Sunday, May 24, 2020

Home

Why big tech won't solve our transit woes

Image: Boden Deplaedt/Unsplash
In 2018, Elon Musk logged onto Twitter to share his ambition for the future of L.A. transit: a network of underground tunnels buzzing with electric self-driving Tesla cars. The system would have thousands of "small stations the size of a single parking space that take you very close to your destination and blend seamlessly into the fabric of a city," he tweeted.
Critics inevitable rolled their eyes. "Every two or three weeks," a commentator pointed out, "a tech guy accidentally invents the concept of a city bus."
Yet public bus and train systems across North America are crumbling, while Tesla stocks have risen alongside the popularity of private ride-sharing apps. Between 2014 and 2017, bus ridership in the U.S. plummeted by 14 per cent. In New York alone, subway ridership dropped by almost 30 million rides between 2016 and 2017. In Washington, D.C., subway stations are literally catching on fire, and due to a lack of funding for maintenance, flames lick the tracks unattended until someone tweets about it.
James Wilt's rousing first book, Do Androids Dream of Electric Cars? Public Transit in the Age of Google, Uber, and Elon Musk, maps out how we ended up in this situation and how we can get out of it. How have tech billionaires gotten a stranglehold on North America's transportation options, pushing electric and autonomous ride-sharing as the only desirable future of mobility? And how can our society take the reins over our collective fate and gain public control of transit, with a view to building a renewed democratic, equitable, and low-carbon world?
Wilt's central task is to dismantle what leading tech figures have touted as the inevitable "three revolutions" that will bring a new generation of cars: A proliferation of personal electric vehicles, then ride-hailing services, and eventually autonomous or self-driving vehicles.
These "three revolutions" are currently being sold as the inevitable way of the future and therefore used by austerity-minded politicians as an excuse to not invest in public transportation.  The result, Wilt argues, is a reduced ability to plan transit for the public good. For example, a commissioner for Michigan's Macomb County has argued that Detroit's transit system should be replaced by ride-hailing subsidies for low-income residents. And in South Florida, many decisions not to fund public transit are already being made on the promise that autonomous ridesharing vehicles will soon arrive on the scene.
We know that autonomous vehicles, if they ever arrive, may be decades away. Yet Wilt documents how many elected officials and decision-makers talk about them like they'll be on the roads tomorrow, as if that means we should rip up traditional transit systems.
Wilt argues that the supposed affordances of the "three revolutions" fall apart under scrutiny. Take the case of transit and the climate crisis. Electric vehicles, promoters say, will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and sharing vehicles means fewer cars can transport more people. Autonomous technologies promise to nearly eliminate the need for parking spaces, opening up large portions of cities and towns for densified redevelopment that cuts down on the need for motor vehicle travel.
This is a promising vision, but according to Wilt it is built on fabrications. Given the incredible lobbying powers of private industry and its ability to dissolve regulation, the chances of best-case conditions are slim, and Do Androids Dream documents the historical evidence we have to be suspicious.
Even in its current underfunded state, transit remains far less polluting on a per-passenger basis than personal automobiles. It takes an estimated 100 personal electric vehicles, for example, to achieve the same "environmental relief" that a single sixty-foot electric bus provides. Thus a billion Teslas will not solve climate change, Wilt contends. Each of those cars has an enormous carbon footprint from the components mined from the earth and the energy-intensive processes needed to create it.
Beyond climate, Wilt dissects the empty promises for increased equality, safety, accessibility, privacy,and rural connectivity. He makes a convincing case for how how the "three revolutions" will only bring worsened inequality, more sprawl, dangerous streets, and even less accessibility for seniors, people with disabilities, women, and trans and gender non-conforming people.
In every instance, Wilt provides reams of evidence that public options better serve the most marginalized members of our society at a lower cost. Solutions are no easy task, however, and are contingent on hard-won political commitment and funding, fought for by organized transit workers and riders.
Due to its rich detail and accessible writing, Wilt's book should be of interest not only to transportation activists, but to anyone looking for the information necessary to resist more cars in cities, and to advocate for more free, reliable, accessible, and pleasurable public transportation.
In this world-historical moment, we have the opportunity to organize and radically re-think our cities to be more equitable, accessible, and low-carbon for all. Wilt's book is a shining beacon in this regard, even if it was written before the arrival of COVID-19.
At first glance, it would seem that fewer people would be willing to take public transportation in the wake of this pandemic, as close quarters in packed train cars or buses might raise our chances of catching a virus. However, Wilt's proposals for making public transport effective and democratic -- more frequent, dependable service at low or no cost -- might also lower chances of contagion, as crowds disperse into more and cleaner train cars and buses. SeattleLos Angeles, and Denver have led the way, making municipal bus travel free to help essential workers and protect bus drivers (since riders can enter through back doors).
We will have to fight for this spirit to continue once the pandemic subsides.
Malcolm Araros is a PhD student in sociology at New York University.
Please chip in to support more articles like this. Support rabble.ca today for as little as $1 per month!

Home


Canadians of conscience should not be smeared as 'anti-Semites' for boycotting apartheid Israel

Palestinians crowd into checkpoint "cattle pen," Checkpoint 300, Bethlehem. Image: David Kattenburg
In the fight against anti-Semitism, no one enjoys greater influence than B'nai Brith Canada (BBC) and its League for Human Rights.
Each year, BBC and the league produce an audit of anti-Semitic incidents across Canada and the world. According to BBC, their annual audit gets "cited world-wide by government agencies, social policy planners and law enforcement bodies, and is considered the authoritative study on antisemitism in Canada."
No idle boast. BBC's most recent audit merited mention in one of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's daily news briefings on the COVID-19 pandemic. The 2019 audit reports over 2,000 incidents of anti-Semitism -- over six every day -- including shocking accounts of racist violence, vandalism, desecration and Holocaust denial.
True, anti-Semitism is a scourge that cannot be denied. Unfortunately, though, there's a flaw in BBC's accounting procedure that calls its conclusions into question: It is based on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's "Working Definition of Antisemitism" (IHRA-WDA). Of the 11 "illustrative examples" of anti-Semitism flagged by the IHRA-WDA, six involve criticism of Israel and its founding ideology, Zionism.
How can the IHRA-WDA -- and BB's 2019 audit -- be squared with the consensus about Israel among other, less parochial human rights groups? With its "grave violations" of human rights law (Amnesty International), its "severe and discriminatory" treatment of the Palestinian people (Human Rights Watch), and its "regime of occupation … inextricably bound up in human rights violations" (B'Tselem)?
B'nai Brith Canada doesn't attempt to do so. First and foremost, it is a "staunch defender of the State of Israel." Among the anti-Semitic acts swelling its 2019 audit: calling for the release of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails ("terrorists"), suggesting that Palestinians have been displaced or killed in the name of Zionism, that "Zionists control American politics" and all forms of "anti-Israel or anti-Zionist activism."
Nothing infuriates BBC more than the "antisemitic Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement." On page 14 of its 2019 audit, BBC presents the image of a box of Israeli clementines on a Canadian store shelf, upon which a "Boycott Israeli Apartheid" sticker has been applied.
Is it anti-Semitic to say that Israel practises apartheid, or something akin to apartheid, and to call for a consumer boycott? To answer this question, one must define apartheid. The 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid defines apartheid as a system based on "policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination" similar to those practised in southern Africa, "committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them."
Article 7(2) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines apartheid as comprising various "inhumane acts ... committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."
Further precision is provided in a 2013 article authored by former UN special rapporteur John Dugard (one of the leading South African jurists who opposed apartheid) and Irish academic John Reynolds. Dugard and Reynolds identify three "pillars" of the South African prototype that they say Israel reproduces: 1) "demarcation of distinct racial groups," 2) "territorial fragmentation and racial segregation," and 3) a "matrix of security laws and practices" aimed at suppressing opposition and buttressing "racial domination."
Sounds a lot like Israel today.
But what do we mean by "Israel"? Opponents of the Israeli apartheid idea invariably argue that Israel is fully democratic. What they call "Israel" is Israel "proper" -- its internationally recognized territory. A more accurate definition is what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his constituency and a large swath of Israel's supporters around the world (including BBC) call the "Land of Israel." Namely, all the lands between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, and from the northern tip of the Golan Heights down to the Red Sea. These are the lands Israel and its military exercise complete control over. In addition to Israel "proper," they comprise the West Bank, Israeli-annexed East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and Gaza.
The "Land of Israel" is home to 14 million people belonging to two racial/ethnic groups -- a distinction codified in Israel's "Basic Laws" and 2018 Nation-State Law. Wherever they live (they do so everywhere except Gaza), Jews enjoy full citizenship and national rights and are governed by Israeli domestic law. Under the Nation-State Law, Jews have an exclusive right to self-determination. Non-Jews have no such right. Jews are free to own land and reside pretty much anywhere they please -- including Jewish settlements in the West Bank -- and to travel freely (except to those enclaves where Palestinians live). Any Jew anywhere in the world has the same right.
Palestinian lives are entirely different. Between 1.5 and two million are Israeli citizens. They carry Israeli passports and can travel as they please, but they have no national rights. If they marry someone who isn't Jewish -- from the West Bank or Gaza or Canada or France, say -- their spouse cannot join them in Israel. A plethora of racially based laws and regulations limit their residency rights and access to public services. They can vote and run for political office, but no member of an "Arab" party will end up in government because "Arabs" are viewed by the political establishment with distrust and contempt.
All things considered, though, Israeli "Arabs" have it good. For the three million Palestinians living in the West Bank, the story is very different. They are stateless, with neither citizenship nor national rights. Most live in populated areas assigned to them under the 1994-95 Oslo Accords. In Oslo areas A and B (40 per cent of the West Bank), their lives are administered by the Palestinian Authority, but Israeli soldiers can seize and imprison them at any time. Their natural resources are controlled by Israel. They are not free to travel.
Another 200,000-300,000 Palestinians live in Oslo Area C, under full military occupation. Their homes can be demolished and their farmlands razed based on arbitrary military orders. They are subject to routine violence at the hands of Jewish colonists living in their midst, aided and abetted by the Israeli military. They can be arrested and forcibly transferred to prisons inside "Israel proper" (in breach of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention).
Yet another 375,000 Palestinians reside in East Jerusalem, with neither citizenship nor national rights, and their residency rights can be revoked at a moment's notice. They are not allowed to build upon their property, as East Jerusalem's Jewish colonists can. If they do, their property can be demolished.
In the twilight zone of Israeli settler-colonialism and apartheid, several thousand Palestinians live in the "seam zone" between Israel's Separation Barrier and the Green Line. Among these, some are fully walled off and can only come and go through a gate controlled by Israeli soldiers.
Worst off are the Palestinians of Gaza, a 365-square kilometre sliver of land variously dubbed an "open air prison," "ghetto" or "concentration camp." Under Israeli siege for 13 years, Gaza's eastern border, coastline and airspace are under the complete control of the Israeli army, navy and air force.
What better term is there to describe the above geographical matrix than apartheid?
Back in 2014, the UN committee that oversees the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights described Israel's "domestic legal framework" as a "three-tiered system of laws affording different civil status, rights and legal protection for Jewish Israeli citizens, Palestinian citizens of Israel and Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem."
Sounds like apartheid.
The list of those who've used the A-word is lengthy: former UN special rapporteurs Richard Falk and John DugardDavid Harel (vice president of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities), Jewish-Israeli journalists Gideon Levy and Amira Hass, former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, veteran CBC correspondent Neil MacdonaldJohn KerryJimmy Carter, South African anti-apartheid activists Desmond Tutu and Denis Goldberg, Cameroonian academic Achille Mbembe, the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) … the list goes on and on.
To call all these people anti-Semites would be preposterous. In the absence of a formal ruling by the International Criminal Court or the International Court of Justice, the Israeli apartheid idea plainly falls within the bounds of reason. It logically follows that consumer boycotts of the sort illustrated in BBC's 2019 anti-Semitism audit are justified as well -- certainly not acts of anti-Semitism.
Arguably, they are a civic duty. Under the 1995 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the "Crime of Apartheid" is considered a "crime against humanity" -- one of 11 such crimes itemized in Article 7 (j) of the Rome Statute, to which Canada is a signatory. Canada has incorporated these into its own Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act (2000). Why shouldn't Canadians of conscience be free to boycott "Israeli" clementines -- or wine, dates and cosmetic creams -- without being smeared as anti-Semites?  
By conflating boycotts and other pro-Palestinian activities with true Jew-hatred, as it does in its 2019 audit of anti-Semitic incidents, B'nai Brith Canada undermines the fight it claims to champion, not to mention the larger struggle for universal human rights and equality.
For B'nai Brith Canada, smearing and silencing Israel's critics seems to come first.
David Kattenburg is a Winnipeg-based science instructor, journalist and activist.
Image: David Kattenburg​
Please chip in to support more articles like this. Support rabble.ca today for as little as $1 per month!




Alberta government shelves 'fair deal' report

The crowd at the January 9 "fair deal" panel town hall in Fort Saskatchewan. Image: David J. Climenhaga
Alberta's so-called "fair deal" panel, which might have seemed like a good idea when Premier Jason Kenney announced it last fall, presents something of a political problem for a government that has let Ottawa do the heavy lifting throughout the coronavirus pandemic.
Premier Kenney pitched the rhetorical roadshow as a way to help ruggedly individualistic Albertans cast off the dead weight of Ottawa's collectivist mentality and, in the words of the notorious Firewall Manifesto, "take greater charge of our own future."
Most of the ideas the nine-member panel was instructed to explore came straight out of the risible independantiste screed penned in 2001 by Stephen Harper, three of his market-fundamentalist college teachers and a couple of hangers on. 
But faced with an actual crisis caused by the coronavirus, Kenney's United Conservative Party government mostly bowed to federal decisions, did its best to upload the costs onto the feds and concentrated on yelling at the likes of Norway and China. The former was attacked for its lack of enthusiasm for getting back to the carbon economy as quickly as possible; the latter, inspired by U.S. President Donald Trump, presumably to deflect the blame for any shortfalls in the province's efforts to limit the spread of COVID-19. 
This makes it pretty obvious to Albertans who are paying attention -- say what they will about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau -- what level of government you need to go to in a real crisis. 
To put this metaphorically, it's all very well to say that an Englishman's home is his castle, but when fire breaks out in the castle kitchen, your imagined Englishman will still likely ring the fire brigade!
Which means that most of the panel's presumably predetermined recommendations -- replacing the RCMP with a provincial force, no longer cooperating with Ottawa to collect taxes, finding ways to wiggle out of the Canada Health Act, appointing provincial chief firearms officer dedicated to not enforcing the gun-control provisions of the federal Criminal Code, and dumping the Canada Pension Plan and replacing it with a provincial version -- either have lost some of the cachet they appeared to have a few months ago or have already proved to be unpopular with voters. 
More provincial autonomy as a general theme has certainly lost lustre now that Albertans have seen how little our provincial government is willing to do about anything, no matter how important, that isn't among the bees in Premier Kenney's bonnet. 
The idea of grabbing CPP funds contributed by Albertans so that the UCP can dip into our retirement security to prop up Kenney's beloved oil industry just about moved participants to tears of fury at some of the panel's 10 small "town halls" across the province. 
Despite the panel's baked-in assumption Alberta gets a raw deal from the rest of Confederation and its apparent effort to lead witnesses to the conclusions the government wanted, plenty of people got up on their hind legs at the town hall I attended January 9 in Fort Saskatchewan to proclaim their love of Canada and advise panel members they thought this province needs to start working with our fellow citizens instead of just yelling at them.
Soon after came the coronavirus, making their case for them. 



Given all this, it should come as no surprise that nothing was said about the panel's report until Saturday, May 16, when the government revealed in a rare long-weekend news release the report was in its hands. 
How long the government has had it remains a mystery. The panel was supposed to report at the end of March and received an extension until mid-April. News reports have indicated it was submitted this month. But on Sunday a member of the panel suggested in a tweeted remark that the government has had a final copy for more than a month
Whenever it was received, the report can now sit on the shelf until a more promising moment to implement Harper's bad ideas, which even Ralph Klein had the good sense to spike back in 2001. 
"I look forward to giving this report and its recommendations the proper attention it deserves once we have safely started to implement our relaunch strategy," Kenney said in Saturday's news release. The middle of a long weekend, needless to say, is an appropriate time for publishing information a government would like voters to forget about as quickly as possible. 
If you want to know what the panel recommended, you'll just have to wait till a time of Kenney's choosing. 
"Government will announce a date for the public release of the report once the urgency of the COVID-19 response has subsided," the government's press release explained, a judgment, of course, that is entirely in the government's hands.
The panel, chaired by former senior mandarin Oryssia Lennie, included Preston Manning, the godfather of the Canadian right; Stephen Lougheed, president of Alberta Innovates and son of the late premier Peter Lougheed; Donna Kennedy-Glans, a former Progressive Conservative cabinet minister now a blogger whose blog sometimes advocates some sort of sovereignty-association; law professor Moin Yahya; and backbench UCP MLAs Drew Barnes, Miranda Rosin and Tony Yao. The ninth member of the panel, former Assembly of First Nations regional chief Jason Goodstriker, died suddenly on January 16.
David Climenhaga, author of the Alberta Diary blog, is a journalist, author, journalism teacher, poet and trade union communicator who has worked in senior writing and editing positions at The Globe and Mail and the Calgary Herald. This post also appears on his blog, AlbertaPolitics.ca.
Image: David J. Climenhaga​
 Please chip in to support more articles like this. Support rabble.ca today for as little as $1 per month!



Pipeline projects, the pandemic and the question journalists fail to ask

Robert Hackett May 19, 2020

Robert Hackett is a professor emeritus at Simon Fraser University, and co-author of Journalism and Climate Crisis: Public Engagement, Media Alternatives. He is also a member of the NDP and of the non-partisan Burnaby Residents Opposing Kinder Morgan Expansion (BROKE). This article originally appeared in the National Observer.



While the pandemic marches on, it's another workday at Burnaby Terminal, the oil storage "tank farm" that is being doubled in density as part of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project (TMX). Large vehicles rumble inside the compound and through the electronically controlled perimeter gate. The clatter of heavy machinery resounds through the nearby forest and neighbourhoods. Large signs warn obstructing access to this facility could result in arrest -- the fate of hundreds of Indigenous-led land, water and climate protectors in 2018. A smaller sign, next to the guardhouse and gate, says, "Social distancing, where possible, while at (company) sites."

"Where possible." That's a big caveat. Maintaining a two-metre distance in construction sites is often not possible.

While thousands of B.C. businesses have closed, schools and libraries gather dust and millions of British Columbians are urged to stay at home -- all for good reason -- fossil fuel-related expansion projects continue as if they are "essential services." Both Trans Mountain and LNG Canada (a consortium of foreign corporations) boast they are meeting significant milestones on their respective projects.

TMX would convey toxic diluted bitumen from the Alberta oilsands to the Westridge harbour terminal in Burnaby. LNG Canada's Coastal GasLink (CGL) would bring liquefied "natural" gas from the fracking fields through (as is now notorious) Wet'suwet'en territory to the northern B.C. town of Kitimat.

Significant health concerns have been raised about both projects, as well as BC Hydro's Site C hydroelectric dam in the province's north. Though publicly touted as "green" energy, it is partly intended to provide subsidized electricity to LNG Canada and carries enormous environmental costs of its own, from methane emissions to flooding of Treaty 8 Indigenous territories and some of Canada's richest farmland.


At the end of March, the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs (UBCIC) publicly called for a halt to all construction at the 1,600-worker Site C dam camp "due to the risk COVID-19 now poses to vulnerable workers and nearby Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities in northeast B.C.," followed by a similar call with respect to CGL pipeline construction. The UBCIC added "corporate exceptionalism" should not be a pandemic-response strategy: "The expansion of economic enterprises cannot be considered essential when it directly endangers the health and well-being of every one of us."

Similar appeals were made by city councillors in Fort St. John, the town nearest the Site C camp, and by Dr. David Bowering, former chief medical health officer for the Northern Health region -- joined as recently as April 29 by the David Suzuki Foundation.

Nevertheless, Premier John Horgan said Site C construction will continue until provincial health officer (PHO) Dr. Bonnie Henry "tells us otherwise."


Henry and other provincial authorities have emphasized the precautions mandated specifically for industrial work sites, such as increased sanitation and physical distancing between employees, and procedures for detecting, isolating and removing workers who do become ill. BC Hydro claims to have reduced its workforce, but hundreds remain and residents and officials in vulnerable communities continue to question the adequacy and enforcement of provincial guidelines. Workers themselves have expressed deep concern for their families' and their own safety.

"The scary thing is that many of the camps are in northern B.C.," says Ben Parfitt, former environmental reporter and now a researcher with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. "There are few critical beds there. Small, isolated First Nation communities where people live in often crowded housing conditions and lack ready access to health care, can ill-afford to have the virus arrive. Both First Nation and non-First Nation leaders have raised concerns about the Site C workers' camp, where several people have come down with COVID-like symptoms."

Validating such concerns, the Interior Health Authority warned of an outbreak at the Kearl Lake oilsands work camp near Fort McMurray, Alberta, on April 18. The outbreak has expanded to northern B.C. via workers travelling between the two provinces.

Following a public-health order on April 23, the province is finally sending inspectors to work camps. But there is a legitimate concern about whether park rangers, mining inspectors or other B.C. public-service employees slated for this role are qualified to assess COVID-19-related health-protection procedures.

The risk from fossil fuel "essential services" is not confined to the northern region. Many residents see my hometown, Burnaby, as a fossil fuel sacrifice zone. The TMX project has long raised the spectre of pipeline ruptures, uncontrollable toxic tank-farm fires, salmon-bearing stream contamination, oil-tanker spills and damage to the livability of surrounding neighbourhoods.

To that brew, add the potential for incubating a coronavirus outbreak at Burnaby's two TMX terminals. As Elan Gibson, a spokeswoman for Burnaby Residents Opposing Kinder Morgan Expansion (BROKE), put it, the virus is often not symptomatic among its carriers, and workers at both the tank farm and the Westridge terminal "are going to and from their homes and into our communities each day."

The Indigenous-led group Mountain Protectors, working out of the Watch House built next to the tank farm in 2018, has collected "ample proof" TMX is not respecting the province's or its own "social distance and safety measures," according to Gibson. Photographs in the local newspaper appear to confirm this claim. Encouraged by BROKE, Burnaby Mayor Mike Hurley transmitted these concerns to Trans Mountain and B.C. government authorities.
Essential services?

Are such megaprojects worth adding public-health risks to their indisputable environmental costs?


The B.C. government apparently thinks so. On March 26, Public Safety Minister Mike Farnworth released a list of "essential services," defined as those "essential to preserving life, health, public safety and basic societal functioning … the services British Columbians rely on in their daily lives." While not mentioning specific companies or projects, the list identifies "critical infrastructure service providers," including "oil and natural gas."

The list was developed by Emergency Management BC (EMBC) in consultation with other government ministries and the Provincial Health Officer. In legal and operational terms, the designation apparently doesn't sharply differentiate essential from non-essential businesses, apart from those (like beauty salons and casinos) that have been ordered closed. All are required to adapt to health office guidelines; industrial work camps have a specific set of rules as well as qualified exemptions, for example, from liability for damage due to COVID-19 exposure, and from ceilings on crowd size in one site.

Rather, the list is intended to "encourage" designated businesses to remain open, and to provide a shared framework should further public-health measures be necessary, according to the EMBC's Joint Information Centre.


Nevertheless, the definition of "essential service" is symbolically important, and inherently political. It's an important clue as to the vested interests and policy mindset of political and corporate elites. Treating these three projects as "essential" to B.C.'s future implies a multifold gamble -- that global gas and oil prices and demand will escalate sharply from their current historic lows, that the rest of the world will largely abandon efforts to contain greenhouse gas emissions, that taxpayers are willing to continue subsidizing gas and oil producers and lock Canada into exporting fossil fuels for decades, that we are willing to continue destroying farmland just as food-supply chains are becoming demonstrably more fragile and that Canada will continue to play an outsize role in exacerbating climate catastrophes that could make the coronavirus pandemic seem trivial.

None of the megaproject trio currently delivers services to British Columbians. (Trans Mountain did not respond to requests for comment on whether it is an essential service, and on what grounds.) Nor are their prospects of being a future economic engine particularly promising. In the case of TMX, independent analysts like economist Robyn Allan and veteran earth scientist David Hughes have argued compellingly there is no large Asian demand for Alberta's bitumen, TMX will not hugely increase its per-barrel price, relatively few permanent jobs will be created, competing delivery routes will be online soon and there is sufficient export capacity in Canada's existing pipelines.

Rather than fuelling economic growth, TMX could burden Canadians with $9 billion or more in rising construction and insurance costs -- costs that have recently shifted Canadian public opinion against the project, according to recent polls.

Similar claims could be made about the dubious economic benefits and definite environmental costs of CGL, compounded by tax subsidies to a foreign consortium (LNG Canada) and the blatant violation of Indigenous rights and traditional territories.
Collaborative media?

The stakes are high enough to warrant critical attention from the province's news media -- the institution that should be informing citizens about policies and events that affect them, acting as a watchdog on power and scanning the scene for threats to individual and community well-being. These are aspects of what media scholars Clifford Christians and his colleagues describe as the "monitorial" function of the press.

They identify three other ideal functions of the press in a democracy: facilitating a forum for public conversation, identifying and even advocating for necessary social change and collaborating with government and other institutions to support broadly acceptable social purposes.

Though under-recognized in conventional western journalism theory, that collaborative role is often practised by supporting charity campaigns or governments in times of emergency, like war -- or pandemics. I tracked most daily news briefings with Henry and Health Minister Adrian Dix from March 30 until April 30. Journalists raised numerous pressing questions about the trajectory of the disease, the situation of vulnerable groups like the homeless and elderly, strategies for response and much else. They can take much credit for how well British Columbians generally responded to public-health advice.

But while five out of 224 questions I've recorded concern risks from the industrial work camps, nobody queried Henry's repeated references to construction projects and workers as "essential." Perhaps journalists are reluctant to push their monitorial role in a climate of emergency, and vis-a-vis a personable official whose calm professionalism and empathy has made her a folk hero in B.C. The demands of a fast-moving story and the distance of most work camps from B.C.'s southwestern metropolitan media may be factors.

But there's also evidence corporate news media implicitly accept the ideological premises underlying fossil fuel-oriented energy megaprojects. One recent example: an April 4 column by Vancouver Sun veteran Vaughn Palmer, concerning the pleas from northern B.C. to suspend Site C construction. Palmer devoted just three paragraphs to outlining those calls, and 18 to rebuttals by Premier Horgan, Dr. Henry and BC Hydro. Knowing the additional price tag of "another year's delay" in the massive river diversion associated with Site C, he concluded, would give the public "a more rounded picture of the stakes."

Corporate media pundits less often include the costs of business as usual as part of a "more rounded picture." Jay Ritchlin, a David Suzuki Foundation spokesman, suggests subsidies to the fossil fuel megaprojects could be used instead for transitioning to a new type of economy. The COVID-19 catastrophe requires us to reconsider what really is essential.

rabble blogs are the personal pages of some of Canada's most insightful progressive activists and commentators. All opinions belong to the writer; however, writers are expected to adhere to our guidelines. We welcome new bloggers -- contact us for details.
Please chip in to support more articles like this. Support rabble.ca today for as little as $1 per month!


Texas hits worst unemployment rate on record 
— 1 in 8 Texans is out of work

Published May 22, 2020 By Texas Tribune


The state’s April jobless rate was 12.8% — Texas’ worst monthly tally on record.
That number, included in the Labor Department’s monthly report released Friday, is the government’s clearest and most comprehensive look at the economic devastation in Texas since the coronavirus pandemic first swept the state in March.

Previously, the state’s worst-ever monthly unemployment rate was 9.2% in November 1986, as Texas reeled from the last big oil bust. Now, with more than 2 million Texans who have filed for unemployment during the outbreak, the contracting oil industry is only part of the state’s economic problems.

“We are in some sense a state having to deal with two extraordinarily negative circumstances all at once,” Venkatesh Shankar, an economist and director of research at the Center for Retail Studies at Texas A&M University, said in an interview.

And perhaps no economic indicator matters as much as the public health data related to COVID-19. In explaining his rationale for allowing businesses to reopen, Abbott has zeroed in on two figures. One is the ratio of positive cases to tests conducted. The other is the hospitalization rate — the proportion of infected Texans who are requiring hospitalization.



Both those numbers have trended down over several weeks, but Texas is still often seeing 1,000 or more people test positive for the virus each day.

“We never had a steep rise, but we haven’t hit anywhere near a plateau,” Shankar said. “The question is: You have to open the economy to a certain extent. When the economy starts to come back and cases come back again, how will unemployment be affected then?”

Economists have said Texas could struggle to bounce back from the economic calamity caused by COVID-19 even though businesses across a wide swath of industries are allowed to reopen because of the double whammy Shankar described the coronavirus leading to shuttered businesses combined with weak oil prices.

The pandemic’s damage has been swift and spared no sector of the Texas economy, leading to bottlenecks at food banks, renters evicted and scrambling for housing, college graduates without jobs and many jobless Texans not receiving unemployment benefits due to the Texas Workforce Commission’s inability to fully respond to the surge in demand.

The price of oil, which for the first time ever briefly plunged negative in April, is tightly tied to the Texas economy and state budget. On Wednesday, Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and House Speaker Dennis Bonnen directed state agencies and colleges to reduce their budgets by 5%.

The result will mean worse services for Texans, who are already feeling the effects of a ravaged economy in the middle of a pandemic. Oil producers have had to make the tough choice to close wells, restaurant workers have had to navigate confusing orders issued by Abbott as dining rooms have started to reopen, and immigrants working in meatpacking plants in West Texas have had to endure large coronavirus outbreaks.



The crisis “has shone a blinding light on our state’s geographic, economic, and social systems, revealing their vulnerabilities so clearly that their existence can no longer be debated or denied,” read a recent report titled “A Playbook for Resiliency: Creating Opportunity for all Texans,” released by the University of Houston and the University of Texas at Austin.

Recent jobs reports have shown that lower-wage workers have been affected disproportionately by the coronavirus, and Shankar agreed, adding that parts of the energy sector might never return as companies have lost such steep amounts of money.

Despite the eye-popping economic numbers, analysts are concerned about incomplete data because “the economic impact of the sudden drop in activity may be much more far-reaching than the already-devastating headline unemployment number,” S. Michael Sury, lecturer of finance at UT-Austin, wrote in an email to The Texas Tribune.

Keith Phillips is a senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. He and his and colleagues at the bank, normally focused only on economic data, have also been tracking health numbers. It is the “elephant in the room” that cannot be ignored when rejuvenating the economy.

“The health thing is driving the economics,” Phillips said.


Some other countries, Phillips said, such as South Korea, were able to corral the virus more quickly through testing and contact tracing, “and we were slow.”

“We’re going need to do that in order to keep confidence up so people feel safe going around and doing their business,” Phillips said.


Disclosure: Texas A&M University, the University of Houston and the University of Texas at Austin have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.


Saturday, May 23, 2020

Feds gave a former Trump staffer $3 Million to supply masks to Navajo hospitals — but some may not work


Published on May 22, 2020 By Pro Publica


ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom.

A former White House aide won a $3 million federal contract to supply respirator masks to Navajo Nation hospitals in New Mexico and Arizona 11 days after he created a company to sell personal protective equipment in response to the coronavirus pandemic.

Zach Fuentes, President Donald Trump’s former deputy chief of staff, secured the deal with the Indian Health Service with limited competitive bidding and no prior federal contracting experience.

The IHS told ProPublica it has found that 247,000 of the masks delivered by Fuentes’ company — at a cost of roughly $800,000 — may be unsuitable for medical use. An additional 130,400, worth about $422,000, are not the type specified in the procurement data, the agency said.

What’s more, the masks Fuentes agreed to provide — Chinese-made KN95s — have come under intense scrutiny from U.S. regulators amid concerns that they offered inadequate protection.

“The IHS Navajo Area Office will determine if these masks will be returned,” the agency said in a statement. The agency said it is verifying Fuentes’ company’s April 8 statement to IHS that all the masks were certified by the Food and Drug Administration, and an FDA spokesperson said the agency cannot verify if the products were certified without the name of the manufacturer.

Hospitals in the Navajo Nation, which spans Utah, New Mexico and Arizona, have been desperate for protective supplies as the numbers of coronavirus infections and deaths have grown quickly. As of Friday, the Navajo Nation reported 4,434 COVID-19 cases and 147 deaths, a crisis that has prompted outcries from members of Congress and demands for increased funding.

Fuentes initiated email contact with officials at IHS, a division of the Department of Health and Human Services, the agency said. After the contact, the agency informally solicited prices from a handful of face mask providers and chose Fuentes of the six companies that responded because his firm offered the best price and terms, IHS said. Fuentes also benefited from government procurement rules favoring veteran- and minority-owned businesses, the procurement data shows.

Fuentes said political connections to the Trump White House played no role in his company’s selection. “Nobody referred me from the White House. It was nothing like that,” he said. “Emphatically no.”

The White House did not respond to a question about Fuentes’ contract.

IHS told ProPublica that Fuentes’ company reported that the masks were made in China, but the agency did not specify the manufacturer. Federal contracting records show without explanation that Fuentes refunded $250,000 to the IHS this month, and he said in an interview last week that he gave back money when he procured masks at a slightly reduced cost.

“We went back to IHS and said, ‘We were able to get this cheaper,’” Fuentes said. “We will never gouge our customers.”

Fuentes referred questions about the mask manufacturer and FDA certifications to his consultant, Sia N. Ashok, a business school classmate. In a phone interview, Ashok declined to name the manufacturer because it could violate the company’s contract, she said.

Ashok said the company lived up to the terms of its contract with IHS and has all the FDA certifications it needs in place.

“If the customer or IHS or anyone has any issues with anything, we would be more than happy to replace,” she said.

Fuentes’ contract price of $3.24 per mask is more expensive than the pre-pandemic rate of about $1 per mask, but far less than what some government entities have paid at the height of the crisis. Mask costs can vary widely depending on availability, demand, quality and exact specifications.

Fuentes is a retired Coast Guard officer and protege of former White House chief of staff John Kelly. He formerly served as Kelly’s military aide while he was secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and Fuentes followed Kelly to the White House. In December 2018, as Kelly prepared to leave, The New York Times reported that Fuentes had told associates he planned to “hide out” in a vague role at the White House until he qualified for a Coast Guard early retirement program. Fuentes retired in January from the Coast Guard after 15 years of service. He said his retirement was for medical reasons.

He jumped into the federal contracting world in April at a time of great opportunity — and high risk. The coronavirus pandemic loosened many federal procurement rules as agencies scrambled to respond to a national emergency. But as supplies of personal protective equipment ran out and many countries restricted exports, delivering on contracts became more difficult, and agencies have wrestled with incomplete orders, cancellations and possible counterfeit goods.

N95 masks were so scarce that the FDA in April allowed the use of some Chinese masks that had not been certified by U.S. regulators. But in recent weeks, the FDA narrowed its guidance after tests indicated that some of the products were not as effective as they should be, and it tightened restrictions on the use of Chinese masks by hospital and medical personnel.

Fuentes formed Zach Fuentes LLC as the emergency regulations were evolving.

In April, the FDA authorized the use of masks made by close to 90 manufacturers in China.

But the masks made by some of those manufacturers did not pass CDC tests because they did not filter out enough fine particles. In some cases, the masks failed utterly.

This month, the FDA rescinded its authorization for the vast majority of the Chinese manufacturers, published a much smaller list of respirators made by 14 approved manufacturers and tightened the standards for evaluating Chinese masks.

Eleven federal agencies, including IHS, have reported buying either KN95 masks, or N95 masks made outside the United States, according to contract data. Of those, Fuentes’ contract with IHS is the second-largest that mentions KN95 masks specifically. The largest contract was struck by FEMA, for $3.9 million, on May 4.

Overall, IHS has spent $85.4 million to respond to COVID-19 as of May 22, signing 318 contracts with 211 vendors, according to federal procurement records. The masks provided by Fuentes went to five IHS medical facilities and to a government warehouse.

Fuentes’ new company has also received a much smaller contract from the Bureau of Prisons to provide 10,000 N95 masks for $1.31 each, according to a BOP statement to ProPublica and procurement documents.

One IHS hospital slated to receive masks from Fuentes is the Gallup Indian Medical Center in New Mexico. A doctor there, who declined to be named because he was not authorized to speak publicly, said the facility initially had a shortage of protective equipment. Conditions have improved thanks to federal purchases and donations, he said, though staffers still have to reuse masks up to five times each, he said.

“IHS facilities have sufficient quantities of N95 respirators at this time,” an agency spokesman said.

Cuba dreading Trump re-election, says diplomat




Published May 23, 2020 By Agence France-Presse


The re-election of Donald Trump as president of the United States would be “the worst” scenario for Cuba, Havana’s top diplomat in charge of relations with Washington told AFP.

“If the Republicans win … it’s a very negative scenario,” said Carlos Fernandez de Cossio, the foreign ministry’s general director for the US.

“It would mean at least a continuation of the policy of aggression against our country.”

Cuba has been subjected to a US embargo since 1962 — but, under Democratic President Barack Obama, tensions were easing.

Then Trump took power and began ramping up sanctions once more, cancelling or suspending many of the agreements made during Obama’s term.

In 2019 Trump added more than 80 sanctions, including those that hinder the supply of Venezuelan oil, discourage investments, give the green light for compensation claims in US courts against nationalized properties, and block commercial and financial activity.

Added to that, the general lockdown that has been provoked by the coronavirus pandemic has worsened the social situation for millions of Cubans in a country that was already suffering from food and fuel shortages.

Trump addressed a message on Wednesday to the Cuban community in Florida — a key swing state in November’s US election — in which he blasted “Cuba’s tyrannical regime.”

Many Cuban exiles and immigrants in Florida are passionately opposed to the communist regime in Havana, including Republican senator Marco Rubio.

Miami in particular is a hotbed of anti-Castro organizations that have been involved in sometimes violent activities against Cuba.

Fernandez de Cossio said a second Trump mandate would be even worse than the first because it would keep “people with an anti-Cuban trajectory” in “important positions inside the government, in the State Department structures or the National Security Council.”

– No desire to end diplomacy –

Despite that hostility, “Cuba has no interest in a breakup of relations with the United States,” said Fernandez de Cossio, although he insisted the island nation would be “ready” if that did happen.

Fernandez de Cossio claims that the Trump administration is “forcing officials, some of them with a long career, to lie openly, which is what is happening with State Department officials and even the embassy here in Havana.”
Even so, and despite criticism from the US Charge d’Affaires in Havana, Mara Tekach, Cuba has a history of tolerating hostile diplomats on its territory.

Fernandez de Cossio says “we don’t need to expel them.”

The hostility is evident in both countries.

On April 30, a Cuban immigrant fired 30 shots at the Cuban embassy in Washington.

Although he was detained immediately, Cuba says it has received no official communication from Washington on the case.

Havana has accused the US police of “complicity” in what it describes as an act of “terrorism.”

Fernandez de Cossio believes the US government doesn’t want to lift the lid on its own “links to this individual or with organizations or people with a history or with aggressive behavior towards Cuba.”

If that Pandora’s Box were opened, “the links to organizations with terrorist origins that exist in the United States within the law, in complicity, with protection from the United States government” would emerge.

“That’s the only way one can explain, other than the arrogance, … of this unyielding silence” from Washington, he added.


© 2020 AFP

Judge dismisses One America News defamation lawsuit against Rachel Maddow


A federal judge on Friday dismissed a $10 million defamation lawsuit by One America News (OAN) against Rachel Maddow, finding that a "reasonable viewer" would know the MSNBC prime-time host was only offering her opinion when she called the right-leaning network "paid Russian propaganda."

"Maddow had inserted her own colorful commentary into and throughout the segment, laughing, expressing her dismay (i.e., saying 'I mean, what?') and calling the segment a 'sparkly story' and one we must 'take in stride,'" Judge Cynthia Bashant wrote Friday.

"For her to exaggerate the facts and call OAN Russian propaganda was consistent with her tone up to that point, and the Court finds a reasonable viewer would not take the statement as factual given this context," Bashant added.

The suit filed in September argued that Maddow made "utterly and completely false" statements about OAN being "paid Russian propaganda" because the network "is wholly financed by the Herrings, an American family, [and] has never been paid or received a penny from Russia or the Russian government."

Maddow also cited a report from The Daily Beast, which found OAN employed "a Kremlin-paid journalist."

"Instead, he or she would follow the facts of the Daily Beast article; that OAN and Sputnik share a reporter and both pay this reporter to write articles. Anything beyond this is Maddow’s opinion or her exaggeration of the facts," the judge noted in the ruling.

OAN responded by saying it will appeal the decision.
"The Herrings and OAN do not receive any money from the Russian government, OAN does not get paid by Russia, and OAN has absolutely no relationship with Russia," the company said in a statement. "The court’s finding that no reasonable person could conclude that Maddow’s statement was one of fact is incorrect."
The cable news channel launched in 2013 and has national distribution on DirecTV, Verizon Fios and AT&T U-verse. It can be seen in approximately 35 million homes.