Florida surgeon general: You know what I want to see more of in the new year?
COVID-ridden people infecting everyone around them for the f--k of it.
Fox News: Do you even like your kids that much anyway?
BY BESS LEVIN
JANUARY 3, 2022
Tuesday, January 04, 2022
Why The CIA Might Have 3 Nuclear Weapons From A Dead Russian Submarine
By Benjamin Brimelow
By Benjamin Brimelow
An aerial starboard bow view of a Soviet Golf II class ballistic missile submarine underway.
Date Shot: 1 Oct 1985
Did the CIA Grab Some Lost Russian Nuclear Weapons? On August 9, 1974, most Americans watched President Richard Nixon resign in disgrace, but on the other side of the world, 178 of their countrymen were pulling off one of the most audacious intelligence operations in history.
On that day, the CIA completed the recovery of the Soviet Golf II-class diesel-electric ballistic-missile submarine K-129, which had sunk in the Pacific six years earlier while on a routine patrol.
The Soviets had given up on finding the boat after an intense search. The US, however, had an advantage.
K-129 lost and found
K-129 was launched in May 1959. After upgrades in the mid-1960s, it had a new suite of electronic systems and carried one of the Soviet Union’s newest weapons: three R-21 nuclear-tipped submarine-launched ballistic missiles — the first missiles that Soviet subs could launch while submerged.
On February 24, 1968, K-129 and its 98-man crew sailed out of their base in Kamchatka. The sub had been ordered to operate under radio silence for its first two weeks at sea.
By March 8, however, K-129 still hadn’t reported in. After it failed to report for a second day, the Soviets panicked and launched a major search operation.
Thirty-six vessels scoured over a million square miles of the Pacific Ocean. They were joined by 53 aircraft that flew more than 286 flights for over two months.
The Soviets even resorted to searching with submarines using their sonars at full power, and calling out to K-129 over open channels. But after months of operating in bad weather, with waves as high as 45 feet, they called off their search.
The US Navy had been watching closely. The Soviet search, done with no apparent concern about detection by US submarines and aircraft, made it clear that something extremely important had been lost — likely a ballistic-missile sub.
The US Navy had a massive advantage over its Soviet counterpart. The Sound Surveillance System, or SOSUS, a network of underwater listening devices built to detect Soviet submarines, had picked up the sound of an exploding submarine in the search area.
The Navy was able to narrow its search area to 5 miles and sent USS Halibut, a cruise-missile submarine repurposed for intelligence operations, to find K-129. After more than a month of searching, Halibut found the Soviet sub.
K-129 was 1,500 miles northwest of Hawaii, sitting 16,500 feet below the surface.
It had suffered a catastrophic mechanical failure, but the most important parts of the submarine, including its missile silos, remained largely intact. At least one and possibly two of the R-21 missiles appeared to still be in their silos.
Realizing the value of a largely intact Soviet submarine with nuclear missiles aboard, the CIA immediately took the lead in a recovery effort, codenamed Project Azorian.
Early ideas included using rockets or underwater balloons to raise the wreck, but it quickly became obvious that the only way to recover K-129 was with a claw attached to a ship.
A perfect cover story
At that time, nothing had ever been recovered from a depth of 16,500 feet before, let alone an object weighing some 2,000 tons. The deep-sea mining industry was still in its infancy, but one American company, Global Marine, had a reputation as the best builder of ocean mining vessels.
The CIA secured Global Marine’s services in constructing and operating a vessel large enough for the mission. Lockheed was hired to make the claw, which was called the capture vehicle.
The CIA still needed a cover story. Fortunately, it found a perfect one in Howard Hughes.
A Texas oil scion and business magnate, Hughes had a reputation as an eccentric recluse, which made the cover story — a financially risky effort to find manganese nodules using unproven deep-sea mining methods — seem legitimate.
Hughes had taken on US government projects before, and he agreed to help the CIA recover the sub.
The Hughes Tool Company would be the public face for the Hughes Glomar Explorer, the massive 620-foot ship specially designed for one purpose: to raise K-129 from the sea floor and bring it into its hold through a “moon pool” in the ship’s hull.
The recovery
The Glomar Explorer arrived over the wreck on July 4, 1974, six years after the sub had been located. It spent the next month lowering the capture vehicle.
The Glomar Explorer was twice surveilled by Soviet ships. The first time, a missile-range instrumentation ship watched the Explorer and flew a helicopter around it for a few days before leaving.
The second ship, an ocean-going tug used for intelligence-gathering, stayed on the scene for weeks. The tug positioned itself so it could recover the Explorer’s trash and repeatedly harassed the US ship, once sailing within 50 feet of it.
But the Soviets had no reason to believe anything suspicious was happening, and the Explorer’s crew continued working. After about a month of lowering the claw, the Americans grabbed the sub and began to raise it.
A few days into the recovery, disaster struck. Several hooks on the claw suddenly broke, and two-thirds of the submarine, including the portion with the missile silos and the code room, fell back into the abyss.
The fallen piece couldn’t be recovered, but the US crew continued to raise what was left. In a stroke of luck, the Soviet tug sailed away when the remains of the K-129 were just 1,000 feet below the Explorer.
With the wreckage aboard, the Explorer’s crew began picking it apart as the ship headed back to the US.
The CIA was preparing for a second recovery effort, called Project Matador, but on March 18, 1975, reporter Jack Anderson broke the story of Project Azorian.
CIA Director William Colby had personally persuaded other journalists, including Seymour Hersh of The New York Times, to hold their stories until after K-129 had been fully recovered. Anderson refused Colby’s requests and broadcasted his story on national radio.
A partial success and a lasting legacy
With the CIA’s cover blown, the White House canceled the second recovery effort. Project Matador was shut down, and the Soviet Navy began closely monitoring the ocean around the wreck.
But the operation was still fruitful. The CIA has never fully disclosed what it recovered, but the haul is believed to include at least two nuclear-tipped torpedoes and a collection of documents, as well as the sub’s bell.
The recovered section also provided insight into Soviet submarine design, such as where important pieces were manufactured, how often they were replaced, and the thickness of the sub’s hull.
Six bodies and a number of body parts were also recovered. In September 1974, as they sailed home, the crew of the Explorer conducted a burial at sea for the fallen submariners.
CIA director Robert Gates gave Russian President Boris Yeltsin a recording of the burial in 1992. The Russians were also given the sub’s bell.
An enduring legacy of Project Azorian was the “Glomar Response,” a bit of legalese devised by the CIA in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by Rolling Stone reporter Harriet Ann Phillippi in 1976.
The agency was legally required to reply, so it said it could neither “confirm nor deny” the existence of records relating to the program. A court later upheld it as a legitimate response.
Benjamin Brimelow is a reporter at Business Insider.
Did the CIA Grab Some Lost Russian Nuclear Weapons? On August 9, 1974, most Americans watched President Richard Nixon resign in disgrace, but on the other side of the world, 178 of their countrymen were pulling off one of the most audacious intelligence operations in history.
On that day, the CIA completed the recovery of the Soviet Golf II-class diesel-electric ballistic-missile submarine K-129, which had sunk in the Pacific six years earlier while on a routine patrol.
The Soviets had given up on finding the boat after an intense search. The US, however, had an advantage.
K-129 lost and found
K-129 was launched in May 1959. After upgrades in the mid-1960s, it had a new suite of electronic systems and carried one of the Soviet Union’s newest weapons: three R-21 nuclear-tipped submarine-launched ballistic missiles — the first missiles that Soviet subs could launch while submerged.
On February 24, 1968, K-129 and its 98-man crew sailed out of their base in Kamchatka. The sub had been ordered to operate under radio silence for its first two weeks at sea.
By March 8, however, K-129 still hadn’t reported in. After it failed to report for a second day, the Soviets panicked and launched a major search operation.
Thirty-six vessels scoured over a million square miles of the Pacific Ocean. They were joined by 53 aircraft that flew more than 286 flights for over two months.
The Soviets even resorted to searching with submarines using their sonars at full power, and calling out to K-129 over open channels. But after months of operating in bad weather, with waves as high as 45 feet, they called off their search.
The US Navy had been watching closely. The Soviet search, done with no apparent concern about detection by US submarines and aircraft, made it clear that something extremely important had been lost — likely a ballistic-missile sub.
The US Navy had a massive advantage over its Soviet counterpart. The Sound Surveillance System, or SOSUS, a network of underwater listening devices built to detect Soviet submarines, had picked up the sound of an exploding submarine in the search area.
The Navy was able to narrow its search area to 5 miles and sent USS Halibut, a cruise-missile submarine repurposed for intelligence operations, to find K-129. After more than a month of searching, Halibut found the Soviet sub.
K-129 was 1,500 miles northwest of Hawaii, sitting 16,500 feet below the surface.
It had suffered a catastrophic mechanical failure, but the most important parts of the submarine, including its missile silos, remained largely intact. At least one and possibly two of the R-21 missiles appeared to still be in their silos.
Realizing the value of a largely intact Soviet submarine with nuclear missiles aboard, the CIA immediately took the lead in a recovery effort, codenamed Project Azorian.
Early ideas included using rockets or underwater balloons to raise the wreck, but it quickly became obvious that the only way to recover K-129 was with a claw attached to a ship.
A perfect cover story
At that time, nothing had ever been recovered from a depth of 16,500 feet before, let alone an object weighing some 2,000 tons. The deep-sea mining industry was still in its infancy, but one American company, Global Marine, had a reputation as the best builder of ocean mining vessels.
The CIA secured Global Marine’s services in constructing and operating a vessel large enough for the mission. Lockheed was hired to make the claw, which was called the capture vehicle.
The CIA still needed a cover story. Fortunately, it found a perfect one in Howard Hughes.
A Texas oil scion and business magnate, Hughes had a reputation as an eccentric recluse, which made the cover story — a financially risky effort to find manganese nodules using unproven deep-sea mining methods — seem legitimate.
Hughes had taken on US government projects before, and he agreed to help the CIA recover the sub.
The Hughes Tool Company would be the public face for the Hughes Glomar Explorer, the massive 620-foot ship specially designed for one purpose: to raise K-129 from the sea floor and bring it into its hold through a “moon pool” in the ship’s hull.
The recovery
The Glomar Explorer arrived over the wreck on July 4, 1974, six years after the sub had been located. It spent the next month lowering the capture vehicle.
The Glomar Explorer was twice surveilled by Soviet ships. The first time, a missile-range instrumentation ship watched the Explorer and flew a helicopter around it for a few days before leaving.
The second ship, an ocean-going tug used for intelligence-gathering, stayed on the scene for weeks. The tug positioned itself so it could recover the Explorer’s trash and repeatedly harassed the US ship, once sailing within 50 feet of it.
But the Soviets had no reason to believe anything suspicious was happening, and the Explorer’s crew continued working. After about a month of lowering the claw, the Americans grabbed the sub and began to raise it.
A few days into the recovery, disaster struck. Several hooks on the claw suddenly broke, and two-thirds of the submarine, including the portion with the missile silos and the code room, fell back into the abyss.
The fallen piece couldn’t be recovered, but the US crew continued to raise what was left. In a stroke of luck, the Soviet tug sailed away when the remains of the K-129 were just 1,000 feet below the Explorer.
With the wreckage aboard, the Explorer’s crew began picking it apart as the ship headed back to the US.
The CIA was preparing for a second recovery effort, called Project Matador, but on March 18, 1975, reporter Jack Anderson broke the story of Project Azorian.
CIA Director William Colby had personally persuaded other journalists, including Seymour Hersh of The New York Times, to hold their stories until after K-129 had been fully recovered. Anderson refused Colby’s requests and broadcasted his story on national radio.
A partial success and a lasting legacy
With the CIA’s cover blown, the White House canceled the second recovery effort. Project Matador was shut down, and the Soviet Navy began closely monitoring the ocean around the wreck.
But the operation was still fruitful. The CIA has never fully disclosed what it recovered, but the haul is believed to include at least two nuclear-tipped torpedoes and a collection of documents, as well as the sub’s bell.
The recovered section also provided insight into Soviet submarine design, such as where important pieces were manufactured, how often they were replaced, and the thickness of the sub’s hull.
Six bodies and a number of body parts were also recovered. In September 1974, as they sailed home, the crew of the Explorer conducted a burial at sea for the fallen submariners.
CIA director Robert Gates gave Russian President Boris Yeltsin a recording of the burial in 1992. The Russians were also given the sub’s bell.
An enduring legacy of Project Azorian was the “Glomar Response,” a bit of legalese devised by the CIA in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by Rolling Stone reporter Harriet Ann Phillippi in 1976.
The agency was legally required to reply, so it said it could neither “confirm nor deny” the existence of records relating to the program. A court later upheld it as a legitimate response.
Benjamin Brimelow is a reporter at Business Insider.
RT AND FOX AGREE
Ukraine Joining NATO Could Spark War With Russia. There Is Another Way
By Daniel Davis
Ukraine Joining NATO Could Spark War With Russia. There Is Another Way
By Daniel Davis
A U.S. Marine with 1st Battalion, 3rd Marines, fires a shoulder-fired Javelin missile during exercise Bougainville II at Pohakuloa Training Area, Hawaii, April 18, 2021. Bougainville II is the second phase of pre-deployment training conducted by the battalion designed to increase combat readiness through complex and realistic live-fire training.
(U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Jacob Wilson)
In an effort to deter Russian President Vladimir Putin from attacking Ukraine, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen wrote on Monday it was time to call “Putin’s bluff,” by setting “out an action plan to realize our promise” to offer NATO membership to Ukraine and Georgia.
Instead of deterring the Russian leader, such action would more likely spur Putin to act.
While no one in the West should surrender decision-making to Moscow, there are a number of practical measures Washington could take to deescalate the situation – and simultaneously increase U.S. national security.
Going back well into the Cold War, the most popular – if not reflexive – Washington response to anything related to Moscow is to “show strength” and lead with either the threat or imposition of sanctions, or to posture militarily with exercises near the Russian border and talk of expanding NATO to Russia’s border. While these ideas play well with establishment thinking and major media, they have been disastrously unsuccessful in accomplishing U.S. strategic objectives.
Regardless of who sits in the White House, the president’s top foreign policy objectives must always be to protect the American homeland and preserve our ability to prosper. Sometimes the best means of attaining those objectives is the threat or use of force.
Congress declared war in 1941 when the United States was deliberately attacked by Japan. America fought that war to complete victory. Strength and resolve preserved our security and prevented a nuclear war with Russia in 1962 when President John F. Kennedy stared down a Soviet dictator. But there is a far longer, more ignominious string of policy failures that partly or fully resulted from relying on the use or threat of force.
Sponsored Content
Consider America’s disastrous and unnecessary war of choice in Vietnam that neither improved our security nor prevented any mythical dominoes from falling (at a cost of 58,000+ troops dead). Likewise, the 20-year Afghan war in which a parade of presidents and generals lied to the American people, that “just a little more force” would win the day (predictably, it never did, and at a cost of over 22,000 total U.S. casualties and a mind-numbing $2 trillion, we outright lost the war).
And perhaps most egregiously, we chose to fight a wholly unnecessary war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in 2003 (which remains an open sore for periodic U.S. combat losses – and whose government is now more closely aligned to Tehran than Washington).
I could also cite the utter failures of our military-first policies to stop North Korea from getting nuclear weapons, our virtually exclusive reliance on “maximum pressure” against Iran (which does more to push Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons than dissuade them), and what may prove to be the most damaging of all: the decades’ long relentless drive to push NATO up to Russia’s border, somehow believing that would keep us safe, when the only fruit it has produced is to increase the risk of war with Moscow.
In light of so much policy failure over the past several decades in which coercion and threat or use of military force have played the primary role, we should recognize that we are dangerously beyond the time when new methods must be applied. This deteriorating situation in Ukraine is the perfect place to change course to something that has a chance of producing a positive outcome for America.
No one in the West desires to see Ukraine lose its freedom or be invaded by Russia. The question is, what strategies give Kyiv the best chance of avoiding that fate? If we continue only threatening severe sanctions against Moscow, promise to send more weapons to Ukraine, and deploy more NATO combat power along Russia’s border, the most likely outcome is to precipitate the result we claim to want to prevent: the loss of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and the possibility of war between the U.S. and Russia. There are, however, superior options available to Washington and NATO.
First, the Western alliance should pay more attention to its own standards and cool the jets on talk of offering membership to Ukraine. NATO has properly strict standards for any aspirant country. No nation should be invited to join the alliance, NATO documents specify, “which have ethnic disputes or external territorial disputes, including irredentist claims, or internal jurisdictional disputes.” Ukraine has dramatic internal ethnic disputes between the eastern and western parts of their country and have major territorial disputes with Russia.
Second, the United States needs to focus more on American national security than a non-treaty country with significant disputes with its nuclear-armed neighbor. There is no value for the U.S. in risking war with Russia or in materially worsening relations with them, over a long-simmering border dispute between two nations.
Third, the policy that has the best chance of preserving Ukrainian sovereignty and increasing NATO security would be for Kyiv to declare military neutrality. Putin’s overriding fear is the NATO military alliance advancing to his border. Removing that possibility greatly reduces any motivation Putin may have to invade and would enhance NATO security by keeping a buffer between Russia and the alliance.
Many in Brussels and Washington chafe at such a consideration, suggesting such a policy would be giving in to Russia. Many will instead continue advocating for threats of sanctions, for building up further military power near Russia and giving increasingly lethal weapons to Kyiv to fight Moscow. The disaster of the past several decades of failed military-first policies should conclusively disabuse Western policymakers from believing that, this time, threats and military power will work.
Observing that Putin has already used military power to achieve limited aims against bordering states in 2008 and 2014 should also demonstrate to NATO leaders that more threats will likely push Putin to order additional Russian action into Ukraine, not deter him from it.
It is time we acknowledge the multiple, decades-long instances of failure through the application of military-first policies, and instead, change course to something that acknowledges on-the-ground reality and has a chance at successfully attaining a positive outcome for U.S. national security. Stubbornly clinging to failed policies of the past because forceful, coercive tactics have become the norm, could cause us to discover the cost to our country is more than we can afford.
Daniel L. Davis, now a 1945 Contributing Editor, is a Senior Fellow for Defense Priorities and a former Lt. Col. in the U.S. Army who deployed into combat zones four times. He is the author of “The Eleventh Hour in 2020 America.” Follow him @DanielLDavis1.
In an effort to deter Russian President Vladimir Putin from attacking Ukraine, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen wrote on Monday it was time to call “Putin’s bluff,” by setting “out an action plan to realize our promise” to offer NATO membership to Ukraine and Georgia.
Instead of deterring the Russian leader, such action would more likely spur Putin to act.
While no one in the West should surrender decision-making to Moscow, there are a number of practical measures Washington could take to deescalate the situation – and simultaneously increase U.S. national security.
Going back well into the Cold War, the most popular – if not reflexive – Washington response to anything related to Moscow is to “show strength” and lead with either the threat or imposition of sanctions, or to posture militarily with exercises near the Russian border and talk of expanding NATO to Russia’s border. While these ideas play well with establishment thinking and major media, they have been disastrously unsuccessful in accomplishing U.S. strategic objectives.
Regardless of who sits in the White House, the president’s top foreign policy objectives must always be to protect the American homeland and preserve our ability to prosper. Sometimes the best means of attaining those objectives is the threat or use of force.
Congress declared war in 1941 when the United States was deliberately attacked by Japan. America fought that war to complete victory. Strength and resolve preserved our security and prevented a nuclear war with Russia in 1962 when President John F. Kennedy stared down a Soviet dictator. But there is a far longer, more ignominious string of policy failures that partly or fully resulted from relying on the use or threat of force.
Sponsored Content
Consider America’s disastrous and unnecessary war of choice in Vietnam that neither improved our security nor prevented any mythical dominoes from falling (at a cost of 58,000+ troops dead). Likewise, the 20-year Afghan war in which a parade of presidents and generals lied to the American people, that “just a little more force” would win the day (predictably, it never did, and at a cost of over 22,000 total U.S. casualties and a mind-numbing $2 trillion, we outright lost the war).
And perhaps most egregiously, we chose to fight a wholly unnecessary war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in 2003 (which remains an open sore for periodic U.S. combat losses – and whose government is now more closely aligned to Tehran than Washington).
I could also cite the utter failures of our military-first policies to stop North Korea from getting nuclear weapons, our virtually exclusive reliance on “maximum pressure” against Iran (which does more to push Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons than dissuade them), and what may prove to be the most damaging of all: the decades’ long relentless drive to push NATO up to Russia’s border, somehow believing that would keep us safe, when the only fruit it has produced is to increase the risk of war with Moscow.
In light of so much policy failure over the past several decades in which coercion and threat or use of military force have played the primary role, we should recognize that we are dangerously beyond the time when new methods must be applied. This deteriorating situation in Ukraine is the perfect place to change course to something that has a chance of producing a positive outcome for America.
No one in the West desires to see Ukraine lose its freedom or be invaded by Russia. The question is, what strategies give Kyiv the best chance of avoiding that fate? If we continue only threatening severe sanctions against Moscow, promise to send more weapons to Ukraine, and deploy more NATO combat power along Russia’s border, the most likely outcome is to precipitate the result we claim to want to prevent: the loss of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and the possibility of war between the U.S. and Russia. There are, however, superior options available to Washington and NATO.
First, the Western alliance should pay more attention to its own standards and cool the jets on talk of offering membership to Ukraine. NATO has properly strict standards for any aspirant country. No nation should be invited to join the alliance, NATO documents specify, “which have ethnic disputes or external territorial disputes, including irredentist claims, or internal jurisdictional disputes.” Ukraine has dramatic internal ethnic disputes between the eastern and western parts of their country and have major territorial disputes with Russia.
Second, the United States needs to focus more on American national security than a non-treaty country with significant disputes with its nuclear-armed neighbor. There is no value for the U.S. in risking war with Russia or in materially worsening relations with them, over a long-simmering border dispute between two nations.
Third, the policy that has the best chance of preserving Ukrainian sovereignty and increasing NATO security would be for Kyiv to declare military neutrality. Putin’s overriding fear is the NATO military alliance advancing to his border. Removing that possibility greatly reduces any motivation Putin may have to invade and would enhance NATO security by keeping a buffer between Russia and the alliance.
Many in Brussels and Washington chafe at such a consideration, suggesting such a policy would be giving in to Russia. Many will instead continue advocating for threats of sanctions, for building up further military power near Russia and giving increasingly lethal weapons to Kyiv to fight Moscow. The disaster of the past several decades of failed military-first policies should conclusively disabuse Western policymakers from believing that, this time, threats and military power will work.
Observing that Putin has already used military power to achieve limited aims against bordering states in 2008 and 2014 should also demonstrate to NATO leaders that more threats will likely push Putin to order additional Russian action into Ukraine, not deter him from it.
It is time we acknowledge the multiple, decades-long instances of failure through the application of military-first policies, and instead, change course to something that acknowledges on-the-ground reality and has a chance at successfully attaining a positive outcome for U.S. national security. Stubbornly clinging to failed policies of the past because forceful, coercive tactics have become the norm, could cause us to discover the cost to our country is more than we can afford.
Daniel L. Davis, now a 1945 Contributing Editor, is a Senior Fellow for Defense Priorities and a former Lt. Col. in the U.S. Army who deployed into combat zones four times. He is the author of “The Eleventh Hour in 2020 America.” Follow him @DanielLDavis1.
Climate change emergency cannot be solved by disintegrating democracies
BY DAVID SHEARMAN,
BY DAVID SHEARMAN,
OPINION CONTRIBUTOR
— 01/03/22
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS
ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL
President Biden’s climate agenda was launched with hopes, prayers and the expectation of leadership to all world democracies, like a glorious ship set on a maiden voyage: the SS Biden. There is now deep concern that in stormy seas it has been driven onto rocks, still intact but in need of a high tide to free it.
The SS (Steam Ship) Biden by definition is fuelled by coal or oil. One is reminded of the disregard for the safety of passengers on the Titanic highlighted by several of the company’s questionable decisions, including to sail when a fire due to spontaneous combustion in coal was burning in a bunker, likely contributing to the ship’s untimely end.
Despite the world’s climate heating crisis, the Biden ship is still powered by fossil fuels and the U.S. liquefied natural gas export capacity will be the world’s largest by end of 2022 closely followed by Australia and Qatar.
Yes, this gas is burned by other countries and the three wealthy exporting countries do not have to account for these emissions domestically. The degree of responsibility for these Scope 3 emissions is a vexed issue. In some countries their import and use will impair development of clean energy and its necessary decentralization. Indeed, Solar household systems are the healthy and affordable answer in Africa, Bangladesh and some other Asian countries.
The U.S. could certainly provide leadership to the world by accepting responsibility for half the emissions from exported gas and coal and pressure other wealthy exporters to follow.
I have detailed the imminent dangers of gas to the control of climate change previously, including dangers accepted by the U.S. in its pledge to reduce methane emissions by 30 percent by 2030.
Nevertheless, the burning of oil and gas extracted from the U.S. over the next decade is predicted to consume 10 percent of the entire world’s remaining carbon budget, which cannot be exceeded if global warming is to be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius. Australia may well add another 10 percent.
How can this be accepted by the U.S. government and public when modelling by the UN shows that even if all countries deliver their COP26 climate summit pledges, warming by the end of the century is likely to be about 2.5 degrees Celsius? Currently, with 1.1 degrees Celsius of warming there are terrible impacts from extreme weather including the recent ferocious Colorado wildfires. These are just a taste of future devastations leading to national economies being totally consumed by constant reparations of infrastructure.
Clearly, President Biden placed great reliance on reducing domestic emissions by a range of measures in a Build Back Better initiative, which was grounded on the rocks of a democratic congressman who appears to accept climate change and yet opposes constraints on fossil fuel production. The president now has to resort to executive orders and to a range of other measures, which do not require legislation.
This brings us to the crux of the problem. Our western democracies can no longer deliver consensus and action on issues that threaten the continued existence of humanity, not least the most powerful democracy in the world.
A recent article in the Economist on threats to American democracy places the blame on extreme partisanship with each major party focussing on voting reform, which means different things to each side. This fails to understand that the threat to democracy resides in its inherent inadequacy to deal with today’s urgent and overwhelming world issues.
In the U.S., there are 109 members of the House of Representatives and 30 senators who refuse to acknowledge the scientific evidence of human-caused climate change. These members have received more than $61 million in lifetime contributions from the oil, gas and coal industries.
In the COVID-19 pandemic, many elected officials did not accept the science of vaccination and the need to recommend simple preventative measures, such as mask-wearing.
Many amazed observers in the international community liken these climate and COVID positions to a reversion to pre-enlightenment times by elected representatives and their followers. The definitions of facts and the truth have been usurped and the scientific consensus on climate change has become a hoax to many in the United States. Is this the same country with the scientific brains to put a man on the moon and deliver countless scientific advances for humanity?
The U.S. is not alone in democratic disintegration. Climate denial and anti-vaccination sentiment exist in many countries but have not become as debilitating as they appear to have done in the United States.
Over the past four decades, the failures of liberal democracies to address environmental issues and particularly climate change have become increasingly apparent. In 2007, these failures were detailed and today we find they remain unaddressed. Indeed, one failure has become the salient problem, the need to separate governance from corporate capitalism.
The common denominator in current democratic failure is government unwillingness to accept that many of the problems we now confront are so complex and urgent as to be beyond the comprehension and abilities of elected officials. The issue of climate emergency is compounded by two additional interrelated issues: Elected officials place their political survival before collective needs and many defer to an overwhelmingly powerful fossil fuel industry for personal gain.
To become relevant today, elected governments have to be prepared to accept advice and guidance from independent commissions of scientists and other relevant experts selected by their peers — and not by political appointment. The details of this guidance need to be available to all parties and to the public. A starting model for the U.S. and many other countries might be a strengthened U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with appointees selected by peers and not politically appointed.
Currently, the SS Biden continues sailing to its doom. When the iceberg ripped a hole in the “unsinkable” Titanic the orchestra continued playing “Nearer my God to Thee” while the ship sank. The passengers from the upper social crust, the rich bankers and industrialists who resided on the upper decks were soon seated in lifeboats, while the working poor on the lower decks went to their watery grave.
Today, the upper crust, the moneyed titans, seem secure in their gated communities and there is speculation that they have already constructed their own space lifeboats, ahead of the world’s Titanic moment, to journey to a liveable planet in an abundant universe awaiting exploitation.
David Shearman (AM, Ph.D., FRACP, FRCPE) is a professor of medicine at the University of Adelaide, South Australia and co-founder of Doctors for the Environment Australia. He is co-author of “The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy” (2007) commissioned by the Pell Centre for International Relations and Public Policy.
President Biden’s climate agenda was launched with hopes, prayers and the expectation of leadership to all world democracies, like a glorious ship set on a maiden voyage: the SS Biden. There is now deep concern that in stormy seas it has been driven onto rocks, still intact but in need of a high tide to free it.
The SS (Steam Ship) Biden by definition is fuelled by coal or oil. One is reminded of the disregard for the safety of passengers on the Titanic highlighted by several of the company’s questionable decisions, including to sail when a fire due to spontaneous combustion in coal was burning in a bunker, likely contributing to the ship’s untimely end.
Despite the world’s climate heating crisis, the Biden ship is still powered by fossil fuels and the U.S. liquefied natural gas export capacity will be the world’s largest by end of 2022 closely followed by Australia and Qatar.
Yes, this gas is burned by other countries and the three wealthy exporting countries do not have to account for these emissions domestically. The degree of responsibility for these Scope 3 emissions is a vexed issue. In some countries their import and use will impair development of clean energy and its necessary decentralization. Indeed, Solar household systems are the healthy and affordable answer in Africa, Bangladesh and some other Asian countries.
The U.S. could certainly provide leadership to the world by accepting responsibility for half the emissions from exported gas and coal and pressure other wealthy exporters to follow.
I have detailed the imminent dangers of gas to the control of climate change previously, including dangers accepted by the U.S. in its pledge to reduce methane emissions by 30 percent by 2030.
Nevertheless, the burning of oil and gas extracted from the U.S. over the next decade is predicted to consume 10 percent of the entire world’s remaining carbon budget, which cannot be exceeded if global warming is to be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius. Australia may well add another 10 percent.
How can this be accepted by the U.S. government and public when modelling by the UN shows that even if all countries deliver their COP26 climate summit pledges, warming by the end of the century is likely to be about 2.5 degrees Celsius? Currently, with 1.1 degrees Celsius of warming there are terrible impacts from extreme weather including the recent ferocious Colorado wildfires. These are just a taste of future devastations leading to national economies being totally consumed by constant reparations of infrastructure.
Clearly, President Biden placed great reliance on reducing domestic emissions by a range of measures in a Build Back Better initiative, which was grounded on the rocks of a democratic congressman who appears to accept climate change and yet opposes constraints on fossil fuel production. The president now has to resort to executive orders and to a range of other measures, which do not require legislation.
This brings us to the crux of the problem. Our western democracies can no longer deliver consensus and action on issues that threaten the continued existence of humanity, not least the most powerful democracy in the world.
A recent article in the Economist on threats to American democracy places the blame on extreme partisanship with each major party focussing on voting reform, which means different things to each side. This fails to understand that the threat to democracy resides in its inherent inadequacy to deal with today’s urgent and overwhelming world issues.
In the U.S., there are 109 members of the House of Representatives and 30 senators who refuse to acknowledge the scientific evidence of human-caused climate change. These members have received more than $61 million in lifetime contributions from the oil, gas and coal industries.
In the COVID-19 pandemic, many elected officials did not accept the science of vaccination and the need to recommend simple preventative measures, such as mask-wearing.
Many amazed observers in the international community liken these climate and COVID positions to a reversion to pre-enlightenment times by elected representatives and their followers. The definitions of facts and the truth have been usurped and the scientific consensus on climate change has become a hoax to many in the United States. Is this the same country with the scientific brains to put a man on the moon and deliver countless scientific advances for humanity?
The U.S. is not alone in democratic disintegration. Climate denial and anti-vaccination sentiment exist in many countries but have not become as debilitating as they appear to have done in the United States.
Over the past four decades, the failures of liberal democracies to address environmental issues and particularly climate change have become increasingly apparent. In 2007, these failures were detailed and today we find they remain unaddressed. Indeed, one failure has become the salient problem, the need to separate governance from corporate capitalism.
The common denominator in current democratic failure is government unwillingness to accept that many of the problems we now confront are so complex and urgent as to be beyond the comprehension and abilities of elected officials. The issue of climate emergency is compounded by two additional interrelated issues: Elected officials place their political survival before collective needs and many defer to an overwhelmingly powerful fossil fuel industry for personal gain.
To become relevant today, elected governments have to be prepared to accept advice and guidance from independent commissions of scientists and other relevant experts selected by their peers — and not by political appointment. The details of this guidance need to be available to all parties and to the public. A starting model for the U.S. and many other countries might be a strengthened U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with appointees selected by peers and not politically appointed.
Currently, the SS Biden continues sailing to its doom. When the iceberg ripped a hole in the “unsinkable” Titanic the orchestra continued playing “Nearer my God to Thee” while the ship sank. The passengers from the upper social crust, the rich bankers and industrialists who resided on the upper decks were soon seated in lifeboats, while the working poor on the lower decks went to their watery grave.
Today, the upper crust, the moneyed titans, seem secure in their gated communities and there is speculation that they have already constructed their own space lifeboats, ahead of the world’s Titanic moment, to journey to a liveable planet in an abundant universe awaiting exploitation.
David Shearman (AM, Ph.D., FRACP, FRCPE) is a professor of medicine at the University of Adelaide, South Australia and co-founder of Doctors for the Environment Australia. He is co-author of “The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy” (2007) commissioned by the Pell Centre for International Relations and Public Policy.
Fox News Attacks Native Americans After Vice President Harris Calls on Americans to Reckon with Its Shameful Past
Sean Duffy and Rachel Campos-Duffy talk derogatory about Native Americans in Fox News Primetime.
(Photo/YouTube)
Sean Duffy and Rachel Campos-Duffy talk derogatory about Native Americans in Fox News Primetime.
(Photo/YouTube)
BY LEVI RICKERT
OCTOBER 17, 2021
Opinion.
Opinion.
On Monday, tribes across Indian Country commemorated Indigenous Peoples’ Day from Alcatraz Island to New York City and throughout hundreds of tribal communities in between. The commemorations and celebrations featured singing, dancing and speeches laced with truths recognizing the struggles Indigenous people face today.
The next day, Vice President Kamala Harris, the first Black, Asian and woman vice president of the United States, addressed the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI).
Vice President said to the NCAI delegates:
“Since 1934, every October, the United States has recognized the voyage of the European explorers who first landed on the shores of the Americas. But that is not the whole story. That has never been the whole story.
Those explorers ushered in a wave of devastation for Tribal nations -- perpetrating violence, stealing land, and spreading disease.
We must not shy away from this shameful past, and we must shed light on it and do everything we can to address the impact of the past on Native communities today.”
All this coming—speaking of genocidal practices—from the vice president was too much for Fox News.
On Fox News Primetime, hosts Rachel Campos-Duffy and Jesse Watters devoted a segment of their program to call out the vice president for saying America should reckon with its shameful past. Campos-Duffy was joined by her husband, former Wisconsin Congressman Sean Duffy (R), Fox News contributor, to defend the lost voyager. Soon their defense of Columbus turned into an attack Native Americans.
“Christopher Columbus, by the way, is the first victim of cancel culture,” Campos-Duffy said and then opined that Native Americans “were just as brutal” as Columbus and other European colonizers.
The former congressman suggested liberals judge Native Americans by their past, too.
“They burned villages, raped women, seized children, took the people they defeated, took their land, scalped people,” the ex-Republican congressman said. “It was a horrible time all across the globe. But they want to apply the ‘woke’ standard that they have today on Christopher Columbus, but nobody else in the world!”
While in Congress, Duffy represented Wisconsin’s 7th congressional district that includes eight federally recognized tribes. With his worldview about Native Americans, one can be glad Duffy is no longer able to vote on legislation impacting tribal nations as he certainly is no friend to Native Americans.
His wife wasn’t done with Native Americans on Wednesday evening.
“And the lie isn’t just about our past,” Campos-Duffy said. “The real lie is with conditions for Native Americans right now. The conditions from Native Americans have everything to do with government dependency, cycles of poverty and alcoholism, and family breakdowns, and these are things that the Democrats don’t want to talk about.”
She continued to say Democrats are telling Native Americans that “all the things you’re experiencing has to do with white people and racism in the past.”
“It has to do with government policies as well,” she continued.
“Yeah, they’re just going to try to send more slush funds to the reservations, and make them out to be victims, and then have them keep voting for Democrats,” Watters added.
Crystal Echo Hawk (Pawnee), founder and executive director of IllumiNative, an initiative created and led by Natives to challenge the narrative surrounding Native people, called that rhetoric dangerous.
It is “incredibly harmful and dangerous and very clearly rooted in racism and white supremacy,” Echo Hawk writes in a statement. “Instead of allowing people to perpetuate revisionist history that erases the true history of this country - we need to start calling it what it was: genocide. For so long, Americans have chosen to omit and forget us from history and the present day. They render us down to grossly inaccurate stereotypes to perpetuate the discrimination and oppression of Native Americans that began with their ‘founding fathers.’ But we know these are lies non-Natives tell themselves to feel better, even proud about the horrifying truth of this country -- and of their ancestors.”
It is hard to imagine these three talking heads would get a free pass if they were to do a segment on any other racial group. Imagine what would happen if they sat there and invoked the stereotypes of Blacks or Hispanics. For some reason Native Americans became their fodder and Indian Country should be outraged.
Fox News’ assessment that Native Americans are alcoholics who are dependent on the government is completely absurd. An honest look across American society would yield the abundance of non-Native alcoholics and greedy corporations that seem to be dependent on government grants and “handouts.”
Fox News Primetime exchange reinforced why I never watch Fox News, which has done more harm to America through its constant barrage of lies, hate and far-fetched propaganda.
Vice President Harris should be commended for acknowledging America’s shameful past.
The next day, Vice President Kamala Harris, the first Black, Asian and woman vice president of the United States, addressed the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI).
Vice President said to the NCAI delegates:
“Since 1934, every October, the United States has recognized the voyage of the European explorers who first landed on the shores of the Americas. But that is not the whole story. That has never been the whole story.
Those explorers ushered in a wave of devastation for Tribal nations -- perpetrating violence, stealing land, and spreading disease.
We must not shy away from this shameful past, and we must shed light on it and do everything we can to address the impact of the past on Native communities today.”
All this coming—speaking of genocidal practices—from the vice president was too much for Fox News.
On Fox News Primetime, hosts Rachel Campos-Duffy and Jesse Watters devoted a segment of their program to call out the vice president for saying America should reckon with its shameful past. Campos-Duffy was joined by her husband, former Wisconsin Congressman Sean Duffy (R), Fox News contributor, to defend the lost voyager. Soon their defense of Columbus turned into an attack Native Americans.
“Christopher Columbus, by the way, is the first victim of cancel culture,” Campos-Duffy said and then opined that Native Americans “were just as brutal” as Columbus and other European colonizers.
The former congressman suggested liberals judge Native Americans by their past, too.
“They burned villages, raped women, seized children, took the people they defeated, took their land, scalped people,” the ex-Republican congressman said. “It was a horrible time all across the globe. But they want to apply the ‘woke’ standard that they have today on Christopher Columbus, but nobody else in the world!”
While in Congress, Duffy represented Wisconsin’s 7th congressional district that includes eight federally recognized tribes. With his worldview about Native Americans, one can be glad Duffy is no longer able to vote on legislation impacting tribal nations as he certainly is no friend to Native Americans.
His wife wasn’t done with Native Americans on Wednesday evening.
“And the lie isn’t just about our past,” Campos-Duffy said. “The real lie is with conditions for Native Americans right now. The conditions from Native Americans have everything to do with government dependency, cycles of poverty and alcoholism, and family breakdowns, and these are things that the Democrats don’t want to talk about.”
She continued to say Democrats are telling Native Americans that “all the things you’re experiencing has to do with white people and racism in the past.”
“It has to do with government policies as well,” she continued.
“Yeah, they’re just going to try to send more slush funds to the reservations, and make them out to be victims, and then have them keep voting for Democrats,” Watters added.
Crystal Echo Hawk (Pawnee), founder and executive director of IllumiNative, an initiative created and led by Natives to challenge the narrative surrounding Native people, called that rhetoric dangerous.
It is “incredibly harmful and dangerous and very clearly rooted in racism and white supremacy,” Echo Hawk writes in a statement. “Instead of allowing people to perpetuate revisionist history that erases the true history of this country - we need to start calling it what it was: genocide. For so long, Americans have chosen to omit and forget us from history and the present day. They render us down to grossly inaccurate stereotypes to perpetuate the discrimination and oppression of Native Americans that began with their ‘founding fathers.’ But we know these are lies non-Natives tell themselves to feel better, even proud about the horrifying truth of this country -- and of their ancestors.”
It is hard to imagine these three talking heads would get a free pass if they were to do a segment on any other racial group. Imagine what would happen if they sat there and invoked the stereotypes of Blacks or Hispanics. For some reason Native Americans became their fodder and Indian Country should be outraged.
Fox News’ assessment that Native Americans are alcoholics who are dependent on the government is completely absurd. An honest look across American society would yield the abundance of non-Native alcoholics and greedy corporations that seem to be dependent on government grants and “handouts.”
Fox News Primetime exchange reinforced why I never watch Fox News, which has done more harm to America through its constant barrage of lies, hate and far-fetched propaganda.
Vice President Harris should be commended for acknowledging America’s shameful past.
New Report Examines Health Disparities Among Indigenous Peoples in NYC
Screenshot of NYC Dept. of Health Report "Health of Indigenous Peoples of the Americas Living in New York City" showing a map of the South Bronx, Harlem, and East Harlem: "Snapshot maps provided by the Endangered Language Alliance. More information at: https://languagemap.nyc/. Yellow highlight indicates languages of American Indians/First Nations/Indigenous peoples of the Americas spoken in NYC. These represent languages that have survived 529 years of colonization and forced assimilation."
- BY NATIVE NEWS ONLINE STAFF
NEW YORK — More Indigenous people live in New York City than nearly any other city in the United States, but those who live there face inequities in education and health outcomes when compared to their white counterparts.
That’s according to the New York City Health Department’s first ever research project released last month that looks at the health conditions of more than 100,000 Indigenous people from North, Central, and South America who called New York City home from 2013 to 2017.
The report, Health of Indigenous Peoples of the Americas Living in New York City, found that Indigenous peoples in New York City have higher rates of poverty and unemployment than white residents, lower rates of health insurance coverage, and spend more of their income on rent. Fewer Indigenous people held high school diplomas than white New Yorkers, a point the study also correlates to poorer health outcomes.
“The analysis …reveals that some health outcomes among Indigenous peoples of the Americas in NYC are comparable to those seen among other communities of color in NYC that have been negatively impacted by many years of racist policies and unjust practices,” the report reads.
Those inequalities were exacerbated by COVID-19.
While the Center for Disease Control and Prevention found that Native American and Alaska Natives were impacted by COVID-19 more than any other racial group across the country, New York City failed to collect specific racial data on Indigenous peoples by instead grouping them in an “other” category.
“The current methods used by the Census, the NYC Health Department, and others likely undercount Indigenous peoples of the Americas,” the report notes. “This has important implications when inequities in health by race are addressed or economic opportunities by race are made available, as Indigenous peoples of the Americas are excluded from consideration.”
As a result, the City’s health department implemented a change to the NYC Community Health Survey, to expand the questionnaire response options from solely American Indian/Alaska Native to also include Native, First Nations, and Indigenous Peoples of the Americas. They also added a follow up question asking respondents to identify tribal heritage or ancestry.
The report also recognizes the circumstances that lead these communities to the City: “Many Indigenous peoples of the Americas were forced to migrate from their homelands in Latin America due to war or persecution, land theft and displacement, and impoverishment.; often their status as Indigenous peoples is unrecognized in the U.S.,” the report notes.
For the first time in the health department’s history, COVID-19 public health information was released in 12 Indigneous languages provided by local community leaders. The health department is also supporting a grant initiative led by the Red de Pueblos Transnacionales (Transnational Villages Network), a group of Indigneous peoples from Mexico, to translate vaccination information and other social services in neighborhoods with large numbers of Indigenous migrants.
UK steel future uncertain without US tariffs deal
The government argues that the steel dispute could in fact lead to further complications in Northern Ireland, because of its special status as part of the EU single market for goods.
But it is an awkward mix.
What's next?
There is also the question of stepping up UK retaliation against the US tariffs.
The government's formal response to a public consultation on further counter-measures has already been delayed, and it cannot be put off forever,
Trade secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan issued a careful warning when she spoke to the BBC last month, after returning from a visit to Washington,
"We had a very frank conversation, and I was very clear that the pressures that we are under to use countervailing measures if we can't solve the problem are becoming more and more acute."
The government certainly hopes the dispute can be resolved soon, before it gets worse.
A solution later this month would be a great relief, and the message from industry is pretty clear.
"Crack on, please," says UCB's James Brand. "Let's get a deal brokered as soon as possible and put us on a level playing field with the rest of Europe."
It wasn't supposed to be like this. After Brexit, the UK was relying on a closer relationship with the US than it had when it was part of the EU.
But in matters of trade, many things are easier said than done.
IMAGE SOURCE,GETTY IMAGES
UK steel companies have been operating at a significant disadvantage compared to their European rivals since the beginning of 2022.
The EU has done a deal with the US, which took effect on 1 January, to allow companies to export steel to the US again without any tariffs.
The UK is yet to reach a similar agreement though it is hoping for more talks with America this month.
It means British companies still face a 25% tariff on exports to the US.
And the effect of the change is already being felt.
Moving to Spain
At a foundry in Chesterfield, raw materials are being melted in a furnace to make cast iron bars.
Steel and cast iron are no longer a huge chunk of the British economy but they are about to get a little bit smaller.
Because of the US tariffs on products from the UK, United Cast Bar Limited (UCB), the company that runs this foundry, is moving some of its production to a factory in Spain.
"60% of the products we can make here we can also make in Spain," says James Brand, managing director of foundries at UCB. "And our customers don't want that extra 25% cost."
UCB's James Brand says if it moves steel production to Spain it is unlikey to return to the UK even with a US deal
But if the UK manages to do a deal of its own with the US, will that production come back?
"Probably not,' he says. "It really depends on how early the deal is done."
Once US importers get used to consignments arriving from Spain, a new trade pattern will have been established and the way the tariffs have been set up means they can't be avoided if any part of a product originates in the UK.
"It is highly likely we will just leave it over there (in Spain)," Mr Brand says. "Lost to the UK completely, then."
Trump's tariffs
It was President Donald Trump who signed an order in 2018 to introduce the steel tariffs on national security grounds, which he claimed was to help protect US jobs.
UK steel companies have been operating at a significant disadvantage compared to their European rivals since the beginning of 2022.
The EU has done a deal with the US, which took effect on 1 January, to allow companies to export steel to the US again without any tariffs.
The UK is yet to reach a similar agreement though it is hoping for more talks with America this month.
It means British companies still face a 25% tariff on exports to the US.
And the effect of the change is already being felt.
Moving to Spain
At a foundry in Chesterfield, raw materials are being melted in a furnace to make cast iron bars.
Steel and cast iron are no longer a huge chunk of the British economy but they are about to get a little bit smaller.
Because of the US tariffs on products from the UK, United Cast Bar Limited (UCB), the company that runs this foundry, is moving some of its production to a factory in Spain.
"60% of the products we can make here we can also make in Spain," says James Brand, managing director of foundries at UCB. "And our customers don't want that extra 25% cost."
UCB's James Brand says if it moves steel production to Spain it is unlikey to return to the UK even with a US deal
But if the UK manages to do a deal of its own with the US, will that production come back?
"Probably not,' he says. "It really depends on how early the deal is done."
Once US importers get used to consignments arriving from Spain, a new trade pattern will have been established and the way the tariffs have been set up means they can't be avoided if any part of a product originates in the UK.
"It is highly likely we will just leave it over there (in Spain)," Mr Brand says. "Lost to the UK completely, then."
Trump's tariffs
It was President Donald Trump who signed an order in 2018 to introduce the steel tariffs on national security grounds, which he claimed was to help protect US jobs.
Former US President Donald Trump claimed tariffs would protect American jobs
If the UK government had hoped that Joe Biden's administration would change course quickly, it has been disappointed.
Neither public diplomacy nor private negotiation has yet led to any breakthrough.
Following Mr Trump's move, both the UK and the EU retaliated with tariffs of their own against US products. But it is the EU that has got a deal done first, to resolve the dispute.
That's partly because in trade, size matters.
"They (the EU) are just bigger so they account for more steel exports to the US, and that means there is more interest from US importers in getting it resolved," says Soumaya Keynes, Britain economics editor at The Economist.
"And because there is more trade involved with the EU, the retaliation hurts more."
The EU was also more explicit about how it intended to accelerate retaliation against the American tariffs.
The UK was, says Ms Keynes, "a bit friendlier, a bit chummier, and that could mean the EU had more leverage."
Northern Ireland
For the UK government, there is an added complication.
There is political concern in Washington about British threats to suspend parts of the post-Brexit deal with the EU on Northern Ireland.
The two issues are quite separate, but it is possible that one could delay the other.
If the UK government had hoped that Joe Biden's administration would change course quickly, it has been disappointed.
Neither public diplomacy nor private negotiation has yet led to any breakthrough.
Following Mr Trump's move, both the UK and the EU retaliated with tariffs of their own against US products. But it is the EU that has got a deal done first, to resolve the dispute.
That's partly because in trade, size matters.
"They (the EU) are just bigger so they account for more steel exports to the US, and that means there is more interest from US importers in getting it resolved," says Soumaya Keynes, Britain economics editor at The Economist.
"And because there is more trade involved with the EU, the retaliation hurts more."
The EU was also more explicit about how it intended to accelerate retaliation against the American tariffs.
The UK was, says Ms Keynes, "a bit friendlier, a bit chummier, and that could mean the EU had more leverage."
Northern Ireland
For the UK government, there is an added complication.
There is political concern in Washington about British threats to suspend parts of the post-Brexit deal with the EU on Northern Ireland.
The two issues are quite separate, but it is possible that one could delay the other.
The government argues that the steel dispute could in fact lead to further complications in Northern Ireland, because of its special status as part of the EU single market for goods.
But it is an awkward mix.
What's next?
There is also the question of stepping up UK retaliation against the US tariffs.
The government's formal response to a public consultation on further counter-measures has already been delayed, and it cannot be put off forever,
Trade secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan issued a careful warning when she spoke to the BBC last month, after returning from a visit to Washington,
"We had a very frank conversation, and I was very clear that the pressures that we are under to use countervailing measures if we can't solve the problem are becoming more and more acute."
The government certainly hopes the dispute can be resolved soon, before it gets worse.
A solution later this month would be a great relief, and the message from industry is pretty clear.
"Crack on, please," says UCB's James Brand. "Let's get a deal brokered as soon as possible and put us on a level playing field with the rest of Europe."
It wasn't supposed to be like this. After Brexit, the UK was relying on a closer relationship with the US than it had when it was part of the EU.
But in matters of trade, many things are easier said than done.
Former UK Envoy: Tales About Hussein, Soleimani Part of US Record of 'Systematic Deception'
© AP Photo / Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - The United States is establishing a record of systematic deception in its now-discredited public accounts of the capture of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and the assassination of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, former UK Ambassador to Syria Peter Ford told Sputnik.
Monday marked two years since the US assassination of Soleimani, which comes less than a week after the 15-year anniversary of Hussein’s execution.
"It is helpful when a counter-narrative with the ring of truth eventually emerges, because cumulatively the United States is establishing a track record of systematic deception," Ford said. "When the US kills or captures its eminent enemies, deception is standard operating procedure (SOP)."
On December 30, 2006, Hussein was executed after the United States invaded Iraq on the pretext of searching for weapons of mass destruction - which were never found.
Following Hussein's arrest at the end of 2003, the Pentagon claimed that the former Iraqi president was found hiding in an eight-foot-deep hole under a farm. However, a former interpreter with US forces told Sputnik that Hussein was in a room and unconscious at the time of his arrest.
"In the endgame of the illegal invasion of Iraq the US was terrified lest Saddam emerge as a hero, defeated but unbowed. Regardless of truth the politics demanded that Saddam be arrested in humiliating conditions," Ford said. "It can't be proven, of course, but seen in this light the interpreter's denial of the story that Saddam was found cowering in a hole must be seen as highly likely to be true."
With respect to Soleimani, killed by a US drone strike in Baghdad on January 3, 2020, Ford recalled that "no proof was ever provided" to support Washington's allegations that the Iranian commander was planning imminent operations against US troops.
"The same SOP was used, obviously, to justify the original invasion of Iraq with fabricated charges of production of weapons of mass destruction. Similarly Syria was framed with crisis actors for alleged use of chemical weapons," Ford said.
Libyan ruler Muammar Qaddafi, he added, was liquidated after the United States invented a story that his troops were aiming at a bloodbath in Benghazi.
Ford said the US government continues to fabricate these tales basically because "it gets away with it."
"Most international media uncritically relays the US narrative," Ford concluded. "Occasionally, as with Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), the US gets found out, but by that time the caravan has moved on."
© AP Photo / Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - The United States is establishing a record of systematic deception in its now-discredited public accounts of the capture of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and the assassination of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, former UK Ambassador to Syria Peter Ford told Sputnik.
Monday marked two years since the US assassination of Soleimani, which comes less than a week after the 15-year anniversary of Hussein’s execution.
"It is helpful when a counter-narrative with the ring of truth eventually emerges, because cumulatively the United States is establishing a track record of systematic deception," Ford said. "When the US kills or captures its eminent enemies, deception is standard operating procedure (SOP)."
On December 30, 2006, Hussein was executed after the United States invaded Iraq on the pretext of searching for weapons of mass destruction - which were never found.
Following Hussein's arrest at the end of 2003, the Pentagon claimed that the former Iraqi president was found hiding in an eight-foot-deep hole under a farm. However, a former interpreter with US forces told Sputnik that Hussein was in a room and unconscious at the time of his arrest.
"In the endgame of the illegal invasion of Iraq the US was terrified lest Saddam emerge as a hero, defeated but unbowed. Regardless of truth the politics demanded that Saddam be arrested in humiliating conditions," Ford said. "It can't be proven, of course, but seen in this light the interpreter's denial of the story that Saddam was found cowering in a hole must be seen as highly likely to be true."
With respect to Soleimani, killed by a US drone strike in Baghdad on January 3, 2020, Ford recalled that "no proof was ever provided" to support Washington's allegations that the Iranian commander was planning imminent operations against US troops.
"The same SOP was used, obviously, to justify the original invasion of Iraq with fabricated charges of production of weapons of mass destruction. Similarly Syria was framed with crisis actors for alleged use of chemical weapons," Ford said.
Libyan ruler Muammar Qaddafi, he added, was liquidated after the United States invented a story that his troops were aiming at a bloodbath in Benghazi.
Ford said the US government continues to fabricate these tales basically because "it gets away with it."
"Most international media uncritically relays the US narrative," Ford concluded. "Occasionally, as with Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), the US gets found out, but by that time the caravan has moved on."
USA
Denver, Boulder area King Soopers union workers vote to strike
Photo by: Denver7
By: Blayke Roznowski
Posted Jan 03, 2022
DENVER — King Soopers union workers have voted to strike in the Denver and Boulder areas over what they’re calling unfair labor practices.
According to the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 7, which represents approximately 17,000 grocery workers from Kroger/King Soopers, the employees voted to strike because the company is trying to “prevent workers from securing a new contract advancing wages, health and retirement benefits.”
In total, 98% of Denver retail workers, 97% of Denver meat workers, 100% of Boulder meat workers,100% of Broomfield meat and retail workers and 100% of Parker meat workers voted to strike.
“King Soopers and City Market have missed a golden opportunity to show workers and customers that, as the industry leader, they want to make their stores the best places to work in Colorado. Local 7 will not rest until we secure a contract that respects, protects and pays these essential grocery workers,” said Kim Cordova, vice president of UFCW International and president of UFCW Local 7.
Cordova said a vote to strike is also occurring in Colorado Springs Monday evening, and Local 7 expects similar results.
The vote to strike comes after Local 7 filed a lawsuit against King Soopers last week, claiming a breach of contract over hiring vendors in the stores to perform work done by Local 7 members, with vendor employees being paid more than many King Soopers employees.
King Soopers employees will remain at work at least through the end of their current agreement, which expires at 11:59 p.m. on Jan. 8.
Jessica Trowbridge, a spokesperson for King Soopers, provided a statement saying the company is focused on negotiating the contract "in good faith," which includes $145 million in new wage investment. She says Local 7 has not provided a counteroffer.
"We take our obligation to provide our communities with access to fresh food and other essentials very seriously. At a time when Coloradoans are coming together to support our communities the UFCW LOCAL 7 is threating disruption?
"Let’s be clear, Local 7 issued a strike authorization vote related to alleged unfair labor practices. These allegations are just that, allegations, as King Soopers/City Market has followed the law and has NOT received any notice of wrongdoing from the National Labor Relations Board.
"The company is in the process of filing unfair labor practice charges against the union president and Local 7 for its bad faith bargaining and tactics as well as pursuing other legal action for unlawful conduct."
Photo by: Denver7
By: Blayke Roznowski
Posted Jan 03, 2022
DENVER — King Soopers union workers have voted to strike in the Denver and Boulder areas over what they’re calling unfair labor practices.
According to the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 7, which represents approximately 17,000 grocery workers from Kroger/King Soopers, the employees voted to strike because the company is trying to “prevent workers from securing a new contract advancing wages, health and retirement benefits.”
In total, 98% of Denver retail workers, 97% of Denver meat workers, 100% of Boulder meat workers,100% of Broomfield meat and retail workers and 100% of Parker meat workers voted to strike.
“King Soopers and City Market have missed a golden opportunity to show workers and customers that, as the industry leader, they want to make their stores the best places to work in Colorado. Local 7 will not rest until we secure a contract that respects, protects and pays these essential grocery workers,” said Kim Cordova, vice president of UFCW International and president of UFCW Local 7.
Cordova said a vote to strike is also occurring in Colorado Springs Monday evening, and Local 7 expects similar results.
The vote to strike comes after Local 7 filed a lawsuit against King Soopers last week, claiming a breach of contract over hiring vendors in the stores to perform work done by Local 7 members, with vendor employees being paid more than many King Soopers employees.
King Soopers employees will remain at work at least through the end of their current agreement, which expires at 11:59 p.m. on Jan. 8.
Jessica Trowbridge, a spokesperson for King Soopers, provided a statement saying the company is focused on negotiating the contract "in good faith," which includes $145 million in new wage investment. She says Local 7 has not provided a counteroffer.
"We take our obligation to provide our communities with access to fresh food and other essentials very seriously. At a time when Coloradoans are coming together to support our communities the UFCW LOCAL 7 is threating disruption?
"Let’s be clear, Local 7 issued a strike authorization vote related to alleged unfair labor practices. These allegations are just that, allegations, as King Soopers/City Market has followed the law and has NOT received any notice of wrongdoing from the National Labor Relations Board.
"The company is in the process of filing unfair labor practice charges against the union president and Local 7 for its bad faith bargaining and tactics as well as pursuing other legal action for unlawful conduct."
CHANGE.ORG PETITION TO RECAST T’CHALLA IN THE ‘BLACK PANTHER’ SEQUEL GETS 50,000 SIGNATURES
“To honor the legacy that Chad helped us build through his portrayal of the king of Wakanda, we want to continue to explore the world of Wakanda and all of the rich and varied characters introduced in the first film,” Feige said in December 2020, as noted by Deadline.
But even Chadwick’s brother, Derrick Boseman, is on board with the role of T’Challa being recast to continue the legacy of Black superheroes in mainstream films.
“If Marvel Studios removes T’Challa, it would be at the expense of the audiences (especially Black boys and men) who saw themselves in him. That also includes the millions of fans who were inspired by the character as well,” the call to action continued.
“By not recasting, it could stifle the opportunity for one of the most popular leading Black superheroes to add on to their legacy.”
In November, Marvel VP of Development Nate Moore said T’Challa would not be in the “MCU 616 universe.”
“WHEN CHAD PASSED, IT WAS A REAL CONVERSATION WE HAD WITH [DIRECTOR RYAN] COOGLER ABOUT, ‘WHAT DO WE DO?’ AND IT WAS A FAST CONVERSATION,” MOORE EXPLAINED ON THE RINGER-VERSE PODCAST.
“It wasn’t weeks; it was minutes of we had to figure out how to move that franchise on without that character. Because I think we all feel so much of T’Challa in the MCU on the screen… is tied to Chadwick’s performance.”
Black Panther 2 is set for release on Nov. 11, 2022.
January 3, 2022
(Image: Twitter/TheBlackPanther)
More than 50,000Marvel fans have come together in agreeance that the main character in the Black Panther sequel should perhaps be recast.
A Change.org petition requesting a new actor to play the role of T’Challa in the second installment of the Marvel blockbuster received over 50,000 signatures, the New York Daily News reports. Black Panther fans are hoping for a new T’Challa following the untimely passing of Chadwick Boseman in August 2020.
“THIS IS A CALL FOR THE PRESIDENT OF MARVEL STUDIOS KEVIN FEIGE, CO-PRESIDENT LOUIS D’ESPOSITO, AND WRITER/DIRECTOR RYAN COOGLER TO RECONSIDER THEIR DECISION, AND RECAST THE ROLE OF “T’CHALLA” IN THE BLACK PANTHER FRANCHISE,” THE PETITION READS.
The petition is in response to Feige’s decision to “honor the legacy” of Boseman by not recasting T’Challa within the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
(Image: Twitter/TheBlackPanther)
More than 50,000Marvel fans have come together in agreeance that the main character in the Black Panther sequel should perhaps be recast.
A Change.org petition requesting a new actor to play the role of T’Challa in the second installment of the Marvel blockbuster received over 50,000 signatures, the New York Daily News reports. Black Panther fans are hoping for a new T’Challa following the untimely passing of Chadwick Boseman in August 2020.
“THIS IS A CALL FOR THE PRESIDENT OF MARVEL STUDIOS KEVIN FEIGE, CO-PRESIDENT LOUIS D’ESPOSITO, AND WRITER/DIRECTOR RYAN COOGLER TO RECONSIDER THEIR DECISION, AND RECAST THE ROLE OF “T’CHALLA” IN THE BLACK PANTHER FRANCHISE,” THE PETITION READS.
The petition is in response to Feige’s decision to “honor the legacy” of Boseman by not recasting T’Challa within the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
“To honor the legacy that Chad helped us build through his portrayal of the king of Wakanda, we want to continue to explore the world of Wakanda and all of the rich and varied characters introduced in the first film,” Feige said in December 2020, as noted by Deadline.
But even Chadwick’s brother, Derrick Boseman, is on board with the role of T’Challa being recast to continue the legacy of Black superheroes in mainstream films.
“If Marvel Studios removes T’Challa, it would be at the expense of the audiences (especially Black boys and men) who saw themselves in him. That also includes the millions of fans who were inspired by the character as well,” the call to action continued.
“By not recasting, it could stifle the opportunity for one of the most popular leading Black superheroes to add on to their legacy.”
In November, Marvel VP of Development Nate Moore said T’Challa would not be in the “MCU 616 universe.”
“WHEN CHAD PASSED, IT WAS A REAL CONVERSATION WE HAD WITH [DIRECTOR RYAN] COOGLER ABOUT, ‘WHAT DO WE DO?’ AND IT WAS A FAST CONVERSATION,” MOORE EXPLAINED ON THE RINGER-VERSE PODCAST.
“It wasn’t weeks; it was minutes of we had to figure out how to move that franchise on without that character. Because I think we all feel so much of T’Challa in the MCU on the screen… is tied to Chadwick’s performance.”
Black Panther 2 is set for release on Nov. 11, 2022.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)