us About Angry Customers The Organizational Reasons Police Departments Don’t Change Managing Police Departments Post-Ferguson   Finally, here are the most popular articles of the year in eight of the most important topics HBR covers. I highly recommend saving and reading any you haven’t already read! Managing people: Let Your Workers Rebel Sales & Marketing: The Elements of Value Innovation: Embracing Agile Strategy: Pipelines, Platforms, and the New Rules of Strategy Analytics: Visualizations That Really Work Hiring: How One Fast Food Chain Keeps Its Turnover Rates Absurdly Low Leadership: The Most Important Leadership Competencies, According to Leaders Around the World Organizational culture: How Facebook Tries to Prevent Office Politics   Have a restful holiday, and we’ll see you in 2017.  

Выбор редакции
21 декабря 2016, 14:31

Rogers Communications Slips to Sell, Lags Industry Mark

Competitive wireless and cable TV industry, softness in the ad market and loss of viewers to video streaming service providers remain potent headwinds for Rogers Comm (RCI).

Выбор редакции
20 декабря 2016, 15:40

AT&T (T): BCE's Bell Canada to Evaluate ECOMP Platform

BCE's subsidiary, Bell Canada is probably the second telecom company to join AT&T (T) on testing ECOMP after French telecom Orange.

Выбор редакции
17 декабря 2016, 16:57

Hannibal vs. Rome: Why the Battle of Cannae Is One of the Most Important in History

Akhilesh Pillalamarri Security, Europe An underappreciated battle that shaped history. One of the most pivotal battles in Western history, the Battle of Cannae, was fought some 2,200 years ago to the year. The Battle of Cannae occurred on August 2, 216 BCE in southeast Italy between Carthaginian forces led by Hannibal Barca and Roman forces led by Lucius Aemilius Paullus and Gaius Terentius Varro. Both forces also included various allied soldiers. The battle, which ended in a major Roman defeat, is considered to be of great importance because of its tactical lessons for posterity, as well as the fact that it was the closest the Roman state had come to destruction in its history up to that point. Of course, the Battle of Cannae did not spell the end of the Roman Republic; it not only survived the disaster, but ended up beating and eventually annexing the Carthaginians. Eventually, the Roman Republic became an empire whose cultural, political and legal legacy to the world is incalculable. But Rome might have never learned the lessons of toughness that made it so great had it not faced the existential crisis brought on by Hannibal’s invasion of Italy. After the Roman Republic beat Carthage in the First Punic War (264-241 BCE), the Carthaginians looked for ways to strengthen themselves militarily and economically. As a result of the war, the Romans became the dominant naval power in the Mediterranean. One way in which this was achieved was the colonization of Iberia, then a mineral-rich region inhabited by various tribes. This effort was spearheaded by a Carthaginian general, Hamilcar Barca. Eventually, by 218 BCE, Hamilcar’s son Hannibal commanded Carthaginian forces in Iberia while using its resources to build up a significant force. That year, the Second Punic War began when Hannibal attacked the cited of Saguntum in Iberia, which had allied with the Romans despite being in the Carthaginian sphere of influence. Hannibal then took the initiative and invaded the Roman heartland of Italy through the Alps with about 38 thousand infantry, eight thousand cavalry and 37 elephants. Read full article

Выбор редакции
Выбор редакции
24 ноября 2016, 17:05

Shaw Communications' Rebranding Plans to Boost Wireless

Shaw Communications Inc. (SJR) has rebranded its wireless service as ''Freedom Mobile'' to emphasize on the company's two unique selling points, "freedom from data overage" charges and "freedom from price-gouging".

18 ноября 2016, 13:03

Weekend Reading: Neville Morley: Vicarious Virtue

**Neville Morley**: _[Vicarious Virtue][]_: "The seminar text for my Roman History course over the last fortnight has been the opening of the third book of Varro’s _Rerum Rusticarum_... [Vicarious Virtue]: https://thesphinxblog.com/2016/11/18/vicarious-virtue/ >...the convoluted argument about the nature of the ‘true’ villa and the disputed legitimacy of pastio villatica. It’s a...

Выбор редакции
15 ноября 2016, 07:00

The Real Life of King David: Startling Discoveries of Modern Biblical Archaeology (2000)

David (/ˈdeɪvɪd/; Hebrew: דָּוִד, Modern David, Tiberian Dāwîḏ; ISO 259-3 Dawid; Ancient Greek: Δαυίδ; Latin: Davidus, David), according to the Hebrew Bible, was the second king of the united Kingdom of Israel and Judah, reigning in c. 1010–970 BCE. Depicted as a valorous warrior of great renown, and a poet and musician credited for composing many of the psalms contained in the Book of Psalms, King David is widely viewed as a righteous and effective king in battle and civil and criminal justice. He is described as a man after God's own heart in 1 Samuel 13:14 and Acts 13:22. According to the New Testament, he was an ancestor of Jesus. David has been depicted several times in films; these are some of the best-known: 1917 In The Chosen Prince, directed by William V. Mong 1951 In David and Bathsheba, directed by Henry King, Gregory Peck played David. 1959 In Solomon and Sheba, directed by King Vidor, Finlay Currie played an aged King David. 1961 In A Story of David, directed by Bob McNaught, Jeff Chandler played David. 1985 In King David, directed by Bruce Beresford, Richard Gere played King David. (This film was poorly received by critics and failed at the box office.) 1996 In Dave and the Giant Pickle 1997 In Bible Collection 2016 In Of Kings and Prophets Television: 1995 The episode "Little Big Dog" of the PBS series Wishbone recounts the story of David, his favor with Saul, and his triumphant battle over Goliath. The season two episode of Xena: Warrior Princess called "Giant Killer" features David and his killing of Goliath. 1996 In Series 2, Episode 7 of the science fiction show Dominion, titled "Lay Thee Before Kings," David is shown slaying Goliath with the unwitting support of the Archangels Gabriel and Michael. 1997 TV film David, with Nathaniel Parker portraying King David. 1997 Max von Sydow portrayed an older King David in the TV film Solomon, a sequel to David. 2009 The NBC series Kings, explicitly designed as a modern retelling of the David story. 2013 Langley Kirkwood portrayed King David in the miniseries The Bible produced by Mark Burnett and Roma Downey. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David

Выбор редакции
07 ноября 2016, 16:54

TELUS (TU) Earnings Miss, Revenues Beat Estimates in Q3

TELUS Corp. (TU) reported mixed financial results in the third quarter of 2016 wherein revenues outpaced the Zacks Consensus Estimate while earnings lagged the same.

07 ноября 2016, 03:56

Why UNESCO Shouldn't Treat Jerusalem as a Weapon

Asaf Romirowsky, Alexander Joffe Politics, Middle East Supporters of peace should remind UNESCO that the true meaning of Jerusalem is not as a prize or a weapon but as a shared place of holiness. UNESCO’s vote to deny Jewish and Christian connections to Jerusalem and the Temple Mount is dismaying but not surprising. Cutting those connections – understood by anyone with a passing knowledge of Judaism and Christianity - has been a goal of Palestinians and their Arab and Muslim supporters for decades. Except for boilerplate about "affirming the importance of the Old City and its walls for the three monotheistic faiths" the resolution does not acknowledge that Jerusalem has any, much less unique, significance to Jews and Christians. The phrases “safeguarding of the cultural heritage of Palestine,” and “Al-Buraq Plaza ‘Western Wall Plaza’” –in quotes that mock the fact that the Western Wall is Judaism’s holiest site - show what the resolution is really about, adopting the narrative that Jerusalem is sacred only to Muslims. UNESCO has long condemned the “Judaization” of Judaism’s holiest city and now votes to place the Muslim narrative on a pedestal and to ignore Jewish and Christian connections. But what is the Muslim narrative? For Islam, Jerusalem is less a holy city than a rallying cry and a prize to be denied to others, especially Jews. Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Qur’an at all and there is no explicit connection between the city and Muhammad’s life. The location of the “farthest mosque,” which he visited on the flying steed Al-Buraq, was not specified in the Qur’an but only later when Jerusalem was already under Muslim control. Muslim tradition preserves the idea that the earliest mosques originally faced Jerusalem not Mecca, and also that Muhammad himself changed this. But usurping Christian and Jewish connections to Jerusalem also date to the beginning of Islam. The seventh-century Al-Aqsa mosque was built atop an earlier Christian church, which stood above a Roman temple. All of this stood on the platform built by King Herod to house the second Jewish temple, where Jesus threw out the money-changers, which itself replaced the temple of Solomon, built around 900 BCE. The Muslim connection is far later than its predecessors’, and Muslim interest in Jerusalem has fluctuated over the centuries, always as a result of politics. Though early Muslims regarded Jerusalem as one of three sacred cities, after Mecca and Medina, its significance fell and was resurrected only when it was used as a rallying call by Saladin, who wrested it back from the Crusaders. Read full article

Выбор редакции
04 ноября 2016, 14:53

BCE Inc. (BCE) Beats on Q3 Earnings, Misses Revenue

Leading Canadian telecom operator BCE Inc. (BCE) reported mixed financial results in the third quarter of 2016. While the top line missed the Zacks Consensus Estimate, the bottom line surpassed the same.

Выбор редакции
03 ноября 2016, 15:03

UPDATE 1-Canada's BCE revenue beats on higher postpaid subscriptions

Nov 3 (Reuters) - BCE Inc, Canada's largest telecommunications company, reported marginally better-than-expected revenue on Thursday, helped by an increase in net postpaid subscribers.

Выбор редакции
03 ноября 2016, 14:18

Shaw Communications (SJR) Misses Q4 Earnings, Beats Revenue

Shaw Communications (SJR) reported mixed financial results in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2016.