'Right to vote'

The pop singer, who Diddy had legal custody of at age 13, will speak at Harris’s rally

Donna Maddox took the ride of a lifetime at age 94, racing around the Michigan International Speedway in a Ferrari and hitting 150 miles per hour—proving it’s never to late to chase your dreams. A true daredevil at heart, she once pushed her Lincoln to 115 MPH. “My mother used to say I came into […] The post 94-Year-old Woman’s Ferrari Adventure Reaches 150 MPH: ‘If You’re Alive, Then LIVE!’ appeared first on Good News Network.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The Red Cross (ICRC) is the latest long-established and operating international organization of considerable repute, that has found itself enlisted to, essentially, help the biometrics data-reliant ID happen. Specifically, the Switzerland-based ICRC seems to have gotten involved in a scheme developed to such an end by Germany’s CISPA Helmholtz Center for Information Security, and also Switzerland-based Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (EPFL). The scheme is called the Janus system. While formally and generally working in any region affected by natural or human-created disasters – helping refugees, casualties, the issue of missing or displaced persons – the ICRC is mandated first and foremost by the 1949 Geneva Convention. But the times have in the meantime clearly changed quite considerably – and now there’s the initiative to “hoover up” ICRC’s many decades of experience, and repute, into a “new reality.” Such as creating new tools “aimed at verifying the identities of humanitarian aid recipients.” And once again, the focus is on developing nations. This time – not entirely unlike the stated rationale behind recent UK’s recent mass surveillance effort under the guise of fighting tax money fraud – the focus is supposedly to make sure that those caught up in humanitarian crises areas do not submit “multiple registrations.” It’s either to make sure humanitarian aid gets to as many people as possible – or, a handy opportunity to present this problem as one without a solution, other than drastic things like biometric data getting introduced into the mix. There has now been a disturbingly high number of instances of Western-based and/or majority-funded organizations, formal (like the UN), or informal but powerful ones, “testing abroad” the tech that they know would face serious and strong opposition at home. And that’s in countries and societies where the dangers to privacy and security are either not well-advocated or are simply voided by the everyday bare necessity to survive. Biometric data harvesting, retention, usage, and (ab)use fall in this category, and as much as civil rights organizations in developed countries are to be praised for the work they do or attempt to do at home, it should be said that the “backdoor experiments” taking place in poorer countries not getting enough spotlight is something these groups definitely need to work on. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Biometric and Digital ID in Crisis Zones: Is the Red Cross Paving the Way for a Privacy Nightmare? appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. UK’s Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology Peter Kyle has written to the country’s media and telecommunications regulator Ofcom, asking it to implement what he said are “key components” of the Online Safety Act. These components of the legislation – also known as the UK’s online censorship law – will come into effect by the end of 2024, Kyle noted in his letter to Ofcom Chief Executive Melanie Dawes. Kyle urged Ofcom to implement these rules as a matter of urgency – Dawes is reminded that the government views this as “incredibly important” and something that needs to be implemented “as soon as possible” by the regulator. The letter also reveals that these officials already had meetings dedicated to the issue – a “discussion” that Kyle said he wants to continue in order to see how the government can “support Ofcom in delivering on this ambition.” The need for this to happen is explained by the secretary of state as necessary in making sure that services covered by Ofcom are held responsible for delivering “products safe for their users.” Kyle cites illegal harms and child safety codes as more “protections” that will be finalized next year, which include age verification (“age-checks”). Internet users, and children in particular, will then, according to Kyle, be protected from a flurry of horrors: he mentions suicide, self-harm, pornography, terrorism, “hate speech,” misogyny, and harassment. Other than age verification, this is to be achieved by forcing platforms to “quickly take down” content the codes treat as harmful. Kyle then goes into the UK’s summer riots in order to press Ofcom regarding the possibility of the agency introducing additional censorship measures to combat the spread of “misinformation.” Dawes is asked whether Ofcom is now considering new “targeted measures” that can be included in the next version of the illegal harms code. The UK government continues to put the emphasis on the spread of “disinformation” as the key problem behind the riots, and Ofcom is now quizzed by Kyle regarding its assessment “about how illegal content, particularly disinformation, spread during the period of disorder.” Another thing Kyle considers to be very important is the Advisory Committee on Disinformation and Misinformation, a body Ofcom is setting up under the Online Safety Act rules. And the secretary of state is “looking forward” to learning how this is proceeding – “and what its key areas of focus are likely to be following the events of this summer.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post UK Tightens Grip on Internet Speech with Push for Swift Online Speech Crackdown appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Alison Morrow (formally Westover), an accomplished journalist, found herself in the throes of a legal battle over her right to free speech. Represented by the Silent Majority Foundation, Morrow has filed a lawsuit against the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and its top officials, citing wrongful termination after she was dismissed for airing an interview on her YouTube channel. The channel, a personal project crafted during her tenure as an environmental reporter at KING 5 in Seattle, became the subject of controversy following her post featuring a highly censored doctor, Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, and his views on COVID-19. We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here. Morrow’s career at KING 5, which spanned from 2013 to 2019, was marked by significant accolades, including two Emmy awards. Recognized for her independent journalism, DNR was fully aware of her YouTube activities when they recruited her as a communications specialist. Initially, her independent media pursuits were supported by DNR, but the tide turned with her decision to feature Dr. Kheriaty. DNR’s leadership warned Morrow that her continued interviews could lead to termination, a threat she met with a staunch refusal to abandon her First Amendment protections. Determined to uphold her freedoms of speech, press, and association, Morrow chose to defy DNR’s directive to adhere to approved narratives. This act of resistance ultimately led to her dismissal, prompting her to seek legal assistance from the Silent Majority Foundation, which took up her case to safeguard these fundamental rights. “The 1st Amendment is one of the most sacred rights of Americans. It is what differentiates our country from most others, that we have the freedom to question our government. It is also central to a free press. I was willing to lose my job – and all that it provided for our family – in order to stand up against the encroaching erosion of this right that I was witnessing at the time, not just in my case but in thousands of others across the country during the pandemic,” Morrow stated. “There was no way to do science or journalism, in the culture of censorship that was driven by our government at the time. That meant millions of people made decisions without informed consent. Given my commitment to seeking truth wherever it leads, I was unwilling to acquiesce to a demand that I remain silent.” Display content from X Click here to display content from X. Learn more in X’s privacy policy. Always display content from X Open "content" directly If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Fired for Free Speech: Alison Morrow’s Battle Against Government Censorship appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Speaker: Here's Why Biden Didn't Restore Trump's Border Policies

NBC White House correspondent Peter Alexander recently traveled to Michigan for an interview with Kamala Harris that aired on Friday’s Nightly News and an extended version that aired on Saturday’s Today. During the interview, Alexander would mostly stick to softball questions such as wondering if Harris’s strategy was effective. Alexander began, “At the convention, you passed yourself as a joyful warrior, but in the recent rallies, you’ve increasingly attacked former President Trump as unstable and unhinged. Is that an effective closing –”     Harris jumped in to make sure to add “and unfit,” as Alexander repeated himself, “Is that an effective closing argument?” After Harris claimed “these things are not in conflict,” Alexander worried, “The critics who say the joy is gone. You respond?” Harris replied, “Oh, I'm having a great time.” Alexander reported in a voiceover, "We pressed her about the widening gap. The latest NBC News poll shows Harris leads Trump among women by 14 points, but Trump has a 16-point advantage with men. Just this week, her campaign expanded advertising on websites that draw largely male audiences, like the sports betting site DraftKings. The vice president downplaying the divide.” If this was a question about Republicans and the female vote, the Republican would surely be grilled on abortion or comments about childless cat ladies. Instead, Alexander asked that rather dull question of, “Why do you think there is a disconnect for you with men right now?” Harris dodged, “Well, let me tell you, you can look at the audience and see there are people of every background and gender who are showing up by the thousands, and I think it is because they know I intend to be a president for all Americans, and that's how I'm campaigning to earn the vote of every American.” Alexander interrupted to try again, “So, what explains it?” After Harris finished her response, Alexander tried a third time, “Just to be clear though, men still say by a 16 percent margin they’re supporting Donald Trump right now. Why do you think that is?” Again, Harris dodged, “It’s not the experience I'm having to be honest with you.” Alexander then narrated, “The vice president has been reluctant to distance herself from President Biden, now casting it as a matter of loyalty.”     Back with Harris, he inquired, “President Biden said this week that “every president has to cut their own path.” What is one policy that you would have done differently in the last three-and-a-half years than President Biden?” Harris, again, dodged by claiming it is not healthy for vice presidents to attack their presidents, but Alexander persisted, “He’s given you that green light with his comments, that you can carve your own path, so now that you have this ability to say.” This time Harris was more willing to answer and cited various ideas surrounding Medicare, housing affordability, and small businesses. For his final question, Alexander lobbed another softball. First, he reported, “Harris turns 60 tomorrow with campaign stops in Georgia,” and then asked, “You talk about generation change; what does generational change mean to you?” Harris replied with a typical Harris-ism, “I think it’s about a state of mind and it is about understanding that we should be focused on this moment, and this is a very particular moment where there's a lot happening in our country that is about innovation that are really new approaches to longstanding challenges, and it's a new generation of thinking as much as anything else.” Here is a transcript for the October 19 show: NBC Today 10/19/2024 8:07 AM ET PETER ALEXANDER: At the convention, you passed yourself as a joyful warrior, but in the recent rallies, you’ve increasingly attacked former President Trump as unstable and unhinged. Is that an effective closing – KAMALA HARRIS: And unfit. And unfit. ALEXANDER: Is that an effective closing argument? HARRIS: I think that one is not to the exclusion of the other. I have a great deal of optimism as do the people who are here about the future of our country. That is not in conflict with also being clear-eyed about the danger that Donald Trump poses based on the language that he has used and his admiration for dictators, his inability to really focus on the needs of the American people, particularly working people. These things are not in conflict. They all exist at the same time. ALEXANDER: The critics who say the joy is gone. You respond? HARRIS: Oh, I'm having a great time. ALEXANDER: And we pressed her about the widening gap. The latest NBC News poll shows Harris leads Trump among women by 14 points, but Trump has a 16-point advantage with men. Just this week, her campaign expanded advertising on websites that draw largely male audiences, like the sports betting site DraftKings. The vice president downplaying the divide. Why do you think there is a disconnect for you with men right now? HARRIS: Well, let me tell you, you can look at the audience and see there are people of every background and gender who are showing up by the thousands, and I think it is because they know I intend to be a president for all Americans, and that's how I'm campaigning to earn the vote of every American. ALEXANDER: So, what explains it? HARRIS: Not only about their gender, but about their geographic location and unburdened by who they voted for in the past. ALEXANDER: Just to be clear though, men still say by a 16 percent margin they’re supporting Donald Trump right now. Why do you think that is? HARRIS: It’s not the experience I'm having to be honest with you. ALEXANDER: The vice president has been reluctant to distance herself from President Biden, now casting it as a matter of loyalty President Biden said this week that “every president has to cut their own path.” What is one policy that you would have done differently in the last three-and-a-half years than President Biden? HARRIS: I mean, to be very candid with you, you know, including Mike Pence, vice presidents are not critical of their presidents. I think, really, actually, that in terms of the tradition of it and also just going forward, it does not make for a productive and important relationship. ALEXANDER: He’s given you that green light with his comments, that you can carve your own path, so now that you have this ability to say— HARRIS: No, going forward, there’s no question I bring my own experiences and my own life experiences. ALEXANDER: Is there a policy that stands out to you in particular either—? HARRIS: Sure. My approach to what we need to do around Medicare covering home healthcare, born out of my experience of taking care of my mother. My priority on housing, one, because I know what it means, affordable housing and the ability to buy a home. I know for so many young people, the American dream is just really out of reach, so my policy about $25,000 down payment assistance to help them get their foot in the door. The work I've been doing and bringing to the presidency around emphasizing small businesses is part of the real backbone of the economy. ALEXANDER: Harris turns 60 tomorrow with campaign stops in Georgia. You talk about generation change; what does generational change mean to you? HARRIS: I think it’s about a state of mind and it is about understanding that we should be focused on this moment, and this is a very particular moment where there's a lot happening in our country that is about innovation that are really new approaches to longstanding challenges, and it's a new generation of thinking as much as anything else.

Boeing is a company in crisis and plans to return to the capital markets to raise up to $15 billion in cash to address its liquidity problems. Unfortunately, Boeing squandered over $43 billion on stock buybacks in the previous decade — cash it could desperately use now. I don’t want to debate the pros and cons of stock repurchases so much as highlight another example of how Boeing’s management, dominated by finance executives fixated on cost reduction and stock valuation, has undermined what was once a leading American engineering and manufacturing company. In 2018 and 2019 alone, Boeing squandered $11.7 billion of cash to repurchase 33 million shares, which comes out to more than $350 per share. Incredible. That said, I generally disagree with my pro-capitalism friends on the practice of stock buybacks. I’ve observed for years how harmful this management tactic can be. Companies often conduct stock repurchases when they’re doing well, they are flush with cash, and their stock price is high, using buybacks to further boost the price. But when bad times come and the stock price drops, companies are forced to issue new shares at a much lower price. The argument for stock repurchases is that a company flush with cash returns excess funds to shareholders by buying back shares. This action increases the value of the remaining stock, as the company’s market capitalization is spread over fewer shares. The trouble is that the money from buybacks primarily goes to former shareholders — those who sell their stock. In contrast, a dividend would benefit ongoing shareholders. Even better, retaining the cash to invest in the company can lead to better products, new revenue streams, and ultimately higher profits. Other smart alternatives include paying off debt or simply holding the cash for future needs. But those options don’t provide short-term boosts to stock prices. Not coincidentally, today’s senior executives often receive substantial compensation based on stock performance. In other words, draining a company’s cash reserves through buybacks can help an executive move from earning seven figures to eight figures, but it doesn’t build long-term value or support future growth. Over the past few years, there has been a litany of awful stories involving Boeing, including planes falling out of the sky, the 737 MAX being grounded, doors blowing out in flight, astronauts being stranded in space, etc. It’s all starting to impact operations and cash flow. CNBC reported last week that Boeing plans to cut 10% of its workforce, about 17,000 people, amid a machinist strike that has shut down manufacturing for over a month. The launch of Boeing’s critical new 777 variant has now been pushed back until 2026. It’s already several years behind schedule. Boeing has paused flight tests after discovering structural damage in an aircraft. That’s a polite way of saying the company discovered negligent engineering and poor design. Once upon a time, negligent engineering would have been unthinkable at Boeing. But the business-school types now in charge have long since rid the company management of those who prized high-quality design and production. According to CNBC: Boeing expects to report a loss of $9.97 a share in the third quarter, the company said in a surprise release Friday. It expects to report a pretax charge of $3 billion in the commercial airplane unit and $2 billion for its defense business. In preliminary financial results, Boeing said it expects to have an operating cash outflow of $1.3 billion for the third quarter. Despite all this chaos and neglect, Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun made $32.8 million in total compensation in 2023, up from $22.6 million in 2022. To be fair, Boeing’s executives have been able to loot the company and redistribute shareholder equity to themselves because Boeing’s board of directors allowed it to happen. They are complicit. The table below shows a breakout of Boeing’s $43.5 billion in stock repurchases from 2013 to 2019. Of note, the current Boeing stock price is about $150 per share. Here are a few key observations: The $43.5 billion of cash that Boeing flushed away over seven years to improve the stock price had an average price per share of $172. $15 billion of stock at $150 per share will mean 100 million shares are being reissued at $22 per share less than they were originally repurchased. To summarize the math, Boeing will have flushed away a net $2.2 billion of critically needed cash by buying high and selling low for the same 100 million shares. That is some impressive financial wizardry. In 2018 and 2019 alone, Boeing squandered a combined $11.7 billion of cash to repurchase 33 million shares, which comes out to more than $350 per share. Incredible. The cash is gone, and Boeing stock is now trading, again, at just $150 per share. Boeing critically needs cash to service its debt of more than $55 billion. That $43.5 billion it flushed away would be mighty helpful right now. Boeing’s costly and deadly mismanagement, which prioritized cost-cutting and stock price manipulation, would make an excellent case study for business schools. Unfortunately, the very management practices that have so damaged Boeing are the same ones being taught in our elite business schools today.

Brian Stelter Wants Americans to SHUT UP About their 'Imaginary' Crumbling Roads and Failing Schools