Why Are “Hottest Year” Ever Headlines Spiking Right Before A Polar Vortex?
This week, legacy media outlets such as Politico, BBC, Reuters, and The Hill, among others, all of a sudden pumped out ‘climate-doomsday’ headlines, fearmongering their readers in the middle of the Northern Hemisphere winter about how 2023 was the hottest year on record.
The surge in “hottest year” on record headlines was seen immediately after the EU’s Copernicus Climate Change Service released a report detailing how 2023’s average temperature was 2.66 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the average temperature between 1850 and 1900. Of course, these media outlets blamed fossil fuel-induced climate change, while some left out the warming effects of El Nino.
What’s intriguing is the timing of the Copernicus report and eruption of climate doom headlines right before weather models show a polar vortex split is about to send parts of the Lower 48 into a deep chill.
Cold weather is an inconvenient truth for the climate-change industrial complex, with their talking heads Al Gore and Greta spewing climate propaganda.
Next-level extreme cold is headed for the U.S. 🎚️ 🥶
This map highlights all of the states where the temperature will dip *below 0˚F* (🟣) at some point in the next 10 days.
The 1st round of frigid air will arrive in the Rockies, Plains & Midwest this weekend into next week… pic.twitter.com/defQT8robf
Whether corporate media deliberately blasted “hottest year” headlines right before the polar vortex remains to be seen. But considering these media outlets wage an info war on ordinary folks, nothing surprises us.
U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin was recently diagnosed and is being treated for prostate cancer. He is one of the nearly 290,000 American men who will be diagnosed with the condition this year.
Nearly all types of cancer have become less deadly over the last 30 years, with one notable exception: advanced-stage prostate cancer, according to a recent report from the American Cancer Society (ACS).
“We have had more men diagnosed with more advanced prostate cancer over the last decade,” Dr. Sam S. Chang, the Chief Surgical Officer at the Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center, told The Epoch Times in an email. “The good news, many men with prostate cancer can be monitored safely and never require treatment.”
Survival Rates Are High, But Concerns Grow Over Advanced Cases
One in eight men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer—the second leading cause of cancer death among men in the U.S. after lung cancer—in their lifetime, according to ACS.
While concerning, the vast majority do not die from it. In fact, this type of cancer has one of the highest survival rates. The 5-year relative survival rate, which refers to the percentage of people with a prostate cancer who will still be alive five years after diagnosis, compared to people without that cancer, is over 90 percent.
However, advanced prostate cancer rates, after declining for decades, are rising again.
The Debate Around PSA Screenings for Prostate Cancer
Overall prostate cancer rates grew 3 percent annually between 2014-2019, per the ACS report. Meanwhile, advanced cases have increased 4-5 percent yearly since 2011, likely due to decreased screenings, according to Dr. Chan.
“The American Urology Association (AUA) guidelines recommend screening people for prostate cancer through bloodwork, which is obtained with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test,” Dr. Adnan Dervishi, a urologist with Ascension Saint Thomas Hospital specializing in urologic cancers, told The Epoch Times. Elevated PSA levels can be an indicator of potential prostate cancer. A “biopsy is needed to look at specimens under a microscope to get an accurate diagnosis,” he added.
In the past, PSA screenings posed health risks, yielding false positives or prompting unnecessary, potentially harmful procedures. This is why, in 2008 the U.S. Preventive Service Task Force advised against routine PSA testing for men 70 years and older.
False positives are when the test indicates high PSA levels, but there is no prostate cancer. Because some men with prostate cancer live for decades without any problems, there are concerns about over treatment. Cancer treatments, like surgery or radiation, may result in other health issues, including loss of bladder and bowel control, and erectile dysfunction.
“My standard practice is to recommend getting an MRI prior to proceeding with a biopsy,” Dr. Dervishi said. “It is more comprehensive.” A 2017 study in The Lancet suggests that 27 percent of men at low risk who get a prostate MRI may be able to avoid a biopsy.
Still, screenings can prevent advanced disease and death, which is why the AUA recommends them for men ages 55-69 on a case-by-case basis.
Researchers attribute rising advanced cancer rates to multiple factors, including improved diagnostic tools, more screenings, an expanding and aging population.
Risk of Developing Prostate Cancer
The risk factors for developing prostate cancer vary based on a man’s age and ethnicity. For example, men with obesity, older men, and African American men, as well as Caribbean men of African ancestry, are more prone to prostate cancer. Men of this ethnic background have a 70 percent higher likelihood of developing prostate cancer compared to white men.
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends that patients in this higher risk ethnic group or anyone with a family history of prostate cancer receive bloodwork testing beginning at age 40.
The risk of prostate cancer starts to increase significantly after the age of 55 and reaches its highest point between the ages of 70 and 74. Prostate cancer is still rare in men under 40. The average age for a first diagnosis is about 67.
With patients who are categorized as low-risk prostate cancer, doctors use a wait and see approach called “active surveillance.” It delays treatment until there are indications that the cancer has progressed.
What to Know About Prostate Health
The prostate, a small walnut-sized gland in the male reproductive system situated below the bladder, surrounds the urethra—the tube carrying urine from the bladder. With age, the prostate may enlarge, exerting pressure on the urethra and causing a slower urine flow. This “benign enlargement of the prostate is very common and results in urinary symptoms such as hesitance, frequency, nocturia (waking up at night to void) and urgency to void,” Dr. Chan said.
The most prevalent form of prostate cancer is adenocarcinoma, where cells in the gland lining grow uncontrollably, Dr. Chan added. Prostate cancer often goes unnoticed in its early stages, lacking symptoms. Currently, an estimated 2.9 million men are living with prostate cancer.
At later stages, prostate cancer can obstruct the kidneys and the bladder. Advanced prostate cancer spreads to the bone which can be very painful and even cause bone fractures, Dr. Chan noted.
When symptoms are serious, surgery is recommended to remove the section of prostate tissue causing the most harm. However, he stresses that while “many men live without sequala (complications that exist from a pre-existing illness) it is important to remember that there is no cure for prostate cancer once it has become metastatic and spread to the bones.”
While there are no clinically proven dietary methods to reduce prostate cancer risk, men from Asian countries exhibit lower incidences compared to their Western counterparts—attributed to genetic and dietary differences, according to some research.
Natural Ways to Keep the Prostate Healthy
Some scientific evidence has shown several natural methods for maintaining prostate health, promoting overall well-being, and preventing potential complications.
Eat a nutritious diet
Eating nutritious foods with healthy fats, antioxidants, and good quality proteins is beneficial for one’s overall health. In a 2009 study, scientists found that consuming a diet high in omega-3 fatty acids (found in salmon, nuts and plant-based oils) was associated with a decreased risk of aggressive prostate cancer.
Additionally, studies indicate that regular consumption of lycopene, an antioxidant found in tomato and watermelon, can contribute to lowering the risk of prostate cancer.
Maintain vitamin D levels
Some studies have shown that vitamin D may be effective with more aggressive forms of prostate cancer.
Vitamin D plays a role in regulating cell growth and preventing the formation of abnormal cells. Adequate levels of vitamin D may help control the growth of prostate cells, reducing the risk of cancer.
Exercise regularly
A sedentary lifestyle, such as prolonged periods spent working at a computer, can be detrimental and may contribute to inflammation in the prostate. To counteract this, incorporating regular exercise is essential to mitigate the negative effects of extended sitting.
Billionaire Chen Tianqiao, founder, chairman and CEO of Shanda Group, owns around 200,000 acres of land in Oregon, according to Land Report. His involvement with the CCP ranges from membership to executive roles in CCP-linked organizations, the DCNFreports following a review of Chinese-language media reports.
In 2015, Chen acquired 198,000 acres in Oregon,according to Land Report. The $85 million purchase made the Chinese national the 82nd-largest property owner in the U.S. and the second-largest foreign U.S. land owner, Bloomberg reported, second only to a Canadian family who owns over 1 million acres of Maine.
Oregon’s Bull Springs Skyline Forest accounts for approximately 33,000 of Chen’s acreage, according to Land Report. The forest is located west of Bend, Oregon, and is home to springs, creeks, timberland and wildlife, according to the Bull Springs Skyline Forest website.
Oregon Republican Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer said she was “deeply concerned that individuals tied to the Chinese Communist Party are buying up timberland, which is one of our most precious and finite resources.” -Daily Caller
“Foreign ownership of United States lands is a serious problem that has rightfully sparked unease among farmers, ranchers and foresters across the country,” said Chavez-DeRemer.
In addition to the farmland, Chen also owns various urban properties throughout America, including the Vanderbilt mansion in Manhattan and the Seely Mudd Estate near Los Angeles. He also owns a 150,000 sqft. research facility at Caltech – the Tianqiao and Chrissy Chen Institute for Neuroscience.
“One of the Chinese Communist Party’s goals is to undermine and weaken America,” Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) told the Caller. “This includes instances where our greatest adversary continues to buy land — whether its farmland or near our installations.”
According to a translation of a 2005 press release from Chen’s alma mater, Fudan University in Shanghai, “In 1990, Chen enrolled in Fudan University to major in economics, the following year he joined the Chinese Communist Party, and, in 1993, he won the title of ‘Shanghai Municipal Outstanding Model Cadre Student.”
According to a 2007 article from Communist Youth Daily, Chen was 18-years-old when he joined the CCP, and has since been identified repeatedly as a CCP member by various Chinese media outlets.
A 2016 Sohu.com article identified Chen and several other Chinese CEOs as CCP members. Likewise, Chen’s profile on the Chinese financial portal Sina, which was last updated in November 2023, identifies him as a CCP member.
The state-run Beijing Review describes Chen as an admirer of Mao Zedong, first chairman of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Several Chinese-language outlets have also reported that Chen’s corporate office prominently displays Mao’s written works.
Chen even has a favorite Mao Zedong quote, according to state-run media outlet China News Service: “Strategically we should despise all our enemies, but tactically we should take them all seriously.”
Mao delivered the remarks in a speech denouncing American imperialism during a visit to Moscow in November 1957, according to the University of Dayton Review. -Daily Caller
“The increase in PRC-affiliated U.S. land purchases in recent years is a growing cause for concern,” a House Select Committee on the CCP aide told the DCNF. “We can start with adding a presumption of denial for entities affiliated with the PRC when it comes to land acquisitions near national security sites such as military bases that the CCP could use for intelligence collection or worse.”
Ecuador is experiencing a wave of violence over the past year that has finally reached a boiling point.
In the past few days, leaders of Ecuadorian cartels were broken out of prison, and violence quickly followed. Most recently, gunmen stormed a news station during a live broadcast and took hostages.
🇪🇨 | URGENTE: Delincuentes irrumpieron en TC Televisión y secuestran a todos en vivo y directo en Guayaquil, Ecuador. pic.twitter.com/ob1yleusOc
In response to this takeover and the high levels of violence, Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa declared a state of emergency, designated the cartels as terrorist organizations, and called in the military.
But the military isn’t alone in their fight. Citizens of Ecuador have taken up arms to fight with the army against the gangs. Videos on X show citizens riding with the police and military on motorcycles and in the back of pickup trucks prepared to combat the rising narcoterrorism.
More proof that an armed citizenry is necessary to the security of a free state ⤵️ https://t.co/GjfYWfoa0S
While Ecuador recently loosened restrictions on civilians carrying firearms, it has done very little to make it easier for them to own. Citizens must submit to a lengthy permitting process that includes a certificate of skill in handling and using firearms, along with a drug test and psychological evaluation. To make matters worse, according to those familiar with the process, the issuance of a gun license could take anywhere from a few months to a year.
Even after all that, civilians are limited to very specific types of pistols, revolvers, and shotguns.
Meanwhile, videos out of Ecuador appear to show the use of a rocket launcher.
These scenes of violence perpetrated by drug gangs are so foreign to the United States because even if the US military did nothing, law-abiding, gun-toting Americans could immediately mobilize to stop the threat.
Ecuador recently loosened its gun laws to help civilians protect themselves. Now armed citizens are reportedly fighting alongside law enforcement AGAINST crime and tyranny.
This is why our Second Amendment rights are worth protecting and fighting for.👏 https://t.co/RhL3NY2mmb
The shroud is coming off elite academia and America is not pleased with what it’s seeing. Its leaders have told us that genocidal antisemitism is too complex to recognize and that plagiarism is a problem for students, perhaps for junior faculty, but not for the president of Harvard. DEI policies elevated demographic considerations far above merit at our most prestigious institutions.
How did this happen? What can be done to fix it?
Those are tough questions. Major institutions don’t become corrupt overnight. The process is long, slow, and methodical. The solutions go far beyond the removal of a few high-profile officials. In academia, the egregious examples that gain sudden visibility are merely manifestations of a corrupt core.
That corrupt core stems from the inherent difficulty of assessing the quality of knowledge work. Suppose that there are multiple competing theories to explain some phenomenon—freakish weather, persistent crime, disparate outcomes, reactions to a vaccine, the variance of election results from poll predictions, etc. How can anyone know which theory to believe?
Most people turn to one of two heuristics. The first is personal, and few people like to admit it openly: They accept whichever theory comes closest to what they’d like to believe. The second is societal, and most people who advocate it do so with pride: They ask the experts.
Academic institutions—built by experts and for experts—have enshrined this second approach, using mechanisms that sound unassailable, like “peer review” and “faculty governance.” Success in academia flows to those who most impress the key decision-makers. Many students encountered this phenomenon in classes known for handing the highest grades to those best adept at parroting the professor’s views.
What few students appreciate is how powerful that approach remains throughout the academic hierarchy. Graduate students seeking faculty positions maximize their chances by embracing and building upon the work of their faculty interviewers. Assistant professors are most likely to gain tenure and promotion if they anchor their work to that of their senior colleagues. Authors seeking publication in prestigious journals cite the previous publications of the editors and reviewers. The same is true for those seeking research grants.
In other words, the safest, surest, most common path to success in academia involves telling those already designated experts precisely what they most want to hear: That their own work had been so groundbreaking that the most interesting and exciting path forward is to build upon it.
Suppose you’re part of the senior faculty of a department committed to the phlogiston theory (i.e., debunked 18th c. chemistry). Two candidates compete for a junior slot. The first presents a marginal tweak on phlogiston citing your own work and that of several colleagues. The second presents groundbreaking proof that phlogiston is wrong.
Who gets the job? The candidate whose work flatters you and your colleague? Or the candidate who’s shown that you’ve dedicated your career to nonsense? Now ask the question about climate change instead of phlogiston. Then ask it about DEI. The answer is always the same. Experts who’ve staked their careers and prestige on the validity of a theory will always hire, promote, and reward those who burnish that theory.
The net result is a reinforcement of orthodox thinking and a field committed to moving further along whatever path it was already taking. I’ve termed this phenomenon “incremental outrageousness.” It defines the basic incentive structure of academia—and of our entire credentialed class.
Decades ago, when WASP men (to use the acronym of the time) held almost all positions of influence, it was hard to argue with the proposition that casting a far broader net might yield superior candidates. Once our institutions had committed to moving in that direction, however, autopilot took over. The edict was clear: Whatever you may have done vis-à-vis hiring and promotion last year, increase the consideration given to minority candidates.
That instruction did two things: It entrenched a bureaucracy charged with moving incrementally forward in the same direction and it guaranteed that we could never reach an appropriate balance. It thus elevates an idiosyncratic view of cosmic justice over the challenge of placing the best qualified people in jobs. That’s incremental outrageousness in action. It’s a necessary consequence of a system whose sole determinant of quality is the collective opinion of those who’ve already navigated that system most successfully.
America is chafing beneath the leadership of an expert class motivated to elevate the experts who flatter the egos of the expert class. That’s hardly a prescription for good governance. It does, however, explain fully what Americans are learning about our most prestigious academic institutions: The only way to make sense of their performance is to understand that their sole motivation is the promotion of their own grandeur.
Removing a few poorly chosen, underperforming college Presidents is a start. Dismantling a bureaucracy that is committed to engaging in current discrimination to remedy past discrimination would help also. But the only way to truly fix the problem is to alter the incentives.
We need to broaden the base of decision-makers: Bring back those who’ve been cast to the periphery of their fields for challenging the orthodoxy. Include those too productive to worry about credentials. Embrace those who’ve retained their common sense rather than chasing the next incremental outrage. Meritocracy can never be better than those who define merit. Never confuse the finest contributions to orthodox thinking with the finest contributions to society—or science.
Unless we do that, today’s elite consensus will always point academics in a direction that, given time, leads to some form of groupthink that is just as damaging—and just as divorced from reality—as that we find in our institutions today.
President Biden’s efforts to stop Iran-backed Houti attacks on commercial shipping routes in the Red Sea continue to face significant challenges. The boss of shipping giant AP Møller-Maersk disclosed to the Financial Times in an interview that reopening the critical waterway could take months instead of weeks.
Vincent Clerc, Maersk’s chief executive, said the weekly drone and missile attacks on container ships have been “brutal and dramatic.” He said vessels have been rerouted to the Cape of Good Hope as this 1- 2 week detour adds higher shipping costs because of reduced container capacity and increased fuel usage.
“It’s unclear to us if we are talking about re-establishing safe passage into the Red Sea in a matter of days, weeks or months . . . It could potentially have quite significant consequences on global growth,” he said.
As of Thursday morning, AIS vessel tracking data via Bloomberg shows two container ships in the highly contested Red Sea waters, with destinations for Europe and North America. Most of these vessels have been rerouted to the Cape of Good Hope.
Last week, Maersk said it would divert ships from the Red Sea around Africa “for the foreseeable future.” The shipper has failed to restart operations in the critical waterway that links Europe and Asia after its vessels were attacked last month.
Clerc said Cape of Good Hope adds about 8,000 miles in distance for an Asia-Europe route on a round trip basis. He said the extra distance has made Maersk’s fuel bill 50% higher. He warned that if the Red Sea route is not restored soon, it could threaten “logistics and global supply chains.”
“We are urging the international community to mobilize and do what it needs to do to reopen the [Bab-el-Mandeb] strait. It is one of the main arteries of the global economy, and it is clogged right now,” he said.
He added: “It could have wider-ranging consequences not only for the industry but for end consumers, product availability, and the global economy as a whole.”
Maersk’s inability to restart the Red Sea route directly reflects Biden’s faltering Operation Prosperity Guardian mission to safeguard commercial vessels in the region with US warships.
When faced with the possible return of President Donald Trump, the current agenda of the Democratic Party is summed up simply as “We had to destroy democracy to save it.”
The effort shares a common theme: any means necessary are justified to prevent the people from choosing their own president, given the fear that a majority might vote to elect Donald Trump.
Sometimes the anti-democratic paranoia has been outsourced to state and local officials and prosecutors to erase Trump from the primary and likely general election ballots as well.
One unelected official in Maine, Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, is a Democrat, an official never elected by the people, and a non-lawyer rendering a legal edict. Yet she has judged Trump guilty of “insurrection.”
And presto, she erased his name from the state’s ballot.
Yet Trump was never charged, much less convicted, of “insurrection.”
The statute Bellows cites is a post-Civil War clause of the 14th Amendment. It was passed over a century and a half ago. It was never intended to be used in an election year by an opposition party to disbar a rival presidential candidate.
In the earlier case of Colorado, the all-Democrat Supreme Court, in a 4-3 vote, took Trump off the ballot.
In sum, just five officials in two states have taken away the rights of some 7 million Americans to vote for the president of their choice.
Note that Trump continues to lead incumbent Joe Biden in the polls.
Sometimes, indictments are preferred to prevent Americans from voting for or against Trump.
Currently, four leftist prosecutors—three state and one federal—have indicted Trump.
They are petitioning courts to accelerate the usually lethargic legal process to ensure Trump is tied up in Atlanta, Miami, New York, and Washington, D.C., courtrooms nonstop during the 2024 election cycle.
Their aim is to keep Trump from campaigning, as he faces four left-wing prosecutors, four liberal judges, and four or five overwhelmingly Democratic jury pools.
Yet all the indictments are increasingly clouded in controversy, if not outright scandal.
Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis campaigned on promises to get Trump. She now faces allegations that she outsourced the prosecution to an unqualified personal injury lawyer—her current stealth boyfriend who was paid handsomely by Willis’s office and traveled on pricey junkets with her.
New York partisan attorney general Letitia James likewise sought office on promises to destroy Trump.
She preposterously claims Trump overvalued his real estate collateral to a bank. Yet it eagerly made the loan, profited from it, and had no complaints given that Trump paid off the principle and interest as required.
Manhattan prosecutor Alvin Bragg is even more desperate. He is now prosecuting Trump for campaign finance violations from nearly a decade ago, claiming a nondisclosure agreement with a purported sexual liaison somehow counts as a campaign violation.
Federal special prosecutor Jack Smith claims Trump should be convicted of improperly removing classified documents after leaving office. In the past, such disagreements over presidential papers were resolved bureaucratically.
Joe Biden, for example, improperly took out classified files after leaving the Senate and vice presidency and stored them in unsecure locations for over a decade.
All of these prosecutors are unapologetic anti-Trump progressives.
Some have communicated with the White House legal eagles, even though Joe Biden is likely to face Trump in the November election.
Some prosecutors are themselves facing controversies, if not scandals. Some wish to synchronize their drawn-out investigations and indictments to hinder the Trump reelection effort.
At other times, the effort to neuter Trump is waged by his rival Biden himself.
He has hammered Trump as an insurrectionist and guilty of a number of egregious crimes against democracy—even as Biden’s own Attorney General has appointed a special counsel to try Trump on just those federal charges concerning the January 6 demonstrations, a dead horse that Biden periodically still beats to death to scare voters.
Biden periodically smears half of America who supported or voted for Trump as “ultra-Maga” extremists and “semi-fascists” who would destroy democracy.
Yet the more Biden and the Left weaponize the judicial system to prevent Trump from running, and the more Biden screams and yells that Trump supporters are anti-American and anti-democratic, the more Trump soars in the polls while Biden sinks.
The left privately knows that its historically unprecedented strangulation of democracy is increasing Trump’s popularity. But like an addict, it cannot quit its Trump fix.
In sum, the Left is creating historic, anti-democratic precedents that will someday boomerang on Democrats should Republicans win the November election and follow the new Democrat model of extra-legal politics.
Democrats are tearing apart the country in a manner not seen since the Civil War era—apparently convinced democracy cannot be trusted and so itself must be sacrificed as the price of destroying Donald Trump.
There have been a number of layoff announcements by big tech firms at the start of the new year, signaling a potentially weakening labor market that could accelerate into 2024. Yet, the recent pivot by the Federal Reserve might stave off a spike in the unemployment rate and a resulting recession, should Chair Powell create a soft landing in the economy. If the Fed fails and ushers in a hard landing, brace for a layoff surge.
Let’s begin with a Resume Builder survey released at the end of last year, which said nearly 40% of 900 companies surveyed warned they would have to announce layoffs this year. About half of companies said they would implement a hiring freeze.
Shock Number: 38% Of US Companies Anticipate That They Will Conduct Layoffs In 2024 https://t.co/AC2UTfROyJ
In a separate report, Bloomberg detailed the latest big tech layoffs layoffs:
Amazon.com Inc. is cutting hundreds of workers across content-creation units, including Prime Video and live-streaming site Twitch. Alphabet Inc.’s Google is also nixing hundreds of positions in hardware and its Assistant unit. Unity Software Inc., which makes the tech that underpins popular mobile games like Pokemon Go, said it would reduce its workforce by 25%, eliminating about 1,800 jobs.
Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Poonam Goyal said the job cuts at Amazon were “likely just a move to further streamline costs and improve efficiency to increase earnings.”
Despite signs of an economic downturn, the job tracking website Layoffs.fyi showed the job market could be stabilizing after 1,186 tech companies cut 262,600 jobs last year. Since the first of the year, 18 tech companies have laid off nearly 3,000 workers.
“I’d say the dust is settling — you’re starting to see companies gear up to say the worst is behind us,” said Bert Bean, chief executive officer of Insight Global, a staffing company.
However, Citi analysts told clients this last week: “While layoffs are still low, these early signs of a weakening labor market could still accelerate into 2024.”
The analysts continued: “On the other hand, the recent Fed-induced loosening in financial conditions may also be successful in delaying a 2024 recession. Labor market data in early 2024 (after the volatile holiday period through January) will be particularly important to watch.”
Chinese authorities have claimed that they can identify individuals who use Apple’s wireless file-sharing tool to spread content that Beijing considers “inappropriate.”
Experts had managed to identify the phone number and email address of an AirDrop sending device using logs found on the receiving device, the Beijing Municipal Bureau of Justice said in an article published on Jan. 8. That allows local police to find “several suspects” who use the iPhone feature to transmit files containing what authorities have referred to as “inappropriate remarks,” according to the agency.
AirDrop, designed to function over short distances, was created as a program reliant on direct connections between phones. By forming a local network of devices without relying on the internet to communicate, AirDrop makes it hard for authorities to regulate “through conventional network monitoring methods,” according to the article.
The file-sharing feature, which is available on iPhones and other Apple devices, has been a critical tool for protesters in both mainland China and Hong Kong to evade censorship and maintain communication. Users can’t review the transmission history, and the recipient’s device may only show the user-defined name of the sender.
The Beijing judicial agency stated in the article that experts extracted AirDrop’s encrypted records by analyzing the iPhone’s logs. They praised experts from Beijing Wangshendongjian Technology Co. Ltd., a local forensic appraisal institute, for assisting authorities to “break through technical difficulties of tracing anonymous AirDrops.”
The Epoch Times contacted Apple for comment but didn’t receive a response by press time.
iPhone Censorship
AirDrop was used widely as a communication tool during Hong Kong’s pro-democracy protests in 2019. Demonstrators deployed the program to bypass China’s so-called Great Firewall, delivering crucial messages to the public and ensuring ongoing communication among themselves.
In late 2022, after protests against Beijing’s draconian COVID-19 measures erupted in Shanghai and other major Chinese cities, Apple restricted the sharing feature in the mainland following reports that young demonstrators used the AirDrop function to share images and slogans denouncing the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its leader, Xi Jinping.
On Nov. 9, 2022, Apple released iOS 16.1.1., a new version of its mobile operating system. The tech firm noted that the “update includes bug fixes and security updates and is recommended for all users.” However, Chinese readers of 9to5Mac, a website covering news about Apple and its products, noticed a modification in the update that was specific to iPhones sold in China.
Following the operating system update, AirDrop on iPhones sold in China can only be configured to receive messages from “everyone” for 10 minutes before switching off. Typically, AirDrop users can choose to receive files from “everyone”—contacts and noncontacts—for an unlimited time. Before the update, the “everyone” setting could be turned on permanently on Chinese iPhones.
Apple has stated that the feature was an effort to cut down on spam content sent in crowded areas such as malls, and it originally planned to roll out the feature globally starting in 2023.
However, Apple hasn’t offered an explanation as to why it chose China to be the first country with AirDrop restrictions.
China Censorship
For years, Apple kept Chinese customers’ data locally on servers run by a state-owned company, adhering to Beijing’s request to keep information within its borders.
Experts have pointed out that this method gives the CCP unfettered access to consumer data. Apple, in response, stated that it holds encryption keys to the data stored in those server facilities and has “never compromised the security” of its users and their data.
This local storage means that although the United States has laws against companies sharing data with Chinese authorities, Beijing can demand the data from the server storage company rather than from Apple.
Apple has already been subjected to restrictions in China, one of the company’s biggest markets and responsible for nearly 20 percent of the Cupertino, California-based firm’s revenue.
Multiple media outlets reported in September 2023 that Beijing instructed state employees and officials at some government agencies to not use iPhones and other foreign cell phones for work. Local officials from three provinces previously told The Epoch Times that they had already been told to not bring iPhones and foreign cell phones to important meetings. These officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal, said there were no formal documents regarding that order.
When asked about the reported iPhone ban at a briefing at the time, a Chinese Foreign Ministry official didn’t directly comment on the issue but said phone companies operating in China must adhere to its laws and regulations.
China observers have noted that the CCP has long sought to tighten control over its people. The regime has poured massive resources into constructing a nationwide surveillance system, clamping down on both domestic and foreign businesses and penalizing individuals perceived as threats to national security. The money Chinese authorities have spent on policing the whole society has surpassed its national defense budget under Xi, according to Nikkei Asia’s analysis of official data.
Andrew Moran, Catherine Yang, and Lear Zhou contributed to this report.
What constitutes a “proven technology” with “predictable income” to the Biden administration? Apparently, it isn’t the oil and gas industry that has been powering the world, raising standards of living, and making entire nations wealthy for well over a century. On the other hand, the first-ever North American ocean wind turbine installation – unpopular with people who will have to look at it and part of a flailing, not-ready-for-primetime industry – is a sure thing to the Department of the Interior.
Per a recent report, on June 15, 2021, Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) waived the customary financial assurance for decommissioning on the lease of the Vineyard Wind project off the coast of Massachusetts. Decommissioning fees are typically required for every energy lease Interior grants so that if a project fails and the lessee goes bankrupt, taxpayers aren’t stuck with cleanup costs. Vineyard first asked for a deferment in 2017 and was denied by the Trump administration, but the Biden BOEM informed Vineyard the fee was deferred for 15 years into its 20-year lease. Why?
Well, the financial assurance fees were “unnecessarily burdensome for lessees because, at that point, they have not begun receiving project income.” Besides, Vineyard used “proven wind turbine technology,” and “guaranteed electricity sales prices that, coupled with the consistent supply of wind energy, ensure a predictable income over the life of the Project.”
But a June 2023 Barrons report said of wind energy, “Financially, the industry is teetering, with a parade of companies planning to renegotiate or pull out of contracts, jeopardizing plans for projects that were expected to provide electricity for millions of homes.” What’s more, “At least eight multinational companies in three states have quietly started to back out of wind contracts, or ask to renegotiate deals in ways that will pass more costs to consumers.”
That includes Ørsted, the world’s largest offshore wind developer, which recently pulled out of two wind projects off the New Jersey coast. Its stock price was down some 50% in 2023, and the company had “$4 billion in write-downs,” according to Barrons.
As for that “proven technology,” Siemens Energy shares fell almost 40% in one day in June 2023 because of serious turbine failures – failures that “might be a symptom of a wider issue for the industry,” according to CNBC.
BOEM, it seems, was overoptimistic about Vineyard Wind. Or they just wanted to give a plucky young upstart a hand. Or they were recklessly pursuing an environmental agenda, whatever the consequences for taxpayers. The evidence points to that last option. One need only look at how BOEM has wielded federal bonding against traditional oil and gas developers.
On June 29, 2023, BOEM published a proposal to amend bonding requirements. As the Daily Caller has explained, “The old bonding rules established supplemental bonding prices for lessees based on the net worth of that lessee, among other factors … the June 2023 proposal from BOEM would shift that calculus away from net worth and instead focus on the lessee’s credit rating.”
That shift would impact the 76% of the oil and gas developers working in the Gulf of Mexico that don’t happen to be publicly traded oil giants. Politico’s E&E News says it “would also protect some of the biggest drillers in the country from cleaning up abandoned wells when smaller firms go bust.” In many cases, the Chevrons and Shells did the initial drilling and then sold their lease rights to smaller companies. Under the proposal, these small companies would incur $9 billion in insurance costs that even the surety industry itself claims would not be financially viable. BOEM wants to finalize the new rules by April.
According to agency documents FGI obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, one of the reasons the BOEM proposal falls so heavily on small independent companies is because Big Oil had a seat at the table when BOEM was dreaming it up. BOEM met with The American Petroleum Institute and major oil companies about changing the surety requirements mainly in 2021. That was the same year BOEM gave Vineyard its sweetheart deal. Meanwhile, as gas prices skyrocketed, President Biden demonized those same energy giants.
Perhaps in the hope the crocodile would eat the biggest bites last, the huge oil companies fed their smaller competitors to the Biden Administration and its appetite for shutting down domestic fossil fuel production where and when it can. The proposal would drive many companies out of the market of completely under. The administration wins. The president’s allies on the left win. Big Oil wins. And Vineyard Wind must be laughing all the way to the bank.
If hypocrisy were combustible, we’d be paying $1 per gallon at the pump.
Peter McGinnis is with the Functional Government Initiative.
