9/2/21: Texas Abortion Law, Biden Phone Call, Newsom Recall, Trump's Next Moves, China's Crackdown, Biden Approval Sinking, America First Sham, The Problem With Theranos, Woke Capital, and More!

Influential podcasts, such as TMI, Climbing in Heels, Koala Moon, and Breaking Points, continue to provide unique perspectives on various topics including social and civil rights issues, fashion, parenting, and politics. Notable events include the Texas abortion law, which was allowed to go into effect despite not being ruled on directly by the Supreme Court, and the potential return of Donald Trump to social media with certain stipulations. Additionally, podcasts like Breaking Points are seeking support from their audiences to continue their independent work in challenging the corporate media.

The Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in Texas will significantly impact access to abortions and potentially change the political landscape, especially in states like Texas and Georgia, which have seen an influx of blue state migrants. This decision, which applies to abortions after six weeks, will result in a dramatic decline in access to the procedure for approximately 85-90% of abortions. The demographic shift in these states, with an increasing number of blue state residents, may influence the politics surrounding this issue. However, the exact impact on the state's politics and the Democratic Party remains uncertain, as tensions arise between the working-class and Hispanic voters and the upper-middle-class base. The leak of President Biden's private phone call with former Afghan President Ashraf Ghani during the Taliban offensive adds to the ongoing news, but its significance and implications are still being determined.

During a private phone call with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, President Biden pressed Ghani to publicly project confidence in the Afghan security forces, despite the deteriorating situation in the country. This comes amidst criticism that the US should have continued military aid, specifically close air support. However, the White House maintains that Biden was not pushing a false narrative, as Ghani's leadership was already collapsing before he left the country. The leak of this phone call is significant, as it highlights the politicization of foreign policy and the potential for private conversations to be made public, which can have long-term implications for the presidency and US foreign relations. The ongoing debate around the appropriate role of the presidency in foreign policy and the potential consequences of leaked conversations is a concerning development in American politics.

The politicization of presidential communications, such as transcripts and phone calls, has become a major issue that undermines the norms and functioning of democratic institutions. During the Trump presidency, the lack of transparency and selective leaking of information created a chaotic environment, and the ongoing debate over the release of Biden's Ukraine call transcript is a continuation of this trend. The deep state's involvement in these matters and the media's coverage of them have only fueled the problem, making it a major point of contention and a potential source of political instability. It's crucial for all parties involved to prioritize transparency and uphold democratic norms to prevent further erosion of trust in our political system.

The California gubernatorial recall election is not a foregone conclusion for Governor Gavin Newsom, despite the fact that a majority of voters in the state are registered Democrats. The Latino community, a growing and once reliable Democratic voting block, may not turn out in numbers expected due to dissatisfaction with Newsom's handling of lockdowns and small business closures. Additionally, the lack of a compelling alternative candidate in Larry Elder, a traditional conservative with unpopular positions on issues like the minimum wage, may not provide enough motivation for disgruntled voters to turn out. The recall system in California, an antiquated referendum system from the progressive era, adds an unpredictable factor to the election. While it may not reach Brexit-levels of shock, the outcome could still be significant.

The California gubernatorial recall election is a complex and unpredictable process. With 51% of votes required for the recall to pass, Larry Elder, currently at 27% in the polls, could potentially become the next governor even with a relatively small percentage of votes. However, the polling in California is challenging due to the large Democratic voter base and the difficulty of reaching and accurately gauging the opinions of certain voter demographics, particularly those who are highly agitated against vaccine mandates, mask mandates, and lockdowns. Additionally, the current generation of traditional center-left Democrats, including figures like Kamala Harris, Andrew Cuomo, and Gavin Newsom, are facing low approval ratings and public dissatisfaction. The outcome of the recall election could signal a shift in political power, potentially favoring candidates who are more heterodox and offer alternatives to the established political status quo.

The current lack of polling data for the California gubernatorial race between Gavin Newsom and Larry Elder leaves the race still very much up in the air, with Newsom remaining within the margin of error. Harry Anton, a political analyst, points out that there have been fewer than 5 polls published this month, which is significantly less than during the same period in the 2003 California recall election of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Donald Trump's potential involvement in the social media app Gettr adds an interesting layer to the political landscape, with Trump reportedly seeking equity in the platform in exchange for his participation. This underscores the growing importance of individuals, particularly high-profile figures, as the central value in digital platforms, as the concept of the creator economy continues to evolve.

Creators have the right to expect financial compensation if they are the primary generators of value on a platform. However, this comes with responsibilities, particularly in regards to moderation. The recent sale of The Hill's platform serves as a reminder that even in a creator-owned space, there will be content that needs to be moderated and potentially removed. The example of Mike Lindell's Christian app and the debacle with OnlyFans illustrates the potential challenges for platforms that take a hardline stance on content and attempt to operate as a business. Jason Miller and the team at GETTR should consider the long-term implications of their decisions and have a clear plan for handling content controversies.

While Gettr positions itself as a non-biased social media network, it faces a significant challenge in dealing with hate speech, violence, and illegal content as it scales up and attracts larger user bases. The issue is not unique to Gettr, as other social media platforms have grappled with similar problems. The key is for the platform to be transparent about its biases and prioritize trust and fairness in moderation. Users want to know that the moderators are trained, unbiased, and capable of handling sensitive content, such as jihadist or violent content, effectively. Additionally, the platform should acknowledge its perspective and biases rather than claiming to be neutral. The challenge for Gettr, and all social media platforms, is to balance free speech with safety and trust, while ensuring that moderation mistakes do not consistently favor one side. The consequences of failing to do so can be severe, including the proliferation of illegal content, such as child pornography.

The control and management of online platforms, especially those with large followings like those of former President Trump, present significant challenges. These platforms, including new ones like Truth Social, face the issue of moderating content while remaining legally compliant and dealing with massive influxes of users. The success of such platforms and their ability to monetize their user base depends on clear leadership and effective strategies. Despite Trump's large following, it's unclear if he will bring millions to a new platform, and the value of such a platform may not reach billion-dollar status but could still be substantial. Additionally, recent data shows a significant drop in mentions of Trump on social media and Google searches, indicating a decline in his online presence. Ultimately, the relationship between political figures and social media platforms is complex, with both sides relying on each other for attention and discourse.

Former President Trump's potential return to social media through alternative platforms may not be as entertaining or effective as his presence on Twitter. The lack of interaction with journalists and opposing voices could diminish the spectacle that once drew significant attention. Meanwhile, China's new law limiting online gaming for those under 18 to only 3 hours per week has sparked controversy, with concerns over the impact on social gaming and the potential for a renaissance of single-player games. However, it's essential to question the validity of the video game addiction narrative and consider the role of community and social interaction in online gaming.

The Chinese government's interventionist approach to regulating various aspects of society, including gaming and celebrity culture, raises concerns about individual freedoms and the potential for overreach by the state. The Chinese Communist Party's ideological vision of how society should be ordered can lead to extreme measures, such as the one-child policy and the recent crackdown on online gaming and influencers. While some may argue that such interventions are necessary for the greater good, others see them as a threat to personal autonomy and the unique strengths of democratic systems. The Chinese model, with its emphasis on top-down control, contrasts sharply with the more decentralized, individualistic values of Western societies. The Chinese government's recent actions, including its handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and its crackdown on gaming and celebrities, illustrate this contrast and underscore the importance of preserving individual freedoms and the checks and balances inherent in democratic systems.

Political beliefs should not be derived solely from social media platforms like Twitter, as there can be contradictions and biases present. The discussion also touched upon the issue of government regulation, specifically in relation to video games and social media usage. While there is a need for study and debate on potential addictive qualities of these platforms, there should be caution against overreaching government intervention. Another key point raised was the troubling state of President Biden's approval rating, which is significantly lower than suggested by polls that are over-sampled for Democrats. This indicates that Biden is facing serious challenges in maintaining public support, particularly due to his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and related policies.

The intersection of Joe Biden's perceived normalcy and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic created a perfect storm for political challenges. His strength as a "normal guy" was initially seen as an asset, but during the Afghanistan crisis and the resurgence of COVID-19 with the Delta variant, this normalcy was perceived as a weakness. The country's exhaustion with politics and COVID-19, coupled with the economic uncertainty, led to a 50-50 split in public opinion. Biden's inability to project a sense of moving forward and ending the COVID-19 crisis, despite his promises, resulted in criticism and a perception of political doom. The right wing media and political ecosystem would have pounced on any attempt by Biden to declare the end of COVID-19, leading to further backlash. This policy problem, compounded by politics, continues to shape the political landscape in the US.

The political landscape, particularly regarding COVID-19 and foreign policy, is creating significant challenges for President Joe Biden. The ongoing pandemic and its economic fallout, coupled with low approval ratings, have set the stage for potential midterm losses. Additionally, the GOP's foreign policy proposals, as exemplified by former National Security Advisor Robert O'Brien's suggestions, reveal a lack of progression from past policies and a continued focus on traditional adversaries like Russia. This stagnation and the resulting toxic political climate may further hinder Biden's ability to address pressing issues and deliver on campaign promises.

Political partisanship can lead individuals to make sudden and contradictory shifts in their positions, often for the sake of attacking their political opponents. This was evident in the discussion about the GOP's criticism of the Biden administration's handling of the crisis in Afghanistan. While the GOP criticized the media and distrusted intelligence reports during the Trump administration, they have now reversed course and are using leaks and trusting intelligence reports to criticize the Biden administration. This hypocrisy is concerning, as it shows a disregard for consistency and a willingness to put partisan interests above the well-being of American soldiers and the rest of the population. Moreover, the Theranos scandal serves as a reminder of the intersection between the tech industry and the American political and foreign policy establishment. The involvement of high-level politicians on the Theranos board highlights the potential for conflicts of interest and the influence of powerful individuals on the tech industry and its startups. In conclusion, it's important to remain critical and skeptical of political rhetoric and to be aware of the potential for partisan interests to shape public discourse and policy decisions. By staying informed and questioning the motivations of political actors, we can work towards a more transparent and accountable political system.

The Theranos scandal serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of blindly trusting charismatic founders and the role of influential figures in investing. The case involved high-profile individuals like George Schultz, Jim Mattis, Henry Kissinger, and others, who invested in the company based on its pitch to revolutionize blood testing and use the technology on the battlefield. However, the company turned out to be a fraud, and the involvement of these esteemed figures raised questions about their due diligence and judgment. The era of the cult of the founder in Silicon Valley during the 2010s left a vulnerability for individuals like Elizabeth Holmes to con billions of dollars from investors, including those with significant power and influence. The scandal also highlights the importance of scrutinizing investments carefully and not being swayed by charisma alone. The who's who of financial and political figures on Theranos' board is a reminder of the need for accountability and transparency in the investment world.

The Theranos scandal serves as a stark reminder of the dangers of wishful thinking, hubris, and lack of due diligence in both business and medicine. Elizabeth Holmes' ability to deceive investors, including high-profile figures like Henry Kissinger and George Schultz, highlights the importance of authenticity and transparency. The victims of Theranos extend beyond just financial losses, as inaccurate medical diagnoses and treatments were given to unsuspecting patients. Vivek Ramaswami's book, Woke Inc, explores similar themes of inauthenticity and the threat it poses to democracy and integrity. Ramaswami, a former biotech investor and CEO, became alarmed by the increasing number of corporate leaders making insincere proclamations and wrote a book to expose the issue. The scandal also underscores the importance of holding those in power accountable for their actions and ensuring that they prioritize the well-being of all stakeholders.

The trend towards stakeholder capitalism, where corporations prioritize the interests of various stakeholders over shareholders, is a threat to American democracy as it allows a small group of investors and CEOs to dictate societal values on important issues, rather than the democratic process. This issue is not limited to conservative audiences, but is relevant to both the left and right, as both sides should be skeptical of corporate overreach. The book argues that stakeholder capitalism is an extension of Citizens United, allowing corporations to influence public debate and policy through their resources, creating a corporatocracy instead of a democracy. The left, with its skepticism of corporate power, and the right, with its belief in the free market, are both being manipulated. The book also highlights the danger of corporations pushing the values of groups like the Communist Party of China and the arranged marriage between big business and the progressive left, which has neutralized the economic empowerment focus of the left. Stakeholder capitalism, which requires corporations to consider the needs of all stakeholders, has its roots in the societal gifts given to corporations, such as limited liability. The book explores the arguments for stakeholder capitalism and proposes solutions for addressing its negative impacts.

Stakeholder capitalism is a debate about corporations' obligations to society beyond just maximizing profits for shareholders. Stakeholder capitalists argue that corporations should not use their power, granted by limited liability, to influence spheres outside the market, including politics. Milton Friedman, an early opponent of stakeholder capitalism, missed this point. The "woke movement," which exposes invisible power structures leading to injustices, shares some similarities with stakeholder capitalism. However, the author criticizes the current marriage between corporate America and the woke philosophy, as corporations may only signal virtue without taking meaningful action. The author also questions corporations' incentives to address environmental issues, like climate change, when they have no incentives to change behavior abroad.

Corporations, due to their inherent nature, cannot be fully trusted to be stewards of virtue. While they may appear virtuous, their ultimate goal is to optimize for their own appearance of goodness rather than actual goodness. This disconnect between appearance and reality is becoming increasingly apparent, and it's important to recognize this when evaluating the actions of corporations. Vivek Ramaswamy, the author of "Woke, Inc.", made this argument during a recent interview on Breaking Points. He emphasized that even if we have a steady conception of what is good, we cannot rely on corporations to uphold that standard. Instead, we may end up solving for corporations appearing to be good stewards rather than actually being good. This is a concerning trend that has become more prevalent in recent years. If you're interested in learning more about this topic, be sure to check out Vivek's book. Additionally, if you enjoy the conversations on Breaking Points, don't forget to check out the Realignment podcast, where Sagar and I delve deeper into various topics.