Quotes from new book are illuminating to say the least
In a report from The Guardian, based on pre-release galleys of “Battle for The Soul” written by Atlantic staff writer Edward Isaac-Dovere, the private exchanges about Trump bore little resemblance to the public niceties and careful self-censoring that went on during “the former guy’s” disastrous reign from the Oval Office.
According to the excerpts shared with The Guardian, in direct quoted pages former President Obama slammed Trump throughout the 2016 campaign and during 45’s term in office. According to Atlantic staff writer Edward Isaac-Dovere in his forthcoming book. Obama referenced Trump as a “madman”, “lunatic”, “racist”, “sexist pig” and a “corrupt motherfu–er”.
More often: ‘I didn’t think it would be this bad.’ Sometimes: ‘I didn’t think we’d have a racist, sexist pig.’ Depending on the outrage of the day … a passing ‘that fucking lunatic’ with a shake of his head.”
obama Quoted in “battle for the soul” by Edward-Isaac Dovere
Obama isn’t the only person that has something unflattering to say about the Trump, as news that the New York attorney general’s office will be going forward with a now-criminal investigation of the Trump Organization, Michael Cohen, the former personal lawyer and fixer for 45 hilariously tweeted Don behind bars:
As more documents are reviewed by the #NYAG and #NYDA, it appears that the troubles for Donald #Trump will keep on coming! Soon enough, Donald and Associates will be held responsible for their actions. pic.twitter.com/nOvd7Dry81
We’ve provided a look at Battle for the Soul, by Edward-Isaac Dovere, below, along with a description, provided courtesy of the Bookshop (and the publisher), along with some links for a variety of options where to purchase.
Battle for the Soul: Inside the Democrats’ Campaigns to Defeat
The 2020 presidential campaign was a defining moment for America. As Donald Trump and his nativist populism cowed the Republican Party into submission, many Democrats–haunted by Hillary Clinton’s shocking loss in 2016, which led to a four-year-long identity crisis–were convinced he would be unbeatable.
Their party and the country, it seemed, might never recover. How, then, did Democrats manage to win the presidency, especially after the longest primary race and the biggest field ever?
How did they keep themselves united through an internal struggle between newly empowered progressives and establishment forces–playing out against a pandemic, an economic crisis, and a new racial reckoning?
Edward-Isaac Dovere’s Battle for the Soul is the searing, fly-on-the-wall account of the Democrats’ journey through recalibration and rebirth.
Dovere traces this process from the early days in the wilderness of the post-Obama era, though the jockeying of potential candidates, to the backroom battles and exhausting campaigns, to the unlikely triumph of the man few expected to win, and through the inauguration and insurrection at the Capitol.
Dovere draws on years of on-the-ground reporting and contemporaneous conversations with the key players–whether in Pete Buttigieg’s hotel suite in Des Moines an hour before he won the Iowa caucuses or Joe Biden’s first-ever interview in the Oval Office–as well as aides, advisors, and voters.
With unparalleled access and an insider’s command of the campaign, Battle for the Soul offers a compelling look at the policies, politics, people and the often absurd process of running for president. This fresh and timely story brings you on the trail, into the private rooms and along to eavesdrop on critical conversations. You will never see campaigns or this turning point in our history the same way again.
Above: Photo Collage / Lynxotic / Johns Hopkins University Press
There’s a massive migration coming as the physical and political landscape changes
A gradual, subtle, yet immensely important shift is underway across the planet. That shift is the change in thinking that will be required to accompany the changes that we now know, for a fact, are coming. Global warming, sea level rise, mass decentralization and migration and many more macro trends that are no longer in doubt but will be a reality to cope with.
Taking the positive approach to this – searching for solutions to the many huge geopolitical and technological issues that we face, is a trend that must come to the front and center of our dialog about the future.
Although, it is a book more thought of as a guide for city planners and other professionals, Unlocking the Potential of Post-Industrial Cities is fascinating evidence of where these forced changes could lead, and what potentials can be unlocked by the opportunities that will inevitably arise from the extreme, changing circumstances.
A great step in the right direction, we’ve provided a look at Unlocking the Potential of Post-Industrial Cities, by Matthew E. Kahn and Mac McComas, below, along with a description, provided courtesy of the Bookshop (and the publisher), along with some links for a variety of options where to purchase.
The urban centers of New York City, Seattle, and San Francisco have enjoyed tremendous economic success and population growth in recent years. At the same time, cities like Baltimore and Detroit have experienced population loss and economic decline. People living in these cities are not enjoying the American Dream of upward mobility.
How can post-industrial cities struggling with crime, pollution, poverty, and economic decline make a comeback? In Unlocking the Potential of Post-Industrial Cities, Matthew E. Kahn and Mac McComas explore why some people and places thrive during a time of growing economic inequality and polarization–and some don’t.
They examine six underperforming cities–Baltimore, Cleveland, Detroit, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis–that have struggled from 1970 to present. Drawing from the field of urban economics, Kahn and McComas ask how the public and private sectors can craft policies and make investments that create safe, green cities where young people reach their full potential. The authors analyze long-run economic and demographic trends.
They also highlight recent lessons from urban economics in labor market demand and supply, neighborhood quality of life, and local governance while scrutinizing strategies to lift people out of poverty. These cities are all at a fork in the road.
Depending on choices made today, they could enjoy a significant comeback–but only if local leaders are open to experimentation and innovation while being honest about failure and constructive evaluation.
Unlocking the Potential of Post-Industrial Cities provides a roadmap for how urban policy makers, community members, and practitioners in the public and private sector can work together with researchers to discover how all cities can solve the most pressing modern urban challenges.
In her new book, Klobuchar tries to connect the historical roots of antitrust actions to populism and her own ancestry. That’s not all, however. Although difficult, particularly for readers who are not legal scholars, there’s an important and deeper historic thread here that she is aiming to contribute to.
That job is to find a way to illuminate how the digital age, with all its challenges and complexities, can come to terms with the simple question of how to measure damage that is being done by big tech monopolies, through sheer size, power and lack of external accountability.
Moreover, there is an issue of how antitrust law and practice veered away from the remedies and goals, first established during the Gilded Age, toward a laissez-fair, anti-regulatory stance that gained steam in the Regan years.
That shift is, in many ways, to blame for the current extreme state characterized by dangerous levels of concentrated wealth and power by big tech.
This effort may seem like one that is doomed to being ignored by all but the already long-since converted. But, make no mistake, it is a topic that will grow, reverberate and become more relevant as the current administration in Washington consolidates and comes into its own.
“People have just gotten beaten down. I wanted to show the public and elected officials that you’re not the first kids on the block with this. What do you think it was like back when trusts literally controlled everyone on the Supreme Court, or literally elected members of the Senate before they were elected by the public?”
— Amy Klobuchar, in Wired interview with Steven Levey
When President Biden recently nominated Lina M. Khan to the Federal Trade Commission, in addition to Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu, who announced earlier this month he would join the National Economic Council, he set forth a clear path for an antitrust direction that has the potential to be more than just rhetoric and window dressing.
Khan is an unequivocal proponent of a new era of antitrust, one that is, not coincidentally, along the lines of what Klobuchar advocates. Likely sharing these ultra clear views from her long and celebrated research, Khan, along with Wu, is a key addition to Biden’s growing roster of Big Tech critics, and there is already a blueprint for actions and cases that will build to a crescendo over the next several years.
Biden’s call for the repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, meanwhile, a hotly contested and possibly flawed legal shield some feel is exploited by Internet platforms, is another indicator of the tenor of the coming actions.
In a sense, with this bestselling book [on Amazon: #1 in Political Economy, #1 in Government Management, #1 in Business Law (Books)] the gargantuan task of connecting the culpability of massive, nearly infinitely powerful behemoths, each in it’s own territory, to the social and economic catastrophes that they’ve brought down on the world.
However, while politicians like Klobuchar may not have the charisma and energy to set a fire under the population, it is the very deeds themselves that will eventually conspire to ignite an uprising and put pressure on the government and the courts to take real, substantive measures. And with young, new faces and minds such as possessed by Khan and Wu, ultimately there is a bulwark of criticism against monopolist abuses building in government and among the public at large.
“I am never saying, ‘Get rid of their products.’ But let’s have more of the products that give you more choices. You can keep one product, but it’s better to have other products, because we’re not China.”
Amy Klobuchar in Wired interview with Steven Levey
In response to Klobuchar’s quote above Steven Levey in Wired wrote; “In other words, Facebook could keep it’s main app, but the public might benefit if Instagram and WhatsApp were not Mark Zuckerberg productions.”
While this kind of “moderate” view may not be the earth shattering remedy that would turn the juggernauts around in a heartbeat, from Zuckerberg’s perspective it would not be ideal, to say the least.
And, since we have seen the unfettered and viral growth of big tech, for at least a quarter century in some cases, and since there was a aura of hero worship afforded their leaders for most of that time, a break-up, such as that could ultimately turn out to be the beginning of more sweeping changes. A welcome outcome for those that have been harmed the various monopolistic structures that rule nearly all our lives, or at least it seems, at times.
Levey then asked Klobuchar why legislators so often embarrass themselves in hearings with irrelevant partisanship, clueless technical questions, and time-wasting grandstanding. Her response;
“Welcome to my life,” she says. “I get it—there’s going to be hearings that are irritating to people who know a lot. But that’s a great argument for tech to use because they don’t want this oversight.”
Amy Klobuchar in Wired interview with Steven Levey
In defense of using the word “antitrust in the title, while also advocating its eradication in future she responded:
“Well, I thought antitrust was an interesting word”. “It’s not only about this body of law; it’s also about not trusting anyone.”
Amy Klobuchar in Wired interview with Steven Levey
Perhaps it is more the course of history that led to the current and incredibly extreme situation and obscene dominance by big tech that is what should never have be trusted to arise in the first place.
Perhaps these firms will one day be seen, looking back from future generations, as a temporarily necessary, but evil mistake of history, as was the toothless interpretation of laws that led to their rise from “scrappy underdog startups” into malignant monopolies run amok.
As right-wing groups reorganize after the Capitol riot, scholars of the movement foresee increased polarization
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.
As the U.S. grapples with domestic extremism in the wake of the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, warnings about more violence are coming from the FBI Director Chris Wray and others. The Conversation asked Matthew Valasik, a sociologist at Louisiana State University, and Shannon E. Reid, a criminologist at the University of North Carolina – Charlotte, to explain what right-wing extremist groups in the U.S. are doing. The scholars are co-authors of “Alt-Right Gangs: A Hazy Shade of White,” published in September 2020; they track the activities of far-right groups like the Proud Boys.
What are U.S. extremist groups doing since the Jan. 6 riot?
Local chapters of the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, Groypers and others are breaking away from their groups’ national figureheads. For instance, some local Proud Boys chapters have been explicitly cutting ties with national leader Enrique Tarrio, the group’s chairman.
Tarrio was arrested on federal weapons charges in the days before the insurrection, but he has also been revealed as a longtime FBI informant. He reportedly aided authorities in a variety of criminal cases, including those involving drug sales, gambling and human smuggling – though he has not yet been connected with cases against Proud Boys members.
When a leader of a far-right group or street gang leaves, regardless of the reason, it is common for a struggle to emerge among remaining members who seek to consolidate power. That can result in violence spilling over into the community as groups attempt to reshape themselves.
While some of the splinter Proud Boys chapters will likely maintain the Proud Boys brand, at least for the time being, others may evolve and become more radicalized. The Base, a neo-Nazi terror group, has recruited from among the ranks of Proud Boys. As the Proud Boys sheds affiliates, it would not be surprising for those with more enthusiasm about hateful activism to seek out more extreme groups. Less committed groups will wither away.
How does that response compare with what happened after 2017’s ‘Unite the Right’ rally in Charlottesville?
Neither the Capitol insurrection nor the Charlottesville rally produced the response from mainstream America that far-right groups had hoped for. Rather than rising up in a groundswell of support, most Americans were appalled – some so much that they have abandoned the Republican Party.
Additionally, right-wingers have been hit hard by the post-insurrection actions by large technology companies like Facebook, Twitter, Apple, Google and Amazon. They took down far-right group members’ accounts and removed right-wing social media platforms, including permanently blacklisting Donald Trump’s Twitter account and temporarily blocking all traffic to Parler, a conservative social media platform. Those steps are more significant than earlier moderation and algorithm changes those companies had undertaken in previous efforts to curb online extremism.
Another major difference is the lack of regret. Nobody on the right wanted to be associated with Charlottesville after it happened. Figureheads of the far right who had initially promoted that rally saw the negative public reaction and distanced themselves, even condemning the “Unite the Right” rally.
After the insurrection at the Capitol, their response was different. They did not split and blame other right-wing groups. Instead, conservative and extreme-right circles have united behind a false claim that they did nothing wrong, and alleged, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that left-wing activists assaulted the Capitol – while disguised as right-wingers.
Are extremist groups attracting new members?
Some members have left extremist groups in the wake of the Jan. 6 violence. The members who remain, and the new members they are attracting, are increasing the radicalization of far-right groups. As the less committed members abandon these far-right groups, only the more devout remain. Such a shift is going to alter the subculture of these groups, driving them farther to the right. We expect this polarization will only accelerate the reactionary behaviors and extremist tendencies of these far-right groups.
Right-wing pundits and conservative media are continuing to stoke fears about the Biden administration. We and other observers of right-wing groups expect that extremists will come to see the events of Jan. 6 as just the opening skirmish in a modern civil war. We anticipate they will continue to seek an end to American democracy and the beginning of a new society free – or even purged – of groups the right wing fears, including immigrants, Jewish people, nonwhites, LGBTQ people and those who value multiculturalism.
We expect that these groups will continue to shift more and more to the extreme right, posing risks for acts of violence both large and small.
Have far-right extremists’ views toward the police changed?
With a Democratic administration and attorney general, the far right will no longer view federal law enforcement agencies as friendly, the way they did under the Trump administration. Rather, they view the police as the enemy.
Even before Joe Biden took office and the Republicans officially lost control of the U.S. Senate, the Capitol riot showed this divide between right-wing extremists and police. A Capitol Police officer was assaulted with a flagpole bearing an American flag, and some members of the mob were police officers and military personnel. Many more were military veterans.
It’s not clear what this different view of law enforcement means for police officers, active-duty military and veterans who are members of right-wing groups. But we anticipate that only those who are most zealously committed to far-right causes will remain active. That, in turn, will push those groups even farther to the extreme right.
Has anything changed for militias since Biden has become president?
In 2009, the Department of Homeland Security issued a report warning about the growing membership in far-right groups, including their active recruitment of military veterans. Shortly after the report was released, Republicans in Congress pushed for the report to be retracted and for dramatically reducing the federal effort to monitor far-right groups in the U.S. This permissive atmosphere allowed far-right groups to grow and spread nationwide.
The Trump administration further served far-right groups by failing to pay out federal grants for grassroots counterviolence programs, by refusing to help local law enforcement agencies with equipment or training to deal with these groups, and by routinely downplaying the violence perpetrated by these white power groups. Essentially, far-right groups were unpoliced for the past decade or more.
But that approach has ended. Merrick Garland’s appointment as Biden’s attorney general is a big signal: In his career at the Department of Justice before becoming a federal judge, Garland supervised the investigations of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing.
These were two of the most noteworthy acts of far-right domestic terrorism in the nation’s history. Garland has said that he will make fighting right-wing violence and attacks on democracy major priorities of his tenure at the head of the Justice Department.
In January, Canada designated the Proud Boys and other right-wing groups as terrorist organizations, which puts pressure on U.S. law enforcement to reconsider how they evaluate, investigate and prosecute these extremist groups. Beyond law enforcement’s treating these far-right groups like street gangs, there are also laws in place to combat violence associated with domestic terrorism.
It appears that U.S. prosecutors may finally begin to take seriously the violent actions of Proud Boys, especially as more and more members are being charged with coordinating the breach of the U.S. Capitol Building.
But as police power comes to bear on these violent right-wing groups, many of their members remain at least as radicalized as they were on Jan. 6 — if not more so. Some may feel that more extreme measures are needed to resist the Biden administration.
Matthew Valasik, Associate Professor of Sociology, Louisiana State University and Shannon Reid, Associate Professor of Criminal Justice and Criminology, University of North Carolina – Charlotte
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.
Long-time adviser and spokesperson for the Trump campaign, Jason Miller, stated on on Fox’s “MediaBuzz” that the former guy would be “returning to social media in probably about two or three months.”
In typical fashion spokesperson says it will be huge
Next he bragged that his return to social media would be via “his own platform” and that this new network would garner “tens of millions” of users and in his opinion would also “completely redefine the game.”
“It’s going to completely redefine the game, and everybody is going to be waiting and watching to see what President Trump does, but it will be his own platform.”
—Jason Miller, Trump Spokesperson
This news comes at a time when the furor of constant rage tweeting from the former guy has finally died down. It remains to be seen if this announcement is credible as there are pending legal and financial challenges that could potentially stand in the way of such an undertaking.
Possible WW3 over Digital Ads with Zuck & Google Vs MSFT & Apple
Sometimes, in order to tackle a complicated subject it is necessary, first, to take a step back. For example, before tech and the internet became the dominant economic force it is today there were hundreds, even thousands of companies that had important roles to play in the economy.
Not they other companies are unimportant today, but the sheer scale of trillion dollar (and growing) tech companies such as Google, Facebook who combined represent a near monopoly in digital advertising, and Apple and Microsoft, each also with strangleholds in some markets, but on the outside in the war over digital ad income.
This disparity and imbalance is so massive as to be nearly unprecedented in history. And, now, as the first blind hero worship phase has ended, we are entering a phase where the nearly ubiquitous influence and dominance over lives and fortunes are finally being questioned.
Next up: The war erupting as a result of the extreme correlation between the entrenched and overwhelming dominance of Facebook and Google in digital ads, the income source of media producers, and the near demise of that industry.
The situation has finally become so critical and lopsided that governments are finally stepping in to enforce changes that could never happen while one side, the “dominant digital platforms” holds all the cards and power.
One new axiom that has emerged with the rise of big tech monsters is that only a monster can hope to prevail in a war with another monster. Enter Kong vs Godzilla.
In this emerging world war it is more complicated still; on one side are the parallel duo of Facebook and Google, with similarities in the way they dominate digital advertising, but also in that they share a “surveillance” based business model using private user data to control markets and traffic.
On the other side are Apple, which has staked a claim to user privacy as a means to clearly differentiate a positive product and service based model, Microsoft, that appears to simply want to play the underdog as a search engine alternative to google and a “smaller” player in the digital ad space.
And then, in a corner of distinction above all others, lies the power of world governments.
World governments are playing a pivotal role as a kind of referee – finally stepping in, as the dangers and damage caused already by the duo of Facebook and Google, have awakened the possible regulatory, anti-trust actions that only they can enforce.
First was the rumble down under, now, on to Europe and North America
Even as a kind of truce has erupted in Australia, with the government making specific alterations to the News Media Bargaining Code that, apparently, appeased Facebook enough to withdraw its universal ban on hosting Australian news product.
According to AP News: Google and Facebook, take a combined 81% of online advertising in Australia and initially condemned the code as unworkable.
That has rapidly changed, and the stand-off has come to at least a temporary end.
Also likely, is that the massive demand for an app offering direct access to some of the exact stories that Facebook banned sent a strong enough message that competition for viewers is only one click away.
Motivating the two sides to come to terms and for Facebook to back down from its draconian stance vis-à-vis the new law.
Even as the Aussie skirmish fades a new front in Europe is emerging
Microsoft announced on February 22nd that is was joining a coalition of European Publishers to promote an “Aussie style” code for digital platforms to remunerate news content producers.
In addition to Microsoft, groups involved include the European Publishers Council (EPC), News Media Europe (NME), European Newspaper Publishers’ Association (ENPA), and European Magazine Media Association (EMMA).
Previously, Microsoft had already Earlier this month, Microsoft was lobbying in support of other countries following Australia’s lead in creating legislation mandating that news outlets to be paid for articles published on the platforms in the United States, Canada, the European Union, and other countries.
“We welcome Microsoft’s recognition of the value that our content brings to the core businesses of search engines and social networks because this is where Google and Facebook generate the vast majority of their revenues.
It is crucial that our regulators recognise this key point, and don’t get misled into thinking that side deals on the basis of a stand-alone product are the same thing, because they are not at all and undermine the neighbouring rights that we have been granted. All publishers should get an agreement – no one should be left out”.
-CHRISTIAN VAN THILLO, CHAIRMAN OF THE EUROPEAN PUBLISHERS COUNCIL
EPC, NME, ENPA, EMMA, and Microsoft call for arbitration to be implemented in European or national law that requires search engines and media platforms that aggregate news pay for content based on the Publisher‘s Right set out in Directive 2019/790.
Pandora’s Box is open and spilling all over the highway
Interestingly, Microsoft is, in a roundabout and equally self-severing way (according to critics) is now the second trillion dollar tech monster to take a direct stance against Facebook and Google and the monopoly strangle hold the enjoy over the financial life-blood of advertising that is essential for journalism and news production to survive, let alone flourish.
Critics will point out that Microsoft’s Bing search engine with a tiny market share compared to Google (in chart above the ridiculous 90% plus monopoly can be seen) has nothing to lose and everything to gain by supporting government efforts to even the playing field. And Apple? Facebook has already declared war and alleged all sorts of evil motivations for the privacy controls being built into its operating systems.
But that kind of talk is a bit late and weak now that the ultimate tech monster showdown has already begun. The first crack in a flawed and destructive business model, one shared to a great degree by both Facebook and Google has seen its first failure. Many more are yet to come.
And, last but not least, Microsoft and Apple are positioning themselves as the “good guys” and siding with governments and the News production organizations, partly, in order to be seen in a more positive light in case various anti-trust and regularity battles loom between either of them and the governments that are, currently, also investigating all of the giants.
By the way, seen any of Amazon’s recent “we are good guys, despite what you might have heard, seen or experienced” commercials? Small tip: if you have to spend millions on commercials trying to convince people you are not an evil greed-obsessed avaricious crap-ass company then you probably are exactly that.
The horses are out of the barn so grab your popcorn and get ready for this to get strange soon. After Europe Canada and then the US is coming into the ring.
Clearly there is something going on here and it seems blazingly obvious to everyone except those gathered to partake. The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) of 2021 began in Orlando, Florida on Friday. And nearly straight away this thing grabbed the show by the horns (above).
Or at least the Twitter reaction and meme factory was impressed. For all the wrong reasons. The four years of the “former guy” were hard to live through for sane people. But it is becoming more and more apparent that those that reveled in those times were not just angry political weirdos but, possibly, certifiable.
First was the warning from the Chief of the Capitol Police that pro-former-guy and right wing militia members were plotting to set bombs, literally, off at the Capitol to coincide with Biden’s upcoming State of the Union Address.
“We know that members of the militia groups that were present on January 6th have stated their desires that they want to blow up the Capitol and kill as many members as possible with a direct nexus to the State of the Union.”
Capitol Police Chief Yogananda Pittman
Now, as the always bizarre anyway CPAC conference convenes they decide to set up a Gold-calf worship statue and parade it around for the faithful.
That "golden calf" statue of Trump at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando, Florida? pic.twitter.com/unwbEPUxwv
— Mr. Naturalism (The Antichrist Unicorn) (@MNaturalism) February 26, 2021
Another seems to think BigBoy Burgers had something to do with the statue’s origin:
OMFG whoever built this golden calf of Trump *must* have known about Bob's Big Boy. COME ON.
The only thing missing is the burger, probably because Trump already ate it with a large fry and washed it down with a Diet Coke. pic.twitter.com/UP6vR8ylVL
At least they had some modicum of civility, truth, and intelligence back then. Wish we had someone like Ike back at the helm instead of Trump aka "the golden calf"… pic.twitter.com/nUhrlLt80r
A site in Syria was struck by the US military. The site was used by militia groups backed by Iran. This follows reported rocket attacks against American forces in the area, CNN reports, citing source as a “US official.
This was the first known military action since the inauguration of President Joe Biden. Though the site that was hit had no known direct involvement in the rocket attacks, but Shia militias operating in the area, and backed by Iran were believed to have used the facilities.
According to Pentagon spokesman John Kirby the stakes were carried out “at President Biden’s direction” and were not just authorized in response to recent attacks on American and coalition forces, but to deal with “ongoing threats to those personnel.”
Kirby said that Biden conducted the strikes after consulting with US allies, including coalition partners.
On Monday, State Department spokesman Ned Price said “We have stated before that we will hold Iran responsible for the actions of its proxies that attack Americans,” and that “many of these attacks have used Iranian made, Iranian supplied weapons.”
Statement from Pentagon press Secretary:
Pentagon statement on US air strikes against targets in eastern #Syria. The raid reportedly was carried out by US Air Force F-15E Strike Eagle aircraft. The statement was sent out at 1954 EST 25 Feb https://t.co/x4ueUseu3Npic.twitter.com/EbS2Yk9npJ
Tesla CEO, Elon Musk took to Twitter and tagged the official account for the Kremlin to ask if Russian president, Vladimir Putin would like to join him in the new social networking audio-only app Clubhouse.
He then followed up with the initial question with a tweet in Russian, when translated, reads: “it would be a great honor to talk to”. It is unclear what his ideas are on the topic or goal of having this highly visible, public, yet intimate chat. Speculations have pointed to issues that SpaceX, Starlink and Tesla have had getting opportunities in Russia, but the real reason or outcome could be something entirely different. Never a dull moment when Elon takes to social networking:
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on a conference call: “In general, this is of course a very interesting proposal, but we need to understand what is meant, what is being proposed… first we need to check, then we will react.”
Subscribe to our newsletter and get the latest updates sent directly to your inBox.
“We want to figure it out first. President Putin does not personally use social networks directly, he doesn’t have them” said Peskov.
This isn’t the first invitation Elon Musk has publicly asked of high profile people, last week he also asked and seemingly confirmed via Twitter that he and Kanye West would chat on the app. At this time there has been no confirmation of date or time when the two would be on Clubhouse, however there have been many rooms on the highly anticipated topic (Where is Kanye West?).
Prominent business and political figures have been propelling the Clubhouse app to a large increase in membership, even while the app is still invitation only and iOS-only (no android yet).
Mark Zuckerberg, who has allegedly been studying the app to produce his own copycat version, as well as celebs like Oprah and The Rock and many others have also all set up accounts and been involved in chats (room sessions).
Yesterday there was an hours long session hosted my Mr. Beast of YouTube fame who has nearly 50 million followers on the video streaming platform.
Though known for a tsunami of anti-trump and pro-biden campaign ads, so successful that they may have help defeat Trump last November, this clip is designed to bring out the dramatic and deadly truth of the Insurrection at the Capitol on January 6th, 2021
Beginning by calling for justice for officer Brian Sicknick, who died as a result of the Capitol riot, the clip builds to point out the simple truth that the death and destruction of that day was fomented, not only by Trump in his speech in Washington D.C. shortly before the terrorist riot, but by the incitement and lies that were so blatantly and vehemently broadcast to his followers in the weeks and months before.
The video begins with a somber statement:
“In the Capitol Rotunda, the remains of a brave man rest in a place of honor, he died a hero, and now Brian Sicknick deserves justice.”
In many ways, by the very nature of a Senate impeachment trial, somehow simple unavoidable facts seem to become unfocused in the process: That a good, heroic man died protecting democracy and those that were in the Capitol that day to try and practice it.
Announcement marks the 2nd state to launch cases against #45
The call from Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger will be called into question as Georgia prosecutors have initiated a criminal investigation against the former president.
The request comes as Trump is currently facing his second impeachment trial on the charge of “incitement of insurrection” following attacks on the Capitol on January 6. Trump could be heard, in the weeks following the election, claiming that the election was stolen from him, which included his loss in Georgia, where he fell short of approximately 12,000 (11,780) votes.
To listen to full phone conversation Trump had with Georgia’s Secretary of State, The Washington Post obtained the entirety of the call.
Documents, as well as the telephone call itself, are to be preserved as evidence, in order to further look into Trump’s attempts to overturn the election results in Georgia. During the call with Raffensperger, Trump could be heard pressing him to “find” the votes, meaning the 11,780 needed for him to win the state.
Trump took to Twitter at the time (his account has since been deleted) and spoke of Raffensperger, stating he “was unwilling, or unable, to answer questions such as the ‘ballots under table’ scam, ballot destruction, out of state ‘voters’, dead voters, and more. He has no clue!”
To which he responded
Respectfully, President Trump: What you're saying is not true. The truth will come out https://t.co/ViYjTSeRcC
— GA Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (@GaSecofState) January 3, 2021
The letter, sent to a handful of state government officials, according to the New York Times, responsible for first reporting on the story:
“This investigation includes, but is not limited to, potential violations of Georgia law prohibiting the solicitation of election fraud, the making of false statements to state and local governmental bodies, conspiracy, racketeering, violation of oath of office and any involvement in violence or threats related to the election’s administration.”
Letter confirming Criminal Investigation As quoted in the New York Times
February 12, 2021 marks the fourth day of former President Trump’s second impeachment trial. His lawyers have the chance today to rebut the House impeachment managers’ cases for Trump’s conviction.
The impeachment managers shared never before seen video evidence, as well as media reports and court documents demonstrating how some perpetrators believed that they were acting at the direction of Trump.
Trump’s legal team took the tack, not usual from past explanations of Trump conduct, that it was all just typical talk and nothing unusual for a speech by a “politician”. Shades of “locker room talk” and other times so many went out of their way to poo poo an outrageous statement. Only in those cases no-one died.
This was followed by standard denials and refutations.
“This is ordinary political rhetoric that is virtually indistinguishable from the language that has been used by people across the political spectrum for hundreds of years. Countless politicians have spoken of fighting for our principals. “
van der Veen also added “You can’t incite what was already going to happen,”
“No thinking person,” van der Veen said, “could seriously believe” that the speech “was in any way an incitement to violence or insurrection,” as Democratic House impeachment managers have charged. “Nothing in the text could remotely be construed as encouraging, condoning or enticing unlawful activity of any kind.”
Reactions:
All Trump had to say at 1:30 pm or even 2:30 pm was “get out of the Capitol, that’s not what I wanted you to do. Stay outside.” He indicted himself as much by what he didn’t say on January 6th as what he did.
Today isn't about making sound constitutional arguments. It's about giving Senate Republicans something to say to reporters and constituents when they vote no on conviction.
If this were a law school exam answer it would get an F. The point is Trump’s use of speech constituted an abrogation of his constitutional duties as president. Trump lawyer is not addressing this, the main point.
This one you could have predicted — Trump's defense is Trump is a victim. They are using this forum to justify every terrible thing he's done as not his fault. The king of alternative facts is creating "reality" now again.
Wow! Trump defense team has just claimed that the House Impeachment managers have manipulated, manufactured and tampered with evidence. This is a HUGE accusation no lawyer should take lightly! #ImpeachmentTrial
Trump has yet to resurface on any social media platform, are we in the clear?
The proverbial nail in the Twitter coffin for Trump has finally been pounded home. Based on a statement from a Twitter spokesperson, once you are removed from the platform, you are removed, with no exceptions. So that means, regardless of his potential future run for president in 2024, it has been confirmed, Trump will never be allowed to share a rant via a tweet.
Of course, if the current impeachment trial in the Senate is successful in one of its aims, he will also be banned forever from seeking public office.
During an interview with CNBC, Twitter CFO, Ned Segal, spoke in detail, confirming that Trump will not be allowed back on the platform, ever.
"The way our policies work, when you're removed from the platform, you're removed from the platform whether you're a commentator, you're a CFO or you are a former or current public official," says $TWTR CFO @nedsegal on if President Trump's account could be restored. pic.twitter.com/ZZxascb9Rz
“When you’re removed from the platform, you’re removed from the platform, whether you’re a commentator, you’re a CFO, or you are a former or current public official,” said Segal. “Remember, our policies are designed to make sure that people are not inciting violence. And if anybody does that, we have to remove them from the service, and our policy is not to allow people to come back.”
Off the rails, coke-filled tirade, Deuxième édition ?
Donald Trump Jr. had a mouthful to say during an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News. Even as the impeachment trail highlights is granular detail just how egregious the crimes of his father actually were, he was still living in the past using whataboutism to somehow compare BLM peaceful and justified protests to a murmurous attack with the goal of overthrowing the legitimate government of the United States of America:
“You sort of highlighted all the hypocrisy that we saw during 10 months of rioting, looting, arson, in-your-face type of politics. Candidly, whatever my father said on January 6th was mild in comparison, but if you were to take his speech and compare it to literally any stump speech ever given in the history of politics, you would see absolutely no deviation.”
Was violently attacking the legislative branch to overturn democracy not "hardball"? pic.twitter.com/C2FYK85gfT
It’s, unfortunately for Donny Jr., a bit late to try to dig out of this situation with nonsensical propaganda as if somehow the reality can be talked out of existence on Fox with buddy Hannity. More likely is that Don Jr. himself will face criminal charges, after his imagined political future already lies in the dust and detritus of his father’s downfall.
Laying out the evidence, built up over months and leading to Jan. 6th, makes a compelling case, for anyone not considered a clown
Click here to see “Tower of Lies“ to help Independent Bookstores. Also available on Amazon.
All throughout the so-called “presidency” of DJT bizarre double standards were used, exploited and reinforced by him and his minions. If he made an outrageous, even criminal statement, either on Twitter, or in a publicly available video recording, and outrage or any kind of pushback arose, the go-to explanation was “he was obviously joking”.
No matter if the gaffe was suggesting people inject bleach to combat the corona virus, or when he suggested that the U.S. buy Greenland, there was always a built in escape hatch: he didn’t really mean it, and you are a political hack, or worse, for suggesting that he did.
And, even more ridiculous, if you were a member of the press or a democrat, there were many who would seriously posit that he should not, or could not, be held accountable because he is obviously an idiot or a clown or a criminal mastermind and stable genius that would, therefore, get away with it anyway.
From an interview by NPR titled “What Might Accountability For President Trump Look Like?” with IAN BASSIN, executive director of Protect Democracy:
“But when you look internationally and you look at history, what you find is that the risks of not acting are actually worse. What happens is that abusers return to power often and engage in even more abusive behavior. To put this in terms I think we all could understand, as every parent knows, if a child takes a cookie from the cookie jar when he’s not supposed to, and you just move on, not only will he do it again, but next time, so will his brother and sister.”
Added together with propaganda techniques cribbed from Russia (and others) such as “Whataboutism” and an even more primitive derivative of the idea which comes straight from the playground-bully school: “I know you are, but what am I?”.
”Whataboutism has been common in Putin’s Russia. The Atlantic cited one such example in 2014, noting that when the Kremlin faced criticisms of its treatment of protesters, government officials responded, “What about the United Kingdom? Breaking the law during public gatherings there could lead to a fine of 5,800 pounds sterling there or even prison.”
And then there are the famous Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels’ well known axioms: “Accuse your enemy of that which you are guilty” and the “Big Lie” theory:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
One valid reason for this unique out-of-office Impeachment proceeding is exposing the limits for the “Buffoon Defense”
This stroll down memory lane brings us to the current Senate Trial that will lead to a vote to convict Trump and, since he can no longer be removed, to bar him from ever again running for, or holding, public office.
When the evidence is laid out, as if Trump were an actual president and serious person, which is happening, beginning today on live TV, the effect is shock, not that these things happened, but that the gulf between his actions, and the consequences any other person would receive as a result, ever became so incredibly huge.
This was the drift of the impeachment managers presentation; lay out facts, using words, charts, graphs and even video evidence. Facts that, under any other circumstance, and with regard to any other politician, or any other defendant, would yield a 99.9999% likelihood of grave and serious consequences.
Yet in this bizarre case it is being seen and understood as serious and real by, perhaps, the majority, and at the same time is seen as meaningless or worse, some kind of left-wing conspiracy, by the rest.
What does the success of such obvious propaganda and mind control say about our society and situation going forward?
Even among the most discerning witnesses of the last four plus years it remains hard to determine just how much of the propaganda was planned, orchestrated and understood by the perpetrators with Trump as a figurehead.
Or if it was all a big, insane coincidence, that an actual buffoon could be just smart enough to use the “idiot-card” with such success.
If there is a book being written on Trump’s true legacy or on the mysteries that he left behind, this core mystery, how much his actual stupidity was a key benefit to getting away with so much crime, so much destruction, and, in the end, depending on the outcome, even murder, should be the central premise.
And this trial, with the articulated goal of accountability for real and very serious crimes, must have as a secondary aim, to expose and deconstruct the lies and the methods of avoiding accountability for all the damage and destruction over the entire tenure of the administration.
It remains to be seen if the ability to use the Buffoon Defense will extend to Sedition and Murder, if so, the larger story will ultimately be the insanity of acquitting a man so obviously deserving of finally being made to face consequences, and that will be rightly seen as the larger crime.
The plan for TikTok’s American operations to Oracle and Walmart has been delayed, most likely indefinitely. According to WSJ, in a recent court filing, the Biden admin has begun to review whether there are threats to national security as claimed by the Trump administration that would warrant the ban.
Representative of ByteDance (TikTok’s owner) and US National security are in discussions regarding data security and preventions on American data being accessed by Chinese government.
“We plan to develop a comprehensive approach to securing U.S. data that addresses the full range of threats we face,” National Security Council spokeswoman Emily Horne said. “This includes the risk posed by Chinese apps and other software that operate in the U.S. In the coming months, we expect to review specific cases in light of a comprehensive understanding of the risks we face.”
The revenge campaigned, couched in some kind of theory that China would use the platform to spy on, or gather and maliciously use the data of, U.S. citizens, was also, in a monumental coincidence, a reaction to K-pop fans sabotaging his campaign rally in Tulsa, OK, by using the platform.
Hilariously, after Trump and the then campaign chair, Brad Parscale, bragged at the projected 19,000 sold-out attendance, the venue was shown in numerous photos and videos as nearly empty. The TikTok mob had ordered thousands of tickets, which were free online, for reserved seats, causing the organizers to assume that the rally would have full attendance.
Naturally the TikTok gang only wanted to embarrass the campaign and did a fantastic job. In retrospect this was the beginning of the end of Brad Parscale as Trumps main guy and, one could almost say, of Trump’s re-election campaign itself, as things generally went downhill from there.
Carone claims she wants to bring back “conservative values”
Even if you don’t know the name Mellissa Carone, most that have social media or watched any television will be able to recall the image or the likeness to this woman.
Back in December of 2020, Carone, almost instantly became a parody when she appeared alongside Rudy Giuliani during an Oversight hearing. Videos from SNL, TikTok and even Amy Schumer popped up, with the main selling point that she appeared drunk, some coining her the “wine lady” or “drunk lady”.
Mellissa Carone is making news again, as the 33 year old Republican is reportedly going to run for the 46th District seat, according to a recent filing with Michigan Secretary of State’s office.
She also criticized Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Attorney General Dana Nessel and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, the state’s three top Democrats. Michigan needs “conservative values” back, Carone said.
Trump sent a resignation letter to The Screen Actors Guild and its a pretty petty one. His response to the labor union came after its move to expel him due to his role in inciting violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6, which resulted in five deaths.
I write to you today regarding the so-called Disciplinary Committee hearing aimed at revoking my union membership. Who cares!
While I’m not familiar with your work, I’m very proud of my work on movies such as Home Alone 2, Zoolander and Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps; and television shows including The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, Saturday Night Live, and of course, one of the most successful shows in television history, The Apprentice – to name just a few!
I’ve also greatly helped the cable news television business (said to be a dying platform with not much time left until I got involved in politics), and created thousands of jobs at networks such as MSDNC and Fake News CNN, among many others.
Which brings me to your blatant attempt at free media attention to distract from your dismal record as a union. Your organization has done little for its members, and nothing for me – besides collecting dues and promoting dangerous un-American policies and ideas – as evident by your massive unemployment rates and lawsuits from celebrated actors, who even recorded a video asking, “Why isn’t the union fighting for me?”
These, however, are policy failures. Your disciplinary failures are even more egregious.
I no longer wish to be associated with your union.
As such, this letter is to inform you of my immediate resignation from SAG-AFTRA. You have done nothing for me.
SAG-AFTRA response, with a permanent ban
Upon Trump’s letter of resignation from the union, SAG-AFTRA President Gabrielle Carteris and National Executive Director David White, simply responded, “Thank you.”
On Feb 7, the union took future action and released an additional statement: “Preventing Donald Trump from ever rejoining SAG-AFTRA is more than a symbolic step,” said SAG-AFTRA President Gabrielle Carteris. “It is a resounding statement that threatening or inciting harm against fellow members will not be tolerated. An attack against one is an attack against all.”
Reactions from John Stewart and the Twitterverse
I too, renounce SAG-AFTRA!!! You have let me down as well, done nothing…I will no longer abide your gross abdication of…oh wait…I’m just shitty at acting…never mind. President Jon Stewart
Downhill from the start, with proofreading as optional
The defense team for Trump issued a response for his upcoming impeachment trial to the House of Representatives last week. The document was widely mocked because the article, besides having questionable content, had egregious grammatical and spelling errors (within the first page).
The major spelling error, on the first page, addressed members of the “Unites” (instead of United) State Senate.
The same mistake! Again! “Unites” States: (fix your spell checker and proofread?)
Less than a week after submitting their initial legal brief, the 78-page brief, again referred to the country Trump used to be a President as “Unites States”.
Within the initial filings, the newly installed attorneys to lead the impeachment trail: Bruce Castor and David Schoen argued that former president Trump should not face impeachment relating to the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection because he is out of office.
From the Independent: They’re also reminiscent of the president and his allies’ chaotic legal effort to overturn the legitimate election results, where lawyers backing the president bungled basic composition somewhat regularly, once writing “DISTRCOICT” instead of “district,” and submitting another lawsuit with a promise it contained “plenty of perjury.”
The legal team continued using Trump’s unsubstantiated claims that the 2020 presidential election was “suspect”.
Another element that Trump’s defense is using is that the his freedom of speech was protected under the First Amendment.
“The actions by the House make clear that in their opinion the 45th President does not enjoy the protections of liberty upon which this great Nation was founded, where free speech, and indeed, free political speech form the backbone of all American liberties,” the legal memo says.
Twitter users were quick to respond back that someone’s rights to the First Amendment does have limits, one of which is a violent insurrection.
On a crazy night Zuckerberg, KimDotCom and Guy Kawasaki all join rooms at the same time
Clubhouse, the red hot “social audio” app which is growing, even by invitation only by the millions per week. Part of the appeal is the up-close and personal audio interactions that happen among people from all walks of life; including big names. Last week it was Elon Musk “interviewing” the CEO of Robinhood (see video below).
KimDotCom is a bit of a crazy one, could be perhaps called infamous rather than famous, as the founder of “MegaUpload” and the New Zealand Extradition saga. There’s a strange kind of irony to having Mark Zuckerberg show up. Obviously it shows how Clubhouse is just too hot to ignore – it will probably spur rumors that he is circling the rooms with designs on acquiring or copying the app.
We have been testing Clubhouse for a future feature article and it is truly remarkable what the atmosphere is while using the app. The intimacy of group audio, combined with a kind of democratic algorithm / interface (for the most part), makes for a social media experience that is nothing like any other platform that has caught on.
In some ways it’s like being at a huge trade show like CES and going to a keynote or a panel discussion. However, the fact that it is live 24/7 365 days a year makes for more impromptu access, more spontaneity and more… chaos (sometimes for good or…).
I’m tryna see Mark Zuckerberg and Tim Cook in the same Clubhouse room
Clubhouse was launched, in what may be the most fantastically serendipitous timing ever, in March 2020. Tearing a page, ironically, from the Zuckerberg and Facebook playbook, it has been and continues to be an invitation only club.
After the session with Zuckerberg was over one of the “Stage” speakers coined the term “Digital Teepee” to describe the feeling of being in such an intimate setting with such a controversial figure like Mark Zuckerberg. Others speculated what his motivations might have been to join the club.
Here’s what Mark Zuckerberg said on Clubhouse about AR, VR, and Remote Work
In a nod to the “Trade-show” aspect the first affinity group was… Venture Capitalists
In an interesting twist, however, the initial focus for invites was not on college students, as was the case with the early days of facebook, but mainly consisted of venture capitalists.
Perhaps this was indirectly related to the fact that , Alpha Exploration Co., the company behind Clubhouse was launched after a $12 million investment came from Andreessen Horowitz after they had only been in existence for approximately two months.
The invitations are being handed out more liberally now and the “club” is growing at over a million users per week at the moment. The demand is so extreme, however, that invites are even being sold on eBay in the US and even on equivalent platforms in China and elsewhere.
In a first, in what will almost surely crash the app again, Netflix will be doing a promotional room (which has never happened before) to promote Zendaya’s new film‘Malcolm & Marie’ which will be live on Netflix tomorrow.
Apple gets serious about exploitative surveillance business models, and it’s about time
Six months ago when we first published “Cracks in The Wall: Apple, Google, Amazon and Facebook Silently Declare Wars Against Each Other” we were worried. Although we firmly believed it was a just war, and that the time was at hand for the rotten underbelly of the internet and, more than anything else, for the business model of Facebook to be excoriated out in the open, using the term “war” in conjunction with Apple seemed over-the-top and even inflammatory.
We stuck with the title and now, looking back, it was accurate if not 100% polite. After new privacy features in iOS 14 and macOS Big Sur were made public, Facebook and Zuckerberg took it as an attack on its tracking-first-business model and fought back with some rhetoric about how Apple was going to harm small businesses.
The first feeble attempt at fighting back was a full page ad in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other outlets, where Facebook alleged: “these changes will be devastating to small businesses” with the supposition that small businesses depend on Facebook’s darling invention; tracking-based advertising, and need it to build their brands and to sell products.
Missing from this self-serving logic is the price of this form of targeting and data collection – in dollars, literally billions of them charged to those same small businesses, and in the cost to virtually all “users” who’s privacy is sacrificed with little to no consumer benefit and many, many potential detriments.
This is not just some sort of scrap between rival companies, it’s all our futures at stake
With the salvo of clear and decisive comments made by Tim Cook at the Computers, Privacy and Data Protection conference, and in interviews with various magazines, the righteous and timely battle against demonstribly evil internet business models is for real now, with the unnamed but obviously targeted Facebook at the top of the list.
The quote from Tim Cook in the title above exactly captured the current reality: the excellent documentary titled ‘The Social Dilemma’ did not go nearly far enough in exposing the danger of surveillance based business models that should not be allowed to exist
As if Facebook has ever been a friend to small business. The concept that has been clear for many years is that the surveillance capitalism, for the most part invented by Facebook, that Apple is now declaring war against, was always an obscene and disastrous one for every person on the planet, other than Mark Zuckerberg.
“If a business is built on misleading users, on data exploitation, on choices that are no choices at all, it does not deserve our praise. It deserves reform,”
Apple CEO, Tim Cook, speaking at the Computers, Privacy and Data Protection conference
However, with a vast power over almost all digital advertising (sharing, with Google, more than 70%) and no competition to speak of where anyone could go for “social media” access, 3-5 years ago it was hard to imagine how anything could slowdown, let alone stop, Facebook’s inexorable rise.
In what will be a huge theme for this decade, only giants can fight and hope to win against other giants.
Right now, as of Tim Cook’s declaration of war on the “data-industrial complex” and with numerous anti-trust and other legal actions against Facebook pending, it suddenly seems plausible that a real change, a much needed change, could finally come in the way that human beings communicate via that immense network of devices we call the internet.
“Technology does not need vast troves of personal data, stitched together across dozens of websites and apps, in order to succeed.”
— Tim Cook
In an exclusive interview with Michael Grothaus at Fast Company Cook stated: “In terms of privacy—I think it is one of the top issues of the century, we’ve got climate change—that is huge. We’ve got privacy—that is huge. . . . And they should be weighted like that and we should put our deep thinking into that and to decide how can we make these things better and how do we leave something for the next generation that is a lot better than the current situation.” (emphasis mine)
This statement, though perhaps hyperbolic to some, is at the heart of our coverage of Apple, Google, Facebook and “Big Tech” in general over the last few years. In fact, this idea can go further and deeper as… “privacy” is just the tip of the iceberg and the predatory infrastructure that the data-collection and exploitation business model enables is even more dangerous and is a threat to the entire economy.
Of the new “Big 5” (Apple, Musk, Facebook, Google, Amazon) only Apple and the affiliated Elon Musk enterprises actually have proprietary products or products and services that benefit humanity in a concrete way.
Elon Musk has sustainable energy and sustainable transportation as stated goals of Tesla, while SpaceX, has reaching Mars (to give earthlings a second planet available in case we screw this one up) and, now with Starlink, building a second broadband internet backbone in space.
Apple, while on the one hand being inadvertently responsible for both Google and Facebook in different ways (more on that soon in a subsequent post), is at the heart of the real reason why internet business models and structures are key to our survival and to humanity’s ability to survive and reverse global warming by evolving, enhanced communication.
Apple is no longer just an electronic device maker. Software, hardware, A.I., possibly an electric car, and services are all merging and reaching what we call “Apple Singularity”. Apple has the potential to trigger a monumental shift in the ways we communicate online – networked human communication – away from the trash-filled nightmare of the present day – where three obscenely massive companies: Facebook, Google and Amazon, have built business models that do not rest on innovative products or services but on predatory systems that enslave users, gouge small businesses and do very little in adding benefit to humanity as a whole.
“At a moment of rampant disinformation and conspiracy theories juiced by algorithms, we can no longer turn a blind eye to a theory of technology that says all engagement is good engagement — the longer the better — and all with the goal of collecting as much data as possible. It is long past time to stop pretending that this approach doesn’t come with a cost — of polarization, of lost trust and, yes, of violence”
Tim Cook
What the three massive deadbeats do is make a small handful of individuals and shareholders very rich. Fortunately, the issues with these business models are finally being questioned. But this is only the beginning.
The unthinkable is now at least possible to imagine: a world where Facebook does not have unlimited power to take, and profit from, our data
Once a real understanding of the degree of inferiority of these models, when measured by the costs vs. the benefit to humanity itself, becomes clearer, the government regulation and involuntary changes forced by the market will begin and quickly accelerate.
It is the combination of the lack of substance or concrete contribution by firms with a predatory business model casing the harm, in ways that are partially invisible, up until now, and make them so dangerous.
The danger is social, political, and in then end affects our economy and the lives of nearly every person who uses the services of those companies. Which is very nearly the entire population.
The economic damage that is being caused by the business models invented by these companies is, much like global warning, so massive that it threatens the entire planet, but the lack of attention we are giving it is based on ignorance of the magnitude of the danger.
Apple and Tim Cook’s perspective is extremely important and key to lighting a spark to ignite fires that will burn away that ignorance. The “big-tech” world that Apple, led by Steve Jobs, had a huge hand in creating, desperately needs a shake up and it needs to start now. This has nothing to do with a handful of huge companies fighting over control of the internet – it’s not about one winning, it’s about further damage being stopped, and a new, better internet being allowed to emerge.
Now, Tim Cook and Apple are beginning a long battle to make that happen on behalf of all of us.
The end-all and be-all of memes emerged out of the inauguration…
In a move that transcends the presidential, Bernie Sanders now owns the internet. All he needed was the right mittens and a countenance of equanimity, rising above to see into the center of all being and nothingness.
Like a zen monk or Yoda on steroids, he accomplishes all by doing little, even nothing, beyond his mind bending position and posture. Ever modest and with a meaningful invisible wink, he disavows any knowledge of his splendor or any plan to conquer all:
“I was just sitting there trying to keep warm, trying to pay attention to what was going on,”
-Bernie Sanders / Interview Late Night With Seth Meyers
Meanwhile, there has been a meaningful and valid response to the triumph, and it all gets back to a t-shirt and mittens.
Now that there has been an endless stream of replication and iteration based on the genius moment, we best begin at the beginning and trace this new species of viral wonderfulness back to its humble source: the photo:
#BernieSanders We love the Bernie memes being shared all day. Taking special requests where do you want to see Bernie? Bernie – our heart will go on pic.twitter.com/zPSJVlfuSG
And to you, Amazon, you can not have this meme for your endless self-aggrandizement, and here is the obvious reason why:
On #PrimeDay, let's not forget. During the pandemic, Jeff Bezos became $97 billion richer by increasing prices by up to 1,000% on essential items and denying hazard pay and paid sick leave to over 450,000 of his workers. It's time to break up Amazon and tax the rich.
