Showing posts with label USAmerica Inc. Show all posts
Showing posts with label USAmerica Inc. Show all posts

Nov 24, 2025

Phantoms In The Shadows

It's a fair probability that upwards of 70% of the loudest MAGA crap that pops up on social media is posted from accounts of "people" from outside the US, &/or exist only in the fevered minds of propaganda peddlers.




Social media’s reckoning may have arrived — thanks to Elon Musk

Foreign bots have long plagued X. Musk has introduced a potential fix


In 2014, Buzzfeed News reported on the Internet Research Agency, a “troll farm” based in Russia that waged an organized propaganda campaign across social media. According to internal emails, operatives were instructed to run multiple Facebook, Twitter and blog accounts, bombard comment sections and build fake audiences to shape American political discourse. It’s a method employed by Russia that dates back to at least the 2008 presidential campaign. Yet nearly two decades later, the U.S. is still debating the scope and geographical breadth of our foreign troll problem. All the while, fraudulent accounts have continued to flourish.

In 2022, when Elon Musk purchased Twitter, the news-heavy platform he’s since rebranded as X, the multi-billionaire immediately reinstated accounts banned for hate speech and violent disinformation, including Donald Trump’s. A 2024 CNN analysis of 56 pro-Trump accounts on X revealed “a systematic pattern of inauthentic behavior.” Fifteen even displayed blue check marks, indicating they had been officially verified by the company. Eight used stolen photos of well-known European influencers to lend credibility.

Musk himself has personally boosted extremist propaganda and repeatedly retaliated against journalists who criticized him. Under his leadership, X has dismantled many of the mechanisms and teams designed to safeguard against the distribution of falsehoods and conspiracy theories on the platform.

Musk himself has personally boosted extremist propaganda and repeatedly retaliated against journalists who criticized him. Under his leadership, X has dismantled many of the mechanisms and teams designed to safeguard against the distribution of falsehoods and conspiracy theories on the platform. Monetization on X is largely driven by engagement, and nothing gets people engaged like riling them over culture wars. In practice, this generates misplaced outrage to manufacture consent for policy. It’s been a near-perfect feedback loop in the second Trump administration — until MAGA started turning against Trump.

In October, as the internecine squabbling among Trump’s base showed signs of toppling the coalition in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s killing, X’s head of product Nikita Bier floated a new location-exposing feature. But it wasn’t until Fox News’ Katie Pavlich made a public appeal to Musk in a Nov. 15 post — “Foreign bots are tearing America apart,” she said — that the company took action. “Give me 72 hours,” Bier replied to Pavlich the following day.

Friday’s rollout of the new feature was a chaotic, error-laden mess that nonetheless garnered praise from conservatives, including Florida’s Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis and podcaster Dave Rubin, a right-wing influencer who was confirmed by the Justice Department to be a subcontractor of Russian intelligence. Several top MAGA accounts were exposed as operating in Nigeria. (A warning note appears if a VPN is detected, and X gives users a choice to display a broader region, especially in places where free speech could be risky. The platform is banned in Russia, for example, and people are forced to use a VPN.) The users know what they are doing — many pose as MAGA to get more engagement. Pretending to be a right-wing agitator is one of the most efficient ways to game the system.

Bier said on Saturday that X’s data “was not 100 percent” and briefly pulled access to the feature. Several users warned of a potentially dangerous unveiling of private information performed without clear guardrails, consent or accountability. Journalists who report on authoritarian regimes, for example, are shown as “based” in incorrect locations that could result in them being targeted by the very governments they cover.

There are many reasons X’s new initiative matters. But how it affects journalists is among the most important. A decade ago, political reporters and commentators were among Twitter’s heaviest users; people often went to the platform for breaking news and hot takes. While that has declined due to Musk’s dropping of safeguards, journalists remain among those potentially most impacted by inauthentic accounts.

X isn’t the only social media platform dealing with safety issues. According to testimony by Instagram’s former head of safety and well-being Vaishnavi Jayakumar that was revealed on Friday in an unsealed court filing, the company had a “17x” strike policy for accounts that engaged in human sex trafficking. In practice, this meant that an account could violate the platform’s prostitution and solicitation policies 16 times before Meta, its parent company, suspended the account.

Worse yet, Meta studied the solutions to child safety problems, calculated the growth impact — and then allegedly shelved the fixes for years. According to the court filings, the company conducted internal studies that found causal links between social media use and mental health issues, such as increased social comparison, anxiety and depression. One highlighted study, referred to internally as “Project Mercury,” allegedly showed that users who deactivated Facebook or Instagram for a week reported lower feelings of depression, loneliness and anxiety.

It’s difficult to overstate how damning this research is. Meta had its own evidence that its product presented a public health risk, and the company chose the path that protected revenue, not people.

The lifeblood of social media platforms is engagement, and rage is a reliable driver. Whether the rage-drivers are foreign is mostly uncontrollable. Algorithms are easier to control, yet there’s little incentive to implement any guardrails. We cannot rely on platforms to self-regulate when their core business model favors growth and engagement over transparency and safety.

They built these systems deliberately. They profit from them massively. And they will not relinquish that power voluntarily. Simply calling for “better content moderation” or “more transparency” is insufficient. What’s needed is systemic regulatory reform.


the world we live in

Jun 29, 2025

About The Kids

Don't ever try to tell me you care about kids, MAGA - not when you applaud stripping USAID and SNAP and Medicaid and Dept of Education.

Somehow, the propaganda of scarcity has soaked into the brains of Americans to the point where we've been taught to project our struggle to meet our own needs onto the rest of the world. Because we're being deprived of the means to prosper, we believe no one can afford to help anyone but themselves - and worse - we don't think anyone deserves any help, including us.

Don't misunderstand me, the fact that Americans have been extraordinarily generous has provided lots of opportunity for lots of shitty people to steal the goods intended for the poor and the starving around the world. And that needs to be addressed. But it's not like it isn't being addressed, or that it hasn't been a constant concern. The fuckery is real, and so the fuckery is a target. The accounts are audited, and the waste is fairly minimal.

So I think the real problem is that some very wealthy people have decided now is the time to make the final push - to convert the world to the global plutocracy they've been dreaming about for many many decades.

It is not now - nor has it ever been - about race or gender or sexuality or immigrants or abortion, or any of the straw man distractions they've thrown up to keep us from seeing that it's actually all about class, and exploitation, and colonization, and dominance, and rule.



In Sudan, where children clung to life, doctors say USAID cuts have been fatal

The Trump administration’s cuts to USAID had an immediate and deadly impact in war-ravaged Sudan, according to civilians, doctors and aid officials.


QUAZ NAFISA, Sudan — The 3-year-old boy darted among the mourners, his giggles rising above the soft cadence of condolences. Women with somber faces and bright scarves hugged his weeping mother, patting her shoulders as she stooped to pick up her remaining son. Marwan didn’t yet know that his twin brother was dead.

Omran shouldn’t have died, doctors said. The physician at his clinic outside the Sudanese capital said basic antibiotics probably would have cured his chest infection. The International Rescue Committee, which received a large amount of its funding from the United States, had been scheduled to deliver the medicines in February. Then the new U.S. administration froze foreign aid programs, and a stop-work order came down from Washington.

Omran died at the end of May. As his health declined, his frantic mother had carried him in ever-widening circles to 11 health facilities. None had the medicine he needed.

“He was just in my arms whimpering, ‘I’m so sick, Mom,’” said 24-year-old Islam al Mubarak Ibrahim. “I was holding him and trying to comfort him, and I prayed to God to save him.”

Her boys were inseparable. Marwan thinks Omran is still in the hospital. “One day, I will just tell him, ‘Your brother went to Paradise,’” she said.

After more than two years of ferocious civil war, Sudan is home to the world’s largest humanitarian crisis, the United Nations says. Both sides have attacked hospitals. The military often delays or denies aid access; the paramilitary it is fighting has kidnapped relief workers and looted aid facilities.

Disease and famine are spreading unchecked. More than half the population, some 30 million people, need aid. More than 12 million have fled their homes. For so many families barely hanging on, programs funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) were a lifeline — providing food to the hungry and medical care for the sick.

While the Trump administration’s cuts to USAID this year have been felt deeply across the world, their impact in Sudan was especially deadly, according to more than two dozen Washington Post interviews with civilians, clinicians and aid officials in the capital, Khartoum, and surrounding villages.

When U.S.-supported soup kitchens were forced to close, babies starved quietly, their mothers said, while older siblings died begging for food. Funding stoppages meant that critical medical supplies were never delivered, doctors said. The lack of U.S.-funded disease response teams has made it harder to contain cholera outbreaks, which are claiming the lives of those already weakened by hunger.

The World Health Organization says an estimated 5 million Sudanese people may lose access to lifesaving health services as a result of the U.S. cuts.

In a response to questions from The Post, the State Department press office said it was “reorienting our foreign assistance programs to align directly with what is best for the United States. … We are continuing lifesaving programs and making strategic investments that strengthen other nations and our own country.”

“Americans are the most charitable and humanitarian-minded people in the world,” the statement continued. “It’s time for other countries to step up in providing lifesaving aid.”

For now, no one has filled the void left by Washington. European countries, including Germany, France and Britain, have also slashed funding for international relief or announced their intention to do so. Russia and China rarely fund humanitarian work; wealthy Persian Gulf countries tend to work outside established foreign aid systems. On the ground in Sudan, volunteers are appealing to members of the diaspora, many of whom lost their homes and savings when they fled the war.

As Tom Fletcher, a top U.N. relief coordinator, put it this month: “We have been forced into a triage of human survival.”

Empty shelves

The health center in Omran’s village of Quaz Nafisa, about 35 miles north of Khartoum, is supposed to serve 60,000 people, physician Amira El Sadig said, but its entire stock of medicines now fits on a single shelf of a filing cabinet, with room to spare.

Sadig, 41, was delighted last year when the International Rescue Committee announced it would provide the clinic with medications, solar panels to cool vaccines, oxygen tanks, simple medical devices, and lab tests for malaria and other diseases. A referrals system set up by the IRC would help patients needing more-specialized care.

When President Donald Trump took office in mid-January, he signed an executive order calling for an immediate freeze to foreign aid programs and vowing no further assistance “that is not fully aligned with the foreign policy of the President of the United States.” In February, billionaire Elon Musk proclaimed that his newly created U.S. DOGE Service was “feeding USAID into the wood chipper.” Sweeping global cuts soon followed.

As the fatal consequences became clear, and political backlash intensified, the administration said it would restore funding for essential, lifesaving programs. But in many places, including Sudan, vital staffers had already been fired and payment systems disabled, aid workers said.

Initially, the IRC project in Quaz Nafisa was frozen by the stop-work order. Then it was terminated on Feb. 27, the organization said. It was partly reactivated March 3, but the disbursement of funds was delayed. Five months later, the clinic is due to begin receiving the help it was promised at the beginning of the year.

Sadig listed a handful of what she said were preventable deaths between February, when the medications were due to arrive, and the end of May. They included a man with a scorpion bite. A woman with cholera. A diabetic who needed insulin. And Omran, the dimpled 3-year-old.

“There are other deaths in the villages around here that we don’t even know about,” Sadig said. “Most people don’t bother to come here because it is not equipped.”

Sadig wishes that she could solve the problem with her “own hands,” that her country could stand on its own.

“We say thank you to the American people for helping with our suffering,” she said.

When a U.S. stop-work order came in January, Fatma Swak Fadul said, almost all the soup kitchens in her neighborhood shut down overnight.

Kitchens closed

In the desert outside the city of Omdurman, just to the northwest of the capital, Fatma Swak Fadul lives in a sweltering adobe slum. She used to have seven children; now she has five.

For more than a year, they survived on a single daily meal from local soup kitchens. They were run by volunteers from the local Emergency Response Rooms, which formed in 2019 during the pro-democracy protests that helped topple military dictator Omar Hassan al-Bashir. The two years following his ouster were a heady era of hope, until two generals — the head of the military and the leader of the Rapid Support Forces paramilitary — joined forces to overthrow the fledgling government.

Two years later, their rivalry spilled into all-out war, and the young demonstrators mobilized again. They smuggled food and medicine across front lines and cooked provisions donated by charities in vast pots, trying to keep the hungriest alive.

Last year, USAID gave the Emergency Response Rooms $12 million, which accounted for 77 percent of the soup kitchens’ funding, said Mohamed Elobaid, who manages the group’s finances. When the stop-work order came in January, Fadul said, almost all the soup kitchens in her neighborhood shut down overnight. So her children starved.

Her daughter Nada, only 18 months old, starved to death in February, she said, and was often too weak to cry. Three-year-old Omer, who loved to wrestle with his siblings and dreamed of owning a bike, lingered longer.

First, his mother said, he began to lose his vision, which can be a side effect of malnutrition. Then he began asking fretfully for an absent brother. In his last days in March, he curled up on a mat, she said, begging her for porridge.

“I told him we don’t have any wheat to make that,” Fadul said. “He was suffering a lot and then he died around midnight.” His mother wept, she recalled, then asked the neighbors to help bury him.

She had done her best to keep them alive, she said, walking 10 hours each day to collect small bundles of firewood she could sell for about a dollar. Sometimes it was enough to buy wheat to boil in water; never enough for all the children, but the older ones could live on less.

The daily meal from the soup kitchen was a godsend, she said. Often the family would share a single bowl.

“You can’t ask your neighbors for anything because we are all in the same situation,” Fadul said. “We have nothing.”

In mid-May, the soup kitchen reopened, buoyed by funds from the Sudanese diaspora and the U.N. World Food Program. But many children are now so malnourished, doctors say, their stomachs cannot handle normal food. To survive, they need a special high-calorie supplement, and that, too, is hard to find.

Stuck in the warehouse

Hundreds of thousands of doses of the lifesaving supplement — a peanut paste called Plumpy’Nut — have been paid for by the U.S. government and are sitting in a warehouse in Rhode Island, said Navyn Salem, the founder and CEO of Edesia Nutrition, which manufactures the paste.

About 122,000 doses were due to go out in February to the U.N. Children’s Fund (UNICEF) in Sudan, Salem said, but their shipping contract was canceled amid the wave of USAID cuts. The supplies began moving again at the beginning of June, she said, but it will take more than a month to ship them all out.

Now, more stocks are piling up — 185,000 doses from the past fiscal year — but Salem said her factory has received no new orders.

“No business can survive this amount of uncertainty, and many children will not survive either,” she said. “The financial losses and the losses of human life are unimaginable and unacceptable.”

The small nutritional packets are desperately needed at the Almanar feeding center in the Mayo Mandela district of Khartoum, where mothers lined up last month carrying their starving children. Rahma Kaki Jubarra’s 9-month-old son, Farah, weighs just 12 pounds. Her other son, 3½-year-old Jabr, is down to just 21 pounds. The tape the medics wrap around their arms to measure their body fat slides far into the red, signaling an emergency.

Before the war, Jubarra said, she scraped by, selling falafel while her husband was a trader at the local market. When RSF fighters took over their neighborhood, they burned 200 homes, including hers, she said, and beat her husband, brother and eldest son so badly they fled. Jubarra and her two children now live in the ruins of their former home; a blanket draped over the charred walls is all that shields them from the merciless sun.

Jubarra scavenged fish bones from restaurants and boiled them to feed her children. Her elderly father, who was also beaten, was too ill to flee and stayed with her, which meant another mouth to feed. But the soup kitchens were closed, she said, and the price of wheat had quadrupled.

“Sometimes I boiled water on the fire and told them I am cooking and just to wait,” she said. She’d continue poking at the pot, she recounted, hoping her children would fall asleep before they realized no meal was coming.

She rattled off the names of children she knew who didn’t make it. Old people died. Her uncle died. Her father died. People went to Bashair, the nearest hospital, but Doctors Without Borders had pulled out after the facility was shot up by the RSF. As the fighting raged, no aid made it in.

Last month, UNICEF was able to deliver peanut paste to the Almanar feeding center. Liana Ashot Chuol, just 7 years old, showed up by herself on a recent morning. She was carrying her starving 3-year-old sister and pushing her 5-year-old brother. Her mother had disappeared, she whispered, her father was dead and her grandmother had gone looking for firewood to sell. None of the children had eaten for two days, Liana said.

Almanar director Amna Kornlues said that deaths have skyrocketed since the soup kitchens closed but that there is no way to know the true toll. Many children died at home, she said, and families stopped coming when the center ran out of aid to distribute.

She asked for the U.S. to continue its support: “All we need is a little, and we will share together,” Kornlues said.

If U.S. funding is not preserved, UNICEF could run out of Plumpy’Nut within a few months, it says, with dire consequences for those who depend on the nearly 2,000 feeding centers the agency supports across Sudan.

The U.S. cuts “force us to make extremely difficult decisions,” said Kristine Hambrouck, the acting U.N. representative in Sudan. Aid workers must choose between buying vaccines for babies or nutrition products for starving children, she said, and all could die without help.

Cholera spreads

Sickness here is just as dangerous as hunger.

Cholera, a waterborne disease that can kill within hours, swept across the capital in the past month after RSF drones attacked the filtration plant and electricity grid, knocking out the city’s water pumps. People are drinking from polluted rivers or contaminated wells, along streets where charred and bloated bodies have decomposed.

Soup kitchen manager Waleed Elshaikh Edris told The Post that dozens of people had died of cholera in a single day last month in his neighborhood of Al Fitehab, including his uncle and his cousin, who he said died only eight hours after she began to show symptoms.

“When artillery shelling was intense, we had solutions — we would go under buildings,” he said. “But this infection suddenly sneaks into your body without your knowledge.”

The World Health Organization said that its partner organizations are missing 60 percent of their medical supplies and that tracking and containing the outbreak have become all but impossible.

“Supplies for cholera response were largely funded by USAID,” said Loza Mesfin Tesfaye, a WHO spokeswoman, adding that “the cuts have reduced the number of disease surveillance teams [and] reduced our ability to distribute water-purifying supplies.”

At a mobile health clinic run by volunteers in the Salha district of Omdurman, elderly men were treated with bags of intravenous fluids hung from a mosque window. In what was once an upmarket restaurant in Omdurman, a young man curled up on a table, an intravenous tube sticking out from his hand.

Much of the cholera response has fallen to locals like Momen, a dreadlocked 33-year-old who slips out his front door on a bike every day at 5 a.m., carrying chlorine tablets — the most common way to disinfect water supplies — along with information leaflets and dreams of a different Sudan.

Momen gives the tablets to the tea ladies fanning battered pots on charcoal fires, to mothers with jerricans lining up at water wells, and drops them in the round blue communal tanks. As a pro-democracy activist during the 2019 uprising, he was arrested more than 40 times and shot in the arm, he said. Momen spoke to The Post on the condition he be identified by his first name for fear of being targeted by armed groups.

“When support was coming from USAID, we were able to respond and carry out emergency interventions much more quickly,” he said. Now, the volunteers have to design their own solutions and fundraise online, he said, which slows their work.

But he said nothing will stop them.

“Our country needs us,” he said. “We are going to change Sudan.”

Mar 4, 2025

Today's Today

March 4, 1789

236 years ago, the US Constitution went into effect.

I'm creating this post almost 13 months before it'll go live, hoping we'll still have a good shot at preserving the rule of law here in USAmerica, Inc.

HAPPY
CONSTITUTION
DAY


Written in 1787, ratified in 1788, and in operation since 1789, the United States Constitution is the world’s longest surviving written charter of government. Its first three words – “We The People” – affirm that the government of the United States exists to serve its citizens. The supremacy of the people through their elected representatives is recognized in Article I, which creates a Congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives. The positioning of Congress at the beginning of the Constitution affirms its status as the “First Branch” of the federal government.

The Constitution assigned to Congress responsibility for organizing the executive and judicial branches, raising revenue, declaring war, and making all laws necessary for executing these powers. The president is permitted to veto specific legislative acts, but Congress has the authority to override presidential vetoes by two-thirds majorities of both houses. The Constitution also provides that the Senate advise and consent on key executive and judicial appointments and on the approval for ratification of treaties.

For over two centuries the Constitution has remained in force because its framers successfully separated and balanced governmental powers to safeguard the interests of majority rule and minority rights, of liberty and equality, and of the federal and state governments. More a concise statement of national principles than a detailed plan of governmental operation, the Constitution has evolved to meet the changing needs of a modern society profoundly different from the eighteenth-century world in which its creators lived. To date, the Constitution has been amended 27 times, most recently in 1992. The first ten amendments constitute the Bill of Rights.

Aug 3, 2024

It's The GreedFlation, Stoopid


The Dirty Fuels Cartel got tired of fighting The OPEC Cartel, so they they got in bed together, and little while later, the 10-dollar gallon of gas was born.

Aug 1, 2024

You Can't Go Home


For a lot of people, it's not:
"You can't go home again".

It's more like:
"You can't go home - because you don't get to have a home to go home to".



THIS SHIT HAS TO CHANGE

Jul 29, 2024

Jun 19, 2024

Corporate Crime


If a company is to be treated as a person when it comes to things like political "speech" and paying taxes, then the justice system has to be able to take legal action against it the same as would be taken against any individual.

We can't very well put everybody who works for that company in prison, and we can't levy some huge fine against a company and then just divide the amount of the fine by the number of people working there and have everybody pitch in their share.

The guy bending a wrench on the assembly line (eg) didn't make the decisions that led to the problem that caused hundreds of people to die in the plane crash.

And we can't condemn 10,000 employees to death by firing squad.

But that seems to be the approach when something like the Boeing 737Max goes through a couple of instances of Unscheduled Rapid Disassembly mid-flight.

The company gets slammed with lawsuits and fines, which has the effect of making the employees pay for the bosses fuckups. And even though the bosses may get dinged a little (the mid-level bosses anyway), a lot of the time, the guys at the top get paid handsomely just to walk away, which does kinda leave those 10,000 employees to face the free market firing squad.

I don't know what to do about any of this, but I think one thing that has to happen is that we have to stop delivering privileged, situational treatment to entities - people or companies or whatever - just because they have money and power, and their PR pimps can hawk some bullshit like Too-Big-To-Fail - when maybe a (metaphorical) death penalty is in order for at least a few guys wearing suits.

Like I said - I just don't know. And that bugs the ever-livin' shit outa me.


Families of Boeing 737 MAX Crash Victims Ask US to Seek $24 Billion Fine

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Relatives of the victims of two fatal Boeing 737 MAX crashes asked the Justice Department on Wednesday to seek a fine against the planemaker of up to $24.78 billion and move forward with a criminal prosecution.

"Because Boeing’s crime is the deadliest corporate crime in U.S. history, a maximum fine of more than $24 billion is legally justified and clearly appropriate," Paul Cassel, a lawyer representing 15 families, wrote in a letter to the Justice Department released on Wednesday.

The families said the Justice Department could potentially suspend $14 billion to $22 billion of the fine "on the condition that Boeing devote those suspended funds to an independent corporate monitor and related improvements in compliance and safety."

The Justice Department said in May it determined Boeing violated a 2021 deferred prosecution agreement that shielded the company from a criminal charge of conspiracy to commit fraud arising from fatal crashes in 2018 and 2019 that killed 346 people.

Boeing last week told the government it did not violate the agreement. Federal prosecutors have until July 7 to inform a federal judge in Texas of their plans, which could be proceeding with a criminal case or negotiating a plea deal with Boeing. The Justice Department could also extend the deferred prosecution agreement for a year.

Justice Department officials found that Boeing violated the deferred prosecution agreement after a panel blew off a new Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 MAX 9 jet on Jan. 5, just two days before the 2021 agreement expired. The incident exposed continued safety and quality issues at Boeing.

In the letter, the families also said Boeing’s board of directors should be ordered to meet with them and the department should "launch criminal prosecutions of the responsible corporate officials at Boeing at the time of the two crashes."

Boeing and the Justice Department did not immediately comment.

The letter noted that Senator Richard Blumenthal, who chairs the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and held a hearing with Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun on Tuesday, said, "There is near overwhelming evidence in my view as a former prosecutor that prosecution should be pursued."

The two fatal crashes of Boeing 737 MAX planes occurred in 2018 and 2019 in Indonesia and Ethiopia and led to the best-selling plane's worldwide grounding for 20 months. A safety system called MCAS was linked to both fatal crashes.

Jun 18, 2024

Can We Talk?


Hey, MAGA - lemme talk to y'all for a little bitty minute.

Y'know how your panties always get all knotted up whenever somebody starts in about heterosexual, and homosexual, and gay, and lesbian, and queer, and +, and bi, and non-binary, and trans, and intersectional, and all like that?

First - you have to relax, bubba. There's a stroke headin' your direction.

But second - you guys are always jaw-jackin' about being clear-eyed, savvy, pragmatic Capitalists. So how did you get so confused about people indulging in a little thing called Brand Differentiation?

Thought for sure you'd know that.

And actually, I think for sure you do know that. So I have to wonder why you let your "leaders" get your hackles up over something that's a foundational tenet of the kind of Capitalism we practice here in USAmerica Inc.


It's like Jesus always said: "Just what the fuck you idiots think you're doin'?"


Apr 6, 2024

Today's WTF


Boeing has been one of the truly great airplane makers for 100 years.

In WW2, the B17 brought air crews home safe with battle damage so bad there was nearly as much airplane missing as there was airplane.

In the 1950s, when a lot of people figured Lockheed had commercial air travel sewed up with their Constellation, boom - here comes the Boeing 707, and the Jet Set was born.

Meanwhile, Boeing's B52 has been in service since the mid-1950s, and is expected to keep flying for another 25 or 30 years.

I say all that because the company has been run pretty badly for the last 10 years or so. Badly enough to have killed about 350 passengers because of poor quality assurance measures - software glitches that took down 2 of their 737 MAX airplanes, and most recently, a door blew off another airplane in mid-flight, and various other little mishaps that make me very glad I almost never fly anywhere anymore.

Anyway, it's pretty indicative of a fucked up situation here in USAmerican Inc, when the business culture allows for a guy who's been runnin' the joint (kinda into the ground, so to speak) gets a nice fat paycheck on his way out the door.


Departing Boeing CEO gets nearly $33 million in 2023 total compensation

April 5 (Reuters) - The 2023 pay package of Boeing's CEO, who recently announced his departure in the midst of a safety crisis, rose about 45% to nearly $33 million, the U.S. planemaker said on Friday.

Boeing said much of CEO Dave Calhoun's compensation is in deferred stock that has fallen in value following a January mid-air panel blowout.

The adjusted value of Calhoun's total 2023 compensation is $24.8 million, the company said in a regulatory filing. Boeing shares have tumbled nearly 30% this year as the company wrestles with quality concerns from regulators and customers following the Jan. 5 blowout on an Alaska Airlines 737 MAX 9 jet.

The proxy does not mention an exit package for Calhoun, who announced on March 25 that he will step down from the top job by year-end. In 2022, he received $22.6 million in total compensation, according to the filing.

Calhoun's potential retirement payouts were valued at more than $44 million as of year end 2023, the filing showed.

Production of Boeing's strong-selling 737 MAX has slipped in recent weeks as U.S. regulators step up factory checks and the planemaker seeks to boost quality. European rival Airbus has extended its lead in the market for single-aisle jets.

The crisis led to a broad management shakeup with Boeing board chair Larry Kellner and Stan Deal, head of the commercial planes business, also leaving. Chief Operating Officer Stephanie Pope has replaced Deal.

The board's new chair, Steve Mollenkopf, told shareholders in Friday's filing: "I promise that I personally, and we as a board will leave no stone unturned in our efforts to get this company to where it needs to be."

Calhoun took home $5 million in pay in 2023 after declining to be considered for his $2.8 million bonus, compared with $7 million in 2022. Earlier filings show Calhoun did not receive a bonus over the last three years.

Deal earned $2.6 million in actual pay in 2023 and his total compensation jumped 42% to $12.5 million, although Boeing estimates the current value at $9.7 million.

Boeing's board also decided this year that the value of long -term executive officer awards would be reduced by the percentage decline in the company's stock price since the blowout and the 2024 award date.

Due to that reduction, Calhoun will receive an award of $13.25 million in 2024, compared with a target of $17 million. A year earlier, the award was $21.25 million.

After two separate 737 MAX crashes in 2018 and 2019 that killed a combined 346 people, Boeing had revamped its executive compensation policies to emphasize product safety and quality.

In 2024, for Boeing's commercial airplanes, safety and quality will be assigned a weighting of 60% when deciding annual incentives, compared with a 40% weighting for financial performance.

Yeah, hey - I'm sure all those dead people feel quite a bit better now that the company has been more or less forced to make the executive committee's bonuses dependent on whether or not THEIR AIRPLANES FALL OUT OF THE FUCKING SKY.

Long-term incentive awards for Boeing's executive officers will also include new metrics, such as mandating an employee culture survey to assess safety management.

In February, an expert panel reviewing safety management found a "disconnect" between Boeing's senior management and employees on safety culture.

Rosanna Weaver, director of wage justice & executive pay at shareholder advocacy organization As You Sow, said she thinks Boeing is doing the right thing in rewarding safety, although such efforts should have been there "in the first place."

Apr 4, 2024

Profit-Taking Is The Norm

Smaller companies - the ones producing about 3% of the industry's revenue - came out with more than half of the new drugs.

While the big dogs - the ones raking in 86% of the revenue - produced only 36% of the new drugs.



Opinion
No, Big Pharma’s high prices don’t drive innovation

This year, for the first time, a handful of prescription drug manufacturers will negotiate with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services over how much taxpayers will pay for their costly drugs. Big pharmaceutical companies have long argued that such price negotiations will lower their profits, reducing their ability to innovate. But is that true?

Not according to an analysis we published at our think tank, the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity. Our research shows that the biggest drug companies largely fail to turn their enormous profits into discoveries. Instead, most innovation is taking place at small, unprofitable start-ups, whose drugs are largely excluded from Medicare’s new price negotiation system. When it comes to pharmaceutical innovation, smaller is better.

For our analysis, we reviewed 428 recent drug approvals by the Food and Drug Administration and surveyed financial data from more than 4,000 pharmaceutical and biotech companies. We found that large companies, defined as those with more than $10 billion in annual sales, produced 86 percent of the industry’s revenue but that only 36 percent of the drugs approved by the FDA. By contrast, emerging start-ups with less than $500 million in annual sales or less than $200 million in annual R&D spending produced 3 percent of the industry’s revenue but discovered more than half of all newly approved drugs.

You’d think that the biggest drug companies with the biggest R&D budgets would have the most productive research labs. But it doesn’t work that way.

Large companies tend to be bureaucratic, risk-averse and much more focused on increasing profits from their existing drug product lines. That’s partly because their largest and most influential shareholders care more about quarterly returns than long-term success. As a result, big companies overinvest in low-quality but “safe” ideas and underinvest in better but risky ones.

By contrast, smaller companies are nimbler and can better attract top scientific talent. The most creative scientists work at start-ups where they often have more freedom. Start-ups also let them generate far more wealth through stock options rather than through modest year-end bonuses at behemoths like Eli Lilly or AstraZeneca.

If large companies’ labs are so unproductive, you might ask, why are so many of the world’s top-selling drugs manufactured by bigger companies? Because of the FDA’s high regulatory costs. Smaller companies can’t always afford to conduct the large billion-dollar clinical trials required for approval. As a result, big companies treat emerging start-ups like their farm team, buying off their best drugs, raising their prices and reaping the profits.

Don't start thinking those high regulatory costs are always just unfortunate happenstance. Sometimes, the big companies lobby extra hard for costly regulation, in order to keep the smaller guys down, and make it easier for themselves to buy properties (eg: drug patents) at a bargain price.

And don't forget the billions in federal government research grants and subsidies funded through NIH.

US Tax Dollars Funded Every New Pharmaceutical in the Last Decade 

The good news is this is beginning to change. Emerging companies are increasingly taking their best drugs to market by themselves. In 2013, only 23 percent of successful drugs developed by emerging companies reached FDA approval under the original developer. By 2022, that share increased to 75 percent. If this trend continues, patients will benefit from a more competitive and diverse ecosystem of drug developers.

Opponents of drug-price negotiation on Wall Street and in Silicon Valley have no problem with large multinationals gobbling up smaller companies. Mergers and acquisitions, they argue, enable investors in those smaller companies to generate quicker returns, incentivizing further investment in start-ups.

But investors also make money if start-ups take their innovations all the way to market. In fact, over the long term, investors can make more money if start-ups become multibillion-dollar success stories rather than selling out at an earlier stage for lower acquisition prices. A more diverse ecosystem of successful, profitable biopharmaceutical companies will lead to more innovation, not less.

The drug negotiation provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act were designed with these considerations in mind. The law exempts from its process any drug representing more than 80 percent of a company’s sales to the Medicare program, effectively excluding emerging start-ups with one FDA-approved medicine.

And more affordable medicines benefit all Americans, not just seniors in Medicare, because all taxpayers fund the program through payroll taxes.

That’s why President Biden has proposed expanding Medicare price negotiations from 20 drugs a year to 50, a reasonable idea that would reduce the federal deficit and Medicare premiums. People often think the only way to make Medicare sustainable is to raise taxes or cut benefits. But reducing what Medicare must pay for the care seniors receive can also help accomplish this goal.

We can do other things to lower drug prices while protecting innovation. First, we can eliminate the Inflation Reduction Act’s punitive tax for companies that refuse to negotiate with the Medicare program. In a true negotiation, manufacturers should have the right to walk away from Medicare. They rarely will, given the value of Medicare’s 65-million-person market, but the right to do so will incentivize Medicare to negotiate in good faith.

Second, we can reduce red tape at the FDA and enable more drugs to reach patients after compelling midstage clinical trials. We already do this for cancer and HIV, and there’s no reason we shouldn’t do it for chronic diseases when scientifically appropriate.

The real barrier to innovation in drug development isn’t manufacturers’ ability to charge extortionate prices; it’s the ever-increasing cost of navigating the FDA’s approval process. In the rest of the economy, innovation drives lower prices for valuable goods and services. The pharmaceutical industry — and its regulator — should follow suit.

Feb 18, 2024

The Test


It's pretty appalling to keep finding out that so many Americans know so little about our history or our government.

The citizenship test has some of the easiest questions ever - stuff I was taught in grade school - starting like in 3rd or 4th grade.

Nobody's asking you to present a full dissertation on the details of our little experiment in democratic self-government, but holy crap, people, c'mon - ya gotta know some of this to be at least kind of effective in the whole democracy thing.

Democracy is not something we have
unless it's something we do.
And we have to know something about it
to make the damned thing work.

Check yourself:


The next time you hear somebody shit-talk immigrants for not knowing enough about USAmerica Inc, ask them a few of those questions.

Nov 24, 2023


We're told that publicly disclosed campaign money is a determinant factor in an election. And there's still some truth to that, but this is not 2009 (ie: before Citizens United v FEC), and we've drifted away from being the kind of democracy we keep telling ourselves we are.

Press Poodles need to start looking beyond what a candidate (particularly a GOP candidate) has in their "campaign war chest".

Any given Republican running for any given office can be pretty sure that whatever they spend on ads and such will be supplemented 3- or 5- or 10-fold by private (and anonymous) "donors" who are basically buying that candidate's vote at whatever level of government they're going to "serve".

And while there's a good bit of that on the Dems' side as well, I estimate a very large majority of it goes to the benefit of the GOP.

Aug 2, 2023

Why We Can't Have Nice Things


At the upper levels, "American entrepreneurship" is plain old ordinary bullshit.
  • Start with your brilliant new idea
  • Set it up as a "non-profit"
  • Get government to pitch in
  • Wire it so the tax-payer money being syphoned into your shell company is laundered and hidden, so it can be funneled into your very profitable subsidiaries
  • Buy some politicians to cement your scheme in place, basically making it illegal not to do business with you


You pay a premium every month, but when you need care that shades even slightly away from the sweet spot on your insurance company's Favorites List, they'll deny you the care you need to live your bestest healthiest life.

50 million Americans are denied care in one way or another every year.

The big insurance companies have strangled healthcare providers to the point where they can own any given "private" practice, and have taken on the doctors as hired hands - subjecting them to all the shitty labor-fucking laws that they've paid their coin-operated legislators to put in place.



Corporate Plutocracy
is not coming.
It's already here.

May 8, 2023

USAmerica, Inc

... is nine kinds of fucked up - in one picture

Shell Deer Park chemical plant on fire 05-05-2023
with
Corporate bullshit slogan on a garbage truck

I don't see how we're gonna survive.

Feb 16, 2022

They Call It The American Dream

...because you have to be asleep to believe it.

It's not supposed to be The American Dream to head out on the morning of your 50th birthday realizing you'll be working the same crappy little job at the same crappy little wage for the rest of your crappy little life, while the drive time DJ tries to happy-talk you out of the feeling that you and everybody in your family would be better off if you had a fatal accident on the way to the office today.