Monthly Archives: April 2022

On April 15, 1947, Jackie Robinson played his first game with the Brooklyn Dodgers, forever changing baseball and society.

Robinson was Black, and the integration of all-white major league baseball was perhaps the most important story about civil rights in the years immediately following World War II.

The integration, Jules Tygiel wrote in his groundbreaking book Baseballs Great Experiment, captured the imagination of millions of Americans who had previously ignored the nations racial dilemma.

As Martin Luther King Jr. famously put it, Robinson was a sit-inner before sit-ins, a freedom rider before freedom rides.

Major League Baseball celebrates the 75th anniversary of Robinsons historic career on April 15, 2022, in stadiums and ballparks across the nation.

But in my view, those celebrations will fall short if they dont address how Robinson confronted white supremacy with class and dignity during a time before he joined the Dodgers, when his own minor league manager once asked, Do you really think a nigra is a human being?

Ive written or edited four books about Jackie Robinson. When I give a lecture or a talk about him, I often mention that he was a Republican.

Given the modern-day opposition that the Republican Party has toward civil and voting rights protections and the teaching of racism in American history this invariably provokes an audible gasp from the audience.

Robinson, who lived from 1919 to 1972, was a Republican when millions of other Blacks were Republicans.

Back in those days, the GOP still hung on to its mantra that it was the party of Abraham Lincoln, the president who signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

The proclamation declared that all persons held as slaves within the rebellious Southern states that had seceded from the Union are, and henceforward shall be free.

Robinsons parents gave him the middle name Roosevelt in honor of Republican President Teddy Roosevelt, who expressed disdain about racism, Arnold Rampersad wrote in his Robinson biography, before white supremacist power made Roosevelt retreat into conservatism.

Branch Rickey, the white Dodgers executive who signed Robinson to a contract and became his mentor, was an ardent Republican who believed in racial equality. Robinson supported and then worked for civil rights advocate New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller.

If we had one or two governors in the Deep South like Nelson Rockefeller, King said, many of our problems could be readily solved.

Robinson endorsed Richard Nixon, the Republican candidate for president, in 1960. Nixon, who, like Robinson, was from southern California, convinced Robinson, a former UCLA athlete, that he would support civil rights.

Robinson found Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kennedy, Nixons opponent, insincere in his tepid support for civil rights.

Kennedy won the presidential election that year.

In 1964, U.S. Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona challenged Rockefeller and other more liberal Republicans for control of what the right wing called the white mans party. He won the partys presidential nomination.

Though Goldwater lost the presidential election in a landslide to Democratic President Lyndon Baines Johnson, he won the hearts and minds of pro-segregation Democrats, the mostly Southern politicians and their followers who had abandoned the Democratic Party when it endorsed legislation during the late 50s and '60s to advance civil rights and voting rights for Blacks.

Those who switched parties included U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, who ran for president in 1948 as a segregationist and later filibustered for more than 24 hours to prevent passage of the 1957 Civil Rights Act.

Goldwater, Nixon and others in the GOP used what they called the Southern strategy to leverage the grievances and fears of Southern whites over the Democrats groundbreaking proposal that Blacks should have equal rights.

By 1968, Robinson was done with the GOP. He refused to support Nixon when he ran for president again in 1968. He also became more active in the civil rights movement and appeared with King on frequent occasions.

Robinson also became a prolific writer, including a column for the Amsterdam News, a weekly Black newspaper, where he further developed his fierce opposition to the Republican Party.

I suspect that unless the party showed a desire to win our votes, he wrote in a letter 1968 to Clarence Lee Towns Jr., the leading Black member of the Republican National Committee, it may rest assured that I and my friends cannot and will not support a conservative.

Instead, Robinson supported Nixons Democratic rival, Hubert Humphrey. I have my right to remember that I am Black and American before I am Republican, Robinson wrote in the Amsterdam News. As such, I will never vote for Mr. Nixon.

When Nixon won the election, Robinson demonstrated the determination he showed throughout his life.

In one of his last letters to the Nixon White House, Robinson pleaded with special assistant Roland L. Elliott to listen to Black America before racial tensions got out of control.

Black America has asked so little, Robinson wrote, but if you cant see the anger that comes from rejection, you are treading a dangerous course. We older blacks, unfortunately were willing to wait. Todays young blacks are ready to explode.

On Nov. 24, 1972, Robinson died of a heart attack at age 53. Twenty-five years later, Major League Baseball honored him by retiring his number, 42, meaning the number can no longer be worn by any player in the league.

No other baseball player has been given such an honor.

Link:

Jackie Robinson was a Republican until the GOP became the 'white mans party' - The Conversation

Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced. James Baldwin

Heres what were not going to do here.

We are not going to indulge the lazy rationalizations, false equivalence, cheap gaslighting and other forms of rhetorical chicanery that have become so common to political discourse in this era. Our country is in crisis, and we owe it better.

The warning is for those who claimed offense at the following observation, made in this space a few days back: What Americans have lost to be painfully accurate, what Republicans have trashed in pursuit of power is the willingness and ability to share a common national identity. It would seem to be self-evident truth. But not everyone agrees.

Constantly blaming Republicans, griped one respondent.

You ONLY blame the Republicans, complained another.

You exclusively blame Republicans, grumbled yet another.

Well, theres a reason the Republicans get the blame for destroying any sense of common American narrative. Its because pay close attention here they deserve the blame for destroying any sense of common American narrative.

Sorry, but Hunter Bidens laptop didnt do that. Black Lives Matter didnt do that. Whatever thing Fox News last told its audience to fear did not do that.

The Republican Party did it by a campaign of demonizing dissent, shredding norms and boundaries, embracing a politics of white resentment and fear and, perhaps most corrosively, delegitimizing the very idea of knowable fact, so that an ordinary birth certificate becomes an object of suspicion, an ordinary election a seedbed of distrust and the sacking of the U.S. Capitol an innocent visit by tourists.

Is it mere partisanship to hold the party accountable for this? Or are we not talking about something bigger and more foundational than political gamesmanship? Note how many of the GOPs ardent defenders George F. Will, Rep. Adam Kinzinger, Kathleen Parker, Rep. Liz Cheney, Sen. Mitt Romney, Jonah Goldberg have become, to various degrees, estranged from it in recent years. None of those worthies may be credibly accused of being anti-Republican.

But what they are is conscientious enough that they cannot deny self-evident truth when it is right before them. Some of us prefer to peddle misguided both-sideism, to spew non-responsive non-sequiturs or stick metaphorical fingers in metaphorical ears going la la la la la la la until the truth safely passes them by.

Meantime, one party steers the ship of state toward jagged rocks.

Political scientists Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein once observed that, The Republican Party has become an insurgent outlier ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

They wrote that in a 2012 book called Its Even Worse Than It Looks. Ten years later, its even worse than that.

Its important to be clear on that, not to blame the GOP but because James Baldwin was right. You cannot fix what you will not face. And what America needs to face is the simple, chilling fact that the Republican Party is a clear and present danger.

Confronting that does not make you a partisan.

It makes you a patriot.

Leonard Pitts Jr. is a columnist for the Miami Herald. Readers may email him at [emailprotected].

Invalid username/password.

Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

Previous

Read the original here:

Leonard Pitts Jr.: The Republican Party is a clear and present danger - Lewiston Sun Journal

In one of the final acts in a 24-year political career, the Republican chief justice of the Ohio supreme court is defying her party and refusing to let them distort electoral districts to their advantage, a move that has some fellow Republicans calling for her impeachment.

Get the latest updates on voting rights in the Guardians Fight to vote newsletter

Since January, Chief Justice Maureen OConnor has served as the decisive vote on three separate occasions blocking Ohio Republicans from enacting proposed state legislative maps. She also sided with Democrats to block an initial GOP proposal for congressional districts before going into effect in January. Those decisions have prompted chatter among Republicans about impeaching OConnor, 70, who will leave the court after nearly two decades at the end of this year because she has reached the mandatory retirement age for judges in Ohio.

OConnor has a long independent streak. A decade ago, she joined a dissent when the supreme court upheld the state legislative districts drawn by Republicans. I broke away from the mould in some peoples minds, she would later say of that decision. Party affiliation should not and people have to understand it should not have anything to do with how a judge does their job.

In 2018, she joined with the lone Democrat on the court to dissent from a ruling upholding the forced closure of the last abortion clinic in Toledo. She has backed criminal justice and bail reform, as other Ohio Republicans are pushing to make it harder for someone to be released on bond. She has called for less partisan influence in the way judges are elected in the state. In 2020, just before the presidential election, she blasted the state Republican party for accusing a local judge of colluding with Democrats, saying the attack was disgraceful and deceitful.

Shes no shrinking violet. Shes got sharp elbows, said Paul Pfeifer, a Republican who served on the supreme court with OConnor from when she joined in 2003 until he retired in 2017. No amount of public criticism is going to change her mind if she feels that shes right in the position shes taking.

William ONeill, a Democrat who served with OConnor on the court from 2013 to 2019, said she was the justice he wound up voting with the most. They were the only two members of the court who dissented in 2018 in the Toledo abortion clinic case.

She can be swayed to reasonable arguments, he said. Her legacy is already carved in stone. The stand she is taking is consistent with her entire career.

Shes also one of the most successful politicians in the history of Ohio, said David Pepper, a former chair of the Ohio Democratic party. Shes been elected five times statewide, none of which have been close. The then Ohio governor, Robert Taft, picked the former prosecutor to be his running mate in 1998 to add law enforcement experience to the ticket. Once she was elected lieutenant governor, she oversaw the states department of public safety, taking on a leading role after the 9/11 attacks. She would travel overseas with troops being deployed from Ohio, even though that doesnt typically fall within the responsibilities of her role.

She took the initiative to do that and I would say it was above and beyond what she would have to do in her role, Taft said in an interview. She was part of our team but she was also her own person. She was an independent thinker.

She was elected to the court in 2002, and became chief justice in 2010.

Now, OConnor and the court are not backing down in their refusal to let Republicans in the state get away with one of the most brazen efforts to gerrymander electoral districts to their benefit.

A new provision in the Ohio constitution requires partisan makeup of the states 132 legislative districts roughly reflect the partisan breakdown of statewide elections over the last decade, which is 54% Republican and 46% Democrat. The three plans Republicans have passed so far, and a fourth one currently pending before the court, however, would enable Republicans to win a veto-proof majority in the legislature in a favorable year for the party.

The constitutional violations of the maps that the Ohio redistricting commission continues to pass are obvious, said Jen Miller, the executive director of the Ohio chapter of the League of Women Voters, which is involved in suits challenging the plans.

Republicans have forged a sneaky attempt to enact their maps. The initial plan the court struck down in January would have given them control of 64.4% of districts. They then submitted a new plan to the court that nominally had the required 54-46 split, but several of the districts were barely majority Democratic essentially toss-ups meaning Republicans could still win them in a favorable election. After the court rejected that plan, Republicans came back with a third plan that slightly increased the Democratic majority in those districts, which was again rejected by the court. Last month, Republicans submitted a fourth plan that took the same approach.

Its a pure power play, said Paul Beck, a retired political science professor at the Ohio State University. Its almost like theyre saying we have the power to do this and so were gonna do it.

OConnor has bluntly called out the way Ohio Republicans are abusing the redistricting process. The first time the court struck down the legislative maps, back in January, she went out of her way to write a concurring opinion urging Ohio voters to strip lawmakers of their redistricting power entirely.

Having now seen first-hand that the current Ohio Redistricting Commission comprised of statewide elected officials and partisan legislators is seemingly unwilling to put aside partisan concerns as directed by the peoples vote, Ohioans may opt to pursue further constitutional amendment to replace the current commission with a truly independent, nonpartisan commission that more effectively distances the redistricting process from partisan politics, she wrote.

The standoff has left Ohio at a chaotic impasse. Unlike supreme courts in other states, like Virginia that have stepped in to draw maps, the Ohio supreme court is prohibited from making its own plan. Early voting began on 5 April without state legislative districts on the ballot. Last month, a coalition of civic action groups challenged the maps to request that the redistricting commission be held in contempt for failing to comply with the courts orders.

The hard line from OConnor and three other Democrats on the supreme court, where Republicans have a 4-3 majority, is extremely consequential. This is the first redistricting cycle the partisan fairness requirements are in effect (voters approved them overwhelmingly through a ballot measure in 2015). By refusing to accept the Republican maps, OConnor and the court are setting a precedent that signals how aggressively the justices are going to police partisan gerrymandering.

The consequence of caving would be a disaster. This has gone from a battle over democracy in Ohio to a battle over democracy and the rule of law in Ohio, said Pepper, the former Democratic party chair. No other citizens who violate the law four times get rewarded for it.

After the court blocked Republican maps for the third time, Republicans in the statehouse began openly weighing her impeachment, according to the Columbus Dispatch. Its time to impeach Maureen OConnor now, Scott Wiggam, a GOP state Representative, tweeted. I dont understand what the woman wants, state representative Sara Carruthers told the Dispatch. Ohios secretary of state, Frank LaRose, a Republican who sits on the panel that draws districts, said recently he would not stand in the way of an impeachment effort, saying she has not upheld her oath of office.

Ohios governor, Mike DeWine, a Republican who also sits on the redistricting panel, has been more outspoken against impeachment. I dont think we want to go down that pathway because we disagree with a decision by a court, because we disagree with a decision by an individual judge or justice, he said in March.

Though its unclear if the impeachment effort will move forward, many doubted it would succeed.

Both ONeill and Pfeifer, the former justices who served with OConnor said they were confident the impeachment efforts would not affect her work. What in the world is she supposed to have done that violated her oath of office?, ONeill said.

It will have the opposite effect of what theyre seeking.

Here is the original post:

The Republican judge blocking her party from rigging electoral districts - The Guardian

I recently became active with local politics to help shape the future I hope to see in Maine, which would be less divided than it is now, and more civil, as it was when I was raising my kids.

Of the many people Ive met, I was drawn to commit my time to the campaign of Barbara Bagshaw, who is running in the Republican primary June 14 for the Maine House of Representatives in District 106 in Windham.

I began working with Barbara for her commitment to issues that are important to all Mainers: the economy, education and protecting all individual rights. I have since come to believe in Barbara, after witnessing her positive energy at work, and her dedication to hearing peoples concerns and discussing ideas.

In hard times like these, we need representatives, like Barbara, who are honored to serve We the People of Maine.

Kristen DayWindham

Invalid username/password.

Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

Continued here:

Letter to the editor: Support positive, dedicated Bagshaw in Republican House 106 primary - Press Herald

The 2022 midterm elections are shaping up to be among the most deeply gender-divided elections in American history. A new poll by NBC News, measuring voters preferences ahead of the November elections, shows that the gap in women and mens voting patterns has deepened considerably over the past 12 years, with Republicans holding an 18-point advantage among men, and Democrats holding a 15-point advantage among women. That 33-point gender gap is up from a 16-point divide in the 2010 midterms.

Despite the large degree of analytical attention that has focused on the voting habits of suburban white women, it seems that its men who are changing their voting habits most dramatically. The NBC News polling shows that men with college degrees have moved dramatically to the right, lurching towards Republicans by 26 points since just 2018. Men on the whole have moved towards Republicans by 20 points.

The Republican partys exploding support among men comes as the organs of rightwing media and many Republican politicians have embraced a vitriolic language of gender grievance. For months now, the conservative media has been hammering a message of gender and sexual disorder, seeking to stoke the fears, bigotry and resentment of its audience against the social and legal gains that have been made by women and LGBT groups over the past decades. This message has been enthusiastically taken up by Republican politicians, and issues of sexual anxiety have come to preoccupy every level of American government, from local school board meetings to the recent confirmation hearings of a new supreme court justice.

It is hard to define the exact moment when mens gender grievance came to preoccupy the Republican party. With Republicans long commitment to anti-choice and anti-trans bills over the past few years, the issue has had longstanding resonance among the base. But a shift seemed to occur last September, when Pete Buttigieg, the secretary of transportation, announced that he would be taking parental leave after he and his husband adopted a pair of newborn twins. Tucker Carlson, the Fox News broadcaster who serves as a weathervane for so much conservative grievance politics, attacked Buttigieg on his show. Paternity leave, they call it. Trying to figure out how to breastfeed. No word on how that went.

Carlsons comments were layered with bigotry against gay men, against mothers, against trans people. But the message was clear: caring for children was feminine and unbecoming of someone who aspired to the masculine authority of a cabinet position. Buttigieg had failed the conservative gender test not once, but twice: first, he was too feminine by virtue of being a gay man. Then, he was too feminine by virtue of being an involved, caregiving parent. The dig was homophobic but also sexist: the only way Carlson could say that Buttigieg was too womanly for power is if women arent appropriate holders of power in the first place.

Carlsons attack marked a return to open, avowed homophobic hatred on the Republican right, a stance that had gone dramatically out of fashion, and implicitly out of social acceptability, since the supreme courts 2015 decision in Obergefell v Hodges, the case that recognized the right of same-sex couples to marry nationwide. Republicans had made a strategic retreat from open homophobia, reasoning that the cultural and generational tides were turning toward acceptance of gay couples. With the success of Carlsons attack the homophobic mockery of Buttigieg was enthusiastically embraced by Carlsons viewers it seems the tide had turned again. In the months since, homophobia has been unleashed as a reliable way for rightwing figures to rally their base. Gay bashing is back.

Merging with the elaborate fictions of the QAnon conspiracy theory, which claims that the United States is run by a group of elite, secretive and possibly cannibalistic pedophiles, the renewed homophobic enthusiasm on the right has now manifested in a mass hysteria over so-called groomers. This all-purpose smear is now applied to any liberal (or insufficiently conservative) adult, from politicians to school principals, and alleges that any tolerance for gay rights, or indeed any belief in gender equality, is evidence of a pedophilic interest in children.

The alarm over so-called groomers has led to restrictive, homophobic interventions in public schooling, from a slew of new book bans around the country, to Floridas dont say gay bill banning classroom discussion of homosexuality, to a Texas school districts firing of an out lesbian teacher and banning of a high school Gay-Straight Alliance club.

That there is no evidence for this hateful lie that liberals are pedophiles has not stopped ordinary conservatives from embracing it. In Connecticut, a rightwing online group posted the name and home address of a public school superintendent whom they labeled a groomer due to the alleged presence of a transgender student in one of the schools she oversaw. The forum called for the school officials execution.

Nor is there any level of ambition or pretended dignity that seems able to deter elected Republicans from indulging in the smear. At the recent supreme court confirmation hearings of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, Republican senators Josh Hawley, Lindsey Graham, Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz all pressed Jackson on her sentencing history as a federal judge, suggesting she was soft on men convicted of possessing child abuse images. All four of the men are believed to have presidential ambitions. Apparently, they feel that stoking the sexual and gender anxieties of the American electorate is a smart move for their careers.

The Republican partys emphasis on gender grievance, and its attendant surge in male support, comes on the eve of the biggest setback for gender equality in half a century: the probable end of Roe v Wade. The supreme court is almost universally expected to overturn the abortion rights precedent this summer; many states, considering the decision already effectively nullified, have rushed to outlaw and criminalize abortion within their borders even before the verdict comes down. The bans that are swiftly moving through Republican-controlled state legislatures typically carry no exemption for rape and incest, and their cruelty is justified in viciously misogynistic terms. When Democrats in the Florida state senate tried to add an exception for rape victims to the 15-week ban that Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law on Thursday, their Republican colleagues shut them down.

I fear for the men who are going to be accused of a rape so that the woman could have an abortion, Kelli Stargel, one of the bills sponsors, argued during floor debate. A woman is going to say she was raped so she could have the abortion.

Her remark was a lie grounded in misogynist myths and, like the groomer smear, has no basis in reality. But it seems that Republicans, and their growing base of male voters, are ready to believe it.

Original post:

Republicans are dusting off a tried and true election strategy: hatemongering - The Guardian

5 things to know about Elon Musk

Here are five things to know about Elon Musk.

Staff Video, USA TODAY

Billionaire Tesla CEO Elon Musk offered to buy Twitter in a deal valuing the social media company at $43 billion.

Twitter needs to be transformed as a private company, Musk said in a filing Thursday with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Twitter has extraordinary potential. I will unlock it.

Musk is one of Twitters power users with more than 80 million followers on the social media platform. Hes also been one of the companys biggest critics.

In a letter accompanying his offer, Musk a self-described free speech absolutist, hinted he would return Twitter to its roots as the free speech wing of the free speech party.

I invested in Twitter as I believe in its potential to be the platform for free speech around the globe, and I believe free speech is a societal imperative for a functioning democracy, he wrote.

Twittersaid its board of directors would review the proposal.

Twitter under Elon Musk: What Twitter would look like if Tesla and SpaceX billionaire CEO was running it

Twitter offer: Elon Musk offers to buy Twitter for $41.3 billion, saying company 'needs to be transformed'

Elon Musk won't join Twitter board: Tesla CEO remains platform's largest shareholder

Musk,Twitters largest shareholder, launched a takeover bid for the social media company Thursday, offering to buy it for $54.20 a share and take it private.

But hours after he made the $43 billion takeover offer, Musk said he was not sure he would be able to buy Twitter after all. Musk made the comments at the TED2022 conference in Vancouver.

Asked if there is a Plan B if his offer is rejected, Musk said there is but declined to elaborate.

A regulatory filing on April 4 revealed that Musk bought a 9.2% stake in Twitter. The following day, Twitter said Musk would join its board of directors. He later turned down that offer.

Musks offer is a 54% premium over the day he began investing in Twitter in January and would value the company at about $43 billion. He said Thursday's offer ishis best and final offer.

Jessica Guynn

'I'm going to leave': Twitter users react to Elon Musk offering to buy the platform

Fact check: Fake Twitter employee tweet about Elon Musk spreads online

The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that Twitter'sboard of directorsis considering a "poison pill" that would prevent Musk fromincreasing his stake beyond 15% "or so."

With the board considering roadblocks to Musk's offer, he was asked on Twitter if theboard rejects his takeover, would that beacting in direct opposition to the financial interests of their shareholders?

"It would be utterly indefensible not to put this offer to a shareholder vote," Musk replied. "They own the company, not the board of directors."

Later Musk tweeted: "If the current Twitter board takes actions contrary to shareholder interests, they would be breaching their fiduciary duty. The liability they would thereby assume would be titanic in scale."

He alsotweeted a yes or no poll: "Taking Twitter private at $54.20 should be up to shareholders, not the board."

Jessica Guynn

Leave it to fellow straight-shooting billionaire Mark Cuban to sum up his thoughts on Musks quest to buy Twitter.

The tech entrepreneur, the owner of the NBAs Dallas Mavericks and co-star of TVs Shark Tank, went on a multi-hour Twitter rant/opine about Musk just moments after the Tesla CEO announced he filed with the Securities Exchange Commission to buy the underperforming (according to financial analysts) but influential social network.

Cuban believes that Musk, Twitters largest shareholder, is opening a Pandoras Box, tweeting that every major tech company including Google and Facebook, is on the phone with their antitrust lawyers asking if they could buy Twitter and get it approved.

And Twitter is on the phone with their lawyers asking which can be their white knight, Cuban tweeted. Gonna be interesting.

Cuban also said a potential Twitter sale wont be limited to tech types as filthy-rich foreign investors may also be interested in the global and cultural cache Twitter provides.

But he also thinks that Twitter will do everything possible not to sell the company and that the company will try to get a friendly investor they prefer to come in and buy Elon's shares and get him out.

Cuban concludes that Musk is f------with the SEC, as Musks filing increases Twitters share price, His shares get sold. Profit SEC like WTF just happened.

Stay tuned.

Terry Collins

Saudi Arabian investor Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, one of the major shareholders in Twitter, rejected billionaire Musks bid to take over the social media company.

I don't believe that the proposed offer by @elonmusk ($54.20) comes close to the intrinsic value of @Twitter given its growth prospects, he tweeted. Being one of the largest & long-term shareholders of Twitter, @Kingdom_KHC & I reject this offer.

Musk replied on Twitter and pinned the tweet.

Interesting. Just two questions, if I may," he wrote. "How much of Twitter does the Kingdom own, directly & indirectly? What are the Kingdoms views on journalistic freedom of speech?

Jessica Guynn

So, with all of the melodrama surrounding Elon Musks pursuit of Twitter, just how much stock of the social media platform does the Tesla CEO own?

Musk's9.2%stake in Twitter comes out to about 73.5 million shares, according to Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives.

Twitters largest shareholder, Muskshook up the tech industry on Thursday byoffering to buy it for $54.20 a share and take it private. That estimate comes out to about $43 billion, far higher than Twitter's current market value of about $34 billion.

After a spike for most of the day, Twitter shares closed down at 1.68%but as high as 4% during market after hours on Thursday. Meanwhile, Teslas stock dove more than 3.6%followingMusks announcement.

Twitter was expected to hold an all-hands meeting Thursday where Musk will surely be the main topic of discussion.

Terry Collins

Musk on Thursday made his first public statement at the TED2022 conference in Vancouver, Canada since disclosing his takeover offer for Twitter.

On why he wants to buy Twitter: Its very important for there to be an inclusive arena for free speech. Twitter has become the de facto town square so its just really important that people have the reality and the perception that they are able to speak freely within the bounds of the law.

On why Twitter matters: Its important to the function of democracy. Its important for the function of the United States of us as a free country and many other countries and to actually help freedom in the world more broadly than the US. So I think the civilizational risk is decreased the more we can increase the trust of Twitter as a public platform.

On how Musk defines free speech: A good sign whether there is free speech is: Is someone you don't like allowed to say something you don't like? If that is the case, then we have free speech."

On why his takeover attempt is not about the money: "My strong intuitive sense is that having a public platform that is maximally trusted and broadly inclusive is extremely important to the future of civilization. I don't care about the economics at all."

On how he would make tough moderation calls: "If it's a gray area, I would say let the tweet exist.

On making Twitter more transparent: In my view, Twitter should match the laws of the country and really there is an obligation to do that. Going beyond that, and having it be unclear whos making what changes to where, having tweets mysteriously be promoted and demoted with no insight into what's going on, having a black box algorithm promote some things and not other things, I think this can be quite dangerous.

On whether Twitter should ban users: I do think we want to be very reluctant to delete things, and just be very cautious with permanent bans. Timeouts, I think, are better than permanent bans."

On a top priority if he buys Twitter: Eliminating the spam and scam bots and the bot armies that are on Twitter. They make the product much worse. If I had a doge coin for every crypto scam I saw, I would have 100 billion doge coins.

On whether he will be able to buy Twitter: I am not sure I will actually be able to acquire it.

Jessica Guynn

Hours after Elon Musks bombshell tweet saying he wants to take over Twitter, CEO Parag Agrawal tried to ease his employees' concerns apparently without much luck, according to multiple reports.

I dont believe we are being held hostage,Agrawal told employees during an emergency all-hands meeting Thursday, according to the New York Times.

The newspaperalso reported that many Twitter workers believed the nearly 30-minute question and answer session lacked substance.Agrawal was legally not allowed to provide details.

The Twitter chief encouraged employees to look beyond the chaos surrounding the social network.

This provides all of us with this moment where we feel distracted, where we feel a loss of control. I am personally going to spend my time focusing on things I can control, and I believe it will matter, Agrawal said.

Agrawal, who took over as CEO for Jack Dorsey in November, didnt say when Twitters board would have an answer to Musks $43 billion offer or which way the board was leaning, frustrating many employees seeking more details during the Q&A, the Verge reported.

Agrawal said the board would follow a rigorous process, the tech news site also reported.

During the Q&A, one Twitter employee asked how the company decidedto offerMusk a board seat, according toReuters.

"Are we just going to start inviting any and all billionaires to the board?" Reuters reported. Agrawal said the company will act in the best interest of shareholders.

"I have a strong point of view that people who are critical of our service, their voice is something that we must emphasize so that we can learn and get better," he said.

A Twitter spokesman declined to comment about Thursday's meeting.

Terry Collins

What are Elon Musks politics? No one really knows. But conservatives have claimed him as one of their own.

The billionaire Tesla CEO has sided with critics of mainstream social media who accuse Facebook, Twitter and Google of anti-conservative bias.

Conservative commentator Dinesh DSouza began lobbying Musk to buy Twitter in January. He even floated the idea of Musk taking over Twitter and then censoring liberals to teach them a lesson on the imperative of free speech.

When D'Souza again urged Musk to buy a major social media platform to dramatically shift the political and cultural landscape, Musk replied: interesting ideas.

Soon Musk was buying up shares of Twitter and being egged on by other conservative figures.

On news that Musk had made a bid for Twitter, conservative commentator Brent Bozell, founder and president of the Media Research Center, tweeted Thursday: Free at last. Free at last. Conservatives may be free at last!

Jessica Guynn

See the article here:

Is Elon Musk a Republican? Musk's free speech stand on Twitter wins over conservatives - USA TODAY