Janet Reno Is No Hero


Former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno | University Press of Florida

Janet Reno: A Life, by Judith Hicks Stiehm, University Press of Florida, 224 pages, $35

In April 24, 2000, a day after Easter and two days after she sent 130 federal agents to storm Miami’s Little Havana neighborhood, Attorney General Janet Reno received reverential treatment on NBC’s Today show. “One of the things that is so very important,” Reno declared, “is that the force was not used. It was a show of force that prevented people from getting hurt.”

This was news to the people who had been brutalized by federal agents, including two NBC cameramen left writhing in pain from a stomach kick or a rifle butt to the head. Reno had authorized a massive no-knock raid to seize 6-year-old Elián González and send him back to Cuba, even though the court battles regarding his fate were ongoing. Her attempt to portray the federal assault as the equivalent of a Girl Scout cookie delivery was debunked by an Associated Press photo of a Border Patrol agent pointing his submachine gun toward the terrified boy being held by the fisherman who had rescued him from the Atlantic Ocean.

Reno counted on maximum media deference for her “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?” shtick. She brushed off the photo: “If you look at it carefully, it shows that the gun was pointed to the side and that the finger was not on the trigger.” Admittedly, the muzzle of the gun was not in the boy’s mouth. But that Heckler & Koch MP5 submachine gun sprays 800 rounds a minute, and the agent didn’t even have both hands on the weapon.

The aftermath of the González raid epitomized Janet Reno’s career. The Washington Post praised her for ensuring that not all journalists would be beaten during the raid, and New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, in a piece headlined “Reno for President,” declared that the machine-gun photo “warmed my heart.” But Cuban Americans never forgot Reno’s lies, and their fierce opposition torpedoed her 2002 Florida gubernatorial campaign.

***

You’ll find almost nothing about Reno’s failures and frauds in Judith Hicks Stiehm’s new biography, Janet Reno: A Life. What is the point of sending a 200-page love letter to a dead politician? That is just one of many questions that Stiehm, a retired professor of political science, fails to answer in a book whose style sometimes resembles Fun with Dick and Jane. Her biography is the last place to seek the truth on one of America’s most blood-stained attorneys general.

For Stiehm and much of the media, the fact that Janet Reno was a progressive and the first female attorney general absolved all her failures and abuses of power. Such pandering will be the death of civil liberties.

Stiehm endlessly reminds readers that “Reno’s first commitment was to truth” (italics in original). This is a Mount Sinai biography, treating whatever Janet Reno said as the word of God.

For Reno, government was always the avenging savior. She saw public employees as a Brahmin class: In 1995, she told federal law enforcement officers, “You are part of a government that has given its people more freedom…than any other government in the history of the world.” Thank you, Masters! In a 1996 speech to government prosecutors, she declared, “All of you public lawyers are but little lower than the angels, and I salute you.”

Since government officials were practically angels, there was no need to hinder their public service by compelling them to obey the law.

Reno’s most vivid abuse of power occurred 36 days into her reign as U.S. attorney general, after she approved an FBI tanks-and-toxic-gas assault on the Branch Davidians besieged near Waco, Texas.

On February 28, 1993, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms launched an unprovoked attack on the Davidians’ sprawling wooden home. Four agents and seven Davidians were killed in the gunfire. The FBI was then sent in to bring the Davidians and their leader, David Koresh, to heel.

Stiehm’s discussion of Waco could have been written by the FBI press office. But her perspective was widely shared inside the Beltway, where almost no one gave a damn at the time about the innocent civilians killed on April 19, 1993. That contempt was epitomized by the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia creating a Janet Reno Torchbearer Award.

Reno approved the bureau’s final assault after she was told that Koresh was abusing babies. She later claimed that she could not remember which FBI official suckered her with that false claim. Reno portrayed the assault as nonviolent, but the official plan called for collapsing the entire building atop the Davidians if they refused to come out. Tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles had collapsed more than 20 percent of the building before a fire broke out, likely killing many people inside.

Reno approved pumping the Davidians’ home full of toxic CS gas—gas the U.S. government had just pledged, in the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty, never to use against enemy soldiers. (The treaty still allowed governments to use it on their own people.) Prior to approving the attack, the FBI notified Reno that the impact of the CS gas on “infants and children cannot be ignored because gas masks are not available for infants and younger children.” Chemist George Uhlig later testified to Congress that the FBI gas attack probably “suffocated the children early on.”

Before the fire, the FBI had thrown flash-bang explosives—which have started many fires during police raids—at Davidians attempting to exit the building. The FBI also fired pyrotechnic devices at the Davidians before the fire erupted. Once the fire started, FBI agents blocked local fire trucks from dousing the flames. The assault ended with 80 dead men, women, and children.

In the aftermath of the fire, the Los Angeles Times hailed Reno as a “folk hero” and The Washington Post said she had “superstar status.” She achieved this by pretending to take responsibility for the outcome as she vehemently blamed it all on David Koresh. Reno exploited her newfound popularity to orchestrate a cover-up so sweeping that even the press started to object: A New York Times editorial denounced the “Waco whitewash.”

Reno faced few questions on Waco until House Republicans held hearings in mid-1995. When Rep. John Mica (R–Fla.) presented Reno with a gas mask to illustrate that it could not have fit children, Reno casually tossed the mask on the floor and announced that “it’s not very helpful, in terms of trying to understand what happened there, to just show gas masks.”

Reno previously described the CS gas as a mere “irritant.” When asked why she approved the use of 54-ton combat vehicles to assail the Davidians, Reno replied that these were “not military weapons….I mean, it was like a good rent-a-car.” The media mostly ignored that howler, instead heaping praise on Reno’s demeanor for standing up to Republicans that day.

***

The charred corpses of April 1993 didn’t matter to such people because Reno’s devotion to children was beyond dispute—at least according to official scorekeepers. She had risen to national prominence as a crusader against child abuse, thus securing her selection as attorney general.

Yet it was one of those child abuse cases that provoked what is practically Stiehm’s only critical comment on Reno. In the Country Walk case, Stiehm writes, “there was a possibility that she had been part of an unjust conclusion.”

A “possibility”? Starting in 1984, Reno—at that point the state attorney in Dade County—prosecuted a husband and wife who ran a preschool, relying on ludicrous testimony about chants to Satan and about snakes and guns put into vaginas. Reno relied on the novel “Miami Method,” in which therapists endlessly interviewed kids to gin up evidence for prosecution. PBS’ Frontline slammed Reno in 2002 for mercilessly coercing a false confession, withholding exculpatory evidence, and exploiting children in a charade that boosted her reelection.

In fact, Reno’s child abuse frauds had been exposed even before she became attorney general. On March 3, 1993, Debbie Nathan, writing in the Miami New Timesrevealed how the Country Walk prosecution was “fueled by opportunism, zealotry, and highly unusual behavior” by Reno. Here’s how Nathan summarized the case: “An election was near. Janet Reno was going to send someone to jail. No matter what.”

Stiehm writes that Reno’s “consistent, ethical conduct reinforce[s] what a good civics class teaches students: that one can successfully engage in the political while remaining both human and honest.” Actually, Reno’s greatest achievement was to teach Americans that there isn’t much justice in the Justice Department. But never trust the professors, pundits, and other official scorekeepers to admit that truth.

The post Janet Reno Is No Hero appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/TSnhksC
via IFTTT

North Korea & Eritrea Dominate The Global Hotspots Of Modern Slavery

North Korea & Eritrea Dominate The Global Hotspots Of Modern Slavery

Approximately 10.5 percent of North Korea‘s population, including migrant workers and human trafficking victims, are categorized as modern slaves, according to data by the Walk Free Foundation.

While this only amounts to roughly five percent of the total of estimated modern slaves worldwide, Statista’s Florian Zandt shows in the chart below that only one other country comes close to this population share size.

With 9.0 percent or an estimated number of 320,000 modern slaves, the African country of Eritrea comes in second on the ranking analyzing data from 2021.

Infographic: The Hotspots of Modern Slavery | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

While the ranking shown in our infographic prioritizes the share of people subjected to forced labor or forced marriages in the respective country’s population, only two of the worst offenders in terms of total number of residents living in slave-like conditions make the cut, North Korea (third in terms of global estimated modern slaves) and Russia (fourth in terms of global estimated modern slaves).

When looking at the issue from this angle, India and China are home to the most people living in slave-like circumstances, with 11 million and 5.8 million, respectively.

Overall, 49.6 million are estimated to live in conditions defined as modern slavery, with the majority residing in the Asia-Pacific region.

The Walk Free Foundation categorizes modern slaves as victims of workplace abuse, debt bondage, forced marriage and sex trafficking, among other factors. Since it’s nearly impossible to get concrete numbers, the non-profit modeled its analysis on data from 68 representative national surveys as well evaluations of individual- and country-level risk factors like armed conflicts, governance issues including labor laws, lack of basic needs, the state of disenfranchised groups like migrants and women as well as general inequality levels in the countries included in its report.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 12/01/2023 – 23:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/WkwzXyd Tyler Durden

Self-Amplifying RNA Shots Are Coming: The Untold Danger

Self-Amplifying RNA Shots Are Coming: The Untold Danger

Authored by Klaus Steger via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

(Christoph Burgstedt/Shutterstock)

The next generation of RNA-based injections will contain self-amplifying RNA (saRNA). If the term “self-amplifying RNA” sounds frightening, it should. It likely brings to mind images of scientific experiments run amok.

As discussed in a previous article, “mRNA vaccines” are not made with messenger RNA but with modified RNA (modRNA). These so-called vaccines are actually gene therapy products (GTPs), as modRNA hijacks our cells’ software. We have no possibility at all to gain influence on modRNA (or saRNA) after it has been injected.

What Distinguishes saRNA From modRNA?

The term “self-amplifying” is self-explanatory: saRNA replicates itself repeatedly, which is not natural, as natural mRNA is always (without exception) transcribed from DNA (this is called the “central dogma of molecular biology”).

Compared to modRNA, a small amount of saRNA results in an increased amount of produced antigen; one shot of saRNA-based injection may be enough to generate sufficient antibodies against a virus.

Both saRNA and modRNA represent the blueprint for a viral protein, which, after entering our cells, will be produced by our cell machinery (i.e., ribosomes).

Scientists created the genetically modified modRNA sequence by replacing natural uridines with synthetic methyl-pseudouridines to generate a maximum amount of viral antigen. This modification is the basis of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 shots.

Unlike modRNA, saRNA does not contain methyl-pseudouridines, but uridines. Why? Since saRNA self-replicates and synthetic methyl-pseudouridines are not available in our cells, saRNA must rely on natural uridines that exist in our cells. Our cells will produce foreign proteins using their own cell machinery and their own natural resources—the main reason these cells finally become exhausted.

However, this causes a significant problem: mRNA is highly unstable and, therefore, has only a short lifespan—too short for our immune system to produce sufficient antibodies. The solution to this problem is the second difference between modRNA and saRNA.

Unlike modRNA, saRNA contains an additional sequence for the replicase, as destroyed (by RNases) saRNA must be replaced by new saRNA.

As natural mRNA will never self-replicate, saRNA definitely represents a genetically modified RNA (modRNA).

Put simply, saRNA is just another type of modRNA.

Why the Change to saRNA?

saRNA is the political solution: the same amount (or even more) of antigen in only one shot! The public will likely be told that due to the regular mutations of the virus, yearly adapted boosters will continue to be necessary.

Numerous preclinical and clinical studies applying saRNA technology have already been undertaken. A 2023 review in the journal Pathogens touts saRNA vaccines as “improved mRNA vaccines.” The journal Vaccines published a summary of five years of saRNA study findings. Once the requisite clinical studies are finished, these new vaccines can be approved for use. It can be expected that this process will be as quick as it was for the COVID-19 vaccines. The approval process will become simpler, as it could be argued that the technique (modRNA in lipid nanoparticles) is already approved and that only the modRNA sequence is different. Hence, these new saRNA vaccines could be injected into an unsuspecting public at any time.

While BioNTech performed experiments with saRNA (BNT162c2) but finally focused on modRNA (BNT162b2), Arcturus Therapeutics was the first to announce (in 2022) that its COVID-19 saRNA vaccine candidate ARCT-154—now the most advanced saRNA vaccine in trials—meets the primary efficacy endpoint in a phase-3 study.

In the Arcturus Therapeutics study, participants received two doses, each containing 5 micrograms of saRNA. This is far less than the modRNA concentrations used by Pfizer-BioNTech (30 micrograms/shot) and Moderna (100 micrograms/shot).

saRNA Injections Will Not Solve the Problems With modRNA Injections

As we discovered with modRNA, the spike protein is poisonous to our bodies. We know that modRNA results in the production of more spike protein than would be available during a natural infection, and we know that repeated boosters cause immune tolerance.

Compared to modRNA, a small amount of saRNA results in an increased amount of produced antigen.

The “dose” of viral antigen that current and future RNA-based vaccines bring about will show large fluctuations from one individual to the next, depending on the cell type producing the desired antigen, genetic predisposition, medical history, and other factors. This fact alone should prohibit the use of RNA-based injections as vaccines for healthy people.

Another Dubious Step Forward: From Linear to Circular saRNA

As RNA-degrading enzymes (RNases) are known to act from both ends of linear RNA, scientists tried to prevent these enzymes from doing their natural duty—degrading mRNAs that are no longer needed—and created circular RNA. This resulted in increased stability and translation efficiency, followed by the production of an increased amount of the desired antigen.

But is this really another step forward? Consider the negative effect of long-lasting antigen presentation. Due to increased antigen levels, one injection of saRNA—whether linear or circular—may cause adverse events comparable with repeated (booster) injections of modRNA.

Long-Term Presentation of an Antigen Is Known to Cause Immune Tolerance

After getting vaccinated, our bodies generate antibodies, mostly immunoglobulin G (IgG), including IgG1 and IgG4.

Vaccinated individuals show an antibody class switch starting with the third COVID-19 injection (the first booster). This is from inflammatory IgG1 antibodies (that fight the spike protein) to non-inflammatory IgG4 antibodies (that tolerate the spike protein). Elevated levels of IgG4 antibodies, in the long run, will exhaust the immune system, causing immune tolerance. This may explain COVID-19 “breakthrough” infections, reduced immune response to other viral and bacterial infections, and reactivation of latent viral infections. It may also cause autoimmune diseases and uncontrolled growth of cancer.

Notably, long-term IgG4 responses have been significantly associated with RNA-based injections, while individuals with a COVID-19 infection prior to vaccination exhibited no increased IgG4 levels, even when they received a shot after the infection.

This observation clearly discredits the World Health Organization’s policy that—assuming people have no immunity against novel viruses (completely ignoring the reality of cross-immunity)—people should be vaccinated before they come into contact with the virus.

RNA-Based Injections Are Recognized as Gene Therapy Products

Incomprehensibly, RNA-based injections for protecting against infectious diseases were named “vaccines,” which allowed exclusion from the strict regulations for gene therapy products (GTPs). Again, this happened without providing the public with any scientific justification.

Details on the regulatory issues of RNA-based vaccines are reported in excellent and comprehensive reviews by Guerriaud & Kohli and Helene Banoun.

In 2014, Uğur Şahin, already CEO of BioNTech, co-wrote an article published in Nature about developing a new class of drugs, “mRNA-based therapeutics.” The authors wrote, “One would expect the classification of an mRNA drug to be a biologic, gene therapy or somatic cell therapy.”

In 2021, the author of correspondence printed in Genes & Immunity described RNA-based vaccines created by Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech as “a breakthrough in the field of gene therapy” and “a great opportunity for the FDA and EMA to revise the drug development pipeline to make it more flexible and less time-consuming.”

Two disturbing pieces of information have now come to light:

  • The contaminating DNA results from Pfizer-BioNTech’s change in the manufacturing process after finishing the BNT162b2 (Comirnaty) Clinical Trial C4591001. Initially (Process 1), Pfizer-BioNTech modRNA was produced by in-vitro transcription from synthetic DNA and amplified by PCR (polymerase chain reaction). However, to scale up manufacturing (see rapid responses to this BMJ study), modRNA encoding DNA was cloned into bacterial plasmids (Process 2). Put simply, the clinical trial was run on process-1 lots, but the world’s populations received process-2 lots.

This means that individuals who gave consent to be vaccinated were injected with a substance different from the one approved by regulatory agencies and to which they had consented.

  • Detailed sequence analyses revealed that the plasmid-DNA in the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 shots contain a 72-base pair sequence of the Simian Virus-40 (SV40) promoter, which is well-known to enhance transport of the plasmid DNA into the nucleus.

It is now irrefutable that the RNA-based COVID-19 injections contain DNA.

RNA-based technology—especially when applied as vaccines to healthy individuals—is unjustifiable and unethical. Independent from the tragic number of adverse events or excess mortality rates, it is the technique that is the issue, and the same problems will occur in all future RNA-based “vaccines.”

  1. RNA-based “vaccine” technology goes against the central idea of evolution over the past millions of years. While injected modRNA and saRNA produce antigens without stopping, in fact, the short lifespan of natural messenger RNA (mRNA) is a prerequisite for healthy and specific cell functions. (The short lifespan of mRNA allows our cells to adapt as quickly as possible to changing circumstances and avoid the production of unnecessary proteins.)
  2. A premise of RNA-based “vaccine” technology—that all of our body cells have to produce a foreign viral protein—goes against fundamental biological principles, like distinguishing between our own cells and foreign invaders, and will result in our immune system attacking our own cells.
  3. RNA can be reverse-transcribed into DNA even without the presence of (the enzyme) reverse transcriptase (i.e., by LINE1 elements present in our genome/DNA). Contaminating DNA (in RNA-based vaccines) is the rule rather than the exception. As both RNA and DNA can be integrated into the human genome, the so-called “vaccines” based on RNA technology are actually gene therapy products.

It is in no way justifiable to subject RNA-based GTPs for medical use to strict controls but to exclude RNA-based GTPs, called vaccines, from these regulations even though they are intended for most of the human population. Even in an emergency, no one should be forced to be injected with any substance—least of all by politicians.

What Did COVID-19 Teach Us About Science, Politics, and Society?

For many years, scientists dreamed of manipulating human “software”—that is, DNA or RNA. Ethically, manipulating DNA has always been taboo. In retrospect, COVID-19 may represent the dawn of RNA-based “vaccines” and the end of the taboo against manipulating human DNA.

In a 2023 commentary in the Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, the authors wrote that from the earliest days of the pandemic, it was obvious that some influential scientists and their political allies demonized dissenting scientific views and evidence offering a second opinion. Despite contradictory evidence, national politicians “assured the public that they were adopting COVID-19 policies by ‘following the science.’” However, scientific consent was achieved only by suppressing scientific debate.

Remember: When questions are allowed, it is science; when they are not, it is propaganda.

So-called “experts” selected by politicians told us that we must be vaccinated to be able to fight a new respiratory virus. This contradicts the science of the human immune system. Our immune systems are dynamic and can clear a virus they have never encountered; they can also develop cross-immunity to identify variants even if the virus mutates. However, since RNA-based vaccines will produce a single antigen, our immune system is deprived of the possibility of developing cross-immunity against virus variants. This applies, in particular, to respiratory viruses exhibiting a high mutation rate. In the long run, this will lead to an increase in both the frequency and the severity of infectious diseases. Thus, politicians interested in protecting the population against future infections would be well-advised to offer health programs that strengthen the immune system before seasonal infections.

Scientists haven’t the faintest idea of how to direct modRNA or saRNA to a specific cell type or how to stop the translation of administered RNA. However, they continue to study how the stability of injected RNA and the amount of generated antigen can be further increased. The current development of RNA-based vaccine technology reminds one of the poem “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice,” which German poet Johann Wolfgang von Goethe wrote over 200 years ago:

“The spirits, whom I’ve careless raised, are spellbound to my power not.”

Tyler Durden
Fri, 12/01/2023 – 23:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/pi0AxG5 Tyler Durden

Iowa Lottery Mistakenly Posts Wrong Powerball Numbers For 7 Hours

Iowa Lottery Mistakenly Posts Wrong Powerball Numbers For 7 Hours

In what can only be described as a nightmare scenario, Powerball losers in the state of Iowa mistakenly thought they were winners for about seven hours this week.

The anomaly took place after a “human reporting error” caused the wrong numbers to be posted for last Monday’s drawing. The Iowa Lottery’s website posted the wrong numbers at about 12:30am Tuesday.

No one corrected the error until about 7:15am the next morning, a report from CBS News said.

“We at the Iowa Lottery sincerely apologize for the interruption,” a lottery official commented, according to the New York Times.

The Times wrote that following the lottery draw, two individuals at different sites input the winning numbers into the state’s lottery system. This system is linked to all lottery terminals and self-service kiosks across the state. However, officials noted that some of the numbers were mistakenly entered.

The lottery said that the mistaken numbers would triggered payouts between $4 and $200, but didn’t specify how many winners there were. They also said that anyone who cashed their ticket within the 7 hour window will get to keep their money. 

The total Powerball Jackpot for that Monday was estimated at $355 million.

The Iowa Lottery worked until 3:30pm on Tuesday to fix the error by correcting its system, the report said. After the numbers were corrected, 3998 people had won prices ranging from $4 to $200. 

Tyler Durden
Fri, 12/01/2023 – 22:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/6tZEUAM Tyler Durden

Campus Dysfunction Easy To Recognize, Difficult To Cure

Campus Dysfunction Easy To Recognize, Difficult To Cure

Authored by Peter Berkowitz via RealClear Wire,

Machiavelli observes in “The Prince” that politics presents challenges akin to those physicians sometimes face: “… in the beginning of the illness it is easy to cure and difficult to recognize, but in the progress of time, when it has not been recognized and treated in the beginning, it becomes easy to recognize and difficult to cure.” So too for higher education in America: At this late date, our universities’ dysfunction – and the damage to the nation it has wrought – has become easy to recognize, but curing the dysfunction has become difficult.

The Hamas jihadists’ Oct. 7 atrocities in southern Israel may have provoked a watershed moment for higher education in America. Student and faculty expressions of solidarity with the mass murderers, university administrators’ initial confusion and missteps, and the eruption of antisemitism on campus compelled many who have long averted their eyes to confront our universities’ role in fanning the flames of division and discord. However, since most university administrators, professors, wealthy donors, left-of-center commentators, and politicians of both parties have allowed the dysfunction to progress for decades without calling higher education to account or warning the public, only dramatic and costly interventions provide hope at this point of remedying the cluster of pathologies ravaging America’s universities.

Evidence that it is now permissible to speak in polite society about the dire state of our universities comes from the New York Times opinion page. Since Oct. 7, the Times has published several pieces declaring that our universities have gone badly astray and proposing measures to repair them.

These opinions are welcome, but tardy by several decades. They fail to identify the chief problem. They ignore the principal obstacles to reform. They propose reforms that provide the equivalent of band-aids for gaping wounds and shattered limbs. And they overlook the mainstream media’s complicity in largely ignoring, downplaying, or dismissing repeated warnings extending back a quarter century and more – largely, but not exclusively, from conservatives – that our universities undermine the public interest by attacking free speech, eviscerating due process, and hollowing out and politicizing the curriculum.

On Oct. 16, in “The Moral Deficiencies of a Liberal Education,” Ezekiel Emanuel proclaimed, “We have failed.” As vice provost for global initiatives and professor of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Emanuel sees the failure as personal and professional: The transformation of our universities into boot camps for inculcating progressive opinions about social justice and disdain for other views proceeded under his watch.

Students blaming Israel for Hamas’ massacres and praising the terrorists “have revealed their moral obliviousness and the deficiency of their educations, stated Emanuel. “But the deeper problem is not them. It is what they are being taught – or, more specifically, what they are not being taught.” Universities “have failed to give them the ethical foundation and moral compass to recognize the basics of humanity.”

A bioethicist, Emanuel calls for a two-course ethics requirement, and, more generally, the restoration of a curriculum built around required courses (he doesn’t say which ones). Professors must cease their widespread dereliction of duty, he adds, which consists in refraining from challenging students’ opinions for fear of discomfiting or offending them. The aim is to rebuild undergraduate education “around honing critical thinking skills and moral and logical reasoning so students can emerge as engaged citizens.

Emanuel’s measures move in the right direction but are inadequate to the challenge because they overlook how a proper liberal education itself furnishes and refines minds and provides an ethical foundation and moral compass. The center of liberal education in America must consist in the study of the principles of freedom – moral, economic, and political – on which the nation is based and the constitutional structure and virtues of mind and character through which they are institutionalized and preserved. Since those principles and virtues have a history, the broader Western civilization of which they are a part must also be studied. And since Western civilization revolves around the tension between individuality and our shared humanity, liberal education includes study of other civilizations.

On Nov. 8, in “How Are Students Expected to Live Like this on Campuses?” New York Times editorial board member Jesse Wegman observed that the numerous instances “of abhorrent speech by students and faculty members, mostly aimed at Israel, Jews and even Jewish students” raised pressing questions of free speech. “How should a university respond,” asked Wegman, “when members of its community express sentiments that are at odds with the values the school is trying to inculcate, not to mention with human decency?” His answer was good insofar as it goes. “Speech should be presumptively allowed, as a basic principle of free inquiry and academic debate,” he asserted, while drawing the line at expression that concretely threatens, harasses, or incites to violence.

But are university administrators and faculty members disposed to vindicate free speech? Are they competent to draw the necessary lines? Are they prepared to face the mob? Wegman skirts these questions.

He acknowledges that universities have eroded free speech on campus, not least by instituting speech codes and by affirming campus orthodoxies on controversial political questions. His principal recommendation is mandatory free-speech training for first-year students to build “a culture of basic respect and listening.” But who will educate the educators?

Having undermined respect for others and the art of listening by presiding over – or silently acquiescing in – the curtailment of dissenting speech for more than a generation, the current crop of administrators and professors seems ill-suited to fashion and implement free-speech training. Moreover, free speech is best learned not by didactic lectures and seminars but by practicing it in the reasoned consideration of competing ideas with those capable of challenging one’s assumptions and arguments. But where are the professors who can lead such conversations? Which faculty members remain capable of understanding their side of the argument because they understand the other side?

On Nov. 16, in “Universities are Failing at Inclusion,” Times columnist David Brooks also took grim, post-Oct. 7 realities as his point of departure: “Jewish students on America’s campuses have found themselves confronted with those who celebrate a terrorist operation that featured the mass murder and reportedly the rape of fellow Jews.” Brooks blamed higher education for betraying its mission. “Universities are supposed to be centers of inquiry and curiosity – places where people are tolerant of difference and learn about other points of view,” he wrote. “Instead, too many have become brutalizing ideological war zones.”

“How on earth did this happen?” asked Brooks, who mentioned that he has “been teaching on college campuses off and on for 25 years.” He faulted “a hard-edged ideological framework that has been spreading in high school and college, on social media, in diversity training seminars and in popular culture.Although he said the framework lacks a name, it reflects a postmodern progressivism. It holds that group identity is more important than shared humanity; the fundamental social and political distinction is between oppressors and oppressed; a person in one group cannot understand a person in another; racism and bigotry are endemic to America; principles of freedom – free speech, due process, meritocracy – are tools of oppression; and affirming these dogmas of postmodern progressivism takes precedence over acquiring knowledge and developing intellectual independence and integrity.

It is not feasible, Brooks argued, to jettison the deeply entrenched campus diversity, equity, and inclusion bureaucracies that divide people into racial and ethnic groups, give preferential treatment based on group membership, and exclude dissenting views. Instead, he advocated the teaching of true diversity grounded in the remarkable achievements of American pluralism. To help students understand that they “live in one of the most diverse societies in history” and prepare them to cooperate with others from different backgrounds and with alternative perspectives, courses should “explore diversity, identity and history from a pluralistic framework” and assign “a range of books on the social and moral skills you need to see people across difference.”

Brooks rightly espouses study of diversity in America and the means of preserving and enriching it, but he makes the same mistake as Emanuel and Wegman. All three suppose that special classes – on moral reasoning, free speech, and diversity – will provide an antidote to our universities’ ills.

Liberal education is itself the best means available for cultivating toleration and civility, virtues conspicuously lacking on campus but essential to freedom and democracy. The sciences and the social sciences mustn’t be neglected. But serious study of literature, history, and philosophy – at once questioning and rigorous, patient and probing, and determined to understand before criticizing or extolling – provides an incomparable tutorial in the complexities and continuities of morality and politics, the competing conceptions of the good life, and the basic rights and fundamental freedoms that are inseparable from human dignity.

That campus dysfunction is now easy to recognize but difficult to cure does not revoke the obligation to do what is in our power to repair America’s colleges and universities by providing students with the liberal education they need and deserve.

Peter Berkowitz is the Tad and Dianne Taube senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. From 2019 to 2021, he served as director of the Policy Planning Staff at the U.S. State Department. His writings are posted at PeterBerkowitz.com and he can be followed on Twitter @BerkowitzPeter.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 12/01/2023 – 22:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/Xjimz9c Tyler Durden

Hate Crime Hoaxer Jussie Smollett Headed Back To Jail After Failed Appeal

Hate Crime Hoaxer Jussie Smollett Headed Back To Jail After Failed Appeal

Hate crime hoaxer Jussie Smollett is headed back to prison after an appeals court on Friday upheld convictions for disorderly conduct after he staged a racist, homophobic attack against himself in 2019.

Smollett’s legal team challenged the role of the special prosecutor, jury selection, various pieces of evidence, and other aspects of the case – which did not convince the 3-judge appellate panel in Illinois.

The former “Empire” star was convicted in 2021 on five felony counts of disorderly conduct.

And while most people who aren’t actors connected to the Obamas would probably end up doing serious time, Smollett will simply have to finish a 150-day stint in jail. Prior to his appeal, he spent just six days.

Lawyers for Smollett, who is black and gay, have publicly claimed he was the target of a racist justice system and people playing politics.

Appellate Judge Freddrenna Lyle said she would have thrown out Smollett’s convictions. Lyle said it was “fundamentally unfair” to appoint a special prosecutor and charge Smollett when he had already performed community service as part of a 2019 deal with Cook County prosecutors to drop the initial charges.

It was common sense that Smollett was bargaining for a complete resolution of the matter, not simply a temporary one,” Lyle said. -AP

Smollet was originally slapped with a 16-count indictment for lying to the police, however the Cook County State Attorney’s office suddenly dropped the charges after  Michelle Obama’s former Chief of Staff, Tina Tchen, pressured Chicago’s top prosecutor, Kim Foxx, to transfer the case to the FBI. When that wasn’t done, Foxx’s office decided not to pursue the case

And while Smollett had spent just six days in the Cook County jail, he was transferred to the psych ward after jail officials were concerned about self-harm.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 12/01/2023 – 21:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/tGAeWEO Tyler Durden

First Hospital In Nation To Require COVID-19 Vaccines Will End Mandate

First Hospital In Nation To Require COVID-19 Vaccines Will End Mandate

Authored by Matthew Lysiak via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A woman receives a Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in a file photograph. (Johanna Geron/Reuters)

Houston Methodist, which made national headlines after becoming the first hospital in the United States to mandate the COVID-19 vaccines, will no longer require its employees to receive the controversial shots after a new law passed by the Texas legislature outlawed the practice of denying vaccine choice to workers in the private sector.

The hospital announced the change in policy in an internal email to employees, reviewed by The Epoch Times, that employees who choose not to receive the COVID-19 vaccine will no longer be prohibited from working at the institution, effective Dec. 1.

“The Texas Legislature passed a law in the special session that prohibits private employers from requiring employees and contractors to get a COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of employment,” the statement read. “We will continue to encourage everyone to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, but it will no longer be mandated at Houston Methodist. This means that getting the vaccine, or being approved for an exemption, will no longer be a condition of employment.”

The statement added that the hospital “has always put the safety of our patients and employees first.”

Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, a practitioner in Texas and founder of Coalition of Health Freedom, told The Epoch Times that the hospital’s decision to play the role of trailblazer in becoming the first to mandate the COVID-19 vaccine was not only poorly conceived, but unleashed a series of negative ripple effects in terms of medical freedom that would quickly spread to other institutions throughout the nation.

Houston Methodist and their CEO Dr. Marc Boom coerced nearly 30,000 employees to get an experimental modified mRNA shot with no long-term safety data,” said Dr. Bowden. “Their mandate policy was the first in the country and paved the way for the government and other businesses to impose a highly unethical employment policy on millions of Americans.”

On June 8, 2021, Houston Methodist became the nation’s first hospital system to require its private health care providers to get the shot. In a letter informing hospital staff of the policy, Houston Methodist Chief Physician Executive Dr. Rob Phillips justified the decision by claiming that forcing employees to take the vaccine was their moral obligation, writing,“It is our duty as health care professionals to do no harm and protect the safety of all of us — our colleagues, our patients and our society.”

The hospital hadn’t returned a call for comment from The Epoch Times by the time of publication.

Controversy on Vaccines

The past two years have seen the COVID-19 vaccines become mired in controversy. The original COVID-19 vaccines were taken by more than 80 percent of Americans after officials pledged that the shots would be effective in both preventing contraction and stopping the spread of the virus. However, once it was revealed that the shots didn’t work as promised, interest in the subsequent booster shots decreased dramatically.

Vaccines could also be attributed to widespread reports of negative health outcomes believed to have been caused by the shots. COVID-19 vaccines have been named the primary suspect in over 1.5 million adverse event reports, according to the FDA Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database. The numbers could be even higher. An FDA-funded study out of Harvard (pdf) found that VAERS cases represent fewer than 1 percent of vaccine adverse events that actually occur.

In August, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) V-safe website quietly stopped collecting adverse event reports with no reason or explanation. As of Wednesday morning, the V-safe website states: “Thank you for your participation. Data collection for COVID-19 vaccines concluded on June 30, 2023.”

Consequently, in the past two years confidence in health officials has dropped 10 points from 44 percent to 34 percent, according to a Gallup tracking poll.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that nearly all Americans receive an updated COVID-19 vaccine. About 5 percent of Americans have received one of the new shots, according to the most recent available data.

The Texas law prohibiting private businesses from imposing COVID-19 vaccine mandates was passed by the state legislature before being signed into law by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Nov. 10. The state House had approved the bill in a 91–54 vote, while the state Senate passed it 17–11.

Mr. Abbott, a Republican, said as he signed the bill in Austin that it was necessary to protect the right of Texans “to make their own decisions about what health care they want to access and what health care they want to reject.”

The legislation stated that an “employer may not adopt or enforce a mandate requiring an employee, contractor, applicant for employment, or applicant for a contract position to be vaccinated against COVID-19 as a condition of employment or a contract position.”

Texas State Rep. Brian Harrison, who first introduced the legislation in 2021, voiced regret that the bill took so long to become law, posting on X, “This is great.  But… imagine how many careers would’ve been saved if the Texas COVID Vaccine Freedom Act had passed when I first introduced it… OVER TWO YEARS AGO.”

Dr. Bowden says that while it is a positive step that choice has once again been restored to hospital employees, the administration’s decision to force its employees to choose between a shot they may not believe is safe and their ability to earn a living should have consequences.

“The ramifications are immense and though I am happy they (the vaccine mandates) have been stopped, we still need to hold them accountable,” said Dr. Bowden.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 12/01/2023 – 21:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/ZrYhWm9 Tyler Durden

The Biggest Lies Used By Gavin Newsom In His Debate With Ron DeSantis

The Biggest Lies Used By Gavin Newsom In His Debate With Ron DeSantis

Gavin Newsom is what one might call a rhetoric peddler more than a debater.  He has a talent for twisting cherry-picked statistics and offering them out of context to defend false claims, and anyone seeking to enter a discourse with him will be forced to keep a long list of data points on file in their brain in order to counter the lies.  The most difficult people to argue with are those that aggressively exaggerate or slant the truth every time they open their mouths.  They are not bound by the same rules as someone trying to argue logically; they have an edge, until they are exposed for what they really are.  

The political left’s spin machine is out in force on social media suggesting that Newsom “wiped the floor” with Ron DeSantis during their recent and much hyped Fox News debate.  This is not really the case, though a same small set of clips will probably circulate for the next couple weeks showcasing Newsom’s habit of throwing out soundbites and stats without evidence.  And, unfortunately in this day and age two minute video clips are what most people consume for their news.     

Some might say that neither DeSantis or Newsom are relevant because neither of them will be presidential candidates in 2024 (Newsom even made this assertion at the beginning of the debate).  Don’t be so sure.  Joe Biden is increasingly losing his faculties and there is always the chance that he will step aside in 2024; as his public approval ratings plummet it may even be in the best interests of the DNC to push for a different candidate.  Gavin Newsom, suspiciously, has been acting as if he is auditioning for a chance at a presidential or vice presidential run.

It’s a good idea to keep an eye on him.  He is, at the very least, a good litmus test for the kinds or propaganda the political left will rely on in the coming months.  And speaking of propaganda, here are the top most dishonest claims made by Newsom during his debate with Ron DeSantis.

Newsom Claim #1:  “The last two years, more Floridians went to California than Californians going to Florida.” 

This is a strategy designed to deflect criticism of California’s oppressive policies against businesses as well as their recent draconian covid policies.  The claim is utterly false.  In 2021, 24,000 Floridians moved to California – while 37,000 Californians moved to Florida.  In 2022, 29,000 Floridians moved to California while 51,000 Californians moved to Florida.  Furthermore, California had an overall population loss of 800,000 people in only three years.  Florida gained a massive 600,000 people in that same time period.  

Keep in mind that thousands of small business owners and a number of major corporations have also left CA.  Newsom has consistently and blatantly lied about his state’s population exodus for a reason – It’s embarrassing.

Newsom Claim #2:  “Florida has more gun violence than California…”

This is based on per-capita data, a common method Newsom uses to obscure the massive crime in his own state.  Multiple cities across the US are not reporting complete crime data to the federal government as they wait for the FBI to finish updating their statistical collection system by 2025.  This means we can only compare data from 2021 or before.  

That said, in 2021, CDC info shows that California had 3576 gun related deaths in 2021, while Florida had 3142 (many of the deaths are suicides or accidental).  California had 2361 homicides that same year, while Florida had only 1462.  And what about mass shootings?  California is #3 on the list of states with the most mass shootings in 2023, with around 60% more incidents than Florida.  

Per capita adjustments do not make California a safer state, and neither do stringent gun control laws, as the facts show.  

Newsome Claim #3:  “The working class pays lower taxes in California than Florida…”

False, and also a deflection to avoid the issue of cost of living.   Florida is among the top ten states with the lowest income tax burden. California has the third-highest cost of living in the country, along with a higher tax burden.  Surveys show that the average annual income needed to live comfortably in California is $80,000.  In Florida, it is 57,000.    

Newsom Claim #4:  “Inflation down to 3.2%. Wages are up to 4.4%. The economy is booming. 5.2%. GDP growth in the last quarter…”

Another use of cherry-picked data to paint a false picture of the economy.  CPI is not an indicator of overall inflation, it is merely a window in time showing where inflation growth is at for the month.  Since Joe Biden entered the White House prices on the majority of goods and services have risen by 25%-30% on average.  A falling CPI does not change this in the slightest.  Americans will likely be paying 30% more for the cost of living for many years to come.  

Over 60% of US workers say that their wages are lagging well behind inflation, even those that received a pay increase this year.  Biden is overseeing the worst stagflationary crisis in America in over 40 years.

GDP growth numbers include government spending in their calculations, meaning they are fraudulent.  States like California and the federal government learned a long time ago that they can boost their GDP stats by borrowing and spending more each year.  These numbers do not represent the true health of the US economy in any way.  Which is why California is able to brag about having the highest GDP in the country yet it also has one of the worst homeless epidemics in the country.  

Newsom Claim #5:  “14 million jobs created under Joe Biden, that’s 10 times more than the previous 3 GOP presidents combined…”

False, and this lie is getting old.  The vast majority of the jobs cited by Newsom were not created by Biden, they were jobs lost during the covid lockdowns which Biden and Newsom aggressively pushed and tried to prolong for years.  When the Democrats were forced to end the lockdowns, many of these jobs returned.  

Also, the surge in consumer buying created by over $8 trillion+ in covid money dumped into the economy created a short term employment frenzy, which is now starting to fade.  The stimulus bought Biden a few years, but will it last until the end of 2024?

Newsom Claim #6:  “1406 books banned by Florida so far…”

Incorrect.  No books have been “banned” by DeSantis and the State of Florida.  Some books have been removed from public schools, either for pornographic content or for propaganda content with no educational value.  The real question is, why does Newsom defend the exposure of young children to the pornography in these books, which are often easily found in California schools?  If it’s related to LGBT issues does that make it okay in his mind?  

Newsom’s strength is his ability to lie with a smile on his face, and this says a lot about him as well as the people who support him.  America is suffocating under the weight of spin doctors, we don’t need yet another. 

Tyler Durden
Fri, 12/01/2023 – 20:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/cUS5f3B Tyler Durden

8 Espionage Hacks To Outsmart The Masters Of Miscommunication

8 Espionage Hacks To Outsmart The Masters Of Miscommunication

Authored by Nicole James via The Epoch Times,

In the era of pervasive surveillance reminiscent of Orwellian nightmares, old-school Cold War hacks have staged a comeback, offering a clandestine refuge for the exchange of information.

As Big Brother looms large on every screen, the savvy practitioner must resurrect time-tested techniques to outsmart the puppeteers of miscommunication particularly in the face of impending legal consequences for government-designated purveyors of deceit.

Here, in the spirit of cloak-and-dagger intrigue, are eight tried-and-true methods to outwit the masters of miscommunication:

1. Auslan, Elvish, Klingon

Elevate your discourse to heights beyond the reach of prying bureaucrats. There are many mythical languages you can learn that government agents and their goons are unlikely to master, such as conversational Klingon.

Start with simple phrases but be careful as a seemingly anodyne statement such as “xɑb ʂoʂ.ˈlɪʔ q͡χut͡ʃ” which is pronounced “Hab SoSlI’ Quch” and means “Your mother has a smooth forehead” is, as Star Trek fans know, a grave insult.

It may be worth memorising, “mIpHa’wI’ vIVumlaH?” (Where can I get a fake vaccine passport?) which is bound to be useful.

Traditionalists might favour Elvish, while those with a penchant for hand movements could find sanctuary in the sign language Auslan’s silent eloquence when under surveillance of eavesdropping adversaries.

2. Combustible Notepaper

Add a combustible notebook to your shopping list.

This was used in World War II and contained film that, when triggered by a pencil, would go up in smoke, disappearing in seconds.

The CIA, masters of subterfuge, employed water-soluble paper for note-taking—an item easily disposed of, whether discreetly in a toilet sans flushing, or employed for the mundane task of nose-blowing (albeit with a potential mess).

3. Cryptography

In the realm of artful communication, classical codes emerge as the silent orchestrators of secrecy. The art of rearranging letters or substituting one for another stands as an age-old technique.

Consider the transformation of “The solar panel is booby-trapped” into “Uif tpmbs qbofm jt cppcz usbqqfe,” achieved by a simple letter-by-letter shift.

Julius Caesar used it with a shift of three to communicate with his generals, although messages such as “lchmy nby vfiix izz gs niau” or “rinse the blood off my toga” may have been meant for the local laundromat.

Cryptographic history traces back to ancient Egypt, where the first known code was etched in stone around 1,900 BC. Even the ancient Israelites engaged in the art of Atbash, an early Hebrew code.

For an added layer of protection in these trying times, consider translating conversational Klingon into Abash.

The Enigma coding machine that was used by the Germans in WWII on display at Bletchley Park National Code Centre in Bletchley, England, on Nov. 25, 2004. (Ian Waldie/Getty Images)

4. The Dead Drop

The dead drop involves putting a message (usually in code) in seemingly innocuous items.

Picture hollow coins or, for a touch of Dutch—or is it French?—bravery, a bottle of Bolly.

Coins have limited space but can hold messages in microdots, a writing system developed during the 1870 Franco-Prussian War to lighten the load of carrier pigeons. Even the future Queen Elizabeth found solace in these pigeons for her missives.

The most famous case of a hollow coin being intercepted was when a Russian spy accidentally gave his hollow coin to a newspaper boy.

When the boy dropped the coin, the microdot photo fell out, but the secret message was still safe for four years because that’s how long it took the FBI to crack its code.

5. Poetry

Ever thought poetry could be a covert tool? The French Resistance certainly did. They turned verses into codes, using them not just to convey messages but also to spot fellow rebels.

One standout piece was “The Life that I Have,” penned by Leo Marks.

Chelsea Clinton even had it recited at her wedding to Marc Mezvinsky. Was it a subtle nod to some family secret? Maybe in Klingon? We’re not ruling anything out.

6. Pyramid Power

The French Resistance had another trick up its sleeve: the Pyramid structure. This furtive pyramid was built on the notion that members only engaged with one or two comrades.

A shroud of secrecy enveloped the organization as no official records of membership were maintained, and messages traversed only through the sacred conduit of whispered exchanges.

The brilliance lay in limiting exposure; enemy infiltrators, at best, could unmask merely two resistance members, leaving the remainder of the organization veiled in safety.

It worked until it didn’t, with the Gestapo insinuating themselves into the command echelons of select resistance groups.

Trust, a rare commodity in these precarious times, may find a shaky foundation, but discovering someone with a lifetime subscription to The Epoch Times could be a promising initiation.

7. Tying Your Shoelaces

Behold the mystique within the magicians’ code, where the simple act of tying shoelaces transcends its pedestrian facade.

A boy ties his shoelace as he takes an evacuation train with her mother and sister in Pokrovsk amid the Russian invasion of Ukraine, on Feb. 25, 2023. (Yasuyoshi Chiba/AFP via Getty Images)

Variations in knots carry a covert language, from the ominous “I am going to blow up the wind turbine” to the whimsically perplexing, “The woman standing next to you, I think she likes you.”

Concealing messages in the mundane theatre of daily life remains a timeless strategy.

Proceed with caution, however—tying both shoes together risks not only revealing your covert semaphore but also the perilous pratfall of a well-executed trip.

8. Jack-in-the-Box

In the arsenal of evasive tactics, the Jack-in-the-Box emerges as an unconventional ally, though not necessarily in the realm of communication.

A Jack-in-a-Box was used in 1982 by a CIA agent to evade KGB surveillance.

It is a suitcase that hides a dummy that looks like you from the shoulders up.

If you’re in a car chase, just wait for a sharp turn, open the Jack-in-the-Box, and roll out the passenger door. (Once cars are banned, this may not work as well on a bicycle.)

Tyler Durden
Fri, 12/01/2023 – 20:15

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/Yq4VMO8 Tyler Durden

Did Elon Musk’s ‘GFY’ Tirade Accelerate Pivot In Advertising Strategy? 

Did Elon Musk’s ‘GFY’ Tirade Accelerate Pivot In Advertising Strategy? 

On Thursday we emphasized in a note titled “Time To Boycott Elon’s Boycotters” that when mega-corporations advertise on social media platforms or news websites, it’s often less about traditional advertising and more about supporting, promoting, and financially backing specific ideologies and party lines that align with their interests. 

As we noted, “It’s why when Pfizer or Moderna spend tens of millions for advertising in the NYT, it is not so people are aware that Pfizer makes a covid booster shot – they know that from non-stop news coverage; it is to make sure that the NYT never questions the corporate party line. In other words, it is public relations in an advertising wrapper.” 

Elon Musk is purging these mega-corporations from advertising on X, intentionally or unintentionally. 

His remarks on Wednesday at the DealBook Conference, where he bluntly told the audience that advertisers who attempt to “blackmail him” can “go fuck themselves.”

Musk was referring to some of these advertisers: Disney, IBM, and Apple, which halted ad spending on the platform for the billionaire’s ‘antisemitic post.’  

However, what is very interesting is that other social media channels, like Facebook and Instagram, have had way worse content on their feeds, but you don’t see corporate media and activist groups trying to pressure advertisers on those platforms. 

Out with the old…

To that end, Musk plans to attract small business advertising to plug the holes.

“Small and medium businesses are a very significant engine that we have definitely underplayed for a long time,” X told the Financial Times

X even said, “It [was] always part of the plan — now we will go even further with it.”

Perhaps large corporate ad spend was always destined to evaporate. When Musk bought X, he fired 80% of the workforce and dismantled the FBI’s communication channels with the platform that suppressed non-approved government stories, such as Covid lab theory and Hunter Biden laptop stories. The “one big club,” as it were, does not like this.

X told FT that it has ramped up ties with advertisers, such as JumpCrew, to which it will outsource some ad sales to target small and medium-sized businesses. 

A former X senior sales executive said Musk would have to soon make a difficult decision in either keeping an in-house ads team or moving to outsource sales and adopting an automated “self-service small business platform.”

Meanwhile, X CEO Linda Yaccarino responded to the controversy:

Linda Yaccarino, X’s chief executive hired by Musk for her deep connections to the advertising world, was bombarded by calls from friends and associates last weekend during her daughter’s wedding, according to several people familiar with the matter. They urged her to quit to protect her reputation.

On Thursday evening, Yaccarino instead sent a company-wide email cheering on X’s stance on fighting “censorship” and stating that Musk had shared an “unmatched and completely unvarnished perspective” and vision for the future. -FT

“Our principles do not have a price tag, nor will they be compromised — ever,” wrote Yaccarino. “And no matter how hard they try, we will not be distracted by sideline critics who don’t understand our mission.”

X’s switch in advertising strategy is necessary to mitigate corporate media and activist groups’ ‘blackmail” of ad spending for content that they do not like.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 12/01/2023 – 19:50

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/KMfwe34 Tyler Durden