NOT CHEMTRAILS THEY ARE; 

Contrails: How tweaking flight plans can help the climate


Beth Timmins - Business reporter, BBC News
Fri, October 22, 2021, 

Aircraft condensation trails can have a significant impact on the climate, say researchers

Those wispy white lines that crisscross the skies after an aeroplane flies overhead are far less benign than their fluffy patterns might suggest.

Until now governments and industry have firmly focused on cutting CO2 emissions from aircraft - with good reason, as the aviation sector is responsible for around 2.4% of global CO2 emissions and a single flight can emit as much CO2 as many people do in an entire year.

But some scientists are now warning that the impact of radiation caused by aircraft condensation trails (contrails) could even be more significant.

Contrails, which heighten the effect of global warming, may account for more than half (57%) of the entire climate impact of aviation.

Contrails are water vapour that condenses as ice onto soot particles emitted from aircraft engines. They don't always occur as it requires certain atmospheric conditions: the air must be very cold, humid and "supersaturated" for ice to form.

They trap and absorb outgoing heat which otherwise escapes into space. This worsens at night when it is colder and the contrail has a longer lifetime. They can also have a less significant cooling effect, blocking incoming sunlight - but only during daytime.
Contrails: What changes might help?

Flight to the moon


Adjust flight routes so aircraft can avoid areas where they form


Teach pilots how to change altitude mid-flight without disrupting passengers' comfort


Introduce a contrails tax, and give airlines a refund if their flights are contrail-free

Contrails can last for seconds, hours or even a day in the atmosphere - and this determines the climate impact of a particular contrail will have. But recent research shows there could be a solution for this overlooked issue.

Prof Marc Stettler, transport and environment lecturer at Imperial College London, says changing the altitude of fewer than 2% of flights could potentially reduce contrail-linked climate change by a staggering 59%. "Tweaking the flight elevation by just a thousand feet can stop some contrails from forming," he explains.

Adjustments would mean an aircraft could avoid some of the regions of the atmosphere that are cold and humid enough to create contrails in the first place.

The HALO research aircraft which measures the impact of contrails

"A relatively small proportion of flights contribute to the majority of climate impact. So if we can alter these flights, we can significantly reduce the climate impact," says Prof Stettler.

Recent research from Prof Christiane Voigt, head of the cloud physics department at Mainz University, Germany, underlines this.

She has been conducting trials with the German Aerospace Centre (DLR) to measure and mitigate the impact of contrails.

Her team use high-altitude long-range (HALO) G550 research aircraft to gather their data. The aircraft carries wing-mounted instruments measuring contrail properties and the light scattered by radiation. This allows them to evaluate their forecasts' accuracy and investigate the impact of radiation.

"Our results have been really positive. We were able to predict and avoid around 80% of the contrails with little cost," she says. Prof Voigt adds that very few flights would have to be deviated to win a "large climate impact".

Contrail sensors and measuring apparatus on HALO

While there were some uncertainties, her team were able to track down most of the contrails and avoid the correct areas.

"We are at the beginning of a race to avoid them. And I have the impression that [companies] such as Lufthansa and Airbus, are really interested, as it is low cost and effective," she says.

Royal Aeronautical Society fellow, Prof Keith Hayward, is optimistic it may only need a software tweak to adjust many flight plans to avoid contrail creation, and that this could be done at a relatively low cost.

Compared to the typical $200m cost of a passenger aircraft or engine changes which can run to $12m, a software change is relatively inexpensive, he says.

Prof Hayward says the next challenge is for airlines to work out how altitude changes of a "few thousand feet" can be made mid-flight to avoid contrails while also not disrupting passengers' comfort. A pilot would need to spot these in "sufficient time for an aircraft to adapt gracefully", he adds.

A Flightkeys cockpit system prototype, visualising the cost-optimum speed and altitude range at every point along a flight

But Prof Voigt does not believe this is necessarily a problem. She thinks flight comfort could improve as flight paths would avoid some of the sky's water vapour areas - which both form contrails and cause bumpy turbulence.

Raimund Zopp, former pilot and co-founder of Austrian flight services software company, Flightkeys, is working on contrail visualisations to programme into flight plan technology. The company plans to include contrail avoidance in their airline customers' flight plan trajectories by 2023.

"Only a very small portion of flights are causing the problem so you only need to change a few flight plans to have a huge effect," he says.

As a former pilot, Mr Zopp says that from a flight procedure perspective, adding this information would be easy. "The flight plans get programmed into the navigation of the plane system, but pilots need training on this new contrail aspect of the flight plan profile".

Marc Settler: "Tweaking the flight elevation by just a thousand feet can stop some contrails from forming"
Reducing contrails

Any action on climate change that doesn't relate directly to cutting emissions is lower down the priority list for governments and industry, because CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas for most sectors.

Yet unlike other sectors, aviation also has very significant non-CO2 impacts.

Prof Settler believes that people have hesitated to reduce contrails by diverting flights because of fears it would be completely unfeasible - that all flights might have to be changed or it would hugely increase fuel consumption. This latest research shows this is not the case.

Dr Jarlath Molloy, senior environmental affairs manager at the air traffic service provider, NATS, agrees that up until now, there has been a lack of focus on non-CO2 problems from the entire industry.

Yet from an operational perspective, tackling contrails is "just one extra element the aircraft would have to compute", he says, and it could even be managed in a similar way to how authorities already orchestrate groups of flights to avoid big winter storms.

"We're exploring the feasibility of it and what we'd have to do to manage flights looking for the same routes" Dr Molloy adds.

Preventing most of the damaging climate impact of contrails could cost less than $1bn a year

The Department for Transport says it is "currently considering" a range of responses to its Jet Zero consultation on how to "make the sector cleaner and greener", and that this strategy "will aim to address" aviation's non-CO2 impact.

Meanwhile atmospheric scientist Prof Ken Caldiera, from the Carnegie Institution for Science, makes a compelling case. He estimates preventing most of the damaging climate impact of contrails would cost less than $1bn (£720m) a year and the net value of the benefit could be more than a thousand times that.

"We know of no comparable climate investment with a similarly high likelihood of success," he wrote in the scientific journal Nature.

So could a financial penalty focus minds in aviation more quickly? Dr Andrew Gettleman of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research says while more research is needed, a contrail tax or avoidance rebate could be introduced if a carbon tax were approved.

"We haven't seen the overall regulatory scheme yet for carbon in aviation, but once we get a larger regime in place for mitigating climate change and reducing carbon - then we can tackle the contrail problem properly."

Magnesium Buyers Warn Crunch Threatens Millions of European Jobs



Mark Burton
Fri, October 22, 2021

(Bloomberg) -- Europe’s magnesium shortage could shutter industrial operations within weeks, threatening thousands of businesses and millions of jobs in sectors from cars to packaging, associations warned.

Chinese exports of magnesium -- a critical material for hardening aluminum alloys and used in everything from power tools to laptops -- has plunged as the nation cuts output because of an energy crunch. That’s caused prices to spike and left buyers worldwide exposed.

Europe, which buys 95% of its magnesium from China, is expected to run out of the metal by the end of November, a group of industry associations including European Aluminium, Eurometaux and industriAll said on Friday. Production shortages, factory closures and job losses could follow unless reserves are replenished, they said.

The magnesium shortfall is among a growing list of headaches for a wide range of industries that have been hit by record gas and power prices, higher prices of materials such as copper and snarled supply chains.

“Supply of magnesium originating from China has either been halted or reduced drastically since September 2021, resulting in an international supply crisis of unprecedented magnitude,” the group said. It urged governments and the European Commission “to urgently work toward immediate actions with their Chinese counterparties to mitigate the short-term, critical shortage issue, as well as the longer-term supply effects on European industries.”

There have been similarly stark warnings in the U.S., where a leading producer of aluminum billet told customers it may curtail output and ration deliveries as soon as next year due to the shortage. Alcoa Corp., the largest U.S. maker of raw aluminum, has also voiced concerns about magnesium scarcity and has seen some suppliers suspending deliveries.

Abortion, guns, and religion: How to think about creating a counter-conservatism

John Stoehr
October 22, 2021

Milwaukee, Wisconsin / USA - January 14th, 2020: Many supporters of 45th United States American President Donald Trump attended the Make America Great Again Rally at UW-Milwaukee Panther Arena.

Yesterday, I said the Republican Party isn't conservative in the way it defined the term for 50 years. With exceptions, it meant opposition to "state intervention" in the economy, business, or civil affairs. These days, however, Republican voters want elected officials to use the power of the state to ensure the superiority of white people. You can call that conservative, too. But that's not how the GOP defined it. Until very recently, the party at least paid lip-service to political equality.

What about the Democrats? Well, they are more liberal than they have ever been in my lifetime. But the fact remains the party is very big — on account of Donald Trump chasing away people who really did believe in conservatism as defined for half a century, with privilege for private property, private enterprise and individual liberty. Those voters have to go somewhere, even if they call themselves independents. This is one reason the Democrats are now fighting among themselves.

With so much attention paid in recent years to the liberal drift of the Democratic Party, there's been less attention paid to its conservative character. That might be a blessing. After all, "conservative" as applied to the Democrats is not the same as "conservative" as applied to the Republicans. But because these modes of thinking are different and distinct, there's an opportunity to redefine what it means to be a Democratic conservative. Or at least what it should mean by centering political equality. If the GOP can define it, why can't the Democrats?

The following is my attempt to shake the dust off the term as it applies to only three controversial issues. My hope is that by characterizing a kind of counter-conservatism, we can, first of all, see the fuller breadth of human understanding. Second, give conservatives who might still be in thrall to right-wing propaganda a means of seeing there's room for them in the Democratic Party as long as they commit to equality.

Abortion

This one's easier than you think. Lots of Democrats sit on the line between pro-choice and anti-abortion. Joe Biden has said for his entire career he's personally opposed to it, because he's a Catholic, but he supports the right of women to control their own bodies. I said the difference is a line, but I think it's more than a gap. You can oppose abortion but simultaneously oppose state regulation of an individual's very body. That's conservative political equality. If you don't think women ought to have such rights, well, there's always the fascist party. As for the fetus being a person, any idiot can see a fetus is not a person until it's born. Then it's a person entitled to full rights and privileges.

Guns

This one's not as hard as you think either. To a conservative, human beings are inherently evil. Evil people, even when occasionally good, should not be allowed to own serious firepower. The more guns around, the more likely someone's going to get hurt. Case in point: every single shooting massacre. The government should ban AR-15s and the like. It should compensate owners by buying their guns at fair market prices. The only guns available to private citizens should be for hunting and home defense. As for open and concealed carry, why? We're not trained peace officers. Let's not make-believe we are. You can call this "state intervention," but a conservative who believes in equality as well as the inherent evil of human beings might call this leveling the playing field so that no one has an unfair advantage.


Religion

Conservatives are more likely than liberals to believe their religion is the right one. But conservatives who center equality have not been as vocal as they should be about the need to maintain and defend the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The separation between church and state is not for the advancement of secularism, as some conservatives would have you believe. It's for the advancement of religion itself, yours and everyone else's. Some historians suggest the establishment clause is how the US became the most religious among industrialized nations. Without the thumb of government on the scales, religions had to compete in the marketplace of religions. For all religions to be equal in the eyes of the state is best for all of them.

I'll talk about other controversial issues another time. In the meanwhile, why not give it a try? Explain as well as you can how you think a conservative who centers equality might approach a given issue. Or tell me I'm full of it. After all, maybe a conservative who centers equality isn't conservative. Maybe they're just liberal!

John Stoehr is a fellow at the Yale Journalism Initiative; a contributing writer for the Washington Monthly; a contributing editor for Religion Dispatches; and senior editor at Alternet. Follow him @johnastoehr

The seedy history behind gerrymandering and the fight to preserve white power
Mia Brett
October 22, 2021

FILE PHOTO: Demonstrators rally in front of the Supreme court before oral arguments on Benisek v. Lamone, a redistricting case on whether Democratic lawmakers in Maryland unlawfully drew a congressional district in a way that would prevent a Republican candidate from winning, in Washington, U.S., March 28, 2018. 

REUTERS/Joshua Roberts/File Photo

Maps are being redrawn all over the country in response to last year's census. Unfortunately, the process currently leaves a lot of room for partisan gerrymandering. It is the first time since the passage of the Voting Rights Act that district maps will be drawn without the preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act for many states.

A 2019 Supreme Court case also makes it impossible to bring gerrymander cases to federal courts on the basis of partisanship. Luckily some states have passed redistricting reforms since the last census. Others have divided legislatures where partisan abuse is less likely. But there are states that will attempt to draw maps in blatantly partisan ways, particularly to protect Republican political power.

The practice of manipulating voting districts for political power — ie, gerrymandering — wasn't invented in the US but it's hard to say we didn't perfect it. In 18th-century Britain, districts called "rotten boroughs" were drawn with few voters to ensure certain representatives were elected to Parliament. Gerrymandered districts have existed since the inception of US congressional districts, but initially the districts were still drawn in relatively normal ways.

The term "gerrymander" was coined after an 1812 Massachusetts state senate district map was drawn and signed into law by then Governor Elbridge Gerry. The map drew a long thin district that sliced up Essex County, which usually voted for the Federalist Party, in order to help the Democratic-Republicans. As a result, a county that had elected five Federalist representatives elected three Democratic-Republicans and only two Federalists. Federalists won over 1,500 more votes statewide but elected only 11 representatives while Democratic-Republicans elected 29. Ultimately, the extreme district map caused a backlash and Federalists soon regained power and redrew the district map.

The bill was seen as a partisan vendetta by many Federalists and when a satirical cartoon was drawn Elbridge Gerry's name was used to describe the salamander-like monster. Thus the term "gerrymander" was born. While obviously not the first time districts were drawn in a way to consolidate political power, the Massachusetts map was the first example of a district drawn in a clearly ridiculous way.

In 1842, Congress passed the Apportionment Act. It required districts to be geographically contiguous but there's little evidence it was enforced. Once Black men gained the right to vote, the use of gerrymandering grew with a vengeance. States redrew their maps more often after the Civil War to advantage the Republican and the Democratic parties. Democrat-controlled Ohio redrew its congressional districts six times between 1878 and 1890 to ensure Democrats were in control of the state. In 1888, Pennsylvania redrew its map so Republicans could retain their majority in the state House.

After the Civil War, gerrymandering not only caused partisan results but was used to disenfranchise Black voters, specifically as a response to the Black political power gained during reconstruction. In 1876, a Texas newspaper commented that the racist gerrymanders disenfranchised Black voters by "indirection." Mississippi created a "shoestring district" and South Carolina drew a "boa constrictor" district in order to disenfranchise Black voters. This "boa constrictor" district linked every Black precinct that could be connected by even the smallest land continuity. By isolating Black voters , the violent intimidation or outright fraud needed to disenfranchise them became much easier. Along with poll taxes, literacy tests and all-white primaries, racist gerrymanders successfully disenfranchised Black voters in the South until the civil rights movement.

In the 1960s, the Supreme Court issued a number of opinions dubbed the "redistricting revolution" to address gerrymandered districts. In 1960, the court found that district lines drawn with the intention of disenfranchising Black voters violated the 15th Amendment in Gomillion v. Lightfoot. Justice Frankfurter's opinion held that an Alabama act that created a Tuskegee district that excluded nearly all Black voters effectively denied people their vote to vote on the basis of race. Overturning the 1946 decision Colegrove v. Green, which held that malapportioned congressional districts were not the purview of the federal judiciary, Baker v. Carr in 1962 held that redistricting issues could be brought to federal courts under the 14th amendment. Two years later the Supreme Court decided two cases, Wesberry v. Sanders and Reynolds v. Sims, requiring that electoral districts be established based on equal population and the principle of "one person, one vote."

While important precedent that forced maps to be redrawn, the requirement of uniform population did not stop districts from being drawn in bizarre shapes to protect partisan power. In 1993, in Shaw v. Reno, the Supreme Court held that a bizarrely shaped district is strongly indicative of "racial intent" and therefore will be struck down for violating the Equal Protection Clause if no other reason for the shape can be given. While certainly a step in the right direction, Shaw didn't exactly end the practice of drawing ridiculously shaped districts. Additionally, Shelby v. Holder will likely make it easier to get racist gerrymanders into effect because preclearance is no longer required.

In 2019, the Supreme Court dealt a huge blow to efforts at fixing partisan gerrymandering. In Rucho v. Common Cause the court held that partisan gerrymandering is not an issue for federal courts to consider and is only the purview of state courts or legislative action. Under the 2017 decision Cooper v. Harris, cases can bring issues of racist gerrymandering to the federal court system, but they have to prove race was the predominant factor in drawing the district and that the state didn't have a compelling state interest, like protecting minority voting rights at which time race can be a consideration.

Two weeks ago, Texas released a redistricting map that prompted a lawsuit alleging intentional discrimination against Hispanic voters. Since the lawsuit concerns racist gerrymandering and not just partisanship, it can be brought in federal court. But it's not yet clear how it will be received. Under the proposed Freedom to Vote Act, this type of gerrymandering would not be allowed and neutral redistricting standards would be imposed. The act also would provide more power to courts to adjudicate issues with gerrymandering more quickly.

Unfortunately in the most recent Senate vote, the bill was blocked in a 51-49 vote because Democrats don't have enough votes to override the filibuster. Republicans are blocking the bill but the current redistricting reform is actually based on a 30-year-old Republican proposal. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is still promising to fight for the bill but we likely will continue to need West Virginia Senator Manchin and Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema to agree to filibuster reform if we have any hope of passing the legislation.


Mia Brett, PhD, is a legal historian. She lives with her gorgeous dog, Tchotchke. You can find her @queenmab87

America is growing skeptical of the Gospel of Big Business
Rod Graham
October 22, 2021

Amazon worker

My mother is a firm believer in Jesus Christ as her personal Lord and Savior. When she receives an unexpected windfall, or a report of good health from her doctor, she says she's been blessed. When things are not going well, it is God testing her faith in Him. Never, absolutely never, does she question decisions by her personal Lord and Savior.

This is the relationship many Americans have with business.

Except for a contingent on the far left, local companies, major firms and multinational corporations are revered. CEOs are venerated as job creators. The decisions filtering down about wages, benefits, and work environment are justified through the gospel of the free market.

But we need to be skeptical of our relationship to businesses.

Tributes and sacrifices

We all know about efforts made by local and state governments to court business. They are like "tributes." But the scale of these tributes can be mind-boggling. Consider Amazon. Good Jobs First has been tracking subsidies — grants and tax incentives — Amazon receives yearly. According to the nonprofit, Amazon has received over $4.1 billion in subsidies since 2000. One could imagine tax breaks for a smaller, or emergent, company. But Amazon recorded revenues of $280 billion last year. It is No. 2 on the Fortune 500 list (behind Walmart). Yet the tributes keep coming. The company has gotten $650 million in tax breaks from local and state governments this year.

There's no reason subsidies shouldn't go to a profitable company instead of an emergent one. If one sees subsidies as investment, it makes sense to give a tribute to Amazon. But what Amazon gives in return are modest wages to warehouse workers and delivery drivers plus horrible working conditions. On March 17, an Amazon warehouse worker testified at a Senate Budget Committee hearing about her warehouse's "grueling" working conditions in Bessemer, Alabama.

Maybe the tributes are more like sacrifices, and meager blessings are given in return for taking the heart out of a tax base.

It goes on. We are currently in a worker shortage crisis. According to the US Chamber of Commerce, the number of job openings surpassed the number of job-seekers in July. That month, the US had 10.9 million job openings, an all-time high (the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics report estimated 10.4 million job openings at the end of August).

One interpretation of this is that the COVID relief benefits have dampened interest in working. Fox Business asked in a recent story, "Are unemployment benefits the new welfare?" Quoting from a research fellow at the conservative Foundation for Government Accountability, the story claims: "Unfortunately, due to the recent COVID-19-related changes, unemployment insurance has been morphed into more of a long-term benefits program."

Yes, many people decided to receive COVID benefits instead of seeking low-paid employment. The "unemployment as welfare" line of reasoning ignores the responsibility of employers to employees. It assumes that if an employer "graces" us with a job offer, we should accept, regardless of how much it pays or the quality of work conditions. Businesses give us what we need, not always what we want. We should be thankful for what we have received.

A great awakening

Around 2015, my university decided to offer a degree in cybersecurity. The nation had coalesced around a narrative that there was a shortage of cybersecurity professionals. Our nation's president at the time, Barack Obama, allocated money for institutions that began offering degrees in this field. Our governor at the time, Terry McAuliffe, doubled down with even more money. As a result of government funding and some bright, industrious academics and administrators, we now have a fantastic School of Cybersecurity at my university.

Around this time I stopped singing from the business hymnal. I was on the front lines of my university's program development. The extent to which we attempted to meet business needs was problematic.

We wanted course content reflecting what students would be doing on the job. We even hosted seminars during which we listened to what business leaders wanted from graduates. This was already a problem for me, because I don't see universities as job-training programs.

At the same time, it became apparent to me that the tasks companies needed done did not require a four-year or two-year degree. Firms could train bright, hardworking people out of high school if they wished.

I worked with my university to create an elaborate feeder program, helping absolve businesses of their responsibility for identifying good workers and preparing them. My university's relationship with the cybersecurity industry is indicative of a broader problem.

We complain about the expense of higher education, and rightfully so. It is insane that a college graduate can expect to be saddled with $30,000 in debt. That is the average, but some end up owing much more. Universities deserve some blame. But remarkably, there are few complaints about businesses not hiring people out of high school.

Yet that is the central issue. Even if college were cheaper, a student, instead of owing $100,000 in loans for a job they could've gotten out of high school, would instead owe $50,000. Better, but they shouldn't owe anything or spend four years doing something they don't want.

Our deification of businesses makes it heretical to question this. But they also have a responsibility to identify, screen and train people.

Be a skeptic

We should question our relationships with businesses. Do localities need to offer all these tax breaks? Suppose no one offered them? I am sensing a growing pushback about these tax breaks, with evidence accumulating that these sacrifices do not lead to blessings.

On the minimum wage front, there is still an energetic Fight For 15 movement. Pushback will come from free-market proselytizers. But there are solid arguments for raising the minimum wage. Improving working conditions is a moral argument that must be articulated.

And the responsibility for worker training? I don't see anyone talking about this, which is unfortunate. The closest I have seen are commentaries about raising the profile of two-year colleges.

Understanding that everyone does not need a four-year degree is a step in the right direction but still does not put any responsibility on businesses. There is still a lot of work to do, but I feel good about where we are headed. We as a nation are becoming more skeptical.


Rod Graham is a sociologist. A professor at Virginia's Old Dominion University, he researches and teaches courses in the areas of cyber-crime and racial inequality. His work can be found at roderickgraham.com. Follow him @roderickgraham

 Sotomayor blasts fellow Justices after SCOTUS agrees to take up US case against Texas abortion ban but not block law

David Badash, The New Civil Rights Movement
October 22, 2021

Justice Sotomayor -- YouTube screenshot

The U.S. Supreme Court has just agreed to hear arguments in federal government's case against Texas' abortion ban, after the Dept. of Justice petitioned the Court to intervene. DOJ had asked the justices to uphold a district court's ruling that blocked the law but Friday afternoon conservatives on the nation's highest court refused to do so, allowing the near-total ban to remain the law of the land.

Contrary to several breaking news reports, the Supreme Court will not be hearing arguments on the "substance" of the federal government's case against the Texas abortion ban itself, known as SB 8, but merely "whether the US can sue 'the State, state court judges, state court clerks, other state officials, or all private parties to prohibit S.B. 8 from being enforced,'" University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck notes:

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor blasted her conservative colleagues for not placing a hold on the law itself, as Slate's Mark Joseph Stern reports, saying: "Every day the Court fails to grant relief is devastating, both for individual women and for our constitutional system as a whole."

Arguments are set for November 1. The Court at that time will also hear arguments from Whole Women's Health, which is also suing Texas over its abortion ban.

MANCHIN'S HOME TOWN PAPER

Dan Kurland: Manchin wins, West Virginia loses (Opinion)

By Dan Kurland
22 hrs ago
THE MOUNTAIN STATE’S TRUSTED NEWS SOURCE.
 The Charleston Gazette-Mail.

It seems Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., will get his way on the Build Back Better Act.

He’s won. It appears that Manchin has killed the inclusion of the Clean Electricity Performance Program that would have paid utilities to switch from greenhouse gas-emitting electricity sources, and that Manchin has killed a proposed carbon fee and dividend program that would have increased market pressure on all industries to move from the carbon-based fuels responsible for the climate crisis.

As they say on Let’s Make a Deal — or was it The Price Is Right? — let’s see what Manchin has won.

For openers, he’s successfully torpedoed the president’s upcoming trip to the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Glasgow. At a time when our country so desperately needs to reassert a leading role in world affairs, Manchin has neutered our ability to set an example for others to follow. Manchin has abandoned the moral high ground.

And he has given every other country an excuse to do as little as he is forcing us to do. This is, remember, a global crisis.

Manchin has given credence to the claims that he is more motivated by obeisance to the coal and gas industries than to the health of his constituents; that Manchin, personally, and his campaign’s fundraising, benefit more financially by perpetuating climate change than by attempts to avert it.

He has proven that any individual senator can subvert the collective action of the Senate on the basis of their own interests, rather than the interests of the country as a whole. Maybe Floridians should demand an end to federal taxes for tunnels — the state only has two. Well, three, if you count the one under Walt Disney World.

Coal is dying. It might not be dead yet, and it might yet even scratch out a more limited role in future economies. But the writing is on the wall: Climate change is upon us, and has been for a long time.

The way things are going isn’t exactly going so well for us anymore. Bold action is needed, and soon.

Surely, hope for new training opportunities and new jobs and new investment opportunities might be a bit rosy at this time, but is it really better to do nothing to address a long-term solution?

Manchin has chosen his place in history. Is this really how he wants to be remembered?

Dan Kurland, of Charleston, is an occasional contributor to the Gazette-Mail.

  Key Investor Bails After Learning He's In New Trump Company: 'Not A Close Call'

Trump's new social media company shot up in value, but at least one investor says it's not about the money.

By Ed Mazza
10/22/2021

Donald Trump’s proposed social media company came as news to some of its investors ― and at least one pulled out when he learned his money was now tied to the former president.

“Many investors are grappling with hard questions about how to incorporate their values into their work,” hedge fund manager Boaz Weinstein told The New York Times in a statement. “For us, this was not a close call.”

The newspaper said Weinstein’s Saba Capital had been a major investor in Digital World, a special purpose acquisition company, or SPAC, formed for the purpose of acquiring another company.

As is common in SPAC arrangements, investors put their cash in before the acquisition target was chosen. When Weinstein learned it would be with Trump’s firm, he bailed.

Trump announced the new company this week, saying it would launch a right-wing rival to Twitter called Truth Social. Shares in the company more than tripled on Thursday, the day after the deal was announced.

One unnamed investor who held 10% of the company told the Financial Times he sold everything as soon as he could.

“The idea that would help [Trump] build out a fake news business called Truth makes me want to throw up,” he said.

It’s not clear if that investor was Weinstein.

Another large investor seemed much happier with the deal.

“When you partner with the right sponsor teams that have a clear vision on their targets, good things can happen quickly,” David Puritz of Shaolin Capital Management told the Financial Times.

Reuters noted the company was founded by Patrick Orlando, who has formed at least four other SPACs and has plans for two more, but so far none have led to a completed deal.

Trading in Trump's new social media SPAC halted due to volatility
Agence France-Presse
October 22, 2021

An investment vehicle linked to former President Trump's social media startup has soared the last two days on Wall Street (AFP/Chris DELMAS)

A new investment vehicle linked to former US president Donald Trump's fledgling social media venture surged early Friday before trading was temporarily halted due to the volatility.

Shares of Digital World Acquisition Corp, which is set to merge with Trump's "TRUTH Social" media startup, surged more than 200 percent before being suspended for several minutes on the Nasdaq.

Near 1435 GMT, shares were up 115.4 percent at $98.01.

Digital World, a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC), jumped 357 percent on Thursday following announcement of the merger.

A joint press release from the Trump Media and Technology Group and Digital World described the venture as "a rival to the liberal media consortium and fight against the 'Big Tech' companies of Silicon Valley, which have used their unilateral power to silence opposing voices in America."

The companies said a "nationwide rollout" of the venture is expected in the first quarter of 2022.

As president, Trump set the national media agenda with aggressive use of social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook.

But Trump was tossed from both platforms after he goaded supporters into a violent takeover of the US Capitol on January 6 of this year.

A SPAC is sometimes called a "blank check" company because it is set up with the sole purpose of merging with another entity.

Use of SPACs has soared in the last couple of years amid low interest rates, including on Thursday, when office-sharing company WeWork employed the strategy to go public.

  

Trump's Social Media Platform Could Already Face Legal Issues, After Allegedly Ripping Off Code

The Don has released a beta of his new social media platform and, predictably, it's a knock-off version of an already existing platform.

By Lucas Ropek


The most recent former president’s new social media platform—goofily called The Truth Social—would appear to be sourced from derivative code that could potentially get him sued.

Fresh off his last failed business venture as 45th leader of the free world, Donald Trump has now wandered into his next act: tech mogul. After getting kicked off of Twitter, Facebook, and other major social media sites, the Don recently announced the launch of his own platform—a place where MAGA sensibilities can reign supreme, whatever that might entail.

Much has already been written about the fact that Truth Social is basically a reincarnation of Trump’s first love: Twitter. On it, you can post “Truths” (aka tweets), “Re-Truths” (retweets), and there’s also a “Truth Feed” (Twitter feed). Since Trump’s modus operandi has classically been to take something that somebody else already did, stamp his big, fat, bolded name on it, promise it’s going to be better, and then make it worse, this is pretty much par for the course.

However, it would appear that Trump’s new site is not only unoriginal in concept but also in code. As originally reported by Vice News, Truth Social seems to have lifted its digital DNA directly from Mastodon, the open-source alternative social network known for its focus on user privacy and autonomy.

Similarities in the code were first spotted by early users of the platform, who noted front-end similarities between it and Mastodon. One user even took a screenshot of the HTML of Trump’s new site which shows explicit mention of Mastodon in the code. Mastodon subsequently had fun with this, tweeting out a reference to Trump’s apparent familiarity with their platform:

Think of it this way, if *he* manages to use Mastodon, you have no excuse saying it's too complicated

— Mastodon 🐘 (@joinmastodon) October 21, 2021

Actually, it isn’t all that unusual for other organizations to use Mastodon’s code, because it has a generous open-source policy. Users can create a software “fork,” essentially a modified version of the company’s code for their own purposes, so long as they abide by certain legally mandated stipulations in Mastodon’s terms of service. Somewhat predictably, Truth Social appears to have snatched the code but failed to abide by its terms.

Mastodon leases its software under something called an AGPLv3 license, which basically stipulates that users can use its code so long as they acknowledge where it came from and make the copied or modified code available for public inspection. However, in its own terms of service, Truth Social claims that “all source code” from its software is proprietary, essentially failing to mention that it lifted it from somewhere else.

Speaking with Vice, Mastodon founder Eugen Rochko said that Truth Social’s platform appeared to be “absolutely” based on Mastodon’s code and that it would “indicate a license violation.” Rochko subsequently told Talking Points Memo that his team would lawyer up to consider the potential breach of terms.

“I do intend to seek legal counsel on the situation,” he told the outlet. “Compliance with our AGPLv3 license is very important to me, as that is the sole basis upon which I and other developers are willing to give away years of work for free,” he added.

When reached via email, Rochko repeated much of the same to Gizmodo. “I believe that as of this time Truth Social indeed seems to be using Mastodon code. If you look at these screenshots and compare them to any standard Mastodon installation it will be pretty obvious,” he said, of the posts on Twitter. We reached out to the Trump Media & Technology Group (the owner of Truth Social) for clarification on the whole situation and will update this post if they respond.

As you can see, the front-end of Trump’s new site looks quite similar to Mastodon:

Trump taking something that was offered freely, exploiting it, and then failing to give due credit sorta seems like the most Trump move ever. I guess we will have to wait to see if Truth Social sprouts wings and becomes some new, seething hub for online horribleness—or whether the site will be strangled out of the gate by various controversies, like a potential lawsuit from its digital progenitor.

'OUR HEROS' BIDEN RAISED THEIR WAGE TO $15 PR HR

‘Nobody cares I have nowhere to live’: wildland firefighters struggle with homelessness

Brian Osgood
Thu, October 21, 2021, 

During his first season as a wildland firefighter with the Idaho Department of Land, Luke Meyer camped out in a decrepit building infested with rodents. It was 2017 and he was a 20-year-old rookie earning $11 an hour. In the rural community where he worked, outside Bonners Ferry, Idaho, housing was scarce and rent was a luxury he couldn’t afford.

Meyers kept a mattress inside a tent on the floor of his temporary home, provided for free by his employer, to prevent mice from crawling across his chest as he slept.

Working his way up the ranks did little to upgrade Meyer’s living conditions. Four fire seasons later – with thousands of firefighting hours logged, a new job with the US Forest Service and fresh certifications to supervise small crews – Meyer was living out of the back of his truck.

“I love this job and the people I work with,” said Meyer. “But is it worth living like this, with so much uncertainty?” The answer, he decided, was no. His last day as a wildland firefighter was 27 August.

At a time when wildfires are forcing communities to evacuate or live under layers of ash and smoke, workers say they are being squeezed out of wildland firefighting by low pay and few options to find affordable housing.

“I’m on food stamps and I live in a shack in someone’s back yard. It’s the only housing I can afford,” said a member of an elite helitack unit with the Forest Service in Arizona who makes $15 an hour ferrying crews into fire zones via helicopter. Previously, he’d lived in a van without air conditioning and once suffered from heatstroke after temperatures rose above 109F.

As climate change drives droughts and extreme heat across the western United States, wildfire season continues to grow in length and severity. Blazes largely concentrated in the American west have burned more than 5.6m acres since January, and nearly 18,000 fire personnel were deployed across the country.

The demand is overwhelming crews that are already stretched thin. With the tempo of work unlikely to let up anytime soon, many wonder if there’s any future in the world of wildland firefighting.

“Every year I question if I’ll come back next season,” said a 35-year-old firefighter with the Forest Service. “If you’re looking to settle down with a home and a family, this career keeps that at arm’s length.”

Chasing overtime

Speaking on condition of anonymity, several wildland firefighters of varying age and rank told the Guardian about their experiences with homelessness and persistent economic uncertainty.

The workforce is dependent on large numbers of temporary and seasonal workers who spend four to six months on the job, often far from family, and are then laid off at the end of fire season. Wages typically hover between $15 and $20 an hour, even for highly experienced wildland firefighters, forcing many to depend heavily on overtime pay to pad their incomes and last them through the off-season.

“I survive by chasing as much overtime as I can,” the 35-year-old Forest Service firefighter said. “Sometimes I’m working 80 to 100 hours a week.”

Several agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management, say they plan to convert more seasonal job openings into permanent positions, acknowledging the growing demands wrought by climate change and the necessity of providing its workforce with a stable and financially viable career path.

But workers continue to struggle to find affordable housing. None of the federal agencies that oversee wildland firefighting guarantee lodging for all workers. Some locations offer spaces in bunkhouses free of charge or at reduced rates, but employees say these benefits are inconsistent.

A US Forest Service firefighter crew arrives to battle the Caldor in Meyers, California, in August. Photograph: Josh Edelson/AFP/Getty Images

“I’ve gone from living comfortably in a bunkhouse for a little over $100 a month one season to being miserable living out of my car the next,” said a 37-year-old member of a helitack unit with a decade of experience with the Forest Service who makes $20 an hour.

Another 29-year-old Forest Service worker noted his hourly wages are not enough to afford rent in California. He has spent the season living in a tent next to his car. “Sometimes lodging is provided, but usually, it’s not,” he said. “It can vary dramatically from season to season.”

Other firefighters argue they’re incentivized to live out of their vehicles during fire season.

“I bought a truck because I figured it would open up more opportunities,” said a 23-year-old firefighter with the Forest Service in Montana. “And I was right. People were significantly happier to hire me because they knew I’d be living in a car and wouldn’t need help with lodging.”

Such uncertainty can take a toll on the mental health of firefighters, as well as on loved ones and families. Michelle Hart, whose husband, Tim, died from injuries sustained while parachuting into a fire zone last summer, says that her husband struggled with housing issues for years.

“For three seasons he lived in his truck. He had to pay to park in a field with other smokejumpers,” she said. “Some literally slept in the front seat of their cars. I saw the toll it took on him, and I know a lot of firefighters are dealing with the same issue.”

Those issues, along with other strains that stem from the dangerous nature of firefighting, have a cost that is not abstract for many. “By the end of my second season two of my peers had died by suicide or substance abuse,” said the 35-year-old.

New hope for a ‘fatigued workforce’

With the scope of wildfires becoming impossible to ignore, politicians have started to address how workers are affected. On 19 October, Representative Joe Neguse introduced the Tim Hart Wildland Firefighter Classification and Pay Parity Act with Representatives Katie Porter and Liz Cheney, which would overhaul federal firefighter pay, benefits, and worker classifications. Tim’s Act is named after Michelle’s husband, Tim Hart.

Neguse told the Guardian that the low pay experienced by wildland firefighters was “simply outrageous”. His bill, which is a piece of standalone legislation, would raise hourly pay to $20 an hour, provide housing stipends for firefighters on duty more than 50 miles from their primary residence, extend retirement benefits to temporary and seasonal workers, and expand mental health benefits, among other provisions.

On a recent visit to the western United States, Joe Biden used the spectacle of the fires to promote his $1tn infrastructure bill, which also includes investments in climate resiliency and $600m for wildland firefighters. If passed, it would result in an estimated yearly salary increase of $20,000 for federal wildland firefighters. But with the future of the infrastructure bill uncertain, Tim’s Act may become the focus of legislative efforts to improve the position of wildland firefighters.

But others, such as the advocacy group Grassroots Wildland Firefighters, would like to see the government think bigger in providing housing and healthcare benefits. “We’re happy to see this issue getting more attention,” said Jonathon Golden, a policy adviser with Grassroots. “But we’re seeing a fatigued workforce. There’s been a lack of investment and that needs to change long-term.”

After over a decade with the Forest Service, the 37-year-old helitack unit worker feels pangs of guilt that his family has had to make sacrifices due to the instability of his profession.

“My wife has basically had to shape her life around the whims of the Forest Service,” he said. “When I was living in my car sometimes I just called her at night crying. You start to think, well, nobody seems to care that I have nowhere to live. Maybe this is just what I deserve.”

Report: Far-right WHITE anti-government group grows significantly


 In this April 3, 2021, file photo, Ammon Bundy speaks to a crowd of about 50 followers in front of the Ada County Courthouse in downtown Boise. A far-right group launched the anti-government activist Bundy is rapidly expanding nationwide and making inroads into Canada, according to a new report from the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights. 

(Darin Oswald/Idaho Statesman via AP, File)


REBECCA BOONE
Thu, October 21, 2021

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — A far-right group launched by anti-government activist Ammon Bundy is rapidly expanding nationwide and making inroads into Canada, according to a new report from the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights.

The quick growth happened despite legal problems faced by some prominent People's Rights leaders, and continued even as some of the organization's Facebook groups were removed from the social media platform. The organization has grown by roughly 53% in the past year in large part because of continued anti-public health sentiment, according to the report.

People's Rights started in deep-red Idaho, which remains one of the least-vaccinated states with only about 43% of its population fully vaccinated against COVID-19, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The group now includes activists in 38 states, according to the report.

“I think the report underestimates their overall strength, because they've also built out alliances with a range of groups from the Tea Party to the Proud Boys and anti-vax groups,” said Chuck Tanner, IREHR's research director. “In certain places they are able to mobilize at levels that make an impact on policy.”

People's Rights started in 2020 amid a wave of backlash against public health measures taken at the start of the coronavirus pandemic. Started by Bundy — who is best known for leading a group of armed activists in the occupation of an Oregon wildlife refuge in 2016, and now is one of many candidates running in Idaho's gubernatorial race — the group frequently staged protests at public health districts, state Capitol buildings, schools and public officials' homes. The IREHR report analyzed internal membership data from the People's Rights network.

Bundy did not immediately respond to phone and email messages left by The Associated Press.

Last year, the organization had just under 22,000 members nationally, according to a report by IREHR and the Montana Human Right's Network. Now it has grown by roughly 53%, according to the new IREHR report, with more than 33,000 members including nearly 400 official leaders in 38 states. It also includes more than 100 members in Canada — largely in Ontario — even though most of its political ideology centers on fringe interpretations of the U.S. Constitution and Christian nationalism, according to the report.

“We noticed three or four months ago that they started having Canadian provinces listed on their website. It's not big, but it's kind of strange,” Tanner said.

People’s Rights is still mostly focused in the northwestern states, particularly Idaho, where Bundy lives and roughly 17 out of every 10,000 are members, according to the report. Most of the growth has been around COVID-19-related activism, said Tanner.

“There's been rapid growth in places that didn't have very many members to begin with, but there's also been significant growth in areas that we know are really organized on the ground, like southern Washington and central Oregon," Tanner said. "They've really built this COVID-denial activism, and as a group are playing an outsized role in the attack on public health measures to address the pandemic.”

Prominent members of the organization have faced serious legal woes. In Idaho, Sean Anderson dropped from a leadership role after he was sentenced to 18 years in prison for his role in a police shootout last year.

Another prominent People's Rights activist, Pam Hemphill, is facing several federal charges after prosecutors said she took part in the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Hemphill has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Earlier this year, Bundy was convicted of trespassing and obstructing officers after prosecutors said he refused to leave a closed room at the Idaho Statehouse following protests that were attended by hundreds, including many People's Rights members.

That hasn't seemed to slow the organization's growth, Tanner said. The organization has promoted extreme political concepts including state secession and the repeal of the 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments, Tanner said. The People's Rights website calls on members to be ready to defend themselves and others against government officials.

“What People's Rights does is spread really radical ideas about overturning civil rights in the United States,” Tanner said. “This is a broad-based, anti-Democratic and bigoted social movement.”

But Joe Lowndes, a political science professor at the University of Oregon who researches conservatism and right-wing movements, said it's not clear if the organization's growth will have staying power in a post-pandemic world.

“People's Rights were kind of early adopters of the anti-mask, anti-vaccine movements, and they've been able to build through that to push this vague, conspiratorial, anti-government idea,” said Lowndes. “But it's hard to say how that's able to sustain itself in the long run. I can't see that there's much staying power beyond the issue of the pandemic, unless it's kind of that general, apocalyptic-prepper stuff.”

In places like Idaho, where some far-right political factions already had a stronghold, it's difficult to tell if People's Rights was leading the anti-pandemic movement or just going along with the far-right flow, said Jaclyn Kettler, a Boise State University political scientist.

“It's a little hard right now to trace what impacts they had compared to others with similar sorts of ideologies,” Kettler said. “It will be interesting to see what happens long-term here. For instance, a lot of the Tea Party organizations aren't active like they were in 2010, but we can still see the influence of them.”