Champion of Truth
“”Today, when you buy a Big Mac or a T-bone, a portion of the cost is a tax on beef, the proceeds from which the government hands over to a private trade group called the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA),” Washington Monthly reported in 2014. “The NCBA in turn uses this public money to buy ads encouraging you to eat more beef.””
“The Wall Street Journal reports that Walmart, Target, Costco, and Home Depot are among the major retailers to adopt the “if you want something done right, do it yourself” approach to importing goods. Worker shortages and COVID-19 protocols have slowed trans-Pacific shipping considerably—it now takes about 80 days to transport items from Asia to the U.S., about twice as long as it did before the pandemic, the Journal reports.”
…
“many of the bottlenecks are domestic issues. For example, major ports in Europe and Asia operate around the clock, but American ports run at about 60 percent capacity because they close at night and on Sundays. Even when dozens of ships are waiting to be unloaded, inflexible union rules that govern dockworkers’ and truckers’ hours make it difficult to meet swelling demand.
By chartering smaller, private ships to carry their goods, retailers like Walmart are hoping to bypass the backlogs by landing at smaller ports up and down the east coast. That will cost more money—and those costs will be passed onto consumers—but that’s better than running out of inventory during the Christmas rush. Home Depot, for example, is relying on chartered ships to deliver only a small percentage of its overall inventory with a focus on high-demand items like plumbing supplies, power tools, holiday decor, and heaters, the Journal reports.
Getting goods onshore is only half the battle. There are plenty of other bottlenecks to be navigated, like a 25-mile freight train backup that occurred at a major shipping facility outside Chicago earlier this year. At the port in Savannah, Georgia, The New York Times reports that workers are “running out of places to put things” as they unload ships, snarling both ground- and sea-based transportation.”
…
“”The coronavirus pandemic has snarled global supply chains in several ways. Pandemic checks sent hundreds of billions of dollars to cabin-fevered Americans during a fallow period in the service sector. A lot of that cash has flowed to hard goods, especially home goods such as furniture and home-improvement materials. Many of these materials have to be imported from or travel through East Asia. But that region is dealing with the Delta variant, which has been considerably more deadly than previous iterations of the virus. Delta has caused several shutdowns at semiconductor factories across Asia just as demand for cars and electronics has started to pick up. As a result, these stops along the supply chain are slowing down at the very moment when Americans are demanding that they work in overdrive.””
“when it comes to vaccine mandates, the relevant question is whether an unvaccinated person with natural immunity is substantially more likely to catch and transmit the coronavirus than a vaccinated person without natural immunity. On that point, medical experts disagree.
Peter McCullough, a Dallas internist and cardiologist with a public health degree who testified in support of psychiatrist Aaron Kheriaty’s unsuccessful challenge to the University of California’s vaccine mandate, argued that the coronavirus “causes an infection in humans that results in robust, complete, and durable immunity”—a protective effect that is “superior to vaccination-induced immunity.” McCullough emphasized that antibody tests reflect only part of the immune response to a COVID-19 infection, which includes “antibodies to the nucleocapsid and to the spike protein, as well as T-helper cells, natural killer cells, B-cells, and innate immunity.”
By contrast, the Berkeley epidemiologist Arthur Reingold argued in the same case that the university’s blanket vaccine requirement was justified because the strength and longevity of natural immunity are unclear. “While individuals who have had a documented case of COVID-19 typically have antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 virus detectable in their blood and are believed to have a reduced risk of getting COVID-19 again in the months that follow,” he said, “neither the completeness nor the durability of protection against a second case of COVID-19 has been established. The extent to which any such immunity resulting from having had COVID-19 provides protection against new variants of SARS-CoV-2 is also unknown.””
…
“A private employer might conclude that a blanket vaccine requirement is easier to administer than one that makes an exception for previously infected people. The latter approach presumably would require documentation of prior infections. It might also require evidence, similar to the tests cited by Norris, of a robust immune response—although vaccinated people don’t have to produce such evidence, even though their immune responses also vary.
As a matter of public policy, however, that added complication does not seem unreasonably burdensome. The OSHA order described by the Biden administration already includes an exception for employees who agree to be tested at least once a week, which is more expensive and harder to arrange than a one-time requirement that employees document their COVID-19 histories.
Jeffrey Klausner, a clinical professor of population and public health sciences at the University of Southern California, co-authored a systematic review in the journal Evaluation & the Health Professions last month that found “the protective effect of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection on re-infection is high and similar to the protective effect of vaccination,” although “more research is needed to characterize the duration of protection and the impact of different SARS-CoV-2 variants.” While the existing evidence is incomplete, Klausner thinks it is strong enough to justify an exception to vaccine requirements. “From the public health perspective,” he told Kaiser Health News, “denying jobs and access and travel to people who have recovered from infection doesn’t make sense.””
“Passed in 1969, NEPA requires federal agencies to study the environmental impacts of actions they take, whether that’s funding a new highway or approving a new pipeline. Over the decades, the burden imposed by NEPA has grown: The environmental reviews it mandates take years on average to complete and can run hundreds if not thousands of pages.
Donald Trump’s administration tried to streamline things a bit by limiting the environmental effects that agencies had to examine and by putting definitive time and page limits on NEPA reviews.
Even those marginal changes, implemented in September 2020, proved controversial with many environmentalists. Their concerns have resonated with the Biden administration.
“The basic community safeguards we are proposing to restore would help ensure that American infrastructure gets built right the first time, and delivers real benefits—not harms—to people who live nearby,” said CEQ Chair Brenda Mallory on Thursday.
The proposed rule published by the CEQ in the Federal Register would make a number of changes.
Most significantly, it would restore requirements that agencies’ NEPA reviews take into account the indirect and cumulative effects of projects.”
…
“Environmentalist groups have generally praised these changes.”
…
“Other NEPA experts are more critical, arguing that this is an ineffective and potentially counterproductive way to address climate change.
“All it does is create a little more paperwork,” says Eli Dourado, a senior research fellow at Utah State University’s Center for Growth and Opportunity. “Given the need to build a lot of infrastructure and new technologies and physical stuff in the world, NEPA is probably on net harming our response to climate change.”
Indeed, NEPA has slowed down a number of projects that environmentalists would typically support for their emission-reducing potential.
The U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s 2019 decision to perform a cumulative impact analysis under NEPA of a massive wind farm being constructed off the coast of Massachusetts has significantly delayed that project.
It will likewise take years for the federal government to perform a NEPA-mandated review of a plan to charge drivers a toll to enter lower Manhattan. Environmentalists and transit advocates have generally praised that congestion pricing plan for its potential to reduce carbon emissions and to raise money for public transit. The tolls were supposed to be up and running in January 2021. The need to perform an environmental assessment for the project will mean that it now won’t start until 2023 at the earliest.
All the additional green investments the Biden administration and Democrats in Congress want to fund with their $1 trillion infrastructure bill and $3.5 trillion Build Back Better legislation could run into a similar fate.
“It’s making some of the infrastructure projects they want to do radically more expensive,” says Neil Chilson, a senior research fellow at Stand Together. He says the regulatory changes will also empower the nation’s NIMBYs to slow down projects they dislike.”
…
“By expanding the number of effects that have to be considered in the NEPA process, the Biden administration is giving project opponents more room to claim that an environmental review is insufficient.
Federal agencies and private project sponsors, in turn, will have to spend more time preparing litigation-proof environmental documents to preempt these complaints, says Chilson.
That could be particularly damaging for solar plants that are proposed to be constructed on public lands in the American west, and which have attracted fierce opposition from local groups concerned about their impact on endangered species and recreational lands.”
…
“CEQ has said that reversing those Trump-era tweaks is only the first phase of its planned rulemaking. In a second phase, the administration says, it plans to make more substantive changes that create “efficient and effective environmental reviews.”
That leaves open the possibility that we’ll get more productive reforms later on, says Dourado.”
“A federal judge in August sentenced Daniel Hale to 45 months in federal prison for informing the American public about secret drone killings by the U.S. military.
Hale is a former Air Force intelligence analyst who shared classified documents with reporter Jeremy Scahill. Those documents, published in 2015 at The Intercept and in a book called The Assassination Complex (Simon & Schuster), revealed that secret drone assassinations in Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia had likely killed untold numbers of innocent people, a fact the U.S. government had concealed.”
…
“Hale’s sentence is an example of how the federal government misuses laws meant for spies who reveal classified information to our country’s enemies. Too often, it punishes citizens who reveal the government’s true behavior to their fellow Americans.”
“It’s called a “keyword warrant,” and it’s basically an open request for information on anyone who searches for particular terms online. Instead of the government saying, “I want all of arson suspect John Doe’s Google searches,” it’s, “I want information on all the people who searched Google for ‘arson.'”
The problem is evident. In the first scenario, investigators have already determined a suspect based on some evidence that they present to a judge, the typical standard for requesting a search warrant. In the second scenario, the government is asking search engines to provide data that they can use for whatever reason. It’s an open invitation for a fishing expedition. And many innocent people could get caught in the net.”
“”Private businesses don’t need government running their business,” an Abbott spokesperson told the Tribune in August.
Apparently, Abbott now thinks they do. By sticking his nose into the affairs of private businesses, Abbott is setting up a potential conflict with some of his state’s biggest employers, including Southwest Airlines and American Airlines—both of which are based in Texas and recently told employees to get the shot if they want to keep their jobs. Mandatory vaccination policies should always include carveouts to cover those who have had a previous COVID-19 infection or have religious or medical reasons for not getting jabbed, of course, but those issues are better worked out between employers and employees.
Abbott’s new mandate also puts some businesses in a tricky situation where they must choose between disobeying state or federal law. President Joe Biden announced last month that all businesses with more than 100 employees would be required to mandate vaccines for their workers (or conduct weekly tests), with the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) enforcing the mandate.”
…
“Vaccines remain by far the best strategy for saving lives and ending the pandemic. It makes sense that businesses would want their employees to be vaccinated. Those who refuse the shot should be free to do so, but they do not have a right to any particular job. None of those decisions should require the coercive efforts of state or federal officials.”
“The expanded child tax credit, a policy passed in March 2021 that beefed up monthly payments to most families with kids, has already had a massive, positive effect on the lives of America’s children. After just one monthly payment, it cut child poverty by 25 percent — and should the larger payments continue, it could slash child poverty by more than 40 percent in a typical year, according to the Urban Institute.
This is a huge decline in a very short time frame. According to the Brookings Institution, child poverty rates dropped by 26 percent between 2009 and 2019, meaning the tax credit accomplished in one month what other policies took a decade to achieve.
Despite that success, the expanded child tax credit (CTC) is in serious danger. As part of their budget negotiations, Democrats are debating how long to extend the program — most likely for a year, with some calling for a four-year (or even indefinite) extension. In the best-case scenario with a short extension, the program will probably run out of money by the end of 2022. In the worst-case scenario, it could end as soon as April 2022, when families are currently due to receive their final enhanced payment.”
…
“Opponents of the policy, however, argue that these payments could deter recipients from working since parents without an income can receive the help as well. Manchin has expressed this concern, arguing that work and/or education requirements ought to be added to the policy should it be extended. “Don’t you think, if we’re going to help the children, that the people should make some effort?” Manchin has said.
Some researchers have pushed back against this view, noting that a continual credit might help parents join the workforce by enabling them to afford basic services like child care. Given that the expanded child tax credit has only been distributed since July, it’s too early to ascertain which argument is correct, though data from a Columbia University study found that the credit hadn’t had a “significant effect on employment or labor force participation” so far.
There is also debate as to whether access to the credit should be capped even more. Right now, families that make up to $150,000 a year receive the full boost, a figure that Manchin would like to see go down. Manchin has argued that the policy should be capped at households that make $60,000 or less.
Proponents of a more universal policy, meanwhile, argue that broadening the constituency that benefits from the credit will increase its political support. More universal programs including Social Security and Medicare are some of the most popular government offerings and have polled better than Medicaid, which is means-tested.”
“The U.S. government’s investigation into the mysterious illnesses impacting American personnel overseas and at home is turning up new evidence that the symptoms are the result of directed-energy attacks, according to five lawmakers and officials briefed on the matter.
Behind closed doors, lawmakers are also growing increasingly confident that Russia or another hostile foreign government is behind the suspected attacks, based on regular briefings from administration officials — although there is still no smoking gun linking the incidents to Moscow.”