Hey! Good Evening!

This evening's music features Chicago blues harmonica player Big John Wrencher. Enjoy!

"After watching the way the US and its allies have been handling the Ukraine situation, how confident are you that they can be trusted to navigate all these dangerous cold war escalations without inadvertently triggering a nuclear exchange?"

-- Caitlin Johnstone

News and Opinion

Who in the Lord’s name gave the US the right? A question for Mr. Biden

On Tuesday afternoon, US President Joe Biden delivered remarks from the East Room of the White House announcing sanctions against Russia in response to its recognition of the independence of two provinces in Eastern Ukraine. ... In the course of his remarks, Biden asked a telling question: “Who in the Lord’s name does Putin think gives him the right to declare new so-called ‘countries’ on territory that belongs to his neighbors?” This is a question, however, that much of the world would like Biden himself to answer. The “flagrant violation of international law” that Biden accused Russia of perpetrating is precisely what the United States has repeatedly done, with Biden directly and personally involved. ...

The imperialist-instigated breakup of Yugoslavia, culminating in the 78-day bombardment of Serbia in March-June 1999, is particularly instructive. The process of dismantling Yugoslavia began in December 1991, concurrent with the dissolution of the USSR, with Germany’s unilateral recognition of the independence of Slovenia and Croatia. This was followed in April 1992 by the Bush administration’s recognition of Bosnia-Herzegovina as an independent “nation” meriting its own state. The moves by German and US imperialism to recognize the independent states in Yugoslavia fomented bloody national conflicts throughout the 1990s, including the Croatian War of 1995.

The catastrophe stoked by the US and NATO powers was used, in 1999, to justify direct military intervention. Waving the banner of “humanitarianism,” eagerly supported by layers of the upper middle class and academia, the Clinton administration launched its war against Serbia to enforce the secession of the province of Kosovo. It was accompanied by all sorts of claims of human rights violations that were ultimately demonstrated to be grossly exaggerated. The war was carried out by NATO, which did not obtain a resolution from the United Nations and was therefore acting in direct violation of international law. It culminated in the installation of a government in Kosovo run by the Kosovo Liberation Army, which the US had previously designated as a terrorist organization and which would subsequently be exposed for engaging in drug running, prostitution and the trafficking in human organs.

During the runup to the Kosovo War, Biden was the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where he joined with Republican Senator John McCain in campaigning aggressively for war. “If I were president, I would just bomb him [Serbian President Slobodan Milošević],” Biden said in October 1998. During the war against Serbia, the current Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, occupied the position of Senior Director for European Affairs at the National Security Council, the principal advisor to Clinton on Europe. In 2002, he landed the position of Democratic Staff Director for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, working as a principal advisor for Biden.

At a March 2008 meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held to discuss the status of Kosovo nearly a decade after the bombardment of Serbia, Biden explicitly proclaimed “the right to declare new so-called ‘countries.’”

“In the modern world,” Biden stated in opening the meeting, “sovereignty isn’t an ancestral right; it’s a sacred trust between the government and its people. … We live in a world where history matters, but so do human beings. Kosovo could not remain a territorial souvenir of Serbia’s past imperial glory. So while resolving Kosovo’s status through a unilateral declaration of independence is hardly ideal, I believe it was necessary. I am proud the United States was among the first countries in the world to recognize the newly independent Kosovo.”

War in Ukraine: Where has Russia attacked so far?

Russian President Vladimir Putin launches invasion of Ukraine, explosions reported in Kyiv

Russia's President Vladimir Putin has launched an invasion of Ukraine, moments after appearing live on television to say he has authorised a military operation in Ukraine's Donbas region. Even as Mr Putin was still speaking, wires service Reuters reported witnesses in Kyiv hearing a series of distant, loud noises similar to the firing of artillery while others reported hearing explosions in Belgorod province, Russia. A Fox News reporter also reported hearing explosions in the Ukraine capital. ...

During the address, broadcast in the early hours of the morning in Russia, Mr Putin said Russia did not intend to occupy Ukraine and the responsibility for any resultant bloodshed lies with the Ukrainian "regime". Mr Putin said the action comes in response to threats coming from Ukraine.

Putin warned other countries that any attempt to interfere with the Russian action would lead to "consequences they have never seen". Clashes between Russian and Ukrainian forces were inevitable and it was just a matter of time, he said. He called on Ukrainian soldiers to immediately lay down their weapons and go home. ... He said the Russian military operation aims to ensure a "demilitarisation" of Ukraine.

Russia INVADES Ukraine. US Arrogance On NATO Made Things Worse: Lt. Col. Daniel Davis

VAST Majority Of Americans Say Stay Out Of Ukraine

Lawmakers to Biden: No US Troops to Fight Russia Without Approval by Congress

A bipartisan group of lawmakers and a coalition of anti-war groups reminded President Joe Biden on Tuesday that he is legally required to seek authorization from Congress before involving U.S. troops in any military conflict with Russia, which began moving forces of its own into eastern Ukraine earlier this week.

"Our nation's laws are highly relevant to the ongoing situation in Ukraine," 43 U.S. House members led by Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) and Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) wrote in a letter to the White House on Tuesday. "Were an attack by Russia to be imminent or underway, the War Powers Resolution would clearly require congressional authorization before the president may command U.S. Armed Forces to engage in hostilities."

Signed by an ideologically diverse cohort of lawmakers spanning from right-wing Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) to progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), the letter was delivered after Biden announced new economic sanctions against Russia and said he "authorized additional movements of U.S. forces and equipment already stationed in Europe to strengthen our Baltic allies."

"Let me be clear: These are totally defensive moves on our part," added Biden, who has approved the deployment of thousands of U.S. troops to Eastern Europe in recent weeks. "We have no intention of fighting Russia."

But no matter the president's stated intentions, the lawmakers argued in their letter that he must "seek specific congressional authorization" in order to "leave any remaining U.S. advisers, trainers, special forces, or other U.S. military personnel in areas of these imminent or active hostilities."

"You must also receive congressional approval before initiating any preemptive strike," they wrote. "We strongly urge your administration to respect the separation of powers, U.S. law, and Congress' constitutional war powers authority. Should your administration seek to introduce U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities or decline to remove any U.S. military personnel currently deployed inside Ukraine from unauthorized hostilities or imminent hostilities, Congress stands ready to deliberate over the potentially monumental implications of such scenarios."

"The American people, through their representatives in Congress, deserve to have a say before U.S. troops are placed in harm's way or the U.S. becomes involved in yet another foreign conflict," the lawmakers added.

The letter came as the situation on the ground in Ukraine continued to deteriorate and fears of an all-out war mounted. On Wednesday, Ukraine began preparations to impose a nationwide state of emergency and instructed its citizens to leave Russia, warning of a broader invasion.

With congressional Republicans and hawkish Democrats clamoring for Biden to respond more forcefully to Russia's latest aggressive actions in Ukraine, DeFazio told Politico on Tuesday that the president should instead show restraint and consult with Congress.

"Americans are fed up with risking U.S. troops' lives and spending taxpayer dollars on endless overseas wars," said DeFazio. "I'm calling on President Biden to ignore the warmongers and receive authorization from Congress—as required by the Constitution and U.S. law—before even considering any involvement by the U.S. military in a conflict between Russia and Ukraine."

Nearly a dozen advocacy groups—including the progressive anti-war organizations Just Foreign Policy, Peace Action, and Demand Progress—endorsed DeFazio's message, hailing it as a "timely" and "level-headed" intervention amid loudening drumbeats of war.

"Even allowing U.S. advisers and special forces to remain in harm's way in Ukraine without authorization creates the potential for direct conflict between the world's leading nuclear powers," Erik Sperling, executive director of Just Foreign Policy, said in a statement Tuesday. "Regardless of one's view on how the U.S. should respond to tensions over Ukraine, these are precisely the critical questions that the framers of our Constitution sought to entrust to the American people through their representatives in Congress."

Cavan Kharrazian, a foreign policy campaigner for Demand Progress added that "by no means should the president put American troops—including embedded military advisors and special forces—into harm's way in Ukraine without a debate and vote in Congress."

"While Congress remains divided on many issues," Kharrazian added, "we are glad to see such a diverse range of representatives defending our constitutional system of checks and balances when it comes to war."

Is Putin Invasion of Ukraine Biden's Fault?

Putin announces 'special operation' in Donbass

Russian President Vladimir Putin has announced he ordered his country's military to conduct a special operation in the Donbass region after the leaders of the breakaway republics asked Moscow for military assistance in response to what they claim is an increase in “Ukrainian aggression.”

“Circumstances require us to take decisive and immediate action," the order reads. “The People's Republics of Donbass turned to Russia with a request for help. In this regard, in accordance with Article 51, part 7 of the UN Charter, with the sanction of the Federation Council and in pursuance of the friendship treaties ratified by the Federal Assembly and mutual assistance with the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics, I have decided to conduct a special military operation,” Putin concludes.

At the same time, in address to the public, Putin said that he wanted to "demilitarize" and "de-Nazify" Ukraine. According to him, "we have no plans to occupy Ukrainian territory." Within moments of the speech, a series of explosions were reported in cities across Ukraine, with CNN, CBC and a number of Ukrainian media outlets reporting to hear a blast in the capital, Kiev.

What is happening is a necessary measure - Putin on Donbass operation

Ukraine president vows to defend country as Russia says separatists ‘ask for military help’

Ukraine’s president has made a desperate appeal to the Russian people asking them to “listen to the voice of reason” and stop a war he said the Kremlin has already ordered. After Ukraine declared a state of emergency and started calling up reservists, Volodymyr Zelenskiy delivered a 10-minute video address in the early hours of Thursday morning, saying Vladimir Putin had not taken his call. ...

Ukraine called an emergency session of the UN security council to confront Russia which, by irony of the rota, will be chairing the meeting. Meanwhile Zelenskiy’s approach was to try to speak directly to ordinary Russians, on a video uploaded to Telegram messaging app, over the heads of the Kremlin, predicting that the Russian media would not broadcast it. ...

Early on Thursday morning, Russia issued an alert warning all civilian aviation to stay out of the air space over the border between Russia and northeast Ukraine. As it manoeuvred its forces ever closer to the border and arrayed them in attack formation, the Kremlin announced it had received a request from the leaders of the small Moscow-run enclaves in east Ukraine asking for urgent assistance “to avoid civilian casualties and a humanitarian catastrophe”. Putin secured formal backing from Russia parliament on Tuesday, to deploy Russian forces beyond the country’s borders.

For several days, Putin and his aides had been claiming there was a “genocide” of Russian speakers under way in the Donbas region, in the absence of any evidence. Dossiers of supposed evidence circulated at the UN and to the media, largely consisted of improvised burial sites of civilian casualties from shelling over the eight-year conflict there. Many of the dead referred to in the Russian dossier had died in the first year of fighting in 2014, when there were substantial civilian casualties on both sides of the frontline.

[Apparently, at the Guardian "genocide" doesn't apply to cumulative deaths over a period of time, but only what has happened today. - js]

Truth About Ukraine/Russia NOT What You Think

Western Media Fall in Lockstep for Neo-Nazi Publicity Stunt in Ukraine

When the corporate media push for war, one of their main weapons is propaganda by omission.

In the case of the recent crisis in Ukraine, Western journalists have omitted key context about the expansion of NATO since the end of the Cold War, as well as US support for the Maidan coup in 2014 (FAIR.org, 1/28/22).

A third and crucial case of propaganda by omission relates to the integration of neo-Nazis into the Ukrainian armed forces (FAIR.org, 3/7/14, 1/28/22). If the corporate media reported more critically about Western support for the neo-Nazi-infested Ukrainian security services, and how these forces function as a front-line proxy of US foreign policy, public support for war might be reduced and military budgets called into greater question.

As recent coverage demonstrates, one way of resolving this issue is by not mentioning the inconvenient matter of Ukrainian neo-Nazis altogether.

The Azov Battalion

In 2014, the Azov Battalion was incorporated into the National Guard of Ukraine (NGU) to assist with fighting against pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine.

At the time, the militia’s association with neo-Nazism was well documented: The unit used the Nazi-inspired Wolfsangel symbol as its logo, while its soldiers sported Nazi insignia on their combat helmets. In 2010, the Azov Battalion’s founder declared that Ukraine should “lead the white races of the world in a final crusade…against Semite-led Untermenschen.”

The Azov Battalion is now an official regiment of the NGU, and operates under the authority of the Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs.

‘A granny with a gun’

In mid-February 2022, as tensions mounted between the US and Russia over Ukraine, the Azov Battalion organized a military training course for Ukrainian civilians in the port city of Mariupol.

Images of Valentyna Konstantynovska, a 79-year-old Ukrainian learning to handle an AK-47, soon featured across the Western broadcast and print media.

The figure of a pensioner lining up to protect her homeland made for an emotive image, collapsing the conflict into a simple good versus evil binary, while adding weight to US and British intelligence assessments forecasting an immediate full-scale Russian invasion.

Such a narrative was not to be ruined by reference to the neo-Nazi group training her. Indeed, mention of the Azov Battalion was largely erased from mainstream coverage of the event.

The BBC (2/13/22), for instance, showed a clip of “civilians lining up for a few hours’ military training with the National Guard,” with International Correspondent Orla Guerin describing Konstantynovska endearingly as “a granny with a gun.” Though Azov Battalion insignia was visible in the report, Guerin made no reference to it, and the report ends perversely with an NGU combatant helping a child to load an ammunition magazine.

The BBC (12/13/14) has not always been so reluctant to discuss the Azov Battalion’s neo-Nazism. In 2014, the broadcaster noted that its leader “considers Jews and other minorities ‘sub-human’ and calls for a white, Christian crusade against them,” while it “sports three Nazi symbols on its insignia.”

Both MSNBC (2/14/22) and ABC News (2/13/22) also reported from Mariupol, showing similar video footage of an Azov Battalion member teaching Konstantynovska to use a rifle. As with the BBC, no mention was made of the regiment’s far right association.

Sky News updated its initial report (2/13/22) to include mention of the “far right” trainers (2/14/22), while Euronews (2/13/22) made a rare mention of the Azov Battalion in its initial coverage.

‘Glorification of Nazism’

The printed press fared little better. On February 13, UK newspapers the London Times and the Daily Telegraph ran front-page spreads showing Konstantynovska preparing her weapon, without any reference to the Azov Battalion running the training course.

Worse still, both the Times and the Daily Telegraph had already reported on the militia’s neo-Nazi associations. In September 2014, the Times described the Azov Battalion as “a group of heavily armed men” with “at least one sporting a Nazi logo…preparing for the defense of Mariupol,” adding that the group had been “formed by a white supremacist.” For its part, the Daily Telegraph described the battalion in 2014 as “the neo-Nazi brigade fighting pro-Russian separatists.”

In light of NATO’s recent posturing in defense of Ukraine, the fact of the Azov Battalion’s neo-Nazism seems to have become an inconvenience.

On December 16, 2021, only the US and Ukraine voted against a United Nations resolution condemning the “glorification of Nazism,” while the United Kingdom and Canada abstained. There can be little doubt that this decision was made with the conflict in Ukraine in mind.

In the doctrine of Western militarism, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And if that friend happens to enlist neo-Nazis, Western corporate media can be relied on to look the other way.

Yanis Varoufakis: Europe Must Stand with Ukraine, Condemn Putin & Roll Back NATO to Restore Peace

Why a swift economic victory against Russia looks unlikely

On the face of it, it should be an unequal fight. ... But, as those who have taken on Russia in the past have found to their cost, appearances can be deceptive and there are a number of reasons why a swift victory by the west looks unlikely.

Firstly, Putin has been actively seeking to insulate Russia from the west ever since the invasion of the Crimea in 2014. Western imports of meat, fruit, vegetables and dairy were banned when sanctions were imposed. Secondly, self-sufficiency has been accompanied by an attempt at diversification, with a deliberate policy pivot towards China. An agreement with Beijing – again in 2014 – paved the way for the construction of the Power of Siberia – a gas pipeline linking the two countries that opened in 2019. ...

Thirdly, Russia has used the money received from its oil and gas exports to build up substantial financial defences. Moscow is sitting on foreign currency reserves of about $500bn (£369bn) and, by international standards, has extremely low levels of national debt. Whereas the pandemic has sent the UK’s national debt to GDP ratio spiralling above 100%, in Russia it is below 20%. That financial firepower may well blunt one of the weapons the west intends to deploy in response to the crisis in Ukraine: a ban on Russia issuing or trading its sovereign debt in London and New York. The amount of bonds Russia needs to sell is relatively small, and only 10% of the total was bought by non-residents last year.

Finally, Putin has some weapons of his own that he may be tempted to use in retaliation against western sanctions. Russia provides 40% of the EU’s oil and coal, and 20% of its gas. It is the world’s biggest exporter of fertiliser and of palladium, a crucial component for the auto industry because it is needed to make catalytic converters. The Kiel Institute, a German thinktank, says stopping gas exports would knock 3% off Russian GDP while ending oil exports would result in a 1.2% hit. While western countries would be able to source their energy elsewhere, a reduction in supply would inevitably lead to rising oil and gas prices.

Panic, Fear, Disbelief: Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine Could Prompt Humanitarian, Refugee Crisis

Ukrainians ready for resistance: ‘The whole country will be fighting back’

If Russian forces try to take new territory in Ukraine, they will face an army that is far smaller and less well equipped than their own but hardened by eight years of fighting.

Nearly a decade of war has also left Ukraine with nearly half a million combat-experienced veterans, many now preparing to fight again, officially or unofficially.

That combination, and the sheer size of Ukrainian territory, means that even if Russia can outgun Ukrainian forces on a conventional battlefield, any military clash could lead to a protracted and bloody partisan conflict.

“The Russian army has better weapons and technical equipment than us, so we may lose battles or campaigns. But they can never win the country if the Ukrainian people are motivated,” said Serhiy Kryvonos, a retired special forces general and former deputy secretary of the national security and defence council.

Kryvonos is travelling the country speaking to veterans and organising weapons training to prepare for a popular uprising should Russia invade. “Look at the experience of Afghanistan. It could not be held by the Soviet Union, by the USA, by the United Kingdom,” he said. “They could not beat the Taliban because they were well motivated. Their strongest weapon was their partisans, civilians by day, then at night they took up weapons to shoot or bury a bomb in the road.”

Oil SKYROCKETS, Markets Tank As Gas Price Surge Likely

More than 1,000 Hershey’s workers vote on plan to unionize Virginia plant

Around 1,300 workers at a Hershey’s candy manufacturing plant in Stuarts Draft, Virginia, are voting on whether to unionize, in a move organizers say is led by older workers seeking to ensure good benefits for newer employees. The ballots for the mail-in election to join the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers’ International Union will be sent to workers on 24 February, with results to be counted on 24 March.

The Hershey Company is publicly opposing the effort, encouraging workers to vote against it and hiring the union-busting Labor Relations Institute to hold captive audience meetings with workers. The LRI has also created an anti-union website ahead of the election, and reportedly made “union-free” lawn signs to distribute throughout the community. Workers at two of seven Hershey plants in the US are currently represented by unions.

A worker at the Virginia plant, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation, said the union organizing drive began in September. The worker said employees suffer from a lack of respect and dignity on the job, grueling work schedules and conditions, and a two-tier system in which younger and newer workers are paid less than previous groups of employees.

The union drive is being led by longtime workers nearing retirement, who are trying to ensure incoming workers are afforded the same pay, benefits, and working conditions they received when they began.

“When you work seven days a week and you don’t know when you’re getting a day off, you’re just living so you can go to work,” said the worker. “We’re not the happy place to work that you would think a chocolate plant would be right now.”

Woman sues LAPD for wrongful imprisonment in a case of mistaken identity

A California woman is suing the Los Angeles police department after she was imprisoned for nearly two weeks before officers determined they had the wrong suspect. Authorities reportedly mistook Bethany K Farber for a woman with the same name who was wanted in Texas.

Farber said she was traveling to Mexico in April 2021 when Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents at Los Angeles international airport detained her, eventually informing her that there was a warrant out for her arrest in Texas. The aesthetician was arrested and booked into jail, where she was held for 13 days without bail. “I asked them repeatedly to double check and they completely blew me off,” Farber said. “They said, ‘Nope, Bethany Farber, we have you.’”

In a federal civil rights lawsuit filed on Tuesday, Farber accused the city, airport police and the LAPD of violating her civil rights and falsely arresting and imprisoning her, intentionally inflicting emotional distress. Farber also alleged officials kept her in custody for three days after learning they had the wrong person in custody. ...

According to the lawsuit, police arrested her without checking her driver’s license, asking for any personally identifying information or using any other method to confirm her identity. Farber and the woman police were after “had nothing in common besides their name”, the complaint states, and don’t share a physical resemblance.

Breonna Taylor: trial begins for only officer charged in botched raid

Nearly two years after Breonna Taylor was killed by police, the only Kentucky officer charged criminally in the botched raid went on trial Wednesday for shooting into Taylor’s neighbors’ apartment. Brett Hankison, now a former officer, fired 10 shots through a side door. None of those bullets hit Taylor, but prosecutors said they endangered the couple and child who lived next door. He’s charged with three counts of wanton endangerment, and faces up to five years in prison if convicted of the low-level felony.

Assistant Kentucky attorney general Barbara Maines Whaley told jurors the case is not about the killing of Taylor, for which the city of Louisville paid a settlement to her family, an amount that won’t bring her back. Nor, she said, is it about police decisions that led to the raid. She said the charges are focused on Hankison’s decision to fire blindly through Taylor’s apartment, endangering her neighbors.

Before Taylor’s door was breached, Hankison escalated the situation by yelling at a neighbor to go back inside, she said. And once the shooting started, “He’s shooting in a different direction than the other two detectives,” she said.

Defense attorney Stewart Mathews countered that Hankison was justified in what he did during a chaotic scene that lasted about 10 to 15 seconds from when Taylor’s door was breached to when the shooting stopped.

Key inquiry into Trump’s finances in jeopardy as two prosecutors resign

One of the most aggressive criminal investigations against Donald Trump appears to be running into the sand after the two leading prosecutors in the Manhattan district attorney’s office investigating the former president’s finances resigned.

The inquiry by Manhattan prosecutors into the operations of Trump and the Trump Organization has been among the most dangerous of the many legal perils facing him. The investigation, which began in August 2018 under the former district attorney Cyrus Vance and continued under incumbent Alvin Bragg, has dug ever deeper into alleged discrepancies in the value of the family’s assets in an effort to show a pattern of fraudulent behavior.

According to the New York Times, the two top prosecutors on the case, Carey Dunne and Mark Pomerantz, quit the proceedings amid signs that the move on Trump is stalling as it reaches a make-or-break moment. ... The newspaper reports that a grand jury convened under the Manhattan investigation as the first step towards indicting the former president has gone silent for the past month, with no witnesses called before it.

Anonymous sources told the Times that Bragg, who took over the investigation when he began as DA in January, had indicated that he was uncertain about taking the case to the next level.

Whatever Bragg decides to do in the coming days and weeks, it is clear that his office has been under mounting pressure recently as the inquiry reached a critical stage. Prosecutors were aware that the clock is running down as the present grand jury’s term comes to an end in April.

Night-time attack on controversial Canadian gas pipeline site

Police in Canada have released footage of axe wielding attackers as they investigate a “calculated and organised” night-time raid on a remote work camp. Up to 20 people are believed to have attacked Coastal GasLink’s pipeline construction camp last week on Marten Forest Service Road in British Columbia. Dressed all in white, the attackers smashed vehicles with axes, including one vehicle with a security guard inside. ...

The attackers spray painted the vehicle’s window and set off what was believed to be a flare gun. The group then hijacked heavy machinery, using it to destroy buildings and a drill pad. The company estimated that the cost of the damage was in millions of dollars.

The few workers at the camp were escorted to vehicles by security guards and driven to safety. No injuries were reported in the attack.

When police arrived, they found the service road blocked by trees, tar-covered stumps and a wooden board with spikes. Police say people in the forest threw smoke bombs and fire-lit sticks at them as they approached the camp. “Because of the nightfall and the actual booby traps that were set up, and one of our members actually getting injured … the attackers just ended up disappearing into the forest,” Sascha Baldinger, a sergeant in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, said on Saturday.

No suspects have been identified and no group has claimed responsibility.

Outrage as DeJoy Finalizes Plan to Buy Gas-Guzzling Trucks

Progressive lawmakers and environmentalists voiced outrage Wednesday after the U.S. Postal Service—led by Trump megadonor Louis DeJoy—finalized its plan to purchase a fleet of largely gas-powered delivery trucks, a move that flouts President Joe Biden's proposed transition to zero-emission government vehicles.

The USPS announced in a press release that it "completed its obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, which, in this instance, evaluated the potential environmental impacts of the Postal Service's Next Generation Vehicle Delivery (NGDV) program."

The agency described its move to purchase upwards of 165,000 new trucks—90% of which will be gas-powered—as "fiscally and environmentally responsible," but critics argued the analysis underpinning that characterization is badly flawed.

"DeJoy's plans for the postal fleet will drag us back decades with a truck model that gets laughable fuel economy. We may as well deliver the mail with hummers," Adrian Martinez, a senior attorney at Earthjustice, said in a statement. "DeJoy's environmental review is rickety, founded on suspect calculations, and fails to meet the standards of the law. We're not done fighting this reckless decision."

According to EarthJustice, the "new combustion model gets worse mileage than the 1988 Grumman postal truck model when new, and is designed to weigh just one pound over the threshold that would have subjected it to more efficient light-duty vehicle standards."

"Under the National Environmental Policy Act, federal entities must analyze the consequences of their actions before making them," the group noted. "Here, the Postal Service did a deeply flawed analysis too late. In addition, the Postal Service has thus far avoided holding public hearings on the plans, and says it is rejecting the comments from over 20,000 members of the public who commented on the final plan through Earthjustice's action portal."

The USPS announcement came just three weeks after Biden's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) raised several issues with the mail service's earlier climate analysis of its multibillion-dollar deal with the Wisconsin-based corporation Oshkosh Defense, which plans to manufacture the new delivery trucks with non-union labor in South Carolina.

Specifically, the EPA accused the Postal Service of underestimating the new fleet's future greenhouse gas emissions and failing to "consider more environmentally protective feasible alternatives."

The Postal Service insisted Wednesday that it "carefully reviewed and incorporated feedback" from the EPA and DeJoy claimed his plan for a 10% electric fleet is "ambitious," but climate advocates were far from satisfied.

"USPS is clinging to a polluting past with its inexcusable and shortsighted dirty fleet plan, a decision that will have consequences for decades to come," said Katherine García, Sierra Club's Clean Transportation for All director. "The Biden administration, Congress, environmental and public health groups, and air regulators have made it clear that electrifying the Postal Service must be a top priority for climate and public health."

"Refusing to hold a public hearing on such a flawed and controversial plan speaks volumes about the ill intentions of Postmaster Louis DeJoy," García added. "There should be no reason this plan is moving forward in 2022."

While it's undeniable that the aging USPS fleet is in desperate need of replacement—as evidenced by the hundreds of delivery trucks that have caught fire in recent years—environmentalists and progressive members of Congress have argued that the new vehicles should be completely electric, so as to help tackle the biggest single source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

It's not clear precisely how opponents of DeJoy's plan intend to respond as the USPS—an independent agency—plows ahead with the purchasing process. Martinez of Earthjustice told the Washington Post earlier this month that he "highly suspects" environmental advocates will try to take the Postal Service to court over the contract.

In Congress, Democratic lawmakers are reportedly "exploring ways of blocking the plan," but their options are uncertain.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) wrote in a Twitter post Wednesday that "we need to tear this deal up and build an all-electric fleet of USPS vehicles."

"Postmaster Louis DeJoy is making a huge mistake rejecting the reality of climate change and the commitments that President Biden has made to confront this crisis," Markey added.

Wildfires likely to increase by a third by 2050, warns UN

Wildfires that have devastated California, Australia and Siberia will become 50% more common by the end of the century, according to a new report that warns of uncontrollable blazes ravaging previously unaffected parts of the planet. The escalating climate crisis and land-use change are driving a global increase in extreme wildfires, with a 14% increase predicted by 2030 and a 30% increase by 2050, according to a UN report involving more than 50 international researchers.

The findings suggest there should be a radical change in public spending on wildfires. The report said governments were putting their money in the wrong place by focusing on the work of emergency services when preventing fires would be a more effective approach. ... Direct responses to wildfires receive more than 50% of funding now, while planning and prevention get less than 1%. The paper calls for a “fire-ready formula” with investments rebalanced so half goes on planning, preventing and preparedness, about a third on response and 20% for recovery. ...

There are many natural solutions, including starting controlled fires using prescribed burning, managing landscapes by grazing animals to reduce the amount of flammable material in the landscape, as well as removing trees too close to people’s homes. There should be more science-based monitoring systems combined with indigenous knowledge and better international cooperation, the paper’s authors said, ahead of the UN Environment Assembly in Nairobi. ...

Wildfires have exacerbated the climate crisis by destroying carbon-rich ecosystems such as peatlands, permafrost and forests, making the landscape more flammable. Restoring ecosystems such as wetlands and peatlands helps prevent fires from happening and creates buffers in the landscape.

California farmers left out to dry as US government allots no water

Officials are preparing for yet another critical water year in California as the state – along with most of the American west – remains mired in drought.

The federal government said Wednesday that it won’t deliver water to farmers in California’s agricultural belt, which produces roughly a quarter of the nation’s food, due to the extreme water shortages that are expected to deepen if the direly dry conditions continue through March.

“It’s devastating to the agricultural economy and to those people that rely on it,” said Ernest Conant, regional director for the US Bureau of Reclamation, adding that this year may turn out to be worse than 2021, when drought conditions forced farmers to fallow hundreds of thousands of acres of land. “But unfortunately we can’t make it rain.”

The federal government operates the Central Valley Project in California, a complex system of dams, reservoirs and canals. It’s one of two major water systems the state relies on for agriculture, drinking water, and the environment. The other system is run by the state government. This is the fourth time in the last decade that farmers south of the San Joaquin-Sacramento River Delta have gotten no water from the federal government.

Water agencies contract with the federal government for certain amounts of water each year. In February, the federal government announces how much of those contracts can be fulfilled based on how much water is available. The government then updates the allocations throughout the year based on conditions. Last year, farmers started the year with a 5% allocation from the federal government but ended at 0% as the drought intensified. This year, the federal government is starting farmers at 0% while water for other purposes, including drinking and industrial uses, is at 25%.

Also of Interest

Here are some articles of interest, some which defied fair-use abstraction.

DIANA JOHNSTONE: US Foreign Policy Is a Cruel Sport

Understanding Putin’s narrative about Ukraine is the master key to this crisis

What Is the Difference Between Kosovo & Donbass?

Ukraine Shrinks Again

No Actually The US Empire Is Still The Power To Criticize: Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix

Trudeau More Authoritarian Than Trump? PM ENDS Emergencies Act As Banks See RECORD Funds Withdrawn

Kim Iversen: Digital IDs To Be Rolled Out By Big Banks For WEF's GREAT RESET Agenda

A Little Night Music

Big John Wrencher - Take A Little Walk With Me

Big John Wrencher & Eddie Taylor - Telephone Blues

Big John Wrencher - Ha-Ha Baby

Big John Wrencher - Trouble Making Woman

Johnny Young, John Lee Granderson And John Wrencher - Green Door Blues

Big John Wrencher - Conductor Blues

Joe Carter with Big John Wrencher - You're The One

Big John Wrencher - Maxwell Street Alley Blues

Big John Wrencher - Runnin' Wild

Big John Wrencher - Back porch boogie