Elon Musks Boring Company confirms use of Tesla Model S, X, and 3 in new Loop – Electrek.co

Elon Musks Boring Company has confirmed the use of Tesla Model S, Model X, and Model 3 in its upcoming new Loop.

With several projects getting closer to reality, the Boring Companys vision is starting to become clearer.

Musk has admitted that he started the company as a joke before it actually became serious and secured some major transportation projects.

The goal was always to build tunnels, but the Boring Company changed its strategy a few times when it comes to the transportation system inside the tunnels.

Now with the Las Vegas conventional Center Loop on track to be completed in the next few months, The Boring Company has been releasing more details about what it has been calling a Loop.

The goal has been to use electric vehicles with autonomous capabilities enabling them to travel fast inside narrow tunnels.

For the Las Vegas project, it was already confirmed that they would use Tesla vehicles,but they never confirmed which ones or even if they would be existing Tesla vehicles or they are building a new vehicle especially for that purpose.

Now The Boring Company has updated its FAQ section on its website and released about information about the vehicles it plans to use in its Loop:

Loop is an all-electric, zero-emissions, high-speed underground public transportation system in which passengers are transported via compatible Autonomous Electric Vehicles (AEVs) at up to 150 miles per hour through Main Artery Tunnels between stations. AEVs are Tesla vehicles (Model S, 3, and X) that operate autonomously within the Loop system.

The startup has also released several new concept images of three different Boring Company station designs: surface stations, subsurface stations, and subsurface open-air stations.

Considering these concept images and the references to Model S, 3, and X are coming just as the company is working to complete the Las Vegas project, its likely going to be the system they plan to develop for this project.

The Boring Company is planning to complete the project by the end of the year.

I am glad to finally see images of a full station, which hasnt been clear until now.

As for the Tesla vehicles, that was to be expected, but there are still a few interesting questions.

For example, since those vehicles are going to be operating completely autonomously within the tunnels, should they even have a steering wheel?

Also, this might only be for the Las Vegas project.

Weve heard from a San Bernardino County official last month that Tesla is making a 12-passenger electric van for the Boring Companys project in the region though Tesla never confirmed the news themselves.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Subscribe to Electrek on YouTube for exclusive videos and subscribe to the podcast.

Continued here:

Elon Musks Boring Company confirms use of Tesla Model S, X, and 3 in new Loop - Electrek.co

Elon Musk was supposed to be finished with his tunnel to Dodger Stadium by now. What happened? – The Eastsider LA

Echo Park - Remember the tunnel that Elon Musk was going to dig to Dodger Stadium? With electric cars to ferry passengers from a Metro station in East Hollywood to the game?

That was supposed to be done by today, Bloomberg News points out.

In fact, the plan was to finish it months ago. Musk wanted to have it ready for the opening game of the 2020 baseball season - which, in a normal baseball year, would have been last spring.

But even with a severely delayed season opener against the San Francisco Giants, the tunnel is on hold, and fans would have to sit through traffic if they tried to attend the game in person. Which they can't do anyway.

There's no tunnel, of course, for the same reason there was almost no baseball. The pandemic stopped everything.

But that doesn't mean plans for the tunnel are no longer in play.

Read more at Bloomberg.

Join the readers whose monthly sponsorships defray the costs of gathering news and storytelling. That includes covering a variety of bills from web hosting to bookkeeping as well as payments to writers and photographers who have been generous with their time and talent. Only $5.99 a month!

View original post here:

Elon Musk was supposed to be finished with his tunnel to Dodger Stadium by now. What happened? - The Eastsider LA

Elon Musk embodies the unity of capitalism and imperial war – Morning Star Online

IT IS an almost unbelievable expression of late imperial arrogance for the entrepreneur and futuristic motor manufacturer Elon Musk to boast that theentity that he represents can carry out a coup wherever it fancies.

It cannot of course large parts of the world are closed off to Yankee imperialism and even in its traditional backyard, Latin America, the sway of the mighty dollar is much reduced.

Even right-wing and authoritarian leaders in Latin America would pay their respects to Fidel Castro because they knew that every inch of breathing space that Cubas resistance created was an inch of territorial integrity for them, a small space in which they would be able to take decision in their own interest rather than that of the big neighbour to the north.

The US deploys an enormous armoury of weapons and mechanism to limit the independence and autonomy of the peoples of the Southern Cone, of Central America and even the Caribbean where traditionally British imperialism held the decisive power.

With the integration of British and US capital, it is almost axiomatic that Anglo-American imperialism is a partnership of profits to be made at the expense of the working people of the region.

But over recent decades,country after country, people after people have found ways to displace the satraps and local placemen who served US interests and have instituted a wide range of progressive measures that have lifted millions out of poverty and raised hopes that further progress could be made.

The Bolivian coup is the latest attempt to reverse this tide of progress and it is instructive that, although the local right was able to displace the president-elect and was able to capture part of the machinery of government,in vast parts of the country the forces of popular power and socialism of a particular Bolivian kind hold the loyalty andaffection of the people.

Election date after election date has been deferred, the latest reason being the Covid-19 pandemic for fearthat the the popular masses will recapture popular power.

This is the new reality in Latin America the state is feared but the people are nolonger cowed and in the months and years to come we will see the revolutionary process mature and the skills of government and the exercise of power will be more skilfully employed by the revolutionary forces of each of these states.

This is not to underestimate the difficulties.

The reduction in oil prices has put obstacles in the way of Venezuelas progress and in Colombia it is still dangerous to be a trade unionist or a community activist.

But the pressure of international solidarity, the example of Cuba, the resurgence of the popular mood in Brazil, all these factors are signs that the US and local reaction dont it have it their own way.

Britain, of course, has a lousy record in these parts. From the undemocratic overthrow by the colonial authorities of Cheddi Jagans government in Guyana to the military aid New Labour gave the Colombian ultras,British imperial interests have a way of dominating our governmentsforeign policies in this region.

We can do something about this we must do something about it.

Lisa Nandy must put Britains Labour Party on the side of progress. Now is the time to deploy the basics of an ethical foreign policy of solidarity with the people of Latin America.

Visit link:

Elon Musk embodies the unity of capitalism and imperial war - Morning Star Online

FIRST FIVE: Fighting over the meaning of First Amendment freedoms – hays Post

Gene Policinski is a senior fellow for the First Amendment at the Freedom Forum, and president and chief operating officer of the Freedom Forum Institute.

Theres a bit of an intellectual fistfight going on these days about free expression and we all have a stake in the outcome.

The early rounds have been going on for years: in essence, a theory that pops up periodically in history that some ideas simply are too dangerous to allow them to be voiced in public. The opponent to that theory: The longtime belief in the marketplace of ideas, where any person may advance any idea however repugnant, vile or even evil and be subject to the review, and perhaps revile, of all others.

Critics of the marketplace approach have several arguments. American critics note the amendment was adopted in 1791, carrying forward ideas about free expression that even then were centuries old, and thus see it as out of place in a modern world.

Another objection is that the internet, with its instant and global reach, makes ineffective the expected marketplace interplay of speaker and responder, through which the hope is bad ideas fail, good ideas improve and best ideas thrive.

Yet another criticism of the marketplace concept is that money, technology and power have created an elite group (or groups) in control of most meaningful communication (and perhaps content) across the web, rendering criticism, counterviews, unpopular or unconventional ideas and certainly revolutionary ones unable to reach a mass audience.

Critical race theorists believe that American jurisprudence essentially has elevated the liberty interests of the First Amendment over the equality interests of the 14th Amendment.

And finally, there is the claim that some ideas simply are too dangerous or misleading or manipulative to be allowed into the marketplace at all from race, ethnic and religious hatred to sexual exploitation and abuse to commercial messaging and political misinformation now aided and abetted by hidden algorithms and those in charge of a handful of private tech companies more intent on profits than seeking truth.

Whew. Thats a pretty strong set of arguments that some things need fixing when it comes to free expression in the early years of the 21st century. Most of us likely would agree with many, if not all of them on first glance.

Interestingly, the sides in this dispute dont automatically align along our current political fractures. Some liberals and conservatives see the web as too wide open, allowing dangerous ideas and speakers access to audiences that can be influenced; while others view the web as a tightly controlled funnel of filtered information combined with manipulation that blocks voices (either too conservative or too liberal take your pick) with a goal of shaping public opinion.

The current battle is not just over the criticisms, but over the solutions as well. Twitter and other sites gain praise and scorn for blocking some users for alleged violations of those sites terms of service, ranging from foul language to misleading health claims to personal attacks and what the sites deem deliberate misinformation. Tech firms can block, tag and take down posted content, in a bit of irony to some, because they have their own First Amendment rights as private companies.

So, some on either side of this dispute would bring government into the ring, where First Amendment freedoms would apply one side seeking exceptions to free speech protections for things such as violent content, or racist views, or demeaning portrayals of women, or LGBTQ persons; and the other combatants asking government to oversee and override those private companies decisions, in the name of protecting conservative voices they see as all-too-often excluded from public discourse.

Who are the combatants of late? In one corner, signatories to an open letter titled, A Letter on Justice and Open Debate, published July 7 in Harpers Magazine, include a number of the worlds best-known creative minds, such as J.K. Rowling, Wynton Marsalis, Gloria Steinem, Salman Rushdie and about 150 other authors, journalists, publishers and artists.

In the other corner of this particular bout are those who signed this week onto another letter published on the online commentary site The Objective which self-identifies as a place with information and views by and for historically ignored communities another group of literary, media and artists. This missive entered the fray acknowledging the fight even reaches into its signatures area, noting some could be identified only generally, usually by professional occupation and place of work, because of fears of workplace retaliation by the established communication masters for whom some work.

Their view of the Harpers letter, in a piece titled, A More Specific Letter on Justice and Open Debate explains, Nowhere in it do the signatories mention how marginalized voices have been silenced for generations in journalism, academia and publishing and the letter does not deal with the problem of power: Who has it and who does not.

To be sure, many of latest blows in this intellectual boxing match have been struck via high-concept review of the theories of human communication and in well-founded critiques of who had and has access to tools of speaking out in public news media, book publishers, broadcasters and now social media companies.

But in the early rounds, the heavyweights punched the outmoded model of the marketplace of ideas for two reasons: One, that it never worked as intended because many minority groups, however defined, were denied access to speak and be heard a stark truth that cannot be denied; and two, there is such a thing as truth, and to knowingly permit non-truth is counter-productive to society and should not be permitted.

Boil it all down and it comes to a very simple First Amendment question: Is the response to speech you consider untruthful, disgusting or misleading more speech or less speech? If the former, what do you do as, with lightning speed and wide public acceptance by the unknowing, the web is flooded with true threats to public health, hate speech from white supremacists or deliberately misleading political ads and fraudulent electioneering from world adversaries?

If the latter, who gets to be the national nanny, defining truth, excluding some voices while inviting in others and monitoring the billions of social media posts each day all while remaining nonpartisan and apolitical in todays hyper-divided nation?

Wiser minds including, with hope, most of us will need to parse those questions and more as the First Amendments five freedoms (religion, speech, press, assembly and petition) are tested in court, on the street and occasionally on the pages of online magazines.

As for me, I theorize the nations founders would chuckle at the idea that all of this is new. The mechanisms of communications were different, but the goals in 1791 were the same: The exchange of ideas for a better life for us all, many at the time deemed too dangerous for society to hear ideas like all men are created equal and that democracy was favorable over monarchy.

While this fistfight is mainly staged in the mind, there are real-world examples of the cost of the fight. New York Times op-ed editor Bari Weiss resigned the other day, saying in a letter she self-published that she was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of the Times as their home.

In leaving the paper after about three years, she said, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isnt a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.

Weiss concludes her resignation by noting founder Adolph Ochs 1896 statement to make of the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.

Ochss idea is one of the best Ive encountered, Weiss continues. And Ive always comforted myself with the notion that the best ideas win out. But ideas cannot win on their own. They need a voice. They need a hearing. Above all, they must be backed by people willing to live by them.

More of us need to make our voices heard in this latest fight over the meaning of the First Amendments 45 words, lest we see them reshaped or lost without having ever set foot in the ring.

Gene Policinski is a senior fellow for the First Amendment at the Freedom Forum, and president and chief operating officer of the Freedom Forum Institute. He can be reached at [emailprotected], or follow him on Twitter at@genefac.

Read more from the original source:

FIRST FIVE: Fighting over the meaning of First Amendment freedoms - hays Post

Army esports team denies accusations of violating First Amendment, offering fake giveaways – ArmyTimes.com

The U.S. Armys esports team has come under fire for separate allegations of advertising fake giveaways and banning commenters who mentioned U.S. war crimes.

Streaming platform Twitch said the allegedly fake giveaways were in violation of their terms of service, and the ACLU is concerned that banning commenters prohibited free speech.

It looks like what happened was a violation of the First Amendment, ACLU staff attorney Vera Eidelman told VICE.

The Army denied such accusations, with a spokesperson saying comments regarding war crimes were meant to troll and harass the team, and that the giveaways were, in fact, real.

The Armys esports team, which began in 2018, has never had overwhelming public support. The use of popular shooter and strategy games such as Call of Duty; Counter-Strike: Global Offensive; Fortnite; Magic: the Gathering; and more to recruit gamers was seen as morally questionable by some.

On June 30, the official Army esports Twitter responded to an announcement by chat platform Discord with the text emoticon UwU and heart emojis. The emoticon is meant to display a happy anime face, and while some sections of the internet use it frequently, others find the emoticon annoying and frown upon its use.

Followers lashed out against the tweet, calling Discord pro-war and referencing incidents like Abu Ghraib. But the backlash didnt stop with Twitter.

Since early July, gamers and internet trolls have been swarming to the Armys Twitch streams and chat server on Discord to see just how quickly they can get banned for mentioning war crimes or mocking the Tweet that started it all.

Don't miss the top Army stories, delivered each afternoon

(please select a country) United States United Kingdom Afghanistan Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, The Democratic Republic of The Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote D'ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guinea Guinea-bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and The Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and The South Sandwich Islands Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States United States Minor Outlying Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Viet Nam Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, U.S. Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe

Subscribe

By giving us your email, you are opting in to the Army Times Daily News Roundup.

As a result of this flood of ban-seekers, the open chat room on the Armys Discord server was intentionally disabled by moderators.

Following the guidelines and policies set by Twitch, the U.S. Army eSports Team banned users from its account due to concern over posted content and website links that were considered harassing and degrading in nature, U.S. Army Recruiting Command spokesperson Lisa Ferguson told Military Times.

The Army encourages those who are genuinely concerned about war crimes to use FOIA reading rooms, elected representatives, and public forums with military leaders to engage in dialogue about war crimes, Ferguson said.

An ACLU tweet on July 10 called out the Army for the bans, saying: Calling out the governments war crimes isnt harassment, its speaking truth to power. And banning users who ask important questions isnt flexing, its unconstitutional.

Just when it seemed controversy over the bans might start to die down, it was alleged that the team was advertising fake giveaways of an Xbox Elite Series 2 controller, valued at more than $200.

The allegation was first reported by The Nation on July 15.

When clicked, animated giveaway advertisements in the Armys Twitch stream chat boxes led users to a recruiting web form with no mention of any giveaway, The Nation reported.

Twitch has since put an end to such advertisements.

This promotion did not comply with our Terms, and we have required them to remove it, a Twitch spokesperson told Kotaku.

USAREC spokesperson Lisa Ferguson said that the giveaways were legitimate and that the Armys esports team has given away 10 controllers, gaming stations, and chairs in the past year.

While the landing page looks generic, each giveaway has its own URL and marketing activity code that directly connects the registrant to the specific giveaway, Ferguson said.

As a result of recent events, Ferguson added that the esports team is reviewing ways to add clarity and customization to giveaways and has paused streaming to evaluate internal policies and procedures.

Read more from the original source:

Army esports team denies accusations of violating First Amendment, offering fake giveaways - ArmyTimes.com

The Constitution doesn’t have a problem with mask mandates – The Conversation US

Many public health professionals and politicians are urging or requiring citizens to wear face masks to help slow the spread of the COVID-19 virus.

Some Americans have refused, wrongly claiming mask decrees violate the Constitution. An internet search turns up dozens of examples.

Costco Karen, for instance, staged a sit-in in a Costco entrance in Hillsboro, Oregon after she refused to wear a mask, yelling I am an American I have rights.

A group called Health Freedom Idaho organized a protest against a Boise, Idaho, mask mandate. One protester said, Im afraid where this country is headed if we just all roll over and abide by control that goes against our constitutional rights.

As one protester said, The coronavirus doesnt override the Constitution.

Speaking as a constitutional law scholar, these objections are nonsense.

It is not always clear why anti-maskers think government orders requiring face coverings in public spaces or those put in place by private businesses violate their constitutional rights, much less what they think those rights are. But most of the mistaken objections fall into two categories:

Mandatory masks violate the First Amendment right to speech, assembly, and especially association and mandatory masks violate a persons constitutional right to liberty and to make decisions about their own health and bodily integrity.

Theyre not mutually exclusive claims: A lawsuit filed by four Florida residents against Palm Beach County, for example, argues that mask mandates interfere with personal liberty and constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech, right to privacy, due process, and the constitutionally protected right to enjoy and defend life and liberty. The lawsuit asks the court to issue a permanent injunction against the countys mask mandate.

[Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversations newsletter.]

Responding to a reporter who asked why President Donald Trump appeared unconcerned about the absence of masks and social distancing at a campaign rally in Tulsa, Vice President Mike Pence said: I want to remind you again freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble is in the Constitution of the U.S. Even in a health crisis, the American people dont forfeit our constitutional rights.

The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, press, petition, assembly and religion.

There are two reasons why mask mandates dont violate the First Amendment.

First, a mask doesnt keep you from expressing yourself. At most, it limits where and how you can speak. Constitutional law scholars and judges call these time, place, and manner restrictions. If they do not discriminate on the basis of the content of the speech, such restrictions do not violate the First Amendment. An example of a valid time, place and manner restriction would be a law that limits political campaigning within a certain distance of a voting booth.

Additionally, the First Amendment, like all liberties ensured by the Constitution, is not absolute.

All constitutional rights are subject to the goverments authority to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. This authority is called the police power. The Supreme Court has long held that protecting public health is sufficient reason to institute measures that might otherwise violate the First Amendment or other provisions in the Bill of Rights. In 1944, in the case of Prince v. Massachusetts, for example, the Supreme Court upheld a law that prohibited parents from using their children to distribute religious pamphlets on public streets.

Some anti-maskers object that masks violate the right to liberty.

The right to liberty, including the right to make choices about ones health and body, is essentially a constitutional principle of individual autonomy, neatly summarized as My body, my choice.

The 1905 case of Jacobsen v. Massachusetts shows why mask mandates dont violate any constitutional right to privacy or health or bodily integrity. In that case, the Supreme Court upheld a smallpox vaccination requirement in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The court said that the vaccination requirement did not violate Jacobsens right to liberty or the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best.

As the court wrote, There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis, organized society could not exist with safety to its members. In a 1995 New York case, a state court held that an individual with active tuberculosis could be forcibly detained in a hospital for appropriate medical treatment.

Even if you assume that mask mandates infringe upon what the Supreme Court calls fundamental rights, or rights that the court has called the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty, it has consistently ruled states can act if the restrictions advance a compelling state interest and do so in the least restrictive manner.

As the Jacobsen ruling and the doctrine of time, place and manner make clear, the protection of all constitutional liberties rides upon certain necessary but rarely examined assumptions about communal and public life.

One is that constitutional rights whether to liberty, speech, assembly, freedom of movement or autonomy are held on several conditions. The most basic and important of these conditions is that our exercise of rights must not endanger others (and in so doing violate their rights) or the public welfare. This is simply another version of the police power doctrine.

Unfortunately, a global pandemic in which a serious and deadly communicable disease can be transmitted by asymptomatic carriers upsets that background and justifies a wide range of reasonable restrictions on our liberties. Believing otherwise makes the Constitution a suicide pact and not just metaphorically.

See original here:

The Constitution doesn't have a problem with mask mandates - The Conversation US

Editorial: Retailers doing right thing with mask mandates – Alton Telegraph

Journal-Courier staff, dbauer@myjournalcourier.com

No shirt, no shoes, no service.

No one would be surprised to see such a sign posted on the door of a business, especially one near a spot where lots of folks might routinely be barefoot and shirtless a beach, for example.

For the most part, people dont flip out over the injustice of it all. They put on a shirt and shoes, or they dont go into the store.

But these days, with the coronavirus pandemic raging across the land, theres a small but wildly vocal contingent who view mandates requiring the wearing of masks as some sort of a government plot, an infringement of their rights as Americans.

Theres a word for this sort of thinking: Hooey.

In America, we cherish our liberties. Always have, and always will. But they arent limitless. Never have been, and never will be.

The First Amendment to our Constitution, among other things, prohibits the federal government from silencing the citizenry. It reads, in part: Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. The protections, of course, concern the rights of individuals in relation to their government.

You dont have a First Amendment right to stand up on your desk at work and declare loudly that your boss is a complete idiot. You can try it, if you feel so inclined, but dont be surprised when your boss exercises the right as your employer and shows you the door. In the same way, you dont have the right, as a free individual in a free society, to march barefoot into a beachside restaurant and demand service the rules be damned. Most people understand this, of course, but some get short-circuited when it comes to masks.

Thankfully, the nations largest retailers have stepped up their game by requiring that masks be worn in all of their stores without exception. Those who dont like it dont have to shop at Costco or Walmart or Target or CVS Health or Walgreens or Lowes or Home Depot.

With increasing evidence that masks are effective in cutting the transmission of the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, there ought not be any arguments against wearing masks.

Though some havent yet gotten the message, they will next time they head for a store.

The Republican, Massachusetts

Read the original here:

Editorial: Retailers doing right thing with mask mandates - Alton Telegraph

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham says shed be willing to work with federal officers but timing is suspect – ABC News

July 26, 2020, 4:08 PM

6 min read

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said she might be willing to work with federal officers to combat crime in the state if they are cooperative with local efforts, but cautioned that protecting the First Amendment rights of New Mexico's residents remains a focus.

"If we are cooperatively working to address violent crime and gun violence -- absolutely," she told ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos on "This Week" Sunday. "If we're going to try to incentivize unrest than that's something all together different."

Lujan Grisham said that New Mexico requested federal agents to assist with police and crime investigations earlier in the administration and was not provided with funding.

"So the timing of their efforts remains to be a bit suspect," Lujan Grisham said.

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump announced that he would be surging federal agents into certain American cities as part of "Operation Legend," a federal effort to combat violent crime. The initiative was first announced by Attorney General William Barr in an exclusive interview with ABC News earlier this month.

Trump said federal forces would be sent to cities including Albuquerque, New Mexico, as part of the new effort.

Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham speaks during a news conference on immigration to condemn the Trump Administration's "zero tolerance" immigration policy, outside the US Capitol in Washington, June 13, 2018.

While Trump and Barr have said that federal agents will focus on working with existing forces to assist in investigations of illegal gun sales and other crimes, some mayors and other state leaders have expressed concern that the deployment of federal agents could be seen as an occupation and have a chilling effect on protests.

On "This Week," the governor was also asked by Stephanopoulos to respond to recent Trump campaign advertisements and political attacks suggesting that America will be made unsafe due to efforts by former Vice President Joe Biden and other Democrats to "defund the police." Biden himself has stated that he does not support those initiatives.

Lujan Grisham told Stephanopoulos that these attacks are ill-conceived and said they are part of Trump's effort to divert attention away from his administration as the election nears.

"It is really about stoking fear ... and there isn't anything else you could point to 100 days out where you've succeeded," Lujan Grisham said. "We are seeing a failure in leadership, so let's go to making people fearful."

Lujan Grisham also slammed the administration for their failure to lead on combating the novel coronavirus as cases rise in New Mexico. She acknowledged that the number of cases were "way too high" when challenged by Stephanopoulos about whether it was time to do more to slow the spread in her state, but argued that New Mexico wasn't immune to what was happening elsewhere in the country.

"What's going on around the country affects everyone in the country ... there is no national strategy," she said.

She also called Trump's response "the worst abdication of a national response and responsibility to protect Americans" she had ever seen in her career.

Lujan Grisham has gained attention as a contender to join Biden as a running mate on the presidential ticket. When asked by Stephanopoulos about whether she'd been vetted to join the campaign as his vice president, she declined to answer, but acknowledged she has spoken with his team before.

"I have only been in touch with the campaign. And while it's incredibly flattering, I have got a full-time job right here, right now," she said.

See original here:

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham says shed be willing to work with federal officers but timing is suspect - ABC News

VERIFY: The Fourth Amendment has nothing to do with wearing masks at a grocery store – WUSA9.com

If a medical condition prevents you from wearing a mask, and a business employee asks about your medical condition, is that a violation the Fourth Amendment?

WASHINGTON D.C., DC QUESTION:

If a medical condition prevents someone from wearing a mask, and a business employee asks about his/her medical condition, is that a violation of that person's Fourth Amendment right?

Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

Erwin Chemerinsky- Dean and Professor of Law at University of California Berkeley School of Law

Robert Dinerstein- Acting Dean at American University Washington College of Law and Director of the Disability Rights Law Clinic

Several posts going around claim that a business can't legally ask you about your medical condition, because that would violate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

So we're verifying if the Fourth Amendment bans a private business from asking about medical conditions.

Our Verify researchers contacted Erwin Chemerinsky with Berkeley School of Law and Robert Dinerstein with American University's Washington College of Law and their Disability Rights Law Clinic.

Boiled down,the Fourth Amendment is your right to privacy, and protects a person against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Fourth Amendment only applies to the government, just like the First Amendment with regard to freedom of speech only limits what the government can do," Chemerinsky said. "The Constitution is meant to limit government action, and it doesn't restrict what private businesses or private universities or private entities can do."

Chemerinsky also said that simply asking a personal question is not considered a search.

Robert Dinerstein agreed.

"The Fourth Amendment really has no applicability here," he said. "The relevant law is the Americans with Disabilities Act."

So we can Verify, experts said the Fourth Amendment has nothing to do with wearing a mask at a business.

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, it's illegal to discriminate against a person because of a disability. So in a situation where someone says they can't wear a mask because of a medical condition, Dinerstein suggests taking them at their word and offering a reasonable accommodation.

You should take the person at his or her word at that point, I think, and it's a whole lot easier and less intrusive, Dinerstein said. Who walks around with medical documentation when you want to go to the grocery store?

Continued here:

VERIFY: The Fourth Amendment has nothing to do with wearing masks at a grocery store - WUSA9.com

The Unprecedented Bravery of Olivia de Havilland – The Atlantic

There really wasnt any doubt about the right decision for me to take, de Havilland would recall. One of the nice things I thought was, If I do win, other actors, feeling frustration such as I feel, will not have to endure that. Theyll take the suspension, without pay, of course, but knowing they will not have to serve that time again. In fact, prominent stars like Jimmy Stewart and Clark Gable, whose contracts had been extended because of service in World War II, promptly took advantage of the de Havilland rule, as it came to be known, to forge lucrative freelance careers. In the decades since, entertainers as diverse as Johnny Carson, Courtney Love, Melissa Manchester, and Jared Leto have also invoked the ruling, in contexts from television-talk-show obligations to multimillion-dollar recording contracts.

As for de Havilland, after two years without work, she struck out for Paramount Pictures and 20th Century Fox and soon enough won her two Oscars, for To Each His Own (1946) and The Heiress (1949), while also making a harrowing impression as the victim of a nervous breakdown confined to an asylum in The Snake Pit (1948). But as the 1950s dawned, de Havilland never quite regained her former stardom, and in 1952, she forsook Hollywood for Paris and a marriage to Pierre Galante, the editor of Paris Match magazine. She continued to make occasional appearances in both film and television until 1988, when she played her last role, in The Woman He Loved, a TV movie about the abdication of King Edward VIII.

In later years, de Havilland recounted her adventures with the same kind of sly wit that had impelled her to tell Hal Kern, Gone With the Winds film editor, that she could do a better job of retching in the climactic first-act finale than Vivien Leigh, who played Scarlett OHara and didnt think vomiting was ladylike. (Kern agreed, and its de Havillands desperate sounds that appear on the finished soundtrack). A postWorld War II teatime encounter in her home with a smitten Kennedy, just back from naval service in the Pacific, came to an amusing end. He was quite silent, she would say in a British newspaper interview many years later. His friend did most of the talking. He just sat there, those great big eyes staring. Then when it was time for them to leave, we walked into the hallway and he very decisively opened the doorand it was the closet, and all my old boxes of summer hats and tennis rackets fell on his head. Later, she declined a dinner invitation from Kennedy, claiming she had to study her lines, and when Kennedy spotted her dining that night at Romanoffs with the much older author Ludwig Bemelmans, he was dumbfounded. Do you think it was me walking into the closet? he asked a friend. Do you think thats what really did it?

Near the end of her life, beginning in 2017, de Havilland waged one last legal battle, this time a losing one, as she sued FX and the producer Ryan Murphy over her portrayal by Catherine Zeta-Jones in Feud: Bette and Joan, a miniseries about the rivalry between Bette Davis and Joan Crawford, in which the de Havilland character is seen reminiscing about Davis. De Havilland claimed the portrayal was an unauthorized use of her name and likeness. But a California appeals court dismissed the case on First Amendment grounds and the California and United States Supreme Courts declined to review the decision.

To the end, de Havilland remained wryly proud of her role as a champion of working actors. I suppose youd like to know how actresses of my day differ from actresses of today, she said to the American Academy of Achievement interviewer in 2006. Well, she went on, cocking an eyebrow as the hint of a smile crept into her twinkling eyes, the actresses of today are richer.

Thanks in no small part to Olivia de Havilland, they are.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

Read the original post:

The Unprecedented Bravery of Olivia de Havilland - The Atlantic

Tesla Reaches a Milestone With Another Quarterly Profit – The New York Times

Heres what you need to know:Growing sales in China and Europe helped cushion the pandemics negative impact on Teslas sales in the United States.Credit...An Rong Xu for The New York Times

Tesla on Wednesday reported a profit of $104 million for the three months ending in June.

The profit surprised analysts who were expecting the electric carmaker to lose money because it was forced to halt production at its main plant in Fremont, Calif., for nearly two months, from late March until the middle of May. Sales also slowed as much of the economy shut down and as millions of people lost their jobs and cut back on spending.

The profit was achieved despite tremendous difficulties in the quarter, the companys chief executive, Elon Musk, said in a conference call with analysts. We were able to achieve a fourth consecutive profitable quarter. Although the auto industry was down about 30 percent year-over-year, we managed to grow deliveries in the first half of the year.

In a statement, Tesla said revenue in the second quarter fell 5 percent, to $6 billion. Total sales of automobiles declined 5 percent, to about 91,000 cars, an update to preliminary figures it released earlier this month. Growing sales in China and Europe helped cushion the pandemics negative impact on sales in the United States.

The companys profit was also made possible by the sales of $428 million in emissions credits to other automakers who need them to meet regulatory standards. Thats nearly four times as many credits as it sold in the same quarter a year earlier.

Tesla said it ended the quarter with $8.6 billion in cash, up $535 million from the end of March.

The company added that it now has the capacity to produce more than 500,000 cars a year. While achieving this goal has become more difficult, delivering half a million vehicles in 2020 remains our target, Tesla said.

Tesla appears to be weathering the pandemic better than some other automakers. In China, the worlds largest market for electric vehicles, the company has benefited from a new factory near Shanghai that began production late last year. The plant enables Tesla to avoid the tariffs China imposes on imported vehicles and has made its cars more affordable to Chinese consumers.

The company has also added to its lineup a fourth car, the Model Y sport-utility vehicle, which is made in Fremont. Mr. Musk has said that he expects the car to become its biggest seller.

Elon Musk, the chief executive of Tesla, could soon qualify for his second giant payday of the year.

Mr. Musks compensation is driven largely by the performance of Teslas stock. And as the carmakers share price has soared in recent weeks, he stands to receive a stock award worth roughly $2 billion. The awards are part of an unusual compensation package, set up in 2018. The first payout under that plan occurred in May and now is also worth close to $2 billion.

Teslas stock has risen just over 275 percent this year, as investors have become increasingly convinced that the company will have a dominant foothold in the global market for electric vehicles. The rise in the stock has bolstered Teslas stock market value to around $290 billion, or $100 billion more than Toyotas market value.

Mr. Musks 2018 compensation package was designed to release shares in 12 installments as certain milestones are met. The first goal was for Teslas market value to be at least $100 billion on average over two different time periods that was achieved in January. Tesla also had to hit operational milestones. Over 12 months, the company has to have brought in a certain amount of revenue or a measure of profits called earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. In May, Tesla said it had used the lowest revenue hurdle, $20 billion, to release the first tranche of shares.

Teslas market value recently exceeded $150 billion on average over the past six months and over the last 30 trading days, the threshold for the release of the second batch of shares. Tesla has already hit the lowest profit goal without considering the companys second quarter results released on Wednesday, in theory giving him the operational achievement he needs to get the shares, though the board still has to release the award. If Teslas share price stays close to current levels, Mr. Musk might even qualify for the third tranche of his stock awards this year.

Critics of the 2018 compensation package questioned why it was necessary. Before the award, Mr. Musk already owned a large chunk of Tesla shares that today are worth around $60 billion. Thats more than twice the $25 billion worth of shares available to Mr. Musk through the 2018 package. Amazons Jeff Bezos, another visionary chief executive, has not needed multibillion compensation packages to motivate him as he has led his company to become a dominant force in the American economy.

A surprise profit in the second quarter has set Tesla up for another major milestone: potential inclusion in the S&P 500 index. The index is one the most widely followed measures of the performance American stock market, with more than $11 trillion worth of mutual funds and other investments measured against it.

The company said on Wednesday it earned $104 million in the three months through June, in its fourth consecutive quarter of profitability.

Its unusual for companies with market values as large as Tesla roughly $290 billion not to be included in the S&P 500. But the companys inability to consistently generate profits has made it ineligible so far. (Criteria for inclusion require the sum of the companys fully audited profits in the four most recent quarters to be positive.)

The lack of profits hasnt bothered investors. Teslas share price has logged an astounding gain of more than 275 percent this year. But if Tesla were to be included in the index, it could trigger another upward push by stimulating a surge in demand for the shares by institutional investors.

Index-based funds low cost investment vehicles designed to mirror the performance of indexes like the S&P 500, rather than trying to beat the market must buy any stock included in the index, creating a rush for the shares of companies that are newly added.

When a company goes in that means theres a lot of buying there, said Howard Silverblatt, senior index analyst at S&P Dow Jones Indices, the company that publishes the S&P 500.

Changes to the index can, and do, occur regularly. For instance, when a company is removed from the S&P 500 after a merger or bankruptcy, requiring a new addition. The additions can occur at any time and are kept especially close to the vest by S&P, because of the money making opportunity someone could have if they learned about an inclusion before everybody else.

Nobody is supposed to know. The company isnt supposed to know themselves, Mr. Silverblatt said. Nobody even calls them.

Tesla has started work on its fourth car factory at a site near Austin, Texas, the companys chief executive, Elon Musk told analysts on Wednesday.

The factory will produce a new electric pickup truck and a new semi truck, along with the Model 3 and Model Y, which it already makes at a factory in the San Francisco Bay Area. The new factory represents a substantial investment for Tesla, which is already expanding a plant in Shanghai and building another one near Berlin.

We will be creating a massive Cybertruck and semi factory in Texas, Mr. Musk said, adding that the plant would be open to the public and have a boardwalk, biking trails and bird sanctuary.

Officials in Travis County, which includes Austin, this month approved a tax break to recruit Tesla, which was also being courted by Oklahoma and other states.

American Airlines and Southwest Airlines on Wednesday became the first major airlines in the United States to broaden their mask requirements to include passengers with a medical condition or disability that would otherwise prevent them from wearing one.

If a customer is unable to wear a face covering or mask for any reason, Southwest regrets that we will be unable to transport the individual, the airline said in a statement, noting that the virus can be spread by individuals who are unaware that they have been infected.

American followed suit, saying: All customers must wear a face covering from the time they enter their departure airport and not remove it until they exit their arrival airport.

The airlines said that children under the age of 2 will still be allowed to fly without a mask, a policy in line with other major carriers. Delta Air Lines still allows exceptions for individuals with a disability or medical condition that prevents them from wearing a mask, and United Airlines says individuals seeking exemptions should reach out to its staff.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends against masks for children under 2 years old and people with a medical condition or disability. A recent study indicated that children under 10 are less likely to transmit the virus than adults and older children, though the risk is not zero.

Southwests policy goes into effect on Monday, while Americans will start on July 29. Earlier in the day, United said it would extend its requirement for masks on planes to any area it operated in an airport. Southwest and Delta already had such policies in place.

Southwest and American are also expected to release financial results from the industrys devastating second quarter on Thursday morning. United said on Tuesday that its operating revenue declined 88 percent during the quarter from a year earlier, leading to a $1.6 billion loss. Delta said last week that its quarterly revenue had dropped 87 percent, resulting in a $5.7 billion loss.

Microsoft on Wednesday said its revenue rose 13 percent in the last quarter despite the slump in the economy. The companys growth was led by big gains in its cloud software offerings as more people work from home.

The company is not immune to shocks from the pandemic. Technology spending has fallen in industries like travel and retail. LinkedIn, the hiring and professional networking site owned by Microsoft, said on Tuesday that it was cutting 962 jobs, or 6 percent of its work force, partly because hiring has fallen sharply. In June, Microsoft announced it was shutting down its 83 retail stores, taking a $450 million charge against earnings, or 5 cents a share.

But the weaknesses were more than offset by higher demand for its cloud businesses including its cloud processing and storage services, known as Azure, and its Office 365 productivity programs.

For the three months ended in June, its fiscal fourth quarter, Microsoft generated revenue of $38 billion. Its operating profit increased 8 percent to $13.4 billion, or $1.46 a share. Both the companys sales and earnings per share surpassed Wall Street estimates.

As Congress struggles to advance negotiations over a new round of federal spending to help people and businesses endure the pandemic-induced recession, new research suggests a previous round of aid helped save millions of jobs but at high cost.

The Paycheck Protection Program, which lawmakers created in March, saved 1.4 million to 3.2 million jobs in small businesses through the beginning of June, according to research released on Wednesday by economists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Federal Reserve and ADP Research Institute. That works out to a cost of $162,000 to $381,000 per job.

Some companies that accepted assistance through the program have emerged in better financial condition and no longer need federal help. But many companies have not seen the uptick in consumer demand that Republicans were counting on reopening plans to deliver and thus could be vulnerable to closure and layoffs without more aid.

Its plausible that, when the money runs out, some of those firms would downsize again, said David Autor, an M.I.T. economist and a lead author of the study.

This was actually a very aggressive policy, Mr. Autor said in an interview. Its useful to know that when Congress sets out and spends a half a trillion dollars, it can get something done.

The new findings appear to run counter to another recent paper from a team of prominent economists at Harvard and Brown, which concluded that the P.P.P. had little material impact on employment at small businesses.

That paper used similar methods to those employed by Mr. Autor and his co-authors. But it used a different, much smaller set of data, from a financial management application used primarily by low-wage workers. Mr. Autor said it was possible that the federal loan program did not do much to help those people, most of whom cannot work from home, even as it succeeded in bringing back jobs elsewhere in the economy.

Trump administration officials had claimed in a news release earlier this month that the program supported over 51 million jobs. Mr. Autor said that the idea that a much larger number of jobs saved was not right, because much of the money appears to have gone to help businesses that would not likely have folded shop without aid.

For several weeks, real-time data has suggested that the U.S. economic recovery could be stalling. Now there is evidence it could be going in reverse.

Data from the Census Bureau on Wednesday showed that the number of employed people fell by more than four million last week, the fourth-straight weekly decline. Taken literally, the results indicate that the economy has given up all the job gains since mid-May, before the recent surge in coronavirus cases.

Just under 52 percent of American adults were employed last week, according the survey, down from 54 percent in June.

The data comes from the bureaus weekly Household Pulse Survey, an experimental effort to track the pandemics economic impact. The survey has a brief track record, but a good one: It correctly signaled the big increase in employment in the jobs report for June.

The latest data corresponds to the survey week for the July report, which will be released in early August. If the results hold up again, it suggests that report could show a loss of millions of jobs, just as enhanced unemployment benefits from the federal government are in danger of expiring.

If the $600 weekly federal supplement to unemployment benefits expires, more than 20 million Americans could soon see their weekly income fall by half. But it wont just be individual recipients who will suffer, Ben Casselman reports:

The federal payments are injecting billions of dollars into the economy each week, money that flows to landlords, grocery stores, retailers and countless other businesses.

Ernie Tedeschi, a former Treasury Department official and an economist at Evercore ISI Research, has estimated that if the payments ceased, the United States gross domestic product would be 2 percent smaller at the end of 2020 and there would be 1.7 million fewer jobs nationwide.

Congress returned from recess this week to consider a new relief package, which could include at least a partial extension of the extra unemployment benefits. Senate Republicans and the White House are considering a roughly $1 trillion package that would retain the program but scale it back. Democrats are pressing to continue paying the full $600 per week.

But Congress seems unlikely to act before benefits lapse.

These unemployment benefit checks are really doing a large job in propping up spending by these unemployed households, said Joseph Vavra, a University of Chicago economist. If they expire, he said, theres a good chance that what is now an unemployment problem becomes a foreclosure crisis and eviction crisis.

Stocks on Wall Street rose on Wednesday, but the gains were constrained by rising tension between the United States and China.

After an early dip, the S&P 500 rose more than half a percent. Shares in Europe and Asia were mostly lower.

Relations between the United States and China, two giant trading partners, have been worsening recent weeks, as the Trump administration has tightened the reins on Chinese diplomats, journalists, scholars and others in the United States. In the latest action, the White House told China to leave the its consulate in Houston by Friday. China warned that it might retaliate.

News of the consulates closure had an immediate impact in financial markets, with stock futures falling and trading in Treasury notes, gold and oil also reflecting a jolt of nervousness.

But investors on Wall Street have shaken off a number of concerns lately, including about the surge in coronavirus cases and deaths in the United States. On Tuesday, President Trump, in a shift from his usual rosy forecasts, told reporters that the outbreak would probably get worse before it gets better. And a valuable economic lifeline for millions of Americans $600 a week in extra unemployment benefits is about to expire if Congress doesnt extend it.

Recent gains have come as lawmakers in Washington haggle over another economic aid package, and as some large businesses have reported better than expected results, or signs of improvement.

On Wednesday, for example, shares of Best Buy jumped almost 8 percent after the electronics retailer reported that sales were rebounding as stores reopened. Also sharply higher Wednesday was Pfizer, which rose more than 5 percent after the Trump administration said it would pay nearly $2 billion for up to 600 million doses of a Covid-19 vaccine. Shares of BioNTech, a German company that is developing the vaccine with Pfizer, were up nearly 14 percent.

After Walmart, Americas largest retailer, announced on July 15 that it would mandate in-store mask-wearing, a flurry of other companies, including Kroger, Target and Walgreens, followed suit. This means that customers will be required to wear face masks in stores even in places without local mask ordinances.

The National Retail Federation has encouraged companies to set nationwide mask policies to protect employees and shoppers.

Some chains, however, have moved in the opposite direction. After putting in place a customer mask requirement nearly two weeks ago, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar reversed course on July 20, saying they would require masks only if mandated by state or local rules.

With profit bolstered by hundreds of millions of dollars in federal stimulus money, HCA Healthcare, the giant for-profit hospital chain, reported much higher second-quarter earnings on Wednesday, even as its revenue fell when its huge network of hospitals treated fewer patients during the pandemic. The company reported $1.1 billion in net income for the three months that ended June 30, a 38 percent jump from the same period in 2019, on lower revenue of $11.1 billion. HCA, already a major beneficiary of hospital bailout money, said it had received a total of $1.7 billion from the federal government so far.

United Airlines said its revenue will max out at about 50 percent of last years haul if a vaccine does not become available. The airline expects passenger revenue in July, August and September to be down about 83 percent from the same period last year, a slight improvement over the nearly 94 percent decline the airline reported for the second quarter on Tuesday.

Go here to read the rest:

Tesla Reaches a Milestone With Another Quarterly Profit - The New York Times

Tesla Texas, BYD Han EV, Rivian delay, battery supplies, the end of small cars: The Week in Reverse – Green Car Reports

Which carmaker crammed seven motors into its electric SUV?

Which automaker said it no longer has plans for fuel-cell passenger vehicles?

This is our look back at the Week In Reverseright here at Green Car Reportsfor the week ending July 24, 2020.

The biggest series of stories of the week for the green-vehicle sector came out of Teslas periodic update Wednesday. Although it was news in itself that Tesla reported another profitable quarter, despite the challenges of the pandemic, CEO Elon Musk took the headline with the announcement that Tesla has chosen Austin, Texas, for a plant that will assemble the Cybertruck and Semi, plus Model Y and Model 3 for Eastern North America. Musk also confirmed Teslas use of lithium iron phosphate (LFP) cells in some Model 3 sedans built in China, which will help the company free up its more energy-dense cells for the Semi.

BYD Han EV

The BYD Han EV is the flagship model for the Chinese automaker 25% owned by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway. As a battery expert as much as an EV car and truck maker, BYD hopes to sell its new safety-oriented Blade battery that debuts in the Han EV to other automakers, tooand likely encroach on Teslas market if not in the U.S., overseas.

Rivian started the pilot production line for its upcoming electric trucks, and that means theyll be delayed about six months overallto June 2021 for the R1T and August 2021 for the R1S.

Rivian R1S

Ford showed a new seven-motor, 1,400-horsepower version of the Mach-E electric SUV, called the Mach-E 1400. With plans to demonstrate the vehicle at a NASCAR event, the point is clearly getting those who might not have considered an EV to notice their performance potential.

There were several interesting pieces of news about plug-in hybrid products. And Jeep detailed two of its upcoming plug-in hybrid modelsthe Renegade 4xe and Compass 4xefor Europe, although the brand hasnt yet said whether these models will be coming to the U.S. The 2021 Lincoln Corsair Grand Touring plug-in hybrid hasnt been rated by the EPA for miles or mpg, but this model that will arrive later this fall already has a price tag that, after credits and incentives, might make it more affordable than the non-hybrid. And the next-generation version of the Mitsubishi Outlander was spotted in California, but before that arrives theres a mechanical upgradewith more electric rangefor the 2021 Outlander Plug-In Hybrid.

2021 Lincoln Corsair Grand Touring

Battery origins have become an important part of our EV coverage. Swedens Northvolt will be supplying BMW with $2.3 billion in electric-car batteries. Although its contract comes after those inked with Samsung SDI and CATL, its the only one thats headquartered in the EU. Meanwhile, Volkswagen and Ford voiced concern over a conflict between rival South Korean battery suppliers LG Chem and SK Innovation that could potentially get in the way of U.S. EV production.

Otherwise, Volkswagen confirmed that its ID.4 crossover is on-time for first U.S. deliveries in late 2020, with U.S. production in 2022.

VW ID.4 crossover

The Audi E-Tron SUV was the first electric vehicle to win the IIHS Top Safety Pick+ rating last year, and now the closely related E-Tron Sportback has done the same. Audi also revealed its been studying bi-directional charging functionalityboth for vehicle-to-home (V2H) tech to help buffer solar or vehicle-to-grid (V2G) tech to help balance the grid. It could be a few years before its ready in a product, however.

General Motors confirmed that its no longer working on hydrogen fuel-cell passenger carsalthough its fuel-cell development is pushing ahead with Honda and it aims to use the tech for military and fuel-cell vehicles.

UK-based Twisted Automotive will offer a limited number of Land Rover Defender 90 electric conversions for the U.S.

Twisted NAS-E electric Land Rover Defender

And last weekend we looked at the recently announced discontinuation of the Honda Fit and Toyota Yaris and wondered if the age of the cheap, city-savvy, fuel-efficient small car is over.

Go here to see the original:

Tesla Texas, BYD Han EV, Rivian delay, battery supplies, the end of small cars: The Week in Reverse - Green Car Reports

Electric Vehicles: An ETF That’s More Than Just A Bet On Tesla – Seeking Alpha

The iShares Self-Driving/EV And Tech ETF (IDRV) is a way investors can participate in rapidly growing electric vehicle industry while not placing too big a bet on Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA). Despite TSLA's recent pull-back from $1,750 to Friday's close of $1,415 (~20%), some investors - including myself - feel the stock has gotten way ahead of itself and is significantly overvalued. That said, it's hard to argue with Tesla's success in brand marketing, the China manufacturing plant, battery technology, and its potential to leverage its technology base into the home and industrial solar power and battery storage sectors. The point is: any long-term investment in the EV market obviously must include exposure to Tesla.

The IDRV ETF appears to be just such an investment. The list of the top-10 holdings is shown below:

Source: iShares.com

As can be seen, IDRV has a 6.5% position in Tesla. I've been waiting for Tesla to pull-back before buying shares in IDRV. The prospect that Tesla will be added to the S&P 500 after achieving four straight quarters of positive net-income appears to be fully baked into the stock in my opinion. In addition, I am concerned Tesla may soon take advantage of its high flying stock to announce a common stock offering to finance the recently announced manufacturing facility to be built in Austin, TX.

Combined with the big drop in Intel (INTC) Friday (together INTC and TSLA equate to ~10% of IDRV's entire portfolio), it appears to be a good time initiate a position. Note IDRV was down -1.7% Friday.

I also find this ETF's diversified investment approach to the EV market very attractive. As one can see from the top-10 holdings above (which equate to roughly 45% of the entire portfolio), IDRV holds positions in key technology companies that will provide electronic chips and components to EVs (Nvidia (NVDA), Siemans (SIE), Schneider Electric, Qualcomm (QCOM) and Samsung) in addition to investments in software and mobile oriented companies like Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) and Alphabet (GOOGL).

It is important to note that many of these technology companies will also benefit from the roll-out of 5G communications, which - in my opinion - is fully synergistic with the EV and self-driving markets.

Following my desire to allocate more capital outside of the US (see Newmont: How To Profit From The Potential End Of "King Dollar"), I like IDRV's exposure to foreign markets. While US investments are just over 50% of the portfolio, there is attractive exposure to Germany (14.3%), Japan (11%), and South Korea (8.8%). While the German economy is expected to shrink by 6.5% this year, Reuters reports that Europe's economy is likely to recover faster than that of the U.S. due to "starkly difference responses to the coronavirus."

I would have liked to have seen more direct exposure to Chinese companies in the fund (only 1.2%), but one could argue most of the companies in IDRV's portfolio are either directly or indirectly affected by China's fast growing EV market.

Like most of iShares ETFs, the expense ratio is reasonable at 0.47%. And despite the market turmoil this year, IDRV is up a respectable 8.9% YTD. The yield (1.26%) may seem inconsequential, but note that is more than 2x the current yield of the 10-year Treasury (0.59%).

Like virtually any investment, there are risks here. First, of course, is the fact that Tesla is the #1 holding and the correction in that arguably over-valued stock could be far from over. That said, Tesla has a 6.5% weighting, and I am comfortable (and like) the exposure to that company.

On the the Q2 conference call, Tesla appeared to be sticking with its guidance for 500,000 cars delivered this year. But Elon Musk it is not a demand issue:

It's really just a production issue. It's been pretty hard when you've got like a global supply chain, and it's kind of whatever the most effective part of supply chain is that sets your rate.

Note the 500K delivery target this year means 320,000 deliveries in the coming two quarters (Q3,Q4), which is obviously quite an acceleration from the ~180,000 units delivered in the first two quarters.

Secondly, many of the holdings are "high flying" tech stocks for which many analysts say are due to come back to Earth. In addition, executives from both Apple and Alphabet - which together compose about 8% of the portfolio - are scheduled to testify in front of Congress regarding anti-competitive practices. This could pose some headline risks, as well as the potential for punitive fines. But I like the growth potential of these companies even in the face of the current global economic contraction due to COVID-19: growth is essential in near zero interest rate environment when real rates are negative.

Third, there is always the possibility that EV market expectations don't measure up to its projected growth rate. According to the IEA, sales of electric cars topped 2.1 million globally in 2019, surpassing 2018 a record year to boost the stock to 7.2 million electric cars.Electric cars, which accounted for 2.6% of global car sales last year, registered a 40% year-over-year increase:

Source: EIA

If COVID-19 effects on the global economy short-circuit the established EV growth rate as shown in the chart above, valuations for EV related stocks could come down accordingly.

Lastly, the IDRV ETF has only been around a little more than a year, so there is no long-term track record to evaluate.

I find the iShares Self-Driving/EV and Tech ETF to be an excellent way to participate in the growing global market for EVs through a diversified approach. But with Tesla still trading at such a tremendously high valuation, I plan to move in slowly by dollar-cost-averaging over the next 12-18 months. I am initiating a starter position now and it my intent to establish a full portfolio allocation by end of 2021.

I'll finish with a chart of IDRV's performance since its inception in April of 2019:

Source: Yahoo Finance

Disclosure: I am/we are long GOOG. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Additional disclosure: I intend to open a position in IDRV in the next few trading days.

I am an engineer, not a CFA. The information and data presented in this article were obtained from company documents and/or sources believed to be reliable, but have not been independently verified. Therefore, the author cannot guarantee their accuracy. Please do your own research and contact a qualified investment advisor. I am not responsible for the investment decisions you make.

Go here to see the original:

Electric Vehicles: An ETF That's More Than Just A Bet On Tesla - Seeking Alpha

Opinion: Teslas rise is a message to big oil in Texas its time to transform – Houston Chronicle

Capital markets have voted. Technology companies are in, and Texas oil and gas companies are out. Thats not necessarily all bad news for Texas, which has been courting companies like Tesla and Amazon to set up shop here, but with mixed results. News that electric automaker Teslas market capitalization has surpassed that of ExxonMobil reflects more than questionable premises about the growth potential of electric cars and the sunsetting of the gasoline engine. It reflects investors hopes and fears for the future. In a world where longstanding lifestyles were abandoned overnight in the shadow of a global pandemic, financial bets on companies proficient in self-transformation and technological innovation seem prudent. ExxonMobils pitch that it has staying power when incumbent oil and gas infrastructure takes years to revamp is simply not resonating with investors.

The sudden love affair with Tesla stock is partly linked to new potential for growth. Since it opened its Shanghai, China giga factory, analysts forecast increasing cash flow for the firm, which in March captured 30 percent of the crowded Chinese electric vehicle market amid depressed demand due to COVID-19. Teslas market capitalization has now surpassed $300 billion, up 175,000 percent since 2010. By contrast, ExxonMobils market capitalization has now fallen to around $185 billion, down from $350 billion a decade ago.

But Teslas attractions go beyond its improving financial outlook. Investors are betting on its expansive innovation potential. Not only has Tesla Energy installed the worlds largest lithium-ion battery to mitigate wind generation intermittency in South Australia, it has provided small-scale, household solutions to reduce the regions frequent brownouts. The company offers a load-balancing system in which solar panels are matched with in-home battery storage and smart inverters to bolster the grid when electricity demand peaks, creating a virtual power plant. Tesla CEO Elon Musk has alluded to the possibility of deploying a similar model with vehicle batteries, allowing Tesla owners to use their cars as backup power sources or even sell their battery storage back to the grid.

Tesla has weighed in on a policy debate in Texas over whether the state should loosen restrictions so electricity distribution companies can own storage to buttress operations, but regulatory disputes over who can own and operate Tesla battery systems in the state are ongoing. Texas, with its weather and other load challenges, would do well to follow Teslas advice to loosen who can own battery systemswhile protecting consumers and competitive markets for local energy generatorsso benefits are shared from the kind of forward-looking innovation the state is well known for.

For investors, Teslas innovation goes beyond cars and energy. It has also developed a giant HEPA filter, installed in Model S and Model X vehicles, which Tesla claims stops 99.97 percent of particles 0.3 micrometers or larger from entering the vehicle. Amid endemic pollution in major cities and growing questions about airborne COVID-19 transmission, its no wonder that Teslas Bioweapon Defense Mode is a hit.

Then there is Californias new Advanced Clean Trucks rule, which requires truck manufacturers to sell an annually increasing percentage of zero-emission trucks in the state over the next two decades. With its light-duty Cybertruck and heavy-duty Semi model due for release in 2021, Tesla is well positioned to supply the new market. The Cybertruck already has over 650,000 pre-orders, and Austin is knee-deep in competition with Tulsa, Okla., to house a new giga-factory for its production. Meanwhile, Teslas vehicle software is growing ever closer to facilitating full, self-driving autonomy.

The point is that Tesla is no longer just a car company. It is a technology company creating products with cross-industrial applications fit to solve some of the societys most pressing challenges. Ditto Amazon, which is an increasingly important bridge between many Americans and essential household supplies. At $1.65 trillion, Amazons capitalization is now 160 times higher than ExxonMobils as the marketplace and logistics company looks to new vertical integration opportunities including autonomous delivery vehicles.

Research and development spending made up 32.5 and 35.8 percent respectively of Teslas and Amazons total operating expenses in 2019, according to Bloomberg News. By contrast, ExxonMobils R&D budget was a paltry 8.7 percent of its operating expenses based on our calculations from Bloomberg data. Unlike its European peers who are actively pivoting to new energy businesses, ExxonMobils admirable R&D in algae biofuel and carbon sequestration has brought neither technology to scale. Rather, ExxonMobils notable technology and process improvement gains focus on the companys here and now oil opportunities in places like West Texas and Guyana, and thereby lack the visionary pizazz and breadth of wider applicability that draw investors to Tesla.

ExxonMobil continues to try to mobilize its base of investors around the idea that the company is well positioned with a strong balance sheet, promising legacy assets and topnotch engineering knowhow to both weather the current oil downturn and meet rebounding oil demand when the economy recovers. But sell-side analysts say current oil prices are too low for ExxonMobil to generate sufficient cash flow to cover its dividends without cutting spending, discouraging bargain hunters from bottom-picking the companys stock.

ExxonMobils plight is a cautionary tale for Texas industry and Houston as the energy capital. Though other companies like Hess, ConocoPhillips and Chevron are garnering some positive investor attention based on cash outlooks, the heady days when Texas shale was lauded as a growth business are fading, at least for now. The solution to investor apathy might not just be cutting costs, but a reemphasis on transformative technological innovations.

Myers Jaffe is author of the forthcoming book Energys Digital Future: Harnessing Innovation for American Resilience and National Security. Schreiber is a summer intern at the Council on Foreign Relations and an undergraduate student at Rice University.

Originally posted here:

Opinion: Teslas rise is a message to big oil in Texas its time to transform - Houston Chronicle

Final Tesla Roadster ever built listed for more than $2 million – CarAdvice

Only 2500 Lotus-based Tesla Roadsters were built, and the final one is for sale in Switzerland for more than AU$2 million.

The last original Tesla Roadster to be built has come onto the market in Switzerland for more than AU$2 million.

The 2012 car's Lotus-designed chassis is fitted with a 185kW electric motor that propels it from 0 to 100kmh in a claimed 4.0 seconds.

When new, a battery range of 393km was estimated.

The listed car is finished in sparkling white and has a white and black interior trim, full carbon package, carbon diffusor, and VIN 2500 badging (recognising that it was the 2500th and last Roadster built).

Dozens of Tesla employees also signed the car's battery pack on completion, and a scribble in the bottom left-hand corner strongly resembles the signature of company CEO Elon Musk.

According to the listing the car has been stored on tyre pillows on marble floor and was never registered.

It has just 200km on the odometer.

The vehicle is listed for 1,390,000 (approximately AU$2,082,220) which, if sold, would make it the world's most expensive electric car.

In Australia the 2012 Roadster was initially sold from $191,888 plus on-road costs slightly less than a Porsche 911 at the time.

Only one version of the car is currently listed for sale in Australia.

Located in Blackheath, NSW, the red MY2011 car is listed at $144,000.

The seller, Simon Crawford-Ash, told CarAdvice the Roadster represented a "pivotal moment" in automotive history.

"The rawness of it is what makes it so special. It is raw, unpolished and incredible to drive," he said.

"It is inspiring to touch and see how much had to be redesigned from an ordinary car. It is exposed and raw, and it feels very much like the prototype of future cars."

In 2017 Tesla announced plans for a new Roadster (pictured below), this time with a fixed roof, and claimed it would be capable of accelerating from 0 to 100kmh in 1.9 seconds faster than any production car available today.

After initially stating the car would be available by 2020, Tesla now says the Roadster will be launched in 2022.

Final Tesla Roadster ever built listed for more than $2 million

Excerpt from:

Final Tesla Roadster ever built listed for more than $2 million - CarAdvice

Stocks making the biggest moves after hours: IBM, Moderna, Tesla and more – CNBC

Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange.

Brendan McDermid | Reuters

Check out the companies making headlines after the bell:

IBM IBM shares rose more than 6% in extended trading following the release of the company's second quarter earnings. The technology company reported second quarter earnings of$2.18 per share excluding items on revenues of $18.12 billion. This beat what Refinitiv analysts had predicted as earnings of $2.07 on revenues of $17.72 billion.

Moderna Moderna's stock fell 1% after the closing bell after falling 12.83% earlier in the day. The stock saw a drop after Pfizer and BioNTech reported promising data from their experimental coronavirus vaccine, showing their vaccine was safe and induced an immune response in patients. Moderna's stock was also downgraded by JPMorgan to neutral from overweight.Another coronavirus vaccine maker, Novavax, saw its shares climb 3% in extended trading.

Nikola Shares of electric truck maker rose 1% and whipsawed in after hours. Nikola's stock fell 10% earlier during the day after the company filed a new stock offering related to warrants and Deutsche Bank analysts said there could be more selling ahead.

TeslaThe automaker's stock gained 1% in extended trading after jumping 9.5% earlier Monday. CNBC contributor Jim Cramer said in a tweet that Tesla's big move, as well as those of Amazon and Microsoft, which rose 7.4% and 4.3% earlier Monday, was "truly insane." Tesla is scheduled to report its quarterly earnings results Wednesday.

Noble Energy Shares of the oil and gas company rose 1% after the closing bell. Noble's stock rose 5.4% earlier Monday after Chevron announced it willacquire the companyin an all-stock deal valued at $5 billion.

See the article here:

Stocks making the biggest moves after hours: IBM, Moderna, Tesla and more - CNBC

They did it! Gorzw couple travel 45000km around the world in old PRL car – The First News

Asia and Pawe Poterski spent two years driving around the world in their 1990s Fiat 125p car. dookolafiata.pl/Facebook

A couple from western Poland have proved that at least some things designed under communism were made to last after they drove a Soviet-era Fiat 125p around the world.

The couple set out in October 2018 in their car, which rolled off the production line in 1990, for a journey that they thought would only take nine months.dookolafiata.pl/Facebook

Asia and Pawe Poterski completed their epic journey, which lasted two years and covered 45,000 car-crunching kilometres, when they parked their heroic Fiat at their home in Gorzw Wielkopolski this summer.

The couple set out in October 2018 in their car, which rolled off the production line in 1990, for a journey that they thought would only take nine months, but in the end took somewhat longer as they drove through a succession of countries, including Slovakia, Iran, Pakistan, Thailand and Malaysia.

Asia and Pawe drove through a succession of countries, including Slovakia, Iran, Pakistan, Thailand and Malaysia.dookolafiata.pl/Facebook

They even shipped the car across the Pacific so it could experience the highways of Canada and the United States.

The couples epic journey in the Soviet-era vehicle generated media interest worldwide, with articles on the Poles appearing in The New Straits Times, a Malaysian paper, and CTV News from Calgary in Canada.

The Gorzw couple decided to return to their home town after Asia became pregnant.dookolafiata.pl/Facebook

Although the Fiat 125p may not have the best reputation in the world when it comes to reliability its rudimentary construction and, the couple explained, the expectation that something will fail, meant that they were ready and able to fix most problems with basic tools.

After covering 45,000 kilometres the couple had just about run out of road to drive on, but they also had a more pressing reason to wind up their journey.

The couples epic journey in the Soviet-era vehicle generated media interest worldwide, with articles on the Poles appearing in The New Straits Times, a Malaysian paper, and CTV News from Calgary in Canada.dookolafiata.pl/Facebook

Asia got pregnant on the road and had to come back to Poland to give birth.

The journey has made them local celebrities with the Gorzw council praising the couple for helping to put the town on the map.

Read the original post:

They did it! Gorzw couple travel 45000km around the world in old PRL car - The First News

U.S. and European Airlines Seek Virus Testing to Open Up Travel – Bloomberg

Photographer: Angus Mordant/Bloomberg

Photographer: Angus Mordant/Bloomberg

Four of the biggest airlines in the U.S. and Europe are pressing for an international accord on coronavirus testing to allow broad trans-Atlantic travel.

Deutsche Lufthansa AG and commercial ally United Airlines Holdings Inc. joined with British Airways owner IAG SA and partner American Airlines Group Inc. to seek a U.S.-European Union testing program that would replace restrictions that prevent the recovery of commercial air travel. The U.S.-Europe market is the biggest for high-profit business trips.

Given the unquestioned importance of trans-Atlantic air travel to the global economy as well as to the economic recovery of our businesses, we believe it is critical to find a way to re-open air services between the U.S. and Europe, the carriers said in letter to U.S. Vice President Mike Pence and Ylva Johansson, the European commissioner for home affairs. The letter, released Tuesday, was signed by the chief executive of each carrier.

The U.S. to Europe market leads the way in high-paying passengers

Source: OAG

Air France-KLM and part owner Delta Air Lines Inc., the two other major airline groups in the EU and the U.S., didnt sign the letter.

The World Travel & Tourism Council said separately Wednesday that country-wide border closures in response to second spikes in the virus should be resisted, urging governments to introduce localized measures instead. The group said it backs so-called air corridors permitting unhindered travel between financial centers such as London, Frankfurt and New York.

The EU has continued to bar visits by U.S. residents after relaxing a ban on non-essential travel from 15 countries with lower coronavirus infection rates. Britain requires that people arriving from the U.S. spend 14 days in self-imposed quarantine. U.S. rules, meanwhile, essentially prevent travel to the country by most Europeans.

British Airways owner IAG is most exposed on U.S. to Europe flights

Source: OAG

The International Air Transport Association warned on July 1 that its estimate for a 36% drop in traffic this year could worsen to 53% if curbs on trans-Atlantic travel remain in place.

The WTTC estimates that travel and tourism supports 10% of all jobs and provides the same proportion of global GDP.

(Updates with tourism council comments starting in fifth paragraph)

Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg Terminal.

See the article here:

U.S. and European Airlines Seek Virus Testing to Open Up Travel - Bloomberg

COVID-19 Impacts on Travel Habits: New Study of 1045 US Travelers – TheWiseMarketer.com

[Editors Note: We came across this study which surveyed 1045 U.S. travelers (55%+ were millennials) about their behaviors and attitude towards travel amid COVID-19. Some of the results were surprising, yet encouraging, and we thought others would be interested to see the results as well. Heres a snapshot of some of the more surprising results:

Related to this, we also wrote an article titled Business Travel After COVID-19 which covered 5 things to take into consideration for employers, business travelers, and the travel industry. Enjoy.]

As of May 26, 2020, the total number of coronavirus casesreached over 5.5 million worldwide, with the U.S. being the epicenter of the coronavirus pandemic, representing 1.7 million of the total number of COVID-19 cases.

Since it first emerged in Wuhan, China last December 2019, countriesimplemented total partial or complete lockdownand travel restrictions which madea huge dent in the travel industry. The damage is so huge that it was estimated by the World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC) that there will beover 100 million job lossesin the travel and tourism sector.

Moreover, the2020 tourism industry revenueisrestatedto 447 million U.S. dollars, down from theoriginal 2020 forecast, which is711 million U.S. dollars. In 2019, the travel tourism industry revenue earned 685 million U.S. dollars in revenue.

Its been over 5 months now, so how are the US travelers holding up? We conducted a survey involving 1,045 US frequent travelers to see the impact COVID-19 has on travel habits.

We specifically asked our survey participants to indicate their age so we can see which generation travelers belong to.

Major Takeaways:

Major Takeaways:

Major Takeaways:

Major Takeaways:

Major Takeaways:

Major Takeaways:

Since the coronavirus outbreak, the thought of traveling seems impossible to happen anytime soon. But earlier in May 2020, Australia announced a three-stage plan to reopen its economy, including tourism, which could be atravel recovery modelfor other countries.

Are people willing to follow strict protocols/protection while traveling amid the COVID-19 outbreak these days?

Major Takeaways:

By the end of March 2020, over3million unemployment claims were filed. This means the budget will have to be cut deeply to stillbe able to travel and keep up with the essentials amid the global pandemic.

Major Takeaways:

Major Takeaways:

According tothe World Economic Forum, We will travel again, but it will not be the same. So we asked our participants which type of travel platform would they prefer after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Major Takeaways:

To ensure that the above-mentioned data is only from frequent travelers in the U.S., we launched a survey on MTurk and set the qualifications to only U.S. citizens that travel frequently.

We also included attention-check questions somewhere in the survey to ensure our participants are not just answering the survey questions randomly.

Also, the surveys results do not, in any form and way, reflect the opinions of our editors and writers.

Originally posted here:

COVID-19 Impacts on Travel Habits: New Study of 1045 US Travelers - TheWiseMarketer.com

Letter to the editor: No need to travel Collins ensures that ‘Russia is coming to me’ – Press Herald

Usually I email Sen. Susan Collins and ask her to resign, which Im sure shed do if she ever read those emails. But today, in this letter, I want to publicly thank Sen. Collins.

I want to thank her for being right about Donald J. Trump. He has learned his lesson, as she hoped. He has learned that he can do anything he pleases because the senator and her colleagues in the Republican Party will let him.

I want to thank her for allowing a man known for his lack of business sense and for his blatant racism to remain in office. I want to thank her for backing a bold leader who has not only put the entire nation at risk during a pandemic and destroyed the economy but also brought the Third World to America while trashing the Constitution. Now I no longer have to travel to China, the Philippines or Turkey to live under a brutal dictator because we are working toward that goal here in this country.

Good thing, too, what with travel restrictions limiting my access to so many nations. I dont have to go to Russia. Russia is coming to me.

Thank you, Sen. Collins.

Linda PankewiczRaymond

Invalid username/password.

Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

Previous

Next

More:

Letter to the editor: No need to travel Collins ensures that 'Russia is coming to me' - Press Herald