Author Archives: eehines

How to Save Twitter and Democracy

Posted on by
Reply

Mark Weinstein, founder of Twitter-competitor MeWe, wrote a Sunday Wall Street Journal op-ed on this subject; he suggested a number of “fixes” that Twitter owner Elon Musk should implement to save Twitter—and Weinstein’s conception of “democracy.” These are:

…immediately create an advertiser content-preference system. Allow advertisers to select the tenor and topical content that their ads are associated with….

Only if Twitter users can have access to the system and to which advertisers sign up for which censorship. That way, we can block the ads from Woke or otherwise too thin-skinned advertisers. They will have demonstrated that their products are too fragile for actual usefulness.

…[act to block] a rash of verified accounts impersonating public figures, companies, and organizations….

How does Weinstein propose that legitimate satire and ridicule be discriminated from the fraud about which he claims to worry?

…sites that allow absolute free speech are overrun with hateful posts, spam, pornography, bullying, doxing, and incitement of violence.

Yeah, and? Whose definition of any of this is to be applied? We’ve already seen how the Woke and the thin-skinned Left already cry loudly over petty hurt feelings. Weinstein is just proposing more of that. The concept of free speech is centered on being able spout the ugliest spew, with answering speech being the remedy, not naked censorship.

…oversee a Twitter with little propaganda. Marketers, politicians and governments use Twitter to target unsuspecting users and manipulate their emotions, opinions, purchasing decisions…. …the way to solve this is to stop letting users pay to boost and amplify content.

Weinstein can’t have it both ways. Either Twitter allows advertising—propaganda—and allows advertisers to use their propaganda/advertising to target unsuspecting users and manipulate their emotions, opinions, purchasing decisions and to boost their advertisements (see that content-preference bit above), or it does not.

Twitter must go an extra step: no algorithms manipulating user newsfeeds or boosting unwanted content, period.

Again, Weinstein must pick one of these. Either he allows some—e.g., his precious advertisers—to manipulate newsfeeds and boost content, or he does not.

Twitter and its leadership must remain politically neutral.

I look forward with great anticipation to Weinstein telling other communications entities—The Washington Post or The New York Times, for instance, that they must remain politically neutral.

It’s not surprising that Weinstein proposes his competition attempt such internally contradictory moves.

Merrick Garland’s Special Prosecutor, in His Own Words

Posted on by
Reply

Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith as Special Prosecutor of former President Donald Trump (R). Leave aside the fact that while Smith was a lawyer in the Department of Justice a dozen years ago, he worked closely with the IRS’ then-Director Exempt Organizations, Lois Lerner, to target Conservative organizations applying for tax exempt status for slow-walking their applications or outright denial.  Never mind, either, that Smith brought a number of charges against a sitting Republican Governor and obtained convictions, thereby destroying his political career. Or that these convictions were overturned by the Supreme Court over Smith’s naked distortion, to the point of blatant unconstitutionality, of the laws under which Smith achieved his destruction.

Here is Special Counsel Jack Smith in his own words:

I intend to conduct the assigned investigations, and any prosecutions that may result from them, independently and in the best traditions of the Department of Justice[.]

Smith will both investigate and then prosecute. He can’t possibly—and this highly talented lawyer knows full well he can’t possibly—conduct his investigation and his prosecutions independently of each other. Sadly, though, he’s right that this is in the finest tradition of the politicized Eric Holder-, Loretta Lynch-, and Merrick Garland-run Department of Justice.

This is one more illustration of the naked political assault by President Joe Biden (D) and his Attorney General on a 2024 Presidential campaign competitor from a competing political party.

The Cost of Food

Posted on by
Reply

Saturday’s Wall Street Journal had an article centered on the difficulty of passing a farm bill that, among other things, continues subsidies for farmers. The article included some words on the bill’s food stamp program and funding, including this remark:

...SNAP, the food-stamps program is generally aimed at helping low-income households afford to buy food.

There are at least two ways to help low-income households afford to buy food. One is to restore work/train for work/school requirements to the program, which in the end, increases those families’ income.

The other way is to get rid of the ethanol subsidies and requirements. Converting food to fuel additives drives up the costs of a whole range of foods, creating a closed loop of increasingly expensive food driving increasing need for food stamps. Cut that out.

Getting rid of the subsidies will help the farmers, too, by encouraging them to grow more food more cheaply and with their lower cost (already significantly lower than the cost of farming in other nations), gain global market share. And more income for farmers.

Any Excuse

Posted on by
Reply

…to extend an “emergency” in order to continue Government’s expanded powers and reduced individual liberties, an expansion that depends on that continued emergency. Here’s the Children’s Hospital Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics in a letter to President Joe Biden (D) and HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra (D):

…unprecedented levels of RSV happening with growing flu rates, ongoing high numbers of children in mental health crisis and serious workforce shortages are combining to stretch pediatric care capacity at the hospital and community level to the breaking point[.]
…
Your ongoing response to COVID-19 has successfully supported strategies to mitigate the impact of health care capacity issues for adult patients. Please take this action to allow these same strategies to be employed in service of our nation’s children.

Understand that this is the same American Academy of Pediatrics that promotes “gender-affirming care”—gender-affirming: destigmatizing gender variance—in children who, even at their tender age, think they’re confused about their sex—including in some cases puberty blockers. The Children’s Hospital Association also actively supports gender-affirming care. These are entities wholly unqualified to have medical or psychological opinions regarding the health and well-being of our children.

Notice, also, that this same hysterical “overloaded hospital” bleat was made during the Wuhan Virus situation—and no, hospitals were not, in the main, overloaded then. On the contrary, those Wuhan Virus situation strategies did nothing useful regarding the virus, but they did hammer our economy and do long-term damage to our children while expanding government powers over us average Americans.

Withal, keep in mind the origin of any shortages of medicines or medical facilities for handling the present outbreaks of respiratory virus and influenza in our children.

This situation is a direct result of school lockdowns and other moves to isolate our children from each other and from adults outside the immediate family, lockdowns and other moves that were pushed zealously by Progressive-Democratic Party politicians, teachers union managers, these medical “experts,” and the Left generally.

This forced isolation blocked continued development of our children’s immune systems, which left our children vulnerable to viruses against which they would have developed natural resistance absent that shameful, deliberate isolation. It’s no wonder viral outbreaks in our children are spiking.

We might have expected these Medical Wonders to understand and predict the impact of isolation on children’s immune systems and prepare for just these outbreaks.

No, this demand to extend a “medical” emergency is just another naked power grab by Party and Party supporters.

Financial Reporting

Posted on by
Reply

A little bit in the weeds, here, but necessary for future understandings by some investors. The proximate matter is FTX’ collapse and bankruptcy (with possibly criminal activities associated).

In a footnote to the financial statements, the company said its “primary shareholder is also the primary shareholder of several related entities which do business with the company.” It didn’t say who the related parties were for any specific transaction it disclosed.
The standard accounting rules for disclosing related-party transactions are vague and have long been considered a weakness in the system. There is no clear-cut rule requiring companies to disclose the players in a related-party transaction. The rules do say, “If necessary to the understanding of the relationship, the name of the related party shall be disclosed.”

Some questions arise. Whose definitions of “necessary” and “understanding?” The way the rule is written, those definitions are left to the company—FTX, here—to determine, and what an investor or customer or client needs or wishes for his own understanding is unimportant.

FTX’s new CEO John Ray exposed part of the much larger problem in his FTX bankruptcy-court filing, in which he acknowledged that FTX’s financial information wasn’t trustworthy and that it was controlled by

 a very small group of inexperienced, unsophisticated, and potentially compromised individuals.

That potentially compromised part is key. Compromised by whom? In what way? That would seem clearly related to who those “related parties” are.

There’s more, related to arm’s length transactions, which are statutorily required in many business arrangements. Here’s a working definition of arm’s length transactions that’s good enough for our purposes:

A transaction in which the buyer and the seller have no significant, prior relationship. In an arm’s length transaction, neither party has an incentive to act against his/her own interest. That is, the seller seeks to make the price as high as he/she can, and likewise the buyer seeks to make it as low as he/she can. The negotiations for an arm’s length transaction result in the arm’s length price, which is almost always close to the market value of the asset being sold.

That drive for each party to work toward his own interest, and especially the resulting essentially market price for the things being transacted, also is key. How can an investor or a customer or a client know that a particular transaction within an FTX is legitimate or problematic under arms’ length requirements if the investor or customer or client can’t know who the related party is that’s do[ing] business with the company? And why is the investor or customer or client being actively denied this information? What’s being hidden?

This is, as RG Associates founder and member of the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s Emerging Issues Task Force, Jack Ciesielski, said,

a hole that needs to be fixed. The auditors would have to know who the related party is. Why not just put that in there? How hard can it be? By keeping it purposely opaque it’s defeating the purposes of the footnote.

And so do investors, customers, and clients need to know—hence the footnote, even if carefully vague in the present case. And hence the need to plug that loophole: require the related parties to be explicitly identified. There’s no free speech question here, no political speech would be chilled by this. Documenting business arrangements in a purely investment environment has nothing to do with our 1st Amendment.