Who Decides?

He [Musk] has lost his privileges and it should be taken down. ... There has to be a responsibility placed on these social media sites to understand their power. ...  They are speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation.  That has to stop.

Kamala Harris

VP Harris spoke out against X/Twitter.  From her perspective, Free Speech is a privilege, not a right.  Musk has lost that privilege according to the would-be president.  What could he do to regain his privileges?  She wants oversight and regulation.  Right.  Who decides?  Who are these regulators and overseers who will make sure that social media understands its power and uses it responsibly?  Is her definition of responsible use the same as my definition of responsible use?  She is using the words oversight and regulation when she really means censorship.  What else could it be?  Proper grammar and punctuation?  No, the people have access to information (maybe misinformation) that the government would rather they didn't.  The government doesn't want to fight 'misinformation' with facts; they want to censor it.  The censors are always the bad guys.

France recently arrested a social media mogul for failing to properly regulate and oversee information.  Free speech must be restricted.  To allow the government to restrict it without admitting they are abridging free speech, they come up with terms like hate speech, misinformation, disinformation, and so forth.  Really, our censoring this is for your own good.  Honest.

Nothing from Government is "Free"

Found on X (formerly Twitter):

Javier Milei just passed the most sensible law in world history - known as Articulo 209.

From now on, governmental institutions can no longer use the word "free" to promote any state service or function in municipal provinces or on a national level.

Milei considers the use of the word “free” a lie and feels citizens shouldn’t be lied to since the services always paid by someone, typically tax dollars.

This is spectacular!  Such a simple change.  Really, it's truth in advertising.  Let's bring that rule to the US!

Pearl

H. Pearl Davis has burst upon the scene, a YouTuber who has exploded in popularity in recent months.  She has picked up the complaints of MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) channels and added her observations to them.  She states that modern women would be regarded very poorly (I dare not use her descriptions here) by standards of an earlier era.  Where men were supposed to be providers and offer protection, she states that women would bring purity and youth.  That does go back quite a way, certainly before the sexual revolution.  This is hardly the most controversial thing she says.  Recently, she adopted the idea that women shouldn't vote!  She regularly states that men are better at everything than women.  Men are smarter than women and men are less gullible.  It is hardly surprising that she is viewed as a misogynist by her critics.

According to Pearl, men get a raw deal in marriage.  A woman who comes to a marriage as a virgin is 80% likely to stay with her husband.  However, one who has had 5 or more partners, is only 20% likely to stay.  If the woman does leave, she will take the kids, half the household value, and continue to cost her ex-husband through either alimony or child support.

Her rocket-like rise reminds me of Milo Yiannopoulus, who was suddenly everywhere in 2014.  Here was this new personality that was inexplicably everywhere and remained so for several years.  Then there was his collapse in 2017.  Is Pearl just the latest personality to rise to the top and destined to crash into oblivion?  A flash in the pan?  How likely is it that she can resurrect the taboos and mores of an earlier era?

What is a Woman? (2022)

The controversial film from last year is now available on Twitter.  Matt Walsh declares that, though he thought he knew what a woman was, some doubts have arisen in recent years.  In order to clarify, he set out on a quest across the country and even around the globe to find out What is a Woman? 

Among those he asked to define a woman were academics, participants of a Women's March, doctors, politicians, and even random people on the street.  Most of those asked either could not give a definition or refused to give a definition.  One politician ended the interview rather than provide any answer to the question.  Those who did give a definition tended to provide a circular one: a woman is someone who identifies as a woman.  This reluctance to pin down a definition is tied to the rise in transgenderism.  To provide a biological answer would be to exclude transgender women from womanhood.  Walsh interviews a transgender man who paints a grim picture of his experiences.  He also addresses the issue of transgender women participating in sports.  One woman - interviewed anonymously - detailed her experience of being displaced in sports by transgender women.  Why an anonymous interview?  She feared being labeled transphobic, which would stain her forever.  Opposition to transgender athletes has been labeled bigotry by many.  Also covered is the debate over pronouns.  Walsh talked to Jordan Peterson on this subject, who rose to prominence on that very topic.  At the end of the film, he still had not been provided with a definition for a woman, so he asked his wife.

"Adult human female."

It is noteworthy that among his interviews were a transgender man - who claimed no knowledge of how women feel - and a transgender doctor whose specialty was transgender patients.  As such, he didn't only talk to those who had negative experiences with transgenderism.  Most of those he interviewed were on the transgender side of the debate.  However, it should be noted that Walsh and Daily Wire edited the film; a skilled editor can flip the meaning of almost anything through clever cuts and remixed questions and answers.  He also has some dramatizations of himself, which was silly.  Even so, recommended to those interested in the view of trans-opponents.

Censorship Confirmed

Twitter acting by itself to suppress free speech is not a 1st amendment violation, but acting under orders from the government to suppress free speech, with no judicial review, is

Elon Musk

The Twitter Files have been posted, at least in part, and it shows collusion between Twitter and the Biden Campaign.  After Biden's election, it shows continued collusion to silence critics.  In fact, indications are that both parties had access to backdoor channels to censor Twitter posts.  Censorship by proxy.  That the town square of the modern era is hosted on private platforms has created an incentive toward censorship.  As Musk says, Twitter has every right to censor users for whatever reason.  However, once government enters the picture, censorship becomes the tool of a tyrant.  China, Iran, and North Korea have strong controls on what the people may read or hear, the better to control their views.

How might 2020 have played out if the playing field was level?  90% plus of stories on Trump were negative.  In the case of the Hunter Biden laptop, the media buried the story rather than have a negative story against Biden.  Would it have made a difference?  MAGA folks say it would have made all the difference.  Maybe.  In any case, those who spiked the story certainly thought it would make a difference.

Free Speech Fears

Since Elon Musk took over Twitter, there have been many complaints that he is lifting restrictions and granting amnesty to banned users.  Oh, the humanity!  The restrictions and bannings are being painted as necessary for safety or to prevent misinformation.  Though I'm in favor of banning users who call for violence, I'm opposed to banning those who offer 'misinformation.'  Who decides it's misinformation?  In China, Xi decides.  I'm sure most Republicans view what Democrats say to be misinformation and that the Democrats view anything Republicans say as misinformation.  We have no objective observer who can decide.  The fact checkers are usually funded by one side or the other, and only claim dispassion.  Therefore, it should be a free for all.  Let them debate.  That one side is eager to keep people out of the debate reveals that that side is not confident in being able to win the debate.

Let everyone make their case.

Twitter

Elon Musk has purchased Twitter and panic has ensued.  I am reminded of the election of Abraham Lincoln, of all things.  No sooner had Lincoln been elected than the South commenced to secede.  There was no waiting to see what policies he might pursue, just immediate panic.  Despite Lincoln winning with less than 40% of the popular vote, the South chose to secede.  Had the South remained, an additional 12 Democratic Senators would have tipped the Senate to the Democrats: 35 Democrats, 29 Republicans, and one Unionist.  There were 7 Democrat Senators from Union states and 7 more from Border States.  Instead, the balance was 29 Republicans, 23 Democrats, and 1 Unionist.  As more Confederate states departed, the balance was further unbalanced.  Even with the Republican dominance that followed, Northern Democrats were still needed to pass the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery.  Clearly, this could never have been ratified if the South had not seceded.

Musk has only just purchased Twitter and has implemented little, if anything yet.  Why not wait to see how things shake out?  If it goes to hell, then tweet your prescience and delete your account then.  By staying on the platform, you have the ability to shape the platform.  By leaving, you have none.  I am also reminded of all those who proclaimed that they would leave the United States if Bush or Trump were elected.  Amazingly, they never did leave.

Musk has declared himself to be a free speech absolutist.  As such, one would expect a much higher bar for banning people from Twitter under Musk.  Twitter has, over the last few years, clearly chosen sides in many debates, banning or suspending those who dare to voice opinions on the 'wrong' side of the issue.  One hopes that Musk will let the two sides argue.  Time will tell.

Women's History Month 2022

Kurt Schlichter has fired a broadside against the Woke mob on Twitter:

"In just one week, women have informed us that 1) men are the best at women's sports because they simply work harder, 2) that they don't know what women are, and 3) that men need to keep their wives in check.  What a time to be alive."

Point 1: Lia Thomas is the best women's swimmer in college.

Point 2.  Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson can't define a woman.  She's not a biologist.

Point 3.  Judge Clarence Thomas needs to be impeached for the actions of his wife in the wake of the 2020 election.

Additionally, Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine has been named by USA Today as one of the women of the year.  The Babylon Bee was banned from Twitter for offering a similar award.

This Women's History Month will certainly rate as one of the best ever.

No Speech for You!

The President of the United States has been banned from Twitter. Wow! Twitter says they banned him to prevent "further incitement to violence." Whoa! Well, I better check out these tweets.

The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!

- @realDonaldTrump

Hmm. That doesn't look like a call to violence. Looks like standard 'on to the next election' pap. The next tweet must be the damning one.

To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.

- @realDonaldTrump

Failure to attend the inauguration is grounds for banning? Failure to attend is a call to violence?

Back in June, when Minneapolis was being razed to the ground, Kamala Harris had a much less ambiguous tweet:

If you’re able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota

- @KamalaHarris

That is clear support for rioters. Kamala Harris was not banned. Hmm. Double standard?

What Counts More: Words or Deeds?

Just on Twitchy and saw this:

 

 

This is the problem with Never Trumpers: they have forgotten the Obama Presidency and their objections to it.  Ignore the blather and just look at the results.  Is the economy better or worse?  Has Rule of Law improved or not?  Employment numbers improving?  Better foreign policy or worse?  More federal regulations or fewer?  Better judicial nominees or worse?  One does not have to like Trump to see that - from the conservative/libertarian perspective - the country is better off with Trump than Obama.

 

However, if one pays attention to the blather and ignores the results, Trump is a catastrophe.  Obama has a mellifluous voice, a professorial demeanor, an aloofness that isn't standoffish, and a calm self-control that was just magnificent to behold.  The man has presence.  By contrast, Trump sounds like a goon from a mafia film, say 'yuge' and 'believe me' and other catch phrases ad nausea, and uses constant hyperbole for both praise and criticism.  So much hyperbole.  And demeaning insults.  Ugh.  He's a used car salesman compared to Obama's professor.  Based on these optics, the US is in a Dark Age.

 

Did the Helsinki Summit - especially the joint press conference where Trump was outwardly friendly to Putin - demonstrate that the president is a Russian puppet?  Looking only at blather, maybe.  What about actions?  Trump sent cruise missiles into Rusia's ally Syria, holding Assad to the red line that Obama ignored.  Also, Russian mercenaries in Syria were killed in American airstrikes.  Probably not something Putin wanted.  Trump has approved selling arms to Ukraine.  Oh, Putin can't want that.  US pipelines have been approved, putting more oil on the world market and thus eating into Russia's profits.  Russia needs its oil revenue.  Trump blasted Merkel for buying oil from Russia, suggesting she shouldn't be funding NATO's putative adversary.  Hmm, don't think Putin is keen on that.  Trump also approved drilling in ANWR, putting even more oil in the market.  Trump opened up fracking on federal lands.  Oil and natural gas are the cash cows of Russia and Trump is lifting all the roadblocks so that Americans will dominate that industry.

 

Let's take this words vs. deeds theme and test it.  Politifact ruled that Trump's claim of being tougher on Russia than Obama was Mostly False.  Here's the money quote from their ruling:

 

On a broader geopolitical level, there has been a significant degree of consistency between the Obama and Trump administrations in actual U.S. policy, and even a few examples where Trump has gone further than Obama did. That said, Trump’s own record of Russia- and Putin-friendly comments have sent contrary messages about U.S. policy toward Russia.

 

First sentence says that Trump has basically stuck with Obama's policies (DEEDS) and gone further in some cases (translation: tougher).  However, Politifact has ruled that his comments (WORDS) undermine his claim.  I long ago learned to ignore what politicians say (they lie) and judge them on what they do.  On that basis, Trump's claim is Mostly True.

Socialism Works!

 

iowahawkblog

Ann Coulter vs. David Dao

Earlier this year, Doctor David Dao was asked to give up his seat.  He refused.  When the police arrived to escort him from the plane, he continued to refuse until he was forcibly dragged from the plane.  United Airlines was blasted in the press and soon settled for an 'undisclosed amount.'

 

This weekend, Ann Coulter was asked to give up her seat.  Though angry, she gave up her seat but scorched Delta Airlines on Twitter.  Delta has responded to her tweets by explaining that her tweets are unseemly and they will refund the $30 difference in price between her booked seat and the seat where she was relocated.

 

Dao refused to cooperate and United has paid him a small fortune.  Coulter grudgingly cooperated and has been offered a pittance and told to stop badmouthing Delta.  Who played it better?  Is there a lesson to learn in the treatment of these passengers?  It sure looks like the airlines are incentivizing uncooperative behavior while also providing a disincentive to cooperate.  Not a good idea.

Fake News Marches On

Here is a story that shows why Trump thinks the media are both hostile and fake.  Rather than headphones, Trump only wore an earpiece in one ear to hear translations during the G7 summit.  However, a casual observer could conclude that he wasn't listening.  One must remember, Trump has a very particular hairstyle and clunky headphones are not helpful in maintaining it.  Thus, he was just wearing an earpiece in his right ear.

 

The negative version - that he was ignoring the Italian translation - was posted on Twitter and has been spread far and wide - 20,000 retweets.  The correction was later posted on Twitter and it went nowhere - 175 retweets.  The false story - which reflects poorly on Trump - has vastly better circulation than the correction.  This is not unusual.  When papers publish a front page story that proves to be incorrect, the correction is very rarely front page news.

 

Is it any wonder that the media is distrusted?

Funny Tweet

Not a Twitter person myself, I do visit sites that reference tweets or give links to them with surprising frequency.  Here is a particularly funny one that Scott Adams linked in a recent blog:

It's still early days and much too soon to think this tweet will hold for his entire presidency.  Indeed, he only just got his Attorney General confirmed.  Maybe he will use the IRS to silence his enemies, just like his predecessor.  Dr. Ben Carson endured his first IRS audit in the wake of speaking against Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast and countless Tea Party groups were harassed by IRS and other federal agencies.  Maybe he will selectively enforce laws to punish his critics, just like his predecessor did to Dinesh D'Souza or Senator Bob Menendez.  He has already rolled out the attacks on some news agencies, just like Obama did with regard to Fox News Channel.  I suppose all of these would just be a status quo ante with new management.