The numbers on their face for the @FCC RDOF auction are exciting - lots of Gigabit winners. But it’s important to remember the job is just starting. These rural areas don’t magically get Gig today or tomorrow. 1/

The job is only done and the celebration can really only begin once we see that rural Americans are actually going to get the broadband they’ve been promised. 2/

And that’s the rub here - at least from preliminary indications, there are LOTS of question marks clearly hanging out there once you look past the gloss and proclamations. And since we won’t know for maybe 5 years if it worked, due diligence is essential now. 3/

A number of big winners have offered some service but never done Gig. This would be like giving hundreds of millions of $ to firms that have repaved residential streets to now design & build our interstate highway bridges. 4/

A number of big winners are using tech that has done Gig (maybe) only in tightly controlled applications that don’t look anything like rural America. This would be like giving interstate highway $ to firms who’ve built lots of scale models but never actually built a bridge. 5/

Panic has always been a valuable political resource, but 2020 was the year our ruling class perfected the art of harvesting it, renewing it, and refining it to weapons-grade purity.

The bitter irony is that one reason panic became so easy for politicians and grifters to sow and reap is the great collapse in confidence caused by their own incompetence and greed over the past few decades. The political class found a way to profit from its own ineptitude.

If public confidence in government and major institutions had not been so thoroughly shaken by years of rampant corruption and incredibly expensive failures, perhaps the public would not have been panicked so easily - and profitably! - when the coronavirus struck.

Even as public confidence collapsed and paranoia grew, social media came along to make our society more twitchy and neurotic. We argue constantly about the spread of "disinformation," but not enough about how social media rewards irrationality and performative emotionalism.

Panic and social media both nourish the human herd instinct, and herds respond to loud noises, not reasonable arguments. Our society was panicking over far less important and dangerous things before Covid-19 arrived. We were panicking over some bizarre social issue every week.

BREAKING: Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton today filed an *election* lawsuit against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in the United States Supreme

Texas brought the suit straight to SCOTUS. Key allegations:

1. Unconstitutional changes to election laws
2. Unequal treatment of voters within each state
3. Voting irregularities "consistent with
the unconstitutional relaxation of ballot-integrity
protections."

From the bill of complaint: "These flaws cumulatively preclude knowing who legitimately won the 2020 election and threaten to cloud all future elections."

PDF:

"Our Country stands at an important crossroads. Either the Constitution matters and must be followed, even when some officials consider it inconvenient or out of date, or it is simply a piece of parchment on display at the National Archives.We ask the Court to choose the former."

On the Electoral College deadline: "That deadline ... should not cement a potentially illegitimate election result in the middle of this storm—a storm that is of the Defendant States’ own making by virtue of their own unconstitutional actions."

Remember last year when the #CancelCulture was offended by "Baby It's Cold Outside"?

What you might not know.

First, you are completely ignoring the fact that the song is 74 years old--when women were ladies and men were gentlemen.

Her "protest" was typical of a way a lady would speak to a man instead of just downing some drinks and hopping into bed with him.

No one seems offended by that, but you hear that shit on the radio ALL YEAR LONG!

Men actually had to court women back in those days, a subtle dance that for both men and women no longer exists. Sad but true.

Secondly, "what's in this drink?" does not imply that she was roofied, or at least it didn't in 1944. Get a grip.

She's obviously deflecting her indecision toward her drink, which again, came with the times. She was not being drugged.
(Should we stop watching The Wizard of Oz because when they fall asleep in the poppy fields that means Dorothy is on heroin?)

Moreover, what are you worried is going to happen?? That people will hear this song, completely misinterpret the lyrics (as you obviously have) and then decide to go date rape someone?

Or maybe you're worried about your children and what they will think when they hear it?

Look at this case no RC-05/2012/NIA/DLI of NIA.
According to it Khalsa Aid was providing fund to terrorist organization Babar Khalsa International (BTI)
Same organization is providing all support at ground level in Farmer protest! But case is still under investigation.
Thread

NIA has been unable to probe in this case because UK is not supporting.

Due to this case on them, they have transfer it to ‘ Khalsa Aid Internation’ from ‘Khalsa Aid’

Now Just look at how much fund they have in ‘White’ till March 2019.

Just Convert into INR!!

And imagine how much they may have been in ‘ Black’!

So what is their plan is? And how they are working in India?
Let’s see

When they write the history of this era, one of the strangest chapters will be devoted to Uber, a company that was never, ever going to be profitable, which existed solely to launder billions for the Saudi royals.

1/

From the start, Uber's "blitzscaling" strategy involved breaking local taxi laws (incurring potentially unlimited civil liability) while losing (lots of) money on every ride. They flushed billions and billions and billions of dollars down the drain.

2/

But they had billions to burn. Mohammed bin Salman, the murdering Crown Prince of the Saudi royal family, funded Softbank - a Japanese pump-and-dump investment scheme behind Wework and other grifts - with $80B as part of his "Vision 2030"

Vision 2030 is a scheme to diversify Saudi wealth away from hydrocarbons by attempting to establish monopolies that will allow the family to control entire sectors of the global economy.

4/

These schemes are longshots, and the fallback position is to unload failed monopolies - with staggering debt-overhangs - on investors who've been suckered with the promise that really big piles of shit surely have a pony buried underneath them somewhere.

5/

When Congress, MSM operatives, etc were allowed to openly incite terrorist groups (under cloak of "activism", "protest") to commit crimes against us: target lists, biz sabotage, cybercrimes, threats, physical violence-
it led to using these groups for other coordinated treason.

Weaponizing peasantry is always to benefit the elite class. So if peasants go to prison and few- if any- big names go down, it will be a tragedy. These people were exploited by gov game play from all sides... left to believe delusional "truths" planted by CIA&friends & also left

to believe in their cause by White (Gray?) Hats as well, instead of declaring these Marxists groups for what they really are, and setting right the lies laid out to get people to believe these groups are simply activists. They've been used by all, and their lives are ruined...

I'm not in favor in letting them go. I'm in favor of stiff punishments.
What I advocate for, is INCREASED punishment to all in power who raised these terror groups up as "activists" for the purpose of using as operatives, armies, civil unrest, color revolution, election rigging,

and TREASON!
How DARE they use our own citizens against us!!!!
This must be a heavy penalty crime going forward if we are ever to heal as a nation. The *first* time members of Congress incited groups to rise against us should have been the LAST. Immediate loss of seat and jail.

And this why you can take the whole “accept” the outcome & stick it up your ass. @TheDemocrats @RepAOC @Alyssa_Milano @SpeakerPelosi

I tolerated Obama for 8 years & kept quiet.
Here is my issue with the whole, “let us all be a United States again” that we heard from Joe Biden.

In the opening moments of "Top Gun," an ace Navy pilot flies upside down about 18 inches above a Russian-built MiG and snaps a Polaroid picture of the enemy pilot. Then he flips him the finger and peels off.

It's a hot-dog stunt, but it makes the pilot (Tom Cruise) famous within the small circle of Navy personnel who are cleared to receive information about close encounters with enemy aircraft.

And the pilot, whose code name is Maverick, is selected for the Navy's elite flying school, which is dedicated to the dying art of aerial dogfights.

The best graduate from each class at the school is known as "Top Gun." And there, I think, you have the basic materials of this movie, except, of course, for three more obligatory ingredients in all movies about brave young pilots.

Navy jet pilot during the Vietnam era, until he and his plane disappeared in unexplained circumstances.

Goddamn it, Texas, I don't have time for this today.

Fine. Fine. A brief thread. (Yesterday I said I'd do a brief thread on the Michigan decision and finished an hour and a half later. Can't let this be that, today).

OK. Texas filed a motion for leave to file a complaint against PA, GA, MI and WI in the Supreme Court. Someone else can lawsplain to you how that works, or you can google the highlighted rules, but briefly, this is a thing they can theoretically do

There is a MASSIVE contradiction at the heart of this complaint, and its doomed for other reasons, too (standing, laches, abstention)

They have three theories for why they can sue:
1) Violation of the Electors Clause of the Constitution ("the Constitution gives state legislatures exclusive control of the manner of selecting electors and judicial action can't change it)
2) "Counties applied different rules"

And 3) "you didn't have as strict voter ID requirements as we'd like, and that's unconstitutional for reasons"

That's it. That's the case

Texas - WTF is this even - a very short reassurance thread:

1: The Texas "lawusit" against four other "battleground" states in the United States Supreme Court is legally stupid.* It is so legally stupid that I was reluctant to believe that even Ken Paxton would file it.

*My patience level is not ginormous today. Please don't try to explain to me why you think it isn't stupid for whatever other reasons because I'll be making liberal use of the airlock. Thx.

2: Yes, one state can sue another at the US Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court gets to decide whether to take the case. One factor that they will **undoubtedly** look at is the factor of "injury."

Texas is claiming two things. First, that the states have a special interest in who becomes Vice President because of the tiebreaker. Second, that their electors are injured if their votes are "diluted" by electors from states that, in Texas's view, didn't obey their own law.

There is very little argument presented for "injury." Even less - barely a paragraph - was presented for how the defendant states caused that injury.

For lawyers, this is a signal that this is a performance of politics by "litigation" and not a serious effort.

THREAD on how economically Muslims maybe poorer (the state is overall also not as rich) in #Bengal but have relatively got socio-political empowerment (part of Threads I am writing for the understanding of Bengal politics in the context of upcoming assembly election):

1/20

The socio-economic status of Muslims in the state is far behind other communities as the Sachar Committee Report (2006) and Pratichi-SNAP’s “Living Reality of Muslims in West Bengal” (2016) attest.

2/20

But it has not witnessed the rule of the BJP yet although the founder of the predecessor of the saffron party, Bharatiya Jan-Sangh, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee was himself a Bengali.

3/20

During both the Congress and the Left Front rule earlier, and now under TMC Muslims did get some leverage although political marginalization even at block level had continued.

4/20

Across India, the last two general elections, and even the recent Bihar assembly elections, have resulted in the further marginalization of Muslims.

5/20

CCP EXPERT:WE CAN'T FIX TRUMP VIA WALL STREET,BUT WITH BIDEN...FOR THE PAST 30-40 YEARS, WE HAVE BEEN UTILIZING THE CORE POWER OF THE USA...THERE ARE A LOT OF DEALS.

"We know that the Trump administration is in a trade war with us,so why can't we fix the Trump administration? 1/

Why did China and the U.S. use to be able to settle all kinds of issues between 1992 and 2016? [...] What is the reason? I'm going to throw out something maybe a little bit explosive here. It's just because we have people at the top. We have our old friends who are at the top 2/

of America's core inner circle of power & influence...to put it bluntly, for the past 30 years, 40 years, we have been utilizing the core power of the United States.

[...] since the 1970s, Wall Street had a very strong influence on the domestic and foreign affairs of the 3/

United States. So we had a channel to rely on. But the problem is that after 2008, the status of Wall Street has declined, and more importantly, after 2016, Wall Street can’t fix Trump. It's very awkward. Why? Trump had a previous soft default issue with Wall Street, so 4/

there was a conflict between them, but I won't go into details, I may not have enough time.

So during the US-China trade war, they (Wall Street) tried to help, and I know that my friends on the US side told me that they tried to help, but they couldn't do much. 5/

1/ When will America wake up to the evil that has seized the Republican Party?

2/ We’ve seen it around the world and throughout history: when a political party or government exists solely to serve the very wealthy, and begins to lose power, they inevitably turn to authoritarianism and police violence.

3/ We saw this in Florida when Gov. Ron DeSantis sent State police with guns drawn to intimidate the family of whistleblower Rebekah Jones, who he’d earlier fired for refusing to lie about Florida coronavirus statistics and is publishing a daily “Florida coronavirus dashboard.“

4/ We see it with Donald Trump committing a felony for which you or I would immediately go to prison, trying to tamper with the outcome of a legitimate election by threats, intimidation, and offering bribes to government officials.

5/ We see it in Michigan where the Macomb County GOP seems to share an address with the group that showed up, armed, to threaten and intimidate the Secretary of State and her four-year-old son as they were preparing to watch “The Grinch Who Stole Christmas.”

1. Texas is trying to sue PA, GA, MI, and WI to challenge their election results *directly* in #SCOTUS.

How can it do that, how does that work, and is this going anywhere?

Here's a quick #thread on the apex of legal arcana:

The U.S. Supreme Court's "original jurisdiction."

2. One of the reasons *why* the Founders created a Supreme Court was to resolve interstate disputes (e.g., over borders, water rights, etc.).

Because lower courts might be biased, #SCOTUS was given "original" jurisdiction in such cases — allowing such suits to *start* there.

3. And today, in suits between states, #SCOTUS's original jurisdiction is *exclusive,* meaning that lower state and federal courts *lack* the power to hear disputes between two or more

4. But the Court has long understood "exclusive" to *not* mean "mandatory," even though some Justices (such as Justice Thomas) believe that it is.

Instead, states must seek "leave to file" an original bill of complaint, and such a motion is *not* granted as a matter of course.

5. One of the factors the Justices look to is whether the *issues* in the case can be resolved in other cases in the lower courts, even if not between the same parties. Thus, the Court usually denies leave unless it's a *uniquely* state-state dispute (again, like borders/water).

The end around case has been put together by TX AG Ken Paxton suing GA, MI, WI, and PA at SCOTUS. Bringing this case across multiple jurisdictions gives it a straight lane to the SCOTUS.

This happened just before midnight tonight, will post documents soon

There are a lot of Brexiters in the media this week making points about sovereignty, and about how the EU has not come to terms with the UK's independence.

I have some questions, which it might well be fruitful to ask them. 1/9

1. How do you understand the concept of sovereignty? What are the circumstances in which you might agree to make binding commitments to other independent states or trading blocs? 2/

2. What sort of commitments are you prepared to make in order to get trade deals with other states/blocs? And, to what end (why not trade on Australian-style terms with the wider world)? 3/

3. Do you accept that the EU has the right to impose its own rules as a condition for access to its market? Given the UK's involvement in the single market, and in the creation of its regulatory infrastructure, this feature should not come as a surprise. 4/

4. Do you accept that there is a need for borders (which were not needed while the UK was part of the single market) between states/blocs with different regulatory regimes? 5/

1/9

Good article. But while growing international criticism and rising trade tensions may have had some impact, as the article suggests, I don’t think they really explain the great reversal in BRI lending of the past few years.

2/9

As I have been writing since 2011, China’s development lending was always likely to follow the pattern of other countries when they first “went out” (e.g. the US in the 1920s, USSR in the 1950s, Japan in the late 1970s). Because of little historical...

3/9

knowledge and no previous experience, an early rapid rise in development lending would be driven mainly by underestimating risk and an overestimation of their own business "success" in making loans, and would of course be further supported by geopolitical ambitions.

4/9

This combination would inevitably lead to bad lending decisions, followed just as inevitably by debt restructuring, loan losses, and a contraction in development lending. In the 1920s, for example, the US set off quite explicitly and aggressively to displace England in...

5/9

Latin America, and American businesses and banks assumed they “understood” Latin America much better than the English did, in spite of the vast English experience there, but their early displacement of British lending only resulted in the huge loan losses of the 1930s.