New Jersey approves two 1 Gigawatt+ offshore wind projects

The agreements will see both projects rely on the state's planned wind port.

JOHN TIMMER - 7/1/2021

Enlarge / New Jersey hopes to be the home of scenes like this,

 where French workers are building the foundations for offshore wind turbines.

By the end of the decade, New Jersey's beaches are set to have a view of something other than crashing waves. The state is pushing for aggressive development of offshore wind, having already approved a 1.1 GW wind farm. Yesterday, the state more than doubled its planned projects, reaching agreements that will let two additional 1 GW+ wind farms go into the waters off the southern portion of the state.

Perhaps as significant in the long run, both projects include an agreement that will see critical components of the wind farm assembled in a New Jersey port that the state is promoting as a hub for future offshore wind developments.
A multinational effort

The earlier agreement New Jersey put into place was for a project called Ocean Wind, a joint project between the state's major utility, PSE&G, and the Danish energy developer Ørsted, a major player in offshore wind. One of the projects approved yesterday is Ocean Wind II, which plans for another 1.1 GW of capacity supplied by using GE's Halide X turbines. These projects will be sited to the east of Cape May, the southernmost part of the state.

The second project is called Atlantic Shores, a joint effort between Shell New Energies (a division of the fossil fuel giant) and EDF Renewables, part of Électricité de France. Vestas, another Danish company, will provide the generating hardware. The project will supply 1.5 GW of capacity.

An agreement with New Jersey isn't the final hurdle the projects will need to clear, as federal approval will also be required. But given the Biden administration's goal of significantly expanding offshore wind, federal assent shouldn't be a problem.

Combined, the two projects come in at well over 2.6 GW of capacity; along with Ocean Wind I, they bring the state nearly halfway to its goal of having 7.5 GW of offshore wind capacity by 2035. Both projects are expected to be completed by the end of the decade.
More than just wind

The state received several additional benefits as part of the agreement. New Jersey has been promoting the use of one of its ports (Paulsboro, on the Delaware River just south of Philadelphia) as a hub for offshore wind development. Both companies have agreed to build the foundations for their wind farms at the port and will assemble nacelles (the part that houses the generator) there. This sort of commitment may help turn the Garden State into a major hub for wind farm production for much of the East Coast.

Both projects will also contribute money to cover the monitoring of their sites for environmental impacts, such as changes to New Jersey's recreational fishing. And they'll run pilot projects, including a truck electrification project and a hydrogen generation plant, that will test ways of leveraging all that renewable power.

At the same time, New Jersey is taking steps to prepare its grid to integrate these new sources. Working with grid operator PJM, the state has asked developers to submit proposals for updating and rearranging its onshore grid to better accept power from offshore or to figure out how to reduce the impacts of the transmission hardware that will need to go offshore or bridge the onshore and offshore grids.

It's easy to understand why New Jersey is making offshore wind a major priority. Thanks to its extensive shoreline and port facilities, the state is extremely vulnerable to the rising ocean level that accompanies climate change. As the most densely populated state, New Jersey doesn't have many alternatives for large-scale renewable power installations. But the state is also hoping to use its limited options to put itself at the forefront of an expected boom in offshore wind development—a boom it hopes to support from its port.

How a 17th-century illustration is helping archaeologists find Viking ships

Danish antiquarian Ole Worm conducted the first survey of the Kalvestene in 1650.

JENNIFER OUELLETTE - 7/1/2021, 3:11 PM


In 1650, a Danish physician and antiquarian named Ole Worm conducted the first survey of a Viking cremation burial site known as the Kalvestene. Worm created a map of the locations of all the "ship settings"—stones arranged in the shape of vessels—marking the graves. Now, a team of archaeologists has compared its own detailed surveys with Worm's original illustrations and may have discovered two new ship settings that are consistent with that centuries-old survey, according to a recent paper published in the Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology.

Vikings typically buried their dead, along with the deceased's material possessions, within a wooden ship. They then covered the grave with dirt to create a raised earthen mound. The Kalvestene, on a small island called Hjarnø, is one of about 25 such sites in Denmark. Even though it's a relatively small grave field, the Kalvestene (literally translated as "the calf stones") was nonetheless well-known in the region. It is first mentioned in the 12th-century treatise Gesta Danorum ("The History of the Danes" or "Deeds of the Danes") by Danish theologian Saxo Grammaticus, and there are many other references throughout medieval and early modern texts.

"It's such an interesting site, and the fact that it is referred to in medieval sources—when other, larger monuments aren't—demonstrates it was a significant site, too," co-author Erin Sebo of Flinders University in Adelaide, Australia, told Ars.

Worm's 1650 drawings—the first recorded survey of the site—indicate that 34 stone settings once stood at Kalvestene, although only 10 remain today. (Residents likely removed the other settings over the centuries for various repurposes.) In 1935, iron fragments that may have once been part of a damasked iron sword were found. The following year, archaeologist H.C. Broholm did a scientific excavation of two of the graves for the National Museum in Copenhagen. He carefully numbered the 10 surviving ship settings but mostly just found a few burnt bones, charcoal, and pottery shards dating back to 600-900 AD.Advertisement

In 2009, Tatiana Smekalova conducted a limited magnetic survey of the Kalvestene on behalf of the Horsens Museum, hoping to locate the additional graves documented by Worm, in addition to any other buried remains. Nothing was found. For this latest research, Sebo and her colleagues wanted to determine the accuracy of Worm's 1650 survey and learn more about how the Hjarnø ship settings compared to other such sites. They also wanted more insight into why the Kalvestene was so well-known to contemporaries. Sebo et al. extended their analysis to incorporate medieval records, aerial photogrammetry, and lidar data from an archaeological survey conducted by the Moesgaard Museum in 2018.

Distribution of Danish single-ship settings and grave fields.
E. Sebo et al., 2021

The Kalvestene, cremation burial site of the Viking age on the island of Hjarnø, Denmark.
Erik Christensen / CC BY-SA 3.0

Portrait of Ole Worm, "Fasti Danici," 1626.
Wellcome Library, London/CC BY 4.0

H.C. Broholm's site plan of the various ship settings, 1937.
E. Sebo et al., 2021

Tatiana Smeklova's 2009 magnetic survey of the Kalvestene.
Smeklova, 2009/Horsens Museum

(left) Drone orthophoto of the Kalvestene. (right) Digital elevation model.
E. Sebo et al., 2021

Digital elevation model of the Kalvestene overlaid with Broholm's plan (top left), with the possible locations of two additional graves marked with white circles (top right and bottom).
E. Sebo et al., 2021

Comparison of Ole Worm's drawing with photogammetic model. Possible "new" settings are marked in pink.
E. Sebo et al., 2021

Previous SlideNext Slide









The researchers found that the Kalvestene is unusual among Viking burial sites because its stone settings are exclusively shaped like ships (this arrangement is believed to be a tribute to the Norse god of wind and weather, Njord (or Njörðr), whose symbol was a ship). Other Danish sites from the same period feature settings shaped like circles, ovals, triangles, and ships.

The researchers also identified two new raised areas that they believe could be additional burial sites. "One appears to be a typical ship setting, and the second remains ambiguous," said Sebo. "But it's impossible to know without excavation and further survey."

Per Saxo's medieval treatise, the Kalvestene's stone settings were arranged to honor a peasant-turned-king named Hiarni. He was purportedly the author of a poem about his regal predecessor, Frothi, who died in battle on the island. Hiarni's title was challenged, however, and he was ultimately killed and buried on the island. The authors concluded that there is no evidence Saxo's account is accurate or that the island was named after a peasant-king named Hiarni, who likely never existed. Instead, linguistic evidence suggests Hiarni was invented and named after the island. What's significant is that Saxo was aware of a grave monument on Hjarnø.Advertisement


"Most monuments of this kind are designed to honor the power of an important individual," said Sebo. "However, our study demonstrates that the site had a community focus and that the people of Hjarnø had a much flatter, more egalitarian social structure."

Sebo et al.'s findings suggest a significant Swedish presence on the island and regular contact and trade between Sweden and Denmark. Medieval ships would have passed the island frequently on their trade routes, and artifacts recovered from a hoard in 2017 provided evidence that foreign traders likely visited the island. Of course, the borders between the two countries shifted throughout the medieval period, so there were periods when parts of modern Sweden were under Danish rule.
“Not borders, but distance”

"The issue is not borders, but distance," said Sebo. She noted that Kalvestene was built near several Danish centers of power, all of which can be reached by land, while their Swedish counterparts were farther away and required water travel. "Our study demonstrates that maritime links were strong for the Hjarnø community and reflect a profoundly maritime culture, in which the land is more of a barrier than the sea," she said. This finding suggests that "close connections between communities were based on a range of factors and not necessarily simple proximity."

As for Worm's 1650 illustrations, this study doesn't offer definitive proof of their accuracy, despite the discovery of two possible gravesites in keeping with his centuries-old survey. However, "while this study is unable to offer a conclusive understanding of the origins of the Kalvestene, it demonstrates the value of combining source criticism and analysis with archaeological data to contribute toward greater understanding about the site," said co-author Jonathan Benjamin, also from Flinders University.

DOI: Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology, 2021. 10.1080/15564894.2021.1900955 (About DOIs).

Still glorifying Stalin over Barbarossa

Submitted by AWL on 29 June, 2021 - 5:23 Author: Jim Denham



Tuesday 22 June marked the eightieth anniversary of Operation Barbarossa — “When Soviets Turned The Tide Against Nazi Tyranny”, as that day’s Morning Star put it. Or to be simpler: when Hitler broke his pact with Stalin and invaded the USSR.

The first thing to note is that although 22 June was the eightieth anniversary of German troops crossing the USSR’s border, the respected bourgeois historian Antony Beevor (in his 1998 book Stalingrad) points out that it was on the morning of 21 June 1941 that Moscow became aware of huge military preparations along the frontiers from the Baltic to the Black Sea:

“As the morning passed, more and more urgent messages arrived from Moscow demanding news. There was an atmosphere of repressed hysteria in the Kremlin as the evidence of German intentions mounted, adding to more than eighty warnings received over the previous eight months,” writes Beevor.

Meanwhile, in Moscow, the German ambassador expressed astonishment that the Russian leaders did not understand what what happening: over two weeks before he had warned the Russian ambassador in Berlin that Hitler planned to invade. Stalin had dismissed the warning as disinformation from Winston Churchill.

And yet John Ellison in one of three lengthy articles in the Morning Star claims: “No demands or direct warnings from Berlin to the Stalin-led Soviet Union leadership preceded the invasion.” Phil Katz (of the CPB’s History Group) in another article in the same paper (22 June) goes further and claims that: “Nowadays the talk among some schools of history and revisionist politicians is only of Soviet lack of preparation, bumbling... [and] Stalin’s ‘mental breakdown’”. In fact there is strong evidence that Stalin did have some kind of breakdown after the fall of Minsk on June 28: according to foreign minister Molotov, Stalin was bewildered and disorientated. “Everything’s lost. I give up. Lenin founded our state and we’ve fucked it up!” he cried before disappearing for two days.

Astonishingly, in the face of all this evidence, Katz still feels able to declare: “It is amazing that some historians today claim that Stalin was so easily deceived about Hitler’s war aims, that he was caught by surprise and was apparently unable to believe his own intelligence services”. Yet the evidence of all reputable historians (i.e. not Stalinist hacks like Katz) is that this is exactly what did happen.

Ellison is at least honest enough to acknowledge that: “The disaster… was enormous. Stalin’s refusal to accept that war was coming earlier than he anticipated, his paranoid pre-war officer corps purges, a Red Army strategy of of ‘offensives only’ in response to attack and technical inadequacies in military preparations, all contributed to the rapid advance of Nazi forces and the capture of millions of Soviet soldiers.”

But it’s the slightly less than two years that preceded Operation Barbarossa that leaves the Morning Star’s writers either completely silent or parroting a long-discredited “line”. Katz in his 22 June article can’t bring himself to even mention the Hitler-Stalin Pact, describing the period between 1939 and 1940 as having been “characterised as a ‘phoney war.’ During this period the Soviets fought a ‘winter war’ against pro-fascist Finland” — conveniently ignoring the fact that when Finland was invaded by Russia in November 1939 it was Russia that was “pro-fascist” in the sense of being allied with the Nazis, not Finland! (After the “winter war”, Finland allied with Germany, and then switched to the Allies in 1944).

Ellison at least mentions the pact, but explains it away thus:

“It meant that [Hitler] could concentrate first on war against the refusers of collective security, while the Soviet Union was to be allowed more territorial security through occupying eastern Poland, forced rectification of its border with prospective Nazi ally Finland [that misleading half-truth again! — JD] to protect Leningrad, and later occupation of the Baltic republics.

“Though referred to often as ‘Hitler’s ally’, the Soviet Union remained formally and actually neutral until invaded.”

This is standard Stalinist apologia for the pact, though few informed people these days take it seriously. For a start, that much-vaunted “neutrality” is a fiction: its effect on the policy of the Comintern [Stalin’s international] and of Communist Parties everywhere was not “neutrality”: it meant making pro-Hitler propaganda, denouncing other governments for failing to respond to Germany’s “desire for peace”.

In Europe, Scandinavia and the Low Countries it meant clearing the way for Hitler. As the reputable bourgeois historian Roger Moorhouse puts it in his book The Devils’ Alliance: “Poland was invaded and divided between Moscow and Berlin. With Hitler’s connivance, the independent Baltic states were occupied and then annexed by Stalin... Finland, too, was invaded and conquered by the Red Army. When Hitler turned west, invading first Scandinavia, then the Low Countries and France, Stalin sent his congratulations. Behind the scenes, meanwhile, the Nazis and the Soviets traded secrets, blueprints, technology and raw materials.”

The evidence is that Stalin, prior to Barbarossa, had expected and hoped for a Nazi victory in the war. The rapid defeat of France in 1940 (making war on a second front possible for Hitler) and the intelligence he was receiving, should have warned him about Hitler’s intentions toward Russia. But by then, Stalin was committed, relying on hope and self-delusion.

We can admire the enormous courage of the Russian people and the Red Army — but not the criminal Stalin, still honoured and excused by the Morning Star.

SHOSTIKOVICH SYMPHONY #8 'STALINGRAD'

  

Automation will not abolish work
Submitted by AWL on 29 June, 2021 - 4:59 Author: Bruce Robinson



Aaron Benanav’s book Automation and the Future of Work is aimed against what he calls the automation discourse. He defines this as a belief that high levels of technological unemployment will result from the introduction of new technology and that we will soon be faced with a largely automated economy. Such ideas can be found both on the left and right. Benanav rejects both their economic analysis and the political solutions such as Universal Basic Income (UBI) most commonly proposed to deal with the fallout from automation.

I welcome Benanav’s riposte to the recent flurry of predictions of a work-free utopia, but I am not convinced by the central argument he puts forward to support it.

The book is divided into two parts: firstly, Benanav presents an alternative explanation for what he, in common with the automation theorists, asserts is a large-scale lack of demand for labour; secondly, he looks at some of their proposed solutions and critiques both the utopian and reformist aspects of their theories, including the assumption that a socialist society would be without work.

Heavy on economics

Benanav’s own theory is entirely grounded in economics and has virtually nothing to say about the nature or implications of recent developments in technology, particularly in automation and artificial intelligence. This has the advantage that he is not seduced by the exaggerated claims made for new technologies or speculation about their future potential, often accompanied on the left with the view that they will somehow emerge from capitalism only to transcend it. However it also has disadvantages. For example, there is no discussion of the impact of their adoption on skills and thus the demand for labour. Similarly, there is nothing about how struggles in the workplace might affect employers’ readiness to adopt labour saving technologies.

Oddly, given his starting point, Benanav accepts many of the basic economic assertions of the automation theorists. He writes: “the question… is not whether new automation technologies will destroy additional jobs in the future (the answer is certainly yes).” And elsewhere: “technical change… does periodically result in sweeping job destruction in certain industries.” Benanav simply asserts that he has a better explanation for the same phenomena. “What automation theorists describe as the result of rising technological dynamism is actually the consequence of worsening economic stagnation, following on decades of manufacturing overcapacity and underinvestment.”

His own explanation is based on Robert Brenner’s 1998 analysis of post-war capitalism in The Economics of Global Turbulence which Benanav carries forward into the indefinite future. It is premised on the existence of overcapacity for manufactured goods in the post-war period which has persisted and led to low levels of growth in output and productivity. (Some of us have criticised Brenner’s scheme). Employment levels are then taken to be given by the difference in their relative rates of change. However one cannot read off the likely spread of technological innovations and their impact on employment simply by looking at historical trends of global economic variables.

There is also an overemphasis on manufacturing as against services, which is questionable as an explanation for labour demand given that the big majority of workers in advanced economies, and over 45% worldwide, are in “services”. Benanav admits that services can be susceptible to high productivity growth but sees that happening when they cease to be services and become provided through industrial goods such as washing machines. It is not always the case, however, that services are replaced by self-service. Human labour is filling in the gaps in the service sector where automation does not provide a total solution.

The question marks over Benanav’s argument does not mean one has to accept as an alternative the automation theorists’ view. The choice is not between everlasting stagnation and total transformation. More likely is that the new technologies will be adopted unevenly across different sectors and lead to both job losses and new jobs, though not necessarily at the same pace.

A call for Keynesianism

Following on from his economic analysis, Benanav takes up the most common reforms proposed to deal with the low demand for labour: a renewed Keynesian public investment program and Universal Basic Income. Advocates on right and left see UBI as a necessary response to large-scale long-term unemployment which breaks the link between work and income. For left advocates of the automation discourse it then provides the means to ensure that a post-scarcity society follows necessarily from automation.

For Benanav renewed Keynesianism and UBI right share the same basic flaw: that they leave investment decisions in the hands of capital so that these projects are liable to a capital strike. He counterposes to this a mass anti-capitalist movement, but does not suggest any transitional measures such as nationalisation of the banks which would enable encroachments on the prerogatives of capital.

The book ends with two positive statements. Firstly, in the impressive chapter “Necessity and Freedom” Benanav sketches a vision of a post-scarcity society, starting from premises opposed to those of the automation theorists: “Instead of presupposing a fully automated economy and imagining the possibilities for a better and freer world created out of it, we could begin from a world of generalised human dignity, and then consider the technical changes needed to realise that world.” This has the virtue of making technology the object of democratic development rather than something we just inherit from capitalism’s inevitable technological progress.

Benanav bases his sketch of this society on the distinction between necessity and freedom — what is required to satisfy fundamental human needs and the realm which is subject to individual or collective choice. He traces this distinction through a historical line including Thomas More, Etienne Cabet, and Marx. This acknowledges that drudgery will always to some extent be with us, and that the extent and contents of labour necessary for our collective reproduction — and how that labour will be shared — needs to be determined collectively and democratically. He emphasises strongly that social relationships and needs must influence not just such decisions, but also individual decisions about how to spend the remaining free time. This contrasts with the individualism of some left automation theorists such as Aaron Bastani, with Benanav pointing out that full automation “can appear as both a dream and a nightmare… because it has no innate association with human dignity.”

A brief epilogue discusses who are the agents of change in the economic and political environment he describes. While acknowledging the value and scope of the broad social movements that have arisen in the last 20 years, Benanav concludes that “unless social struggles organise themselves around… the conquest of production, they will not break through to a new synthesis of what it means to be a human being… Without a massive social struggle, late capitalist visionaries will remain mere techno-utopian mystics.” He does not however pose any form of political organisation beyond that of the social movements.

The sections of the book which deal with the political and social questions are powerful and convincing. The economic analysis and the non-existent technological argument do not provide a satisfying alternative to the automation theorists.

'Nature and physics will not fall for it': 

Greta Thunberg rips Into climate theatrics 

of world leaders

Brett Wilkins, Common Dreams
July 03, 2021

Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg spoke in an interview with AFP on the

 eve of her departure from North America, in Hampton, Virginia.

 (AFP / NICHOLAS KAMM)


In the wake of the latest failure by the G7 nations to take meaningful steps to combat the climate emergency and record-breaking heatwaves on multiple continents, Swedish campaigner Greta Thunberg on Friday accused world leaders of hypocrisy for persecuting climate activists while "pretending" to take the threat seriously.

"Young people all over this planet are no longer falling for your lies."
—Greta Thunberg to world leaders

Addressing the Austrian World Summit virtually, the 18-year-old Thunberg noted that "more and more people around the world have woken up to the climate and ecological crisis, putting more and more pressure on you, the people in power."
Chris Matthews talks to Raw Story: Who would you bet on in 2024, Trump or Kamala?

"Eventually the public pressure was too much," said the Fridays for Future founder. "You have the world's eyes on you, so you started to act. Not acting as in taking climate action, but acting as in role-playing. Playing politics, playing with words, and playing with our future. Pretending to take responsibility; acting as saviors as you try to convince us that things are being taken seriously."


"Meanwhile the gap between your rhetoric and reality keeps growing wider and wider," Thunberg continued. "And since the level of awareness is so low you almost get away with it."

"But let's be clear," she stressed, "what you are doing is not about climate action or responding to an emergency. It never was. This is communications tactics dressed as politics."

Thunberg accused leaders of high-income nations of "pretending to change and listen to young people," and in a thinly veiled criticism of U.S. President Joe Biden, by "pretending to take science seriously by saying 'science is back' while holding climate summits without even inviting one single climate scientist as speaker."

She also accused leaders of "pretending to wage war against fossil fuels, while opening up brand-new coal mines, oil fields, and pipelines."

"You don't only continue business as usual," said Thunberg, "in many cases you're even speeding up and scaling up the process, pretending to have the most ambitious climate policies while granting new oil licenses [and] exploring future oil fields."


In another swipe at Biden, Thunberg decried "pretending to 'build back better' after the pandemic even though astronomical sums of money have already been locked in, and not in green projects."

"And when your empty words are not enough, when the protests grow too loud, you respond by making the protests illegal."
—Thunberg

"The G7, as an example, is spending billions more on fossil fuels and fossil fuel infrastructure than on clean energy," she noted.

"And when your empty words are not enough, when the protests grow too loud, you respond by making the protests illegal," Thunberg charged. Her remarks came amid a wave of arrests of climate activists, including members of the youth-led Sunrise Movement in Washington, D.C. and Indigenous-led water protectors protesting the Line 3 tar sands pipeline in Minnesota and elsewhere in recent days and weeks.

"But as your acts continue, more and more of us are seeing through... your role-playing," Thunberg said. "The gap between your actions and words is becoming more impossible to ignore, while more and more extreme weather events are raging all around us. And as a result, young people all over this planet are no longer falling for your lies."

"You say we need to move slowly to bring the public along," Thunberg continued. "However, how do you honestly expect to bring the people along if you don't treat this crisis like a crisis? The climate crisis is today at best being treated only as a business opportunity to create new green jobs, new green businesses and technologies."

"Perhaps playing a role helps you sleep at night," Thunberg speculated. "But while you are busy working the stage, you seem to forget that the climate crisis is not something distant in the future. It is already taking so much from the most affected people in the most affected areas."

"This might just be a game to you, a game to win votes, popularity, points on the stock market, or your next highly paid position in a company or a lobbying firm," she said. "You can and will continue to pretend, but nature and physics will not fall for it."

Trump inadvertently reveals how he cons his supporters into believing his outrageous lies
Bob Brigham
July 03, 2021

President Donald Trump gestures in total shock during a campaign rally at the Giant Center. (Shutterstock)

Donald Trump's career has been defined by outrageous lies.

His first major lie was that he was a successful businessman, a role that he played on a reality-tv show.

He then moved into politics by pushing birtherism, the racist lie that President Barack Obama was serving illegitimately based on the smear that he wasn't born in America.

His next delusional lie was that Mexico would pay to build his border wall.

He went on to lie about the media, calling every negative story "fake news." And he lied about his ties to Russia, calling his first impeachment a "hoax."

And his response to the COVID-19 was essentially an endless series of lies about the pandemic.

Most infamous was his "Big Lie" about the 2020 election that incited the January 6th insurrection by his supporters seeking to overturn the election. And then he lied about his role in the insurrection during his second impeachment.


On Saturday, during a campaign speech in Florida, Trump inadvertently explained exactly how he was able to dupe so many of his supporters into believe his nonsense.

"There's a word: disinformation. If you say it enough and keep saying it — just keep saying it — and they'll start to believe you," Trump explained.

RT TRUMP TV

Trump Tells Florida Supporters Biden is Conducting ‘All-Out Assault’ on Everything Americans Value

Trump Tells Florida Supporters Biden is Conducting ‘All-Out Assault’ on Everything Americans Value

© AP Photo / Jason Behnken

US

03:09 GMT 04.07.2021Get short URL

WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - Former US President Donald Trump, at a Saturday "Save America" campaign-style rally in Sarasota, Florida, again critiqued the administration of US President Joe Biden and urged supporters to vote Republican in the 2022 midterm elections.

Trump started off by calling for "free and fair elections and strong borders" and wished everyone a happy 4th of July. He also sought a moment of silence to honor the Surfside building collapse victims.

"May we have a moment of silence for the victims and families of the horrible building collapse in Surfside, Florida," Trump said, calling it a "terrible, terrible" tragedy. The Surfside incident occurred last week as a 12-story residential building partially collapsed. The death toll stands at over 24, while at least 124 people are still missing.

Switching his attention to politics, Trump said that "in just five months the Biden administration has launched an all-out assault on everything we cherish and we value."

The former president stated that US streets were being taken over by criminals, and that the southern border is "being erased before our very eyes."

Trump again claimed that he had good relations with the leaders of Russia and China during his presidency, comparing his reign to that of the Biden administration.

"Our leaders are weakly bowing down to Russia, Iran, and communist China," Trump said to the Sarasota crowd.

Trump critiqued the Biden administration for its approach to dealing with the COVID-19 coronavirus and again blamed the pandemic on China, pronouncing that Beijing should be charged $10 trillion in reparations.

Trump also expressed the notion that it was "so unfair, so crazy" that men are allowed to play in women's sports.

© AP PHOTO / JASON BEHNKEN

Former President Donald Trump walks on stage during a rally at the Sarasota Fairgrounds Saturday, July 3, 2021, in Sarasota, Fla.

The former leader concluded his performance by saying that the US has "a truly sick election system."

"This country is in big trouble when an election cannot be open and free and fair and not stolen or rigged," Trump alleged, adding that the only way to "bring our country back" is with a Republican Congress. He promised more jobs and fair trade would come and free speech "which we don’t have" would be restored if Democrats are not in power. Trump declared that the Republicans need to win in next year’s midterm elections.

During a previous "Save America" rally in Ohio at the end of June, Trump called the Biden administration's performance a "catastrophe" and criticized the White House for a crime wave in major US cities, a migrant crisis at the southern US border and a dismal economic situation marred with high inflation.

Trump also criticized the Biden administration for what he called failures in foreign policy, including by suggesting that China and Russia are humiliating the United States, while continuing in a similar vein regarding a failure to prevent the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. Trump brought up the Nord Stream issue again on Saturday in Florida.

While some pundits have interpreted the Trump rallies as a signal he could run in the 2024 presidential election, others have said things are not clear cut. Trump previously indicated that he planned on running again, but now he says the decision depends on the state of affairs in the United States and on the Republican Party.

THE RIGHT TO BE LAZY ABOLISH WORK!
Some Chinese shun grueling careers for

 'low-desire life'

FROM FUEDALISM TO LATE CAPITALI$M IN 100 YEARS

People walk across an intersection during rush hour in Beijing. (AP)

Updated: 04 Jul 2021, 

Beijing needs skilled professionals to develop technology and other industries

BEIJING : Fed up with work stress, Guo Jianlong quit a newspaper job in Beijing and moved to China's mountain southwest to “lie flat."

Guo joined a small but visible handful of Chinese urban professionals who are rattling the ruling Communist Party by rejecting gruelling careers for a “low-desire life." That is clashing with the party's message of success and consumerism as its celebrates the 100th anniversary of its founding.

Guo, 44, became a freelance writer in Dali, a town in Yunnan province known for its traditional architecture and picturesque scenery. He married a woman he met there.

“Work was OK, but I didn't like it much," Guo said.

“What is wrong with doing your own thing, not just looking at the money?"

“Lying flat" is a “resistance movement" to a “cycle of horror" from high-pressure Chinese schools to jobs with seemingly endless work hours, novelist Liao Zenghu wrote in Caixin, the country's most prominent business magazine.

“In today's society, our every move is monitored and every action criticized," Liao wrote. “Is there any more rebellious act than to simply lie flat?'"

It isn't clear how many people have gone so far as to quit their jobs or move out of major cities. Judging by packed rush hour subways in Beijing and Shanghai, most young Chinese slog away at the best jobs they can get.



Still, the ruling party is trying to discourage the trend. Beijing needs skilled professionals to develop technology and other industries. China's population is getting older and the pool of working-age people has shrunk by about 5 per cent from its 2011 peak.

“Struggle itself is a kind of happiness," the newspaper Southern Daily, published by the party, said in a commentary. “Choosing to lie flat' in the face of pressure is not only unjust but also shameful."

The trend echoes similar ones in Japan and other countries where young people have embraced anti-materialist lifestyles in response to bleak job prospects and bruising competition for shrinking economic rewards.

Official data show China's economic output per person doubled over the past decade, but many complain the gains went mostly to a handful of tycoons and state-owned companies. Professionals say their incomes are failing to keep up with soaring housing, child care and other costs.

In a sign of the issue's political sensitivity, four professors who were quoted by the Chinese press talking about “lying flat" declined to discuss it with a foreign reporter.

Another possible sign of official displeasure: T-shirts, mobile phone cases and other “Lie Flat"-themed products are disappearing from online sales platforms.

Urban employees complain that work hours have swelled to “9 9 6," or 9 am to 9 pm, six days a week.

“We generally believe slavery has died away. In fact, it has only adapted to the new economic era," a woman who writes under the name Xia Bingbao, or Summer Hailstones, said on the Douban social media service.

Some elite graduates in their 20s who should have the best job prospects say they are worn out from the “exam hell" of high school and university. They see no point in making more sacrifices.

“Chasing fame and fortune does not attract me. I am so tired," said Zhai Xiangyu, a 25-year-old graduate student.

Some professionals are cutting short their careers, which removes their experience from the job pool.

Xu Zhunjiong, a human resources manager in Shanghai, said she is quitting at 45, a decade before the legal minimum retirement age for women, to move with her Croatian-born husband to his homeland.

“I want to retire early. I don't want to fight any more," Xu said. “I'm going to other places."

Thousands vented frustration online after the Communist Party's announcement in May that official birth limits would be eased to allow all couples to have three children instead of two.

The party has enforced birth restrictions since 1980 to restrain population growth but worries China, with economic output per person still below the global average, needs more young workers.

Minutes after the announcement, websites were flooded with complaints that the move did nothing to help parents cope with child care costs, long work hours, cramped housing, job discrimination against mothers and a need to look after elderly parents.

Xia writes that she moved to a valley in Zhejiang province, south of Shanghai, for a “low-desire life" after working in Hong Kong. She said despite a high-status job as an English-language reporter, her rent devoured 60% of her income and she had no money at the end of each month.

She rejects the argument that young people who “lie flat" are giving up economic success when that's already is out of reach for many in an economy with a growing gulf between a wealthy elite and the majority.

“When resources are focused more and more on the few people at the head and their relatives, the workforce is cheap and replaceable," she wrote on Douban. “Is it sensible to entrust your destiny to small handouts from others?"

1. The Right To Be Lazy - SLP

   www.slp.org/pdf/others/lazy_pl.pdf · PDF file

   The Right To Be Lazy BEING A REPUDIATION OF THE “RIGHT TO WORK” OF 1848 By Paul Lafargue Translated and adapted from the French by Dr. Harriet Lothrop. Published by the INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING CO., 23 Duane Street, New York 1898 PAUL LAFARGUE (1841–1911) AUTHOR’S PREFACE. In 1849, Thiers, as member of the Commission on Instruction in Elementary

2. 1. The Abolition of Work | The Anarchist Library

      https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-the-abolition-of-work

      2020-11-28 · The Abolition of Work No one should ever work. Work is the source of nearly all the misery in the world. Almost any evil you’d care to name comes …

Amazon doesn’t like FTC chair Lina Khan’s views, wants her off investigations

Sensing a changing antitrust landscape, Amazon fires a warning shot.

TIM DE CHANT - 6/30/2021

Enlarge / Lina M. Khan testifies during a Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee nomination hearing on Capitol Hill on April 21, 2021, in Washington, DC.

Amazon filed a 25-page petition today with the Federal Trade Commission asking that Chairwoman Lina Khan recuse herself from antitrust investigations into the company.

FURTHER READING

Lina Khan, Big Tech skeptic, named FTC chair mere hours after confirmation

Khan, a frequent critic of Amazon and other Big Tech firms, was appointed FTC chair less than two weeks ago. Though there has been plenty of speculation about her first moves, her short tenure to date means she hasn’t had much opportunity to file lawsuits or announce investigations. Amazon’s petition shows that its legal team hasn’t sat idle since her nomination as commissioner and subsequent appointment as chair.

“Although Amazon profoundly disagrees with Chair Khan’s conclusions about the company,” Amazon wrote in the petition, “it does not dispute her right to have spoken provocatively and at great length about it in her prior roles. But given her long track record of detailed pronouncements about Amazon and her repeated proclamations that Amazon has violated the antitrust laws, a reasonable observer would conclude that she no longer can consider the company’s antitrust defenses with an open mind.”

Khan made a name for herself four years ago when she published a paper in a law journal. Titled “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox,” the paper made the case that current antitrust laws have fallen short as tech platforms have risen to dominance. She argued that prices are a poor yardstick with which to measure anticompetitive behavior and market power, especially among platform companies like Amazon. The peculiar economics of platforms means that companies are happy to forgo profits in the name of growth, which leads to predatory pricing, she said. And because the very nature of platforms allows companies to control access to various products and services, it creates incentives for companies to favor their own products over rivals.

Since graduating from law school, Khan worked for the Open Markets Institute, which advocates for stronger antitrust laws and enforcement, and for the House Judiciary Committee, where she worked with Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) to open a congressional inquiry into tech companies’ behavior.Advertisement


That Amazon has come out guns blazing suggests that the company thinks some of its behavior will likely reach the FTC’s inbox, if it hasn’t already. The FTC’s agenda isn’t necessarily set by the chair, Harvard Professor Shane Greenstein told Ars when Khan’s appointment was announced. Rather, it’s shaped by consumer complaints, merger proposals, and so on. The FTC would need a complaint to act on if it were to take action against Amazon.

FURTHER READING

Amazon colluded with publishers to fix book prices, class-action suit alleges

Of course, Khan likely has plenty of complaints to choose from on that front. Earlier this year, an independent bookstore in suburban Chicago filed a class-action lawsuit against Amazon, alleging that the company had colluded with five major book publishers to fix prices and stifle competition among sellers. Last month, the District of Columbia sued Amazon, saying that its most-favored-nation clauses prevented companies from selling their products for less on others sites. The high fees Amazon imposes on third-party sellers “impose an artificially high price floor” that affects prices on other sites.

And then there’s Amazon’s proposed acquisition of MGM Studios, which Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) asked the FTC to investigate. “This $8.45 billion deal would ostensibly help Amazon attract consumers to its subscription streaming services. But because this service is tied to a wide range of additional Amazon products and services that affect broad sectors of our economy, this transaction requires meticulous antitrust scrutiny,” Warren wrote to the FTC in an argument that plugs neatly into Khan’s “Antitrust Paradox” thesis.

Khan said during her confirmation hearing that in cases where recusal questions arise, she would consult with FTC ethics officials. How they’ll advise her is unclear, but they are surely aware that political appointees seldom come into government as blank slates, wholly lacking in opinions related to the thing they’re going to oversee.

Amazon isn’t the first company to attempt to push an FTC commissioner off of an investigation. For decades, companies have argued that commissioners have conflicts that require recusal, ranging from potentially biased statements to previous employment at law firms that represented the company or a competitor—and even employment at the company requesting the recusal. The tactic can work, though not every time.


TIM DE CHANTis a journalist and editor who covers tech policy for Ars Technica. He is a lecturer in MIT’s Graduate Program in Science Writing and has written for The Wire China, the Chicago Tribune, NOVA Next, and Wired magazine, among others. De Chant was awarded a Knight Science Journalism Fellowship at MIT in 2018, and he received his doctorate in environmental science, policy, and management from the University of California, Berkeley, and his bachelor’s degree in environmental studies, English, and biology from St. Olaf College.

Lord of the Rings: Amazon Calls Unsafe Workplace Allegations "Completely Inaccurate"


By AARON PERINE - 

July 3, 2021 

NZ

Amazon is calling the allegations of an unsafe workplace during the production of their Lord of the Rings series “completely inaccurate.” The company issued a statement about the allegations in the New Zealand Herald this weekend. In their report, a number of stunt workers have been seriously injured. Two of the workers in question are reported to be getting surgeries that were reported to WorkSafe ahead of time. (WorkSafe is New Zealand’s health and safety regulator in the workplace.) That Lord of the Rings series is costing the commerce giant over $465 million to produce. Amazon Studios told Variety that their safety protocols match up with the country’s safety standards.

“Amazon Studios takes the health, physical and emotional welfare of our cast and crew extremely seriously,” an Amazon Studios spokesperson said. “As a top priority, the production team continues to be in full compliance with the mandated WorkSafe New Zealand Safety and Security government regulations. Any allegation or report that activities on set are unsafe or outside of regulations are completely inaccurate.”

In that case, a stunt performer named Dayna Grant had a head injury that was said to cause a concussion. WorkSafe regulations are the law of the land in New Zealand productions. However, a “notifiable event” determines what’s is considered a violation.

“A notifiable event is any of the following events that arise from work: a death, a notifiable illness or injury or a notifiable incident. Only serious events are intended to be notified. These trigger requirements to preserve the site, notify the regulator and keep records. The notifiable incident, illness, injury or death must arise out of the conduct of the businesses or undertaking. It could be due to the condition of the work site, the way the work activity is organized, or the way equipment or substances are used.”

“Notifiable events may occur inside or outside the actual work site. Deaths, injuries or illness that are unrelated to work are not notifiable events eg: a diabetic worker slipping into a coma at work, a worker being injured driving to work in his or her private care when the driving is not done as a part of their work, injuries to patients or rest home residents that are triggered by a medical reason (for example injuries from a fall caused by a stroke), a worker fainting from a non-work related cause.”