More From Musk On Twitter

In yesterday's headlines: Elon Musk Puts Twitter’s $17M-Per-Year ‘Censorship Chief’ on Notice

Tech mogul Elon Musk has hinted that he is planning to fire Twitter’s “censorship chief,” who earns $17 million per year at the company.

Twitter’s top lawyer Vijaya Gadde is seen as the leading advocate for censoring conservatives at the social media giant.

Gadde, who earned $17M last year as Twitter’s top legal counsel, has been put on notice that she is among the highly paid executives who stand to lose their job once Musk completes his takeover of the company.

Musk is reportedly planning to slash jobs and reduce executive pay as part of his plan to shake up Twitter.

Wikipedia confirms that Gadde is in fact Twitter's "policy, safety lead director and a chief legal officer and general counsel", which suggests she has a much more wide-ranging role than your typical SVP-legal affairs. Farther down, it notes

In 2018, Gadde joined Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey for meetings in India where they talked with several Dalit activists about their experiences on Twitter; after the meeting, the activists gave Dorsey a sign reading "Smash Brahminical Patriarchy," which he was later photographed holding. The photograph attracted controversy, with some critics calling the sentiment discriminatory against Brahmins while others deemed it an appropriate response to caste- and gender-based oppression in India. Gadde responded to the social media furor with an apology in a series of tweets, "I'm very sorry for this. It's not reflective of our views. We took a private photo with a gift just given to us - we should have been more thoughtful. Twitter strives to be an impartial platform for all. We failed to do that here & we must do better to serve our customers in India."

She was one of the key officials at Twitter involved in decisions to suspend the account of former American President Donald Trump.

In other words, it looks as if for whatever reason, she got to tell Jack Dorsey what to think. Or in other words, she de facto ran the company, which however is unprofitable. No question Musk should put her on notice.

There's a subsidiary issue, which may have affected the timing of Musk's announcement, though I would also guess he'd been advised not to comment directly on the case: just last Saturday, April 30, Judge William Alsup ruled against Twitter's motion for summary dismissal in the case of Berenson v Twitter.

[Gadfly journalist Alex] Berenson, a vocal critic of the government’s pandemic response, sued Twitter after the company kicked him off the site for describing Covid vaccines as an advance therapeutic with risky side effects.

. . . Alsup focused his ruling on Berenson’s allegations that the company changed the ground rules on the content Twitter would allow on its platform, despite assurances from an executive that his posts weren’t up for censorship.

“Collectively, these actions plausibly qualify as a clear and unambiguous promise that Twitter would correctly apply its COVID-19 misinformation policy and try to give advance notice if it suspended plaintiff’s account,” Alsup wrote in his decision.

He also noted that “[a]ny ambiguities in a contract like Twitter’s terms of service are interpreted against the drafter, Twitter.”

I'm subscribed to Berenson's Substack (though not any sort of donor), and his position is that his attorneys have already pursued discovery on the case.

We have just sent Twitter a list of questions we would like them to answer, documents we would like them to produce, and admissions of fact we would like them to make. Here’s a sample:

Here's the situation for Twitter, which yet again is not profitable: Judge Alsup has allowed the case to proceed to trial, at least for now. The trial could be ten years away. But Berenson's attorneys are already making demands for discovery, which are first, expensive for Twitter to answer, and second, likely to damage Twitter's reputation further over that period of years, especially in an environment where corporate managers who play woke are coming under increasing attack.

Legal analysts say Twitter still has hope -- at least maybe a couple years down the road if Judge Alsup loses patience with Berenson or something:

This is an unusual ruling because, as Jess Miers and I documented, most account termination cases lose on the motion to dismiss. Two factors help explain this aberration. First, the backchannel communications between Berenson and Twitter execs are rare. (Compare King v. Facebook, where a rank-and-file employee’s sympathetic message didn’t help the plaintiff). And if those conversations occur, most trust & safety professionals never imply any promise in any conversation with any user. Second, Judge Alsup often gives plaintiffs chances on the motion to dismiss, only to drop the hammer on them later in the case when he feels like they overpromised and underdelivered. So it wouldn’t surprise me if Berenson loses this case on summary judgment with a derisive Judge Alsup opinion if Berenson can’t prove up Twitter’s promises or the reasonableness of his purported reliance on them.

But that's down the road, that is, if Twitter gets lucky, but meantime, there's all that discovery, and of course all those multimillions already going to Twitter's outside counsel, trial ten years away or no, which Twitter can ill afford.

And Elon Musk was presumably just briefed that Twitter's $17 million general counsel set the company up for this.

Work From Home!

Last week I wrote about the unique work culture in Silicon Valley, in which unproductive employees in bloated organizations are nevertheless remarkably entitled. This falls out to some extent everywhere in tech, but it's at its worst up in the San Jose area. I discovered a new manifestation of this phenomenon at Apple, where for the past two years employees have "worked from home" due to COVID, but management is now asking them to return to the office three days a week in something called the Hybrid Working pilot.

From my own anecdotal experience as a cutstomer of companies claiming to have been hurt by COVID, the actual impact of lockdowns occurred in the first half of 2020 but gradually abated throughout the rest of the year. Companies that claimed to have had their ability to serve customers badly reduced by early 2021 were using it as an excuse. For Apple to be trying to get back to normal only in mid 2022 suggests that everyone had simply been coasting, not least management.

As you might expect, there's pushback. An employee group called Apple Together has written a letter to management:

Dear Executive Team,

We have a long relationship with Apple. In fact, even before spending years, sometimes decades, working at Apple, many of us were devoted Apple customers. We grew up with Apple, we told our friends and families about Apple, we dreamt of one day joining Apple. Then, one day, we did. Apple grew through us. Like you, many of us were there through Apple’s near-death experience. We are still here, now that Apple is the most valuable company in the world. Today, with your leadership and our ideas we still serve all of our customers and still try to surprise and delight people with our products. But our vision of the future of work is growing further and further apart from that of the executive team.

They stress a cult-like relationship with the company as an idea and finally get around to saying they "still serve all of our customers" -- but their idea of how to do this is departing from the managers who want them back in the office. The Conclusion of the letter aptly expresses the employees' state of mind:

In the original “Returning to our offices” email, Tim said “we’d make sure Apple delivered on its promises to its customers regardless of the circumstances”. It’s true, we delivered on our promises and continue to do so. We were incredibly flexible and resilient and found new ways to do our work, despite not being able to go to an office in many cases.

Now we ask you, the executive team, to show some flexibility as well and let go of the rigid policies of the Hybrid Working Pilot. Stop trying to control how often you can see us in the office. Trust us, we know how each of our small contributions helps Apple succeed and what’s required to do so. Our direct managers trust us and in many cases would happily let us work in a more flexible setup. And why wouldn’t they, we’ve successfully done so for the last two years. Why don’t you?

It sounds as if in the original appeal to come back to the office, management was delicately suggesting that work wasn't getting done and customers weren't being served. Back when I was working for a living, "work from home" was a perk reserved for the bosses, and it was manifested by the bosses calling phone conferences while they were doing things like driving their kids to dancing class but the rest of us were stuck in the office. Since the phone meetings were as useless as any other meeting, you'd have the kids screaming in the back seat of the car while the boss drove and talked on the phone, in fact a dangerous situation, and even less got done than usual.

I had one boss, Kim, who as far as I could tell spent her entire day driving the freeways around the San Francisco area and calling people from her car. I suspect alcohol was also involved, and I never understood how she avoided DUIs or worse. Nobody above her seemed to mind, but then, the CEO eventually spent a dozen years in federal prison for securities fraud. No company makes real money that way.

It sounds like Apple managed to extend this version of "work" to pretty much everyone, or maybe more accurately, everyone in the bourgeois office force -- I can't imagine that the people in China who actually built the phones got the same option. And the whole arrangement was about as wasteful and unproductive as anyone might imagine, to the point that management apparently began to feel pressure to get things done again.

When I left teaching to go into tech in the 1970s, I read a then-new book by Gerald Weinberg, The Psychology of Computer Programming. I skimmed over it again just recently, but it's as if I'd read two different books. The point I took in the 1970s was that any tech group follows an informal organizational pattern whereby there are one or two people who know how things work and how to fix them, and the others are simply engaged in bringing their problems to the experts who do the work.

This dovetailed with other treatments like Fred Brooks's The Mythical Man-Month, in which the key observation was, "adding manpower to a late software project makes it later." In other words, most tech workers are incompetent idlers who use the organization to conceal their laziness and ineptitude from the managers, who don't know who the effective workers are. This was confirmed by my consistent observation throughout my tech career. Indeed, Scott Adams got rich writing comic strips that said the same thing.

When I reread Weinberg, I discovered that while he recognized that most tech workers weren't doing the work, he actually proposed a unicorns-and-rainbows solution to the problem whereby there would be "egoless programming", collaboration, no-fault peer review, and the like. Baloney. Things don't happen that way. For effective peer review, you would need a group of skilled programmers or engineers at roughly equal levels of job knowledge -- but that's not the environment Weinberg started with, and he had no realistic plan to get there.

Apple's problem in Silicon Valley represents Weinberg's paradox. In theory, you could treat the few highly creative tech workers like Apple treats all of its employees and get good results. Apple is succeeding only because its good people are barely tolerating the environment, while great crowds of drones are busily concealing from the managers who is actually doing the work -- and working from home has been an even more effiocient way to do that.

Someone at Apple has belatedly realized this won't work in the long run. Elon Musk, I have a feeling, is going to try a different model at Twitter, basically a version of nuke 'em all and let God sort it out. We'll see.

The US Right's Zelensky Problem

Yesterday, the Never Trump, Not Quite Zelensky Hot Air blog quoted Don Jr:

According to senior officials, [Biden's Lend-Lease] proposal, which includes $20.4bn in military aid, $8.5bn in economic aid and $3bn in humanitarian aid, is needed to "enable Ukraine's success over the next five months of this war".

Responding to the report, former president Donald Trump's eldest son suggested that the fund sent by the US would be "looted by corrupt politicians".

"Hard pass. How about we use it to help Americans in need? Or to perhaps secure our border? Maybe get our energy sector going again? Education? No, instead we’ll give it to one of the most corrupt countries in the world, where I’m sure most will be looted by corrupt politicians," he wrote on Twitter.

A little over a week ago, Tucker Carlson said,

"Inflation is higher than it's been in generations, maybe than it has been ever, depending on how you measure it," Carlson said.

"So Joe Biden's response is that he is going to print a lot more money and send it to the Government of Ukraine."

. . . "Shouldn't we have an audit of Zelensky's finances first?" Speaking mockingly, Tucker continued: "'Ooo shut up, that is Russian disinformation."

Among the tiny number of "no" votes on the lend-lease package was Madison Cawthorn, who himself has an established record as a fabulist and is dogged with ethics accusations, and who has previously called Zelensky "a thug". These appraisals are remarkably tone-deaf and to my mind call the judgment of Trump Jr, Carlson, and Cawthorn into question.

The first issue that comes to my mind is that there's an across-the-board consensus that Russian corruption has been a major factor in the astonishingly poor performance of the world's second largest army in Ukraine. This includes allegations that the generals have sold off critical components of the army's equipment and that they've padded the numbers in their units to collect the salaries of non-existent soldiers, as well as the imputation that senior officers are promoted for reasons other than military capability.

On the other hand, the Ukrainian armed forces have far outperformed expectations, sinking a major Russian warship, effectively denying Russia air superiority, and bringing the Russian blitzkrieg to a halt. If on one hand, Russian ineffectiveness can be attributed at least in part to corruption, to what can we attribute Ukrainian success? If Ukraine is corrupt, it must be far less so than Russia, judging at least by military effectiveness. By the same token, both Carlson and Trump Jr are clearly claiming that aid to Ukraine will be siphoned off in baksheesh, when every indication is that Ukraine is capably and effectively using every resource it's been given.

There are always red-flag indicators that trigger an audit (to be specific, this would be a "forensic" audit; there are also routine audits that are done periodically anywhere). The company's finance chief commits suicide, say. A branch VP suddenly buys a big yacht. A whistleblower goes to the IRS. Audits of this sort are the result of smoke-that-could-be-fire. As far as anyone can tell, Zelensky himself has no secret yachts in the Mediterranean. Much as Carlson and Trump Jr would like to find something like that, so far, nobody's come up with anything.

In fact, it said a great deal about Zelensky that the Biden administration apparently assumed he'd be like any other third-world dictator and flee the country with his cronies, mistresses, and pallets of cash, offering him a C-130 to skedaddle when the blitzkrieg got under way. His famous response was that he needed ammunition, not a ride.

The next factor to my mind is that handsome is as handsome does. I'm not the only person to note that his wartime leadership overall has been at the Lincoln or Churchill level. One key thing he's undersood has been that his job isn't just to rally the Ukrainian domestic population to make enormous sacrifice; it's been to make his case with world leaders. As a result, a country like Brazil, which has no dog in Ukraine's fight and had been neutral at best toward Ukraine, has turned around and pledged ammunition.

If Zelensky is on the take, it isn't showing in his job performance, which in part consists of a low-key, purposeful public persona reflecting a full-time dedication to the job at hand -- he dresses in khaki T-shirts and cargo pants and goes unshaven, sort of a Fidel Castro without the mugging for the camera. This isn't how oligarchs act.

The last factor I'd note is that as Aquinas says, sin dulls the intellect. For whatever reason, Putin convinced a generation of politicians that he was a brilliant guy, but when push came to shove, he turned out to be pretty dumb. On the other hand, Zelensky is turning out to be remarkably sharp. If he's using the office copier to file his tax returns, or if he's taking ballpoints home with him, I've got to think that's about the extent of it.

I don't know if Don Jr's views reflect those of Trump Sr. If they do, Trump is toast. The fact is that for whatever reason -- possibly because Secs Blinken and Austin have managed to cut out a sphere of discretion where Biden will just leave them alone -- Biden has somehow got on the right side of this issue and at least hasn't been badly damaging himself with it. I can't say the same for some swaths of the US Right.

Understanding Musk

There can be few better arguments for the idea that Twitter is, or had been, a de facto agency for government censorship than the Biden administration's proposal for a new Disinformation Governance Board only days after Twitter's directors accepted Elon Musk's buyout offer. But the ramifications go beyond the predictable political alignments. Witness the reaction of the Never Trump Hot Air blog:

Very encouraging that the new owner thinks it was bad form to silence a guy who had just incited a riot by conspiracy theorists at the Capitol and seemed capable of inciting a lot more amidst his mania to overturn the 2020 election.

Trump can rest easy now knowing that his mic won’t be cut the next time he tries a coup, I guess.

This report from the WSJ makes me consider a question to which only Elon Musk himself knows the answer. Namely, to what extent is buying a Twitter a business decision for him? Does he feel pure altruism in wanting to improve an influential communications platform by, among other things, trying to ensure that it treats all of its users fairly? Or are there bottom-line considerations?

I ask because it seems to me that having Donald Trump back on the platform would be good for business in various ways. Yeah, fine, “free speech” and all that. But there’s money to be made too.

Why bring Trump into this at all? Trump so far hasn't changed his position that he won't use Twitter again, but the writer's basic question here has nothing to do with Trump: is Musk doing this out of altruism, or is there money to be made? It sounds to me as though Allahpundit is as deeply suspicious of Musk as he is of Trump -- either Musk is naively altruistic (a billionaire? really?) or, like billionaire Trump himself, he's just cynically bottom-line.

The first thing Allahpundit doesn't understand about US million/billionaires is that most, even those mainly identified as tech moguls or steel-and-railroad industrialists, have always had either a direct investment in media or have at least clearly understood it. Thomas Edison was a pioneer in the film and record industries as well as light bulbs and utilities. Jay Gould, best known as one of the railroad robber barons, also controlled Western Union and worked closely with Edison to improve telegraph technology. His telegraph interests were always closely integrated with his railroads, with Western Union lines sharing rail rights of way.

William Randolph Hearst was a media mogul, though he also took an interest in politics. Joseph Kennedy was a stock market and real estate investor who branched into Hollywood. Steve Jobs was a tech innovator somewhat like Edison, but as he grew older, his focus was increasingly on media. Rockefeller Sr retired and put the family fortune under the control of Rockefeller Jr, who listened to Ivy Lee, the founder of modern public relations, effectively preserving the family's reputation through decades of attacks by muckrakers and socialists.

In that context, there's nothing unusual or particularly untrustworthy about Musk. An operator at that level is simply going to see opportunities in media that others will miss. Another skeptical piece from a different writer at Hot Air at least gets closer to Musk's likely intent:

Twitter has accepted Elon Musk’s offer but there are lots of people suggesting that Musk either can’t or won’t be able to complete the deal for various reasons.

. . . No sign from Musk that he’s having second thoughts so far but the idea of him changing course is certainly circulating at the moment. Another reason people are questioning the deal is that Twitter isn’t a very profitable company. Normally this type of leveraged buyout scenario would target a company that has a lot more profit.

. . . one way to make this deal make more sense would be to cut staffing dramatically.

So people are scratching their heads about Musk's motives but speculating there will be massive layoffs? What interests me here is that political writers like those at Hot Air, or indeed business writers, have apparently had no experience working in tech. I spent the latter years of my career commuting up to Silicon Valley, where the working environment is unique: free popcorn, free sodas, games in the break room, free beer on Fridays, set your own schedule, and the like.

I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but the people who work in that environment are spectacularly unproductive. I'd waste whole mornings waiting for my counterparts to get off the phone with their brokers. The UK Daily Mail has at least a suggestion of what might be on Musk's mind:

Twitter staff have been told that their jobs are safe for at least six months, until Elon Musk takes over under the terms of a $44 billion deal to take control of the company, agreed on Monday.

. . . Concerns about immediate job losses were allayed, with employees told that business will operate as usual until a deal closes in next six months, Bloomberg's Kurt Wagner reported.

Staff were told there would be no layoffs 'at this time' - but no guarantees were provided when Musk takes over.

. . . In internal message rooms there was uproar, The New York Times reported.

'I feel like im going to throw up..I rly don't wanna work for a company that is owned by Elon Musk,' one staffer said, according to their reporter Talmon Smith.

Smith's source told him that it was 'absolutely insane' in the internal chat rooms.

Another Twitter employee reportedly complained: 'I don't rly know what I'm supposed to do…oh my god, my phone's been blowing up…We have a meeting about it at 5pm…the CEO is going to address everyone about it' (it=elon).

I have a feeling the real concern at Twitter is less about whether Trump will be back than how many people will still get beer on Fridays. In some ways, that would be a move as interesting as a former Ukrainian comic driving the final stake into the heart of Stalinism, and nearly as consequential.

Twitter wasn't making money, but it was indulging and spoiling a bloated staff who, when some of them got around to it, were providing a free censorship service to the deep state. Musk is asking, as far as I can see, first, why this service is being provided for free, or indeed at all, and second, why so many people are doing no useful work. Drop the free stuff, both to the government and the workers, and produce something people will buy.

I'm not sure why anyone sees a problem here.

Rope-a-Dope

Accordding to Wikipedia,

The rope-a-dope is a boxing fighting technique in which one contender draws non-injuring offensive punches (sometimes while leaning against the rope of the boxing ring) to let the opponent tire themselves out. This gives the former the opportunity to then execute devastating offensive maneuvers to help them win. The rope-a-dope is most famously associated with Muhammad Ali in his October 1974 Rumble in the Jungle match against world heavyweight champion George Foreman in Kinshasa, Zaire.

It seems to me that the Ukrainian strategy, as well as defeat in detail, which I've discussed here, is also rope-a-dope. So far, I haven't seen any analysis of the war that covers this, which is an argument for staying away from sites like ISW and spending time on the reddit /r ukraine conflict site. Here is a thread there based on a Twitter thread that quotes a Russian's detailed account of his deployment in Donbas:

. . . At the start of March the brigade moved towards Rubezhnoe. Advanced from north. As witnesses described, on one of the forest roads at the approach to the town the column stopped and sent forward reconnaissance. Reconnaissance discovered two Ukrainian strong points. Ukrainians were not suspecting anything. For 40 minutes at the brigade they were deciding what to do. In this time, Ukrainians spotted the column and opened heavy fire from mortars and artillery. In this attack, the military personnel of our battalion halved without entering combat. Further I'll be writing about my own battalion, since I'm not familiar with actions of others.

At the time, myself together with Vit'ka and Irishman were in Luhansk trying to join the war, I wrote about this here. The Irishman through his acquaintances in hospital was claiming some monstrous numbers of 200's [killed in action] and 300's, [wounded] but I didn't believe back then. As I realised later, we couldn't leave because those who were meant to transfer us were busy delivering 300's and identifying 200's. Later, at the battalion location, light wounded who were coming back confirmed the losses.

After this defeat the battalion dismounted and laid down. Frost, snow, we laid down under shelling for three days. Starting fires was forbidden. Frostbitten in large numbers were added to the existing losses. Basically, by the time of the assault, only about a third of personnel was left in the battalion.

Next, with support of brigade artillery there was an assault of the northern part of town with 5-9 storeys buildings. Ukrainians didn't defend them and fairly quickly fell back to prepared positions in the private residential areas. At the end of March, Chechens housed in these buildings and posted staged videos about them 'heroically' cleaning up the 5-storey houses that were cleared two days before them.

Yet what began next was a complete f*ckery. As a strong point the Ukrainians used concrete garages . . .

They prepared positions superbly. South of the position was a low ground protecting from artillery. It was connected to communication pathways. At the ends of the streets leading north through the village were concrete pillboxes. In the village quarters 'fire bags' were organised beforehand - those were cleared crossfire sectors with machine gun points in basements and prepared sniper positions. And in those 'fire bags' were carefully laid pathways with smashed through sheds and fences. Fighters attempting reconnaissance by force go through yards so as to avoid going through streets that are shot-through. They don't know who made these pathways - possibly our own. And through these pathways they came under cross-fire of machine guns and snipers. Groups perished without even realising they were being shot at.

. . .A group entered one of those 'bags'. Immediately nine 200's. The commander was without a scratch. He came back, took more people, and went to pick up the 200's the same path. Had three more killed. And so - for a week. In the end, there were twenty 200's that couldn't be picked up for several weeks. An order to 'pull out 200's' became equivalent to 'go and die!

By mid-April, from the 'pre-war' personnel of our company only a couple people remained. Now they were sending volunteers and reservists into combat. Most volunteers had the experience of 2014-2015, but this was a totally different war and their experience wasn't helping with anything. And reservists - those were miners caught on the streets without any experience. No one cared. Grab the machine gun and go, under mortar fire. There was a catastrophic shortage of people, fighters weren't withdrawn from the frontline for a month and more. Many were losing their shit from the overload. Some started drinking heavily, thankfully there was no shortage of booze at the frontline. With pure mathematics, the chances of leaving the frontline alive and not wounded were close to zero. The longer you stay there, the fewer chances you have left. From those who I was friends or shared bread with, in two weeks eight people died. Others wounded or concussed. In a week, three company commanders changed - two perished. No officers of company-squad level were left at all.

In mid-April, after numerous attacks and big losses, the garages were finally captured. After a day, from the low ground came a Ukrainian tank and simply destroyed the garages to the ground. Ukrainian tanks work there completely unpunished. This 9-storey house neighbouring us, two Ukrainian tanks were taking apart for several hours - calmly and methodically. Where was our artillery looking at the time - f*ck knows.

But let's put this in the context of typical analysis by just about everyone of a "static" front in eastern Ukraine, for instance in this major think piece at the Red State blog:

The initial concept that appeared to be developing a double envelopment from the salients to the north and south is not [sic] more. Instead, the Russians have been making slow, methodical progress and seem to be limiting their attacks based on available supplies. The Ukrainians are giving ground grudgingly.

The account above from the Russian point of view is entirely different. Russian commanders are being enticed into what they think will be easy gains in Ukrainian-held villages, only to find their units horribly chewed up in pre-prepared kill "bags", with each perceived gain simply leading them into new traps. The Daily Kos assessment is also without insight:

Turns out, no one is making big sweeping gains. It’s all “lay down artillery until defenders get the f’ out, walk in. Leave when their artillery returns fire.” Rinse, lather, repeat.

I don't see this. The result oif Ukraine's strategy throughout the war so far has been to exhaust the Russian army as it makes ineffective punches without progress toward its objectives -- in short, rope-a-dope. The effectiveness of the strategy can be gauged, first, by the Russian withdrawal from the Kyiv axis, and now by the Russian appointment of its senior general, Valery Gerasimov, to take over command of the Donbas region from Southern Military District Commander Alexander Dvornikov, who had failed to achieve his expected objectives after only a short time in command as the enormous Russian losses continue.

And one thing the Ukrainians are really good at is wiping out generals when they visit the front lines. I think the Russians are much closer to a loss than the conventional wisdom thinks.

Bad Writing And Ukraine Analysis

I spent the first part of my working career making red (or blue) marks like those above, and I thereby learned what Samuel Johnson meant when he said teaching is "intricate misery". If I discovered anything else in the process, it was that bad writing has a close relation to bad thinking, but I'm not sure if I can go much beyond that.

This seems to apply to what passes for prestigious analysis of the current war in Ukraine, especially from the Institute for the Study of War. Let's take a passage from their April 26 update:

Russian forces have adopted a sounder pattern of operational movement in eastern Ukraine, at least along the line from Izyum to Rubizhne. Russian troops are pushing down multiple roughly parallel roads within supporting distance of one another, allowing them to bring more combat power to bear than their previous practice had supported.

This could actually be a good introductory sentence for several subsequent paragraphs giving specific instances, but it's followed only by a few sentences that are essentially unsupported:

Russian troops on this line are making better progress than any other Russian advances in this phase of the war. They are pushing from Izyum southwest toward Barvinkove and southeast toward Slovyansk. They are also pushing several columns west and south of Rubizhne, likely intending to encircle it and complete its capture.

They're pushing, and they're pushing, and they'll likely, but if they're so much sounder, why haven't they done it yet? The whole story of the eastern front so far has been that it's static. Contrast this assessment with yesterday's analysis from the Daily Kos, which I think is better written and probably more accurate, though less prestigious:

Russia continued making slow, grinding progress on Wednesday, taking five settlements, repulsed on six other approaches, and pushing into some of the larger towns. Ukrainian resistance is stiff.

I won’t belabor the point I’ve made repeatedly—how Russia [is] guilty once again of spreading its forces thin across way too many lines of attack. Yes, they’ve had some tactical victories, taking a town here or there, but they are still failing their strategic goal of taking the entire Donbas region and building a land bridge that extends all the way across Ukraine’s south, through Odesa, and on to Moldova’s Transnistria region.

Remember, Russia had loads of tactical victories around Kyiv, Sumy, Chernihiv, and Kharkiv. How’d that turn out for them strategically?

. . . It’s been two weeks since Russia announced their big Donbas offensive, yet Russia has managed to push only ~22 kilometers (14 miles) to the south and west. That leaves just another 240-320 kilometers (~150-200 miles) of roads to go to close the gap to the south (depending on the route), not to mention all the territory in the middle, which at around 5,000 square miles, would entirely fit the state of Connecticut.

The Daily Kos analysis is far more concrete and even asks pertinent questions, which the ISW analysis completely leaves out. Now, I'm interested in this war, and being retired, I have time on my hands, so I'm able to look around for the best information. In general, the ISW is currently unique in insisting the Russians have cleaned up their act -- but the question remains that if their operational pattern is now sounder, as the ISW claims, why aren't we seeing them benefit from it? This is effectively the point the Daily Kos is raising.

The ISW says the Russians are making "better progress", but there's no specific comparison. This is no different from claiming our detergent will get your clothes 50% cleaner. The Russian progress so far is actually similar to what we saw around Kyiv, which is the point the Daily Kos makes. There, we saw seesawing along a largely static front, followed soon enough by a complete Russian collapse.

It's worth noting that the lead author of the April 26 ISW post I've linked here as a bad example is again Frederick W Kagan, the Ivy Leaguer with a PhD in Russian and Soviet military history, and who as I noted more than two weeks ago, seems inclined not just to repeat conventional wisdom but to create it himself ex nihilo. There's been a school of thought that goes more or less, "Just wait. The Russians are going to regroup, recalibrate, and refit, and we'll see a real advance n the Donbas." But so far, other than an advance here countered by a retreat there, we still aren't seeing it, but Kagan is sticking to his guns, and I think he's even jiggering his analysis to accommodate it.

And this leaves aside the increasing reports that the US-NATO heavy artillery that had been moving to Ukraine over the past two weeks is reaching the front, along with the trained Ukraine units to use it. The best reports I've been able to find are still at the reddit r/ ukraine conflict site. They are anecdotal and often unconfirmed, but I think they're a good counterbalance to the more respectable but badly written and badly reasoned analysis elsewhere.

Boy, That Was Fast

So fat, I haven't seen any commentary that ties the events of the past two weeks together.

• April 14: Elon Musk offers to buy Twitter
• April 18: U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle strikes down the federal mask mandate for airplanes and other modes of public transportation
• April 21: CNN announces cacellation of CNN+
• April 22: Florida Gov Ron DeSantis signs bill revoking special Disney status in the state
• April 25: Twitter board unanimously accepts Musk buyout offer.

In the space of a week and a half, the country took important steps to bring itself out of the 2020 moral panic. This included a major defeat for woke control of key news and entertainment and a near-final end to most COVID restrictions. There's been a lot of reaction to each individual event, especially the Musk takeover of Twitter, but nobody's seeing this as a much bigger milestone.

If I were to go farther with the big picture, I'd say this is taking place in the context of the Ukraine war. Again, few people are noting the effect of Volodymyr Zelensky as a world figure, although some are, interestingly in the context of the Aristotelian virtues, especially courage. For instance, at the UK Tablet,

The heroic struggle of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky against the tyrant Putin’s invasion of Ukraine represents nothing less than the return of noble manliness in our era. Improbably, he rose from portraying a Ukrainian president on a hit comedy series to becoming president in real life. His dressed-down khaki jacket and T-shirt shows solidarity with ordinary Ukrainians and has an Israeli feel. Don’t do what I ask because I’m president, he says. Do it because you’re Ukrainian.

, , , The idea of manly virtue has been discounted for many years now in our institutions of higher learning, frequently identified with “toxic masculinity” and other supposed threats to proper order. The caricature of manliness that our institutions now offer us is identified exclusively with barbarism and misogyny. . . . The classical standard for true manliness was still witnessed in modern democratic politics with leaders like Lincoln and Churchill. Though neither man was free of flaws, they had an inner compass that at their best moments guided what they aspired to be and how they governed. The emergence of Zelensky reminds us that such leaders can still emerge from the Western masculine ideal.

I've mentioned both Lincoln and Churchill in connection with Zelensky here. Churchill in particular was addressing a multinational audience, in particular due to the need for the UK to enlist American support against Hitler and Japan. Zelensky's task has been even bigger, to address the need first, for NATO and the West to abandon policies of appeasement toward Putin at all, and then for NATO and the West to man up against the fear that offending Putin by sending Ukraine heavy weapons would "start World War III".

His ability to do this, especially to move a weak, corrupt, and feminized US president who urged him to flee the country in the first hours of the invasion, gradually, first into not objecting to minimal aid to Ukraine (though apparently vetoing the transfer of Polish Migs), but eventually giving the US generals a free hand in providing whatever weapons and other assistance Zelensky requested, speaks for virtue at a classical and historic level. This is beyond David and Goliath; it's maybe, as a few have noted, more like Moses and Pharaoh.

Let's look at Wikipedia's account of how Elon Musk decided to take over Twitter:

On March 20, 2022, the Twitter account of conservative satire website The Babylon Bee was suspended for referring to U.S. Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine, a transgender woman, as their "Man of The Year", which Twitter stated violated its policy on "hateful conduct". The Babylon Bee refused to delete the tweet in order to regain access to the account, and Twitter rejected their appeal. According to Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon, the website was contacted by Musk shortly after the suspension to confirm whether they had been suspended, who mused that he "might need to buy Twitter". On March 24, Musk began tweeting statements critical of Twitter, polling his followers on whether Twitter adhered to the principle that "free speech is essential to a functioning democracy"

Wikipedia makes the point that as early as 2017, in response to a tweet suggesting Musk buy Twitter, he replied, "How much is it?", and Musk had been accumulating Twitter shares since January 2022, before anyone knew the name Zelensky. Nevertheless, it's hard to avoid the idea that Zelensky's leadership has created an atmosphere in which Musk could succeed in his bid, and certainly in which his bid could become viable.

The forces of wokeness have been in disorder since the middle of this month, but maybe even more significant, so has a certain segment of the Right. Tucker Carlson, who'd originally seemed likely to inherit Rush Limbaugh's mantle, has retained his anti-Zelensky position. The never-Trump Right is opposed to Musk's takeover of Twitter, as well as DeSantis's revocation of Disney's special treatment in Florida.

My take on Limbaugh is he'd have been pro-Zelensky, pro-Ukraine from the start. I'm really sorry we don't have his commentary now. More is happening than in Ukraine, but Ukraine is oddly driving the rest of it.