|To: DinoNavarre who wrote (751835)||10/15/2021 10:52:07 AM|
|In one of Crichton essay he said something about the "Primeval Forest" of northern North America that set me back on my heels.|
Said there were people living here BEFORE the primeval Forest started to grow.
And it's undeniably true. People followed the retreating glaciers north. About 10 minutes ago in geologic time.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)|
|To: DMaA who wrote (751836)||10/15/2021 11:10:12 AM|
|From: D. Long|
|Yeah, never really considered that. |
Considering new evidence pushing back human habitation of N. America to over 20,000 years ago, this is undeniably true.
Considering humans colonized Australia almost 60,000 years ago, I would not be surprised if people were here that long ago as well.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (4)|
|To: Thomas M. who wrote (751839)||10/15/2021 11:52:41 AM|
|Step 1: Remove the solace of the promise of the Gospel from the general public.|
Step 2: Convince the general public that freedom will kill them,
Result: Terrified general public will beg then to strip them of their freedom
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|
|To: D. Long who wrote (751837)||10/15/2021 11:58:51 AM|
|From: Alan Smithee|
|Origins of the shipping supply chain backup explained. Blame EPA and CA emissions rules that make 50% of trucks on the road unable to enter CA ports (or even CA) to retrieve containers from port facilities.|
Michael Yon predicting it will only get worse. His mantra these days is “Stock Up!!!”
The California Version of The Green New Deal and an October 16, 2020, EPA Settlement With Transportation is What’s Creating The Container Shipping Backlog – Working CA Ports 24/7 Will Not Help, Here’s Why
October 14, 2021 | Sundance | 482 Comments
Hundreds of requests for details on the specifics of the container shipping backlog. So, I spent 3 days calling sources, digging for details and gathering information on the substantive issue at hand. The epicenter of the problem is not what is being outlined by financial media, corporate media and politicians who have a specific interest in distracting from the issues at hand. This has nothing to do with COVID-19.
The issues being discussed today relate to events that happened a long time ago. As a matter of fact, it was so predictable that Amazon, Walmart, UPS, FedEx, Samsung, The Home Depot and Target all had taken actions years ago -long before COVID- because they knew this day would come. It was not accidental that those companies showed up at the White House to discuss the issue, because there’s now a full court press to hide it.
There is one very specific regional issue driving the problem. Read on:
The trucking issue with California LA ports, ie the Port of Los Angeles (POLA) and the Port of Long Beach (POLB), is that all semi tractors have to be current with new California emissions standards. As a consequence, that mean trucks cannot be older than 3 years if they are to pick up or deliver containers at those ports. This issue wipes out approximately half of the fleet trucks used to move containers in/out of the port. Operating the port 24/7 will not cure the issue, because all it does is pile up more containers that sit idle as they await a limited number of trucks to pick them up. THIS is the central issue.
On October 16, 2020, the EPA reached a settlement agreement [ DATA HERE] with California Air Resource Board (CARB) to shut down semi tractor rigs that were non-compliant with new California emission standards:
2020 SAN FRANCISCO – “Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced settlements with three interstate trucking companies imposing $417,000 in penalties for violating the California Air Resources Board’s federally enforceable Truck and Bus Regulation, Drayage Truck Regulation and Transport Refrigeration Unit Regulation.
“As trucks are one of the largest sources of air pollution in California, EPA will continue to ensure these heavy-duty vehicles have the needed pollution-control equipment and operate in compliance with the rules,” said EPA Pacific Southwest Regional Administrator John Busterud. “These companies have agreed to bring their trucks into compliance and operate more cleanly in all communities they serve.”
Transportation is a primary contributor to the high levels of air pollutants in Southern California and the Central Valley. Diesel emissions from trucks are one of the state’s largest sources of fine particle pollution, or soot, which is linked to health issues including asthma, impaired lung development in children, and cardiovascular effects in adults. Many of these trucks are older models and emit high amounts of particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxides (NOx).
[…] California Truck and Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck Regulation have been essential parts of the state’s federally enforceable plan to attain cleaner air. California requires trucking companies to upgrade vehicles they own to meet specific NOx and PM performance standards and to verify compliance of vehicles they hire or dispatch. Heavy-duty diesel trucks in California must meet 2010 engine emissions standards or use diesel particulate filters to reduce the diesel particulates emissions into the atmosphere by 85% or more. ( read more)
In effect, what this 2020 determination and settlement created was an inability of half the nation’s truckers from picking up anything from the Port of LA or Port of Long Beach. Virtually all private owner operator trucks and half of the fleet trucks that are used for moving containers across the nation were shut out.
In an effort to offset the problem, transportation companies started using compliant trucks (low emission) to take the products to the California state line, where they could be transferred to non-compliant trucks who cannot enter California. However, the scale of the problem creates an immediate bottleneck that builds over time. It doesn’t matter if the ports start working 24/7, they are only going to end up with even more containers waiting on a limited amount of available trucks.
Yesterday, in an effort to obfuscate and actually hide the epicenter of the issue, the White House put on a performance to provide political cover. In a grand pantomime, Joe Biden met with the heads of the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach (Gene Seroka and Mario Cordero, respectively), and the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU).
The publicized meeting and White House conference was sold as Biden and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg showing actions they are taking to address delays and congestion across the transportation supply chain in Southern California.
As a result of the meeting, the Port of Los Angeles (POLA) announced that it will join the Port of Long Beach (POLB) in expanding to 24/7 operations. POLA will add new off-peak nighttime shifts and weekend hours, nearly doubling its hours of operation. The ILWU said its members are willing to work those extra shifts to add needed labor capacity.
That publicly promoted action event was a complete political farce. No amount of extra productivity in working the docks to off-load ships will solve the issue of trucks that cannot pick up the containers and distribute them toward manufacturing or warehouses.
As I noted, the issue started becoming visible several years ago when the California Air Resource Board (CARB) announced the new environmental regulations. Several massive multinational corporations, with specifically in-tune supply and logistics operations, immediately recognized the issue they would face if 50+ percent of the trucking fleet would be blocked from entering California ports.
Yes, years ago the private sector predicted this would happen, and they started taking actions to protect their supply chains. What these massive corporations did to reduce their exposure to supply chain disruption was to immediately formulate plans to divert their goods to other ports. This was a very expensive shift in supply chain and logistic efforts for these massive corporations, which includes: Amazon, Walmart, UPS, FedEx, Samsung, The Home Depot and Target.
A long time before and during the era of the Trump administration, those massive multinational corporations knew they would need to redirect their import cargo quickly to avoid the bottleneck caused by California’s new emission standards. They began organizing new destination ports for their products and began setting up new hubs and distribution networks to avoid the predictable California port bottlenecks.
Obviously, for politically correct reasons; and in an effort to avoid the woke mob of environmentalist jackboots, the corporations didn’t publicly share any of the issues they could foresee coming – they just worked independently and quietly to avoid the issue.
However, it costs more money to move and entire supply chain for trillions of tons of goods coming. Hence, we saw prices climbing as a result of increased transportation costs being factored in to the new logistics. Did you hear about massive increases in container shipment prices? Well, THAT’S WHY. The entire supply chain from Asia to the United States was being modified from the closest port (California) to the ports where internal transportation would not be an issue.
Ships from China and SE Asia being diverted from California into the Gulf of Mexico or East coast have to go through the Panama Canal. It takes twice as long and costs twice as much, if not more. Hence, massive shipping price increases:
Unfortunately, small companies and small brokers of import goods do not have the control over their part of the supply chain from Asia to the West Coast. They don’t contract for entire cargo ships with thousands of containers. Those wholesalers, brokers and smaller companies that feed raw material and parts supplies to manufacturing and smaller retail outlets are stuck waiting for their containers to get through the trucking issue in California.
The bottleneck at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach run by Gene Seroka and Mario Cordero is not caused by a lack of longshoremen and dock workers to off-load the vessels. The bottleneck is caused by half of the previous trucks used to enter the ports and pick up containers not being allowed. Factually, it doesn’t make a tinkers damn worth of difference if the port works 24/7/365. The ports are simply running out of space.
The ports are running out of places to store containers full of goods that are getting off-loaded. Hundreds of thousands of them are piling up. The central issue is the inability of emission compliant heavy transportation in California to move those containers full of goods to manufacturing, warehouses and distribution points.
This California bottleneck has been building, and building and building for years, until now it has reached a crisis point.
If you want to know how long this has been taking place, take the time to watch this video of a trans-continental shipment belonging to Amazon Inc from China. As you watch this really good discussion, think about how long Amazon Inc. has known about the problem in order for them to have put such a massive solution into place in order to avoid California.
Yeah, this California emissions issue has been identified for years, and Amazon has been planning to avoid it for years. WATCH:
Posted in ASEAN, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Big Tech, China, Coronavirus, Cultural Marxism, Economy, energy, Environmentalism, FEMA, Hong Kong, Joe Biden, JoeBama, media bias, Notorious Liars, Press Secretary - Biden, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Trade Deal, Transportat
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (3)|
|To: Tom Clarke who wrote (751842)||10/15/2021 12:26:47 PM|
|Like A Smithee said… the rot is to deep.|
John Durham and the Amazing Disappearing DNC Hack | The American Spectator | USA News and Politics George Parry
Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT)This is the fifth in a series of articles analyzing the 27 page federal grand jury indictment charging lawyer Michael Sussmann with making a false statement to the FBI.
As stated in the fourth article, when the FBI learned of the alleged hack of the Democratic National Committee’s (“DNC”) emails, it asked to examine the server.
In fact, at the same time as the alleged DNC hack, there were similar reports regarding the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s (“DCCC”) server as well as DNC Chairman John Podesta’s personal email devices.
In testimony before the Senate, FBI Director James Comey stated the following:
Question (by Senator Burr): Did the FBI request access to those devices [the servers and Podesta’s devices] to perform forensics on?
A: Yes, we did.
Q: And would that access have provided intelligence or information helpful to your investigation in possibly finding … including to the Intelligence Community Assessment?
A: Our forensics folks would always prefer to get access to the original device or server that’s involved. So, it’s the best evidence.
Q: Were you given access to do the forensics on those servers?
A: We were not. We were … a highly respected private company eventually got access and shared with us what they saw there.
Q: But is that typically the way the FBI would prefer to do the forensics or would your forensic unit rather see the servers and do the forensics themselves?
A: We always prefer to have access hands on ourselves, if that’s possible.
Q: Do you know why you were denied access to those servers?
A: I don’t know for sure. Um, I don’t know for sure.
Q: Was there one request or multiple requests?
A: Multiple requests at different levels and ultimately what was agreed to is that the private company would share with us what they saw.
So, instead of using a search warrant or some other legal process to perform a direct, hands on forensic examination of the DNC server, the FBI agreed to base its investigation on the findings of a private cybersecurity company. And, as discussed in the previous article, that company, CrowdStrike, was to do the investigation pursuant to its contract with Michael Sussmann of Perkins Coie, the law firm that represented Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
Think about that. When presented with allegations of a devastating foreign cyber attack on one of the two major political parties, the FBI meekly agreed to allow CrowdStrike and Perkins Coie to do the forensic examination and, for all intents and purposes, run the investigation.
Not even the lowliest local police department would agree to such an absurd arrangement. What if this was a murder case? Would the Smallville PD allow a private investigator and lawyer hired by the murder victim’s family to process the crime scene, do the autopsy, and tell the police and district attorney what they supposedly found? Wouldn’t such findings be subject to attack in court as coming from sources that may have had an interest in shaping and tailoring the investigative results to suit the needs and desires of their client? Wouldn’t there be legal problems with the evidence’s provenance, chain of custody, and the reliability and comprehensiveness of the investigative work that supposedly produced it? Would the police and district attorney ever allow themselves to get roped into such a bizarre, ridiculous, nightmarish, and self-defeating arrangement?
Of course not. No rational person or organization intent on conducting a serious investigation would.
But that, in effect, is precisely what the FBI — the self-proclaimed greatest investigative agency in the world — did when faced with this purportedly monumental foreign attack on the Democrat Party apparatus.
Now keep Comey’s testimony in focus as we review the remarkable appearance of Shawn Henry, President of CrowdStrike Services, before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (“HPSCI”).
The HPSCI convened in closed executive session on December 5, 2017. Present were Henry, the Committee members and staff, as well as a lawyer representing CrowdStrike and a lawyer from Perkins Coie.
Under questioning, Henry confirmed that CrowdStrike’s examination of the DNC server was done pursuant to its contract with Michael Sussmann of Perkins Coie. Consequently, as explained by the Perkins Coie lawyer, CrowdStrike’s findings were protected by the attorney-client privilege. Therefore, it would be up to Perkins Coie, acting on behalf of the DNC, to decide what information Henry would be allowed to share with the HPSCI.
First up was Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT) who wanted to know why the FBI hadn’t taken “the lead in this investigation.”
And that’s when the fun and games began.
Once it was established that the FBI did not have access to the server, Stewart asked, “Could they [the FBI] conduct their own investigation in a thorough fashion without access to the actual hardware?”
To that Henry went out on a limb and firmly replied, “Maybe.”
Undeterred, Stewart asked, “Are you comfortable that someone could complete a thorough investigation, using other tools, without direct access to the hardware or equipment?”
Up to the challenge, Henry proceeded to answer a question that wasn’t asked.
“Could they come to a conclusion? You’re asking a nuanced question. And I’m not being cagey. I want to be clear, because this is an important point.”
But would it be better if the FBI had access?
Henry replied, “The more information you have access to, the better any investigation. But it doesn’t mean that a lack of a piece of information precludes you from coming to a conclusion.”
The determined Stewart tried again. If you “could have a better investigation if you had access to all of the equipment or hardware” would there be “reasons for not making that available [to the FBI] that override the benefit of having a more conclusive investigation?”
To which Henry replied, “You’re asking me to speculate. I don’t know the answer.”
At which point, an exasperated Stewart said to the Perkins Coie lawyer, “By the way, you need to pay him well, because he’s obviously serving you well today as you guys have your conversations back and forth.”
So just what evidence did CrowdStrike find on the DNC server?
Over the course of the hearing, Henry grudgingly gave ground with answers such as these:
“Counsel just reminded me that, as it relates to the DNC, we have indicatorsthat data [the DNC emails] was (sic) exfiltrated [taken by hackers off the server]. We did not have concrete evidence that data was (sic) exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated…. There’s not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There’s circumstantial evidence … we didn’t have direct evidence. But we made a conclusion that data left the network.” (Emphasis added.)
Okay, there was no direct, concrete, or other proof that the emails were actually taken from the DNC computer. But what were these “indicators” that led CrowdStrike to conclude that the emails were hacked?
According to Henry, CrowdStrike found “indicators of [server] compromise, which are pieces of malware, et cetera.” He then explained that CrowdStrike’s investigative report states that the data [emails] were “staged for exfiltration” by the purported Russian hacker.
He added, “There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case, it appears that it (sic) was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left.” (Emphasis added.)
Got that? With no evidence that the emails were actually hacked, CrowdStrike nevertheless concluded that the Russians hacked the emails.
Despite the spin, the whole DNC hack story had just flatlined.
But there was one more issue to be addressed: exactly what evidence was shared with the FBI?
I will spare you the tedious details of the interrogation. The questioners kept asking Henry what information CrowdStrike provided to the FBI, and he repeatedly said that they got whatever they asked for.
But the problem with this line of questioning is that it failed to consider the fact that CrowdStrike was working for Perkins Coie. Consequently, the questions should have focused on what information Perkins Coie allowed to be transmitted to the FBI.
The closest anyone came to getting at this issue was when Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX) asked, “Did the DNC restrict anything that you shared with the FBI or that the FBI asked for? Did they tell you ‘no’ at any point?”
Henry replied, “No, I have no recollection. Again, I know that there are redactedreports and there was some restriction on the reports. That’s the only thing that I can recall.”
Wait. What? Redacted? Restriction? Does this mean that the DNC withheld some of CrowdStrike’s findings and work product from the FBI?
The answer to that question can be found lurking in the pre-trial pleadings in the case of United States v. Roger Stone. In an effort to debunk the DNC hack story, Stone’s lawyers requested that the Department of Justice produce the full, unredacted CrowdStrike investigative report.
And that’s when the cowpie hit the fan. It turned out that, in addition to not examining the DNC server, neither the FBI nor the DOJ actually saw the full, final CrowdStrike report.
The following is lifted directly from the prosecution’s response to Stone’s discovery request:
Ponder that carefully. The referenced “counsel for the DNC and DCCC” is Perkins Coie. The reports provided were marked “draft” and had redactions. But the FBI and DOJ had the assurances of Perkins Coie that the drafts were, in fact, the last version of the report and “no redacted information concerned the attribution of the attack to Russian actors.”
So, was there a hack of the DNC server? Don’t ask the FBI or the DOJ. They only know what Perkins Coie — which was representing a client that was heavily invested in spreading the Russian hack story — allowed them to know.
But thanks to the release of Shawn Henry’s testimony before the HPSCI, what we now know is that CrowdStrike never found any “direct,” “concrete,” or other evidence that proves the DNC emails “actually left” the DNC server.
Or, as we used to say in the old Justice Department: turn out the lights, the party’s over.
There’s more to come, but this article is already too long.
So stay tuned for the next episode.
George Parry is a former federal and state prosecutor. He blogs at knowledgeisgood.net and can be reached by email at firstname.lastname@example.org.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|