Book Review: ‘Who Will Defend Europe? An Awakened Russia and a Sleeping Continent’

November 3, 2024Posted inopinionNo Comments

Despite frequent US calls to lift defence spending, most of NATO’s European members pocketed a ‘peace dividend’ in recent years by reducing their armed forces and defence industries. They imagined that war would never return to Europe and that, in any event, they could rely on the US to ensure their national security.

Both of these assumptions were illusory, as Keir Giles argues in a new book, Who Will Defend Europe? Giles is a senior fellow at Chatham House and Director of the Conflict Studies Research Centre. He has been a very active and prescient analyst of Russia, especially since the invasion of Ukraine, notably through his books Moscow Rules and Russia’s War on Everybody.

Book Review: Autocracy, Inc by Anne Applebaum

August 11, 2024Posted inopinion1 Comment

One of the most impressive aspects of the Ukraine war has been how over 40 countries, led by NATO, have rallied together to offer military, financial, and humanitarian support to Ukraine since the Russian invasion in February 2022.

But one of the most disturbing aspects has been how fellow autocratic regimes, notably China, Iran, and North Korea, have been providing substantial support to Russia.  Without this support, Russia’s war efforts would have most likely collapsed quite some time ago.  This is just one example of how modern autocracies are joining forces against their “common enemies”, the group of capitalist democracies and the rules-based world order, according to Anne Applebaum’s new book, Autocracy, Inc.: The Dictators Who Want to Run the World.


From photo by Andrea De Santis on Unsplash.

The China/Russia Axis

June 2, 2024Posted inopinionNo Comments

While the West has greatly assisted Ukraine against Russia’s aggression, China has substantially supported Russia despite China’s professed strong attachment to the principle of national sovereignty. How can we understand the China/Russia axis? How solid is this partnership? What does the future hold?


Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, Wikipedia, CC BY 4.0

Two Unsolved Saint Valentine’s Day Massacres – February 14, 2024

February 14, 2024Posted inopinionNo Comments

What do the two massacres that occurred on Saint Valentine’s Day have in common and how do they differ?

We start with the one which took place in Chicago Illinois and which is the most famous.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Al_Capone-around_1935.jpg

Credit

I can’t show you the photos since they are so valuable that they remain under copywrite protection due to a series of laws that have extended the copywrite provisions (wouldn’t you know how that works LOL) but you may be able to see great photos HERE or  HERE.   I have exceeded my limit of free reads.

HERE is a very good resource that has photos.
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia LINK  tells the story pretty well.
2122 N. Clark Street, the site of the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. Now a parking lot.

The Saint Valentine’s Day massacre was a mass murder that took place in Chicago, Illinois, United States, on the morning of 14 February 1929.[a] It was the most infamous event in the history of crime in the United States.

Background

Al Capone was the most powerful bootlegger in Chicago. By 1929 he had eliminated several of his rival crime bosses.[2] The last one on his “list” was Bugs Moran. Capone was trying to appear as if he was retired to Florida.[3] So Capone didn’t want to be seen as starting another gang war.[3] Instead, Capone gave the order to one of his associates, Jack McGurn, to eliminate Bugs Moran.[2]

Massacre

On the morning of 14 February, McGurn lured Moran and his men to a warehouse on Clark street. The bait was a stolen truckload of whisky they could buy cheap.[4] Seven of Moran’s men were there to inspect the load. A police car pulled up outside the building and several of Capone’s men dressed in Chicago police uniforms went in and pretended to arrest Moran’s men.[4] When they were lined up against a wall the killers pulled out Thompson submachine guns and opened fire. Six of the seven men were killed.[5] Moran himself was just arriving when he saw the police car and escaped.[4]

At this time murder was not a federal offense.[6] Most of the killers McGurn hired were from out of town. Police departments from different cities rarely could work together to solve crimes at that time. So the killers knew if they simply left Chicago after the massacre nobody could touch them.[6]

Results

Newspapers ran stories of the gangster shootings and prohibition lawlessness in Chicago.[7] These were complete with detailed photographs of the murders. At first many thought the Chicago police had committed the massacre.[b] But most people in Chicago thought Al Capone was behind the murders.[7] Capone had an alibi. He was at his winter home in Palm Beach, Florida when the murders took place. The suspicions finally resulted in the arrests of Vincenzio Damora and John Scalise. These were two of Capone’s known henchmen. Scalise was charged with the murders after Damora came up with an alibi. But Capone murdered Scalise himself before he could stand trial.[7] Public opinion also put pressure on the FBI to arrest Capone with any charge they could. In 1931 they finally charged him with tax evasion and sent him to prison.[9] Capone was sent to Alcatraz for eleven years. When he was finally released he was too sick to continue his crime career. He died in 1947.[9] Prohibition was repealed in 1933 which almost stopped bootlegging.[7]

The struggle by the FBI to come to grips with what happened is documented HERE and HERE. Let’s just say that the FBI had a great deal of difficulty with this case and the direct participants were not brought to justice but the possible leader Al Capone showed above was never charged let alone convicted of this crime. He had created a perfect alibi.  But the FBI got him for tax evasion.
 Why am I telling you this story today?  Certainly, it is appropriate to discuss what happened on  Saint Valentine’s Day in the past and this day has a lot of history including in the distant past a celebration of Christian Martyrs and later a celebration of love due to a poem by Chaucer.

But today I am using this occasion to remember the Mob Killing in Chicago and another Massacre or near Massacre in the state where I live which is New Mexico. More importantly, the chances of what happened here in New Mexico happening again seem to me to be substantial. Accidents can happen at LANL, the WIPP facility southeast of Carlsbad Caverns in New Mexico or somewhere along the route from Los Alamos National Labs (LANL) to WIPP (Waste Isolation Pilot Plant – which appears to be planned now as the sole storage facility in the U.S) or somewhere on the route from LANL to Savannah and Savannah back to WIPP which is a long trip with many opportunities for the radioactive materials being conveyed to have an accident or be stolen by saboteurs.

It is a complicated topic but today we will mostly talk about the accident on February 14, 2014 at the WIPP facility southeast of Carlsbad Caverns National Park. You can learn more about WIPP HERE.

Let us now talk about this other Saint Valentine’s Day massacre or an accident that was almost a massacre (we do not really know the full impact on those involved) and one that likely will be repeated. Most of these images were provided to me by Cynthia Weehler.  They are based on U.S. Government Documents so they should be considered accurate.

 

 

What happened? From Wikipedia  (LINK)

Incidents at the WIPP

On February 14, 2014, radioactive materials leaked from a damaged storage drum. Analysis of accidents at the WIPP, by DOE, have shown lack of a “safety culture” at the facility.[19]

On February 5, 2014 at around 11:00 a.m., a salt haul truck caught fire, prompting an evacuation of the underground facility.[20] Six workers were taken to a local hospital with smoke inhalation and were released by the next day. Lab tests after the fire confirmed that there was zero release of radiological material during, or as a result of, the fire.[21] Underground air-monitoring equipment was out of commission after the truck fire.[22]

On February 15, 2014, authorities ordered workers to shelter in place at the facility after air monitors had detected unusually high radiation levels at 11:30 p.m. the previous day. None of the facility’s 139 workers were underground at the time of the incident.[23][24] Later, trace amounts of airborne radiation consisting of americium and plutonium particles were discovered above ground, 0.5 mi (0.80 km) from the facility.[23] In total, 22 workers were exposed to radioactive contaminants equaling that of a standard chest x-ray.[25] The Carlsbad Current-Argus wrote: “the radiation leak occurred on the evening of February 14, according to new information made public at a news conference [on February 20]. Joe Franco, manager of the DOE Carlsbad Field Office, said an underground air monitor detected high levels of alpha and beta radiation activity consistent [sic] the waste buried at WIPP.”[26] Regarding the elevated levels of plutonium and americium detected outside the nuclear waste repository, Ryan Flynn, New Mexico Environment Secretary stated during a news conference: “Events like this simply should never occur. From the state’s perspective, one event is far too many.”[27]

On February 26, 2014, the DOE announced that 13 WIPP above-ground workers had tested positive for exposure to radioactive material. Other employees were in the process of being tested. On Thursday, February 27, DOE announced that it sent out “a letter to tell people in two counties what they do know so far. Officials said it is too early to know what that means for the workers’ health.”[28] Additional testing would be done on employees who were working at the site the day after the leak. Above ground, 182 employees continued to work. A February 27 update included comments on plans to discover what occurred below ground first by using unmanned probes and then people.[29][30]

The Southwest Research and Information Center released a report on April 15, 2014[31] that one or more of 258 contact-handled radioactive waste containers located in room 7, panel 7 of the underground repository released radioactive and toxic chemicals.[32] The location of the leak was estimated to be approximately 1,500 feet (460 m) from the air monitor that triggered the contaminants in the filtration system. The contaminants were spread through more than 3,000 feet (910 m) of tunnels, leading to the 2,150-foot (660 m) exhaust shaft into the surrounding above-ground environment. Air-monitoring station #107, located 0.5 miles (0.8 km) away, detected the radiotoxins. The filter from station #107 was analyzed by the Carlsbad Environmental Monitoring and Research Center (CEMRC) and found to contain 0.64 becquerels (Bq) per cubic meter of air of americium-241 and 0.014 Bq of plutonium-239 and plutonium-240 per cubic meter of air (equivalent to 0.64 and 0.014 radioactive decay events per second per cubic meter of air).[33] The DOE agreed that there was a release of radioactivity from the repository and confirmed that “The event took place starting at 14 February 2014 at 23:14 and continued to 15 February 2014 14:45.”[34] The DOE also confirmed that “A large shift in wind direction can be seen to occur around 8:30 AM on 2/15/14.”[35][36] The EPA reported on the radiological release on their WIPP News page.[37]

After analysis by CEMRC, the station A filter was found on February 15, 2014 to be contaminated with 4,335.71 Bq of Am-241 per every 35 cubic feet (1 m3), and 671.61 Bq of plutonium-239 and plutonium-240 per every 35 cubic feet (1 m3).[38] Bob Alvarez, former DOE official, stated that the long-term ramifications of the WIPP issue are grounded in the fact that the DOE has 66,000 m3 (2,300,000 cu ft) of transuranic waste that has not been disposed of due to the fact that there are no long-term disposition plans for transuranic waste, including 5 tons of plutonium that are in-situ at the Savannah River Site, as well as water from the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington State.[39] In an article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Alvarez wrote that “Wastes containing plutonium blew through the WIPP ventilation system, traveling 2,150 feet to the surface, contaminating at least 17 workers, and spreading small amounts of radioactive material into the environment.”[40] The URS Corporation, who oversees WIPP, removed and demoted the contracted manager of the repository. Alvarez ponders the notion of “contract handling” of radioactive waste because it deploys conventional processing practices that do not take into consideration the tens of thousands of containers buried before 1970 at several Department of Energy sites. Alvarez states that the quantity of this pre-1970 plutonium waste is 1,300 times more than the amount permitted to “leak” into the environment at WIPP; however, much of this waste is simply buried a few feet underground at DOE sites.[41]

The source of contamination was later found to be a barrel that exploded on February 14 because contractors at Los Alamos National Laboratory packed it with organic cat litter instead of clay cat litter. Other barrels with the same problem were then sealed in larger containers.[42] Anthropologist Vincent Ialenti has examined the political, social, and financial triggers to this organic kitty litter error in detail, linking it to the accelerated pace of the Department of Energy’s and State of New Mexico’s 3706 nuclear waste cleanup campaign, which ran from 2011 to 2014. Ialenti’s study was published in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in July 2018.[43]

The 2014 incidents raised the question of whether or not WIPP would be a safe replacement for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada, as a destination for all waste generated at U.S. commercial nuclear power plants.[5] The cost of the 2014 accident was expected to exceed $2 billion and disrupted other programs in various nuclear industry sites.[44] On January 9, 2017, the plant was formally reopened after three years of cleanup costing $500 million, which is significantly less than forecasted.[45] On April 10, the plant received its first shipment of waste since reopening.46]

Readers who found this article on the EconCurrents.com website may have to click “Read More” to read the rest of the article.  Please do that as this is very important. If you have received a link to the article it will not be necessary to click “Read More”.

Adventures With 3 Coin Flips. Part 7: Reality and Ergodicity

December 31, 2023Posted ineconomics, opinionNo Comments

The complexity of analyzing a process as simple as flipping a coin three times raises concerns about how to describe reality in modeling.  In dealing with coin flips, we have a known probability for the result of each flip.  Also, many modeling scenarios may have more than three elementary steps.  Additionally, the probabilities associated with elementary steps may not be known.  How does this complicate the modeling process?  This review will address that question with specific emphasis on social science models, especially economics.

23 States File an Amici Curiae Brief Objecting to the Intervention of the United States in the Supreme Court Case: Texas, Plaintiff v. New Mexico and Colorado: Article Posted December 24, 2023

December 24, 2023Posted inopinionNo Comments

What is the meaning of this and what are the Implications?

The case is No. 220141 

Texas, Plaintiff
v.
New Mexico and Colorado
Docketed: January 10, 2013

You can track the filings HERE and perhaps better yet HERE.

It is winding to a close and in my opinion the only result is that two Special Masters and a lot of attorneys have made a lot of money. But that is a different topic and I will write an article on the case when the Supreme Court makes its final decision.

The topic of this article is the Amici Curiae (Amici is the plural of Amicus) Brief by 23 states which is presented in its entirety in the body of this article. Some may have to click on “read more” to access the body of the article with the full filing.

Normally under Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. only states are parties to a dispute among states.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.

Due to what IMO was a misstep by the New Mexico Attorney General, The U.S. Solicitor General was asked to comment on whether the Supreme Court should give Texas the right to bring this case and this then led to the U.S. requesting the right to be an Intervenor and that right was granted.

Intervening is entry into a lawsuit by a third party into an existing civil case that was not named as an original party but has a personal stake in the outcome. The non-party who intervenes in a case is called an intervenor. But they are not a party to the case. It is a subtle difference but an important difference.

Recently the Parties to this case agreed on a settlement but the the U.S., an intervenor has objected to the settlement.  The disposition of that objection has yet to be decided.

23 States not involved in the litigation have submitted an Amici Curiae Brief sharing with the court their belief that the objections of the U.S. should be rejected.

So this raises two questions among others:

A. Why do they care?

B. What are the implications of their objection being accepted or rejected?

I am not an attorney. The full Amici Curiae brief is in the body of this article. But I will try to extract from that brief some of the objections raised to the U.S. intervening in disputes among states especially when they involve river compacts. The quotes below in many cases are from within a paragraph in the Brief so the line breaks may be different than in the Brief.

If a dispute arises regarding an interstate water
compact, the state parties to thecompact have the
authority to resolve these disputes among themselves.
State sovereignty and principles offederalism prevent
undue interference from theUnited States when the
United States is not a party to the compact.

The United States asserts an expanded federal
role in interstate water compact disputes
that, if accepted by the Court, would result
in the ability of the United States to insert itself into
the equitable apportionment and governance of water
among the States. Amici States have a strong interest
in avoiding that result.

States entering into compacts must have the abil-
ity to comply with, interpret, enforce, and defend their
negotiated agreements on behalf of their citizens with-
out undue interference from the United States.

The United States has no role in the
administration of state water to meet compact
obligations. The administration and distribution of
state water is a “core attribute of state sovereignty.”

In entering into interstate water compacts, States
do not presume that they are waiving or limiting their
sovereign rights with respect to the United States. It
is a “well-established principle that States do not
easily cede their sovereign powers,” and silence is not
construed as a waiver of sovereignty.

Unless a compacting State expressly cedes its
sovereign authority, the United States does not have
a role in the management of state water, including the
interpretation or enforcement of interstate water
compacts.

The United States cannot and should not be able
to interfere with the sovereign authority of the States
to manage their water by pursuing compact claims or
an apportionment of water that is different than that
agreed to by compacting States. Accordingly, to the ex-
tent the United States participates in the administra-
tion or use of state water, it must comply with state
law.

The United States’ Federal Water Project Does
Not Expand Its Limited Role in This Interstate
Water Compact Dispute.

In limited circumstances, the Court may permit
the federal government to intervene in compact suits
to defend “distinctively federal interests.” Texas, 583
U.S. at 413 (quoting Maryland, 451 U.S. at 745, n.21).
But such limited intervention does not include
authority to determine the apportionment of water
between States or management of water within
States.

Specifically, the United States seeks to insert itself
into the division of water among the States and into
the governance of state water within the borders of the
States. The United States argues it has a role in
determining Compact compliance regarding the
division of water between New Mexico and Texas and
in the appropriation and use of groundwater in New
Mexico.

The Court should reject the United States’ attempt
to expand its power in this way. If the Court accepts
the United States’ argument, the inevitable result
will be further efforts by the United States to insert
itself into the interpretation and enforcement of
other interstate water compacts. The Court should
reject this obvious affront to federalism and
States’ sovereign powers.

Nor can the United States justify its role in the
enforcement or interpretation of compact terms be-
cause there is a federal water project associated with
the Compact. See Exception at 30–34. Federal water
projects do not supersede interstate water compacts or
the States’ authority to manage their water to meet
compact obligations. The mere existence of a federal
water project associated with compact water does not
give the United States a role in the division of water
between States or in enforcing or interpreting terms
of an interstate water compact to which the United
States is not a party.
.
Federal law requires the United States to
comply with state law relating to the control,
appropriation, and distribution of water in federal
water projects.
.
This provision requires the federal government, in
operating reclamation projects, to comply with state
water law and state water allocations. Water stored in
federal water projects must be appropriated and man-
aged subject to state law. Further, through the
McCarran Amendment, the United States has waived
its sovereign immunity and defers to state law regard-
ing the determination and administration of water
rights for federal reclamation projects. 43 U.S.C.
§ 666. The fact that water subject to a compact is also
associated with a federal water project does not dimin-
ish the sovereign authority of the State parties to the
compact or give the United States expanded control
over the compact terms or distribution of water under
the compact.
.
That does not mean, however, that the United
States is without recourse. If the United States has a
claim regarding water appropriated to it in relation to
a federal water project, the United States, like all
other water right holders, may turn to state courts to
protect project water rights.
The existence of a federal water project does not
give the United States authority to interpose its pre-
ferred interpretation or enforcement of interstate wa-
ter compact terms.
I do not know if I have done a good job of selecting the best excerpts from the filing but the full filing is in the body of this article. I suggest that those interested in this subject read it. One way of looking at the arguments in this Amici Curiae filing is a separation of powers argument. It is also a Federalism argument.  The Amici argue that it is not up to the U.S. to tell them how to implement agreements reached among states. Congress may ratify these agreements and the U.S. Supreme Court may hear disputes. But the implementation of the agreements is determined by state law not the Federal Government.  Even if there is a Federal Project that is related to or interconnected with agreements among states, this does not give the Federal Government the right to interfere in how states implement and enforce their agreements with other states.

 

I am assuming that the Special Master will agree with the arguments made by New Mexico, Colorado and Texas which mirror the arguments made in this Amici Curiae Brief or it may be the other way around and I expect the Supreme Court to accept the recommendations of the Special Master.

 

Doing so would clarify this matter.  If the Special Master does not accept the arguments presented by Colorado,  New Mexico and Texas or if the Supreme Court does not accept the recommendation by the Special Master to accept this interpretation of the role of the Federal Government in the administration of river compacts (and I think it extends to other interstate compacts), it would represent a sea change in the relationship between the states and the Federal Government. The sovereignty of states would be significantly compromised. But there could be some nuances involved.

 

A friend of mine is continually reminding me that much water law in the U.S.  springs from another somewhat related case:  United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co., 174 U.S. 690 (1899)

So this sort of confirms his assessment of the history of water law in the U.S.