The Defense Production Act won’t bring us supply-chain security
Emphasizing the importance of rare earth metals and minerals to America’s national security and economic well-being, two prominent members of Congress — Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), head of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the committee’s ranking Republican — have urged President Biden to ramp up domestic mining operations immediately by invoking the Defense Production Act (DPA).
Title III of that 1950 law was dusted off by President Trump to jumpstart the production of ventilators for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. President Biden issued executive orders in February 2021 authorizing the act’s taxpayer-financed incentives — loans, loan guarantees, direct purchases and purchase commitments — to ensure that the U.S. economy has sufficient capacity to produce “critical items” like vaccines and personal protective equipment.
More than two years into the federal government’s demonstrably ineffective and costly response to the now-endemic SARS-CoV-2 virus, Washington seems to have awoken at long last to another policy-manufactured “crisis” that has been in the making for two decades: overreliance on imports from China and other hostile trading partners for supplies of essential inputs such as nickel, lithium, and manganese.
A year ago Murkowski called U.S. dependence on mineral imports our Achilles’ heel. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the ensuing chaos in global commodity markets seem to make it even more urgent to address the problem head-on.
It is true that U.S. manufacturers rely fully on mining operations located overseas for supplies of 17 essential minerals, including most of the metals required for electric-vehicle batteries. China is home to about 16 percent of the world’s capacity for mining and processing raw lithium. It also dominates global cobalt supplies from the mines it controls in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where much of that blue metal is found and is a major player in nickel. All told, China controls about 80 percent of the materials necessary for making batteries, and is the chief source of rare earth minerals, along with almost all manganese and graphite-refining capacity on the planet.
Russia and two former Soviet states, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, account for just under half of the fuel consumed by U.S. nuclear power plants, nuclear medicine facilities, and other industrial uses. As one response to the Ukraine invasion, the Senate is considering a ban on uranium imports from Russia, from which the United States obtains 16 percent of its total uranium supplies.
Depending on China and Russia for imports of critical materials would not be worrisome in a peaceful world of unfettered international commerce. But that is not the world now dancing to the tunes of Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.
The irony is that neither globalization nor supply-chain interruptions explain why the United States relies heavily on foreign suppliers of production-critical minerals. Such resources — worth an estimated $6.2 trillion — are available in the ground here. They remain unexploited, though, because of environmental and other regulations that hamstring domestic mining operations. A decade or more is required nowadays just to obtain the permits needed to open a new mine, assuming that the permits eventually are granted. Minerals production can be “re-shored” by lightening the regulatory burden on U.S. mining operations and speeding the permitting process.
Invoking the Korean War-era Defense Production Act is an ill-considered response to a supply-chain crisis for which Washington itself largely is responsible. It represents crony capitalism at its worst, empowering politicians and bureaucrats to shower financial incentives on some U.S. mining companies but not others.
President Biden is notorious for trying to shift blame to “Big Oil” and “Big Food” for inflation and other adverse consequences of his own policies. He has warned that the United States faces serious materials shortages that could derail efforts to deploy advanced clean-energy technologies and even to produce weapons essential for national defense.
While it may seem counterintuitive, the digital age and the brave new world of fossil-free energy will require more mining than ever. The demand for lithium, for example, is predicted to explode 42 times its current level by 2040. Getting Washington out of the way and allowing market price and profit signals to guide resources into the mining of “critical” minerals is a surer path to supply-chain security than channeling taxpayer-financed largesse to a few favored recipients.
Mobilizing one policy tool (the Defense Production Act) to offset the counterproductive effects of another (keeping minerals “in the ground”) is a fool’s errand, but it’s business as usual in our nation’s capital.
********************************************
MSNBC, CNN, ABC and more repeatedly pushed critical race theory ideology on TV while denying it exists
Liberal media outlets hosted guests that espoused CRT phrases like ‘systemic’ and ‘institutional racism’ while hosts claimed the educational theory was a myth created by Republicans.
Jon Stewart’s new episode of his Apple TV show saw the comedian host left-wing guests who took on the topic of race in America, arguing that all White people are on some level inherently racist and uphold the "systems" and "structures" of racism in U.S. law and culture.
It was yet another example of ideology crucial to critical race theory (CRT) receiving a prime media platform, which MSNBC, CNN, ABC, and other mainstream media outlets have pushed consistently while at times denying CRT exists.
The topic of CRT was reignited this month when Republican lawmakers fielded questions about it to Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson. Liberal media networks subsequently accused the GOP of racism, sexism, and more.
Back in January, when it was announced that President Biden would make good on his campaign promise to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court, "The View" co-host Sunny Hostin pushed back on the idea the president was playing "identity politics" and argued the candidate would likely be "overqualified" because she had overcome institutional and systemic racism.
"If a Black woman graduated from Harvard and graduated from Harvard Law School, even in spite of sort of the institutional racism, the systemic racism that occurs in this country, that is just part of the very fabric of this country, she’s probably overqualified for any of these positions and that is just the truth of it," Hostin said.
Multiple media outlets, including "The View," have frequently uttered phrases found in CRT definitions, books and educational papers despite claims that CRT is "lie" or "boogeyman" created by the GOP. Some pundits have even asserted that CRT simply "does not exist" despite a plethora of online resources, even resources found on their own websites, which indicate the contrary.
In April 2020 with the pandemic just beginning, contributor Eddie Glaude Jr. said on MSNBC that the increased rate of COVID morbidity for Black Americans was the result of "deep structural racism that has defined American society for generations."
Dr. Chris Pernell, a public health physician, also told CNN in January 2021 that "systemic racism" was to blame for the disproportionate number of COVID deaths among Black Americans.
As the 2020 presidential campaign season kicked off, MSNBC analyst Zerlina Maxwell speculated the Iowa Caucus was a "perfect example of systemic racism" because 91% of the state’s voters are White and the "kids in cages" at the Southern Border were not.
New York Times editorial board member and MSNBC analyst Mara Gay took it a step further when she claimed in June 2021 that it was "not a theory" but a "fact" that racism is "embedded in the structure" of American institutions.
ABC also jumped in on the action when liberal commentator Angela Rye said "systemic racism" was not something you could "cherry-pick" and decide when one wants it to apply. "It means the system at its core is rotten," she added.
Moments later she asserted that White Americans carry "White body supremacy" while Black Americans carry "Black body trauma."
MSNBC, ABC, CNN, and CBS made references to "systemic racism" and "institutional racism" as well as other points that indicated American government and laws were inherently racist on numerous other occasions, echoing an important facet of CRT.
Yet, many of these media networks also downplayed CRT or outright denied its existence despite engaging in its vernacular and themes.
Both MSNBC’s Joy Reid and then-CNN anchor Chris Cuomo referred to CRT as a "bogeyman" propped up by conservative politicians.
The day after the Virginia gubernatorial race, CBS late night host Stephen Colbert said it must be difficult to campaign against someone who’s "promising to eliminate things that don’t exist," referring to Youngkin's opposition to CRT.
Following Youngkin’s win, MSNBC anchor Nicolle Wallace declared that CRT "isn’t real."
"…Critical Race Theory, which isn’t real, turned the suburbs 15 points to the Trump insurrection-endorsed Republican," Wallace said.
In a separate segment she compared banning CRT to "banning ghosts."
"There are no ghosts," she added.
Many other pundits and guests, while not flat-out denying its existence, claimed that CRT was not taught in Virginia schools or virtually any K-12 schools in the country and instead could only be found at the college-level.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbc-cnn-abc-critical-race-theory-republicans
*******************************************British Leftist leader refuses to answer when asked whether a woman can have a penis
Sir Keir Starmer refused to answer the question of whether a woman can have a penis in the latest Labour Party confusion over the transgender debate.
The topic has been a point of division in the party for more than a year after Sir Keir said backbencher Rosie Duffield’s comment that “only women have a cervix” was “not right”.
Yvette Cooper and Anneliese Dodds, two of Labour’s frontbench MPs, both declined to give a definition of a woman on International Women’s Day earlier this month.
Speaking to LBC’s Nick Ferrari during a phone-in, Sir Keir, the Labour leader, was asked multiple times whether or not “a woman can have a penis”.
“I don’t think that discussing this issue in this way helps anyone in the long run,” he said.
“What I want to see is a reform of the law as it is, but I am also an advocate of safe spaces for women and I want to have a discussion that is... Anybody who genuinely wants to find a way through this, I want to discuss that with. I do find that too many people – in my view – retreat or hold a position of which is intolerant of others.
“And that’s not picking on any individual at all, but I don’t like intolerance, I like open discussion.”
Placeholder image for youtube video: r81aZGJHDeM
Asked by a caller whether it was fair that transgender women were allowed to compete in women’s sports, Sir Keir said it was a matter “for the sporting bodies to decide for themselves”, acknowledging that there were “difficult questions”.
Lia Thomas, a swimmer transitioning from male to female, this month became the first transgender person to win a title at the highest level of American collegiate sport.
*************************************************
How gender studies took over the world
Raquel Rosario Sánchez
Why are so many people in such a muddle over the word ‘woman’? Sadly, a share of the blame falls on women’s studies and gender studies. I should know: this has been my academic field for over a decade.
As a teaching assistant, I remember repeating the phrase ‘there is more difference among the sexes than between the sexes’ in front of a group of students, without properly thinking it through. A sociology of gender professor taught me that, and I absorbed it like a sponge. It was only upon reflection that I realised the consequences of denying sex differences. Most of my cohort never changed their minds.
During the confirmation hearings this week of Ketanji Brown Jackson, who could become the first black female Supreme Court judge in the United States, Jackson was asked to define the word woman. She refused, saying: ‘I am not a biologist.’
Just a few days earlier, a fierce debate opened up in the US regarding the inclusion of male athletes in female sports, following the high-profile victory of trans swimmer Lia Thomas over other women in the National Collegiate Athletic Association swimming championship.
In Britain, some politicians are at last seeing sense on the gender issue. At PMQs this week, Boris Johnson said: ‘When it comes to distinguishing between a man and a woman, the basic facts of biology remain overwhelmingly important.’ But plenty of his colleagues in Parliament don’t appear to agree.
The subject I have spent years studying carries a great deal of responsibility for the reason why progressive politicians like Labour’s Anneliese Dodds, the shadow minister for women and equalities, become unstuck when it comes to the word ‘woman’. During an appearance on International Women’s Day, of all days, Dodds was asked to define what the five-letter word meant: ‘I think it does depend what the context is surely,’ she said. While Dodds didn’t answer the question, her response was revealing.
Why? Because focusing on ‘context’ is the way academics in my field try to deal with difficult implications of their views on gender. In Women’s Realities, Women’s Choices, a foundational text in women’s studies published in 1983, the Hunter College Women’s Studies collective pondered:
‘Do biological characteristics give us a definition of ‘woman’? The answer is not as simple as we might expect it to be. Biological and physical attributes are frequently used in defining ‘woman.’ Scientists, who are primarily men, reflect the biases of the culture. Average differences between males and females in physical behavioural attributes, such as physical strength and height are frequently cited. An average, however, is a statistical concept. The range of differences within any one sex is greater than it is the average differences between the sexes.’
While this line of thinking – which blends the barriers between the sexes – started off as a campus pursuit, it has now oozed out into the mainstream – as Dodds’ confusion shows all too clearly. Women’s studies sought to transform and revolutionise academia by applying scientific rigour to the concept that ‘the personal is political.’ Given the hostile reception to the movement at the time, this could only be achieved by squashing the idea that female biology – the ability to carry and feed children – determined our destiny.
The idea was that if a patriarchal system treats women as inherently inferior to men then it made sense to ferociously advocate that both sexes are, in fact, equal in almost every respect. So biology became an enemy that would naturally come back to haunt us. In this pursuit for equality, what we all surely know to be true – that humans are differentiated by sex on a chromosomal level – was left out of the picture.
Yet while progressive politicians – and gender studies theorists – might like to imagine there is no downside to this approach, they are wrong. After all, pretending that male and female bodies are no different from each other risks causing no end of problems: women suffering from a heart attack might be dismissed as having anxiety and stress. Why? Because the medical establishment has long been dominated by men. It seems natural that male doctors are more likely to educate students on male bodies and ‘male symptoms’ for many ailments. If women and men are viewed as one and the same, these differences can get ignored.
More broadly, feminists have rightly raised concerns that blending the two sexes could represent a green light for a man to access women’s prisons, refuges and sport competitions. There is also a risk that statistical data needed to understand the scale of male violence against women is muddled up.
As for women’s studies, this gender confusion also poses an important conundrum: if there is no material difference between men and women, why do feminists need an academic field devoted solely to one sex? This argument, along with the parasitic emergence of postmodernism, saw women’s studies shape shift into the more encompassing gender studies, and lately into a cooler incarnation in the form of queer studies. The revolutionary project was torpedoed from within.
Now as these departments churn out ‘gender specialists’ and ‘gender consultants’ into the world, intent on erasing biological differences from policy and legislation, we are all paying the price. Mediocre male athletes take gold in women’s sports competitions; women feel uneasy about whether their locker rooms and safe spaces are indeed safe.
Although I was never a true believer of ‘gender identity’ theories, I realised I needed to change my mind about some of the most strident arguments I had accepted as received wisdom. Will Labour do the same and ever come back from this brink? Under Keir Starmer’s leadership, it seems unlikely.
If so, they are making a grave mistake. While blurring the lines between the sexes has a certain appeal to both the academic and the political fringes, there are life and death conversations to be had about women’s health, safety and privacy. None of us need a dictionary to define half the planet’s population. We just need common sense and a backbone.
https://spectator.com.au/2022/03/how-gender-studies-took-over-the-world/
************************************************The Boris Johnson version of freedom
“I’ll tell you something. It is the invincible strength of this country that we believe by and large and within the law that people should be able to do whatever they want provided they don’t do any harm to anybody else. And that’s called freedom [and] we don’t need to be woke, we just want to be free.”
These are the spring conference words of the man who banned Christmas.
These are the words of a man whose government have banned TV stations that give a different view.
These are the words of the man who oversaw the greatest assault on your rights and your freedom in peacetime in the modern era.
These are the words of Lockdown Boris. The man who put millions of us under house arrest and decided that HE, rather than WE, decide which experimental medicines we have the right to refuse.
He made us so f*cking free that people were arrested for sitting on a park bench.
“By and large and within the law”. Which means, you are only free when you obey. You only have rights when they are bestowed by your government. There are no inalienable rights anymore, no firm boundaries on what your government can and cannot do.
There are still millions of people who don’t realise this. Who think that our freedom is ‘real’ when it can be taken away at will, and still ‘real’ because it is handed back like a tattered gift given by an abusive partner. I kicked the shit out of you darling, buy yourself a nice dress.
This is the context that makes the I Stand With Ukraine drones so grotesque. The sudden NATO lovers. The absurdity of digging up old Thatcher quotes as if western leadership and the West of today was the freedom loving West of the past.
That’s gone. That was thrown away and shit on. By the people the drones just keep obeying and keep trusting and keep taking seriously when they talk about freedom.
Boris locked you in your f*cking house and told you that you couldn’t visit your dying relative and that if some Marxist geek in a lab coat wanted to inject your little child with a toxic just invented cocktail of MRNA experiments by god you better just f*cking accept it and thank the State for being so generous with its expensive poison.
Boris. Not Putin. The ‘Free West’ has been riding down freedom protests with cavalry charges and happily allowing you to starve for the wrong opinion. How the f*ck can anyone still not see that? Just because, probably, they are themselves pretty comfortable financially and pretty happy to conform with whatever f*cking lie they are sold next.
“Freedom” in the mouth of ANY globalist is like “I love you” slobbered on you by your rapist.
https://libertarianism.uk/2022/03/23/your-rapist-loves-you/
****************************************My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See 
No comments:
Post a Comment