Congress has a unique opportunity in an upcoming congressional hearing to hold accountable with tough questioning UNRWA, the international agency media outlets rely on for information on the impact of Israel's operations in Gaza. It will be a chance to shed a light on the war as UNRWA skeptics say the agency is unduly representing the situation as part of its charge to provide humanitarian relief and education for youth in Gaza.

Everyone should be concerned about the rising death toll reported in the conflict. A functioning media, however, would be able to put greater scrutiny under UNRWA. With the press in decline and eager to accept the agency’s claims as fact to comply with a growing demand to perceive Israel as the villain in the conflict, especially on the far left, that responsibility will fall to Congress.

As early as November, shortly after Israel began operations in Gaza, an official with UNRWA was quoted as saying the destruction was “unprecedented” as the agency sought nearly $500 million in emergency funds to assist with humanitarian efforts in the war, according to a report at the time in Politico.

Subscribe now

The hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which was reported as on its upcoming schedule by Jon Levine at the New York Post, will be a chance to put the agency and its claims under a spotlight, including whether it has been looking the other way on missions of humanitarian aid as Hamas has prepared terrorist activities.

Here are three questions Congress should pose before officials with UNRWA when they'll be on camera and forced to defend their testimony:

1. How many of the more than 22,500 people counted dead in Gaza are Hamas fighters?

So much of the focus on the destruction has been on the numbers of dead in Gaza, which has reached more than 22,500 in recent estimates amid ongoing urban warfare in a densely packed small area. But based on that 22,500 number alone, we don't know what portion are Hamas fighters engaged in conflict with the Israelis.

The media are consistent in posting out the 1,200 killed on Oct. 7 includes hundreds in military uniform. I guess that’s supposed to make those deaths justified even though those fighters didn't instigate an attack.

We don't really get the same consistency when it comes of Gaza dead who are Hamas fighters. One recent estimate from the Israeli Defense Force has the number of fighters killed or captured to be between 8,000 and 9,000. Admittedly, there may be a thin line between militants and civilians, but some characteristics of militants would be participating in the Oct. 7 attack on Israel, holding hostages from the attack, coordinating other rocket attacks or firing upon Israeli forces as they operate in Gaza.

The numbers deserve greater scrutiny regardless of the portion that are Hamas fighters. The estimate of 22,500 dead comes from the Gaza health ministry, whose numbers are already in question because as a government agency it reports to Hamas. It includes an explosion from a bombing early in the conflict that was claimed to have been the result of Israel destroying a hospital and killing upwards of 700 people. Evidence now suggests it was nearly parking lot that was hit, the number killed was around a dozen and the culprit was not an Israel attack but a failed Hamas rocket.

Defenders say Gaza health ministries has provided identification for the fatalities, including the first 6,500 that President Biden himself called into question. The numbers, defenders say, are likely an undercount because they reflect only the bodies that made it to the morgue. And yet, I still find the tally unreliable. Anyone can make up a national ID number, especially an autocratic government the doesn't have the transparency of a democratic state and is seeking to drum up sympathy in a conflict.

UNRWA can address the accuracy of the count and the portion of fatalities that represent Hamas fighters because the agency is on the ground. With reports of destructiveness of the campaign coming from the UNRWA, its commitment to the truth on the fatalities would demonstrate the integrity of claims it's making about other aspects of the conflict.

2. How was UNRWA not aware of the massive tunnel system built under Gaza?

The invasion of Gaza has revealed a sophisticated underground tunnel system giving an advantage to Hamas fighters seeking to conduct an attack on Israel and retreat to a maze that could make them hard to target and afford these fighters and their leaders ample opportunity to escape.

At least some of these tunnels are shown to have been built under hospitals and schools. Firstly, these buildings are excellent shields that make any attack by Israel on tunnels underneath look like a war crime. But it's important to keep in mind hospitals and schools have been host to UNRWA workers who are purportedly there for humanitarian purposes, and yet somehow they escaped the notice of the agency.

But it may not just be looking the other way. One report has emerged in the Israeli press indicating a UNRWA teacher was responsible for holding one of the hostages from the Oct. 7 attack for 50 days. The report appears to be uncorroborated at this point. In fact, UNRWA has demanded the journalist delete the tweet because the story is unsubstantiated, but the reporter followed up with an affirmation the former hostage testified he was held by a teacher. Expect the veracity of that report to be fleshed out in the hearing.

The fact that UNRWA was unaware of these tunnels strains credulity, and the possibility it may be participating in holding hostages is downright alarming. It's possible UNRWA is complicit with Hamas by failing to report what was happening. In any event, the agency should have a good explanation when they're hauled before Congress.

3. Why is the humanitarian aid entering Gaza not reaching civilians?

Every week, it seems like new figures emerge about the devastating impact of the war on the people of Gaza. Palestinians are going without power, food and potable water as disease is going without treatment. A new statistic from the Wall Street Journal says that 70 percent of civilian homes are damaged and destroyed (although what qualifies as damage to any particular home isn’t explicitly stated).

Here's another recent statistic about Gaza that would make anyone recoil: Nine out of 10 Palestinians are eating less than one meal a day amid diminishing supplies of food and clean water, with some 13 percent report burning garbage to cook, according to a report last month from the World Food Program.

Critics of the war would have you believe that's because of the blockade Israel has placed on Gaza and the pledge from the Israeli Defense Forces not to let basic necessities like food and water into the territory.

But various reports demonstrate humanitarian aid is flowing into Gaza as a result of a deal brokered on the border with Egypt. An Israeli Defense Force was quoted in response to report as saying if humanitarian groups are concerned about not enough aid in Gaza, they should send more to Gaza.

One issue may well be the process. A recent report in ABC News quotes Democratic senators who visited the scene as calling the inspection process “cumbersome.” But that may be for a good reason. Israel is concerned about outside forces trying to get weapons and materiel through to aid Hamas fighters. In fact, there was concern not long ago about cargo going into Gaza without proper inspection.

So the question is why isn't the aid that’s coming in reaching the vulnerable population in Gaza. If you were to ask the Israeli Defense Force, they would tell you Hamas has been hijacking goods and delivering them to its fighters. That would be consistent with reports about Hamas exploiting aid in other ways, such as using the pipes given to them for water infrastructure to create rockets to shoot into Israel or Hamas fighters embedded in a select number of refugees given permission to head into Egypt. It seems more likely than not Hamas would seek to divert humanitarian aid in the same way.

All of this is being done under the watchful eye of UNRWA under the guise of an independent agency representing an international coalition without any dog in the Israel-Gaza conflict. But the U.N. has overwhelmingly shown hostility to Israel, in addition to being largely indifferent to the Oct. 7 attacks and the hostages that were taken, continuing to call for a ceasefire regardless of the situation on the ground.

UNRWA wouldn't want to displease its superiors by acting in a way that undermines the idea Israel is the aggressor in the conflict. There very well might be a dichotomy between what the agency is seeing and what's it saying. The upcoming congressional hearing would be an excellent way to find out what UNRWA knows and if that's different from what the agency is telling the world about the conflict.

Due process is a fundamental aspect of the American ideal and a hallmark of Western civilization, but increasingly no longer in vogue as institutions have crumbled. Civil libertarians on the left used to champion the value of due process, but that has fallen to the wayside as the left has metamorphosed into its current state. After all, the trend of cancel culture and the "Me Too" movement at their core eschew the idea the accused should be given their say in a process determining their guilt.

The Colorado Supreme Court decision this week was a clear example of this decline. The determination Donald Trump engaged in insurrection against the United States, a widely held view to be sure, was based on the findings of a lower court judge who may well have had Democratic leanings. Her conclusion was reached after a five-day evidentiary hearing, which is not the time frame for the lengthy trial expected to find an individual engaged in insurrection. Such a process would have consisted of essential elements like discovery, a plethora of witnesses and a jury determination.

Subscribe now

Instead, the lower court judge reached the conclusion Trump engaged in insurrection without that thorough process based on evidence that included the findings of the Jan. 6 commission and testimony from Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.). As I've written before, the Jan. 6 commission had its own problems with due process and ultimately was unable to find any smoking gun linking Trump to the planning of the attack on the Capitol that day. We're basically seeing the same thing play out here.

You can't really blame the Colorado Supreme Court for relying on the lower court judge's findings in this regard. The Colorado Supreme Court is more or less compelled to adjudicate based on that fact-finding upon appeal and instead compelled to focus on broader legal principles.

But even aspects of the way the Colorado Supreme Court handled the appeal presents problems with due process. Remember, the lower court judge ultimately ruled in favor of Trump out of a determination the Fourteenth Amendment and its clauses against insurrectionists running for office didn't apply to the presidency.

Not so with the Colorado Supreme Court. Even though the presidency isn't enumerated or among the offices that insurrectionists are unable to obtain under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Colorado Supreme Court determined Trump couldn't run for president because the presidency is "so evidently" an office. Apparently, the justices think senators, representatives and state offices were included the language because they aren't so evident.

The decision makes the case the presidency is different from those positions because they’re "members" and not people who hold "office.” I'm not buying that because the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment still saw fit to include them. I think they would be afforded the same distinction to the presidency.

The Colorado Supreme Court had similar disdain for legally binding precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court in Griffin's Case, an 1868 decision that determined congressional action is needed to define what an insurrection is under the Fourteenth Amendment. A prospective office holder will be barred from seeking office under that statute.

The Colorado Supreme Court just didn't want to address it: "Because that case is not binding on us, the fact it has not been reversed is of no particular significance." I really question the justices commitment to legal jurisprudence when they don't think U.S. Supreme Court precedent is at all legally binding or make effort to explain why they can get around it.

I came across good analysis pointing out Congress enacted in 1870 a law defining insurrection under the Fourteenth Amendment and then replaced it law with another in 1948. Keep in mind of the two lawsuits against Trump over events related to Jan. 6, neither charge him with insurrection under this law, no even with incitement of insurrection. No court has found Trump guilty of anything related to that. So the Colorado Supreme Court is willing to go places Jack Smith and Fani Willis won’t go.

Trump has already appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Many observers are predicting the U.S. Supreme Court will reverse the decision with as high as a margin as 7-2 if not 9-0, especially if some kind of technicality is found. These observers are probably right. The unfortunate thing is the U.S. Supreme Court will be seen as the culprit in the eyes of many as opposed to the Colorado judiciary, despite the shoddy reasoning in the case. That's thanks to the campaign the left has mounted to depict the conservative majority on the court as corrupt.

Democrats are largely crowing about the decision because it eliminates their obstacle to win in 2024. So much legal analysis on the left credits the Colorado Supreme Court with making the right decision in the case. These people see it as a way to short-circuit the process to rid the nation of Trump. But they should be cautious, and not just because the elimination of the primary challenger to President Biden fundamentally undermines basic concepts of democracy.

That's because when the system is perceived as going after Trump, the primary effect has been for it to rally his supporters. Already, Republicans in state legislators are drafting legislation that would prevent Biden from showing up on the basis that he has fallen short in his constitutional duty by refusing to contain the border crisis, according to a report in Breitbart News. So instead of eliminating Trump by taking him out in a state he likely wouldn't have won anyway, the ruling will ultimately propel him further ahead in the polls and perhaps into the White House.

It doesn't happen a lot, but I was surprised this week when I discovered another sign of crumbling institutions in the Western world. That's because it came from the very group of people who purport to uphold traditional values and was evidence of their own decline.

Social conservatives with prominent influence in the online world revealed the dwindling capacity to stay consistent with their mission to preserve the family by going after Guy Benson and Dave Rubin, two prominent conservatives who happen to be gay, over news they were having children with their same-sex partners via the technological miracle of surrogacy through in-vitro fertilization, otherwise known as IVF.

You couldn't get a more stark disparity between the general reaction in the public compared to criticism from social conservatives. Guy Benson announced the birth of son, Conrad, just last week largely to great fanfare — and a warm welcome from Benson's home on Fox News. The newborn, however, was also welcomed into this week with snide comments online from naysayers objecting to mode of procreation and parentage.

We've really come to a new low when advocates for the family stoop to going after the birth of a child into a supportive family. These social conservatives, grounding their objections on the basis of superiority of procreation and child-rearing by biological parents, would likely reject the notion they've become anti-family. Others would point out they have a long history of anti-gay carves out to family values.

But in any event, these critics are taking a step down from the ladder when they're responding to the birth of specific child with vitriol. The vanguard of the venerable tradition of raising in a loving home and have done the virtual equivalent of spitting in the baby's crib.

I had a high-profile role on the frontlines of the gay rights movement as a reporter with an LGBT newspaper for 15 years, so I'm well acquainted with social conservatives who have sought to undermine gay rights, including the ultimate failure of these forces in their failure to stop milestones like the victory for same-sex marriage. Generally speaking, I believe the bad old days of anti-gay animus having a substantive impact on gay people, in particular their ability to lead fulfilling lives and establish families are behind us. But then something like this happens and I'm forced to reassess that view.

Gruesome imagery from Ben Zeisloft, editor of the Republic Sentinel and alumnus of the Daily Wire, describes the couples having children through in-vitro fertilization as “two men pretending to be married” who decide to “rip a child from their mother,” even though such a child wouldn’t have existed without the procedure and the mother wouldn’t have had it without an agreement to give it up. As commentator Richard Hanania puts it, these objectors have to mislead people with language implying the process is without consent to “make it sound like voluntary interactions involve people being forced to do things against their will.”

Others are using religious language about men and women being in the image of God and the process IVF reducing procreation to a financial transaction, utterly ignoring the process affirms the ability for parents to participate in the tradition of child birth and child rearing.

I was surprised by this reaction from conservatives on multiple levels. One way is the target of animosity two of their own. Guy Benson and Dave Rubin have been stalwart figures in the conservative movement. I know Guy Benson in particular has been outspoken against leftist support of abortion, which he has called out for rising to the level of fetishization. So basically social conservatives are cannibals going after their own for their decision to have a family.

The alignment of Guy Benson and Dave Rubin with the right has come to the chagrin of leftists, who says they're backstabbing their fellow gays by aligning themselves with those with a history of being against gay rights. I can just imagine left-aligned gays crowing that these two conservative commentators have reaped what they've sowed. At the same time, I'm sure those commentators would tell you they're just fine in their political homes and liberals have their own problems with hypocrisy.

The second way the objections baffle me is surrogacy via in-vitro fertilization is nowhere near the moral equivalency of abortion, and yet the case against in-vitro fertilization uses a lot of the same language. I don’t see it. One terminates a potential human life and rejects traditional religious sensibilities in fostering a family, the other facilitates the genesis of human life and affirms the importance of raising a child in a loving home. I always thought opponents of abortion have upheld giving a child up for adoption as the morally superior alternative, but now it seems like a mother giving a child she doesn't want to a welcoming home is unacceptable as well.

Finally, what strikes me as odd is in-vitro fertilization is not just an option for gay couples, but for other would-be parents having problems with conception. So by going against the procedure, social conservatives may be coming out against any number of their own in straight relationships seeking options in raising a family.

There seems to be an effort to make people uncomfortable with in-vitro fertilization by going into detail about the procedure. One objector posted a well-edited video that details the steps of the process, bemoaning human life engendered in a Petri dish and a birth mother being separated from her child upon its birth. It leans so heavily in the process that I have suspicions the video creators are trying to replicate the success of newfound hostility toward transgender people. Given general public aversion to the process of gender reassignment surgery, the people behind this video think they can duplicate the ick factor by going into the process by in-vitro fertilization.

I would predict the gamble would fall short. In-vitro fertilization is a procedure more people in the public can envision themselves having. So many people rely on medical procedures to facilitate something in their lives, including having kids. Whether you're using erectile dysfunction pills or drugs to facilitate fertility, many couples seeking to have kids resort to a little scientific hocus pocus. I would venture to guess the percentage of babies born to different-sex couples in marriage with no medical assistance whatsoever is far fewer than these objectors to in-vitro fertilization might think. Don't forget the medical assistance needed for a woman at a hospital when she comes to give birth, such as pain-reducing drugs.

I don't know how much impact these objectors to in-vitro fertilization will have. As I pointed out, that video posted by one of them against the procedure was well-edited and seemingly produced by professionals at significant cost. Someone out there is really trying to interfere with the way many gay couples have children. It's almost like they've realized fighting against same-sex marriage and adoption are losing issues, so opponents of these things are reframing the issue as in-vitro fertilization to make their arguments more palatable.

As strong as public support is for gay couples right now, I don't know where things will end up if a campaign against in-vitro fertilization continues. Thankfully, these objectors are facing a healthy amount of ridicule at these times, including from other conservative commentators, so optimistically that could nip things in the bud before they develop into a perverse renaissance of hostility toward gay people. In my opinion, that just makes it all the more important to offer congratulations to new parents like Guy Benson and Dave Rubin to demonstrate support vastly outweighs any opposition.

From every angle, free speech is facing new tests as passions to continue to flare over the ongoing Israel-Gaza conflict. Rallies across the globe in favor of Palestine, some done immediately after the atrocities on Oct. 7 in total disregard (and seeming support) for that tragedy, are leading to new calls for censorship on demonstrations seen as signaling animosity toward Israel and Jewish people.

Thought to have found a new home among conservatives after being by spurned by the radical progressive left, free speech is now seriously being challenged on the right. Leaders in the Senate like Tom Cotton and Marco Rubio are calling for the expulsion of foreign nationals for expressing support for Hamas. In Florida, Ron DeSantis ordered the dissolution of a pro-Palestinian group at the University of Florida on the grounds it was providing material support to the terrorist group.

Meanwhile, Republican presidential candidates, most prominently Nikki Haley, are calling for the use of government force to combat anti-semitism on college campuses. The sole exception is Vivek Ramaswamy, who has maintained conservatives would be hypocrites by calling themselves champions of free speech only to turn around and seek to ban anti-Israel speech they don't like.

I've often written about free speech as a declining institution, but I use the words "test" and "challenge" here for a reason: I don't know where exactly I would come down on these calls as a matter of free speech principles.

I know it's fashionable in some circles to describe oneself as a free-speech extremist, but I consider myself more of a free-speech traditionalist. That is, someone who has an expansive view of free speech as important to pluralism in public dialogue, but also aware of realities of the need for limitations in certain categories, like pornography or libel and slander.

If a foreign national were to declare support for Hamas, that person would essentially be alleging themselves with violence. If that person were later to act with violence in accordance with that group's principles, there would be a lot of soul-searching over why nothing was done to prevent it when everyone knew the person's ideology. As for anti-semitism on college campuses, I could understand why Jewish students — or any other students for that matter — would be threatened by calls to support Palestine "from the river to the sea." There's an inherent threat of violence in someone wanting to make the entire nation of Israel disappear.

And yet, it's a slippery slope. As columnist Brad Polumbo points out, there's a distinction between declaring support for Palestine and support for Hamas. The latter of the two seems exceedingly rare in comparison. That distinction should definitely be taken into account. How many of these potential deportees are actually out there and how would they be identified?

If we start making rules enabling government force against pro-Palestinian protesters, that force could more easily by applied to other discourse on uncomfortable topics, or to control speech altogether. If student visas were cancelled as a result of support for Palestine, it would make a different standard for the First Amendment for citizens and non-citizens, which could lead to unforeseen problems. The Supreme Court has ruled the First Amendment applies to immigrants legally in the United States, although it has also allowed deportations based on political activity.

So I don't have a firm conclusion on this issue. My guiding light, however, has always been to have faith in the free speech system and its ability to police itself. We don't need to have the government step in to help when free speech has consequences, especially those who would voice their support for terrorists. Many activists are finding that out now after posh offers as lawyers and other professional careers are now rescinded or barred from being offered to them.

The calls for deportation are a turn around for many of these Republican candidates. As The New York Times points out, the calls for Tim Scott to deport foreign nationals engaged in anti-Israel conduct stands in contrast to a resolution he introduced in the Senate urging colleges and universities to “facilitate and recommit themselves to protecting the free and open exchange of ideas. The same resolution calls on the schools to reject “restrictive speech codes are inherently at odds with the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.”

Meanwhile, we continue to have the same battles over free speech from the left. Sen. Amy Klobuchar is pressuring Amazon to censor the popular voice-activated device Alexa out of belief its responses spread incorrect information about the results of the 2020 election. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay on an injunction against the federal government in a lawsuit against the Biden administration's attempts to coerce speech on social media platforms. That coercion is now free to resume thanks to that order as the high court considers the litigation.

So the fog of war is making things challenging in upholding free speech. Disagreements will likely continue about finding appropriate guardrails. The uncomfortable truth is we may suffer setbacks in the name of public safety as the Israel-Gaza conflict continues.

Could there be any major Western institution not on the decline as evidenced by events in the past few days with carnage unfolding in the Middle East? So much is in disarray the diminishment of any one particular institution is hiding like a fish in a larger metaphorical school representing overall decay.

I could write about journalism being a declining institution as demonstrated by major media outlets, most prominently The New York Times, running with headlines declaring an Israel attack in Gaza left a hospital destroyed and hundreds dead. Evidence, however, is now overwhelmingly pointing to a failed rocket from Gaza as the culprit. It's even in question whether a hospital was struck when images suggest it was a nearby parking lot. The casualty count appears to be a few dozen as opposed to hundreds.

Even five years ago, it would have been unthinkable for a major news outlet to rely on officials reporting to terrorist groups like al-Qaeda or ISIS as a reliable source of information. And yet The New York Times relied on Hamas for a front-page headline. Defenders will say these outlets were trying to make the best out of a situation with breaking news and attributed the source of the information in the headline, but that still gave the claim from Gaza officials way more credibility than it warranted.

It burns me the companies that are taking the blame are social media platforms. Lawmakers left and right are seeking answers from them on content moderation to stem the tide of disinformation, when the purveyors tend to be traditional media and sometimes lawmakers themselves. In fact, social media is acting as a correcting agent by enabling users to provide additional context or more truthful information in response to posts with questionable content. Blame the media outlets supposed to serve as an authenticator of information instead for not upholding their responsibility.

I could write about the decline of America's global standing. Stories are a dime a dozen these days about the end of the Pax Americana, the poetic Latin term referring to the period of global stability brought on by U.S. dominance in the post-World War II era. Generally, I find these articles to be overly catastrophic as the United States maintains a significant edge in terms of its economy, military and historic reputation as a global leader and champion of freedom.

And yet, evidence was on full display this week suggesting we've reached the end of a global era. One prominent example was when Jordan cancelled a summit it was set to host with President Biden as well as Egyptian and Palestinian leaders, reportedly over the story of the Israeli attack on the Gaza hospital that later turned out to be untrue. Biden responded as his plane was about to take off for the Middle East by cancelling his entire trip to Jordan. It takes some real gall to cancel on the American president, whose company is normally desired and promoted by foreign leaders seeking to add to their prestige and credibility.

Echoing the insult was the Saudi crown prince making Secretary of State Antony Blinken wait hours to hold a meeting with the diplomat, ultimately delaying it until the following day. The Washington Post characterized making the senior U.S. diplomat wait for a planned meeting as a major snub. Just a couple weeks ago, serious progress was underway toward an agreement of U.S. military defense of the Saudis in exchange for recognition of Israel. The Blinken snub wasn't a very dignified way to treat the delegate of a country proposing to take up your protection.

These officials are toying with American leadership because they now have an alternative in China. Despite the initial condemnation of violence after Sen. Charles Schumer prodded them for a comment in support of Israel, China's foreign ministry earlier this week delivered a condemnation of Israel and said it has gone too far in responding to the initial attack. Keep in mind Israel hasn't even begun its ground offensive yet. China is eager to embed itself in developing nations and is finding an opportunity in the split created by U.S. support for Israel.

I could write about the chaos unfolding in Congress as the House Republican caucus is unable to coalesce around a speaker. As I write this post, news is breaking the Republicans have rescinded their support for Jim Jordan as their designated nominee after three failed ballots on the floor, the last of which resulted in 25 votes against him when near unanimity is required. He’s the latest casualty after Kevin McCarthy’s ouster, Steve Scalise’s bid failed and the idea to empower an interim speaker failed to gain traction. New options are emerging as the House is set to hold another conference next week. I don't know if there's any reason to expect another candidate will be successful after the drawn out process we've seen so far.

I'm beginning to eat my words from a couple weeks ago when I said the ouster of McCarthy was no big deal and expression of democracy in a congressional body. But an international crisis was sparked the next day and a deadline to fund the U.S. government is less than a month away. That's not enough, apparently, for Republicans to coalesce around any candidate. I can only explain it as the chickens coming home to roost after the seeds were planted in the Republican Party of nihilism in running the federal government.

Fortunately, the executive branch should be able to operate on its own in addressing international security issues. Congress, however, is needed to act on any supplemental funding deemed necessary, such as the request for $106 billion Biden laid out this week in his Oval Office address.

Finally, we have our vaunted academic institutions being unable to express condemnation over the terrorist attack in Israel, accompanied by student groups at these institutions blaming Israel itself for the atrocities or even opposing the existence of Israel altogether. Other voices are saying the Hamas attack and the continued holding of hostages in Gaza should be considered relative to the conduct of Israel's government and settlements in the West Bank. We saw such claims echoed this week as government aides, including an official at the State Department, resigned in disgust over their bosses’ alignment with Israel and more than 400 congressional aides signed an anonymous letter to convince their bosses to back a ceasefire.

If the unelected officials working for representatives elected by the people force them to comply with the ideas of the unelected, that’s a form of tyranny. As of now, that doesn't seem to have occurred. I think I remember complaints about the "Deep State" during the Trump administration that played out in a different way with more sympathy for bureaucrats. Either way, the latest developments vindicates the idea the radicalism found on college campuses would be the future for all of us. It now seems to have come to fruition.

There appears to be a deep-seated need to make Israel the aggressor and Gaza the victim as this conflict unfolds. Concern over innocent civilians in Gaza makes sense, but I've never seen such sensitivity to a population whose leaders indisputably initiated violence and are still holding hostages, nor such deep skepticism of a country responding an unprovoked attack. I share the concern for civilian life in Gaza, but I also recognize certain realities as Israel rightfully engages in self-defense and seeks to eliminate Hamas, which brings the potential for collateral damage.

I think it would be oversimplifying things to blame anti-semitism for the eagerness to make Israel the villain. Instead, I think we should turn to the left embracing a mantra of oppression coming from white supremacy and people of color being the victims. There's a demand for stories validating that worldview, which includes any stories depicting Israel as a relic of white colonization. Instead of anti-semitism, the phenomenon appears to be the refusal to see anti-semitism even when a mass atrocity has occurred.

New revelations about the crumbling nature of Western institutions was an unexpected consequence of the terrorist attack in Israel and the violence that has unfolded in Gaza. Arguably, the event was a catalyst pushing them further on the path toward their demise. The mass atrocities in Israel overwhelmingly were awful on an incomprehensible scale, and the continued violence in Gaza is dreadful, but one can feel that reverberating in the decay of fundamental cornerstones of our society.

Bear with me: This edition of my newsletter is going to come off as a love letter of sorts. I know it's a strange time to write one, but also personally reassuring to me in a weird way.

If you're like me, you've been deeply disturbed in recent days out of horror over the terrorist attack in Israel and in sympathy for the victims of the atrocities. I would call it our dystopic world in full display, but the truth is the Israel-Palestinian conflict has been going on for decades and akin to consistency rather than decline. The attack is a sad reminder the conflict is nowhere near a point of resolution.

Let it be known I fully condemn the violence inflicted against the people of Israel — as well as the 27 Americans counted as among the deceased — and reject attempts to justify the attack committed by Hamas or equate it to retaliation against the terrorist attack itself. The stories and images we keep seeing each day keep getting worse, whether it's the slaughter of infants and toddlers, the execution of the elderly or the gruesome murders of the victims fleeing in terror.

So here's where the love letter comes in: I want to devote this space for my adoration for the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, now rebranded as X by Elon Musk.

In an unparalleled way, X has been able to provide real-time updates on details about the attack — gruesome but nonetheless crucial to understand — as well as responses to those details across the spectrum, which are equally as significant if not more so. Even if I disagree with those reactions, they enhance my own thoughtfulness on the developments by forcing me to refine my views or come up with a reason why I outright reject the conclusion.

I welcome posts across the board. I want to be able to see calls for escalation into a war even when I'm wary of extended U.S. involvement that may end up just producing more violence. I want to be able to see celebrations of Palestine after the attacks so I know they're happening even when I think they're distasteful. For that matter, I object, out of concerns for freedom of expression, to the emerging restrictions imposed on peaceful demonstrations in Europe.

As a platform X organically offers a platform for voices in ways mainstream media cannot match in timing and breath. That's not to say journalism as traditionally understood doesn't have a role. In fact, it's complementary to X in the way the media can centralize discourse and confirm developments with the added authority of those outlets. So I'm not quite ready to throw out the old ways of communication yet.

The community notes feature, added by Musk shortly after he took the helm of the platform, has been a brilliant way to correct and provide needed context to post lacking in truth or require additional information. Enabling users to provide that context is a supremely better system than delegating that role solely to an arbiter of truth, commonly known on social media platforms as a director of safety. The old system left a singular authority with questionable motives restricting and blocking different voices.

In addition to community notes, one important way X has operated is the way it limits posts celebrating violence in contravention of the platform's rules. One such post occurred over the weekend when Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran, celebrated the terrorist attack in Israel and predicted “the usurper Zionist regime will be eradicated at the hands of the Palestinian people.”

In the old days, the post would simply have been removed if Twitter were to enforce its terms of service (but probably would have stayed online when calls for censorship were focused on Donald Trump). Instead, X placed a kind of shield on the supreme leader's post, but allowed people to click on it to view the post out of recognition of public interest. Musk himself also flagged the post as “stoking the fires of hatred.”

I honestly believe X has become the best platform for discourse presently available and arguably all time. No where can we see the nigh infinite information and opinions uploaded and viewed in real time.

That's not to say it can get a little bruising. Very often opinions can be offensive and information can be inaccurate. That's why Musk — with whom I share an affinity for video games — once made a delightful comparison when he said X was a PvP platform. (That's player vs. player in layman's terms.) Just like in real life, the system of collecting information is buyer beware and one must carry the risk of accepting it as truth or not.

So that's why I'm discouraged when I see the European Union taking a major step toward forcing X to engage in content moderation. The EU has been crying foul based on a study that purports to demonstrate X is a major source of Russian disinformation. The study, however, counts as Russian disinformation anything critical or dissident over Western allies' approach to Ukraine regardless of the source. It’s also based on the conclusion of disinformation experts, who, in my opinion, are charlatans in a fraudulent industry.

The EU is now doubling down on that by making censorship demands based on very discussion of the Israel-Gaza conflict. If X fails to comply with the restrictions the EU demands, the penalty could be a whopping six percent of the company's revenue.

As Glenn Greenwald notes, the censorship demands by the EU is really an end around to engage in censorship in the United States. The First Amendment would prohibit the government from forcing X to engage in restrictions. However, if X is forced to engage in widespread censorship in the EU, it would may have to undertake the same measures in the United States for the sake of consistency and expediency.

I see a few other echoes of concern about X being a detriment to discourse and spending disinformation online. Sam Stein, a journalist at Politico whom I respect, lamented such problems about X in a post not long ago without immediately providing concrete examples. An opinion piece in Bloomberg, published a week before the attack in Israel, made a moral case for abandoning X based on reactions on the platform to the separate murders of progressive figures Josh Kruger and Ryan Carson. If you were going to have disgust, I would blame the people expressing those reactions, not their platform of choice for expressing it.

These complaints all seem very orchestrated and an attempt to destroy X because the powers that be can't control the discourse. Sometimes that leads to results they don't like, such as the approval of Brexit and the election of Donald Trump. Another more recent example is Slovakia electing into power a party opposed to continued Ukraine funding (which many media outlets are embellishing as a pro-Russian, pro-Vladimir Putin stance). The powerful may be disappointed with these outcomes, but them's the brakes, as they say, of freedom of speech.

If X is constrained so it can't operate with the same breadth of discourse it presently allows, we would lose a valuable tool in getting access to information in real time and direct to the public. That would set us back dramatically at a time when the alternative to obtaining information is declining institutions in government, business and media that only want us to see what they deem appropriate.

When does an upheaval within a major institution represent not a decline but a disruption demonstrating things are, in fact, working as they should? We may have seen that this week with the ouster of Kevin McCarthy as speaker of the House of Representatives.

For those expecting our government to function without hiccups, the House rejection of McCarthy would be comparable to a bodily function of that order, or maybe even a dry heave. I saw a statement after the vote from the Bipartisan Policy Center, a think-tank that seeks to promote cross-party solutions as its name suggests, calling McCarthy's removal "a sad and unfortunate reflection on our politics and our institutions."

It’s easy to see why the chattering class would say the act of removing the speaker’s gavel from McCarthy was catastrophic. After all, no speaker in the entirety of U.S. history has ever been ousted before, although some have survived votes and at least one, John Boehner, resigned before a successful vote could occur.

Moreover, the instigating force behind McCarthy's ouster was ostensibly his decision to be practical. The cardinal sin, at least for hard-line Republicans like Matt Gaetz, was working across the aisle to find votes to avoid a government shutdown when his own party wouldn't grant them.

Keep in mind Republicans control one chamber of Congress compared to Democrats controlling the other chamber and the White House, so the end result at the end of the day would almost certainly be compromise if not defeat for Republicans. Frankly, I'm surprised McCarthy was able to get a continuing resolution passed to fund the government that included no Ukraine funding despite demands from President Biden and Democrats.

But how about looking at the vote as a demonstration things are working exactly as they should? Democracy is the highest order of government in existence, but it's a messy process. That goes doubly so for the House of Representatives, which is supposed to be the body of the federal government that most purely represents the people and their fever-pitched impulsions in all their glory.

It may have been Gaetz and his fellow hardliners initiating the vote, but McCarthy was eliminated on a bipartisan basis. When he was up for removal, everyone was reminded of their grievances against him, including Democrats who were united in ousting him. The vote to vacate from Nancy Mace, who's widely considered a moderate, gave the ouster an added blemish of color in the political spectrum of lawmakers voting against him.

McCarthy had made enemies right, left and center. Did we really want to have a speaker who doesn't have majority support of the chamber? That seems less than democratic.

Also, I don't really see the removal of McCarthy as particularly damaging in and of itself to the function of government. I certainly struck a different tune when it took 15 ballots for McCarthy to be elected speaker, but we're in a different place now. Republicans have two candidates who have explicitly thrown their hats into the ring, Jim Jordan and Steve Scales, and another dark horse candidate, Kevin Hern of Oklahoma, has declared he’ll enter the fray. It might take a few ballots, but it seems likely any of them would be able to claim the near unanimous support within the Republican caucus needed to claim election as speaker.

It's funny how when McCarthy was up for being speaker and he had opposition within his caucus, we were told he was the only option because no one else wanted the job. Now these same lawmakers who professed no interest before are running for the speakership. When duty calls, someone will step up for the job.

At the end of the day, the unprecedented vote to vacate the speakership was more about McCarthy himself. The always astute Gabe Fleisher at Wake Up to Politics summed it up nicely in his newsletter the day after the vote: McCarthy failed to see the deal he cut with Democrats as a two-part agreement. He wanted their votes to pass the continuing resolution, but didn't include their opposition to a motion to vacate against him as part of that. Instead, McCarthy berated Democrats ahead of the vote, blaming them for his speakership being in peril even though vote was coming from hard-liners within his own party. McCarthy's ouster was the result of him losing in the game of politics, not institutional failure.

That's why when I hear comments from self-proclaimed institutionalists like Mitch McConnell about the need for the House to eliminate the motion to vacate I get a little skittish. Now that would represent an upheaval in the House, which has always been an institution built to represent constant change in the American populace. It would be an institutional failure if the motion to vacate were removed, not the other way around.

For the time being, I wouldn't fret about the implications of removal of McCarthy as speaker. Things might change as we get closer to the expiration of the 45-day continuing resolution expires, but when that time comes the onus will fall on the principals leading Congress, including the new speaker. McCarthy's fate doesn't necessarily mean coming to a decision on government funding will be a futile endeavor. The judgment on whether or not that will happen will rest solely on those leaders, who can hopefully play the game of politics better than McCarthy.

A potential deal under the Biden administration is emerging that could reshape the Middle East in a big way: A U.S.-brokered agreement that would result in normalized relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Under the agreement, Saudi Arabia would for the first time officially recognize Israel as a nation. The proposal, in that regard, is similar to the agreements made in the final months of the Trump administration, when other countries like the United Arab Emirates and Morocco afforded the same recognition.

One major component under the current proposed deal, however, is the United States would agree to come to the defense of Saudi Arabia militarily in the event the nation came under attack. As initially reported, that would be similar to other unilateral agreements the United States currently has with Japan and South Korea. More recent reporting from Reuters indicates the deal would fall short of a NATO-style guarantee, but the United States would still provide a degree of defense for the Saudis and potentially designate them as a “major non-NATO ally.”

A deal between Saudi Arabia and Israel, in many ways, would be a boon to the United States after our prestige and influence in the region has lost its glimmer. It was China, not us, that brokered the peace between Saudi Arabia and Iran, which have been rivals in the region and had been feuding in a proxy war in Yemen with U.S. backing for the Saudis. The United States couldn't have brokered such an agreement because of our decades-long adversarial relationship with Iran.

Saudi Arabia has also pivoted away from the United States, joining the list of new BRICS nations opposed to the U.S.-led global order, and restricted oil production despite pleas from President Biden to help energy-starved nations during the Ukraine crisis.

But a key portion of the deal would intricate the United States with the government of Saudi Arabia in a serious way that raises questions about our commitment to democracy. By committing to defend the Saudi government militarily if it were under attack, the United States will be putting its weight behind a despotic leadership notorious for human rights abuses and poor treatment of women and sexual minorities.

Heretofore, the United States has guaranteed defense in the event of attack generally to counties that have adopted democratic values, especially nations like South Korea and Japan surrounded by autocratic adversaries. Are we really going to afford the same dignity to a Saudi government with a crown prince who ordered the death of columnist Jamal Khashoggi? Apparently so.

When that murder occurred during the Trump administration, it woke up the world to the Saudi's record on human rights and the U.S. relationship to the country. That seems all but forgotten now that Biden is in charge. A potential deal to protect Saudi Arabia is strange for Biden given his comments as a 2020 presidential candidate to make Saudi Arabia a "pariah" state.

One other key aspect of the deal, as reported by the New York Times, is the green light for Saudi Arabia to begin uranium enrichment for the stated purpose of complementing its energy resources. I really don't think giving the Saudis the right to build an essential part of a nuclear weapon would be a good idea.

Does the country with some of the greatest petroleum resources on the planet have such an energy deficit it requires the development of nuclear power? Countries like North Korea and Iran engaged in uranium enrichment with the stated purpose of seeking new energy supplies, but as the process went on ended up on the path to securing nuclear weapons. We don't need to add to the mix another despotic country with the ability to initiate Armageddon.

Finally, leaders in Palestine pushing against the land claims by Israel are fearful the deal would compromise their position. They're demanding any sort of deal uphold the principle of a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict and include concessions from Israel on land claims. The Palestinian Authority wants a cash boost of hundreds of millions of dollars and more control of land in the occupied West Bank, according to a report in the BBC.

It remains to be seen whether anything like that will be part of the deal. The Saudis appear ready to accept a deal even without consent from the Palestinians, according to exclusive reporting in Reuters and the Jerusalem Post. But if Palestine feels ignored and believes the Saudis threw them under the bus, it would completely undermine the basic purpose of the agreement to grant Israel more legitimacy in the Muslim world.

The normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia has benefits and such a deal would have clear winners. Among them is Benjamin Netanyahu, who would get the boon of the Saudis recognizing Israel while leaving the heavy lifting to the United States.

But for the United States, the deal would represent an institutional decline. A vow to protect a despotic state for the sake of expediency would compromise our national values as a good place that seeks to protect democracy and freedom.

During the Obama administration, critics of the Iran nuclear agreement said it came at the expense of undermining U.S. values and could result in more national security risks than it intended to solve. The deal, these critics charged, was simply about securing a deal — any kind of deal — so President Obama could claim a win before he left office. 

We may be seeing the same thing happening here. The potential downsides of the United States agreeing to back Saudi Arabia shouldn't be ignored — and may even be cause to abandon such an agreement altogether.

Failure is the singular word that comes to mind to describe Volodymyr Zelensky's week-long visit to the United States, where he entreated an increasingly weary and skeptical nation to continue providing aid to Ukraine's resistance against Russian invasion.

Even before setting foot in on our shores, Zelensky had a much tougher sell than his visit in December when he was able to address a joint session of Congress. Denied the same opportunity by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, Zelensky doesn't have the same high-profile stage to communicate with the American public. But even if he did, the overwhelming support and media reception he previously enjoyed would likely be absent. Several months after his previous visit, he has little to show in terms of ejecting a deeply entrenched Russian military from his sovereign territory.

It's easier to imagine now at such an address to Congress less dignified House members (you know the ones I mean) giving boos and howls to express solidarity with not just the conservative base, but the growing majority of the American public opposed to continued to contributions to Ukraine. In reflection of the changing views, a CNN poll by SSRS last month found 55 percent of the American people oppose additional funding for Ukraine, while 51 percent say the United States has done enough. Although support for more aid remains strong among liberal Democrats, the shift is a remarkable change from the early days when support for Ukraine was steadfast among the American people.

Zelensky didn't leave Washington with an impression exactly conducive to reversing that trend and winning back support. At times, he was overly apocalyptic, telling the United Nations the invasion of Ukraine is part of a global struggle and "unity" is needed to contain Russia. Zelenskyy compared the Russian invasion to natural disasters instigated by climate change and said the invasion began with "one unnatural disaster" in Moscow.

One old adage I find particularly true, known as Godwin's law, says as political discourse continues, the probability of comparison involving Adolf Hitler approaches 1, meaning such an outcome is escapable. Zelensky went there in an interview with "60 Minutes," saying Russia "raised a second Hitler" with Putin and Ukraine is fighting to prevent World War III.

Zelensky has a tendency to come off as overly demanding as opposed to grateful to the contributions the world has made to Ukraine, as well as the sacrifices if the skyrocketing energy costs in Europe are any indication. The United States alone has provided $75 billion in support to Ukraine, with other countries in Europe contributing significant portions of their GDP. But in an interview with the Economist, Zelensky made a strange threat, saying Ukrainians are "very grateful" for the aid but it will not be a "good story" for Europe if it "pushes these people in the corner."

All of this might be justifiable if it made more sense and Zelensky had a clear path forward, but that doesn't seem like it's in the cards. A vaunted counteroffensive of Ukrainian troops trained by U.S. forces was an absolute failure after these troops disregarded guidance to cut off Russian supply chains. The New York Times reported the refusal to follow the plan was the result of Ukrainians being adverse to casualties, suggesting Western allies are pressuring conscripted troops to undertake an effort they know is too dangerous after an estimated 500,000 are now wounded or killed. Although Russian military forces make up the lion's share with 300,000 either dead or wounded, around 190,000 of those casualties belong to Ukraine.

If all of that was an attempt to defend democracy, Zelenskyy has made the perception much more complicated by suspending elections in Ukraine and cutting out free speech by silencing the media by making any possible dissent. The effort now seems like more of an effort to protect Zelenskyy (who admittedly will forever be danger if the plane crash that killed Russian dissenter Yevgeny Prigozhin is any indication) as opposed to the Ukrainian people, who are now unable to voice any objections to Zelenskyy at the ballot box.

The conflict now requires guidance for a peace agreement as opposed to continued funding for war instead the vain hopes of expelling Russia, which controls large swaths of Russian-speaking portions of Ukraine and the Black Sea. Nineteen months after the invasion, Western allies made a respectable move to punish Russia for an unjustifiable incursion into a neighboring country, but the time has come for realism.

It's no wonder the Biden administration, currently seeking an additional $25 billion for the Ukrainian effort, denied Zelenskyy's request for use of the Army Tactical Missile System, known as ATACMS. The system can strike targets 190 miles away with a warhead containing about 375 pounds of explosives, according to The New York Times. In a sign of his entitlement, Zelensky recently a deal for Ukraine to acquire the system was on the "finish line." Zelensky will have to settle for an $325 million Biden announced from the existing funds to provide other air-defense capabilities.

But my prediction is funding will continue to flow to Ukraine despite Zelenskyy's lackluster visit. The solution out of the current impasse in Congress to avert a government shutdown will likely be a bipartisan deal that provides more funds for Ukraine to appease Democrats in the Senate and more border security funding to appease Republicans in the House. It might be a while before we get to that because the hard-liners in the House won't even allow a vote on a defense appropriations bill, but such a deal as outlined by Problem Solvers Caucus seems to be the likely outcome.

So the institutional failure, as the Weekly Dystopia seeks to point out as one its core missions, is inability of Congress to function at the basic level of continuing to fund the U.S. government will likely result in a forever war in Ukraine despite opposition from a majority of the American public and indications those efforts will be futile. That will make Zelenskyy happy, but at a significant cost to the American people who may soon have to make tough decisions about allocations of resources for our own country.

Editor’s Note: Subscribers of the Weekly Dystopia may be surprised to see this dispatch in our email boxes after a long hiatus. I’ve been working through economic difficulties preventing me from writing and that is current still the case. I’m hoping to update this newsletter periodically as I make my way to stability.

Forgive me if I come off as stodgy or your high school English teacher, but as I'm watching news developments I'm increasingly reminded about The Crucible and the character Rev. John Hale.

If you need a refresher because the last time you opened the text for the play was the 10th grade, Hale is introduced as the witch hunt in Salem is unfolding, coming as an outsider who's an expert authority on the threat of witches. Such a profession, by the way, makes total sense in the context of the 17th Century time period of the play, when witchcraft is perceived as a real threat and expert help to contain it is legitimate and welcome.

When it becomes evident the witch hunt isn't based on the truth and sending good and innocent people to jail and to their death, Hale visibly changes his tune from leader in the witch hunt to skeptic. In a Biblical allusion, Hale toward the end of the play concludes: "Man, remember until an hour before the Devil fell, God thought him beautiful in heaven." Sadly, the revelation comes too late in the witch trials as Hale is unable to stop the machine he has already started.

More and more, I'm remembering the character transformation of Hale and seeing that in myself as others who support positions I share are taking them to extremes. Just in the past week, the reaction to conduct seen as inappropriate has become so over the top that I have begun to question when my initial position was right in the first place.

For example, I was among the observers who watched the clip of Zooey Zephyr, the transgender lawmaker in the Montana legislature, accusing her fellow colleagues on the House floor as having “blood on your hands” for advancing legislation banning gender transition-related health care to minors. I think making death threats over these measures is hyperbole, as readers of the Weekly Dystopia will know, and raising a fever pitch that may well have influenced the transgender shooter in Nashville (which is all the more reason to make the shooter's manifesto public). I have no reason to doubt the experience of gender dysphoria is real for many people, but the threat of kids killing themselves in a kind of temper tantrum over having to wait until adulthood to obtain transition-related care is no way to make policy.

But the Missouri lawmakers weren't content with letting observers of the clip circulating online of Zephyr make that conclusion for themselves. Instead, they censured her by prohibiting her from speaking on the floor for the one-and-a-half weeks remaining in the state legislative session. Many in the conservative movement insist they're against cancel culture, but effectively banning Zephyr from speaking certainly seems in violation of those goals.

Defenders of the move will say lawmakers are expected to adhere to standards of decorum on the floor and accusing lawmakers of being responsible for kids dying is over the line. I still think the reaction was just as over the top, more so than her remarks themselves. An AP report makes a convincing case about why Zephyr’s “blood on your hands” comments weren’t terribly unusual in political discourse. Don't tell me the act of censuring Zephyr wasn't based on an invective against transgender people and an attempt to throw out red meat to conservatives eager to harm them or wish them out of existence.

In short, by not leaving well enough alone and letting people make their own judgments over Zephyr's remarks, Montana lawmakers have shifted the debate on whether she should be silenced just to make an attempt to appease the crowd.

I had the same thoughts when I saw the news about parents in Texas cancelling a field trip to a viewing of a stage performance of "James and the Giant Peach.” I’m not familiar with the play, but I remember the 1990’s Tim Burton movie based on the book. As reported by local media ABC13 in Houston, the objections over actors voicing characters of different sexes in the performance. That's too much, apparently, like drag performances, which become a target of ire for conservatives upset about children attending the often prurient acts.

I share the concern about kids being the audience for drag shows. They're akin to cabaret acts and take place at night in bars for a reason. Drag queens often use the mask afforded to them in these performances to engage in lewd behavior. Years ago when I was at a bar before one of these performances, I remember one time a drag queen reached down to grab my crotch without permission.

Taking kids to watch drags performances isn't about learning about other cultures in the same way as showing kids a ritual by a Native American tribe or time-honored rituals from other cultures. As a gay man, I'm offended by the idea parents would get their kids more accustomed to gay people by showing them drag. Blaire White, who's transgender and one of my favorite YouTubers, had a great line about this phenomenon recently: "Taking kids to a drag show to teach them to respect gay people is the equivalent of taking them to a strip club to respect women." I don't know if the comparison is quite on point, but it's not far off.

But taking that animosity over drag shows to a performance over a play with a well-known background and actors playing different-sex roles is taking things too far, as are many of the measures in state legislature that effectively seek to cut into tradition of freedom of expression by banning drag in all public places. Just read the text of the measure recently signed into law in Tennessee and now blocked by a federal judge. I think the same people cancelling "James and the Giant Peach" would be shocked to know actors in Shakespeare's time were all men and played women's roles, Gertrude and Juliet alike, and there is a tradition of women playing Peter Pan in performances intended for youths.

So the reaction in both examples is too much even though the basis of objections is understandable. I could go on and on with many such instances not just in the past week, but over the past few years. It makes you wonder whether society has learned anything from the witch trials in the early days of America, or Arthur Miller's portrayal of them in The Crucible as a metaphor for the McCarthy era. If anything, it looks like society is destined to repeat those witch trials in a perverse never-ending cycle.

It has been exactly one year ago this week since Elon Musk acquired Twitter on April 14, 2022. In the period that has followed, Musk's once vaunted aspiration about being a free speech champion has been called into question — and rightly so given the controversial practices he's done as leader of the social media platform.

Critics say instead of holding fast to the ideals of free speech, Musk has reduced that value to a caricature and taken on the role of a right-leaning fraternity president who makes only perfunctory attempts at promoting freedom of discourse. While that criticism has some merit, a few incidents stand out suggesting he's making an effort as a promoter of free speech with competing interests as CEO of a major technology platform, such as rejecting influences that seek to stifle freedom of discourse under dubious concerns about disinformation. With a significant loss in value to Twitter after Musk's $44 billion purchase is now estimated to be worth around $20 billion, that effort has come at a significant price tag for the entrepreneur.

It has been difficult for me to write this article because every couple of days, there seems to be new drama that adds another layer to Musk's leadership of the company. For example, just this week, National Public Radio and PBS bolted from Twitter in public indignation over being labeled government-funded media. The designation was something of a compromise after outcry over Twitter initially labeling the news outlets as state-affiliated media, which is something more rightfully reserved for the Xinhua news service in China. But the clarification apparently wasn't enough for those news outlets.

I don't see this development as a free-speech issue per se, although it does speak to the rules of the road Musk has implemented for discourse on Twitter. The label of government-funded media for NPR and PBS — totally accurate because the news outlets have boasted about their reliance on government funds and suggest as much by the very nature of their names — aligns with conservative interests to defund these entities as unnecessary in our current media climate. The incident also reinforces that idea left-leaning news outlets are eager to bolt from Twitter as a way to marginalize the platform amid indignation simply over Musk having ownership of it.

One serious blow to the image of Musk being a free-speech champion was the flap over an update to the platform inhibiting links in user posts to content on Substack. The change — which has since been dialed back — was reported as blocking or sharing tweets with Substack links, although links to Substack content with custom domains appears to have been exempted. The apparent reason was the debut of Substack Notes, a new feature that appears to be a competitor with Twitter as a social media platform. The new feature was incredibly under the radar in terms of new technology opportunities until Twitter made a big stink about it in a kind of Streisand effect, as pointed out by Josh Barro in a recent Substack post.

I understand business interests and legitimate about concerns not wanting to enable a competitor, but I would think Musk as a free-speech advocate would want Twitter to interface with as many other platforms as possible, especially one where users would likely make significant posts and links. Setting those interests aside, Musk ended up making enemies with his chief defender in the media — Matt Taibbi, the selected face of the Twitter Files — who left Twitter in indignation and is still gone as of today. Musk in an initial response to Taiibi called him an "employee" of Substack, which seems unlikely given Taibbi is a writer for Substack just the same as me and denied he was ever an employee of the platform. Musk has since deleted the tweet.

The entire incident seriously made me question whether Musk knows what he's doing as chief executive and not a complete charlatan. His completely juvenile response consistent with free speech, I guess. But Musk completely undercut any aspirations for the platform as a beacon for the expression ideas, especially when the underlying issue is Musk putting speech restrictions on the platform. It's also consistent with Musk making an automatic response for press@twitter.com, where reporters would go for questions about their articles, so that the reply to any and all questions would be a poop emoticon. Both moves made the platform seem like a joke.

Now let's get to the positive moves. That's where I place the exchange between BBC reporter James Clayton and Musk in an interview they did on Twitter Spaces, which was premised on objections to BBC being another media entity labeled a government-funded entity. Normally, I don't cheer over the powerful like Musk slapping down a journalist asking questions, but here it was completely laudatory because the exchange revealed the reporter was making baseless claims about disinformation.

Here's what happened: The BBC reporter told Musk hate speech has been on the rise on Twitter since Musk took control of Twitter. When Musk asked the reporter to come up with one specific example, the reporter said he was unable to offer one, even though the reporter said that assessment was based on his own feed. Musk want further and explicitly called out the reporter for lying.

Pressed by Musk after being unable to come up with an example, the reporter went to data from the Institute for Strategic Dialogue as a definitive source that has concluded a rise in hate speech in Twitter. This U.K.-based non-profit is funded by government entities in the United States and Europe as well as neoliberal organizations, such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Stood up in wake of Brexit and the election of Donald Trump, the non-profit seeks to place online content by raising concerns about hate speech and disinformation.

I'm aware of studies that have concluded a rise in hate speech, but I don't know how one could possibly conclude that because it would depend on the definitions of hate speech and the nature of wide use, as well as the faulty premise people and the free speech system aren't able to handle that, which is not the case. Nonetheless, these studies came out in short order within months after Musk acquired Twitter.

Green Greenwald had a great break down in a broadcast in Rumble this week about how these organizations are totally bogus and meant to amply anxiety in the public to make them accept more government control over content:

"These are funded by intelligence agencies to control the internet...There's all different tentacles that they have, and different tactics they use, in order to regulate and control the flow of information on the internet, and one of the most pernicious ways because it's designed to be invisible and is therefore deceitful is the fund this fake industry, this new industry called disinformation experts who traffic in this kind of analysis all the time and what they're really designed to do is to slap these labels on whatever platforms disobey their censorship orders."

When you look at the list of contributors to the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, you would see in addition to government entities and non-profits other contributors are tech companies like Facebook, Google and YouTube. Twitter, however, is conspicuously absent. Musk's refusal to participate in these initial to control online is completely revelatory about the hostility he faces as CEO.

I think that will be the real test for Musk going forward on whether he 's a free-speech champion. As far as can see, he has been resisting efforts for government control of content when it goes against the approved narrative. The very nature of the leak Twitter Files under Musk demonstrates he's having none of the collusion between the U.S. government and social media companies, which appear to have had a role in the removal of information challenging COVID orthodoxy, the refusal to publish content on Hunter Biden's laptop during the 2020 election and bans on other lawful speech under the First Amendment.

If Musk can hold fast on the path, there may be cause yet to consider him a champion of free speech in a society where the value faces increased challenges — and even a lack of commitment as an institution on the decline. Otherwise, Musk's self-proclamation as free-speech champion would ring hollow as a ruse for him to make a very expensive purchase to cultivate a following in conservative circles without any real impact.

Summary: The manifesto of the shooter behind the mass killings at The Covenant School in Tennessee needs to be made public. The content will shed light on which institutions had a role in the killings, depending on whether it reveals a long history of repudiation based on Christian values or an obsession with cries of genocide over measures in state legislatures.

If there were any week more dystopian than this one, I don't think the Weekly Dystopia has seen it. We started off with the horrific news about a mass shooting a Christian school in Tennessee that left six dead, including three nine-year old children. We ended with a politically suspect indictment of a former president and current presidential candidate based on flimsy grounds. It could be the progenitor of legal charges aimed at bringing down political opponents that were previously unheard of in the United States.

This article, however, is going to focus on the mass shooting at The Covenant School and the manifesto left behind by the one responsible for the act. Tennessee authorities are reviewing the material in coordination with the FBI and set to release the manifesto in the near future, according to a report in the New York Post. The release of the manifesto will be important because it will bring clarity to which institution is on the decline and led to the death of three adults and three children in the shooting, as well as the person who pulled the trigger.

Normally, I don't pay any attention to the manifestos left behind by people who sought to promote their ideas by violently depriving people of their lives and their loved ones. Validating those beliefs would reward those who commit those atrocities and incentivizes mass killings in the future. We saw that last year with the Buffalo shooter, whose manifesto echoed the writings of a shooter years earlier in New Zealand in their shared racist animosity against minority communities.

Moreover, the writers of these manifestos appear to be keenly aware of the sensitivities in our society, whether they be racial or political issues, and ensnare public figures at various levels. See the reference to the popular YouTube personality Pew Dee Pie in the New Zealand shooter's manifesto. Reading those tracts has the effect of blowing up those tensions in a free for all within the media. (Not that this has ever stopped the media from indulging in this free for all.) Ironically, Fox News personality Tucker Carlson was blamed for the Buffalo shooting, although his name never appeared in the shooter's manifesto.

But this time the situation is different. I'm not saying those principles I just stated won't apply here as well, but in this unusual case we can have more unique power structures in play. More insight into the motivation of the shooter would shed light on which one influenced the thought processes behind the attack. That would be a first step towards finding a solution to prevent future harm, even if ultimately reaching an agreement — or even finding one to make that happen — may be unlikely.

For example, let's say the shooter (whom I refuse to name because I don't want to dignify that person any further than necessary), is able to document a history of hostility towards identifying as a transgender person. If the shooter were a former student at the Christian school, as stated by Nashville police, it wouldn't be unfathomable to think the shooter may have faced punishment or shame for not fitting into traditional gender models. The media has already documented accounts of hostility toward the shooter's gender identity, including one report in The Daily Mail describing how the family of the shooter refused to allow the practice of gender transitioning in their home.

Conservative media pundits are railing about the thought of sympathetic accounts of the shooter, but a demonstrated history of animosity would put in stark display an oppressive religiously motivated power structure resulting in personal anguish, and perhaps mental illness. If that were the motivation behind the attack, the institution would share a degree of culpability with the shooter.

On the other hand, let's say the manifesto fails to demonstrate personal hardship over refusal to accept the shooter's gender identity. Instead, the content is a rallying cry for resistance by any means necessary against the tyranny of society against transgender people. The shooter might validate the call to action by pointing to states putting up roadblocks to gender transitioning for youth, including criminalization of providing puberty blockers, hormones and gender reassignment surgery for minors. There's no shortage of denunciations of these measures as criminalizing the very existence of transgender people themselves or an act of genocide against them.

Personally, I think that characterization is an overstatement and used to gin up political opposition to the measures for people who won't even bother to read the underlying text or understand the issues surrounding them. I could see, however, that ideology finding its way into the mind of the shooter and serving as justification for the violent act.

Of course it isn’t a valid justification. Those nine-year olds had nothing to do with the measures, nor the three adults who were victims, nor necessarily the Christian school itself. The levers of democracy are fully available to opponents of those measures, even though those levers are available to supporters of the measures as well.

If that were the basis for the shooting, it would make things different because it would be an extreme reaction based on hyperbolic criticism of the state measures by transgender activists. It's strange to think of the transgender community as having a dominant role in the power structure, but if drumming up hysteria to the point of absurdity influenced the shooter, it may be cause for reflection on those who uttered those words. In that case, Christian ideology wouldn't bear the blame in the shooting and the idea the attack was a hate crime against Christians, as articulated by Sen. Josh Hawley, would be all the more plausible.

Either version of the manifesto is possible. It might be a combination of the two, which would muddy the waters a bit. There's also the case the shooter may be less than truthful about the motivation for the attack, so any account would have to be taken with a degree of skepticism and the media should do due diligence for corroboration.

We may get the document soon. Tennessee authorities and the FBI are set to release the document after it completes the review process, according to the report in the New York Post. There's no timeline for making it public as far as I can tell. The sooner that happens, the better.

It seems callous to place so much attention on the motivation of the shooter who killed six people who were either going to work or children going to school. I do wish we could shift more attention to them as opposed to the shooter who deprived them of their lives. But if we're going to learn about the failures in cultural institutions that engendered the idea for the shooter to murder kids at school, the manifesto would be the place to look.

Summary: When LGBTQ groups make the liberal beacon such as the New York Times the target of ire, they demonstrate a fundamental change in direction. Times were different for the movement before as two examples of articles from the past can demonstrate.

Everyone reading this newsletter who knows me from my previous work is aware I was a reporter for an LGBTQ news outlet for 15 years. That experience significantly animated my career as I made a presence in the White House press corps asking questions relevant to my audience on LGBTQ issues through three different administrations.

So I’ve invested capital in these issues and I'm not willing to give it up even though I've taken my journalism career down an alternate path. From to time to time, new developments emerge on LGBTQ issues that get me thinking about how they would fit into my past work and how I would approach them as journalist today.

One such development occurred just last week as GLAAD and the Human Rights Campaign went after the New York Times for its coverage of the transgender movement. To catch up you up to speed, the two incidents were 1) GLAAD leading a group letter against the New York Times for skeptical reporting on the practice of transgender health care to minors and 2) the Human Rights Campaign blasting the newspaper for giving space to an opinion column refuting the characterization of J.K. Rowling as an anti-transgender bigot.

“The New York Times isn’t defending J.K. Rowling — they’re emboldening transphobic views and giving people a free pass to discriminate against and harm trans people,” the tweet from the Human Rights Campaign says. “We need to make it clear to @nytimes this is unacceptable.”

For conservatives, the New York Times is a favorite punching bag, but that hasn't been the case for LGBTQ groups until recently. Leading groups in the movement now see fit to exert resources to go after the New York Times, which is a regarded as a liberal beacon and has afforded transgender people reams of positive coverage. Those resources appear significant in terms of the GLAAD letter, which has signatures from hundreds of transgender advocates and civil rights groups.

Meanwhile, other conservative outlets ranging from Fox News to the Daily Wire make anti-transgender perspectives the backbone of their coverage and seek to inflame their readers on a daily basis about stories on gender reassignment surgery for kids. My best guess for making the New York Times the target instead: If the Grey Lady gives credence to ideas contrary to LGBTQ dogma, it would the give a more left-leaning audience traditionally supportive of LGBTQ rights a reason to be skeptical. Other than that, the New York Times isn't exactly a major player in perpetuating anti-transgender sentiment in the United States.

But at the end of the day, the idea these leading LGBTQ groups would undertake these efforts demonstrates they've veered off the course from their initial goals — and I would argue it’s the latest act showing they’ve outlasted their usefulness. Basically, these groups are saying they don’t like the New York Times for doing journalism instead of LGBTQ advocacy, which is their job.

Until about a decade ago, when the LGBTQ movement had to claw and scrape for basic civil rights and any whiff of entitlement would turn off the electorate and empower the opposition, the kind of animosity given to the New York Times would have been seen as a waste of resources and self-destructive in reaching that goal. Everyone would have understood the goal of a newspaper was to inform its readers and present multiple perspectives, therefore the New York Times would be fulfilling its duty in presenting differing views, for example, on topics such as transition-related health care for children.

I can give two concrete examples I can remember clearly from my days working at an LGBTQ newspaper when the New York Times published articles that were pilloried online for being inconsistent with the values of the movement. Major LGBTQ groups, nonetheless, stayed away from them.

The first is an article in 2017 about then-U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions being engaged with confronting anti-transgender hate crimes. The article, clearly planted by public affairs officials seeking the cast Trump appointee in a good light, was "Aiding Transgender Case, Sessions Defies His Image on Civil Rights." I remember frustration over the coverage, including the headline, and angry social media posts. With that framework, the New York Times was ignoring more animating components of Sessions’ record inconsistent with civil rights advocacy. Yet no angry tweet from GLAAD or the Human Rights Campaign was among them.

The other article was published in 2015 amid the national debate over same-sex marriage. The New York Times' legal reporter Adam Liptak wrote an article about social conservatives unable to find legal representation to argue against marriage rights for gay couples. The title: "The Case Against Gay Marriage: Top Law Firms Won't Touch It." Again, there was anger with the New York Times, this time for deigning to give any coverage to opponents of same-sex marriage. I would have to say here that made less sense because the writing was clearly impartial and not framing any particular way of looking at things. Yet there was nothing against the New York Times from the Human Rights Campaign or GLAAD, who would have known better than to pick a fight over the article.

So this is definitely a change for these LGBTQ groups. I suspect the new direction is because the donors behind them are different, but also because the very nature of progressivism has changed where it won't even countenance the expression of contrary views. It's also a sign the LGBTQ movement has largely won the basic fight and the remaining apparatus needs to hit at any and all targets to demonstrate a continued reason for existence.

But instead of demonstrating continued value, striking against the New York Times over even-handedness in reporting on transgender health care for minors, widely regarded as a controversial issue, should have the opposite effect. If there was any sign demonstrating the time has come for them to close shop, I would say it would be mounting crusade against basic principles of journalism.

Summary: China has rebuffed pleas from the United States to stop dumping raw materials for fentanyl production in Mexico, a primary source of the drugs now causing the U.S. opioid epidemic. Meanwhile, tens of thousands continue to die of overdoses each year.

In the aftermath of the debacle over the U.S. government allowing a spy balloon from China to enter the United States, we've seen an all too familiar shift in Beijing's messaging. China has changed its turn from being contrite over the incursion to deflecting blame, calling justifiable accusations a "smear" campaign.

But we're seeing the defiance from China in another development with arguably a greater impact on everyday Americans: The dumping raw materials in Mexico used for fentanyl productions, which drug cartels then develop and send across the border to the United States.

The end product is an opioid epidemic that contributes to the national rot in the United States by killing an estimated tens of thousands each year. A total of 107,375 Americans died of drug overdoses and drug poisonings in the 12-month period ending in January 2022, and 67 percent of those overdoses were the result of fentanyl-based based drugs, according to the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention.

True to form, China is publicly taking no responsibility for its actions. In a condescending letter last week, China's Foreign Ministry blames the opioid epidemic on "societal problems" and a "drug culture" in the United States, repeatedly insisting the opioid epidemic is a problem of our own making:

The drug problem of America is a long-standing and deep-rooted disease that is yet to be cured. The U.S. government has not done enough to raise public awareness of the harm of narcotic drugs; the measures it took to reduce drug demand are ineffective; and its drug control actions produce poor results. The United States should face its own problem squarely, take actions to deal with the domestic issue of prevalent drug abuse, and protect the American people's right to life and health, instead of shying away from the problem.

The Weekly Dystopia is well aware of the chronic unhappiness in the United States, which has framed the fundamental basis for this newsletter. But we'd be a lot less unhappy if China would stop dumping the raw materials in Mexico that are now coming across our border. The sooner it stops the better off we all are.

The Biden administration has been pushing China to cease dumping the raw materials in Mexico. In December, U.S. Ambassador to China Nicholas Burns made a video presented at a Chicago Council on Global Affairs urging Beijing to cut off the supply.

“We’re trying to work with the government of China here to say please crack down on those illicit Chinese firms and help us to deal with this major problem in the United States,” Burns said in the video.

But those efforts appear to be of little avail. The situation has also constrained the United States. Being forced into position to have to work with China on limiting the distribution of fentanyl materials makes confronting Beijing on matters like the spy balloon, trade or human rights issues more difficult.

Not helping is the increased tension between the United States and China over a widely feared invasion of Taiwan. Upon former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan last year, China suspended talks with U.S. officials on working together over the opioid epidemic.

China's dumping of fentanyl materials across the Pacific is well documented. According to a 2020 intelligence report from the Drug Enforcement Agency, China "remains the primary source of fentanyl and fentanyl-related substances trafficked through international mail and express consignment operations environment, as well as the main source for all fentanyl-related substances trafficked into the United States."

Seizures of fentanyl sourced from China, the report finds, often test above 90 percent concentration of pure fentanyl. Keep in mind fentanyl is very lethal and just two milligrams of the synthetic opioid, comparable 10 to 15 grains of table salt is a lethal dose, according to CDC data.

Although DEA concedes China implemented in 2019 new measures aimed at controlling fentanyl production, the report concludes drug cartels in Mexico are finding alternate sources for the materials to create the drug sent to the United States.

Vendors in China have also found a way to get around the 2019 restrictions. According to analysis from National Public Radio and the Center for Advanced Defense Studies, these vendors have “tapped into online networks to brazenly market fentanyl analogs and the precursor chemicals used to make fentanyl, and ship them directly to customers in the U.S. and Europe as well as to Mexican cartels.”

The State Department insists efforts to combat the opioid crisis on the international front continue, as Biden administration officials testified this week during before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee.

Todd Robinson, assistant secretary for international narcotics and law enforcement, said the State Department “has made clear we must bring the full power of American diplomacy to this challenge,” although the emphasis appeared to focus more on Mexico’s role.

”[W]e will approach countries and other partners through the lens of joint responsibility for action,” Robinson said. “Most fentanyl seized in the United States is synthesized in Mexico using precursor chemicals sourced primarily from the PRC and then trafficked via the U.S. southern border. Our enduring security cooperation with Mexico is critical to our efforts to address fentanyl trafficking."

Other public officials are increasingly calling on the Biden administration to do more on China's role in the opioid crisis. Just before Secretary of State Anthony Blinken canceled his planned trip to Beijing over the spy balloon fiasco, a group of 14 Republicans led by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) urged the Biden administration to step up  the pressure on China over the "fentanyl crisis" among other issues, as recently reported by CNN.

"The CCP is also responsible for fueling the fentanyl crisis in our county, a scourge which has, and continues, to kill Americans," the letter says.

We may not get any new commitment from China on cutting off supply for fentanyl production. If that continues, it will be another example of China actively working to undermine the United States on the global stage from the inside out. The harm will be real as tens of thousands continue to die each year.

Subscribe now

Summary: The congressional hearing with former Twitter executives on the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story had key moments, but absence of government officials was felt. Haul them in to obtain a clearer of their relationship with social media companies.

Anyone ready for serious answers on Twitter's suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story as a result of a hearing this week before the House Committee on Oversight & Reform (under new management with a new Republican majority) would have been sadly disappointed.

Instead, we were treated to dramatic displays from members of Congress seeking to inflame and energize segments of the public with similar ideological bents, sometimes with total disregard for whether the display made any logical sense. Case in point: The rant from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) over Twitter violating her First Amendment rights by banning her, even though the First Amendment has no restrictions on private companies.

Props to Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), who asked during her questioning of Vijaya Gadde, a former Twitter executive, whether or not the U.S. government contacted her or anyone at Twitter for content moderation of user posts. Gadde couldn't give a straight response: "We receive legal demands to remove content from the U.S. government and governments all around the world. Those are published on a third-party website." I wish we would had more questioning along these lines that would have explored further the nature of the government requests.

But the key issue of whether or not Twitter sought to bury the Hunter Biden story at the behest of the U.S. government, a real possibility based on evidence in the Twitter Files, went relatively unexplored as were other statements from witnesses. Many opportunities were missed that could have demonstrated the extent of a cozy relationship that appears to disregard the First Amendment, as were other chances that could have challenged existing narratives.

One example was when Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) questioned Yoel Roth, the former Twitter executive who has become the face of the company's censorship efforts, about Vladimir Putin seeking to spread discrimination information online though "hundreds of thousands" of Twitter accounts. Such an effort, Raskin said, was costing Russia "hundreds of billions of dollars." That's a dubious take given recent revelations the impact of Russia using fake accounts was anything but that extensive.

Roth, nonetheless, essentially acknowledged the accuracy of Raskin's characterization of Russia's efforts: "That's right, sir. And that's not just past tense. Those accounts are active on social media today. This is an ongoing campaign."

But that response flies in the face of the Roth we saw in the Twitter Files. In an uncharacteristic sentiment for him against government coercion of Twitter, Roth was seen wanting publicly to dispute charges Russia was being effective as spreading disinformation online with fake accounts when in fact they were in few in number and had little impact: "I think we need to just call this out on the bullshit it is." No member of the panel sought to address the contraction or ask Roth to address why his past statement didn’t square with what he was telling the committee.

With evidence in the Twitter Files the U.S. government has been colluding with social media companies on flagging content private citizens deemed objectionable, one might expect another issue for which members of Congress would seek clarification would be whether Twitter felt any pressure to act on these requests. Such pressure could have been explicit, perhaps a threat of an IRS audit, or perhaps implicitly felt as a result of getting a request from a U.S. government official. Roth, however, said during his testimony he felt no pressure to act on the government's requests.

"I wouldn't agree with the word pressure," Roth said. "The FBI was quite careful and quite consistent to request review of the accounts, but not to cross the line into advocating for Twitter to take any particular action."

For this response, we arguably got an explanation, although the committee members could have drawn the connection more clearly and exposed the faults in the reasoning. At a different time during the hearing, Roth said he felt a need to work with the government based on the "mistakes of 2016." Apparently, that's a reference to the Wikileaks dump of emails from the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, allegedly the result of the hacking of Russian hacking. The information from the dumps was spread far and wide, not just on social media websites, but the mainstream media.

"I think Twitter and the entire social media industry were, frankly, caught with their pants down in 2016 and missed an opportunity to do the critical work of protecting election security," Roth said at one point.

Forgive me for momentarily getting into another kettle of fish, but those emails, even if they were illegally obtained, were publicly accessible on Wikileaks and the real thing. That's not disinformation. Roth said later during the hearing that incident, however, and the fear of the spread of Russia hacked material and misinformation was a factor in the decision to withhold the Hunter Biden laptop story.

One key development on the behind-the-scenes discussion on the Hunter Biden story: If you go back to the Twitter Files, you can see evidence FBI officials — who had the Hunter Biden laptop story in their possession — were essentially priming the pump with social media companies by warning them in meetings of disinformation based on Hunter Biden. But Roth made another new distinction: It was a private company during the meetings, not government officials, that discussed the possibility of Hunter Biden-based disinformation. That could have been drawn out clearly. Which private company exactly raised the possibility of disinformation based on Hunter Biden? What relationship did it have to the FBI?

Democrats doing the hearing, which admittedly was formed to serve the interests of Republican constituencies, did their best to pivot from the issue at hand to serve different interests. Most often, Democrats made the case social media posts without content moderation led to the Jan. 6 insurrection, but provided little evidence of specific tweets that instigated violence at the U.S. Capitol except for dubious examples. Vague tweets about being "locked and loaded" or Trump using a simile to describe his tweets as "little missiles," as former Twitter executive on safety on committee witness Anika Collier Navaroli bemoaned during the hearing, aren't exactly a plan for action at the U.S. Capitol.

One prominent moment came when Navaroli, under questioning from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), revealed Twitter refused to remove a tweet from Trump calling on four women in color in Congress, otherwise known as "The Squad" in conservative circles, to "go back" to their home countries despite that being a violation of terms of service. Twitter immediately afterwards, Navaroli said, changed the terms of service to allow posts with that trope. Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), in another exchange with Navaroli, led the witness to divulge the Trump White House tried to get Twitter to take down a personal insult posted by Chrissey Tegen calling the former president a "pussy ass bitch." The post ended up staying online.

The mainstream media, including the New York Times, jumped on these moments as among the most revelatory of the hearing. Another story from NBC News was titled, "Chrissy Tegen's Trump diss takes center stage at Twitter hearing." But there's a false equivalency here. Neither statement related to factual information challenging existing narratives or indicate a level of scrutiny from FBI officials on election information that prompted officials to flag posts clearly intended as jokes, both of which revealed in the Twitter Files, nor are those incidents about an orchestrated government effort with social media companies to control information.

Democrats had moments of drilling down to serve their own political ends. Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.) questioned Roth on whether either the Biden campaign or the Democratic National Committee sought to convince Twitter to remove the Hunter Biden story. When the answer was "no," she made it seem like the revelation made the entire premise of the hearing fall apart. But she left out a key player: the U.S. government. Whether or not the U.S. government requested it be removed is way more integral and relevant to a potential violation of the First Amendment.

The lack of focus on the U.S. government was a missing component that overall made the hearing fall short. As pointed out by the Democrats, Twitter at the end of the day is a private company and able to to make its own decision on whether to allow certain content. But that's not the case with the U.S. government, which is bound by the First Amendment.

We weren't able to ascertain a better understanding of efforts by government officials without any present as witnesses. (A secondary issue about how porous were the lines between U.S. government and social media companies with former FBI officials moving over to Twitter as employees in safety positions, something that could have been answered with former FBI official Jim Baker as among the witnesses, also went unexplored.) The hearing with witnesses from the U.S. government will have to wait another time.

Robby Soave at Reason, in his excellent summary on the hearing, sums up the need to haul government officials before the committee with his usual acuity: "Congress can continue to probe what exactly was going through Twitter employees' heads as they doubled down on restricting the laptop story, or they can direct their intention to the government itself."

The Republicans had an opportunity to expose U.S. government offices being willing to flout the First Amendment by selectively flagging content among private citizens for removal. Such a hearing would have raised the prominence of the issue for the American public. The committee, in a modern era when lawmakers are more concerned about being in viral YouTube videos than anything else, missed that chance. But they have more than one shot at this effort. Perhaps the next hearing will be more successful.

Subscribe now

Summary: U.S. support for the war in Ukraine has been steadfast, but public opinion may continue to slip if stories on corruption emerge. Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced a new crackdown on wrongdoing amid visits from leaders from Europe and the United States.

The importance of continued support for Ukraine as an essential responsibility of U.S. global leadership has been a consistent theme of my writing in recent weeks. But the chronic problem of corruption in Ukraine's fledgling democracy — if stories about ongoing issues continue to emerge — would be enough to dissuade the American public and bring to question any obligation to assist in the war.

It can be no coincidence headlines in major news outlets emerged this week signaling Ukraine is pledging new efforts to crackdown on corruption. At the very same time, Ukraine is hosting foreign leaders from Europe and the United States, who are footing the bill for beefing up the embattled country’s defense capabilities.

Raids against Ukrainian leaders who allegedly engaged in corruption was a central component of these new efforts. One raid resulted in the arrest of one of the country's richest men, Ihor Kolomoisky, as other raids took place in the home of former interior minister Arsen Avakov and the main tax office in Kiev. Separately, Ukrainian authorities announced the investigation of senior military officials in two separate cases of suspected corruption, according to a report in Reuters.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who was elected in 2019 on a campaign against corruption, addressed the new effort via video late Thursday: "We are continuing our fight against the internal enemy," Zelenskiy was quoted as saying in Reuters, expressing thanks to "all those involved in cleaning up our country."

The timing of the raids follows recent news developments indicating corruption still remains a problem for Ukraine. Just last week, the deputy head of Ukraine’s presidential office, Kyrylo Tymoshenko, offered his resignation without explanation, according to the Associated Press. Also resigning was Deputy Defense Minister Viacheslav Shapovalov, as local media alleged his departure was linked to a scandal related to the purchase of food for the Ukrainian Armed Forces, and Deputy Prosecutor General Oleksiy Symonenko. These are key figures who may have a role in implementing outside funds in the war effort against the Russian invasion.

The raids that subsequently followed are also sandwiched in between two separate visits from leaders in the United States and Europe. On Friday, Zelenskyy is set to meet with leaders in the European Union. Countries in Europe have had to deal with rising prices as they've sworn off Russian oil as part of the war effort and his efforts to spruce up the domicile will help Ukraine make the case for continued support.

Ukraine has been vocal about joining the European Union, but that doesn't appear to be happening anytime soon with the embattled democracy’s reputation for a high-level of corruption. A EU document ahead of the meeting praised Ukraine, but with lukewarm language about potential membership "encouraged the country to continue on this path” as part of the overall effort to "advance towards future EU membership," according to reports in European media.

A recent visit by U.S. officials to Ukraine this week struck a similar tone. Top officials from the Departments of Defense and State, as well as the U.S. Agency for International Development, conveyed to Ukrainian officials they should be able to account for everything the United States gives and continue the fight against corruption, according a report in The Washington Post. Based on the reports about raids in Ukraine, Zelenskyy appears to have gotten the message.

Corruption scandals would be excellent fodder for the isolationist wing of conservatives who oppose continued U.S. efforts in Ukraine, including notable names such as Reps. Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert. Another member of Congress who recently joined them as U.S. senator, J.D. Vance, offered remarks against U.S. resources in Ukraine just this week, suggesting the contributions were a zero-sum game that could expose weakness to China.

”We have sent so much of our munitions down, so much of our military-grade equipment down, if we have to fight a war against China — which I think is far more likely and, frankly, it's a far more dangerous opponent — that's what worries me, is that the focus on Russia comes at the expense of China," Vance said on Fox & Friends.

These isolationists may be winning. The perception is U.S. support for Ukraine steadily eroding — and recent poll numbers back that up. One recent study from Pew Research found the share of U.S. adults providing too much aid to Ukraine has increased 6 percentage points since last September and 19 points since shortly after Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine last year.

As the conflict goes on — and perhaps escalates with Russia poised to launch a new assault with an estimated 320,000 troops, or double the force when it began the war — opponents of U.S. support would be able to seize on stories about corruption in Ukraine as a way to accelerate that downward trend in the polls.

And yet, that would make justifiable sense. The war would shift from supporting a democracy against an invading autocratic government to supporting one faux democracy rife with internal setbacks and corruption over another. The war becomes not like unlike the “forever wars” of the United States trying to hold up flawed democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan, which were deemed a complete waste of blood and treasury as time went on.

So far, the news reports about Zelenskyy taking a stand against corruption in Ukraine seem to have outweighed the stories of corruption in terms of which is the more dominant narrative. But it wouldn't take long for that perception to shift if more evidence of that corruption continues to emerge. If Ukraine was found to have misused the ongoing support from the U.S. and partner nations, that would be a recipe for isolationist conservatives to get their way and for the U.S. to pull support from Ukraine entirely.

Summary: Germany announced it would send tanks to Ukraine only after the United States declared it would make its own delivery, making the need for the U.S. standing in the global affairs evermore clear despite objections from isolationist conservatives.

Look no further than Germany's delay in sending its eagerly awaited Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine to recognize the continued need for premier standing in the world of the United States.

Germany finally relented in the holdup over the tanks, which are seen as crucial in a conflict that is essentially World War I-style trench warfare, only after President Biden approved the delivery of M1 Abrams tanks. It was only OK for one of the nation's leading economies to send once-promised military aid to a neighbor invaded by a hostile military power after the United States took the lead.

Chancellor of Germany Olaf Scholz, after weeks of domestic and international pressure, announced on Wednesday that Germany would send an initial shipment of 14 Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine. Additionally, Germany would back down on its initial refusal to grant its legally required approval to allow other countries in the Western coalition to send tanks to Ukraine.

Not long ago, as America retreated into a more isolationist mindset under President Trump and Angela Merkel presided over a European Union that sought to expand international engagement, there was real talk about Germany becoming the new leader in promoting Western civilization and values. The reticence of Germany to make good on its promise for tanks is a reminder that isn't the case, especially since that nation had to be goaded into maintaining its NATO commitment of 1.7 percent of GDP in defense spending.

Steve Clemons, who writes the Semafor Principals newsletter and has keen eye for global affairs, summed it up nicely yesterday:

"The tanks were not an easy call for German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, whose voters are wary of crossing certain lines into militarism. But had he not said yes, it would have become the overwhelming focus of the Munich Security Conference taking place in three weeks."

The differing legacies of Germany and the United States in World War II is a good explanation for the delay. Germany has been sensitive about military spending after its ambitions under Adolf Hitler unleashed untold suffering and human rights abuses in catastrophic ways.

But that was 80 years ago and the global landscape has changed considerably. Japan had similar aspirations in World War II, but has reemerged on the world scene with a robust military and ready to confront threats from Russia and China. With a leading world economy, Germany would do well to keep up if its resources aren’t too tied up with environmental activist Greta Thunberg after her very clearly staged and photogenic arrest last week.

More tanks in Ukraine may be necessary. The promised delivery, despite the agreement on Wednesday, may be too little, too late, as Dalibor Rohac writes at the American Enterprise Institute:

While the United States has large stocks of Abrams tanks the Marine Corps previously used, those would need to be adapted for export — including by removing some sensitive electronics and other equipment we would like to keep only for ourselves, for good reason. Administration officials said they’ll procure new tanks instead — meaning delivery could take a year or more.

As for the Leopards, Berlin has initially pledged only one company, or 14 tanks, augmented by supplies from other European countries such as Poland, Finland or Norway, followed by additional supplies at year’s end and into 2024.

An additional option, Rohac concludes, could be the revival of the U.S. Lima Army Tank Plant in Ohio, which he says once churned out as many as 800 Abrams per year during the Cold War. That would have the double benefit of demonstrating American strength in Ukraine in addition to revitalizing industry in the Rust Belt.

In any event, with Germany lagging in its support, the need for the United States to maintain its global leadeship, one of the core values of the Weekly Dystopia, is evermore apparent. So far that has happened. With no sign Russia will relent in Ukraine, the United States has made good on its global standing by providing $50 billion in support for military operations.

The United States leading the way on the global stage by making the world safe for democracy and human rights with the strongest military on earth has been the status quo for decades. America is a good place, and that’s what a good nation would do with its power.

I thought this would be stating the obvious. That’s why part of me wrestled with the very concept of me writing this article. But apparently we need a reminder about the U.S. role in the global order.

Just look at objections from the isolationist conservatives increasingly growing in political strength. Trump just as I was writing this article fanned those flames with a recent post: "FIRST COME THE TANKS, THEN COME THE NUKES. Get this crazy war ended, NOW. So easy to do!"

It’s true there has to be a vision for victory. If the war in Ukraine appears endless, these isolationists may be successful in convincing the American public to cut off its support. The war in Ukraine shouldn’t descend into another Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan.

That's why a recent tweet from Mike Pompeo was right on point: "The fastest way to defeat Russia and end the war is to give Ukraine the weapons it needs." This tweet came out a day before Trump's post against sending tanks. Weirdly, it feels like a response, especially because those two may be competing for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination

.And yet, while maintaining a lead role in aiding Ukraine in its defense against Russia, the United States has also been careful not to become directly involved lest that intervention could escalate conflict with a nuclear-armed power.

The people within the coalition of Western allies against the Russian invasion of Ukraine know that's the right course of action. A recent comprehensive survey by Ipsos adults across 28 countries found 70 percent of responders favored support for a country when attacked by another country, while 71 percent said their country should avoid getting personally involved in the effect.

But when looking at the same survey in terms of data specific to the American public, you can see the impact of isolationist conservatives. Support within the United States for providing Ukraine with weapons and/or air-defense systems stands at 54 percent, but that's down a full five points from nearly a year ago. It's understandable support for Ukraine would dip if the conflict seems like a “forever war,” but I think our patience needs to last longer than 10 months.

Ukraine will need that continued commitment as conflict continues. In one respect, Ukraine has paid the consequences for the gift of tanks from Western allies. Russia sent civilians in Kiev flying after the deal was announced with an attack of missile and drones that killed at least 11 people, according to an on the ground news dispatch from Reuters.

That’s consistent with a recent Russian missile strike against a civilian target, an apartment complex where 1,700 people lived, shows the potential consequences of Russia having that advantage. The attack led to the 30 deaths and had no military utility for Russia other than to terrorize Ukraine’s population.

Talk now has shifted to supplying Ukraine with jets for F-16s in an effort for air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities. Whatever the decision on the jets, the continued support by the United States is consistent with its values and necessary to ensure stability in the global order. Other countries just aren’t up to the task.

Summary: World leaders’ decision to skip the World Economic Forum in Davos, a once must-attend event for the elite, signifies the growing realization globalization hasn’t led to promised prosperity and happiness as new challenges emerge disrupting the global order.

The World Economic Forum in Davos, an annual gathering place for wealthy investors that has become a symbol of a world economy without borders, is missing a few A-list guests this year as major world leaders skipped the event, signifying a retreat from acceptance of globalization amid the growing perception it has caused hardship as opposed to prosperity.

Among the key leaders who have opted to skip the event is President Biden, marking the second year in a row he hasn’t attended and a departure from U.S. presidents who saw attendance at the global forum in Switzerland as essential. Also absent is President of France Emmanuel Macron despite having a reputation for economic ideals consistent with the globalized world. (Macron went so far as to have launched a campaign with as cringeworthy a name as Make the Planet Great Again.)

Not in attendance as well are Biden’s counterparts in Russia and China, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, although that makes sense given the increasing hostility they face for seeking to disrupt or topple the global order.

One top U.S. official who was recently nearby also declined to attend. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellin on Monday held a high-profile meeting in Switzerland with her counterpart in China, Vice President Liu He, to discuss economic cooperation amid rising tensions between our two countries. Even though Yellin was basically next door to the World Economic Forum, she declined to attend. For the remainder of the week, Yellin opted to partake in official travel to Senegal, Zambia, and South Africa in the same week as the event.

It wasn’t always this way. Davos, in years past, was such a must-attend event that even leaders with nationalist tendencies felt to compelled to attend, such as Donald Trump during his term as U.S. president and former President of Brazil Jair Bolsonaro.

The highest-ranking U.S. delegate to Davos appears to be U.S. climate envoy John Kerry, who doesn’t even carry the distinction of holding a Senate-confirmed role and holds a job with a basic premise of promoting U.S. investment in clean energy.

I couldn’t tell you why Biden made the decision to skip the event again this year in terms of the program of record. Nothing is on the record as the mainstream media have apparently not seen fit to ask anything during the recent briefings. The White House press office didn't respond to the email I sent yesterday seeking an explanation.

Whatever the reason, the absence of world leaders signifies a growing awareness the prosperity promised in a global economy doesn’t hold up as developed nations have hemorrhaged jobs and break downs in the international supply chain were exposed during the coronavirus epidemic. World leaders absent from Davos after being reliable attendees in the past has the effect of drawing on that weariness in a repudiation of the global system.

To be sure, the World Economic Forum is still drawing significant interest. Chancellor of Germany Olaf School is one exception to world leaders skipping the event and is one world leader in attendance. Without 2,700 business executives in attendance, the forum is expected to break records in terms of CEO participants. The number of American executives attending the event is 700 and outnumber the representatives from China by a 20 to 1, according to Politico.

The vibe given by the absence of world leaders, nonetheless, is unmistakable and suggests a movement away from globalization. Given the Weekly Dystopia’s take on the trend toward a world without borders being ironically responsible for fragmentation and atomization of society, that might be a good thing. The globalist system that has left individuals without purpose and community, to say nothing of the disruptions of cultural identity, suffers a crucial blow.

The absence may also be the result of idealists of a globalized economy throwing in the towel. Just look at the economic sanctions hoisted on Russia for invading Ukraine, or China increasingly being isolated on the global economic stage amid redistribution of the supply chain of semiconductors over national security reasons. The vision of the unipolar world that sprang up in the 1990s may be the dream that has died.

I came across this article from Ed Conway at SkyNews, who said on a somber note the decision by world leaders to skip the event, in addition to being the result of continued fallout over COVID, demonstrates the break down of the global system:

“The idea was that by engaging more sensibly with each of these parties the stakeholders could all get along. The Forum's official motto is ;Committed to Improving the State of the World’ but it might have done better to borrow the old BT slogan: ‘It's good to talk’.

Yet in the face of the cost of living crisis, these lines of communication seem to have frayed, or possibly snapped altogether.

There has been more industrial action in recent months than at any time in recent decades.

Dialogue seems to be failing.”

Economists will point out the trend away from globalization may come at its own costs, including higher prices for consumers and potential for conflict among countries that no longer have economic interdependence. For my part, I feel good when I hear the United States is one of the few nations that produces the overwhelming majority of its own food supply. There’s something to be said for that satisfaction in self-reliance even if we have to be mindful about potential expenses elsewhere.

Summary: The shortage of semiconductors during the height of the coronavirus pandemic, as well as fears of China invading Taiwan, has led to greater efforts in domestic production — a disentanglement of the supply chain signifying a decline in globalization.

Once thought the endgame for humanity whether we wanted it or not, globalization is increasingly becoming more of an idea of the past if new efforts for greater domestic production of semiconductors are any indication.

Microchip production — used in everything from smartphones to next-generation military equipment — is now an essential commodity. With its precarious position in the global supply chain on full supply amid the drastic shortage during the height of the coronavirus pandemic, the U.S. government has initiated new efforts to enhance domestic production. At the same time, global trade on semiconductors is now artificially constrained after the U.S. government late last year sought to limit exports to China on the basis of national security concerns.

Gregory Shaffer, a professor of law and political science at the University of California, Irvine, told the Weekly Dystopia the United States is essentially engaging in "economic warfare" with semiconductor production as the choice of weapon.

"It symbolizes the broader securitization of trade policy," Shaffer said. "Semiconductors are at the center of the future of globalization — all advanced types of production, both civil and military. And so defensively, a country needs that secure access to chips, be it the United States or China or any other country, and offensively, a country that wishes to cut off its rivals' access to chips, which is what the United States is trying to do regarding China."

Whatever the motivation, the seismic change represented by the shift in production of an essential technological commodity can’t be ignored. All the implications for globalization in our modern world, including the dissatisfaction over uprooting of the American workforce in favor of outsourced labor, will have the opportunity for a renewed look. The potential for American reinvigoration is very real.

Leading to the shift was challenges to the supply chain during the coronavirus pandemic, when the shortage of semiconductors was manifest. Manufacturers issued cease production orders at the same time under the expectation of a drop in demand. But that decrease didn't happen: Demand for home technology, such as personal laptops, grew because of the increase in people staying and working from home.

Other industries suffered because of the loss of supply. One direct result of the shortage was an impact on the automobile industry, which because of the greater demand for electric vehicles resulted in a loss of 9.6 percent in global vehicle production.

Those developments were key in waking up the U.S. government for the need to have a more reliable supply of semiconductors. Both the Biden administration, in an effort led by Commerce Secretary Gina Rinaldo, has sought to make chip manufacturing a specific industry to cultivate within the United States as well as Congress, which dedicated $50 billion for domestic production under the CHIPS Act.

Boosts to domestic production stand in contrast to the previous efforts on a global scale. Taiwan has been home to more than 90 percent of the manufacturing capacity for the world’s semiconductors, according to a 2021 Boston Consulting Group report. Two of the world’s leading memory chipmakers, Samsung Electronics Co and SK Hynix Inc, are based in South Korea. In Europe, the Dutch company ASML makes 100 percent of the world's lithography systems, which are essential components for chip manufacturing. Japan, with businesses that provide essential machinery and materials for chip fabrication, also has a key role in the supply chain.

The essential nature of the microchips to technological infrastructure is why the shift away from these international sources to greater production domestically signifies a significant change away from globalization. A shakeup in who controls that production represents a fundamental change in the global supply chain. If more is controlled domestically, production outsourced overseas becomes less important in the global market.

Peter Frankopan, author of "Silk Road: A New History of the World" and a historian at the University of Oxford, said via email to the Weekly Dystopia the shakeup semiconductor production has become a key component of talks on deglobalization.

"Semiconductors are a key part of that discussion, above all because of Chinese vulnerabilities in this area — perceived or otherwise," Frankopan added.

The central role Taiwan has had in chip production in a globalized world makes all the more salient the words of Morris Chang, the founder of a semiconductor manufacturing company in Taiwan, when speaking as a guest at the opening of the Phoenix plant in the United States.

"Globalization is almost dead and free trade is almost dead," Chang was quoted as saying in Nikkei Asia. "A lot of people still wish they would come back, but I don't think they will be back."

Not everyone, however, agrees with the outlook about globalization is at a death knell.

Shaffer, for example, said the new production of semiconductors is a "major shift in globalization," but stopped short of characterizing global networks as at their end.

"After all, companies and countries need access to less expensive inputs if they're going to remain competitive globally," Shaffer said. "But you try to produce everything yourself, and it's much more expensive than what your competitors or rivals can access, then you're at a disadvantage, and the country will be worse off as well as the companies. And so what that means is there will still be trade."

Two key ways economic trade will continue, Shaffer said, are 1) the United States continuing to seek out trade on semiconductors with allies in Europe and Asia and 2) the balancing act of domestic production with government subsidization combined with access to material under reliable supply chains.

Frankopan, who articulated in "Silk Road: A New History of the World" a long view of globalization as an issue throughout world history as opposed to a recent development, also cautioned against reading too much development on chip manufacturing.

"I am not sure…that extrapolating the end of an era from chip wars is quite right," Frankopan said. "For one thing, most of the rest of the world (outside the U.S.) is deepening economic co-operation — e.g. with the [Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership]; but one has to look through the supply chain as well as end product. And unpicking that shows that moving production, or even introducing caps, sanctions and more is more complicated than it sounds.

There’s another reason the shift away from the international reliance of semiconductors represents a disentanglement of a globalized world. Much of the change is over fears China will make good on its long-standing ambition and invade Taiwan, putting the massive semiconductor production there at risk. In the post Cold War-era, the new domestic production symbolizes to the end the concept of an interconnected world, with the United States in the lead, and accepts the realization of new challenges.

The new regulations issued by the Biden administration in October seeking to effectively cut off China's supply of chips is a related development on that front. The Commerce Department regulations apply new export license requirements for chips and semiconductor manufacturing equipment destined for China, both domestically and internationally. The United States may now place foreign companies — including manufacturers in the Netherlands and Japan — on its corporate blacklist for defying the regulations.

In one sense, the lack of interdependence on semiconductor development may not be a positive development, but a harbinger of escalated competition and conflict among the world’s nations.

Shaffer said the shift in strategy with semiconductors, as opposed to enhancing U.S. national security, may actually signify "the risk of major conflicts to come" under the decline of U.S. global influence and the rise of China.

"China will respond to the U.S. attempt to cut its access to chips by doubling down on its own domestic production and trying to work with allies, particularly in Asia," Shaffer said. "You see countries in Asia really being torn between the economic importance of China for their trade — China is more important for trade for most countries around the world than is the United States — and so they don't want to decouple from China. At the same time, allies such as South Korea, Japan and so forth, depend on the U.S. for their own security policies, and so it is a schizophrenic position for them."

The use of global trade as a weapon to influence policy, Shaffer said, will likely result in greater insulation in the form of trading blocs between rival countries, which he said was a part of the build up of World War II.

"So China with the [Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership] and with the Belt & Road Initiative initiative is trying to create connections with other countries through trade," Shaffer said. "The United States with [the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity] is trying to do the same. But this recalls the build up to have conflict that led to previous world wars and so there's reasons for concern to see where these dynamics could lead."

Frankopan said key decisions from the U.S. government to ease the transition on semiconductor production — and greater acceptance of higher prices — are needed to ensure the shift away from globalization is smooth.

"Bottom line: Deglobalization means inflation and higher prices," Frankopan said. "That is not the end of the world, even in the current climate, as long as it is — done from the top, with joined up government thinking and clear thought about what is needed, where and how to support in a way that is most effective. That’s not impossible; but it requires strategic thinking, good planning and excellent execution."

Just a note at the end: Please sign up to subscribe if you like what you’re reading at the Weekly Dystopia. Subscriptions for a limited time are completely free and adding your name to the mailing list would really help us a lot in getting past our launch phase:

Summary: Potential Gridlock and the inability to respond to national security crises are in the near future based on the obstructionism in Congress over electing Kevin McCarthy.

Happy new year and welcome to the new McCarthy era! It's different from the 1950s, but also involves members of Congress acting badly. Instead of a time when Congress subpoenaed everyone under the sun to pressure them into ratting out alleged Communists, we have a deadlocked Republican majority unable to elect their leader as House speaker.

I try to avoid writing about the churning of the eternal sea of politics in this newsletter and focus more on institutional decline. But let's face it: A Congress unable to elect a leader (after 11 ballots at the time this posting and more planned into the next day) is an example of decline and portends institutionalist deadlock in the U.S. government in the near term.

If House Republicans can't do something as procedural as elect a speaker, how can we expect them to come to an agreement with a Democratic White House and Senate to pass a budget to keep the government in operation? McCarthy, if somehow he ends up becoming speaker, would likely have to make a deal with congressional Democrats for votes to keep things in operation. Arguably, he should just get it over with now and start making concessions to win over Democratic votes for his speakership. I don’t know if he’ll do that. It would just prove his opponents right over not being reliable for the conservative cause.

The situation isn’t a good look for democracy and could rise to a national security issue. China is not keeping a secret its renewed interest in reclaiming Taiwan and may well be looking for a good opportunity for an invasion. A stalemate in one chamber of Congress, which would hinder the authorization of force from the U.S. military, would seem to fit into that category of opportunity.

Many observers are blaming the deadlock on the narrow House majority after the underwhelming performance of Republicans in the mid-term election. Donald Trump, in a rare post-presidential moment of coherence, said this week the narrow House majority was the result of the pro-life movement not having a strategy after its win against abortion at the Supreme Court. Elon Musk weighed in on the observation as "mostly accurate tbh."

But it's more than the narrow majority. McCarthy continues to hover around north of 200 votes in his bid for speaker, which is well short of the simple majority needed to win election, or 218 votes if every House member is present. In the 2020 election, it would have been a stretch for Republicans to have won the nearly 20 additional seats for McCarthy to have gotten those additional votes out of hand. That outcome, additionally, assumes each of those additional members would have voted for McCarthy and not joined the faction obstructing his speakership.

Instead, the obstruction is more about two things: 1) The growing nihilism in the Republican Party stoked during the 1990s by Newt Gingrich when he made shutdowns a mainstream component of government management, and 2) The descent of Congress into a body of preening starlets exploiting our systems of online communication to win attention. If you haven't guessed, Matt Gaetz falls into that second category, although his approach to governance as a lawmaker has elements of the first.

Pundits are making all sorts of predictions about where the stalemate will end up. There's a widespread presumption the House will eventually settle on someone as speaker, even if it's not McCarthy. But there's no path to get there at the moment, so Congress may have to limp along with one chamber in operation. That’s totally consistent with the decline of a branch of government once thought of the world’s greatest deliberative body.

With that unhappy thought, here's other non McCarthy-related stories in the past week that got my attention:

OBAMA POINTS TO GLOBALIZATION AS DISRUPTIVE FOR SOCIETIES: Former President Obama, making an appearance on The Daily Show with Trevor Noah in one of the hosts final appearance, pointed to globalization as key factor in destabilizing traditional societies:

The topic of globalization came up when Obama was asked the cause of the rise of autocracies throughout the world:

From Fox News:

Noah then asked, "One, why do you think the world has gotten there?" and asked a second question: "What can we do, or why should we then try to get back to this democracy?"

…

He replied, "Globalization, the global economy disrupted a lot of traditional societies." When asked what he meant by "disrupted," he replied, "Well, uh, the global supply chain eliminates industries, eliminates jobs, increases the wealth gap not only between countries but within countries."

He also acknowledged "modernity" being at odds with those societies’ traditional beliefs. He claimed, "And then modernity challenges people’s traditional notions of religion and family and gender roles. And you’ve got these culture clashes, right?"

It’s important to point out Obama wasn’t intending to outright repudiate globalization with those comments. Later, he said political leaders needed to do a better job over the selling the change:

He added, "But I think we have to also find a language and a story — a way of telling the story about how we can get together that does not threaten people who are aren’t as comfortable with change as much. And that’s gonna be different for different countries."

U.S. COMPANIES LOOK TO MEXICO FOR TRADE AMID CHINA TENSIONS: The New York Times has an article about how U.S. companies, amid new tensions with China, are looking not across the Pacific but below the border for production in a globalized economy.

From the New York Times:

During the first 10 months of last year, Mexico exported $382 billion of goods to the United States, an increase of more than 20 percent over the same period in 2021, according to U.S. census data. Since 2019, American imports of Mexican goods have swelled by more than one-fourth.

In 2021, American investors put more money into Mexico — buying companies and financing projects — than into China, according to an analysis by the McKinsey Global Institute.

China will almost certainly remain a central component of manufacturing for years to come, say trade experts. But the shift toward Mexico represents a marginal reapportionment of the world’s manufacturing capacity amid recognition of volatile hazards — from geopolitical realignments to the intensifying challenges of climate change.

In a way, the development strikes me as what is old is new again. The United States has had a free trade agreement with Mexico since at the ratification of NAFTA in 1993, while China has only had permanent “most favored nation” status with the United States since 2001.

I imagine the job placement in Mexico would sit as well with the American public as the perception of the exodus of jobs to China. The discontent over the trade relationship has already had an impact. Trump had a great line he delivered in Michigan during the 2016 election: "It used to be, cars were made in Flint and you couldn't drink the water in Mexico. Now, the cars are made in Mexico and you cannot drink the water in Flint. that's not good.” Maybe Ron DeSantis will come up with something similar in 2024.

Just a note at the end: Please sign up to subscribe if you like what you’re reading at the Weekly Dystopia. Subscriptions for a limited time are completely free and adding your name to the mailing list would really help us a lot in getting past our launch phase: