BC FOR LATER READ
Saved by @jacobhtml

There is some valuable analysis in this report, but on the defense front this report is deeply flawed. There are other sections of value in report but, candidly, I don't think it helps us think through critical question of Taiwan defense issues in clear & well-grounded way. 1/

 Normally as it might seem churlish to be so critical, but @cfr is so high-profile & the co-authors so distinguished I think it’s key to be clear. If not, people - including in Beijing - could get the wrong idea & this report could do real harm if influential on defense issues. 2/
BLUF: The defense discussion in this report does not engage at the depth needed to add to this critical debate. Accordingly conclusions in report are ill-founded - & in key parts harmful/misleading, esp that US shldnt be prepared defend Taiwan directly (alongside own efforts). 3/
The root of the problem is that report doesn't engage w the real debate on TWN defense issues or, frankly, the facts as knowable in public. Perhaps the most direct proof of this: The citations. There is nothing in the citations to @DeptofDefense China Military Power Report...4/
Nor to vast majority of leading informed sources on this like Ochmanek, the @RANDCorporation Scorecard, @CNAS, etc. This is esp salient b/c co-authors by their own admission have v little insight into contemporary military issues. & both last served in govt in Bush 43. 5/
The discussion on defending Taiwan shld ABSOLUTELY be open to non-experts. But anyone seeking to meaningfully engage at least needs to do the homework – broad & deep lit review, interviews. @CFR has the resources & access. Yet this appears not to have happened here. 6/
This is esp important b/c TWN defense discussion is highly sensitive to empirical realities of military balance, military technology, posture, PLA evolution, allied efforts, etc. Requires working to thoroughly understand what's going on as much as possible in open source. 7/
This deficit then shld generally frame perceptions of how credible they are when talking abt military scenarios. They cite to Bob Work interview in @SydneyFreedberg article, but did they interview Work? Ochmanek? 8/
Even more, what about, given @CFR_org access, current DOD officials like @CMC_MarineCorps? @INDOPACOM? @MoNDefense? Thoroughly canvass the burgeoning literature on the military balance in WestPac? I see a ref to a v good report from @CSBA but other than that almost nothing. 9/
Again, point here isn't to be pedantic or exclusionary, but rather to emphasize that these defects need to be borne in mind when evaluating their analyses & esp conclusions. 10/
To wit, they say: “If U.S. response to quarantine or invasion is for the U.S. military to fight its way through to rescue or liberate a besieged or embattled Taiwan, we do not see a credible conventional military solution by DC in response to either.” Aka: a denial defense. 11/
Well, @DOD_DEPSECDEF @kath_hicks disagrees w them here: https://t.co/bJxiipCTxY. She argues that @DeptofDefense shld prepare a denial defense of Taiwan. 12/
Ditto Ochmanek & Tim Heath of @RANDCorporation here: https://t.co/lWosyx3E9B. Ochmanek said: "Key to defending TWN wld require stopping [PLA invasion force in] the Strait.” “All of these things are doable. There's no magic here, no technological breakthroughs.” He estimates...13/
"that the Defense Department could make the needed changes if it diverted about 5 percent of its budget— about $35 billion -- a year. Taiwan, he said, also needs to move away from the glamorous, showy weapons." Sounds like a plausible credible denial defense to me! 14/
Or Heath: "What both sides can do is turn the sea and air space around Taiwan into a no-go zone. China could do that, but we could make it very hard for any surface ship to survive near Taiwan, including Chinese transport vessels loaded with troops. That alone might stop..." 15/
an invasion.” Such denial is basically what Trump Admin Indo-Pac Strat called for wrt 🇹🇼: https://t.co/8dS9ezqkqM. "[D]eny China sustained air & sea dominance inside first island chain; defend FIC nations, including Taiwan; & dominat[e] outside FIC." https://t.co/gp9N6y4JKs. 16/
Yet co-authors assert: "We know of no credible expert who assesses that, in those last 3 years, as Chinese capabilities have advanced, U.S. defense strategy is now, on balance, more capable of performing the three quoted tasks.” They’re referring to IPS defense guidance. 17/
That's not a substantive claim but rather an appeal to (lack of authority.) Ok, then: Did they talk to military experts who have tracked DOD’s INTENSE focus on restoring military edge in WestPac over last 3+ years? Review/cite posture statements of @DeptofDefense? Etc. etc.? 18/
Let alone senior officials & staff from admin? I see no evidence if they did. Indeed, I’m biased but they didn’t even cite National Defense Strategy of 2018! You don’t have to like or agree with it to think it’s relevant to what @DeptofDefense has been up to last 3 yrs...19/
Bottom line: That co-authors know of no "credible" expert who thinks @DeptofDefense hasn't improved shldnt influence people. Certainly big ?s of how well DOD is doing. But certainly movement. See @CNASdc report from @SusannaVBlume here: https://t.co/FDRpZWQzLX. 20/
Good balanced assessment: "We conclude DoD is making progress in NDS implementation in select sectors. Also conclude that DoD continues to underinvest in some critical enablers." 21/
These deficits in report shld also frame how look at scenarios co-authors discuss. Blockade isn’t even really discussed for unclear reasons. Invasion discussion is framed as analogous to Crete & Falklands. No in-depth analysis of it. Instead lots of Cold War analogies. 🤷‍♂️22/
CRITICALLY, these defects shld lead readers to discount not only their military analysis but also their answers to key ?s on 62-63, esp their rec that US shldn’t assume responsibility for defense of TWN (alongside TWN, presumably). Bad policy rec, dangerous signal right now. 23/
Concluding thought: @CFR has a unique prestige so this report will no doubt be widely read. But Americans, allies, Taiwanese, & Chinese shld understand that this does NOT reflect the leading edge of US defense strategy thinking. 24/
Beijing should not get the wrong idea from co-authors’ cavalier statement that Taiwan is not a “vital” US interest. (Is Phils or Australia by that logic?) Indeed @CFR itself has put out much better analysis/recs by @RichardHaass @DavidMSacks1 here: https://t.co/CxkpDzbkly. 25/
For those interested, I have a book coming out on this in the fall.

In the interim following might be of interest:

https://t.co/MtwjYiLaxd

https://t.co/UsRqQHCXNU

https://t.co/NKlgQG0PkH

More from For later read

Operation Cupcake
Operation Cupcake
@PhillipsBarrie
Wow, Morgan McSweeney again, Rachel Riley, SFFN, Center for Countering Digital Hate, Imran Ahmed, JLM, BoD, Angela Eagle, Tracy-Ann Oberman, Lisa Nandy, Steve Reed, Jon Cruddas, Trevor Chinn, Martin Taylor, Lord Ian Austin and Mark Lewis. #LabourLeaks #StarmerOut 24 tweet🧵

Morgan McSweeney, Keir Starmer’s chief of staff, launched the organisation that now runs SFFN.
The CEO Imran Ahmed worked closely with a number of Labour figures involved in the campaign to remove Jeremy as leader.

Rachel Riley is listed as patron. https://t.co/nGY5QrwBD0


SFFN claims that it has been “a project of the Center For Countering Digital Hate” since 4 May 2020. The relationship between the two organisations, however, appears to date back far longer. And crucially, CCDH is linked to a number of figures on the Labour right. #LabourLeaks

Center for Countering Digital Hate registered at Companies House on 19 Oct 2018, the organisation’s only director was Morgan McSweeney – Labour leader Keir Starmer’s chief of staff. McSweeney was also the campaign manager for Liz Kendall’s leadership bid. #LabourLeaks #StarmerOut

Sir Keir - along with his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney - held his first meeting with the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM). Deliberately used the “anti-Semitism” crisis as a pretext to vilify and then expel a leading pro-Corbyn activist in Brighton and Hove
FOR LATER READ
Harry Haury
Harry Haury
@letsthinkdeeply
@cain_nate My friend Nate Cain and I have worked hundreds of hours with various politicians and legal groups trying to explain the election laws and how they fit together. There are many misperceptions of what happened during this election and what it means.

Simply put, our election laws are an intricate tapestry designed to ensure accuracy and prevent fraud. They work together like parts of a car. But when certain parts fail, the car is just a hunk of scrap iron and plastic. In this case critical parts failed.
2/

You do not have to prove fraud or intent, you just have to show that the election officials were unable to conduct an election that met the law and relevant certification requirements. In this case, the election does not come close to meeting accuracy requirements.
3/

These specifications are found deep in laws like FISMA, HAVA, and state adoptions of EAC guidance. 1 ballot error out of 125,000 or 1 position read error out of 500,000. Just look at the discrepancies between incoming ballot counts and total votes, the system fails.
4/

It is worse in the the swing states in Democrat strongholds but it is bad in many places. You add the apparent losses of ballots through the Mail and error rates in the ‘system’ are staggering. Why do we have these rules? Sure it is to prevent fraud, but......
5/
FOR LATER READ
Advertisement
\U0001f1fa\U0001f1f8I Support Our Military & Law Enforcement\U0001f1fa\U0001f1f8
🇺🇸I Support Our Milita...
@TheWiseOwl_AZ
1. On Fri. 8 Jan. Military Intel Contact said to keep phones on, charged and ready for Tier 4B notification as the RV release was being expedited and our start was at any time.
FOR LATER READ
Paul Bernal
Paul Bernal
@PaulbernalUK
A short thread on one aspect of trolling on here, from my recent experience. I’ve got a fair number of followers. I tweet about controversial topics - and yet I don’t get trolled that much. A bit, but not thatmuch. There are times, though, that I *do* get trolled a lot. 1/n

The pattern is pretty clear, and has been played out a few times over the last few days. I get into a conversation about a topic that could be considered race-related. Empire. Immigration. Something like that. And that conversation includes a highish profile BAME person. 2/n

More often than not, a BAME woman. In those cases, it takes very little time for the trolls to come steaming in. Most of them seemingly rational, taking issue with some technical point, but quickly descending into something much worse. 3/n

When I look at the profiles of the trolls, they’re often relatively innocuous. Not saying ‘Hey, I’m a racist troll, a white supremacist’ at all. Not likely to be caught by any kind of anti-troll measures. Instead, they look relatively normal. 4/n

But what happens is very much about racism, and often misogyny. Attacks that are - or appear to be - not that dramatic on their own. Not rape threats or death threats, or ‘go home’ or things like that, but designed to undermine, to disturb, to annoy - but with an undercurrent 5/n
FOR LATER READ
Angus Johnston
Angus Johnston
@studentactivism
I’ve asked Byers to clarify, but as I read this tweet, it seems that Bret Stephens included an unredacted use of the n-word in his column this week to make a point, and the column got spiked—maybe as a result?


Four times. The column used the n-word (in the context of a quote) four times. https://t.co/14vPhQZktB


For context: In 2019, a Times reporter was reprimanded for several incidents of racial insensitivity on a trip with high school students, including one in which he used the n-word in a discussion of racial slurs.

That incident became public late last month, and late last week, after 150 Times employees complained about how it had been handled, the reporter in question resigned.

In the course of all that, the Times' executive editor said that the paper does not "tolerate racist language regardless of intent.” This was the quote that Bret Stephens was pushing back against in his column. (Which, again, was deep-sixed by the paper.)
FOR LATER READ

You May Also Like

Dr. Thomas Binder, MD
Dr. Thomas Binder, MD
@Thomas_Binder
1/12

RT-PCR corona (test) scam

Symptomatic people are tested for one and only one respiratory virus. This means that other acute respiratory infections are reclassified as


2/12

It is tested exquisitely with a hypersensitive non-specific RT-PCR test / Ct >35 (>30 is nonsense, >35 is madness), without considering Ct and clinical context. This means that more acute respiratory infections are reclassified as


3/12

The Drosten RT-PCR test is fabricated in a way that each country and laboratory perform it differently at too high Ct and that the high rate of false positives increases massively due to cross-reaction with other (corona) viruses in the "flu


4/12

Even asymptomatic, previously called healthy, people are tested (en masse) in this way, although there is no epidemiologically relevant asymptomatic transmission. This means that even healthy people are declared as COVID


5/12

Deaths within 28 days after a positive RT-PCR test from whatever cause are designated as deaths WITH COVID. This means that other causes of death are reclassified as
CATEGORY C19
James Felton
James Felton
@JimMFelton
Butt plugs were originally sold as a miracle cure for headaches, acne, and insanity

Thread, article here and h/t: @qikipedia :
https://t.co/Ts84xnmWKJ


For a long time, medicine was pre-occupied with the question "can this be solved by putting something in the butt?"

Take, for example, tobacco smoke enemas, in which 18th Century physicians saw drowning victims and attempted to de-deadify them by blowing tobacco smoke up their rectums with a pipe.


Despite having no medical benefit whatsoever, the practice was popular, and enema kits lined the Thames like lifebelts, ready to be used as one final humiliation for somebody who was crap at swimming.

This practice ended sometime after 1800 when it became apparent that it didn't really work, given how the anus famously isn't really connected to the lungs, but doctors weren't quite finished with having a poke around in the old anus to see what happens just yet.
TECH
Advertisement
Anu Satheesh \U0001f1ee\U0001f1f3
Anu Satheesh 🇮🇳...
@AnuSatheesh5
Panniyur Sri Varahamurthy Temple Palakkad, Kerala
#KeralaTemples 🚩

Panniyur Sri Varahamurthy Temple is located in Pattambi Taluk of Palakkad District. This is believed to be the first temple in Kerala, where Prathishta was done by Parasurama

Story says that, Parashurama after


Creating Kerala was doing Tapasya here. But he was disturbed as the land faced turbulence. Parashurama sought Narada’s help, who advised him to pray to Vishnu. Parashurama started praying Maha Vishnu. Finally Maha Vishnu appeared and told to do Prathishta of his Varaha Avatar.


As Earth is saved in Varaha Avatar, this temple is famous to solve land related issues.

Many people conduct Bhoomi puja here, which is very special here. They bring sand from around the temple which is used for pooja and then has to be returned to the same spot 👇


from where it was taken.
It is also believed that Perumthachan, the legedary craftsman has abandoned his tools here.
Om Shri Varaha Murthaye Namah
🙏🕉🙏
ALL
sriram
sriram
@SriramKannan77
'Treasure Gods' - Sangha Nidhi' and 'Padma Nidhi', Tirumala, Tirupati.

------------------------------------

These are the two guards guarding the Wealth and Treasure of Lord Sri Venkateswara.

They are representatives of two treasures of Kubera, the God of Wealth.


One guard who is holding shangam (conch) on both the hands is known as Shanka Nidhi ('nidhi' means wealth).

On the other side, the guard who is holding Lotus flowers on both the hands is known as Padma nidhi.

Shangu is from the ocean which includes all types of wealth like pearls and corals.

Why shagam in his hand? Because shangam only gives the sound of 'omkaram'.

'Padmam' is the symbol of water sources in land like river, lakes, tanks etc. which is very important for all living beings.

As per the tradition, these guards are installed at the third entrance of the temple.

One enters the holy shrine after saluting the first protection threshold - Sankha Nidhi and Padma Nidhi.
ALL
Seth Abramson
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
(MAJOR NOTE) The reason Manafort took over Trump's campaign in just 3 weeks despite being hired as a mere delegate counter is that ROGER STONE initiated a whisper campaign against Corey Lewandowski. That campaign started...days after Manafort returned from meeting with WikiLeaks.

2/ Stone and Manafort are longtime business partners; we'd expect Manafort to tell Stone what Assange told him, and for him to expect Stone to then pressure the campaign not only to hire him but quickly elevate him.

And who was Stone in touch with at the campaign? Trump himself.

3/ I bet you Manafort's late March emails are very interesting and that some of them are to/from his longtime business associate Roger Stone. And I bet Roger Stone's late March phone calls are very interesting and that some of them are to/from his longtime friend Donald Trump.

4/ At the end of March 2016, Trump suddenly convenes a NatSec meeting. At that meeting he directs his NatSec team to change the RNC platform in July to benefit Putin. Who later takes credit for that change?

Paul Manafort's business associate, Kremlin agent Konstantin Kilimnick.

5/ Why did Donald Trump suddenly convene a NatSec meeting 3 days after he finally hired Manafort? Why did he issue a pro-Kremlin directive at that meeting that Manafort's camp would later take credit for? What did Manafort tell Trump in the days leading up to that NatSec meeting?
POLITICS