Bill Allowing Big Tech To Form “Techno-Governments” To Be Announced Today – The Debrief

Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak will be announcing legislation today that will allow major technology companies to effectively form techno-governments.

Gov. Sisolak first mentioned the proposal of creating “Innovation Zones” in Nevada during his State-of-the-State address on January 19. “New companies creating groundbreaking technologies can come to Nevada to develop their industries. This will be done without tax abatements or public financing.”

While the legislation wouldn’t provide subsidiaries or public funding, according to a draft of the Bill obtained by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, major technology firms would be granted authority to form their independent techno-governments within Nevada. “[They] would carry the same authority as a county, including the ability to impose taxes, form school districts and justice courts and provide government services, to name a few duties,” Las Vegas Review-Journal reports.

Source: Bill Allowing Big Tech To Form “Techno-Governments” To Be Announced Today – The Debrief

On the path of our regression from a representative republic to a modern fuedalism-by-oligarchy, apparently we’re traveling back past the robber-baron days of companies running entire towns, with private police and fire departments — and their requisite taxation — and perhaps even paying people in scrip for buying things in the company store.

And all of this is made possible by the magic of…

Rush Limbaugh, conservative talk radio pioneer, dead at 70 | Fox News

Rush Limbaugh, the monumentally influential media icon who transformed talk radio and politics in his decades behind the microphone, helping shape the modern-day Republican Party, died Wednesday at the age of 70 after a battle with lung cancer, his family announced.

Source: Rush Limbaugh, conservative talk radio pioneer, dead at 70 | Fox News

I literally cannot imagine how the trash-fire-seen-from-space — aka Twitter — is raging today. Given that our information delivery systems are optimized for conflict, I suspect this news will infiltrate every web site on the internet, and consume a week of cable airtime.

The New Domestic War on Terror is Coming – Glenn Greenwald

No speculation is needed. Those who wield power are demanding it. The only question is how much opposition they will encounter.

Source: The New Domestic War on Terror is Coming – Glenn Greenwald

Glenn wrote a long article about how all political speech is going to be painted as “inciting violence,” in order to stifle opposition to whoever is in power. He identifies a lot of historical examples from the left, which we are calling “incitement” today, which people are forgetting.

You don’t need to look any further than the popular reaction to a tweet made by Ted Cruz to see that he was correct:

The “hot take” here is that he’s “trying to incite,” and I was provoked into blogging about this because it was the third such hot take I saw on Imgur about this tweet in my doom scrolling. Here’s an elected member of Congress saying the same thing:

The problem, of course, is that there’s literally and absolutely nothing in Ted Cruz’s tweet that could be construed by a rational, reasonable person as an incitement to violence. The whole thing just proves Greenwald correct, and in record time.

As a followup, here’s The Daily Caller, hosting a former Facebook exec, who is complaining about not being able to control the flow of information, and suggesting that we need to get AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast to block right-wing news sites from their internet service. Regardless of hosting provider, they would simply not be able to reach Americans, because of the regional monopolies on local internet providers, and the duopoly of phone service.

The Debt Question Facing Janet Yellen: How Much Is Too Much? – WSJ

A big question hangs over Janet Yellen this week at her confirmation hearing to become U.S. Treasury secretary: How much debt is too much?

 

In the past four years, U.S. government debt held by the public has increased by $7 trillion to $21.6 trillion. President-elect Joe Biden has committed to a spending program that could add trillions more in the year ahead. At 100.1% of gross domestic product, the debt already exceeds the annual output of the economy, putting the U.S. in company with economies including Greece, Italy and Japan.

Source: The Debt Question Facing Janet Yellen: How Much Is Too Much? – WSJ

There it is, and Biden hasn’t even taken office yet! For the first time in four years, someone in the press noticed the national debt. We only care about the debt when a Democrat is President. Search and see for yourself. WashPo, CNN, Pro Publica all wrote articles about the debt in the past 5 days.

I don’t even know where the WSJ got their number. According to the Debt Clock, the current figure is $27.8T.

We added $7T to the debt under Trump, including $4.5T for two rounds of corporate welfa… — I mean, “stimulus” — and now we worry about adding another $1.9T? Are you trying to tell me that another 7% is suddenly going to topple the world’s economy or something? Trying to inflame political tensions about this just before Biden takes office is as disingenuous as it is completely predictable, and Lord knows we don’t need any more political inflammation right now.

Through the 90’s, lots of people, including myself, advocated for a flat tax, thinking it was “fair.” Well, without anyone in Congress stumping about it, that’s what we’ve quietly wound up with:

I hope the people in the 99.99% bracket are mad at the Top 400

The problem is that it’s piling up debt. There’s never any money to do anything extra. So we just print more money. That sounds very scary to us normal people, who view the country’s economy like our own household’s, but apparently it doesn’t matter, because we’ve been doing just that for several decades now, and we’re just now reaching levels of debt, relative to GDP, that some other first-world countries have.

My thinking on taxation has flipped 180º, fast and hard. If we ever want to actually fund the government, and pay for all of these bailouts and stimuluses and old-fashioned “safety nets” like welfare and social security, we’re going to have to go back to a steeply progressive tax scheme, and cut out shelters that cater to the ultra-wealthy. But just like Congress voting for a pay cut or term limits or killing corporate political PAC’s, this will never happen, because these desperately-needed changes would affect the people that fund campaigns.

 

Our paranoid friend who fears Facebook’s power – Philip Greenspun’s Weblog

As a demonstration of how irrationally paranoid this guy is for imagining that a combination of political rulers and corporate cronies would suppress his speech via deplatforming, Facebook has deplatformed him…

Source: Our paranoid friend who fears Facebook’s power – Philip Greenspun’s Weblog

I have nothing to add.

The Lies that Can Undermine Democracy (You Said a Mouthful)

While I understand that many people distrust the mainstream press, the fact that his lawyers have filed a blizzard of lawsuits and got precisely nowhere, proves that there is no evidence for the election failures that he claims. But his denial of the result has created a belief among his supporters that he didn’t really lose, a belief that is likely to further poison our society in the coming years.

Source: The Lies that can Undermine Democracy

This is self-incrimination of the sin of only reading news from one side. There’s absolutely not “no evidence” of election fraud. There are many, many stories of irregularities, and the fact that they all seem to go in favor of Biden is, in my opinion of fact, worth filing a lawsuit or two about. And the two statistical analyses I’ve noted are smoking guns of interference, in my opinion.

Trying to search for actual results, I found this WashPo article, which seems to be common among the legal wrangling that is actually recorded about these cases:

“Something far more fundamental than the winner of Wisconsin’s electoral votes is implicated in this case,” Hagedorn wrote, in declining to hear a case brought by a conservative group that asked the court to overturn the election results. “At stake, in some measure, is faith in our system of free and fair elections, a feature central to the enduring strength of our constitutional republic.”

In this particular case, the judge seems to have simply refused to hear the case out of the fact that it would be unprecedented. I suppose that’s a legal reason?

The other references I can find seem to all point to the problem of “standing.” The federal courts seem to find that the President of the United States has no standing to bring suit against a State legislature in federal court, and toss the case, and that certainly seems to be a reasonable position to take. However, it’s a catch-22. As a petitioner, he has no standing in State courts, except the one in which he might be a permanent resident, which, in this case, is New York, and of no interest in these matters.

Even in the case that went before the Supreme Court, the suit was brought from Texas, and the court found that they had no standing to sue the other 4 States for their handling of their election results. I find that entirely reasonable as well. But it leaves an interesting gap in our legal system. How is any Presidential candidate supposed to seek injunctive relief in a federal election? It doesn’t seem to be possible.

The trouble with pointing at the failed efforts of those lawsuits as proof of their lack of merit is that all of the lawsuits (that I can see) have been thrown out without investigation of their actual claims. It’s hardly conclusive. As I said before, I’d really love to see an in-depth investigative documentary about all of this. There’s just no reasonable way to put all of this together through a bunch of disconnected news articles, blog posts, and Twitter rants.

Anyway, Fowler is a well-respected person amongst programmers, and he prattles on for many pages after this complete disregard for the actual, unsettling facts which he tacitly ignores, and I’m sure it’s a lengthy screed against the alt-right, and blah, blah, blah. It’s just hard for me to take anyone seriously any more who only ever looks at the eye chart with their left eye.

Safe to Ignore

I’ve heard and seen in several places that people on the alt-Right should get prepared for the declaration of “Marshall” law. Then there’s this report which confirms that martial law is being discussed at the highest levels. First, whatever wiggle room people in the middle (like me) wanted to believe existed between Trump’s rhetoric, and his intention on how his remarks should be interpreted has vaporized. Secondly, why would the alt-Right give this sort of ammunition to the mainstream media to conclude that everything that was said were, in fact, dog whistles to the faithful? Thirdly, I’m not worried about a group of people telling me to prepare for “Marshall” law. If they can’t even spell it, they couldn’t pull it off if they tried.

Votes against election certification to factor into Cummins’ political giving

Cummins Inc. has said it will consider whether lawmakers voted last week against certifying President-elect Joe Biden’s victory before making future donations to their campaigns, joining a growing list of companies that have said the GOP-led effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election results will factor into their political giving. Through its political action committee,

Source: Votes against election certification to factor into Cummins’ political giving

According to their 10K, Cummins made $2.26 billion on sales of $23.6B in 2019. (Income for 2020 hasn’t been posted yet, and it’s probably safe to assume it will be significantly lower.) According to this article, they donated $268,694.50 to political candidates last year through the Cummins Inc Political Action Committee.

According to Forbes, Cummins is the 128th largest company in the country. So the 128th largest company in the country donated an amount of money that represented 0.0012% of their income. I’m certain that there’s a whole lot more spent on toilet paper in their facilities. In fact, I would challenge anyone to tell me a category of spending that was less.

The very best part of this arrangement is that, according to this report, CIPAC is completely funded by voluntary employee donations! They direct contributions to candidates, according to a committee, with other people’s money. That’s a PAC, and that’s all perfectly legal, thanks to Citizen’s United v. FEC.

Paccar is another transportation conglomerate, which is 118th on the Fortune 500. They had income of $2.4B on revenues of $25.6B in 2020, so they are very similar. For comparison, according to opensecrets.org, they donated $73,747 in the last election cycle through their own PAC. So Cummins’ donations are actually quite a bit larger, by comparison, but both are in the same ballpark of a literal floating-point rounding error, compared to their incomes.

As I continue to point out, the truly depressing thing about our “democracy” being for sale to corporations is that it can be bought so cheaply. To be clear, I don’t begrudge any company from taking advantage of the situation. I’m arguing that the Supreme Court decision needs to be overturned. The Supreme Court is NOT the final say under the Constitution. Congress can pass a law to change it. But this would be akin to them voting for a pay decrease, and we all know how that would go.

Lisa Montgomery Is Executed After Supreme Court Clears Way – WSJ

According to a pool report from the Associated Press, “a female prison staffer standing over Montgomery’s shoulder leaned over, gently removed Montgomery’s face mask and asked her if she had any last words. ‘No,’ Montgomery responded in a quiet, muffled voice. She said nothing else.”

Source: Lisa Montgomery Is Executed After Supreme Court Clears Way – WSJ

Thank God she wore a face mask on the way to being put to death by the State! We wouldn’t want her to catch COVID just before being executed!

Separately, why would a prison staffer remove it to ask a question!?

Also separately, why are the votes of Court so predictable, based on ideology, when it comes to matters of law?

My Friends the Complot Theory Believers · Jacques Mattheij

But I just can’t deal with the degree to which they have slid off into the abyss, it is too hard to watch, remembering them as they were seems to be the easy way out. For those two there are probably 100’s of thousands if not millions (more?) of others who are equally detached from reality.

Source: My Friends the Complot Theory Believers · Jacques Mattheij

This essay is a nice summary of why I say #SocialMediaIsDestroyingSociety. Before the informational overload days, before the internet and the rise of social media, people generally didn’t have access to fringe ideas: sparse “facts” strung together to form specious narratives. You had to really go out of your way to get to them.

Probably the biggest conspiracy theory before the internet was the assassination of JFK, right? But even that whole phenomenon arose because of the availability of facts. The real-time TV and radio coverage of the event led to a lot of speculation of what had happened, and people rushed to fill in holes with their own interpretation of events. Because of the public view of the event, and all the bizarre things that happened (uh, umbrella man, anyone?), and the doubt turned up by the plot-hole-riddled narrative the government was trying to peddle, the government was publicly forced to do an inquiry, which turned out to contain even bigger whoppers than the previous explanations.

Now, literally everything of importance that happens can be dissected and analyzed like a huge government conspiracy. Take any big news story, like the recent invasion of the Capitol building. There are a couple articles about it on every major news site, but the thing is just exploding on social media. Social media has become more important than the news.

Social media. Really? Where everyone is supposedly equal, but which is quietly a gigantic popularity contest? We’re going to let the prevailing sentiment and direction of our country be decided by blue-checkmark “influencer” celebrities? Is this appropriate? Is this desirable? Social media. Where every timeline and information stream is being manipulated by whoever is writing the biggest checks. Did Trump’s election teach us nothing? In one sense, it did. They “fixed” the algorithm, and preventing Trump from abusing the platform this time. In another sense, the 2016 election taught us nothing, because we’re still allowing Twitter and Facebook to invisibly program society, and manufacture public consent. But, hey, as long as it’s working in your side’s favor, it’s cool, right?

And “social media” is not just Twitter and Facebook. Imgur is about 70% reposted Twitter hot takes at the time of this writing. I can only imagine what Reddit looks like. (I stopped going there, if I can avoid it, a long time ago.) I’m morbidly curious to see what my wife’s Facebook looks like.

Twitter and Facebook are throwing Trump off their platforms, along with identified people who took part. It might look like something substantive, but this is just cover for their own exposed culpability in this mess. They’re trying to prevent legislative blowback on their revenue and influence.

For decades, I’ve watched people on the internet complain about censorship on various platforms, and the answer is always, “It’s a private company. If you don’t like it, go start your own platform.” So people did. They went and started Parler. But now that the MAGA crowd has a place to go, people are calling on Apple and Google to deplatform the Parler app. Those poor MAGA people just can’t win! 🙁

A lot of people have been crowing that rescinding the FCC’s Section 230 would cause an undue burden on social media, and essentially force them out of business. Aww, poor babies. I say good! Remove that law, force platforms to take accountability for illegal speech on their services, and let it all shake out. Inciting a riot is illegal, but claiming that the election was stolen is not. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to be hypocritically trying to use the law against speech they just don’t like.

Another thing that people like to point out is that the First Amendment only restricts government, and private companies can do whatever they like. That’s fine, but it shows just how dangerous the outsized influence of Twitter and Facebook have become when we’re arguing about whether the President of the Unites States is allowed to have an account. They have become a de facto governing body now, and I just don’t think that should be allowed. I have a hard enough time with how disconnected I am with my government as it is, and how little influence my one vote has on our process. When I think about the influence my government has on FAANG companies, it makes me despair to be so far removed from something that has become so vital to the national infrastructure.

When Standard Oil started basically running the entire country, the government jacked up the income tax to take NINETY PERCENT of Rockefeller’s income, and he is STILL the richest person to have ever lived, accounting for inflation, beating Bezos or Musk by a factor of over two times. They did this to at least float the country on his success. It is said that his income taxes funded 25% of the government by himself.

Social media companies want it both ways. They get to control the political discourse of the country, while raking in unprecedented profits, but pay essentially zero corporate tax, and their executives probably pay less, on a marginal basis, than I do. They’re breaking how democracy works, and we don’t even get a “kickback” to help, say, fund a proper social safety net during a global pandemic which has caused the highest unemployment since the Great Depression. There’s something seriously wrong with this picture.