Six In The Morning: Blood Lizards And Salacious Sexts

6-in-the-morningSext 1 LEADER-POST EDITORIAL BOARD A BUNCH OF SURFACE-SCRATCHERS “While we disagree with the federal government’s insistence it will only help finance a P3 project – the upgrade is after all required because of new federal environmental laws that take effect in 2016 – the city is right to take advantage of the $58 million on offer,” they write, which is sort of like explaining apologetically to a starving person the reasons that eating a shit sandwich is better for them than nothing at all.


3 WEINER RISES AGAIN Anthony Weiner, a carnival barker who learned to speak socialism and is now running for mayor of New York City, had a deeper showing-his-dick-to-women-on-the-internet problem than initially thought, and nobody voting in New York seems to really care, possibly because powerful men behaving badly is totally normal.

4 SNOWDEN DIGS IN For the foreseeable future, NSA leaker Edward Snowden will remain in Russia, apparently on Putin’s proviso that Snowden “stops leaking NSA secrets,” which is a pretty hilariously hollow gesture on Putin’s part.

5 UP FROM THE GROUND CAME A BUBBLIN’ CRUDE I guess the oil sands are, uh, leaking? Whatever that means? (Oh, it means that Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. was pumping a shitload of steam into the ground and shooting watery bitumen up through the surface, which is a pretty normal oil industry practice? Good to know.)

6 BRUTAL BOXER GETS OUTSTANDING OBIT The New York Times’ obituary of Emile Griffith, a gay boxer who, in 1962, captured the welterweight title at Madison Square Garden by beating his opponent so badly that the dude died in the hospital less than two weeks later, is a must-read.

Author: Webmaster

The technical uberlord of the Prairie Dog website.

2 thoughts on “Six In The Morning: Blood Lizards And Salacious Sexts”

  1. A few thoughts on P3s:

    – The reason Harper supposedly loves the P3 model is that it provides better “value for money” than the alternatives. If that’s truly the case, why does he need to sweeten the pot by throwing in $58 million in taxpayers’ money?

    – The “benefits” of P3s are largely illusory. Governments allow private entities to take on the initial debt for a project in exchange for an expensive long-term contract. This keeps their official debt levels low while still committing them to payments far into the future. It is exactly the same scam used by the Rangers and Blackhawks to circumvent the NHL salary cap ( Even Bettman saw the problems with that.

    – No company takes on risk for free. When you get insurance, you are paying someone to take on the risk for you. Insurance premiums are low relative to the costs if a risk is realized because of the millions of people in an insurance pool. For a private company to take on the full risk of this project without an exorbitant risk premium, they would have to be so FUCKING massive that this project would be small beans to them.

    – The previous requirements (along with financing requirements) strongly limit the number of companies that can pass the request for qualifications (RFQ) tests. A too-small pool of bidders severely undermines the bidding process, presenting opportunities for collusion and corruption.

    – Larger companies often shield themselves from the full risk they are expected to take in a P3 by creating a special purpose entity (SPE), which can be bankrupted and dissolved if the risk looks to be realized.

    – When lenders choose to lend to an entity, they are betting on that entity’s ability to handle risks. The CoR gets better rates than private enterprises because lenders bet they can handle those risks better. A DFBMO P3 only makes sense if the lenders (or credit rating agencies) are wrong.

    – To be fair, a DFBMO allows the risk of cost overruns due to design flaws to be offloaded to the private enterprise, who are better able to mitigate it. Unfortunately, the CoR will still be on the hook for “scope expansions”. The same kind of expertise required to spot design flaws in a DBB is required to distinguish between a design flaw and scope expansion in a DFBMO. I suspect the city will still be on the hook for most construction cost overruns in a DFBMO.

    – I am receptive to CUPE’s concern that a private enterprise will reduce union jobs through attrition, not through firings or layoffs. As a believer in the social value of unions, this troubles me.

    Despite all these concerns about P3s, it may still be in the interest of the city to pursue one — almost entirely because of the Harper bucks. To make the decision, I want more information: I trust neither the CoR nor the RWW’s numbers without more detail. That’s why I signed the petition. Hopefully we’ll get the numbers, rather than scaremongering.

Comments are closed.