- The Nuclear ESG Push Is On: UK Aims To Put Reactors "At The Heart" Of Its Decarbonization Strategy
The Nuclear ESG Push Is On: UK Aims To Put Reactors “At The Heart” Of Its Decarbonization Strategy
The United Kingdom could be ready to officially put nuclear power back on the map.
That’s because UK ministers are planning on putting nuclear power “at the heart of Britain’s strategy to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050,” a new report from the Financial Times reveals.
In what is one of the boldest statements about the future of nuclear in a major geographic area, government documents will lay out a “net zero” strategy for the UK as well as a cost assessment of implementing the strategy to meet the 2050 goal.
Then, Prime Minister Boris Johnson is expected to give the documents a “go ahead”.
The FT reported on how the project would be funded:
The creation of a “regulated asset base” (RAB) model will be key to delivering a future fleet of large atomic power stations. The RAB funding model is already used for other infrastructure projects, such as London’s Thames Tideway super sewer.
Under the scheme, households will be charged for the cost of the plant via an energy levy long before it begins generating electricity, which could take a decade or more from when the final investment decision is taken.
The mechanism is designed to encourage investment by institutional investors, such as pension funds, by guaranteeing steady returns from early on. Legislation on the nuclear RAB model will be published later this month.
Westinghouse is already taking well to the news, planning to revive plans for a nuclear power plant that was abandoned by Hitachi in 2019, the report says.
Ministers will also be advocating for small modular reactors, which we noted days ago were also key to France’s plans to meet net zero carbon emissions goals.
A combination of “nuclear power, renewables and ‘carbon capture and storage'” is being targeted for UK’s 2035 net zero goal.
The government will also produce costs analyses and broader environmental plans ahead of the upcoming COP26 climate conference in Glasgow at the end of October.
Four days ago we noted that France was also adopting nuclear as part of President Macron’s strategy for decarbonization.
Recall, Germany is also trying to stop the decommissioning of its nuclear reactors. A newly penned letter to the FT, signed by professors from Oxford, Harvard and American University alongside a group of environmentalists, is urging that Germany postpone its exit from nuclear energy for benefit of the environment.
Noting that many Germans aren’t happy with the job politicians are doing addressing climate change, the letter notes that Germany’s “emissions are rising sharply again, at a time when they need to be falling fast”.
Recall, just days prior to that we wrote about Poland’s second largest energy consumer considering a move to small modular reactors to help generate energy.
Earlier in the summer we posted about how crypto miners were starting to forge partnerships with nuclear power plants to combat the “bitcoin is not good for the environment” argument.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 10/19/2021 – 02:45 - Washington Or Moscow: Decision-Time For Erdogan In Northern Syria
Washington Or Moscow: Decision-Time For Erdogan In Northern Syria
Authored by Tulin Daloglu via TheCradle.co,
Erdogan’s Syria choices seem increasingly limited by unflagging US support for his Kurdish foes. Turkey’s only option may be a Russian one…
In his 7 October statement renewing US national emergency powers in Syria, US President Joe Biden said: “The situation in and in relation to Syria, and in particular the actions by the Government of Turkey to conduct a military offensive into northeast Syria, undermines the campaign to defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, endangers civilians, and further threatens to undermine the peace, security, and stability in the region, and continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.”
The full statement obviously has several intended audiences, but then quite remarkably, veers to cast Turkey, a NATO ally, almost as an existential threat to the United States. Ankara understands that the exaggerated accusation may be a tactic to keep Turkey from carrying out military operations east of Euphrates River, currently controlled by US-backed Kurdish People’s Protection Unit (YPG) militias.
But whether Turkey aims to make this move is beside the point. What this harsh White House language seems to be communicating is a US red line whereby the Kurdish-controlled area in northeastern Syria is regarded as a federal district – as in Washington, DC or Puerto Rico. That is the crux of all that matters.
For years, US policymakers regarded Turkish misgivings over this issue as either paranoiac or conspiratorial. When Turkey and Iraq’s Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) signed a multi-billion-dollar energy package in 2013 by bypassing the central government in Baghdad, it was Washington that warned Ankara that such acts could only empower the Kurds’ drive for independence. To note, these contracts eventually did not yield any favorable results.
Fast forward to 2017, when Washington tamped down the Iraqi Kurdish independence referendum quickly and decisively. The move made Ankara temporarily cool its concerns over the US’ stance on Kurdish nationhood, but found itself on alert again when the Pentagon began working closely with the YPG militia in Syria.
Turkey argues that the YPG is an extension of a group the US State Department classifies as a terrorist organization: the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). The US maintains that its support of the YPG does not indicate hostility toward Turkey, its territorial integrity or national harmony; it merely needs non-US bodies on the ground to fight ISIS and, frankly, Syrian allied forces attempting to recover their resource-rich swathe of territory.
For years now, the American media has glorified the bravery of Kurdish fighters to generate sympathy, and cast Turkey as a racist state prepared to commit cross-border genocide against Kurdish populations. This simplistic approach in shaping people’s perception is one aspect of Washington’s policy agenda. The other part frames the US-YPG relationship as being merely transactional – the YPG maximizes its political and military power and the US scores gains against ISIS and the Syrian government.
The question is whether US-backed Kurdish forces are even an antidote to ISIS. Former US Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford doesn’t think so. “The YPG militia cannot destroy ISIS,” he said in a recent webinar event. “An autonomous (Kurdish) administration is not going to resolve the ISIS problem.”
So then, why does Biden’s administration believe that Turkey undermines US counter-terrorism efforts enough to pose a national security threat? If one examines Washington’s own post-9/11 foreign policy track record in Turkey’s neighborhood, there’s virtually nothing resembling “peace, security, and stability in the region.”
Is Turkey single-handedly responsible for these American failures? No. Could the Kurdish militia pose a threat to Turkey’s national unity and peace? Yes. Does the YPG have a right under international law to defend itself? Let’s get honest here – these NATO allies no longer trust each other enough to look away. And frankly, neither Turkey, nor the US, nor the YPG have the right to invoke international law in their fights against each other inside Syrian territory.
The US-Turkey relationship has never been an easy one due to Ankara’s poor record of human rights and rule of law, and its 1974 Cyprus intervention. These differences have grown in recent years, and include Turkey’s expulsion from the F-35 program, its exposure to CAATSA sanctions, bitter fights over its acquisition of Russian S-400 anti-missile systems, and so forth. But no issue today is of more concern to the Turks than the Kurdish one, and Washington doesn’t want to hear it.
When then-Vice President Biden visited Ankara on August 24, 2016, Turkey launched its Operation Euphrates Shield in northeastern Syria. Whether Biden received prior notice remains a mystery; it was the first high-level US visit to Turkey after the failed 15 July putsch by the Turkish-banned Fethullah Gulen movement (Gulen enjoys asylum in the United States), and perhaps Ankara was feeling vindictive.
“We couldn’t understand if it was an internet game, if it was serious, when it happened,” Biden has said. The again, he also assured Turkey that the US would extradite Gulen if the evidence warranted a trial, and that it would cut support to the YPG if they did not withdraw to the east of the Euphrates river.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will meet with Biden on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Rome later this month, but the way Washington is ignoring him after years of support is making him restless. The inner ranks of the Ankara beltway are still reeling from the speed at which Turkey went from downing a Russian fighter jet for its 8-second incursion into Turkish air space, to purchasing S-400s from Russia the next day.
Given Ankara’s chaotic past decade, nothing is taken at face value anymore. But the US is also no longer perceived as a respectful partner in building democracy and human rights. Today, it is regarded more as a cold-blooded, interest-driven power broker, with little loyalty. While Russia, China and Iran are also viewed as sanguine players, they at least appear to respect their alliances.
Neither of these rising regional powers can single-handedly shape the world order in the way the Americans have done for decades. But, together, they are jockeying to exert influence and maximize their benefits in the wake of Washington’s error-filled, foreign policy decline in influence. The more the US sidelines the interests of its NATO ally in favor of Kurdish militias, the more tectonic opportunities arise for Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran’s benefit.
Erdogan and Russian President Vladimir Putin met privately for almost three hours in Sochi on 29 September. It is in Putin’s interest to exploit or magnify US-Turkish differences to wrench Turkey away from its Western alliance, where anti-Erdoganism creates unprecedented opportunities for Russia. For years, Washington supported Erdogan in power; now Moscow is playing the same game.
The YPG recently killed two Turkish special operations police officers in northern Syria. Since then both Erdogan and Turkey’s Minister of Defense Hulusi Akar have spoken cautiously about their next step. On Friday, the Turkish president promised a “different” kind of anti-terror response in Syria, and took a swipe at the Americans: “The terrorists of the PKK, YPG and PYD are running wild in entire Syria, not only in the northern part. The leading supporters of them are the international coalition and the US,” he said.
It is unclear what Erdogan intends to do next. It could be a limited operation targeting only the Tel Rifaat area – which is under the supervision of the Russians, who have promised to clear out YPG militia. But Moscow will want something in exchange – likely, the complete removal of Turkish-backed militants in Idlib.
However, if Erdogan and Putin reached a comprehensive agreement in their latest bilateral meeting, Turkey could also aim for the area (30 kilometers deep, from Manbij to al-Malikiyah) of Operation Peace Spring, which Biden would fiercely oppose. Or it could do nothing at all. For Ankara, these are not easy times to make hard decisions.
One direction will leave Erdogan stuck with uneasy allies who militarily support his most belligerent foes. The other direction will see him abandoning all hope of territorial gains in the Levant, highlight his decade-long failed investment in Syrian regime-change, and place him firmly back within Turkey’s borders.
President Biden has either misread the tea leaves in the region or actively wants Moscow to exert even more influence over Ankara. Either way, Erdogan may find himself outmatched in the duel between Moscow and Washington. The end game could be a new West Asian order.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 10/19/2021 – 02:00 - Who Will Be 'Brave' In Huxley's New World?
Who Will Be ‘Brave’ In Huxley’s New World?
Authored by Cynthia Chung via The Strategic Culture Foundation,
No wonder that the Tavistock Institute and the CIA became involved in looking at the effects of LSD and how to influence and control the mind.
“ ‘Science?’….’Yes,’ Mustapha Mond was saying, ‘that’s another item in the cost of stability. It isn’t only art that’s incompatible with happiness; it’s also science. Science is dangerous; we have to keep it most carefully chained and muzzled…I’m interested in truth, I like science. But truth’s a menace, science is a public danger. As dangerous as it’s been beneficent. It has given us the stablest equilibrium in history…But we can’t allow science to undo its own good work. That’s why we so carefully limit the scope of its researchers…We don’t allow it to deal with any but the most immediate problems of the moment. All other enquiries are most sedulously discouraged…Our Ford himself did a great deal to shift the emphasis from truth and beauty to comfort and happiness…[but] People still went on talking about truth and beauty as though they were the sovereign goods. Right up to the time of the Nine Years’ War. That made them change their tune all right. What’s the point of truth or beauty or knowledge when the anthrax bombs are popping all around you? That was when science first began to be controlled – after the Nine Years’ War. People were ready to have even their appetites controlled then. Anything for a quiet life. We’ve gone on controlling ever since. It hasn’t been very good for truth, of course. But it’s been very good for happiness. One can’t have something for nothing. Happiness has got to be paid for. You’re paying for it, Mr. Watson – paying because you happen to be too much interested in beauty. I was too much interested in truth; I paid too.’ “
Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World
Where does one start in discussing the famed fiction novel of Huxley? Although most agree that there is a definite brilliance to the piece, most are also confused as to what was Huxley’s intention in writing the extremely influential dystopic vision. Was it meant to be taken as an exhortation? An inevitable prophecy? Or rather…was it meant as an Open Conspiracy?
What do I mean by an Open Conspiracy?
If we are going to talk about such things our story starts with H.G. Wells, whom Aldous acknowledged he was most certainly influenced by, particularly by Wells’ novels “A Modern Utopia,” “The Sleeper Awakes,” and “Men Like Gods,” when writing his “Brave New World.”
Although Aldous is quoted as referring to Wells as a “horrid, vulgar little man,” (Wells was indeed not a very likeable individual) it was not for reasons one might first assume. Aldous did share a Wellsian perspective in that society should be organised based on a caste system. Perhaps this was one of the reasons Aldous was so fascinated with learning about India’s Hindu religious beliefs and practices, which had coexisted for centuries with a deeply ingrained caste system to which India is still struggling to remove itself from to this day. This is not to say that one caused the other, or that Hinduism has not offered a plethora of great works and insights, but that it had become corrupted and thoroughly intertwined with upholding India’s caste system at some point one cannot deny; that it was used to justify a system of hierarchy from slave to the god-like state of a Brahmin and that British imperialists had always been greatly fascinated by this form of social organization one cannot deny.
Aldous was always interested in the subject of religion, but more so for its uses in behaviourism and mental conditioning achieved through such techniques as entering states of trance where an individual’s suggestibility could be manipulated. Hypnopædia was not just some quirky sci-fi concoction. It is also why Aldous was so interested in the work of Dr. William Sargant, whom Aldous repeatedly refers to in his writings and lectures and who was involved with the Tavistock Institute and MKUltra. More on this in Part two.
These spiritual/religious studies are what shaped the core thesis of Aldous’ book “Doors of Perception” which is considered the instruction manual for what started the counterculture movement. The title is influenced by the poet William Blake who wrote in 1790 in his book “The Marriage of Heaven and Hell,”:
“if the doors of perception were cleansed then everything would appear to man as it is, Infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things through narrow chinks of his cavern“
Another major influence for “Doors of Perception” was again H.G. Wells, from his book “The Door in the Wall,” which examines the contrast between aesthetics and science and the difficulty in choosing between them. The protagonist Lionel Wallace is unable to bridge the gap between his imagination and his rational, scientific side which leads to his death.
Aldous writes in his “Doors of Perception,”:
“That humanity at large will ever be able to dispense with Artificial Paradises seems very unlikely…Art and religion, carnivals and saturnalia [ancient Roman pagan festival], dancing and listening to oratory – all these have served, in H.G. Wells’s phrase, as Doors in the Wall…Under a more realistic, a less exclusively verbal system of education than ours, every Angel (in Blake’s sense of that word) would be permitted as a sabbatical treat, would be urged and even, if necessary, compelled to take an occasional trip through some chemical Door in the Wall into the world of transcendental experience. If it terrified him, it would be unfortunate but probably salutary. If it brought him a brief but timeless illumination, so much the better. In either case the Angel might lose a little of the confident insolence sprouting from systematic reasoning and the consciousness of having read all the books…But the man who comes back through the Door in the Wall will never be quite the same as the man who went out…”
Aldous was always chasing the perfect drug that would be minimal in its physically destructive effects but would allow an individual to tap into an almost consumer state of a religious/spiritual out-of-body experience, a transcendence that promised a connection with the Infinite, inner peace and enlightenment.
Enlightenment and inner peace in a pill, ready for whenever one needed a short holiday from the “illusion” of reality.
The name Soma, which Aldous used to name his fantasy ideal drug in “Brave New World,” was based off a plant whose juices were used to create the spiritual drink which was described in both the ancient religious practices of the Vedic tradition and Zoroastrianism, which called the plant and spiritual drink by the same name, Soma. Today, it is a mystery as to what plant they were referring to in these texts. Huxley no doubt chased after this dragon the entire latter half of his life, and indeed, psilocybin mushrooms are theorised as one of the potential candidates for what could have been named Soma centuries ago.
It is perhaps here that people are the most confused about the character of Huxley. After all, he was obviously walking the walk so to speak, thus didn’t he truly believe that psychedelics were the path to freedom through enlightenment?
Well, the argument has been made that Huxley’s approach to LSD [and other psychedelics] was essentially oligarchic, that it was to be regarded as a dangerous substance to be sampled only by such fine and visionary minds as his own. That is, those who had the mental strength, the mental stamina to reach enlightenment; those who were too weak to sustain such mental rigours would become the very opposite, and risked falling into the dark pit of complete madness, although this in of itself was perceived by many to be a form of clairvoyance. After all, what is it to be mad in a world that is sickeningly and inhumanely “normal”? This is most certainly how Ken Kesey thought when writing his “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” that madness itself was a form of liberation from the shackles of capitalist societal constraints.
Perhaps madness was the goal, it was after all, much more attainable that the promised enlightenment…
As William Sargant noted in his book “Battle for the Mind: A Physiology of Conversion and Brain-Washing” J.F.C. Hecker was studying the dancing mania phenomenon that occurred during the Black Death, which was a social phenomenon that arose in Europe between the 14th and 17th centuries. It involved groups of people who would begin to dance erratically during the Plague, sometimes thousands at a time until they would fall from exhaustion or from injuries. It was thought to have arisen in Aachen, Germany in 1374 and quickly spread throughout Europe with one of the last observations of it occurring in 1518 in Alsace, France.
Hecker observed in his research on the dancing mania that heightened suggestibility had the capability to cause a person to “embrace with equal force, reason and folly, good and evil, diminish the praise of virtue as well as the criminality of vice.”
Such a state of mind was likened to the first efforts of the infant mind, Sargant writes “this instinct of imitation when it exists in its highest degree, is also united a loss of all power over the will, which occurs as soon as the impression on the senses has become firmly established, producing a condition like that of small animals when they are fascinated by the look of a serpent.”
I wonder if Sargant imagined himself the serpent…
It is no wonder that the Tavistock Institute and the CIA became involved in looking at the effects of LSD and how to influence and control the mind. And perhaps it is no coincidence that Aldous Huxley was in close correspondence with William Sargant to which Sargant even refers to Aldous’ “insights” multiple times in his book “Battle for the Mind.”
Aldous is also quoted in a lecture he delivered to the Tavistock Group, California Medical School in 1961:
“There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution.”
Aldous goes on to state a year later in a lecture titled “The Ultimate Revolution” at UC Berkeley Language Center 1962:
“Today we are faced, I think, with the approach of what may be called the ultimate revolution, the final revolution, where man can act directly on the mind-body of his fellows…we are in process of developing a whole series of techniques which will enable the controlling oligarchy who have always existed and presumably will always exist to get people to love their servitude. This is the, it seems to me, the ultimate in malevolent revolutions shall we say, and this is a problem which has interested me many years and about which I wrote thirty years ago, a fable, Brave New World, which is an account of society making use of all the devices available and some of the devices which I imagined to be possible making use of them in order to, first of all, to standardize the population, to iron out inconvenient human differences, to create, to say, mass produced models of human beings arranged in some sort of scientific caste system.”
Yes, yes we get it. This is all to be taken as “warnings” to the public, a terrible necessity that will come about if over-population is not addressed (as he makes clear in his Brave New World Revisited). With over-population comes over-organization which in turn leads to the scientific advances in technology which we are told by Aldous can only lead to totalitarianism. Thus, population growth and advances in the sciences are the greatest threat to humankind. Wait, that sounds oddly very much like the reasonings of Mustapha Mond, have we come around full circle, what exactly does Aldous agree and disagree with here? Are we to have a scientific dictatorship in order to avoid a totalitarian system in the form of a scientific dictatorship?
In H.G. Wells’ “Open Conspiracy: Blueprints for a World Revolution,” he describes his vision for a Modern Religion:
‘…if religion is to develop unifying and directive power in the present confusion of human affairs it must adapt itself to this forward-looking, individuality-analyzing turn of mind; it must divest itself of its sacred histories…The desire for service, for subordination, for permanent effect, for an escape from the distressful pettiness and mortality of the individual life, is the undying element in every religious system.
The time has come to strip religion right down to that [service and subordination is all Wells wants to keep of the old relic of religion]…The explanation of why things are is an unnecessary effort…The essential fact…is the desire for religion and not how it came about…The first sentence in the modern creed must be, not “I believe,” but “I give myself.” ‘
Hmm, is this the same Revolution as Aldous is speaking about? After all, there is a lot of similarity between H.G. Wells’ description of his “Modern Religion” and what Aldous is preaching in his “Doors of Perception,” to which Wells is undoubtedly a large influence. The desire to escape from the distressful pettiness and mortality of the individual life, that the explanation for why one does something is not important, only to be motivated by the desire for release, for a complete catharsis that only the fervour of a “religious,” a “spiritual” experience can bring about.
It is the desire for, not the care for why. To believe is not even acceptable, because to believe pertains to thought, it is merely a matter of surrender, that you give yourself. It is not to act with reason but to be possessed by its very opposite; to be in a state of existence where there are no words, and thus there are no thoughts, just direct sensory feeling.
The ultimate achievement is to completely surrender oneself to the external world, perhaps to a dictatorship without tears…
The reader should be aware that Wells wrote a book titled “The New World Order” in 1940, and is the first that I am aware of to pioneer this now-infamous term. The reader should also be aware that Julian Huxley (Aldous Huxley’s brother) was a co-author of “The Science of Life,” a part of Wells’ trilogy “The Outline of History” (1919), “The Science of Life” (1929), and “The Work, Wealth, and Happiness of Mankind” (1932) to which Wells made no qualms should be regarded as the new Bible. Julian was also a prominent member of the British Eugenics Society, serving as its Vice-President from 1937-1944 and its President from 1959-1962. Interesting life choices from the authors of the “new Bible.”
In addition, Aldous’ grandfather Thomas Huxley (“Charles Darwin’s bulldog”) was the biology teacher of H.G. Wells and was one of the largest influences in Wells’ life, promoting the works of Charles Darwin and Thomas Malthus, for more on this refer to my paper. Although Thomas Huxley lived before the time of the “science” of Eugenics, he was a stout Malthusian and thus one can rather safely say would have been a eugenicist if offered the chance.
Thus, we should regard Aldous’ mention of the stylish ‘Malthusian belt’ in his “Brave New World,” under a more somber light perhaps…
And now we are ready to walk through the doors of perception on Aldous himself, the true Huxley behind the projected illusion. We may not find Infinity at the end of this excursion, but we will most certainly be better equipped to tell the difference between Huxley’s self and non-self, between what is real and what is false.
[This is Part 1 to a three-part series, Part 2 and 3 will cover the War on Science, the Battle for your Mind and Aldous Huxley as a pioneer for the counter-culture movement and its implications.]
Tyler Durden
Tue, 10/19/2021 – 00:00 - Lloyd Austin To Stress "Open Door To NATO" In Visit To Ukraine & Georgia
Lloyd Austin To Stress “Open Door To NATO” In Visit To Ukraine & Georgia
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin is traveling to eastern Europe this week, where he will reportedly tell countries on the “the front lines of Russian aggression” – in particular Ukraine and Georgia – that there is an “open door to NATO”, according to a senior defense official quoted in The Washington Times.
His trip will take him to both countries, after which he’ll go to Romania and on to Belgium to participate in a meeting of NATO defense ministers. “We are reassuring and reinforcing the sovereignty of countries that are on the front lines of Russian aggression,” the unnamed senior US official said further.
Both Ukraine and Georgia have have seen recent border conflicts and tensions flair up with their large, more powerful neighbor – including the Russo-Georgia War of 2008 centered on the status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
“Against that backdrop, defense officials said Mr. Austin will tell Ukrainian and Georgian leaders that there is an open door to NATO membership and that each country should take steps to qualify for membership,” the Washington Times continues.
As for Ukraine, which earlier this year saw President Volodymyr Zelensky provocatively declare that “NATO membership is the only way to end war in Donbass”, Austin is expected to underscore “unwavering support” – according to a DOD announcement of the official trip:
In Ukraine, the Secretary will meet with President Volodymyr Zelensky and Minister of Defense Andrii Taran to reaffirm our unwavering support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The visit will also serve as an opportunity to discuss Ukraine’s progress with the implementation of defense and defense industry reforms needed to advance its Euro-Atlantic aspirations as well as regional cooperation among Black Sea allies and partners.
Meanwhile, just before Austin’s arrival in the region, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov took the opportunity to restate Russia’s “red line” in an interview with a French TV channel, saying “Ukraine’s accession to NATO would be the worst-case scenario” for which Moscow would respond with necessary “active measures”.
Via The Sun “This is a scenario that goes beyond the red lines of Russia’s national interests. This is a scenario that could force Russia to take active measures to ensure its own security,” Peskov said. And addressing accusations earlier in the year of Russia threatening Ukraine’s sovereignty via a major troop build-up, he pointed out that “before the Russian troops were moved to that region, there were large NATO exercises held near the Russian border. Everyone talks about the concentration of Russian troops all the time, but nobody talks about the concentration of NATO troops.”
Austin’s trip comes on the heels of a rare visit to Russia of Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland, where a US delegation said productive talks were had with the Russian side toward restoring deteriorated communications with Washington.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 10/18/2021 – 23:40 - After Backlash Over $600 IRS Bank Surveillance, Democrats Revise Proposal
After Backlash Over $600 IRS Bank Surveillance, Democrats Revise Proposal
Senate Democrats on Tuesday plan to release a reworked version of a Biden administration proposal to surveil US bank accounts – after their original plan to require financial institutions to report transactions on bank accounts with more than $600 in annual deposits and withdrawals was widely panned (i.e. most people).
Now, the rule will apply to anyone with at least $10,000 in annual non-wage deposits or withdrawals, according to the Washington Post, which writes that the toned-down scope ‘intends to insure it applies to only larger account holders.’
We wonder, though, if this includes older Americans deriving at least $10,000 in annual dividends / interest outside of a traditional IRA (which is considered ordinary income when taken)? Or parents sending at least $10,000 per year to college-aged children? Or anyone paying cash for a car, or motorcycle, or literally anything that costs more than $10,000? Or those who have spent at least $10,000 in a year – which brings us back to ‘most people.’
“I don’t know why they thought $600 would be a good number. $10,000 is definitely an improvement,” said former Obama and Trump IRS commissioner, John Koskinen, who thinks the threshold should be closer to $50,000. “The vast majority of people won’t be affected, but it will pick up more than just the idle rich.”
That said, some Democratic aides are skeptical whether even the altered version of the proposal will make it into the final Build Back Better package.
Democrats supportive of the proposal have pointed out that well-funded business lobbyists and Republican lawmakers have mounted an all-out campaign against the measure that has sometimes exaggerated or outright fabricated the extent of the changes. But opposition to the measure is not limited to Wall Street, and has extended to community banks influential with much of the congressional Democratic caucus. -WaPo
Over 20 GOP attorneys general have opposed the original proposal in a Friday letter to President Biden and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, saying that it “stands in direct opposition to privacy that Americans are entitled to and deserve.” We can’t imagine they’ll change their stance in light of the changes.
At present, the rule change is nebulous. Perhaps Tuesday’s proposal will shed more light on exactly who Democrats are targeting with financial surveillance.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 10/18/2021 – 23:20 - Chinese & Russian Warships Jointly Sail Through Chokepoint Off Japan's Mainland For 1st Time
Chinese & Russian Warships Jointly Sail Through Chokepoint Off Japan’s Mainland For 1st Time
In an unprecedented maneuver amid joint naval drills that just wrapped up in the region, a large group of Chinese PLA and Russian warships sailed through a key chokepoint very close to Japan’s mainland for the first time ever on Monday.
Ten naval vessels belonging to China and Russia passed through the northern Tsugaru Strait, Tokyo’s Defense Ministry said soon after the pass through. It comes after the two militaries just wrapped up four days of joint naval exercises, dubbed ‘Maritime Interaction 2021’, in the Sea of Japan from Oct.14 through 17.
Russian MoD image of the weekend drills. It also comes after in recent months Japan has made it clear that it sides with Washington’s controversial Taiwan pro-independence stance, inviting the wrath and muscle-flexing of Beijing.
Nikkei Asia reported that “The warships sailed eastward toward the Pacific Ocean, likely as part of Naval Interaction 2021, a joint maritime exercise the two navies are conducting this month.”
The maritime monitoring site Naval News described the weekend Russia-China drills as follows:
12 planes and helicopters of the Pacific Fleet’s air arm and the Chinese Navy were also involved in the maneuvers.
During the joint maneuvers, the crews of the warships from both countries practiced joint tactical maneuvering, mine countermeasures, artillery live-firing against seaborne targets. They also searched for and blocked a simulated enemy’s submarine in the assigned area.
Russia’s military released footage showing the large-scale joint drills…
On Friday Russia’s Ministry of Defense had blasted the behavior of a US destroyer in the Sea of Japan, charging that the USS Chafee had come dangerously close to a Russian vessel while intruding on Russia’s territorial waters. Russian media reports said the two ships came within 60 meters of each other.
The US Navy later in the day refuted the claims, saying its ship was conducting legal “routine operations” in international waters while blaming the Russian warship for making an aggressive approach.
The Kremlin said the Russian Navy “chased” the US destroyer out of the area, with the two contradictory narratives still unsettled. Further the region has seen Russia and Japan locked in an island dispute that goes back to WWII. Over the past couple of years, there’s been a handful of encounters between US and Russian ships, given neither the US nor its ally Japan recognize the extent of what Russia claims as territorial waters.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 10/18/2021 – 23:00 - NHL Suspends San Jose Sharks Player 21 Games For Submitting Fake COVID Vaccine Card
NHL Suspends San Jose Sharks Player 21 Games For Submitting Fake COVID Vaccine Card
The Kyrie Irving effect is spreading.
In the latest farce involving pro sports covid “loopholes”, the AP reports that the NHL has suspended San Jose Sharks forward Evander Kane for 21 games for submitting a fake COVID-19 vaccination card.
The league announced the suspension without pay on Monday and said Kane will not be eligible to play until Nov. 30 at New Jersey. Kane will also forfeit about $1.68 million of his $7 million salary for this season with the money going to the Players’ Emergency Assistance Fund.
There was a silver lining: the league also announced that a concurrent investigation into allegations of sexual and physical abuse made against Kane by his estranged wife, Anna, could not be substantiated. Kane had previously been cleared by the NHL in an investigation into allegations made by Anna Kane that he bet on hockey games, including some against the Sharks.
But while Kane probably did not beat the crap out of his estranged wife, the league did determine that Kane violated the COVID-19 protocols. A person familiar with the investigation said earlier this month that the league was looking into allegations that Kane submitted a fake vaccination card.
Using a fake vaccination card is illegal in both the United States and Canada, as well as against NHL rules.
Commissioner Gary Bettman said last week that only four players on active rosters hadn’t been vaccinated, although one wonder what the real number is.
Kane had not been around the team since the start of training camp while these investigations were ongoing in an agreement between him and the team.
Kane, 30, is three seasons into a $49 million, seven-year contract. He’s with his third organization after being drafted by and debuting with Atlanta/Winnipeg and a stint in Buffalo. Last season, he had 22 goals and 27 assists in 56 games.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 10/18/2021 – 22:40 - Female Writer Who Won World's Biggest Literary Prize Turns Out To Be Three Men
Female Writer Who Won World’s Biggest Literary Prize Turns Out To Be Three Men
An anonymous writer who has been likened to Italy’s pseudonymous Ellena Ferrante was just awarded a €1MM ($1.16MM dollars) literary prize for her dazzling work as a groundbreaking female author. There’s only one minor clarification though: she’s a he.
Well, she’s actually three men. According to the FT, Carmen Mola, an author who until now has been presented as a female university professor writing under a pen name because of her desire for anonymity (something nobody would question since progressive critics would simply assume she’s doing this to protect herself from online hate hate speech), revealed her true identity to the world when the main prize was awarded in the presence of the Spanish King.
When the writer’s name was called three men walked to the podium. It turns out, Mola was actually a collaboration between three Spanish TV writers (Mola is neither a woman nor an academic). Their names: Jorge Díaz, Agustín Martínez nor Antonio Mercero are academics. They have worked on scripts for shows including On Duty Pharmacy, Central Hospital and No Heaven Without Breasts.
“Carmen Mola is not, like all the lies we’ve been telling, a university professor,” said Díaz on winning the prize. “We are three friends who one day four years ago decided to combine our talent to tell a story.”
The group of men won the prize for a book titled The Beast, a historical thriller set during the cholera epidemic in 1834. During an interview with a Spanish newspaper, one of them claimed that they “didn’t hide behind a woman, we hid behind a name.”
“I don’t know if a female pseudonym would sell more than a male one, I don’t have the faintest idea, but I doubt it,” he added.
Carmen Mola was said by the men’s publishers, Penguin Random House, to be the pseudonym of a female writer born in Madrid. Mola was also described as a forty-something mother of three children, who worked as a professor while writing crime thrillers in her spare time.
“Mola”, or the men hiding behind Mola, has also been interviewed by the Spanish press, and a picture has been shared on her publisher’s website depicting a woman with her back to the camera who was identified as Mola.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 10/18/2021 – 22:20 - FDA To Allow "Mixing and Matching" Of COVID Boosters
FDA To Allow “Mixing and Matching” Of COVID Boosters
mRNA or a disabled adenovirus? According to the latest iteration of the “science” it’s really all the same and just jam it in there, because as the NYT reports, the Food and Drug Administration will allow Americans to “mix and match”, i.e., receive a different Covid-19 vaccine as a booster than the one they initially received, a move that could “reduce the appeal of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and provide flexibility to doctors and other vaccinators.”
In other words, the mRNA lobby has just booked the entire second floor at Scores and is hoovering up industrial amounts of Colombian marching powder while surrounded by the best silicone money can rent.
In the latest example that money talks and what was scientific consensus until this morning walks, the government would not recommend one shot over another, and may instead note that using the same vaccine as a booster when possible is preferable, but vaccine providers could use their discretion to offer a different brand, a freedom that state health officials have been requesting for weeks. Maybe one should check if the bank accounts of said state health officials have suddenly seen a mysterious inflow of outside funds that prompted their agitation.
In any case, the approach was foreshadowed on Friday, when so-called “researchers” presented the findings of a federally funded “mix and match” study to an expert committee that advises the Food and Drug Administration. The study found that recipients of Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose shot who received a Moderna booster saw their antibody levels rise 76-fold in 15 days, compared with only a fourfold increase after an extra dose of Johnson & Johnson.
We can only assume that this “study” is different than the one that took place just a few months ago that prompted the same NYT to report that “Britain Opens Door to Mix-and-Match Vaccinations, Worrying Experts“…
… and in which we read that:
Some scientists say Britain is gambling with its new guidance. “There are no data on this idea whatsoever,” said John Moore, a vaccine expert at Cornell University. Officials in Britain “seem to have abandoned science completely now and are just trying to guess their way out of a mess.”
It now turns out that Britain was simply early in guessing which way a whole lot of
bribesmoney can sway the “science” du jour.Amusingly, even as the FDA agonizes over greenlighting covid booster shots for Americans younger than 65 – having initially rejected the biotech/pharma lobbied outcome which has been eagerly sought by the Biden admin – Federal regulators this week are aiming to greatly expand the number of Americans eligible for booster shots. As such, the FDA is now expected to authorize boosters of the Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines by Wednesday evening; it could allow the mix-and-match approach by then. The agency last month authorized booster shots of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for at least six months after the second dose.
Then, on Thursday, a CDC advisory committee will also take up the booster issue and will then issue its own recommendations (to go ahead and do it because science says “mix and match” is cool). By the end of the week, tens of millions more Americans could be eligible for extra shots.
So how exactly do we know that the “mixing and matching” that was anathema as recently as January is now to be encouraged? Well, because the “experts” emphasized last week that the new “data” was based on small groups of volunteers and short-term findings.
We repeat: small groups of volunteers and short-term findings of mixing and matching revealed that all is well, so by extension, the protocol is perfectly suitable for hundreds of millions over years if not decades.
Furthermore, only antibody levels — just one measure of the immune response — were calculated as part of the preliminary data, not the actual levels of immune cells primed to attack the coronavirus, which scientists say are also an important measure of a vaccine’s success. Then again, in a country that ignores natural covid immunity – because, well, that doesn’t lead to an even bigger yacht for certain biotech CEOs – this was to be expected.
It gets better: perhaps in an attempt to mitigate its previously reported on how experts were “worried” due to precisely this “mix and match” approach, the NYT notes that “while the research on mixing and matching doses is somewhat thin, even some scientists who have strongly criticized the Biden administration’s booster policy said that providers should be given a measure of discretion as the campaign ramps up.”
One wonders if these are the same “scientists” who strongly disagreed with a growing number of countries – such as Sweden, Norway and Finland – suspending use of the Moderna vaccine in young people “for precautionary reasons” following reports of “possible rare side effects.” Something tells us that that the answer is a resounding yes.
“If you look at the data, it certainly looks like it might be better,” Dr. Paul A. Offit, the director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said of Moderna or Pfizer boosters for Johnson & Johnson recipients. “I think we should move quickly on this, because it’s already happening.” He should know – after all this is the same Dr. Offit who was “honored by Bill and Melinda Gates during the launch of their Foundation’s Living Proof Project for global health.”
Demonstrating just how extensively the scientific consensus can swing in under a year, at the meeting on Friday of the Food and Drug Administration’s expert panel – of which Dr. Offit is a member – top C.D.C. officials argued that providers needed latitude to offer different vaccines as boosters because – get this – patients might have had adverse reactions after their initial shots or presented other new concerns. In other words, a patient may not want a booster due to a bad experience with the original vaccine. So here’s the brilliant solution: just give them the other vaccine. And what’s most remarkable is that since this is fundamentally a ploy to get people who have had a JnJ vaccine to get a second, mRNA-based vaccine, the “scientific” thinking is that giving patients the same vaccine which was halted in various Scandinavian countries due to its “possible rare side effects” is literally what the doctor ordered.
Ultimately, however, money is involved and as most of our readers know by now, money can induce some truly creative “scientific” thought. Like for example the thinking by Pfizer and Moderna CEOs who know that they need this approval to continue making billions from the vaccine: the federal government will cover the cost of a different vaccine as a booster only if the Food and Drug Administration authorizes the approach, officials told the NYT.
“I’d like to reiterate how important it is from a programmatic perspective to have a little bit of flexibility,” Dr. Melinda Wharton, a top vaccine official at the C.D.C., told the F.D.A. panel. The same “little bit of flexibility” why the NYT back in January called “a mess” and “gambling”
And just to avoid potentially embarrassing questions about conflicts of interest, the ironclad clause was invoked – the public health interest.
“From a public health perspective, there’s a clear need in some situations for individuals to receive a different vaccine,” said Dr. Amanda Cohn, another high-ranking C.D.C. official.
Finally, what would yet another scientific flip-flop be if it didn’t include, you guessed it, Anthony Fauci.
Anthony S. Fauci, the government’s top infectious disease expert, publicly suggested on Sunday that the government was headed toward granting greater leeway, at least for Johnson & Johnson recipients. “I believe there’s going to be a degree of flexibility of what a person who got the J.&J. originally can do, either with J.&J. or with the mix-and-match from other products,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.”
A far cry from what he said in January, but that’s hardly news to anyone.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 10/18/2021 – 22:00 - North Korea May Have Test-Fired A Ballistic Missile, Japan Coast Guard Reports
North Korea May Have Test-Fired A Ballistic Missile, Japan Coast Guard Reports
Earlier this evening, South Korean news agency Yonhap reported that South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff said North Korea fired an unidentified projectile into the sea east of the Korean peninsula.
North Korean state media images of a new cruise missile tested in September
This is the sixth “projectile” test so far in 2021:
-
March 25, 2021: North Korea carried out test-launch of two upgraded KN-23 short-range ballistic missiles carrying a 2.5 live warhead each that correctly hit the simulated targets. While North Korea official statement reported a 600 km range, Japanese and South Korean sources reported that the missiles flew just over 400 km. Later, the South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff revised their range assessment of new North Korean missile to 600 km and the Defense Minister said that blind spots due to earth curvature led to initial estimate of 450 km.
-
September 11, 2021: North Korea carried out tests of a new long-range cruise missile on 11 and 12 September 2021, according to the KCNA. The missiles flew for 1,500 kilometres and successfully hit their target in North Korea’s waters, and were meant for a “strategic role” according to the news agency, which analyst Ankit Panda stated was a common euphemism for a missile capable of carrying nuclear warheads.
-
September 15, 2021: North Korea fired two unidentified ballistic missiles towards the Sea of Japan. Japan’s Ministry of Defense stated that they had landed in the country’s exclusive economic zone. The South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff reported that the missiles flew for 800 kilometres, while reaching an altitude of 60 kilometres, and were fired from Yangdok County. KCNA later stated that they were part of a railway-borne missile system.
-
September 28, 2021: A short-range missile was fired by North Korea towards the Sea of Japan from Chagang Province, according to South Korean officials. The Japanese government meanwhile suspected it to be a ballistic missile. Rodong Sinmun stated that North Korea had tested a new hypersonic missile called Hwasong-8 and it was launched from Toyang-ri in Ryongrim County. The test, including that of its gliding warhead, was a success according to the state media, which also called it a weapon of “great strategic significance”.
-
September 30, 2021: KCNA stated that North Korea had successfully tested a new anti-aircraft missile. It added that the missile contained the new technologies of twin-rudder control and double-impulse flight engine.
Later, in an emailed statement, the Japanese Coast Guard said that North Korea launched what may have been a ballistic missile.
Missiles on display at at a military parade in January 2021
This test comes just days after the US Defense Department warns that North Korea may resume long-range ballistic missile tests in the year 2022.
As NHK reports, the Defense Intelligence Agency, an intelligence arm of the US Defense Department, on Friday released a report that examined the current situation of North Korea’s military power, including its nuclear weapons and missiles.
The report says, “North Korean leaders view nuclear arms as critical to regime survival,” and “It is possible we could see a test of a long-range missile over the next year.”
The report adds North Korea also will work to improve its newer solid-fueled ballistic missiles, which can be made ready for launch more quickly than liquid-fueled ones.
It also says, “Integrating a nuclear weapon with a ballistic missile and enabling that nuclear-armed missile to function reliably as a system is North Korea’s ultimate operational goal.”
It notes that “further underground nuclear tests to validate weapon capabilities are possible.”
The report did not cite any specific intel suggesting such a possibility, but it may just have come true tonight.
The reported test-firing comes just hours after Tongil Voice, a North Korean propaganda radio broadcast, said on its website Seoul should take actions to improve cross-border relations before such a declaration can be made.
“Currently, inter-Korean relations are unstable and remain in a stern, strained phase,” it said.
“If an end-of-war declaration is made while neglecting the current hostile and opposing relations, (the two sides) will fall into the evil cycle of conflict even before the ink dries up.”
It cited Seoul’s recent arms buildup and joint military exercises with the United States as the cause of tensions on the peninsula.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 10/18/2021 – 21:45 -
- Northern California Gets Reprieve From Worst Drought In Century As Rain And Snow Fall
Northern California Gets Reprieve From Worst Drought In Century As Rain And Snow Fall
The National Weather Service (NWS) said drought-stricken Northern California might catch a break from wildfire season this week as several weather events of rain and snow move across the area.
An NWS meteorologist in Sacramento, Emily Heller, said precipitation has already begun to fall in some areas, with more expected by the weekend.
“It is definitely going to help things out,” Heller said. “Whether we can say fire season is quote-unquote over, we will have to hear from the i-mets in the field, but it will definitely be helpful.”
A little less than two inches of rain is expected across the Bay Area this week from a series of storms coming from the Northwest. Higher altitudes in the eastern portions of Sierra Nevada could see more than a half-foot of snow.
An official 10.3″ of #snow at our 8am measurement today!
Continued light snow is currently occurring. #CAwx #CAwater pic.twitter.com/WCIgWHY2kd
— UC Berkeley Central Sierra Snow Lab (@UCB_CSSL) October 18, 2021
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
NWS issued a winter weather advisory on Monday for the Sierra Nevada area.
The storms could surpass average monthly rainfall totals, a major relief for the area that has seen hundreds of thousands of acres scorched by wildfires. San Francisco could see some of the biggest rainfall precip in a year.
According to the California Department of Water Resources, California has reported its driest water year in nearly a century. The U.S. Drought Monitor shows 87% of the state is experiencing extreme or exceptional drought. About half of the state is in the worst category.
In the months ahead, the news gets better for Northern California and the Pacific Northwest as the Climate Prediction Center, an arm of the NWS, has called for La Niña conditions, which means wetter than average conditions might alleviate some of these drought-stricken areas. As for Southern and Central California, La Niña means a drier than average winter.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 10/18/2021 – 21:30 - Minnesota Hospital Shuts Down ER And Urgent Care Amid Nurse Strike
Minnesota Hospital Shuts Down ER And Urgent Care Amid Nurse Strike
By Jack Philips of Epoch Times,
A hospital in Minnesota confirmed it temporarily shut down its emergency room and urgent care facility due to a nurse strike.
Allina Health, located in Plymouth, said in a statement that due to the strike, emergency and urgent care services at its WestHealth location were suspended from Sunday morning until Wednesday.
“No other services on the WestHealth campus have been impacted,” Allina Health’s statement said before it redirected people to seek urgent or emergency care at its Abbott Northwestern Hospital Emergency Department and other locations.
The City of Plymouth also confirmed that the hospital’s emergency room and urgent care facilities were shut down, releasing a list of nearby locations for emergency services on its website.
About 50 emergency room nurses organized by the Minnesota Nurses Association walked off the job, demanding more benefits and holiday pay, the organization told local media.
“Compensating nurses fairly for holiday pay is especially critical because understaffing by Allina and other hospital systems has required nurses to work more days and longer hours, including overtime and holidays, as they continue on the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the firm said.
But Allina Health and Abbott Northwestern WestHealth negotiated seven times with the statewide union, noting that a “settlement was previously reached and unanimously recommended” by the union. However, the Minnesota Nurses Association didn’t finalize the deal and went ahead with the strike.
“Throughout negotiations, we have consistently offered proposals that demonstrate our commitment to our employees, including an immediate wage increase to align wages with other metro hospitals and agreeing to some of the union’s other priority issues,” the firm said.
But one striking nurse, union chairwoman Sonya Worner, told Fox9 that Allina Health carried out “a diabolical decision to shut down care to the residents, as well as their own revenue.”
“This could literally end tomorrow if we got a call saying, ‘Yes we’ll offer you summer holiday pay as part of this package,’” Worner added.
The nurses’ work stoppage in Plymouth comes as hundreds of thousands of workers in other industries went on strike in recent days. About 10,000 unionized John Deere employees voted to go on strike last week after claiming that the agriculture equipment and tractor manufacturer failed to come up with a contract proposal that met their demands.
Meanwhile, Kaiser Permanente healthcare workers voted earlier this month to authorize a strike in Oregon and California, potentially enabling thousands of nurses, doctors, and other staff to walk off their jobs in the coming days.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 10/18/2021 – 21:10 - Australian Official Lashes Out At Ted Cruz After "Covid Tyranny" Tweet: 'Glad We're Not Like Texas'
Australian Official Lashes Out At Ted Cruz After “Covid Tyranny” Tweet: ‘Glad We’re Not Like Texas’
Days ago Texas Senator Ted Cruz called out Australia’s extreme Covid policies as but more “Covid tyranny”. The policies have lately received widespread scorn and mockery from many conservative commentators and political pundits, so perhaps it was only a matter of time before US Congressional leaders joined in.
“The Covid tyranny of their current government is disgraceful & sad. Individual liberty matters. I stand with the people of Australia,” Cruz had tweeted out, commenting on a video featuring top Australian official Michael Gunner rolling out what’s widely being called the world’s strictest vaccine mandate to date.
I love the Aussies. Their history of rugged independence is legendary; I’ve always said Australia is the Texas of the Pacific.
The Covid tyranny of their current government is disgraceful & sad.
Individual liberty matters.
I stand with the people of #Australia https://t.co/9elCF0KRA3
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) October 13, 2021
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Gunner, who is chief minister of Australia’s Northern Territory, went through a litany of occupations that required getting the jab in order for venues to safely reopen.
“If your job includes interacting with members of the public, then you need to get the jab,” he said of the new mandate. He had listed off jobs ranging from hospitality, to work in retail or supermarkets, to bank tellers, and hair dressers as among the many occupations that will require it.
All Australians whose professional work will involve any interaction with the public are now mandated to get the vaccine, or else face steep fines and other possible measures:
The territory announced last week that workers who interact with the public must receive their first vaccination shot by Nov. 12 or face a $5,000 fine, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation reported. About 68% of its residents were already fully vaccinated as of Sunday.
On Sunday, a clearly incensed Michael Gunner fired back at the Texas Republican – unusual in that Cruz was offering a critique which was not officially representative of the US government. Thus it’s clear that Cruz’s tweet got under the Australian politician’s skin.
“Here are some facts,” the Australian official wrote. “Nearly 70,000 Texans have tragically died from COVID. There have been zero deaths in the [Northern] Territory. Did you know that? Vaccination is so important here because we have vulnerable communities and the oldest continuous living culture on the planet to protect. Did you know that?”
G’day from Down Under @tedcruz. Thanks for your interest in the Territory. I’m the Chief Minister. Below are a few facts about COVID down here. https://t.co/cGFwBP7Nqx pic.twitter.com/mGNyOxlN41
— Michael Gunner (@fanniebay) October 18, 2021
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Gunner went on: “We don’t need your lectures, thanks mate,” according to the tweeted message.
“You know nothing about us. And if you stand against a life-saving vaccine, then you sure as hell don’t stand with Australia. I love Texas (go Longhorns), but when it comes to COVID, I’m glad we are nothing like you.”
But clearly many Aussie citizens themselves are not at all happy to be living under a government that’s made living normal daily life pretty much impossible and “a thing of the past”, resulting in recent huge protests, and in turn sending more and more police to the streets and out in force at supposedly “dangerous” public parks.
Australia: Heavy NWO police presence in Melbourne in anticipation of anti-vaccine mandate protests
Military-style police vehicles could be seen parked on streets as police patrolled parks, arresting people who didn’t comply with coronavirus restrictions. pic.twitter.com/ZpJ6rgebfS
— WakeUpHumans (@Thunderace4) October 16, 2021
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Seemingly endless examples have come out of Australia over the course the pandemic demonstrating that individuals’ rights have often been completely suspended, including government agents literally combing people’s Facebook posts for signs of merely attending protests – and literally showing up their door unannounced in Gestapo-like fashion.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 10/18/2021 – 20:50 - One Bank Reveals The Dismal Truth About The $150 Trillion Crusade Against Climate Change
One Bank Reveals The Dismal Truth About The $150 Trillion Crusade Against Climate Change
Last week, Bank of America sparked a firestorm of reaction amid both the pro and contra climate change camps, when it published one of its massive “Thematic Research” tomes, this time covering the “Transwarming” World (available to all ZH pro subs), and which serves as a key primer to today’s Net Zero reality, if for no other reason than for being one of the first banks to quantify the cost of the biggest economic, ecologic and social overhaul in modern history.
The bottom line: no less than a stunning $150 trillion in new capital investment would be required to reach a “net zero” world over 30 years – equating to some $5 trillion in annual investments – and amounting to twice current global GDP.
Needless to say, the private sector has nowhere near the capital required to complete this investment which is why Bank of America generously estimate that all or parts of the bill would have to be footed by central banks in the form of tens of trillions in QE. And since QE is essentially debt monetization, and since $150 trillion in new debt would have devastating consequences on the economy, BofA was kind enough to share its calculation of just how inflationary this billionaire pet project would be: the “full monetization” scenario, where central banks inject $5 trillion in liquidity every year via QE for 30 years, would result in incremental 3% of inflation for a good decade. This is inflation over and above whatever is already coming down the pipeline.
Which is where we get to the punchline, because as BofA admits, the crusade against climate change, the ESG doctrine, the “Net Zero” world, whatever one wants to call it, it’s all about greenlighting the biggest QE episode in history, one wrapped in the “noble” veneer of fighting for the most important cause in the history of civilization, but in reality it’s just the biggest wealth transfer scheme in history:
We just see a peak of <1% additional inflation a year over a three decade horizon. Under more aggressive scenarios where central banks opt to absorb either half or the full decarbonization bills through quantitative easing, the risks of an inflation shock grow. Still, we think our third case is the most likely scenario, as it would be politically difficult to justify a much more expansive monetary impulse. True, while central bankers have expressed a desire to help green the economy, their corporate bond purchases have historically been restricted to crisis time policies through quantitative easing and remain well below purchases of sovereign debt. As such, any purchases of corporate green bonds would likely be limited both by the size of future purchase programs and their proportion relative to the overall corporate bond market, with slightly higher allocations under more progressive purchase policies that highlight environmental concerns
At this point alarm bells should be going off even among the most brain-dead progressives because for all its touted benefits, the costs are starting to emerge and – at least when it comes to the next two or three generations – they will be absolutely crushing for the middle class, while allowing the top 1% to plunder and pillage virtually all the world’s assets. Think of it as the biggest mandated theft in world history, and suddenly one can understand why every private-jet setting billionaire is oh so very vocally in support of a “net zero” world.
It gets worse.
Now that the genie is out of the bottle, and the hard questions like “who gets to pay for all this” are being asked, Bank of America had a follow up report in which it made it abundantly clear that “contrary to some arguments, we think climate mitigation efforts are likely to hurt growth in the next decade or so.”
In his note titled “A hot take on climate change” (once again available to professional subscribers in the usual place), Bank of America chief economist Ethan Harris first goes through all the familiar steps of just why it is so imperative – and noble – to do something to fight greenhouse gases (similar to what we have read for much of the early part of the 20th century, when article after article starting in 1912 lamented the catastrophe that is global warming, at least until the 1970s when the lack of actual global warming prompted “scientists” to suggest that global cooling and “a new ice age” is inevitable instead). At least the scientists could agree that it’s “global something” (turns out it would really mean “global money printing“), and as Harris laid it out, this is what “scientific consensus” appears to agree on now:
- Human behavior is having a significant impact on climate change and climate events.
- Even under optimistic assumptions—such as achieving net zero emissions by 2050—the impacts will likely grow over this century.
- Early action is much more effective than waiting until later.
- Uncertainty about the exact impact is not an excuse for inaction: a wide range of outcomes means more, not less urgency in acting.
None of the above is new as the mainstream media has been bombarding its audience for the past decade with emotional platitudes and qualitative appeals as to why something has to be done.
However, as we first touched upon last week, any discussion of the economics of climate change should start and end with the fact
that it is the ultimate example of “externalities”—private activities (usually for corporations who scions and shareholders are by now in the top 0.01% of global wealth) that create public costs. Indeed, as Harris writes, climate change is the ultimate externality because activity in one place impacts the whole world. The fact that climate change is global in nature and that so much of the benefit of actions accrues to everyone else has some powerful implications.First, unlike other technology “races”, climate mitigation is more of a cooperative “game” than a competition. When countries like the US and China “compete” to develop new technologies, two points of conflict often tend to arise—a fight for market share and a fight for geopolitical superiority. By contrast, countries that develop efficient climate mitigation technologies have a strong incentive to share the benefits. If they hoard the technology, the impact on their own climate will be much smaller.
This is great… if only it weren’t a pipe dream. Why? Because as the recent refusal by China’s Xi Jinping – incidentally the world’s largest polluter – to join his fellow “climate change crusading” world leaders at the COP26 Net Zero summit in Italy later this month, it’s all one giant spectacle meant for the masses. Because if the world’s largest polluter is making it clear he has no interest in actually reducing his own CO emissions, then anyone preaching some bullshit about a “cooperative game” can shove it.
Still, where Harris is somewhat correct, is in pointing out the “depressing consensus out of the climate change literature” that even if everyone cooperates, the earth will continue to warm as there are lags in the link between GHG and global warming. Indeed, under the best of outcomes—with every country hitting aggressive mid-century goals—the policy shift will mitigate, not stop the problem. Hence in BofA’s view, “climate events will be a rising downside risk—of varying intensity—under almost any plausible scenario.”
In other words, the net zero theater of the absurd is one where the actors’ motives clearly diverge – when only a convergence from the start could make it work – yet where even a best case scenario of complete cooperation has no chance of actually stopping the problem, just mitigating it. Oh, and meanwhile, the world is set to incur some $150 trillion in costs.
Which then brings us to BofA’s core assessment: will all this be good or bad for growth? Here, we find some unexpected truth…
In BofA’s view, both press reports and many of the studies of climate change focus on the wrong side of the economy—the impact on aggregate demand rather than on productive capacity. For example, the latest report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) argues that pushing toward net zero emissions would lower employment in the traditional energy sector by 5 million by 2030, but would add 14 million jobs in the clean energy sector. They also argue that “the increase in jobs and investment stimulates economic output, resulting in a net increase in global GDP to 2030.” Global GDP growth averages 0.4 higher over the 2020 to 2030 period. The downside would be that some countries would be winners and others would be losers, and that inflation – once one factors in the trillions and trillions of central bank QE needed to fund this whole crusade – could be 1-to-3% higher.
Here Bank of America disagrees, writing that by the time serious climate mitigation efforts are underway the global economy will likely be close to full employment. This will likely be the case in the US. Hence staffing up the industry means drawing workers out of the rest of the economy. At the same time, building up green energy infrastructure will require more than a doubling of investment in the sector, from roughly 2% of GDP now to a 4.5% average over the 2020-30 period. Where is that 2.5% of GDP going to come from? (spoiler alert: money printing, and everyone knows this).
Or maybe note: Harris admits that in the short run, central banks could in effect accommodate the surge in demand, allowing their economies to overheat. Hence the IEA estimate of 1-to-3% higher inflation. However, the BofA economist disagrees with that estimate as well. If the Fed allows a permanent overshoot of economic potential, inflation will not just increase, it would trend higher. As in the 1970s there will be a feedback loop between price inflation, wage inflation and price expectations.
Translation: the “net zero” crusade against climate change really is…. the necessary and sufficient condition to trigger the hyperinflation that the world’s massively indebted nations need to inflate away their debt.
But wait, there’s more, because as Harris concedes next, in reality, while inflation is set to soar, climate mitigation is “also likely to slow the supply side of the economy, particularly in the ramping up phase.” He explains further:
Big structural changes in the economy tend to create big transitional challenges. Workers need to move from one sector to another, some industries will boom while others shrink, and as regulations and taxes increase, capital that had been invested in producing and using dirty energy will rapidly become obsolete.
All of this means lower trend growth during the transition from a dirty to a green economy. And, as noted above, there isn’t even any assurance that a transition to a green economy will ever be completed once it has begun; at best, we may be stuck in the “mitigation” phase for ever.
The highly asymmetric payoff – BofA concedes – comes in the very long-run, with the benefits accreting here and now to those who stand to reap the generosity of central bank printing, which naturally will be those who own the inflation-resistant assets such as stocks, commodities and, of course, cryptos; while the pain borne by everyone else which – sadly – means the shrinking middle and lower classes, who however are “in it for the long run”, and for the benefits that a cleaner climate will (perhaps) provide their grandchildren and great grandchildren. Their generation, however, will be sacrificed at the altar of the 0.1% good. Because like every true religion, “climate change” also requires a sacrifice so a handful of chosen ones can live better.
Just the tip of the iceberg
So much for theory, what is happening on the ground? As Harris explains, the progress on policy is painfully slow as some policies continue to worsen rather than help the problem. Consider two examples. First, according to IEA, countries spend more than $400BN per year subsidizing mainly oil, but also gas and electricity consumption. In many instances there is a conflict between helping the poor and helping the environment. Second, despite what BofA calls “rising sea levels and increased hurricane activity,” some countries incentivize locating houses in harm’s way through subsidized insurance and disaster relief. Almost as if the countries themselves, and certainly the Malibu beachfront billionaires, don’t actually believe in – gasp – rising sea levels. Again there is a conflict between two goals—helping vulnerable people and reducing the cost of climate events.
Meanwhile, climate change and mitigation efforts already appear to be impacting the global economy. While scientists are very careful to avoid assigning a causal relationship between climate change and individual climate events – perhaps for the same reason that “science” emerged as a politically-motivated farce when reaching rash, ideologically-driven conclusions during the covid spectacle – but they point to some disturbing trends. Consider two examples highlighted by BofA: “First, data published by the Environmental Protection Agency show that the number of wildfires in the US has shown no trend from 1983 to 2020. However, when they focus only on large fires, the amount of acres burned seems to have shifted up significantly starting in about 2000. Second, the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory collates studies of hurricanes and tropical cyclones. Its report is sprinkled with the usual qualifiers (medium to high confidence) but the evidence points to an increase in the intensity of storms in recent years.” Dear Bank of America – this is called tortured goal seeking: squeeze the data hard enough and any pattern you want will eventually emerge.
More importantly, BofA admits that there is now evidence that climate change and mitigation play “some role” in the recent rise in energy prices (to this we would counter that not only does climate change mitigation play “some role” but that the chief reason for the global energy crisis is the idiotic push for a ESG utopia, something which we warned would happen back in June in “Will ESG Trigger Energy Hyperinflation“).
But where it gets worse is that given the regulatory outlook, and the now prevailing stigma associated with any fossil fuels, investment in dirty energy capacity will be low and depend on high prices. Meanwhile green energy is not ramping up fast enough to fill the gap. Hilariously, changes in wind and rain patterns seem to have affected the supply of wind and hydro power. The same wind and hydro power that was supposed to lead the world out of its fossil fuel addiction. Because so blind were the scientists in pushing their political agenda, they failed to see what was right in front of their noses, the same way Reuters figured out last week that European and U.S. cities planning to phase out combustion engines over the next 15 years first need to plug a charging gap for millions of residents who park their cars on the street. Oops – perhaps in retrospect, the policymakers and scientists should have though of the blindingly obvious first, instead of rushing to goalseek the agenda to makes them the most monetary benefits…
Tyler Durden
Mon, 10/18/2021 – 20:30 - La Nina Sparks Early Freeze In China As Coal Supplies Languish
La Nina Sparks Early Freeze In China As Coal Supplies Languish
China Meteorological Administration (CMA) warns of a La Nina weather pattern which has already brought in the first round of cooler weather. Temperatures across China are plunging, and the power crisis is worsening as demand for electricity generation ticks higher, straining coal supplies.
Thermal coal futures on the Zhengzhou Commodity Exchange jumped as much as 8% to $284, a record high, on Monday, following reports provinces will begin the traditional heating season earlier than anticipated.
CMA said temperatures slid more than 10 degrees Celsius in recent days across eastern China. There are reports snow has begun to fall in parts of Inner Mongolia and Heilongjiang. Across the country, mean temperatures have tumbled in the last several weeks.
Last month, Bloomberg reported that China’s central government officials “ordered the country’s top state-owned energy companies to secure supplies for this winter at all costs.”
Translation: Beijing is no longer willing to risk social anger, and in the future, China will be subsidizing coil and natural gas, which will lead to even higher prices, which will lead to even higher prices for other “substitute” commodities such as oil, which is why Brent and WTI have are at 7-year highs.
But even with panic buying, sluggish September fuel supplies raised concerns that domestic production will be unable to meet rising demand for electricity generation this winter.
Reuters said coal production in China was around 334.1 million tons last month, down from 335.24 million tons in August. The ability to boost coal production has hit roadblocks as flooding closed dozens of top-producing mines in the country.
“The Chinese government is losing the battle to control rising coal prices,” said Alex Whitworth, head of Asia Pacific Power and Renewables Research at Wood Mackenzie. “Despite efforts to increase coal supply, weather, security, and logistics challenges caused production to fall in September. Nor has China been able to rein in rising electricity demand.”
The National Energy Administration said electricity consumption in September climbed 6.8% compared with last year and increased 12.9% for the first three quarters of this year.
Last week, China introduced market reforms to allow electricity prices to rise 20% to incentivize power plants to generate power. Some plants were shuttered or reduced capacity because higher input prices such as coal and natural gas have made electricity production uneconomical.
“The recent price liberalization for coal power utilities and industrial end-users is a sign that the government does not believe it can control coal prices in the near future,” Whitworth said.
The latest round of news suggests it’s all hands on deck for Beijing as the traditional heating season begins earlier this year as the country races to secure coal to rebuild depleted stockpiles.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 10/18/2021 – 20:10 - Locked & Loaded: Supreme Court Is Ready To Take Aim At The Second Amendment
Locked & Loaded: Supreme Court Is Ready To Take Aim At The Second Amendment
Below is my column in the Hill on the makings of a blockbuster case in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, the first major gun rights case before the Supreme Court in ten years. Justices have been openly discussing a case to push back on lower courts that have been chipping away at its Second Amendment jurisprudence. They found that case with a strikingly familiar plaintiff.
Here is the column:
In the movie “True Grit,” federal marshal Rooster Cogburn is asked if the gun that he brandished at a crime scene was loaded. Cogburn, played by John Wayne, dryly responds, “A gun that’s unloaded and cocked ain’t good for nothing.” Something similar might be said of a Supreme Court docket, particularly when there is a Second Amendment case that could prove one of the most impactful decisions of the term.
The court will soon take up New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, more than a decade after its last major gun rights decision. The case promises to be a showdown between the Supreme Court and lower courts, which have been chipping away at the high court’s prior Second Amendment rulings.
In 2008, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing the Second Amendment as encompassing an individual right to bear arms. Two years after Heller, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the court ruled that this right applied against the states.
The new case concerns concealed-carry restrictions under N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f) that require a showing of “proper cause.” Lower courts have upheld the New York law, but there are ample constitutional concerns over its vague standard, such as showing that you are “of good moral character.” The case presents a single short, direct question — whether New York’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.
The high court has been carefully waiting for just the right case to address states and cities that have sought to limit gun rights. Indeed, just this week, the court turned down a challenge of a Wisconsin law imposing a lifetime ban on gun ownership for former felons, including cases involving nonviolent crimes. That and other cases seemed tailor-made for Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote a strong defense of the Second Amendment in a similar case as an appellate judge.
It often is difficult to determine which side of the court supplied the votes to grant review in a case. That is not the situation here. The New York case was clearly accepted by conservative justices with a mind toward reversal of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.
The selection of a New York case is particularly poignant. Some of the justices were none too pleased with the Big Apple last year when city officials suddenly sought to withdraw a case on the court’s docket. New York politicians had passed a law that many of us viewed as unconstitutional, with its imposition of burdensome limits on the transportation of lawful guns from homes. Those politicians publicly thumped their chests about going to the Supreme Court with the law and limiting the Second Amendment precedent; professing absolute confidence, they litigated the law, and, again, the 2nd Circuit supported the dubious statute. The Supreme Court accepted the case for review and was expected to overturn the law — until New York suddenly changed the law and then quietly sought to withdraw its case before any ruling.
The court ultimately dismissed the case but did so over the objections of three dissenting justices. It was a rare instance in which the court resisted such a mootness ruling after a party sought to withdraw — but, then, few litigants have had the temerity to do what New York did. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas specifically called out New York for “manipulating” the docket by withdrawing an unconstitutional law just before a final opinion. Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined in the condemnation and added menacingly that “some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.”
The court then did precisely that, by accepting a case with the very same plaintiffs: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association. On this occasion, however, the court is unlikely to tolerate another bait-and-switch by state officials trying to withdraw the case at the last minute.
If those four justices are still intent on pushing back on lower courts, they need only Chief Justice John Roberts or Barrett to hand down a major ruling in favor of gun rights.
The briefs filed in the case include groups such the Cato Institute, which directly confronted the court about it being legally absent without leave on gun rights for more than a decade. Cato has argued that judicial “inaction has contributed to the Second Amendment’s demise. It’s no secret that many federal courts have engaged in systematic resistance to Heller and McDonald.”
Many point to the court’s statement in Heller, which acknowledged that “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It then listed possible “sensitive places” for denying permits to former felons. Lower courts limiting gun rights have repeated those lines like a mantra, and the high court appears poised to bring clarity to that ambiguity.
Bruen has many of the same elements as Heller, including a rich historical discussion of what gun ownership has meant through history. Notably, English subjects in the American colonies were the first to receive written guarantees of the right to bear arms for self-defense; settlers of the Virginia colony in 1607 and the New England colony in 1620 were subjects under royal charters recognizing that right. In England, the right to bear arms was formally declared in the 1689 Declaration of Rights that stated that the right to arms was among the subjects’ “true, ancient and indubitable rights.”
That history will weigh heavily in the court defining the right of people to carry weapons in self-defense outside of the home. In many ways, Bruen is the shot not taken last year in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York. Now the same plaintiffs are back, and New York has supplied another perfect case for the expansion of gun rights. So if you are wondering if Bruen is loaded, at least four justices are likely to agree that a Second Amendment case “that’s unloaded and cocked ain’t good for nothing.”
Tyler Durden
Mon, 10/18/2021 – 19:50 - "Striketober" – Walk-Outs Surge As Workers See Opportunity In Rising Job Openings
“Striketober” – Walk-Outs Surge As Workers See Opportunity In Rising Job Openings
Some labor experts have opined that the failure of a group of workers at an Amazon warehouse in Bessemer, Ala. to succeed in their battle to form a union should blunt the nascent revival in the American labor movement. But as the number of American workers who decided to quit their jobs during the prior month soared to a record high north of 4MM, the number of open jobs in the US remains north of 10MM. For the first time in decades, workers have the power in the labor market. And they’re using this newfound leverage to launch a flurry of strikes, creating another headache for their preoccupied bosses.
According to Reuters, thousands of workers are on strike across the US. Data maintained by Cornell show 176 strikes have been called this year, with 17 in October alone.
They’re demanding high pay and better conditions, among other things, and some of them are already winning or at least reaching a settlement. Just this weekend, Hollywood make-up artists and camera operators reached a deal to avoid a walkout.
This victory in Hollywood, combined with the latest JOLTS numbers, are bound to be encouraging.
Kevin Bradshaw, an employee at Kellogg’s cereal plant in Memphis, Tennessee, where most of North America’s Frosted Flakes are made, told Reuters he opposes cuts to healthcare coverage, retirement benefits and vacation time that union officials say the company is pushing for from about 1,400 workers. They have been on strike since Oct. 5 at plants in Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania and Tennessee.
“Enough is enough,” said Bradshaw, vice president of Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union Local 252G at the Memphis plant. “We can’t afford to keep giving away things to a company that financially has made record-breaking returns.”
Kellogg’s labor activists complain that their members were deemed “essential” during the start of the COVID pandemic, yet, despite this, the manner in which they are treated by management hasn’t changed.
Another thing workers hope will benefit them in their struggle (although, in the end, disappointment isn’t just possible, but likely): the Democrats are back in control in Washington. But workers who expect President Biden to have their backs should remember that the Dems and President Biden are restricted by their corporate backers.
Still, so far, at least 176 strikes have been launched this year, including 17 in October alone, according to data from Cornell’s Labor Action Tracker.
“Workers are on strike for a better deal and a better life,” said Liz Shuler, president of the AFL-CIO, the country’s biggest labor federation, during a conference for business journalists.
“The pandemic really did lay bare the inequities of our system and working people are refusing to return to crappy jobs that put their health at risk,” she added, noting that the term #Striketober was trending on Twitter.
There have been some setbacks, yet overall, union laaders are still hopeful. Union membership has declined to just 11% of workers today, down from more than 20% in late 1983. What’s more, Americans’ support for unions has risen to its highest level in decades. 68% of Americans now approve of unions, the highest level since 1965, according to Gallup.
“We have entered a new era in labor relations,” said Harley Shaiken, professor emeritus of labor at the University of California Berkeley. “Workers feel they’re in the driver’s seat and there’s plenty of lost ground to make up.”
“What we’re seeing is a fight to return or at least stay in the middle class,” he said.
Back in April, President Biden – who has struggled to appeal to working-class whites by playing up his ties to organized labor – created a task force to promote labor organizing. Biden also spoke out in support of the workers in Bessemer before their vote, which organizers insist was unfairly tampered with by Amazon.
Other setbacks for the bosses have popped up in Beaumont, Texas, where Exxon Mobil ordered a lockout of 650 workers from its refinery and an adjacent plant since May after a local chapter of the United Steelworkers union refused to submit a contract proposal. Union leaders have scheduled a vote on the contract for Tuesday, but have urged members to reject it. Some members are moving to try and decertify the union.
Exxon said the lockout was necessary to avoid the disruption of a possible strike and the changes to seniority it wants to impose were needed to ensure profitability. Some union members have moved to decertify the union. Over at John Deere, which makes farm equipment, 90% of its 10K workers recently launched a strike.
And according to Reuters, one industry that’s ripe for labor unrest is health-care.
More than 28,000 healthcare workers at 13 Southern California Kaiser Permanente hospitals and hundreds of medical centers voted overwhelmingly earlier this month to authorize a strike. They want more pay and higher levels of staffing to reduce burnout worsened by the pandemic. That demand is echoed by nearly 2,000 healthcare workers who have been on strike since Oct. 1 in Buffalo, New York. “We’ve been working short at Mercy for five years,” Kathy Kelly, who has been a nurse for 38 years at the Catholic Health System’s Mercy Hospital, said while on break from picketing. “Enough’s enough. We can only give so much.”
Anybody searching for more data on labor actions can check the ILR data from Cornell, which can be found here.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 10/18/2021 – 19:30 - Chicago Mayor Accuses Police Union Of Trying To 'Induce An Insurrection' Over Vaccine Mandate
Chicago Mayor Accuses Police Union Of Trying To ‘Induce An Insurrection’ Over Vaccine Mandate
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot – who appears to have violated both local and state mask mandates at the WNBA finals yesterday – said that the city’s Fraternal Order of Police is attempting to “induce an insurrection” using misinformation to oppose vaccine mandates.
“We believe that the FOP leadership is trying to foment an illegal workstop, and a strike – plain and simple… The contract is clear and has been known for a long time. The police union is not authorized to strike.”
“What we’ve seen from the FOP, in particular the leadership, is a lot of misinformation. A lot of half-truths and frankly flat-out lies, in order to induce an insurrection.”
Watch:
NEW: Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot says the city’s Fraternal Order of Police is attempting to “induce an insurrection” by opposing vaccine mandate.pic.twitter.com/XaFArFjcmi
— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) October 18, 2021
Last week, the head of the Chicago police officers union on Tuesday called on its members to refuse to comply with the city’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate, which took effect on Friday.
“Do not fill out the portal information,” Chicago Fraternal Order of Police President John Catanzara said in a video to officers posted on YouTube.
“I’ve made my status very clear as far as the vaccine, but I do not believe the city has the authority to mandate that to anybody—let alone that information about your medical history.”
“It’s safe to say that the city of Chicago will have a police force at 50 percent or less for this weekend coming up,” Catanzara added.
Lightfoot’s mandate requires city workers to report their vaccine status by Friday or be placed on a “no-pay” status.
On Friday, the FOP and Lightfoot’s administration sued each other – with the city filing a complaint against the union and Catanzara for supporting a “work stoppage or strike regarding the vaccine mandate.”
Hours later, the FOP filed suit against Lightfoot and Chicago PD Supt. David Brown, accusing them of failing to negotiate with the union over the mandate, according to CBS2 Chicago.
At a hearing late Friday afternoon, city attorneys assured a Cook County judge officers who show up to work over the weekend will be able to work and will be paid, but said they could be written up for disciplinary action if they do not comply with the requirement to report their vaccination status by the Friday night deadline.
After lengthy arguments, the judge granted the city’s request for a temporary injunction barring Catanzara from making any public comments that encourage members of the FOP to defy the city’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate until the next hearing on the city’s lawsuit on Oct. 25. -CBS2
Meanwhile, as we noted earlier Monday, Chicago has canceled all time-off requests.
Catanzara said he believes up to half of the entire Chicago police department are ready to not comply with the vaccine mandate, with city officials also bracing for a potential huge loss of personnel, given the latest order that’s gone out across the CPD is the restriction of time off, which typically only happens ahead of July 4th – or other weekends expected to bring surges in violent crime.
According to the latest reports:
Days off are being cancelled and any time-off will require approval from a deputy chief or above, according to a new memo from First Deputy Supt. Eric Carter. The memo is being read at all roll calls for the next five days.
“Until further notice: The use of elective time off by all sworn CPD members is restricted,” the memo says.
Also on Sunday the CPD issued another memo calling for vaccine compliance, but this time expressly stating that the city is prepared to fire or discipline officers found “disobeying a direct order”.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 10/18/2021 – 19:11 - Gov. Newsom Signs Cultural Marxist Bills
Gov. Newsom Signs Cultural Marxist Bills
Op-Ed Authored by John Seiler via The Epoch Times,
The California Legislature passed 836 bills this year, of which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed 770. That’s 92 percent. He vetoed only 66, or 8 percent. That’s about average for governors in recent years.
It’s also a reason the legislature ought to return to part-time status, as it was before the 1970s. Texas still maintains a part-time legislature meeting every other year. Its success is shown by how, with the 2020 U.S. Census, it gained two congressional seats as California lost one.
Although high taxes and regulations are the major reasons businesses and citizens are leaving California, another factor is dealing with the irrationality of the government. The state often just doesn’t make sense. It’s guaranteed to make even less sense in the future.
That has been a theme of the series of articles I’ve written on the bills this year, of which this will be the fourth and last. The theme of this article is Cultural Marxism.
One could write a dozen articles a week on the bills and only get part of the way through by the end of the year. Gov. Gavin Newsom was right, although in an ironic way he didn’t intend, when he said on Oct. 9 while signing his last batch of bills, “What we’re doing here in California is unprecedented in both nature and scale.”
My previous three articles are here, here, and here.
California Governor Gavin Newsom discusses the state’s plan for homelessness inniciatives in Los Angeles, Calif., on Sept. 29, 2021. (John Fredricks/The Epoch Times) AB 338: Fr. Juniper Serra Statue Replacement
Assembly Bill 338 is by Assembly Member James C. Ramos (D-Highland). The bill concerns what to do after vandals tore down the statue of Fr. Juniper Serra on the grounds of the state Capitol on July 4, 2020. The bill replaces it with a statue of Native Americans, so that, in the bill’s language, “the devastating impact of the mission period, and Father Serra’s role in that devastation, [will] be recognized and acknowledged.”
Critics said the action is an affront to the state’s more than 10 million Catholics. Bishop Jaime Soto of Sacramento said that, although the Native Americans suffered during that period, Serra worked “to protect the dignity of native peoples. His holiness as a missionary should not be measured by his own failures to stop the exploitation or even his own personal faults.”
Los Angeles Archbishop Jose Gomez and San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone added in a Wall Street Journal article, “[N]o serious historian has ever made such outrageous claims about Serra or the mission system, the network of 21 communities that Franciscans established along the California coast to evangelize native people.”
The legislature easily could have both restored the Serra statue and erected a new statue on the Capitol grounds to the Native Americans, adding to the 12 memorials already there. The Serra vandalism also comes after the statue of Christopher Columbus was removed from the Capitol Rotunda in June 2020.
All this is pure, unadulterated Cultural Marxism. It is shoving history down Orwell’s “Memory Hole” and erecting a false narrative to advance a socialist agenda.
AB 1084: Gender-Neutral Toy Sections
Assembly Bill 1084 is by Assembly Member Evan Low (D-Campbell). It requires stores selling toys with more than 500 employees to add “a gender-neutral section or area, to be labeled at the discretion of the retailer, in which a reasonable selection of the items and toys for children that it sells shall be displayed, regardless of whether they have been traditionally marketed for either girls or for boys.”
Low seems not to have noticed how children tend to wander around stores and find whatever toys they want to cajole their parents into buying.
The clueless legislator explained, “Part of it is to make sure if you’re a young girl that you can find a police car, fire truck, a periodic table or a dinosaur. And then similarly, if you’re a boy, if you’re more artistic and want to play with glitter, why not? Why should you feel the stigma of saying, ‘Oh, this should be shamed’ and going to a different location?”
Aside from the Cultural Marxist coercion element, the bill has other problems.
Notice the vagueness, which could lead to the prosecutions even of the most vigilant retailers: “gender neutral” … “section or area” … “discretion of the retailer” … “reasonable selection” … “regardless of whether.” This is going to be a field day for lawyers.
AB 1084 will also increase costs by an unknown amount for retailers, for lawyers to figure it out, and for employees to implement it by erecting new areas of the store with new labels. The bill will also scare off parents from such stores, sending even more business online, where such restrictions to not apply. Many jobs will be killed.
The bill has received national attention and is another reason the state is such a laughingstock.
AB 101: Cultural Marxist Ethnic Studies
Assembly Bill 101 is by Assemblymember Jose Medina (D-Riverside). It mandates “the completion of a one-semester course in ethnic studies … including for pupils enrolled in a charter school.”
In an explanation on his website oddly titled “I am Ethnic Studies!” Medina explained, “AB 101 is necessary to ensure all students develop a foundational and accurate understanding of United States history. We are poised to lead the nation in education equity for all students. And become the first state to require ethnic studies as a high school graduation requirement.”
Critics signing a joint letter opposing the bill included Parents Defending Education, the AMCHA Initiative (anti-Semitism watchdog), the California Association of Scholars, the National Association of Scholars, the San Diego Asian Americans for Equality, and the Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation.
The letter (pdf) said the imposed curriculum would be “firmly rooted in the highly politicized and controversial version of the discipline known as Critical Ethnic Studies. The discipline is firmly rooted in neo-Marxist ideologies that divide society into oppressed and oppressor groups based primarily on race, and, as part of its disciplinary mission, uses the classroom to indoctrinate students into narrow political beliefs and political activism. Pursuing a narrow political framework in education is divisive, discriminatory and inflammatory.”
AB 101 also dilutes the value of charter schools, which were created specifically to avoid most of the mandates of the labyrinthine state Education Code. The code already runs to 4,058 pages, according to the March 2021 edition sold on Amazon. The 2022 edition will run many pages longer.
The bill tosses another problem to local school boards, which already are grappling with critical race theory (CRT), as The Epoch Times has been covering.
I’ve talked to several young couples with kids about this mandate and CRT. They say it’s yet another impetus to get their kids out of California to a more sensible state.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 10/18/2021 – 19:10
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...
