#since there has to be some sort of balance with voting out contestants from different teams

[inanimationinsanitation]

I thought TSTOE was done dirty in TPOT 10 imo cause Two literally chose a robot as a contestant and realized that robots don’t dream and they didn’t even bother waking robot flower up and use a different teammate

I guess so From an in-universe stand point they probably didn't think about choosing a different contestant, since just slightly altering the win conditions was easier, or maybe they couldn't reverse it (unlikely)

Though what would theoretically been Robot Flower's dream, had she been able to dream. I think in her nightmare TSTOE would've found RF as the actual Flower, because that's what she wanted. But as soon as RF starts to interact with the rest of the dream world, they find out that still no one cares. That it doesn't matter if she's herself her pretending to be someone else, they just don't care. Because let's face it, Robot Flower wants people to care about her, and what would be scarier than to change everything about yourself just to realize it was all in vain

[earthboundvalkyrie]

Murder Or Banish? Decisions Abound On The Traitors (Review)

New Post has been published on https://www.ebvs.blog/2023/01/30/murder-or-banish-decisions-abound-on-the-traitors-review/

Murder Or Banish? Decisions Abound On The Traitors (Review)

NO SPOILERS

In my recent review on “Pressure Cooker” I mentioned how I disliked it during the early seasons of skilled competition shows when people made decisions based on “game strategy” rather than on merit. It may surprise you, then, to learn that I absolutely loved Peacock’s “The Traitors.” On “The Traitors” “game strategy” is the whole point.

The show is set in Scotland, ostensibly at the castle of our host, Alan Cumming, who was born to play this role. He has invited 20 people – 10 who have been on other reality shows (most of them from Peacock’s corporate sister, Bravo, but a few others as well) and 10, well, normal people to join him at his castle for a little game. Not being a big watcher of reality shows, I didn’t really know who anyone was, and in all honesty, it didn’t make a difference as far as enjoying the program went. There are some references to their previous stints, but nothing you can’t follow just by the dialog on this show.

Traitors players Michael Davidson, Anjelica Conti, Cirie Fields, Brandi Glanville, Rachel Reilly, Kate Chastain, Robert “Bam” Nieves, Ryan Lochte, Arie Luyendyk Jr., Christian de la Torre, Cody, Calafiore, Kyle Cook, Amanada Clark, Azra Valani, Stephenie LaGrossa Kendrick, Reza Farahan, Geraldine Moreno, and Quentin Jiles (Photo by Euan Cherry/Peacock)

Each day, the contestants engage in a mission of some sort. One day, they may be trying to blow up wood frame Scottish beasts, another, they’re struggling to roll barrels through the castle grounds. The point of the missions is for them to collectively earn money toward the prize pot of up to $250,000.

The contenders have been divided into two groups, but not everyone knows who’s in which group. Some have been selected by Cumming to serve as the titular Traitors, who’s job is to get rid of as many of the other players as possible without getting caught. The rest are known as the Faithful.

The Traitors all learn who’s on which team because each night, they don heavy cloaks, sneak through the castle carrying a lantern and meet in a creepy castle turret to decide who they’re going to murder. Once the victim is picked, their judgement is delivered to the victim, who is now out of the game.

The Faithful, however, are watching each other to try to determine who the Traitors are, and each night, the full cast – Faithful and Traitors – gather at the Round Table to discuss who they think are Traitors and should therefore be banished from the game.

In the end, if the Faithful banish all the Traitors, then the remaining Faithful will share however much of the $250K they’ve earned. However, if any Traitors remain, the Traitors split the pot.

Cumming is an exceptional choice to host this event. His Scottish accent is simply gorgeous, and he switches between witty, mysterious, devious and charming as he greets the surviving cast members each morning at breakfast, explains the missions and hosts the Round Table discussion each evening. His presence is unmistakable, and he’s an integral part of the show, but he doesn’t overwhelm the events. It’s not an easy balance to strike, but he does it extremely well.

Of course, players start quickly forming alliances and comparing notes as to whom they think they traitors are. Contestants try to decipher the Traitors’ strategy in whom they choose to murder, declare who they “know” is a Traitor and cozy up to those they believe wouldn’t lie to them. Since we know who is on which team, we recognize just how right or wrong they are, which can be pretty funny. Listening to the Traitors trying to decide whom to murder is interesting, as they work out the logic behind their choices.

But the big event is really the Round Table meeting and voting. Here accusations are made, defenses are presented, and pleas of innocence are heard. It gets raucous, to be sure, but it never feels out of hand, and the producers show enough of the dialogue to follow how the voting gets decided, but not so long that it becomes tiresome or overly repetitive. Once a person has been banished, they then reveal to the other players if they were a Faithful or a Traitor.

While the rest of the show leading up to it is a great deal of fun, and well worth watching, the ending is something that must be seen to be believed. Don’t worry, I will not go into details except to say I did not see it coming and It. Was. Epic.

So, if you’re looking for a nice bit of backstabbing, lying and traitorous deeds, you’ll want to give this a go.

[rockofeye]

hey, any chance you can give an overview of what's happening in Haiti? i've been trying to follow the news but it's difficult to put together.

Hi there,

I can do my best, but I will tell y’all upfront that the situation in Haiti is multi-layered and multi-faceted with no easy answers or solutions.

The flashpoint for the most recent visible upheaval in the country is related to the current president, Jovenel Moïse. The runoff election he ran in was in 2015 and the results of that election were heavily contested; he was one of the final nominees that would move forward to the presidential election with just under 33% of the total vote but exit polls had him at less than 10% of the vote. Huge protests started and so the final vote was postponed until late 2016. Moïse was declared the winner with less than 25% of the vote, and was sworn in on February 7, 2017.

This is important because presidential term is 5 years, and this is the crux of the current debates and protests. The opposition party and Moïse’s critics maintain that his term ended on February 7, 2021 according to the original election mandate from 2016, and Moïse maintains he is to serve until February 7, 2022 according to when he actually took office. 

There are a LOT of different opinions (legal and otherwise) about this. Haiti’s highest judicial body (Conseil supérieur de la magistrature) ruled that Moïse’s term ended on February 7, 2021, and popular opinion is kind of mixed; split very evenly along class in Haiti. Folks who are upper class are generally believing Moïse when he says he will leave on February 7, 2022, working class and folks who are poorer say his term is over. Outside of Haiti, it seems like many Haitian think that he will leave in 2022 or that he needs to leave now to prevent further issues, whether his term is over or not.

Of course the US had to weigh in and Biden recognized that Moïse’s term ends in 2022, which is not helpful at all...the US has meddled enough in Haitian politics via sponsoring various coups and generally occupying the country. Biden’s administration has said that there need to be lawful elections to transition a president out of office, which is a a nice ideal...but what happens with the system is totally broken?

Moïse has not been a super popular president and in many ways has been downright ineffective. He ran on a platform with a lot of big ideas and a falsified folksy background to appeal to the common population in Haiti (many Haitian laugh when folks bring up that Moïse was a banana farmer...). He *has* brought electricity and fresh water to a bunch of communities, but that definitely doesn’t make up for his bullshit.

He’s done enough awful things that, in the eyes of many Haitians. He essentially destroyed Haiti’s parliament (sort of like Congress in the US...Haiti’s government systems are very Napoleonic in origin) by not allowing elections and has ruled by decree since 2019 (I believe), meaning no checks and balances in place. He has thrown the prime minister under the bus any time he receives criticism, and has had numerous prime ministers...he just fires and hires, and since the parliament is essentially hamstrung, he just appoints them.

In late 2020 and early 2021, he started looking more and more like a dictator. He had political opponents and high ranking officials arrested and jailed (senators, a supreme court justice, and the head of the national police, among others) and has made accusations of plots to assassinate him that are super suspicious and likely non-existent. He fired 3 supreme court justices, which is unheard of, and has doubled down on maintaining the office. He’s called for a re-write of the Haitian constitution which, if undertaken at any other time, could potentially be a good thing but right now it sure seems like a grab for power, as some of the proposed re-writes give the president’s office more power than it has right now. The referendum vote is scheduled for late June, and has a LOT of opposition.

So, that’s some background.

In late January, the opposition issued a statement that if Moïse refused to leave, the country would be locked down on February 7. There were already a lot of protests with a lot of shutdowns happening, but when he didn’t step down things, stuff got really hot.

Gangs in Haitii are serious business; they run neighborhoods and many of them are government or opposition sponsored with the goal of creating chaos to drive people to supporting one or the other and to create fear. Kidnappings skyrocketed, both of Haitians and foreign nationals. Folks may have seen the footage of folks walking into a church livestreaming a service and kidnapping the pastor and two others live on camera. It’s been serious and blatant. My step-son was at school when armed gunmen walked in and just grabbed two kids right out. 

Gangs have also been used to really instill fear. In poor neighborhoods, they have done things like break into people’s homes, drag them out, and kill them in the street, or burn a block to the ground. Gang leaders say it is in response to various other things happening in the country, but that’s crap...gangs are used as tools to control. 

In response to the heightened violence and the kidnapping of at least two lawyers, the entire judicial branch of the government--all of the courts and associated offices--went on strike on February 15, which halted all legal proceedings in a legal system that is deeply broken already (up to 90% of people held in Haitian jails have no charges filed against them). There was a massive prison break in the capital in February where close to 500 people escaped and around 50 were killed during it and in the aftermath, including a gang leader shot at a police checkpoint. A group of police responding to gang violence in a neighborhood in the capital were massacred and the gang responsible refused to turn over their bodies. It’s been a lot.

In the last week, the large gangs (400 Mawozo, the G9 alliance, etc) have agreed to stop kidnappings, which is a huge deal. It’s possible that this is in response to veiled threats coming from the UN and a Caribbean nation alliance about peacekeeping forces to address violence and ensure elections. It seems that Port-au-Prince is the most volatile area (which is pretty average honestly), with much of the other parts of the country not experiencing the same level of violence.

Also in the mix is the deeply disheartening situation with the Dominican Republic. DR continues to deport Haitians and people of Haitian descent regardless of their citizenship status, meaning that hundreds and hundreds of people are being forced to go to Haiti, even if they have never lived there before, do not speak the language, and have no connections to help them. It is an absolutely overwhelming crisis that there has not garnered much foreign notice. At least 200,000 Haitians and folks of Haitian descent have been forcibly removed, with that number likely being much higher. There have been a lot of rumors about extrajudicial killings by police of Haitians in the DR, but of course there is no official statement on that.

These actions by the DR are heavily rooted in colorism/anti-Blackness and anti-Haitianismo, and, if we are really honest, this is a type of ethnic cleansing that has been utilized long-term by the DR.

In all of this, COVID19 has almost been a non-issue. Haiti has not seen the level of pandemic the rest of the world has. Folks are paying attention to the lack of transmission and, when there is a positive case detected, non-symptomatic infection. A lot of folks I know in Haiti don’t know anyone who has had COVID or even heard of anyone having it. Of course, Haiti is well-versed in pandemic management (thank UN cholera-bearers) and folks are used to taking preventative measures so folding in things like handwashing and extra disinfection have been pretty easy for lots of folks.

All of these things have increased the reach of poverty, lack of food and basic needs, and general misery for many folks living in Haiti. Haiti has been dealing with the long-term effects of colonization and occupation since basically forever; Haiti struggles to remain independent in the face of crushing poverty, corrupt governments, and many-strings-attached foreign aid. 

So...that’s convoluted basics. I hope this provides some context; please let me know if I can clarify anything.

[prakhayth]

Understanding The Different Types of Cryptocurrency

January 15, 2021 · 8 minute read

We’re here to help! First and foremost, SoFi Learn strives to be a beneficial resource to you as you navigate your financial journey. Read more

Cryptocurrencies can act like real money—in a sense, they are real money—but they take a digital monetary form and are not managed or governed by any central authority. A true product of the digital age, cryptocurrencies operate without the involvement of banks, governments, or any middleman. However, in most cases you will need to use a digital currency exchange to buy and sell cryptocurrency.

In 2020, there were more than 50 million blockchain wallet users.

What provides security is that cryptocurrencies are encrypted (secured) with specialized computer code called cryptography. They’re designed like a complicated puzzle on purpose so that they’re hard to crack (and hack).

By September 2020, the number of blockchain wallet users rose to more than 50 million, according to research published by Statista  —with Bitcoin boasting more than 7 million active users.

Insiders call it “crypto,” so that’s what we’ll be calling it going forward.

How Many Different Types of Crypto Are There?

As of April 2021, there are over 10,000 different types  of cryptocurrency.

The different types of crypto generally fall into one of two categories: •  Coins, which can include Bitcoin and altcoins (non-Bitcoin cryptocurrencies) •  Tokens

Below, we’ll get into the basics of crypto tokens vs coins.

Crypto Tokens vs. Coins

Encrypted coins and tokens can fall under the heading of crypto. And, generally, they can be listed into two sorts of cryptocurrency: alternative cryptocurrency coins (Altcoins) or tokens.

Alternative Cryptocurrency Coins (Altcoins)

Altcoins usually refer to any coins that are not Bitcoins. Bitcoin is a popular digital currency that’s produced by computational solutions to complicated math problems. It works separately from a central bank or state entity (i.e., government-backed Treasury).

Some altcoins include:

•  Peercoin •  Litecoin •  Dogecoin •  Auroracoin •  Namecoin

In fact, the name “altcoin” actually means “alternative to Bitcoin.” Namecoin is considered the very first altcoin, created in 2011.

Like Bitcoin, most cryptocurrencies listed here have a limited supply of coins—to keep the balance in check and to reinforce its perceived value. There is a fixed number of Bitcoins that can exist—21 million, as decided by the creator/s of Bitcoin, though some remain to be mined. Once all 21 million are tapped (the number changes when new blocks are mined), that’s it. The only way to bring in more is for Bitcoin’s protocol to allow for it.

Though most altcoins are built upon the same basic framework as Bitcoin, many claim to be better versions of Bitcoin. Each system can differ from the next, as they’re created to serve various purposes and applications, and identified in different ways.

Some coins don’t work with the same open-source protocol that Bitcoin does, however. For example, the following list of cryptocurrencies have created their own separate systems and protocols:

•  Ethereum •  Ripple •  Omni •  Nxt •  Waves •  Counterparty

They’re each self-supporting, too.

Tokens

Unlike altcoins, tokens are created and given out through an Initial Coin Offering, or ICO, very much like a stock offering. They can be represented as:

•  Value tokens (Bitcoins) •  Security tokens (to protect your account) •  Utility tokens (designated for specific uses)

They are not so much meant to be used as money as they are used to describe a function. Like American dollars, they represent value but they are not in themselves of value. Tokens are a type of encryption, specifically referring to the long lines of numbers and letters representing the crypto used in a transaction, such as a money transfer or bill payment. In short, tokens cover a number of meanings.

For instance, both Bitcoin and Ether (from Ethereum) are considered crypto tokens.

Ready to add crypto

to your portfolio?

Trade Now

The Most Common Types of Cryptocurrency

Here’s a list of popular cryptocurrency types and descriptions:

1. Bitcoin

Bitcoin is a type of digital currency; it is “cash for the internet.” More specifically, it’s considered cryptocurrency since cryptography facilitates Bitcoin creation and transactions.

Possibly the “Kleenex” or “Coca Cola” of all crypto, in that its name is the most recognizable and the most closely associated with the cryptocurrency system.

There are currently  more than 18.5 million Bitcoin tokens in circulation, against a present capped limit of 21 million.

2. Bitcoin Cash

Introduced in 2017, Bitcoin Cash is one of the most popular types of cryptocurrency on the market. Its main difference with the original Bitcoin is its block size: 8MB. Compare that to the original Bitcoin’s block size of just 1MB. What that means for users—faster processing speeds.

3. Litecoin

Litecoin is increasingly used in the same breath as Bitcoin, and it functions practically the same way. It was created in 2011 by Charlie Lee, a former employee of Google. He designed it to improve on Bitcoin technology, with shorter transaction times, lower fees, more concentrated miners.

4. Ethereum

Unlike Bitcoin, Ethereum focuses not as much on digital currency as it does on decentralized applications (phone apps). You could think of Ethereum as an app store.

The platform is looking to return control of apps to its original creators, and take away that control from middlemen (like Apple, for instance). The only person who can make changes to the app would be the original creator. The token used here is called Ether, which is used as currency by app developers and users.

5. Ripple

Ripple is one type of cryptocurrency on the list, but it’s not Blockchain-based  . It’s not meant so much for individual users as it is for larger companies and corporations, moving larger amounts of money (its coinage is known as XRP) across the globe.

It’s more well-known for its digital payment protocol more than for its XRP crypto. That’s because the system allows for transfer of monies in any form, be it dollars or even Bitcoin (or others). It claims to be able to handle 1,500 transactions per second (tps). Compare this with Bitcoin, which can handle 3-6 tps (not including scaling layers). Ethereum can handle 15 tps.

6. Stellar

Stellar focuses on money transfers, and its network is designed to make them faster and more efficient, even across national borders. It was designed by Ripple co-founder Jed McCaleb in 2014 and is operated by a non-profit organization called Stellar.org  .

Its goal is to assist developing economies that may not have access to traditional banks and investment opportunities. It doesn’t charge users or institutions for using its Stellar network, and covers operating costs by accepting tax-deductible public donations.

7. NEO

Formerly called Antshares and developed in China, NEO is very aggressively looking to become a major global crypto player. Its focus is smart contracts (digital contracts) that allow users to create and execute agreements without the use of an intermediary.

It’s going after its main competition, Ethereum, but NEO lead developer Erik Zhang mentioned  on a Reddit AMA that NEO has three distinct advantages—better architecture, more developer-friendly smart contracts, and digital identity and digital assets for easier integration into the real world.

Ethereum, on the other hand, uses its own programming languages that developers must first learn before creating smart contracts on its platform.

8. Cardano

Cardano aka ADA is used to send and receive digital funds. It claims to be a more balanced and sustainable ecosystem for cryptocurrencies, and the only coin with a “scientific philosophy and research-driven approach.”

That means that it undergoes especially rigorous reviews by scientists and programmers. It was founded by Charles Hoskinson, who is also the co-founder of Ethereum.

9. IOTA

Launched in 2016, IOTA stands for Internet of Things Application. Unlike most other Blockchain technologies, it doesn’t actually work with a block and chain; it works with smart devices on the Internet of Things (IoT).

All you need to do to use it is to verify two other previous transactions on the IOTA ledger, which is called the Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG), but IOTA creators call it The Tangle.

According to Coin Central  , this means the devices need to be able to purchase more electricity, bandwidth, storage, or data when they need them, and sell those resources when they don’t need them.

The Role of Miners In Cryptocurrency

How exactly do you get your virtual hands on different types of cryptocurrency? You can buy it the old-fashioned way. Or, you can trade it on an exchange using other crypto (for example, using Bitcoin to buy NEO). Some blogs and media platforms pay its content providers in crypto.

Then, there are the miners  . Miners usually don’t pay directly for their crypto; they earn it with their smarts. These tech savvy investors can be compared to the prospectors of the Old West, panning for gold in 1848.

The value is built in because the supply is limited—it’s just up to the complex computers to dig it up by cracking codes and solving complicated puzzles. A lot of it is guesswork, but once the “block” (of the blockchain) is solved, the other miners drop what they’re doing and go on to the next block. No parting gifts—the contestants just turn their attention to the next game round.

If the puzzle is solved, the reward is a certain amount of crypto, and sometimes even voting power on the platform. As of October 2020, the value of one bitcoin had well exceeded $13,000  .

Sounds sweet, but mining isn’t cheap. It requires powerful, expensive hardware and lots of electricity. Also, the number of awarded crypto will be going down, usually by halves every four years or so. Unfortunately, that might not do your utility bill any favors.

Forks, Hard Forks, and Soft Forks

Sometimes, a cryptocurrency—whether Bitcoin or an altcoin—forks. This typically happens when systems need an upgrade or update, or occasional steering (ie a large enough group of miners decide to make new rules for the network.

You could think of a fork like an actual fork, the kind you eat with. Each prong represents a different open-source code modification, but the prongs are designed to work together to assist in the main function.

Sometimes, forks happen by accident when nodes start making copies or if they do not recognize conflicting or unfamiliar information or characteristics. This is what leads to the difference between hard forks and soft forks.

Hard Forks

If a protocol is changed so that the old protocol version is no longer valid, call that a hard fork. This could be problematic, because if the older, now-invalid protocol is still running, it could lead you to scratch your head and say, “what the fork?” It could cause confusion and even possibly a loss of funds, because the old and new protocols running together are butting heads and making mysteries.

An example of a hard-fork problem—with Bitcoin, for instance, a hard fork is a must when making changes and protocol updates to the Blockchain. The new protocol is cool with the changes, but the old protocol becomes a hot mess, not understanding the new activity going on.

Since the old protocol rejects the new changes because it doesn’t recognize them, that causes a traffic jam or worse. The old protocol will claim that the changes and updates are not valid, even if they are. What you then get are two blockchains, one old and one new. As these chains grow, so can your problems.

The hard-fork challenge, then, is to get all the nodes on the old protocol to switch to the new protocol all at once, and at the same time. This sounds easy, but technically it’s easier said than done.

Soft Forks

Unlike a hard fork, a soft fork is totally cool with the new changes and keeps working. The old version accepts the newer version. Harmony! The newer, updated blocks become longer, and it becomes obvious that the older (shorter) blocks are obsolete and unusable. This recognition eliminates confusion over which protocol is now the real deal (it’s the newer, valid one.)

When a soft fork is implemented, there has to be a “majority vote” on whether to accept it into the established fold. If not, the new soft fork fails, and the rest of the chain simply goes on it with its life with no interruption. Hard-and-soft forking can cause all kinds of unintended consequences. When members of the Ethereum community rejected a hard-fork change and decided to keep going with the non-forked version of Ethereum, that old-school system was renamed Ethereum Classic.

When Bitcoin hard-forked in order to add more functionality, a portion of the Bitcoin Cash community was left behind and was cut off from the rest of the network.

The Current View of Crypto

Bitcoin and other crypto have recently come under fire for their ability to be involved in illegal transactions.

Three words—wait and see. And add two words to that—be careful. An October 2020 Bloomberg report  stated that Bitcoin approached its highest valuation since 2017.

Dead Coins lists 1,050 digital currencies and initial coin offerings (ICO) as either “deceased.” Coinopsy  catalogues cryptocurrency lists of more than 1,700 coins as nearly worthless.

It’s possible that a good number of those failed cryptos were scams, and the authentic, true-quality systems remain in place.

Furthermore, from a perception perspective, Bitcoin and other crypto have recently come under fire for their ability to be involved in illegal transactions, thefts, and scams. That’s just one of the reasons that investing in the list of cryptocurrencies out there still carries significant risk. Crypto has also been suspected as being a part of an economic bubble that may still pop.

The Takeaway

While Bitcoin launched a new asset class little more than a decade ago, today there are many different cryptocurrencies for investors to learn about and invest in.

If your curiosity about cryptocurrency is fueled by a desire to start investing, SoFi Invest® can be a great place to start. SoFi members can manage crypto investments in the SoFi app, with the peace of mind of knowing their crypto is in a secure platform.

Find out how SoFi Invest can help you with your investment goals.

Learn More

SoFi Invest® The information provided is not meant to provide investment or financial advice. Investment decisions should be based on an individual’s specific financial needs, goals and risk profile. SoFi can’t guarantee future financial performance. Advisory services offered through SoFi Wealth, LLC. SoFi Securities, LLC, member FINRA  / SIPC  . SoFi Invest refers to the three investment and trading platforms operated by Social Finance, Inc. and its affiliates (described below). Individual customer accounts may be subject to the terms applicable to one or more of the platforms below. 1) Automated Investing—The Automated Investing platform is owned by SoFi Wealth LLC, an SEC Registered Investment Advisor (“Sofi Wealth“). Brokerage services are provided to SoFi Wealth LLC by SoFi Securities LLC, an affiliated SEC registered broker dealer and member FINRA/SIPC, (“Sofi Securities). 2) Active Investing—The Active Investing platform is owned by SoFi Securities LLC. Clearing and custody of all securities are provided by APEX Clearing Corporation. 3) Cryptocurrency is offered by SoFi Digital Assets, LLC, a FinCEN registered Money Service Business. For additional disclosures related to the SoFi Invest platforms described above, including state licensure of Sofi Digital Assets, LLC, please visit www.sofi.com/legal. Neither the Investment Advisor Representatives of SoFi Wealth, nor the Registered Representatives of SoFi Securities are compensated for the sale of any product or service sold through any SoFi Invest platform. Information related to lending products contained herein should not be construed as an offer or pre-qualification for any loan product offered by SoFi Lending Corp and/or its affiliates. Crypto: Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies aren’t endorsed or guaranteed by any government, are volatile, and involve a high degree of risk. Consumer protection and securities laws don’t regulate cryptocurrencies to the same degree as traditional brokerage and investment products. Research and knowledge are 

[mashitandsmashit]

America’s Got Talent: The Champions - Auditions 4

So, despite what I said last week about not wanting the results to be spoiled to me, some jerk in the Youtube comments gave away this week’s results (and pretty much all of the remaining results for this season...I thought the finale would at least be live, but I guess not...) Needless to say, it kinda ruined my day...

I mean, some of my favorite variety acts in the history of the show were all there...And both of the acts to advance are the two solo singers with sob stories! (That’s a lot of S’s! And S is for SIMON!!!)

But since I heard them ahead of time, I was able to go into tonight with an open mind, take the results with a pinch of salt, understand that they probably would have been quite different if it was live, everyone watching at home could vote, there were more spots, etc.

And indeed, I was overall very satisfied! Everyone tonight seemed to put everything they had into their performances, and they all had something to offer...Even some singers that I wasn’t looking forward to rose well above my expectations! While I’m still very disappointed by the results, I can at least see what circumstances led to this, and overall, this is probably my favorite Champions show so far!

So let’s rank the acts that made up this strong show...

10: Moonlight Brothers. In a night filled with strong contenders, these two stuck out like a sore thumb...Ironically, by NOT sticking out! Howie pretty much summed it all up when he basically said that America is a completely different arena than where THEY come from, because if they were on AGT, they would have been cannon fodder...But hey, I thought they were pretty entertaining and had some interesting moves...Nonetheless, there was no doubt who last place was going to...Also, GOOD GOD, I’M SO SICK OF THAT FLOSS DANCE!!!

9: Issy Simpson. Didn’t know who she was before, but now that I do, I like her! ...Except she apparently already did this same trick for her BGT audition...Ouch! That’s gonna dock her some significant points!

8: Brian Justin Crum. This is who I THOUGHT was gonna get the GB, because his story is just the right amount of “inspiring” for Simon, but he’s also proven to be one of the more exceptional singers in recent seasons...Also, the promo last week showed him in front of a glittery golden background, so I thought it was a dead giveaway...Turns out I was half right, because that apparently comes up for the OTHER act advancing as well...Anyway, yeah, I still like him, but compared to some of the other acts, I wish it went to someone else...And it’s ironic, because I was ready to accept him advancing ALONGSIDE one of my favorites over the other two singing acts...And yet, the other two actually exceeded my expectations, whereas he settled on being...BIG! Not that that’s a bad thing in and of itself, but for me it just wasn’t as compelling to listen to...But I will say, that song choice was just a natural pick for him, especially since it’s from a fellow gay man! In fact, during Season 11, I was waiting to see if he was gonna perform it...

7: Drew Lynch. I’ve always considered Drew to be quite underrated, and his jokes tonight were mostly quite solid...Maybe if the set lasted longer than 30 seconds (I know that’s an exaggeration...His stutters add at LEAST an extra minute!), he’d rank higher!

6: The Texas Tenors. Ahhh, Season 4...The year I got into AGT! I was a naive young fool back then...I was VERY prone to getting my hopes up (even more than I am now!) I was like, “Well, that Kevin Skinner guy is good and all, but he’s not as good as the other singers, so maybe the semi-finals is as far as he should go...Can’t have TOO many singers in the final round, right? Gotta make room for the variety acts...Like Acrodunk! They should TOTALLY clean up tomorrow night!” That infamous season is what ultimately prepared me for the pain I would have to endure down the road if I were to continue to watch this show...And one of the biggest pains was watching these three pretty-boys (okay, the short one’s not that pretty) make it all the way to Fourth Place on what appeared to be nothing but their Southern charm! And it’s not even that I hated them; I acknowledged that they had singing talent, and they had this schmaltzy charm to them...BUT FOURTH PLACE!? I mean, I watched some great acts get knocked out in favor of them, some of my favorite acts of the season! And these rednecks get to smile their way all the way to fourth!? It was one of my first big outrages while watching this show...But why? Again, they could sing...But there was just something about them I couldn’t stand...Anyway, I’m rambling here; The point I’m trying to make is that I actually really enjoyed them tonight! I don’t know what it is...Maybe their individual vocals have improved (because they all have uniquely great singing voices), maybe the harmony has improved...Or maybe I just feel differently about them now! I guess I’ll have to go back and re-watch their Season 4 performances and make a comparison...(I have been strongly considering watching AGT from the beginning and giving my thoughts on the older seasons, seeing how they compare with my thoughts back then in the cases of Season 4 onward...)

5: Kechi. Ooh, I felt so much outrage when I heard she was advancing over the Top 4 acts in this list (who are mostly ranked like that out of sheer bias)! With all of the acts this season (and in this episode) that make me smile, seeing her tragic disfigurement again and hearing her sad story was bound to bring down my mood, and hearing that I will see her in the finals over said joy-bringing acts brought it down even more! Going into tonight, I knew she had damn well better justify her place! ...She justified her place! BY FAR her best performance to date! I think what I like about her is that she doesn’t try to belt it out all big...I just haven’t been a big fan of hers in the past because I felt that she could USE a little more “big”! And tonight, she went just big enough while keeping it nice and balanced, and when she does that, she really can be one of the best singers! I saw a hint of that in her quarter-final performance back in Season 12, but not until tonight have I seen her full potential unleashed! That said, I think it’s pretty obvious why Simon REALLY wanted to give her the GB, and I’m convinced that as producer, he made sure to arrange her to perform this week when he gets to do that! Classic Simon...

4: Kenichi Ebina. Okay, I’m not gonna deny that my constant support of Kenichi is mostly bias, because even back in Season 8, there WAS kind of a hit and miss quality to most of his performances...But I still couldn’t help but love this guy and everything he represented! Tonight was no different; The dances were mostly limited to the DDR segment at the beginning, and then he went all big fancy effects, and didn’t do a whole lot physically from there...So I can see where Mel’s coming from...But I loved the effects, I loved the story, and I especially loved the little robot dog aiding him throughout...It wasn’t perfect; Honestly, his performances never really were...But I don’t think any AGT contestant has inspired me as much as this guy has! My respect for him transcends his performances! I guess that’s a major reason why I was so happy that he won Season 8 despite his imperfections, and why I was deep down hoping he could defend his AGT cred in Champions by at least making the finals...But I guess you can’t have them all...Nonetheless, I still can’t help but salute this guy!

3: Paul Zerdin. I guess there weren’t any big innovations like the animatronic effects he did back in Season 10, but as Howie said, this guy’s always finding unique ways to play with the art of ventriloquism...Like Darci, I would like to see new puppets from him (and voices that don’t sound like Howie doing a British Bobby Generic), but this guy still entertains me every time!

2: The Professional Regurgitator. I think everyone can take Simon’s opinions here with a grain of salt...His decision to buzz the guy while he had a razor blade in his throat on the other hand...From what I heard from Stevie ahead of time as well as his curse to Simon backstage, I can tell he’s pissed at this, even more than Heidi is! And I know this isn’t for everyone...I should know; I didn’t like this guy at first when he came on in Season 10 either...But with all the crazy tricks he pulled off, he just kept growing on me! This might not have been his best trick to date...but I’m still pretty damn impressed, however he pulled it off! And for all his talk of swallowing Paul Zerdin, perhaps the one who he SHOULD be swallowing is Simon Cowell! It would surely be a terrifying sight...But also cathartic!

1: Tape Face. I’m actually quite surprised that he managed to get into the Top 3 (or 4?) But it provided a slight bit of satisfaction to an otherwise disappointing result...Perhaps a big part of it is that he made sort of a love letter to the show while getting Howie and Terry to do much of the performing...It’s actually quite genius! But a big part of what makes this character so charming is simply his presence! I could only imagine what it would have been like if I was in the audience waiting to see what old AGT act would come onstage next, and then seeing that weird intro where he’s in shadows...and then sits up and reveals himself! I would be cheering...at least in my mind, because I’m socially awkward...Not much else to say; It’s Tape Face! ‘Nuff said!

So again, I would have liked to see at least one favorite make it alongside whatever sob story singer that Simon was inevitably gonna give the GB to...But for what we got, I’m happy! Onward to next week!

I’m actually not gonna bother ranking next week’s acts based on my support, because half of them are foreign acts who I’ve never heard of (but they all sound interesting), and the other half...Well, I can’t say there are any that I DON’T like...Let’s just say that there are two clear front-runners (though I know only one of them will go through), a singing group that I really like, a singer who I...like enough...and a magician who I like, but will surely be overshadowed by the other one who is one of the pre-mentioned front-runners (in fact, they will no doubt play up a rivalry with the two).

I guess that is all there is to say for now...

[rpdredgic]

ALL STARS Drag Race Edgic- Season 3 Episodes 6+7

Ok so today is finale night!!! And I can finally watch an episode live!!! That doesn’t mean i’ll get a chart out tonight, it’ll be out tomorrow (probably around this time!) Tomorrow is when I’ll talk about the season overall and the winner’s story as well as some of the standout edits in the season. Today I’ll explain my thoughts on who I think the winner is and on the edits of our final 4!

So let’s talk about the edits of our final 4 and what I think of their chances of winning. I’ll go in alphabetic order starting with.....

Bebe- Coming into the season, Bebe’s persona was the person who already won Drag Race and could do it again. I believe in the first episode Rupaul talked about how Bebe could get to the end and become the first 2 time winner. Ever since that I felt like Bebe is getting to the end because if Bebe went out of the competition in 5th place, there wouldn’t really be emphasis on the possibility of her getting to the end again. The focus would be more on how she already won Drag Race in my opinion. However, nothing about the way Bebe is edited indicates she even has a chance to win the competition. In my power rankings that I might do after I finish all of this blabbering, Bebe is 4th out of 4. She’s been constantly undermined in the edit, multiple queens have commented on her holier-than-thou/bougie attitude and in this most recent episode she was painted as someone who thinks she has no flaws and even got compared to Milk (who got a super negative edit!). Also, she’s had the least amount of confessionals from my data and almost always that person doesn’t wins. I just don’t see her winning but honestly, I wouldn’t mind the win lol. 

Kennedy- I think Kennedy is getting a redemption edit. Season 7 was the first season I did edgic for and I remember when I was watching at that time, Kennedy was painted as being kind of bitter towards the younger competitors without much reason/incentive. This season we’re getting a lot of emotional content from Kennedy. These past 2 episodes have really nailed that in. She talked about being a social outcast as a child and how that related to her situation with Milk. During that whole Milk drama, the edit sided with Kennedy 100%. This past episode she talked about how after her season she felt like a second thought and wasn’t popular with the fans. She talked about how that made her feel and talked about how her goal for this season is to get to that place where she is the first thought. That scene was edited as really positive and it showed a different side to Kennedy. I just think her edit is not developed enough and if she was winning, I think she’d be more complex and we would’ve got more of the relationship she had with Chi Chi throughout the season. There just hasn’t been a clear, concise story for Kennedy that would explain her journey to the crown.

Shangela- This one is going to be a doozy, lol. A lot of her edit has focused on this sort of Game of Thrones, alliance building, strategic side of Shangela. She’s been the most complex in terms of fleshing out her relationships with the others and how that’s going to get her to the end. I said before I had a feeling this is going to backfire on her as she is the only person talking this strategically while the others are talking more about social bonds and relationships. It seems like this could shaft her as watching the preview for next week shows the eliminated queens sitting on a couch across of a chair. 

Also, I looked up the description of the finale on my tv guide and the episode is called “A Jury of Their Queers” which basically implies to me that there is a jury portion to this season and they’ll have some sort of power. As a Survivor and Big Brother fan, I immediately think the jury will decide the winner from a final 3 (since 7 votes including the 4th place queen make it so there can’t be a 3 way tie) but something about that to me seems.... too obvious and too powerful. There would be no point of having Rupaul aside from eliminating the 4th placer (Since that happened last All-Stars with Roxxxy). I think we might get the inverse where the jury eliminates our 4th placer and the top 3 lip-sync to win. Now that’s where this gets tricky because it could go either way for shangela depending on if this jury is thinking about social bonds or competition performance. If the jury feels shafted by Shangela or isn’t that close to her, we might see her leave in this spot. 

Recounting the relationships/alliances Shangela has made, most of those people are not on the jury. We saw her bond in the beginning with Chi Chi and Kennedy but Kennedy is in the top 4. Chi Chi however, could be vote that would keep Shangela since she is less bonded to Bebe or Trixie. Her other relationship we’ve seen in-depth is with Trixie who also is in the top 4 with her. Morgan is a personal friend of Shangela but the edit hasn’t really touched upon that and even if we assume Morgan doesn’t vote to eliminate Shangela, the other 4 jurors could and Shangela still goes home. But this could all be for nought and all of Shangela’s talk about alliances could be what helps her get through this jury portion. She could’ve been talking so strategically because we needed to see how she out-maneuvered the twist. I think it’s a toss-up at this point on how this jury twist (will even work) will affect Shangela’s game. 

Trixie- I put Trixie as my winner pick episode 1 and I feel like her edit has stayed consistent the whole way through. Her whole story is about how she’s coming back for redemption and how she has proven herself outside of the competition but never within the competition. She’s had a good amount of complexity and we do get a lot of inside about Trixie and who she is. We see her insecurities and how she views her position in the competition. That episode where Chi Chi went home really solidified to me, that our winner was either Shangela or Trixie. I think where Trixie’s edit stands out from Shangela’s is that whenever there was negativity towards Trixie, positive SPV (second-person visibility aka how others talk about a contestant) was given to balance it out. While in episode 2, we could’ve gotten more of that to balance out the negativity attributed to Shangela. It just seems like edit is more careful to shield Trixie than it is to shield Shangela. I just feel like we wouldn’t get this story of Trixie wanting to prove herself worthy in Drag Race this whole season if she just gets eliminated by the jury at 4th or shares a runner-up placement. There would be no resolution to that storyline that’s been set up this whole way through. Also, I think that most of the jury likes her. The only person she’s had any beef with during the season was Shangela and she’s in the finals with Trixie. I can’t really see Aja, Milk or Thorgy voting her out over Bebe or Kennedy. Also the weird confessional Morgan gave about how Trixie is a little grand was placed to give doubt on the winner. 

My power rankings for this final 4 would be:

Trixie

*GAP*

Shangela

*GAP*

Kennedy

*BIG GAP*

Bebe

[kpoptimeout]

[OP-ED] Why do K-Netz love Somi but not Samuel?

*CONTAINS SPOILERS*

Often compared due to their young age, experience and biracial backgrounds, Jeon Somi from Produce 101 Season 1 and Kim Samuel from Produce 101 Season 2 had ultimately very different fates on the show.

However, if we really think about it, these two contestants actually have a lot of differences which set them apart and also speak volumes about South Korean society. 

Keep reading to see my thoughts on this and feel free to share your own thoughts in the comments below.

There are four factors in my opinion that made the results very different for Somi and Samuel.

1. Fame

While Somi and Samuel both have huge international followings prior to the show, their level of popularity in South Korea before Produce 101 varied.

Somi first came to public attention through JYP’s widely popular survival program “SIXTEEN”. The immediate domestic success of girl group TWICE, which came out of the program, is a testament of how heavily watched the program was within South Korea. Hence, even if Somi did not make the cut for TWICE, her having been on the show did wonders for her in Produce 101. She was already a household name and had a solid domestic fan base.

Meanwhile, although Samuel had been a trainee for PLEDIS’ super boy band SEVENTEEN and had been active in the short-lived duo 1PUNCH, he is still not that well known within South Korea. SEVENTEEN’s pre-debut broadcasts were online and not on national TV like JYP’s “SIXTEEN”. 1PUNCH was also not that successful in their domestic debut. Hence, it makes sense that while us foreign fans see Samuel as a veteran and superstar in the making, he really is a nugu in the eyes of K-fans and is not as likely to get as many votes as Somi.

2. Branding

Another aspect in which the two differed is the ability to brand themselves. While company name, of course, plays a role as noted in the fame section, Somi fares better than Samuel in branding herself. 

Since “SIXTEEN” days, Somi stood out to me not because of her skill but her star factor. She is a kid who as soon as you see her you know she’s a star. She is charismatic and has a charm that can make the camera focus on her even if she’s just walking around not doing much. She also was known for being very helpful to everyone in need, including staff members and formed lasting friendships with members of the show from smaller companies. She was described as an “angel” and a true “center” of the show.

Meanwhile, Samuel does not have a strong, distinct identity. He is hardworking and all-rounded but he is not the “Pick Me Center” like Daehwi, “Mr. Slate” like Ong Seongwoo, “Wink Boy” like Park Jihoon. Even lesser known participants at the beginning like Yoon Jisung and Yoo Seonho quickly built an image as an “ahjumma” and a “little chick” respectively. Samuel at the same time remained “Kim Samuel” without any nickname or viral gif in South Korea. Even Samuel himself noted this halfway through the show, saying that he has yet to develop an actual "presence" on the show.

Another aspect to do with branding is the skill of the person. It could be said that Samuel's all-roundedness actually made it harder for him to succeed. Noh Taehyun and Ong Seongwoo were "dancing kings" while Kim Jaehwan and Ha Sungwoon quickly established themselves as "main vocals" on the show. Samuel, of course, has some unique skills too like choreography but this was not given much attention until later episodes (Mnet is partly to blame). Him being well-balanced but not known for any skill specifically also meant it was harder for him to build an identity.

On the other hand, Somi actually started off the show (in my opinion) less skilled than Samuel. While she had great star power and sharp dance moves, her vocals had color but was far from stable. However, her improvement in singing stability throughout the show and even more rapid improvements in dance (as seen in the legendary "Bang Bang" stage) helped make her become more known among the South Korean audience.

3.  Race & Gender

It would be idealistic and naive for me not to think race also played a role in Samuel's ranking compared to Somi. 

First, while Samuel and Somi are both biracial, there has definitely been evidence of Somi being favoured by K-Netz because she was French-Canadian/Korean while Samuel was Mexican/Korean. Unfortunately like some countries in the West (cough cough USA), white privilege still exists in South Korea and there is a good number of K-Netz who are less supportive of Samuel because he was not a white foreigner but a Latinx. I love Somi to bits like many of you too but we have to acknowledge while she was discriminated to a certain degree in her every day life growing up as a foreigner in Korea, she likely still had it better than Samuel who comes from an even more marginalised group in South Korea.

Besides the different perceptions of biracial individuals from different backgrounds, the gender of the two also influenced the amount of support they got. According to studies conducted by sociology professor John Lie of UC Berkeley, women in East Asia are much more likely to be accepting of foreign exports of entertainment and celebrities than their male counterparts. He argues that the men often felt threatened by these foreign challenges to their perceptions of masculinity. Examples include Japanese men being accepting of K-Pop girl bands but not as much so into K-Pop male celebrities while Japanese women welcome both. This observation of a case of masculinity is so fragile in East Asia pop culture would explain a factor that made Somi more popular than Samuel. Somi as a biracial girl could appeal to both female AND male fans. Meanwhile, Samuel as a biracial boy would not be as accepted by male fans. Hence, even if he was doing well and getting female support, it was likely deeply ingrained biases to foreign male stars, especially even more so for non-Asian ones, would have prevented him from accessing the votes of a whole demographic.

4. Voting

Finally, Somi profited from very different voting rules in Season 1 which could have done wonders for Samuel too.

Last year, international online voting was permitted. This meant Somi, someone who had both pre-existing fame and an international background, could access demographics well beyond South Korea. This could have propelled Samuel to the Top 11 or even 1st place, as seen with his consistently high rankings on Soompi’s simulated rankings via international fan vote.

Also, Season 1 swapped to the one-pick system (only voting for one member) after concept battles while this season they only moved to one-pick during the finale. Season 1 is better in its transition because having an earlier ranking by one-pick prepared the fans and taught them how to vote for the finale. That is because very often there could be people ranking high because they are a lot of people’s 2nd or 3rd bias but are actually NOT that many people’s ULTIMATE bias. 

This could be seen in Season 1 when during the first one-pick system ranking, both Kang Mina and Kim Nayoung dropped out of the Top 11. Meanwhile, some previously underrated but talented girls like Kim Chungha and Yoon Chaekyung rose to Top 11 because people voted for them hard to make sure they will not get eliminated before the finale. In no way do I feel like Chungha and Chaekyung do not deserve their high rankings (and Chungha slayed in I.O.I in the end). What I am saying is the one-pick ranking before the finale allowed the audience to work out who was actually lacking in support when you can only vote for one person so they can readjust their priorities if needed for the finale. In the end, we saw a push of votes that got Kang Mina back into the final line-up of I.O.I. 

This season, I felt like having one-pick vote only during the finale completely played Samuel, Kim Jonghyun (NU’EST’s JR) and Kang Dongho (NU’EST’s Baekho). First, I think all three boys are generally well liked but were not necessarily everyone’s ultimate bias. Secondly, all three boys appear to be pretty popular on the show, with the last ranking before final ranking placing them all in Top 11 or just missing it (Dongho was #12). Hence, most fans did not worry about them and some did not bother to vote for them, instead focusing on talented but underrated boys like Yoon Jisung, Bae Jinyoung and Ha Sungwoon as well as the suddenly dropped in popularity member Lai Kuan Lin. I think Kuan Lin, Jisung, Jinyoung and Sungwoon are all boys who deserve great things but an earlier use of one-pick vote or a continuation of voting for 11 members would have better prepared the fans for the results. I also find the last minute one-pick vote problematic in general because it is harder for fans to evaluate the Top 11 as a team and vote based on creating the best team. While the Top 11 boys are all great kids, it is hard to imagine what sort of concept the current line-up will be at all, unlike during the female season (it was screaming “Girl Crush” concept like mad).

What’s happened has unfortunately happened but we hope Samuel all the best after this whole mess.

What are your thoughts on Samuel’s final ranking as well as the finale of Mnet’s Produce 101 Season 2?

Leave your thoughts in the comments and remember to share this as I would love to hear what the rest of you online think!

[theoptimisticpatriot]

Who speaks for England?

How the people of England view England, Britain and the union

A St George’s Day blog first published by the Centre for English Identity and Politics

This is the 21st St George’s Day since devolution left England as the only part of the United Kingdom with no national democracy. With the union at the centre of public debate once again it’s a good time to talk about England and the people who live here. As by far its largest part, what happens in England is frequently more consequential for the union than events in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland.

Rather than weigh into the constitutional debate, I will share some thoughts on the different ways people in England see the nation, the union, Englishness and Britishness. For years, politicians and commentators alike have struggled to find a consistent language with which to talk to and about England and its place within the union. In part, this stems from confusion about how the people of England see themselves.

I’ll sketch the three main strands of thinking about nation and union. In the real world they are blended together in different measure. But they are distinct enough to shape the politics of England and of the union.

The dominant ‘Anglo-centric British unionists’ are not just unionists who live in England: they have a view of the union that is uniquely English. The ‘Political English’ are a recently influential group prioritising their view of England’s interests. The ‘New British’, another emerging identity, have a form of Britishness shared by a younger, graduate, cosmopolitan England and by many of England’s ethnic minorities.

All three are distinctly English — that’s true even for those who reject the very idea of being English. They are views of England and the union that are rooted in England, shaped in England, and much harder to find outside England. As we meet them, it should become clearer why the much vaunted ‘English nationalism’ hasn’t yet materialised.

The ‘Anglo-centric British unionists’

The largest and most hegemonic group is Anglo-centric British unionism. Its roots lie in England’s historic view of the union as, in essence, the extension of English institutions and the expression of English interests. In the assertive form of most Leave leaders and personified by Boris Johnson it can properly be described as Anglo-centric British nationalism. It also dominates the outlook of the Labour Party in England, the Whitehall civil service machine, the London-based UK media, and England’s cultural and arts establishment.

If the English have seen England at the heart of the union (and at the heart of empire) Scotland’s claim on the union insisted on respect for its distinct national culture, legal and education system. The balance between those different views of the union has crumbled as the different parts of the union have taken different political directions. The Conservatives dominate England (but lose everywhere else). The SNP has displaced Labour in Scotland. Wales has its own distinct and currently Labour led politics. The old Ulster Unionist/Tory and SDLP/Labour alignments have broken down. British politics, in the sense of every part of Britain being contested by the same parties, no longer really exists and may not return.

The effect has been to make the Anglo-centric British nationalism of English Conservatism the all-powerful government of England and of the union.

So, for example, in its handling of the NI Protocol and the Internal Market Bill, the Anglo-centric British nationalist union government gave England’s interest in Brexit priority over the interests of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland in membership of the union. It lies behind the desperate attempt to save the union with more flags and cheques with union jacks on the back.

But we shouldn’t forget that the Remain campaign in England was also run by Anglo-centric British unionists. Remain campaigned as ‘Wales Stronger in Europe’, ‘Scotland Stronger in Europe’ and — only in England — ‘Britain Stronger in Europe’. Attlee’s Labour was a British nationalist and unionist government in which Labour could accommodate Scottish and Welsh views of the union. From the 1970s nationalist pressures led Scottish and Welsh Labour to define their national interests against the politics of England, a process accelerated by Thatcherism and the collapse of the post-war consensus. This delivered devolution but left Labour in England with a residual Anglo-centric British unionism. Labour in England calls itself UK Labour, never names England even when talking about England, opposes any national English democratic institutions, and asserts the supremacy of the Westminster Parliament and the union government. Its leaders use the union flag alone to represent national patriotism.

Whitehall is riddled with Anglo-centric assumptions about the union, either ignoring the devolved administrations or acting as though they do not (or should not) exist . When the pandemic started, the London based UK media struggled to understand let alone explain why the devolved administrations could make their own lockdown responses. It took complaints from Welsh MPs for Johnson and Hancock to start specifying which nation’s pandemic response they were in charge of. Anglo-centric British unionist assumptions run so deep they are barely recognised let alone articulated.

All strands of Anglo-centric British unionism agree that England needs no democratic national institutions because the union itself provides for English interests. England not only has no Parliament, but no machinery to coordinate English policy and legislation. The inevitable consequence is the concentration of union power in London that makes England the most centralised nation in Europe. Anglo-centric unionism has helped to foster a largely unfocussed English regionalism that sporadically claims a fairer deal from the union government in London. By holding out the possibility of a special deal here or a bit more funding there, the unionist centre divides the localities and prevents them coming together as a coherent force for change.

Those who conflate Anglo-centric British nationalism with a genuine English nationalism should recognise that it has left England with no government, no national democracy, no fair distribution of funding and no serious devolution of power from the centre. It may deliver for some in England; it doesn’t deliver for England as a whole.

‘Political Englishness’

The ‘Political English’ are much more focussed on England as a nation. They combine an emphasis on identifying as English more than British with a tendency to hold strong views on England, the union and the EU. (They tell pollsters they are ‘English not British’ or ‘more English than British’ but most don’t define themselves against Britishness as such — it’s a matter of emphasis). The Political English are also likely to say that a locality is an important part of their identity, so that people with a strong county or regional identity are often strongly English as well. Of all England’s residents they are the least likely to identify as European.

A majority of the Political English want an English Parliament; even more want English MPs alone to make English laws in the Westminster Parliament. They want political parties to stand up for English interests within the union. They think decisions about England should primarily be made at national level, although they are also open to devolution within England.

The Political English have been sceptical of both the United Kingdom and the European Union. While the demand for Brexit was largely shaped by Anglo-centric British nationalists it was the Political English who delivered the crucial votes. Their support for UKIP forced the Conservative party to offer a referendum. When it was held 70% of the ‘more English than British’ voted to Leave (while the equally English and British split 50:50 and a majority of the more British voted Remain).

The Political English believe devolution has been unfair on England and far too generous to Scotland in particular. Only a minority support English independence, but most would be unconcerned if the union broke up. During the tortuous debates on the EU Withdrawal Treaty Parliament the Political English thought it was more important to complete Brexit than keep Scotland in the union or safeguard the NI Peace Process (although few may have believed that either would be the actual outcome).

The political English are a 21st century phenomenon. At the turn of the millennium, it mattered relatively little whether a voter was English, British or any combination of the two. But the collective impact of asymmetric devolution, globalisation, economic restructuring, austerity, the expansion of higher education and mass immigration seems to have fostered the resentful and distinctive Political Englishness that culminated in the Brexit vote and a powerful endorsement for Boris Johnson’s Conservative Party in the ‘Get Brexit Done’ election of 2019.

While many had always been Conservative voters, large numbers also come from former Labour communities. Like the rest of England, the Political English have become steadily more liberal on migration in recent years, but they were the most disconcerted by the impact of mass immigration on their settled idea of community. The gap has widened between the liberal cosmopolitan values of England’s major cities and younger graduates and the Political English who are more likely to live in less diverse and smaller communities.

The curious absence of English nationalism

We can see that what some call English nationalism, as manifest in the Brexit vote, is the product of two rather different groups: Anglo-centric British unionism and Political Englishness. But the description doesn’t fit either. England’s unionism is British nationalist, not English. As for Political Englishness, it’s a strange sort of nationalism that has no significant political party, no programme, no public intellectuals, nor social or civic institutions. So, if Political Englishness shows the similar concerns for ideas of the national interest, of national governance, democracy, and sovereignty that are found in other political nationalisms, why hasn’t Political Englishness found expression as a genuine political nationalism with its own part(ies), programmes and leaders? Why has it played only an enabling role for an Anglo-centric British nationalism that rejects many of its English aspirations?

In part there has been an absence of political leadership. The Political English occupy a part of the political landscape that is left of centre economically but socially conservative. Until now, no political party has tried seriously to represent this combination of values.

But the bigger issue is that while the defining values of Political Englishness are deeply held they are also narrow. Political Englishness does not as yet represent a rounded view of England as a nation, society or economy. Unlike other nationalisms political Englishness represents neither a shared history nor common values around which a vision of the future can be shaped. While it could be mobilised by a Euroscepticism it shared with Anglo-centric British nationalism, it does not have the agency to mobilise itself. The power of Anglo-centric British unionism has kept political Englishness narrow and subordinate. Denied a forum in which England can re-imagine itself as a 21st century nation, the Political English are left poorly represented in the political system.

‘New Britishness’

Like political Englishness, New Britishness is a relatively recent development. Don’t be fooled by the label, or by their tendency to describe themselves as ‘more British than English’, the New British are just as English as the others I have described (though they may well not identify as such).

New Britishness has two strands. In part it is the product of British multiculturalism. In part it has also become the national identity of choice of the expanding liberal, cosmopolitan, graduate populations centred in London and other major and university cities.

While political Englishness is usually quite comfortable with British identity, New Britishness often defines itself against Englishness. For liberal cosmopolitans, the rejection of Englishness may not only be a response to a perceived ‘small c’ conservatism and less positive attitudes towards diversity, but also a deeper rejection of ideas of national belonging and patriotism themselves. For many members of ethnic minorities, hesitation to identify as English may often reflect a lingering sense that somehow Englishness is not ‘open’ to them.

At the current time the attitudes of these two groups towards ideas of England, Britain and the union are sufficiently similar to regard the New British as a single phenomenon.

But it’s not clear how long these two strands of New Britishness will stay intertwined. As Englishness become inexorably more inclusive it is becoming more attractive to ethnic minorities, particularly those born in England. At the same time, significant parts of many ethnic minority communities share a broader social conservatism, strong sense of group identity and an openness to patriotism that is much more akin to the political English.

New Britishness only really exists in England. And for all it calls itself British, it is quite unlike conceptions of Britishness found elsewhere in England or the rest of the union.

‘British multi-culturalism’ only happened in England. The Britishness represented by shared citizenship was the focus, reinforced by the assumption of Anglo-centric British unionism that British, rather than English, was the proper national identity for England. The civil society and political leaders of Scotland and Wales, and the minority communities in those nations, were able to pursue their own paths towards inclusive ideas of national identity. It is no coincidence that British values are only on the curriculum in English schools. In its own right British multiculturalism was a success story and a product of popular struggles to challenge racially defined national identity, but Englishness was excluded from the multi-cultural project. Though becoming rapidly becoming more inclusive, Englishness has lagged in finding its own multi-cultural forms. This progress is often hindered by the vehemence with which the New British insist that Englishness is and will always be a reactionary identity. (Ironically, this insistence finds a receptive audience in Scottish, Welsh and Irish nationalists, thereby reinforcing the idea of England as ‘the other’ and undermining the very Britishness of the New British).

The New British have very different values to other British identifiers in England, and those in Scotland and Wales. In England the New British were overwhelmingly Remain voters. The British in Scotland and Wales were more likely to vote Leave (as were many in England who were both English and British). The New British — British more than English — tend to be less patriotic than either the English or the equally English and British. They are more likely to identify also as European or hold another national identity. The liberal cosmopolitan values held by many of the new British do not sit easily with the social conservatism common amongst many Anglo-centric British nationalists.

Unlike Anglo-centric British unionism, New Britishness sometimes doesn’t rest on any clear ideas about Britain as a nation, state or union at all. Opposed to any recognition of the England within the union it has yet to produce any distinct contribution to debates about the future of the union, nor to developing a shared history or values on which the future of Britain or the union could be built. In Scotland and Wales, younger, more highly educated and liberal voters are often at the core of the nationalist project. In England the same New British voters often eschew any idea of a national politics at all.

The New British now provide the bedrock of support for Labour in England — Labour actually beat the Conservatives amongst these voters in 2019 — and much of the support of the Liberal Democrats and Greens too. Labour’s membership and activists reflect the same world view and combine with the Anglo-centric unionism of its leadership to exclude England from the national story. If the Conservatives have recently enjoyed the support of the majority of the political English, Labour has been the expression of new Britishness. Neither seems able to speak to voters across England’s tribes.

Who speaks for England?

These pen pictures are caricatures, of course. They only illustrate tendencies to think in a certain way. As a ‘more English than British’, Remain voting, Labour activist on the party’s soft left, even I don’t fit the picture I have painted of political Englishness (even though I share many of its ideas of national democracy and sovereignty). But I hope they do capture some essential truths about the different ways England sees itself, Britain and the union.

All, including England’s unionism and England’s Britishness are clearly English. At root the tension between the different views is not a contest between an idea of England and an idea of Britain, but between different ideas of England. As yet, none have yet managed to tell a compelling story about England and its future. There is no shared vision about what sort of nation and society England might be in the future, how its economy would be run, in whose interests, and which shared values would tie us together. Until there is, we will struggle to understand what England’s future relationship with Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland (and indeed the rest of Europe) might look like.

The challenges are clear.

Firstly, the suffocating dominance of a centralising Anglo-centric British unionism has to be challenged by the assertion of English democracy and the case for democratic English national institutions. But this can’t rest on its existing supporters amongst the political English. The case for English democracy must be recast as a civic and democratic reform for all. (If Anglo-centric British unionism isn’t challenged the current union is probably doomed anyway and England may have to confront its own future, but from the most negative possible starting point).

Second, English identity’s long but steady journey towards inclusive and civic for all those who would like to feel English has to be accelerated. It will happen anyway through the lived experience of greater diversity and the symbolism of sport amongst other things, but a much greater engagement by civic society and the state at local and national level is urgently needed.

Third, politicians in England need to talk to and about England. For too long, MPs and Ministers have obfuscated, hiding behind ‘the country’ or ‘Britain, even when they are talking only about England. By doing so they perpetuate the myth that England does not and should not exist and contribute to the marginalisation and stereotyping of Englishness.

Fourth, the emergence of a 21st century England most be supported by those who work in the voluntary sector, culture, academia, the arts and faith organisations. Too many have drunk too deep in the wells of Anglo-centric unionism and New Britishness. Too many are reluctant to explore or reflect the range of views amongst the people who live in England. The New British have a responsibility to engage with, not turn their backs on, the rest of England.

Fifth, the national debate about what our economy and society should look like after Brexit and Covid should no longer be kept separate from discussions about the future of England, how it is governed, where power should lie and in whose interests it is used. This used to be a role played by political parties, think tanks and pressure groups, but few currently show much enthusiasm for the task beyond a limited endorsement of regionalism.

Who speaks for England? At the current time, too few and not that well. Who will take up the challenge?

[itswallstreetpr]

The Gold Boom: Four Ways to Play (KGC, SIG, CLKA, NEM)

The dollar is toast.  That’s not just us saying it anymore. That’s the view from Goldman Sachs and host of other major players on the Street. The virus situation is objectively worse in the US than anywhere else on the planet other than Brazil. The US mishandled a crisis, and now it has lost significant ground to developed-world rivals.  In addition, the Fed is maxed out – a point that was reaffirmed during Mr. Powell’s presser on Wednesday. That dynamic puts the onus on politicians to stimulate on the fiscal side. In an election year. Sure, the Dems will message one way, and the GOP will message another. And each side will try to target different points of entry into the economy. But the one thing they will all agree on is: Here, Have some Free Money – Vote for Me! The combination of America in tough times compared to the EU, the political divisiveness of the most polarizing administration in US history coming into an election, betting sites already showing strong odds of a contested vote, and trillions in fiscal stimulus working in step with a Fed that is already pedal to the metal and fully quarantining the fixed income markets – all of these themes in combination have been driving the dollar lower and driving gold through the roof. Bank of America has a $3,000/oz price target out now to lead the pack.  If you didn’t buy GLD a few months ago and you still want a ticket to the party, there are some other interesting options. We take a look at a few here, including: Kinross Gold Corporation (NYSE:KGC), Signet Jewelers Ltd. (NYSE:SIG), Clikia Corp (OTCMKTS:CLKA), and Newmont Corporation (NYSE:NEM). Kinross Gold Corporation (NYSE:KGC) is an obvious choice to take advantage of the gold bull in its glaring stages. The company engages in the acquisition, exploration, and development of gold properties principally in Canada, the United States, the Russian Federation, Brazil, Chile, Ghana, and Mauritania.  It is also involved in the extraction and processing of gold-containing ores; reclamation of gold mining properties; and production and sale of silver. As of December 31, 2019, its proven and probable mineral reserves included approximately 24.3 million ounces of gold, as well as 55.7 million ounces of silver. The company was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Toronto, Canada. Kinross Gold Corporation (NYSE:KGC) just recently announced the results of a pre-feasibility study for its Lobo-Marte project in Chile. According to the release, Lobo-Marte offers the potential of a cornerstone asset with attractive all-in sustaining costs1, 2 to enhance Kinross’ long-term production profile. The project adds a significant 6.4 million gold ounces, representing an approximately 25% increase, to the Company’s 2019 year-end mineral reserve estimates in a favorable mining jurisdiction. The reserve addition also increases Kinross’ reserve life index3 by approximately 2.5 years. If you're long this stock, then you're liking how the stock has responded to the announcement. KGC shares have been moving higher over the past week overall, pushing about 4% to the upside on above average trading volume. Kinross Gold Corporation (NYSE:KGC) generated sales of $1.2B, according to information released in the company's most recent quarterly financial report. That adds up to a sequential quarter-over-quarter growth rate of -10% on the top line. In addition, the company has a strong balance sheet, with cash levels far exceeding current liabilities ($1.6B against $958.1M). Signet Jewelers Ltd. (NYSE:SIG) promulgates itself as a seller of diamond jewelry, watches, and other products. As such, it likely holds a large inventory of gold, and those holdings have likely been moving sharply higher in terms of asset valuation. The company’s North America segment operates jewelry stores in malls and off-mall locations primarily under the Kay Jewelers, Kay Jewelers Outlet, Jared The Galleria Of Jewelry, Jared Vault, Zales Jewelers, Zales Outlet, Piercing Pagoda, Peoples Jewellers, Gordon's Jewelers, and Mappins Jewellers regional banners; and JamesAllen.com, an online jewelry retailer Website. This segment operated 2,639 locations in the United States and 118 locations in Canada. The International segment operates stores in shopping malls and off-mall locations, principally under the H.Samuel and Ernest Jones brands. This segment operated 451 stores in the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, and the Channel Islands. The Other segment is involved in the purchase and conversion of rough diamonds to polished stones, as well as provision of diamond polishing services.  Signet Jewelers Ltd. (NYSE:SIG) recently announced details about how it is reimagining the jewelry buying experience since temporarily closing stores to help stop the spread of COVID-19.  According to the release, over the last 10 weeks, the century-old company has accelerated its transformation into a channel-agnostic retailer, enabling store staff for the first time to serve customers from home using technology such as chat, video, social media and virtual by-appointment private shopping consultations. Signet is the parent company of Kay Jewelers, Zales, Jared, Piercing Pagoda, Peoples, H. Samuel, Ernest Jones and digitally native Jamesallen.com. It will be interesting to see if the stock can break out of its recent sideways action. Over the past week, the stock is net flat, and looking for something new to spark things. Shares of the stock have powered higher over the past month, rallying roughly 20% in that time on strong overall action. Signet Jewelers Ltd. (NYSE:SIG) generated sales of $852.1M, according to information released in the company's most recent quarterly financial report. That adds up to a sequential quarter-over-quarter growth rate of -60.4% on the top line. In addition, the company is battling some balance sheet hurdles, with cash levels struggling to keep up with current liabilities ($1.1B against $1.7B, respectively). Clikia Corp (OTCMKTS:CLKA) is a much smaller and more speculative option, but it represents an interesting window on this theme. Through its wholly owned subsidiary, Maison Luxe, the company deals in ultra-high-end watches and jewelry. According to company materials, we aren’t talking about “really expensive watches”. We’re talking about by-appointment type stuff – a watch you could trade for a new Tesla. That sort of thing. And business appears to be booming right now. The company is already talking up the potential for multi-million-dollar sales in 2020 (from no revenues last year). In its latest release, the company also notes that it is starting to build a “strategic inventory” to take advantage of the massive price appreciation endemic to the super-high-end watch and jewelry space.  Clikia Corp (OTCMKTS:CLKA) noted in the release that the Rolex Submariner line increased in price over 500% from 1957 to 2014 (adjusted for inflation), which is typical in the space. And these price moves are even larger in the secondary market, which is the more important gauge because the most sought-after pieces aren’t accessible at the retail checkout counter at any price. More to the point, the Rolex Submariner Ref. 116613 soared 8.4% higher from 2019 to 2020. That was on the retail pricing side. But an article in Robb Report notes that the Rolex Daytona Ref. 116500 has been selling at more than a 90% premium to the retail MSRP. This is symptomatic of a market suffering from chronic undersupply. Given that this has been going on for over a half-century, management quite rightly sees this as a very stable and dependable trend. The company notes that, as a consequence, Maison Luxe will be building an inventory of the most sought-after timepieces through its “A-level relationships”. According to its CEO, Anil Idnani, “Building a strategic inventory will drive value for our shareholders in several important ways: it will allow us to generate a return through appreciation over time, it will open up more customer relationships on the wholesale side because we will be able to demonstrate we have rare items in stock consistently, and it will amplify our margins because we will build it through volume purchasing at discount pricing.” Which makes a great deal of sense. Clikia Corp (OTCMKTS:CLKA) is already publicly talking about being on pace for over $2M in revenues in 2020 with its new business now firing apparently on all cylinders. That suggests upcoming financial filings will represent a qualitative shift from currently available records, which refer to the pre-pivot reality for the company. Shares of the stock have been powering higher of late as traders and investor discover it, with CLKA up nearly 400% in the past month on growing volume and testing the $1/share level over recent days. Newmont Corporation (NYSE:NEM) is the most obvious option here. As one of the largest gold miners in the world, the company engages in the production and exploration of gold, copper, silver, zinc, and lead. The company has operations and/or assets in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Dominican Republic, Peru, Suriname, Argentina, Chile, Australia, and Ghana. As of December 31, 2019, it had proven and probable gold reserves of 100.2 million ounces and land position of 68,300 square kilometers. Newmont Corporation was founded in 1916 and is headquartered in Greenwood Village, Colorado. Newmont Corporation (NYSE:NEM) just recently announced that its Board of Directors declared a quarterly dividend of $0.25 per share of common stock, payable on September 24, 2020, to holders of record at the close of business on September 10, 2020. According to the release, the declaration and payment of future quarterly dividends remains at the discretion of the Board of Directors and will depend on the Company's financial results, cash flow and cash requirements, duration and impact of the Covid pandemic, future prospects, and other factors deemed relevant by the Board. And the stock has been acting well over recent days, up something like 4% in that time. Newmont Corporation (NYSE:NEM) pulled in sales of $2.6B in its last reported quarterly financials, representing top line growth of 44.7%. In addition, the company has a strong balance sheet, with cash levels far exceeding current liabilities ($3.9B against $2B). Read the full article

[premimtimes]

The national chairman of the APC, Adams Oshiomhole, met with President Muhammadu Buhari at the presidential villa on Wednesday.

After the meeting, Mr Oshiomhole spoke to journalists about his discussion with the president and other national matters. He also spoke about the Buhari administration’s clampdown on protesters after a call for a revolution by activist Omoyele Sowore.

Excepts.

Q: What was the meeting about?

Oshiomhole: We have had a couple of meetings with Mr President since his re-election but an exclusive meeting between members of the National Working Committee and the president and vice president had not taken place.

So this is the first one and it was natural that we congratulate him but also to remind ourselves that this renewed mandate is a call to duty and there is a lot to be done to deliver to the people of Nigeria. The party, the executive, the National Assembly, all of us working together sharing ideas, we are much more likely to make faster progress and those are the sort of things we discussed.

We also assured the president our commitment to build an institute for progressive studies. Because, the people of Nigeria is that people belong to various political parties, they don’t even understand the ideology of that party. If they have any, some are not even familiar with the manifestos and they don’t have conversations about how appropriate or inappropriate those manifestos are. And you will find that people holding very high positions in government, both legislative and executive, and even some party leaders may not even be aware of what we stand for.

And so we told the president we are going to build institute for progressive studies so that people understand what defines us, what is the essence of progressive politics, basically is about social democracy. So our party must be seen to be pro-poor, putting policies in place that will lift our people out of poverty and recreate the Nigeria middle class. Unless you recreate the Nigeria middle class, you are not going to have a stable and a peaceful society.

The tragedy, for now, is that over the period, people are either very poor or they are very rich. The president has to provide leadership working with the National Assembly leadership to see how we can over the next four years deliver so that the current situation of extremely poor and extremely rich will is bridged by recreating the middle class.

Secondly, as a political party which is committed to social democracy, we want to make sure that everybody elected on the platform of our party understands dos and don’ts, in terms of politics and policy choices, our commitment to egalitarian society and all of those things that makes a progressive party different from a conservative party. We think this is not something we want to be doing on ad-hoc basis. We don’t want to go and sleep because we have won election, the fact that we have won election means a call to duty, so we have to work together to ensure these things are done.

Thirdly, we congratulated the president for appointing ministers. We happy with the progress that has been made and we also commend the senate for delaying their recess to be able to screen the ministers.

We also commended the president for the idea of having a retreat for the ministers before their allocated their respective ministries, so that they understand that they have been appointed and understand that they have been appointed and this is the job the employer has for each and every one of them to do; that they have to be well thought out before they are assigned to carry out those jobs. If you compare this to 2015, this is a huge improvement.

President Muhammadu Buhari will swear in new ministers on August 21

We also used the opportunity to present our financial report, what we spent on the election and what we spent in each state as a political party from monies that came from the treasury of our party. Normally people think party funds are not to be accounted for but we are obliged to account for every kobo that was spent and who will spend it for and the result we have gotten.

It was a good meeting and it will be the beginning of series of meetings because we want to bridge the gap. Our party will not go to sleep, we will work closely with government and the legislature to deliver because we have majority in the two chambers and we have the executive, working together in-house we believe we will find solutions to the problems confronting our nation.

Q: What’s your reaction to the outcry that trailed the ministerial list from your party members? The same outcry trailed the committee chairmen announced by the Senate. Is APC worried about that?

Oshiomhole: Why should we be worried? Nobody wants graveyard silence. It is not for nothing that we asked for multi-party democracy, I have said to people when they talk about dividend of democracy, I have said it is a mistake, even dictatorship has dividends. What differentiates democracy from dictatorship is that free people have the rights to make observations and to complain even if there is no validity in those complains, feeling that they have spoken truth to power. It doesn’t mean they are right nor are they wrong, it shows that in our party we want to entrench the culture of contesting issues that people feel they are not comfortable about. It doesn’t mean that they are right.

On the committees of the Senate and House of Reps, this question should rather be put to the leadership of the two chambers. But if you have fewer numbers of committees relative to the number of members in the Senate and House of Reps, however you do it, guess you will always find someone complaining. But the problem with the media is that you have only heard of those who are complaining, how about those who were joyful, who were celebrating? Even in business, you have profit and loss, that is the balance sheet. Any balance sheet without those two headings is not complete. I will be surprised if in a democratic setting something is done and everybody is singing, something is wrong.

Q: What’s your reaction to government clamp down on people who also wanted to exercise their freedom of the right to protest like Sowore for instance?

Oshiomhole: What was the reason for protest? Let’s be honest! I have led series of protest even to this villa. Whoever wants to protest should articulate the particulars of his grievances and make specific demands about the solutions that he wants. So what exactly as far as you know as members of the fourth estate of the realm, that Sowore, the publisher of Sahara reporters, a presidential candidate, cleared by INEC to bid for power, who had opportunity to ask Nigerians to vote for him. Now Nigerians have voted, the votes have been counted and he was not a favoured candidate, what does he want now? That Nigerians must make him the president? Because we all have to be careful, nobody should talk as if we have another country. We have challenges but somehow we have all resolved as a people that the way and route to power in the ballot box. Our task as a people is to continue to work to clean up the system so that only Nigerians alone shall determine who governs them at all levels. That I believe is a legitimate thing to fight for. But if you want to overthrow, you want a revolution then he should have spared us the INEC putting him on the ballot paper.

I don’t want to talk about this but I believe Nigerians have a right to protest, I believe people have a right to contest issues, people have the right to disagree. I have often said government doesn’t have the right to dictate to people how to protest, but you must state exactly what you want. I ask you to name any country in the world where somebody stands up and say after the election that I contested and lost, now, therefore, I want revolution.

Go and check the dictionary and political meaning of a revolution, if it comes it will be like the Christmas turkey, nobody knows which one will be first slaughtered on Christmas.

I think we do need to take things seriously, we have serious issues in this country, I have my own reservations about many things but we have submitted to this process and we must work hard to make it work. Nigeria must deliver to the poor, APC government must deliver. That is why I told you that the only thing we came here to discuss today is, the easiest part is congratulations, the challenge is now with the mandate, how do you recreate the middle class so that Nigeria can be stable, all other things will then fall in line. All that is required is clear thinking, determination and to ensure that the ministers that are coming are not coming to implement what they think, but that they are coming to implement programmes that the party has agreed to. And that is why they are going to have a retreat before the president assigned ministerial positions to them.

There is no question that we have challenges but I don’t think if you were an American, British, Ghanaian or even a Nigerian, you were about to set up a farm or a factory and you hear that a revolution is in the making, in which country do you hear that? You go to any country including established democracies and say your business is to create revolution…

Have you monitored what is happening in France, that yellow jacket people, who were organizing those protests? Initially, when they were organizing those protests they were asking for labour reforms that President Macron introduced but from there they went into something else, you must have seen on your television how the French authorities dealt with that.

I think we have to be clear. I am a believer that the rights to protest is a fundamental human right but it does not include the right to suggest that you want to overthrow a constituted order. No, there is a difference.

As NLC president when we were organizing protest, when we had put down the head of the then-president after one week protest, I think it was late Gani Fawehinmi that said instead of to push him out we raised the head again, and I said our purpose is to defeat a set of anti-people policies that we have seen but recognizing that we are in a democracy and that the president was elected, our mission was not to remove him from office. There is a difference between the two.

So you can go and contest election and when you lose you say you want to do revolution. It is not about this president, it is not about APC, it is recognizing that we have challenges. Are we prepared to allow non-democratic means to effect a change?

Nobody knows the value of democracy more than you the media because once upon a time two of your colleagues were convicted for allegedly plotting coup with a pen. The accusation was that he was plotting to overthrow a military government with pen. So we have come a long way, I am for a right to protest but you must state what you want out of the protest. But if you want is a forceful change, then … we have to look at the laws.

Q: What is happening in the APC NWC, is the party divided against itself?

Oshiomhole: I think the media should show a deeper understanding. If in your paper, the news editor is suspended or sacked, will there be crisis in the media house? Let’s talk serious business, we are governed by rules. If somebody crosses the redline, he is disciplined. How does that suggest crisis? Look at all of us here, do I look like somebody in crisis? And you are talking of two persons out of 21. I made it clear that we are not presiding over an amorphous unstructured organization, I am chairman of a structured political party.

We are governed by rules as provided for in our party constitution but also subject to the various sections of the electoral act with regards to the formation of a political party and the Nigeria constitution. Nothing in those rules say you could do whatever you like. Our rules provide for discipline if you cross the red line and nobody in my view is too big to be disciplined. And we are on record as having suspended very powerful people. Because the problem with Nigeria is that because you are above there, you are above the law, I don’t think so. We are a bit under the law.

APC National Secretariat in Abuja

Q: You have painted a picture of a very transparent party which is why you came to present the financial report of the party. How much did you spend at the elections?

Oshiomhole: Because you are not a contributor I am not obliged to account to you. I am accountable to APC members and unless you show me your membership card, I am not obliged to report to you. The president is a very senior member of the APC and so he is entitled to know how much we spent, and as the steward of the party, I am entitled to present the report of my stewardship and cost we incurred in the cause of that stewardship.

INTERVIEW: Sowore: I support protests but not revolution – Oshiomhole The national chairman of the APC, Adams Oshiomhole, met with President Muhammadu Buhari at the presidential villa on Wednesday.

[global-news-station]

PARIS: It began as a home-spun Facebook campaign against French fuel tax increases. But in a few weeks it has spiraled into a movement powerful enough to force Emmanuel Macron into the biggest U-turn of his presidency.

Yet the “yellow-vest” movement — named for the fluorescent jackets carried by French motorists — remains an amorphous, hard-to-define group with a rapidly shifting agenda.

It has no leader. It named eight spokespeople, some of whom disagreed with each other and one of whom was promptly sacked. Members are broadly opposed to decision-making authority.

One of its originators, a 51-year-old accordionist from Brittany called Jacline Mouraud who also works in hypnotherapy and makes YouTube videos, received death threats after suggesting the movement should talk to the government.

Anyone who has a “gilet jaune” — and most people in France suddenly seem to — can put it on and become part of the movement, meaning it brings together people of hugely different ages, social classes, occupations and views.

This is its strength but also its weakness.

The government does not know who to engage with, even though the movement has drawn hundreds of thousands of people onto the streets, closing roads and fuel depots, and spurring riots and violence in the capital Paris on successive weekends.

Since Macron gave in to the movement’s main demand on Wednesday by scrapping a fuel-tax increase set for January, the “yellow vests” have also been trying to agree on other issues to fight for — from boosting household incomes to reinstating a wealth tax or ousting Macron.

“He betrayed us. He was elected promising to blow out political parties, no left, no right, to reconnect political power with the people,” Christophe Chalençon, a blacksmith from Provence in southern France who has become one of the more recognizable faces of the movement, told Reuters.

“He’s done the opposite. We’re only the mirror of what he had proposed, what he sold to us. We need a new representative body,” said Chalencon, who has been criticized for postings on social media that some have seen as anti-Muslim.

WE ARE YELLOW

In an age of a populist backlash against globalization in the Western world, the “yellow vest” movement shares many features with other populist forces, such as the Occupy movement in the United States and Italy’s Five-Star, which now governs.

An opinion poll published by the Elabe Institute on Wednesday showed that in the presidential election in May 2017, many in the movement voted for candidates on the far-left or far-right, although many also didn’t vote.

They mostly have a high-school diploma or a lower level of education and live in tight financial circumstances, often in rural or outer-urban areas, where depending on a car to get to work or go to the shops is essential, and increasingly costly.

There is a high level of solidarity among volunteers who mount roadblocks, share food and post pictures together online. Polls show they still have the backing of about 70 percent of the population, despite the violence in Paris which the government blamed on “extremist” groups”.

Some government officials play down the prospects of such a diverse movement uniting as a political force.

“For the time being, no, they’re having trouble just structuring themselves,” a government source said.

But, with elections to the European parliament coming up next May, others warn against complacency, especially as Macron was taken off guard by the protest. Some members of Macron’s team say privately they did not expect the planned rise in fuel prices to be more politically explosive than other reforms.

Macron himself rose to power barely a year after creating his own movement, En Marche, in 2016 on a promise to be “neither of the left nor the right” and to introduce a new style of politics. His campaign book was called “Revolution”.

The “yellow vests” do not have the same education or work background as Macron — he had experience in government as a former economy minister. Yet ironically, they are using some of the same techniques as he used on social media and echoing some of the anti-establishment rhetoric.

“The yellow vests are a political movement, we need to stop feeling sorry for them,” Bruno Bonnell, a lawmaker in En Marche (On The Move) and an early follower of Macron, said.

“In three weeks, it’s transformed itself into the fiery core of a strong populist movement,” he said. “It reminds me of the start of En Marche. They’re our future opposition.”

TO THE VOTE!

Macron enjoyed high ratings at the start of his presidency and managed to ram through changes to France’s labour code.

But his brash style alienated some voters and changes to a tax to reduce the burden on the wealthy earned him the label “president of the rich”. His ratings now hover in the low-20s and he is battling to keep his reform agenda on track.

His biggest threat now is from a popular national uprising that, while not associated with a political party, has elements that sympathize with the far-right and far-left and want a radical shake-up — the sort of new politics U.S. President Donald Trump and his former strategist Steve Bannon advocate.

“We can already see they (“yellow vests”) have huge appeal but this is because they are apolitical and can genuinely say they have nothing to do with political parties,” said Charles Lichfield, Europe analyst at Eurasia Group risk consultancy.

“For the ‘gilets jaunes’ to become a political force, they need to accept the notion of leadership and get over the fact that their chosen leaders will need to balance between various contradictory demands.”

France, a nation built on revolution, is not new to populist uprisings. In the 1950s, a shopkeeper called Pierre Poujade spurred anti-tax, anti-elite protests which eventually secured 52 seats in the French parliament in the 1956 election.

Although Poujadism, as it became known, eventually faded from view when war-hero Charles de Gaulle returned to power, it left a lasting legacy. The youngest member of its deputies was Jean-Marie Le Pen, the founder of the far-right National Front.

One of the “yellow vests”, Andre Lannee, has launched Facebook pages for protesters to elect two representatives per region. Another, Jean-Francois Bernaba, has said he is working on a list of candidates for the European Parliament elections, in which French voters traditionally back more populist parties.

Asked to assess the “yellow vests’” chances of contesting the European Parliament elections, which are based on a system of proportional representation, Lichfield said they would first have to organize quickly and find a charismatic leader.

“They will understand that a proportional ballot gives them their best chance of making a splash,” he said.

The post Can France’s ‘yellow vests’ become a political force? appeared first on ARYNEWS.

https://ift.tt/2BTKEaC

[bonniepospisil]

Best Tool Brand: Measure Twice, Buy Once

Although the “best” toolmakers will always come down to a slight amount of subjectivity, we scoured the web and did our research to find the top brand producing some of the most reliable and widest range of tools in the business.

Our Top 5 Best Tool Brands

#1 DeWalt

Pros:

Made in USA

90-day full refund

3-year limited warranty

Cons:

Owned by Black and Decker (notorious among craftsmen for poor quality parts)

During our research into the best tool brands we found it was always a close contest in preferences of tool users between our #1 pick DeWalt and the occupant of the #2 slot, Makita. That said, DeWalt earned the edge just ever so slightly thanks to its better warranty programs and more extensive network of approved repair shops, making it easier for owners of DeWalt tools to easily get their equipment repaired and back in action quicker no matter where their worksite is in the world.

#2 Makita

Pros:

Free repair and replacement within 1-year warranty period

Nearly $50 million in new plants opened in US over past five years

Cons:

Some tools made in China

Despite being one of the few companies on this list which essentially manufacturers the majority overseas in China, Milwaukee still earned a number of accolades from tool buyers who consider the company to produce some of the best tools (for the price) in the business. This may be due to the company’s recent efforts to bring jobs back stateside, with a $47 million investment in local production facilities over the last five years. This has led to new and more technologically advanced plants being opened in states like Mississippi and Wisconsin.

#4 Bosch

Pros:

3-year tool/2-year battery warranties

MaxVantagePRO repair program

Cheaper than most brands

Cons:

Primarily manufactured in China and Mexico

When it comes to the fine balance of price to quality, Bosch seems to have managed to walk that line expertly by offering tools which generally skew toward the cheaper side of the spectrum (thereby opening themselves up to a much wider spectrum of the home buyer market), without sacrificing the quality that most professionals have come to associate the brand with. Although many of their tools do come from production facilities located either in China or Mexico, the company also maintains strict guidelines on quality, which seems to have paid off in spades to make them one of the most widely purchased tool brands operating in the market today.

#5 Ridgid

Pros:

Lifetime defect warranty

Plumbing tools made in USA

Cons:

Some power tools manufactured overseas

Finally, we come to Ridgid. Ridgid is one of the oldest brands on this list, and actually has the distinct claim to the patent for inventing what everyone knows as the modern-day pipe wrench. The company has topped several lists among professional construction workers for their power tools, though their primary focus (and expertise) is in manufacturing just about everything a plumber would need to do their job effectively. Ridgid has taken some flak in recent years for leasing the brand out to another Hong Kong-based company called TTI, which also manufactures products for the likes of previously American-made brands like Hoover, Dirt Devil, and Homelight. That said, with so many accolades under their belt it doesn’t seem as though Ridgid has let the quality of their tools suffer as a result of this rebranding, which is why although not the best brand out there, has still earned a respectable #5 slot on our list of the best tool brands for 2018.

Other Tool Brands to Consider

Stanley: Stanley is another highly-regarded brand in the tool space that’s known for creating quality tools that can stand the test of time. The options with Stanley can be a bit pricier than some other brands on this list, but the brand is definitely a case of “you get what you pay for” when it comes to long-lasting reliability and strength.

Husky: Husky covers every area of the market with its tool lines, catering to the demands of professional craftsmen and home builders alike. There are a large range of Husky tools to choose from along with about a dozen well-supplied pre-selected toolkits you can buy, so if you’re on the hunt for variety and want the all-in-one experience, Husky might be the right choice for you.

Tool Brands to Avoid and the Worst Tool Brands

Craftsman: Since their $900m acquisition by Black & Decker in 2017, many tool heads have reported a significant drop in the overall quality of tools that Craftsman used to be known for. This is likely due to outsourcing the production of tools to China, a move which seems to have doomed every brand in this space before it.

Best Tool Brand Buying Guide

In general, we relied on the votes of home tool buyers as well as professional craftsman to reach our rankings of the top five-tool brands in the United States today. That said, there are a few other factors that were considered which helped us reach our final list.

Tool Quality/Price

When you buy a tool you want to be sure that it’s going to be able to stand up to any punishment you throw its way, which is why the build quality and lifetime durability are the #1 factors we considered when deciding on the best tool brands in the business.

Of course, the quality of a tool is always weighed directly against the price you paid for it, which is a balance that many US-based toolmakers have been struggling to maintain as Chinese and Mexican-made tools undercut the market by significant price gouging at checkout (more on that below).

If you’re willing to pay just a bit more though, the jump in quality, durability, and the overall lifetime of your tool is significant. If you’re uncertain whether or not a cheaper tool might come with some problems by the time it shows up on your doorstep, be sure you read the company’s warranty policy carefully to guarantee that it covers any manufacturing defects that could present themselves at the time of purchase.

Warranty/Return Policy/Repair Policy

In the world of power tools, warranty programs and return policies can be pretty confusing to the layman. Because the number of things that can go wrong with a heavy-duty tool are just as varied as the number of applications a tool can have, just about all of the companies on this list will only cover manufacturing defects that the company themselves verifies after you mail it in.

Not only that, but warranty length will vary pretty significantly both between the company you go with as well as the actual type of tool itself.

For example, Makita offers a 1-year defect repair warranty on its corded tools, but a 3-year warranty on any tools that use a lithium-ion battery, and so on.

Best List Placements/Amazon Reviews

As non-experts ourselves, we deferred most of the heavy lifting to about a dozen other annual roundups of the best tool companies of the year, as determined by experts in their relevant fields as well as ranks handed out by home buyers who used portals like Ranker to vote for their personal favorites and rank them by popularity and quality.

And as always, Amazon provides an amazing resource of buyers who not only rate how well a tool performed upon first purchase, but will often come back and update their review two, three, even five years later to let other prospective buyers know how the tool held up over time. This is an invaluable resource of knowledge for anyone who wants to find out which tool brands hold up to punishment and which inevitable failed, and one only needs to sort by star rating to get a quick snapshot of who pulled out in front and which brands fell by the wayside after extended periods of use and abuse.

Made in the USA

Dozens of tool brands have moved their manufacturing plants to China over the past few decades, and it seems both craftsmen and home buyers alike unanimously agree that the quality and durability of the tools suffered as a result.

Producing tools in the United States does have its drawbacks (limited capacity, slimmer margins), however, the jump in quality simply can’t be ignored.

It may mean you end up paying slightly more at the register, but when you consider what it would cost to replace that tool every time it breaks the small uptick in final cost definitely starts to look a lot more worth it.

Best Tool Brand: Measure Twice, Buy Once is republished from The GadgetReview Difference

Best Tool Brand: Measure Twice, Buy Once published first on http://www.gadgetreview.com/ Best Tool Brand: Measure Twice, Buy Once published first on http://www.gadgetreview.com/ Best Tool Brand: Measure Twice, Buy Once posted first on http://www.gadgetreview.com/

[lindamarionn]

Best Tool Brand: Measure Twice, Buy Once

Although the “best” toolmakers will always come down to a slight amount of subjectivity, we scoured the web and did our research to find the top brand producing some of the most reliable and widest range of tools in the business.

Our Top 5 Best Tool Brands

#1 DeWalt

Pros:

Made in USA

90-day full refund

3-year limited warranty

Cons:

Owned by Black and Decker (notorious among craftsmen for poor quality parts)

During our research into the best tool brands we found it was always a close contest in preferences of tool users between our #1 pick DeWalt and the occupant of the #2 slot, Makita. That said, DeWalt earned the edge just ever so slightly thanks to its better warranty programs and more extensive network of approved repair shops, making it easier for owners of DeWalt tools to easily get their equipment repaired and back in action quicker no matter where their worksite is in the world.

#2 Makita

Pros:

Free repair and replacement within 1-year warranty period

Nearly $50 million in new plants opened in US over past five years

Cons:

Some tools made in China

Despite being one of the few companies on this list which essentially manufacturers the majority overseas in China, Milwaukee still earned a number of accolades from tool buyers who consider the company to produce some of the best tools (for the price) in the business. This may be due to the company’s recent efforts to bring jobs back stateside, with a $47 million investment in local production facilities over the last five years. This has led to new and more technologically advanced plants being opened in states like Mississippi and Wisconsin.

#4 Bosch

Pros:

3-year tool/2-year battery warranties

MaxVantagePRO repair program

Cheaper than most brands

Cons:

Primarily manufactured in China and Mexico

When it comes to the fine balance of price to quality, Bosch seems to have managed to walk that line expertly by offering tools which generally skew toward the cheaper side of the spectrum (thereby opening themselves up to a much wider spectrum of the home buyer market), without sacrificing the quality that most professionals have come to associate the brand with. Although many of their tools do come from production facilities located either in China or Mexico, the company also maintains strict guidelines on quality, which seems to have paid off in spades to make them one of the most widely purchased tool brands operating in the market today.

#5 Ridgid

Pros:

Lifetime defect warranty

Plumbing tools made in USA

Cons:

Some power tools manufactured overseas

Finally, we come to Ridgid. Ridgid is one of the oldest brands on this list, and actually has the distinct claim to the patent for inventing what everyone knows as the modern-day pipe wrench. The company has topped several lists among professional construction workers for their power tools, though their primary focus (and expertise) is in manufacturing just about everything a plumber would need to do their job effectively. Ridgid has taken some flak in recent years for leasing the brand out to another Hong Kong-based company called TTI, which also manufactures products for the likes of previously American-made brands like Hoover, Dirt Devil, and Homelight. That said, with so many accolades under their belt it doesn’t seem as though Ridgid has let the quality of their tools suffer as a result of this rebranding, which is why although not the best brand out there, has still earned a respectable #5 slot on our list of the best tool brands for 2018.

Other Tool Brands to Consider

Stanley: Stanley is another highly-regarded brand in the tool space that’s known for creating quality tools that can stand the test of time. The options with Stanley can be a bit pricier than some other brands on this list, but the brand is definitely a case of “you get what you pay for” when it comes to long-lasting reliability and strength.

Husky: Husky covers every area of the market with its tool lines, catering to the demands of professional craftsmen and home builders alike. There are a large range of Husky tools to choose from along with about a dozen well-supplied pre-selected toolkits you can buy, so if you’re on the hunt for variety and want the all-in-one experience, Husky might be the right choice for you.

Tool Brands to Avoid and the Worst Tool Brands

Craftsman: Since their $900m acquisition by Black & Decker in 2017, many tool heads have reported a significant drop in the overall quality of tools that Craftsman used to be known for. This is likely due to outsourcing the production of tools to China, a move which seems to have doomed every brand in this space before it.

Best Tool Brand Buying Guide

In general, we relied on the votes of home tool buyers as well as professional craftsman to reach our rankings of the top five-tool brands in the United States today. That said, there are a few other factors that were considered which helped us reach our final list.

Tool Quality/Price

When you buy a tool you want to be sure that it’s going to be able to stand up to any punishment you throw its way, which is why the build quality and lifetime durability are the #1 factors we considered when deciding on the best tool brands in the business.

Of course, the quality of a tool is always weighed directly against the price you paid for it, which is a balance that many US-based toolmakers have been struggling to maintain as Chinese and Mexican-made tools undercut the market by significant price gouging at checkout (more on that below).

If you’re willing to pay just a bit more though, the jump in quality, durability, and the overall lifetime of your tool is significant. If you’re uncertain whether or not a cheaper tool might come with some problems by the time it shows up on your doorstep, be sure you read the company’s warranty policy carefully to guarantee that it covers any manufacturing defects that could present themselves at the time of purchase.

Warranty/Return Policy/Repair Policy

In the world of power tools, warranty programs and return policies can be pretty confusing to the layman. Because the number of things that can go wrong with a heavy-duty tool are just as varied as the number of applications a tool can have, just about all of the companies on this list will only cover manufacturing defects that the company themselves verifies after you mail it in.

Not only that, but warranty length will vary pretty significantly both between the company you go with as well as the actual type of tool itself.

For example, Makita offers a 1-year defect repair warranty on its corded tools, but a 3-year warranty on any tools that use a lithium-ion battery, and so on.

Best List Placements/Amazon Reviews

As non-experts ourselves, we deferred most of the heavy lifting to about a dozen other annual roundups of the best tool companies of the year, as determined by experts in their relevant fields as well as ranks handed out by home buyers who used portals like Ranker to vote for their personal favorites and rank them by popularity and quality.

And as always, Amazon provides an amazing resource of buyers who not only rate how well a tool performed upon first purchase, but will often come back and update their review two, three, even five years later to let other prospective buyers know how the tool held up over time. This is an invaluable resource of knowledge for anyone who wants to find out which tool brands hold up to punishment and which inevitable failed, and one only needs to sort by star rating to get a quick snapshot of who pulled out in front and which brands fell by the wayside after extended periods of use and abuse.

Made in the USA

Dozens of tool brands have moved their manufacturing plants to China over the past few decades, and it seems both craftsmen and home buyers alike unanimously agree that the quality and durability of the tools suffered as a result.

Producing tools in the United States does have its drawbacks (limited capacity, slimmer margins), however, the jump in quality simply can’t be ignored.

It may mean you end up paying slightly more at the register, but when you consider what it would cost to replace that tool every time it breaks the small uptick in final cost definitely starts to look a lot more worth it.

Best Tool Brand: Measure Twice, Buy Once is republished from The GadgetReview Difference

Best Tool Brand: Measure Twice, Buy Once published first on http://www.gadgetreview.com/ Best Tool Brand: Measure Twice, Buy Once posted first on http://www.gadgetreview.com/

[coniecoleman]

Best Tool Brand: Measure Twice, Buy Once

Although the “best” toolmakers will always come down to a slight amount of subjectivity, we scoured the web and did our research to find the top brand producing some of the most reliable and widest range of tools in the business.

Our Top 5 Best Tool Brands

#1 DeWalt

Pros:

Made in USA

90-day full refund

3-year limited warranty

Cons:

Owned by Black and Decker (notorious among craftsmen for poor quality parts)

During our research into the best tool brands we found it was always a close contest in preferences of tool users between our #1 pick DeWalt and the occupant of the #2 slot, Makita. That said, DeWalt earned the edge just ever so slightly thanks to its better warranty programs and more extensive network of approved repair shops, making it easier for owners of DeWalt tools to easily get their equipment repaired and back in action quicker no matter where their worksite is in the world.

#2 Makita

Pros:

Free repair and replacement within 1-year warranty period

Nearly $50 million in new plants opened in US over past five years

Cons:

Some tools made in China

Despite being one of the few companies on this list which essentially manufacturers the majority overseas in China, Milwaukee still earned a number of accolades from tool buyers who consider the company to produce some of the best tools (for the price) in the business. This may be due to the company’s recent efforts to bring jobs back stateside, with a $47 million investment in local production facilities over the last five years. This has led to new and more technologically advanced plants being opened in states like Mississippi and Wisconsin.

#4 Bosch

Pros:

3-year tool/2-year battery warranties

MaxVantagePRO repair program

Cheaper than most brands

Cons:

Primarily manufactured in China and Mexico

When it comes to the fine balance of price to quality, Bosch seems to have managed to walk that line expertly by offering tools which generally skew toward the cheaper side of the spectrum (thereby opening themselves up to a much wider spectrum of the home buyer market), without sacrificing the quality that most professionals have come to associate the brand with. Although many of their tools do come from production facilities located either in China or Mexico, the company also maintains strict guidelines on quality, which seems to have paid off in spades to make them one of the most widely purchased tool brands operating in the market today.

#5 Ridgid

Pros:

Lifetime defect warranty

Plumbing tools made in USA

Cons:

Some power tools manufactured overseas

Finally, we come to Ridgid. Ridgid is one of the oldest brands on this list, and actually has the distinct claim to the patent for inventing what everyone knows as the modern-day pipe wrench. The company has topped several lists among professional construction workers for their power tools, though their primary focus (and expertise) is in manufacturing just about everything a plumber would need to do their job effectively. Ridgid has taken some flak in recent years for leasing the brand out to another Hong Kong-based company called TTI, which also manufactures products for the likes of previously American-made brands like Hoover, Dirt Devil, and Homelight. That said, with so many accolades under their belt it doesn’t seem as though Ridgid has let the quality of their tools suffer as a result of this rebranding, which is why although not the best brand out there, has still earned a respectable #5 slot on our list of the best tool brands for 2018.

Other Tool Brands to Consider

Stanley: Stanley is another highly-regarded brand in the tool space that’s known for creating quality tools that can stand the test of time. The options with Stanley can be a bit pricier than some other brands on this list, but the brand is definitely a case of “you get what you pay for” when it comes to long-lasting reliability and strength.

Husky: Husky covers every area of the market with its tool lines, catering to the demands of professional craftsmen and home builders alike. There are a large range of Husky tools to choose from along with about a dozen well-supplied pre-selected toolkits you can buy, so if you’re on the hunt for variety and want the all-in-one experience, Husky might be the right choice for you.

Tool Brands to Avoid and the Worst Tool Brands

Craftsman: Since their $900m acquisition by Black & Decker in 2017, many tool heads have reported a significant drop in the overall quality of tools that Craftsman used to be known for. This is likely due to outsourcing the production of tools to China, a move which seems to have doomed every brand in this space before it.

Best Tool Brand Buying Guide

In general, we relied on the votes of home tool buyers as well as professional craftsman to reach our rankings of the top five-tool brands in the United States today. That said, there are a few other factors that were considered which helped us reach our final list.

Tool Quality/Price

When you buy a tool you want to be sure that it’s going to be able to stand up to any punishment you throw its way, which is why the build quality and lifetime durability are the #1 factors we considered when deciding on the best tool brands in the business.

Of course, the quality of a tool is always weighed directly against the price you paid for it, which is a balance that many US-based toolmakers have been struggling to maintain as Chinese and Mexican-made tools undercut the market by significant price gouging at checkout (more on that below).

If you’re willing to pay just a bit more though, the jump in quality, durability, and the overall lifetime of your tool is significant. If you’re uncertain whether or not a cheaper tool might come with some problems by the time it shows up on your doorstep, be sure you read the company’s warranty policy carefully to guarantee that it covers any manufacturing defects that could present themselves at the time of purchase.

Warranty/Return Policy/Repair Policy

In the world of power tools, warranty programs and return policies can be pretty confusing to the layman. Because the number of things that can go wrong with a heavy-duty tool are just as varied as the number of applications a tool can have, just about all of the companies on this list will only cover manufacturing defects that the company themselves verifies after you mail it in.

Not only that, but warranty length will vary pretty significantly both between the company you go with as well as the actual type of tool itself.

For example, Makita offers a 1-year defect repair warranty on its corded tools, but a 3-year warranty on any tools that use a lithium-ion battery, and so on.

Best List Placements/Amazon Reviews

As non-experts ourselves, we deferred most of the heavy lifting to about a dozen other annual roundups of the best tool companies of the year, as determined by experts in their relevant fields as well as ranks handed out by home buyers who used portals like Ranker to vote for their personal favorites and rank them by popularity and quality.

And as always, Amazon provides an amazing resource of buyers who not only rate how well a tool performed upon first purchase, but will often come back and update their review two, three, even five years later to let other prospective buyers know how the tool held up over time. This is an invaluable resource of knowledge for anyone who wants to find out which tool brands hold up to punishment and which inevitable failed, and one only needs to sort by star rating to get a quick snapshot of who pulled out in front and which brands fell by the wayside after extended periods of use and abuse.

Made in the USA

Dozens of tool brands have moved their manufacturing plants to China over the past few decades, and it seems both craftsmen and home buyers alike unanimously agree that the quality and durability of the tools suffered as a result.

Producing tools in the United States does have its drawbacks (limited capacity, slimmer margins), however, the jump in quality simply can’t be ignored.

It may mean you end up paying slightly more at the register, but when you consider what it would cost to replace that tool every time it breaks the small uptick in final cost definitely starts to look a lot more worth it.

Best Tool Brand: Measure Twice, Buy Once is republished from The GadgetReview Difference

Best Tool Brand: Measure Twice, Buy Once published first on http://www.gadgetreview.com/ Best Tool Brand: Measure Twice, Buy Once published first on http://www.gadgetreview.com/ Best Tool Brand: Measure Twice, Buy Once published first on http://www.gadgetreview.com/

[jennifernail]

Best Tool Brand: Measure Twice, Buy Once

Although the “best” toolmakers will always come down to a slight amount of subjectivity, we scoured the web and did our research to find the top brand producing some of the most reliable and widest range of tools in the business.

Our Top 5 Best Tool Brands

#1 DeWalt

Pros:

Made in USA

90-day full refund

3-year limited warranty

Cons:

Owned by Black and Decker (notorious among craftsmen for poor quality parts)

During our research into the best tool brands we found it was always a close contest in preferences of tool users between our #1 pick DeWalt and the occupant of the #2 slot, Makita. That said, DeWalt earned the edge just ever so slightly thanks to its better warranty programs and more extensive network of approved repair shops, making it easier for owners of DeWalt tools to easily get their equipment repaired and back in action quicker no matter where their worksite is in the world.

#2 Makita

Pros:

Free repair and replacement within 1-year warranty period

Nearly $50 million in new plants opened in US over past five years

Cons:

Some tools made in China

Despite being one of the few companies on this list which essentially manufacturers the majority overseas in China, Milwaukee still earned a number of accolades from tool buyers who consider the company to produce some of the best tools (for the price) in the business. This may be due to the company’s recent efforts to bring jobs back stateside, with a $47 million investment in local production facilities over the last five years. This has led to new and more technologically advanced plants being opened in states like Mississippi and Wisconsin.

#4 Bosch

Pros:

3-year tool/2-year battery warranties

MaxVantagePRO repair program

Cheaper than most brands

Cons:

Primarily manufactured in China and Mexico

When it comes to the fine balance of price to quality, Bosch seems to have managed to walk that line expertly by offering tools which generally skew toward the cheaper side of the spectrum (thereby opening themselves up to a much wider spectrum of the home buyer market), without sacrificing the quality that most professionals have come to associate the brand with. Although many of their tools do come from production facilities located either in China or Mexico, the company also maintains strict guidelines on quality, which seems to have paid off in spades to make them one of the most widely purchased tool brands operating in the market today.

#5 Ridgid

Pros:

Lifetime defect warranty

Plumbing tools made in USA

Cons:

Some power tools manufactured overseas

Finally, we come to Ridgid. Ridgid is one of the oldest brands on this list, and actually has the distinct claim to the patent for inventing what everyone knows as the modern-day pipe wrench. The company has topped several lists among professional construction workers for their power tools, though their primary focus (and expertise) is in manufacturing just about everything a plumber would need to do their job effectively. Ridgid has taken some flak in recent years for leasing the brand out to another Hong Kong-based company called TTI, which also manufactures products for the likes of previously American-made brands like Hoover, Dirt Devil, and Homelight. That said, with so many accolades under their belt it doesn’t seem as though Ridgid has let the quality of their tools suffer as a result of this rebranding, which is why although not the best brand out there, has still earned a respectable #5 slot on our list of the best tool brands for 2018.

Other Tool Brands to Consider

Stanley: Stanley is another highly-regarded brand in the tool space that’s known for creating quality tools that can stand the test of time. The options with Stanley can be a bit pricier than some other brands on this list, but the brand is definitely a case of “you get what you pay for” when it comes to long-lasting reliability and strength.

Husky: Husky covers every area of the market with its tool lines, catering to the demands of professional craftsmen and home builders alike. There are a large range of Husky tools to choose from along with about a dozen well-supplied pre-selected toolkits you can buy, so if you’re on the hunt for variety and want the all-in-one experience, Husky might be the right choice for you.

Tool Brands to Avoid and the Worst Tool Brands

Craftsman: Since their $900m acquisition by Black & Decker in 2017, many tool heads have reported a significant drop in the overall quality of tools that Craftsman used to be known for. This is likely due to outsourcing the production of tools to China, a move which seems to have doomed every brand in this space before it.

Best Tool Brand Buying Guide

In general, we relied on the votes of home tool buyers as well as professional craftsman to reach our rankings of the top five-tool brands in the United States today. That said, there are a few other factors that were considered which helped us reach our final list.

Tool Quality/Price

When you buy a tool you want to be sure that it’s going to be able to stand up to any punishment you throw its way, which is why the build quality and lifetime durability are the #1 factors we considered when deciding on the best tool brands in the business.

Of course, the quality of a tool is always weighed directly against the price you paid for it, which is a balance that many US-based toolmakers have been struggling to maintain as Chinese and Mexican-made tools undercut the market by significant price gouging at checkout (more on that below).

If you’re willing to pay just a bit more though, the jump in quality, durability, and the overall lifetime of your tool is significant. If you’re uncertain whether or not a cheaper tool might come with some problems by the time it shows up on your doorstep, be sure you read the company’s warranty policy carefully to guarantee that it covers any manufacturing defects that could present themselves at the time of purchase.

Warranty/Return Policy/Repair Policy

In the world of power tools, warranty programs and return policies can be pretty confusing to the layman. Because the number of things that can go wrong with a heavy-duty tool are just as varied as the number of applications a tool can have, just about all of the companies on this list will only cover manufacturing defects that the company themselves verifies after you mail it in.

Not only that, but warranty length will vary pretty significantly both between the company you go with as well as the actual type of tool itself.

For example, Makita offers a 1-year defect repair warranty on its corded tools, but a 3-year warranty on any tools that use a lithium-ion battery, and so on.

Best List Placements/Amazon Reviews

As non-experts ourselves, we deferred most of the heavy lifting to about a dozen other annual roundups of the best tool companies of the year, as determined by experts in their relevant fields as well as ranks handed out by home buyers who used portals like Ranker to vote for their personal favorites and rank them by popularity and quality.

And as always, Amazon provides an amazing resource of buyers who not only rate how well a tool performed upon first purchase, but will often come back and update their review two, three, even five years later to let other prospective buyers know how the tool held up over time. This is an invaluable resource of knowledge for anyone who wants to find out which tool brands hold up to punishment and which inevitable failed, and one only needs to sort by star rating to get a quick snapshot of who pulled out in front and which brands fell by the wayside after extended periods of use and abuse.

Made in the USA

Dozens of tool brands have moved their manufacturing plants to China over the past few decades, and it seems both craftsmen and home buyers alike unanimously agree that the quality and durability of the tools suffered as a result.

Producing tools in the United States does have its drawbacks (limited capacity, slimmer margins), however, the jump in quality simply can’t be ignored.

It may mean you end up paying slightly more at the register, but when you consider what it would cost to replace that tool every time it breaks the small uptick in final cost definitely starts to look a lot more worth it.

Best Tool Brand: Measure Twice, Buy Once is republished from The GadgetReview Difference

Best Tool Brand: Measure Twice, Buy Once published first on http://www.gadgetreview.com/

[gadget-reviews]

Best Tool Brand: Measure Twice, Buy Once

Although the "best" toolmakers will always come down to a slight amount of subjectivity, we scoured the web and did our research to find the top brand producing some of the most reliable and widest range of tools in the business.

Our Top 5 Best Tool Brands

#1 DeWalt

Pros:

Made in USA

90-day full refund

3-year limited warranty

Cons:

Owned by Black and Decker (notorious among craftsmen for poor quality parts)

During our research into the best tool brands we found it was always a close contest in preferences of tool users between our #1 pick DeWalt and the occupant of the #2 slot, Makita. That said, DeWalt earned the edge just ever so slightly thanks to its better warranty programs and more extensive network of approved repair shops, making it easier for owners of DeWalt tools to easily get their equipment repaired and back in action quicker no matter where their worksite is in the world.

#2 Makita

Pros:

Free repair and replacement within 1-year warranty period

Nearly $50 million in new plants opened in US over past five years

Cons:

Some tools made in China

Despite being one of the few companies on this list which essentially manufacturers the majority overseas in China, Milwaukee still earned a number of accolades from tool buyers who consider the company to produce some of the best tools (for the price) in the business. This may be due to the company's recent efforts to bring jobs back stateside, with a $47 million investment in local production facilities over the last five years. This has led to new and more technologically advanced plants being opened in states like Mississippi and Wisconsin.

#4 Bosch

Pros:

3-year tool/2-year battery warranties

MaxVantagePRO repair program

Cheaper than most brands

Cons:

Primarily manufactured in China and Mexico

When it comes to the fine balance of price to quality, Bosch seems to have managed to walk that line expertly by offering tools which generally skew toward the cheaper side of the spectrum (thereby opening themselves up to a much wider spectrum of the home buyer market), without sacrificing the quality that most professionals have come to associate the brand with. Although many of their tools do come from production facilities located either in China or Mexico, the company also maintains strict guidelines on quality, which seems to have paid off in spades to make them one of the most widely purchased tool brands operating in the market today.

#5 Ridgid

Pros:

Lifetime defect warranty

Plumbing tools made in USA

Cons:

Some power tools manufactured overseas

Finally, we come to Ridgid. Ridgid is one of the oldest brands on this list, and actually has the distinct claim to the patent for inventing what everyone knows as the modern-day pipe wrench. The company has topped several lists among professional construction workers for their power tools, though their primary focus (and expertise) is in manufacturing just about everything a plumber would need to do their job effectively. Ridgid has taken some flak in recent years for leasing the brand out to another Hong Kong-based company called TTI, which also manufactures products for the likes of previously American-made brands like Hoover, Dirt Devil, and Homelight. That said, with so many accolades under their belt it doesn't seem as though Ridgid has let the quality of their tools suffer as a result of this rebranding, which is why although not the best brand out there, has still earned a respectable #5 slot on our list of the best tool brands for 2018.

Other Tool Brands to Consider

Stanley: Stanley is another highly-regarded brand in the tool space that's known for creating quality tools that can stand the test of time. The options with Stanley can be a bit pricier than some other brands on this list, but the brand is definitely a case of "you get what you pay for" when it comes to long-lasting reliability and strength.

Husky: Husky covers every area of the market with its tool lines, catering to the demands of professional craftsmen and home builders alike. There are a large range of Husky tools to choose from along with about a dozen well-supplied pre-selected toolkits you can buy, so if you're on the hunt for variety and want the all-in-one experience, Husky might be the right choice for you.

Tool Brands to Avoid and the Worst Tool Brands

Craftsman: Since their $900m acquisition by Black & Decker in 2017, many tool heads have reported a significant drop in the overall quality of tools that Craftsman used to be known for. This is likely due to outsourcing the production of tools to China, a move which seems to have doomed every brand in this space before it.

Best Tool Brand Buying Guide

In general, we relied on the votes of home tool buyers as well as professional craftsman to reach our rankings of the top five-tool brands in the United States today. That said, there are a few other factors that were considered which helped us reach our final list.

Tool Quality/Price

When you buy a tool you want to be sure that it's going to be able to stand up to any punishment you throw its way, which is why the build quality and lifetime durability are the #1 factors we considered when deciding on the best tool brands in the business.

Of course, the quality of a tool is always weighed directly against the price you paid for it, which is a balance that many US-based toolmakers have been struggling to maintain as Chinese and Mexican-made tools undercut the market by significant price gouging at checkout (more on that below).

If you're willing to pay just a bit more though, the jump in quality, durability, and the overall lifetime of your tool is significant. If you're uncertain whether or not a cheaper tool might come with some problems by the time it shows up on your doorstep, be sure you read the company's warranty policy carefully to guarantee that it covers any manufacturing defects that could present themselves at the time of purchase.

Warranty/Return Policy/Repair Policy

In the world of power tools, warranty programs and return policies can be pretty confusing to the layman. Because the number of things that can go wrong with a heavy-duty tool are just as varied as the number of applications a tool can have, just about all of the companies on this list will only cover manufacturing defects that the company themselves verifies after you mail it in.

Not only that, but warranty length will vary pretty significantly both between the company you go with as well as the actual type of tool itself.

For example, Makita offers a 1-year defect repair warranty on its corded tools, but a 3-year warranty on any tools that use a lithium-ion battery, and so on.

Best List Placements/Amazon Reviews

As non-experts ourselves, we deferred most of the heavy lifting to about a dozen other annual roundups of the best tool companies of the year, as determined by experts in their relevant fields as well as ranks handed out by home buyers who used portals like Ranker to vote for their personal favorites and rank them by popularity and quality.

And as always, Amazon provides an amazing resource of buyers who not only rate how well a tool performed upon first purchase, but will often come back and update their review two, three, even five years later to let other prospective buyers know how the tool held up over time. This is an invaluable resource of knowledge for anyone who wants to find out which tool brands hold up to punishment and which inevitable failed, and one only needs to sort by star rating to get a quick snapshot of who pulled out in front and which brands fell by the wayside after extended periods of use and abuse.

Made in the USA

Dozens of tool brands have moved their manufacturing plants to China over the past few decades, and it seems both craftsmen and home buyers alike unanimously agree that the quality and durability of the tools suffered as a result.

Producing tools in the United States does have its drawbacks (limited capacity, slimmer margins), however, the jump in quality simply can't be ignored.

It may mean you end up paying slightly more at the register, but when you consider what it would cost to replace that tool every time it breaks the small uptick in final cost definitely starts to look a lot more worth it.

Best Tool Brand: Measure Twice, Buy Once is republished from The GadgetReview Difference