kscarbel2

Associated Press / October 28, 2016 Hillary Clinton's email controversy roared back to the forefront of the presidential campaign Friday when FBI Director James Comey told lawmakers the bureau is reviewing new emails related to her personal server. The revelation -- 11 days before the election and nearly four months after Comey said he wouldn't recommend criminal charges because of Clinton's use of the server -- shook the Democratic nominee's campaign. Hillary Clinton She forcefully called on the FBI to release the "full and complete facts" about its review [She’s up to something]. "Voting is underway, so the American people deserve to get the full and complete facts immediately," Clinton said at a brief news conference in Des Moines, Iowa, adding it was "imperative that the bureau explain this issue in question, whatever it is, without any delay." In a letter to eight congressional committee chairmen Friday, Comey said investigators are examining newly discovered emails that "appear to be pertinent" to the email probe. "In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear pertinent to the investigation," Comey wrote the chairmen. "I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation." The newly discovered emails are part of an investigation into Anthony Weiner. Weiner, the disgraced former congressman, recently separated from top Clinton aide Huma Abedin after he exchanged sexually explicit text messages with an underage girl. The emails in question were sent or received by Abedin. There were a "considerable number" of emails being reviewed from at least one device shared by Abedin and Weiner. One FBI official said there were thousands of messages. The FBI is looking at whether any of the newly discovered emails will have an impact on the now-closed investigation into Clinton's server. In his letter to lawmakers, Comey said he was not sure how long the additional review would take and said the FBI "cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant." Comey is under criticism from the Clinton campaign and congressional Democrats for releasing the letter so close to the election. Earlier Friday, Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta said "it's extraordinary that we would see something like this just 11 days out from a presidential election." Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who is the vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said she was "shocked" to read Comey's letter. The FBI chief felt he had no choice but to tell Congress now or risk being accused of hiding relevant information before the election, law enforcement officials said in explaining the timing. House speaker Paul Ryan condemned Clinton’s behavior. “Yet again, Hillary Clinton has nobody but herself to blame. She was entrusted with some of our nation’s most important secrets, and she betrayed that trust by carelessly mishandling highly classified information.” "This decision, long overdue, is the result of her reckless use of a private email server, and her refusal to be forthcoming with federal investigators," speaker Paul Ryan said. "I renew my call for the Director of National Intelligence to suspend all classified briefings for Secretary Clinton until this matter is fully resolved." “The FBI’s decision to reopen their criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s secret email server just 11 days before the election shows how serious this discovery must be,” said RNC chairman Reince Priebus. “This stunning development raises serious questions about what records may not have been turned over and why, and whether they show intent to violate the law. “What’s indisputable is that Hillary Clinton jeopardized classified information on thousands of occasions in her reckless attempt to hide pay-to-play corruption at her State Department,” he added. “This alone should be disqualifying for anyone seeking the presidency, a job that is supposed to begin each morning with a top secret intelligence briefing.” ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Associated Press / October 29, 2016 Huma Abedin, who served as Clinton’s deputy chief of staff and held a top-secret security clearance, disclosed she had access to four email accounts while working at the State Department. These accounts, Abedin said, included an official State Department email account, but also an account on Clinton’s private email server that Abedin used to communicate with Clinton and her top aides, as well as a personal Yahoo account. She used both the Clinton email account and the Yahoo account to “routinely” forward State Department emails and documents so she could more easily print them, she said [good luck with that]. In addition, she told the agents, she had a separate email account that she had previously used “to support her husband’s political activities.” Abedin’s interview — conducted by agents at the FBI’s Washington field office last April 5 — was the first tip-off that the longtime Clinton aide might have circulated official State Department material among her multiple accounts. At one point, agents even confronted Abedin on one apparently sensitive email about U.S. policy towards Pakistan that had been forwarded to her State Department account from an aide to the late Richard Holbrooke, then a special State Department envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Abedin had forwarded the email to her Yahoo account in order to print it, but told agents she was “unaware of the classification of the document and stated that she did not make judgments on the classification of material she received. Instead, she relied on the sender to make that assessment and to properly make and transmit the document.”

And you'll note that it's NOT the people of the world pushing for this. Rather, it's the governments of the world, including the U.S. and European Union, who are backing this whole absurd rush to autonomous vehicles. No consumer ever said, "Boy, I wish that I could buy a self-driving car". Thus the question is............why? Is this another idea hatched by the Bilderberg Group to enhance big business profitability?

Any first-hand sightings of new 2016 U.S.-built (Avon, Ohio) F-750 straight trucks (rigids) and/or tractors ?

http://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/31209-when-the-dodge-boys-sold-trucks-down-under/ The Dodge variant was a beast of a truck.

Alabama woman took heroin 12 hours before giving birth to dead baby WALB ABC News / October 27, 2016 Jefferson County authorities have filed a motion to revoke bond after they say a woman gave birth to a stillborn child in Oct. 2016 after ingesting multiple types of drugs, including heroin, while out on bond for a 2015 charge of chemical endangerment of a child. The Jefferson County District Attorney's Office for the Bessemer Cutoff wants Raven Lynn West's bond revoked because she violated her release by using drugs and they feel she is a danger to herself and others. They hope a judge will hear the case next week. "She admitted to going and getting a bag of heroin and snorting it in the bathroom, the same day she said she could feel the child kicking. About 12 hours later she delivered a dead child," said Pleasant Grove Police Lt. Daniel Reid. West was charged last year after her newborn tested positive for heroin and codeine. "It's not a happy situation," said Bill Veitch, Jefferson County District Attorney for the Bessemer Cutoff. "If they have access to it [heroin], they're going to do it. If they're going to do it, they are going to hurt the children." West was jailed in 2016 due to failure to appear and bonded out on Oct. 6, 2016. She was 37 weeks pregnant at this time and taken to the Alethia House for rehabilitation the same day she bonded out. West left the Alethia House Oct. 7 and took Xanax and Loritab. On Oct. 8, investigators say West bought and snorted a bag of heroin. She said she felt the baby kicking inside of her that night. "I'm not just frustrated. I'm mad. I'm sickened. I'm heartbroken. I mean, what do you do in a case like this?" said Reid. West gave birth Oct. 9 to a stillborn child and on Oct. 10 she left the hospital. Reid and Veitch say the infant's official cause of death has not yet been determined. They are waiting for the coroner to complete the final report. "You know, I believe that evidence is going to show there is a direct causal relationship between her snorting heroin and 12 hours later delivering a dead child," said Reid. If that's the case, Reid says West will likely be charged with chemical endangerment death of child. .

The Clumsy Case for U.S. Intervention in Syria John Allen Gay, The National Interest / October 27, 2016 Those who advocate a deeper U.S. intervention in Syria against Bashar al-Assad’s regime have a difficult case to make. The risk that such an intervention would lead to a serious showdown with Russia is real. Russian air, land and naval forces are all present in Syria, meaning there is a real chance American strikes would inadvertently kill Russian personnel or destroy their equipment. Even if this doesn’t happen, Russia surely won’t be happy with an attack on its ally, and may take steps to respond, in Syria or elsewhere. A direct confrontation with a nuclear-armed great power would be the most serious crisis in U.S. national security since the end of the Cold War. Intervention advocates owe it to the public to take these concerns into account, and show that in spite of them, war is still the best choice. Specifically, they need to prevail on three points: • First, they must explain how they intend to control the risks of confrontation with Russia over Syria in the wake of a U.S. attack, particularly if Russia takes steps to escalate. • Second, they must identify vital U.S. interests at stake in Syria that justify taking such risks, especially given the chance that Russia will act against U.S. interests elsewhere. • Third, they must show that intervention will be effective in defending those interests. An argument that fails on any of these three points needs to go back to the drawing board, as an intervention that is ineffective, that risks uncontrolled escalation, or that is not tied to vital American interests is simply not worth the danger. Unfortunately, a recent, widely praised essay calling for intervention fails on all three points, and fails by default: it does not attempt to explain how to control escalation, what critical American interests intervention would serve, or why intervention would be effective. Writing in the Washington Post, former anti-ISIS coalition head Gen. John Allen and respected terrorism expert Charles Lister state that “it is time for the United States to act more assertively on Syria.” Specifically, we should “save Aleppo” by giving moderate rebels more weaponry, and giving it to them faster than we’ve done before; at the same time, we should initiate a new push for a cease-fire in Syria “in which flagrant violations will be met with targeted U.S. military consequences.” This, they argue, “would almost certainly result in the eventual use of targeted, punitive force in Syria” by a U.S.-led “coalition of the willing.” The coalition’s attacks ought to hit “Syrian military facilities and assets involved in supporting the bombardment of civilians, such as military airfields, aircraft, weapons stores and artillery positions,” and also may include “a task force of regional Special Operations forces, which could play an advisory role in assisting vetted opposition groups in attacking regime assets.” So what about the risks of confrontation with Russia? Allen and Lister acknowledge them, but they offer no account of how these risks are to be controlled: “We should expect the possible intentional co-mingling of Syrian and Russian forces and assets as a deterrent [against a strike]. While this may complicate targeting strategies, we should not miss the opportunity to hit offending Syrian elements and units, while sustaining counter-Islamic State operations elsewhere.” Given the confusion and uncertainty that pervade warfare, there is some chance we’d accidentally kill Russians; Allen and Lister’s wording also does not rule out attacks on key targets where we know Russians will be killed. Either way, their assessment of Moscow’s motives in Syria suggests escalation is a real possibility: “Russia will determinedly protect its interests by any means.” What if those means include, as Russian military officials have hinted, shooting down American aircraft? How would we respond? If a spiraling confrontation resulted, it’s worth remembering that Russia’s large nuclear arsenal makes it the only country that can pose a truly existential threat to the United States. But Russia can challenge the United States with actions that stop far short of nuclear war. Within Syria, for example, it could turn its air-defense radars on American aircraft operating against Islamic State, and it could encourage Assad to do the same, forcing American pilots to choose between attacking those radars, operating under the threat of “ambush . . . ‘with virtually no warning,’” or accepting a less efficient standoff anti-ISIS campaign. (The latter option would seriously hinder Allen and Lister’s goal of “sustaining counter-Islamic State operations elsewhere.”) Outside Syria, Russia could ratchet up tensions in Europe, conduct cyberattacks, accelerate its disinformation campaigns, or cozy up with China (which would also be unhappy with an American strike). Iran, too, would be furious after a U.S. strike on Assad, would be at risk of losing personnel in that strike, and would have its own (less dangerous) methods for responding. But of course, foreign policy is risky business, and severe risks like these can sometimes be justified if the interests at stake are sufficiently valuable. What crucial U.S. interests are at risk in Syria? Allen and Lister don’t say directly, although they warn that “the consequences of continued inaction are dreadful.” The consequences include that “the world will not forgive us for our inaction,” that Assad will not move toward transition, and that the fight against ISIS, a mere “symptom of the civil war,” would thus be stalled. Further, an opposition defeat in Aleppo “would dramatically empower extremist narratives. Groups linked to al-Qaeda would reap the rewards of our shortcomings.” They offer “four justifiable objectives” for an intervention: “to end mass civilian killing; to protect what remains of the moderate opposition; to undermine extremist narratives of Western indifference to injustice; and to force Assad to the negotiating table.” And, in closing, they add that “the credibility of the United States as the leader and defender of the free world must be salvaged from the horrific devastation of Syria. It is not too late to enforce international law and norms.” Let’s unpack these one by one. What will happen to American citizens, their freedom, and their prosperity if “the world will not forgive us”? Who speaks for “the world,” and what consequences do they impose on the unshriven? If the world is capable of punishing the United States for not punishing Assad, wouldn’t the world also be capable of dealing with Assad itself? There may be particular people in the world who are angered, such as extremists. But it’s not certain that losing in Aleppo will “dramatically empower extremist narratives,” or at least not ones about the United States. The whole point of Al Qaeda, for example, was a strategic calculation that the United States, as the patron of Middle Eastern regimes, would never allow Islamic extremists to prevail, and should therefore be attacked first. It is a narrative of American action, not American inaction; extremist narratives like these won’t be empowered by American inaction. Further, the significant extremist presence among the rebels, including in Aleppo, is no secret. A defeat might just as well discourage the extremists’ potential supporters, as has been the case with ISIS; the forces that actually caused the defeat (Assad, Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and so forth), rather than a third party like the United States, would be natural targets for any extremists who are energized by losing. What about the need to transition Assad from power? America has survived forty-five years of rule by one Assad or another in Syria. Assad’s continued role does close some pathways to peace, and continued conflict there does have negative consequences for American interests. Proxy fighting and refugee flows have destabilized the regional order. The deepening Russian and Iranian roles have permanently made the eastern Mediterranean a bit less safe for American presence. But none of these are vital dangers to America; the same is true of the other risks Allen and Lister identify, such as mass killings or the defeat of moderates among the opposition. And what of the dangers to American credibility? Daryl Press’s research on credibility has suggested that “power and interests in the current crisis - not past actions - determine the credibility of a threat.” And America’s power and interests in Syria are each limited, the former by the Russian presence and the situation’s complexity, the latter by the limited damage events in Syria can cause to America itself. That gets to the most serious gap in Allen and Lister’s argument: whether intervention would be effective. At no point do they explain how it will be. They talk about past failures of other U.S. policy approaches, and add that although they’ve said there will be no military solution in Syria, “the Russians and their allies have pushed the military dimension of the crisis to strengthen the regime’s political position.” They discuss how resilient and brutal the Russians have been in pursuing their goals, and note that the Russians do not expect the United States to escalate the conflict. They then step down from the strategic to the operational level, and discuss ways the United States can escalate, things it should destroy, people it should arm and that the regime might divert forces away from Aleppo. It’s implied that these actions would lead Assad to negotiate a lasting cease-fire. But whether that’s true is the real question. If anything, Allen and Lister’s essay suggests it might not be: statements like “Russia has shown a remarkable capacity to dig in behind bad policy and fight under adversity” create doubts that even high costs imposed directly on Russia would work. And credibility of the sort Press was talking about—power and interests—is key in coercive warfare. The Russians certainly have credibility in Syria; they’ve invested treasure and even a little blood in defending Assad. Compare that to our side: even intervention advocates emphasize the use of indirect force via proxies or very limited direct force (words like “unbelievably small,” “targeted” and “pinprick” are common). And those who do call for direct force tend to favor using standoff weapons that don’t put American forces in harm’s way. But as Dianne Pfundstein Chamberlain observed in the National Interest in July: It is precisely because such instruments are relatively cheap and easy for the United States to employ that they will fail to convince the Syrian regime and other actors to come to the table, because they signal to the parties on the ground that the United States is not highly motivated to change the targets’ behavior. If it were, the United States would be willing to opt for a much more costly and risky instrument. We would be, in other words, proclaiming our unwillingness to escalate. If that is our goal, our prior actions in Syria have been sufficient. If anything, the preferences revealed by U.S. and Russian behavior in Syria suggest that the Russians would be more willing to tolerate escalation, and thus that the United States would be forced to blink first in a crisis. This would hardly show America to be “the leader and defender of the free world.” Taking these dynamics into account, an effective intervention would rest on a view that the United States is so much stronger than Syria that even a low-cost, low-risk effort would still compel Syria to change course, and that Russia, in spite of the balance of interests, would not call our bluff by imposing costs and risks that overshadow our limited stake in Syria. Advocates of an intervention have yet to show that this is plausible. John Allen Gay is executive director of the John Quincy Adams Society, a national network of student groups centered on a vision of foreign policy restraint. He is a former managing editor of the National Interest. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. ” John Quincy Adams, Independence Day, 1821

A New Poll Shows America's Reluctance for New Foreign Adventures Daniel DePetris, The National Interest / October 27, 2016 Republicans and Democrats disagree on pretty much everything, but there is one broad policy area where the GOP and Democratic establishments are actually more in tune with one another than commonly thought when it comes to foreign policy. The men and women who have dominated the foreign-policy conversation for the last three administrations—statesmen and stateswomen like Madeleine Albright, Samantha Power, the late Richard Holbrooke, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz—have proven to be strong proponents of the theory of American exceptionalism. The narrative is as basic as it is alluring: as the strongest and most powerful country in the world and as the beacon of hope and democracy for those struggling for freedom and justice, only the United States has the ability to provide the resources, political will and strength to solve problems. If the United States doesn’t them, nobody else will. Dictators need to be kept in check, if not overthrown; the Responsibility to Protect doctrine is an inalienable component of being an American; averting atrocities and crimes against humanity need to be prevented; the stability of the world is contingent on the spread of democratic values and free-market principles; and the United States is the sole guarantor of international peace and security. A new and comprehensive poll conducted by the Charles Koch Institute and the Center for the National Interest, however, suggests that these elite convictions are not necessarily shared by much of the American public. On issue after issue—from infrastructure to jobs, from tax rates to terrorism—the public wants to focus on practical measures that directly impact their lives. Military intervention abroad is not considered to be one of them. Accordingly, the poll reveals just how wide the gap has become between the foreign-policy establishment in Washington (what Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes famously called “the Blob”) and average Americans. 51.1 percent of the Americans surveyed in the Koch poll believe that the next commander-in-chief should use less U.S. military force abroad, compared to 24 percent who say that Washington should use force more often. 41 percent want European members of NATO to increase their own defense spending and start carrying their own weight. 49 percent agree with the notion that the 2003 invasion of Iraq made the United States less safe. 39 percent of Americans don’t think the 2011 in intervention in Libya made any difference to U.S. security at all. 51 percent don’t want any U.S. ground troops deployed in Syria compared to 23.5 percent who are supportive of the idea. 63 percent don’t believe it’s wise for the United States to provide Saudi Arabia with more military support in its military engagement in Yemen. 23 percent want the United States to simply withdraw from the conflict altogether. And in one of the most important findings that is applicable to a President Hillary Clinton or a President Donald Trump, an overwhelming majority (80 percent) agree that the president—regardless of who that may be—should be required to make its case before members of Congress and receive congressional authorization for the use of military force before the U.S. military is deployed in any operations. To put it another way, the American people are becoming increasingly impatient with the way the executive branch has expanded its war powers at the expense of the Congress—a body that under the U.S. Constitution is invested with the power to declare war or provide the commander-in-chief with the approval to use force overseas.

Trucking industry wants seat at self-driving table The Detroit News / October 27, 2016 The trucking industry is pushing for a seat at the table as new rules to allow self-driving cars to operate on U.S. roads are being developed. American Trucking Association (ATA) President Chris Spear said during an event at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday that “the lion’s share” of self-driving guidance recently released by the U.S. Department of Transportation focused on automakers. “Our industry was not included in that process, despite what was said. We were never at the table, we never had any input,” Spear said during a panel discussion on self-driving organized by the Securing America’s Future Energy group, also known as SAFE. “This is really being developed by one mode, not multiple modes,” Spear continued. “You’ve got to have all modes developing this. We all share the road.” Just this week, Anheuser-Busch announced that it had completed the world’s first commercial shipment by self-driving truck, sending a beer-filled tractor-trailer on a journey of more than 120 miles through Colorado. The Transportation Department’s proposed self-driving rules focus on a set of 15 guidelines that call for automakers and technology companies to voluntary report on their testing and safety of autonomous cars to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration before the cars are used by the public. Before self-driving cars are allowed to roll on U.S. roads, automakers would be required to report how they were tested, how the systems work and what happens if those systems fail. Spear said Wednesday that regulators should also be thinking about the benefits of self-driving trucks. He cited a fatal crash between a Tesla vehicle that was being operated in “Autopilot” mode that collided with a semi-trailer that turned left in front of the car, saying the accident could have avoided if both vehicles were autonomous. “The accident we saw involving a Tesla vehicle hitting a trailor, it was one way obviously,” Spear said. “The Tesla had capability and the trailor did not. If the two had been communicating, maybe that driver wouldn’t have lost his life.” Spear said he doesn’t foresee trucks being operated completely autonomously any time in the near future, despite the potential safety benefits he touted Wednesday. “I don’t see drivers coming out of the cab for a very long time,” he said. “What we really are talking about here is hitting an autopilot button. Entrance to exit on the long haul, it would really be no different than an airplane pilot. You need a pilot to taxi and take off as well as land the plane, but when you reach a cruising altitude, the pilot hits autopilot.” Spear added: “I think you’re going to still need the driver to navigate the cityscapes, to do the pickups and the deliveries.” DOT officials have said they “consulted with industry leaders, experts in the field, state governments, the traveling public and safety advocates, among others” as they crafted the proposed self-driving guidance that Spear says ignores trucking. The agency’s statements since the framework was released have largely focused on the fact that self-driving cars could save lives on U.S. roads, however. “In 2015, 35,092 people died in traffic crashes; 2.4 million people were injured. Ninety-four percent of crashes are caused in some way by human choice or error,” DOT said in a Sept. 20 blog post. “Ultimately, automation features in vehicles could prevent many of the crashes that are caused by unsafe driving, potentially saving tens of thousands of lives each year.” Mitch Bainwol, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said regulators should continue to focus on the potential safety benefits of self-driving autos. “When you look at deaths on the road in the U.S., it’s 3,000 people a month,” he said. “If you look at what happens, less than 1 percent relates to the vehicle itself and 99 percent relates to either behavior. All of those factors, the 99 percent that do not relate to the function of the car itself, can be addressed by this technology.” Bainwol added: “I think there’s an urgency that we should attach to this for the mortality reason alone. This is a massive problem in society. We have before us an opportunity to make a dramatic improvement in safety outcomes.” Bainwol’s group represents Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, Ford Motor Co., General Motors Co., BMW Group, Jaguar Land Rover, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz USA, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota, Volkswagen Group of America and Volvo Car USA in Washington. Henry Claypool, policy director of the University of California-San Francisco’s Community Living Policy Center and an adviser to SAFE’s autonomous vehicle task force, said regulators face a tough job balancing the needs of multiple industries that are jockeying for position in the self-driving arena. “It’s an unenviable position to be in to be a regulator these days, dealing with a technology that’s moving so quickly,” Claypool said. Spear said Wednesday that NHTSA isn’t equipped to consider the possibilities of self-driving trucks because the trucking industry is regulated by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. He added that Congress might have to step in to ensure a place for autonomous trucks. “These are all policy questions that need to get answered,” Spear said. “I see no better place to have that dialogue than here on the Hill. This is a role I think the Hill is best positioned to do, to be transparent, to be inclusive not just of all the modes, but all the agencies. Corral that, cultivate that kind of consensus, because we’re all going to have to plug into this at some point.”

Fort Wainwright soldier gets 4 months in prison for fuel thefts Associated Press / October 27, 2016 A U.S. Army specialist was sentenced Friday in Fairbanks federal court for allowing the theft of two truckloads of fuel while stationed in Afghanistan in exchange for $5,000 kickbacks. Sheldon J. Morgan was sentenced to four months in prison and two years of probation, according to court records. He also has to pay restitution totaling $37,300, the estimated value of the fuel. When prosecutors filed an indictment in May listing a single charge of conspiring to receive bribes and defraud the U.S., Morgan was assigned to Fort Wainwright in Fairbanks, an official said. Morgan was serving with the Army's 426th Brigade Support Battalion at a forward operating base in Jalalabad for about a year starting in May 2010. The base in Jalalabad was used as a hub for the distribution of fuel to other nearby bases, and Morgan oversaw its operation, according to the charges. An Afghan trucking company distributed the fuel in what the court documents call "Jingle" trucks, colorfully decorated transport trucks. Around December 2010, a translator for the driver of the Jingle trucks asked Morgan if the driver could steal some of the fuel being loaded at the base, and Morgan agreed, according to the charges. Morgan was paid $5,000 each for two stolen tankers of fuel. Prosecutors wrote in a sentencing document that the government does not know where the stolen fuel ended up, but they noted the defendant and his wife used the bribe money for "personal purposes." The U.S. Attorney's Office recommended a two-year sentence for Morgan. Prosecutors noted Morgan's honesty when confronted by law enforcement but argued his actions in Afghanistan corrupted and caused direct financial harm to the military contracting process. U.S. District Court Judge Ralph Beistline opted for the four months of imprisonment. At least seven other individuals, members of units from the same forward operating base and a contractor, have pleaded guilty to similar fuel theft schemes, court records show. Those instances of theft involved more money than Morgan's case, Assistant Federal Defender Gary Colbath wrote in a sentencing document. "The closest case monetarily, was that of Morgan's supervisor, Bilal Abdullah. Abdullah was ordered to serve one year and one day in custody and pay restitution of $466,250," Colbath wrote. The defense attorney also noted Morgan's military service — he enlisted at 19 and was deployed four times. During one such deployment, he lost his index finger on his left hand, Colbath said. Morgan is being discharged from the Army and will lose all of his benefits due to the criminal case.

The Local SE / October 25, 2016 A Swedish research project working together with Volvo has been handed a 2.5 million kronor (US$280,200) grant to help develop trucks specially adapted for women and disabled. “The transport industry has traditionally been designed by men for men. Today there is an increased interest among women to enter the industry, but the truck is sometimes a barrier,” said Dag Balkmar, gender science researcher at Örebro University, in a statement. “When women spend the night in the truck and don't feel safe in the rest area, it could be good if functions such as toilets and showers could be built into the truck rather than being in the rest area.” The project received the grant by Sweden's government-funded innovation agency, Vinnova. It is going to study how Volvo Trucks can build trucks that break gender barriers, but also look at developing vehicles adapted to people with disabilities. “If you are short it can be difficult to drive a truck today. Or if you have a disability. Is it possible to be a truck driver if you're missing a body part? In a preliminary study we looked at the need for trucks in Syria after the war, for example. Could we adapt them so that people who have been injured in the war are still able to drive?” said Balkmar. The standard truck today, reads a press release issued by Örebro University on Tuesday, is developed for an able-bodied male in his forties. The researchers are going to study so-called personas used by Volvo to imagine the needs and characteristics of a driver when developing new trucks. “The problem is that these personas today follow established norms, the male model driver is not challenged and that limits Volvo's ability to innovate,” said Balkmar. The majority of truck drivers in Sweden are men, but the number of women are increasing. According to a report released by transport industry organization TYA in 2015, 12 percent of all new employees were women.

Commercial Motor TV - sponsored by DAF Trucks / October 27, 2016 .

I like the 1996 SK with the 429 horsepower V-8 OM442LA.

Daimler Press Release / October 19, 2016 Test drive for fuel consumption of three generations of Mercedes-Benz: SK< Actros and New Actros. Significant reduction of the actual fuel consumption from 40.8 l in 1996 to 31.9 l per 100 km in 2016. Despite drastically more stringent emission standards for nitrogen oxides and particulates, the fuel consumption of heavy trucks has been reduced by 22 percent over the last 20 years. This has now been proved by a comparative test drive certified by the test organization DEKRA. Three Mercedes-Benz trucks from 1996, 2003 and 2016 were put through their paces on the test circuit of the commercial vehicle magazine "Lastauto Omnibus". .

Cummins working hard to promote passage of Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trade Agreements Offer Benefits for U.S. Employers and Employees Tom Linebarger, Chairman and CEO of Cummins Inc. After years of negotiations, the 12-nation trade deal known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership is facing its toughest challenge yet: election-year politics. The fact is [actually an opinion], TPP and U.S. trade agreements overall, offer tremendous benefits for U.S. employers and employees alike. Consider a few numbers: trade-related jobs grew 3.1 times faster than overall employment between 2004 and 2014, and nearly half of all U.S. goods exports to the world in 2014 went to just the 20 countries that the United States has free trade agreements with. Unfortunately, the facts are being distorted by rhetoric on the presidential campaign trail, with candidates alleging that U.S. trade agreements like NAFTA have suppressed wages and cost American jobs. In fact, U.S. trade with NAFTA partners Canada and Mexico supports nearly 14 million U.S. jobs, according to a U.S. Chamber of Commerce study. Moreover, contrary to the campaign rhetoric, U.S. jobs tied to trade also pay more than other jobs. According to a report by the Commerce Department, manufacturing jobs pay 18% more on average when tied to exports. The report also notes that foreign tariffs — like those TPP will eliminate — reduce the earnings of U.S. workers by as much as 12%. We have to put politics aside and recognize TPP as an opportunity to support U.S. economic growth and high-quality American jobs. The agreement will create opportunities to sell more U.S. goods and services to 11 Asia-Pacific countries. This region is already critical to America’s exports: TPP nations accounted for some 45% of all U.S. exported goods in 2014. All told, TPP will eliminate more than 18,000 foreign tariffs on U.S. goods, opening markets to U.S. export growth. And because five TPP countries currently lack trade agreements with the United States, the deal will also open entirely new markets for American firms. Just as important, the trade pact will put in place strong, enforceable rules for fair trade that actually improve on NAFTA and other past U.S. trade agreements. TPP is the first modern trade agreement that addresses the realities of our interconnected global marketplace. For example, it will establish intellectual property protections for American companies and inventors and raise foreign labor and environmental standards. It also will discourage other countries from using government procurement and state-owned companies to put American firms and workers at a disadvantage. In short, TPP will open access to millions of customers for U.S. goods and services while boosting foreign investment throughout the United States. The resulting U.S. exports and international investment here will expand U.S. economic growth and jobs. To understand how trade supports companies of all sizes, consider the relationship between our two companies. Headquartered in Columbus, Indiana, Cummins’ 25,000 U.S. employees design, manufacture and distribute engines and related products that are powered by diesel and natural gas. In 2014, we exported approximately $3 billion in U.S.-made products. These foreign sales don’t just benefit Cummins and its U.S. employees; they also help our 2,500 domestic suppliers, such as Camcraft. Camcraft is a small company based in Illinois. Its 330 employees manufacture high-precision components used in Cummins engines. As leaders of manufacturing companies large and small, we know how important trade and U.S. trade agreements like TPP are to the success of our companies and to businesses and farms across the United States. The relationship between our two companies shows how exports ripple through the U.S. economy in a supply chain generating billions of dollars in revenue and thousands of jobs. Previous U.S. trade pacts offer evidence: America’s current trade partners purchase 13 times as many U.S. goods per capita than countries with which we don’t have trade agreements. Those purchases support U.S. jobs. When Congress takes up TPP, members should look beyond the divisive campaign rhetoric and seize the opportunity to support growth and jobs in their home states. By approving TPP this year, Congress will enable American workers, businesses and farmers to sell more in international markets — reaping the benefits before our foreign competitors do. The op-ed above also appeared in the following publications The Indianapolis Star – Trans-Pacific Partnership is good for U.S. workers The New York Daily News – TPP is good for American manufacturers and the people they employ The Post and Courier – Election Rhetoric Sells Trade Agreements Short http://social.cummins.com/op-ed-trade-agreements-offer-benefits-u-s-employers-employees/

Heavy Duty Trucking / October 27, 2016 Mahle Engine Components has developed a lead-free bearing system for heavy-duty truck engines, engineered with polymeric coatings for better wear resistance to help engine manufacturers deal with new low-viscosity engine oils. The new system is designed to improve performance over existing bearing linings that include lead. The polymer technology was already in use in the light- and medium-duty markets for engines under 10L. Mahle adapted the technology for loaded bearings in heavy-duty applications, reflecting changes in bearing operating conditions and a market need for alternative solutions, according to the company. Compared to lead-free bearings with electroplated coatings, the polymer-coated bearings offer increased resistance to wear and fatigue, according to Mahle. Polymer-coated crankshaft main bearings and connecting rod bearings are also improved over electroplated leaded bearings. Removing lead from the bearing also improves corrosion resistance and allows for extended oil-drain intervals. Lead-free bearings are also more environmentally friendly and easier to dispose of. The first engines to use Mahle’s polymeric lead-free bearings will appear in new vehicles during the second half of 2016. The company is also developing programs for additional applications with two more major engine manufacturers. "Our new bearing system provides a great combination of proven cast-bronze bearing technology with a polymer overlay that features high load capabilities, as well as seizure and wear resistance," said Joachim Wagenblast, head of product development for MAHLE Engine Components USA. .

Truck News / October 27, 2016 By 2021, trailers will carry an extra 400-500 lbs of accessorial equipment in the name of fuel economy, as regulators turn their attention to trailers in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from heavy vehicle combinations. Consider that side skirts weigh about 250 lbs and trailer tails about 125 lbs, and that it’s possible both will be required to meet the new EPA/NHTSA greenhouse gas regulations to be implemented beginning in 2018. To that end, SAF-Holland is looking for ways to take weight out of its trailer systems, so that fleets don’t have to sacrifice payload as they add more fuel-saving equipment. The company realizes it has an important role to play in ongoing efforts to improve trailer efficiency, since 20% of the weight of a trailer – excluding tires and wheels – comes from the running gear it supplies. Sprouting from this effort is a new CBX40 AeroBeam sliding tandem air suspension system, which will replace the current CBX40 offering. “Fleet managers need to find a way to incorporate this new technology and still maintain their payload targets and maintain their fleet efficiencies,” said Rogers Jansen, product manager, trailer suspensions group with SAF-Holland. The first version of the CBX40 AeroBeam is designed for 53-ft. van trailers and it will serve as the foundation of an evolving platform. The base weight of the new suspension is 1,267 lbs, making it the lightest air ride suspension in the market, according to SAF-Holland officials. It’s 85 lbs lighter than the current CBX40 and 27 lbs lighter than its nearest competitor, Jansen said. “We’re finally now to the point where we’re very proud to offer an air ride solution that’s equal in weight to a spring ride solution,” he added. It’s also stronger than its predecessor. Greater stiffness has been designed into the axle section, and the axles themselves are 5.75 inches by nine millimetres thick, about 12% thicker than competitive models, Jansen said. This helps minimize axle deflection and extends inside tire life, the company says. Sixteen strategically placed frame reinforcements add strength and improve resistance to damage caused by potholes, curb strikes and slider repositioning. To protect against corrosion, SAF-Holland offers its own Black Armour coating, which it says provides the same protection as hot dip galvanizing but at a fraction of the weight. The new suspension also features a SwingAlign system that simplifies axle alignments and allows them to be conducted by a single person using only one tool in just minutes. The new CBX40 AeroBeam will come with a long list of options, including disc or drum brakes and an auto-lift axle that automatically lifts or deploys based on the weight of the load. Jansen said fuel savings of about 1% are achieved when the axle is lifted. “It also saves on tire wear on that lead axle,” he added. SAF-Holland’s confidence in the new suspension is reflected in a new 10-year warranty on the structural beam and axle and seven years of protection on other serviceable parts. “It really allows fleets to have confidence, not only that we are reducing weight, but giving peace of mind long-term that they’re going to have the reliability they need to keep their trailers up and running and generating revenue,” said Jansen. “The CBX40 AeroBeam is evolutionary for weight reduction,” added Jeff Talaga, vice-president of sales and strategic development, Americas. “We are excited to offer the AeroBeam, the next generation of lightweight air suspension systems as part of our promise to contribute to our customers’ success, providing solutions that maximize fleet efficiency and safety.” . .

Fleet Owner / October 27, 2016 Stemco has introduced “TrailerTail Covered”, a rear trailer fairing designed to increase driver usage, fuel efficiency and return on investment. The TrailerTail Covered fairing features side panels that “cover” the lockrod handles on most trailer styles, requiring operators to deploy the TrailerTail fairing in order to open or close the trailer’s rear doors. “We’ve seen tremendous improvements over the past two years in the number of TrailerTail fairings open while on the road, saving fleets an additional 5 percent or more on their fuel bill, but we continue to develop solutions to increase the odds drivers will open their TrailerTail before driving,” said Bob Montgomery, vice president of Stemco Innovative Tire and Mileage Solutions. “TrailerTail Covered makes opening and closing the TrailerTail an integral part of a driver’s process by linking it to operating the trailer doors.” The TrailerTail Covered is available for the TrailerTail Trident and TrailerTail 4x4 manual deployment systems. There is no additional cost for TrailerTail Covered. Companies also have the alternative option of using AutoDeploy technology, which features a built-in speed sensor that automatically deploys a TrailerTail when the vehicle reaches 35 mph. Related reading - http://www.stemco.com/product/trailertail/ .

XPO Logistics divests North American truckload operation Fleet Owner / October 27, 2016 Company says $558 million 'strategic sale of assets' to TransForce will reduce debt, increase return on capital, improve long-term growth XPO Logistics, Inc. announced that it has completed the sale of its truckload business to TransForce Inc. for approximately $558 million in cash, subject to customary adjustments. XPO says it will use the proceeds from the transaction to pay down debt. The divested truckload operation encompasses some 3,000 tractors, 7,500 trailers and 29 locations that were part of XPO's October 2015 acquisition of Con-way Inc. XPO will continue to offer full truckload services to customers in the United States, Mexico and Canada through its brokerage network. The company points out that it is the second largest freight brokerage provider in the world. Notably, when XPO moved to acquire Con-way, CEO Bradley Jacobs made another second-largest reference: "Our opportunistic acquisition of Con-way will make XPO the second largest provider of LTL transportation in North America, [which is] a $35 billion market," he said in a statement then. Regarding this sale, "TransForce is getting the 19th-largest asset-based truckload carrier in the U.S., a highly experienced workforce, and a presence in the cross-border Mexico freight corridor," Jacobs stated. "We divested these assets to concentrate on growing our value to customers in the areas where we're leaders in the industry: contract logistics, truck brokerage, less-than-truckload, last mile, intermodal, drayage, expedite and managed transportation. "This transaction strengthens our balance sheet and improves our long-term growth profile," Jacobs continued. "In addition to de-leveraging, the sale reduces our annual capex requirements, increases our return on capital, and lessens the cyclicality of our operations." The divested operations, which have been reported as part of XPO's Transportation segment, were expected to generate approximately $10 million of operating income for the remaining two months of 2016, and depreciation and amortization of approximately $10 million. The company will update its financial targets to reflect the transaction when it reports its third quarter results on Wednesday, Nov. 2. J.P. Morgan served as financial advisor to XPO Logistics and Scudder Law Firm, P.C. acted as legal advisor in this transaction, according to XPO.

Transport Topics / October 27, 2016 XPO Logistics has sold the Con-way Inc. truckload business to TransForce Inc. for $558 million in cash, a move that involved negotiations between two of the Top 10 companies on the Transport Topics Top 100 list of the largest U.S. and Canadian for-hire carriers. Brad Jacobs, CEO at XPO Logistics, told TT that it received offers since late last year for the smaller unit within the old Con-way Inc. but that none of the offers was attractive until Montreal’s TransForce made an unsolicited offer. “We would’ve been happy to keep growing truckload. We weren’t looking for buyers, but TransForce approached us with an offer that worked for both sides,” Jacobs said. When asked why make the deal now in the tepid economy, rather than wait for conditions to improve, he said the $558 million was a fair price. The CEOs of both companies called it a win-win deal. “This acquisition significantly strengthens TransForce’s presence in the North American truckload landscape with prominent market positions in domestic U.S. and cross-border Mexico freight. The acquisition complements our existing capabilities and gives us access to a diversified and blue-chip customer base,” said TransForce CEO Alain Bédard. “With the deal, we strengthened our balance sheet, we reduced our annual [capital expenditures] and we improved our long-term growth profile,” Jacobs added. The Greenwich, Connecticut-based carrier will use the proceeds from the transaction to pay down $5 billion in debt. The divested truckload operation encompasses about 3,000 tractors, 7,500 trailers and 29 locations offering dry-van services. However, XPO stressed that it'll retain the significantly larger and profitable less-than-truckload business that it purchased from Con-way Inc. in October 2015. “We’re 100% keeping our LTL operation, our fleet, our service center workers, our drivers,” Jacobs said. Meanwhile, TransForce will attempt to move up from the eighth-largest truckload carrier in terms of revenue in the United States and Canada. “We have acquired a high-quality truckload business with a rich heritage and demonstrated solid operating and financial performance. We believe we are investing into the truckload space at a critical time and are well-positioned to benefit from future growth opportunities,” Bédard said. XPO ranks No. 3 on the Transport Topics Top 100 list of the largest U.S. and Canadian for-hire carriers. TransForce ranks No. 10. .

Today’s Trucking / October 27, 2016 It's amazing what $40 million will buy you these days. If that seems like a lot to spend on just one truck, consider what the OEMs typically spend on R&D for a new model, or even just a significant upgrade. The $40 million Volvo Trucks spent on its SuperTruck project was an investment in near- and distant-future truck technology that will begin paying dividends for the truck maker and its customers as early as 2017. Today's Trucking was at the Washington D.C. unveiling in September when Volvo presented the truck to the press and the public for the first time. Equipment Editor filed this video report from the scene. .

RT / October 27, 2016 Russian President Vladimir Putin has rejected allegations that Moscow is trying to meddle with the American presidential vote, saying that the US is no banana republic to allow such a thing. “Does anyone seriously think that Russia can somehow influence the choice of the American people?” asked Putin in Sochi on Thursday. “Is America some sort of a banana republic?” he asked rhetorically. “America is a great state [country]. Correct me, please, if I’m wrong.” The ‘Russian card’ was used during the American presidential campaign to distract the voters from the real problems currently faced by the US, Putin suggested. “But apparently the [U.S.] elite has nothing to say to calm public anxiety” over those issues, he said. “It is far better to distract people's attention to alleged Russian hackers, spies, agents of influence and so on and so forth,” Putin added. Russia and Putin have frequently been mentioned during the US presidential race. Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton accused WikiLeaks, which released emails and documents hacked from Clinton campaign chair John Podesta and the Democratic National Convention, of working with Moscow. According to Clinton, the Russian president “let loose cyber attackers to hack into [U.S.] government files, to hack into personal files, hack into the Democratic National Committee.” She also accused the Republican candidate Donald Trump of being actively supported by the Kremlin and promised to “defend the citizens of this country [the U.S.] and the Russians need to understand that.” Putin also expressed regret that elections in the West have “stopped being an instrument of change.” “It all comes down to scandals, digging up dirt and – I beg your pardon – discussing who has pinched whom, who is sleeping with whom. Well, this is totally out of line,” he said. Putin said the political agenda has become “vapid” in the West, while ordinary citizens’ trust for the ruling class is diminishing. “Frankly, if we look at the programs of different candidates, we can get an impression that they are tailored to the same curves,” he said. Putin criticized US and EU attempts to portray Russia as an aggressive country and enemy of the West. “Fictional, mythical dangers, like the alleged Russian military threat, are constantly being churned out. Indeed, it is a profitable thing. It allows them to expand their military budgets; to expand NATO; to bring the infrastructure of the bloc closer to the Russian border,” he said. “Of course, it’s very nice, and sometimes profitable, to pose as the defenders of civilization… but the fact is that Russia is not going to attack anybody,” Putin added.

Obamacare made it illegal to deny care to the sick. Insurance companies still do it Ron Cohen, The Guardian / October 27, 2016 People with pre-existing conditions are still discriminated against. The government shouldn’t allow this to happen For years, insurers dropped sick people from their plans or denied coverage due to preexisting conditions like cancer, keeping them from the care and medicines they needed. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was supposed to make it unlawful for insurers to refuse coverage to such individuals or charge them more for health insurance. But it is still happening. No longer able to keep patients off their plans outright, insurers have resorted to other ways to discriminate and avoid paying for necessary treatments. Specifically, they have imposed specialty tiers and high copays or coinsurance for prescription drugs that effectively force sick people to delay needed care or to find a different health plan. So much for the end of preexisting conditions. Covering fewer sick patients translates to bigger profits for Big Insurance, but less healthcare for those who need it most. A recent study from Harvard examined insurers’ use of these tactics. They found 12 plans on the ACA exchanges that discriminated against people with HIV by making them pay $3,000 more a year than those in other plans. This work highlights that such action “has the discriminatory effect of discouraging individuals in need of specific medications from enrolling in these plans or of shifting the burden of the cost back to these enrollees”. Harvard’s Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation recently filed a landmark discrimination complaint with the Federal Office for Civil Rights against seven major insurers. The complaint noted that “Unaffordable cost sharing is just as much a barrier to care as outright refusal to cover medications … Left unchecked, these practices will drive individuals out of the health insurance market, leaving them once again without meaningful access to care.” States from New York to Florida have attempted to take action against insurance companies found to be engaging in the practices. The federal government should also take a stand – both under the law and in the spirit of the ACA – to stop these unfair and discriminatory practices. In June, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced $22m in funding to state insurance departments earmarked toward “implementing … consumer protections including: essential health benefits, preventive services, parity in mental health and substance use disorder benefits, appeals processes, and bringing down the cost of health care coverage (also known as medical loss ratio provision)”. By any standard, “essential health benefits” must include access to needed medications. Yet the CMS language does not explicitly make this point. That should be corrected, as the federal government must make clear that discrimination against patient access to medicines will not be tolerated. As a biotechnology CEO and chair of Bio, the world’s largest association of biotech companies, I spend most of my time working to develop innovative medications and to ensure that patients have access to them. For years, the insurance industry and its allies have deflected attention from their responsibilities by pointing fingers at innovative biopharmaceutical companies, claiming that prescription drugs are the major driver of insurance premium increases. As study after study has shown, that’s simply false. For example, a recent independent study from Avalere showed that just 14% of 2017 premiums will be driven by pharmaceutical prices versus about 73% for inpatient, outpatient and professional services. And keep in mind that innovative prescription drugs actually save the healthcare system money over time through reduced surgeries and hospital stays and curbing of doctor visits. The federal government needs to step up and take action against insurance companies that – while technically barred from dropping people with preexisting conditions – are nevertheless discriminating against them to achieve the same ends.

Yes, US elections are rigged – but not in the way Donald Trump thinks Trevor Timm, The Guardian / October 27, 2016 Gerrymandering, a time-worn practice, is alive and well in 2016. It skews results, drives down turnout and harms minorities – and we need to do away with it If Donald Trump actually cared about “rigged” elections, he would stop complaining about the demonstrably false “voter fraud” myth he keeps peddling and instead focus on the real problem: gerrymandering – the changing of electoral boundaries for political gain. Of course he’ll never do that, since gerrymandering is a Republican party speciality and the only thing keeping the GOP from losing the House of Representatives this year. All signs point to Trump suffering a rout in two weeks, with Clinton’s chances of victory north of 80 or 90%, according to statistical analysis from both the New York Times and FiveThirtyEight. Donald Trump is the most unpopular candidate in modern history, and in elections past, he’d be dragging the rest of the party to a historic defeat in Congress as well. But despite all this, there’s almost no chance the Republicans will lose control of the House of Representatives this election – or in the one after it – since Republicans in statehouses across the country have fixed the election process by redrawing the congressional district maps in several key states in 2010. They can retain a majority even when Democrats received far more total votes. (The Washington Post has a helpful graphic that explains exactly how gerrymandering works.) Former Salon editor in chief David Daley has a new book out on the subject and described how the Republicans accomplished this seat-rigging feat in a recent interview: "It was a two-part plan. In 2010, they had to take control of all of the chambers. In 2011, they sat down with some of the most skilled mapmakers in the country, and they drew lines with the express intent of using redistricting as a partisan hammer to lock in control of the House for the next decade." The results were dramatic. As Vox’s Andrew Prokop explained this week, “When Americans voted for the House in 2012, Democratic candidates won 1.4 million more votes than Republicans. Yet after the dust settled, the GOP ended up with a 234-201 majority in the chamber.” The liberal blog Daily Kos conducted a comprehensive study of gerrymandering in the 2012 House election and concluding that it “likely cost Democrats a net of 25 seats in 2012, more than the 17 they needed to claim a majority that year, and far more than the eight they actually did gain.” Take Ohio, for example, which is generally a battleground state in presidential elections and is pretty evenly split between Republicans and Democrats. Because of the radical redistricting Ohio Republicans implemented in 2010, they were able to carve up the map so that they have 75% of Ohio House seats. It’s so bad, a recent study showed you can predict the results of any race in Ohio with a virtual certainty just by knowing the political makeup of a particular district. You can see how gerrymandering can manipulate election results in the Guardian’s excellent look at “the nation’s most gerrymandered district” in North Carolina, which was so narrow at one point state representative Mickey Michaux, a Democrat from Durham, once said: “If you drove down the interstate with both car doors open, you’d kill most of the people in the district.” The United States district map would look radically different if computers, rather than partisan humans, drew the maps based on US census data. That’s why it’s encouraging that President Obama will reportedly make redistricting reform a central part of his post-presidency plans. Given the extent to which it affects our elections, it’s an underreported problem – and until it becomes a national scandal, it will persist. Gerrymandering has several effects beyond just making it easier for one party to control the majority of seats in the House. It drives down voter turnout, since so many elections are lopsided and unopposed. It increases polarization and deadlock in Congress since a lot of congressional members don’t have to worry about a serious challenger from the other party. It also deprives minority groups of political power. It isn’t a new problem; the practice is almost as old as the country itself, and Democrats have engaged in it as well. But no one has perfected it as well as Republicans did in 2010, and until the practice is done away with once and for all, democracy will suffer.

Mark Fields is a nice guy. I'm glad he's at Ford. However, I don't want him as CEO, and remain perplexed as to how he was chosen for the position.