Free Speech! Brought to Us by America's Oligarchs

According to the latest news, Elon Musk’s offer to buy Twitter is going forward. I wish it were not. I have no particular animosity toward Musk – my animosity toward him is generalized. I resent, in general, fantastically wealthy individuals who believe their billions are a well-deserved reward for their personal awesomeness. I want them to be more realistic about how they got rich. I want them to admit that they are not exactly awesome, but instead are cunningly adept at gaming the economic system.

To say that Musk “deserves” his estimated 275-billion-dollar fortune is to say that his actions have, on average, benefited each American family to the tune of about 2,100 dollars. Given this, I believe every American should calculate how much they have benefited monetarily from Elon Musk and, if their household total is under $2,100, they should contact him and request a payment covering the difference!

  

Okay, I’m kidding. I do not advocate harassing billionaires. I only advocate remembering that their wealth is not “deserved” in that it is not a natural result of the generous benefits they have bestowed on the rest of us.

  

And now, my next point: our news sources should not be controlled by billionaires. Or anyone else who happens to have the money to purchase them. 

 

Control of information is a tricky issue. A. J. Liebling, in a 1960 New Yorker essay wrote that “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.” In other words, you can express yourself freely and unreservedly via the press only if you happen to own the press. The First Amendment does not force press owners to permit anyone to say anything through them. It only prevents the government from coercing the press. In today’s news environment, “the press,” includes by implication print media, network and cable news, and Internet sources generally. America’s constitutional restriction on government control of these sources is important. In places like Russia and the People’s Republic of China, government control of the press keeps people grossly ignorant on key issues. It’s different in America where Fox News keeps people grossly ignorant on key issues. More on this later.

 

But back to the dangers of government control. Just imagine if Donald Trump were president and we had no First Amendment press protections. Trump would most likely put someone like Rudy Giuliani in charge of shutting down unflattering news sources. Before long, our news would all read like press releases from Trump’s former doctor, the late Harold Bornstein. He was the one who wrote in 2016 that, “If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency.” Just imagine the media under Trump’s control with no First Amendment protections: “The New York Times confidently reports that Donald Trump is unequivocally the greatest president America – nay, the World – has ever known!”

 

 

             Doctor Bornstein, Peace Be upon Him

Of course we do have government-controlled news sources in the U.S. – PBS and NPR, for example – and I have no problem with them. In fact, I would give them a grade of “A” in terms of their level of accuracy and their sense of responsibility to honestly inform the public. I would give the majority of prominent commercially owned news sources (Washington Post, CNN, etc.) grades ranging from B to A- and in a few cases even a solid A.

 

Except for Fox. Fox gets an F. Because, by its own admission, it is a bullshit factory*.

 

In a September 2020 case, Fox’s attorneys argued that Karen McDougal’s suit against Fox’s Tucker Carlson for his slandering her should be dismissed because people ought to know that Carlson routinely peddles bullshit. In the words of the Trump-appointed judge in the case, “Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer ‘arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism’ about the statement he makes.” Furthermore, “Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson's statements as ‘exaggeration,’ ‘non-literal commentary,’ or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same — the statements are not actionable.”

 

Translation: Only an idiot would believe Tucker Carlson.

 

The gross irresponsibility and dishonesty of Fox News and the damage it has done to our country concern me. Rupert Murdock, an unfettered, press-owning billionaire, has apparently decided that lying and stoking fear and bigotry are fine as long as he can make money doing it.

Which brings us back to Elon Musk and Twitter. Twitter has become, according to some, the de facto public square. To me it seems very dangerous to have the public square in the hands of a single individual whose accumulation of wealth and inflated self-regard do not suggest NPR levels of honesty and responsibility. Twitter under Elon Musk’s control might not be as bullshitty and bigoted as Fox, but who knows? It very well might.

  

The prospect of our news sources falling more and more into the hands of self-serving billionaires is frightening. I very much believe in the First Amendment, but I also believe in the public’s right to protection against oligarchs who profit by posturing as unbiased news sources while admitting in court that they blatantly and routinely peddle bullshit. So I continue to hope that the Musk-Twitter deal does not give birth to another Fox.

 

---

*Bullshit factory phrase is stolen from CNN’s Jim Acosta.

Bullies - I'm Against Them

This week all the talk is about Will Smith bounding up to the Oscar stage and slapping Chris Rock. Chris had joked about Will’s wife, Jada Pinkett Smith, who suffers hair loss due to alopecia areata. The joke was in very poor taste, and I confess I didn’t get it since it was based on Demi Moore’s shaved head in G I Jane which I have long forgotten about.

But, just food for thought, I wonder if Will Smith would have delivered the slap if the joke teller had been a different Rock, like, say Dwayne “the Rock” Johnson.

 

 

If you figure he wouldn’t have, which is the way I figure it, the whole thing comes down to bullying.

 

Bullies create most of humanity’s problems. These days, two of the world’s creepiest bullies – Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump –  are behind two of the world’s worst current problems. Number one is the war in Ukraine which has its roots in Vladimir Putin’s neurotic self-loathing. Putin is such a loser that, upon hearing Angela Merkel had a fear of dogs, he made it a point to have a large, black dog in the room with them when they met. He’s a pathetic case, but, with Russia’s military power at his disposal, his twisted nature is making life harrowing and painful for thousands of Ukrainians. Also, for thousands of Russians, apparently, as front-line Russian soldiers are beginning to show reluctance to attack the determined Ukrainian defenders.

 

Even more neurotic than Putin is Trump, a man [sic] who can’t even accept that 81 million Americans voted him out of office two years ago. As he thrashes recklessly around, throwing out preposterous accusations of a rigged election, he undermines Americans’ confidence in our democracy and so he undermines America itself.

 

I have always had a thing about bullies, and that thing is contempt. Ever since I was a child, I have despised people who belittle, steal from, or crush others just because they feel they have the power to do so. Which brings me back to the Will Smith question. He seemed to think he had the power to smack Chris Rock, but what about that other Rock?

 

Well, I’ll let this go for now. Smith had the decency to apologize for his actions, eventually even to Chris. So, he’s clearly a better person than either Putin or Trump. But then, so is almost everybody else.

 

Nyet to Putin

What would be the worst outcome (not counting nuclear war) of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine? The worst outcome, I think, would be success. That is, success for Putin. His dream of unifying Russia and Ukraine under Moscow’s authority would be a nightmare for most of us, and especially for the Ukrainians.

Speaking of the Ukrainians, their fierce defense against the Russian military is an inspiration. It is inspiring because of the courage it represents but also because it is carried out in the name of democracy.

 

Trouble began brewing about nine years ago when Ukraine started to strengthen its ties to the European Union. Putin did not like this and, probably because of Putin’s objections, Ukraine’s president Yanukovych tried to block a pending association agreement with the EU. Ukrainians objected and began protesting, occupying Independence Square in the heart of Kyiv. Yanukovych’s efforts to intimidate and suppress the protestors failed and he soon fled to Russia where he remains today. He was eventually convicted of treason in absentia by the Ukrainian government.

 

The courage of the Ukrainians in facing down Yanukovych’s efforts to crush them was a foreshadowing of what we are seeing today. Their fierce and so far effective resistance against the Russian military shows that even if they are forced to give up Kyiv to the advancing enemy, the country as whole will almost certainly be ungovernable. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky deserves a lot of credit. His personal courage has played a major part in the ongoing anti-Russian resistance. Given all this, I believe the worst possible outcome – Putin’s successful takeover – is unlikely.

 

More likely are one of two alternatives. The best would be action within the Russian government that forces Putin to give up the assault within the next few weeks. This could only come about if enough well-placed Russian leaders decide that Putin’s policy is damaging the nation’s reputation and its economy badly enough that he has to be restrained or even removed from office. That would be an outcome that practically the entire world could celebrate.

 

Also possible, but more tragic, would be a drawn out struggle in which Russians try to occupy Ukraine but, month after month, continue to take casualties and face steady resistance from the local population. This would almost certainly result in an eventual withdrawal and again, a democratic and independent Ukraine.

 

So, here’s how I would rate the chances of each of these possibilities happening:

 

Putin Successfully Conquers Ukraine                         5%

 

Putin Forced to Give Up Within Weeks                   20%

 

Long Struggle Leading to Democratic Ukraine      75%

 

 

Like most of the world’s people, I am hoping fervently for result number 2.

 

In the mean time, here are some pictures from world capitals.

 

 

          New York - In Ukraine’s National Colors

 

 

                                Liverpool

 

 

                            

                                Paris, London

 

                                   Rome

 

 

                                Berlin

                    Saint Petersburg, Russia

                        (The sign says “No to War”)

                          President Zelensky