It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Tuesday, October 18, 2022
Twitter Critics Explode Over Trump's Threat To Jews To Be More Grateful To Him Or Else
Trump posted the startling message Sunday morning on Truth Social.
“No President has done more for Israel than I have. Somewhat surprisingly, however, our wonderful Evangelicals are far more appreciative of this than the people of the Jewish faith, especially those living in the U.S.,” he railed.
Trump also wildly claimed that he was so popular in Israel that he could become the nation’s prime minister.
“We’ve been menaced by fascists before, you two-bit goon,” tweeted commentator and author David Rothkopf in response. “We recognize the threat you represent from the darkest pages of our history. That’s why we’ll never submit to your threats.”
But as for any response from Trump’s Republican Party: Crickets.
Most critics were dumbfounded that Trump would expect gratitude from American Jews given his backing for neo-Nazis and his supporters’ drive to turn the U.S. into a Christian nation.
Trump previously alienated Americans when he tried a similar stunt earlier to strong-arm Jewish voters in a 2019 speech at the Israeli American Council National Summit in Florida.
“A lot of you are in the real estate business because I know you very well,” Trump said then. “You’re brutal killers, not nice people at all. But you have to vote for me, you have no choice.”
Critics were particularly furious about Trump’s “before it’s too late” warning. Many viewed it as a threat to again spur his white supremacist mob into violence if he doesn’t get his way.
Former National Security Council member and retired Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman — who testified against Trump in the first impeachment investigation against him — characterized the warning as “executing the fascist playbook to turn his mob on Jews.”
Harvard University constitutional expert Lawrence Tribe called the message blatantly antisemitic. He reminded Americans that Trump reportedly kept a copy of Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” (My Struggle) next to his bed for several years, adding: “If it quacks like a duck ....”
Countless other tweets were eviscerating.
This article originally appeared on HuffPost and has been updated.
Truth Social Exec Forced Off Board After Ignoring Trump Demand: Report
Mary Papenfuss
A co-founder of Truth Social’s media parent company was forced off the board of the firm after he ignored demands by Donald Trump to give some of his stock to Melania Trump, a whistleblower has told The Washington Post.
Trump pushed for the giveaway to his wife even though he had already been given 90% of the stock in the Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG) in exchange for the use of his name and some other “minor involvement,” former company executive Will Wilkerson told the Post.
The company co-founder reportedly dodged the request, telling Trump that it would leave him with a tax bill he couldn’t pay. “Do whatever you need to do,” Trump snapped back, according to Wilkerson.
He was forced off the board five months later in what Wilkerson believes was payback for failing to turn over a “small fortune” to Melania Trump, the newspaper reported Saturday.
The incident was one of a series of bombshell revelations supported by several documents viewed by the newspaper about bitter infighting in the Trump business, technical screwups, questionable financial representations, and what Wilkerson insisted were violations of Securities and Exchange regulations, according to the Post.
Wilkerson submitted a whistleblower complaint to the Securities and Exchange Commission in August regarding the company. Wilkerson’s attorney’s told the newspaper that he is also cooperating with current investigations into Trump Media by the SEC and by federal prosecutors from the Southern District of New York.
Trump Media said in a statement responding to several specific questions from the Post regarding Wilkerson’s information that Trump as company chairman had hired former California Republican Congressman Devin Nunes as CEO to “create a culture of compliance and build a world-class team to lead Truth Social.”
The statement complained that the Post “sent us an inquiry rife with knowingly false and defamatory statements and other concocted psychodramas.”
It did not specifically address any of the Post’s questions, according to the newspaper.
The new information follows a lengthening list of bad news for Trump’s Truth Social media venture.
Digital World Acquisition Corp. — the special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) that Truth Social needs to go public — revealed in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing last month that investors had already backed out of $139 million in commitments of the $1 billion previously announced by the company.
There’s likely more to come. Investors, who agreed to put up the money nearly a year ago, can now drop their commitments because Digital World missed its initial Sept. 20 deadline to merge with Trump Media. That deadline was extended by three months after shareholders refused to approve its bid for a 12-month extension. But investors can still pull out.
A major web-hosting operator complained in August that Truth Social owed about $1.6 million in contractually obligated payments, an allegation suggesting the operation’s finances are in “significant disarray,” Fox Business News reported.
Trump insisted last month that he was unconcerned about any Truth Social money woes because, he explained, “I’m really rich,” he posted on the social media platform. “I don’t need financing.”
Yet in the next sentence he asked: “Private company, anyone???” in what appeared to be an invitation to investors.
A co-founder of the firm behind Truth Social says Trump retaliated against another exec who refused to gift some of his shares to Melania
Kelsey Vlamis Sat, October 15, 2022 President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump stand onstage during a "Salute to America" event on the South Lawn of the White House, Saturday, July 4, 2020, in Washington.
Patrick Semansky/Associated Press Will Wilkerson, co-founder of Trump's media company, filed an SEC whistleblower complaint in August.
Wilkerson detailed several allegations about the company to The Washington Post.
An email obtained by the Post showed another co-founder believed Trump was retaliating against him.
A co-founder of Trump Media & Technology Group, the company behind Truth Social, said former President Donald Trump pushed another executive to give some of his shares to Melania Trump and retaliated when the request was declined, according to a Washington Post report.
Will Wilkerson, who filed a whistleblower complaint about the company to the SEC in August, made the allegation in a story published by the outlet on Saturday. The Post, which obtained materials submitted with Wilkerson's complaint, detailed accusations of infighting and potentially illegal activity at the company.
Trump had been given a 90% stake in the company when it was founded, according to the SEC complaint. But Wilkerson told the Post he was with fellow co-founder Andy Litinsky in October 2021 when the latter received a call from Trump. At the time, the company had recently reached a merger deal that would catapult the value of its stock. Wilkerson said the former president asked Litinsky to give some of his shares to Melania Trump.
Wilkerson told the Post that Litinsky demurred and explained the gift would result in a tax bill he would be unable to pay: "Trump didn't care. He said, 'Do whatever you need to do.'"
"President Trump over the past 2 months has repeatedly demanded that I give my TMTG equity to Melania Trump," Litinsky wrote, according to a screenshot of the email published by the Post. "As I have informed him several times, I have earned that equity, and also 'gifting' equity to Melania Trump would be a taxable event of which I can't afford to pay the taxes."
Litinsky also said Trump had threatened to "blow up the company" if his demands weren't met, adding he believed Trump was now "retaliating" against him and that he'd be seeking legal counsel, according to the screenshot of the email.
A spokesperson for Trump did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment. Litinsky did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment sent via his consulting and production company, ZideLitinsky Media.
In a statement provided to Insider, a representative for Trump Media & Technology Group blasted the Post's reporting and touted Truth Social's successes.
"As Chairman of TMTG, President Trump hired Devin Nunes as CEO to create a culture of compliance and build a world-class team to lead Truth Social," the statement said, noting the platform has launched on the Apple and Google app stores, attracted millions of users, and "executed multiple feature updates."
"Ignoring these achievements, the Washington Post published a story rife with knowingly false and defamatory statements and other concocted psychodramas," the statement continued. The statement did not comment directly on specific allegations.
Wilkerson, who was serving as senior vice president of operations, said he was fired on Thursday after talking to the Post, the outlet reported. Lawyers for Wilkerson did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment but told the Post he is cooperating with the SEC and New York prosecutors investigating Trump Media.
What is Fog Reveal? A legal scholar explains the app some police forces are using to track people without a warrant
Anne Toomey McKenna, Visiting Professor of Law, University of Richmond Mon, October 17, 2022
THE CONVERSATION The Rockingham County Sheriff's Department in Wentworth, N.C., is among the law enforcement agencies the AP found using the Fog Reveal location tracking tool. AP Photo/Allen G. Breed
Government agencies and private security companies in the U.S. have found a cost-effective way to engage in warrantless surveillance of individuals, groups and places: a pay-for-access web tool called Fog Reveal.
The tool enables law enforcement officers to see “patterns of life” – where and when people work and live, with whom they associate and what places they visit. The tool’s maker, Fog Data Science, claims to have billions of data points from over 250 million U.S. mobile devices.
Fog Reveal came to light when the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a nonprofit that advocates for online civil liberties, was investigating location data brokers and uncovered the program through a Freedom of Information Act request. EFF’s investigation found that Fog Reveal enables law enforcement and private companies to identify and track people and monitor specific places and events, like rallies, protests, places of worship and health care clinics. The Associated Press found that nearly two dozen government agencies across the country have contracted with Fog Data Science to use the tool.
Government use of Fog Reveal highlights a problematic difference between data privacy law and electronic surveillance law in the U.S. It is a difference that creates a sort of loophole, permitting enormous quantities of personal data to be collected, aggregated and used in ways that are not transparent to most persons. That difference is far more important in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, which revoked the constitutional right to an abortion. Dobbs puts the privacy of reproductive health information and related data points, including relevant location data, in significant jeopardy.
The trove of personal data Fog Data Science is selling, and government agencies are buying, exists because ever-advancing technologies in smart devices collect increasingly vast amounts of intimate data. Without meaningful choice or control on the user’s part, smart device and app makers collect, use and sell that data. It is a technological and legal dilemma that threatens individual privacy and liberty, and it is a problem I have worked on for years as a practicing lawyer, researcher and law professor. Government surveillance
U.S. intelligence agencies have long used technology to engage in surveillance programs like PRISM, collecting data about individuals from tech companies like Google, particularly since 9/11 – ostensibly for national security reasons. These programs typically are authorized by and subject to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Patriot Act. While there is critical debate about the merits and abuses of these laws and programs, they operate under a modicum of court and congressional oversight.
Domestic law enforcement agencies also use technology for surveillance, but generally with greater restrictions. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure, and federal electronic surveillance law require domestic law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant before tracking someone’s location using a GPS device or cell site location information.
Fog Reveal is something else entirely. The tool – made possible by smart device technology and that difference between data privacy and electronic surveillance law protections – allows domestic law enforcement and private entities to buy access to compiled data about most U.S. mobile phones, including location data. It enables tracking and monitoring of people on a massive scale without court oversight or public transparency. The company has made few public comments, but details of its technology have come out through the referenced EFF and AP investigations. Fog Reveal’s data
Every smartphone has an advertising ID – a series of numbers that uniquely identifies the device. Supposedly, advertising IDs are anonymous and not linked directly to the subscriber’s name. In reality, that may not be the case.
Private companies and apps harness smartphones’ GPS capabilities, which provide detailed location data, and advertising IDs, so that wherever a smartphone goes and any time a user downloads an app or visits a website, it creates a trail. Fog Data Science says it obtains this “commercially available data” from data brokers, permitting the tool to follow devices through their advertising IDs. While these numbers do not contain the name of the phone’s user, they can easily be traced to homes and workplaces to help police identify the user and establish pattern-of-life analyses.
Fog Reveal allows users to see that a specific mobile phone was at a specific place at a specific time. Electronic Frontier Foundation, CC BY
Law enforcement use of Fog Reveal puts a spotlight on that loophole between U.S. data privacy law and electronic surveillance law. The hole is so large that – despite Supreme Court rulings requiring a warrant for law enforcement to use GPS and cell site data to track persons – it is not clear whether law enforcement use of Fog Reveal is unlawful. Electronic surveillance vs. data privacy
Electronic surveillance law protections and data privacy mean two very different things in the U.S. There are robust federal electronic surveillance laws governing domestic surveillance. The Electronic Communications Privacy Actregulates when and how domestic law enforcement and private entities can “wiretap,” i.e., intercept a person’s communications, or track a person’s location.
Coupled with Fourth Amendment protections, ECPA generally requires law enforcement agencies to get a warrant based on probable cause to intercept someone’s communications or track someone’s location using GPS and cell site location information. Also, ECPA permits an officer to get a warrant only when the officer is investigating certain crimes, so the law limits its own authority to permit surveillance of only serious crimes. Violation of ECPA is a crime.
The vast majority of states have laws that mirror ECPA, although some states, like Maryland, afford citizens more protections from unwanted surveillance.
The Fog Reveal tool raises enormous privacy and civil liberties concerns, yet what it is selling – the ability to track most persons at all times – may be permissible because the U.S. lacks a comprehensive federal data privacy law. ECPA permits interceptions and electronic surveillance when a person consents to that surveillance.
With little in the way of federal data privacy laws, once someone clicks “I agree” on a pop-up box, there are few limitations on private entities’ collection, use and aggregation of user data, including location data. This is the loophole between data privacy and electronic surveillance law protections, and it creates the framework that underpins the massive U.S. data sharing market.
The need for data privacy law
Without robust federal data privacy safeguards, smart device manufacturers, app makers and data brokers will continue, unfettered, to utilize smart devices’ sophisticated sensing technologies and GPS capabilities to collect and commercially aggregate vast quantities of intimate and revealing data. As it stands, that data trove may not be protected from law enforcement agencies. But the permitted commercial use of advertising IDs to track devices and users without meaningful notice and consent could change if the American Data Privacy Protection Act, approved by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce by a vote of 53-2 on July 20, 2022, passes.
ADPPA’s future is uncertain. The app industry is strongly resisting any curtailment of its data collection practices, and some states are resisting ADPPA’s federal preemption provision, which could minimize the protections afforded via state data privacy laws. For example, Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, has said lawmakers will need to address concerns from California that the bill overrides the state’s stronger protections before she will call for a vote on ADPPA.
The stakes are high. Recent law enforcement investigations highlight the real-world consequences that flow from the lack of robust data privacy protection. Given the Dobbs ruling, these situations will proliferate absent congressional action.
Current member of IEEE-USA, serving on its AI Policy Committee, and Co-Chair of its Privacy, Equity, and Justice in AI Subcommittee. Prior grant research work includes: funding from National Security Agency (NSA) as part of the National Initiatives in Cyber Education to develop an open access course, "Cyberlaw: Policy & Operations" since published nationwide by NSA; and funding from U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services to analyze, via published legal memos, issues of privacy, Constitutional rights, and other legal issues in the use of UAVs (drones) by domestic law enforcement.
Who is author Gabrielle Blair, and what does this Mormon mom want men to do before having sex?
To cut to the chase: They're called condoms, they're easy to buy and not expensive. Men, Blair is saying, it's time to man up.
If you are guessing Blair is a leading feminist thinker who perhaps is a professor at a small liberal arts college, you'd be impossibly wrong. She is a mom of six and member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who has a flair for interior decor and lives in a small town in western France.
Gabrielle Blair's new book tackles the responsibility the author feels that men have towards women when it comes to sex that doesn't lead to unwanted pregnancies. The book grew out of a series of viral tweets she wrote in 2018.
So why are we talking about her? For the long answer, you can read our interview with Blair from May of this year. We caught up with her as she was finishing a book that grew out of a long (OK, very long) Twitter thread that went viral in 2018 and found new purchase after leaked documents that suggested – correctly – the Supreme Court would overturn abortion rights enshrined by Roe v. Wade.
But for the quicker skinny:
Before taking on sex and responsibility, Gabrielle Blair talked decor
Blair, 47, grew up in St. George, Utah, and had a keen eye for design that she shared in a blog that gradually grew in popularity. Her specialty: practical yet fun decor that was compatible with a rambunctious household of six kids.
An impromptu 2018 Twitter post launched Blair into the mainstream
In the summer of 2018, Blair was growing frustrated by online discussions – most of them led by men – about women and their bodies that seemed to place the responsibility and blame for unwanted pregnancies on the female partner. She started to vent in a Twitter thread that grew to 63 posts but sat on it for a few months.
The essence of her controlled fury comes down to her belief that unwanted pregnancies are utterly controllable when men take advantage of a precaution that is not under legal threat in any state of the union.
Finally, during the contentious hearings to confirm Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, hearings that included allegations of sexual assault, Blair decided she had had enough and hit "Send."
Blair's comments were blunt and direct and urged men to be more responsible
Typical of Blair's tweets was this no-nonsense introduction: "I’m a mother of six, and a Mormon. I have a good understanding of arguments surrounding abortion, religious and otherwise. I've been listening to men grandstand about women's reproductive rights, and I'm convinced men actually have zero interest in stopping abortion."
Another tweet laid bare her stance that men, thanks to easily available and inexpensive condoms, need to step up play a much larger role in ensuring that abortion is not the de facto option for a woman.
“A woman can be the sluttiest slut in the entire world who loves having orgasms all day long and all night long and she will never find herself with an unwanted pregnancy unless a man shows up and ejaculates irresponsibly," she wrote.
The internet heard Blair's roar, big-time, with polarized responses
Abortion-rights march on College Avenue on June 24, 2022, in Appleton, Wis.
Blair thought her passionate rant on behalf of women would not be heard. After all, her expertise was in design. But both the content and delivery resonated; as of last spring the thread had garnered 37 million impressions on Twitter, and that’s not counting those who find the treatise on Facebook, Instagram, Medium, or her Design Mom blog. The thread also has been translated into many languages, including Japanese.
As anticipated, responses continue to run the gamut from supportive (@annavrmac wrote: "Women have taken all the risk and burden for long enough. Time for men to take responsibility") to critical ("You are talking about irresponsible men & have disregard for the other part of the bargain," wrote @TJNugent520).
That twitter thread and the response it generated led to her new book, which her publisher describes as a series of 28 brief arguments that "make the case for moving the abortion debate away from controlling and legislating female bodies and on to men’s lack of accountability in preventing unwanted pregnancies."
Her most controversial tack involves vasectomies – for boys
Grace Rykaczewski, 21, of Morristown, N.J., poses for a portrait as she demonstrates against abortion, Saturday, May 14, 2022, outside the Supreme Court in Washington. "Once it's overturned, for the pro-life movement this is only the beginning," said Rykaczewski, who goes by the handle, "Pro Life Barbie" on social media.
Borrowing from legendary 18th-century writer Jonathan Swift, who once wrote that a solution for famine could be selling children for food, Blair is eager to push buttons with her suggestion that perhaps giving reversible vasectomies to boys could be a way for men to appreciate the responsibility inherent in the act of sexual intercourse.
“That’s obviously not a real thing, but it’s more my way of pointing out how unwilling we all are to ask sacrifices of men when we’ll do so readily of women,” Blair told USA TODAY, adding that with advancements in vasectomy techniques, “it one day might be possible for a man to have one that is easily and effectively reversed.”
Blair has a deep passion for the U.S., but work and concern keep her in France
The Blair brood makes a meal. Mom Gabrielle Blair (center, in front of cupboard) is a longtime designer and blogger who turned her attention to the issue of unwanted pregnancies in a Twitter thread in 2018. It has since garnered nearly 40 million impressions.
Blair and her children live in a small town in the Normandy region of France, in large part because that move was made possible because of the tech-related job of her husband, Ben, 49. The couple have also lived in New York, Colorado and, most recently, the San Francisco Bay Area.
Though Blair expected to return one day, she is worried about the political leanings on display in America, particularly when it comes to women's rights. Even before it was confirmed that the Supreme Court would overturn Roe v. Wade, the opinion that made abortion legal nationwide in 1973 – a move that has led some conservative politicians to push for a federal ban on abortion in all 50 states – Blair expressed concern.
“America feels very unstable right now,” she says, her voice softening. “I don’t want America, the country that I love, to be unstable.”
Tax the rich for more EVs? California Democrats split A Lyft ride-share car waits at a stoplight in Sacramento, Calif., July 9, 2019. Lyft is the primary funders of Proposition 30, which would raise taxes on the rich to pay mostly for electric vehicle infrastructure. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli, File)More
KATHLEEN RONAYNE Sun, October 16, 2022
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A California ballot measure that would tax the rich to help put more electric cars on the road may seem tailor-made to win support from Democrats in a state known for climate leadership, but Proposition 30 has one notable opponent: Gov. Gavin Newsom. That's put the Democratic governor on the opposite side of his own party and against his traditional environmental allies.
The proposition before voters would add a 1.75% tax on personal income of more than $2 million, or fewer than 43,000 people. State analysts estimate it would raise up to $5 billion a year, mostly to help people buy electric vehicles and to build charging stations, with some also dedicated to resources for fighting wildfires.
Environmental and health group backers say California needs dedicated funding to speed the transition away from gas-powered cars and help lower planet-warming emissions. Transportation accounts for 40% of California's greenhouse gas emissions, and increasingly deadly wildfires are another major source of carbon.
“We can't meet our climate goals without something like this," said Mary Creasman, chief executive officer for California Environmental Voters. “It's either going to be all of us who pays, or it's going to be the wealthiest who can afford to pay."
Newsom has branded Proposition 30 as a money grab by ridesharing giant Lyft, which has spent at least $45 million backing it. State regulators have mandated that all rideshare trips be zero-emission by 2030. Uber has not taken a position on the measure.
“Don’t be fooled, Prop. 30′s being advertised as a climate initiative, but in reality it was devised by a single corporation to funnel state income taxes to benefit their company,” Newsom says in one TV ad.
Supporters reject that characterization, saying that Lyft got involved after environmental groups were already discussing a ballot measure. Creasman said it was important to “call our own team and governor out for lying" about the origins of the measure.
In an election year where Newsom is expected to cruise to reelection for a second term, the fight over Proposition 30 has become perhaps the most contentious of the season for Democrats. It comes months after state air regulators approved a Newsom-backed plan to ban the sale of most new gas-powered cars in the state by 2035. Newsom notes that he has already dedicated $10 billion to various programs aimed at boosting EV adoption over the next six years.
Half the money raised in Proposition 30 for electric vehicles would go into an equity account designed to expand transportation options and limit air pollution in low-income or disadvantaged neighborhoods. It could be used to help people buy electric cars or to put cleaner delivery trucks, buses and even e-bikes on the roads.
Wildfires, too, have become an increasingly urgent problem as climate change makes the state hotter and drier. Most of the state’s deadliest and most destructive wildfires have occurred in the last few years, and the state estimates wildfires released more than 85 million metric tons of carbon emissions in 2021 — more than the annual emissions from electricity.
Lyft says it supports the measure because reducing emissions is good climate policy.
“Proposition 30 funds this through a tax on individuals who earn more than $2 million a year. I’m fortunate enough to be impacted by this tax and happy to pay it to help turn back the clock on this existential threat,” Logan Green, the company’s chief executive officer, wrote in a blog post.
Joining Newsom in opposing the measure are the California Teachers Association, the California Chamber of Commerce and some venture capitalists who are helping fund the “No" campaign.
The money raised by the tax wouldn't count toward a state budget rule that says a certain percentage of revenue must go to K-12 education, a provision the teachers don't like. Meanwhile, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office said the proposal could force lower spending in other areas based on certain budget rules, something supporters of the measure dispute.
Business groups note that California's personal income tax is already the highest in the nation, and the ballot measure would put it over 15% for the highest earners. Loren Kaye, foundation president for the California Chamber of Commerce, also warned that a rapid expansion of electric vehicles could strain the energy grid, an argument the Newsom administration has rejected.
Backers of Proposition 30 include the California Democratic Party, the Clean Air Coalition, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the American Lung Association, which have rejected characterizations that the measure is designed to benefit Lyft specifically, noting there's no provision that would expressly set aside money for rideshare drivers.
While Newsom's existing commitment to electric vehicle infrastructure is significant, the state needs a more stable long-term revenue source, supporters argue. The tax increase would last for 20 years if the measure passes.
“We need a consistent, reliable source of funding that keeps us going through good budget years and bad budget years," said Bill Magavern, policy director for the Coalition for Clean Air. Referring to Lyft, he added, “If the goal is to limit pollution, does it matter who is driving the EV?"
