#even if third party doesn’t win the impact of talking about political issues and building community in your area will be a net positive

[antiarcticmonkeys]

This post is meant to spark discussion, not make people fight or to attack anyone, so please keep that in mind even if you don’t agree with everything I say. I’m not here to evangelize, just to give food for thought.

That being said, I’ve seen a lot of people recently propping up the “lesser of two evils” rhetoric on tumblr, and I am going to be honest: it very clearly comes from a place of fear. I understand, the political climate is frightening right now. But if we continue to approach the situation from a place of panic, prioritizing damage control, we are going to be slowly but surely overwhelmed by the amount of damage we are trying to control. We need to fight for overarching change.

Whether or not that change will come from the electoral system is debatable, but clearly voting is an exigent issue at the moment, so if you believe in that system and put your faith in it, I would urge you to consider voting for someone you don’t think is even a little bit evil. I’m not here to judge you if you’re not ready to do so this election cycle, because yes, I understand that actually getting a third-party candidate in the executive branch in 2024 is a long shot. But I really hope that if you truly want and believe in large-scale change, you have the ability to believe that even just the small change of electing a third party candidate is possible.

If you really agree that by-and-large, Democrat candidates are working against us (albeit less so than republicans), I would encourage you to work to make third-party candidates more viable instead of just accepting that you’re going to end up with a shitty politician either way.

There is plenty of time between now and the election after this one. If you want a non-evil candidate, I would urge you to do what you can to lay the groundwork for one now, so we don’t enter our next election cycle with the overwhelming sense that we have only two options and they both suck ass. The only thing standing between us and a third party win is the allure of habit and the work of organization. I would suggest you research candidates you actually like. Campaign for them, post about them, talk to your friends, family, and neighbors about them.

Every time the election cycle comes around again, we get thousands of new voters who aren’t in the habit of voting for the lesser of two evils, who may be ready for a non-evil candidate. There are many, many people who are dissatisfied with both parties. Electing a third-party candidate is not impossible, just difficult.

[orbemnews]

As China Targets H&M and Nike, Local Brands See Their Chance Tim Min once drove BMWs. He considered buying a Tesla. Instead Mr. Min, the 33-year-old owner of a Beijing cosmetics start-up, bought an electric car made by a Chinese Tesla rival, Nio. He likes Nio’s interiors and voice control features better. He also considers himself a patriot. “I have a very strong inclination toward Chinese brands and very strong patriotic emotions,” he said. “I used to love Nike, too. Now I don’t see any reason for that. If there’s a good Chinese brand to replace Nike, I’ll be very happy to.” Western brands like H&M, Nike and Adidas have come under pressure in China for refusing to use cotton produced in the Xinjiang region, where the Chinese government has waged a broad campaign of repression against ethnic minorities. Shoppers vowed to boycott the brands. Celebrities dropped their endorsement deals. But foreign brands also face increasing pressure from a new breed of Chinese competitors making high-quality products and selling them through savvy marketing to an increasingly patriotic group of young people. There’s a term for it: “guochao,” or Chinese fad. HeyTea, a $2 billion milk tea start-up with 700 stores, wants to replace Starbucks. Yuanqisenlin, a four-year-old low-sugar drink company valued at $6 billion, wants to become China’s Coca-Cola. Ubras, a five-year-old company, wants to supplant Victoria’s Secret with the most non-Victoria’s Secret of products: unwired, sporty bras that emphasize comfort. The anger over Xinjiang cotton has given these Chinese brands another chance to win over consumers. As celebrities cut their ties to foreign brands, Li-Ning, a Chinese sportswear giant, announced that Xiao Zhan, a boy band member, would become its new global ambassador. Within 20 minutes, almost everything that Mr. Xiao wore on a Li-Ning advertisement had sold out online. A hashtag about the campaign was viewed more than one billion times. China is undergoing a consumer brand revolution. Its young generation is more nationalistic and actively looking for brands that can align with that confidently Chinese identity. Entrepreneurs are rushing to build up names and products that resonate. Investors are turning their attention to these start-ups amid dropping returns from technology and media ventures. When patriotism becomes a selling point, Western brands are put at a competitive disadvantage, especially in a country that increasingly requires global companies to toe the same political lines that Chinese firms must. China’s consumer protests are “a historic turning point and will have lasting impact on the Chinese consumers in the long run,” Mr. Min said. “The Chinese consumers don’t want to eat the same crap foreign brands have been feeding them. It’s essential that foreign brands respect Chinese consumers as much as the Chinese brands do.” Foreign brands are far from done in China. Its drivers helped power a jump in Tesla deliveries. IPhones remain immensely popular. Campaigns against foreign names have come and gone, and local brands that emphasize politics too much risk unwanted attention if the political winds shift quickly. Still, interest in local brands marks a significant shift. Post-Mao, the country made few consumer products. The first televisions that most families owned in the 1980s were from Japan. Pierre Cardin, the French designer, reintroduced fashion with his first show in Beijing in 1979, bringing color and flair to a nation that during the Cultural Revolution wore blue and gray. Chinese people born in the 1970s or earlier remember their first sip of Coco-Cola and their first bite of a Big Mac. We watched films from Hollywood, Japan and Hong Kong as much for the wardrobes and makeup as the plot. We rushed to buy Head & Shoulders shampoo because its Chinese name, Haifeisi, means “sea flying hair.” Today in Business Updated  April 6, 2021, 9:08 a.m. ET “We’ve gone through the European and American fad, the Japanese and Korean fad, the American streetwear fad, even the Hong Kong and Taiwan fad,” said Xun Shaohua, who founded a Shanghai sportswear company that competes with Vans and Converse. Now could be the time for the China fad. Chinese companies are making better products. China’s Generation Z, born between 1995 and 2009, doesn’t have the same attachment to foreign names. Even People’s Daily, the traditionally staid Communist Party official newspaper, is getting into branding. It started a streetwear collection with Li-Ning in 2019. That same year, it issued a report with Baidu, the Chinese search company, called “Guochao Pride Big Data.” They found that when people in China searched for brands, more than two-thirds were looking for domestic names, up from only about one-third 10 years earlier. As with so much in China, it can be hard to tell how much of the guochao movement involves politics. Building up homemade brands fits snugly with the Communist Party’s desire to make the country more self-reliant. Officials also want Chinese people to shop more: Household consumption makes up only about 40 percent of China’s economic output, much less than it does in the United States and Europe. Patriotism aside, entrepreneurs argue that their ventures rest on a solid business foundation. Similar trends happened in Japan and South Korea, both now home to strong brands. Local players better know the abilities of the country’s supply chains and how to use social media. Mr. Xun’s sports brand has half a million followers on Alibaba’s Taobao marketplace and sells at the same prices as Vans and Converse, or even slightly higher. He said his brand competed by making shoes that fit Chinese feet better and offering colors favored locally, such as mint green and fuchsia. He sells exclusively online and teams up with Chinese and foreign brands and personalities, including Pokemon and Hello Kitty. At 37, he’s the only person in his company who was born before 1990. The guochao fad has also reinvigorated older Chinese brands, like Li-Ning. For many years, sophisticated urbanites considered the brand, created by a former world champion gymnast of the same name, ugly and cheap. Its signature red-and-yellow color combination, after the Chinese flag, was mockingly called “eggs fried with tomato,” an everyday Chinese dish. Li-Ning was losing money. Its shares were on a losing streak. Then the company introduced a collection at New York Fashion Week in early 2018. Its edgy look, combined with bold Chinese characters and embroidery, created buzz back home. Its shares have risen nearly ninefold since then. Now Li-Ning’s high-end collections sell at $100 to $150 on average, on a par with those of Adidas. As ambitious as these businesspeople are, almost everyone I spoke to admitted that the Chinese brands still couldn’t compete with megabrands such as Coca-Cola and Nike. Alex Xie, a marketing consultant who works with companies in China, used the sportswear industry as an example. Nike holds a yearslong lead over Chinese brands in research and development. It enjoys a deep network of relationships in the sports world. It works closely with athletes to develop better shoes, sponsors many events and teams, including China’s national soccer, basketball, and track and field teams. “It simply has a much stickier relationship with its customers than any Chinese brand,” he said. But for these Western megabrands, the Xinjiang cotton dispute is a big challenge that could help their Chinese competitors. While previous outrage against Western brands such as the National Basketball Association and Dolce & Gabbana passed pretty quickly, this bout could linger, many people said. “In the past, some Western brands didn’t understand or failed to respect the Chinese culture mostly because of lack of understanding,” Mr. Xun said. “This time it’s a political issue. They have violated our political sensitivities.” Then, like any savvy Chinese entrepreneur who knows which topics are sensitive, he asked, “Could we not talk about politics?” Source link Orbem News #brands #Chance #China #local #Nike #targets

[iwanttobeyourwonderwoman]

Nobody gives a shit, git. (1)

Finally. Finally I’m gonna have the courage to say and post about certain things. And even then, nobody ever reads or listens to me but I’m gonna do it anyway. For myself. Whether anyone reads it or not, it’s something for me to look back on in the future.

So here I go.

On a new segment I like to call “Nobody gives a shit, git”

(for many obvious reasons)

So it’s the day after Singapore’s general elections.(Yes in the middle of this pandemic, the country decides COME LETS VOTE FOR OUR PARLIAMENT!) The past 10 days have been very heated with intense campaigning being done on such short notice. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE had their own views on this. So much drama and even more chaos. So that’s when I decided to do a little research myself to understand what the hell was going on and as a first time voter, who should I vote for to represent my constituency?

So what’s so special and dramatic about elections for parliament in our small island of a country, you ask? LOTS.

Firstly, I wanna talk about the opposition candidates.

I didn’t realise how many opposition parties there were but it’s good to see a healthy competition in all areas. Before last week I knew nothing. All I knew is that PAP rules the whole country basically and WP ruled Aljunied GRC. This year I feel that WP had a stronger support from the public as well as better and more capable candidates. After all, you’re voting for who represents you in your area and ultimately in parliament. Yes PAP still makes most of the decisions but then the opposition is the one who stands up and says “but why not this way?” This in a way helps to challenge the PAP but also forces them to take a look at the public’s perspectives a little more closely instead of just a general view.

What was good this year is that there are many younger members in WP as compared to considerably older Politicians of PAP. This in itself reflects on the parties as PAP has been around from the beginning, gaining us our independence. Whereas WP has been wiggling their way through over the past few elections. A younger team, a fresher mindset, with candidates having different backgrounds and experiences, as compared to the (majority) elites of PAP. 

Now, Pritam Singh. This man. Amazing leadership. He has ensured his candidates exude class and confidence and respond gracefully. This is something I really admire about him. Everytime a WP member has spoken against other parties, he has made sure that they do so with class and not simply throw down PAP. Yes PAP has faults, we all know that. But we would not be here without them. And it is necessary for us to be grateful as a nation for all the work PAP has done over the years, instead of simply calling them out on their faults and spewing accusations. PAP is too powerful for that. You must fight on their level. Which is exactly what Pritam Singh and the Worker’s Party have tried doing.

Hot favourites obviously belonged to the Sengkang team, who as a whole, managed to reach out to their specific demographics as well as the rest of Singapore youths/millenials in particular. Despite online accusations and what not, they managed to fight through and secure Sengkang GRC which was a MAJOR accomplishment and milestone in so many ways. As well as the East Coast GRC team who fought very hard but fell short by a very small margin. 

Another party that was so close to being elected, was PSP led by Dr Tan Cheng Bock. This one is an interesting story. I had only found out all this information a couple of days before. This man is already 80 years old and was making waves on instagram because most campaigning was being done so online. Dr Tan Cheng Bock was already a familiar name among the older generation, considering he was formally from PAP, then having resigned to run for presidency but unfortunately could not win. Affectionately known as hype beast ah gong to the younger crowd, he as well as his marketing team made a huge move to post videos of him on Instagram to relate to the youth. And Guess what, it worked. Even those who don’t really know much or care much about politics (me for example) went to research him and found out how qualified he is and what he stands for. I wish his party did have a little more support to win (he lost by a less than 2% percentage) because it would have really shaken the PAP. But he was also going against strong PAP members and I also think that people may question him because of his age (he’s 80!!!???) thus questioning his ability to govern at his old age. Yes I would say it is a possible concern to many but who is to say he is not capable of the role? He has built such a strong name for himself, which is admirable at his age. Another very admirable thing he did was saying if his party did not win but if one candidate is being offered a seat in parliament, he will not take it. So if you agree with what he says and want him to oppose PAP, it was either you vote for him and his whole team to all have seats in parliament, or you don’t get him at all. Like do or die. Definately a risky move, but just shows how much he cares for his whole team. Also, I’m sure they’d target him throughout so he would require his team for backup,otherwise another strong member shall be sent in his place, which I also think might be a good idea because TCB has had his run in parliament already and can serve as a very good advisor to his potential candidates. 

So coming back to my second point, which is regarding PAP. Ahhhh, so much could be said about PAP. long story short, their feathers were definately ruffled and could have acted with a little more grace. Yes they do handle certain areas well, for example, my GRC, Marine Parade. Formerly run by senior minister Goh Chock Tong, it was always a sure win for PAP. But then watching the results I realised many people were unhappy. Why? Was PAP not handling their area well? Possibly. Handling Marine Parade is a little tricky as well. An area with such rich history and culture that represent Singapore, is the home to many affluent Singaporeans. The area is decked with endless landed homes and condos as compared to HDBs. Well known government and Catholic schools, and our very own East Coast beach. Now for Marine Parade, I realised there are a few types of residents who voted the way they did.

1) Genuine support for PAP, usually the older generation who have only known the ways of PAP all their life, through independance of Singapore till now. 

2)Genuine support for Worker’s Party, people who possibly root for the underdogs. 

3)People who want to see change and have an impact but were not convinced by the Worker’s Party candidates and their lack of experience, hence voting for PAP as the safer option to maintain our area, which has done pretty well till now.

4)People who could not be bothered and just vote for PAP because that’s how it’s always been and  would rather stick to that and be ignorant. 

So basically going back to PAP, yes they have the experience and the knowledge to run the country. But what about a lot of underlying problems that have surfaced during this elections? Racism, social class, education opportunities, elderly healthcare? Are they really considering all these factors too? That’s when the opposition comes in plays their part. To really represent the people. I’m not saying that they don’t know how to do their job, they most certainly do. And over the years they’ve had some great and highly respected ministers who have made a huge impact in their respective fields.im just saying that times are changing and the younger generation is getting more involved and PAP isn’t getting any younger.

I don’t wanna make this any longer so I’m gonna shorten my third and most important view personally.

SPEAK GOOD ENGLISH!!!!!

How do you expect to be the ‘voice of the people’ if you can’t speak proper English? The way we articulate things, being our points across, never underestimate the importance of this! How are you going to be credible to your people if you can’t speak well with confidence and passion? Listening to some of the broadcasts made me crazy because many opposition members could not speak well and spent most of their argument blaming the PAP!! Where is your point? Where is your class? You wanna argue with PAP and with your very own prime minster, then at least try to do so with some elegance. This is our prime minister after all, not some hawker uncle. If you wanna talk about these issues, he could very well devour all of you single handedly. If you want to state your cause or your unhappiness, do so smartly and in a way people will listen, not just empty words spewing out in anger.

Looking at the better speakers this year such as everyone’s new favourite person, Jamus Lim ; Raeesah Khan, He Ting Ru, Pritam Singh, Nicole Seah, Sylvia Lim and also Tan Cheng Bock of the opppsition and then Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, Tharman Shamugaratnam, and a couple other more. I have much respect for you all to be able to speak the way you do and it’s people like you who give me hope for the betterment of the country.

So to end off, I mostly just wanted to share a snippets of my thoughts. I did my research during the elections and went from knowing nothing to being able to have proper conversations about this. Why? Because I felt stupid for not knowing what was going on and seeing many others my age ranting online and having full on discussions about all this and I tried so hard to understand what was going on. Everyone seemed to know what was happening and I thought to myself, why is it I don’t understand? Do I not care or do I just not know? I am a person who doesn’t like being in the middle of controversy and arguments and will gladly silently back out just so I can avoid the hooha. And I did this time round too but I also just wanted to educate myself a little more so that I could form my own opinions and not blindly follow what others say. Yes I respect PAP for building this country from the ground up. But I also respect the oppositions, mainly the few teams from workers party who have made a very strong impression.

Change is inevitable. And this year’s election is the turning point.

And with that, I end off. If you read through all this, congratulations, this was long but it was what sparked me to write after quite a while. I am just a simple girl with simple views but nonetheless views that matter and it’s about damn time I speak up a little more. I may be young and dumb and slightly carefree or ignorant about certain things, but that doesn’t mean I am not smart about certain things or am not capable of having mature conversations. I am and I don’t want that to be overlooked at times.

[gracebolton]

The Australian Greens – Election 2016

The Australian Federal Election has been called for the first weekend in July. Like all these political things, its bloody hard to escape. The big parties are making the usual noises, but could The Australian Greens sneak up on them with a solar-powered stick?

One Bloke’s Perspective

I’ve don’t consider myself politically active. No time for student politics when you’re drinking at University. No set opinions on voting, except maybe putting the hard line religious parties dead last on any ballot paper, if they dare to show up in my electorate. Separation of church and state!

A firm belief that politicians get paid too much. That’s a point on which I’ve had many arguments. Australian politicians are among the best paid in the world, and have some ridiculously good retirement benefits.

Look, I’m quite sure parts of being a Member of Parliament suck, but there are parts of every job that suck. For that kind of money ($195K base + extras) I could put up with some crap – I already do for much less!

So I’ll stick my hand up and say that I’m opinionated, and probably naive in terms of deeper politics. But, as with art, I know what I like.

Australian Political Landscape

It has always seemed, to me at least, that the great irony of the political system in Australia is compulsory voting in a nation where, on average, people could care less about politics.

Yep, that’s right: you need to register to vote once you hit 18, and you can get fined if you don’t vote at either State or Federal level.

How I see two-party politics…

Oh sure, there are some dyed-in-the-wool supporters, who will unleash spittle at a rate of knots in support of their party. I’ve seen people nearly come to blows on election day; old dudes who look ready to go into cardiac arrest at a moment’s notice.

If you want a rundown on the major Australian political parties, go have a read here: the Liberal Party (conservatives) are in a Coalition with National Party (farmers) to form our present Federal Government. While they have their own little internal horse trading, the Coalition, as they are known, are fairly solid when it comes to opposing stuff from the other side, and pushing economic liberalism.

At the moment, the other side are the Australian Labor Party (progressives). In a similar vein to their opponents, they love nothing more than saying “Those guys bad! We good! Vote Us!” but politically are all about social democracy.

The fanatics of either side probably think everything is great when their lot are in power, and rubbish when they’re in opposition.

There other other parties, the most prominent of which is The Australian Greens (progressive environmentalists). However, they only hold a small number of seats, and along with some independents and minor parties, form the “conscience” of the Australian people on certain issues.

The influence of the Australian Greens is obviously limited in the bigger picture, but occasionally they’ll hold the balance of power in either house (upper house = Senate; lower house = House of Representatives) on specific issues, often forming a voting bloc with independents who haven’t already done a deal with a big party.

When you live on a continent with this much good weather, natural beauty, quality beer, and generally high standard of living, it doesn’t really seem to matter. Most people I know are of the belief that, regardless of who wins, there will be pros and cons, and its not worth getting worked up about.

The majority of Australians probably fit in the middle of politics, and will vote based on their conscience, guided in some cases by the media (who have their own agenda).

Combined with compulsory voting, and a hyped up news cycle feeding on social media, it makes Australia an interesting political minefield. This has resulted in some states recently suffering single-term governments for the first time in decades, as one notable fact.

It seems that people are just willing to throw out whoever is in power; parties don’t win elections, they lose them.

In turn, the major party politicians constantly play he-said/she-said in terms of trying to score points. Its quite tiresome when there are more important issues to address – things that affect all of us, and are largely being ignored.

The Biggest Issue

Across the world at the moment, the threats posed by environmental destruction, and ongoing threat of man-made global warming, are going to affect us all.

It is right there. People know it is right there. If you’ve been paying attention in the last 10 years, you know there is a lot of rubbish talked about how its not right there. It is one of those things that some people see as a threat to their way of life, or some kind of charlatan’s trick to cripple the economy, so they work to undermine it.

In Australia, we have such a very large investment in coal, across all of mining, export, and thermal power generation. There is even a campaign called “little black rock”, which I will not dignify with a link, which seeks to tell people how releasing carbon is awesome.

Australia has an abundance of bright sun and strong wind, as well as the emerging wave power we can generate. We have the highest level of rooftop solar PV penetration at around 1.5 million households. We have some of the best researchers in the world on Solar PV, and lots of space to build the necessary infrastructure, both domestic and industrial.

Renewable Energy – Why So Negative?

The Coalition government are definitely not keen on it. Under their leadership we’ve had wind farms called “visually awful” and cited other impacts, all of which have been long held in contempt by science.

One of my favourites – click image for story @ Independent Australia

They reduced the RET (Renewable Energy Target) and have had an ongoing campaign against change in the status quo, in order to protect their conservative interests in mining and export markets.

They have run the clippers over our peak scientific body, the CSIRO, valued here and internationally for scientific research and technology development. The move is ostensibly to move from “analysis” to “adaptation” of climate change, but when you look at the CV of their CEO, and hear some of the comments about his time in Silicon Valley, you have to wonder.

It won’t surprise anyone to note that the coal and energy lobbies pour money into the Liberal Party like water.

The opposition Labor Party (yes, that is the correct spelling) have also got a quandary on their hands, particularly as they seek to protect their traditional battleground of workers’ rights and family issues. They can’t simply shut coal off tomorrow, because it would leave a hell of a lot of wreckage on the social landscape of towns supported by coal.

Nevertheless, they have announced some targets, which are nice, but really could be more ambitious. Labor have strong ties to Unions, and the CFMEU (Construction Forestry Mining Energy Union) are a big player.

The gradual decline of mining has seen job cuts aplenty, and IMHO Labor need to work harder to convince people in the Unions that Australia can pivot into renewable energy.

Ironically, both the major political players are running the dusty political principles of “jobs and growth”, but aren’t really putting up alternatives to the status quo, despite Australia’s recent exit from manufacturing and the ongoing slide in the mining sector.

There is also a genuine fear of fundamental change, in part due to the historical allegiances the big parties have, and the unknown quantity of renewable energy in a nation historically riding on coal. The latter is understandable, as mining is what kept Australia bouyant during the GFC.

But, we’re at record low interest rates. Record high housing prices. Coal prices are falling, mining is shrinking. This isn’t 2008 any more and the government can’t just muddle through on the back of the mining giants.

Where is the next big wave coming from? When all signs point to a new revolution, neither of the big parties have used renewable energy as a pillar in this campaign, both as an environmental and economic winner.

The Australian Greens – The Little Engine That Might

At present, The Greens are under the leadership of Richard Di Natale, who has brought a kind of pragmatism from his Senate position in Victoria.

© The Australian Greens

It is unlikely they’ll win many seats, but the growing youth vote has seen them take several inner-city enclaves away from the big boys in the recent past at State and Federal level.

Along with disillusionment with the major parties, forthright leadership from Di Natale will assist the Greens wrest more of the vote away from the majors in years to come. Is this a good thing?

Perhaps, if for no other reason than getting the incumbents to change their thinking. More promising is the option to add a third voice to the decidedly binary view of Australian politics.

This change in rhetoric from the Australian Greens also dispels the myth that they are just a bunch of left-wing loonies, ready to bring down society and take us all back to peace-loving hippies with unrealistic expectations of love and peace. And kale … or something.

Renew Australia

Subtitled “Powering The New Economy”, the Australian Greens have released a document (PDF downloadable from that page), where they lay down the high-level principles behind fundamentally changing the energy economy, and several industries along with it.

Its worth a read, if for no other reason than to show that somebody is thinking about “jobs and growth” in terms that require a bit of a paradigm shift. The summary points are:

Ensure increases in energy efficiency

Get energy generation to 90% renewable by 2030

Establish a new authority to plan and drive the transition

Create a transition fund to assist coal workers and communities

Implement pollution standards to stage a gradual shut down of coal power stations in a suitable manner (dirtiest first)

All of these seem to be pretty reasonable, though I don’t doubt when some people read that – particularly those in the coal/energy industry – they’ll freak out a bit. And that’s OK, because change blows. We fear change.

The good news is, the Greens have released more detail about the transition process as it affects miners directly, as well as some dialogue on other policies via their website. Recognition of the issues facing people is not unexpected, as The Greens have a heavy emphasis on social equality.

Perhaps people still have this image of “Greenie” protesters who get all angry about people chopping down forests, or chaining themselves to mining equipment. Successive Greens administration have started to develop a more sophisticated approach to politicking, and it appears to be having an effect.

When I started this article, I’d planned a breakdown of the policy and the pros and cons of each bit. That would take a lot of words, and probably be a waste of time when you’re smart enough to figure out what the policy is about, by reading it yourself. So I’ll just look at one of the points above from a perspective close to my heart.

Energy Efficiency

When looking at how efficient the average Australian house is, people in Europe would be mildly shocked. The reasons why are probably more eye-opening, in terms of our building industry hitting the trough, and hard.

Overseas building industries started their push for better quality and efficiency decades ago. In Australia, labour costs are high and house prices surging, so adding extra cost is tough to accept. Consumer apathy is also a big factor, when you’ve got relatively cheap, abundant coal energy.

“Just turn on the Air Con!” is a pretty common statement. I’ve previously discussed the issues in my own house with ducted A/C (and associated muttering).

As a result, a lot of new housing in the last two decades is single-brick house with minimum ceiling insulation in the form of glasswool batts. If you wanted wall insulation, you’d pay extra in your new build in a lot of cases. Some didn’t even offer it, and I understand its extremely difficult to retrofit (i.e. ripping out internal walls)

We generally don’t do double/triple glazing, and just stick big reverse cycle air conditioners into new builds to cater for hot/cold days. No wonder we’re big electricity consumers!

People living in older weatherboard houses might as well be in a wooden tent. The farmhouse I grew up in had louvered windows and a big pitched roof, and yet somehow we got away without air conditioning in summer, and just a potbellied stove or combustion fire for winter.

Cold in Sydney right now – could really use one of these. AND, of course, the wine…

The great thing about seeking better efficiency, besides the obvious saving on heating/cooling requirements for the household, is the boost to the building industry in terms of jobs and growth (are you listening, major parties?). It also adds a layer of new requirements for retrofit options.

As new procedures and technologies are brought to bear, new opportunities crop up to establish service industries. This is especially important for people who might have skilled up in the practical arts of mining, and find themselves at a loose end.

A lot of people who went into mining got the training they needed, and can re-train to do something different in the building industry. Same for people no longer in car manufacturing after 2017. They’re smart people, and know the value of hard work. They need employment.

Better building practices can limit the upward growth of energy usage, as well as using the energy more intelligently. Along with home battery storage installed by companies like Natural Solar, smart control from Reposit Power, and better knowledge about how we use power, we can help limit the impact of change and minimise long-term costs.

The End Game for Coal

The Greens have put a shorter time limit on coal than the other political parties in Australia, recognising that this country has abundant natural resources for renewable energy generation.

They also acknowledge the practicalities of shutting down coal, and the social and financial cost in doing so.

However, their target of 90% renewables by 2030 leaves less than 15 years. In a political arena where The Greens won’t have the traction in Parliament to implement this kind of policy for at least the this Federal election, and probably the one after, you have to wonder where the impetus will come from.

With the falling price of solar PV, as well as the emergence of battery storage and the expected price drops there, I suspect we’ll see consumers have a big say in where the energy industry goes. The acceleration of uptake into battery storage, in particular, will force a rethink on network deployment and maintenance.

As I discussed in my last post, the Networks are interested in deeper consumer understanding.  They realise that working with the consumer on grid-connected battery storage is preferable to alienating them into off-grid battery storage.

The increase in domestic renewable generation will have a knock-on effect to the domestic coal market for power generation.

External forces like the falling world coal price will apply pressure from the other end. Mining for coal will come under serious pressure, particularly if it requires more generous subsidies from the taxpayer.

We have existing oversupply on our current networks, which presents the opportunity to shut down the dirtiest power stations (looking at you, Hazelwood) in the shorter term.

The white knight for mining companies could be other resources, such as Lithium. The demand for lithium will only increase over the shorter term, as battery factories (like $11B facility planned by Volkswagen) ramp up production.

It almost seems like closing the circle: moving energy away from coal requires more lithium, which allows mining to move away from coal into lithium.

Or is that too good to be true?

I think  even with these factors considered, we’re still going to need one of the major parties to help the Greens get this type of initiative across the line before 2030. I wouldn’t be putting money on the incumbent Government to help if they get back in.

After all, you can’t spell Coalition without “Coal”.

from https://www.sustainablefuturegroup.com.au/48/the-australian-greens-election-2016/ from https://sustainablfutg.tumblr.com/post/627957773469204480 from https://gracebolton.blogspot.com/2020/08/the-australian-greens-election-2016.html

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

sarahf (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): In his first prime-time address to the nation, President Trump told Americans on Tuesday night that the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs across the U.S.-Mexico border was a crisis. He did not declare a national emergency to secure funding for his proposed border wall, but he did suggest that he wouldn’t end the partial government shutdown until funding for the wall was approved.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer made it clear in their rebuttal that congressional Democrats were not prepared to give Trump what he’s asking for. Congressional leaders from both parties are scheduled to meet with Trump today, but at this stage, it doesn’t seem as though the government will reopen anytime soon.

So, I’m curious, where do we go from here? We seem to be at an impasse. And the stakes are such that neither party can back down. Is that accurate? What would happen if one party compromised? And Is there a way out of the shutdown that doesn’t require either party to compromise?

clare.malone (Clare Malone, senior political writer): Can we start by talking about the television theater of the absurd on Tuesday night?

I thought it was a wildly useless exercise by both the president and the congressional leaders.

It was like a public declaration of impasse.

nrakich (Nathaniel Rakich, elections analyst): I agree, Clare. In general, research has shown that Oval Office speeches and the like don’t really change minds. Reportedly, even Trump was skeptical that the speech would make a difference!

sarahf: It certainly was a departure from how previous presidents have used an address from the Oval Office. But it wasn’t clear to me who exactly Trump was trying to reach?

clare.malone: The public nature of it did, as you say, up the stakes for backing down. And maybe that was the point from Trump’s/the White House’s end?

It almost felt like he was just trying to remind everyone in America that there’s a shutdown and that the White House and Congress are having a slap fight.

perry (Perry Bacon Jr., senior writer): It felt like Trump was making a kind of Hail Mary. A majority of the public (51 percent) think the president deserves most of the blame for the partial shutdown, according to a Reuters-Ipsos poll that was released Tuesday. But some Republican senators are balking at Trump’s strategy. That said, an address from the Oval Office is a card he can play that no one else can. But, yes, it was unlikely to work — presidential addresses don’t generally change minds, as Nathaniel noted. Plus, opinions on immigration are pretty entrenched, and Trump is fairly unpopular.

clare.malone: One thing that struck me was how much Trump’s speech echoed both his inaugural address (“American carnage”) and his campaign announcement back in 2015.

He talked about rapists and murderers, but from the Oval Office. It was fascinating from a historical perspective, I guess. The usurpation of a formula, that formula being the dignified, seemingly apolitical Oval Office address.

perry: This take from Vox’s Dara Lind hits on that theme, too. The headline of her piece is: “‘Immigrants are coming over the border to kill you’ is the only speech Trump knows how to give.”

sarahf: There’s this idea floating around that one purpose of last night’s address was to convince Americans that there is a crisis at its southern border. How could we measure if Trump succeeded in convincing Americans that was true?

perry: I tend to be skeptical of the kind of insider, access-based reporting through which we learned that Trump didn’t want to give the speech. Yes, I’m sure Trump said this, but it’s not like someone made him give the address. He is the president.

clare.malone: It was definitely meant to bring the crisis to Americans’ living rooms. But it seems like a move that doesn’t come from a position of strength. It feels more like a last ditch move of negotiation — a high-profile attempt to shift blame.

Not sure that will work …

nrakich: Yeah, the calm demeanor (unusual for Trump) plus the inflammatory words was a weird juxtaposition.

perry: My guess is that Trump will increase the number of Republicans who say we have an immigration crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border. That number is 72 percent, according to the latest Morning Consult poll. I could see that becoming 80 percent or 90 percent. But I doubt that he moved anyone else.

sarahf: So there was talk ahead of the address that Trump would use it to declare a national emergency to go around Congress and move ahead on building the wall. But that didn’t happen. Why?

Do we think it might still happen?

clare.malone: That’s an interesting question. It feels like a Rubicon to cross.

nrakich: White House press secretary Sarah Sanders says it’s still on the table:

"It's something we're still looking at," says @PressSec of declaring a "national emergency" at the border. "It's something that's certainly still on the table," she says at WH driveway gaggle. But says "best solution" is a deal with Congress to fund border security. pic.twitter.com/5SIPRmMyA5

— Mark Knoller (@markknoller) January 9, 2019

perry: I really think that’s still on the table. The move is legally questionable. There would be lawsuits. It would be seen as another violation of norms by Trump — inflating an emergency to get done what he can’t get done through Congress. But it’s also the easiest way out of this mess for Trump. Democratic lawmakers are very opposed to the wall, and some Republicans in Congress are not that excited about it either. Trump needs a way out of the shutdown without losing the fight, and declaring an emergency might be the cleanest approach. Yet, it’s also not clean at all, of course.

nrakich: Yeah, Jim Acosta of CNN tweeted that Trump has been seeking advice on it but is hearing that it would be on shaky legal ground.

clare.malone: Once again, the Trump era is a great era for lawyers’ billable hours.

nrakich: Question for you, Perry: Is there any way that this ends with Congress overriding a Trump veto on a funding bill?

It feels like there would be enough Republicans who don’t care about the wall to get to two-thirds of each chamber. We’re already seeing members who are up for re-election in 2020, like Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, backing away from the wall and calling for an end to the shutdown.

sarahf: GOP Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Cory Gardner of Colorado have called for an end to the shutdown, too.

perry: I really don’t see that. I don’t think we are in a place yet where Republican senators or House members will buck Trump like that. It’s more likely that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell passes a bill that has, say, $4 billion in border security funding, including $750 million or so for the wall. Maybe that can pass the House and Trump can sign it.

I think McConnell is a potentially big player here. A bipartisan bill passed in the Senate (and it must have 60 votes to pass the Senate, so it would have to be bipartisan) complicates the strategy for both Pelosi and Trump I think.

nrakich: Yeah, it’s almost always the president who “wins” in a government shutdown. Or at least this has been the case in previous shutdowns, but most of those times, presidents won only by making some sort of concession to their congressional agitators.

sarahf: We’ve also written that government shutdowns don’t typically have lasting negative repercussions for the party considered “responsible.” I do wonder, though, whether that could change in this situation, because the fight is over immigration, which is an issue that has become deeply symbolic for both parties — build the wall, don’t build the wall.

To some extent, doesn’t what’s happening now force Democrats to talk about immigration in 2020?

perry: I don’t think anyone will remember this shutdown by the time people are voting next, which is in almost two years, so I’m skeptical that this has much real electoral impact.

nrakich: I’m open to arguments that the political fallout from a record-long shutdown will also last a record-long amount of time, but, yeah, I agree with Perry — not two years.

clare.malone: I think it’s certainly a gauntlet being laid at the beginning of divided government in Washington, as they say.

It’s tone-setting, from both sides.

sarahf: Tell me more, Clare.

clare.malone: I think that neither side wants to lose face right now with their base. Trump obviously reverts to wall talk, but Schumer and Pelosi would be pilloried if they immediately conceded. So they are demonstrating that they now have a foothold of power in government.

It marks an obvious change in tone from the past couple of years. They’re on the offensive a bit more.

perry: Yeah, one unique aspect of this shutdown is that the Democrats now have a “don’t compromise wing,” too. In previous shutdowns, it was the GOP that had to deal with talk radio and Fox News telling them to fight. But now Democrats have groups like Indivisible that will attack Pelosi and Schumer pretty aggressively if they offer wall funding to Trump.

clare.malone: Everyone’s feisty right now.

sarahf: That’s what’s so interesting about this — to some extent, both parties want border security. Democrats were willing to pass $1.3 billion in funding, but because of Trump’s focus on the wall, it has taken on a life of its own that doesn’t leave much room for compromise.

I don’t see how this ends without one of the parties getting egg on their face.

perry: Yeah, if the wall is a monument to Trump or racism or both, as it’s becoming defined on the left, it’s difficult to see a situation where there’s support to give even $1 for it.

sarahf: What are some ways the shutdown impasse could end? Because it has to end relatively soon, right?

perry: I’m not sure it has to end quickly.

I do think that’s one advantage for Trump, in fact. It seems like he thrives on disruption. He doesn’t want to lose, and he views compromise as a sign of weakness. He also thinks federal workers are basically all Democrats, which is wrong. But the fact that he has said that gives you some sense of how Trump views those affected by the shutdown.

But Democrats are the party that tends to be more pro-government, and while I can’t prove this, I suspect that congressional Democrats are uncomfortable with shutdowns in general. So I don’t know how long they can sustain this shutdown posture.

clare.malone: If this shutdown continues, I’m curious about whether the plight of low-wage federal workers will become a real headline and perhaps a motivating facet of public opinion.

That might not happen, but for some people who have low-paying government jobs, this is a devastating few weeks.

nrakich: Apparently there has been a spike in TSA workers (who are about to miss a paycheck) calling in sick.

If there’s a perception that airport security is compromised, or if we start to see serious delays at airports because of understaffing, that could end this thing quick.

clare.malone: Blue flu

perry: How the shutdown could end: 1) Trump folds, and a bill passes with more border security money but no wall funding. 2) Trump declares a national emergency, which he uses for wall funding, and a government funding bill passes without any wall funding. 3) McConnell figures out some kind of compromise bill, it passes the Senate and both Pelosi and Trump accept. I’m assuming Nos. 2 and 3 are more likely than No. 1, but who knows?

clare.malone: Can I make some facile analysis?

I think Trump would want to declare a national emergency more than he’d want McConnell to figure out a compromise. It’s the option with more “boom” to it.

perry: That seems right to me and not facile at all.

clare.malone: Boom. Boom. (Shout-out to Nate Silver’s college band.)

perry: Liberal groups will say an emergency declaration is a breach of power. Trump keeps losing in court — and I think he might lose here, too, although courts do often give deference to a president citing national security as a rationale for his actions. Remember, the Supreme Court upheld the administration’s travel ban.

clare.malone: Yeaahhhh.

Conservative judges do seem aware of preserving executive powers in real ways.

But I have no legal expertise to say whether an emergency declaration would be a bridge too far, even for the executive power people.

sarahf: To Perry’s point on how this government shutdown might end — I’m not sure how something like option No. 3, in which the parties reach a compromise, pans out. I don’t see a clear path for either party to negotiate, and I’m not sure how this will play out in the court of public opinion.

Up until this point, the American public has largely blamed Trump for the government shutdown, but I do wonder as it drags on how public opinion will shift.

nrakich: More Americans are coming to see the shutdown as a “very serious” problem, according to HuffPost polling.

But I still agree with what was said above: that the shutdown’s effect on public opinion will wear off eventually, as has happened with past shutdowns.

perry: I don’t think public opinion will shift at all. Most people will blame Trump, but that will be Democrats and independents. Republican voters overall will remain committed to the wall. I think the questions are: How long will Republicans in Congress sustain the strategy of shutting down the government over a border wall? And what strategies will they develop to end the shutdown that Trump will accept?

That’s the interesting thing here: Republicans in Congress don’t really care about the wall — if they did, I think they would have pushed really hard to pass it when they had control of Congress in 2017 and 2018. But I think they do care about preserving their relationship with Trump.

sarahf: It’ll be interesting to see how it plays out, as I don’t think the issue of immigration is going anywhere anytime soon.

[rebeccahpedersen]

Will The 2019 Federal Election Be All About Housing?

TorontoRealtyBlog

Remember that infamous list of the three things you don’t talk about at a proverbial dinner party?

Politics, religion, and money.

Wow, that’s, like, soooooo 1988.

If we had more time, maybe we could add to the list, or at the very least update it for 2018.  Mind you, that list could be depressing, as I really, truly think it would comprise every single topic on the planet, one of which is sure to offend somebody.

So long as we’re banning clapping in university, to avoid causing students anxiety, I think we’re going the way of bubble-wrapping ourselves, and plugging our ears every morning.

But your average TRB reader doesn’t offend so easily, right?

So we can still talk politics on this forum?

As you all know, I’m a die-hard NDP supporter.

Wait, sorry, that was incorrect.

I’m a supporter of Die Hard.

But only Part 1 and Part 2.  I give Die Hard With A Vengeance a pass, but the ones thereafter were just awful.

I’m also a die-hard breaker of the rules when it comes to talking politics, and since your average TRB reader is equally likely to support Liberal, Conservative, or NDP, I’m always bound to have a few detractors.

I have mentioned on multiple occasions that I thought the 2018 Ontario Provincial election was simply a contest to see who could promise to give away the most stuff, for free, between the Liberals and the NDP.  The NDP used to be the “leftist” party, but when the Liberals began to give away free stuff like they didn’t have a $15 Billion deficit hidden by creative accounting practices, the NDP said, “Oh you think that is how you give stuff away?  Just watch…”

A few readers politely pointed out that the Conservatives made many promises of their own, and whether you’re spending, or making cuts, it’s going to cost the taxpayer in one way or another.  Totally fair, and totally true.  All three parties focused more on giving people stuff and things, rather than explaining how they would lead the population forward.

Oh, voting!  What’s the point?  It’s only one vote.  Show me a single election that’s ever been decided by one vote.  And don’t mention the movie, “Election” where Tracey Flick beats Paul Metzler by one vote, because that’s a movie.  And because the guy who played Ferris Bueller rigged the election so Reese Witherspoon would lose, but we can discuss this later…

The 2019 Federal election is bound to be one for the ages, and there are reasons a plenty for this.

For starters, Justin Trudeau has had his ups and downs over the last three years, and has been, at times, the most popular Prime Minister in decades, but also the most laughed-at.  He could win in a landslide, or fall on his face as his opponents look to exploit his gaffes during his tenure.

Maxime Bernier killed all the momentum that Conservatives had built up, when he decided to start his own, and soon to fail party, which will take precious votes away from the Conservatives, and simply dump them in the Ottawa River.

And oh yeah – for the first time EVER, millennials will represent the highest proportion of voters.

All of a sudden, the first two reasons don’t even seem to matter.

Millennials will decide this election, isn’t that something?

You senior citizens must be shaking your canes in an angry fashion right now, ready to throw your VHS collections of M*A*S*H through the pigeon-proofing on the window, and out into your extremely well-manicured lawns.

The thought of millennials riding their Segways into voting booths while live-streaming their “pick” on InstaFaceChat, stopping periodically to look at photos of their friends’ lunches on social media, is hard to stomach for many of us, whose stomachs aren’t filled with Avacado Toast.

But like it or not, millennials will decide the next election, statistically-speaking.

And what, aside from donating money to Kylie Jenner to ensure she can join the billionaire club, are millennials primarily concerned with in 2018?

Housing.

Housing, Housing, Housing.  I really do expect this to be a major theme in the upcoming election, and if it’s not one that voters want to raise, I still see politicians using it as a springboard.

Crime is a boring story, and even those who read about it, don’t feel “affected” by it.

The economy sounds interesting in theory, but again, you have to give a you-know-what to really dig deep enough to see how it matters to you.

Jobs?  Meh.  Let’s just typecast and say that those people who don’t have one, don’t vote.

Climate change?  Let’s get real.  Canada is responsible for, what, like 2% of world greenhouse emissions?  Psssh!

Electoral reform?  What is that, anyways?

I could go on, and on, and be equally as sarcastic.

But on a truly serious note, I believe, with all my heart, that the election issues that voters really take seriously are the ones that affect them the most.  Election promises that voters will benefit from, legislation that will help them, and any and all words coming out of a politician’s mouth that will have a tangible affect on one’s livelihood, will win votes in 2019.

During the early-going in this year’s Provincial election, I saw a comment on Facebook that said something to the extent of: “Free daycare?  OMG!  I mean, I don’t like the Liberals, hate them, in fact, but if this is really true, they’ve got my vote!  ‘You do you,’ ya know?”

That was the moment, folks.  One stupid comment on Facebook, from a person I don’t even know, brought me to a realization that I should have already come to sooner: people will always do what’s best for them.

As much as we should care about electoral reform, as concerned and involved as we should be regarding climate change, as passionate as we should be with immigration, or violent crime in poor neighbourhoods, we’re still going to look long and hard at election platforms that directly affect and benefit us.

The Canadian Real Estate Association recently hired Abacus Data to conduct a nation-wide survey of 2,500 people, all millennials, with respect to their feelings on all things related to housing.

The results were published on Monday, and you can read the whole article HERE.

The study is eye-opening, and I say that both as a voter, and as a real estate agent.

Take a look if you have time.  It’s a fast read, and you’ll thank me.

But if I could borrow a couple of their graphics (and I’m letting myself do so because of all the money I pay to CREA which goes to waste…), I think the points really drive themselves home.

First, consider what I said above – that the millennials will be the largest set of voters in the 2019 election:

Take that, Boomers!

God.  My poor mother, what must she be thinking?

The study goes on to look at just how much housing is an issue for millennials:

Now if I could be humble for a moment, let me be honest: there are several things on that list that I can’t imagine millennials calling a “top or very high priority.”  And not just millennials, to be fair, because this list is about millennials, but do 37% of people really care about trade relations?  Or are they just trying to sound smart?

But if 64% of millennials believe the federal government should prioritize housing affordability, as the top, or very high priority, what does that say about our three major political parties’ focus in the coming election?

Amazingly, affordable housing was the top result in all nine provinces that were part of the survey:

Just look at B.C. wow!

A whopping 80% of millennials would put housing at the top of the list?  I’d have suggested that the 67% in Ontario was a big number, but it’s absolutely dwarfed by B.C.

There are a slew of other graphics in the article, but the only other one worth exploring is this:

Note the fine print at the bottom – respondents were given options as to whether the factor was big, moderate, minor, or had no impact on affordability.

Interesting that downpayment was at the top of the list, since there’s a prevailing sentiment among the public that millennials are all rich kids getting money from their Baby Boomer parents to buy their first home.

Also interesting that 41% of Vancouver millennials still think “foreign buyers” are a very big factor.  I’d love to see what that percentage was in Toronto.

The idea that 33% of millennials believe “loan approval” is a very big factor shows me that a third of all millennials haven’t done their homework!  Pre-approvals are the easiest part of the home-buying process, and I rarely, if ever, come across a potential buyer that can’t get a mortgage.

I’m also not sure I understand “taxes/fees.”  Yes, the $4,000 in property taxes you pay per year sucks, but it’s not really a factor on its own, especially if “afford monthly payments” is another factor.

I could blame Abacus Data for these silly options, or blame the respondents for not really knowing what’s what.  Either way, I think the fact that “downpayments” and “affordable monthly payments” are at the top of the list are the major take-aways here.

Now as luck would have it, after I started writing this blog, yet another article with the same major theme hit the newswire:

“Poll: 94% of GTA Millennials Concerned They Won’t Be Able To Buy A Home”

This poll was conducted by Ipsos Reid, and commissioned by the Building Industry & Land Development Association, and the good ‘ole Toronto Real Estate Board.

Geez, what’s with organized real estate and polling millennials, eh?

Further 86% agreed with the statement that “it is important that young families can afford to live and work in the GTA without having to commute for more than an hour to get to their place of employment.”

And how about this great quote from the President of TREB, Garry Bhaura:

“The best public policy is proactive, not reactive. We hope these poll results demonstrate that the time for municipal decision-makers to start thinking about housing choice and supply for all GTA residents who want to own a home is now,”

Conspiracy theorists, put on your tinfoil hats!  CREA and TREB are lobbying government!

As for the millennials, relax, you got this.

Or should I say we got this?

I was born in 1980, after all…

The post Will The 2019 Federal Election Be All About Housing? appeared first on Toronto Realty Blog.

Originated from https://ift.tt/2xWIZyz

[deathbyzamboni-us-blog]

Hillary Clinton and Saturday Night Live in Trump’s America

             The 2016 Presidential Election was one of the most draining exercises in American history. With the 18 month build up that was exhausting it should have been foreseen that its culmination would be as equally shocking. The ramifications of this cycle will have consequences in the years to come. For me the reason why the whole cycle was depressing was due to the involvement of Donald J. Trump. I have always though the man to be a clown but coming to realization that he will be the next president is depressing. It is in dark times where I find humor to be the best coping mechanism and, when I saw that Dave Chappelle would be hosting Saturday Night Live I started to perk up. Due to it being a live weekly show they tend to stick to current events in their program so, naturally this episode would be dealing with the outcome of the presidential election. The sketches that most impacted me in this episode are Kate McKinnon’s performance of Leonard Coen’s “Hallelujah” and a skit depicting the night of the election.

           If you don’t know what Saturday Night Live is, I guess you haven’t owned a television for 40 years but, for the uninitiated, Saturday Night Live (SNL for short), is a television program that has be run on the NBC network since 1975. Created by Loren Michaels and originally conceived as a variety show, like The Ed Sullivan Show, it quickly became a live comedy sketch program with different musical guests and a different host every week. This change occurred in the first season and is pretty much what the show is today. In its 42nd season it doesn’t look like it’s getting canceled any time soon. Since the show relies on current events the three things you need to know understand content of the episode, 11/12/16, is as follows; Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 Presidential Election; Legendary Singer Songwriter Leonard Cohen passed away that week and comedian Dave Chappelle took on hosting duties.

           The 2016 Presidential election had Hillary Clinton as the Democratic party candidate and Donald J. Trump as the Republican Party candidate. Clinton who has been in the public eye as long as I can remember (I was born in 1989) has held many roles in public office such as the Senator of New York state and the Secretary of Defense and was the first lady to Bill Clinton. Hillary is a far from beloved figure and there are many reasons for this; it is perceived she plays to what people want instead of just being herself; there has been scandals that have follow the Clintons for years (Monica Lewinsky, The Clinton Foundation and, Sending Emails from a private server while she was Secretary of Defense); she is a woman of power which presents a threat to some men. Regardless how people feel about it her it can’t be taken away that she is one of the hardest working people on planet and that she was dying to become the President of The United States of America. Donald Trump on the other hand is a business man and reality star who rode a wave of racism, xenophobia and, crassness to claim the Republican nomination. This man, who many feel to be a clown, beat her out for the Job of Commander in Chief. This was heartbreaking and shocking for this man to beat her. It was predicted that she would win by a majority of news outlets but, he won in a stunning upset. That week people were still coming to terms with this.  Also, singer songwriter Leonard Cohen passed away who was a well-respected lyricist was a great loss to the intellectual community.

           Saturday Night Live opens their shows with a cold open. A cold open is an opening to a show or movie that takes place before the introduction credits. For this cold open they had SNL player Kate McKinnon dress up as Hillary Clinton. She wore a white pants suit and had the Hillary haircut, a layered blonde shag. She’s alone on a dark stage seated at a piano with the only light focused on her and the instrument. The clothes and hairstyle symbolize Clinton and the SNL writers want to present this performance as if she was actually talking to the audience. She proceeds to play Leonard Coen’s “Hallelujah”, the version that appeared on his record Various Positions. This is important to note because even though he wrote the song the most recognized version was performed by Jeff Buckley and it features different lyrics as result of Cohen inability to stop writing verses for the song. Buckley’s used versus that were appropriate for his record Grace. The mood during the song is somber and sad. This reflects Trump winning because it was a shocking and scary experience for the left minded people of the country. For he represents a win for and chaos. He never held a role in public office which was appealing to his base and scary for the rest of the country. A majority of the SNL staff and their audience is made up of the ladder part of the country so, this was a difficult week to get through.

           “Hallelujah” is used for three reasons; this is Leonard Cohen’s most famous song so this is a tribute to him; the third verse is exclusive to Coen’s 1985 version therefore is a bigger wink at him; this verse also better reflects Hillary Clinton’s futility in winning the election. This verse goes as follows, (I did my best, it wasn't much / I couldn't feel, so I tried to touch / I've told the truth, I didn't come to fool you / And even though it all went wrong / I'll stand before the Lord of Song / With nothing on my tongue but Hallelujah.) The first line is best taken literally when it comes to Clinton, she gave it her all but she still lost. The third line is ironic coming from a politician since the common public perception of the group is that they are all liars. I have always felt that this is an unfair standard to hold someone because all humans lie. When put in the context of her and Trump, she’s Honest Abe Lincoln and he’s Tricky Dick Nixon. Also, I feel that Donald Trump conned his way to the presidency by selling change to a section of the country that desperately wanted needs but, he won’t be able to deliver that, no one can. Meanwhile Hillary whether you liked her or not, she ran on telling the public what her policies were, she wasn’t trying to “fool us.” Finally, the last couple of lines is her acknowledgement of her failure but since the word hallelujah is used to cap this sentiment it feels that failure should be celebrated. hallelujah is normally used to recognize the presence of god and for people who are religious, god is the most meaningful being in existence and he is positive and enlightening. The word hallelujah is used to sum up this idea. With this song Cohen reappointed this celebratory term to recognize that negative feelings and experiences should be cherished because they make the good things in life more valuable in comparison. With every sunset into darkness there will be a sunrise to guide us back to the light which I find to be a hopeful sentiment. To emphasize this point to the audience Hillary, tells us at the end of the song, “I’m not giving up and neither should you.”

           The next sketch was also about the election but instead of going to dark to light this one goes light to dark but that doesn’t mean it can’t be funny. The host of this episode, Dave Chappelle, stars in this one with Chris Rock. Both men were the biggest African-American stand-up comics to come out of the latter half of the 90’s. The two have both based many jokes from the Black man’s struggle in America. Chappelle with the sketch in Chappelle’s Show, of the blind white-supremacist who is black and, Rock with his, “for white people the sky’s the limit and black people the limit is the sky” bit being famous examples. Besides Chappelle and Rock there are 4 other characters who are all white. One of them is a man and the other three being women. All these characters are in their 30-40’s and are economically well off representing this is the setting of an apartment in the city. The sketch depicts the characters watching the presidential election with time jumping forward to key points of the night. We know that they are snobby liberals because the characters refer to news organizations like the Huffington Post and Slate, both of which have a hard-liberal bias; they have Hillary Clinton signs; they are drinking wine instead of beer which is a “classier” type of alcohol to consume.

           All the white characters start off overly confident that Clinton will win with Dave warning them that, “don’t forget, it’s a big country.” He issues this warning because these city liberals live in an echo chamber of their own political beliefs. The part of the country that decided the election, Rural America, has no presence in the city so, people tend to be unaware and/or deny the other part of the country’s attitude. As the night progresses, it becomes more apparent that Trump will win the presidency, which causes the white people to panic. Before Trump wins the election, Chris Rock enters the sketch to support Black America’s feeling with Chappelle. The white people can’t fathom that Trump is going to win the election while Rock and Chappelle were fully aware of that possibility. The reason for this is the white people can’t believe that the American people would vote for someone who spouts racist rhetoric but the black men who deal with this kind of speech everyday are more keyed in to the racism in this country. The ultimate point of the sketch is to highlight people’s line of thinking when they live in a “bubble.” A bubble in this situation is to be surrounded by people and only digest information that serves your point of view without acknowledging other lines of thinking. Often most people in the country aren’t aware or don’t think about other perceptions that don’t align with their beliefs. This can be intentional and/or by accident but when your bubble is burst you can be in for a rude awakening. As Rock and Chappelle said Trump winning isn’t our country being set back but, rather liberals should be aware of the problems that still haunt their country. It will get better and we aren’t in a worse place now but, liberals now need to work harder for their causes. For now, the President is not on their side.          

[orbemnews]

As China Targets H&M and Nike, Local Brands See Their Chance Tim Min once drove BMWs. He considered buying a Tesla. Instead Mr. Min, the 33-year-old owner of a Beijing cosmetics start-up, bought an electric car made by a Chinese Tesla rival, Nio. He likes Nio’s interiors and voice control features better. He also considers himself a patriot. “I have a very strong inclination toward Chinese brands and very strong patriotic emotions,” he said. “I used to love Nike, too. Now I don’t see any reason for that. If there’s a good Chinese brand to replace Nike, I’ll be very happy to.” Western brands like H&M, Nike and Adidas have come under pressure in China for refusing to use cotton produced in the Xinjiang region, where the Chinese government has waged a broad campaign of repression against ethnic minorities. Shoppers vowed to boycott the brands. Celebrities dropped their endorsement deals. But foreign brands also face increasing pressure from a new breed of Chinese competitors making high-quality products and selling them through savvy marketing to an increasingly patriotic group of young people. There’s a term for it: “guochao,” or Chinese fad. HeyTea, a $2 billion milk tea start-up with 700 stores, wants to replace Starbucks. Yuanqisenlin, a four-year-old low-sugar drink company valued at $6 billion, wants to become China’s Coca-Cola. Ubras, a five-year-old company, wants to supplant Victoria’s Secret with the most non-Victoria’s Secret of products: unwired, sporty bras that emphasize comfort. The anger over Xinjiang cotton has given these Chinese brands another chance to win over consumers. As celebrities cut their ties to foreign brands, Li-Ning, a Chinese sportswear giant, announced that Xiao Zhan, a boy band member, would become its new global ambassador. Within 20 minutes, almost everything that Mr. Xiao wore on a Li-Ning advertisement had sold out online. A hashtag about the campaign was viewed more than one billion times. China is undergoing a consumer brand revolution. Its young generation is more nationalistic and actively looking for brands that can align with that confidently Chinese identity. Entrepreneurs are rushing to build up names and products that resonate. Investors are turning their attention to these start-ups amid dropping returns from technology and media ventures. When patriotism becomes a selling point, Western brands are put at a competitive disadvantage, especially in a country that increasingly requires global companies to toe the same political lines that Chinese firms must. China’s consumer protests are “a historic turning point and will have lasting impact on the Chinese consumers in the long run,” Mr. Min said. “The Chinese consumers don’t want to eat the same crap foreign brands have been feeding them. It’s essential that foreign brands respect Chinese consumers as much as the Chinese brands do.” Foreign brands are far from done in China. Its drivers helped power a jump in Tesla deliveries. IPhones remain immensely popular. Campaigns against foreign names have come and gone, and local brands that emphasize politics too much risk unwanted attention if the political winds shift quickly. Still, interest in local brands marks a significant shift. Post-Mao, the country made few consumer products. The first televisions that most families owned in the 1980s were from Japan. Pierre Cardin, the French designer, reintroduced fashion with his first show in Beijing in 1979, bringing color and flair to a nation that during the Cultural Revolution wore blue and gray. Chinese people born in the 1970s or earlier remember their first sip of Coco-Cola and their first bite of a Big Mac. We watched films from Hollywood, Japan and Hong Kong as much for the wardrobes and makeup as the plot. We rushed to buy Head & Shoulders shampoo because its Chinese name, Haifeisi, means “sea flying hair.” Today in Business Updated  April 5, 2021, 4:00 p.m. ET “We’ve gone through the European and American fad, the Japanese and Korean fad, the American streetwear fad, even the Hong Kong and Taiwan fad,” said Xun Shaohua, who founded a Shanghai sportswear company that competes with Vans and Converse. Now could be the time for the China fad. Chinese companies are making better products. China’s Generation Z, born between 1995 and 2009, doesn’t have the same attachment to foreign names. Even People’s Daily, the traditionally staid Communist Party official newspaper, is getting into branding. It started a streetwear collection with Li-Ning in 2019. That same year, it issued a report with Baidu, the Chinese search company, called “Guochao Pride Big Data.” They found that when people in China searched for brands, more than two-thirds were looking for domestic names, up from only about one-third 10 years earlier. As with so much in China, it can be hard to tell how much of the guochao movement involves politics. Building up homemade brands fits snugly with the Communist Party’s desire to make the country more self-reliant. Officials also want Chinese people to shop more: Household consumption makes up only about 40 percent of China’s economic output, much less than it does in the United States and Europe. Patriotism aside, entrepreneurs argue that their ventures rest on a solid business foundation. Similar trends happened in Japan and South Korea, both now home to strong brands. Local players better know the abilities of the country’s supply chains and how to use social media. Mr. Xun’s sports brand has half a million followers on Alibaba’s Taobao marketplace and sells at the same prices as Vans and Converse, or even slightly higher. He said his brand competed by making shoes that fit Chinese feet better and offering colors favored locally, such as mint green and fuchsia. He sells exclusively online and teams up with Chinese and foreign brands and personalities, including Pokeman and Hello Kitty. At 37, he’s the only person in his company who was born before 1990. The guochao fad has also reinvigorated older Chinese brands, like Li-Ning. For many years, sophisticated urbanites considered the brand, created by a former world champion gymnast of the same name, ugly and cheap. Its signature red-and-yellow color combination, after the Chinese flag, was mockingly called “eggs fried with tomato,” an everyday Chinese dish. Li-Ning was losing money. Its shares were on a losing streak. Then the company introduced a collection at New York Fashion Week in early 2018. Its edgy look, combined with bold Chinese characters and embroidery, created buzz back home. Its shares have risen nearly ninefold since then. Now Li-Ning’s high-end collections sell at $100 to $150 on average, on a par with those of Adidas. As ambitious as these businesspeople are, almost everyone I spoke to admitted that the Chinese brands still couldn’t compete with megabrands such as Coca-Cola and Nike. Alex Xie, a marketing consultant who works with companies in China, used the sportswear industry as an example. Nike holds a yearslong lead over Chinese brands in research and development. It enjoys a deep network of relationships in the sports world. It works closely with athletes to develop better shoes, sponsors many events and teams, including China’s national soccer, basketball, and track and field teams. “It simply has a much stickier relationship with its customers than any Chinese brand,” he said. But for these Western megabrands, the Xinjiang cotton dispute is a big challenge that could help their Chinese competitors. While previous outrage against Western brands such as the National Basketball Association and Dolce & Gabbana passed pretty quickly, this bout could linger, many people said. “In the past, some Western brands didn’t understand or failed to respect the Chinese culture mostly because of lack of understanding,” Mr. Xun said. “This time it’s a political issue. They have violated our political sensitivities.” Then, like any savvy Chinese entrepreneur who knows which topics are sensitive, he asked, “Could we not talk about politics?” Source link Orbem News #brands #Chance #China #local #Nike #targets