The Prometheus League
Breaking News and Updates
- Abolition Of Work
- Ai
- Alt-right
- Alternative Medicine
- Antifa
- Artificial General Intelligence
- Artificial Intelligence
- Artificial Super Intelligence
- Ascension
- Astronomy
- Atheism
- Atheist
- Atlas Shrugged
- Automation
- Ayn Rand
- Bahamas
- Bankruptcy
- Basic Income Guarantee
- Big Tech
- Bitcoin
- Black Lives Matter
- Blackjack
- Boca Chica Texas
- Brexit
- Caribbean
- Casino
- Casino Affiliate
- Cbd Oil
- Censorship
- Cf
- Chess Engines
- Childfree
- Cloning
- Cloud Computing
- Conscious Evolution
- Corona Virus
- Cosmic Heaven
- Covid-19
- Cryonics
- Cryptocurrency
- Cyberpunk
- Darwinism
- Democrat
- Designer Babies
- DNA
- Donald Trump
- Eczema
- Elon Musk
- Entheogens
- Ethical Egoism
- Eugenic Concepts
- Eugenics
- Euthanasia
- Evolution
- Extropian
- Extropianism
- Extropy
- Fake News
- Federalism
- Federalist
- Fifth Amendment
- Fifth Amendment
- Financial Independence
- First Amendment
- Fiscal Freedom
- Food Supplements
- Fourth Amendment
- Fourth Amendment
- Free Speech
- Freedom
- Freedom of Speech
- Futurism
- Futurist
- Gambling
- Gene Medicine
- Genetic Engineering
- Genome
- Germ Warfare
- Golden Rule
- Government Oppression
- Hedonism
- High Seas
- History
- Hubble Telescope
- Human Genetic Engineering
- Human Genetics
- Human Immortality
- Human Longevity
- Illuminati
- Immortality
- Immortality Medicine
- Intentional Communities
- Jacinda Ardern
- Jitsi
- Jordan Peterson
- Las Vegas
- Liberal
- Libertarian
- Libertarianism
- Liberty
- Life Extension
- Macau
- Marie Byrd Land
- Mars
- Mars Colonization
- Mars Colony
- Memetics
- Micronations
- Mind Uploading
- Minerva Reefs
- Modern Satanism
- Moon Colonization
- Nanotech
- National Vanguard
- NATO
- Neo-eugenics
- Neurohacking
- Neurotechnology
- New Utopia
- New Zealand
- Nihilism
- Nootropics
- NSA
- Oceania
- Offshore
- Olympics
- Online Casino
- Online Gambling
- Pantheism
- Personal Empowerment
- Poker
- Political Correctness
- Politically Incorrect
- Polygamy
- Populism
- Post Human
- Post Humanism
- Posthuman
- Posthumanism
- Private Islands
- Progress
- Proud Boys
- Psoriasis
- Psychedelics
- Putin
- Quantum Computing
- Quantum Physics
- Rationalism
- Republican
- Resource Based Economy
- Robotics
- Rockall
- Ron Paul
- Roulette
- Russia
- Sealand
- Seasteading
- Second Amendment
- Second Amendment
- Seychelles
- Singularitarianism
- Singularity
- Socio-economic Collapse
- Space Exploration
- Space Station
- Space Travel
- Spacex
- Sports Betting
- Sportsbook
- Superintelligence
- Survivalism
- Talmud
- Technology
- Teilhard De Charden
- Terraforming Mars
- The Singularity
- Tms
- Tor Browser
- Trance
- Transhuman
- Transhuman News
- Transhumanism
- Transhumanist
- Transtopian
- Transtopianism
- Ukraine
- Uncategorized
- Vaping
- Victimless Crimes
- Virtual Reality
- Wage Slavery
- War On Drugs
- Waveland
- Ww3
- Yahoo
- Zeitgeist Movement
-
Prometheism
-
Forbidden Fruit
-
The Evolutionary Perspective
Daily Archives: March 12, 2017
New Liberal MP rings opponent at 3am – 9news.com.au
Posted: March 12, 2017 at 8:37 pm
Newly-elected Liberal MP Peter Katsambanis rang his opponent in the middle of the night to gloat after winning a bitterly fought battle for the seat of Hillary's in Perth's north.
Rob Johnson, a former police minister who fell out with Premier Colin Barnett and turned independent, on Sunday released what he said was a "drunken phone message left on my mobile at 2.49am this morning from Peter Katsambanis".
"Hello Rob, this is Peter Katsambanis calling, have a great day, enjoy the rest of your life, thank you, bye bye," it said.
Mr Johnson was unimpressed, saying "this demonstrates exactly why I ran for the seat in yesterday's election - I believe the people of Hillarys deserve better.
"This phone message and his comments to the media last night and this morning were deplorable and is representative of the dirty, vindictive and dishonest campaign he ran against me in the past few weeks," he said.
"On a brighter note, I have thoroughly enjoyed tremendous support and loyalty from my local community and am proud of what I achieved in my 24 years in parliament."
Mr Katsambanis lost preselection for Hillary's to local businessman Simon Ehrenfeld in a vote by local branch members but Liberal powerbrokers stepped in and would not endorse him.
AAP 2017
Auto news:Autonomous cars wont kill people, but they will take our jobs - caradvice.com.au
Auto news: What does the new American president mean for the auto industry? - caradvice.com.au
Auto news:A new Hyundai ute is now on the cards - caradvice.com.au
Auto news:GM could sell Opel to Peugeot parent - caradvice.com.au
Auto news: Buying a new car? Here are 11 things you should consider first - caradvice.com.au
More:
Posted in Liberal
Comments Off on New Liberal MP rings opponent at 3am – 9news.com.au
After Team Trudeau loses three votes on the same night, Liberals boast it’s ‘a strong day for democracy’ – National Post
Posted: at 8:37 pm
OTTAWA In the House of Commons, a newly muscular Liberal backbench had just voted against the wishes of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau not once, but twice in the same night.
Meanwhile, in a reception hall in Montreal, grassroots Liberals were overruling the wishes of the party brass by refusing to nominate Trudeaus preferred pick to be the candidate in a byelection to replace Stphane Dion.
Was a caucus revolt underway? Were the grassroots rebelling against Trudeau and his sunny ways approach to politics?
Hardly.
All in all a strong day for democracy in Canada. In Parliament and on the ground, wrote one of Trudeaus closest confidants, Gerald Butts, on Twitter. Promises kept.
Indeed, in on-the-record interviews at the end of the week with several Liberals, there was a clear message: This was a feature, not a bug. Liberals had campaigned in the past election to allow more free votes in the House of Commons, and Trudeau himself had committed to allowing the grassroots to choose local candidates rather than have candidates forced on them by party HQ.
But there have been more than a few Liberals in Parliament and on the ground who have been grumbling privately that Trudeau, his close advisers and the party brass have not been living up to their own rhetoric.
Just a little over a week ago, in Markham, Ont., Mary Ng had won the Liberal nomination in MarkhamThornhill. Ng had quit her job in the PMO and had been parachuted into the riding over the objection of many local Liberals.
There were angry accusations that the party had rigged the process in favour of the leaders favourite rather than the ridings favourite.
Ng would win but in a riding of 70,000 electors, where 24,000 had voted for Team Trudeau in 2015, just 186 people showed up to vote at the nomination meeting.
Fast forward to last Wednesday in the Montreal borough of Saint-Laurent, where more complaints had surfaced about the partys heavy hand after the local mayor, Alan DeSousa, had failed to get the green light from the partys secretive candidate-vetting committee.
How, Liberals in Saint-Laurent wondered, could DeSousa be good enough to be mayor of Saint-Laurent for 15 years but not good enough to be the member of Parliament for Saint-Laurent?
Everyone in the riding knew the answer: Because the party and Trudeau wanted Yolande James, a former Quebec cabinet minister, to win the seat, and a popular mayor was likely to beat James.
But when it came time to vote, James didnt even make it past the first ballot and a 26-year-old high school teacher and political unknown named Emmanuella Lambropoulos was the choice of the 1,350 grassroots members who voted.
It was an interesting race, Nicola Di Iorio, a Liberal MP from Montreal, told reporters the next day. I have to be frank with you I was surprised at the result.
Di Iorio had been one of the 105 Liberal backbench MPs who had stood up the night before to vote in favour of Bill S-201, which bans genetic discrimination. Those Liberals did that hours after Trudeau called the bill unconstitutional and told reporters he and his cabinet would vote against it. Trudeau even went on at length in that mornings closed-door caucus meeting about why it was a bad bill and ought to be voted down.
Government was putting its full weight behind it being severely gutted, said Rob Oliphant, the Liberal MP who was S-201s sponsor in the House of Commons.
But MPs would not buy Trudeaus spin on the bill and voted in favour of it.
The new reality is that Liberal backbenchers are being empowered, Oliphant said after the vote.
Maybe.
Elizabeth May, the Green Party MP, agrees that Trudeaus approach to caucus relations is much better than Stephen Harpers. But, in Mays view, Trudeaus PMO behaved as Harpers PMO often did in the way it tried to kill Oliphants bill.
What I want to know is, what happens next? May said. This was a good day for democracy. The next question for the Liberal party is: Will they choose to embrace it or do they punish the people who did the right thing?
Anthony Housefather, a Montreal MP who voted in favour of S-201, said there were no signs or hints from the PMO that voting against the wishes of Trudeau and the cabinet would be held against him or others.
Ive never felt that. I think anyone who tried to punish anyone would look really bad, Housefather said. We have a system where members of Parliament feel empowered and not afraid to vote their conscience and their constituents position on issues, which I think is great.
Housefather is also the chair of the Commonss justice committee, a committee where Liberal MPs have the majority. It had been his committee that had reviewed S-201 and made recommendations with which Trudeau and his cabinet disagreed.
Housefathers committee now gets to work on another bill, S-217, that the Trudeau cabinet also opposes.
That bill is known as Wynns Law, in honour of Dave Wynn, an RCMP constable fatally shot in 2015 inside a St. Albert, Alta., casino by an individual who had a lengthy rap sheet and who had skipped bail.
Wynns Law, which is sponsored by a Conservative MP, would seek to tighten bail conditions.
To get to Housefathers justice committee, it had to clear the House of Commons and that vote was held the same night as the S-201 vote. Wynns Law did clear the House of Commons but by the relatively narrow margin of 154-128.
All the Conservative, NDP and BQ MPs voted for it as did 27 rebel Liberals, Housefather among them.
That made it two votes, back to back, where Trudeau and his cabinet were on the losing end.
I get the sense that many of the Liberal members are getting a little tired and fatigued of always having to vote for things they dont like, said Dan Albas, a Conservative MP from British Columbia. Im sure PMO is counting who stood up and who did not (but) for the Liberal MPs, its more of a way to express their concerns on the agenda of the government. Thats a dynamic the government has to contend with.
Read this article:
Posted in Liberal
Comments Off on After Team Trudeau loses three votes on the same night, Liberals boast it’s ‘a strong day for democracy’ – National Post
Trump budget opens new fight among Republicans – Reuters
Posted: at 8:37 pm
WASHINGTON Republican U.S. Representative Todd Rokita keeps a clock hanging on the wall of his Capitol Hill office that tracks the U.S. government's rising debt in real time and reminds him of his top priority: reining in federal spending.
I was sent here on a fiscal note, said the Indiana lawmaker and vice chairman of the House of Representatives Budget Committee, who rode a Republican wave during his first election to Congress in 2010.
When President Donald Trump unveils his budget for the 2018 fiscal year on Thursday, Rokita will be among many conservative Republicans cheering proposed cuts to domestic programs that would pay for a military buildup.
More moderate Republicans are less enthusiastic and worry Trump's budget could force lawmakers to choose between opposing the president or backing reductions in popular programs such as aid for disabled children and hot meals for the elderly.
What you would hope is that the administration is aware of the difficulty of some of these things," said Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma.
The release of Trumps budget, which comes as the Republican president is facing an intraparty revolt over proposed legislation to replace the Obamacare healthcare law, could open another fight among Republicans who control both houses of Congress. To keep the government running, lawmakers will need to approve a spending plan later this year.
The White House has released few details about Trump's budget, other than making clear the president wants to boost military spending by $54 billion and is seeking equivalent cuts in non-defense discretionary programs.
But several agencies, including the State Department and the Environmental Protection Agency, have been asked to prepare scenarios for steep reductions, according to officials familiar with the discussions.
While supporting deficit-reduction efforts, Cole said a major research university in his district could get hit by National Institutes of Health cuts, as could sewage treatment facilities funded by the EPA.
Republican Senator Rob Portman, whose home state of Ohio sits on the southern shores of Lake Erie, expressed concern about media reports saying the Trump budget had penciled in sharp cuts in a cleanup program for the Great Lakes.
NOT AUSTERE ENOUGH
While Rokita, who was among a group of Republican lawmakers who met with Trump last week, appeared comfortable with what he had learned so far about Trumps budget, some Republican members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus said they wanted to see even further budget cuts.
Representative Mo Brooks of Alabama said the outcry from lawmakers over the expected cuts underscored to him that the blueprint would be a a very large step in the right direction of reining in the debt.
Brooks added: My fear is that the Trump budget will not be austere enough to minimize Americas risk of suffering the kind of debilitating insolvency and bankruptcy that is destroying the lives of Venezuelans right now.
OPEC member Venezuela is immersed in a deep economic crisis, with inflation in triple digits, shortages of basic goods, and many people going hungry.
Brooks and other members of the Freedom Caucus are among the most vocal critics of the legislation backed by the White House to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, former Democratic President Barack Obamas signature healthcare plan, known as Obamacare.
To try to woo the conservative lawmakers on Trump's legislative agenda, budget director Mick Mulvaney, himself a former member of the House Freedom Caucus, has invited them to a bowling and pizza night at the White House on Tuesday night.
Another Freedom Caucus member, Representative David Schweikert of Arizona, said Mulvaney was encouraging lawmakers to submit maverick fiscal ideas to the White House.
Schweikert said he hoped to revive a proposal from a few years ago, in the midst of a fight over raising the U.S. debt limit, that would have allowed the government to take a series of alternative, albeit controversial steps, such as paying some creditors ahead of others.
'SLASH AND BURN'
One senior Republican aide, who referred to Trumps budget as a slash and burn proposal, said one fear of some House lawmakers was that they would be pressured to back big spending cuts only to have them rejected by the Senate, where Republicans hold a slimmer majority. The risk for House members is that their votes could prompt a backlash in the 2018 congressional elections.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said a budget that cuts State Department funds by one-third is unlikely to pass in his chamber.
Other high-ranking Republicans are setting off alarms.
Senator Lindsey Graham, following a White House lunch on Tuesday with Trump, said: "What I told him is that when we get in a deadlock between the House and the Senate, different factions of the party ... you're the guy who needs to come down and close the deal."
Cole said Congress would ultimately have the final say on the budget.
At the end of the day, well have a budget. Well pass the budget, he said. Our budget is not necessarily the presidents budget.
(Reporting by Richard Cowan and Roberta Rampton; Editing by Caren Bohan and Peter Cooney)
AUSTIN, Texas Former Democratic U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said on Sunday in one of his first major speeches since leaving office this year that he would have liked to have been the U.S. president who ended cancer as we know it.
BERLIN She is controlled and cautious, a physicist from East Germany who takes her time making decisions and has never relished the attention that comes from being Europe's most powerful leader.
A federal judge in Wisconsin dealt the first legal blow to President Donald Trump's revised travel ban on Friday, barring enforcement of the policy to deny U.S. entry to the wife and child of a Syrian refugee already granted asylum in the United States.
View original post here:
Posted in Fiscal Freedom
Comments Off on Trump budget opens new fight among Republicans – Reuters
Pfaff: GOP Leadership Undermining the Trump Agenda Setting Up 2018 Fight with House Freedom Caucus? – Breitbart News
Posted: at 8:37 pm
SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
It turns out that isnt the case at all. The House Freedom Caucus and conservative groups like Heritage Foundation, Americans for Prosperity, Freedomworks and Club For Growthamong otherscame out opposing the plan. And the furor began. Whats being revealed as this plays out is the real challenge it will be to drain the swamp. And as the fault lines between conservatives and leadership in the House widen, the Trump agenda is truly at risk.
SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
Paul Ryan in his now famous PowerPoint Press Conferencesent a message to the House Freedom Caucus and conservative groups. They dont understand the reconciliation process, he said. He drew a line in the sand against to their efforts when he said, The time is here. The time is now. This is the moment, and this is the closest this will ever happen. It really comes down to a binary choice.
Its a binary choice over something which has no costs associated with it. The Congressional Budget Office has not released their report on its budget effect. And some members of Congress are openly concerned the report might show severe impacts on future spending. House leadership hasnt been forthcoming on the fiscal impact either.
Paul Ryan has been sending a message to conservatives. He is telling them to either accept the plan or not. And while conservatives arent yet falling into line, an effort to oppose them during the 2018 campaign is beginning to emerge. It may be a repeat leaderships 2016 efforts to take out conservative members.
Just this week, a group began a $500,000 ad campaign targeting 30 House Freedom Caucus members calling upon them to support what is now being called Ryancare. Similar efforts were initiated against Freedom Caucus members like Paul Gosar (R-AZ) and Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) last year taking out Huelskamp.
Ultimately, Paul Ryan is causing severe harm to the agenda of President Trump. The Speaker knew the bill he released would have strong opposition from conservatives. Sen. Rand Paul was already explaining the reasons for opposition when he complained how the House was hiding the bill in the last few weeks. As the politics in the House continues to deteriorate, there is speculation that while feigning support for the Presidents agenda, House leadership is using the legislation to set up an electoral fight with conservatives next year.
I found myself in the middle of this give and take serving Cong. Tim Huelskamp as his Chief of Staff. Immediately after the 112th Congress began in January 2011, leaders in the House offered a spending cut of $38.5 billion in the budget. They claimed they were taking aggressive steps to get spending under control. But no CBO report had been issued to confirm that number. Our office found the actual CBO research which revealed the cut was only $352 million (not billion but million). House leadership was apparently hiding the report. We released it to a furor of condemnation in the House. I met with Boehners Chief of Staff Barry Jackson. He was furious. Ill just say this meeting set the tone for the ongoing backlash against House Freedom Caucus members and John Boehner ever since.
A typical pattern emerged in the House after 2011. Bills were written in the Speakers office. They were forced through the committees with limited amendments. They proceeded to the Rules committee which is stacked with members loyal to the speaker. Conservative amendments were killed there. And the bill reached the floor with rules taking away the right of members to amend the bill.
Conservatives have been shut out of the process for years. And it seems nothing has changed.
The House could have offered a full repeal bill. Speaker Ryan is making a passionate plea against the idea saying it would be filibustered in the Senate and die. But experts are saying that might not be the case at all.
Reconciliation is a mystery to the average Americanmostly because members of Congress make it so. Reconciliation is a process created through the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 that allows changes to budget items to reconcile with the then current budget on a simple majority vote. Spending items only are allowed under Reconciliation.
Some experts believe Congress can pass a full repeal of Obamacare in a reconciliation bill. Paul Winfree of the Heritage Foundation argued this in a Politico article last November:
it is clear that those rules are inseparable from the rest of the ACAs structure. In fact, the Obama administration argued this before the Supreme Court in King v. Burwell, the case over whether enrollees who buy insurance through the federal exchange are eligible for subsidies. As a result, Congress may repeal those regulations via reconciliation.
The Senate Parliamentarian could certainly rule against a bill with full repeal language, but there is a simple fix to that. The presiding officer can rule against the parliamentarian, and the Senate can overrule her with a simple majority vote.
GOP leadership in the Senate and House know this. But they are unwilling to take the risk.
This is where President Trump can use his political heft to bring a solution. And it just might save his agenda from an initial defeat.
He can sit down with Speaker Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and conservatives and hash out a full repeal now. President Trump can send Mike Pence to the Senate to override any negative ruling by the parliamentarian, and Obamacare can go to the ash heap of history.
The Swamp doesnt want this. But Donald Trump could once again defy the odds and make winning great again.
See more here:
Posted in Fiscal Freedom
Comments Off on Pfaff: GOP Leadership Undermining the Trump Agenda Setting Up 2018 Fight with House Freedom Caucus? – Breitbart News
Paul Ryan wants you to have the freedom to not be able to afford health insurance – Death and Taxes
Posted: at 8:37 pm
House Speaker Paul Ryan sat down with John Dickerson of Face the Nation Sunday to talk about the American Health Care Act, the Affordable Care Act replacement that nobody but Paul Ryan seems to like. Throughout the interview, Ryan stressed that this bill would finally give the American people the freedom to not have health insurance, which is definitely what the main complaint about Obamacare was.
The interview is rocky from the start, as Dickerson runs down a list of organizations that have come out against the AHCA, such as AARP, the American Medical Association, and GOP congressmen, and questions how Ryan could be pleased with the reaction, to the proposed bill when the reaction has been awful.
I wouldnt say the reactions been awful, Ryan says, incorrectly. I think the reaction is, everyone wants to compare this to Obamacare as if they can keep these guarantees going. As if were going to have Obamacare plans, and were just gonna finance it a different way. This is repealing and replacing Obamacare.
Exactly. Thats why people are comparing it to Obamacare. They want to know if what we have now is being replaced with something even worse, and so far, all indications point to yes. Ryan talks a lot about how this is a better fiscal policy that will cost the government less, get more people covered, and drive down the price of insurance altogether. Theres no real proof of that, and early estimates put the number of people that will lose coverage somewhere around 20 million.
At this time, there is still no Congressional Budget Score for the AHCA, so naturally, Ryan was asked about that.
Ryan continued:
The score we believe will come out probably Monday or Tuesday. Well before we go to the floor, well have the score. The one thing Im certain will happen is CBO will say well gosh not as many people will get coverage. You know why? Because this isnt a government mandate. This is not, the government makes you buy what we say you should buy and therefore the government thinks youre all gonna buy it. Theres no way you can compete with, on paper, a government mandate with coverage. What we are trying to do achieve here is bringing down the cost of care, bringing down the cost of insurance. Not through government mandates and monopolies, but by having more choice in competition. And by lowering the cost of healthcare, you improve the access to healthcareBut were not gonna make an American go what they dont want to do. You get it if you want it. Thats freedom.
To be clear, what Ryan is doing here is spinning the inevitable outcome of people not being able to afford health insurance as a choice. You can argue the merits of a government mandate, but that doesnt change the fact that not having insurance simply because you dont have enough money to pay for it is not a choice. This also completely ignores the provision in the law that allows insurance companies to slap a huge surcharge onto people who have a lapse in coverage. The penalty for not being insured is still there, you just pay it directly to a corporation now instead of the government. Freedom!
Dickerson asks Ryan point blank how many people will lose coverage, and again, Ryan dodges and tries to make some grand point about how free we all are to die. I cant answer that question, Ryan says while seemingly trying not to laugh. Its up to people. Heres the premise of your question: are you gonna stop mandating people buy health insurance?
This, for the record, was not the premise of Dickersons question.
People are gonna do what they wanna do with their lives because we believe in individual freedom in this country, Ryan continued. The question is, are we providing a system where people have access to health insurance if they choose to do so? And the answer is yes.
This point has been made many times over, but access doesnt mean anything if you cant afford it. The go to example is usually cars. Anybody technically has access to buy any car, but if you dont have the money lying around for it, youre still screwed. This is apparently freedom, though.
In any case, why should anybody trust Ryan on this? Sure, he presents himself as a brilliant policy wonk, but whats the evidence that he actually knows what hes talking about? During his rolled-up sleeves presentation he made the point that its unfair for healthy people to pay into a system to support sick people. Thats literally the entire point of insurance. Everybody pays in so that nobody has to shoulder the burden alone.
Were counting on someone who either doesnt understand or is lying through his teeth about the most basic concept of health insurance. That should worry everybody.
[Face The Nation]
Read more:
Paul Ryan wants you to have the freedom to not be able to afford health insurance - Death and Taxes
Posted in Fiscal Freedom
Comments Off on Paul Ryan wants you to have the freedom to not be able to afford health insurance – Death and Taxes
Hicks column: Tell South Carolina lawmakers you believe in open records, meetings – Charleston Post Courier
Posted: at 8:37 pm
Despite this unexpected burst of quasi-winter weather, its Sunshine Week in South Carolina.
Now, folks who believe this nonsense about the press being the enemy of the people may dismiss concerns about the Freedom of Information Act. They might think its just whining by the Fourth Estate. But its not.
Sunshine Week is about the peoples right to know what the government is up to. Anyone who has ever invoked FOIA to extract information from a police department, state agency or city council knows what a pain that can be.
Bureaucrats often delay requests for months and then charge unreasonable, unfathomable copying and research fees that are seemingly meant to deter people from access to information that, technically, they already own.
As a front-page story today notes, when reporters Lauren Sausser and Tony Bartelme asked to see emails regarding an incident at MUSC, they were given a bill for $275,000.
That is exactly why South Carolina needs more Sunshine not for the tourists, for the transparency.
The only people who can control this particular sunshine, however, are state lawmakers. And now they're getting push-back from state bureaucrats.
So they need to know this matters not only to the press, but to voters.
For more than four years, the General Assembly has tried to pass meaningful FOIA reform.
The House actually passed it in a previous session, and the Senate was ready to follow suit when those efforts were derailed by the objections of one senator.
These bills are not a huge sea change from what government is already supposed to provide, which is easy access to public documents and information. All this legislation does is set reasonable copying fees and turn-around times for requests, and establish a dedicated administrative law judge to quickly review disputed requests.
You know, when state officials don't think they should have to turn over certain documents.
This is common sense stuff, but over the years there has been some wrangling over the public's right to see autopsy reports, police car dash cams and officers body camera footage. One insidious bill in the hopper right now would even exempt nonprofits and chambers of commerce from the FOIA.
Sorry, but any group that takes public money must show how it is spent.
The real problem right now is a fiscal impact statement from the state Revenue and Fiscal Affairs office which suggests it will cost state agencies about $800,000 to comply with the law. Which they are already supposed to be doing.
A half-dozen state agencies have claimed it would take of an average of $150,000 each to supply the manpower needed to honor FOIA requests in a timely fashion.
That could cost FOIA reform some support, even though many lawmakers believe those numbers are padded or agencies aren't complying with the law now.
Either way, it's a flimsy excuse to deny citizens' right to know how their taxes are spent.
State Rep. Weston Newton, the FOIA reform bill's primary sponsor, believes freedom of information is one of the fundamental duties of government. People have a right to know how their money is spent and what their elected officials are doing.
He's right.
Newton believes FOIA reform will pass this year, but state agencies have muddied the water a bit.
"The bill we have has been through a multi-year, multi-level vetting and it's a good bill," he says. "I am disappointed that a handful of state agencies have come in at the 11th hour to say it's going to cost taxpayers significantly more to do that which they are already supposed to be doing."
Cynical people might think elected officials, being politicians, would be the ones most opposed to complete transparency in government. Turns out it's the bureaucrats.
This is probably no conspiracy; state agencies are not likely hiding rampant malfeasance. The sad truth is they probably just don't want to be bothered with pulling the records and providing the information and being forced to get it done on a deadline.
The problem is their cries of added cost could result in some lawmakers wavering in their support. After all, these folks aren't real keen on spending money.
But let's keep this in perspective. This isn't just a media issue, it's meant to protect the people and their money. Frankly, regular citizens have the toughest time navigating FOIA red tape.
And they don't have First Amendment lawyers on speed dial.
These days a lot of folks are politically active and waste no time calling elected officials to voice their opinion. So maybe it's time they add Freedom of Information Act reform to their weekly calls.
Let state legislators know this isn't about the press it's about transparency.
Link:
Posted in Fiscal Freedom
Comments Off on Hicks column: Tell South Carolina lawmakers you believe in open records, meetings – Charleston Post Courier
Utopia in the Time of Trump – lareviewofbooks
Posted: at 8:35 pm
MARCH 11, 2017
THE FLOODS OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY revealed a salient fact that wasnt very important before: lower Manhattan is indeed much lower than upper Manhattan, like by about fifty vertical feet on average. In Kim Stanley Robinsons New York 2140, out this month, this now extremely important fact has combined with rising sea levels to transform the city into what its inhabitants have come to call a SuperVenice: a hacked-together improvisation they navigate via water taxis, skybridges, airships, and private boats they store in the ruined lower floors of skyscrapers. The world has recovered from two massive economic depressions following the two Pulses two decades-long periods of rapid sea level rise following major ice-sheet collapses in Antarctica and is now mostly soldiering on again as normal. In fact, New York becomes something of a frontier city again, in its own way a boom town. Flooded with squatters, climate refugees, and other persons rendered undocumented by the midcentury loss of huge swaths of paper and digital records, the city may have lost its crown as the capital of global finance to Denver, but its still one hell of a town. Its doing so well by 2140, in fact, that some of those fantastically rich Denverites, 124 years from now, are even starting to see New York real estate as a buying opportunity, the next great target for re-gentrification.
Where most contemporary histories of the future imagine climate change as either an annoying irritation or else the end of history the disaster that will end civilization in New York 2140 Robinson cuts more of a middle path. Climate change does indeed prove utterly catastrophic in this novel, laying waste to the coastal cities where a startling percentage of the worlds population currently lives, and devastating a huge amount of infrastructure and fixed capital, costing trillions of dollars but humans are incredibly versatile problem-solvers, and we adapt. Technical solutions like sea walls and skybridges are really only the start of what would be necessary in a flooded Manhattan. Think of the immense social changes, the legal, economic, and architectural structures that would need to be innovated when huge areas of major cities are permanently underwater, or indeed become part of the intertidal zone. Even by 2140, nearly 100 years after the start of the crisis, the long work of retrofitting civilization to rising sea levels goes on, and not all of it is even that unhappy; its no secret that the capitalists use the same phrase to denote both crisis and opportunity, creative destruction. Theres even an investment fund keyed to up-to-the-minute oceanographic data, which you can buy, sell, or short based on your predictions of sea level change from tsunamis, storm surge, and other ecocatastrophic fluctuations.
Befitting its setting, the eco in New York 2140 is as much economy as ecology; climate disaster becomes just another black-swan market event no one could have predicted, with winners (mostly rich people) and losers (mostly the rest of us). And true to Robinsons famous political orientation toward utopian speculations, it falls to his 2140 characters to disrupt the cycle of bubble, crash, and bailout that has run nearly uninterrupted across multiple economic depressions since we all got it wrong the first time, way back in 2008. His protagonists are an unlikely group: a couple of homeless hackers, a YouTube-style celebrity, a hedge fund manager, an NYPD detective, a city organizer, a super, some kids all living in the abandoned Met Life building, to which they have somewhat dubious squatters rights. But ingenuity and accident give them an unexpected opening to make a real difference in the larger world, and they decide to grab it.
Unlike seemingly everyone I knew in high school, college, and graduate school, Ive never actually lived in New York City, though I did grow up in New Jersey, and have spent enough time there that I still feel the usual sort of warm glow about the place. To the extent that the East Coast/West Coast divide replicates in science fiction as it does across most contemporary pop cultural genres, Robinson is a Californian sojourning in New York, but to this Jersey kid he got the details impressively right, even down to a sidelong glance at my beloved Meadowlands. At times, the book actually felt a bit over-researched to me, with too many characters talking about what used to be at this site or that, before the flood, but I came to understand that this was not simply as-you-know-Bob overexposition; it was also a token of the immense trauma they and everyone in Future New York is still living through. What else would you think about, as you flew through a strange web of skybridges and ziplines crisscrossing the ruins of what used to be the greatest city in the world? Of course they talk and think often about how things used to be, back when the world was normal. They live with that temporal confusion every day. (I will concede, however, even as an unrepentant Robinson booster, that the people of 2140 seem awfully well informed about nuts-and-bolts details of the 2008 financial crisis.)
It is undeniably clear that Robinsons project has become the construction of a huge metatextual history of the future, not unlike those sagas imagined by Asimov or Heinlein in the Golden Age of Science Fiction, distributed across overlapping but distinct and mutually irreconcilable texts. Each new Robinson book comments on and complicates the vision of the future espoused by earlier ones, typically by refocusing our attention on some heretofore overlooked component of the problem. Here, for instance, an event that featured in the background of his other future histories including the Mars books ice sheet collapse moves to the foreground, while the question of outer space exploration and colonization is now bracketed entirely. Likewise, the question of animals in an era of mass extinction (what one character in New York 2140 calls not the Anthropocene but the Anthropocide) which was a major theme in Robinsons novel 2312 returns here in unexpected ways, some more optimistic but most rather less so. There are decent people trying to make a positive difference by working for government, like in Science in the Capital, and even some hope somehow squeezed out of the United Statess necrotic political process, if you can imagine such a thing. If the narrative situations in these books sometimes coincide, if sometimes the starting points for these stories seem a bit similar, this shouldnt be altogether shocking or offensive to us; to whatever extent the future flows out of physical, biological, and historical law it will be largely path-dependent, and with only so much variation among possibilities.
This formal similarity of possible futures, all branching out from a single history, has often been an explicit concern of Robinsons. He once published a companion to the Mars trilogy in The Martians, which contains stories in which some aspects of the Mars narrative go different ways; he also published an essay, Sensitive Dependence on Initial Conditions, which spells out several possible futures that might have come out of his alternate history story The Lucky Strike (many of them strongly undercutting the optimism of the original story). This fascination with theme and variation turns out to be unexpectedly manifest in New York 2140 as well, whose opening chapter appeared in modified, alternate-universe form in Fredric Jamesons An American Utopia last summer as Mutt and Jeff Push the Button. Whereas it was oriented toward Jamesons discussion of universal conscription as a vision of a classless anticapitalist utopia in that book, here Mutt and Jeff set the table instead for the revolutionary financial hacks of New York 2140.
Like Galileos Dream, 2312, and Aurora before it, New York 2140 remixes many of Robinsons key futurological themes, once again with a significantly more pessimistic orientation. One of the many competing narrative voices in New York 2140, a historian (or at least history-minded amateur) who is only referred to as a citizen, seems to exist in metafictional relationship with the rest of the text, living in 2140 New York along with the others but simultaneously understanding himself to be part of a constructed and perhaps somewhat tunnel-visioned narrative. The a citizen narrator seems to understand himself to be in a sort of ongoing argument with interlocutors who dont want him to be too pessimistic, who dont want to hear a bunch of boo-hooing and giving-upness, but who also need to be made to understand that there arent actually happy endings in history, just people coming together to make choices that can make things better or make them worse (and so we should strive to make them better). Like most of the recent Robinson novels in what I would call his postScience in the Capital Middle Period and remixing, in different ways, the ends of both 2312 and Aurora New York 2140 ends on a note of strong ambiguity. The heroes have achieved many of their goals but there was no guarantee of permanence to anything they did, and the pushback was ferocious as always, because people are crazy and history never ends, and good is accomplished against the immense black-hole gravity of greed and fear. And out there of course, forever hovering over everything like the sword of Damocles, is the rest of the ice sheet, the climatological monster weve summoned and can neither control nor banish, which could slide into the ocean at any time, and throw everything theyve built into utter chaos once again.
Ive taken the highly unusual and possibly ill-advised step of quoting from very late in the book here because of something that I feel must be said: written before Trumps election and released just after his inauguration, New York 2140 stands as the first major science fictional artifact of the Trump era, anticipating even in its articulation of the conditions of victory the fragility of progress and the likelihood of reversal. The story ends at a moment of upswing (like the pie-in-the-sky optimism of November 2008, which felt at the time like an exhilarating moment of liberation) but how can we not hear in those words not only the disappointing and broken struggle of the actual Obama years but also the screeching, lunatic backlash of the Trump era to which we have now all been condemned? Dont be nave! the a citizen narrator implores us. There are no happy endings! Because there are no endings! And possibly there is no happiness either! I felt for a bit reading New York 2140 that perhaps it was no longer right to call Robinson our last great utopian visionary, as he is so often described; maybe even Stan has finally wised up and realized were all doomed. When the misanthropic voice of H. G. Wells pops up in one of the epigram pages that periodically punctuate the novel, to announce, upon first seeing the Manhattan skyline, What a beautiful ruin it will make! it really felt to me, when reading the novel in the bleak, miserable December of 2016, like the piercing stab of the truth, the real truth. We are going to take this beautiful place and make it a ruin, make everything a ruin until everything is dead. In fact, speaking realistically rather than utopically, we probably already have. Climate change is an intensifying feedback loop we cant interrupt and cant reverse; even if we stopped burning carbon tomorrow, itd probably already be too late to stop most of it, and we wont stop burning carbon, especially not post-11/8. Some version of New York 2140 maybe better, likely much worse seems to be the actual future of our civilization, the one our political leaders and titans of industry and artificially intelligent high-speed-trading algorithms driving the invisible hand of the market have, in their infinite wisdom, chosen for us.
So maybe New York 2140 is a genuinely utopian text after all, insofar as it puts the start of the worst of the disaster in the 2050s, when the crooks who did this to us will all be dead, and Ill be in my 70s, even more bitter and dyspeptic about the state of the world than I am now, if thats possible. In 2052, when Robinson imagines the first Pulse starting, assuming of course Trump doesnt kill us all first, my kids will be 40 and 38, both of them just a little older than I am today. Too bad for them, I guess! Too bad for any kids they might want to have, or any kids those kids will have, or any kids theyll have, or
But of course this isnt the full story either, not all of it. New York 2140 has actually clarified for me my previous misunderstanding of Robinsons intellectual project in his Middle Period, where (it has always seemed to me) we keep getting utopia-but-worse, -and-worse, -and-worse-yet. What is actually happening, I realize now, is more complicated than that. In Benjamins Theses on the Concept of History, he writes of the work of historical materialism as a bid to seize hold of a memory as it flashes up at a moment of danger. Robinsons project since the Mars books has been to attempt to seize hold of the future as it flashes up at a moment of danger and say a better world is possible yes, even here, and even here. After all, every second of time, Benjamin says in that same essay, is a gate through which the Messiah might enter.
The passage that solidified this new understanding for me was ironically one in which two characters (the aforementioned Mutt and Jeff) find themselves trapped in a Waiting for Godotesque situation with nothing but time, discussing the past. Once upon a time, the Vladimir says to the Estragon, there was a country across the sea, where everyone tried their best to make a community that worked for everyone.
Utopia?
New York. We then see the Vladimir describe the founding of this New York as a place where everyone could be whoever they wanted to be, where who you were before you got there didnt matter a free place, a beautiful place, a gift. Of course its a place that never fully existed in our bad history, but from time to time we saw its glimmers, and in any event its a place we might have had.
Why didnt anyone live there before? the Estragon asks.
Well, thats another story. Actually there were people there already, I have to say, but alas they didnt have immunity to the diseases that the new people brought with them, so most of them died. But the survivors joined this community and taught the newcomers how to take care of the land so that it would stay healthy forever. Oh oh well. So this is all just another utopian dream, a lullaby, a tale for children, an alternate history not all that unlike the one Robinson himself crafted in his own The Years of Rice and Salt. But despite its what-if nature, its really not so far out of the realm of the possible. The lullaby simply imagines people who are just like us, except they chose to seize hold of utopia, together, in their shared moment of danger. It could have happened! It didnt, alas the colonists chose to accelerate the wretched work of genocide instead but it might have. Even in the world-historical disaster that was first contact between the New World and the Old, even in a time of horrific, unthinkable mass death, we can still find seeds for the utopia that might have been founded then instead. Every moment has those seeds, Benjamin said; ours does too. In this way,New York 2140 truly is a document of hope as much as dread and despair. And its a hope well dearly need in the Anthropocene, the Anthropocide, the Capitalocene, the Chthulucene, postnormality, whatever you want to call the coming bad years that, with each flood and drought and wildfire and superstorm, we have to realize have already begun our own shared moment of danger, as it now begins to wash up over our beaches, breach our levees, flash up at us in an ever-rising tide.
Gerry Canavan is an assistant professor of 20th- and 21st-century literature at Marquette University and the author of Octavia E. Butler (University of Illinois Press, 2016).
Read this article:
Posted in New Utopia
Comments Off on Utopia in the Time of Trump – lareviewofbooks
Whole of It: ‘Free Cake at the Top’ – Scottsbluff Star Herald
Posted: at 8:35 pm
At one point during our trip to New Zealand, I pedaled next to Carol along the 84-mile long West Coast Cycle Trail near Kumara, New Zealand, and took in the scenery. The grade wasnt awful but since wed been climbing for the past 10 miles we were wondering if wed ever make it to the crest of the hill. Just then a man whizzed past us on the downhill and shouted Free Cake at the Top! Curious, and knowing there was a caf ahead, we redoubled our efforts.
New Zealand was like that. Always something around the corner. We knew New Zealand would be cool. Thats why we decided to go to New Zealand because it would be summer for the first leg of our 5-month overseas adventure, and it was far, far away. We were also cutting the rubber band, that invisible force that keeps small children close to their parents at playgrounds and airports, and adults from getting too far out of our comfort zone.
I expected to be wowed by the beautiful, exotic country and I was. There is no other country Ive seen that packs such sweeping vistas, exotic geology, such a kind people in so small a space. But as much as I was continually stunned by the views that greeted me each day, or warmly welcomed by the Kiwis; the two-island country is not where Id want to live.
The U.S. is my country and despite her flaws, I love everything about her. Others leave for a myriad of reasons, some political and some practical. Last year, 5,411 people voluntarily gave up U.S. citizenship, according to numbers from the U.S. Treasury. Many were already living overseas and became tired of negotiating U.S. bank and tax regulations. But, over 50,000 people in the U.S. looked at the Immigrate New Zealand website the day after the US general election in November. Hopefully, some of those who looked at New Zealand as a harbor in a storm will benefit from our experience.
Before chucking it all and moving to New Zealand, here are a few things everyone should know.
Auckland, New Zealand is 7,623 miles from the center of the U.S. It is tomorrow, today, as we crossed the international dateline just west of American Samoa and east of Tonga near 180 degrees longitude to reach New Zealand. The flight can take as little as 16 hours and as much as two days. The first thing the customs officer asks is, When are you leaving?
New Zealand is split into two islands, about the area of Colorado, and is located along the Ring of Fire upon which most of the active volcanoes lie. The geology is young since the country continues to rise from the ocean due to frequent earthquakes. The 2011 earthquake in Christchurch damaged 100,000 homes, destroying 10,000. The 2016 Christchurch earthquake damaged thousands more and raised the seabed about 18 feet around parts of the coastline. In neighborhoods and along the roads are blue signs indicating tsunami evacuation routes. Tip: If youre threatened by a tsunami climb up.
New Zealand is expensive, even factoring the 18 percent discount we get with the U.S. dollar. While we were riding in Bar Harbor, Maine, we met a man who had planned on biking about eight weeks in New Zealand but left after four.
The beer was too expensive, he said. I ran out of money.
Carol and I cooked most of our own meals while in New Zealand. We found the prices are higher than in the U.S. by a pretty good margin. A can of Old El Paso refried beans cost $5 USD. A can of Libbys pumpkin $4.50 USD. We were surprised that many staples, like peanut butter, $4 USD for 16 ounces, are processed in and imported from China. At the PaknSave (like an Aldi) streaky bacon is $5 USD per pound; ice cream $4.20 USD half-gallon; ground beef $4.20 USD per pound; and boneless chicken breast $3.40 USD per pound.
Carol and I also planned to Wild Camp on public lands to save money during our trip. Wild camping is free. Unfortunately, due to a small percentage of campers who left messes wherever they camped, most districts recently restricted tent camping on public lands and require campers to go to private holiday parks. Those parks charged tent campers $32 USD to $56 USD per night for a spot. Granted, most of those had common kitchens we used, but we found out that an AirBnB, with a soft bed and shower, instead of cold, wet, hard ground, only cost a few dollars more and sometimes less.
New Zealand also promotes bicycle touring, which we did. The infrastructure is not yet there to help the touring bicyclist. We cut our touring short because of four things: We did not agree with the guidebooks characterizations of multiple daily 1,000 foot ascents as rolling hills; there are no shoulders on the roads to protect us from large trucks, tourists in RVs not used to driving on the left side of the road, and our timeline. We simply did not have enough time to ride the distances, safely, that we needed. A bicycle tour in New Zealand should be solely on the bike trails, and there are many and the views are better without the smell of diesel. The rub is that to get from trail to trail the cyclist needs vehicle support, and that drives up the cost.
Even with the expense and remoteness of New Zealand, a reason to move to New Zealand is the people. We were treated with kindness and curiosity about Trump everywhere we visited.
Among the many kindnesses we received was from a bike shop owner. Our last day on Waiheke Island we toured an outdoor art show and Carol got a flat tire, literally the only day we rode without a patch kit. I removed the tire and rode the 3 miles into town to eCyclesNZ. In the back door came Carol and the owner of the shop, Darleen Tana. She and her family had given Carol and her bike a ride into town. We rented the bikes from another shop on the mainland.
I saw the bike missing the wheel and wandered over, Darleen said. I thought maybe it was stolen.
As Andrew, the shop mechanic, put aside his work and fixed the flat, Darleen told us her husband is an automotive engineer by trade but is currently developing the Onya Electric bike. She said they moved to the island to have a better life.
We wanted the children to be able to go to school barefoot, she said.
We thanked them for all their help.
Just tell people to use their local bike shop. Use their local bike shop.
Our expectation of New Zealand as a utopia were unmet, but the generosity and kindness we received from everyone, made the first stage of our trip enjoyable. We biked hundreds of miles, ran a half-marathon midway through for a good cause, and camped by rivers, mountains, and lakes with absolutely stunning views.
As for the free cake at the top there was no free cake or any cake at all. There was just a small American western/cowboy themed resort where we bought sandwiches and ate them.
See the original post here:
Whole of It: 'Free Cake at the Top' - Scottsbluff Star Herald
Posted in New Utopia
Comments Off on Whole of It: ‘Free Cake at the Top’ – Scottsbluff Star Herald
Aged care play Oceania Healthcare’s pitch to fundies – The Australian Financial Review
Posted: at 8:34 pm
More than two-thirds of Oceania Healthcare's sites are on New Zealand's North Island.
Meet the aged care rollout story setting course for the listed market.
Macquarie-backed initial public offering candidate Oceania Healthcarehas told fund managers it has 1674 new residences in the pipeline with about 1000 already eitherconsented or under construction.
The New Zealand-basedcompany had $NZ47 million in proforma underlying EBITDA in the 2016 financial year, which was up from $NZ26.9 million in 2014 and $NZ29.6 million in 2015.
That represents 32 per cent average annual growth, and Oceania expects similar sorts of numbers into the medium term fuelled by the aforementioned development at sites including Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga, Nelson and Christchurch.
Oceania said care beds were the biggest part of its portfolio, and would make up 47 per cent of its business under current development plans. Independent units is its biggest growth engine, and is expected to grow to 38 per cent of the portfolio.
That's Oceania's pitch, as it goes about meeting Australian fundies ahead of a planned listing.
Owner Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets has house broker Macquarie Capital on board to manage the offer, while Kiwi brokers Deutsche Craigs and First NZ Capital - affiliates of the local Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse respectively - are also along for the ride.
Fundies expect the company to be back in front of them as early as next month. As always, whether the IPO floats or flops will depend on pricing.
Investors were quick to compare Oceania torivalsSummerset Group Holdings and Metlifecare, which are already on the ASX boards, and the NZX-listed Ryman Healthcare and Arvida Group.
While the five players operate in the same sector, their respective business mixes are quite different. Oceania has made its name in care beds, which is similar to Arvida, while Summerset Group and Metlifecare make their money from independent units. Rymanis split more evenly between the two sub-sectors.
Oceania is just the latest in a long line of Kiwi floats seeking to drum up support among the Australian institutional investment community.
Its run at the ASX boards comes after earlier attempts to attract a private equity or trade buyer for the 48-strong retirement facility portfolio.
View original post here:
Aged care play Oceania Healthcare's pitch to fundies - The Australian Financial Review
Posted in Oceania
Comments Off on Aged care play Oceania Healthcare’s pitch to fundies – The Australian Financial Review
Hayley Wolfenden rides to an Oceania BMX podium – Western Advocate
Posted: at 8:34 pm
12 Mar 2017, 10:30 a.m.
Bathurst BMX Club rider Hayley Wolfenden earned herself a new career highlight an Oceania podium.
TWELVE months after she placed secondat the national titles, Bathurst BMX Club rider Hayley Wolfenden earned herself a new career highlight an Oceania podium.
GOOD START: Bathurst BMX Club's Hayley Wolfenden leads the way over Kiwi rival Toni James in a moto during the Oceania Championships. Photo: ANYA WHITELAW
Competing at her home track over three days of racing last weekend, the 26-year-old showed up some of her more experienced rivals.
Riding in the 17 and over womens class, she placed third in both BMX Australias national series on Friday night and the Grands Assault series on Sunday afternoon.
Though that pair of podiums was impressive, it was eclipsed by her second placing in Saturdays Oceania Championships for her class.
The result was the biggest of her BMX career thus far.
Its your home track, so its sort of strange to contemplate that it came it such a big event, she said.
Youre racing international riders. It definitely felt like something bigger than a club meet.
Its pretty much the second highest group before you turn pro, if youre not riding pro you tend to ride that group.
While a mistake on the second jump on Friday night saw Wolfenden go from first to third in her final moto, the performance still gave her confidence heading into the Oceania Championships.
With no final conducted for her class, it meant Wolfenden needed strong performances in each of her three motos.
The first race I was leading to the line where I shouldve got one extra peddle in, but I didnt, she said.
I thought I might be up for therewin after that. But the next two motos were a bit of a different story, I just got seconds and that was what decided the overall result.
If your group was small, what they did was a point score system instead of a final, so every race counts. So its even harder again, its not just a matter of making the final and pulling it all out then.
I needed to win two out of three to get first placebut second, I cant complain, thats for sure.
Wolfenden placed second in each of her three motos to be runner-upbehind undefeated New Zealand rider Toni James.
The Kiwienjoyed a clean sweep for the three events, but given her experience, Wolfenden was happy to have tested James.
The girl that beat me on Saturday, well she beat me every day, I think she said that she has been racing since was three whereas I have been racing for five years. I was Okay, youve probably got 10 years or so of racing on me.
Ive just got to work on a few tiny things and hopefully next time I will be keeping up with the experienced ones.
Wolfendens next big test will be Septembers state titles.
Read the original:
Hayley Wolfenden rides to an Oceania BMX podium - Western Advocate
Posted in Oceania
Comments Off on Hayley Wolfenden rides to an Oceania BMX podium – Western Advocate