Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) paid a surprise and secret visit to Kyiv this weekend, where she met Ukrainian President
Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Except for a small number of insiders, no one knew she was going there until she was safely back in
Poland after the visit. She told Zelenskyy: "Our commitment is to be there for you until the fight is done." Since Kyiv
is in the middle of a war zone, it was a dangerous trip for Pelosi, and so Zelenskyy gave her a medal for bravery.
Pelosi was accompanied by Reps. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Jim McGovern (D-MA). Meeks is chairman
of the Foreign Affairs Committee and Schiff is chairman of the Intelligence Committee, so they were clearly appropriate
people to take along. McGovern is chairman of the Rules Committee, but since there are no rules in Ukraine now, it is
not clear what he was there for. Pelosi's group was the first official congressional delegation to visit since the war
started. That makes Pelosi the highest-ranking official to visit the war-torn country, as neither Joe Biden nor Kamala
Harris has visited.
Pelosi's visit comes just days after Biden asked Congress for another $33 billion in weapons for Ukraine. Now when
the bill comes to the House, Pelosi will be able to tell the members firsthand what it is like over there. One thing she
can report back is that Ukraine needs fuel badly. Russian attacks on fuel depots and refineries have led to a gasoline
shortage, with miles-long lines at gas stations. Some people have waited for over an hour to buy the maximum of 10
liters (about 3 gallons).
But shortages aren't limited to Ukrainian gas stations. Samantha Power, administrator of the U.S. Agency for
ABC's George Stephanopoulos that food prices are up 34% since a year ago due to the Russian invasion, because Ukraine
used to supply a huge amount of grain to Africa and the Middle East and that has been upended by the war. The resulting
grain shortages have driven up food prices in those regions with disastrous consequences for poor people there. (V)
Donald Trump did not see fit to attend the two White House Correspondents' Dinners that took place during
his presidency because he cannot handle being the butt of jokes, even a little bit. Joe Biden is not as thin-skinned,
and so he showed up to this weekend's event with bells on, and
what may be the most effective speech of his presidency. Among last night's presidential zingers:
"This is the first time a president attended this dinner in six years. It's understandable. We had a horrible plague
followed by two years of COVID."
"Just imagine if my predecessor came to this dinner this year. Now, that would really have been a real coup if that
"[The First Lady] doesn't pay much attention to the polls, though she did say the other day: Instead of introducing
myself as Jill Biden's husband, maybe I should introduce myself as her roommate."
"Everyone at the White House is so excited. I told my grandkids and Pete Buttigieg they could stay up late and watch
this show tonight."
"And, look, Fox—Fox News, I'm—I'm really sorry your preferred candidate lost the last election. To make
it up to you, I'm happy to give my chief of staff to you all so he can tell Sean Hannity what to say every day."
"And, folks, I'm not really here to roast the GOP. That's not my style. Besides, there's nothing I can say about the
GOP that Kevin McCarthy hasn't already put on tape."
Biden did end on a serious note, acknowledging the importance of a free press, commending those in attendance for
their coverage of Ukraine in particular, and also paying tribute to several folks, including Madeleine Albright.
The President was followed by the "headliner" (a dubious assertion when the President of the United States is on the
stage). Anyhow, this year it was The Daily Show's Trevor Noah, who also uncorked a few winners. Among them:
"I'm not doing this just for the attention. I'm a comedian, not Kyrsten Sinema."
"I know a lot of you are worried and, yes, it is risky making jokes these days. We all saw what happened at the
Oscars. I've actually been a bit worried about tonight, I won't lie. What if I make a really mean joke about Kellyanne
Conway and her husband rushes up on the stage and thanks me?"
Addressing himself to Biden: "I was a little confused about: Why me? But then I was told you get your highest
approval ratings with a biracial African guy standing next to you."
"Fox News is sort of like a Waffle House. It's relatively normal in the afternoon, but as soon as the sun goes down,
there's a drunk lady named Jeanine threatening to fight every Mexican who comes in."
"Apparently Jeff [Zucker] got fired after he tried to keep his workplace relationship a secret, which is weird
because if he really didn't want anyone to know about it, he could've just made a show about it on CNN Plus."
"This is the golden era of conspiracy theories, whether it's the right wing believing Trump can still win the 2020
election, or the left believing Joe Biden can still win the 2024 election."
"Thank you so much for having me. I appreciate you. Please be careful leaving tonight. We all know this
administration doesn't handle evacuations well."
Biden seemed to appreciate the jokes made at his expense. Maybe he was faking it, but he seems like the type to be
able to take some ribbing. Further, when the targets of jokes are actually angry, they generally aren't very good at
hiding it. Certainly, everyone knew what was on Trump's mind when he was
roasted by Barack Obama
in 2011. Similarly, George W. Bush didn't have much of a poker face when he was
shredded by Stephen Colbert
The White House Correspondents' Dinner presents a potentially valuable opportunity, at least for most
presidents. First, by making and taking a few jokes, a president can humanize themself and make themself a bit more
accessible. Second, because the humor provides plausible deniability, a president can say things that would be
problematic if said directly. Like, could Biden get away with calling the Trump presidency a "plague" if the remark was
not (allegedly) tongue-in-cheek?
Trump is actually the rare president who had little to gain from attending. Not only is he preternaturally unable to
take a joke, he's also completely unable to make one. Though he's been an entertainer, in various ways, for four
decades, he's never, ever, ever been funny. Not when he was on Howard Stern, not when he was on Letterman, not when he
was on The Apprentice. Even the best writers in the world couldn't have come up with a speech for him to deliver
that would have actually generated laughs. Meanwhile, The Donald has no filter, so he hardly needed the benefit of a
once-per-year occasion where a president can get away with pushing the limits. In short, there was no real upside to his
showing up to the dinner, taking withering fire from every other speaker, and giving the networks extensive footage of
Biden's a different fellow, however, and the event suits him well, just as it did Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and
Ronald Reagan, among others. We'll see how wide a circulation the President's performance gets, as it's kinda inside
baseball, but he might actually have done himself a little good this weekend. (Z)
Texas held its primary back on March 1, but since there hasn't been any primary action. Now things are finally really
getting going. Here is the schedule for May:
Most of the primaries aren't terribly exciting (e.g., incumbents running in heavily
gerrymandered districts), but here are
that are worth watching.
May 3: Ohio Senate (R): The races are starting with a big bang. One of the hottest is the
Republican senatorial primary in Ohio, which is tomorrow (!). Donald Trump has endorsed former hillbilly James D. Vance
because he is better at acting like a true sycophant than former state treasurer Josh Mandel, even though Mandel has
been practicing much longer. Also running is millionaire banker Mike Gibbons and former GOP state chair Jane Timken. All
of these are fighting to be the Trumpiest of all. Unfortunately for them, there is no mirror, mirror on the wall to
answer that question definitively. There is also one candidate, state Sen. Matt Dolan, who noticed that Ohio is not in
the old Confederacy and doesn't have runoffs. It's first past the post in the Buckeye State. He is running in the
not-so-Trumpy lane. That means if, say, 76% of the Republican voters want a Trumpist and the four above-mentioned
candidates split the vote evenly and each get 19% and he gets 20% and a few others get the crumbs, he is the nominee. If
anyone other than Vance wins, Trump will take a huge hit and every Republican politician in the country will notice. If
the only non-Trumpist wins, Trump will have a hard time explaining it. So by Wednesday, we will have a bit better idea of how
much actual power Trump really has.
May 3: OH-11 (D): Nina Turner was the co-chair of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)'s
presidential campaign. She is a very outspoken progressive and ran for the Democratic nomination in OH-11 special
election last August for the seat vacated by Marcia Fudge (D), who joined Joe Biden's cabinet. The district is D+32.
That's even bluer than NY-14, which is D+29 and sent Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) to the House. Turner's primary
opponent was an unknown member of the Cuyahoga County council, Shontel Brown. Brown won easily. Turner didn't like that
result since she was convinced that in such a blue district, the voters were supposed to pick a fiery progressive like
herself. So Turner is running again, only this time Brown is an incumbent and much better known. If Brown does better
than her 6-point margin in the special election, a lot of moderate Democrats are going to be saying: "If a progressive
can't win among Democrats in a D+32 district, how are they ever going to win in an R+3 district?"
May 10: Nebraska Governor (R): "Herbster" sounds like it ought to describe someone who
grows herbs, but it actually applies to a Republican running for governor of Nebraska, Charles Herbster. Eight women,
including a state senator, have accused Herbster of groping them. His name also showed up when the "dating" site for
married people, Ashley Madison, was hacked in 2015. From memory, we don't recall if he was a Sugar Daddy or a Sugar
Baby, and we didn't have time to check which he was. Trump has endorsed Herbster. We don't know if there is a causal
connection here. Herbster has two opponents, state Sen. Brett Lindstrom and University of Nebraska regent Jim Pillen. As
in Ohio a week earlier, it will be a test of Trump's power. Nebraska being a very red state, the winner of the primary
is the overwhelming favorite to be elected governor in November. Although if it's Herbster, the sexual misconduct could
possibly drag him down. The Cornhusker State has had a Democratic governor as recently as 1999 (Ben Nelson), so a
Democratic victory isn't impossible.
May 17: Pennsylvania Senate (D): May 17 has lots of fun in store for political junkies.
First, in one of the highest-profile Senate races in the country, both parties are having ferocious primaries. The
Democrats have 2⅒ serious candidates: Lt. Gov. John Fetterman (D-PA), a giant tattooed motorcycle-riding
progressive who comes from a working-class background, Rep. Conor Lamb (D-PA), who is a much more formal fellow who has
repeatedly won in a red district and whose grandfather was once majority leader of the state Senate, and Malcolm
Kenyatta (the ⅒), a Black gay progressive. We counted him for ⅒ because there is no HTML code for 1/100.
Fetterman is leading in the polls and in the fundraising, but either he or Lamb would be a formidable candidate in
November. Fetterman would energize both progressives and moderates but wouldn't get a lot of Republican votes. Lamb
would get nose-holding progressives, moderates, and some Republican votes. Kenyatta has no chance whatsoever of getting
the nomination; his only possible role will be to maybe play spoiler and help Lamb if it's close.
May 17: Pennsylvania Senate (R): The battle between Fetterman and Lamb is child's play
compared to the battle on the Republican side. New Jersey resident and television quack Mehmet Oz is running ads
violently attacking Connecticut resident and hedge fund manager David McCormick, who is responding in kind. Trump has
endorsed Oz, while Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is doing everything he can to help McCormick because he can
easily envision Fetterman burying Oz. One could view this race as a proxy fight between Trump and McConnell (or maybe
between whether New Jersey or Connecticut is more popular in Pennsylvania). As in Ohio and Nebraska, this is yet another
test of Trump's power, especially in races where McConnell is all in for someone other than Trump's pick.
May 17: North Carolina Senate (R): Here we have another race where Trump has stuck his
neck out. He has endorsed Rep. Ted Budd (R-NC), who is running against former governor Pat "Bathroom Bill" McCrory and
former U.S. representative Mark Walker. There are also 11 barely known other candidates in the race. As a former
governor, McCrory has the most name recognition of anyone in the race. But he signed the aforementioned bathroom bill,
which requires people using public restrooms to use the one corresponding to the sex on their birth certificate. Among
Republican voters, this is probably a feature, not a bug. Among general-election voters it is more of a bug and could
hurt McCrory in November if he gets the nomination.
After all, it played a big role in his defeat by now-Gov. Roy Cooper (D-NC) when running for reelection as governor in 2016.
The Democratic nomination is a done deal. Former state Supreme Court
Justice Cheri Beasley has it nailed down.
May 17: NC-01 (D): Rep. George Butterfield (D-NC) is retiring from this D+17 district.
Former state senator Erica Smith dropped out of the U.S. Senate race and sees this House seat as a consolation prize.
She is Black and very progressive. Donald Davis, who is Black but more moderate, is also running. Butterfield is backing
May 17: NC-04 (D): This district, home to Durham and Chapel Hill, is an open seat due to
the retirement of Rep. David Price (D-NC). It is D+17. The main contenders are state Sen. Valerie Foushee, former
"American Idol" star Clay Aiken, and Durham County Commissioner Nida Allam. Foushee has an eclectic bunch of supporters,
including Emily's List, AIPAC, and a crypto billionaire pouring money into her campaign. And when AIPAC spent $800,000
supporting Foushee, the progressive caucus of the North Carolina Democratic Party withdrew its support for her. Why did
AIPAC get involved in the first place? Allam, who was born in Canada but is of South Asian heritage, is an observant
Muslim. She sent out a tweet in 2018 complaining about Israeli influence in U.S. politics, and AIPAC sees that as
antisemitic. Foushee is a Black member of the state House and a former police officer. To some extent, this race will
be a test of how much of a difference big money makes in a race between two women of color and how claims of
antisemitism play in a heavily Black district.
May 17: NC-11 (R): Hardly a day goes by when we don't write something about Rep. Madison
Cawthorn (R-NC). He's become our favorite nutter. We have mentioned him 104 times this year, compared to 57 times for
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), 41 times for Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), and only 27 times for poor Lauren Boebert
(R-CO). Boebert needs to get a new press agent or a better stunt coordinator. Today's installment of the Cawthorn Saga might be
about the end of the line for him. He has really ticked off Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), who is tired of a guy who tries to
smuggle guns on planes, drives with a revoked license, calls Volodymyr Zelenskyy a "thug," and praises Hitler. Tillis is
actively supporting state Sen. Chuck Edwards (R) in an attempt to get rid of Cawthorn, who has (naturally) been endorsed
by Trump. As in some other races, this will be a test of Trump's power to help an unusually toxic candidate.
May 17: OR-05 (D): We have written a lot about Donald Trump's endorsements; now a Joe
Biden endorsement will get tested. Biden has endorsed one of the most conservative Democrats in Congress, Rep. Kurt
Schrader (D-OR), whose district used to have a PVI of EVEN. Schrader compared the 2021 impeachment of Trump to a
"lynching." This earned him a challenge from progressive attorney Jamie McLeod-Skinner, who has called Schrader the
House's own Joe Manchin. This is not Hillary vs. Bernie, Part 197 because Schrader is far more conservative than Hillary
Clinton, but Oregon is a progressive state, so McLeod-Skinner might have a chance.
May 24: Georgia Senate (R): This is another one of those Trump vs. The Establishment
races. Trump has endorsed football player and spousal abuser Herschel Walker, who is Black. McConnell is supporting
Agriculture Commissioner Gary Black, who is white. Democrats are hoping (maybe even, in some extreme cases, praying) for
Walker to win the GOP nomination because their oppo team has buckets... no, make that barrels... no, make that boatloads
of material to take him down with. Walker is much better known than Black, so Trump might just pull this one off. Of
course, if Walker goes on to lose the general election to Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA), who is a prolific fundraiser and
has already won statewide, a lot of Republicans will blame Trump for blowing a winnable race.
May 24: Georgia Governor (R): Georgia has a lot of biggies on May 24, but this is the
biggest biggie. Trump has gone all in on defeating the incumbent governor, Brian Kemp, because he didn't throw the 2020
election to Trump. Trump talked former senator David Perdue into running against Kemp, although Perdue wasn't really
interested. It shows. Kemp has a commanding lead in the polls and in money. If Kemp crushes Perdue, all the news the
next day is about how Trump has been reduced to a paper bulldog. If Kemp gets the nomination, the $64,000 question will
be what Trump does in the general election. Will he eat a heaping portion of crow and support Kemp or continue to try to
defeat Kemp by supporting Stacey Abrams? If Abrams gets Trump's endorsement, that may be the ultimate illustration of
the old chestnut that politics makes strange bedfellows.
Of course, there is also a chance that if Trump endorses Abrams, she will reject the endorsement
and say she wants nothing to do with him.
May 24: Georgia Secretary of State (R): Another Georgia official Trump hates, hates,
hates is Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. So Trump is supporting Rep. Jody Hice, who has promised that he will
make sure Trump wins any future elections in Georgia, no matter what the silly voters want. Victories by Kemp and
Raffensperger would really take Trump down several pegs, even if Walker wins the Senate nomination. For Trump,
destroying your enemies is far more important than helping your friends, and Kemp and Raffensperger are among his top
enemies. Gary Black isn't Trump's enemy; the former president just prefers Herschel Walker, so that race isn't for blood
like the other two are.
May 24: Georgia Secretary of State (D): The Democrats are fielding a serious candidate
for secretary of state in Georgia, state Rep. Bee Nguyen, the first Asian-American Democrat elected in Georgia. She is a
star among progressives for her attacks on Trump and his conspiracy theories. But she has five other opponents to
contend with. If nobody gets 50% + 1, Georgia has runoffs, as you almost certainly know.
May 24: GA-07 (D): When the Republican-controlled state legislature gerrymandered the
House districts, they conveniently put two incumbent Democrats, Lucy McBath and Carolyn Bourdeaux, in the same district.
The two will fight it out on May 24. McBath, who is Black, got into politics after her son was murdered in 2012. She got
her start as an anti-gun activist. In 2018, she ran for Newt Gingrich's old seat and defeated Karen Handel. She won a
rematch in 2020. Bourdeaux, who is white, is a moderate. She was formerly a professor at Georgia State University.
McBath is running largely on her platform while Bourdeaux is running more on her ties to Gwinnett county, where the
district is largely located. In any event, one of the two incumbents will lose in the primary and the other could lose
in the general election.
May 24: Alabama Senate (R): In the Alabama Senate race, Trump initially endorsed Rep. Mo
Brooks (R-AL), who is Trumpy as hell. But he wasn't doing so well in the race, so Trump pulled the endorsement. He
didn't endorse anyone else afterwards. The big question here is whether the endorsement still matters and can help
Brooks over the finish line. Also in the race are the chief of staff of retiring Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), Katie
Britt, and businessman Mike Durant. The popular Shelby is doing everything he can for his former staffer but Durant is wealthy and
is putting a lot of his own money into the race.
May 24: TX-28 runoff (D): Progressive lawyer Jessica Cisneros is challenging moderate
Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) in this fairly blue district. In the March 1 primary, Cuellar beat her by only 2 points, but
neither one got 50%, forcing this runoff. This race is about how to win back socially conservative Latinos along the
southern Texas border. Cuellar is a business friendly opponent of abortion rights. Cisneros is far to the left of him on
everything. Party leaders, including House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and Jim Clyburn (D-SC), support the incumbent Cuellar.
Bernie Sanders supports Cisneros.
There you have it. And that's only for May. We still have June, with 18 states holding primaries, possibly some
postponed to July, 14 in August, and at least 4 in September. (V)
Joe Biden has been agonizing about what to do about student debt for ages. On the one hand, young people are marginal
voters and doing something concrete for them—like eliminating some student debt—might get him and the
Democrats some love and votes. On the other hand, people with all kinds of other debt might get furious with him for
helping former students but not people who didn't go to college. There is also an issue of equity, since people who
borrowed money to go to medical school or law school may be doing quite well now, thank you very much, and don't need
It is beginning to look like Biden is getting closer to making a
on this. The basic idea would be to limit relief to people earning less than some cutoff. One number being bandied about
is $125,000 (or maybe $150,000) for single individuals and $250,000 (or maybe $300,000) for couples. Operationally, this
is straightforward: If your adjusted gross income last year was under the cutoff, you get relief, otherwise not. Or
possibly there could be two cutoffs. If you are below the lower one, you get full relief. If you are above the upper
one, you get no relief. If you are in between, the relief is proportional to where you are in the range.
If there is a single hard cutoff, then people who made, say, $124,999 last year get their debt canceled and
people who made $125,000 don't, which is awkward.
Biden has already said that the $50,000 of relief that Bernie Sanders and other progressives are asking for is not
going to happen. The amount of debt canceled is more likely to be around $10,000 or somewhat more, but nowhere near
Administration officials have also said that forgiveness is going to be only for former students who took out loans
for an undergraduate degree. People who took out loans for medical school, law school, and other graduate studies won't
get any forgiveness for those loans, only for any undergraduate loans they might have, if they otherwise qualify.
In any event, it seems likely that something will happen on this front in 2-3 weeks. It is absolutely certain that it
will become politicized within a nanosecond of it being announced, with nearly all Democrats supporting it and nearly
all Republicans opposing it. This is because a large part of the Democratic base went to college and some of them have
student loans. In contrast, a large part of the Republican base didn't go to college and doesn't have student loans.
From Biden's point of view, it is probably worth doing because it might make marginal, but pro-Democratic, voters happy
and get them to vote. The noncollege voters who will hate this probably vote Republican anyway. For him, the question
is: Are there many Democratic voters who will be angered enough by his canceling some student debt to switch to the red
team? And if so, are there more of them than grateful former (and current) students who will vote on account of this and
wouldn't have otherwise? (V)
It now appears that the world's richest man, Elon Musk, will buy Twitter and take it private so he alone
will control how it works and who can use it and what they can say there. The deal could still fall through,
but at this point it seems likely to succeed.
Musk has said that he will make the algorithms open source and stop bots.
He didn't say how he would do this because he doesn't know. In fact, there is some contradiction here.
If the inner workings of Twitter are made public, it will be easier for botmasters in the St. Petersburg troll farm
and elsewhere to figure out how to evade scrutiny. For example, if it becomes known that
sending out, say, 12 tweets in a day gets you
labeled as a bot, they will just cut back to 11.
One thing Musk could do is require everyone using Twitter to provide proof of his or her real identity, but
as was pointed out in the mailbag yesterday, that could lead to harassment or worse. We doubt that he will
do that since many users would probably leave Twitter if he did.
One thing he might do, however, is make providing proof of identity optional. People who did so would be labeled
as "verified humans" and might get some advantages. Or people who didn't might get some disadvantages (e.g., a
maximum number of tweets per day/week/month).
But a bigger issue lies in content moderation. Musk has said if it is legal, you will be allowed to put it
on Twitter. That opens a huge can of worms because currently Twitter bans many things that are legal.
Here are a few areas
where problems are sure to arise if Musk allows all content that is technically legal.
Election misinformation: It is legal to say that Donald Trump won the 2020 election. It
is also legal, at least in some places, to announce that due to technical problems, the election has been postponed from
Nov. 8 to Nov. 9, so don't waste your time trying to vote on Nov. 8 because the polls will be closed then. But be sure
to vote on Nov. 9.
Medical Misinformation: Tweets saying that COVID-19 and polio and measles vaccines cause
autism and sterility and ED are legal. Tweets saying that no public health authority at any level can tell you what you
can do or cannot do are legal. There is a very long list here.
Deepfakes: The technology for making extremely convincing fake videos is getting better
by the day. This one is old hat already:
In a few years, almost anything will be possible. Currently Twitter bans misleading videos. That would end if Musk
allows everything that is legal. It will lead to a proliferation of deepfakes like the one above.
Impersonating others: Currently you can't pretend on Twitter to be someone you aren't. If
you are impersonating someone else for the purpose of fraud, it is illegal. Otherwise, it generally isn't. If you later
claim it was satire, it is very likely protected speech and legal.
Spam: Spam that simply advertises some product or service is certainly legal. Expect vast
amounts of spam on Twitter if "legality" is the only test.
Hateful content: Twitter currently has a policy against hateful content. You can't
equate Black people to monkeys, fat women to pigs, Jews to Nazis. There are a whole range of other outrageous parallels that
are perfectly legal to say, but currently verboten on the platform. Once the Musk rules take over, expect tons of this, aimed at many different groups.
Porn: Pornography is legal is the U.S. Expect large amounts of it in the New Twitter.
Some of the acts might be very gross. Revenge porn (naked photos or videos of your ex posted with the intent to
humiliate that person) are legal in some places and illegal in others. Expect lots of it from people who live in states
that don't have laws against it.
Graphic violence: Twitter currently bans violence that is excessively gory or depicts
sexual violence. Some of it might be illegal, but a lot of it is not illegal. Expect loads of it.
Terrorist manifestos: People who commit mass murder or terrorist acts often have some
ideological story to tell. These people don't suddenly lose their First Amendment rights to tell their story if they are
convicted of a crime. Twitter currently bans this kind of stuff. The new policy would allow it.
The list goes on and on and you can count on people pushing the envelope to see what they can get away with. If Musk
really means what he is saying and doesn't start censoring legal content, Twitter will quickly become a cesspool,
advertisers and users will leave, and Twitter will shrink to a hard core of libertarians who believe "anything goes." Or
he will start censoring it again, only eliminating content he doesn't happen to like.
Then there is the matter of what is legal. It depends on the jurisdiction. There are things that are legal in the
U.S. that are not legal in France (e.g., selling Nazi memorabilia) or Saudi Arabia (e.g., saying nasty things about
Mohammed). Twitter operates worldwide. Having 200 or so sets of rules, one per country, will be unmanageable. Twitter
adopted its current rules after a lot of trial and error and experience with what happens when you allow anyone to post
Elon Musk isn't the only problem. Technology has given a very small number of billionaires
over almost all the news. Many people get most (or all) of their news from social media. Soon they can choose if they
want that to be the news as billionaire Elon Musk sees it or as billionaire Mark Zuckerberg sees it. Or if you are one of
those old-timers who prefers newspapers for news, you can read The Washington Post and get the news as
billionaire Jeff Bezos sees it. Or you could read The Wall Street Journal or The New York Post and get the
news as billionaire Rupert Murdoch sees it. William Randolph Hearst had nothing on these guys.
Jon Schweppe, policy director at conservative think tank American Principles Project, put it this way: "I don't think
it's a great commentary on the state of affairs that we are relying on a billionaire oligarch to save free speech
online." Activists on the left are even less enthusiastic about giving any individual so much power over the flow of
information, and certainly not white men who live in bubbles of limitless luxury. Academics are not wild about giving so
much power to so few (unelected) people. Robert McChesney, a professor at the University of Illinois, said: "Even if
Elon Musk was the smartest person on earth, had the best heart, had been touched by God, I wouldn't want him to have
that much power. It is antithetical to democratic political theory."
These people aren't alone. A
showed that 62% of Americans think social media companies (and by implication, the billionaires that control them) have
too much say over what people see as news.
Some people may shrug and say nothing can be done about the situation. That's not true. The European Union is showing
what can be done. The
Digital Services Act
was just approved. Among other things, it puts many obligations on social media (and other) platforms. For example, if
someone posts something that is illegal and the company is informed about this and does not take it down, it becomes
liable for the content and can be sued. This is not true in the U.S. Platforms also have to disclose to regulators how
their algorithms work. There are also rules about how platforms moderate content, how they use algorithmic processes,
and what can be said in advertising. In addition, there are many rules about transparency. Finally, users of online
services get more rights. The Act has teeth for enforcement. Companies can be fined up to 6% of their revenues for
violation and in extreme cases, can be banned from operating in Europe altogether. (V)
Last Friday, we had an
on how the Republicans have already secretly drawn up articles of impeachment for Secretary of Homeland Security
Alejandro Mayorkas. They say he looks the other way when Bad People come over the border. That's garbage, of course.
What they mean is they don't like Joe Biden's immigration policies. Mayorkas is just the scapegoat.
He must read our site since yesterday he was already preparing his defense. He
on CNN's "State of the Union" and addressed would-be immigrants with the message: "Do not come."
This way, when the Republican prosecutors accuse him of letting dirty, filthy, disease-ridden terrorists in, he
can say: "On April 30, on national television, I clearly told the would-be immigrants not to come. You should get Dana Bash to come
here to verify that." He also clearly stated that the border is not open to head off accusations that he did nothing
about the "open border." (V)
On Saturday, The New York Timespublished
a three-part story on Tucker Carlson. After the disgraced Bill O'Reilly was kicked out of Fox News' highly desirable 8
p.m. time slot, Rupert Murdoch chose Tucker Carlson, a millionaire heir to the Swanson TV dinner fortune (via his father's wife,
Patricia Swanson), to take it over. Carlson quickly decided that he couldn't compete with Sean Hannity in the "who loves
Trump the most" sweepstakes, and also didn't want to hug The Donald so tightly that he would have to explain away every
stupid thing Trump did every night. So, Carlson picked a different theme to pitch: white nationalism. He understood the
key reason some white people adored Trump: their fear of the country's changing ethnic composition. He made this the
centerpiece of his show, which is now the most highly rated one on cable TV.
Carlson's gut feeling that Trumpism without Trump would be a winner was right, but now he and Fox are much more
scientific (who says Fox doesn't believe in science?). They do minute-by-minute
which is expensive but gives them valuable data. What they discovered is that stories about the white nationalist Great
Replacement Theory and warnings about demographic change are the biggest winners with the viewing audience.
So he talks about these things more and more since that's what the viewers love most.
Carlson's style also changed as this sank in. He used to open the show with a few questions. Now it is a full-blown
filibuster, with the audience addressed as "you" and today's boogeyman referred to as "they." He keeps pushing the
envelope on immigration and racism and keeps getting rewarded for it in terms of higher ratings. That's his (not-so)
secret formula and it keeps on working.
Carlson has already said that he won't read a word of the Times' articles and he believes that the scrutiny
will only make his fans more rabid. (V)