#omnibus post incoming

[stijlw]

apologies to all haters incensed whenever i update my currently reading tag but i just took out the flatbed scanner

[twizzlysticks]

School is literally eating me alive with back to back projects i apologize for no art but i have finished blood reaver and moved onto void stalker and hooooly fuck I have so many thoughts,, god I love these books

[gorogues]

t-bombs replied to your text post: BILL MESSNER-LOEBS OMNIBUS LET'S GOOO

It's long overdue! (And I very much hope he'll be making a good income off this collection, which he deserves.)

demonbirdsforever replied to your text post: Ooooh. Someone is a Captain Boomerang fan if they were able to slip that into the artwork. Hopefully the story will be worth the read.🧐

For sure, I really appreciate this sort of subtle nerdery! I'm looking forward to this series, even though I'll probably never play the game. I usually really like John Layman's work.

[rjzimmerman]

Lots of climate, environmental and energy-related stuff in the coronavirus relief bill and omnibus budget bill

The stuff in this post is extracted from a story published in Vox written by David Roberts. He informs us about provisions of the coronavirus relief bill and the related budget bill that pertain to climate, the environment and energy. In the long and short run, these provisions are important as we shift from a fossil fuel economy to a renewables-based (or greener than fossil fuel) economy. Call it a “good start.” The bits in the bills:

The legislation includes a bill that would sign the US on to the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, which would reduce the use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) by 85% over 15 years. HFCs (used in air-conditioning, refrigerants, aerosols, etc.) are potent greenhouse gases, so full international implementation of the amendment is projected to avoid 0.5°C worth of warming all on its own.

The short-term extension of several key clean-energy tax credits that were scheduled to expire this year. They have long been important to the growth of the industry. The investment tax credit (ITC, mostly used by solar) was bumped up two years; the production tax credit (PTC, mostly used by wind) got a year; randomly, offshore wind got a five-year bump; and lamentably, the electric vehicle (EV) credit was not extended at all.

Tax credits for carbon capture (45Q) were also extended, which Rhodium estimates will be the second largest emission-reducing provision in the bill.

The bill invests lots of new money ($35.2 billion) into research, development, demonstration, and commercial application for renewables ($4.1 billion), weatherization assistance (which will benefit lower income households - $1.7 billion), sustainable transport ($2.6 billion), carbon capture, utilization and storage ($6.2 billion), energy storage (i.e., batteries and stuff - $1.1 billion), smart grid ($2.4 billion), advanced nuclear energy ($6.6 billion), nuclear fusion ($4.7 billion) and advanced energy technology ($2.9 billion).

The bill also reauthorizes the EPA’s Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA), a grant program that helps reduce diesel engine emissions, which disproportionately affect minority and low-income communities.

The bill extends the fossil fuel taxes that pay for black lung and oil spill liability trust funds.

Establishing an Office of Technology Transitions in Department of Energy (DOE) and authorizing DOE to support regional clean-energy labs and incubators.

There’s also a focus on funding demonstration and commercialization programs and technology transfer programs to accelerate innovation.

Here’s a somewhat geeky one: the Title XVII loan program, first authorized in 2005 and expanded in 2009, is meant to support deployment of large projects that reduce carbon emissions. The Trump administration has refused to loan out the money, so it has built up at DOE. This legislation would release about $24 billion for loans — $10.9 billion for advanced nuclear energy, $8.5 billion for advanced fossil energy, and $4.6 billion for renewables.

The bill will fund improvements in hydroelectric facilities.

The bill promotes renewable energy development on public land.

There’s stuff on smart buildings, advanced geothermal, microgrids, and decarbonizing heavy industry.

[dipulb3]

Putting 'cologne on Jim Crow': Georgia GOP lawmakers drive toward new voting restrictions

New Post has been published on https://appradab.com/putting-cologne-on-jim-crow-georgia-gop-lawmakers-drive-toward-new-voting-restrictions/

Putting 'cologne on Jim Crow': Georgia GOP lawmakers drive toward new voting restrictions

Crucial action comes this week. The state’s GOP-controlled General Assembly has only five legislative workdays left on its calendar before it adjourns March 31. Lawmakers in both the House and Senate say they plan to finalize changes to election bills in the days ahead.

An omnibus bill that a key House committee is expected to take up Monday would impose identification requirements for absentee voting, limit the use of ballot drop boxes and disqualify most provisional ballots cast outside of voters’ home precincts. It also would make it a misdemeanor to provide food or soft drinks to voters as they wait in line.

Of particular concern to voting rights activists in the state: Measures that strip authority from the elected secretary of state and grant state officials broad rights, including the ability to replace local elections officials.

“We are facing an emergency,” Hillary Holley, organizing director of Fair Fight Action, told Appradab.

Despite last-minute alterations to the package to preserve more weekend early voting, “this bill continues to be nothing but voter suppression,” said Cliff Albright, the co-founder of the Black Voters Matter Fund. “The recent changes are nothing more than putting a little makeup and cologne on Jim Crow.”

His group plans a rally Monday at the Georgia Chamber of Commerce headquarters in Atlanta to pressure businesses to oppose the package, part of a planned week of action.

High stakes

Georgia, a battleground state, sits at the forefront of efforts in Republican-controlled legislatures around the country to impose tough, new restrictions on voting. The proposed voting limits in Georgia arrive ahead of high-stakes gubernatorial and US Senate races next year.

A February tally by the liberal-leaning Brennan Center for Justice tracked bills that would restrict voting in 43 states. More states have joined the list since then, with new bills landing recently in North Carolina and Wisconsin.

Republican lawmakers in the state have cast their efforts as needed to shore up a system battered by allegations of fraud. A preamble to the House bill said it was designed “to address the lack of elector confidence in the election system on all sides of the political spectrum” and promote “uniformity in voting.”

Former President Donald Trump and his allies have stoked false claims that he lost the election because of fraud. There’s no evidence of widespread fraud that would have changed the election outcome in Georgia or elsewhere. President Joe Biden’s nearly 12,000-vote victory in the state was reaffirmed in three separate counts of the ballots.

Voting rights activists say the measures under consideration would restrict ballot access for wide swaths of Georgia’s increasingly diverse population.

Aunna Dennis, executive director of Common Cause Georgia, said ID requirements for obtaining absentee ballots, would harm older voters, those who are low-income, and college students because they are all less likely to have driver’s licenses or other forms of required identification, such as passports or a state or federal photo identification card.

Georgia currently uses signature matching in absentee voting, which Republican lawmakers argue is an unreliable way to verify voters’ identities. A signature-match audit in Cobb County, Georgia, following last November’s general election, found “no fraudulent absentee ballots with a 99% confidence threshold,” according to the Georgia Secretary of State’s office.

The Georgia House bill would require voters to provide their driver’s license numbers or state ID numbers and other identifying information, such as their date of birth, on the ballots.

Georgia Republicans “are saying that voting should be for the 1% and … for the privileged,” Dennis told Appradab.

Last-minute changes

In recent days, lawmakers in Georgia backed down on a provision that critics say would have unfairly targeted Black voters. Republicans now say they plan to preserve Sunday early voting as part of the omnibus voting package that the House committee will take up this week. The change under discussion would specifically allow Georgians to cast ballots on two Sundays during the state’s early voting window. A previous bill sought to allow only one optional day of Sunday voting.

Voting rights activists had criticized that limit as attacking “Souls to the Polls” — programs that help drive turnout among Black churchgoers, a key Democratic constituency. And a Appradab analysis of voting patterns in November’s general election found the measure eliminated days when a disproportionate number of Black voters had cast their ballots.

Republican Rep. Barry Fleming, the architect of the voting restrictions moving through the Georgia House, also has indicated that efforts to repeal no-excuse absentee voting are now dead. His package does not include the repeal passed by the Georgia Senate earlier this month. A record 1.3 million Georgians voted by mail in last November’s general election.

Fleming’s office did not immediately respond to request for comment. At a meeting last month, Fleming said the bills aim to address the “controversy” surrounding recent elections.

“If you have been following at all the issue of elections in Georgia, you know that there has been controversy regarding our election system. And I believe the goal of our process here should be an attempt to restore the confidence of our public in our election system,” Fleming said on February 18 as his committee began its work.

Georgia Republican Sen. Max Burns, who chairs the panel handling election bills in the Senate, has crafted a companion bill, the text of which was released Friday afternoon. His committee is scheduled to take it up Monday with a vote coming as early as Tuesday, Burns told Appradab.

In a meeting Wednesday, Burns said his version “would address some of the issues and some of the challenges that we have.” He did not respond to a request for comment over the weekend.

New powers

Both measures give state lawmakers more authority over elections.

A provision in the House bill boots the elected secretary of state as the chairman of the state elections board. The General Assembly would choose the new chairman, giving lawmakers three out of five board appointments.

The current Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger drew the former President’s ire last year when he rebuffed Trump’s false claims that widespread voter fraud in the state contributed to his defeat. (Trump’s entreaty to Raffensperger to “find” votes is now the subject of a Fulton County, Georgia, investigation.)

The House package also would grant the state elections board the right to suspend both local election superintendents and local boards of election and appoint a new official to step in as a temporary superintendent.

Voting rights activists say that bucks the tradition of local control and could lead to a scenario in which state officials swoop in to prevent a county from certifying its election results.

In his bid to overturn his loss, Trump targeted not only election officials, but also reached out to members of an obscure election board in Wayne County, Michigan, charged with certifying Biden’s win in the Detroit area.

���Imagine if they had this power in the last election,” Albright said of the new authority the Georgia package contemplates. “It’s the provision that can trump every other one in this bill.”

[the-demure-abstract]

What the President boasts he got and what he really got

The President's statement made clear on Sunday night that he needed to find a way to back away from the cliff he'd pushed Congress onto. So, he said in his statement that the Senate had agreed to start the process for a vote for increasing direct checks to Americans under certain income levels to $2,000 and a vote to repeal Section 230, which protects tech companies for being held liable for what is posted by users on their websites. Trump also said that an investigation would begin on voter fraud in the US Senate and he would be sending over a series of recissions, cuts he wanted made to the broader omnibus spending bill, which funds the federal government.

(infringing on the rights of Tech companies and free speech smdh - GA residents: you know what you have to do! 🤨)

[atlanticcanada]

Canadians express mixed opinions when considering whether now is a safe time to hold a federal election.

April 28th, 2021

Some people say it is possible now to safely hold a federal election with proper safeguards against the spread of COVID-19. Others say it is unsafe to hold an election now and that voting should wait until there is a larger rollout of vaccines in the country. We wanted to know where Canadians stand on these two positions. Results from our recent survey suggest that Canadians are fairly divided on this topic, with nearly six in ten residents indicating it’s unsafe to hold a federal election (59%), while four in ten believe it is safe to hold an election (41%).

Across the country, residents of Newfoundland & Labrador (78%) and Quebec (70%) are most likely to feel it is unsafe to hold a federal election now, compared to any other province. Across the population, those 55 years and older are more likely to oppose a federal election due to safety concerns, as are females and residents with lower household incomes.

Results are from an online survey conducted April 13-16, 2021, with 1,230 Canadians 18 years of age or older from the Logit Group’s Canadian Omnibus. Fielding every month, the Logit Group’s COVID-19 Omnibus surveys Canadians to ask their opinions and behaviours related to topical issues. Results were analyzed by Narrative Research. Data was weighted based on the 2016 Census, by gender, age, and region to reflect population characteristics in each province. As a non-probability sample (i.e., a panel sample where residents have joined a panel to share their opinions), and in accordance with CRIC Public Opinion Research Standards, a margin of error is not applied.

Question included in this release:

Some people say it is possible now to safely hold a federal election with proper safeguards against the spread of COVID-19. Others say it is unsafe to hold an election now and that voting should wait until there is a larger rollout of vaccines in the country. Which one of these two positions comes closer to your own thinking?

For more information, contact:

Margaret Brigley, CEO, Narrative Research – 902.493.3830, mbrigley@narrativeresearch.ca OR Margaret Chapman, COO, Narrative Research – 902.493.3834, mchapman@narrativeresearch.ca OR Sam Pisani, Managing Partner, Logit Group – 416.629.4116, sam.pisani@logitgroup.com

Narrative Research (www.narrativeresearch.ca), is a leading public opinion and market research company headquartered in Canada. The company is certified as a WBE (Women Business Enterprise). As a non-partisan, 100% Canadian-owned research company, Narrative Research is dedicated to providing clients with state-of-the-art research and strategic consulting services.  Follow us on Twitter at @EveryNarrative

The Logit Group (https://logitgroup.com/) is a leading North American data collection and market research execution company headquartered in Toronto, conducting large-scale projects for a variety of well-known research agencies and brands. Logit employs industry-best technologies across an array of methodologies, and is independent, experienced and quality-oriented.  Follow us on Twitter at @LogitGroup

Click here to read as a PDF.

The post Canadians express mixed opinions when considering whether now is a safe time to hold a federal election. appeared first on Narrative Research.

from Narrative Research https://ift.tt/2R7Bkdi

[rudemarshmallow]

Long post ahead.

So I decided to write a yoonmin fan fic and I'd really appreciate it if you could tell me what you think about this first chapter so that I can decide if it's a good idea to continue or if I better stop.

If this doesn't flop I'll post it on ao3 too.

________________________________________

Please give it a read and tell ne what you think?

Jimin or 006 as he was called here, was in a cage, a humid, cold and dirty cage, why you ask?

Well, he couldn't kill the target this time.

He failed.

So instead of the normal white room he was usually confined in, they put him here. They made sure to make him feel like the failure he was.

He knew that helping the target escape would mean failing the task given to him by the Omnibus.

But he just couldn't do it.

That kid.

That damn kid fighting to stop him killing his big brother reminded him too much of himself.

He normally doesn't feel much about killing people, don't get him wrong, he has nightmares every night about all his targets, but he has been doing this since he was 10 so, really, begging and pleading doesn't work on him.

However, this time he just couldn't find it in him to kill the kid's brother and go on with his life as always.

He just couldn't.

"I won't let you kill him"

"Junho! Don't worry about me, Run!" said his brother.

After the 12 years old tried to punch him a few times without results, he resolved to volunteering his life instead of his brother's.

"I won't lose you too, just kill me instead"

The kid looked desperate but fierce, with blood running down his face and a busted lip he still kept up with jimin's stare. He wouldn't back down.

While looking in those light brown pupils, jimin saw the light and determination the omnibus estinguished from his own eyes.

So he put down the knife and after some convincing that he was actually going to help them, he patched up Junho and his brother and got them out of Seoul from a breach in the border.

He hoped that they would make it, since he couldn't escape.

Before leaving to get back to the base the kid's brother, hyugmin, told him this: "thank you for helping us, we'll help you back I promise. You probably don't know why you had to kill me, right?"

Jimin nodded, they never tell him the reason, he just has to kill without questioning otherwise he will be punished.

"I thought so, well I'm part of a rebel group called the purple knights, we fight against the omnibus, I was able to infiltrate in the base and give the group information and that's why they sent you"

"Purple knights?"

"yes, and 006, I know what they did and do to you and we'll get you out, I promise you, as a thank you for saving us you'll be free again"

Jimin wanted to ask questions but his phone started to vibrate, segnaling an incoming call.

"you need to leave, and fast, they already know you escaped, go, go"

"006-hyung, knight-hyung will come and save you!"

Then the kid hugged him and left with his brother.

After the call from the omnibus telling him to come back since he failed, they put him inside this cell and now he is just waiting for his punishment.

However, for once after falling asleep he doesn't see blood and screaming faces but a knight followed by a purple halo coming his way.

[that-curly-haired-lesbian]

Birthday Prompt - Curious Taylor

Today is a very special day, Taylor Swift turns 30!! To celebrate I decided to take some tumblr prompts and write some gay short stories with a birthday theme!

Happy birthday, Taylor (hope you never read these!)

Prompt: Five times Karlie fails to properly hide/lie about Taylor's birthday present and one time she didn't fail.

Thank you for the prompt @verytamenow

Read it on Ao3 or on Wattpad

It's not that Karlie is bad at keeping secrets exactly, it's more that Taylor is an extremely curious person...And okay, maybe Karlie isn't the best secret keeper, but that honestly is only half the problem, the other half being Taylor's complete inability to resist a challenge, implied or actively discouraged, doesn't matter.

If there is a case detective Swift is on it and she knows exactly how to crack her suspects, especially if said suspect happens to be her poor wife.

--

The first time Karlie failed to properly hide Taylor's birthday present she genuinely thought she'd be able to keep the secret, she thought she had a good plan and a good hiding spot.

That was until Taylor decided to "Christmas clean" their whole place (on December 10th!)

In her almost feverish quest to get the apartment clean from top to bottom she promptly found the one-of a-kind collector's edition Deadpool Omnibus mixed in with Karlie's Cat Woman comics at the very back of the highest shelf (the one Taylor couldn't even reach without a chair) of the bookcase in the living room.

Karlie came home to find it triumphantly placed on the kitchen table accompanied by a post-it note.

I fucking love you ❤️

She promptly re-hid it, swearing under her breath and reminding herself to tell Taylor that she fucking loves her back.

Taylor still had the decency to act surprised at the birthday party, Karlie loved her for that.

--

The second time Karlie failed to properly hide Taylor's birthday present it was all Karlie's fault.

Taylor had gone to get the mail and came back waving a postcard only to find Karlie wrapping her birthday gift in plain sight on their bedroom floor.

Karlie (furiously blushing and muttering under her breath) attempted to shove the gift (wrapping and all) under their bed and hastily stood up to greet her wife.

"Hey, what's that?" She asked way too quickly and snatched the postcard out of Taylor's hand.

"It-it's from Austin in the Maldives...What...Were you doing?" There was a glint in her eye telling Karlie she knew the answer to her own question very well.

And yet you had to ask you smug, adorable little shit.

"Just, just wrapping...Joe's Christmas present!" Karlie said and for a second she thought she may have saved the situation, until Taylor squealed with delighted laughter.

"Aww, what are we getting the little dude this year?" Before Karlie could stop her Taylor has bent down and dragged the present out from under the bed by the wrapping paper, when she stood there holding the little cheesy book of love poems meant to be part of her gift that year Karlie had the nerve to mumble, in a defeated, tired sort of tone, "Dentastix..."

And at that point she really only had herself to blame.

--

The third time Karlie failed to properly hide Taylor's birthday present Karlie had resorted to hiding Taylor's gift at other people's places and Andrea had promised to keep mum, only she couldn't stop Scott.

They were sitting around the Swifts kitchen table eating dinner on a Sunday in December when Karlie's father-in-law suddenly spoke.

"So, - excluding a new Polaroid camera, of course – what would you like for your birthday, Taylor" His daughter never having been one to miss (blatantly stated) details blinked a few times in disbelief and then very slowly said, "wait, why are we excluding a new camera?" Andrea and Karlie had both frozen mid-bite and Scott looked like he wanted the ground to open up and swallow him.

"Well," He started, bravely soldering on, "I thought maybe-You, I mean-"

Just like that she turned to Karlie, grinning. "Baby?"

Karlie shook her head almost violently, "Nope!" She exclaimed, but the singer had her poor father in her sights now, "Dad, did Karlie-"

"Holy shit, I am so sorry, my big mouth, huh!" Scott started and Karlie could do nothing but laugh. "It's alright," She reassured, "it's impossible to keep secrets from this one anyhow."

"Don't we know it!"

Thanks, Chatsy

--

The fourth time Karlie failed to properly hide Taylor's birthday present curiosity almost literally killed the cat, or more accurately, the owner of the cat.

Karlie had hidden Taylor's birthday present on top of a cabinet in the living room one even she couldn't properly reach without a chair. Thus there was no way Taylor would even happen to see it until she got a frantic phone call from the singer. Frowning at her phone (Taylor usually never called when she knew Karlie was in a meeting) Karlie excused herself to the room full of Kode With Klossy investors and stepped outside.

"Hey Daisy, I'm a little busy, can I call you back in-?"

"Karlie," the voice on the other end said and she sounded panicked, even close to sobbing.

"Karlie, I can't get Benji down, I'm not even sure how he-"Taylor's story was rudely interrupted by a loud thud that for some reason caused her to shriek deafeningly loud right in her wife's ear.

"Taylor!" Karlie shirked back, alarmed now, "Tay, what happened, are you guys okay?"

"Benjamin, he somehow got on top of the cabinet in the living room, I have no idea how...anyway he pushed something down from there and it almost hit me...I'm sorry babe, I think maybe I'm going to need a new birthday present, this one appears to have shattered into a million pieces in my hair..."

"Shit!" Karlie mumbles, letting out the tiniest sigh, but keeping all traces of disappointment over the ruined gift from her voice and focusing on the problem at hand. "Are you okay? Have you tried getting on a chair and lifting Ben down?"

"I-I would, but now there's red stains and glass all over the floor...And me..."

"Sorry!"

"That's okay, thanks for the wine!"

--

The fifth time Karlie failed to properly hide Taylor's birthday present Karlie started to wonder if faith and the universe had seriously began conspiring against her?

It was the morning of Taylor's birthday and Karlie was stoked, this year she'd actually managed to hide the present all the way up until the actual day!

...Until Taylor innocently posted a picture on social media. It was a simple selfie of the two of them, ready for the night's party. It was cute, Taylor in a nice dress and classic red lip pressing a kiss to the cheek of a beaming Karlie. That was until the comments started flooding in.

Swiftie13: Hey @taylorswift13 ask @karliekloss what's on the dresser behind you lol

Annielovestaylor: I spy a birthday gift, nice wrapping @karliekloss #Relationshipgoals

Kaylortrash67: What the hell @karliekloss? You gotta hide @taylorswift13's present better!

Asdfghjing4kaylor: I hope that's a gift Taylor just forgot to open, that's not a very good hiding spot @karliekloss

Disaster was a fact and Karlie had no choice but to hand Taylor the present on live video where a slightly tipsy Taylor announced:

"She's the worst at keeping secrets and hiding gifts, but I love her so much, you guys!!"

--

The one time Karlie actually managed to properly hide Taylor's birthday present it came as a bit of a surprise to her too.

It was the morning of Taylor's 32nd birthday and Karlie had awoken before her wife to a churning feeling of discomfort in her stomach.

About three hours later she woke Taylor with a soft kiss.

"Hi," She whispered, "Happy birthday, baby!"

"Mmm, happy birthday to me!" Taylor mumbled sleepily and looked ready to turn back over and go to sleep, until Karlie spoke.

"Umm, I actually have a little surprise." Karlie revealed and suddenly wide awake Taylor sat up in bed.

"Oh, really?" She smirked and Karlie swallowed a little nervously. Picking up on this Taylor reached out and touched her wife's cheek in reassurance, "You look nervous," She observed, "why? You know I always love your presents!"

"Yeah, actually I love this one too!" Karlie reveled and attempted a shaky version of her trademark sunshine smile.

Taylor raised her eyebrows at this, "okay," she said slowly, "now you're freaking me out, spill!"

"Okay, well," Karlie nodded, "you're getting your actually prepared, wrapped present tonight at the party, but-"

"This one wasn't prepared?" Taylor interrupted curiously.

"In a way, this was actually even more prepared than the other one, I just, well, I wasn't sure I would be able to give it to you today specifically, but well..." Karlie put a stop to her own ramblings and took out what she'd had hidden behind her back ever since she sat down in front of Taylor on the bed.

A few second passed as Taylor stared from Karlie to what was in her hands and back again and then at the same time they both burst out crying...And laughing.

Taylor swallowed several times before she shrieked, in-between sobs and laughter, "Don't-don't touch me with your pee!" Karlie quickly threw the "present" to the floor and caught the incoming Taylor in her embrace as they rolled over on the bed in a pile of joy.

"We-We're going to be mommies!" Taylor all but yelled and pressed a few tear stained kisses to Karlie's own wet cheeks.

"We are!" The model exclaimed and held her wife close, "Happy birthday!"  

[mygustavo7]

Any financial blogger out there is probably licking their lips at the prospect of writing something about South Africa in its current state. Well I was licking mine when I saw a lot of misinfomation campaigns on social media. I was twitching my thumbs, with an overwhelmingly weird sensation that felt like walking out topless into a cold breeze. So I figured, why not share your thoughts man, I mean you said you want your people to learn, so teach them Rabbi’. Elon Musk did say that conventional education is a waste of time. It doesn’t equip you to survive in this jungle.

So this an attempt to conduct a virtual class, please bear with me, I am anti social so I am praying that this is relatable enough to the reader and conversational enough to force you to keep coming back for more.

Disclaimer though, yes I am FSCA rep, however that’s for a diffent thing. What I share in my blogs does not constitute any form of advice. This is strictly me sharing my thoughts on a lot of things. So please do not act recklessly and reference MyGustavo in your outlandish ways.

Thank you.

South Africa

The rainbow nation, Africa’s darling, the land of milk and honey for many. A country budding with so much potential to drive Africa forward. But hey we have had our fair share of troubles that have halted out advancement. Corruption,maldministration, poor governance and controls, cadre deployment, wait should I continue? The ripple effects have been catastrophic though, unemployment increased to 29%, my people are more poorer than ever, and oh Christo Wiese is no longer a dollar billionaire. That is too much drama than an isiBaya omnibus. I guess then you guys would understand why when COVID19 landed on our shores, the rand/dollar exchange plunged to R17.44, SASOL lost 95% of its market cap and Capitec lost R36bn market cap in a single session which peaked at R80bn over two days.

So what I want us to firstly look at the monetary policy and how the Reserve bank can help aid our recovery.

So Economics 101, the Reserve bank oversees the flow of money in the economy. Basic laws of demand and supply dictate that when there is an oversupply of something, demand is less and thereofore price is minimal. Contrary to the above though when there is a scarcity of a resource, Demand would be more and therefore there would be a corresponding increase in the price. So going back to the flow of money, when there is an oversupply of money in the economy then the price aka currency will be less, meaning the rand would depreciate against major currencies depending on their own monetary policies. Same way the inverse would occur if there was limited supply of the Rand. The flow of money in the economy is what drives economic activity. I mean if you have households providing labour, getting paid for it, buying goods and services from Businesses who require labour to produce more goods and services, then both these parties paying taxes to the government who then through the fiscus advance the much needed social responisbilites then logic prevails that economic growth would spike. But not in South Africa.

Households are struggling to find jobs, businesses are struggling to increase capacity and therefore hire more people, the government continues to under collect on taxes and resorting to overtaxing current taxpayers and the most messed up of this situation is that the fiscus continues to fall through the cracks of corruption and malfeasance. Dangerous terrain to try to navigate huh. Well that’s what Pres Ramaphosa and co find themselves in.

Covid19 has severly limited capacity. Businesses have scaled down, employees laid off and the overarching consequence is that an already contracting economy will contract ever further. Major banks have already announced spikes in impairments in their year end financials with FNB the worst hit. Essentially it means that the number of people defaulting on their debt repayments increased which poses significant risks to banks because they might have to right off the losses which is lost income. Governor Kganyago today announced a very bold move to slash the repo rate by 100 basis points. Well I would like to think that his and the MP committee’s view is that decreasing the repo rate will then encourage the much needed econ activity.

How?

So the repo rate is the rate that the reserve bank charges to lend money to banks. Banks will then add their margins on it and then based on your risk profile charge you an interest rate on your lending. So when the repo rate is high then banks charge you more, if its less then you are charged less. So to boost economic activity you want to decrease the rate so that households have less money to pay to banks and more disposal income to spend on goods and services. What the MPC wanted to achieve is to encourage us to spend as much as we can during these times so that our recovery once this pandemic subsides is smooth. It was a good decision however the offset is that as I explained above, the Rand will depreciate against some currencies due to its oversupply.

I am comfortable with this decision, albeit unpopular but it is a progressive decision that will yield benefits. Yes we are paying more for imports but we are still receiving more for exports as well as the Fiscus gaining some much needed boost in duties and tarrifs. Consumers spending more will also increase VAT collected.

So phambili Governor. We are happy with this progressive leadership you have provided.

In my next post I am going to explore the Oil price collapse, resulting in the capitulation of SASOL’s share price. Then the most interesting part of my blog will start….STOCKS/SHARES.

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

Do send through your comments and likes so we can continously improve our engagement.

Teboho Gustavo Makume

[ab543219]

Week 1

Research question: relation between political score and alcohol consumption Explanatory variable is political score. Response variable is alcohol consumption. Null hypothesis: there is no relationship between political score and alcohol consumption, i.e. population means are equal. Alternative hypothesis: population means are not equal.

Python program: import numpy import pandas import statsmodels.formula.api as smf import statsmodels.stats.multicomp as multi

data = pandas.read_csv('gapminder.csv', low_memory=False)

#setting variables you will be working with to numeric data['polityscore'] = data['polityscore'].convert_objects(convert_numeric=True) data['alcconsumption'] = data['alcconsumption'].convert_objects(convert_numeric=True)

sub1 = data rec = lambda x : 0 if x <= -6 else 1 if x < 0 else 2 if x <= 5 else 3 if x <= 8 else 4 if x <= 10 else 5 sub2 = sub1[['polityscore','alcconsumption']].dropna() sub2['usrScore']= sub2['polityscore'].map(rec)

model1 = smf.ols(formula='alcconsumption ~ C(usrScore)', data=sub2) results1 = model1.fit() print (results1.summary())

print( "group, size") print (sub2.groupby('usrScore').size()) print( "group, min") minUS = sub2.groupby('usrScore').min() print(minUS) print( "group, max") maxUS = sub2.groupby('usrScore').max() print(maxUS) print( "group, std") sdUS = sub2.groupby('usrScore').std() print (sdUS) print( "group, mean") meanUS = sub2.groupby('usrScore').mean() print (meanUS)

mc1 = multi.MultiComparison(sub2['alcconsumption'], sub2['usrScore']) res1 = mc1.tukeyhsd() print(res1.summary())

Results:                            OLS Regression Results                             ============================================================================== Dep. Variable:         alcconsumption   R-squared:                       0.214 Model:                            OLS   Adj. R-squared:                  0.194 Method:                 Least Squares   F-statistic:                     10.42 Date:                Sun, 08 Sep 2019   Prob (F-statistic):           1.71e-07 Time:                        14:05:17   Log-Likelihood:                -463.41 No. Observations:                 158   AIC:                             936.8 Df Residuals:                     153   BIC:                             952.1 Df Model:                           4                                         Covariance Type:            nonrobust                                         ====================================================================================                       coef    std err          t      P>|t|      [0.025      0.975] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Intercept            4.1805      0.985      4.245      0.000       2.235       6.126 C(usrScore)[T.1]    -0.1513      1.377     -0.110      0.913      -2.872       2.570 C(usrScore)[T.2]     0.6883      1.350      0.510      0.611      -1.979       3.356 C(usrScore)[T.3]     2.5826      1.216      2.125      0.035       0.181       4.984 C(usrScore)[T.4]     5.8235      1.197      4.864      0.000       3.458       8.189 ============================================================================== Omnibus:                       24.255   Durbin-Watson:                   1.893 Prob(Omnibus):                  0.000   Jarque-Bera (JB):               30.908 Skew:                           0.936   Prob(JB):                     1.94e-07 Kurtosis:                       4.091   Cond. No.                         6.97 ==============================================================================

Warnings: [1] Standard Errors assume that the covariance matrix of the errors is correctly specified. group, size usrScore 0    22 1    23 2    25 3    42 4    46 dtype: int64 group, min          polityscore  alcconsumption usrScore                             0               -10.0            0.10 1                -5.0            0.11 2                 0.0            0.03 3                 6.0            0.51 4                 9.0            0.28 group, max          polityscore  alcconsumption usrScore                             0                -6.0           18.85 1                -1.0           16.40 2                 5.0           16.23 3                 8.0           23.01 4                10.0           17.24 group, std          polityscore  alcconsumption usrScore                             0            1.185227        4.806443 1            1.254242        3.942651 2            2.018250        4.566582 3            0.812575        5.394016 4            0.465215        4.063956 group, mean          polityscore  alcconsumption usrScore                             0           -7.500000        4.180455 1           -2.869565        4.029130 2            2.640000        4.868800 3            7.214286        6.763095 4            9.695652       10.003913 Multiple Comparison of Means - Tukey HSD, FWER=0.05 =================================================== group1 group2 meandiff p-adj   lower  upper  reject ---------------------------------------------------     0      1  -0.1513    0.9 -3.9537  3.651  False     0      2   0.6883    0.9 -3.0389 4.4156  False     0      3   2.5826  0.215  -0.773 5.9383  False     0      4   5.8235  0.001  2.5183 9.1286   True     1      2   0.8397    0.9 -2.8442 4.5236  False     1      3    2.734 0.1564 -0.5735 6.0414  False     1      4   5.9748  0.001  2.7186 9.2309   True     2      3   1.8943 0.4851 -1.3265 5.1151  False     2      4   5.1351  0.001   1.967 8.3032   True     3      4   3.2408 0.0108  0.5196  5.962   True ---------------------------------------------------

Interpretation: F-statistic of 10.42 and P-value of 1.71e-07 mean that there is significant difference between population means that can't be explained by chance. Null hypothesis can be rejected.

Important: no cause and effect: democracy doesn’t make people to drink alcohol. Increase can be caused by variety of reasons such as more income, more freedom to do things including harm oneself.

Post-hoc test: Tukey HSD test shows that null hypothesis can be rejected for samples 0 and 4 (autocratic and democratic countries), 1 and 4 (mildly autocratic and democratic countries), 2 and 4 (somewhat democratic and democratic countries) 3 and 4 (mostly democratic and democratic countries)

[helvreads]

It begins

So, I used to read a lot.  Like, A LOT.  I averaged maybe seven to nine books a week at one point.  As I’ve gotten older and busier that number has gradually dropped, and my last job about murdered me in every sense, including the book reading one.  Now, I do still read, but the books get read slower than they come in, which leaves me with a hell of a backlog.  So in order to get back on track and work on that to read shelf (a recent photo of which is the header for this blog), I’m going to do one of those stupid reading challenges in 2019.  The goal?  An average of a book a week, or 52 books.  In order to help keep myself on task I’ll be reviewing each book here (anything relevant will get reblogged to my main @helvetica12point). Also, because I know my reading habits, I’m going to set up some ground rules.  Some will seem odd and may seem slightly cheaty, but keep in mind that I’m trying to get the to read shelf down to something a bit more manageable in addition to reading more again.

So here are my rules for myself:

Only incoming books to be added to the collection are allowed.  No rereads of favorites currently in the collection count. Borrowed books also do not count. That said, books that have previously been read but not owned are fair game.

Future incoming books as well as books currently on the to read shelf are all fair game. I have disposable income and there’s no way I’m not buying books for a year, are you insane?

ebooks do not count.  They take up no physical space and will not help with the clearing the pile goal.

books written for the 10 and under crowd do not count.  Young adult books do.

graphic novels and manga will be counted at a reduced value, except omnibus editions. These values are as follows: 4 graphic novels=1 book, 3 volumes of manga=1 book.  Omnibus editions such as Marvel Essentials or DC Showcase will count as one full book.

As long as it follows the above rules, size doesn’t matter.  A 60 page book and a 600 page book both have the same value.  Don’t worry, I won’t be cheating and reading nothing but skinny things.  The current to read shelf probably averages 200-300 pgs per book.  While I don’t think I”ll get through War and Peace, I do plan on Roots, so let me have some quick stuff to balance it.

as long as it follows the above rules, content doesn’t matter.  I have diverse interests.  Ya’ll are going to get some widely varied reviews.  It might be fiction, it might be non fiction, it might be fiction masquerading as nonfiction.  Some of it is almost certainly going to be embarrassing to admit I read it.

A book must be completed in 2019 to count.  This may seem like cheating, but I’ve got some stuff lying around half finished for months and even years.  Obviously if there’s just a couple pages left it doesn’t count, but otherwise, yeah, it counts.  Keep in mind, this will apply at the end of the year too, so anything I start but don’t finish in December 2019 won’t count.

52 is a minimum.  I know I can do better.  tbh, I’d really like to plan for twice that.  104 sounds nice, right? Let’s make that a stretch goal.  Ideally, I want to be able to keep a third of the to read shelf empty consistently. So like, when I hit 52 we’re not stopping. The sky is the limit.  I’ve honestly never kept track of how many books I read before.

It must be reviewed to count as an accountability measure.  Doesn’t have to be a long review.  It can be just a couple sentences. But there’s gotta be a post.

Books that don’t count towards the goal may still be read and reviewed if desired, but I’ll mark that they don’t count in the tags or something.  Like, I’ve got this awesome picture book I kickstartered that’ll be in and I know ya’ll will want to see it.

So yeah, that’s the plan.  If you want to play along, feel free to use or alter these rules for yourself as you see fit (some people may have better libraries than I do.  See you soon!

[shareyourdatawithme]

Data Analysis Tools - Lesson 1 ANOVA - Take 2

For this assignment we were to focus on running an Analysis of Variance or ANOVA in python.  I chose to analyze if there was a statistical relationship between urbanization rate (mean = 56.77, s.d. +/- 23.84) and income per person (mean = 8,740.97, s.d. +/- 14,262) from the gapminder dataset.  This is a test to see if the more urban your area is, does that result in a higher salary. The null hypothesis (Ho) in this case is that there is no difference in the mean of income per person across the urbanization rate (categorical variable), while the alternative (Ha) is that there is a difference.  Because urbanization rate is quantitative variable, I needed to make the values categorical and this is covered in the python script below.  I did this by creating 3 groups out of the urban data and numbering those groups from 1 through 3.

I used the OLS function to calculate the F-statistic and associated p value between the two datasets.

The output result, as pasted below shows the calculated F statistic value of 37.28 and a p value of 2.36x10-14. With such a small Since our p value is lower than 0.05 means that we reject the null hypothesis and we accept the alternate hypothesis that there is a difference in means between the 3 groups of urban data vs income per person.  So there is no statistical relationship between urbanization rate and income per person.

Next, I conducted a post hoc test to compare to determine if there are any type one errors in our ANOVA.  I did this by conducting the Tukey HSD test with the script covered below. The output from the Tukey HSD is pasted below.  The multiple comparisons below indicate that we can reject the null hypothesis in 2 of the 3 combinations below.  Only the first combinations of urban group 1 and 2 vs the income per person can we say that there is a relationship between those two groups and our income per person indicator.

                            OLS Regression Results                            

==============================================================================

Dep. Variable:       incomeperperson   R-squared:                       0.285

Model:                            OLS   Adj. R-squared:                  0.277

Method:                 Least Squares   F-statistic:                     37.28

Date:               Wed, 12 Jan 2022   Prob (F-statistic):           2.36e-14

Time:                       10:04:15   Log-Likelihood:                -2054.6

No. Observations:                 190   AIC:                             4115.

Df Residuals:                     187   BIC:                             4125.

Df Model:                           2                                        

Covariance Type:           nonrobust                                        

======================================================================================

                        coef    std err          t     P>|t|      [0.025      0.975]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intercept           3445.4223   2049.335      1.681     0.094    -597.364    7488.208

C(urbangroup)[T.2] 1496.0110   2350.325      0.637     0.525   -3140.547    6132.569

C(urbangroup)[T.3] 1.909e+04   2745.997      6.953     0.000    1.37e+04    2.45e+04

==============================================================================

Omnibus:                     181.250   Durbin-Watson:                   1.961

Prob(Omnibus):                  0.000   Jarque-Bera (JB):             3658.302

Skew:                           3.634   Prob(JB):                         0.00

Kurtosis:                      23.231   Cond. No.                         5.16

     Multiple Comparison of Means - Tukey HSD, FWER=0.05    

============================================================

group1 group2 meandiff  p-adj    lower     upper    reject

------------------------------------------------------------

    1      2   1496.011 0.7804 -4057.0802 7049.1022  False

    1      3 19093.0933  0.001 12605.1496  25581.037   True

    2      3 17597.0823  0.001 12494.0078 22700.1568   True

 import pandas as pd

import numpy as np

import seaborn as sea

import matplotlib.pyplot as plt

import statsmodels.formula.api as smf

import statsmodels.stats.multicomp as multi

 #import data

data = pd.read_csv('gapminder_data.csv',low_memory=(False))

 #setting variables to numeric

data['incomeperperson'] = pd.to_numeric(data['incomeperperson'],errors='coerce')

data['urbanrate'] = pd.to_numeric(data['urbanrate'],errors='coerce')

 #new urbanrate variable, categories 1-3 and applying the categories to the data

def urbangroup (row):

  if row['urbanrate'] < 30 :

     return 1

  if row['urbanrate'] >= 30 and row['urbanrate'] <=75:

     return 2

  if row['urbanrate'] > 75:

     return 3

 data['urbangroup'] = data.apply (lambda row: urbangroup (row),axis=1)

 sub1=data[['incomeperperson','urbangroup']]

 # ols function to calculate the F-statistic and associated p value

 model1 = smf.ols(formula='incomeperperson ~ C(urbangroup)', data=sub1)

results1 = model1.fit()

print (results1.summary())

 sub2 = sub1[['incomeperperson', 'urbangroup']].dropna()

 print ('means for incomeperperson by urban')

m1= sub2.groupby('urbangroup').mean()

print (m1)

 print ('standard deviation for income by urban group')

s1=sub2.groupby('urbangroup').std()

print (s1)

 mc1 = multi.MultiComparison(sub2['incomeperperson'], sub2['urbangroup'])

res1 = mc1.tukeyhsd()

print(res1.summary())

[atlanticcanada]

There is strong public support for Provincial and Territorial Governments sharing COVID-19 vaccine supplies with regions of the country that have a more urgent need.

HALIFAX, March 9th, 2021

New survey results indicate deep and broad support among adults in the country for their Provincial or Territorial Government sharing its vaccine supply with another province or terriotry that has a more urgent need. Specifically, four-in-five (79%) Canadians support such sharing, while one-in-five (21%) oppose the idea.

Across the country, residents in Ontario are slightly more inclined than those elsewhere to support their Provincial Government sharing vaccine in such circumstances, while conversely, those in the Quebec and BC/the Territories are slightly less inclined to express support. In no instance, however, do fewer than 72 percent of residents in a region voice support.

There are only small differences of opinion on this matter in terms of household income, age or gender groups. On the other hand, there is a modest difference in terms of education status.  Specifically, whereas eight-in-ten of those with post-secondary educational training support vaccine sharing in this manner, the figure is closer to seven-in-ten among those with a high school diploma or less.  

Results are from an online survey conducted February 18-23, 2021, with 1,230 Canadians 18 years of age or older from the Logit Group’s Canadian Omnibus. Fielding every month, the Logit Group’s COVID-19 Omnibus surveys Canadians to ask their opinions and behaviours related to topical issues. Results were analyzed by Narrative Research. Data was weighted based on the 2016 Census, by gender, age, and region to reflect population characteristics in each province. As a non-probability sample (i.e., a panel sample where residents have joined a panel to share their opinions), and in accordance with CRIC Public Opinion Research Standards, a margin of error is not applied.

The question included in this release was the following:

If another province or territory had an urgent need for the COVID-19 vaccine but none were available in that part of Canada, would you favour or oppose the Government of [PROVINCE/TERRITORY] directing some of its vaccine to where it is urgently needed?

For more information, please contact:

Margaret Chapman, COO, Narrative Research – 902.493.3834, mchapman@narrativeresearch.ca OR Sam Pisani, Managing Partner, Logit Group – 416.629.4116, sam.pisani@logitgroup.com

Narrative Research (www.narrativeresearch.ca), is a leading public opinion and market research company headquartered in Canada. The company is certified as a WBE (Women Business Enterprise). As a non-partisan, 100% Canadian-owned research company, Narrative Research is dedicated to providing clients with state-of-the-art research and strategic consulting services.  Follow us on Twitter at @EveryNarrative

The Logit Group (https://logitgroup.com/) is a leading North American data collection and market research execution company headquartered in Toronto, conducting large-scale projects for a variety of well-known research agencies and brands. Logit employs industry-best technologies across an array of methodologies, and is independent, experienced and quality-oriented.  Follow us on Twitter at @LogitGroup

Click here to read as a PDF.

The post There is strong public support for Provincial and Territorial Governments sharing COVID-19 vaccine supplies with regions of the country that have a more urgent need. appeared first on Narrative Research.

from Narrative Research https://ift.tt/3bw3y9f

[conscienceisdead]

In preparing for this discussion, read Chapters 28, 29 and 30 of the course text

In preparing for this discussion, read Chapters 28, 29 and 30 of the course text

In preparing for this discussion, read Chapters 28, 29 and 30 of the course text. For your initial post, Step 1: Select one law from (1) Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), (2) Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (CORBA), (3) Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), or (4) Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Step 2: Address the following…

[ersatzash]

In preparing for this discussion, read Chapters 28, 29 and 30 of the course text

In preparing for this discussion, read Chapters 28, 29 and 30 of the course text

In preparing for this discussion, read Chapters 28, 29 and 30 of the course text. For your initial post, Step 1: Select one law from (1) Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), (2) Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (CORBA), (3) Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), or (4) Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Step 2: Address the following…