Americans discard 254 million tons of garbage every year. One-third of this waste gets recycled. Mountains of scrap are shipped overseas. However, the bulk of the rubbish winds up in one of the 2,000 landfills that dot America's landscape. Without change, the country will drown in its debris.
A few numbers illustrate the crisis. The average American throws out 4.4 pounds of trash a day. In one study, researchers found 40 percent of all food in the country goes uneaten and is left to rot. As a nation, we are disposing of three times more food than we did in the 1960's.
In 1960, studies show Americans generated 88 million tons of garbage. By 2013, the amount of waste had more than tripled. If the trend continues, in 50 years the country will be faced with finding ways to get rid of more than three-quarters-of-a-trillion tons of refuse annually.
Add to the problem the burgeoning use of plastic bottles, which account for nearly 13 percent of waste. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), only 28 percent of these containers are recycled. The remainder eventually are buried in landfills or exported overseas.
Food and plastics account for nearly 30 percent of our waste. Paper products contribute 27 percent of the total. Yard trimmings constitute 13.5 percent, metals 9 percent and glass 4.5 percent. Wood scraps and rubber, leather and other textiles make up the remainder.
If the U.S. figures appear overwhelming, consider that the U.N. estimates that 2.12 billion metric tons of waste are produced globally annually. If all this rubble was loaded onto garbage trucks, the number of trash vehicles would circle around the world 24 times.
In the past, America used China as a dumping ground for much of its recyclables. However, China signaled it would no longer accept plastic waste beginning in 2018. From 1992 through 2017, China imported 106 million metric tons of plastic, processing much of the material into reusable products.
Now that China has thumbed its nose at the world's leftovers, it is piling up in landfills, being incinerated or dispatched to other countries, such as India and Malaysia. But the United States can no longer dodge the impending disaster by burying or sending its debris elsewhere.
For starters, it is more expensive to send shiploads of garbage to India and Malaysia. In addition, these countries do not have the capacity to process as much plastic, metals and other recyclables as China. Therefore, America will have more refuse left on its shores for disposal.
At home, the country is running out of space to build more landfills. Besides, landfills are environmental nightmares, contributing to groundwater pollution and emitting methane gas, which is 23 times more dangerous than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere.
The only way out of this crunch is to encourage more recycling, to build plants that turn plastics and metals into usable products, to design containers such as water bottles with biodegradable materials and to drastically reduce food waste. That will be a daunting task without infrastructure changes.
One area ripe for innovation is food. The food chain is replete with waste. Farmers cull fruits and vegetables that are not a perfect shape or color. In processing and distribution, more food ends up being discarded. Retail groceries toss out $15 billion in unsold fruits and veggies annually.
Food service and restaurants waste a good deal of food in the kitchens. When the dishes of food reach the table, average diners leave about 17 percent of their meal uneaten. Households are no better, throwing out between 14 and 25 percent of the food and beverages they purchase.
Unfortunately, only about three percent of the jettisoned food is composted. The remainder finds its way into landfills, where the waste decomposes, releasing toxic methane gas. France has tackled the issue by prohibiting supermarkets from throwing away unsold food.
French grocers are required to compost unsold food or to donate it. Some countries, such as Austria, the Netherlands and Germany, have nearly eliminated landfills by adopting stringent waste disposal policies. Recycling and composting are key components of these countries' strategies.
Faced with the alarming rise in waste, business firms are racing to create technological solutions. Firms in Finland and the U.S. have developed machines that sort trash, using robotics and computer algorithms. The machinery is faster and more accurate at finding clean materials for recycling.
Currently, waste employees sort through tons of litter from municipal recycling programs that are often a jumble of dirty items. Studies show that 30-to-50 percent of materials in recycling bins are too contaminated or cannot be recycled. This makes sorting labor intensive and expensive.
The high-tech machinery has been deployed in three cities, but more need to come on line to experience a dramatic sea change in the current recycling rates. However, it needs to be underscored that households and businesses must do a better job of separating their trash at the curb.
Everyone has a role to play if America is to trim its waste and hike recycling rates. If nothing changes, households will begin paying more for trash service as waste management firms struggle to find ways to dispose of the rubble. That should be incentive enough to waste less and recycle more.
Monday, March 25, 2019
Monday, March 18, 2019
One Immigrant Family's Trip To The New World
For months, Nicolas LeRoy had been dreaming of this day in 1661. The 22-year-old and his l8-year-old wife and two kids anxiously waited on a windy dock in La Rochelle, a coastal city in southwest France. They had journeyed 244 miles south to this port city from their home in Dieppe, France.
Nicolas had signed a promissory note for 50 livres to pay for the passage of his family on a sailing vessel to the New World in Canada. The loan was the equivalent of 50 pounds of silver. It was a large sum for the young Frenchman, who earned his living as a knife maker.
Indeed, it was a leap of faith for Nicolas to even leave France. His family traced its roots to the 13th century and included wealthy landowners, influential judicial officers, an archbishop and titled members of royalty. Many inhabited the area around St. Malo on the west coast.
Nicolas was born with none of these ancestral entitlements. He was searching for a better life, one free from the religious tumult between Catholics and Protestants that had roiled France for decades. Ironically, Nicolas, a Catholic, was disembarking from La Rochelle, a hotbed of Protestantism.
There also was the lure of free land promised by French King Louis XIV to any countrymen who would join a small settlement in Quebec, Canada. At the time of Nicolas' departure in the summer of 1661, a clutch of 300 French pioneers had colonized the area for their native land.
Gasping the hand of his wife Jeanne, Nicolas and his family boarded the wooden sailing vessel Jarden de Hollande. Anchored nearby was the Aingle d'Or, another French ship planning to sail in tandem from La Rochelle to Canada. There were 300 passengers crammed on board the two vessels.
The Atlantic Ocean crossing was not without its perils. An outbreak of scurvy, common in that era, took its toll on passengers and crew. Sixty of them died at sea of the insidious disease caused by chronic Vitamin C deficiency, the result of the absence of fresh fruit and vegetables on the ships.
The two sailing ships limped into the port at Quebec on August 22, 1661 after months at sea. Nicolas and his family lived with his wife's father-in-law, who had preceded them to the New World. In 1663, Nicolas received a grant for a two-acre farm near Montmorency Falls, where he built a cabin.
From this humble start, Nicolas prospered by increasing his land holdings to 20 acres. Although their wealth grew, the family was not immune from tragedy. In the summer of 1669, the couple's five-year old daughter Marie was assaulted by a nearby landowner. The assailant was hanged after a trial.
A year later a fire at the family home, claimed the lives of two-year old daughter Anne and her eight-year-old brother Jean. Devastated but undeterred, the family soldiered on acquiring more land and moving to another home to escape the tearful memories of the lost of two children.
The LeRoy clan expanded as their children married and started families of their own. Noel LeRoy, the first member of the family to be born in the New World, fathered 13 offspring in two marriages. His oldest male, Jean Noel, became the first family member to immigrate to America in 1745.
No records exist about what prompted Jean Noel to leave Canada. It can only be speculated that like many French people who endured brutal winters in Quebec, that he was seeking warmer weather. Louisiana had become a popular destination for its climate and budding French-speaking population
Although little is known of his journey, apparently Jean was 47 when he arrived near the Louisiana town of Opelousas. He trekked to the area before the influx of Acadians began descending from Canada during the period between 1764 and 1784. These newcomers became known as Cajuns.
By the time of his death at age 92, Jean had dropped the "Le" from his surname which had been Anglicized to Roy. Joseph Marie Roy, Jean's son and the grand-grandson of Nicolas Roy, was among the first colonists in Avoyelles Parish in the east-central part of Louisiana.
In the decades that followed, the Roy family put down roots across Louisiana and their adopted country. Roys served in the Revolutionary War, Civil War and World War II. Their ancestors today carry on the family tradition of service to their country and community.
However, today's Roys owe a debt of gratitude to Nicolas and Jeanne LeRoy, who had the fortitude to embark on an dangerous journey paid with borrowed funds to explore the New World. Their story, like that of so many immigrants, inspires future generations to follow their dreams.
Nicolas had signed a promissory note for 50 livres to pay for the passage of his family on a sailing vessel to the New World in Canada. The loan was the equivalent of 50 pounds of silver. It was a large sum for the young Frenchman, who earned his living as a knife maker.
Indeed, it was a leap of faith for Nicolas to even leave France. His family traced its roots to the 13th century and included wealthy landowners, influential judicial officers, an archbishop and titled members of royalty. Many inhabited the area around St. Malo on the west coast.
Nicolas was born with none of these ancestral entitlements. He was searching for a better life, one free from the religious tumult between Catholics and Protestants that had roiled France for decades. Ironically, Nicolas, a Catholic, was disembarking from La Rochelle, a hotbed of Protestantism.
There also was the lure of free land promised by French King Louis XIV to any countrymen who would join a small settlement in Quebec, Canada. At the time of Nicolas' departure in the summer of 1661, a clutch of 300 French pioneers had colonized the area for their native land.
Gasping the hand of his wife Jeanne, Nicolas and his family boarded the wooden sailing vessel Jarden de Hollande. Anchored nearby was the Aingle d'Or, another French ship planning to sail in tandem from La Rochelle to Canada. There were 300 passengers crammed on board the two vessels.
The Atlantic Ocean crossing was not without its perils. An outbreak of scurvy, common in that era, took its toll on passengers and crew. Sixty of them died at sea of the insidious disease caused by chronic Vitamin C deficiency, the result of the absence of fresh fruit and vegetables on the ships.
The two sailing ships limped into the port at Quebec on August 22, 1661 after months at sea. Nicolas and his family lived with his wife's father-in-law, who had preceded them to the New World. In 1663, Nicolas received a grant for a two-acre farm near Montmorency Falls, where he built a cabin.
From this humble start, Nicolas prospered by increasing his land holdings to 20 acres. Although their wealth grew, the family was not immune from tragedy. In the summer of 1669, the couple's five-year old daughter Marie was assaulted by a nearby landowner. The assailant was hanged after a trial.
A year later a fire at the family home, claimed the lives of two-year old daughter Anne and her eight-year-old brother Jean. Devastated but undeterred, the family soldiered on acquiring more land and moving to another home to escape the tearful memories of the lost of two children.
The LeRoy clan expanded as their children married and started families of their own. Noel LeRoy, the first member of the family to be born in the New World, fathered 13 offspring in two marriages. His oldest male, Jean Noel, became the first family member to immigrate to America in 1745.
No records exist about what prompted Jean Noel to leave Canada. It can only be speculated that like many French people who endured brutal winters in Quebec, that he was seeking warmer weather. Louisiana had become a popular destination for its climate and budding French-speaking population
Although little is known of his journey, apparently Jean was 47 when he arrived near the Louisiana town of Opelousas. He trekked to the area before the influx of Acadians began descending from Canada during the period between 1764 and 1784. These newcomers became known as Cajuns.
By the time of his death at age 92, Jean had dropped the "Le" from his surname which had been Anglicized to Roy. Joseph Marie Roy, Jean's son and the grand-grandson of Nicolas Roy, was among the first colonists in Avoyelles Parish in the east-central part of Louisiana.
In the decades that followed, the Roy family put down roots across Louisiana and their adopted country. Roys served in the Revolutionary War, Civil War and World War II. Their ancestors today carry on the family tradition of service to their country and community.
However, today's Roys owe a debt of gratitude to Nicolas and Jeanne LeRoy, who had the fortitude to embark on an dangerous journey paid with borrowed funds to explore the New World. Their story, like that of so many immigrants, inspires future generations to follow their dreams.
Monday, March 11, 2019
Don't Let Your Kids Grow Up To Be Wealthy
They are the tiniest minority in America, numbering 585. Most people don't know one. And yet they are shamelessly pilloried by politicians. They blame this group for every calamity in America from economic inequality to climate change. Unlike other minorities, no one rises to their defense.
This diminutive faction is the nation's billionaires. The class has a total net worth of $2.399 trillion. The exclusive club includes some members as young as 32 and two as old as 88. Amazon chief Jeff Bezos tops the elite list with total wealth of $112 billion. Bill Gates is distant second at $90 billion.
Once upon a time, it was the American dream to become successful and prosperous. Average citizens looked in admiration upon self-made millionaires who grew up with little and rose to stirring heights of capitalism. Not any more. Today billionaires are villains to be mercilessly disparaged.
Politicians have cast the wealthy as the new boogieman. Self-described socialist Bernie Sanders has made attacking the "billionaire class" a cornerstone of his 2020 presidential run. To listen to Sanders on the campaign trail, billionaires should be shackled in a stockade on the public square.
"We live in a nation owned and controlled by a small number of multi-billionaires whose greed, incredible greed, insatiable greed, is having an unbelievably negative impact of the fabric of the entire country," Sanders ranted in an interview. Sanders must be jealous that he is only a millionaire.
To underscore his disgust, Sanders took the social media to post the following Tweet: "How many yachts do billionaires need? How many cars do they need? Give us a break. You can't have it all." Spoken like a man who owns three homes with his spouse Jane.
Another Democratic Party presidential contender Elizabeth Warren has made deriding the wealthy a staple of her stump speech. "America's middle class is under attack," she grumbles. "How did we get here? Billionaires and big corporations decided they wanted more of the pie."
To punish the rich, Warren has proposed levying a 2 percent additional tax on families with total assets of more than $50 billion and three percent on those with wealth that exceeds $1 billion. These duties would be in addition to her plan to hike taxes on the income of the richest Americans.
The future for billionaires looks gloomy with political newcomers such as New York's Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez bursting on the scene with even more draconian tax plans. The 29-year-old politician has floated the idea of a 70 percent marginal top rate on incomes above $10 million.
That sounds more like confiscation than taxation. Not surprising coming from a self-avowed Democratic Socialist. Only one presidential candidate seems to be bucking the trend of bashing billionaires. Perhaps, that's because he is one: former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz.
"I'm self-made," Schultz declared when he was deplored for self-funding his campaign. "I grew up in the project in Brooklyn, New York. I thought that was the American dream, the aspiration of America." Polling from Pew Research suggests Schultz may be out of touch with today's generation.
In a nationwide survey in 2017, Pew found the dream for most Americans is "freedom of choice on how to live." Having a "good family life" ranks second. Third is "a comfortable retirement." At the bottom of the list is "wealth." However, prosperity makes the first three easier to achieve.
Still that doesn't explain the current visceral hatred toward the wealthy. Nothing stirs up a crowd, especially of young people, like a verbal spanking of the rich. Without delving into group psychoanalysis, the explanation might be envy and resentment of those with money. Who knows?
Even politicians are conflicted. On the one hand they thrash the mega-rich, but use the other hand to take millions in contributions from billionaires, their surrogates and political shell organizations. Would a sane person hand over money for the privilege of being verbally sprayed by a skunk?
Take Bernie Sanders as an example of this dichotomy. Sanders made a big show out of the fact his 2016 campaign was largely funded by small donations under $200. However, OpenSecrets reveals that his largest donors were Alphabet, Inc. (Google), Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Boeing and IBM.
The CEO's of each one of those organizations are either multi-millionaires or billionaires. Apparently, they enjoy being lambasted as filthy rich jerks. These heads of mammoth corporations are either daffy or sadistic. Makes you wonder about their motive for funding rhetorical flagellation.
In the current political climate, counsel your children and grandchildren to strive to be middle class. Politicians pander to this economic group. No one can define the middle class any more, but that matters little. Middle class is the safe haven from politicians' verbal hostilities.
There is only one problem with having every American pursuing middle economic nirvana. Who will pay for all those grand schemes, such as Medicare For All and the Green Deal, unless the nation continues to churn out more billionaires? Now that's a conundrum for Sanders, et al. to ponder.
This diminutive faction is the nation's billionaires. The class has a total net worth of $2.399 trillion. The exclusive club includes some members as young as 32 and two as old as 88. Amazon chief Jeff Bezos tops the elite list with total wealth of $112 billion. Bill Gates is distant second at $90 billion.
Once upon a time, it was the American dream to become successful and prosperous. Average citizens looked in admiration upon self-made millionaires who grew up with little and rose to stirring heights of capitalism. Not any more. Today billionaires are villains to be mercilessly disparaged.
Politicians have cast the wealthy as the new boogieman. Self-described socialist Bernie Sanders has made attacking the "billionaire class" a cornerstone of his 2020 presidential run. To listen to Sanders on the campaign trail, billionaires should be shackled in a stockade on the public square.
"We live in a nation owned and controlled by a small number of multi-billionaires whose greed, incredible greed, insatiable greed, is having an unbelievably negative impact of the fabric of the entire country," Sanders ranted in an interview. Sanders must be jealous that he is only a millionaire.
To underscore his disgust, Sanders took the social media to post the following Tweet: "How many yachts do billionaires need? How many cars do they need? Give us a break. You can't have it all." Spoken like a man who owns three homes with his spouse Jane.
Another Democratic Party presidential contender Elizabeth Warren has made deriding the wealthy a staple of her stump speech. "America's middle class is under attack," she grumbles. "How did we get here? Billionaires and big corporations decided they wanted more of the pie."
To punish the rich, Warren has proposed levying a 2 percent additional tax on families with total assets of more than $50 billion and three percent on those with wealth that exceeds $1 billion. These duties would be in addition to her plan to hike taxes on the income of the richest Americans.
The future for billionaires looks gloomy with political newcomers such as New York's Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez bursting on the scene with even more draconian tax plans. The 29-year-old politician has floated the idea of a 70 percent marginal top rate on incomes above $10 million.
That sounds more like confiscation than taxation. Not surprising coming from a self-avowed Democratic Socialist. Only one presidential candidate seems to be bucking the trend of bashing billionaires. Perhaps, that's because he is one: former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz.
"I'm self-made," Schultz declared when he was deplored for self-funding his campaign. "I grew up in the project in Brooklyn, New York. I thought that was the American dream, the aspiration of America." Polling from Pew Research suggests Schultz may be out of touch with today's generation.
In a nationwide survey in 2017, Pew found the dream for most Americans is "freedom of choice on how to live." Having a "good family life" ranks second. Third is "a comfortable retirement." At the bottom of the list is "wealth." However, prosperity makes the first three easier to achieve.
Still that doesn't explain the current visceral hatred toward the wealthy. Nothing stirs up a crowd, especially of young people, like a verbal spanking of the rich. Without delving into group psychoanalysis, the explanation might be envy and resentment of those with money. Who knows?
Even politicians are conflicted. On the one hand they thrash the mega-rich, but use the other hand to take millions in contributions from billionaires, their surrogates and political shell organizations. Would a sane person hand over money for the privilege of being verbally sprayed by a skunk?
Take Bernie Sanders as an example of this dichotomy. Sanders made a big show out of the fact his 2016 campaign was largely funded by small donations under $200. However, OpenSecrets reveals that his largest donors were Alphabet, Inc. (Google), Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Boeing and IBM.
The CEO's of each one of those organizations are either multi-millionaires or billionaires. Apparently, they enjoy being lambasted as filthy rich jerks. These heads of mammoth corporations are either daffy or sadistic. Makes you wonder about their motive for funding rhetorical flagellation.
In the current political climate, counsel your children and grandchildren to strive to be middle class. Politicians pander to this economic group. No one can define the middle class any more, but that matters little. Middle class is the safe haven from politicians' verbal hostilities.
There is only one problem with having every American pursuing middle economic nirvana. Who will pay for all those grand schemes, such as Medicare For All and the Green Deal, unless the nation continues to churn out more billionaires? Now that's a conundrum for Sanders, et al. to ponder.
Monday, March 4, 2019
The Senator, The Spy and The Rich Investor
It sounds like a script poached from a spy movie. A Chinese agent hiding in plain sight, worms his way as an employee of a high-ranking senator with access to some of America's most sensitive secrets. For almost 20 years, the spy reports to intelligence officials embedded in China's consulate.
The senator isn't just another faceless member of the chamber. This individual once chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee and now sits on the subcommittee for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Both groups receive briefings from intelligence agencies and review classified intel.
Five years ago, the FBI approached the senator to apprise her that a staffer was being investigated for spying for the Chinese. The senator's employee had never been vetted for a security clearance. Warned by the FBI, the senator quietly forced the traitorous staffer to retire in 2013.
This account is not a Hollywood film. California Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein was duped by a Chinese espionage agent whose handlers operated in San Francisco. In what appears suspiciously like a cover up, the spy was never charged, saving Feinstein the embarrassment of a messy trial.
It may be purely coincidental but the Senate Intelligence Committee oversees certain FBI investigations into foreign activities. It is the same committee Feinstein once chaired. The FBI director at the time was none other than James Comey.
Did the FBI decide it did not want to make an enemy of a powerful senator who might be chair again? The questions do not end there.
How could a U.S. senator never suspect a Chinese mole was operating in her organization for two decades? Why did the FBI drop its probe even after they suspected the spy was sharing intel with the Chinese? How was Feinstein able to shield her entire office staff from further investigation?
Americans, especially Californians, deserve answers. Apparently, Feinstein considers the matter closed. The FBI's official conclusion is the spy didn't divulge "anything of substance." But there has been no public report issued by the agency. Not even Feinstein's staff knew a probe was going on.
A couple of articles appeared in San Francisco about the episode but the mainstream media ignored it. Then Politico ran a story online on July 27, 2018, recounting the Chinese recruitment of a member of the senator's staff. That compelled Feinstein to issue a formal statement on August 6.
In her brief written response, Feinstein said, "The FBI reviewed the matter, shared their concerns with me and the employee immediately left my office." She left unsaid that the staffer did not depart voluntarily but that the spy was "retired" by the senator.
The spy, outed by The Daily Caller as Russell Lowe, was ostensibly a driver and gofer for the senator. But that description belies his extensive work for Feinstein. He attended Chinese Consulate functions for the senator. He served as a liaison to the Asian-American community for her office.
This agent was more than just a driver who could overhear private conversations when the senator was in the car. He became an confidant with access to Feinstein. While a special counsel investigation drones on in Washington, the senator treads on her influence to avoid a similar probe.
This isn't Feinstein's first brush with Chinese interference. After hosting a fundraiser in her multi-million dollar California mansion, she was forced to return a campaign donation from a Chinese national as a result of a Department of Justice investigation in 1996.
Coincidentally, the senator has been one of the strongest proponents of closer ties with China, championing the Communist nation's causes for decades. Feinstein was instrumental in the effort to make China a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Taking advantage of her access, the senator's husband, investment financier Richard Blum, rode the coattails of his wife, accompanying her on numerous official government trips to China. Surely it was just a coincidence that Blum's firm Newbridge Capital began investing in the Asian country.
Prior to Feinstein entering the senate, Blum had little investment interest in China. At that time in 1992, he held a stake in one project worth less than $500,000, according to financial disclosure records. Apparently, he discovered more lucrative deals once he visited China with his wife.
In 1996, Blum invested $23 million in a steel company owned by the Chinese government. His firm also acquired assets in companies in the Communist nation that produce soybeans, milk and candy, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times.
Under Blum's tutelage, the firm began sinking millions in Chinese government connected businesses. Before long, his China investments began to draw scrutiny, particularly a $300 million position in Northwest Airlines, then the sole non-stop operator with permission to fly from the U.S. to China.
When pesky questions arose in 1997, Blum dodged a media bludgeoning by cleverly pledging to donate any future profits from his holdings into a nonprofit foundation to aid Tibetan refugees. But in 2000, Newbridge continued to own stock worth millions in Chinese corporations.
An article in the Los Angeles Times pointed out the possible conflict of interest in 1997 and both Feinstein and Blum insisted they "maintained a solid firewall" between her role as an influential foreign policy player and his career as a private investor overseas.
Blum currently is chairman of Richard C. Blum & Associates, Inc., the general partner of Blum Capital Partners, L.P. The vice president of the firm is T.C. Ostrander, who served five years as Senator Feinstein's advisor on financial, banking and economic policy in Washington.
Apparently, the "firewall" doesn't preclude a cozy relationship between Blum's private firm and the senator's staff.
And Blum's firm continues to trade on its connections to China. For instance, one of the Blum Capital Partners' main investments is Avid Technology, which two years ago expanded its presence in China through a $75 million investment in a Beijing company.
In light of the current climate in Washington, eyebrows should be raised by this tale of spying and potential influence peddling. It is well known in the intelligence community that the Chinese are overtly courting favor with key U.S. influencers in both government and business.
Yet no one appears interested in Senator Feinstein's decades long friendly relationship with Chinese leaders nor her husband's investments in some of the Communist nation's state-owned businesses. Nothing to see here. Old news, the wealthy couple insist as they swat away prying eyes.
The Democrat senator, a long-time Chinese ally with 16 years tenure in the Senate, appears to be able to skirt the rules and standards that apply to other lawmakers and The White House. It must be good to be Dianne Feinstein.
The senator isn't just another faceless member of the chamber. This individual once chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee and now sits on the subcommittee for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Both groups receive briefings from intelligence agencies and review classified intel.
Five years ago, the FBI approached the senator to apprise her that a staffer was being investigated for spying for the Chinese. The senator's employee had never been vetted for a security clearance. Warned by the FBI, the senator quietly forced the traitorous staffer to retire in 2013.
This account is not a Hollywood film. California Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein was duped by a Chinese espionage agent whose handlers operated in San Francisco. In what appears suspiciously like a cover up, the spy was never charged, saving Feinstein the embarrassment of a messy trial.
It may be purely coincidental but the Senate Intelligence Committee oversees certain FBI investigations into foreign activities. It is the same committee Feinstein once chaired. The FBI director at the time was none other than James Comey.
Did the FBI decide it did not want to make an enemy of a powerful senator who might be chair again? The questions do not end there.
How could a U.S. senator never suspect a Chinese mole was operating in her organization for two decades? Why did the FBI drop its probe even after they suspected the spy was sharing intel with the Chinese? How was Feinstein able to shield her entire office staff from further investigation?
Americans, especially Californians, deserve answers. Apparently, Feinstein considers the matter closed. The FBI's official conclusion is the spy didn't divulge "anything of substance." But there has been no public report issued by the agency. Not even Feinstein's staff knew a probe was going on.
A couple of articles appeared in San Francisco about the episode but the mainstream media ignored it. Then Politico ran a story online on July 27, 2018, recounting the Chinese recruitment of a member of the senator's staff. That compelled Feinstein to issue a formal statement on August 6.
In her brief written response, Feinstein said, "The FBI reviewed the matter, shared their concerns with me and the employee immediately left my office." She left unsaid that the staffer did not depart voluntarily but that the spy was "retired" by the senator.
The spy, outed by The Daily Caller as Russell Lowe, was ostensibly a driver and gofer for the senator. But that description belies his extensive work for Feinstein. He attended Chinese Consulate functions for the senator. He served as a liaison to the Asian-American community for her office.
This agent was more than just a driver who could overhear private conversations when the senator was in the car. He became an confidant with access to Feinstein. While a special counsel investigation drones on in Washington, the senator treads on her influence to avoid a similar probe.
This isn't Feinstein's first brush with Chinese interference. After hosting a fundraiser in her multi-million dollar California mansion, she was forced to return a campaign donation from a Chinese national as a result of a Department of Justice investigation in 1996.
Coincidentally, the senator has been one of the strongest proponents of closer ties with China, championing the Communist nation's causes for decades. Feinstein was instrumental in the effort to make China a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Taking advantage of her access, the senator's husband, investment financier Richard Blum, rode the coattails of his wife, accompanying her on numerous official government trips to China. Surely it was just a coincidence that Blum's firm Newbridge Capital began investing in the Asian country.
Prior to Feinstein entering the senate, Blum had little investment interest in China. At that time in 1992, he held a stake in one project worth less than $500,000, according to financial disclosure records. Apparently, he discovered more lucrative deals once he visited China with his wife.
In 1996, Blum invested $23 million in a steel company owned by the Chinese government. His firm also acquired assets in companies in the Communist nation that produce soybeans, milk and candy, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times.
Under Blum's tutelage, the firm began sinking millions in Chinese government connected businesses. Before long, his China investments began to draw scrutiny, particularly a $300 million position in Northwest Airlines, then the sole non-stop operator with permission to fly from the U.S. to China.
When pesky questions arose in 1997, Blum dodged a media bludgeoning by cleverly pledging to donate any future profits from his holdings into a nonprofit foundation to aid Tibetan refugees. But in 2000, Newbridge continued to own stock worth millions in Chinese corporations.
An article in the Los Angeles Times pointed out the possible conflict of interest in 1997 and both Feinstein and Blum insisted they "maintained a solid firewall" between her role as an influential foreign policy player and his career as a private investor overseas.
Blum currently is chairman of Richard C. Blum & Associates, Inc., the general partner of Blum Capital Partners, L.P. The vice president of the firm is T.C. Ostrander, who served five years as Senator Feinstein's advisor on financial, banking and economic policy in Washington.
Apparently, the "firewall" doesn't preclude a cozy relationship between Blum's private firm and the senator's staff.
And Blum's firm continues to trade on its connections to China. For instance, one of the Blum Capital Partners' main investments is Avid Technology, which two years ago expanded its presence in China through a $75 million investment in a Beijing company.
In light of the current climate in Washington, eyebrows should be raised by this tale of spying and potential influence peddling. It is well known in the intelligence community that the Chinese are overtly courting favor with key U.S. influencers in both government and business.
Yet no one appears interested in Senator Feinstein's decades long friendly relationship with Chinese leaders nor her husband's investments in some of the Communist nation's state-owned businesses. Nothing to see here. Old news, the wealthy couple insist as they swat away prying eyes.
The Democrat senator, a long-time Chinese ally with 16 years tenure in the Senate, appears to be able to skirt the rules and standards that apply to other lawmakers and The White House. It must be good to be Dianne Feinstein.