We want health care "PLANS," not actual health care, I guess.

"Obamacare is a radical expansion of the status quo." —JD Kleinke

    

Sept 2012

December 2025

When SCOTUS initially upheld the constitutionality of "Obamacare" (the PPACA), lyrics to a song promptly fell right outa my head in about 10 minutes. Two days later I posted a goofy YouTube music video.

 

BTW: Noted medical economist / novelist JD Kleinke is my friend (fellow guitar cat). He once told me "an economist is someone who sees something that works in practice and tries to determine whether it'll work in theory." 

 

OK, BACK UP TO 1994

 

My first grad school paper. An "argument analysis & evaluation" assessment of the "Single Payer" proposal published in JAMA.

UNLV EPS 701 Fall 1994, Argument Analysis Paper (pdf)

A Better Quality Alternative:
Single-Payer National Health System Reform

Gordon D. Schiff, MD, Andrew M. Bindman, MD, Troyen A. Brennan, MD, JD, MPH; 

Physicians for a National Health Program Quality of Care Working Group.
JAMA, September 14, 1994—VoL 272, No. 10

Argument synopsis:
Notwithstanding public misgivings about making significant public policy driven changes in the U.S. health care industry, there is extensive and persuasive empirical evidence of costly inadequacies in the system—such as lack of access/coverage, uneven levels of quality of service and outcomes, market-driven rather clinical priorities, waste and duplication, etc.—that can best be corrected by a unified approach to improvement driven by a scientific focus on quality issues (broadly defined) rather than those of short-term cost-control, competition, and piecemeal regulatory strategies and tactics. A single-payer health care system reformed by implementation of the ten principles detailed herein would at once extend medical access to all, reduce costs, improve clinical outcomes of the sick and injured, and elevate the overall health status of the nation, resulting in win-win consequences for providers and citizens alike.

I first flowcharted every declarative sentence / sub-clause "truth claim" sequentially to get at what the authors were precisely advocating ("seek first to understand'). Only after that would I go on to "evaluation" ("seek then to be understood")—basically making my argument going to the cogency of the proffer. (Basically, think "ASSUMING - BECAUSE - DESPITE - THEREFORE - ELSE" logic and concomitant evidence)

 

I had at least 100 hours in that paper. Great fun. Notwithstanding a 2nd grad course in "History of Ethics" (11 required textbooks) and my day gig at the Nevada Medicare Peer Review.
 

I'm revisiting my conclusions (to wit, pg 54).

Overall Evaluation:
The following alternative courses of action are generally advanced in the health care debate:

1. Status quo: the system works fine, and normal incremental quality improvements at the provider level will suffice. Get a job.
2. Insurance reform: prohibit exclusion and enforce community rating to reduce the insurance premium stratification characteristic of the present system.
3. Expand existing public payer programs such as Medicare to cover the working poor and otherwise uninsurable.
4. Capitated managed competition, with "employer mandates" to provide choices in beneficiary alliances for pooled coverage bry*g power, administered though the workplace.
5. Tax inducement programs such as the "Medi-save" approach in which workers use pre-tax dollars to purchase catastrophic coverage and pay for routine health expenses themselves.
6. The public single-payer system based more or less on the Canadian model.

No one can dispute that the health care industry can be improved. Any system an be improved. Problems such as lack of access, arbitrary and often wildly excessive pricing, inexplicable variations in clinical practice and outcomes are well-documented and cry out for solution. That tends to rule out option 1. The question is one of extent: has the case been made that the health care industry requires comprehensive national reform? 

I've been gumshoeing this topic for a long time. e.g., see "Public Optional." 

 

Stay tuned...

Easy Money + Gilded Rage = Stealing the Future

 

Eyeball deep in David Z. Morris at the moment, in the wake of Messrs McKenzie & Silverman. Badasses, all of them. Individually and topically in concert.

 

 

Got onto David here: Artifice in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

Sam Bankman Fried ("SBF")? Yeah. Lordy. Been there, done that.

DAVID BEGINS:

I spent almost every weekday in October of 2023 in a courtroom in Lower Manhattan, listening to experts, lawyers, and first-hand witnesses recount the collapse of the FTX cryptocurrency exchange and prove Sam Bankman-Fried’s responsibility for it to a jury. 

 

But while this book recounts Bankman-Fried’s crimes in detail, it is ultimately focused on his ideas. Bankman-Fried, for a time known affectionately as “SBF,” was deeply tied to concepts and movements with names like Effective Altruism, determinism, utilitarianism, extinction risk, Rationalism, and longtermism. 

 

These buzzwords have been developed into increasingly formal systems by professional philosophers and ethicists at elite universities, and further amplified through a network of institutions well-funded by technology billionaires. But they stand for much deeper, much older structures of thought: a historical teleology that I here call “techno-utopianism.” 

 

The superficial optimism of Effective Altruism was fundamental to the public fascination with Bankman-Fried that helped fuel his lightning-fast ascent. But its deeper biases — to which he was perhaps uniquely vulnerable — also helped Bankman-Fried rationalize his crimes, and its superficial logics created the blind spots that led to his downfall. 

 

This book is not a work of journalism, but of forensic philosophy. It asks how techno-utopian ideas, so loudly declaring their intent to do good, instead led to one of the largest financial frauds in American history — and whether their broader sway in twenty-first-century politics and society may lead to similar results, on a much larger scale.

Morris, David. Stealing The Future: Sam Bankman-Fried, Elite Fraud, and the Cult of Techno-Utopia (pp. 8-9). (Function). Kindle Edition.
  

 

UPDATE

 

Sam Bankman-Fried's mother has recently submitted a 64-page appeal brief on her son's behalf:

I am a law professor at Stanford, where I have taught for close to forty years. Before that, I was a practicing lawyer in New York and clerked on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. I am also Sam Bankman-Fried’s mother. Because of my professional life, I have witnessed the events of the past three years through two very different sets of eyes. Someday I may write about what it has been like to live through this experience as a parent. Today I write as a lawyer, about the government’s legal case against Sam and the other FTX defendants. I would have much preferred to leave this task to others. But the spectacle that has surrounded the FTX case since day one has not been conducive to serious, independent thought or attention to facts. It has also imposed a very high cost on anyone who publicly expressed doubts about whether justice has been done in this case. I hope this will change in time, and others will come forward to supplement or amend what I have written here. Most of what I say below is documented in the trial transcript and public records posted on the official court docket. I have provided cites for those who would like to follow up on their own… 

Many observers see a fairly obvious Trump pardon effort ploy here. The further along I get in David's book, the more I tend to agree.

____

 

More broadly with respect to FinSec / crypto fraud, we must not forget our Sorkin. Andrew interviewed SBF remotely via Zoom for his "Dealbook" program in the wake of the FTX crash. David's analytic recounting of that conversation is riveting.

 

 

Also, we also ought revisit some Adam Becker.

 

More shortly...

Before we move on from our recent topic:

Define "Stupidity." 

 

We often tend to cavalierly toss words around with scant or nil attention to their proper lexical (denotative and connotative) specifications, particularly when the words are pejorative. I can be as culpable as the next person.

 

But, during my adjunct tenure teaching collegiate "Critical Thinking" I reflexively admonished my students that many "arguments" founder straight away owing to inadequate attention and consensus reqarding the materially salient definitions of key terms.

In courts, counsels and judges know such up-front agreement as "stipulation."

What does Google ("AI") say about "stupidity" of late? 

 

 OK, WHAT OF THIS UK BEAUT?

 

 Yeah...

 

THIS BOOK IS A 5-STAR MUST-READ (see prior post)

 

THE AUTHOR CONCLUDES

… Perhaps it just isn’t true that book reading in particular and literacy in general are essential for intelligence. Maybe there is more to intelligence than is dreamed of in this literacy-venerating philosophy. Perhaps, that is to say, all these ostensibly stupid kids responsible for dragging down average US intelligence aren’t so dumb as suggested. Just possibly, in not reading Moby Dick and Shakespeare, but instead making TikTok videos and crafting Instagram stories, they are manifesting intelligence, only not of the kind measured by IQ tests. 

True, this is an unexpected, perhaps even stupid, thought to encounter in a book. Book writers generally come to praise literacy rather than bury it – if only out of self-interest. This book, then, might not only be a history of stupidity but also be an addition to it. But, really, I am only elaborating here a thought we encountered earlier in the book, namely that the psychologist Edwin G. Boring was more sage than he realized in suggesting the limitations of IQ tests. His remark is worth repeating: ‘Intelligence as a measurable capacity must at the start be defined as the capacity to do well in an intelligence test. Intelligence is what the tests test.’ If IQ tests measure cognitive skills predicated on literacy, then any form of intelligence we may care to imagine that is not predicated on literacy will be ruled out, perhaps even considered to be a kind of stupidity. Just possibly, though, a post-literate, non-literate America might be more intelligent than a literate one. Equally, the cognitive skills for which IQ tests test may not be the only ones that the intelligent have and the stupid – poor deluded boobs – lack.

In this context, it is amusing, to put it mildly, that the World Population Review, which published the data on declining average American IQ tests in 2024 on its website, added this caveat. ‘To be completely fair and transparent, the intelligence quotient is not the most accurate way of determining someone’s intelligence. After all, it is nearly impossible to fully calculate someone’s intellect because it is not a variable that is numerically represented. Instead, IQ scores are a way of trying to put a number on someone’s intelligence.’ If you’re reading this in New Mexico thinking how terrible it is you live in the US’s most stupid state, even though you’ve been doing all you can to skew that data by translating Proust into Sanskrit and inventing spaceships that go faster than the speed of light, take succour: even the people publishing the research don’t really believe that intelligence – whatever it is – is measured very well by intelligence tests. 

Professor Dombrowski’s worries about the reasons for the fall in American average intelligence have led to a growth industry in indicting purportedly rising stupidity. That growth industry’s business model requires that Voltaire and Schopenhauer were wrong: stupidity is not so much an ineradicable feature of humanity as something living, growing. The American writer Lance Morrow declared in the Wall Street Journal in 2021:

We live in a golden age of stupidity. It is everywhere. President Biden’s conduct of the withdrawal from Afghanistan will be remembered as a defining stupidity of our time – one of many. The refusal of tens of millions of people to be vaccinated against the novel coronavirus will be analysed as a textbook case of stupidity en masse. Stupid is as stupid does, or, in the case of vaccination, as it doesn’t do. Stupidity and irresponsibility are evil twins. The slow-motion zombies’ assault on the Capitol on Jan. 6 was a fittingly stupid finale to the Trump years, which offered duelling stupidities: Buy one, get one free. The political parties became locked in a four-year drama of hysteria and mutually demeaning abuse. Every buffoonery of the president and his people was answered by an idiocy from the other side, which in its own style was just as sinister and just as clownish.

Morrow was wrong about one thing: the Capitol riots weren’t the finale to the Trump years. In January 2025, Trump was sworn in at the Capitol, where his followers had rioted four years earlier, inaugurating another four years of idiocy – or so the president’s detractors might suggest. 

Morrow’s account is a common journalistic trope: in the Daily Telegraph Janet Daley lamented ‘the Age of Stupid’, citing both Trump and Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn, while David Rothkopf wrote for the Washington Post under the headline ‘America’s golden age of stupidity’ about the first Trump administration, offering a clear definition: stupidity is ‘the wilful disregard of knowledge – regardless of motive’. Such stupidity is an ‘unwinnable proposition . . . because those who battle facts are at war with reality’. Stupidity thus constitutes a distinct form of failure; separate from, but likely aiding and abetting, political, ethical, and other shortcomings. Stupidity also amounts to a useful tool in electoral success: those who disconnect from the truth are not constrained by it. 

All these articles suggesting that we have reached Peak Stupid have one thing in common: they are themselves stupid. Who knows if this is a golden, silver, or even bronze age of stupidity? We are, as a species, surely too dim to know what the future holds. It is quite possible that as we crest one summit we see a beguiling prospect ahead of us, half shrouded in the mists of fatuity. The peak of stupidity remains ahead. And so we continue on what we think is our ascent, higher and higher, too stupid to realize that we’re really going down not up, that in truth we are progressing deeper and deeper into the unplumbed depths of witlessness. 

In his ‘The Discovery of the North Pole’, Karl Kraus satirized the idea of the human mind becoming enlightened and eradicating stupidity by means of superior technology and willpower. The discovery of the North Pole, he wrote, was ‘inevitable. . . . It is an idea graspable by all brains, especially those no longer capable of grasping anything. The North Pole had to be discovered some day, because for centuries the human mind had penetrated the night and the fog in a hopeless struggle with the murderous elemental forces of stupidity.’ We think that the Enlightenment involves progress only because we are too stupid to consider another possibility, that it does the opposite. As Kraus puts it: ‘When people were travelling in mail coaches, the world got along better than it does now that salesmen fly through the air. What good is speed if the brain has oozed out on the way?’

Of course, Kraus’s perspective risks the opposite error: not so much faith in the unalloyed good of progress as the equally stupid idea that life was ever better than it is now or that progress necessarily means its opposite. Kraus’s sense was that the evolution of stupidity is unstoppable. Technological change, quite possibly, stupefies rather than liberates us. Maybe, instead, the truth is more subtle: it both liberates and stupefies us. The worst-case scenario is that it liberates, stupefies, and then replaces us. That, at least, is one of the more benign outcomes when the forces of human stupidity do final battle with the tooled-up bots of artificial intelligence. So how should we greet this prospect? 

In another essay, ‘In Praise of a Topsy-Turvy Life-Style’, Kraus wrote about the benefits of sleeping in. He even quoted King Lear: ‘Take vantage, heavy eyes, not to behold this shameful lodging.’ In the age of stupidity, he seems to suggest, it’s best to shut one’s eyes to the parade of witlessness. The shameful lodging is the incessant gush of information, a gush that has only multiplied since Kraus’s death in 1936, when it was largely confined to the morning and evening newspapers. He wrote: 

Anyone who has observed for a time how disgracefully these events debase themselves before curiosity, how cravenly the course of the world adapts itself to the increased need for information, and how in the end time and space become forms of perception of the journalistic subject, turns over in bed and goes on sleeping. . . . Hence I sleep in broad daylight. And when I wake up I spread the whole paper shame of mankind before me so I might know what I have missed, and this makes me happy.

Maybe Kraus’s smug daily lie-in is a sort of wisdom: in the face of the world’s stupidity, as brought home to us every morning (or now, in our internet-enabled case, every moment), better to roll over and go back to sleep. But that is what stupidity wants. Indeed, a lifestyle of willed unconsciousness is a manifestation of stupidity. In the face of growing stupidity, keeping oneself from the fray and deluding oneself thereby that one is less stupid and more morally perfect than the witless parade of lesser mortals is not just the height of folly but also deeply stupid. If the triumph of evil only requires that good men do nothing, then the triumph of stupidity requires only that good people close their eyes and roll over. 

None of this should suggest that stupidity does not, on occasion, have a valuable social function, nor that we should try to eradicate it from human life. Consider the case of Sunny Balwani, the chief operations officer of Theranos, the Silicon Valley company that promised to offer fast, cheap blood tests from a single drop of blood but was later exposed as a fraudulent business. As reported in John Carreyrou’s book about the Theranos scandal, Bad Blood, Balwani, God bless him, was often out of his depth during engineering discussions. ‘To hide it, he had a habit of repeating technical terms he heard others using,’ wrote Carreyrou. During one meeting, Balwani latched onto the term ‘end effector’. which signifies the claws at the end of a robotic arm. Balwani, though, misheard: he didn’t hear ‘end effector’, he heard ‘endofactor’. For the rest of the meeting, he kept referring to endofactors, while his colleagues exchanged ironic glances with each other. At the next meeting with Balwani two weeks later, some colleagues brought a PowerPoint presentation titled ‘Endofactors Update’. 

Balwani didn’t realize he had been pranked by his colleagues, who went on to make up other purportedly technical terms that he, in his ignorance, picked up on and used in meetings. Nor, perhaps, did he realize why they were laughing when he left the room. 

Balwani was unwittingly demonstrating the Dunning–Kruger effect, which posits that people overestimate their intelligence and make fools of themselves as a result. He was demonstrating something else: how another person’s stupidity can bring people together. Stupidity, that’s to say, was a scar for Balwani, but a joy for everybody else in the room. There’s a lesson in this story: in difficult times, we need stupidity, arguably more than intelligence, to cheer us up. 

Quite possibly, I have become Sunny Balwani’s soulmate. As I’ve written this book, indeed, I’ve often wondered if I am displaying the Dunning–Kruger effect, trying to show off my intelligence while really demonstrating my stupidity. After all, what could be more stupid than writing a history of stupidity? My only consolation is that, like Balwani, I may have entertained you with my witlessness. If so, you’re welcome. 

If not, then, given you’ve got to the last sentence of this book, who really is more stupid – you or me?

Jeffries, Stuart. A Short History of Stupidity (pp. 282-287). (Function). Kindle Edition. 

The humor, man. Thought I was gonna break a rib laughing.
 

ENDOFACTORS UPDATE.

From each according to his ability.

To each according to his Need.

  

Make America GRATE Again. And again. And again. And again…

Trump's need for adoration is is INFINITE.

       

POTUS: DEC 9TH 9PM TRUTH SOCIAL UPDATE 

There has never been a President that has worked as hard as me! My hours are the longest, and my results are among the best. I’ve stopped Eight Wars, saving many millions of lives in the process, created the Greatest Economy in the History of our Country, brought Business back into the United States at levels never seen before, rebuilt our Military, created the Largest Tax Cuts and Regulation Cuts, EVER, closed our open and very dangerous Southern Border, when previous Administrations were unable to do so, and created an “aura” around the United States of America that has led every Country in the World to respect us more than ever before. In addition to all of that, I go out of my way to do long, thorough, and very boring Medical Examinations at the Great Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, seen and supervised by top doctors, all of whom have given me PERFECT Marks — Some have even said they have never seen such Strong Results. I do these Tests because I owe it to our Country. In addition to the Medical, I have done something that no other President has done, on three separate occasions, the last one being recently, by taking what is known as a Cognitive Examination, something which few people would be able to do very well, including those working at The New York Times, and I ACED all three of them in front of large numbers of doctors and experts, most of whom I do not know. I have been told that few people have been able to “ace” this Examination and, in fact, most do very poorly, which is why many other Presidents have decided not to take it at all. Despite all of this, the time and work involved, The New York Times, and some others, like to pretend that I am “slowing up,” am maybe not as sharp as I once was, or am in poor physical health, knowing that it is not true, and knowing that I work very hard, probably harder than I have ever worked before. I will know when I am “slowing up,” but it’s not now! After all of the work I have done with Medical Exams, Cognitive Exams, and everything else, I actually believe it’s seditious, perhaps even treasonous, for The New York Times, and others, to consistently do FAKE reports in order to libel and demean  “THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.” They are true Enemies of the People, and we should do something about it. They have inaccurately reported on all of my Election Results and, in fact, were forced to apologize on much of what they wrote. The best thing that could happen to this Country would be if The New York Times would cease publication because they are a horrible, biased, and untruthful “source” of information. Thank you for your attention to this matter. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! 

You can always tell when Donald Trump is terrified.

It’s not subtle. He doesn’t have a poker face; the roadmap of insecurities is plastered across his grotesque physiognomy, from chingina to wig, a Dorian Orange visage in an obscure shade of Formby’s 1970s furniture stains. 



 

When he’s winning, or thinks he is, he’s merely cruel. But when he’s scared? When the walls of his own mortality and incompetence start closing in? He becomes this: a frantic, caps-lock-abusing carnival barker screaming about his “PERFECT” medical charts while threatening to imprison the New York Times for noticing he drags his leg like a drunk pirate and is increasingly and obviously suffering from dementia and a host of other physical collapses… —Rick Wilson

Stupidity Update

Interesting New Yorker article.

The current political situation makes this “a good time to write about stupidity,” Jeffries writes. When he notes that a central trait of stupidity is that it “can be relied upon to do the one thing expressly designed not to achieve the desired result”—or “to laughably mismatch means and ends”—he makes “stupid” seem like the perfect way to characterize our era, in which many people think that the key to making America healthy again is ending vaccination. Meanwhile, in a recent issue of New York magazine—“The Stupid Issue”—the journalist Andrew Rice describes troubling and widespread declines in the abilities of high-school students to perform basic tasks, such as calculating a tip on a restaurant check. These declines are happening even in well-funded school districts, and they’re part of a larger academic pattern, in which literacy is fading and standards are slipping.

Maybe we are getting stupider. Still, one of the problems with the discourse of stupidity is that it can feel reductive, aggressive, even abusive. Self-humiliation is still humiliating; when we call one another stupid, we spread humiliation around, whether our accusation is just or unjust. In a recent post on Substack, the philosopher Joseph Heath suggested that populism might be best understood as a revolt against “the cognitive elite”—that is, against the people who demand that we check our intuitions and think more deliberately about pretty much everything. According to this theory, the world constructed by the cognitive élite is one in which you have to listen to experts, and keep up with technology, and click through six pages of online forms to buy a movie ticket; it sometimes “requires the typical person, while speaking, to actively suppress the familiar word that is primed (e.g. ‘homeless’), and to substitute through explicit cognition the recently-minted word that is now favoured (e.g. ‘unhoused’).” The cognitive élites are right to say that people who think about things intuitively are often wrong; on issues including crime and immigration, the truth is counterintuitive. (Legal procedures are better than rough justice; immigrants increase both the supply and the demand for labor.) But the result of this has been that unreasonable people have hooked up to form an opposition party. What’s the way out of this death spiral? No one knows…

An excellent read. Goes to this recently published book.

 

 

Wild. Wicked British humor.

 

Recall my earlier post on "A Recipe for Idiocracy?" 

 

FRIDAY UPDATE: THE DAY IN STUPID

 

“You're expected to get the FIFA Peace Prize, Mr. President," CNN's Kaitlan Collins told Trump at a Kennedy Center event on Friday. "What would you say to people who say that prize might conflict with your pledge to strike Venezuela?"

"Well, I think the Peace Prize, I mean, I settled eight wars," Trump replied. "I don't know that I'm getting it. I haven't been officially notified. I've been hearing about a Peace Prize, and I'm here to represent our country in a different sense."

"I can tell you I did settle eight wars and we have a ninth coming, but in which nobody's ever done before, but I want to really save lives, I don't need prizes. I need to save lives, and we're saving a lot of lives. I've saved millions and millions of lives, and that's really what I want to do, and I also want to run a great country, and the United States right now is the hottest country anywhere in the world, and one year ago, we had a dead country, and now we have the hottest country anywhere in the world."

"gormless" "The Oaf of Office"

The current political situation makes this “a good time to write about stupidity,” Jeffries writes. When he notes that a central trait of stupidity is that it “can be relied upon to do the one thing expressly designed not to achieve the desired result”—or “to laughably mismatch means and ends”—he makes “stupid” seem like the perfect way to characterize our era, in which many people think that the key to making America healthy again is ending vaccination. Meanwhile, in a recent issue of New York magazine—“The Stupid Issue”—the journalist Andrew Rice describes troubling and widespread declines in the abilities of high-school students to perform basic tasks, such as calculating a tip on a restaurant check. These declines are happening even in well-funded school districts, and they’re part of a larger academic pattern, in which literacy is fading and standards are slipping. —Joshua Rothman

SATURDAY UPDATE: THE DAY IN STUPID

 

George Clooney

For President.

    

I had to drive up to Kaiser today for a blood draw. Had NPR on the radio (of course).

“We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine and remember that we are not descended from fearful men - not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate or to defend the causes that are, for the moment, unpopular. We proclaim ourselves as indeed we are the defenders of freedom wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.”
      —Edward R. Murrow, quoted by George Clooney

HELL NO, I'm not kidding, notwithstanding the nominal seeming unlikelihood (?). The decade thus far of the crass, vulgar, clinically arrogant, breathtakingly willful ignorance and brazen dictatorial dishonesty relentlessly inflicted on the U.S. and the world by He-Of-The-Perfect-MRI is light years more than quite enough, thank you very much.

Might you perhaps benefit from some reminders, just scroll down through a handful of some recent prior posts here.

Listen carefully to the foregoing entire 44 NPR minute interview. Read the transcript. Pay it forward.

Savor the lengthy sequences of grammatically correct complete sentences expressing cogent, rational, empathic, humane, material cognition.

As the late Charlie Kirk was fond of saying, "PROVE ME WRONG."

 

 

MAKE AMERICA SANE AGAIN.
   

Our tax dollars (or, perhaps soon cryptocurrency?):

$235,100 annual salary for the Trump "Secretary of War."

He thinks this shit is funny.

Link

PolyMarket

Polymarket?

What could possibly go awry?

     

"Kill them all."

This is what "War Secretary" Hegseth just posted on TwitteX.

  

MANLY PETE

"Yesterday, the secretary of defense of the United States of America posted a meme on X depicting Franklin, the cartoon turtle who is a beloved children’s-book character, as a Special Forces operator killing people on boats. He added a comment: “For your Christmas wish list…” Just to make the point, the secretary tagged the X account of SOUTHCOM, the Southern Forces Command, which has had to carry out the strikes, as if blowing up boats and killing the survivors was a joke to be shared with a chuckle and a backslap.

Perhaps Hegseth thinks that sinking boats on the high seas is funny. Maybe he just wanted to own the libs and all that. Or maybe he thought he could disrupt the gathering war-crimes narrative, like the school delinquent pulling a fire alarm during an exam. Or maybe he just has poor judgment and even worse impulse control (which would explain a lot of things about Pete Hegseth). No matter the reason, his choice to trivialize the use of American military force reveals both the shallowness of the man’s character and the depth of his contempt for the military as an institution.

 

Posting stupid memes after being accused of murder is not the response of a patriot who must answer to the public about the security of the United States and its people in uniform. It is not the response of a secretary of defense who values the advice of the officers who report to him. It is not the response of a human being who comprehends the risks—and the costs—of ordering other people to kill helpless men clinging to the wreck of a boat.

It is, instead, the response of a sneering, spoiled punk who has been caught doing wrong and is now daring the local fuzz to take him in and risk the anger of his rich dad—a role fulfilled by Donald Trump, in this case." —Tom Nichols

TRUMP CABINET RESPONSE