The inevitable end result of our last 56 years

[Douglas Caddy]

 

 

These companies paid little to no federal taxes last year, new report finds (axios.com)

[Steve Thomas]

I didn't realize that at 70 years of age, I was going to have to learn a new language.

Marshall law, Gazpacho police, kofeve, Troth Senshil...

Who knew?

Steve Thomas

[Douglas Caddy]

 

Rand Paul echoes Putin's talking points on Ukraine while arguing with Blinken over Russia's motives for invading (msn.com)

[Douglas Caddy]

Is the Supreme Court fed up with this incompetent Trump judge?

 

ttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-supreme-court-seems-fed-up-with-a-trump-judge-who-sabotaged-biden/ar-AAWCNrJ?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=2d3da3f085b8451d944038b3fdd3f87b

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Douglas Caddy said:

 

Rand Paul echoes Putin's talking points on Ukraine while arguing with Blinken over Russia's motives for invading (msn.com)

Ugh. Rand Paul did himself and sensible non-globalism a huge dis-favor with this line of argument. 

The US (IMHO) should not be the global cop (on the taxpayer's dime), because what happens is we end up providing a global guard service for multinationals (supported by the Donks and 'Phants). 

In Ukraine, there is a sensible and limited humanitarian mission to end the war quickly. Whatever Russia's reasons, by flattening Mariupol and sending missiles into cities, they have abandoned all moral high ground. This is Putin's volitional war, much like Bush's war on Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Rand Paul should know when to explain the non-globalism card. 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

In reviewing the Twitter sale to Musk, it emerges that Twitter banned conversation about the Wuhan lab leak in 2020, possibly the most important story of the 2000s.  

What on earth would possess a social media platform to ban such a conversation?

We will see Musk can improve operations at Twitter. I look forward to Musk. As a private social media platform, they can ban whatever they want. 

As a practical matter, as the new town square, I think Twitter should ban nothing. 

The intensely complicated question of search algorithms...well Musk says they will be transparent.  We will see. 

 

[W. Niederhut]

         Toxic disinformation is a very serious, even deadly, problem for humanity.  The examples are legion.

         Who among us advocates false advertising?  Toxic snake oil sales?

         Can we rely on self-interested capitalist profiteers to adequately police it?  The concept is laughable.  Look at Rupert Murdoch, Robert Mercer, Phil Anschutz, et.al.

         Industrial and media tycoons have never been motivated chiefly by concern for the public welfare.  They want profits, low tax rates, and government de-regulation of fraudulence, pollution, etc.

         How many times must we re-experience the societal destruction of Gilded Age Robber Baron-ism before we finally acknowledge that unregulated, laissez faire capitalism-- in any business, including media-- can potentially damage the public welfare?

        Only constructive governance-- in the public interest-- can protect the public from unscrupulous profiteers, including media moguls.

        Some Republicans have been outraged recently about the belated, feeble attempts by a few social media corporations to protect the American public from toxic disinformation-- e.g., false information undermining public health interventions during the deadly COVID pandemic, and Trump's dishonest rabble-rousing after losing the 2020 election.

       Let's recall that Trump was only kicked off of Twitter after he incited his delusional fans to attack the U.S. Congress on January 6th, to "Stop the Steal."  The man told 30,000 documented lies during his White House tenure.

       If I understand it correctly, Elon Musk was kicked off of Twitter for posting misleading information to defraud investors. 

      Tucker Carlson was kicked off of Twitter for publicly attacking a transgender public official.

       Is for-profit fraudulence, hate speech, and incitement of violence supposed to be protected?

Edited April 27, 2022 by W. Niederhut

[Benjamin Cole]

30 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

         Toxic disinformation is a very serious, even deadly, problem for humanity.  The examples are legion.

         Who among us advocates false advertising?  Toxic snake oil sales?

         Can we rely on self-interested capitalist profiteers to adequately police it?  The concept is laughable.  Look at Rupert Murdoch, Robert Mercer, Phil Anschutz, et.al.

         Industrial and media tycoons have never been motivated chiefly by concern for the public welfare.  They want profits, low tax rates, and government de-regulation of fraudulence, pollution, etc.

         How many times must we re-experience the societal destruction of Gilded Age Robber Baron-ism before we finally acknowledge that unregulated, laissez faire capitalism-- in any business, including media-- can potentially damage the public welfare?

        Only constructive governance-- in the public interest-- can protect the public from unscrupulous profiteers, including media moguls.

        Some Republicans have been outraged recently about the belated, feeble attempts by a few social media corporations to protect the American public from toxic disinformation-- e.g., false information undermining public health interventions during the deadly COVID pandemic, and Trump's dishonest rabble-rousing after losing the 2020 election.

       Let's recall that Trump was only kicked off of Twitter after he incited his delusional fans to attack the U.S. Congress on January 6th, to "Stop the Steal."  The man told 30,000 documented lies during his White House tenure.

       If I understand it correctly, Elon Musk was kicked off of Twitter for posting misleading information to defraud investors. 

      Tucker Carlson was kicked off of Twitter for publicly attacking a transgender public official.

       Is for-profit fraudulence, hate speech, and incitement of violence supposed to be protected?

W.-

And who do you propose to be the arbiter of what is, and what is not, "toxic" speech?

Is public investigation into the source of the Wuhan virus "toxic"? Why did Twitter ban conversations about the Wuhan lab leak? 

Let's see how Elon Musk handles his new responsibilities. 

Side note: I live in Thailand. Tik-Tok is big here, and Tik-Tok runs under CCP authority. There is a lot of pro-Russian propaganda on Tik-Tok in Thailand. 

The missile strike in Kyiv, on the railroad station, was a Ukrainian missile, a fact confirmed by the registration number on the missile hull--so says reasonable-sounding poster on Tik-Tok.

You want government censorship? Corporate censorship? Just what are you proposing? This is a fascinating issue. 

The alliance of a political party with a corporate class and the global security state, and subsequent censorship--is that the right approach? 

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

"‘Putin never imagined’ global rally of Ukraine support, defense secretary says"---WaPo 

By Karen DeYoung  and Annabelle Timsit

---30---

This is a fascinating headline, and that is Lloyd Austin being quoted.

If Western powers had more clearly indicated their position pre-invasion, could Putin have been dissuaded? 

 

 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

As a practical matter, as the new town square, I think Twitter should ban nothing. 

Let the legal frameworks take care of law breaks and let people be responsible for what they post.
No censorship. ☑️

[Guest]

7 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Toxic disinformation

Seeing a phrase like this confirms how programmable human beings really are. 
 

7 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Who among us advocates false advertising?

None of us should do but, its gone on since advertising began and as its way out of control. Regulatory bodies let almost everything slide, there are so many questionable ads. Let’s look at the biggest one in recent history, the way the C19 jabs were sold. You were pro that advertising. Everyone is looking the other way now, like it didn't happen, as Ukraine is dominating media. We’ve gone from, “perfectly safe” to “we always knew there was a risk of adverse reactions” to blood clot ads on TV. It wasn’t ethical or honest. Without us going back and forth with links; how is it ethical to tell populations a medical treatment is perfectly safe, without releasing trial data and without even having enough data to know that is the case?
 

8 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Can we rely on self-interested capitalist profiteers to adequately police it?  The concept is laughable.  Look at Rupert Murdoch, Robert Mercer, Phil Anschutz et.al.

Agree, we need a separation between State and corporations. The system is rotten to the core with this, right up to the top with politicians playing the markets. 

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

20 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Seeing a phrase like this confirms how programmable human beings really are. 
 

None of us should do but, its gone on since advertising began and as its way out of control. Regulatory bodies let almost everything slide, there are so many questionable ads. Let’s look at the biggest one in recent history, the way the C19 jabs were sold. You were pro that advertising. Everyone is looking the other way now, like it didn't happen, as Ukraine is dominating media. We’ve gone from, “perfectly safe” to “we always knew there was a risk of adverse reactions” to blood clot ads on TV. It wasn’t ethical or honest. Without us going back and forth with links; how is it ethical to tell populations a medical treatment is perfectly safe, without releasing trial data and without even having enough data to know that is the case?
 

Agree, we need a separation between State and corporations. The system is rotten to the core with this, right up to the top with politicians playing the markets. 

 

 

"Something will start out as a righteous cause or a movement. Then it will devolve into politics. Then it will decline into a business. In the final stage, it becomes a racket."

---30---

The final stage is here for the two major US political parties. 

BTW, here is a report for Taiwan:

Taipei, April 25 (CNA) Taiwan on Monday reported 5,221 new COVID-19 cases, as well as 15 new moderate infections and one severe infection but no deaths from the disease, according to the Central Epidemic Command Center (CECC).

The new daily cases, which surpassed 5,000 for the second straight day, consisted of 5,108 domestically transmitted infections and 113 cases that were contracted abroad.

The CECC also reported that 15 people, aged in their 20s to their 90s, had developed moderate infections, while one patient in his 80s had developed a severe infection.

One of the 16 individuals with a moderate or severe infection was unvaccinated, while the others had received between one and three doses of a COVID-19 vaccine.

Of the 31,462 domestic cases recorded nationwide from Jan. 1 to April 24, 103 were classified as moderate infections and nine as severe, accounting for 0.33 percent and 0.03 percent of the total, respectively.

---30---

CNA is Channel News Asia, basically just a wire service, no agenda.

So...nobody is dying from the omicron strain of C-19? 

At some point...shouldn't we declare victory and go back to normal? 

And why are children being vaccinated? 

We know about the military-industrial complex.

No equal in the pharma-government complex? 

Is one obligated to drink the red or blue kool aid to talk about this topic? 

 

 

 

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

At some point...shouldn't we declare victory and go back to normal? 

There might well be autumn plans. China is locking people down this past month. 
 

How is the health-DARPA coming along? 
 

Its fair comment, as they are both projecting the same Jonestown kool-aid on this topic, aside from Rand Paul, Rogan, RFK Jr and Co. 

 

Watch out for Marburg! 

[Kirk Gallaway]

Of course we're accustom to Ben repeatedly voicing his feelings about "absolute free speech", (which of course is protected under "free speech" heh heh ) but there may be some conflict of interest between another of Ben's most repeated warnings about China. A point I share. China is a key market for Tesla's cars. But not the only point I have against Musk.

Let's  do a 360 on this!

 

Andre Ross Sorkin: But some will have sway over him, too, in ways that could distort what the public sees on Twitter. For example, Twitter has no presence in China. Musk does: A huge chunk of Tesla’s growth is dependent on that country. What happens when Chinese officials tell him to remove content from Twitter that they find objectionable?

Another tweet. I'm sorry I lost the author.   Back here in the U.S., Musk’s SpaceX business relies, in large part, on contracts with the Defense Department. His Tesla business is in discussions with the U.S. government about a national charging station infrastructure. His Boring Company, which digs tunnels, relies on governments for contracts. If a politician that controls the purse strings for any of Musk’s companies were to publish misinformation, would Musk remove it?   But now Jeff Bezos, owner of the Washington Post, response!

 

 

Bezos: Interesting question. Did the Chinese government just gain a bit of leverage over the town square?

Apropos of something: -Tesla's second-biggest market in 2021 was China (after the US) -Chinese battery makers are major suppliers for Tesla's EVs. -After 2009, when China banned Twitter, the government there had almost no leverage over the platform -That may have just changed

 

So that's the choice we everyday people are being given, the choice between billionaires???

 

But then, maybe Musk taking over twitter isn't "absolute free speech, as Ben had hoped? Still I'm a little confused.

Musk: By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people.

 

[Douglas Caddy]

 

Lawmakers to look at Supreme Court ethics changes after Ginni Thomas' election texts stirred debate (msn.com)