Month: November 2022

During an interview on the far-left Stephen Colbert show, CNN’s Don Lemon claimed that he doesn’t think the network which has viciously attacked conservatives for the past several years “ever was liberal.”  Colbert reacts with understandable surprise and a hint of disbelief at the notion. 

While it’s true that the term “liberal” in the traditional sense has barely applied to the political left in the US for decades, it’s doubtful that Don Lemon is playing word games or semantics.  When he uses the descriptive he is referring to progressive ideology, and to claim CNN was never a progressive echo chamber and propaganda machine is truly jumping the shark. 

This is the same network that consistently pushed the debunked Russiagate narrative, claimed that the Barack Obama wire tapping scandal at Trump Tower was a “flat out lie” (it was absolutely true), asserted that the BLM protests were “fiery but mostly peaceful”, spent a considerable amount of energy attempting to demonize Kyle Rittenhouse’s act of self defense for political reasons and was a primary attack dog against American citizens that stood against the covid lockdown and mandates.  There is nothing centrist about CNN.     

Lemon’s attempt to shift the narrative, though absurd and a form of gaslighting, is more confirmation that the new CNN leadership and new ownership is indeed seeking to clean up the failing news outlet’s image as a partisan spin machine and at least give the appearance of objectivity. Lemon is merely trying to keep his job.

CNN has recently suffered one of the worst declines in viewership numbers and profits in the company’s history, along with the cancellation of it’s CNN+ streaming service after only a few weeks due to lack of public interest.  Lemon was recently booted from his prime time show ‘Don Lemon Tonight’ and was moved to the ‘New Day’ morning show with two other co-anchors; a change which he called “a promotion.” 

Authored by Randolph May via RealClearMarfkets.com,

The Babylon Bee, the satirical website that takes aim – all too effectively in the minds of some – at over-the-top wokeness, has been reinstated on Twitter. A blaring headline from a recent Bee story: “‘Twitter Is Dead,’ 300 Million People Post on Twitter.” A satirical zinger, indeed!

And Donald Trump’s Twitter account has been reinstated too – supposedly based on the results of a poll on . . . you guessed it, Twitter.

Amidst the turmoil and tumult of Elon Musk’s Twitter take-over, predicting what Twitter will be next week, much less next year, is a fool’s game. Count me out. After all, Mr. Musk reportedly has warned the staff: “Bankruptcy isn’t out of the question.”

Assuming for present purposes that Twitter can ensure the security and stability of the platform going forward, I know what I want the platform to be. Throughout this now fifteen part “Thinking Clearly About Speaking Freely” series, I’ve argued that Twitter, along with other major social media platforms, have been far too censorious in restricting content that should remain subject to public debate. And throughout, I’ve cited examples of overly censorious actions, such as restricting posts relating to the origin of COVID-19, the effectiveness of various treatment options, and the educational and economic costs of school and business lockdowns.

I’ve never contended there shouldn’t be any content moderation at all, but rather that Twitter should operate much more like the digital town square that Elon Musk, as a self-proclaimed “free speech absolutist,” long has said he wanted.

In other words, censorship should be considerably more limited, say, to posts demonstrably facilitating terrorism or sex trafficking, or inciting violence.

Perhaps it should not be surprising that amidst all the present chaos, including the substantial downsizing of staff, including those on the “Trust and Safety Team,” that there are more strident calls for the government to exert greater control over Twitter. By way of example, I want to focus on a November 16 letter from the left-leaning Open Markets Institute (“OMI”) to the heads of the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division. Along with asking these government officials to investigate Mr. Musk’s take-over, OMI proposes to subject Twitter to stringent government control.

Claiming that Twitter is an “essential communications platform,” OMI says that “Twitter long ago proved it serves a unique and irreplaceable role in enabling citizens to communicate and debate key issues of the day.” It contends Twitter’s status as a “utility” is clear.

With Twitter denominated a public utility, it’s not a far leap for OMI to beseech government officials to protect “all communications and political debates” on Twitter from interference by Twitter’s executives, Board members, or employees. And according to OMI, Twitter should be required to enforce its terms of service “without prejudice or discrimination, in a completely transparent manner.” 

If taken literally, OMI is asking that Twitter be regulated in the same “common carrier-like” way that the conservative Texas legislature required when it enacted a law mandating that Twitter and other social media platforms not discriminate in their content moderation practices on the basis of “viewpoint.” And that Justice Clarence Thomas suggested might be appropriate two years ago in his concurring opinion in Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute of Columbia University. There, Justice Thomas took note of what he characterized as the dominant market positions of Twitter, Facebook, and Google, along with the fact that the latter two essentially are controlled by one or two persons. Of course, that’s now true of Twitter too, and it is this concentration of control in one person upon which OMI primarily bases its case for government regulation.

As I pointed out in Part 2 of this series, in his Knight First Amendment Institute opinion, Justice Thomas declared there is a “fair argument” that Twitter, Google, and Facebook could be deemed common carriers, including by laws enacted in the states, so that they would be prohibited from excluding lawful speech from their platforms. And he speculated that the Supreme Court soon would have “no choice but to address how our legal doctrines apply to highly concentrated, privately owned information infrastructure such as digital platforms.”

If enough of his fellow justices agree, as widely suspected, to review the Fifth Circuit’s NetChoice, L.L.C. v. Paxton decision upholding the Texas law mandating that Twitter and other major social media platforms operate like common carriers, then Justice Thomas’s predilection for imposing common carriage obligations on the major platforms might prevail.

Given the excessive censorship in which Twitter and the other dominant social media platforms have engaged, I have considerable sympathy for the impulse motivating calls for common carrier-like regulation of the platforms. But as I said in Part 2, and elsewhere in this series, I have serious concerns about this supposed remedy.

Here’s the nub of the matter as I explained in Part 3:

“As traditionally applied, the core elements of common carriage – rate regulation and nondiscrimination mandates – stifle investment and innovation. And, in any event, the traditional criteria used to assess whether an entity is a common carrier don’t neatly fit the web platforms, or at least not all of them.”

So, rather than embracing the call by the Open Markets Institute, and presumably Justice Thomas too, for imposing common carrier-like control over the platforms’ censorship practices, I continue to prefer offering free market solutions to address my concerns. Previously, I’ve advocated that Twitter and other platforms incorporate explicit presumptions favoring free speech in their terms of service. This presumptive “free speech default” would provide that content will not be removed absent clear and convincing evidence that the speech violates some specific, clearly delineated content prohibition. Such a presumption may be embedded in Mr. Musk’s mind, but it also should be embedded in the terms of service so that it more readily becomes part of the corporate culture.

I’ve also urged Twitter and other sites to adopt additional consumer empowerment approaches that put tools in the hands of platform users to determine the parameters of the content they wish to access. If consumers are allowed to avail themselves of such “personalization” tools, they would be able to assume, to a much greater extent than at present, the content moderation function now performed by the platforms.

Rather than looking first to imposing common carrier-like or other government controls, it is preferable to look to free market approaches to address the problem of excessive censorship.

I wouldn’t necessarily bet my house on it, but Elon Musk, with his entrepreneurial bent, may just be able to succeed at making Twitter much more free speech-friendly, while at the same time avoiding what he has described as the “hellscape.”

Following a steady stream of vicious attacks perpetrated by New York City’s homeless, Mayor Eric Adams on Tuesday announced a new program that will involuntarily hospitalize people deemed a danger to themselves — regardless of whether they’ve demonstrated a risk to others.  

A statement from the mayor’s office said the policy targets an “ongoing crisis of individuals experiencing severe mental illnesses left untreated and unsheltered in New York City’s streets and subways.” At least 26 people have been shoved from NYC subway platforms this year alone — though not all the attacks were perpetrated by homeless people. 

“The very nature of their illnesses keeps them from realizing they need intervention and support,” said Adams at a City Hall press conference. “Without that intervention, they remain lost and isolated from society, tormented by delusions and disordered thinking. They cycle in and out of hospitals and jails.”

Of course, there’s more to New York’s crime crisis than “mental health” issues. An overly-forgiving judicial system that returns violent criminals to the streets after a scolding is also to blame — but rounding up some of the bona fide lunatics for treatment could be a good thing for all concerned.  

According to the mayor’s office statement, Adams’ directive “seeks to dispel a persistent myth that the legal standard for involuntary intervention requires an ‘overt act’ demonstrating that the person is violent, suicidal, or engaging in outrageously dangerous behavior likely to result in imminent harm.”

Omg. Watch as the woman’s hair he is pulling mouths the words, “please help me..”
I can’t imagine the terror she was feeling as that maniac grabbed her hair. #subway #NYC
Please @NYCMayor build more mental hospitals and get these people off our streets! @77WABCradio pic.twitter.com/ZEbBRODKgB

— Lidia Curanaj (@LidiaNews) May 26, 2022

“The common misunderstanding persists that we cannot provide involuntary assistance unless the person is violent,” said Adams. The new program empowers both cops and medical workers to assess people in public spaces and authorize involuntary hospitalizations.

Hospital capacities have been cited as a limiting factor, but, pointing to a commitment by Governor Kathy Hochul to add 50 new psychiatric beds, Adams said, “We are going to find a bed for everyone.” Maybe, but, in a city of 8.5 million people, 50 beds doesn’t exactly sound like a game-changer.  

The new program is certain to invite legal challenges. Indeed, even the mayor’s policy directive to city agencies acknowledges that “case law does not provide extensive guidance regarding removals for mental health evaluations based on short interactions in the field.” 

It points, however, to a few key indicators that police and other first responders might use to involuntarily take homeless people into custody and into care: “serious untreated physical injury, unawareness or delusional misapprehension of surroundings, or unawareness or delusional misapprehension of physical condition or health.” 

The New York Civil Liberties Union’s Donna Lieberman was among the first to criticize the plan: “The Mayor is playing fast and loose with the legal rights of New Yorkers…The federal and state constitutions impose strict limits on the government’s ability to detain people experiencing mental illness — limits that the Mayor’s proposed expansion is likely to violate.” 

In his Tuesday remarks, Adams assured reporters that people wouldn’t be committed merely “because someone’s sitting on the train talking to themselves.” Rather, an “accumulation of factors” would be used by a “trained professional determine that this person is a danger to themselves because they can’t take care of their basic needs.”  

Next, Mayor Adams needs a plan to address scenarios where serial killers transfer their souls into dolls so they can attack unsuspecting people on the subway:  

NYC Subway – Chucky Attack pic.twitter.com/2iA0Z8sfC0

— Michael Von Irvin MBA BSN RN (@MichaelVonIrvin) July 1, 2022

asdf

By Alex Kimani of OilPrice.com

The European Union on Friday once again failed to reach an agreement on a price cap for Russian oil, with the bloc’s eastern-most members including Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania objecting that the proposed $60-$70 per barrel for Russian crude is too generous and well above the rates Russia currently sells crude.  

European Commission Vice President Valdis Dombrovskis has acknowledged as much, saying, “If you put the price cap too high, it doesn’t really bite. Oil is the biggest source of revenue for the Russian budget, so it’s very important to get this right so it really has an impact on Russia’s ability to finance this war,” he told Bloomberg TV.

Well, they are right: offering $70 per barrel for Russian Urals is incredibly generous, considering that Bloomberg has just reported that China and India are currently getting them for half that price. 

According to Bloomberg’s oil strategist Julian Lee, Russia’s flagship Urals crude oil traded at a massive discount of $33.28, or about 40% to the international Brent crude oil, at the end of last week. In contrast, a year ago, Urals traded at a much smaller discount of $2.85 to Brent. Urals is the main blend exported by Russia. The result: Moscow is beginning to feel the heat of its war in Ukraine, and could be losing ~$4 billion a month in energy revenues as per Bloomberg’s calculations.

Washington is not losing sleep over it. “If Russian oil is going to be selling at bargain prices and we’re happy to have India get that bargain or Africa or China. It’s fine,” US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen previously told Reuters.

Shipping nations like Greece are in favor of a higher price cap that will help keep trade flowing. However, the situation could get even murkier for Russia with EU sanctions on Russian oil set to kick in on December 5, with disruptions to the market expected if a price cap is not in place. Meanwhile, Russia is reportedly drafting a presidential decree that would ban its companies and any traders from selling it to anyone that participates in a price cap.

Surging Imports From Russia

Previously, India was never a big buyer of Russian crude despite having to import 80% of its needs. In a typical year, India imports just 2-5% of its crude from Russia, roughly the same proportion as the United States did before it announced a 100% ban on Russian energy commodities. Indeed, India imported only 12 million barrels of Russian crude in 2021, with the majority of its oil sourced from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Nigeria.

But back in May, reports emerged of a “significant uptick” in Russian oil deliveries bound for India.

According to a Bloomberg report, India spent a good $5.1 billion on Russian oil, gas, and coal in the first three months after the invasion, more than five times the value of a year ago. However, China remains the biggest buyer of Russian energy commodities, spending $18.9 billion in the three months to the end of May, almost double the amount a year earlier.

And, it’s all about the money.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), Urals crude has been offered at record discounts since the war began. In the early months after the war began, Ellen Wald, president of Transversal Consulting, told CNBC that a couple of commodity trading firms – such as Glencore and Vitol – were offering discounts of $30 and $25 per barrel, respectively, for the Urals blend. 

The experts say simple economics is the biggest reason why White House pressure to curb purchases of crude oil from Russia have fallen on deaf ears in Delhi.

“Today, the Government of India’s motivations are economic, not political. India will always look for a deal in their oil import strategy. It’s hard not to take a 20% discount on crude when you import 80-85% of your oil, particularly on the heels of the pandemic and global growth slowdown,” Samir N. Kapadia, head of trade at government relations consulting firm Vogel Group, told CNBC via email.

Still, it will not be lost on many readers that India has maintained a cozy relationship with Russia over the years, with Russia supplying the Asian nation with as much as 60% of its military and defense-related equipment. Russia has also been a key ally on crucial issues such as India’s dispute with China and Pakistan surrounding the territory of Kashmir.

But hey, India and China are not the only ones to blame here. Reports have emerged that whereas supplies of Russian pipeline gas – the bulk of Europe’s gas imports before the Ukraine war – are currently down to a trickle, Europe has been hungrily scooping up Russian LNG.

Europe has been working hard to wean itself off Russian energy commodities ever since the latter invaded Ukraine. The European Union has banned Russian coal and plans to block most Russian oil imports by the end of 2022 in a bid to deprive Moscow of an important source of revenue to wage its war in Ukraine.

But ditching Russian gas is proving to be more onerous than Europe would have hoped for. Whereas supplies of Russian pipeline gas – the bulk of Europe’s gas imports before the Ukraine war – are down to a trickle, Europe has been hungrily scooping up Russian LNG. The Wall Street Journal has reported that the bloc’s imports of Russian liquefied natural gas jumped by 41% Y/Y in the year through August.

“Russian LNG has been the dark horse of the sanctions regime,” Maria Shagina, a research fellow at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, has told WSJ. Importers of Russian LNG to Europe have argued that the shipments are not covered by current EU sanctions and that buying LNG from Russia and other suppliers has helped keep European energy prices in check.

Only very recently Ukrainian government officials were blasting and taking jabs at Elon Musk, but now Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has “invited” the billionaire SpaceX (and more recently) Twitter CEO to Ukraine. 

Or rather, it’s looking like this “invitation” is itself another sarcastic jab in response to Musk’s unwavering position that compromise or negotiated settlement must be reached with Russia, in order to avoid unpredictable escalation which could spiral into WWIII. Any talk of battlefield or territorial compromise has ‘outraged’ Kiev.

Zelensky in a Wednesday appearance at The New York Time’s DealBook Summit – an event which funny enough (or sadly) also included a live interview with disgraced FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried, urged Musk to come and see Ukraine “with your own eyes” in order to understand Russia’s actions there.

“If you want to understand what Russia has done here, come to Ukraine and you will see this with your own eyes without any extra words,” Zelensky said during the discussion. “And after that, you will tell us how to end this war, who started it and when we can end it.”

Zelensky also joined other Ukrainian officials in suggesting that Musk has been “influence” by the Kremlin, a baseless charge that was floated by some Western pundits after Musk in early October held a “Russia-Ukraine Peace” Twitter poll. 

According to more from The New York Times: 

During the interview with Andrew Ross Sorkin of The Times, the video link cut out, and when it resumed, Mr. Sorkin joked that Mr. Musk might have somehow cut the connection.

“I hear you,” Mr. Zelensky said. “Most important is that Mr. Musk will hear us.”

Mr. Zelensky said the risk that Mr. Putin would use nuclear weapons was not his biggest fear, and that it shouldn’t be the biggest fear of the West.

“I don’t think he will use nuclear weapons,” Mr. Zelensky said. “This is my opinion.”

As for Musk’s offending original sin, he had encouraged his over 100 million Twitter followers to vote on whether they think negotiated settlement to the war is a good idea or not, proposing a “redo” of referendums for the four annexed regions of eastern Ukraine which Vladimir Putin declared part of the Russian Federation last week. It would also be conditioned on Ukraine remaining neutral vis-a-vis future NATO membership. 

This is highly likely to be the outcome in the end – just a question of how many die before then

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 3, 2022

Of course, talk of territorial concessions outraged Ukraine officials and their supporters in the West, with an avalanche of blue check mainstream media pundits pouncing amid cries of Musk supposedly being ‘pro-Kremlin’. Soon after, Musk questioned whether SpaceX will continue providing Starlink for free to Ukrainian forces, unleashing more controversy. 

White House officials told CNBC’s Kayla Tausche about a new plan to call on members of Congress to increase heating oil supplies this winter. 

“As we just reported, the White House is considering calling on Congress to double a cap on heating oil storage to build up reserves over the winter, sources tell me,” Tausche tweeted Wednesday morning. 

She continued:

 “US officials also weighing future SPR drawdowns in the new year if prices spike post-embargo/price cap.” 

NEW: As we just reported, the @whitehouse is considering calling on Congress to double a cap on heating oil storage to build up reserves over the winter, sources tell me.

US officials also weighing future SPR drawdowns in the new year if prices spike post-embargo/price cap https://t.co/dII9Pi1owu

— Kayla Tausche (@kaylatausche) November 30, 2022

The proposal comes as a significant supply crunch of heating oil has hit the Northeast and driven prices to levels unbearable for many households. Last week, Reuters reported the White House was mulling over a plan to increase inventories in the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve. 

Two sources told Reuters the plan could “involve directing revenue from future crude oil sales of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to purchase heating oil for the northeast reserves.” 

There was no further explanation by Tausche on what exactly “double a cap on heating oil storage” means. 

Readers have been well informed about the diesel crunch hitting US markets and the world. 

 “Within months, almost every region on the planet will face a danger of a diesel shortage just as supply crunches in nearly all the world’s markets have worsened inflation and hurt growth,” Bloomberg wrote last week. 

And now it appears anti-fossil fuel Biden administration is scrambling for heating oil and diesel as supplies are expected to tighten as the cold season finally arrives.