Ducommun (DCO) stock is looking impressive right now and is a great candidate for value-oriented investors.
China Automotive Systems (CAAS) stock is looking impressive right now and is a great candidate for value-oriented investors
Boot Barn looks great given its impressive metrics and estimate revisions.
The Cherokee Nation will now recognize same-sex marriage, according to an opinion issued Friday by the tribe’s attorney general. Todd Hembree, the tribe’s attorney general, wrote in his opinion: The right to marry without the freedom to marry the person of one’s choice is no right at all. The history of perpetual partnerships and marriage among Cherokees supports the conclusion that Cherokee citizens have a fundamental right not only to choose a spouse but also, with mutual consent, to join together and form a household irrespective of sexual orientation. The decision followed a request made by the tribe’s tax commissioner for an official opinion on the issue a few weeks ago. “We were increasingly being contacted by departments in the Cherokee Nation on how to handle certain issues with same-sex marriage,” Chrissi Nimmo, assistant attorney general of the Cherokee Nation, told The Huffington Post on Friday. Native American nations are governed by Congress, not the federal courts. So the 2015 Supreme Court decision to recognize gay marriage in all 50 states did not legally affect the Cherokee Nation, but Nimmo said the bulk of Friday’s decision was indeed informed by it. Hembree’s decision was also influenced by historical Cherokee Nation sexuality narratives. He wrote in Friday’s decision: Our oral history teaches us also that the Cherokee and Euro-American worldviews differed dramatically regarding appropriate gender roles, marriage, sexuality, and spiritual beliefs. Indeed, while the majority of Cherokees subscribed to the traditional gender roles, evidence suggests a tradition of homosexuality or alternative sexuality among a minority of Cherokees. “It think it’s a really interesting part of the decision,” Nimmo told HuffPost. “Through historical research, we were able to identify research sources that indicate there was some type of historical recognition of homosexuality.” Hembree’s opinion nullifies a law the tribe passed 12 years ago called the Cherokee Nation and Family Protection Act, which banned same-sex marriage among tribe members. Though same-sex marriage is still illegal in some Native American tribes, like the Navajo Nation, Nimmo believes most tribes don’t take a stance on it either way. “I think you will see a mixed reaction [to Friday’s decision] like you do in the American public at large,” Nimmo told HuffPost. “Without a doubt, there will be tribal members and officials who support this and are proud of this, and there will be others ... who don’t like it.” The Cherokee Nation’s legal recognition of same-sex marriage will take effect immediately. Nimmo said Hembree’s decision is “binding and considered legally valid,” though it can be challenged by other Cherokee officials at any time. “I don’t really know who would challenge it,” Nimmo added. Supporters of the decision shared their excitement on social media: This is a big deal for Cherokee Nation. That's just so awesome. So proud to be a @CherokeeNation citizen today :) https://t.co/4e7CAoBlcF— Oklahoma Kid (@jeepgirl77) December 9, 2016 so happy to finally see this! thank you @chiefbillbaker, @toddhembree, @mizhardcase for bringing marriage equality to the cherokee nation :) https://t.co/kLk5XA1rBD— Greg Buzzard (@gregbuzzard) December 9, 2016 Thank you Cherokee Nation! https://t.co/HPWq4QfiTC— Steve Goupil (@Mysteviegee) December 9, 2016 Welcome to #MarriageEquality #CherokeeNation! #LoveWins https://t.co/L9TDwW6Jwm— Jim Obergefell (@JimObergefell) December 9, 2016 type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related... + articlesList=576ab037e4b065534f48706f,55f9b867e4b08820d916f812,560c3084e4b0768127005591 -- 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.
Arcos Dorados looks great given its impressive metrics and estimate revisions.
Hawaiian Holdings (HA) is seeing positive estimates revisions and has an excellent growth score which makes it a great growth company.
ED MORRISSEY: Trump’s Cabinet: A Conservative About Face Toward Growth and Change. “Trump seems intent on creating the most conservative and business-oriented Cabinet in decades.” Personnel is policy.
Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim's visit to Moscow on Dec. 5-6 demonstrated Ankara's intention not only to restore its relations with Moscow, which had been undermined by the downing of a Russian Sukhoi Su-24 jet by the Turkish air force on Nov. 24, 2015, but also to bring these relations to a whole new level. In particular, Yildirim stated that the two countries could and should bring the volume of bilateral trade to $100 billion (according to the Russian business daily Kommersant (in Russian), the figure stood at $23 billion in 2015). In the meantime, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has ratified the agreement on building the Turkish Stream gas pipeline, the largest Russian-Turkish energy project ever. Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev and Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim, right, during a meeting at the Gorki residence outside Moscow. Source: Alexander Astafyev/RIA Novosti Problems still remain On the other hand, it is too soon to say that Russian-Turkish relations have been fully restored. Russia still maintains the ban on some Turkish exports, and the visa regime introduced for Turkish citizens has not been abolished yet. The two countries' political views of the Middle East also differ: Russia supports Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whereas Erdogan has been calling for the toppling of the current Syrian regime. Russian experts note that Moscow views further restoration of its economic ties with Turkey in a political context. Has Erdogan put Russia relations at risk with vow to topple ‘tyrant’ Assad? “For as long as there remain unresolved political and security issues, it is too early to speak of a full restoration [of economic cooperation],” said Vladimir Avatkov, a professor at Moscow State Institute of International Relations and director of the Moscow-based Center for Oriental Studies. According to Avatkov, it is precisely because of the continuing high terrorist threat in Turkey that Russia has not yet lifted the visa requirement. He also believes that the Syrian case is of particular importance to Moscow. Cooperation to be restored gradually Turkey has been suffering worse than Russia from the partial freeze on economic cooperation, according to Yury Mavashev, who heads the political department at the Center for Modern Turkish Studies: “According to our data, Moscow's losses from the food exports ban have been smaller than those incurred by Turkey. Russia has managed to find alternative suppliers,” he said. Still, both countries realize that cooperation needs to be restored. “If the statements made after the talks [between Yildirim and Russian officials] are anything to go by, the sides reached an agreement on when, and under what circumstances, the Russian sanctions on Turkey would be lifted,” said Mavashev. Avatkov noted that, judging by the ratification of Turkish Stream, bilateral economic ties will be gradually restored. Is Ankara making a ‘pivot to Eurasia’? In parallel with improving its ties with Russia, Ankara has been experiencing a worsening of relations with the West, especially after the attempted coup in Turkey on July 15 and 16, 2016 and the arrests of opposition politicians and journalists that followed. The EU has criticized Erdogan's policy, threatening to impose sanctions on Turkey. Erdogan reacted by questioning the expedience of continuing the current dialogue on Turkey's possible accession to the EU. Erdogan to Putin: Russia and Turkey should trade in national currencies On Nov. 20 Erdogan announced that instead of seeking EU membership, Turkey might join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), in which the key role is played by Russia and China. Turkey is currently a dialogue partner in the SCO. As Russian experts see it, Erdogan is not just trying to bargain with Brussels this way: He may be actually considering a Eurasian future for his country. “Ankara has been showing an interest in joining the SCO for some time now,” said Mavashev. “Turkey has never viewed itself as an exclusively Western country, this is evident both to the Europeans and to the Turks themselves.” He believes Turkey's accession would benefit the SCO economically: “Turkey's potential is enormous, it can offer economic and human resources, transport corridors, hubs and transport junctions.” Avatkov agrees: “Turkey has grown tired of knocking on the EU door. It is gradually becoming a more centrist country with interests lying both in the West and in the East. It perceives itself as a Eurasian center of gravity,” he said. In Avatkov’s view, Ankara's departure from an exclusively pro-Western course could benefit Russia. There is, however, a risk of Turkey attempting to expand its role in post-Soviet countries such as Azerbaijan and the nations of Central Asia. Read more: Turkish president signs bill to ratify Turkish Stream deal>>> Subscribe to get the hand picked best stories every week
Despite two decades of charter-school growth, the state’s overall academic progress has failed to keep pace with other states.
Earlier this week, President-elect Donald Trump’s former campaign manager declared that it was once again safe to say “Merry Christmas,” reflecting Trump’s campaign promise that, if he won, every store would say “Merry Christmas,” and “Happy Holidays” would be out. Trump had previously called out Starbucks holiday cups for being insufficiently Christmas-oriented, a criticism shared by many people on social media for the second year in a row. Gap, Target, The Home Depot, and many other retailers have been criticized in the past. The now-annual controversy over the “War on Christmas” highlights the difficulties now faced by any company that wants to avoid offense in the run-up to the winter holidays. In a December 2005 Gallup poll, 41% of respondents said they preferred to be greeted with “Happy Holidays” during the holiday season, and 56% said they’d rather hear “Merry Christmas.” Ten years later, a survey we conducted at Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind research center found that only 25% wanted to hear “Happy Holidays,” while 65% of Americans said they preferred “Merry Christmas.” Despite variance between pollsters and different ways of wording the question, the trend is clear: Over the last decade, many Americans changed their minds about the greeting they want to hear, and the question of what to say to customers and neighbors became fraught with social meaning. This change — and the very idea of a war on Christmas — seems to be the result of coverage on one channel: Fox News. This isn’t to say that Fox hosts originated the idea of a War on Christmas. The term arose in the writings of anti-immigration activist Peter Brimelow in 1999 but languished until October 2005, when John Gibson appeared on The O’Reilly Factor to discuss his new book, The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought. The thrust of the argument made by Brimelow and Gibson is that governments and large corporations are actively pushing an anti-Christian agenda. For instance, Gibson points out that in 2004 Amazon wished its customers “Happy Holidays” rather than “Merry Christmas,” some schools listed a “Winter Break” on their calendars rather than a “Christmas Break,” and the holiday stamps put out by the U.S. Postal Service featured a snowman (a point perhaps undercut by the fact that religious-themed stamps were also available). In Gibson’s argument, it all was part of a secularist plot that aimed to, as O’Reilly put it on November 18, 2005, “get religion out, [so] then you can pass secular progressive programs like legalization of narcotics, euthanasia, abortion at will, and gay marriage.” But it is not just the government that is threatening Christianity, Gibson claimed: “Every time a supermarket checker or store clerk greets you with [‘Happy Holidays’] instead of ‘Merry Christmas,’ you have met another soldier in the War against Christmas.” In this view, saying “Merry Christmas” is a political act, announcing one’s opposition to secular liberals, in what Michael Norton from Harvard Business School and Samuel Sommers from Tufts University describe as a symbolic protest against a perceived loss of privilege. From 2005 on, Fox News has returned to the topic every year, while noncable television networks and major newspapers have given it little to no coverage, mentioning it only a handful of times, and never seriously. Most of the discussion about it outside of Fox has been on MSNBC and The Daily Show, both of which have used it to mock Fox’s coverage. The argument that saying “Happy Holidays” is the spear tip of a concerted secularization plot may seem like a stretch, but it seems to have been accepted by many Americans. In a December 2013 national PublicMind poll, 28% of Americans agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “There has been a concerted effort by politicians to take ‘Christ’ out of Christmas.” Forty percent of Republicans agreed (33% strongly), compared to only 16% of Democrats. As might be expected, frequent churchgoers (those who attend once a week or more) are more likely to think there’s a war on Christmas (in the survey, we avoided using that exact term so that respondents wouldn’t be tipped off to the research question we were exploring), with 35% agreeing. Watching Fox News doesn’t make someone more likely to be concerned about secularization, but it does have a significant effect on people who don’t go to church much in the first place. Among individuals who say they seldom go to church, watching Fox News increases the likelihood of agreeing that there’s a war on Christmas by five points; among those who say they never go to church, the difference is 10 points. In effect, watching Fox News makes less religious people as concerned about secularization as those who go to church frequently. It seems that the rhetorical strategy employed by Fox News commentators has worked. By making the “War on Christmas” just one front in a general political conflict, Fox News has made its viewers, even those who normally wouldn’t be worried about religious issues, more likely to accept the war’s existence. That effect, which links concerns about secularization and “Happy Holidays” to a political identity, seems to be the driving force behind the increase in preferences for “Merry Christmas” and in disdain for alternatives. What’s amazing about this is that coverage on one cable channel has led to a large section of the American public changing their everyday behavior and the way they view the behavior of others. It means that business owners’ decisions about something as innocuous as a holiday greeting have become viewed through a political lens that owners and managers wouldn’t have considered before. It’s easy to imagine that we live in a post–mass media world, one in which no single news source can have a real impact on our society. In this case, one news outlet still retains the ability to move the opinions and behaviors of the American public.
Тихоокеанское морское управление Росприроднадзора возбудило административное дело в отношении корейской компании, чей траулер Oriental Angel затонул в 2011 году в Беринговом море, сообщает управление. Подробнее читайте на нашем сайте www.oilru.com
Only in California. California State Senator Kevin de Leon has introduced a bill, SB-54 or the "California Values Act" (because if you disagree with this legislation then you're obviously just an immoral, racist asshole), that explicitly prohibits "state and local law enforcement agencies" from investigating, detaining, detecting, reporting or arresting people for "immigration enforcement purposes." Moreover, the bill would force "public schools, hospitals, and courthouses" to establish "safe zones" that "limit immigration enforcement on their premises." Per SB-54: This bill would, among other things, prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies and school police and security departments from using resources to investigate, detain, detect, report, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, or to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal program requiring registration of individuals on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or national or ethnic origin, as specified. The bill would require state agencies to review their confidentiality policies and identify any changes necessary to ensure that information collected from individuals is limited to that necessary to perform agency duties and is not used or disclosed for any other purpose, as specified. The bill would require public schools, hospitals, and courthouses to establish and make public policies that limit immigration enforcement on their premises and would require the Attorney General, in consultation with appropriate stakeholders, to publish model policies for use by those entities for those purposes. In support of the legislation, De Leon notes that "immigrants are valuable and essential members of the California community" and that attempts to enforce immigration laws simply create fear of the police among "immigrant community members" who then shy away from "approaching police when they are victims of, and witnesses to, crimes." Yes, by that logic we should probably stop enforcing all laws because we suspect that pretty much everyone that has broken a state or federal law is somewhat reluctant to approach the police...which is totally unfair! 885.2. The Legislature finds and declares the following: (a) Immigrants are valuable and essential members of the California community. Almost one in three Californians is foreign born and one in two children in California has at least one immigrant parent. (b) A relationship of trust between California’s immigrant community and state and local law enforcement agencies is central to the public safety of the people of California. (c) This trust is threatened when local law enforcement agencies are entangled with federal immigration enforcement, with the result that immigrant community members fear approaching police when they are victims of, and witnesses to, crimes. (d) This act seeks to protect the safety and constitutional rights of the people of California, and to direct the state’s limited resources to matters of greatest concern to state and local governments. Meanwhile, per The Hill, De Leon has vowed that California will be the "wall of justice" for illegal immigrants "should the incoming administration adopt an inhumane and over-reaching mass-deportation policy." The bill “will make it clear California public schools, hospitals, and courthouses will not be used by the Trump regime to deport our families, friends, neighbors, classmates and co-workers,” said Assemblyman Marc Levine (D), the bill’s chief sponsor in the lower chamber. The measure does not prohibit law enforcement agencies from transferring violent offenders into federal custody to be deported. But it does prohibit those agencies from acting as federal immigration officers and cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in order to deport other undocumented immigrants. “To the millions of undocumented residents pursuing and contributing to the California Dream, the state of California will be your wall of justice should the incoming administration adopt an inhumane and over-reaching mass-deportation policy,” de León said in a statement. Of course, all of this begs the question of why, if the State of California is allowed to pick and choose which federal laws it decides to enforce, would municipalities and local police departments have to enforce all state laws...perhaps we should take it one step further and just let each city police department pick which laws they want to enforce. Here is the full text of SB-54:
When Donald Trump embarks on his new trade agenda in January, he will face sustained resistance from those who opposed his primary and presidential campaigns, i.e., those whose views working Americans repudiated in the recent election. Essentially, Trump's trade/jobs agenda has been criticized from the moment the establishment realized back in March that he might actually win the primaries. There have been numerous op-eds, blogs, and TV appearances by the free-trade status-quo crowd suggesting that Trump will destroy the US and world economies if he tries to restore balance to the world trading system. Trump's antagonists are Wall Street institutions, multinational corporations, major business organizations, academic economists, editorial boards, business journalists, opinion writers, bloggers, and the generally economics-knowledge-free main stream media. All are opposed to Trump because they are wedded to a false, out-dated 'free trade' dogma, which has decimated the working/middle classes. On Capitol Hill, a minority of Democrats and majority of Republicans are partial to the same discredited free-trade theories. Speaker Paul Ryan admitted as much in his remarks on the election victory, noting that Trump alone had recognized the dire plight of average Americans. For the one-percenters and their shills, nothing in their bedrock beliefs changed with the election, and they will actively oppose Trump's trade platform with every maneuver and phony, distracting, pseudo-intellectual argument they can muster. Their arguments include: Trump will start a trade war; he will plunge us into a job-destroying depression; the jobs aren't coming back anyway; they were all taken by robots; trade deficits don't matter; U.S. output is near a high; government handouts in the form of supplemental income payments to manufacturing job losers, plus retraining and vocational education are the real answer. None of these is accurate and and none addresses the continuing economic advances made through the strategic trade/industrial/technology policies of our commercial rivals, who will take every last US manufacturing job if we let them. In spite of the raft of criticism, the president-elect appears determined to up-end 30 years of failed trade policies. In order for Trump to succeed, his trade agenda must be guided by several defining principles: First, the Trump administration must clean house of all the academically-trained, free-trade economists, bureaucrats, and negotiators inhabiting the trade functions of the federal government. Trump has called them stupid; they are in the sense that they keep following the same free-trade template, making the same erroneous assumptions in their models, and piling up the same massive goods trade deficits. Yet they expect the next free trade agreement to turn out to be more beneficial to the United States than the last disaster. Second, Trump needs his new team to develop a strategic vision for the US economy over the next several decades. US trade policy must be based on a comprehensive plan. Balanced trade is necessary because trade deficits have to be financed -- by borrowing from foreigners or selling them our domestic assets to pay for their goods. Both practices are problematic, to say the least. But balance, while desirable, should not be achieved just by selling more soybeans and pork, and importing fewer socks. While that may be part of the approach, the U.S. economy needs to move ahead on technology and productivity growth across a broad spectrum of industries, including high-tech and futuristic sectors in which the country is currently deficient. There will be howls of objection to a strategic plan and cries of 'communist central planning,' but strategic economic objectives are not central planning or 'picking winners and losers.' America's trade adversaries are already far ahead in many areas with next generation products and prototypes, thanks to their strategic implementation of explicit industrial policies, intellectual property theft, and forced technology transfer. In contrast, the United States simply doesn't possess a concerted national manufacturing strategy -- in part because, historically, trade was a small part of our large continental economy. But as the nation's economy has been globalized over the last 20 years by bad trade policy decisions (which are reversible, not set-in-stone, physics-like 'laws' as the free traders would have us believe), a strategic vision is imperative. One can't fight something with nothing, and our economic fate shouldn't be left to the randomness of the 'free market,' which is in fact manipulated and managed by our competitors through currency manipulation, non-tariff barriers, IP theft, subsidies, dumping, VAT taxes, inter alia. Third, America's response to the current situation of global trade imbalances and manipulation must be unilateral, and not dependent on the putative cooperation of foreign governments. Simply put, nothing will change if the United States continues to rely on 'the kindness of strangers,' i.e., other countries' promises to abandon their mercantilists policies by signing unenforceable, 'best efforts' agreements. Trump must dictate the new terms of trade, not negotiate them. His leverage: access to the largest market in the world -- which he must use before it is overtaken by China. Fourth, a strict timetable is needed. Trump's goal should be balanced trade in four years, with America's trade deficit declining by 25% annually to zero. This goal can be accomplished in a number of ways, including limits on the value and type of imports if necessary. Four years gives US companies dependent on parts or sub-assemblies from overseas operations plenty of time to relocate back home. Trump may have to pull out of the World Trade Organization and various trade treaties if our trading partners reject informal cooperation and seek to tie up his plans in trade lawsuits. Fifth, the US dollar must be kept continuously competitive -- priced to help US manufactured goods either in our home market or as exports in foreign markets. Republican presidents Nixon and Reagan were acutely aware that the price of the dollar had a large effect on our trade deficits and thus negotiated the Smithsonian and Plaza Accords, respectively. But our trading partners soon reverted to their old currency-manipulation ways. The Trump administration must not hesitate to counter currency manipulation via active, continuous Treasury Department involvement in foreign exchange markets to keep American products competitively priced. Sixth, Trump must impose a Value-Added Tax of 18-20 percent applicable at the border to all imports. Over 150 of our trading partners use such taxes to make American exports pricier in their home markets. We should reciprocate. The great irony is that as succeeding rounds of trade talks have successfully cut tariffs, our trading partners have raised their VAT taxes in response, thus offsetting the tariff cuts. This is a place our trade negotiators have truly been asleep at the switch. Additionally, on the campaign trail, Trump threatened to punish US companies that move jobs abroad by imposing tariffs on them. The problem is that the competitors of these companies who have already gone overseas, or foreign companies, will remain free to send products made with cheap foreign labor into the US market. Instituting a border VAT will create an big incentive to keep production here or move it here, by making the US a more cost-effective place to manufacture. Finally, as if all of these issues weren't enough, President Trump will confront a marketplace wherein commercial cyber warfare has become an almost daily scourge. One example: US Steel has filed a trade case against Chinese companies for stealing their technology for lighter, stronger steel products -- and selling ripped-off, competing products in the US market below the cost of manufacture. Thus, protection of IP and trade secrets (especially in the defense arena) must be addressed decisively. Time is short. The Trump administration must pursue trade enforcement remedies with a vengeance in cases like that of US Steel. America possesses anti-dumping and countervailing duty laws that should be utilized as quickly as expedited trade investigations can allow. Overall, a new, job-creating trade policy is central to Trump's success as president. He has promised repeatedly that jobs are going to come pouring home -- and soon. If they do not materialize, he will forfeit a large portion of his credibility. Yet he faces a dual battle against the entrenched, one-percent economic interests here and a global trading system rigged by the unfair trade practices of power-house, export-oriented economies in East Asia and Europe. Trump already knows the global trading system is rigged against average working Americans. He has been speaking about the problem since the 1980s. He needs to adopt the above approaches quickly and act decisively in order to blow past his powerful antagonists, domestic and foreign, and bring jobs home. The task will not be easy; restoring US economic greatness will inevitably involve some amount of painful economic readjustment both at home and abroad. However, the pain is worth enduring because the American and global economies are in a state of advanced imbalance that cannot be sustained. The United States cannot absorb year after year of $800 billion goods trade deficits and remain the world's leading economy. The readjustment toll will be far less painful than a global economic collapse caused by growing trade imbalances. It's a tricky ride, and one fraught with political and economic conflict. But it's a necessary one in order for President Trump to keep his promises, rebuild a preeminent U.S. economy, and create good jobs and a higher standard of living for all Americans. Kevin L. Kearns is president of the U.S. Business & Industry Council, a national business organization advocating for domestic U.S. manufacturers since 1933. -- 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.
The coatings are designed as a way to outperform conventional SMP coatings because they borrow technology from higher-end PPG coatings.
It was announced that President-elect Donald Trump (how those four words still curdle in our throat!) will be appointing Andrew Puzder as his Secretary of Labor. Even though, considering all that's happened in the last 30 years, there is no real surprise in this appointment, let us count the ways that it should scare the bejeezus out of anyone who pulls for the working class. Firstly, Andrew Puzder is a deregulation fiend, a fanatic, who doesn't believe in the salutary effects of labor laws, whether they be municipal, county, state or federal. In a word, he views the majority of labor laws (including the landmark National Labor Relations Act) as impediments to doing business. As a consequence, he doesn't believe it's the federal government's place to establish a minimum wage (like any other "free market" fundamentalist, he believes the marketplace should freely determine an employee's rate of pay on a case by case basis), but if the feds insist on doing so, that figure should be no higher than $9 per hour, which amounts to $18,720 annually for someone working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year. Secondly, as CEO of CKE Restaurants, which owns, among other things, the Carl's Jr. hamburger chain, Andy Puzder opposes having fast-food workers and retail sales employees belong to labor unions. Considering that unions offer the triumvirate of better wages, better benefits, better working conditions, Andy's opposition is solely profit-based. Indeed, it might be classified as the doctrine of a "classic fiscal conservative." That or a "greedy bastard." This doctrine is unfortunate because fast-food workers and retail sales people (think of the employees of the mega- Wal-Mart corporation) are regarded by organized labor as the platform from which to launch the Second Wave of the labor movement. The First Wave was industrial; the Second Wave will be service oriented (with health care and civil service jobs already leading the charge). Unlike vulnerable and outdated smoke-stack industries, restaurants and retail stores (of which there are tens of thousands nationwide) aren't "portable." Which is to say, you can't sell Carl's Jr. hamburgers to customers in Peoria, Illinois, by relocating the restaurant to labor-cheap Bangladesh. This circumstance gives fast-food workers at least a modicum of leverage. And thirdly, as Secretary of Labor, Andy Puzder will be the position to kick everyone's butt, and to do it legally. As the highest ranking (both functionally and symbolically) labor figure in the U.S., he will not only set the tone for labor-management relations during a Trump presidency, he has the right to appoint three (a majority) of the five members of the NLRB. This is a huge responsibility. Among other things, the NLRB is charged with adjudicating critical labor disputes--those involving the very definition of workers' rights. For instance, when a labor union, or a group of employees seeking to be represented by that union, contacts the NLRB and accuses the company of using unfair or illegal tactics to keep the union out, it falls upon the Labor Board to make a ruling, and that decision is pretty much final. Given Andrew Puzder's virulently anti-union sentiments, and him gleefully pulling the strings while eating hamburgers, one can only imagine how rare it's going to be for the Board to side with labor in any crucial dispute. As Bette Davis (playing Margo Channing) famously said, "Fasten your seat belts; it's going to be a bumpy night." -- 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.
Via The Daily Bell MI6 Chief Says Fake News And Online Propaganda Are A Threat To Democracy … The chief of MI6 has said he is deeply concerned by the threat posed by rival countries attempting to undermine democracy through propaganda and cyberattacks. -Buzzfeed The next step in attacking the alternative media is to criminalize it. Right now the alternative media is under attack in Europe for “hate speech” and (potentially) terrorism. In the US, the alternative media is being accused of presenting Russian propaganda. Earlier today, this approach was taken up by British intel (see above). In the US, there are Congressional attempts underway to provide funds for law enforcement to investigate alternative news sites as supporters of Russian propaganda. But so far there have been no major statements from US federal law enforcement officials. Now, however, we have one from Britain - as the head of MI6 has spoken up. Since Western alternative media is simply an outgrowth – an expression – of discontent with the current system, those producing it cannot ultimately be seen as tools of Russian propaganda. However, alternative media is proving deeply disconcerting to the larger Western power structure. For this reason, suspicions of Russian propaganda merely provide a justification for investigation. One an investigation has been pursued, it may not stop until something – anything – is found that can be construed as criminal or at least problematic. In this way alternative media can be first criminalized and then hounded. Or so the plan goes … More: Alex Younger, aka “C”, used a rare public speech to say he was deeply concerned about the risks posed by hybrid warfare, where countries take advantage of the internet to “further their aims deniably” through “means as varied as cyberattacks, propaganda, or subversion of democratic process”. Although he did not name Russia directly, the comments come following accusations that the Kremlin has attempted to influence elections in the US and Europe using underhand tactics ranging from undeclared direct funding, to hacking emails, to spreading fake news. “Our job is to give the government the information advantage; to shine a light on these activities and to help our country and allies, in particular across Europe, build the resilience they need to protect themselves,” Younger said. “The risks at stake are profound and represent a fundamental threat to our sovereignty; they should be a concern to all those who share democratic values.” In fact, what is being planned is not going to work. It will likely make life miserable for certain reporters and others associated with the alternative media. But it is far too early for the powers-that-be to stamp out alternative journalism (and the thinking behind it) no matter how much they wish to. For one thing, alternative journalism is now representative of a larger mindset among tens and even hundreds of millions of people, especially in the West. Thus it will take at least a full generation to wipe out new perspectives and rediscovered information. Second, because the news is representative of people’s points of view (rather than vice-versa) alternative media insights and information will continue to be presented in various ways – on the Internet as well, only not so obviously. Finally, the growing war against the alternative media will only reinforce its relevance and credibility, thus causing more people to become informed (or deepen their perceptions) about the issues presented in the so-called alternative media. There is a whole alternative culture that is offered by modern alternative media. Some of it may be leftist but the initial approach – for those who have tracked its emergence on the ‘Net – was basically libertarian and freedom-oriented. Even today this specific cultural approach informs a lot of alternative reporting. The fundamental ideas is that the market itself should make determinations regarding human interactions rather than government run by groups of people with greater or lesser competence. This approach is rooted in free-market – Austrian – economic theory which is actually accepted throughout mainstream economics. It begins with marginal utility, the idea that credible prices can only be generated by marketplace competition. But its insights are much broader. If everyone in formal academic economics including Keynesians accept the reality of marginal utility (as they do) then how can such massive governments exists, passing thousands of laws, rules and regulations – all of which are essentially price fixes? Shouldn’t human behavior be moderated by competition instead whenever possible? The same goes for central banking. It contravenes fundamental economic logic. Ask almost anyone in banking of economics (on the left or right) if they believe in marginal utility and the answer will be “yes.” Ask anyone if they believe price-fixing is effective or productive and they will answer “no.” And yet central banking is a form of price fixing and so is government. Western society exists in a bubble of cognitive dissonance. What is accepted academically is not applied in reality. And thus freedom – and libertarianism – cannot be attacked logically. Instead, false arguments will be created to damp down the alternative media. But as pointed out above, it is not going to be simple or easy to remove fundamental truths from the body politic. The last time we witnessed this kind of paradigm was after the invention of the Gutenberg press that blew open societies throughout the West and helped create the New World and then the republic of “these United States.” It took about 500 years for control of society to be re-established from the top down by certain historical groups ... and yet here we are again. The same sort of technological undermining has taken place and it won’t be easily repressed. It may not take another 450 years but it certainly won’t happen in 10 or 20. And by the time it does take place it is certainly possible that another information revolution will have come to pass. Time and history are working against authoritarianism and not with it. Depriving people of knowledge and history is a signature of repression. But in the current technological era it becomes more and more difficult. What is pending is period of chaos and difficulty. But over the next century we may see an efflorescence of the sort that took place after the Gutenberg press with the expansion of the Renaissance and the advent of the Enlightenment and the rediscovery of scientific thinking. Conclusion: Things may indeed change. But not necessarily in the way controllers imagine. Editor's Note: The Daily Bell is giving away a silver coin and a silver "white paper" to subscribers. If you enjoy DB's articles and want to stay up-to-date for free, please subscribe here. More from The Daily Bell: Will Rand Paul Fight Fake News With a Filibuster? ‘Populism Vs. Globalism’ – a Meme That Doesn’t Exist in Reality Elites Plot to Replace Austrian Free-Market Economics?