Authored by Matt Taibbi via Racket News,

The most embarrassing revelation of the “Facebook Files” released by House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan yesterday (described in more detail here) involves the news media:

In one damning email, an unnamed Facebook executive wrote to Mark Zuckerberg and Cheryl Sandberg:

We are facing continued pressure from external stakeholders, including the White House and the press, to remove more Covid-19 vaccine discouraging content.

We see repeatedly in internal communications not only in the email above, but in the Twitter Files, in the exhibits of the Missouri v Biden lawsuit, and even in the Freedom of Information request results beginning to trickle in here at Racket, that the news media has for some time been working in concert with civil society organizations, government, and tech platforms, as part of the censorship apparatus.

In the summer of 2021, the White House and Joe Biden were in the middle of a major factual faceplant. They were not only telling people the Covid-19 vaccine was a sure bet — “You’re not going to get Covid if you have these vaccinations” is how Biden put it — but that those who questioned its efficacy were “killing people.” But the shot didn’t work as advertised. It didn’t prevent contraction or transmission, something Biden himself continued to be wrong about as late as December of that year.

If you go back and give a careful read to corporate media content from that time describing the administration’s war against “disinformation,” you’ll see outlets were themselves not confident the vaccine worked. Take the New York Times effort from July 16th, 2021, “They’re Killing People: Biden Denounces Social Media for Virus Disinformation.” You can see the Times tiptoeing around what they meant, when they used the word “disinformation.” In this and other pieces they used phrases like, “the spread of anti-vaccine misinformation,” “how to track misinformation,” “the prevalence of misinformation,” even “Biden’s forceful statement capped weeks of anger in the White House over the dissemination of vaccine disinformation,” but they repeatedly hesitated to say what the misinformation was.

Any editor will tell you this language is a giveaway. Journalists wrote expansively about “disinformation,” but rarely got into specifics. They knew that they couldn’t state with certainty that the vaccine worked, that there weren’t side effects, etc., yet still denounced people who asked those questions. This is because they agreed with the concept of “malinformation,” i.e. there are things that may be true factually, but which may produce political results considered adverse. “Hestiancy” was one such bugbear. Note the language from the unnamed Facebook executive above, which describes the press lashing out “Covid-19 vaccine discouraging content,” not “disinformation.”

This is total corruption of the news. We’re supposed to be in the business of questioning officials, even if the questions are unpopular. That’s our entire role! If we don’t do that, we serve no purpose, maybe even a negative purpose. Moreover, think of the implications. News outlets wail about “disinformation” when they’re aware the public has tuned them out. When people don’t listen to reporters, it’s usually because they suck. You can do the math, as to why the current crop embraces censorship. A more embarrassing outcome for our business would be hard to imagine.

We have pointed out that AI competition between the US and China is heating up. In 2019, we wrote a note titled As Tech War Unfolds, AI Arms-Race Erupts, China Could Overtake US By Next Decade and penned this in April, Winner Takes All: The US-China Race To AI Mastery. 

In yet another sign the arms race could intensify, a new Financial Times article titled How Silicon Valley is Assisting the Pentagon in the AI Arms Race appears to be a promotional piece that reads as if a lobbying group wrote it to convince folks that after the passage of the fiscal year 2024 National Defense Authorization Act, more taxpayers dollars should flow to Silicon Valley defense startups rather than the five prime contractors, which include Lockheed Martin and Boeing. 

But getting the defence department to reallocate some of its mammoth $886bn budget from its five incumbent prime contractors, which include Lockheed Martin and Boeing, to the thousands of entrepreneurs producing cutting-edge systems remains an obstacle. Tech entrepreneurs and investors have accused military leaders of engaging in “innovation theatre” — paying lip service to the benefits of disruptive technology while holding back lucrative contracts. -FT

Steve Blank, a tech veteran and founding member of the Gordian Knot Center at Stanford, said, “For the first time ever, the US military is dependent on commercial tech to win a war, but they’re not organized to deal with commercial tech.” 

“China operates like Silicon Valley,” Blank added, in reference to the tech sector’s speed of innovation and agility — noting: “On a good day, the DoD operates like Detroit,” the metro area that has yet to recover from a plunge in auto-making. “It’s not a fair fight.”

FT pointed out, “Ukraine’s deployment of dual-use technology — capabilities that have both commercial and defense applications — such as satellite imagery and autonomous drones is among the biggest catalysts for the US to bridge the chasm between Washington and California.”  

“What’s happened in Ukraine has been a game-changer. More commercial technology is being used than during any other disagreement,” said Mike Brown, a venture capitalist at Shield Capital and the former director of the Defence Innovation Unit.

Brown said, “That has got the wheels turning for the US military, which is saying, ‘We need to adopt far more of this.'”

Again, the article reads that the “groundbreaking” commercial tech used in the war in Ukraine is grounds to divert military monies to California defense tech startups, which will better prepare the military for an even more significant issue: an AI arms race with China. 

For some fear porn, the author declares, “Peacetime is over,” outlining a list of Silicon Valley defense startups that would add value to military capabilities on the modern battlefield if they received a larger chunk of the new Pentagon budget for 2024. 

Furthermore, the promotional article about Silicon Valley’s defense startups failed to address potential dystopian outcomes, such as the dire implications of AI killing humans (there was already an incident of one rogue AI drone). 

Via Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com,

Former Wall Street money manager Ed Dowd is still a skillful number cruncher.  Dowd made billions of dollars in profits by being right on the data. He’s right on the data again in his recent wildly popular book “Cause Unknown” The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 and 2022. 

Dowd’s book documents the extreme deaths and horrible injuries that are now skyrocketing in number.  The huge problems being caused by the CV19 bioweapon/vax are increasing, unstoppable and no longer need to be proven.  Dowd says,

“I was not in the room, but at this point, it is a crime because it’s a coverup. 

I said this in my book in December of 2022.  They see the same data that I see, and the data has only gotten worse since then.  So, it’s a crime, and it’s a coverup.  That’s all you need to know...

Forget about the who and the why.  It was a bioweapon.  It was a mistake.  I don’t care at this point.  This is a joke.  They are killing people. 

They continue to mandate these jabs at some universities.  Some employers still mandate them.  The UK is requiring all school children who enter school in the fall to take these shots. 

This is a joke.  This is a crime.  This is a coverup, and it’s murder at this point.”

In 2022 alone, Dowd figured 30% of the workforce had been killed, disabled and cannot work or is working chronically ill.  Dowd says the death and disability trend for 2023 is way up.  Thousands everyday are reporting they are getting sick, and Dowd says the CV19 bioweapon injections are to blame.  Supply chains and society are going to grind to a crawl, and Dowd predicts,

“Everything is slowly breaking down. 

You won’t see this on the news, but you will see this when you need something done, and you will experience this. 

You are going to be gaslit and told everything is fine. 

There is not problem here.  Don’t look over here. 

We are going to see glacial Mad Max.  

Things are going to get harder to do.  Businesses and services you take for granted are going to become scarce. 

I think we are going to see a deflation in financial assets that will start soon enough.  We will have inflation in things you need like food, medical care and much other stuff.”

Dowd also points out,

“The Justice Department is protecting the looting operation that’s been going on for 40 plus years. 

Everybody in Washington D.C. is literally stealing your taxpayer dollars…

The Deep State protects the looting operation, and they are all in on it.”

Ivermectin is being used by doctors like Pierre Kory as a base drug for treating CV19 vaxed injured patients and unvaxed patients harmed by so-called “shedding.”  Yet, it is still being withheld from a public that desperately needs it.  Why is Ivermectin being restricted?  Dowd says,

“For them to start pushing Ivermectin would expose them.  They are the ones who said what do you mean and called it horse paste.  Criminals and people in coverup mode continue as if everything is fine until they are caught. 

That’s what happened at Enron.  Enron was fraud, and the stock was down 50% from the highs… I was skeptical, and I protected my firm from it and got out of it…

This is the same thing.  Criminals are going to act as if everything is fine, and they are not going to ever admit that Ivermectin is worth anything to anybody because to do so would unravel their whole thread of lies.  I take Ivermectin and I have never been vaccinated, and I take a little dose of Ivermectin a couple times a week.”

In closing, Dowd says,

“This is going to become too big to hide.  Congress needs to act.  These people in the GOP are forming committees on J6 and other things.  That’s great and good on you.  How about the Covid vaccine committee?  Call me up, I’ll share my numbers.”

Dowd also talks about the importance of holding cash, the dollar’s near term and longer term future, gold as a core investment and the wild card of world war.

There is much more in the 49-minute interview.

Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog.com as he goes One-on-One with money manager and investment expert Ed Dowd, author of the book called “Cause Unknown” The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 and 2022

*  *  *

To Donate to USAWatchdog.com Click Here

You can order Dowd’s book called “Cause Unknown” by clicking here.

If you want to go to Dowd’s website called PhinanceTechnologies.com, click here.

Exxon Mobil Corp. is planning to enter the minerals game by becoming a supplier of lithium to Tesla Inc., Ford Motor Co., Volkswagen AG, and other automakers, according to Bloomberg, citing people familiar with the matter. 

The sources said discussions are in the “early stages and also include battery giants Samsung and SK On Co.” If the report is correct, Exxon appears to be searching for buyers as it positions itself to capitalize on the electric-vehicle boom amid pressure by ESG funds and the Biden administration to shrink its core oil production and refining businesses. 

The people also said Exxon is in talks with lithium producer Albemarle Corp. The company told Bloomberg, “Given Albemarle’s leadership role in the market, people routinely want to speak with us — especially when looking at potential resources.”

In a conference call with investors last Friday, Exxon’s CEO Darren Woods broke the silence about the interest in lithium brine mining. He said Exxon wants to extract lithium from underground saltwater, a cheaper and more environmentally friendly method than traditional mining on the surface. 

“We can bring it on at a much lower cost, and I think, importantly, with much less environmental impact versus open mining that they’re doing in other parts of the world,” Woods said. 

He continued, “The processing of the brine and extracting the lithium is very consistent with a lot of the things that we do in our refineries and chemical plants and, in fact, in some of our upstream operations.” 

The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month that Exxon plans “to build one of the world’s largest lithium processing facilities” in Arkansas. 

Exxon might be an emerging player in the lithium field as the US rushes to secure critical mineral supply chains amid souring relations with China. 

By Benjamin Picton of Rabobank

It’s important to maintain a sense of humor in the markets. Here at Rabobank we occasionally get accused of being perma-bears but I think that’s a little unfair because, like any team, we have a diversity of views and some of us are actually quite upbeat! Nevertheless, we have been fairly negative on the global outlook for a while. I prefer to think of this as cheerful pessimism, which Charlie Munger assures us is the best way to be, and he ought to know.

Indeed, there is much cause for mirth because funny things happen in the markets all the time. A case in point is the news over the weekend that the Bank of England will be leaning on the expertise of Ben “sub-prime is contained” Bernanke to lead a review into the Bank’s forecasting performance. We’re not suggesting that a bit of navel-gazing wouldn’t be justified for the Bank given its recent forecasting performance, but if you’re going to take advice on a subject wouldn’t it make sense to ask somebody with more of a track record of success?

Another famous Bernanke clanger was his assurances to Congress that the United States would not enter recession in 2008. I don’t want to jinx it, but that sounds eerily similar to the prognostications of another former Fed Chair, Janet Yellen, who has also been telling us pretty much the same thing recently. Yellen isn’t alone in her view. Following the decision to increase the Fed Funds rate last week Jerome Powell told us that Fed staff no longer expect a recession in 2023. That probably invalidates my working theory that Yellen’s no recession call might just have been the magic mushrooms talking, but it still might be worth checking what was on the menu at the Bank of England when the Bernanke decision was made.

Regular readers will know that our resident Fed expert, Philip Marey, has been cheerfully pessimistic for quite some time about the prospects for US growth later in the year. That is still the case, but the dataflow recently has been pretty good. Second quarter GDP last week beat the consensus forecast by miles, the core PCE deflator showed moderation, durable goods orders were strong and new jobless claims continue to outperform. Talk of a soft landing, or even “no landing” is creeping back into markets, but risks are legion! Commercial real estate jitters, deep losses on bank ‘hold to maturity’ portfolios, sky-high PE ratios and oodles of debt are all known-knowns (that we are ignoring for the time being), but what about the unknowns?

For this, I turn to my colleague Michael Every:

Saudi Arabia is to hold a peace summit over Ukraine, without Russia(!), and is potentially interested in a peace deal with Israel, with strings attached for the far-right Israeli government and the White House, which would have to offer a mutual defence treaty, against Iran, and backing for a Saudi civilian nuclear program – those who know the Middle East can see the upsides *and* the downsides of that potential dynamic. But ‘Peace now’, then, to match the ‘rate cuts soon’ vibe? Hardly! Consider: Kyiv may (or may not) have been behind new drone attacks on Moscow; Ukraine’s counter-offensive may finally be working; Russia’s Medvedev has stated Ukrainian success would require a Russian nuclear response; and, as the Financial Times (and others) warn, ‘Putin is looking for a bigger war, not an off-ramp, in Ukraine’, the Polish PM and senate suggest the Wagner group may soon stage a provocation at the Suwalki gap between Belarus and the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad to test NATO unity. In short, far fatter tail risks than another 25bp hike from the Fed or ECB remain present. Even assuming we don’t get a bigger war, NATO defence spending needs to surge to keep pace with rising global threats just as some economists are talking about fiscal prudence again. Japan, which just tightened monetary policy, will see its military spending leap from $122.5bn to $310bn over the next five years. Meanwhile, the New York Times warns Chinese hackers placed malware in key US infrastructure, which logically may need to be replaced, alongside ongoing onshoring. In short, markets may like doves but there is no guarantee of either ‘peace now’ or ‘rate cuts soon’.

It’s hard not to see some black humor in staging peace talks that don’t include the main belligerent. Signs of further Russian aggression are particularly concerning given the position of relative weakness that Europe is starting from. The German manufacturing PMI released last week looks absolutely diabolical, as do the preliminary growth figures for the second quarter. The situation is sufficiently serious for Economy Minister Habeck to caution last week that the economy faces five difficult years of green industrial transition.

Greeks and Italians who have been subject to more than a little finger-wagging from Berlin over the years may be enjoying the Schadenfreude for the time being, but a weak Germany in a time of geopolitical tensions is not in the broader interests of the EU. That is no laughing matter.

Major media outlets, including The Washington Post and numerous left-slanted ones, have published articles to persuade the public that the up-and-coming generation holds more socially and politically progressive attitudes. However, a new respected federal survey of American youth shows otherwise. 

The Hill cites a new survey from Monitoring the Future that shows an explosion of high school seniors that identify as male and say they’re “conservative” or “very conservative.” Data from the survey extends back more than a half-century to the mid-1970s. The eruption happened during President Trump’s first term. Meanwhile, male respondents who identified as “liberals” plunged to 13%. 

As for female seniors during Trump’s first term, there was a surge in ones who identified as “liberals” while identifying as a “conservative’ was unchanged. 

Although this is just one study, outlets such as WaPo and Axios reference other studies indicating a leftward shift among America’s youth.

Even with progressives implanting their agendas in public schools, such as ‘woke’ math, this study shows that perhaps the indoctrination of the young generation into aligning with the Democratic party might be faltering.

Can this be attributed to Trump?

Twitter parent company X corp is exploring a lawsuit against the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a UK-based dark money nonprofit run by a far-left British Labour Party operative named Imran Ahmed.

Earlier this month journalist Paul Thacker dropped a Twitter files exposé via The Disinformation Chronicle in which we learn that pre-Musk Twitter employees took action against several conservative accouints after the CCDH released a report alleging that just 12 accounts produced the majority of anti-vaccine disinformation on social media.

Facebook, meanwhile, rejected the report, saying in a statement that “There isn’t any evidence to support this claim.”

Who is funding this organization? They spread disinformation and push censorship, while claiming the opposite. Truly evil.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 18, 2023

A similar lack of evidence underpins a July 20 letter from “X” attorneys to CCDH and its CEO, Ahmed, which it accused of targeting Twitter with multiple unfounded accusations in an attempt to hurt the company financially.

The letter cites a June CCDH report titled “Twitter Fails To Act On 99% Of Twitter Blue Accounts Tweeting Hate,” which X says was “false, misleading or both.”

“It has come to our attention that you and your organization, the Center for Countering Digital Hate … have made a series of troubling and baseless claims that appear calculated to harm Twitter generally, and its digital advertising business specifically,” reads the letter (via Paul Thacker). “CCDH regularly posts articles making inflammatory, outrageous, and false or misleading assertions about Twitter and its operations, which CCDH holds out to the general public as supported by ‘research.”

X is also asserting that CCDH is funded by Twitter competitors – a claim they have denied, the NYT reports.

Ahmed took to Twitter to complain, writing “Threatening independent watchdogs that inform the public about wrongdoing is the kind of thing tyrants do.”

To which Thacker asks: “Why is this guy in America? Who funds him?“

Good question. This appears to be foreign government interference.

Can’t wait to get their donors under deposition!

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 31, 2023

Who is Imran Ahmed? As Thacker writes:

Started by Imran Ahmed, the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) sprang out of nowhere in late 2017 or early 2018. At the time, Ahmed was leaving a job as a political advisor to members of the British Labour Party and had just written a book.

As we chronicle in our just published book The New Serfdom, the dominance of market fundamentalism has been a disastrous experiment that has ripped up social cohesion and solidarity while the gap between the 1 per cent and the 99 per cent has soared to levels not seen since the beginning of the last century. Home ownership, secure employment and fair wages seem like relics of a bygone era. Meanwhile exploitative workplace practices have created a new serfdom leaving many people trapped in insecure, unfulfilling and underpaid work with no escape route.

How this background as a political operative prepared Ahmed to brand himself as an expert in disinformation is unclear. His LinkedIn account makes no mention of his work as a political operative in England, although his biography at CCDH states that he is an “authority on social and psychological malignancies on social media, such as identity-based hate, extremism, disinformation, and conspiracy theories.”

Ahmed now lives in Washington DC and his organization does not provide a list of funders.

In early 2021, CCDH posted a report titled “The Disinformation Dozen” that alleged the majority of COVID vaccine disinformation came from just 12 accounts, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Ahmed released the report just as the Biden administration began their COVID vaccine rollout and shortly before the House held hearings on disinformation at social media companies.

Twitter officials began sharing Ahmed’s findings, soon after CCDH released them that March. “COVID-19 misinfo enforcement team is planning on taking action on a handful of accounts surfaced by the CCDH report,” reads a March 31 email, noting that Ahmded’s report was released right before the House held a hearing on disinformation where Facebook’s Mark Zuckeberg and Twitter’s Jack Dorsy both testified, along with Google CEO Sundar Pichai.

7. Twitter officials discussed taking action based on the CCDH report. “COVID-19 misinfo enforcement team is planning on taking action on a handful of accounts surfaced by the CCDH report.” pic.twitter.com/khTr1w6GhF

— Paul D. Thacker (@thackerpd) July 18, 2023

Reactions abound:

Any friend of Adam Schiff is not a friend of Americahttps://t.co/dz4Mfn9Qlf

— American Voter 🇺🇸 (@AmericanVoterUS) July 31, 2023

CCDH’s former Head of Communications is a self-described “CIA operative” in her own Twitter bio (!!) with an extensive history of NATO operations:

‘Covert operations, intelligence & disinformation’https://t.co/lH32ugKEhl pic.twitter.com/jC3T7CYa2O

— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) July 18, 2023

Lol guess we will see if grifter Ahmed’s donation funders want to fund his trips to court.

— ⚡️Pegasus10🦄 (@Pegasus10000069) July 31, 2023

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

We previously discussed how Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson included a false claim to support her dissent in the Court’s recent opinion barring racial discrimination in college admissions. Now, the justice is accused of a second false claim derived from the same source: the amicus brief of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC).

Notably, however, the media is still citing the first error as proof that race-blind admissions will kill Black citizens.

In her prior error, Jackson claimed that affirmative action has been shown to “save lives” by allowing black doctors to give better care for black people than white doctors.

“It saves lives. For marginalized communities in North Carolina, it is critically important that UNC and other area institutions produce highly educated professionals of color. Research shows that Black physicians are more likely to accurately assess Black patients’ pain tolerance and treat them accordingly (including, for example, prescribing them appropriate amounts of pain medication). For high-risk Black newborns, having a Black physician more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live, and not die.”

Experts immediately objected that the claim was wildly off base. AAMC later asked the Court to correct the claim, though many objected that it still did not fully address the scope of the false claim. Ted Frank who previously noted that the study itself was flawed in relying on a linear regression given the small group analysis. He responded to the correction on Twitter by noting:

“The particular specification the authors and AAMC highlight fails to account for the fact that black doctors are much less likely to be neonatologists, who get the higher risk cases. The number is much smaller when there’s a partial attempt to control for this. And, as the op-ed noted, the logit model hidden in the back of the appendix found that black doctors had a higher mortality rate overall. The study is not grounds for racial discrimination, and the paper doesn’t dare to claim that skin color saves lives.”

I will leave these details to those with a better statistical handle on these studies.

However, even after AAMC corrected or “clarified” its error, the media is still citing the original claim.

In Time, senior correspondent Janelle Ross recently wrote a piece on how the ban on racial discrimination in admissions would kill Black citizens:

“I write this with no hyperbole intended. Some of us are probably going to die.”

She then cites Jackson’s claim that “for high-risk Black newborns, having a Black physician more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live, and not die.” This is part of what Ross insists is an effort to get “away from the ecosphere where alarmist conservative information outlets assign continued white dominance oxygen-like importance.”

Ross then cited the second claim as dispositive proof that race blindness will kill blacks. In her dissent to Students for Fair Admissions, Jackson wrote, “research shows that Black physicians are more likely to accurately assess Black patients’ pain tolerance and treat them accordingly.” This included “prescribing them appropriate amounts of pain medication.”

However, critics object that none of the four studies cited by AAMC support that claim. They reportedly explore problems of Black patients in dealing with pain management, but do not examine the relative efficacy of doctors of different races. They further note that AAMC has pushed DEI policies, including the use of race in faculty appointments and admissions to medical schools. These claims are used to justify the use of race as a criterion.

A review of the studies seems to confirm the objections.

For example, the first study cited was Kelly M. Hoffman et al., Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations, and False Beliefs about Biological Differences Between Blacks and Whites, 113 Proc. Nat’l Acad. Scis. 4296, 4298-30 (2016). However, that study focused on how “false beliefs” can impact the community, though it did find that half of a sample of white medical students and residents endorsed some of these false beliefs.

The second study is Monika K. Goyal et al., Racial Disparities in Pain Management of Children with Appendicitis in Emergency Departments, 169 JAMA Pediatr. 996, 998-999 (2015). However, that study deals with racial disparities in use of analgesia in emergency departments and does not focus on the race of the doctors.

The third study is Karn O. Anderson et al., Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Pain: Causes and Consequences of Unequal Care, 10 J. Pain 1187, 1198 (2009). This study, however, is a review of recent literature on racial and ethnic disparities in pain on reducing and eliminating disparities in pain. Again, the focus is on the treatment levels, not the race of the treating physicians.

The final study is C.S. Cleeland et al., Pain and Treatment of Pain in Minority Patients With Cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Minority Outpatient Pain Study, 127 Annals Intern. Med. 813, 815 (1997).  Again, the study focuses on the continued failure to offer adequate pain control and suggested new approaches to the control of cancer-related pain in this patient population.

As shown by these studies, there are obviously serious concerns over the health care for the Black community with higher rates of mortality in some areas and concerns over access to medical treatment. However, these statistical claims suggest that there is evidence that the race of doctors is driving some of these differences. The selective use of such studies can often play to confirmation bias in crafting opinions.

For academics, even raising exaggerated or false claims can be perilous. Most professors do not want to be tagged in a cancel campaign or declared hostile to diversity. Conversely, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently allowed North Carolina State University to move to fire a professor as “uncollegial” in his criticism of diversity policies. The opinion by Judge Stephanie Thacker will hopefully be reviewed by the full court or the Supreme Court because it could gut not just protections of free speech, but academic freedom.

Sweeping claims of systemic racism are often made with little scrutiny in law schools and other departments. The risks are simply too high in the current environment. There is a new orthodoxy that has taken hold of higher education and the media with little tolerance for opposing views.

What is striking is that these errors are coming from the largest organization representing medical schools. As I discussed earlier, it is another example of the perils of so-called “Brandeis briefs” where amici dump studies into the record.

Before joining the court, Justice Louis Brandeis filed such a brief in his brilliant challenge to work place conditions. It is now a common feature in briefing of cases as groups and associations push studies as determinative or substantial evidence on one side or another. My opposition to the brief is that the justices are in a poor position to judge the veracity or accuracy of such studies. They simply pick and choose between rivaling studies to claim a definitive factual foundation for an opinion. It produces more of a legislative environment for the court as different parties insert data to support their own view of what is a better policy or more serious social problem. There is only a limited ability of parties to challenge such data given limits on time and space in briefing.

The result is that major decisions or dissents can be built on highly contested factual assertions.

Clearly, Justice Jackson would have still maintained her defense of race-based criteria in admissions even without such statistical evidence.

Moreover, she is not the only justice to make contested claims in recent opinions. However, it is also indicative of how these dubious statistical claims can be used to justify or challenge major legal doctrines.

While soft-on-crime San Francisco DA Brooke Jenkins has made it clear that it’s open season for criminals, one thing the city won’t tolerate is unpermitted changes to signage from political opponents.

After Elon Musk installed a giant “X” logo on top of his rebranded company’s downtown headquarters (which Musk says he has no intention of moving despite the city’s ‘doom spiral’) – city officials launched an investigation following two active complaints at 1355 Market Street, one of them being for an unpermitted structure on the roof.

Our HQ in San Francisco tonight pic.twitter.com/VQO2NoX9Tz

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 29, 2023

The complaints were both filed on July 28, and the Department of Building Inspection subsequently issued a notice of violation (NOV) for each complaint.

According to the complaint against the “X” sign, a city building inspector was unable to gain access to the building on Friday and Saturday. On Friday, representatives for X told the city that the sign is “a temporary lighted sign for an event,” to which the inspector told the company that the NOV “requires the structure to be remove [sic] with a building permit or legalize.”

On Saturday, the same city inspector tried to enter again, but “upon arrival access was denied again by tenant.”

A spokesperson for the city’s Department of Building Inspection, Patrick Hannan, told the San Francisco Standard on Friday that an investigation was underway.

“A building permit is required to make sure the sign is structurally sound and installed safely,” said Hannan, adding “Planning review and approval is also necessary for the installation of this sign. The city is opening a complaint and initiating an investigation.”

Musk, who bought Twitter for $44 billion last October, renamed Twitter to “X” earlier this month, explaining the rebranding as a step towards turning the social media platform into an “everything app.”

His new (WEF) CEO Linda Yaccarino, explained further last week:

“X is the future state of unlimited interactivity—centered in audio, video, messaging, payments/banking—creating a global marketplace for ideas, goods, services, and opportunities,” she wrote on X. “There’s absolutely no limit to this transformation. X will be the platform that can deliver, well….everything.”

Musk, meanwhile, wrote on July 29th that he has no plans to move out of San Francisco.

“Many have offered rich incentives for X (fka Twitter) to move its HQ out of San Francisco. Moreover, the city is in a doom spiral with one company after another left or leaving. Therefore, they expect X will move too,” he wrote, adding “We will not.”

“You only know who your real friends are when the chips are down. San Francisco, beautiful San Francisco, though others forsake you, we will always be your friend.”

Many have offered rich incentives for X (fka Twitter) to move its HQ out of San Francisco.

Moreover, the city is in a doom spiral with one company after another left or leaving.

Therefore, they expect X will move too.

We will not.

You only know who your real friends are when…

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 29, 2023

Meanwhile, Musk wants us to know he loves Canada. 

I ♥️ Canada pic.twitter.com/95321VIi8r

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 31, 2023

Authored by Todd Maiden via FreightWaves.com,

The biggest bankruptcy in U.S. trucking history could occur in the coming days when the nation’s third-largest less-than-truckload carrier, Yellow Corp., files. The company ceased all operations at noon on Sunday, and leadership representing its Teamsters workforce said it had been notified of a pending bankruptcy filing.

The company is still shopping a small 3PL unit, which may delay a filing. However, it laid off most of its nonunion workforce last week and told union employees on Sunday afternoon not to show up.

While the Nashville, Tennessee-based company saw operations deteriorate rapidly in recent months as it unsuccessfully attempted to push through operational changes with its union workforce, its ultimate failure was anything but sudden.

Bankruptcy filing years in the making

A series of large LTL and other acquisitions in efforts to transform Yellow into a global transportation and logistics leader, the ambition of former Chairman and CEO William “Bill” Zollars, were the catalysts for an eventual downfall.

In 2003, Yellow acquired Roadway in a $1.1 billion deal and then leveraged up in 2005 to acquire USF for $1.47 billion. The goal was to emerge with a command position in the LTL space, allowing the company to leverage larger scale into greater operating and cost synergies.

A much bigger organization with a debt-laden balance sheet, the company took on the YRC Worldwide moniker in 2006 as it had become a holding company for numerous transportation and logistics brands operating in more than 70 countries around the world. In that year, it would see its revenue increase more than threefold since the buying spree began to nearly $10 billion, with earnings per share of roughly $5, or $277 million in net income. That would be the financial pinnacle for the company as a freight recession would take hold that year, followed by a near collapse in financial markets two years later.

However, YRC continued to grow through the freight downturn and with a more cumbersome debt profile in place.

A sign posted on terminal gates on Sunday. (Jim Allen/FreightWaves)

Further expansion of its logistics unit occurred in China with the 2007 acquisition of Shanghai Jiayu Logistics. This further fueled the company’s global growth initiatives. The deal complemented its existing freight forwarding and logistics joint ventures in China, which were established in 2005.

Failure to integrate acquisitions and its national LTL freight network (Yellow and Roadway’s national networks weren’t integrated until March 2009) along with its debt burden left the carrier bloated entering the Great Recession. Matters were further compounded by internal service issues and a rapidly declining freight environment, which was highlighted by fierce price competition as some carriers sought to hasten YRC’s demise by underbidding freight.

The leverage proved to be too much and nearly led to a bankruptcy filing in late 2009.

Debt-for-equity swaps, wage concessions and other financial reengineering

By the end of 2009, YRC was in a perilous position. It had to find a solution for pending debt payments and appease its union workforce, which had already consented to reduced wages. YRC was also tasked with attracting freight to its network as competitors underpriced the company and its customer base sought alternatives as both groups were planning for the carrier’s exit.

After months of credit agreement amendments and extensions from its lender group, YRC was finally able to craft a $470 million debt-for-equity deal in the closing hours of 2009. The deal deferred interest and fee payments to lenders through 2010 and provided the company with access to $160 million in liquidity under its revolving credit facility. The transaction wiped out existing shareholders, including union stakeholders, leaving former bondholders owning 94% of the company’s outstanding shares.

That deal was preceded by two rounds of wage concessions from union employees. In early 2009, the union agreed to 10% wage cuts in exchange for a 15% stake in the company. Later in the year, another round of wage cuts, this time an additional 5%, as well as an 18-month cessation of pension fund contributions, would be required to get the debt-for-equity deal done.

The following year, those wage concessions would be extended into 2015 (and eventually into 2019), and the company’s new pension contribution rate would be just 25% of the rate in place in 2009 — all part of Zollars’ final restructuring, which concluded in the summer of 2011. The union’s equity stake would increase to 25%, and it would get a second seat on the board in exchange. The day before the new deal was approved, YRC said Zollars would step down upon its completion.

The 2011 restructuring included $100 million in new capital for the company along with increased liquidity under a new $400 million loan. The debt-for-equity swap left existing shareholder positions reduced to just 2.5% of the outstanding stock.

That would cap Zollars’ career at the helm. He left the same day the transaction was completed, replaced as CEO by former Yellow Transportation head James Welch.

Zollars’ compensation (including cash, stock, changes in pension valuation and perks) totaled $2.5 million in the restructuring year of 2009. He earned more than $12 million in the three-year period ended 2009.

’09 restructuring was only the beginning

Saved from bankruptcy and with a little breathing room, YRC accelerated its corporate overhaul, which began in late 2009 as a bankruptcy filing was looming. Those efforts included divesting non-LTL offerings.

In late 2009, YRC unloaded its dedicated unit and in 2010, the company sold a stake in its logistics operations to private equity to provide incremental liquidity. In 2011, the carrier sold its truckload operations, Glen Moore, to now-defunct Celadon, and in 2012, it sold its stake in Shanghai Jiayu Logistics to its joint venture partner.

Other liquidity improvement measures were required along the way, including selling and leasing back facilities and reducing capital expenditures on equipment. Reverse stock splits would be required to prop up declines in the share price as a result of the equity dilution. The company completed a 1:25 reverse split in 2010 and a 1:300 split in 2011 to comply with Nasdaq listing requirements for shares to maintain a $1 level.

Facing debt maturities, Welch would complete a recapitalization that again included debt for equity in 2014 after tumultuous but ultimately successful negotiations with the union and the lending group. That transaction would relieve $300 million in debt and pave the way for the company to refinance $1.1 billion in debt, providing it with a more stable capital structure for a while.

However, years of neglecting to fund fleet and terminal upgrades led to higher operating costs and service inadequacies compared to peers, fueling a cycle of lower yields and continual underinvestment in the network. Its industry-lagging service scores — dead last among national providers — forced it to become a low-cost provider. Its inability to appropriately charge for the freight it hauled left it barely covering operating expenses in most quarters and booking losses when accounting for interest expense and other items.

In 2019, it was able to negotiate a collective-bargaining agreement that provided it flexibility around job classifications, work rules for part-time employees and the use of purchased transportation. It was also allowed the use of box trucks in LTL operations with non-CDL drivers. Teamsters would get a pay bump of 18% in aggregate throughout the five-year term (essentially a clawback of what they had given up), the restoration of one week of vacation and an increase in the contribution rate to health and welfare benefits.

The new labor deal also laid the framework for a broader overhaul that later became known as One Yellow, in which the carrier began consolidating its four LTL operating companies, closing redundant service centers and altering work rules for some employees, among other restructuring initiatives.

The same year, YRC executed a $600 million term loan refinance, which lowered the interest rate, provided additional liquidity and offered less restrictive covenants on a portion of its debt. The deal also extended the maturity by two years to June 2024.

The more favorable flexibility in its debt profile would be relatively short-lived as the industry was about to endure a COVID outbreak and subsequent lockdowns, which negatively impacted even the strongest carriers.

Controversial $700M Treasury loan not enough to save the ship

In short order, Yellow (officially renamed in 2021) blew through a $700 million infusion from the government in the form of a COVID-relief loan. The program was established shortly after the outbreak to help companies bridge liquidity gaps directly related to lost business from stay-at-home mandates.

Numerous trucks were parked Monday at a Yellow terminal in Houston. (Jim Allen/FreightWaves)

The first tranche of the loan was $300 million, which was used to clear the deck of the company’s immediate cash needs. It covered previously delayed health care and pension plan contribution payments, lease payments on equipment and real estate, and even interest payments on its other debt, among other items.

A $400 million second tranche was used to fund capital expenditures, largely the purchase of tractors and trailers, which received considerable scrutiny from industry participants. The thought on the part of the government may have been, “In for a penny, in for a pound.” Yellow estimated it would save $10,000 to $12,000 per tractor annually running newer models, and that the upgrades would be the key to reaching longer-term financial stability.

In total, the company replaced roughly 2,400 tractors (17% of the fleet) and 3,600 trailers, and it purchased 600 rail containers — executing roughly three years of tractor capex in a 15-month period. However, the new loan raised its total outstanding debt to nearly $1.6 billion from $880 million at the end of the 2020 first quarter (the last update prior to the loan announcement).

The Treasury’s issuance of the loan in July 2020 has been heavily scrutinized since. An oversight commission concluded recently there were many shortcomings in the decision-making process used to issue the loan.

A key concern all along was the company’s “precarious financial condition” prior to the pandemic given its history of operating at a loss and its poor credit ratings. Yellow’s financial profile and the Treasury’s “less favorable” lien position, compared to the company’s other creditors, present “significant” default risk to taxpayers, the commission found.

Yellow qualified for the loan under a Treasury-created “catch-all” category — “critical to maintaining national security.” The carrier was thought to handle 68% of the Defense Department’s LTL freight at the time, a number that the commission later estimated to be only between 20% and 40%. The commission also took issue with why LTL service couldn’t be handled by another carrier and why a backup plan for service wasn’t in place in the event Yellow shut down.

However, the commission ultimately acknowledged the loan program lacked established guidelines and underwriting was done on the fly as government authorities were required to move quickly to provide emergency liquidity. It provided future remedies should the need for another crisis-induced lending program arise.

At the end of the 2023 first quarter, Yellow owed the government $729.4 million, including capitalized interest. It had made total cash interest payments of $59.6 million by the end of May, according to a company representative.

In addition to collateral for the loan, the government received a 30% equity stake in Yellow, which would likely be wiped out if it files bankruptcy.  Yellow’s two top-paid executives earned more than $6 million combined in total compensation the year the Treasury loan was issued.

No change of operations, no Yellow

In the end, Yellow’s inability to get a deal done with the union would prove fatal. Months of back and forth proved fruitless.

Running out of money and options, Yellow sued the union for breach of contract, saying the Teamsters didn’t have the right to reject the change of operations it asserted was vital to its survival. The company said the union also had dragged its feet in coming to the bargaining table when it was well aware Yellow would soon be out of funds.

Throughout the process, the union maintained it had already given enough in the form of billions in wages, benefits and pension concessions. It also said it wouldn’t allow Yellow to jump the line and rush negotiations as it was working on other labor deals with closer expiration dates. It offered to begin its normal collective-bargaining protocols, likely in August, or see the current contract through to its March 31, 2024, expiration.

Missed benefits payments to health, welfare and pension funds managed by Central States put the final nail in the coffin. The delinquency allowed the Teamsters to issue a strike notice, which spooked customers and brokers into accelerating the rate at which they were pulling freight out of the carrier’s network.

“The board members, especially those who represent the Teamsters, have not done service to the members or to the company,” Satish Jindel, founder of transportation advisory firm SJ Consulting Group, told FreightWaves.

He also faulted Yellow’s leadership for not taking pay cuts when it was desperately seeking concessions from the Teamsters.

“The board and the executives should have announced taking cuts in their compensation before asking for any accommodation from the rank and file,” Jindel said. “As they say — ‘leading by example.’ The failure of the company cannot be put at the feet of the Teamsters.” 

The bankruptcy would mark the largest filing in U.S. trucking history. The last major LTL closure was Consolidated Freightways, the third-largest carrier in 2002 when it filed. That company was generating roughly $2.3 billion in revenue with 20,000 employees (14,500 of them Teamsters).

Yellow had 30,000 employees, including 22,000 Teamsters.