Evangelical Lutheran Church of America installs first openly transgender bishop



Kierra Frazier

AXIOS
Sat, September 11, 2021, 3:09 PM·1 min read

The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America installed its first openly transgender bishop on Saturday.

Driver the news: Rev. Megan Rohrer was installed as bishop of the Sierra Pacific Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America after being elected in May to serve a six-year term.

Rohrer became one of seven LGBTQ pastors accepted by the progressive Evangelical Lutheran church in 2010 after it allowed ordination of pastors in same-sex relationships.

What they're saying: “I step into this role because a diverse community of Lutherans in Northern California and Nevada prayerfully and thoughtfully voted to do a historic thing,” Rohrer said, per AP.

“My installation will celebrate all that is possible when we trust God to shepherd us forward,”Rohrer said.

US restaurant workers are getting stiffed. It’s time for employers to pay up



Gene Marks
Sun, September 12, 2021, 5:00 AM·4 min read

This may come as a shock to some but there’s a different minimum wage for restaurant employees than for workers in most other industries. In Pennsylvania, for example, that minimum wage is just $2.83 an hour.

Every statein the US has these “tipped wages”. According to minimumwage.org, the tipped wage is as little as $2.13 an hour in 19 states and as high as $10 in New York.

Here’s how it works in Pennsylvania: restaurant owners here have to pay their workers just $2.83 an hour (the federal minimum) as long as those employees receive enough tips so that their total hourly wage exceeds the state (and national) minimum of $7.25.

There is a logic to this. State-based tipped wage rules are designed to allow restaurant owners to lower their payroll costs and let customers make up the difference.

To me, it’s all still woefully too little, but most restaurants take advantage of these tipped wage rules. And who can blame them? It’s legal and common and a significant help towards keeping overhead (and prices) under control. You would think that having to pay an employee a mere $2.83 an hour is enough of a saving. Unfortunately for some restaurants owners it’s not. So they steal.

For example, there’s the Bottle Bar East restaurant in Philadelphia, which last week was found in violation of these wage (and other) rules and ordered by a federal judge to pay $246,457.99 in back wages, as well as an equal amount of liquidated damages and civil money penalties to 73 bartenders, servers, cooks and dishwashers. Some employees were owed as much as $42,000. I live in Philly. I won’t be eating there.

I love Italian food, but I won’t be eating at Maggiano’s near the convention center in Philadelphia either. Why? Because, back in April, the geniuses running that location were ordered to pay $116,308 in back wages for wage theft that affected 82 workers. The restaurant chain grossed more than $400m in sales in 2019.

Business owners are being accused of stealing from their employees wherever you look.

A class-action lawsuit filed in New York against a popular steakhouse alleges “wage theft and other illegal practices that shortchanged staffers’ pay”, which affected about 50 current and former employees. A San Francisco restaurant agreed to pay 22 workers roughly $73,000 each for wage violations in a settlement to avoid a costly lawsuit. Two well-known eateries in Nashville agreed earlier this year to pay a combined $1.03m to settle separate lawsuits alleging tip and wage theft. A casino in Pennsylvania agreed to pay $6m to settle a class action lawsuit alleging a failure to pay its tipped employees the proper amount under federal and state law.

There are explanations for these shenanigans, and none of them good. Maybe the pandemic put so much pressure on some restaurants that the managers thought that shortchanging employees could help them survive financially. Perhaps their point-of-sale systems were inadequately set up to track tipped wages. Or maybe these same managers were simply taking advantage of their employees’ trust and thought they could get away with it.

One thing’s for sure: those employers are stupid.

Haven’t you seen the news? Good employees are in short supply and that situation isn’t going to significantly change any time in the near future. Not only that but thanks to the pro-labor Biden administration, you can count on an uptick in the enforcement of wage and other employment rules during the coming years. If you own a restaurant or a business that employs tipped workers, you better make sure you’re educating each and every one of them as to how their pay rate is calculated. You better make sure your systems are in order. You better pay special attention to “pooled tips” and overtime pay. Oh, and one other thing: you better make sure not to steal from your workers.

It’s a very bad idea to play games with your employees’ wages. Getting caught will result in significant penalties and a lot of bad press. But even more importantly it’s almost guaranteed to ensure that the best workers will avoid working for you. And customers will avoid you too.

AS SEEN ON TV
Does the supplement Prevagen improve memory? A court case is asking that question.



Martha M. Hamilton
Sat, September 11, 2021

The front of the box of the dietary supplement Prevagen says it improves memory and supports healthy brain function, sharper mind and clearer thinking.

The side of the box says: "These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease."

The disclaimer, required by FDA rules, offers a reminder of how the federal government does - and doesn't - regulate dietary supplements. And Prevagen provides an interesting test of the relationship between manufacturers and government.

Supplements are regarded by the FDA as a food, not a drug. That means they are not tested by the agency before they are put on the market, although the FDA is responsible for removing any that are found to be unsafe once they are for sale.

Many medical experts say research has not found solid evidence that any supplements are effective at preventing neurological diseases that cause dementia. And they say that better treatments for the normal memory gaps often experienced with aging include exercise and a healthy diet.

Scott Gottlieb, FDA commissioner from 2017 to 2019, conceded that the growth of the supplements industry, which includes vitamins, minerals, herbs and other ingredients marketed for a wide range of uses, had outpaced the agency's ability to monitor it.

"What was once a $4 billion industry comprised of about 4,000 unique products, is now an industry worth more than $40 billion, with more than 50,000 - and possibly as many as 80,000 or even more - different products available to consumers," he said in 2019.

That growth has been propelled by heavy advertising in print, radio and television and on the Internet. Prevagen's commercials, for example, feature relatable older adults full of robust enthusiasm for its benefits - who are labeled as "paid testimonialists" or "Prevagen content contributors."

"In the kind of work that I do, you are surrounded by people who are all younger than you," one says, looking over the shoulder of a younger person at a computer screen. "I had to get help to stay competitive."

A 68-year-old describes himself as a motivational speaker and substitute teacher. "I honestly feel that's my calling - to give back to younger people."

And they're active. Walking, fly-fishing, shooting hoops and singing the supplement's praises.

"After about 30 days of taking it, we noticed a clarity that we didn't notice before."

"After a period of time, my memory improved. It was a game changer."

"People say to me, 'Man, you've got a memory like an elephant!' "

Four years ago, the Federal Trade Commission and the New York attorney general sued the makers of Prevagen over what they asserted were false claims that it improves memory and brain functioning. After a long delay, the suit, which includes a request for consumer refunds, is moving forward again.

Neurologists and other medical experts say some supplements stray into what they call pseudomedicine. "Pseudomedicine refers to supplements and medical interventions that exist within the law and are often promoted as scientifically supported treatments, but lack credible efficacy data," three University of California neurologists wrote in a 2019 article in JAMA. "With neurodegenerative disease, the most common example of pseudomedicine is the promotion of dietary supplements to improve cognition and brain health."

Joanna Hellmuth, the lead author, said the article was prompted by a discussion among the faculty at the Memory and Aging Center in the Department of Neurology at the University of California at San Francisco. They talked about how heartbreaking it was seeing vulnerable dementia patients and their families being swept up in the marketing of brain health supplements, considering the likely false promise of hope and the financial drain.

Discussing supplements also takes away time from discussing healthy steps patients can take that are supported by the data, including exercise and social engagement, she said.

The initial Prevagen case was dismissed by a lower court judge, but a federal appeals court in New York reversed that ruling and sent the case back to the lower court. The parties have been engaged in discovery and are expected to complete the last phase on Oct. 22. A mid-November status conference could determine the next steps in this long-running litigation against Quincy Bioscience Holding Co., Quincy Bioscience, Quincy Bioscience Manufacturing and Prevagen Inc., a complex of companies owned principally by co-founders, Mark Underwood and Michael Beaman.

At the time the lawsuit was filed, the company "vehemently" denied the allegations and called the lawsuit "another example of government overreach and regulators extinguishing innovation by imposing arbitrary new rules on small businesses like ours."

"Prevagen is safe," the news release went on to say. "Neither the FTC nor the New York Attorney General has alleged that Prevagen can cause or has caused harm to anyone. And hundreds of thousands people tell us it works and improves their lives."

It added that "Quincy has amassed a large body of evidence that Prevagen improves memory and supports healthy brain function. This evidence includes preclinical rat studies, canine studies, human clinical studies, and, most importantly, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled human clinical testing. This type of testing has long been acknowledged by both the FTC and the FDA to be the 'gold standard' for scientific evidence.

"The sole dispute rests on the interpretation and analysis of the data, with the regulators attempting to hold the company to a standard that is unreasonable, scientifically debatable, and legally invalid," according to the news release. "Their experts simply disagree with ours over how to interpret the study results."

Prevagen representatives did not respond to emails or phone calls requesting an interview.

Class-action suits also have been filed against the makers of Prevagen, claiming that its advertising was deceptive. In one, settled in 2020, Quincy Bioscience denied wrongdoing but agreed to provide refunds to eligible class members for 30 percent of their purchases with payments capped at $70 with proof of purchase or $12 without proof of purchase. Another case ended in a mistrial after jurors deadlocked.

The producers of Neuriva, another supplement marketed as a brain booster, recently settled a class action and agreed to change all references from "clinically proven" and "science proved" on labeling and marketing to "clinically tested" and "science tested" or other similar language.

The problem, Hellmuth said, is that most consumers won't see a distinction between "clinically tested" and "clinically proven" and that "the companies are casting this aura of science" when it isn't backed up.

The Alzheimer's Association warns in its discussion of alternative medicine that a "growing number of herbal remedies, dietary supplements and 'medical foods' are promoted as memory enhancers or treatments to delay or prevent Alzheimer's disease and other dementias. Claims about the safety and effectiveness of these products, however, are based largely on testimonials, tradition and a rather small body of scientific research."

Privately-held Prevagen's sales were said to have totaled $165 million between 2007 and 2015, according to the FTC's and the New York attorney general's 2017 lawsuit, but are likely much larger now because of rapid growth in the market.

The dispute over Prevagen's effectiveness centers on two things. One is a synthetic ingredient called apoaequorin designed to replicate a protein found in jellyfish. Critics, including the two entities suing it and the Alzheimer's Drug Discovery Foundation, point to evidence that it probably is digested in the stomach, leaving nothing to get past the blood-brain barrier that acts as the brain's concierge.

While the FTC case rests on marketing, the FDA raised questions in a 2012 "warning letter" about whether Prevagen should be classified as a drug rather than a supplement. It also stated that Prevagen's marketing cited studies and included statements by Prevagen users suggesting it was a treatment for Alzheimer's and other diseases and alleged that it had failed to report adverse events, including strokes and seizures that had been reported to the company, to the FDA.

An FDA spokesperson said the action "was closed out in 2018. Quincy Bioscience has satisfactorily addressed FDA concerns."

The other criticism raised by the FTC and New York attorney general lawsuit is that the company-funded test of the supplement doesn't pass muster. Quincy Bioscience describes the study as a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial.

But, according to the FTC and the New York attorney general, the trial involved 218 subjects taking either 10 milligrams of Prevagen or a placebo and "failed to show a statistically significant improvement in the treatment group over the placebo group on any of the nine computerized cognitive tasks."

The complaint alleges that after the Madison Memory Study failed to "find a treatment effect for the sample as a whole," Quincy's researchers broke down the data in more than 30 different ways.

"Given the sheer number of comparisons run and the fact that they were post hoc, the few positive findings on isolated tasks for small subgroups of the study population do not provide reliable evidence of a treatment effect," the lawsuit said. Post hoc studies are not uncommon but are generally not regarded as proof until confirmed, scientific experts say.

According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which filed an amicus brief in support of the agencies' charges, the subsequent analyses produced "three results that were statistically significant (and more than 27 results that weren't)."

Hellmuth hopes Congress will pass legislation beefing up FDA oversight of supplements, but says she doubts it is a fight "anyone wants to take on."

Claims for these products, she says, should be verified so that patients and consumers can believe in them.

COLD WAR 2.0 BUST MADE BIG NEWS

Federal judge acquits Tennessee professor with ties to China


TRAVIS LOLLER
Fri, September 10, 2021

A federal judge on Thursday threw out all charges against a University of Tennessee professor accused of hiding his relationship with a Chinese university while receiving research grants from NASA.

Anming Hu was arrested in February 2020 and charged with three counts of wire fraud and three counts of making false statements. The arrest was part of a broader Justice Department crackdown under then-President Donald Trump's administration against university researchers who conceal their ties to Chinese institutions.

A jury in June deadlocked after three days of deliberation and U.S. District Judge Thomas Varlan declared a mistrial. Last month, prosecutors filed a notice that they intended to retry the case. Varlan ruled to acquit on all charges on Thursday, responding to a motion Hu's attorney made at trial that Varlan had declined to immediately rule on.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Rachelle Barnes, said on Friday the office had no comment on the case. Defense attorney Philip Lomonaco said prosecutors cannot appeal an acquittal, so the judgment marks the end of the case.

“It was the right decision,” Lomonaco said. “He was innocent.”

Hu began working for UT Knoxville in 2013 and later was invited by another professor to help apply for a research grant from NASA. That grant application was not successful, but two later applications were. A 2012 law forbids NASA from collaborating with China or Chinese companies. The government has interpreted that prohibition to include Chinese universities, and Hu was a faculty member at the Beijing University of Technology in addition to his position at UT.

Prosecutors tried to show that Hu deliberately hid his position at the Chinese university when applying for the NASA-funded research grants. Lomonaco argued at trial that Hu didn’t think he needed to list his part-time summer job on a disclosure form and said no one at UT ever told him otherwise.

On Thursday, Varlan ruled that, even assuming Hu intended to deceive about his affiliation with that second university, there is no evidence that Hu intended to harm NASA.

“Without intent to harm, there is no ‘scheme to defraud’,” Varlan wrote, quoting a necessary element of the wire fraud charges. Varlan added that NASA got the research from Hu that it paid for, and there was no evidence that Hu took any money from China or had anyone in China work on the projects.

Varlan also cited evidence that NASA's funding restrictions were unclear. For instance, the University of Tennessee's “China Assurance letter” sent in conjunction with the grant applications stated that the funding restriction did not apply to UTK faculty like Hu, Varlan wrote.

Lomonaco argued at trial that the Department of Justice had ignored the law and destroyed the career of a professor with three Ph.D.s in nanotechnology because the agency “wanted a feather in its cap with an economic espionage case.”

Republicans once called government the problem – now they want to run your life


Robert Reich
Sat, September 11, 2021

Photograph: Dennis Cook/AP

I’m old enough to remember when the Republican party stood for limited government and Ronald Reagan thundered “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.”

Today’s Republican party, while still claiming to stand for limited government, is practicing just the opposite: government intrusion everywhere.

Related: Republicans threaten our children’s freedom as well as their basic safety | Robert Reich


Republican lawmakers are banning masks in schools. Iowa, Tennessee, Utah, Texas, Florida, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Arizona and South Carolina are prohibiting public schools from requiring students wear them.

Republican states are on the way to outlawing abortions. Texas has just banned abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, before many women even know they’re pregnant. Other Republican states are on the way to enacting similar measures.

Republican lawmakers are forbidding teachers from telling students about America’s racist past. State legislatures from Tennessee to Idaho are barring all references to racism in the classroom.

Republican legislators are forcing transgender students to play sports and use bathrooms according to their assigned gender at birth. Thirty-three states have introduced more than 100 bills aimed at curbing the rights of transgender people.

Across the country, Republican lawmakers are making it harder for people to vote. So far, they’ve enacted more than 30 laws that reduce access to polling places, number of days for voting and availability of absentee voting.

This is not limited government, folks. To the contrary, these Republican lawmakers have a particular ideology, and they are now imposing those views and values on citizens holding different views and values.

This is big government on steroids.

Many Republican lawmakers use the word “freedom” to justify what they’re doing. That’s rubbish. What they’re really doing is denying people their freedom – freedom to be safe from Covid, freedom over their own bodies, freedom to learn, freedom to vote and participate in our democracy.

Years ago, the Republican party had a coherent idea about limiting the role of government and protecting the rights of the individual. I disagreed with it, as did much of the rest of America. But at least it was honest, reasoned and consistent. As such, Republicans played an important part in a debate over what we wanted for ourselves and for America.

Today, Republican politicians have no coherent view. They want only to be re-elected, even if that means misusing government to advance a narrow and increasingly anachronistic set of values – intruding on the most intimate aspects of life, interfering in what can be taught and learned, risking the public’s health, banning what’s necessary for people to exercise their most basic freedoms.

This is not mere hypocrisy. The Republican party now poses a clear and present threat even to the values it once espoused.


Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. His new book, The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It, is out now. He is a Guardian US columnist

Arizona sells Unilever bonds over Ben & Jerry's Israel move

SO THEY CAN PAY FOR THE FAKE AUDIT

#BDS #BOYCOTTISRAEL #FREEPALESTINE

 In this July 20, 2021, file photo, truck sare parked at the Ben & Jerry's ice-cream factory in the Be'er Tuvia Industrial area in Israel. The state of Arizona has sold off $93 million in Unilever bonds and plans to sell the remaining $50 million it has invested in the global consumer products company because its subsidiary Ben & Jerry's decided to stop selling its ice cream in Israeli-occupied territories in the latest in a series of actions by states with anti-Israel boycott laws. (AP Photo/Tsafrir Abayov, File)


BOB CHRISTIE
Fri, September 10, 2021, 

PHOENIX (AP) — Arizona has sold off $93 million in Unilever bonds and plans to sell the remaining $50 million it has invested in the global consumer products company over subsidiary Ben & Jerry's decision to stop selling its ice cream in Israeli-occupied territories, the latest in a series of actions by states with anti-Israel boycott laws.

The investment moves state Treasurer Kimberly Yee announced this week were mandated by a 2019 state law that bars Arizona government agencies from holding investments or doing more than $100,000 in business with any firm that boycotts Israel or its territories.

Arizona appears to be the first of 35 states with anti-boycott laws or regulation to have fully divested itself from Unilever following Ben & Jerry's actions. Illinois warned the company in July that it had 90 days after its investment board met to change course or it too would sell. Florida and other states have taken similar action, according to IAC For Action, the policy and legislative arm for the Israeli-American Council.


While Ben & Jerry's, which is based in Vermont, is owned by London-based Unilever, it maintains its own independent board, which Unilever said makes its own decision on its social mission. Ben & Jerry's announced on July 19 that maintaining its presence in the occupied territories was “inconsistent with our values.”

Ben & Jerry's decision brought a strong reaction from Israel, which vowed to “act aggressively" in response to the move, including by urging U.S. governors to punish the company under anti-boycott laws. Arizona and 34 other states have laws against boycotts of Israel.

U.S. groups that support Israel are split on whether pushing back on Unilever for Ben & Jerry's decision is appropriate. The Israeli-American Council urged governors to act through IAC For Action.

IAC for Action Director Joseph Sabag called boycotts of Israel antisemitic and said it is important to fight them at the state level.

“The Israeli American community is sensitive to it, because I would say more than other parts of the Jewish American community, we experienced the national origin aspect of antisemitism in a more pronounced way,” Sabag said Friday. "That’s really why we’re very proactive. It’s our children who are being affected by this in the classrooms and are being made fearful and intimidated and to feel harassed. ... That’s definitely what our community’s interest is in the matter.'

But the head of J Street, a Washington, D.C.-based pro-Israel organization that backs a two-state solution, supported Ben & Jerry’s decision and said punishing the company is “gravely dangerous.”

“It’s not anti-semitic to criticize Israeli policy or to not sell ice cream in illegal settlements,” President Jeremy Ben-Ami tweeted in July. “It’s actually a truly pro-Israel decision.”

The anti-boycott laws face court challenges, as Arizona's did after it was first enacted in 2016. A Flagstaff lawyer who contracted to help defend jailed people sued on First Amendment grounds, arguing that the law violated his free speech rights.

A U.S. District judge in Arizona blocked enforcement while the case proceeded, but the Legislature changed the law so it only applied to contracts worth more than $100,000, effectively ending the case because it no longer applied to the Flagstaff man. The state was ordered to pay $115,000 for his attorney fees.

In Arkansas, the publisher of a weekly newspaper sued to block that state's law on similar grounds. A trial judge dismissed the case, ruling that “a boycott of Israel is neither speech nor inherently expressive conduct” protected by the First Amendment. But a split three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived the Arkansas Times' lawsuit in February, finding that “supporting or promoting boycotts of Israel is constitutionally protected ... yet the Act requires government contractors to abstain from such constitutionally protected activity.”

The ruling is not the last word: In June, 8th Circuit judges agreed to hear the case and vacated the three-judge panel's decision. They are set to hear arguments in the case later this month.

Both cases were brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Meanwhile in Arizona, Yee wrote to Unilever's investor relations department on Sept. 2 to tell the company that although Ben & Jerry's is run independently, Arizona law would require her to sell Unilever assets if the decision was not rescinded.

“I gave Unilever PLC, the parent company of Ben & Jerry’s, an ultimatum: reverse the action of Ben & Jerry’s or divest itself of Ben & Jerry’s to come into compliance with Arizona law or face the consequences," Yee, a Republican who is running for governor, said in a statement. "They chose the latter.”

Unilever said in an Aug. 2 letter to Deputy Treasurer Mark Swenson that it has never supported boycotts of Israel, commonly called Boycott Divestment Sanctions, or BDS, but that Ben & Jerry's operates independently. The company had no additional comment.

The Arizona investments were in bonds and commercial paper held in the state's short-term fixed-income investment fund.

The Arizona law enacted in 201 6 and revised in 2019 had broad, bipartisan support and was signed by Republican Gov. Doug Ducey. He tweeted that the Ben & Jerry's decision “is discrimination.”

“Arizona will not do business with a company that boycotts Israel — in 2016 and 2019, I signed bills to make sure of it,” the tweet said. “Arizona stands with Israel."

AND THE WINNER IS
Canadian Pacific Railway to acquire Kansas City Southern after reopened talks



Dan Primack
Sun, September 12, 2021, 11:17 AM·1 min read

Kansas City Southern on Sunday said it has agreed to be acquired by Canadian Pacific Railway, in a deal that would create the only railway to run from Canada to Mexico.

Behind the scenes: This is the second time that KCS has agreed to be acquired by Canadian Pacific. It first accepted a takeover offer in March, but then walked away in May after a higher bid was submitted by rival railroad operator Canadian National Railroad.

But Canadian National ran into regulatory troubles, causing Kansas City to reopen talks with Canadian Pacific (which had upped its offer in early August, and which doesn't face the same regulatory issues).

Details: Canadian Pacific plans to pay $31.1 billion in cash and stock, including $3.8 billion of assumed debt. That's more than Canadian Pacific's original bid, but less than what Canadian National was prepared to pay.

Kansas City Southern picks Canadian Pacific bid for railroad

Kansas City Southern-Bidding WarFILE - In this May 23, 2012, file photo, surveyors work next to Canadian Pacific Rail trains which are parked on the train tracks in Toronto. A planned shareholder vote on Canadian National's $33.6 billion offer has been delayed, Wednesday, Sept. 1, 2021, after regulators rejected a key part of the plan, so now Kansas City Southern can consider all of its options, including a competing $31 billion offer from Canadian Pacific Railway. (Nathan Denette/The Canadian Press via AP, File)More


Sun, September 12, 2021,

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) — Kansas City Southern has decided that a $31 billion bid from Canadian Pacific is the best of two offers on the table to buy the railroad.

The Kansas City, Missouri, company said in a statement Sunday that it has notified rival bidder Canadian National that it intends to terminate a merger agreement and make a deal with Canadian Pacific.

But it's not final yet. Canadian National still has five business days to negotiate amendments to its offer, and the Kansas City Southern board could determine that a revised CN offer is better.

In its own statement, Canadian National said it's evaluating its options. "CN will make carefully considered decisions in the interests of all CN shareholders and stakeholders and in line with our strategic priorities,” the railroad said.

Under the Canadian Pacific offer, each share of Kansas City Southern common stock would be exchanged for 2.884 CP shares and $90 in cash.

“We are pleased to reach this important milestone and again pursue this once-in-a-lifetime partnership,” said Canadian Pacific President and CEO Keith Creel.

Canadian National's bid was $33.6 billion, but regulators rejected a key part of the offer last month.

The Surface Transportation Board said Canadian National won’t be able to use a voting trust to acquire Kansas City Southern and then hold the railroad during the board’s lengthy review of the overall deal.

In contrast, regulators have already approved Canadian Pacific’s use of a voting trust because there are fewer competitive concerns about combining Canadian Pacific and Kansas City Southern.

Canadian Pacific set a deadline of Sunday for its offer. Both Canadian bids include a mix of cash and stock and the assumption of about $3.8 billion in Kansas City Southern debt.

It’s not yet clear whether Canadian National has any appetite to increase its bid because it is facing pressure from a major shareholder to abandon the deal. London-based investment firm TCI Fund — which owns about 5% of CN’s stock — maintains that CN should overhaul its board, get a new CEO and refocus its efforts on improving its own operations.

For more than two decades the railroad industry has been stable, with two railroads in the Western United States — BNSF and Union Pacific — two in the Eastern United States — CSX and Norfolk Southern — Kansas City Southern in the Midwest and the two Canadian railroads that serve part of the United States. Regulators have said that any merger involving two of the largest railroads generally needs to enhance competition and service the public interest to get approved.

Not easy voting green: Germans wary of getting climate bill

TOO LATE THE BILL IS ALREADY DUE
FRANK JORDANS
Fri, September 10, 2021


HALLE, Germany (AP) — It's a scorching September day and the Green party candidate hoping to succeed Angela Merkel as German chancellor leaps on stage in front of hundreds of supporters for what should be a home run.

Surveys show climate change is among the top concerns for many voters, and the audience in the eastern city of Halle is made up largely of students and retirees eager to hear how Annalena Baerbock plans to safeguard their future — or that of their grandchildren.

The Greens have long championed the fight against global warming. Ahead of Germany's Sept. 26 vote they offer arguably the most comprehensive program for making Europe's biggest economy carbon neutral, with a mix of government incentives and penalties for polluters.


But while voters readily admit they are worried about the state of the planet, especially after the deadly floods that hit Germany in July, many are wary of committing to the kind of radical transformation required — fearing the bill they might receive for it.

“The climate crisis is now," Baerbock tells the rally. "That’s why we need to act now, in the year 2021.”

The audience responds with polite applause; a listener then asks her about people in rural areas who worry that the changes required to combat climate change — such as banning cars with combustion engines — could threaten their way of life.

Baerbock says she wants electric vehicles to be affordable for everybody within a decade, if necessary with a subsidy of up to 9,000 euros (over $10,600) for low earners, but some are skeptical.

“They don’t say enough where the money is going to come from," said Sonja Solisch, a health care worker.

Solisch sympathizes with the Greens' goals but says voters like her have other worries too.

"Good train connections, good road connections, things like that need to be paid for too,” she said.




A survey this month for public broadcaster ZDF found climate and environment ranked as the most important election issue for 38% of respondents — ahead of the coronavirus pandemic and migration. The same poll, a representative phone survey of about 1,250 voters with a margin of error of 2 percentage points, showed the Greens trailing the center-left Social Democrats and Merkel's Union bloc.

Steffi Lemke, a long-time Greens lawmaker, argues that the two governing parties are shying away from telling voters the brutal facts about climate change, including about the cost.

“The problem is that it will be far more expensive if we do nothing," she told The Associated Press, citing the 30 billion euros that federal and state governments recently agreed to spend on rebuilding western regions hit by devastating flash floods this summer. “If we don’t change the economy and our society, it’s going to be unaffordable.”

The party, which wants to earmark 50 billion euros a year to make the country cleaner and more equitable, has attracted large donations from rich individuals worried about climate change.

In April, a bitcoin millionaire gave half his fortune to the Greens in the hope that they will regulate the energy-hogging virtual currency.

This week the party received a record donation of 1.25 million euros ($1.48 million) from Steven Schuurman, the Dutch founder of software company Elastic.

“It’s very obvious that Germany is a political and economic force to be reckoned with in Europe and the world” he told the AP, adding that the Greens offer “pragmatic solutions" to the climate crisis.

Baerbock, who at 40 is significantly younger than her two main rivals, cites a recent U.N. report showing that time is running out to prevent catastrophic planetary warming. She urges her audience in Halle to reach out to colleagues, friends and family — even their ex-spouses — to drive home the urgency of electing politicians willing to tackle the problem.

“I honestly don’t want my children, who are 6 and 9, or your children and grandchildren, to ask us in 20 years’ time: ‘Why didn’t you turn the rudder around back then?’”

___

Follow AP’s coverage of Germany’s election at https://apnews.com/hub/germany-election




Germany Election Green ChallengeFILE - In this Thursday June 24, 2021 file photo,German Chancellor Angela Merkel, left, welcomes the top candidates for the upcoming national elections Annalena Baerbock, right, of the Green Party and Armin Laschet, center, of Christian Democratic Union's prior to a session of the German parliament Bundestag in Berlin, Germany. Climate change is among the top concerns for Germans going into this year's national election that will determine who replaces Angela Merkel as Chancellor. But while voters admit they are worried about the state of the planet, especially after last the deadly floods that hit Germany in July, many fear the cost of backing the environmentalist Green party that's campaigned strongest for meeting the Paris climate accord's goals. (Kay Nietfeld/dpa via AP, file)More

Salesforce said it will help relocate employees and their families who want to leave Texas after a restrictive abortion law took effect


Kelsey Vlamis
Fri, September 10, 2021, 

Noam Galai/Contributor/Getty Images

A law banning abortion after six weeks of pregnancy took effect in Texas last week.

Salesforce said it would help employees relocate if they had concerns about access to reproductive healthcare.

Other companies have spoken out or offered assistance as a result of the law.

Salesforce is offering assistance to its employees after a restrictive abortion law took effect in Texas last week.

In a Friday slack message obtained by CNBC, the cloud computing company said it would assist any employees and their families who are looking to relocate over their state's reproductive laws.

"These are incredibly personal issues that directly impact many of us - especially women," the message said, without taking a stance on the law. "We recognize and respect that we all have deeply held and different perspectives. As a company, we stand with all of our women at Salesforce and everywhere.

"With that being said, if you have concerns about access to reproductive healthcare in your state, Salesforce will help relocate you and members of your immediate family," it continued.

According to its website, Salesforce has offices in many US cities, including one in Dallas.

The Texas law, which was signed in May, went into effect on September 1 after the US Supreme Court declined to block it. The law bans all abortions in the state after six weeks of pregnancy, and does not allow for exemptions in cases of rape or incest.

It also invites private citizens to enforce the ban by allowing them to sue an abortion provider or anyone who helps someone obtain an abortion. The citizens would then be rewarded for successful lawsuits.

Other companies have spoken out against the law or offered up assistance to people impacted.

Uber and Lyft have both offered to pay the legal fees of drivers who get sued under the law for transporting someone to get an abortion.

The company behind the dating app Bumble said it started a relief fund for women in Texas who are seeking abortions.

With Roe v. Wade in jeopardy, abortion rights advocates plan a change in strategy

Jon Ward
·Chief National Correspondent
Sun, September 12, 2021

For half a century, the pro-abortion-rights movement in America has been confident that abortion would remain legal nationwide due to the Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade.

But now that confidence is shaken. The Supreme Court’s recent decision to let a Texas law limiting abortion stand is a sign that the court very well could overturn Roe v. Wade next year in a Mississippi case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

It’s a brave new world for those who believe abortion should remain legal for all Americans. If national legalized abortion is overturned by the current Supreme Court, it would create a system where it is mostly illegal in some states and broadly legal in others.

Pro-abortion-rights protesters march outside the Texas Capitol on Sept. 1 in Austin. (Sergio Flores/the Washington Post via Getty Images)

The question is, what comes next? Where should the pro-abortion-rights movement focus its energy?

The most immediate issue is the law in Texas that has essentially banned the practice as soon as medical professionals can detect a heartbeat, which is usually at around six weeks of pregnancy. The Justice Department on Thursday announced it was suing the Lone Star State. But it’s not clear how strong a case the federal government will have. On Thursday, Vice President Kamala Harris met at the White House with abortion rights advocates, many of whom are most focused right now on helping women in Texas get to other states, where they can legally have an abortion.

In Congress, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has promised to pass a law this month that would codify abortion protections similar to those under Roe v. Wade into law.

But such a proposal will go nowhere in the U.S. Senate as long as the filibuster is in place, requiring any controversial bill to gain 60 votes to pass. And even if the filibuster were not in place, not all Democrats would vote for such a bill. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., describes himself as pro-life.

The White House has also called for Congress to codify Roe v. Wade, although President Biden — a Catholic who has said he personally opposes abortion while supporting the right to choose — spent most of his long political career advertising himself as a moderate on the issue.

Those who understand the political reality know the pro-abortion-rights future looks dim in the courts, in Congress and at the state level in much of the country. This is in large part because the Republican Party made a concerted effort to control state legislatures starting over a decade ago.

“It’s a tough reality that we are going to have to deal with. There’s not going to be tons of quick fixes. That’s just the reality of it,” Lala Wu, co-founder and executive director of Sister District, a progressive nonprofit launched in 2016 to focus on helping Democrats win elections in state legislatures, told Yahoo News.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi at a press conference on Capitol Hill on Wednesday. (Jabin Botsford/the Washington Post via Getty Images)

And so, just as it has with Wu’s organization, the focus of many Democrats and pro-abortion-rights organizations is beginning to shift to the state level — not only as a way to preserve abortion rights in some states, but also as a path to power at the national level that Republicans have utilized and Democrats have neglected.

“It’s well documented that earlier in the past decade there was not the emphasis on state and local elections that there needed to be from the broader progressive movement, despite the intense warning signs given by people on the ground — largely women of color — who were bearing the brunt of the attacks,” Sam Lau, a spokesman for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, told Yahoo News. “The anti-abortion movement has attacked abortion with a layer-by-layer strategy, with a very long-term strategy. There is no magic wand.”

The structural roots of the pro-abortion-rights movement’s losses are the same as they are for many other issues important to Democrats. Republicans have dominated the battle for control of state legislatures over the past decade, starting with the 2010 elections. At a time when Democrats were riding high after the election of President Barack Obama in 2008, top Republican operatives targeted state legislatures.

“Definitely, the [Republican] play has been largely on the state legislatures. And I think our vehicle at the time had been the courts,” Planned Parenthood president and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson told the New York Times almost a year ago.

Alexis McGill Johnson at a rally against white supremacy in Lafayette Square in 2019 in Washington, D.C. (Marlena Sloss/the Washington Post via Getty Images)

Prior to 2010, Democrats controlled 27 state legislatures, and had full control of the state government — meaning they had the trifecta of both chambers of the legislature and the governorship — in 16 states. Republicans, prior to 2010, controlled only 14 state legislatures, and had trifectas in just nine.

But in the fall of 2010, while most national attention focused on Republicans retaking the House of Representatives in Congress, there was a subterranean earthquake at the state level. Republicans flipped around 680 seats in state legislatures around the country that had been held by Democrats (there are just over 7,300 seats in all statehouses in total), and when all the dust had settled, Republicans then controlled 26 state legislatures, and had trifectas in 21 states. Democrats were down to 17 legislature majorities and just 11 trifectas.

The control of state legislatures gave Republicans the ability to do numerous things that affected national political issues. It gave them far greater control of the once-a-decade redistricting process, in which each state redraws the maps for its congressional seats and its state legislature districts. This allowed the GOP to cement its majority in the House and its control of state legislatures. To this day Republicans are dominant at the state level, with a 30-to-18 advantage in controlling state legislatures, and 23 trifectas to the Democrats’ 15.

This pronounced Republican advantage has given the GOP the ability to pass numerous restrictions on abortion in state legislatures, which mostly went unnoticed in the national conversation.

An anti-abortion activist outside the U.S. Supreme Court during the 48th annual March for Life on Jan. 29. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

So while the Supreme Court routinely upheld the right to abortion broadly at the national level over the past two decades, Republicans continued to chip away at access in Republican-controlled states, and they also continued to implement a long-term strategy of remaking the federal judiciary. This plan of attack was spearheaded by the Federalist Society — a powerful association of conservative lawyers and legal scholars — and resulted in an overhaul of federal appeals courts during the Trump presidency. Donald Trump appointed 226 federal judges in one four-year term, a rapid pace compared to the previous three presidents, who all appointed between 320 and 367 judges in eight years.

Trump appointed 54 federal appeals court judges compared to Obama’s 55. There are 13 appeals courts, and they “have the final word on most legal appeals around the country,” according to the Pew Research Center. And then of course Trump appointed three Supreme Court justices, moving the court firmly into a 5-4 conservative majority that has also taken shape as a 6-3 majority on issues such as restricting voting rights.

Interestingly, abortion rates had fallen by last year to the lowest level ever since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 — and were in fact lower than before the ruling. But it’s noteworthy that the reductions in abortion rates were not limited to Republican-controlled states, but were spread broadly across red and blue states. Liberal states like California and New York were among the majority of states that saw reduced abortion rates during the Obama presidency.

U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch at Joe Biden’s inauguration at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 20. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

But when it comes to Democrats being able to build power structures that have long-term impact, the consequences of the party’s lack of focus on state politics during the Obama era means it will take them a while to move the needle.

“Democrats are catching up when it comes to infrastructure,” Wu said. “It’s been decades of this kind of scheming [by Republicans].”

Planned Parenthood’s McGill Johnson has been talking about this approach for a while now, well before the Texas law.

“I think that the progress that conservatives have made over the last 10 years, in terms of capturing courts, state legislatures on a bunch of issues that are really not in line with where the majority of the populations are even in their own state, have a lot to do with their understanding of how to change the world to maximize power,” McGill Johnson said late last year.

“And while we’ve been very issue-focused and very ideologically focused, it hasn’t always matched the kind of power-building structural focus. And that’s where I think the shift will happen,” she said.