Last Call For Ukraine On The Membrane, Con't

President Biden's surprise trip to Ukraine's front lines, accompanying Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, to announce in person that the US and EU will continue "unwavering support" for the government in Kyiv and the people of Ukraine seems like one of those fateful moments that will eventually be an answer on a history test someday.

 

Mr. Biden arrived early Monday morning to meet with President Volodymyr Zelensky after a 10-hour overnight train ride through Ukraine, and the two stepped out into the streets of Kyiv even as an air-raid siren sounded, a dramatic moment that underscored the investment the United States has made in Ukraine’s independence.

“One year later, Kyiv stands,” Mr. Biden declared at Mr. Zelensky’s side in Mariinsky Palace, the gilded ceremonial home of the Ukrainian president. “And Ukraine stands. Democracy stands.”

“Thank you so much for coming, Mr. President, at a huge moment for Ukraine,” Mr. Zelensky said.

In Kyiv for just five hours, Mr. Biden promised to release another $500 million in military aid in coming days, mentioning artillery ammunition, Javelin missiles and Howitzers, but he did not talk about the advanced arms that Ukraine has sought. Mr. Zelensky told reporters that he and the American president had spoken about “long-range weapons and the weapons that may still be supplied to Ukraine, even though it wasn’t supplied before.”

Mr. Biden joined Mr. Zelensky for a visit to St. Michael’s monastery in downtown Kyiv, where the sun glittered off the golden domes as the air-raid alarm wailed. Trailing two soldiers bearing a wreath, the two leaders walked along the Wall of Remembrance, with portraits of more than 4,500 soldiers who have died since Russia illegally annexed Crimea in 2014 and first fomented a rebellion in eastern Ukraine.

The air-raid alarm had stopped by the time Mr. Biden got back into his motorcade and departed the monastery, and alarms sound almost daily in Kyiv, but the blare of the siren added to the bristling tension of the moment. Ukrainian officials have been warning that Russia plans a large-scale missile bombardment timed to the anniversary of the war on Friday.

 

All evidence points toward Russia's "major offensive" to break Kyiv will get under way this week as the anniversary of Russia's formal "special military operation" approaches, and just as Biden announced support for Ukraine, China now has a fateful decision of its own to make when it comes to backing Moscow as Beijing's new top diplomat heads to Moscow.

Wang Yi – who was promoted as Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s top foreign policy adviser last month – is due to arrive in Moscow this week as part of his eight-day Europe tour, a trip that brings into focus China’s attempted diplomatic balancing act since Russia tanks rolled into Ukraine a year ago.

The optics of the two trips – taking place just days before the one-year anniversary of the brutal war on Friday – underscores the sharpening of geopolitical fault lines between the world’s two superpowers.

While relations between the US and China continue to plummet – most recently due to the fallout from a suspected Chinese spy balloon that entered US airspace, China and Russia are as close as ever since their leaders declared a “no-limits” friendship a year ago – partly driven by their shared animosity toward the United States.

And as the US and its allies reaffirm their support for Ukraine and stepped up military aid, Beijing’s deepening partnership with Moscow has raised alarms in Western capitals – despite China’s public charm offensive in Europe to present itself as a negotiator of peace.

At the Munich Security Conference on Saturday, Wang addressed a room of European officials as “dear friends” and touted China’s commitment to peace, while apparently attempting to drive a wedge between Europe and the US.

“We do not add fuel to the fire, and we’re against reaping benefits from this crisis,” Wang said in a thinly veiled dig at the US, echoing the propaganda messaging that regularly made China’s nightly prime-time news program – that the US is intentionally prolonging the war because its arms manufacturers are earning fat profits from weapon sales.

“Some forces might not want to see peace talks to materialize. They don’t care about the life and death of Ukrainians, nor the harm on Europe. They might have strategic goals larger than Ukraine itself. This warfare must not continue,” Wang said.

 

China doesn't want open military conflict, but it does want Taiwan back and has all but said as much. Some sort of joint operation between Putin and President Xi to get both Ukraine and Taiwan back is one of those Really Bad Scenarios™ that isn't out of the realm of possibility, either.

Things get...very complex from there. Would Biden also pledge "unwavering support" for Taipei and commit forces to defend Taiwan, and would it matter as far as keeping China out?

We'll see. Again, it seems like this is one of those moments where the history of the planet revolves around. Putin running out of troops and materiel and being forced to surrender could happen, or China and the rest of the BRICS+ nations could also pledge support. If the Saudis and Emirates jump in on Russia's side, as they have threatened to do on a number of occasions in the last several months, all bets are off. 

I'm glad Biden is in charge here instead of Trump, though. today proved that.

A Supreme Sanction On Social Speech

The Roberts court will hear a case this week that could effectively put an end to internet speech, removing legal protections and making tech giants liable for online speech, meaning they'd be sued out of existence. It would be an end to social media and the internet as we know it, and probably this blog.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear oral arguments in Gonzalez vs. Google, a lawsuit that argues tech companies should be legally liable for harmful content that their algorithms promote. The Gonzalez family contends that by recommending ISIS-related content, Google’s YouTube acted as a recruiting platform for the group in violation of U.S. laws against aiding and abetting terrorists.

At stake is Section 230, a provision written in 1996, years before the founding of Google and most modern tech giants, but one that courts have found shields them from culpability over the posts, photos and videos that people share on their services.

Google argues that Section 230 protects it from legal responsibility for the videos that its recommendation algorithms surface, and that such immunity is essential to tech companies’ ability to provide useful and safe content to their users.

The Gonzalez family’s lawyers say that applying Section 230 to algorithmic recommendations incentivizes promoting harmful content, and that it denies victims an opportunity to seek redress when they can show those recommendations caused injuries or even death.

The last surviving part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which provides companies legal cover to host others' content, could be coming to an end. (Video: Jonathan Baran/The Washington Post)

The resulting battle has emerged as a political lighting rod because of its potential implications for the future of online speech. Recommendation algorithms underlie almost every interaction people have online, from innocuous song suggestions on Spotify to more nefarious prompts to join groups about conspiracy theories on Facebook.

Section 230 is “a shield that nobody was able to break,” Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, the president and founder of Shurat HaDin, an Israeli law center that specializes in suing companies that aid terrorists, and one of the lawyers representing the Gonzalez family, said in an interview. “It gave the social media companies the belief that they’re untouchable.”

YouTube parent company Google has successfully quashed the Gonzalez family lawsuit in lower courts, arguing that Section 230 protects the company when it surfaces a video in the “Up Next” queue on YouTube, or when it ranks one link above another in search results.

But these wins have come over the objections of some prominent judges who say lower courts have read Section 230’s protections too broadly. “The Supreme Court should take up the proper interpretation of Section 230 and bring its wisdom and learning to bear on this complex and difficult topic,” wrote Judge Ronald M. Gould of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

Google general counsel Halimah DeLaine Prado said the Supreme Court’s review risks opening up the entire tech industry to a new onslaught of lawsuits, which could make it too costly for some small businesses and websites to operate. “It goes beyond just Google,” DeLaine Prado said. “It really does impact the notion of American innovation.”

The case comes amid growing concern that the laws that govern the internet — many forged years before the invention of social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter or TikTok — are ill equipped to oversee the modern web. Politicians from both parties are clamoring to introduce new digital rules after the U.S. government has taken a largely laissez-faire approach to tech regulation over the last three decades. But efforts to craft new laws have stalled in Congress, pushing courts and state legislatures to take up the mantle.

Now, the Supreme Court is slated to play an increasingly central role. After hearing the Google case on Tuesday, the justices on Wednesday will take up Twitter v. Taamneh, another case brought by the family of a terrorist attack victim alleging social media companies are responsible for allowing the Islamic State to use their platforms.

 

Without Section 230 protections, the internet goes away.  Any social media site would shut down for good. There's no possible way all the content on the internet can be policed, and if it could be, we'd have draconian filters like China as a result. Either way, much of the net as we know it would cease.

Leaving new regulations up to Congress when one party wants no rules at all is impossible. But leaving the entire internet to the six conservatives on the Roberts Court is equally awful.

Maybe the Court sides with Google, but if you're expecting some sort of Solomonic ruling that will protect the internet and allow for real regulation of the bastards on social media, well...this is the Roberts Court we're talking about...

The Circus Clowns On

Michigan Republicans, blaming Trump for their staggering losses in November, have elected a new state GOP chair that makes Trump look sane.

Kristina Karamo, who refused to concede her 14-point loss for secretary of state in 2022, beat former attorney general candidate Matt DePerno, who had Trump’s endorsement, in three rounds of contentious voting. The chaotic 11-hour convention, featuring a rowdy standoff over voting procedures and 10 candidates who all ran under a pro-Trump banner, left no doubt that the bulk of the party’s activists in this key battleground state remain firmly committed to election denial and showed no interest in moderating their message to appeal to the political center.

“Conceding to a fraudulent person is agreeing with the fraud, which I will not do,” Karamo said to cheers in her campaign speech on Saturday.

The outcome also dealt a tactical defeat to Trump, even though all the candidates competed for aligning themselves with him. Many delegates said they discounted or even resented Trump’s involvement in the race, especially after a midterm cycle that saw widespread wrangling over his down-ballot endorsements in the state.

“We love Donald Trump, but he don’t live here,” said Mark Forton, another candidate for chair who endorsed Karamo.

In a Thursday speech to a right-wing “patriot” group in nearby Charlotte, Karamo argued that Christianity belonged at the core of American politics, called evolution “one of the biggest frauds ever perpetuated on society,” and asserted the existence of demons.

“When we start talking about the spiritual reality of the demonic forces, it’s like, ‘Oh, my God, this is crazy, we can’t go there,’” Karamo said. “No. It’s like, did you read the Bible? Didn’t Jesus perform exorcisms? … Scriptures are clear. And so if we’re not operating as though the spirit realities of the world exist, we’re going to fail every time.”

In 2022, Democrats swept statewide races in Michigan and won control of both legislative chambers, achieving full statewide control for the first time since the 1980s. In 2024, the state is poised to host early primary contests and be a competitive presidential and Senate battleground.

“Do I think it destroyed the state party? For sure,” Christine Barnes, an unsuccessful state House candidate who skipped this year’s convention, said of Trump’s interventions. “And the party is a hot mess right now.”

The outcome here Saturday underscores the stark reality confronting Republicans across the country: Months after general election voters across the country rejected extreme, election-denying candidates such as Karamo, DePerno and former Arizona gubernatorial nominee Kari Lake, many party activists remain enthralled by them. Some Republicans have voiced concern that this trend could set the party back at the ballot box in future races.

Lake, who has yet to concede defeat in Arizona and has waged an unsuccessful legal fight to challenge the results of her 2022 race, has been traveling the country promoting false election claims, as she weighs a run for U.S. Senate in 2024. And Trump, in his third run for president, continues to promote false claims about the 2020 election.

Trump held a tele-rally for DePerno on Monday, calling him a “defender of election integrity.” DePerno rose to prominence as a lawyer chasing conspiracy theories in Michigan’s 2020 election; a Republican state Senate report faulted him for spreading misinformation, and he came under state investigation for allegedly tampering with voting machines.

But some delegates said they grew to doubt DePerno because, unlike Karamo, he conceded his loss in November.

“Matt ran out on us; he didn’t fight for us,” said Mark DeYoung, a delegate from Harrison, Mich., and chairman of the Clare County GOP.

 

Observations:

 

1. Donald Trump is a loser. He knows full well that if the Not Trump vote can decide on a single candidate in 2024, he's done. He'll do everything he can to prevent that.
2. The Republican party is the party of white supremacist male "Christian" theocracy. Anyone who doesn't fit the bill, even Kristina Karamo, will be disposed of as soon as possible even if they win now, and the rest will be made expendable as well.
   
3. None of this is a dealbreaker for people still in the GOP. If you're still supporting them, you're enabling the very madness, bigotry, and hatred you supposedly don't believe in. You get to live with that cowardice. Unfortunately the rest of us fighting it have to live with your enabling too. That makes you the enemy as well, and we'll fight you.
4. At some point these assholes have to pay the cost of the tickets they bought America, or they're going to be running the place and the rest of us will be serving them for the rest of our lives.