#leona helmsley | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

mostlysignssomeportents · 7 months

Text

Microsoft put their tax-evasion in writing and now they owe $29 billion

I'm coming to Minneapolis! Oct 15: Presenting The Internet Con at Moon Palace Books. Oct 16: Keynoting the 26th ACM Conference On Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing.

If there's one thing I took away from Propublica's explosive IRS Files, it's that "tax avoidance" (which is legal) isn't a separate phenomenon from "tax evasion" (which is not), but rather a thinly veiled euphemism for it:

https://www.propublica.org/series/the-secret-irs-files

That realization sits behind my series of noir novels about the two-fisted forensic accountant Martin Hench, which started with last April's Red Team Blues and continues with The Bezzle, this coming February:

https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250865847/red-team-blues

A typical noir hero is an unlicensed cop, who goes places the cops can't go and asks questions the cops can't ask. The noir part comes in at the end, when the hero is forced to admit that he's being going places the cops didn't want to go and asking questions the cops didn't want to ask. Marty Hench is a noir hero, but he's not an unlicensed cop, he's an unlicensed IRS inspector, and like other noir heroes, his capers are forever resulting in his realization that the questions and places the IRS won't investigate are down to their choice not to investigate, not an inability to investigate.

The IRS Files are a testimony to this proposition: that Leona Hemsley wasn't wrong when she said, "Taxes are for the little people." Helmsley's crime wasn't believing that proposition – it was stating it aloud, repeatedly, to the press. The tax-avoidance strategies revealed in the IRS Files are obviously tax evasion, and the IRS simply let it slide, focusing their auditing firepower on working people who couldn't afford to defend themselves, looking for things like minor compliance errors committed by people receiving public benefits.

Or at least, that's how it used to be. But the Biden administration poured billions into the IRS, greenlighting 30,000 new employees whose mission would be to investigate the kinds of 0.1%ers and giant multinational corporations who'd Helmsleyed their way into tax-free fortunes. The fact that these elite monsters paid no tax was hardly a secret, and the impunity with which they functioned was a constant, corrosive force that delegitimized American society as a place where the rules only applied to everyday people and not the rich and powerful who preyed on them.

The poster-child for the IRS's new anti-impunity campaign is Microsoft, who, decades ago, "sold its IP to to an 85-person factory it owned in a small Puerto Rican city," brokered a deal with the corporate friendly Puerto Rican government to pay almost no taxes, and channeled all its profits through the tiny facility:

https://www.propublica.org/article/the-irs-decided-to-get-tough-against-microsoft-microsoft-got-tougher

That was in 2005. Now, the IRS has come after Microsoft for all the taxes it evaded through the gambit, demanding that the company pay it $29 billion. What's more, the courts are taking the IRS's side in this case, consistently ruling against Microsoft as it seeks to keep its ill-gotten billions:

https://www.propublica.org/article/irs-microsoft-audit-back-taxes-puerto-rico-billions

Now, no one expects that Microsoft is going to write a check to the IRS tomorrow. The company's made it clear that they intend to tie this up in the courts for a decade if they can, claiming, for example, that Trump's amnesty for corporate tax-cheats means the company doesn't have to give up a dime.

This gambit has worked for Microsoft before. After seven years in antitrust hell in the 1990s, the company was eventually convicted of violating the Sherman Act, America's bedrock competition law. But they kept the case in court until 2001, running out the clock until GW Bush was elected and let them go free. Bush had a very selective version of being "tough on crime."

But for all that Microsoft escaped being broken up, the seven years of depositions, investigations, subpoenas and negative publicity took a toll on the company. Bill Gates was personally humiliated when he became the star of the first viral video, as grainy VHS tapes of his disastrous and belligerent deposition spread far and wide:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/09/12/whats-a-murder/#miros-tilde-1

If you really want to know who Bill Gates is beneath that sweater-vested savior persona, check out the antitrust deposition – it's still a banger, 25 years on:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/09/revisiting-the-spectacular-failure-that-was-the-bill-gates-deposition/

In cases like these, the process is the punishment: Microsoft's dirty laundry was aired far and wide, its swaggering founder was brought low, and the company's conduct changed for years afterwards. Gates once told Kara Swisher that Microsoft missed its chance to buy Android because they were "distracted by the antitrust trial." But the Android acquisition came four years after the antitrust case ended. What Gates meant was that four years after he wriggled off the DoJ's hook, he was still so wounded and gunshy that he lacked the nerve to risk the regulatory scrutiny that such an anticompetitive merger would entail.

What's more, other companies got the message too. Large companies watched what happened to Microsoft and traded their reckless disregard for antitrust law for a timid respect. The effect eventually wore off, but the Microsoft antitrust case created a brief window where real competition was possible without the constant threat of being crushed by lawless monopolists. Sometimes you have to execute an admiral to encourage the others.

A decade in IRS hell will be even more painful for Microsoft than the antitrust years were. For one thing, the Puerto Rico scam was mainly a product of ex-CEO Steve Ballmer, a man possessed of so little executive function that it's a supreme irony that he was ever a corporate executive. Ballmer is a refreshingly plain-spoken corporate criminal who is so florid in his blatant admissions of guilt and shouted torrents of self-incriminating abuse that the exhibits in the Microsoft-IRS cases to come are sure to be viral sensations beyond even the Gates deposition's high-water mark.

It's not just Ballmer, either. In theory, corporate crime should be hard to prosecute because it's so hard to prove criminal intent. But tech executives can't help telling on themselves, and are very prone indeed to putting all their nefarious plans in writing (think of the FTC conspirators who hung out in a group-chat called "Wirefraud"):

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/03/big-tech-cant-stop-telling-on-itself/

Ballmer's colleagues at Microsoft were far from circumspect on the illegitimacy of the Puerto Rico gambit. One Microsoft executive gloated – in writing – that it was a "pure tax play." That is, it was untainted by any legitimate corporate purpose other than to create a nonsensical gambit that effectively relocated Microsoft's corporate headquarters to a tiny CD-pressing plant in the Caribbean.

But if other Microsoft execs were calling this a "pure tax play," one can only imagine what Ballmer called it. Ballmer, after all, is a serial tax-cheat, the star of multiple editions of the IRS Files. For example, there's the wheeze whereby he has turned his NBA team into a bottomless sinkhole for the taxes on his vast fortune:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/07/08/tuyul-apps/#economic-substance-doctrine

Or his "tax-loss harvesting" – a ploy whereby rich people do a "wash trade," buying and selling the same asset at the same time, not so much circumventing the IRS rules against this as violating those rules while expecting the IRS to turn a blind eye:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/24/tax-loss-harvesting/#mego

Ballmer needs all those scams. After all, he was one of the pandemic's most successful profiteers. He was one of eight billionaires who added at least a billion more to his net worth during lockdown:

https://inequality.org/great-divide/billionaire-bonanza-2020/

Like all forms of rot, corruption spreads. Microsoft turned Washington State into a corporate tax-haven and starved the state of funds, paving the way for other tax-cheats like Amazon to establish themselves in the area. But the same anti-corruption movement that revitalized the IRS has also taken root in Washington, where reformers instituted a new capital gains tax aimed at the ultra-wealthy that has funded a renaissance in infrastructure and social spending:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/06/03/when-the-tide-goes-out/#passive-income

If the IRS does manage to drag Microsoft through the courts for the next decade, it's going to do more than air the company's dirty laundry. It'll expose more of Ballmer's habitual sleaze, and the ways that Microsoft dragged a whole state into a pit of austerity. And even more importantly, it'll expose the Puertopia conspiracy, a neocolonial project that transformed Puerto Rico into an onshore-offshore tax-haven that saw the island strip-mined and then placed under corporate management:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/07/27/boricua/#que-viva-albizu

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/13/pour-encoragez-les-autres/#micros-tilde-one

My next novel is The Lost Cause, a hopeful novel of the climate emergency. Amazon won't sell the audiobook, so I made my own and I'm pre-selling it on Kickstarter!

#pluralistic #irs #puerto rico #puertopia #microsoft #micros~1 #tax avoidance #tax evasion #pure tax play #big tech can't stop telling on itself #corporate crime #rough ride #the procedure is the punishment #steve ballmer #pour encouragez les autres

889 notes · View notes

omgthatdress · 5 months

Text

Donald Trump was surprisingly human-looking in the 80s. Like if literally everything else about him weren't completely repulsive he might even be considered kind of handsome. Yes, typing that out made me physically ill.

It wasn't until he started losing his hair that his insecurities took over and he gained the freakish look we know and loathe today.

I just wanna know if someone is gonna play Leona Helmsley.

55 notes · View notes

owlpellet · 5 months

Text

a bunch of very kind people gave me a bunch of very rare items (light sprite, akirbeak, 5 digit dragon etc) when i started playing FR and i promised i would never sell/trade them away, i'm like the leona helmsley dog of dragon game

#fr tag

11 notes · View notes

1americanconservative · 11 months

Text

Wesley Snipes - 3 years in prison for tax evasion. Mike Sorrentino, Jersey Shore - 8 months in prison for tax evasion. Ja Rule - 28 months in prison for tax evasion. Darry Strawberry - 3 months in prison 3 months of house arrest for tax evasion. Fat Joe - 4 months in prison for tax evasion. Joe and Teresa Guidice - 4 years and 1 year in federal prison for tax evasion. Heidi Fleiss - 37 months in prison for tax evasion. Chuck Berry - 3 months in prison for tax evasion. Richard Hatch - 51 months in prison for tax evasion. Leona Helmsley - 4 years in prison for tax evasion. Hunter Biden - No JAIL TIME So no liberals, tax evasion crimes absolutely result jail time. Unless you are the crackhead son of the most corrupt administration in the history of this country.

15 notes · View notes

nodynasty4us · 1 year

Quote

[Clarence] Thomas’ receipt of such inappropriate largesse from a benefactor, compared with the careful conduct of so many ordinary public servants, evokes the famous line by hotel tycoon Leona Helmsley: “Only the little people pay taxes.” While librarians and teachers and FDA inspectors and lawyers turn down water bottles and bagels, Thomas says yes to all this? Are those pesky ethics and rules just for the little people, too? It’s demoralizing, fuels cynicism, and corrodes trust in public institutions

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' acceptance of expensive things and vacations is especially wild when you account for this one thing.

#clarence thomas #corruption

12 notes · View notes

mightyflamethrower · 5 months

Text

It is “Trump Will Destroy Democracy” season again. And predictably the Left has gone hysterical, after experiencing a trifecta of frightening 2024 news.

One, current polls in the primaries and in a general election for now show that Trump would win.

Meanwhile, Joe Biden’s popularity dives below 40 percent. His policies on the economy, abroad, at the border, concerning crime, and about energy poll even more feebly. Never has an American president utterly and deliberately destroyed immigration law for the sole purpose of inviting in millions of illegal aliens, to establish political constituencies supportive of agendas that otherwise have scant public support.

Two, unequivocal evidence is mounting that the Bidens are one of the most corrupt political families in American presidential history.

Hunter, the Leona Helmsley of our times, is now indicted for massive tax evasion, despite his earlier, government-aided efforts of running out the statute of limitations on the full array of his crimes.

When asked about his grifting, Biden angrily denies the undeniable. He can only become animated these days, when asked to square his denials about knowing what Hunter was up to with a multitude of facts and data to the contrary. And so in exasperation he shouts, “Lies!,” “Lies!,” and “Lies!”

There is now conclusive proof that Biden himself lied repeatedly when he swore that he knew nothing about his wayward son Hunter’s grifting business. He used several aliases to communicate directly with his son’s grifting and quid pro quo partners.

Canceled checks show the president was paid substantial sums by family members after they received money from foreign governments—for nothing other than being related to the future president. The pay-offs were hidden by “loan repayment” lies; no one expects ever to find any such evidence that there were formal loan documents or agreements between Biden and his family.

Former Hunter Biden associates, explicit messaging on his laptop, IRS whistleblowers, and bank records all explain why an opulent Joe Biden enjoyed a lifestyle impossible on either a senator’s or Vice President’s salary. While Biden toured the country sermonizing that the rich must “pay their fair share,” it is increasingly likely that he had received huge amounts from foreign governments eager to purchase him as an influencer—and never paid taxes on such occult income.

Three, Joe Biden’s cognitive decline and feebleness have reached a point where he is one fall, one bad cold, or one long brain-freeze away from incapacity.

He clearly is not running the country. How could he be, when he cannot finish a sentence without mangling the syntax, slurring the vocabulary, and confusing his listeners?

So Biden’s blank stares lengthen. His disorientation and uncertainty where to enter and exit occur hourly. And his bizarre, repulsive fixation with young girls, and his desire to call them out, hug them, breathe on their hair, or nuzzle their necks become all the more embarrassing. Had a U.S. senator engaged in such reprehensible behavior he would long ago have been censored.

Add all this news up that Biden is fading, Trump apparently is outpolling him, and suddenly the Left has rebooted the tired “Trump will destroy democracy” boilerplate.

Almost nightly now TV anchors warn of a dictatorship. Columnists predict the “end of democracy.” Essayists vie to see who can become the most absurd in predicting Trump’s planned takeover America.

There are several considerations, however, about these bankrupt and discredited Nostradamuses that the American people should note—aside from the fact the “democracy will die” mob is the same herd that assured us of Russian collusion, laptop disinformation, and the integrity of the Biden family.

First, ex-president Trump is now a known quantity.

A comparison of his four years with the first three years of Biden’s tenure is instructive.

Biden’s border is nonexistent–and by design.

Eight-million illegal aliens—unaudited, from all over the world, the vast majority without legality, diversity, English, or skill sets—have swarmed the country to the extent that even swamped leftwing blue-state governors and mayors are opposed to the Biden nihilism.

Biden stopped catch-and-release, and phony refugee statuses, and pressured Mexico to patrol their side of the border. He destroyed immigration law as we knew it.

Biden’s flight from Afghanistan was the greatest foreign policy humiliation in modern American history. It destroyed U.S. deterrence and greenlighted Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine, Hamas to craft an intricate plan of slaughtering Israeli civilians, Iran to arm to the teeth its terrorist surrogates, and China to send a spy balloon over the U.S. and serially to threaten Taiwan. The common denominator abroad was a correct appraisal that Biden’s controllers would talk tough, but always equivocate.

There was zero inflation before Biden; 30-year mortgages were less than 2 percent. Now prices for staples like gas, food, power, health care and housing have spiked well over 30 percent since Biden took office. Mortgages are hitting 7 percent and the housing market is comatose. Real wages have eroded.

It seems hard to accuse Trump of being a dangerous demagogue when his four years saw effective government action on the economy, foreign policy, energy, and crime.

Afterall, was the Trump Middle-East Policy (e.g., branding Houthis as terrorists, the Abraham Accords, moving the embassy to Jerusalem, a non-negotiable Israeli Golan Heights, cutting off aid to Hamas, junking the Iran deal, slapping sanctions on Iranian oil, eliminating Soleimani, etc.) or Biden’s antithesis (sending money to Hamas, lifting sanctions on Iran, begging to reenter the Iran Deal, freeing the Houthis from their terrorist classification, cutting back on oil production, maligning/then courting Saudi Arabia, distancing from Israel, etc.) the more beneficial to the U.S. and the Middle East at large?

Two, who exactly has weaponized the government in dictatorial fashion?

Who by fiat pandered illegally to cancel student loans before a midterm, or suddenly drained the strategic petroleum reserve to lower gas prices before an election?

What do former FBI directors, former “intelligence authorities.” and the former Directors of National Intelligence and the CIA all have in common? They lied, often under oath, and always in service of weaponizing the government for political agendas.

Who hired a foreign national Christopher Steele to concoct a silly file of lies to destroy a political rival? Why did the FBI sequester the Hunter laptop for a year? Who subcontracted out Twitter for $3 million to suppress information deemed harmful to the Biden campaign? Who squashed an IRS investigation of the Biden family?

It was not the would-be dictator Donald Trump who secretly routed money to the Wuhan virology lab, and who then manipulated government agencies to hide that fact—at the expense of the welfare of the American people.

Who called up a former CIA director to round up 51 intelligence retirees to lie to sabotage an election? Did not the current national security advisor Jake Sullivan try to concoct the Alfa Bank ping ruse to destroy the Trump campaign and administration?

When a former Pentagon lawyer and military officers called for a military coup to remove Trump, for which political agenda were they working?

Did Trump prompt the acting Attorney General and FBI Director to consider in secret wearing a wire to entrap and remove a president through the 25th Amendment?

What was “Anonymous” about—if not to destroy an administration from within through use of the deep state bureaucracy?

Who coordinated Pfizer executives to delay announcement of the vaccine rollout until after the election to ensure Trump’s Operation Warp speed received no prelection credit?

Liberal journalist Molly Ball, in her notorious Time essay, outlined what she called a “cabal” and “conspiracy” to destroy the 2020 Trump reelection campaign and indeed his presidency, through modulating Antifa/BLM protests, suppression of the news, and huge infusions of corporate money to augment or indeed absorb the work of the registrars in key states.

Who exactly cooked up the phony Letitia James suit? Or the Alvin Bragg joke of an indictment? Or the weaponized Fani Wallis vendetta? Or the partisan and asymmetrical hunt of Jack Smith? Who impeached a president twice and tried him as a private citizen, without a report of a special counsel? Who revived the ossified Logan Act to destroy General Michael Flynn?

And who is trying to strip Trump’s name off the 2024 ballot, convinced that such a Third-world dictatorial effort can alone stop dictatorship?

In contrast, the supposed “dictator” Trump appointed a special counsel, Comey pal and insider Robert Mueller, to run a witch hunt against him for 22 months.

He did not fire Anthony Fauci who worked to undermine Trump at every turn, and used government monies to fund gain-of-function, dangerous viral research in China, while spending most of the Trump administration covering that fact up, most often by serially lying.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Mark Milley despised Donald Trump to such an extent that he called his Chinese communist counterpart to advise him that he, Milley himself, would not follow a Trump order, should he deem it too dangerous, without warning the Chinese in advance. Milley faced no repercussions.

Nor did Trump fire immediately Comey when many called on him to go, given Comey’s effort to use the FBI in the 2016 election to undermine the Trump campaign and sabotage a FISA court.

Why did retired generals and admirals with impunity violate Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice by smearing their Command-in-Chief as a liar, Mussolini, Hitler-like, and deserving of early removal? Were any even reminded that they were in violation of statutes? Is it a dangerous thing for the U.S. military to attack their civilian overseers and in private to negotiate with the communist Chinese military?

Most of the Russian collusion hoax was discussed in the waning days of the Obama administration inside the Oval Office, as Obama greenlighted illegal CIA and FBI involvements.

Who cooked up the idea that Mark Zuckerberg could infuse $419 million to warp balloting in key swing states?

What did Lois Lerner do as an IRS adjudicator, as the 2012 Obama reelection loomed?

Trump may well have at times trolled the Left wildly, but the Left seriously sought to undermine the government, cancel existing laws, lie under oath, deceive a federal judge, and enlist the FBI and CIA to conspire to destroy a presidential campaign. All that seems a bit dictatorial.

Three, after nearly nine years of Trump demonization—celebrities vying publicly with each to dream up ways of killing Trump (incineration, decapitation, shooting, stabbing, dismemberment, explosives, etc), lawfare used to deny the American public the right to vote for or against Trump, a deranged media shouting pseudo-conspiracies of “collusion” and “disinformation” for years, and billionaires spending hundreds of millions of dollars to ensure Trump was never elected or reelected or even on the ballot—why have the American people still not bought into the “dictator” Trump meme?

Is because they have enough common sense to grasp that those who protest too much, do so for obvious reasons?

In sum, we have seen a 24/7 effort of leftwing presidents, deep-state bureaucrats, and the media to break the law and weaponize the government. The only rationale for such illegality has been the sick notion that the ends of destroying the supposed “dictator” Trump justified any dictatorial means necessary to achieve them.

So what else is behind the latest epidemic of DNC talking points that spin Trump as an existential threat to democracy?

The Left knows that in dictatorial fashion it has turned a federal republic into a government run wild, lawless, and in service to partisan agendas. It again talks of what Trump will supposedly do only because the Left surely would do exactly what it accuses Trump of planning to do if it were Trump.

In other words, the Left projects itself onto Trump, and understandably finds itself all too terrifying.

6 notes · View notes

andreablog2 · 2 years

Note

I feel like you could say the same thing you said about idie pop to describe like dj/dance music culture in places like nyc that’s mostly these rich and/or white people on resident advisor.

Yeah and they try so hard to be associated w a legacy of like house music, ballroom culture, Harlem renaissance etc but instead follow the legacy of like Leona Helmsley, Donald trump, Michael alig, Billy McFarland ,

11 notes · View notes

trump666traitor · 2 years

Photo

“Taxes are for the little people”

the Q ueen of Mean, Leona Helmsley

#bedminster #who killed ivana #ivana trump #i vana divorce #taxcheat #the little people

6 notes · View notes

cksmart-world · 1 month

Text

SMART BOMB

The Completely Unnecessary News Analysis

By Christopher Smart

March 26, 2024

THE PRINCESS AND THE PICTURE —OH MY

Oh gawd! Did you hear the news, Princess Kate doctored a picture of herself with her children. It's a scandal, a real royal scandal. Touching up a photo — what is the world coming to. There must be something big going on behind the scenes. Kate disappeared for a while after announcing she would undergo abdominal surgery. Soon the tabloids and the web were alive with rumors. Where is she really. Something must be going on. Then boom — on Mother's Day Buckingham Palace released a picture of the smiling princess and her cute children. See, nothing is amiss, nothing up their sleeve, no mysterious slight of hand. But wait, look, there's something wrong with that photo. Princess Charlotte's has two left hands; Prince Louis' sweater pattern spells, “Satan”; the zipper on Kate's jacket is upside down. What's going on here. Is Prince William having an affair. Is Kate having an affair. Is King Charles actually dead. Wait, hold on. Breaking News: The Royals just had a press conference. Princess Kate announced she's being treated for abdominal cancer. Is that all? Not much fodder for a good conspiracy. And, of course, now we have to feel sorry for the Royals. No fun. But stay tuned — Harry and Meghan should have something earth shattering next week. Bet on it.

CUT MEDICARE, SOCIAL SECURITY FOR A HEALTHIER AMERICA

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Republicans just can't help themselves: They just have to go after the two most popular social programs in the country, like monkeys who can't get their hands out of the cookie jar. They want to raise the age of eligibility for Social Security to 69 and turn Medicare into some kind of “Advantage” plan that would cost seniors a lot more. This, they say, will make for a healthier country. It's déjà vu all over again. Remember when the Tea Party sought to shrink government and then freaked out when George W. Bush wanted to put individual Social Security accounts in the stock market. “Don't touch my Social Security,” they shrieked. Not long after that the market crashed. Mmm, that stuff is better forgotten, just like other brilliant moves by W, like invading Iraq because... well, there weren't any good targets in Afghanistan and the “chickenhawks” wanted to blow stuff up. The same Republican Study Committee that wants to sabotage Social Security and Medicare seeks to make permanent Trump's huge tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy — totaling $5 trillion over 10 years. Social Security and Medicare will break us! And by the way, let's trim the IRS to cut audits. As Leona Helmsley said: “Only little people pay taxes.”

TRUMP LIKES MIKE LEE FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL

Hey Wilson, word has it that when he is president again Donald Trump is considering Utah's very own Mike Lee for Attorney General. And who better. Lee is a Constitutional expert — no really, he says so all the time. There is one weird thing, though. Trump has said he wants to do away with the Constitution. If that were the case then Lee would be an expert of nothing. But we digress. Lee actually does qualify for a seat in Trump's cabinet because he did his darnedest to get alternative electors for Trump's scheme to stay in the White House after he lost the election. Trump owes him one. But more important, Lee compared him to Captain Moroni, a hero in The Book of Mormon. That's pretty cool — it's like a normal statesman comparing someone to FDR or Reagan. No Wilson, we're not exactly sure why Lee compared Trump to Captain Moroni. According to Mormon gospels, Moroni "did not delight in the shedding of blood." Dead ringer for Trump — well, not exactly. “Bloodbath,” anyone? But still, ass kissing is ass kissing and Trump loves his kissed — it's a prerequisite for his A.G. If Mike Lee were the A.G. instead of Bill Barr in December, 2020, maybe Trump would be president right now and running for his third term. Of course there's that turncoat Mike Pence, but that's another matter.

Post script — That's a wrap for another lovely week here at Smart Bomb where we keep track of “legitimate political discourse” so you don't have to. That's what Ronna McDaniel called the Jan. 6 insurrection. Five Alarm Fire: She just joined NBC News as a paid commentator after being pushed out of her chairmanship role at The Republican National Committee, aka The Cult of Donald Trump, where she took an active role in trying to up-end electors in the 2020 election and then echoed Trump's lies after he lost. Staffers at NBC News are spitting mad — who let the skunk in. Meanwhile, Trump is on the campaign trail saying the Jan. 6 treasonous rioters are heroes who are held hostage by the feds. When he is elected president again, he will pardon them. It's little wonder congressional Republicans don't want to fund Ukraine for the ongoing war with Russia. They're betting that like 2016, Russia will interfere with the election, so they don't want to piss off Putin. If you'd like to escape all the political madness with a trek up Mount Everest be careful. A Welsh woman in route to base camp was gored by a yak when she got close to the beast while showing friends on FaceTime. The lesson: Don't get near beasts with sharp horns, especially if they're wearing MAGA hats.

Well Wilson, Easter is coming up and it's time to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The guys in the band probably don't know this but Easter falls on the Sunday after the full moon following March 21. So maybe you and the guys can rustle up a tune in celebration of he who preached love and understanding. We could use some now:

[Judas:] Every time I look at you, I don't understand Why you let the things you did get so out of hand You'd have managed better if you'd had it planned Why'd you choose such a backward time and such a strange land? If you'd come today, you would have reached a whole nation Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication Don't you get me wrong - I only wanna know [Choir:] Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ Who are you? What have you sacrificed? Jesus Christ, Superstar Do you think you're what they say you are? [Judas:] Tell me what you think about your friends at the top Who'd you think, besides yourself, was the pick of the crop? Buddha, was he where it's at? Is he where you are? Could Mohamed move a mountain, or was that just PR? Did you mean to die like that? Was that a mistake, or Did you know your messy death would be a record-breaker? Don't you get me wrong - I only wanna know [Choir:] Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ Who are you? What have you sacrificed? Jesus Christ, Superstar Do you think you're what they say you are? (Jesus Christ Superstar — Andrew Lloyd Webber)

0 notes

mostlysignssomeportents · 1 month

Text

The antitrust case against Apple

I'm on tour with my new, nationally bestselling novel The Bezzle! Catch me TONIGHT (Mar 22) in TORONTO, then SUNDAY (Mar 24) with LAURA POITRAS in NYC, then Anaheim, and beyond!

The foundational tenet of "the Cult of Mac" is that buying products from a $3t company makes you a member of an oppressed ethnic minority and therefore every criticism of that corporation is an ethnic slur:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/12/youre-holding-it-wrong/#if-dishwashers-were-iphones

Call it "Apple exceptionalism" – the idea that Apple, alone among the Big Tech firms, is virtuous, and therefore its conduct should be interpreted through that lens of virtue. The wellspring of this virtue is conveniently nebulous, which allows for endless goal-post shifting by members of the Cult of Mac when Apple's sins are made manifest.

Take the claim that Apple is "privacy respecting," which is attributed to Apple's business model of financing its services though cash transactions, rather than by selling it customers to advertisers. This is the (widely misunderstood) crux of the "surveillance capitalism" hypothesis: that capitalism is just fine, but once surveillance is in the mix, capitalism fails.

Apple, then, is said to be a virtuous company because its behavior is disciplined by market forces, unlike its spying rivals, whose ability to "hack our dopamine loops" immobilizes the market's invisible hand with "behavior-shaping" shackles:

http://pluralistic.net/HowToDestroySurveillanceCapitalism

Apple makes a big deal out of its privacy-respecting ethos, and not without some justification. After all, Apple went to the mattresses to fight the FBI when they tried to force Apple to introduced defects into its encryption systems:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/fbi-could-have-gotten-san-bernardino-shooters-iphone-leadership-didnt-say

And Apple gave Ios users the power to opt out of Facebook spying with a single click; 96% of its customers took them up on this offer, costing Facebook $10b (one fifth of the pricetag of the metaverse boondoggle!) in a single year (you love to see it):

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/02/facebook-makes-the-case-for-activity-tracking-to-ios-14-users-in-new-pop-ups/

Bruce Schneier has a name for this practice: "feudal security." That's when you cede control over your device to a Big Tech warlord whose "walled garden" becomes a fortress that defends you against external threats:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/06/08/leona-helmsley-was-a-pioneer/#manorialism

The keyword here is external threats. When Apple itself threatens your privacy, the fortress becomes a prison. The fact that you can't install unapproved apps on your Ios device means that when Apple decides to harm you, you have nowhere to turn. The first Apple customers to discover this were in China. When the Chinese government ordered Apple to remove all working privacy tools from its App Store, the company obliged, rather than risk losing access to its ultra-cheap manufacturing base (Tim Cook's signal accomplishment, the one that vaulted him into the CEO's seat, was figuring out how to offshore Apple manufacturing to China) and hundreds of millions of middle-class consumers:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-apple-vpn/apple-says-it-is-removing-vpn-services-from-china-app-store-idUSKBN1AE0BQ

Killing VPNs and other privacy tools was just for openers. After Apple caved to Beijing, the demands kept coming. Next, Apple willingly backdoored all its Chinese cloud services, so that the Chinese state could plunder its customers' data at will:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/technology/apple-china-censorship-data.html

This was the completely foreseeable consequence of Apple's "curated computing" model: once the company arrogated to itself the power to decide which software you could run on your own computer, it was inevitable that powerful actors – like the Chinese Communist Party – would lean on Apple to exercise that power in service to its goals.

Unsurprisingly, the Chinese state's appetite for deputizing Apple to help with its spying and oppression was not sated by backdooring iCloud and kicking VPNs out of the App Store. As recently as 2022, Apple continued to neuter its tools at the behest of the Chinese state, breaking Airdrop to make it useless for organizing protests in China:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/11/foreseeable-consequences/#airdropped

But the threat of Apple turning on its customers isn't limited to China. While the company has been unwilling to spy on its users on behalf of the US government, it's proven more than willing to compromise its worldwide users' privacy to pad its own profits. Remember when Apple let its users opt out of Facebook surveillance with one click? At the very same time, Apple was spinning up its own commercial surveillance program, spying on Ios customers, gathering the very same data as Facebook, and for the very same purpose: to target ads. When it came to its own surveillance, Apple completely ignored its customers' explicit refusal to consent to spying, spied on them anyway, and lied about it:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/14/luxury-surveillance/#liar-liar

Here's the thing: even if you believe that Apple has a "corporate personality" that makes it want to do the right thing, that desire to be virtuous is dependent on the constraints Apple faces. The fact that Apple has complete legal and technical control over the hardware it sells – the power to decide who can make software that runs on that hardware, the power to decide who can fix that hardware, the power to decide who can sell parts for that hardware – represents an irresistible temptation to enshittify Apple products.

"Constraints" are the crux of the enshittification hypothesis. The contagion that spread enshittification to every corner of our technological world isn't a newfound sadism or indifference among tech bosses. Those bosses are the same people they've always been – the difference is that today, they are unconstrained.

Having bought, merged or formed a cartel with all their rivals, they don't fear competition (Apple buys 90+ companies per year, and Google pays it an annual $26.3b bribe for default search on its operating systems and programs).

Having captured their regulators, they don't fear fines or other penalties for cheating their customers, workers or suppliers (Apple led the coalition that defeated dozens of Right to Repair bills, year after year, in the late 2010s).

Having wrapped themselves in IP law, they don't fear rivals who make alternative clients, mods, privacy tools or other "adversarial interoperability" tools that disenshittify their products (Apple uses the DMCA, trademark, and other exotic rules to block third-party software, repair, and clients).

True virtue rests not merely in resisting temptation to be wicked, but in recognizing your own weakness and avoiding temptation. As I wrote when Apple embarked on its "curated computing" path, the company would eventually – inevitably – use its power to veto its customers' choices to harm those customers:

https://memex.craphound.com/2010/04/01/why-i-wont-buy-an-ipad-and-think-you-shouldnt-either/

Which is where we're at today. Apple – uniquely among electronics companies – shreds every device that is traded in by its customers, to block third parties from harvesting working components and using them for independent repair:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/yp73jw/apple-recycling-iphones-macbooks

Apple engraves microscopic Apple logos on those parts and uses these as the basis for trademark complaints to US customs, to block the re-importation of parts that escape its shredders:

https://repair.eu/news/apple-uses-trademark-law-to-strengthen-its-monopoly-on-repair/

Apple entered into an illegal price-fixing conspiracy with Amazon to prevent used and refurbished devices from being sold in the "world's biggest marketplace":

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/10/you-had-one-job/#thats-just-the-as

Why is Apple so opposed to independent repair? Well, they say it's to keep users safe from unscrupulous or incompetent repair technicians (feudal security). But when Tim Cook speaks to his investors, he tells a different story, warning them that the company's profits are threatened by customers who choose to repair (rather than replace) their slippery, fragile glass $1,000 pocket computers (the fortress becomes a prison):

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/01/letter-from-tim-cook-to-apple-investors/

All this adds up to a growing mountain of immortal e-waste, festooned with miniature Apple logos, that our descendants will be dealing with for the next 1,000 years. In the face of this unspeakable crime, Apple engaged in a string of dishonest maneuvers, claiming that it would support independent repair. In 2022, Apple announced a home repair program that turned out to be a laughably absurd con:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/05/22/apples-cement-overshoes/

Then in 2023, Apple announced a fresh "pro-repair" initiative that, once again, actually blocked repair:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/22/vin-locking/#thought-differently

Let's pause here a moment and remember that Apple once stood for independent repair, and celebrated the independent repair technicians that kept its customers' beloved Macs running:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/10/29/norwegian-potato-flour-enchiladas/#r2r

Whatever virtue lurks in Apple's corporate personhood, it is no match for the temptation that comes from running a locked-down platform designed to capture IP rights so that it can prevent normal competitive activities, like fixing phones, processing payments, or offering apps.

When Apple rolled out the App Store, Steve Jobs promised that it would save journalism and other forms of "content creation" by finally giving users a way to pay rightsholders. A decade later, that promise has been shattered by the app tax – a 30% rake on every in-app transaction that can't be avoided because Apple will kick your app out of the App Store if you even mention that your customers can pay you via the web in order to avoid giving a third of their content dollars to a hardware manufacturer that contributed nothing to the production of that material:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/06/save-news-we-must-open-app-stores

Among the apps that Apple also refuses to allow on Ios is third-party browsers. Every Iphone browser is just a reskinned version of Apple's Safari, running on the same antiquated, insecure Webkit browser engine. The fact that Webkit is incomplete and outdated is a feature, not a bug, because it lets Apple block web apps – apps delivered via browsers, rather than app stores:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/12/13/kitbashed/#app-store-tax

Last month, the EU took aim at Apple's veto over its users' and software vendors' ability to transact with one another. The newly in-effect Digital Markets Act requires Apple to open up both third-party payment processing and third-party app stores. Apple's response to this is the very definition of malicious compliance, a snake's nest of junk-fees, onerous terms of service, and petty punitive measures that all add up to a great, big "Go fuck yourself":

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/06/spoil-the-bunch/#dma

But Apple's bullying, privacy invasion, price-gouging and environmental crimes are global, and the EU isn't the only government seeking to end them. They're in the firing line in Japan:

https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Technology/Japan-to-crack-down-on-Apple-and-Google-app-store-monopolies

And in the UK:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-wins-appeal-in-apple-case

And now, famously, the US Department of Justice is coming for Apple, with a bold antitrust complaint that strikes at the heart of Apple exceptionalism, the idea that monopoly is safer for users than technological self-determination:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline

There's passages in the complaint that read like I wrote them:

Apple wraps itself in a cloak of privacy, security, and consumer preferences to justify its anticompetitive conduct. Indeed, it spends billions on marketing and branding to promote the self-serving premise that only Apple can safeguard consumers’ privacy and security interests. Apple selectively compromises privacy and security interests when doing so is in Apple’s own financial interest—such as degrading the security of text messages, offering governments and certain companies the chance to access more private and secure versions of app stores, or accepting billions of dollars each year for choosing Google as its default search engine when more private options are available. In the end, Apple deploys privacy and security justifications as an elastic shield that can stretch or contract to serve Apple’s financial and business interests.

After all, Apple punishes its customers for communicating with Android users by forcing them to do so without any encryption. When Beeper Mini rolled out an Imessage-compatible Android app that fixed this, giving Iphone owners the privacy Apple says they deserve but denies to them, Apple destroyed Beeper Mini:

https://blog.beeper.com/p/beeper-moving-forward

Tim Cook is on record about this: if you want to securely communicate with an Android user, you must "buy them an Iphone":

https://www.theverge.com/2022/9/7/23342243/tim-cook-apple-rcs-imessage-android-iphone-compatibility

If your friend, family member or customer declines to change mobile operating systems, Tim Cook insists that you must communicate without any privacy or security.

Even where Apple tries for security, it sometimes fails ("security is a process, not a product" -B. Schneier). To be secure in a benevolent dictatorship, it must also be an infallible dictatorship. Apple's far from infallible: Eight generations of Iphones have unpatchable hardware defects:

https://checkm8.info/

And Apple's latest custom chips have secret-leaking, unpatchable vulnerabilities:

https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/03/hackers-can-extract-secret-encryption-keys-from-apples-mac-chips/

Apple's far from infallible – but they're also far from benevolent. Despite Apple's claims, its hardware, operating system and apps are riddled with deliberate privacy defects, introduce to protect Apple's shareholders at the expense of its customers:

https://proton.me/blog/iphone-privacy

Now, antitrust suits are notoriously hard to make, especially after 40 years of bad-precedent-setting, monopoly-friendly antitrust malpractice. Much of the time, these suits fail because they can't prove that tech bosses intentionally built their monopolies. However, tech is a written culture, one that leaves abundant, indelible records of corporate deliberations. What's more, tech bosses are notoriously prone to bragging about their nefarious intentions, committing them to writing:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/03/big-tech-cant-stop-telling-on-itself/

Apple is no exception – there's an abundance of written records that establish that Apple deliberately, illegally set out to create and maintain a monopoly:

https://www.wired.com/story/4-internal-apple-emails-helped-doj-build-antitrust-case/

Apple claims that its monopoly is beneficent, used to protect its users, making its products more "elegant" and safe. But when Apple's interests conflict with its customers' safety and privacy – and pocketbooks – Apple always puts itself first, just like every other corporation. In other words: Apple is unexceptional.

The Cult of Mac denies this. They say that no one wants to use a third-party app store, no one wants third-party payments, no one wants third-party repair. This is obviously wrong and trivially disproved: if no Apple customer wanted these things, Apple wouldn't have to go to enormous lengths to prevent them. The only phones that an independent Iphone repair shop fixes are Iphones: which means Iphone owners want independent repair.

The rejoinder from the Cult of Mac is that those Iphone owners shouldn't own Iphones: if they wanted to exercise property rights over their phones, they shouldn't have bought a phone from Apple. This is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy for distraction-rectangles, and moreover, it's impossible to square with Tim Cook's insistence that if you want private communications, you must buy an Iphone.

Apple is unexceptional. It's just another Big Tech monopolist. Rounded corners don't preserve virtue any better than square ones. Any company that is freed from constraints – of competition, regulation and interoperability – will always enshittify. Apple – being unexceptional – is no exception.

Name your price for 18 of my DRM-free ebooks and support the Electronic Frontier Foundation with the Humble Cory Doctorow Bundle.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/03/22/reality-distortion-field/#three-trillion-here-three-trillion-there-pretty-soon-youre-talking-real-money

232 notes · View notes

carolinemillerbooks · 5 months

Text

New Post has been published on Books by Caroline Miller

New Post has been published on https://www.booksbycarolinemiller.com/musings/there-is-no-other/

There Is No Other

The mother sitting across from me at the lunch table sighed when I asked about her daughter. “She’s thinking about moving to Pennsylvania. Since she works from home, she can live anywhere. Rural Pennsylvania seems to be the one place where houses are affordable. “ The dilemma is common. Several of my friends with well-educated children between the ages of 20-35 continue to provide shelter for their offspring. The American dream is a hard slog for younger generations, I’m sorry to say. Nor am I happy about the state of the planet they are inheriting. If we older Americans had anticipated climate change, we might have purchased fewer gas-guzzling cars. Or, maybe not. Our species has a penchant for choosing present gratification over making plans for the future. Even so, some of us might have girded our loins to fight climate change sooner. What I ponder at present is whether the older generation is cheating those who have followed. If so, society might rightly adopt the Inuit practice of leaving the frail elderly to die on ice floats. Fortunately, Michael Hiltzik, writing for the L.A. Times doesn’t think old folks are to blame for the state of the economy. Social Security and Medicare aren’t the oft-cited reasons the young have fewer possibilities. Most seniors, he reminds us, paid for their Social Security benefits during their productive years. Only the working poor receive more from the agency than their lifetime contributions. Even so, few wish to punish people who struggled all their lives on slave wages. And, as a benefit to all, we should remember that for decades the U. S. government has borrowed from the insurance fund to satisfy other debts. The elderly do receive government assistance to pay for prescription drugs. The tab would be less if Congress allowed Medicare to negotiate with Big Pharma. Hiltzik points to Joe Biden’s success in reducing the cost of diabetes medication once Congress granted him a waiver. Any perceived schism between youth and age is a false one, the author proclaims. America has more than enough resources to meet all the social needs of all generations. A shortfall exists because of the tax cuts enacted by Republicans for the benefit of corporations and the wealthy. To support his claim, people remark that in the Dwight D. Eisenhower years, taxes on the rich could reach 91% of income. However, they forget much of this money was never collected. Scott Greenberg of the Tax Foundation writes that tax laws have long enabled tax avoidance. …the existence of the 91 percent bracket did not necessarily lead to significantly higher revenue collections from the top 1 percent. As proof, who over the age of 50 has forgotten businesswoman Leona Helmsley’s words? Only the little people pay taxes. Or, Donald Trump’s brag that he was too smart to pay taxes? Whether Hiltzik’s point about our economics is right or wrong, few deny the super-rich exercise an undue influence over the government. Elon Musk’s money allows him to imagine he can engage in discussions with Vladimir Putin over the conduct of the Ukraine war. In 1953 multimillionaire Lewis Stauss fed Robert Oppenheimer to the lions when the scientist opposed the construction of the hydrogen bomb. (“The Fallout of J. Robert Oppenheimer’s Story Lingers, an interview with Kai Bird, Concerned Scientist, Volume 23, Fall, 2023, pg. 13.) Dr. Anthony Fauci’s treatment at the hands of Donald Trump is a recent victim of the same abuse. Even so, money doesn’t buy happiness. One Indian philosopher warns most often money buys burnout. (“Groovy.” By Mickey Rapkin, Town&Country, Dec. 2023-Jan 2024, pg. 141.) Another warns, When you have exhausted everything outside the only way to go is in. (Ibid, pg. 140) Those who take that path of introspection enter a tulgy wood of doubt and shadows. If they finish the journey they may come to realize life has nothing to do with acquisitions. Life is about mergers. When we see an individual not as a competitor but as an extension of ourselves, the way a wave is an extension of the ocean, we stumble upon a moment when a glimpse of universal harmony is possible.

0 notes

influencermagazineuk · 10 months

Text

Unveiling the Notorious: Exploring the Lives of History's Most Famous Women Criminals

Throughout history, there have been numerous notorious criminals who have captured the public's fascination. Among them, certain women have stood out for their audacity, cunning, and criminal exploits. In this article, we delve into the lives of some of the most famous women criminals, shedding light on their backgrounds, motivations, and the impact they left on society. Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow: Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow, infamous for their violent crime spree during the Great Depression, gained widespread notoriety as one of America's most notorious criminal couples. Their daring robberies and ruthless acts made them legendary figures, immortalized in folklore and popular culture. Griselda Blanco: Known as the "Godmother of Cocaine," Griselda Blanco was a prominent figure in the Medellín Cartel, one of the most powerful drug trafficking organizations in history. Her ruthless methods and involvement in the drug trade made her a feared and legendary figure in the criminal underworld. Mary Ann Cotton: Mary Ann Cotton, a British serial killer from the Victorian era, gained notoriety for poisoning her victims, including her husbands and children. Her heinous crimes shocked society, and she was eventually convicted and executed, leaving behind a chilling legacy of female criminality. Mata Hari: Mata Hari, a Dutch exotic dancer and courtesan, became a spy during World War I. Her captivating allure and espionage activities made her a captivating figure, until she was ultimately caught, accused of being a double agent, and executed. Aileen Wuornos: Aileen Wuornos, dubbed the "Monster," was a notorious American serial killer who targeted and killed several men. Her troubled past and the circumstances surrounding her crimes brought attention to the complexities of her life and the factors that led her down a path of violence. The Black Widow Killers: The term "Black Widow" is often associated with women who murder their partners for personal gain. Notable examples include Catherine Nevin, who orchestrated her husband's murder for inheritance, and Belle Gunness, who lured numerous suitors to her farm with the intention of robbing and killing them. Nannie Doss: Nannie Doss, also known as the "Giggling Granny," was an American serial killer who poisoned multiple family members, including her husbands, children, and even her mother. Her seemingly innocent demeanor and the extent of her crimes shocked the nation. Phoolan Devi: Phoolan Devi, known as the "Bandit Queen," was an Indian dacoit (bandit) who sought revenge against upper-caste men after enduring years of abuse and oppression. Her acts of violence against her oppressors and subsequent political career made her a controversial and intriguing figure. Leona Helmsley: Leona Helmsley, dubbed the "Queen of Mean," was a wealthy New York City hotelier who gained notoriety for her tyrannical management style and tax evasion. Her extravagant lifestyle and disregard for the law earned her a place in the annals of white-collar crime. These women criminals have left an indelible mark on history, captivating the public with their audacious acts and complex motives. From serial killers to drug lords and notorious outlaws, their stories continue to intrigue and horrify. While their criminal deeds cannot be condoned, their notoriety serves as a reminder of the dark side of human nature and the complexities of criminal behavior. Read the full article

0 notes

waltwould · 1 year

Link

Read the Story & Subscribe For Daily Updates at TODAYINCTHISTORY.com

#20thcentury #connecticuthistory #connecticutwomen #crime #crimeandpunishment #danbury #greenwich #leonahelmsley #may

0 notes

mightyflamethrower · 5 months

Text

It is “Trump Will Destroy Democracy” season again. And predictably the Left has gone hysterical, after experiencing a trifecta of frightening 2024 news.

One, current polls in the primaries and in a general election for now show that Trump would win.

Two, unequivocal evidence is mounting that the Bidens are one of the most corrupt political families in American presidential history.

Three, Joe Biden’s cognitive decline and feebleness have reached a point where he is one fall, one bad cold, or one long brain-freeze away from incapacity.

He clearly is not running the country. How could he be, when he cannot finish a sentence without mangling the syntax, slurring the vocabulary, and confusing his listeners?

Add all this news up that Biden is fading, Trump apparently is outpolling him, and suddenly the Left has rebooted the tired “Trump will destroy democracy” boilerplate.

First, ex-president Trump is now a known quantity. A comparison of his four years with the first three years of Biden’s tenure is instructive.