Friday, October 28, 2022

Mississippi River water levels plummet to all-time lows

The fall in water levels on the Mississippi River, now lower in some places than they have ever been since recording began in 1954, is an alarming reminder of the climate catastrophe facing the world and of capitalism’s complete inability and unwillingness to address it.

Resulting from drought conditions throughout much of the Mississippi basin watershed, the outcome of the plummeting water levels in North America’s second-longest river, is a near standstill of barge commerce and the potential contamination of drinking water for thousands of people living along the lower portions of the Mississippi.                                                                                         

This image taken with a drone shows a river bank exposed by abnormally low water levels along the Mississippi River, Thursday, Oct. 27, 2022, in New Orleans. (AP Photo/Stephen Smith

The 1.2 million-square-mile Mississippi basin, which makes up 41 percent of the continental United States, and drains water from 32 states and two Canadian provinces, has been crippled by drought. From June through September, many states in the Mississippi basin—including Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma and South Dakota—are experiencing some of their driest months on record, and other rivers, including the Ohio, one of the Mississippi’s primary tributaries, are also enduring alarming lows.

The result of these months-long record drought conditions is that the Mississippi River is not being fed by many of the lesser rivers that empty into it.

According to data from the National Weather Service, water levels near Memphis dropped to 10.75 feet below minimum last week, which surpasses the previous low of -10.7 feet recorded in 1988. These measurements don’t indicate the river’s depth but the level in relation to the minimum depth to sustain river traffic.

Barges transport an estimated 175 million tons of freight up and down the Mississippi River each year, according to the National Parks Service, but in many parts of the river, water levels are so low that barge traffic has all but ceased. An estimated 1,700 barges, carrying countless tons of food and other goods, lined up for their turn to access limited navigation lanes near Vicksburg, Mississippi on Tuesday. Likewise, barge traffic was greatly hampered by low water levels on the lower Ohio River, where barges ran aground. The Ohio River is the conduit by which 184 million tons of cargo, especially coal and aluminum, is shipped per year, and the tributary that provides roughly 60 percent of the water to the lower Mississippi.

In the context of an already ailing economy characterized by inflation and increased cost of living, the likely result is the exacerbation of the struggles faced by millions of Americans to afford basic goods and services. Consumers will shoulder the burden while the capitalist class, the primary culprit in global climate change, continues to see climbing profits.

Commerce aside, the human health impact of these record lows, too, could be disastrous. Salt water from the Gulf of Mexico, far less inhibited by fresh water flowing from the Mississippi into the Gulf, is creeping upriver, threatening to contaminate drinking water for millions who live near the river in Louisiana and Mississippi.

Water uncertainty is already an issue in Jackson, Mississippi. As reported on the World Socialist Web Site, a boil-water advisory was implemented at the end of August and continued throughout most of September as the city’s water infrastructure proved unhealthy, insufficient and faulty. Though the boil water advisory has since been lifted, residents are still unsure whether the water they drink is safe.                         

What these two incidents have in common, the encroachment upstream of salt water and the utter failure of the Jackson municipal water system, is that they are both a result of capitalism’s policy of profits over lives.

Capitalism’s answer to this environmental crisis is to ignore the cause of the record-low water levels, global climate change brought upon primarily by industry and the capitalist class, and instead to extravagantly spend taxpayer money on shortsighted, temporary and potentially environmentally harmful tactics to ensure that business does not suffer.

Dredging the floor of the Mississippi River, thereby deepening it, has long been a tactic of the Army Corps of Engineers, the body in charge of maintaining the river. While dredging will allow an increase in barge traffic, with water levels continuing to drop throughout what is predicted by many climatologists to be a particularly dry autumn and winter, dredging will prove a temporary fix, at best.

Furthermore, dredging is not only an unsustainable response to a greater issue, but it is also prohibitively expensive. The Army Corps of Engineers dredges 265 million cubic yards of Mississippi River bottom per year, says corps representative Lisa Parker, and in 2020 that amounted to an expenditure of $2.45 billion.

As for the saltwater creeping upriver and into human and agricultural water supplies, the current plan by the Army Corp of Engineers is to build a sediment barrier. Though the details of this supposed barrier are not public, it is a desperate act of mitigation, at best.               

Meanwhile, according to the US Drought Monitor, “Topsoil moisture continues to dry out across portions of the Ohio Valley and the Corn Belt.” So, not only is it virtually impossible to ship foodstuffs to markets that depend upon the Mississippi and Ohio rivers for their transport, but the soil used to grow the food is also deteriorating.                                  

Likewise, the last few years, thanks to climate change and ever-warming conditions, have seen a marked increase in wildfires in the western part of the United States. These fires are not only increasing in quantity, says the US Forest Service, but also severity. Between 1985 and 2017, what the USFS calls “high severity” wildfires, those fires “more likely than low-severity fire to result in enduring changes to forests and negatively impact communities, other infrastructure, and municipal water supplies,” have increased eightfold, from 259 km2 to 2,103 km2 acres impacted per incident per year in this 32-year span.

Major climate disaster, however, is by no means limited to the Mississippi basin or the United States. Just this summer, Europe was absolutely wracked by heat and drought, and drought-induced wildfires have devastated many parts of the world. In 2021, according to the Global Forest Watch, roughly 23 million acres of forest were destroyed by wildfires, an area the size of Thailand.

Though the media has had much to say about the diminishing water levels of the Mississippi, precious few news outlets attribute the current widespread drought conditions to global climate change, and almost none attribute global climate change to capitalism.               

To further obfuscate, many articles about the sinking river levels focus on the lurid aspects of the crises. Much like the Lake Meade coverage which disproportionately focuses upon the human bodies found at the lake’s floor, or how recreational boating is no longer convenient, the Mississippi River articles seldom fail to mention Tower Rock, a large rock formation that, until recently, was an island only accessible by boat. Now, as is frequently reported, Tower Rock can be reached by foot. Dozens of news outlets have also picked up the story of the 19th-century ship whose remains, now exposed, were found by someone walking the previously unwalkable banks. 

An autumn storm is expected to hit the Mississippi basin early this week, providing some relief. It could be a month, however, before the residual water from this storm runs off into the Mississippi River. Furthermore, one fall storm will not fix this predicament that is more than a century in the making.                           

The only thing that can begin to mitigate and eventually counter the increasingly devastating effects of global climate change is an outright rejection of capitalism. The only body capable of hastening the end of capitalism and its brutal, profits-before-lives ethos is the international working class.

Lula's lead over Bolsonaro widens ahead of Brazil run-off

Leftist Lula has 53 percent voter support to 47 percent for far-right Bolsonaro, up from 52 percent to 48 percent the previous week, according to Datafolha institute poll.
Supporters of Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva celebrate his 77th birthday in Rio de Janeiro. (Reuters)

Leftist challenger Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva's lead over far-right incumbent Jair Bolsonaro has widened slightly three days from Brazil's polarising presidential run-off election, according to a poll.

Lula has 53 percent voter support to 47 percent for Bolsonaro, according to the poll published on Thursday by the Datafolha institute — up from a four-point gap (52 percent to 48 percent) the previous week.

The figures exclude voters who plan to cast blank or spoiled ballots — five percent of respondents, Datafolha estimates.

Undecided voters represented just two percent.

The margin of error for the poll, which was based on interviews with 4,580 people from Tuesday to Thursday, was plus or minus two percentage points.

Lula, the charismatic but tarnished ex-president who led Brazil from 2003 to 2010, won the first round of the election on October 2 with 48 percent of the vote, to 43 percent for former army captain Bolsonaro.

The candidates will face off in a final debate Friday night.

READ MORE: Brazil election turns into holy war as Lula, Bolsonaro woo religious voters

Categories of voters

Bolsonaro and his allies have attacked polling firms, accusing them of bias.

He outperformed pollsters' expectations in the first round, triumphantly boasting afterward, "We beat the lie."

Lula, who turned 77 on Thursday, leads among women (52 percent), the poor and working-class (61 percent), and Catholics (55 percent), according to Datafolha.

Bolsonaro, 67, leads among evangelical Christians (62 percent) and wealthier voters (59 percent).
The UK Tories are addicted to chaos. Can they kick the habit?

Unity is easier said than done for the modern-day Conservative Party.


Can the Tories remember what "stability and unity" means? 
| Daniel Leal/AFP via Getty Images

BY ANNABELLE DICKSON
OCTOBER 28, 2022 4:03 AM

LONDON — Westminster has been in a state of turmoil for years and the Conservative Party is largely to blame.

The epidemic of disloyalty and open rebellion which has brought down a succession of Tory prime ministers since 2016 reached a crescendo this year with the extraordinary dethroning of first Boris Johnson, in July, and then his successor, Liz Truss, three months later.

Rishi Sunak, who on Tuesday became the U.K.’s fifth Tory prime minister in just over six years, opened his tenure with a plea for “stability and unity” in the face of Britain’s “profound economic challenge.”

But the all-important question — as his divided party stares down the barrel of electoral wipeout — is whether the Tories can even remember what that means.
“Can we look at the days prior to Liz Truss resigning and say we were the addict who hit rock bottom?” one former Tory minister pondered, hopefully. “And that’s what allows us to pick up the pieces and get ourselves back together?”

Every Tory strategist knows the party must end the perpetual internal warfare if it is to stand any chance of a recovery in the polls.

But with painful tax and spending decisions looming, a Brexit hangover in Northern Ireland still to cure and deep divisions over the future of Britain’s immigration policy to contend with, rehabilitation may be easier said than done.

“I don’t discount our ability to shoot ourselves in the foot again,” the former minister sighed.

A former Tory adviser added: “It’s like the Tory Party have been going around a Formula One track for six years, and now you’re saying to them: ‘If you want to stay in government, you’ve got to stick to doing 20mph, otherwise you’re gonna get in trouble.’ I think it’s reasonable to question whether they can do it.”

Minor celebrities

The fear among senior Tories is that some of their colleagues have developed an addiction to the chaos which has consumed the party over recent years.

Former MPs and advisers who have operated in the Westminster bubble point to the “dopamine hit” of becoming a minor political celebrity when leading a rebellion.

Social media has allowed MPs to “invent a narrative” about themselves which is validated with the “likes” they get from their supporters on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, another veteran former government adviser said. It leaves too many MPs with a “complete inability to be able to compromise, reach across and rationalize,” they added.
Some say the chaos could stem from simply being in power for too long 
| Daniel Leal/AFP via Getty Images

“It is like a Facebook algorithm, isn’t it?” the former aide said. “The more you hit it, the more it feeds you that stuff that’s bad for you.”

They pointed to the toe-curling televised statement delivered by a group of euroskeptic backbenchers in the European Research Group (ERG) last week, announcing their views on the leadership contest.

“Look at the ERG, when they did that statement in central lobby,” the former adviser said. “The pomposity of it was totally off the scale.”

Others note how certain Tory MPs seem to have developed a compulsion to providing lobby journalists with aggressive, profanity-laden quotes about their colleagues, further fueling the sense of disloyalty and chaos within the party. The anonymized quotes are now traded in Westminster almost like currency, adding spice to insider articles published by news outlets across the board (including, of course, POLITICO).

A veteran former MP pondered that there had long been “dial-a-quote” MPs sounding off about their party hierarchy, but believes the phenomenon had got worse in recent decades with the advent of social media and text messaging.

“It’s similar to watching porn, I suspect,” the ex-MP said. “People just can’t stop themselves.”

Analyze this

One psychiatrist, asked by POLITICO for their professional analysis of the Conservative Party, suggested the growing lack of discipline may be a consequence of having been in power so long.

“I think that people can develop a belief that they have a natural right to government,” said Raj Persaud, a consultant psychiatrist and author.

“There was a famous thing called the divine rights of kings to be in power. They can begin to believe that no one is ever going to elect a Labour government because they haven’t elected them for so long,” he said.

Persaud also thinks some of the recent political turmoil may have its roots in the way the Conservative government reacted to the COVID-19 pandemic, imposing strict lockdowns on the British population — something he said had been a “trauma” for the wider party, acting against its every instinct.

“I think that a lot of people are now upset within the party that they’ve been in power for a long time, and they’re not entirely convinced the party has not drifted away from them,” he said.

But James Weinberg, a lecturer in political behavior at the University of Sheffield, is skeptical many MPs have really developed a taste for chaos.

It is “antithetical” to the classic personality of a Conservative MP, who research suggests tend to be “more bothered about stability,” he said.

He sees the rebellions as being motivated more by the idea Conservative MPs have “less and less to lose” by speaking out, and a belief that in extreme political circumstances — like their plummeting popularity ratings in the aftermath of Truss’ catastrophic mini-budget — the “alternative might be worse.”

Events, dear boy


Certainly, plenty of observers believe the extraordinary backdrop of the last six years should be a mitigating factor when assessing Tory MPs’ (mis)behavior.

“We left the EU, for good or for bad, and then as you were coming out and sorting that out, you had a global pandemic,” the first Tory adviser quoted above pointed out. “It’s unsurprising that it was chaotic politically.”

“People could have handled things better, for sure — but I think people will say it’s obviously a destabilizing time, and so therefore it’s unsurprising that’s reflected in politics,” they added.

Indeed, it is not the first time the party has gone through a period of division, as longer-serving party members point out.

The Conservative Party split in two after former leader Robert Peel repealed the protectionist Corn Laws in the mid-19th century. It was rife with division too in the early 1900s at the time of the Tariff Reform League, a protectionist pressure group opposed to what it saw as unfair foreign imports. There were further bitter rows in the 1930s over how to deal with dictators in the run-up to World War II. And in the post-war period, the U.K.’s relationship with European institutions became a bitter source of rancor in Tory ranks.

Time for a time out?

Every Tory MP can diagnose the problem, however. Whether they can swallow the bitter compromises required to restore unity remains an open question.

The veteran former MP quoted above believes a long spell out of power may prove the only solution for his divided party.

“It’s only after you’ve been in opposition for a long, long time that parties come to their senses,” he said. “It took from 1997 until the time when David Cameron became leader for the Conservatives [in 2005.] And then you had seven or eight years for Labour to move away from Jeremy Corbyn to Keir Starmer.”

The second Tory adviser agreed. “I think they’ve gone so far down that track as individuals,” they warned, “that they really don’t know how to pull themselves back.”

DUCK AND COVER

WW3.0

US to send high-tech nuclear weapons to Nato bases amid rising tensions with Russia





Daily Telegraph UK
By: Nick Allen , Nataliya Vasilyeva and George Styllis

America is to bring forward the delivery of dozens of highly accurate guided tactical nuclear weapons to Europe amid escalating tensions with Moscow.

The new B61-12 thermonuclear bombs are “dial-a-yield” devices, meaning their payload can be changed. They are expected to be sent to Nato bases within weeks.

B61-12s have four yields that can be selected - 0.3, 1.5, 10 or 50 kilotons. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 had a yield of about 15 kilotons.

The 12ft-long weapons feature new tailkits that allow them to be dropped from planes as a “dumb” gravity bomb, or in “guided drop” mode, with an accuracy of within 30m.

The move is part of a decade-long US$10 billion (NZ$17b) upgrade programme for several variants of B61-class unguided nuclear bombs, which first became part of the US arsenal in 1968.

Currently, the US has 100 older B61s stored at bases in European countries including Germany and Italy.

In what was seen as a move to reassure Nato allies amid Russian nuclear-sabre-rattling, the replacement process will begin in December, having previously been expected next spring.

Allies were told about the move last month, Politico reported.

The new weapons have had “all of the bomb’s nuclear and non-nuclear components” replaced or refurbished, according to the US energy department.

In addition to making them more accurate, the modifications have reduced the yield from the bombs they are replacing.

The US bombs being delivered to Europe can be dropped by a variety of aircraft including B-2 stealth bombers, and smaller warplanes like the F-15, F-35 and Tornado.

The Pentagon denied that the process of upgrading them had been affected by Kremlin posturing, or fears Russia could deploy a “dirty bomb” in Ukraine.


A Pentagon spokesman said it was “in no way linked to current events in Ukraine and was not sped up in any way”.

They added that the modernisation of B61 nuclear weapons had been “under way for years”.

The development came as Vladimir Putin dismissed accusations that Russia could use a tactical nuclear weapon as a “fuss,” and blamed the UK for initiating provocations.

He accused Liz Truss of having publicly threatened Russia with a nuclear attack when she was prime minister.

Putin claimed the former prime minister had made a “folly” and was a “bit out of it,” adding: “Someone should have corrected her. Washington could have said they have nothing to do with that.”

In a long speech, Putin described the Ukrainian crisis as part of “tectonic changes in the world order that have been going on for several years now”.

He added: “We are facing a historic milestone. Ahead of us is possibly the most dangerous, unpredictable and at the same time crucial decade since the end of the Second World War.”

First defence review in four years

As Putin spoke, the US released its long awaited National Defence Strategy, the first in four years, and its Nuclear Posture Review.

The 80-page defence strategy said China was “the most consequential strategic competitor for the coming decades”, and that would determine how the US military is equipped and developed in the future.

There was also a strong warning for Kim Jong-un that his regime would “end” if he used a nuclear weapon.

It said: “There is no scenario in which the Kim regime could employ nuclear weapons and survive.”

The review said US nuclear weapons were a deterrence not just against nuclear, but also conventional, attack.

“This includes nuclear employment of any scale, and it includes high-consequence attacks of a strategic nature that use non-nuclear means,” the document said.

It also confirmed the cancellation of a new submarine-launched cruise missile announced when Donald Trump was president.

Lloyd Austin, the US defence secretary, said the US already had enough nuclear capability.

He added: “I don’t think this [the cancellation] sends any message to Putin. He understands what our capability is.”

Austin added: “We are certainly concerned about escalation, we have been so from the very beginning of this conflict. It would be the first time that a nuclear weapon has been used in over 70 years.”

On Wednesday, Putin watched the so-called “Grom” exercises by Russia’s strategic nuclear forces, involving intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarines and long-range bombers.

Austin said: “We haven’t seen anything to cause us to believe, at this point, that [the exercise] is some kind of cover activity.”















Pentagon’s strategy won’t rule out nuclear


use against nonnuclear threats


U.S. troops in Fort Bragg, N.C., prepared to deploy to Eastern Europe in early February in response to the crisis in Ukraine. | KENNY HOLSTON / THE NEW YORK TIMES

BY TONY CAPACCIO
BLOOMBERG
Oct 28, 2022

The Pentagon’s new National Defense Strategy has rejected limits on using nuclear weapons long championed by arms control advocates and, in the past, by U.S. President Joe Biden.

Citing burgeoning threats from China and Russia, the Defense Department said in the document released Thursday that “by the 2030s the United States will, for the first time in its history face two major nuclear powers as strategic competitors and potential adversaries.” In response, the U.S. will “maintain a very high bar for nuclear employment” without ruling out using the weapons in retaliation to a nonnuclear strategic threat to the homeland, U.S. forces abroad or allies.

Biden pledged in his 2020 presidential campaign to declare that the U.S. nuclear arsenal should be used only to deter or retaliate against a nuclear attack, a position blessed by progressive Democrats and reviled by defense hawks. The threat environment has changed dramatically since then, and the Pentagon strategy was forged in cooperation with the White House.

The nuclear report that’s part of the broader strategy said the Biden administration reviewed its nuclear policy and concluded that “No First Use” and “Sole Purpose” policies “would result in an unacceptable level of risk in light of the range of nonnuclear capabilities being developed and fielded by competitors that could inflict strategic-level damage” to the U.S. and allies.

Mackenzie Eaglen, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said she is “struck by how strong their position is on nuclear modernization and policy, and how much national security continuity there is between administrations of different parties. They’re willing to postpone their visionary policies in light of the harsh reality on nukes from China and Russia.”

President Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials have openly raised the possibility of using nuclear weapons in their invasion of Ukraine. But on Thursday, Putin said Russia only gave “hints” in response to repeated U.S. and European discussion of a possible nuclear conflict. “We don’t need a nuclear strike on Ukraine — there is no point, either military or political,” Putin told an audience of foreign policy analysts outside Moscow.

In the document, which was framed before the invasion, the Pentagon says Russia continues to “brandish its nuclear weapons in support of its revisionist security policy” while its modern arsenal is expected to grow further.

Meanwhile, China remains the U.S.’s “most consequential strategic competitor for coming decades,” Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said in a letter presenting the new defense strategy. He cited China’s “increasingly coercive actions to reshape the Indo-Pacific region and the international system to fit its authoritarian preferences,” even as it rapidly modernizes and expands its military.

China wants to have at least 1,000 deliverable nuclear warheads by the end of the decade, the nuclear strategy document says, saying it could use them for “coercive purposes, including military provocations against U.S. allies and partners in the region.”

The nuclear strategy document doesn’t spell out what nonnuclear threats could produce a U.S. nuclear response, but current threats include hypersonic weapons possessed by Russia and China for which the U.S. doesn’t yet have a proven defense.

It does spell out, however, in the strongest terms, what would happen to another nuclear power, North Korea, if it launched a nuclear attack on the U.S., South Korea or Japan. That action “will result in the end of that regime,” it says. U.S. nuclear weapons continue to play a role in deterring North Korean attacks.

The nuclear strategy affirmed modernization programs including the ongoing replacement of the aging U.S. air-sea-land nuclear triad. Among them are the Navy’s Columbia-class nuclear ICBM submarine, the ground-based Minuteman III ICBM replacement, the new air-launched Long-Range Standoff Weapon and F-35 fighter jets for Europe carrying nuclear weapons.

The review confirmed previous reports that the Pentagon will retire the B83-1 gravity bomb and cancel the Sea-Launched Cruise Missile program. But the review endorses a controversial Trump-era naval weapon, the low-yield W76-2 submarine-launched nuclear warhead, which is described as providing “an important means to deter limited nuclear use.”

The broader strategy report also offered gently worded criticism of major U.S. weapons programs, which often runs years behind plans and billions of dollars over initial budgets.

“Our current system is too slow and too focused on acquiring systems not designed to address the most critical challenges we now face,” the Pentagon said. It called for more “open systems that can rapidly incorporate cutting-edge technology” while reducing problems of “obsolescence” and high costs.

The Pentagon strategy documents were sent to Congress in classified form in March so they were considered during congressional approval of the fiscal 2023 defense budget.
Golf-For 9/11 families LIV Golf is 'Death Golf,' says advocacy group

By Steve Keating - Yesterday 

FILE PHOTO - 9/11 families protest LIV Golf's tournament at Trump Golf Course© Reuters/EDUARDO MUNOZ

MIAMI (Reuters) - As Donald Trump was teeing off in a Pro Am event at the season finale of the Saudi-backed LIV Golf Series at the ex-president's Trump National Golf Club on Thursday, the 9/11 Justice Group was meeting a mile away in a small hotel conference room.

As they have done at every LIV Series stop in the United States, the advocacy group comprised of family members and survivors of the attacks on the World Trade Center was in Miami to shine a spotlight on the Saudi government.

Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001 were from Saudi Arabia. However, the kingdom has long denied a role in the attacks on the Twin Towers, which killed nearly 3,000 people.

The 9/11 community accuses LIV golfers of being little more than well paid mercenaries in a "sportwashing" scheme by a nation trying to improve its reputation in the face of criticism over its human rights record.

Saudi Arabia's government has denied accusations of human rights abuses.

"When asked about Saudi atrocities and involvement in 9/11 and helping the Saudi's sportwash, some golfers stated they are just trying to provide for their families," said Dennis McGinley, whose older brother Danny was killed in the collapse of the South Tower.

"Our brother Danny and 2,976 others were just trying to provide for their families as well that day.

"LIV Golf to us is Death Golf."

Controversy has hung over the LIV golf venture, which is bankrolled by Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund, from the start and will follow the series to Sunday's final round where the team champions will be crowned and a whopping $50 million paid out.

LIV CEO Greg Norman, golfers and officials have all been questioned about taking Saudi money and on Thursday reissued a brief statement in response to Reuters' request for comment.

"As we have said all along, these families have our deepest sympathy. While some may not agree, we believe golf is a force for good around the world,” read the LIV statement.

That, however, is not how members of 9/11 Justice view things.

"Phil Mickelson recently stated that golf is a force for good. They are turning it into a sport for greed aimed at sportwashing," said McGinley.

The group said they have repeatedly asked for a meeting with LIV officials and golfers but have gotten no response.

JUSTICE CAMPAIGN


This week 9/11 Justice stepped up their campaign by running a television commercial on CNN protesting against the Saudi-funded golf league.

They told Reuters they also plan to be at Trump National for Friday's opening round but expect to be removed since they will wear 9/11 Justice baseball caps.

While LIV Golf has mostly ignored 9/11 Justice, the group says they have their full attention.

In a letter to Senator Robert Menendez, Democratic Chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, seen by Reuters, the group said LIV is being provided with management and consulting services "apparently including monitoring and tracking the advocacy of families of 9/11 victims who were protesting the tour because of its ties to the Saudi government."

Trump, whose resorts hosted two of eight LIV tournaments, on Thursday praised the Saudis as "very good people" with unlimited money who had done a fantastic job.

But Juliette Scauso, the daughter of New York fire fighter Dennis Scauso who ran into the crumbling towers to rescue people and died, wants to ask LIV Golfers face-to-face if they really know where the prize money is coming from.

"How much money would it take for you to turn your back on your country," asked Scauso, a medical student who flew in from Ireland to be part of the protest. "My father died a hero.

"To all those involved in the LIV tournament and Donald Trump, my father wasn't the type of person who could be bought.

"I just want you to know that if you were there that day my father would have run in to save you without a second thought."

(Reporting by Steve Keating in Miami; Editing by Ken Ferris)
European Union approves ban on new combustion-engine cars from 2035

 Oct 28 2022
















New pollution plans must bring EU closer to WHO air quality rules by 2030, says Commissioner
1 day ago

The European Parliament and EU member countries have reached a deal to ban the sale of new gasoline and diesel cars and vans by 2035.

EU negotiators sealed on Thursday night (local time) the first agreement of the bloc's “Fit for 55" package set up by the Commission to achieve the EU’s climate goals of cutting emissions of the gases that cause global warming by 55% over this decade.

The EU Parliament said the deal is a “clear signal ahead of the UN COP27 Climate Change Conference that the EU is serious about adopting concrete laws to reach the more ambitious targets set out in the EU Climate Law”.

According to the bloc's data, transport is the only sector where greenhouse gas emissions have increased in the past three decades, rising 33.5% between 1990 and 2019. Passenger cars are a major polluter, accounting for 61% of total CO2 emissions from EU road transport.

READ MORE:
* China isn't moving away from polluting cars fast enough
* EU unveils sweeping new legislation to combat climate change
* France pushes back against EU banning combustion cars by 2035
* Japan looking at banning combustion car sales by 2035


The EU wants to drastically reduce gas emission from transportation by 2050 and promote electric cars, but a report from the bloc’s external auditor showed last year that the region is lacking the appropriate charging stations.

“This is a historic decision as it sets for the first time a clear decarbonisation pathway – with targets in 2025, 2030 and 2035 and aligned with our goal of climate neutrality by 2050," boasted Pascal Canfin, the chair of the environment committee of the European Parliament. “This sector, which accounts for 16% of European emissions at the moment, will be carbon-neutral by 2050.“

The European Parliament and EU member countries have reached a deal to ban the sale of new gasoline and diesel cars and vans by 2035.

World leaders agreed in Paris in 2015 to work to keep global temperatures from increasing more than 2C, and ideally no more than 1.5C by the end of the century. Scientists even the less ambitious goal will be missed by a wide margin unless drastic steps are taken to reduce emissions.

Greenpeace said the 2035 deadline is too late to limit global warming to below 1.5C.

“The EU is taking the scenic route, and that route ends in disaster," said Greenpeace EU transport campaigner Lorelei Limousin. “A European 2035 phase-out of fossil fuel-burning cars is not quick enough: New cars with internal combustion engines should be banned by 2028 at the latest. The announcement is a perfect example of where politicians can bask in a feel-good headline that masks the reality of their repeated failures to act on climate."

The EU Parliament and member states will now have to formally approve the agreement before it comes into force.


Done deal: Europe scraps the car engine


Brussels shunts aside industry complaints to end the sale of petrol and diesel cars and vans.


A worker assembles an engine at the Daimler car and truck engine factory in Berlin, Germany | Sean Gallup/Getty Images


BY JOSHUA POSANER
OCTOBER 27, 2022 

After nearly 150 years of economy-pumping service, the internal combustion engine is bound for the scrap heap.

In talks that concluded Thursday night, EU lawmakers agreed to set a zero-emissions sales mandate for new cars and vans by 2035. The deal secures a first win for the European Commission as it looks to push through a major package of green laws — and sacrifices one of the Continent's biggest industrial products: the gas-guzzling car engine.

"The agreement ... sends a strong signal to industry and consumers: Europe is embracing the shift to zero-emission mobility," said EU Green Deal chief Frans Timmermans, following four hours of negotiations.

In confirming the engine ban, Brussels has swerved senior German politicians, automaker captains and parts of its once all-powerful car industry that had fiercely lobbied against betting solely on battery-electric vehicles as part of efforts to tackle transport emissions.

You may like

Putin’s war marks ‘turning point’ for global fossil fuel demand, IEA says
By Victor Jack

Ukraine calls for war insurance to attract private investors
By Paola Tamma

Postcard from Uzbekistan: Don’t mention the war!
By Paul Taylor

The EU's first-mover status might not last long, since parts of the U.S. such as California and New York are eyeing up their own 2035 clean car mandates, while other developed economies are now considering similar policies. Global electric car leader Norway, for example, will get there in 2025.

The new EU rules won't affect older cars already on the road by 2035, but the overall ambition is to make sure that all vehicles inside the EU are zero emissions by 2050 through general fleet churn.

The big surprise in Brussels is that it's been so easy to get here.

Previous EU efforts to regulate incremental improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency standards dragged on for years, with acrimonious lobbying and demands for exemptions and special conditions for everything from sports cars to SUVs.

This time around, it's taken just over 15 months since the legislation was presented in July last year to finalize the 2035 phaseout target since it was officially presented. POLITICO first reported on the Commission plan a month before the announcement.

"It's a symbolic step that the EU is pushing for higher ambition right now," said one European Parliament official, referring to the deal's timing ahead of the global COP27 summit in Egypt, which starts November 6.

“There is a huge consensus" within the car sector that it's time to move, said one industry executive. "Nobody is questioning that there needs to be an increase in the targets ... Instead it's just the how and when."
E-fuels fail

While France lobbied to save plug-in hybrids, and Italy sought to protect its luxury super cars from the 2035 ban, Germany — Europe's largest economy and the cradle of the combustion engine — stands to take the biggest hit from the new standards.

Approval among EU countries for the binding 2035 target owes much to Germany's new government, which took office with a pledge to back the Commission's Fit for 55 emissions-slashing package but has been riven by division over the cars legislation since then.

Many carmakers, including the likes of Volvo, Ford and Stellantis, have pre-empted the EU law with their own plans to the end sales of polluting vehicles before 2035.

Others, such as Renault, Zipse's BMW and, more recently, Volkswagen, had lobbied for more time, or more leeway for plug-in hybrids or e-fuels, a synthetic fuel which is made by combining atmospheric CO2 and hydrogen and can be used in traditional engines.


While the German Greens, in control of the economy, climate and environment ministries in Berlin, had fought to maintain the Commission's line on a zero-emissions mandate, the liberal Free Democrats, which run the finance and transport ministries, demanded a loophole be worked in that would allow sales of vehicles running on e-fuels in engines to continue even after that date.

In the end, that internal government split tempered Germany's opposition to the legislation in Brussels, despite attempts by Finance Minister Christian Lindner to lobby senior EU officials directly to carve out a role for e-fuels.

The power plant at the headquarters of German car maker Volkswagen | Ronny Hartmann/AFP via Getty Images

At a closed meeting of EU diplomats last Friday, Hungary — with the support of car countries Italy, Romania and Slovakia — sought support for a late push to change the legislation so that the Commission would have to commit to e-fuels.

That proposal, seen by POLITICO, was rejected by diplomats from other countries ahead of Thursday's crunch talks with MEPs, paving the way for a deal confirming the 2035 target.

Critics say the agreement ultimately won't truly clean up transport as it doesn't deal with the broader sticker price problem that electric vehicles remain prohibitively expensive for some.

"A ‘Havana effect’ is becoming more realistic," Jens Gieseke, a German conservative MEP who wanted e-fuels included, said following the deal. "After 2035, our streets might become full of vintage cars, because new [electric] cars are not available or not affordable."

The argument from Gieseke and parts of the auto industry is that mandating a shift to electric vehicles inside Europe will do nothing to decarbonize the estimated 1.3 billion cars already on the road worldwide, while combustion engines will still be sold in droves across developing countries.

What's more, making the 2035 target work at home will require massive investments in electric vehicle charging infrastructure, along with efforts to secure access to the raw materials needed to build millions of new battery cells, said BMW's CEO, Oliver Zipse, who represents the bloc's carmakers as president of the Brussels-based ACEA association.
China threat

Critics also fear the EU rules will help insurgent Chinese carmakers.

At the Paris Motor Show this month, China-based brands such as BYD and Great Wall unveiled new all-electric model ranges aimed squarely at the European market. The new entrants have solid access to batteries — China is the world leader in cell production — and don't have to shoulder the costs associated with transitioning a standing workforce away from building combustion engines.

That turns EU emission rules into an "advantage" for Chinese upstarts, Carlos Tavares, the CEO of car giant Stellantis, said at a Berlin conference this week because it closes the market for sales of high-profit vehicles installed with combustion engines built in Europe.

That's why the Commission is looking to go easy on automakers when it comes to regulating non-CO2 emissions in November, with follow-up legislation dubbed Euro 7 on the horizon. That reform will cover toxic exhaust fumes such as nitrogen oxides and ammonia along with tiny particulate matter from exhausts, tires and brakes.

According to an early draft obtained by POLITICO, the text will "minimize" the new standards for the industry, easing the investment burden on carmakers that would be necessary to develop a new generation of exhaust technology that could meet more stringent regulations.

"Effectively, the industry has accepted that there will be a ban on the combustion engine," said one EU diplomat, arguing that the 2035 CO2 target is being offset with less onerous Euro 7 rules that will allow carmakers to continue selling profitable models right up until the zero CO2 emissions mandate comes into force.

"They just want to sell as many cars as they can until 2035," the diplomat said.

The average age of passenger cars in the EU is just under 12 years, putting the bloc on track with the new 2035 target to completely transition its fleet to zero-emission-only by 2050, the date by which capitals have agreed to be net zero. Separate CO2 standards legislation covering trucks and heavy vehicles is on the way next year.

The open question is whether European carmakers will retain their position as global leaders when it comes to building cars, or whether the end of the engine will mean they lose that distinction to China on batteries.

“European carmakers are in a global race to lead on electric vehicles," said Alex Keynes, from green group Transport & Environment. "Now is not the time to take the foot off the pedal."
Official Poll Finds Young Chinese Look Down on US, West

October 27, 2022
Kelly Tang
Students prepare to take part in the annual national college entrance exam outside a high school in Beijing, China July 7, 2020.

TAIPEI, TAIWAN —

A poll conducted by one of China's official media outlets found that as many as 90 percent of the nation's young people look at the West and the United States as equal to China or even look down on them.

The survey of 1,655 people aged 14 to 35 in more than 100 cities was conducted by the Communist Party-affiliated Global Times, which also found the respondents becoming more confident.

The poll results contrast with recent social developments such as a declining birth rate and young people so frustrated by the lack of upward social mobility that they are opting out of marrying, having children, purchasing a home or car, and joining the money-driven rat race.

Released on October 21, during the 20th Communist Party Congress, the Global Times story on its survey quoted experts saying Chinese society has been stable, allowing people to live and work in peace and happiness, while Western countries have been in constant turmoil in recent years due to political divisions, racism and party struggles.

"The stark contrast between China and the West has given Chinese young people more confidence," says the report on the poll, which also cited China's growing global influence.

The results show that 43.9 percent of Chinese young people have become less favorable toward Western countries. More than 90 percent of young people say they "equally look" at (39.3 percent) or "look down" on (54.6 percent) Western countries. The poll
 found only 3.9 percent of respondents "look up" to the West and the U.S., and the Global Times story said that was a marked decrease from five years ago when 37.2 percent looked up to the West.

The poll and the accompanying story also said Beijing's performance in areas such as social security (45.1 percent) and history and culture (40.5 percent) contributed to the attitudes of young people.

In an interview with VOA Mandarin, Chen Dean, an associate professor of political science at Ramapo College of New Jersey, said that in a dictatorial country like China, polls are not very representative of what the people really think, and even if they do represent real ideas, those may be the result of propaganda and brainwashing.

He said the Chinese Communist Party has deliberately adopted an attitude of hostility toward the West in its political propaganda for domestic consumption, stirring up strong nationalism and xenophobia, and making young people feel anti-American, with the aim of diverting young people's sense of powerlessness about the future.

However, some Chinese young people interviewed by VOA Mandarin said they believed that many of their cohort generally have a good feeling toward Western countries and American culture, which represents the spirit of freedom.

Xiao Xin, a Shandong native and 24-year-old student, told VOA Mandarin that young and educated people who were able to browse more of the internet during China's more open past are, in general, very dissatisfied with China's current closed-door situation. Even though the percentage of young people who are "looking down" on the West has increased due to China's propaganda, according to Xiao Xin, it is not as high as the 90 percent the poll reports.

He believes the poll data could be exaggerated or falsified, adding, "I believe when the lies are debunked, the figure will be less than 30 percent."

Xiao Xin said that in 2012, the year before Xi Jinping became president and began the gradual imposition of greater content restrictions, American movies were still available on Chinese websites. Since then, the movies have become almost impossible to find as a result of a very deliberate campaign by the Chinese government, he said.

He believes that the average young Chinese person of his generation, who had been exposed to American TV shows and movies and other American culture since childhood, still aspired to much of what they saw.

Mr. Yang, who asked VOA Mandarin to not use his full name due to fear of official retaliation, is a 29-year-old Jiangsu native studying for a graduate degree. He told VOA Mandarin that China's post-1980s generation grew up in an environment with full exposure to the West, so they will look at the West as the source of new ideas. But the younger Generation Z grew up as Beijing emphasized the development of national self-confidence. As much of China's infrastructure no longer lags behind that of Europe and the United States, Yang said Gen Zers naturally feel that China is better.

Yang said he believes that measures the U.S. has taken to counter China have contributed to the nationalism of some young Chinese. For example, he said, U.S. restrictions on visas for Chinese students in science and technology may have contributed to the falling favorability ratings for the U.S.

Mr. Yang added that while some young Chinese do have increased self-confidence because China is the world's second-largest economy after the U.S., there is a large percentage of people who believe that China should live in harmony with Europe and the United States.

Bo Gu contributed to this report.



Mark Carney-led grouping drops U.N. climate initiative requirement

By Isla Binnie and Ross Kerber - 

FILE PHOTO: Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England (BOE) 
attends a news conference at Bank Of England in London© Reuters/POOL

NEW YORK/BOSTON (Reuters) - A coalition of financial firms led by former Bank of England governor Mark Carney that aims to tackle climate change said on Thursday it has dropped a requirement for its members to sign up to a United Nations emissions reduction campaign.

The move drew criticism from climate activists worried it would ease pressure to act on the banks, insurers and asset managers signed up to the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), a group which in total accounts for assets worth some $153 trillion.

GFANZ includes groups of companies organised by sector, each previously required to partner with Race to Zero, a U.N.-backed campaign aimed at securing bigger commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Race to Zero members agree to "phase out development, financing and facilitation of new unabated fossil fuel assets, including coal," in line with science-based scenarios. Environmental advocates are concerned that GFANZ members won't be held to that standard or others without their commitment to Race to Zero.

The change comes amid tensions between GFANZ and Wall Street firms over how far they should go in their climate commitments.

"Clearly they are giving in to their Wall Street members who have been reported as threatening to quit the alliance if they are expected to actually pull back on their finance for fossil fuels," said Paddy McCully, senior analyst at non-governmental organization Reclaim Finance.

GFANZ said in a statement that from now, "member alliances are encouraged, but not required, to partner with the Race to Zero".

The decision was driven by a need to be more flexible in highly-regulated financial industries in 50 jurisdictions, it said.

GFANZ said its affiliation with the United Nations will continue. United Nations climate chief Simon Stiell will join a group responsible for setting its strategy and priorities, and monitoring progress, GFANZ added.

(Reporting by Isla Binnie in New York and Ross Kerber in Boston; editing by Richard Pullin)



RAILROADERS DESERVE PAID SICK TIME
No rail strike until after the midterm elections
by Jeremy Lott, Contributor |
WASHINGTON EXAMINER

October 28, 2022 

The midterm election season's waning days brought bad news for the freight railroads and President Joe Biden's administration. A second rail union voted to reject the agreement that had been hammered out between the railroads and the 12 unions representing their workers, making an eventual strike more likely.

This bad news from Oct. 26 was tempered, however, by an agreement between the railroads and the latest union to say no to the deal, the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen. It stipulated that there would be no work stoppage until December at the earliest. The same is likely true for the other holdout unions as well.

The hope of the railroads had been that the first failed vote was essentially a fluke. The vote by members of the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division on Oct. 10 had been followed by two more union memberships voting to accept the deal, bringing six of the 12 railroad unions on board.

But half the unions are not the “all aboard” the railroads were hoping for.

"Railroaders do not feel valued,” Tony Cardwell, BMWED union president, told the trade publication Progressive Railroading at the time of the first “no” vote. “They resent the fact that management holds no regard for their quality of life, illustrated by their stubborn reluctance to provide a higher quantity of paid time off, especially for sickness."

The paid time off demand seemed, to many observers, like moving the goalposts, but the railroads tried to persuade workers that this issue had been addressed in negotiations.

Association of American Railroads spokesman Ted Greener pointed the Washington Examiner to a statement from the industry group touting both more money and time off for railroad workers.

According to the new contract, the AAR explained, railroad workers would see a “24 percent wage increase during the five-year period from 2020 through 2024, including an immediate payout on average of $11,000 upon ratification ... $5,000 in performance bonuses [and] total average annual pay” of $110,000. They would also have good healthcare coverage and “employees would receive an additional paid personal leave day per year.”

The rail lobby emphasized that under the new agreements, “Employees will continue to have multiple options for time off and, for those employees who operate trains, the agreements include enhanced abilities to schedule time off and local agreements to be finalized after ratification of the national agreement will further enhance quality of life and the predictability of schedules.”

What the railroads were not willing to do, however, was reopen negotiations with half of the unions left to ratify the new contracts. A second “no” could change the railroads’ willingness to deal, or it could lead to more threats of strike, and a possible intervention by the lame-duck Congress.

In negotiating the new contracts, the railroads and their unions had followed the recommendation of the Biden-appointed Presidential Emergency Board to increase worker pay substantially. Other things were on the table, but compensation was the biggest issue.

The railroads quickly acceded to that demand. It’s possible either that the rank-and-file workers and union negotiators did not see eye to eye on the time-off issue or that unions are currently using the issue to push for greater concessions from the railroads.

Most political rail watchers agree that the Biden administration has managed to dodge at least one bullet with no rail strike before the midterm elections. If so, the administration is dodging a bullet that it fired in the first place.

It is difficult for rail workers to get into a position in which they can legally strike because of the vital nature of their work to America’s supply chains. It can take six months or more to hammer out a new contract, with unions and railroads working things out in front of the National Mediation Board.

Yet at the behest of Biden NMB appointees Linda Puchala and Deirdre Hamilton, the board released the unions and the railroads from “statutory mediation” in June. At that point, negotiations had been ongoing for only two months, which is about as long as it usually takes the two sides to clear their throats.

Over 300 Groups Urge Biden to Help Avoid Rail Shutdown


The Associated Press Oct 27, 2022
Freight train cars sit in a Norfolk Southern rail yard in Atlanta on Sept. 14, 2022. 
(Danny Karnik/ AP Photo)

OMAHA, Neb.—A coalition of 322 business groups from a variety of industries signed off on a letter to President Joe Biden Thursday urging him to make sure the deals he helped broker last month get approved because a railroad strike would have dire consequences for the economy.

All 12 rail unions must approve their agreements to prevent a strike next month and two unions have rejected their deals.

“It is paramount that these contracts now be ratified, as a rail shutdown would have a significant impact on the U.S. economy and lead to further inflationary pressure,” wrote the group, which includes nearly every major trade group and quite a few state business associations.

Biden has been watching the contract dispute closely and appointed a special board of arbitrators this summer to try to help resolve it, but the White House hasn’t said whether he will get personally involved again.

The railroads have offered 24 percent raises and $5,000 in bonuses in the five-year deal, which would be the biggest increases in more than four decades, but the negotiations hinge on quality-of-life concerns. The unions that represent the conductors and engineers who drive the trains want the railroads to ease the punishing schedules that they say keep them on call 24-7, and the other unions want the railroads to add paid sick time.

A strike isn’t imminent because the two unions that voted down their deals agreed to retry negotiations before considering a walkout, but the railroads face a Nov. 19 deadline with one of those unions. Six smaller unions have approved their deals while four others are set to vote over the next month, including the two biggest ones and the engineers and conductors in those two unions have the most quality-of-life concerns.

The head of the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division union that rejected its agreement earlier this month said if the railroads won’t consider adding sick time he has no choice but to prepare for a strike next month. Union President Tony Cardwell said railroad executives continue to “bow to Wall Street’s continued desire for more than its fair share” as they report billions in profitRail Strikes.

Union Pacific, Norfolk Southern, BNSF, Kansas City Southern, CSX, and the other railroads want any deal to closely follow the compromises recommended by arbitrators Biden appointed, so they have rebuffed all pleas for paid sick time. The industry also argues that the unions opted to forego paid sick leave over the years in favor of higher wages and strong short-term disability benefits that kick in as soon as four days into an absence and can continue up to a year.

Ian Jefferies, who leads the Association of American Railroads trade group, said Thursday the “BMWED’s recent proposal was not a realistic offer” because the union “simply demanded more—and they did so with full knowledge that the railroads would not agree.”

If both sides can’t agree on a deal, Congress may step in and block a strike. The American Fuel and Petrochemical Makers, which endorsed Thursday’s letter, is already lobbying lawmakers to make sure they’re ready to act because refineries rely on railroads to deliver more than 300,000 barrels of crude oil and other chemicals every day.

“We’re heavily stressing the need to avoid a strike at all costs—not just for our industry. It’s going to affect every industry” said Rob Benedict, vice president of midstream for the AFPM.

By Josh Funk


A reply to BMWED President Tony Cardwell: Who has the right to “sanction” a strike—the bureaucracy or the workers?
Informational picket by railroaders in Kansas City, Kansas [Photo: WSWS]

Dear Mr. Cardwell:

We are writing to respond to your open letter of October 26 to the BMWED membership, in which you attacked “anonymous” “fringe groups” with “dangerous ideas of unsanctioned work stoppages.” We feel all the more obliged to respond because your letter sums up the bureaucratic arrogance of the officials at all 12 unions, not just at the BMWED.

You did not mention who you were referring to, but it is obvious that the target of the letter is the Railroad Workers Rank-and-File Committee. We have been organizing and campaigning among our coworkers to build democratic structures to give railroaders the means to countermand your endless bureaucratic delays of our right to strike. This includes your extension of the “status quo” until “five days after Congress reconvenes”—approximately November 19—following members’ rejection of your tentative agreement two weeks ago.

First of all, let us say that even though you refuse to identify us, there is nothing “anonymous” about us. We conduct our work publicly, holding well-attended online public meetings, organizing informational pickets and distributing and discussing our statements with our coworkers. This is in naked contrast to you, Mr. Cardwell, and the officials in all 12 unions, who conduct your business outside of the view or control of the rank and file.

In your letter, you declare: “Not only is an unsanctioned work stoppage illegal, but an uncoordinated strike is short-sighted and will not produce the result that at least one anonymous group is claiming.” You continue: “Unions that have engaged in illegal strikes have been hit with catastrophic financial penalties. … BMWED will not support or condone an illegal work stoppage and our bylaws prohibit strike wages or other benefits for an illegal strike.”

We condemn this statement in the strongest possible terms. This is nothing more than a naked attempt to scare our coworkers back into line, that you felt the need to say it indicates that the sentiment for strike action is overwhelming, and that workers are tired of being told what they can and can’t do by unaccountable officials.

Your statement is an open declaration that you and the BMWED leadership are prepared to act as strikebreakers, siding with the companies and the government against us. You threaten legal and financial penalties and the withholding of strike pay for any “unsanctioned” strike—unsanctioned because you, Mr. Cardwell, will refuse to sanction it. You then try to cover your tracks by claiming the union is prepared to sanction “coordinated self-help”—i.e., not necessarily a strike—at some point in the future, but the rest of your letter makes clear you are determined to make sure that this never occurs.

What gives you the right to claim sole authority to “sanction” a strike? Workers have already “sanctioned” it long ago. BMWED workers voted by 99 percent in favor of a strike; in BLET, 99.5 percent; in the IAM, 80 percent. Workers have spoken again and again with one voice that we are prepared to strike for what we need and deserve. But you and the bureaucracy in the other unions have simply ignored this. In the IBEW, there is even evidence to suggest that the contract was “passed” through fraud. It is not up to you and your fellow bureaucrats to override us and tell us what to do.

What you say about a strike being “illegal” is a flat-out lie. For three years, you have had the anti-strike provisions of the Railway Labor Act as a convenient cover for your inaction. But all of that went away on September 16, with the end of the last “cooling-off” period. There are, at present, no legal limits to striking or any other form of “self-help” which workers are under. We repeat, for the benefit of our coworkers: We can now legally strike at any time.

It is true that Congress would try to intervene with anti-strike legislation. But that has not happened yet, and we should be putting ourselves in the strongest possible position to answer this threat. The ideal period to strike is right now, in the final weeks before the midterm elections, when Congress is in recess and the political cost of congressional intervention would be greatest.

By extending the strike deadline to “five days after Congress reconvenes,” you are doing the exact opposite, putting Congress in the strongest possible position to answer our strike threat. All of the other unions are also delaying until after the midterms. The BLET even invited Nancy Pelosi, who already drew up anti-strike legislation in the House, to its national convention in early October. There is no other explanation for this except that you want the threat of Congressional intervention hanging over our heads, to give yourselves ammunition to ram this deal through and frighten workers with the threat of “illegality.”

You make the significant confession in your letter that the extension of the strike deadline is not due to any legal reason at all, but a secret agreement which you worked out with the carriers. This “stipulation,” you write, was a condition of the carriers’ agreeing to the TA which workers voted down. To our knowledge, this is the first time this has ever been admitted publicly. Your announcement of the extension on October 10 declared only that the rejection “results in a ‘status quo’ period” and that “there could be no ‘self help’ until after the 19th,” without explaining why or on whose authority. You wanted to create the impression among workers that it was due to some obscure legal requirement, perhaps under the terms of the RLA.

Mr. Cardwell, no genuine workers’ representative ever would have agreed to this, much less concealed it from us. Little wonder this has dragged on for three years. Why would the carriers ever budge if the other side of the table was prepared to make such concessions? The NCCC [National Carriers’ Conference Committee] said on October 19 that it refuses to consider any changes to sick leave or anything else that deviates from the framework set by the Presidential Emergency Board. And why would they, if they know you will never “sanction” a strike, and you are allowing them and Congress to dictate what workers can and can’t do?

We have to give up all of our demands, while the carriers give up virtually nothing. What “stipulations” did you require from the carriers? Nothing. If the negotiating process were controlled by rank-and-file workers, it would go something like this: “Give us our sick days, COLA, lower the years of service for vacation, leave our health care alone. ‘Stipulate’ to that, and we won’t walk out.”

If your arguments that it is “illegal” for us to strike were true, then that could only mean that America is a dictatorship where workers have no rights, with yourselves acting as policemen. We cannot deny the fact that the government is controlled by the rich and has always sided with them against workers, but we still have First Amendment rights, whether you recognize it or not.

In conclusion, Mr. Cardwell, we inform you that workers’ patience is at an end. We are tired of being bureaucratically denied the rights entitled to us by the Constitution and that every other American enjoys.

You accuse the RWRFC of being a “fringe” group. You are the fringe, Mr. Cardwell, not us. We have voted to strike and to reject your garbage contracts. We, the workers, outnumber you 1,000 to 1. The RWRFC was formed to give voice and organization to railroad workers against the attempts to bureaucratically silence us.

You say in your letter: “Workers must be wary of a group throwing disruption grenades from behind a wall of secrecy.” We agree wholeheartedly! Only that applies to you, not to us.

Mr. Cardwell, on behalf of our 120,000 coworkers, we give you the following instructions: If you are not willing to abide by the will of the membership, then get out of the way.

But if there is one thing your letter did, it makes the following crystal clear: We, the rank and file, must take control of this situation ourselves. Brothers and sisters everywhere, organize your own networks, get your rail yards on the same page, share this letter and prepare to fight.

Sincerely,
The Railroad Workers Rank-and-File Committee