Authored by Zachary Steiber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on Feb. 8 defended her agency’s promotion of masking after a new study found that protective masks had little effect on the spread of respiratory viruses such as COVID-19.

The Cochrane review analyzed randomized controlled studies, considered the gold standard by U.S. officials and others, but limitations undermined the conclusions, according to CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky.

“One of the limitations of that study, in addition to the fact that it included randomized trials from before COVID-19, is that it stated in the study that people actually had limited update of using masks,” Walensky said during a hearing in Washington. “Of course, randomized trials that look at mask use by people who aren’t wearing them are going to have limited utility.”

The CDC imposed mask mandates on public transportation users, including plane passengers, and on children in Head Start programs as young as 2, contradicting policies from other countries that left younger children maskless, if mandates were imposed at all.

The agency also repeatedly recommended that children, teachers, and others in schools wear masks, as well as people in common settings, such as grocery stores.

Multiple members of Congress pressed Walensky on the Cochrane review, which concluded that the available evidence shows a lack of effect in mask wearing against the spread of influenza or flu-like illnesses.

“While acknowledging the limited data pool, it found no clear sign of a reduction in transmission when using either medical or surgical masks,” Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) said. “Yet today, CDC still recommends masks in schools for all ages, even though the emotional, mental, physical, and educational toll masking has had on our kids is widely recognized.”

Walensky told Rodgers, “You actually have to wear a mask for it to work.”

The CDC’s mandates and guidance on masks relied on cohort studies, Walensky said.

That included a non-peer-reviewed study that the agency published in its quasi-journal that compared the incidence of COVID-19 case clusters in schools located in districts with mask mandates with schools in districts without forced masking. Only two Arizona counties were studied.

A follow-up study that expanded on the number of districts involved and the time frame found that there was no link between school masking and COVID-19 cases.

The CDC also cites other studies in a scientific brief on the subject, including a randomized controlled trial in Bangladesh that found that masking had little effect on COVID-19 spread and a Chinese study of just 124 households.

Rep. Gary Palmer (R-Ala.) brought up the Cochrane study and said doctors have informed him that masks aren’t effective.

He asked Dr. Lawrence Tabak, acting director of the National Institutes of Health, whether that agency funded any trials examining mask efficacy in schools. Tabak said he wasn’t aware of any.

Walensky defended the lack of research.

“So many studies demonstrated … that masks were working,” during the COVID-19 pandemic, she said, “that I’m not sure anybody would have proposed a clinical trial because in fact there weren’t equipoise.”

Apart from the Bangladesh trial, the two other randomized, clinical trials conducted in other countries provided little data to support masking against COVID-19.

Walensky also said this week that “now is not the moment” to drop mask mandates in schools. Many states have already lifted their mandates and others have recently announced that they’ll rescind their mandates.

Lockdowns

During the hearing, Walensky also defended the lockdowns imposed in the United States during the pandemic.

“I agree that we should do everything in our power not to have it happen [again],” she said, referring to school closures and other lockdown policies.

But she recounted how being a clinician in 2020, there was a morgue outside her hospital. When hospitals are overwhelmed and unable to take care of brain tumors and car accident victims, “extraordinary measures are necessary,” Walensky said.

“I do think when there are lockdowns, there’s decreased need for things like motor vehicle accident care,” she said, disagreeing with Rep. Neal Dunn (R-Fla.) on the issue.

When members pointed out that the COVID-19 vaccines don’t stop transmission, undercutting the rationale for vaccine mandates imposed by the Biden administration, Walensky pushed back, claiming that the vaccines prevent severe disease and death. It “doesn’t prevent transmission as well as it did for prior variants, but it does still prevent some,” Walensky said, referring to all vaccines as one type.

The CDC was consulted before the mandates were issued, she confirmed.

“What we have though is a modest prevention, like a 50 percent prevention, of risk of getting infected if you’re up to date on your vaccination, and that’s very important for frontline workers of all types to stay healthy, for children not to infect their grandparents that may be at risk,” said Dr. Robert Califf, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration.

“If you’re up to date, your risk of dying is reduced by 80 percent.”

Califf was referring to the updated bivalent vaccines, for which there’s no clinical data half a year after the administration authorized them. The U.S. government and outside researchers have said in observational studies that the bivalents provide a subpar boost against infection and a better boost against severe illness.

The billionaire founder whose company developed Manhattan’s Hudson Yards is making a big bet on South Florida amid a surge in wealth migrating from the Northeast.

Stephen Ross, of Related Cos, is actively looking to build projects located outside of West Palm Beach and Miami, where he’s already established several projects, Ross told Bloomberg.

“People are looking from the Northeast and relocating for jobs — not retirement — and companies are looking” for offices, he said, adding “It’s tax issues, and there’s the security issues. There’s just the ease of living.“

In the past two years, major technology, finance and law firms have moved or expanded to South Florida, drawn by the lower taxes and warmer weather. Ken Griffin’s Citadel has relocated its headquarters to Miami from Chicago, while companies including Apollo Global Management Inc. and Blackstone Inc. have taken space in the region.

One of Related’s mixed-use projects in West Palm Beach, dubbed The Square, has attracted the likes of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Steve Cohen’s Point72 Asset Management. Other financial companies have signed leases at One Flagler, also in West Palm and set to be ready in 2024. Last year, Related and Swire Properties Inc. unveiled plans to build one of the tallest skyscrapers in Miami. -Bloomberg

And while South Florida is booming, major cities such as New York and San Francisco are seeing a giant exodus – causing demand for commercial office space to dwindle.

“New York will continue to grow, but it has its challenges, and a lot of people who don’t have to be there are looking not to be there,” said Ross. “It’s changing, it’s getting younger, the older people are moving out, the wealthier people are moving out.”

Ross’ Related, meanwhile, is pitching a casino resort on a site once slated for offices and housing, as the second phase of its $25 billion Hudson Yards project.

“We have huge investments, we’re still doing tremendous developments in New York,” the 82-year-old Ross said, adding “But I think Florida is going to capture an awful lot of people.”

Authored by Naveen Anthrapully via The Epoch Times,

Multiple cities in California are now seeing rampant, public prostitution activities, pushing residents in many places into stress and fear, with critics blaming the situation on a Democrat-supported bill that repealed a law against loitering for prostitution purposes.

East 15th Street, a neighborhood in Oakland, used to be a quiet area. However, things changed after prostitution activity rose. Resident Estefani Zarate worries about how this will affect her young children. “I’m scared for them to see (the women) in inappropriate clothes, (then ask) me questions and I don’t have answers for them,” she said to CBS News.

“It shouldn’t be introduced at the age of 4 years old that you’re going down the street and you’re seeing women dress like this (or) you need to learn ‘oh, if you hear gunshots, duck down,’” said Estefani’s sister Marlen Zarate.

Residents from the Capp Street neighborhood in San Francisco are pleading for officials to intervene after prostitution activity rose.

Following resident requests, city officials are reportedly planning to install barriers along a strip of Capp Street which is said to be where prostitution activities are the most concentrated.

In multiple cities across California, scenes of thong-wearing women on street corners, prostitutes twerking at traffic, and pimps tailing mothers who take their kids to school are becoming common.

Democrat Bill Against Loitering

Senate Bill 357, introduced by Democrat state Sen. Scott Wiener, was signed into law last year by California Democrat governor Gavin Newsom. The bill repealed a law that prohibited loitering for prostitution activities. It came into effect on Jan. 1.

Some Republicans are blaming the law for making life difficult for families. “California Democrats’ policy of legalizing crime is creating more victims by the hour,” GOP Assembly leader James Gallagher said in a statement, according to Fox.

“Under Democratic rule, families and businesses are moving out, while human traffickers are moving in. It was clear from the get-go that this law would encourage and enable human trafficking, but that was apparently an acceptable result for the lawmakers who backed it.”

“[The law] hinder[s] law enforcement efforts to identify and prosecute those who commit crimes related to prostitution and human trafficking,” Orange County Sheriff’s Department spokeswoman Carrie Braun told The Epoch Times in November 2022.

“Additionally, it could hinder the ability of identifying those being victimized.”

Vanessa Russell, founder and executive director of the nonprofit Love Never Fails, said that legalizing loitering for prostitution has created an increase in demand in Californian cities.

In areas like San Francisco and Oakland, there has reportedly been a tripling in the number of exploited people, she said.

“The anti-police sentiment that was leveraged to push this bill through touting safer streets for all … [is] unfortunately harming these populations much more than it helps because the police are no longer able to conduct early intervention with violent exploiters and buyers,” Russell stated.

Violence, California Prostitution Law

It is not just the presence of prostitution activities that is troubling the minds of residents. Some are disturbed by gunfire as well as public beatings.

“From the window right there, I’ll see three [people] ganging up on a girl,” a resident from Capp Street said to San Francisco Chronicle, gesturing toward a bay window that overlooks a busy intersection.

“They’ll be hitting her … I call the cops; no one comes. There’s nothing I can do.”

According to California law, prostitution is illegal. Charged as a misdemeanor crime, a first offense carries up to six months of jail time and $1,000 in fines. Subsequent offenses can carry higher penalties.

Before Senate Bill 357, those who loitered with an intent to commit prostitution also attracted similar punishment. Senate Bill 357 has not only decriminalized loitering but has also allowed people who have been convicted on these charges to petition a court to get these offenses sealed from their records.

Corporate America isn’t buying the notion that the US economy could achieve a soft landing this year, as the Federal Reserve spent all of last year combating inflation with oversized interest rate hikes. Despite tremendous economic uncertainty, advertising spending for the Super Bowl is expected to hit a record high. 

Bloomberg Intelligence analysts Geetha Ranganathan and Kevin Near wrote a note that shows companies locking in slots to advertise during the big game is over $6.5 million for 30-second spots, in line with NBC from last year. Some slots are topping $7 million. 

“Sold-out ad inventory, surging sports bets and expectations for strong ratings are all helping support ad prices,” the analysts noted.

The total ad time for the Super Bowl runs approximately 52 minutes. Factor in unpaid ads, such as one from Fox and the National Football League, and the total air time for paid ads is around 42 minutes. 

Ad insight firm Kantar said ad revenue from the game could bring in $570 million of in-game revenue for Fox. Then count pre/post ad revenue of around $75-$80 million. This could mean a record $650 million payday for Fox. 

“NBC’s $636 million last year was an 18% jump from the prior year, and though ads are still robust, a slowing economy has weighed on sales,” the analyst said. 

Tens of millions of Americans tune into the Super Bowl just to watch the iconic ads. 

“According to an August 2021 survey among viewers in the United States, 43 percent of respondents said they tuned in to the Super Bowl to watch the commercials. When it came to women, this figure rose to 60 percent, while 24 percent of men said they tuned in to the big game in order to watch ads,” Statista wrote. 

The threat of recession? Corporate America doesn’t care. They want the most valuable ad space in the world to reach consumers. 

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Biden administration urged the Supreme Court on Feb. 7 to dismiss 19 states’ challenge to the cancellation of the pandemic-era Title 42 policy that allows rapid expulsion of would-be migrants at the border.

The administration argued that its plan to terminate the public health emergency on May 11 would make the case moot. The high court will hear the appeal on March 1.

Open-borders and humanitarian groups say the Title 42 policy prevents those fleeing persecution and violence in their home countries from obtaining legal due process when they arrive in the United States; however, the states say withdrawing the policy would flood already overburdened border facilities with even more illegal aliens.

The states previously told the high court that failing to uphold the policy “will cause a crisis of unprecedented proportions at the border” and that “daily illegal crossings may more than double.”

Before he left office in early January, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, one of the architects of the legal strategy to keep the policy alive, told The Epoch Times that the states were intervening because the federal government was failing to maintain order at the border.

“And the bottom line is … that if [President] Joe Biden is not going to do his job, then [we] have to do everything we can. Because what is going on at our southern border, obviously, is costing us not only fiscally, but it’s costing us in human lives lost. And so it is a life and death issue,” Brnovich, a Republican, said at the time.

Days before that, the Supreme Court blocked the rescission of the policy, which has been used to expel more than 2 million individuals, and scheduled oral arguments in the case, Arizona v. Mayorkas, for March 1.

“The anticipated end of the public health emergency on May 11, and the resulting expiration of the operative Title 42 order, would render this case moot,” U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar stated in a filing (pdf) with the court on Feb. 7.

Responding to Republican proposals in Congress to end the national emergency and public health emergency that were declared by the Trump administration three years ago, Biden’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) said on Jan. 30 that it would extend the soon-to-expire emergencies to May 11 “and then end both emergencies on that date.”

Ending the twin emergency declarations would curb some of the federal agencies’ expansive powers in managing the government’s response to the COVID-19 virus and return agency operations to something closer to normal. Republicans, who took over the U.S. House of Representatives last month, say the emergencies aren’t justified and should be ended sooner.

Read more here…

Authored by Dave Callahan & Charlie Burd , Rob Brundrett via RealClear Wire,

Getting our economy back on track, protecting our environment and generating a renewed “Made-in-America” spirit are areas of common ground among Americans – no matter political affiliation or home state. And key to achieving these shared goals is domestic, affordable and clean energy.

As the country’s most sustainable and abundant source of natural gas, President Biden should look to the Appalachian Basin for energy solutions as he gives his State of the Union Address.

Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia sit atop the Marcellus and Utica shale plays, two of the most prolific natural gas bearing rock formations in the world. Producers here supply roughly one-third of all U.S. natural gas production while playing a key role in our country and global emission reductions. 

As Appalachia’s production increased 13% between 2018-2020, independent third party benchmarking data shows greenhouse gas emissions intensity from the industry declined 20%.

While this region leads in energy production, environmental progress and sustaining careers close to home, certain policies and a challenging federal regulatory environment has hindered our ability to continue to grow.

Infrastructure development – including  pipelines and export terminals – are necessary to safely transport Appalachian-produced energy across our country and the world. But the current regulatory environment, in addition to both physical and legal blockades, chokes our region’s ability to compete and contribute to energy security both here and abroad.

As energy research analysts recently warned, pipeline issues in the Marcellus “threaten to change entire US gas market game” because we’re inadvertently cutting ourselves off from a resource that can be harvested at a low cost. New England states, once again, are forced to import natural gas from foreign nations, because politics have blocked necessary infrastructure growth. 

And, moving natural gas to the growing southeast where it’ll be used for clean, reliable power generation, manufacturing and heating homes, continues to be blocked as the Mountain Valley Pipeline, which is 95% constructed, contends with legal delays and regulatory limbo.

These infrastructure capacity challenges, while seemingly local, have significant implications worldwide. If the past year has proven anything, it’s that access to energy is fundamental to human life and keeping people safe. Exports of American natural gas have relieved Europe from Russia’s energy chokehold – let’s expand those opportunities by opening up additional access points along the East Coast.

In addition to predictable permit timeframes and providing a clear path for  much needed infrastructure, policies that incentivize manufacturing and other industrial projects to invest in Appalachia should be a top priority.

Our abundant supply of  low cost, versatile, clean natural gas gives America the competitive edge over other regions to reshore American manufacturing. In fact, commercial developers estimate manufacturing investment has topped $100 billion in the region because of easy access to affordable Appalachian natural gas.

These investments – like Shell’s petrochemical facility in Pennsylvania, Nucor Steel’s newest project in West Virginia, and developments along southeast Ohio’s energy terminal – are examples of what happens when businesses and lawmakers get it right and prioritize finding solutions to make lasting, positive impacts on our communities and for the environment.

But the pro-growth sentiment starts at the top. We need President Biden and lawmakers in Congress to put politics aside and get to work supporting the continued development and use of this reliable, affordable, Appalachian-made fuel.

*  *  *

Dave Callahan is President of the Pennsylvania-based Marcellus Shale Coalition (MSC). 

Charlie Burd is Executive Director of the Gas and Oil Association of West Virginia (GO-WV).

Rob Brundrett is President of the Ohio Oil and Gas Association (OOGA). 

The FBI has vowed to launch an internal investigation to look into a now-retracted, leaked document which advised the agency to infiltrate groups of Roman Catholics which were ‘at risk of committing acts of extremist violence,’ the Daily Caller reports.

According to the document, Catholics “characterized by the rejection of the Second Vatican Council” are prone to embracing “anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant, anti-LGBTQ and white supremacist ideology.”

The Second Vatican Council, which concluded in 1965, supplanted the 16th-century Latin mass with the vernacular Novus Ordo form – which some groups have rejected while attempting to preserve the old Latin liturgy while continuing communion with Rome.

The FBI document cites the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), including the group’s list of “Radical Traditional Catholicism Hate Groups.”

The document showed that the FBI’s field office in Richmond was considering infiltrating groups of traditionalist Roman Catholics who prefer the Latin mass, a whistleblower revealed Wednesday.

Former FBI agent and whistleblower Kyle Seraphin published the alleged document, which he wrote is “dated January 23, 2023” and originated with an “intelligence analyst within the Richmond Field Office.” Seraphin, who describes himself as a “confirmed Catholic” in his bio, did not say how he obtained the document. -Daily Caller

According to the agency, the document, which originated from the Richmond field office, “does not meet the exacting standards of the FBI” (lol), and the Bureau will probe how it came to be, reads the report.

According to a new whistleblower document, the FBI used deranged SPLC claims to justify targeting Catholic parishes and societies for infiltration to spy on “rad trads,” whom the FBI claims are often violent racist terrorists. https://t.co/ZJr2h0DS0G

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) February 8, 2023

“Upon learning of the document, FBI Headquarters quickly began taking action to remove the document from FBI systems and conduct a review of the basis for the document,” the FBI told the Caller. “The FBI is committed to sound analytic tradecraft and to investigating and preventing acts of violence and other crimes while upholding the constitutional rights of all Americans and will never conduct investigative activities or open an investigation based solely on First Amendment protected activity.”

 According to the FBI report, the agency assessed with “high confidence” that threats from so-called ‘radical traditional Catholics’ (RTCs) can be dealt with via “source development,” among other strategies.

The document expresses the FBI’s concern that racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists (RMVEs) will use traditionalist Catholic social media groups and parishes as “facilitation platforms to promote violence.” It also connects RTCs to an “increase in hostility toward abortion-rights advocates on social media in the run-up to and aftermath of” the Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade.

Among the Catholic or Catholic-adjacent groups mentioned in the document are the traditionalist Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), the right-wing Catholic news outlet Church Militant and “groypers,” the nickname for followers of traditionalist Catholic political commentator and Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes. -Daily Caller

According to the memo, there is a “growing collaboration” between Church Militant and Fuentes’ America First group, which shows evidence of increasing ties between traditional Catholics and extremist groups.

“The FBI report is based on ‘reporting’ by far-left extremists group and media outlets which clearly demonstrate zero understanding of Catholic theology. Those voluminous errors then found their way into this FBI report where flat out false conclusions are drawn,” Church Militant told the Caller, adding that they have “zero connection” to Fuentes.

“Church Militant (and all faithful Catholics) in no way hates women, blacks, jews, immigrants or anyone else we may be accused of hating. To disagree with social or political points of view does not signify ‘hate’. It signifies disagreement.”

“Likewise, to bolster its fear-mongering, the FBI report goes on to try and draw an imaginary link between Catholics and ‘white supremacy’ yet never defines what that ubiquitous term actually means,” the statement continues. “Church Militant does not believe that ‘whites are superior’ or non-white races are somehow inferior. We are faithful catholics and Catholic teaching abhors such a notion. CM has zero connection to any person or outfit who espouses these anti-Catholic ideologies and condemns such beliefs. The FBI report falsely suggests that all of this is bound up in potential violence aimed at abortion supporters. For the record, Church Militant in no way shape or form supports physical violence against those with whom we disagree on moral/political issues of the day.“

Lyft, the 2nd largest US ride-sharing company after Uber, did the opposite after hours when it dropped a quarter of its value in seconds after it gave an earnings outlook that significantly missed analysts’ estimates as the company shifts back into deflationary mode and prepares to sacrifice profits in a bid to attract riders with lower prices.

Cutting to the chase, the company projected Q1 1revenue of $975 million, far below the est. of $1.09 billion, and adjusted EBITDA of $5 million to $15 million, badly missing the $83.6 million average estimate in a Bloomberg survey. Lyft reported adjusted Ebitda was a loss of $248 million during the final three months of 2022. The San Francisco-based company attributed the loss to a regulatory disclosure change which requires companies to count insurance reserves, cash set aside to pay for claims and other insurance expenses, in financial measures. And since investors no longer view Lyft as a growth company but rather as a cash-flow positive cow, it was forced to resort to the oldest trick in the non-GAAP book and adjusted the already adjusted EBITDA (which it called Recast) to make it appear bigger than expectations. And here another curiosity: the company’s outlook for the fourth quarter of 2022 was reported during the third quarter 2022 Financial Results Earnings Call on Nov. 7 and did not include the $375 million insurance reserve adjustments or the update to our non-GAAP calculations. Odd how it just randomly appeared.

Here is a summary of everything LYFT reported for Q4:

• Revenue $1.18 billion, +21% y/y, beating the estimate $1.16 billion
• Adjusted Ebitda loss $248.3 million vs loss $47.6m y/y; Adjusted Adjusted EBITDA was positive $126.7 million excluding the impact from the increase to insurance reserves and accrued liabilities
• Adjusted net loss $270.8 million vs loss $90.2m y/y
• Active riders 20.36 million, +8.7% y/y, beating the estimate 20.3 million
• Revenue per active rider $57.72, +11% y/y, beating the estimate $56.75
• Cash and cash equivalents $281.1 million, -39% y/y, estimate $255.2 million
• Adjusted Ebitda margin -21.1%
• Contribution profit $414.7 million
• Contribution margin 35.3%

“We’re making sure we match competitive service levels of both price and wait time,” Lyft co-founder and President John Zimmer said in an interview. In October, Lyft increased the service fee riders pay directly to cover higher insurance costs. Those expenses are expected to continue to rise. Rather than have riders bear the burden, Lyft is willing to take the hit to profits instead, Zimmer said, adding the company expects the factors leading to the fourth-quarter earnings loss to be a one-time hit.

In other words, Lyft may be adjusting its already adjusted EBITDA, but going forward the real cash flow is only going to shrink more and more.

Adding insult to injury, revenue will also decline as the company cuts prices to pick up market share: Lyft’s projection for revenue of $975 million in the current period also fell below expectations of $1.09 billion. Zimmer said the slower growth is primarily due to seasonality and the fact that a large portion of its rider base counts bikes and scooters, which customers use less frequently in colder months. Zimmer added that the outlook also reflects Lyft generating less revenue from higher fares from surge pricing, a product of more drivers on the platform to meet rider demand.

Zimmer said driver supply in the fourth quarter was “the best in three years” but declined to say if Lyft would be paring back spending on incentives.

In other words, all those laid off tech workers found their next career.

As Bloomberg notes, Thursday’s report marks the second consecutive quarter in which Lyft lagged rival Uber in demonstrating it’s able to keep customers coming back to the platform and return ridership to pre-pandemic levels. Uber reported mobility bookings grew 31% to $14.9 billion in the fourth quarter, surpassing delivery segment bookings for the first time since the pandemic hit. Uber’s strong demand for ride-share services illustrates customers are still willing to pay more to order a ride, even as inflation pinches budgets and economic uncertainty looms.

Of course, unlike Uber, Lyft is still a simple, localized pure-play which only operates in North America and does not have a food delivery business. To increase customer retention, the company has worked to expand its subscription product, Lyft Pink, and has partnered with Grubhub to offer members a complimentary subscription to the food-delivery platform.

“I think the market is large enough, we are talking about ride sharing and mobility as a service, to support two large players,” said D.A. Davidson senior analyst Tom White. “I think Lyft can be a number two, but its increasingly looking like its a distant number two.”

It wasn’t clear if Lyft’s former employees are now working as its drivers: in November, Lyft eliminated 13% of its workforce, its second round of layoffs in 2022, to rein in costs as it tries to cope with a difficult economic backdrop. Uber said on Wednesday it expects headcount to be “flat” in 2023.

“The difference in active rider changes between the two major players will be a leading indicator of future revenue and market share changes for both Uber and Lyft,” said Nicholas Cauley, analyst at global research firm Third Bridge. Alas, considering that Lyft ridership has yet to recover pre-pandemic levels, it’s becoming clear that Lyft will not be the winner…

… and the market agreed, sending LYFT stock price some 25% lower after hours.

Elon Musk’s SpaceX has blocked the Ukrainian government and its military from using Starlink technology to fly and control drones, after earlier in the war SpaceX gifted thousands of Starlink dishes to Ukriane to help the population stay connected to the internet.

SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell in a statement asserted that Starlink technology was “never meant to be weaponized”. According to BBC, “She made reference to Ukraine’s alleged use of Starlink to control drones, and stressed that the equipment had been provided for humanitarian use.”

Shotwell confirmed that the ‘surprise decision’ was taken due to it never being the company’s intent to allow Starlink to be used “for offensive purposes” in remarks given before a conference in Washington DC. Shotwell further said Ukraine had utilized the technology—

“in ways that were unintentional and not part of any agreement,” according to Reuters.

After Musk provided the Starlink systems, the Ukrainian military quickly became dependent on them given the extreme battlefield conditions, including damage to existent communications infrastructure and frequent power outages. Additionally the Russians would often jam signals, thus Starlink allowed Ukrainian troops to circumvent these factors.

The Wednesday announcement from SpaceX was met with anger in Kiev, after already there’s been an avalanche of Ukrainian government criticism aimed at Musk personally over his ‘Russia-Ukraine peace poll’ offered in October. As Bloomberg observed during that prior spat and tensions, Musk’s tweets were “drawing the wrath of Ukrainians” merely for his proposing a negotiated solution which involved territorial concessions for the sake of lasting peace.

Zelensky’s office issued a denunciation on Thursday, complaining that Musk’s company has failed to understand or acknowledge Ukraine’s right of self-defense in making the decision.

Presidential spokesman Mykhailo Podolyak suggested Musk is playing into Putin’s hands, stating SpaceX must decide whether it’s “on the side of the right to freedom” or “on the Russian Federation’s side and its ‘right’ to kill and seize territories”.

It must be remembered that soon after last year’s Russian invasion, Ukrainian officials essentially begged Musk to come to the rescue. A direct plea by Ukraine’s minister of digital transformation, Mykhailo Fedorov, at the time resulted in confirmation from Musk himself: “Starlink service is now active in Ukraine,” Musk affirmed in reply.

A year of 🇺🇦 resistance & companies have to decide:
-Either they are on the side of 🇺🇦 & the right to freedom, and don’t seek ways to do harm.
-Or they are on RF’s side & its “right” to kill & seize territories.#SpaceX (Starlink) & Mrs. #Shotwell should choose a specific option

— Михайло Подоляк (@Podolyak_M) February 9, 2023

But when tensions arose after Musk expressed ‘unpopular’ opinions regarding the war, including a plea for both sides to reach compromise rather than see the world spiral into WW3, the US-based billionaire asserted that he is ‘obviously’ pro-Ukraine given SpaceX had spent $80 million on Starlink in the country, or essentially a massive wartime donation.

Musk recently pointed out he’s “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” when it comes to SpaceX policy in Ukraine…

SpaceX Starlink has become the connectivity backbone of Ukraine all the way up to the front lines. This is the damned if you do part.

However, we are not allowing Starlink to be used for long-range drone strikes. This is the damned if you don’t part.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 31, 2023

From there, a debate ensued over whether the Pentagon would foot the bill for further Starlink development and maintenance in the country. The systems were increasingly seen as essential to the Ukrainian military’s effective operations if it hoped to push back Russia. However, Musk acknowledged that his company couldn’t just keep picking up the tab ‘indefinitely’. 

But after all of this, Ukrainian officials alongside pundits in the West echoed tired old Russiagate-style smears of Musk somehow being “Putin’s puppet”. Some mainstream publications went so far as to claim Musk was receiving orders from the Kremlin, at a moment the controversy reached the height of absurdity.

Fuck off is my very diplomatic reply to you @elonmusk

— Andrij Melnyk (@MelnykAndrij) October 3, 2022

A low point was reached in the October saga when Ukraine’s ambassador to Germany told Musk to “fuck off” in a reply on Twitter. And yet, awkwardly despite these intense public attacks the Ukrainian government has of necessity remained heavily reliant on the services Musk provides.

It goes without saying that Ukraine’s government might want to be careful about biting the hand that feeds it. Without doubt, SpaceX has the capability to further reduce Kiev’s military reliance on the technology, which again the company has stressed was only meant for humanitarian purposes.

After all, Starlink + armed drones?…

Becuase if you did allow it, Starlink becomes SkyNet…🤔

— Jon Nicosia (@NewsPolitics) January 31, 2023