Archive by Author

Wall Street Journal: Musk, Twitter deal falling through would be 'loss for free speech'

The editorial board of the Wall Street Journal is warning that a reported breakdown in negotiations between Elon Musk and Twitter in the Tech mogul’s bid to purchase the social media company is bad news for free discourse.

Calling a potential busted deal “a loss for the social-media site as well as for political free speech,” the Journal wrote in a Sunday editorial “the only winners” from Musk walking away from the deal “will be progressives who support the site’s censorship of views that don’t conform to theirs on politics, climate and many other subjects.”

“Mr. Musk may be hoping to negotiate a lower purchase price, but if he does walk away it will be a loss for political discourse,” the newspaper continued. “Tweets by conservatives that present even purely factual information about subjects like Covid treatments and climate are often labelled misinformation. Accounts are suspended without explanation, and appeals go answered. Nobody knows who the wizards are behind the curtains making these decisions, and Mr. Musk says he’d allow more open debate.”

Musk in a financial filing on Friday afternoon said he had terminated his agreement to buy Twitter, claiming the company was “is in material breach of multiple provisions.”

The tech billionaire has over the last several weeks been pressing the social network to turn over specific data relating to bots, content moderation and other policies.

Musk needs that information, his representatives said in the filing, in order to “make an independent assessment of the prevalence of fake or spam accounts on Twitter’s platform.”

The chairman of Twitter’s board rejected those assertions on Friday, saying the company is “committed to closing the transaction on the price and terms agreed upon” and willing to pursue legal action to enforce the merger agreement.

The Journal’s conservative editorial board has heaped praise on Musk for his repeated criticisms of Silicon Valley tech companies that he and others have alleged apply a double standard when regulating political speech on their platforms.

“A Musk purchase would be a free-market solution to the progressive dominance of tech platforms. Republicans are promising to target tech-company censorship if they win control of Congress in November, and Twitter will be one of the first in line,” the Journal wrote this week.

“Twitter can help itself by ending its one-sided political censorship, but its woke staff and corporate culture might make that impossible. The company might find it needed Mr. Musk more than he needed Twitter.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Political tribalism and the prisoner’s dilemma

Perhaps one of the only things about which observers across the political spectrum might agree is that we live in a highly polarized political era. The two major American political parties at the federal level are increasingly dominated by their respective ideological extremes, much to the frustration of many voters who feel the need to hold their noses before casting a vote for one or the other.

Defining what constitutes a political “fringe” is in the eye of the beholder, and pundits are all over the map in sizing what constitutes the sensible center — is it a 30/40/30 ideological spectrum reflecting a “chunky” middle with extremes to either side, or is it 25/50/25, 15/70/15, or something else? Regardless of magnitude, many commentators have called for this “moderate middle” to wrest control of the political process from the extremes, either by reforming the two-party system or supplanting it through the creation of new political parties.  

The idea is not a new one — organizations such as No Labels have existed for years and work to craft bipartisan, centrist policy outcomes, although the efficacy of these limited efforts is questionable — but the sense of urgency about ideological extremism feels much greater in an age of rising populism on the right and collectivism on the left, each of which risks alienating the median voter from the democratic process.

No matter the exact percentage of disaffected moderates, it seems certain that were a centrist coalition or political vehicle to arise in service of “bipartisan” policy objectives, it would shift the political center of gravity and find itself constituting a majority, or at least be sufficiently substantial to deny one to the political extremes (or the legacy political parties animated by them). To actually create a durable centrist movement, however, is far harder than it seems, for myriad reasons — but one in particular.

That reason is political tribalism. Our innate desire for affiliation is hard-wired within our natures  and has been put to use for causes both good and ill for millennia. Even the most behaviorally sober, milquetoastian sensibilities can be riled up in service of some larger objective, which political entrepreneurs have learned to exploit to great electoral effect. 

Polling shows that even self-described independents and moderates typically lean toward a party or side of the aisle (as they practically must in a well-established two-party system). Centrist voters within each party, along with left- or right-leaning independents, have three choices when they have become so attenuated from their customary “side” that they will consider making a change: sitting out, crossing over (even if only for a specific election), or forming a new grouping with their centrist confreres across the aisle. But how does this play out in practice?

Sitting out negates the democratic process and neither rejects the party one is leaving behind (although it suppresses its expected vote), nor directly supports its opponent. Moreover, any vote should be thought of as intrinsically transactional — a candidate or party offers positions on issues and policy prescriptions in exchange for voter support. By abdicating one’s role in the electoral process, the non-voting citizen receives nothing in exchange for his or her indirect support for a given candidate or party (by not voting for the candidate or party such voter would customarily support).

To remain engaged and to act to greater effect, a moderate voter can consider “crossing over” if he or she believes that his or her “home” party is in thrall to — or has been captured by — fringe elements. In practice, this manifests as right-of-center or left-of-center “normies” voting for the other party on the premise that they can’t abide their own tribe’s extremism and assume the other side will reward their support by honoring the bargain and craft its policy messaging accordingly — or otherwise make concessions to the reasoned centrism of such crossover voters.

Unfortunately, recent history suggests this is a shaky proposition. An election-tilting number of registered Republicans and independents were sufficiently repulsed by the prospect of President Trump’s re-election to have crossed the aisle in a quest for a return to normalcy and, as promised, to put the “grown-ups back in charge.” The Biden administration’s unrestrained woke leftism and feckless, unserious incompetence on countless issues have resulted in record-low approval ratings and a palpable degree of buyer’s remorse.

In fact, the catastrophic first 18 months of the Biden administration may be the perfect demonstration of the “prisoner’s dilemma” underpinning voters’ tribalism. A very real fear of switching over (or sitting out) and then finding oneself to have been sold a bill of goods causes centrists of the left and right to prefer huddling with “their” wingnuts — which is exactly what the prisoner’s dilemma would predict: While cooperating, or trading one’s vote in exchange for the other side’s moderation, may be the optimal outcome, the risk of betrayal — that is, crossing over and being sold out, the worst outcome — causes centrists to remain loyal, which sustains a sub-optimal condition.

But what of the option of forming a new, centrist party, akin to Emmanuel Macron’s La Republique en Marche (now Renaissance) party in France? Unlike France, with a history of serially refounded republics, party shape-shifting and coalition politics, the U.S. has no recent history of durable third (or fourth) parties making the electoral scene. And the risks in attempting to form a No Labels-style centrist party or parties are not dissimilar from that of individual voters simply crossing over: unless a critical mass, evenly straddling the political divide, decamps from both the Democratic and Republican parties, the side that leaves behind its own erstwhile affiliation risks further empowering the other side, and by extension the fringe that controls it — the exact opposite of the desired outcome.

Understanding how the prisoner’s dilemma reinforces the instinctive appeal of tribal loyalties diagnoses an affliction but offers no cure. Early research on the prisoner’s dilemma found a systemic bias towards cooperative action, in which the subjects trusted each other to act in a manner consistent with the parties’ mutual best interest, in contrast with the rational, self-interested behavior one would expect. 

Engendering a level of mutual trust among millions of anonymous voters may seem a bridge too far, but perhaps a compelling message conveyed by trustworthy messengers — free of litmus-test cant, and as ideologically heterodox as are the American people — has a chance in troubled times of breaking through.

Richard J. Shinder is the founder of Theatine Partners, a financial consultancy, and a frequent lecturer, speaker and panelist on business and financial topics. He has written extensively on economic, financial, geopolitical, cultural and corporate governance-related issues. Follow him on Twitter @RichardJShinder.

Source: TEST FEED1

Abe’s assassination heightens an era of instability for global powers

Friday’s assassination of Shinzo Abe, on the eve of national elections for the upper house of the Diet, threatens to roil Japan, perhaps for years.  

There is already internal turmoil in the U.S. China, Russia and the United Kingdom. Now add Japan to the list. What will the world look like with so many major powers in a state of flux? 

Abe’s eight-year second term made him Japan’s longest-serving prime minister. His return to power in 2012 ended a period of revolving-door leaders. Since he resigned in 2020 due to poor health, the country has had two prime ministers, suggesting the political system has yet to regain footing. 

Abe remained a powerful figure in the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) after stepping down. He was, most importantly, the leader of the largest faction in the governing party. With over 90 members, Abe headed a group more than twice as large as Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s. 

It is not clear whether any politician can keep Abe’s faction together, and no one is sure how the tragedy will affect Japan long-term. Despite triggering a sympathy vote in Sunday’s election, some see renewed infighting and a return to ineffectual leadership. 

In short, the biggest beneficiary of the murder could be China. Abe was a towering figure, arguing for decades that free societies had to confront the Chinese Communist Party.  

The first major world leader to say the Chinese regime was fomenting nationalism to bolster legitimacy, Abe championed “values diplomacy” instead of the prevailing “engagement.” In 2012, he proposed the “Democratic Security Diamond” of India, Japan, the U.S. and Australia, which reinvigorated the then-dormant Quadrilateral Security Dialogue. Abe believed in a strong Japan and close relationships with partners, especially the U.S. When he died, he was pushing Japan to stand with neighbor Taiwan. 

On her Sunday Fox News Show, Maria Bartiromo raised the possibility that Beijing was involved in the assassination. Some Chinese and others believe the killing was a warning to Tokyo. Yet whatever the truth about China’s involvement, Beijing has made it clear it intends to break apart Japan. Last week, Chinese vessels intruded into Japanese territorial waters around Japan’s Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea. 

Japan administers the outcroppings, but Beijing, which calls them the Diaoyu Islands, claim them as well. The claim of the People’s Republic appears weak as a matter of international law: Beijing acknowledged they were Japanese until 1971. Chinese ambitions are expanding. State institutions are currently arguing that Beijing should claim Japan’s Okinawa and the rest of the Ryukyu chain. 

China’s animosity toward Japan is mostly a reflection of Communist Party insecurity. During the eras of Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping, the first two leaders of the People’s Republic, relations with Tokyo were cordial. China needed Japanese money and technology, but more important, Mao and Deng were sure of their legitimacy. The precariousness of the Chinese political system under current ruler Xi Jinping does not allow good relations with Tokyo. 

The Chinese are acting like classic aggressors. They bombard Tokyo daily with propaganda and are taking advantage of Friday’s assassination. The CCP has allowed in Chinese social media vile comments about Abe’s killing, and it appears Beijing has been flooding sites abroad. A friend, Jonathan Bass, told me sites in Bahrain, Morocco and Nigeria have been flooded with similar postings from Chinese parties.  

Today, the world’s three most-powerful states — the U.S., Russia and China — are all experiencing internal turmoil. There is the failure of the center in America, widespread opposition in Russia to the Ukraine war and simmering unrest aggravated by a severe economic downturn in China. At the same time, there is uncertainty during the long transition from Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who is stepping down, in Britain.  

Transitions during a period of war and hardship around the world make all four countries less predictable in their external relations. Abe’s assassination could weaken the leadership there over the long term. 

In 1914, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the presumptive heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, plunged Europe into war. The descent into chaos was fast, in part because the assassination occurred during a time when great-power moves were especially hard to predict and manage.  

The bipolarity of the Cold War, in contrast, made it possible for American and Soviet leaders to control allies, proxies and friends. With the world changing so fast at this moment, however, it is difficult for the great powers to keep order. Russia and its de facto ally China have grand territorial ambitions and, like 1914, are fast taking apart the existing international system. 

The killing of Shinzo Abe destabilizes Japan — and the world — at perhaps the worst possible moment.  

Gordon G. Chang is the author of The Coming Collapse of China. Follow him on Twitter @GordonGChang.   

Source: TEST FEED1

Elon Musk mocks efforts to 'force' him to buy Twitter

Elon Musk on Monday tweeted a meme mocking Twitter as it prepares to sue Musk for attempting to back out of a deal to buy the social media giant.

The meme shared by Musk includes four sequential images of the Tesla founder in increasingly hysterical laughter, each of which is accompanied by a caption that criticizes the social media platform for Musk’s complaints it did not provide accurate and comprehensive information on “fake or spam” accounts.

“They said I couldn’t buy Twitter, then they wouldn’t disclose bot info, now they want to force me to buy Twitter in court, now they have to disclose bot info in court,” the four captions read.

Twitter declined to comment on Musk’s tweet.

Musk’s deal to buy the social media platform was thrown into turmoil when he demanded more information on the prevalence of fake accounts on Twitter, arguing the details were fundamental to the business and needed to complete the agreement. 

Musk said the company refused to provide sufficient information, and cited that, in part, as why he was backing out of the deal.

Twitter’s board has vowed to take Musk to court for backing out of the agreement.

The Tesla CEO had said he was seeking to buy the company in the name of protecting free speech, previewing that he would reverse Twitter’s ban of former President Trump and add features like an edit button.

Musk became Twitter’s largest shareholder in the spring, revealing in an April 4 regulatory filing that he had acquired a roughly 9 percent stake in the company, before making an offer to buy the company later that month at $54.20 a share.

Source: TEST FEED1

Texas grid operator calls on users to conserve power amid heatwave

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), which operates the Lone Star State’s self-contained power grid, called on residents to voluntarily conserve power amid a heat wave Monday. 

In an advisory Sunday, ERCOT appealed to residents and businesses to conserve power between 2 and 8 p.m. Monday. The operator warned of shortages in reserve power capacity during the same period, but said it did not expect any system-wide outages.  

ERCOT is projecting a total of more than 79 gigawatts’ worth of demand over the course of the day, a new record. Compounding the demand, low winds are likely to place further strain on the grid, with wind power generation at less than 10 percent of capacity. Solar power, meanwhile, is far closer to full capacity, at 81 percent, according to ERCOT. 

Meanwhile, parts of the state saw average temperatures of 110 to 114 degrees as much of the southern U.S. has seen the impact of a “heat dome” in recent days. This has been acutely felt in South Central Texas. The National Weather Service projected “dangerous heat” in the Austin/San Antonio region over the course of the day, appealing to locals to regularly check in on elderly family members and neighbors. 

The advisory from ERCOT comes two months after the grid operator called on customers to conserve power over the weekend of May 13-15. Six power plants unexpectedly went down that Friday in the state, causing the loss of some 2.9 megawatts of power.  

The challenges of a self-contained grid made national headlines in early 2021, when extreme winter weather knocked out the ERCOT grid. Grid operators have said the grid has made necessary adjustments since then, but former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D), who is challenging Gov. Greg Abbott (R) in November, has repeatedly raised the grid’s preparedness as an issue on the campaign trail.  

Source: TEST FEED1

The time has come: Defund the hopelessly biased NPR

When National Public Radio (NPR) was launched in 1971, part of its original mission was to “speak with many voices, many dialects,” which suggested that it would embrace the most important diversity of all: diversity of thought and speech.

Unfortunately, NPR has abjectly failed in this mission to the point where it’s difficult to distinguish NPR from MSNBC. 

This begs two questions: Why does NPR still receive taxpayer funds from the government? And why did a country that ostensibly abhors government interference with the free press allocate money to a broadcast news outlet in the first place? 

Take what happened on Independence Day as an example. NPR has aired a reading of the Declaration of Independence every July 4 going back 33 years. 

But this year, it ditched this tradition and instead explored Thomas Jefferson’s relationship with Sally Hemmings, Jefferson’s slave, and the children born of that relationship. The reason for doing so was to examine Jefferson’s line in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” and what it means in today’s America following the Supreme Court overturning of Roe v. Wade. 

“And many of our debates on this July 4th turn on what equality means. What voting rules really give equal access to the ballot? Do abortion laws give a woman equal control of her body?” host Steve Inskeep asked. 

Instead of celebrating America by honoring the Declaration of Independence as arguably the most important document in American history, NPR attacked its author and somehow tied it all into abortion, “voting rights” and alleged suppression of minority voters. 

For another example, consider how NPR covered former Cuban dictator Fidel Castro’s death in 2016. 

“One of the most prominent international figures in the last half of the 20th century, Castro inspired both passionate love and hate. Many who later lost faith in him can remember how they once admired the man who needed just a dozen men to launch the Cuban Revolution,” it explained without using the word “dictator” to describe Castro.

But anyone who’s listened to NPR for more than five minutes scarcely needs to be convinced of its extreme liberal bias. It’s certain more than a few listeners (and former listeners) out there are thinking: Why am I helping to pay for this stuff?  

Note: NPR does not receive any direct funding from the U.S. government, but it does get some funding in the form of dues from local member stations. And in many cases, those member stations receive federal funds from grants provided by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). In 2021 alone, CPB appropriated nearly $70 million in grants via member stations. 

“Federal funding is essential to public radio’s service to the American public,” says NPR’s website. But is it really essential? 

“Presently, NPR receives funding for less than 1 percent of its budget directly from the federal government, but receives almost 10% of its budget from federal, state, and local governments indirectly,” according to influencewatch.org, which rates NPR as a left-of-center outlet. 

So, if that’s the case, why exactly are taxpayer dollars involved at all? NPR appears to be solvent without any help from Uncle Sam. 

Thomas Jefferson wasn’t around for radio. But the forward-thinking author of the country’s most important document was prescient when he wrote: “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagations of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.” 

In 2022, there are thousands of media outlets from which to choose. The media landscape has completely changed since 1967, the year the Public Broadcasting Act was first introduced, paving the way for NPR a few years later. 

“The Congress hereby finds and declares that it is in the public interest to encourage the growth and development of public radio and television broadcasting, including the use of such media for instructional, educational, and cultural purposes,” the act reads. 

This is clearly an antiquated document given all the choices the American news consumer now has. 

According to Pew Research, the audiences of NPR and PBS are among the most liberal in America. Seventy-two percent of NPR’s audience describe themselves as “consistently liberal,” while 71 percent of PBS’s audience describe themselves that way. PBS also receives federal funding. 

NPR remains “media for instructional, educational, and cultural purposes.” But it has clearly failed in its mission to “speak with many voices.”

Joe Concha is a media and politics columnist and a Fox News contributor.

Source: TEST FEED1

Watch live: Biden delivers remarks touting bipartisan gun legislation

President Biden and Vice President Harris on Monday morning are slated to deliver remarks at an event commemorating the passage of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.

The event is scheduled to begin at 11 a.m. ET.

Watch the live video above.

Source: TEST FEED1

Better outcomes recorded when patients and physicians speak the same language

Amid a growing physician shortage, new research underscores the importance of creating a diverse provider workforce, as patients who speak the same language as their physicians reported better outcomes during hospital stays.

The study, which followed 189,690 home care patients admitted to an Ontario, Canada hospital between 2010 and 2018, was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

Patients whose primary language was something other than English or French and who received language concordant care had a 54 percent lower odds of death. They also had lower risks of adverse events like falls and infections, and had shorter stays within the hospital compared with those patients who received language discordant care. 

Similar results were recorded among French-speaking patients. Those treated by a French-speaking physician had a 24 percent lower odds of death. 

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news.

Language concordant care was defined as patients receiving over 50 percent of care from physicians who spoke their native language.

The majority of patients in the study spoke English, while 13 percent spoke French and 2.7 percent spoke a different primary language. In the latter cohort, Italian, Mandarin, Ibero-Romance and Indo-Aryan languages were spoken. However, only 44.4 percent of French-speaking patients received care in their language and only 1.6 percent of non-French- or English-speaking patients received language concordant care. 

“These are staggering findings that make a strong case for providing care in the same language for linguistic minorities in hospitals,” said study co-author Peter Tanuseputro of The Ottawa Hospital in a statement. 

“It’s clearly easier to convey important information about your health in your primary language. Regardless, the more than doubling in odds of serious harms, including death, for patients receiving care in a different language is eye-opening.”

Forty-two percent of physicians in the study were multi-lingual and 58 percent spoke only English. 

In addition to recruiting multilingual physicians, interpreter services could be employed to reduce poor health outcomes in these patients. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Just 13 percent say US headed in right direction: survey

Just 13 percent of Americans believe that the country is headed in the right direction, according to a New York Times/Siena College poll. 

The poll, published on Monday, found that 77 percent felt the country was headed in the wrong direction, a terrible number for Democrats, who hold slim majorities in the House and Senate.

The party is at risk of losing both majorities in this fall’s midterm elections, particularly if dissatisfaction with the party’s leadership keeps party voters home.

Just 27 percent of Democrats in the poll say the country is headed in the right direction, while only 5 percent of Republican respondents and nine percent of Independent respondents agree when asked the same question.

Nine percent of White respondents believe that the U.S. is headed in the right direction, compared to 30 percent of Black respondents and 21 percent of Hispanic respondents, according to the poll. 

The numbers are particularly grim for President Biden and Democrats when it comes to younger voters.

Just 10 percent of respondents who are 18 to 29 years old said they think the country is on the right track, while 77 percent of respondents in their age group does not, the poll said. 

Biden says he plans to run for reelection in 2024, but the poll also found a majority of Democrats — 64 percent — would prefer a difference Democratic candidate in the next presidential election.

Thirteen percent of respondents said they strongly approve of the job Biden has done as president, while 45 percent of respondents disapprove of Biden‘s job as president. 

The New York Times/Siena College poll was conducted from July 5 to July 7, with a total of 849 respondents. The poll’s margin of error was 4.1 percentage points.

Source: TEST FEED1