Freedom of Speech

I'm revisiting this post from last September. It was spurred by a friend (one of my few MAGA acquaintances) who was up in arms about the supposed antipathy to free speech by candidate Vice President Harris. This particular friend has been mesmerized by podcasters like Joe Rogan and got most of his information from "X", -- formerly Twitter. With some of Trump's recent actions, I thought it was apropos.  

A clip from a speech that Vice President Harris made in 2019 when she was a Senator running for president was making the rounds on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. Typically the tweet starts with something along the lines of: "Kamala: I will censor content on X that I don't like", followed by a clip where she doesn't say anything like that. In the clip she is actually saying:

"We'll put the Department of Justice of the United States back in the business of justice. We will double the Civil Rights Division and direct law enforcement to counter this extremism. We will hold social media platforms accountable for the hate infiltrating their platforms because they have a responsibility to help fight against this threat to our democracy. And if you profit off of hate, if you act as a megaphone for misinformation or cyber warfare, if you don't police your platforms, we are going to hold you accountable as a community.”

I have not been able to find a text of the full speech, so I don't for sure what the context is for these remarks. It's also unclear what she intends by "hold them accountable". What is clear is that does not mention censoring social media platforms or shutting them down. I can draw some conclusions based on who she is speaking to and what was going on nationally. 

She is addressing the NAACP, a Black advocacy organization, and there had been a number of killings inspired by racial animus that had been abetted by social media posts. She specifically invokes the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. One can infer from her remarks that she is targeting online incitement to violence. I have seen arguments that what she is saying amounts to de facto censorship, if not censorship de jure. Free speech is not absolute. There are laws making certain narrow categories of speech illegal. Two examples are libel (although libel is more of a civil matter) and the previously mentioned incitement to violence. Individuals can be held to account in a court of law, but social media platforms cannot be. Why is that?

Section 230 of the 1934 Communications Act as amended in 1996 states that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." In other words, a social media platform is not responsible to moderate their content (except for child pornography and bootleg movies) and cannot be held responsible for what gets posted there, like a publisher of a newspaper or the producer of a television or cable program would. Both Trump and former President Biden were in favor of repealing Section 230. Trump was for this mainly (in my opinion) because Twitter (when it was still Twitter) was fact checking his tweets and was allegedly suppressing conservative and Trump-supporting content. I'm not sure what Biden's motivation were. (Side note: it's funny how the Trumpists were up in arms about how Twitter was "censoring" right wing speech, even though it was a private company that had every right to do so and now they're celebrating Musk who is doing similar things to left wing speech [which he categorizes as "propaganda"] because as a private owner he has every right to do so). In the larger context Harris isn't suggesting anything that Trump or Biden have already suggested (she's not really suggesting anything, since the clips that were circulating are from five years ago). What she said in that speech, right or wrong, unconstitutional or not, is mainstream, but as usual her opponents ignore this and brand her words as that of a communist. 

For all the hand wringing and pearl clutching by Harris' opponents, do they ever consider the anti-free speech actions of their avatar, Trump?

• In 2020, after Twitter began appending fact checks to his tweets Trump issued an executive order that effectively re-interprets Section 230 and involves the government in platforms' moderation policies. In other words, Trump did what his supporters allege that Harris' 5-year old words indicate she would do - if their interpretation is correct
• In 2017 Trump publicly mused about changing the libel laws to make it easier for the government to sue media organization. In effect, to give the government a cudgel to prevent criticism of the president
• In 2020 Trump sued Facebook and Twitter for not publishing some of his posts and tweets
• In 2017 Trump halted whistleblower protections
• Trump aides call the press the opposition party
• Trump repeatedly call the mainstream press the enemy of the people
• Trump campaign calls for holding the media accountable (wording sound familiar?) for trying to rig the election
• Trump has sued a pollster in Iowa who incorrectly predicted that Harris would win Iowa's electoral votes
• Trump is suing CBS over how they edited an interview with Harris
• Trump's administration is deporting people, otherwise here legally, for their speech
• Trump has threatened the tax exempt status of universities whose curriculum he doesn't like
• AP has been banned from covering White House press briefings because they continue to use the term "Gulf of Mexico"
• Trump is in the process of dismantling Voice of America

There's more, some more overt than others, but Trump's antipathy toward a free press should not be a surprise to anyone. 

If Harris' 5-year old speech is indicative of her current policy position and it means censorship, of course I'm concerned, (1) I don't believe that's the most logical, reasonable inference to be made and (2) Her election opponent has already engaged in more direct anti-free speech actions.

Trump's actions in his first 100 days have clearly indicated his intention to rule in an authoritarian manner. On his first day he declared that the 100 year old understanding of the 14th Amendment's guarantee of citizenship to anyone who was born here was overturned, revealing his contempt for the Constitution. He has decided that due process is no longer a thing if you aren't a citizen, despite it being provided in the 5th and 14th amendments, with the 4th amendment, securing us from unwarranted searches and seizures next on the chopping block. 

But hey, Harris wanted accountability for Twitter, so we had to vote for Trump.

Government Efficiency

Is there anyone who believes that we shouldn't strive to eliminate waste, fraud and corruption in government? That we should ignore inefficient, ineffective programs? The problem with what's going on in the federal government right now is that "waste, fraud and corruption" has been conflated with "liberal programs that I don't like" paired with the typical businessman's reflexive labor cutting to solve any cash flow problem. 

This is what happens when we elect business owners. The purpose of any business is to make money for the owners. There might be side benefits, providing jobs, producing products that make people's loves better, or supporting charities, but turning the maximum amount of profit is the only real goal of any business. Anything that isn't contributing to the creation of profit is expendable. In many businesses the greatest expense is labor -- salaries and benefits, plus the employer's 50% of payroll taxes. And for many businesses the category that gets cut when profits are not what the owners think they should be is labor.  This often becomes a vicious cycle where there are fewer people trying to accomplish the same goals, resulting in a drop in productivity, not to mention lower morale and greater turnover. 

The Musk-directed chainsaw crew is rampaging through the government, firing large numbers of employees, often with no regard to what they do or the consequences of their work going undone. In some agencies all probationary employees are being summarily fired. They are easy targets since they lack the civil service protections that typically kick in after six months. If a careful review and analysis of each employee had been done and decisions on termination been made with regard to whether they were doing the job they were hired to do, or even whether the position itself was in line with the agencies mission, that would be understandable. What they are doing is just firing a lot of people because, according to the usual "businessman" math, that's where you save money. In many instances, at the IRS and Social Security Administration for example, the core responsibilities still have to be carried out, just with half the people. 

The other half of the equation is the elimination or reduction of agencies that Trump and Musk simply don't like. Every agency, and the budget for every agency, and its overall mission, has been set in place by a process that is constitutionally mandated. It's established by law. A president, as the head of the executive branch can set priorities and tweak the mission around the edges, but a president does not have the authority to unilaterally dismantle an agency or department or simply refuse to spend Congressionally allocated funds. The argument that is being made is that the whole mission of some agencies is wasteful. USAID is one example. There are some who are of the opinion that any tax dollars that are being spent in other countries is by definition wasteful, and that therefore eliminating that spending is targeting waste. That's a legitimate argument (albeit one that I disagree with), but it should be hashed out in budget negotiations. The president can make his case in his budget proposal and lobby members of Congress and if he prevails, the budget is cut or the agency shuttered. The position that because a lawfully constituted department of government is distasteful to a faction of the electorate doesn't make it inherently wasteful. 

What about fraud and corruption? Surely those are legitimate targets? I can't argue with the elimination of fraud and corruption. But wouldn't an administration that has no qualms about making unsupported allegations about its opponents be eager to gleefully perp walk legitimately corrupt officials before the cameras and brag about it? So far, not one. And all the fraud uncovered by Musk has turned out to be easily explained data points that he and his team failed to understand. Now he's leaving to go back to his sinking car company, with savings he's claimed at around 7% of what he promised he's find. Even that has been exposed as wildly inflated. Inspector Generals of the various departments, among their other responsibilities, are tasked with investigating fraud and corruption, but most of them were fired during Trump's first week in office -- what does that tell you about how serious this whole charade is?

Trump has unleashed an unqualified team, ignorant of government functions, to chaotically gut government operations. They have no experience in government, no background in forensic accounting, and no understanding of the downstream consequences of their actions. Their mission is unconstitutional and their delegation of authority illegal. 

But the government isn't "woke" anymore and the Pentagon is full of warriors now, so I guess it's alright.

Balance?

Sometimes a MAGA cultist that I have engaged with will inject a bit of whataboutism into the conversation and accuse me of being silent when Biden or Obama did something that he believes is worse than what I am pointing out about Trump. Fair point...or would be if the recent Democratic presidents actually did what they supposedly did, and if my "debate" partner had any idea what I spoke out for or against in regards to other presidents. 

It's certainly true that I didn't spend a lot of time publicly criticizing Presidents Obama and Biden. You won't find many of these blog articles slamming them for things I disagreed with. There's several reasons for that. One is that in most instances where other presidents deserved criticism, it was more like the politics-as-usual, garden-variety bad decisions in contrast to the burn-it-to-the ground "policies" of the current regime. Some of my more left-leaning friends and associates certainly were more vocal than I, and had plenty of words of rebuke and even vitriol for Obama, Biden, Clinton et al. Another reason is that whatever the MAGA acolytes think a Democratic president did, it's usually filtered through a right wing, tinfoil hat "thought" process that has minimal relationship to what's really going on. Spending time "researching" the veracity of conspiracy theories is something I used to spend time doing, but I have discovered that it's statistically unlikely that I will ever find confirmation of their hallucinatory view of national politics. 

A third reason is that, unfortunate as it may be to do so, in today's political climate you have to take sides. Years ago I was more center-right in my politics, and was even a registered Libertarian at one time. Even as my politics drifted leftward, I never became as liberal/progressive as some of my more vocal acquaintances, but starting during the Obama years I saw that of the two major political parties, the Republicans had become irredeemable and my vote and my voice was aimed at preventing them from accumulating more power. The way things are currently organized, the Democratic Party is the only real alternative. I decided to focus my political writing pointing out the danger that the Republicans were, and left criticisms of the Democrats to others. The ascendancy of Donald Trump solidified my decision to concentrate on articulating the menace to democracy Trump and the Republicans are. 

Trump is a unique threat to our nation, and anyone who questions my right to point it out can kiss my...

MAGAt in the Wild

Due to most people who support Trump's actions having deleted and blocked me on social media, and unfriending a few on my own, I rarely encounter any true believers. The people I know in person lean progressive for the most part, and we are in one of nebraska's Blue Dots! But I had a face-to-face conversation with a Musk/DOGE cheerleader today. 

We were at work, so we shouldn't have been discussing politics anyway, but a conversation about retirement led to a remark by my colleague about how DOGE's hunt for fraud, waste and corruption might ave Social Security for future generations. I could've let it slide, but I felt compelled to respond that what Musk is doing isn't rooting out fraud, waste, and corruption. He apparently believes that not only is DOGE doing good work, but that any pesky illegalities are worth it in order to "fix" things. I asked him if the trains were running on time yet. 

What is going on in the federal government is wrong, illegal and unconstitutional on multiple levels. I'll concede that government has been dysfunctional for quite a few years now. Not only are we at a place where neither of the two major political have any desire to compromise, to give even an inch to the other party, but factions within the parties often prevent anything from getting done. Budgets getting passed are pretty rare and we have to settle for "continuing resolutions" in order to keep the government from shutting down. Be that as it may, we do still have a Congress, and it's the job of Congress to decide how to allocate our tax dollars and to create or decommission government agencies and set their missions. It is the job of the president to execute, or carry out, the laws that Congress passes. It is not within the president's authority to unilaterally remake the government in his image. We have a word for that -- it's "dictatorship".  

The president certainly does have the responsibility to ensure that the agencies and departments of the executive branch are operating efficiently. This should involve a careful review of processes and procedures to identify things like duplication of responsibility or unnecessary handoffs. It would include a auditing expenditures on items like travel and office supplies. Done right it would be a sober, considered audit of whether each agency is carrying out its mission efficiently and effectively. What it's not is deciding that particular agencies are by definition wasteful. An opinion of many conservatives is that foreign aid, no matter what form it takes, is wasteful. There's certainly an argument to be made that we shouldn't be sending money to other countries -- an argument which I disagree with -- but an argument nonetheless. This is the rationale for the virtual elimination of one of the first DOGE targets, USAID. The president can certainly make the argument that USAID or any of the other targeted agencies should be defunded and eliminated, and present this position in his annual budget. It's then up to Congress to consider this and either include the changes in the new budget...or not. Moving fast and breaking things may be the way to proceed in a privately held company, but that's not the way our government was designed...by the Founding Fathers that conservatives seem to revere. 

The Congressional majority seems to be complicit in this slide into authoritarianism. Speaker of the House Johnson doesn't even want to entertain questions about Trump's plans -- he just wants to "trust his judgement". It has to be the height of insanity, or at least a dereliction of duty, to have faith in the intuition of a man who so clearly doesn't know what he's talking about much of the time. 

My coworker (he works in another division, not my team, so I don't have to deal with him every day) and I didn't discuss immigration, but I would not be surprised if he was a cheerleader for the illegal ICE sweeps that have been happening. There's no question that our border and immigration system and policies need a lot of work. Not only do multitudes cross into the country illegally every day, but our agencies that are tasked with processing asylum seekers and even for detaining those who are awaiting deportation, are woefully understaffed. There is a logjam years long to "do it the right way". Trump has decided to ignore previous agreements that have allowed immigrants to remain here while awaiting a decision and has revoked visas and started rounding up people who were here legally. Homeland Security is claiming that they're deporting "dangerous criminals" and "terrorists", and are even using the Alien Enemies Act that is supposed to be activated in wartime, to deport non-citizens. But they seem to be concentrating on the people who they already know about, those who kept their appointments with ICE, who were working, paying taxes, and checking all the right boxes -- the low-hanging fruit. I have a hard time believing that they're doing the difficult work of tracking down all the criminal gangsters -- who are surely not keeping their paperwork updated. There is no due process, which is guaranteed, even to non-citizens. Then there's the horrific case of the man who was sent to the Salvadoran prison "accidently", who the regime is claiming cannot be brought back. 

The number of things that Trump is doing that are without question unconstitutional, never mind all the possibly illegal, or just plain immoral, acts should horrify any American who loves their country. But for some in the Trump camp, it doesn't matter, as long as he "owns the libs". 

Tariffs

What is a Tariff?

A tariff is a tax imposed on products imported from another country. Usually tariffs are narrowly focussed to counter protectionist policies in another country, or when a foreign company is flooding the market with cheap, subsidized goods that our domestic companies cannot compete with. If American companies are ascendant in a certain category, tariffs are unnecessary in that category. 

Who Pays For a Tariff?

The importer pays the tariff. This effectively raises the cost to the importer, who can pass the cost on to the consumer, or accept a lower profit on their sales. The exporter isn't paying the tariff, but they are still affected since the high price for the end user will effect sales. 

What is the Goal of a Tariff?

Ideally, a tariff is set to counter prices for foreign made goods that are well below the cost of American products. Often the low price is the result of government subsidies in the originating country, resulting in an "unfair" price difference. The tariff brings the foreign and domestic products closer to parity, with the goal of supporting American business. Foreign countries may impose tariffs on American goods as a way to jump start their own home grown industries. 

What is "Balance of Trade"?

The dollar value of imports and exports are rarely equal. When what we buy from another country's businesses exceeds what our businesses sell to that country we have a trade deficit with that country. When the reverse is true we have a trade surplus. 

What Is Trump Doing?

Since his first term Trump has not understood what trade imbalances were. He has consistently described trade deficits as "losing money" to the country with whom we had a trade deficit. He has drawn the conclusion that because we have trade deficits, these countries are "not being fair", or are "ripping us off". Trump's tariffs take two forms. The first takes the form of punishment for actions the other country has taken that he doesn't approve of, or a negotiating tactic to bring them in line with his goals. An example would be his perception that fentanyl is pouring over our northern and southern borders -- tariffs on Canadian and Mexican products are used to twist our neighbors' arms to get them to step up their border security; even if in this case hardly any fentanyl comes in from Canada. The second, which he calls reciprocal tariffs, are a response to trade deficits that we have with the targeted nations. 

How Are the Trump Tariffs Calculated?

The tariffs are not, as first assumed, mirror images of tariffs being imposed on U.S. businesses. The tariff rates are based on the ratio of imports and the trade deficit between the United States and the target country. For example, if we export 25 billion to Tariffland, and import 35 million, the deficit is 10 billion, so the formula is 10 ÷ 35. Trump is dividing the resulting percentage by 2 (to be kind, he says), so  28.57%  ÷ 2 = a 14.28% tariff. One article called this calculation "childish", I would add "foolish" and "ignorant", maybe "simplistic". 

How Crazy Is All of This?

Trump thinks tariffs are the answer to most of our problems. It's the hammer when every problem looks like a nail. Some of Trump's supporters are reverse engineering his senseless policies by attempting to pin some kind of rationality on the irrational. Trying, through convoluted illogic, to hallucinate some kind of reason why any of this makes sense. You'll grow old trying to find any kind of policy coherence in anything Trump does. There are more holes in his "logic" that anyone could count before the heat death of the universe. The reason for any of this is Trump's personality. One aspect is his simplistic thinking. He can't conceive of complex systems or relationships. It's why he seems incapable of considering how interconnected our economy is with the rest of the world. He has no empathy for others. He doesn't care that his plans will cause inflation or cause businesses to shut down -- not his problem. Finally, despite his opulent lifestyle, he can't help painting himself as the victim that "everyone" is out to bring down. He sees other countries, not as partners who can mutually benefit from cooperation, but as enemies out to "rip us off". These personality traits have been front and center throughout his life, demands loyalty, but is not loyal to others. His own needs are the first, if not the only things he considers. 

It all makes sense when you put it all in context of one man's twisted psyche.

Cops on Television

We watch a lot of cop shows on television. And there's a lot of them out there. There's no shortage of American cop shows and I've seen a fair number of U.K. and even New Zealand cop shows. Some of them present idealized pictures of police life, others set forth a grittier version of the job. The good ones are fairly realistic regarding the tough choices that police officers make, painting that life in shades of grey, instead of black hats and white hats. I'll get to the one thing that all police shows do that I dislike in a few paragraphs, but first I want to talk about Blue Bloods. 

I don't really know what it's like to be a police officer. My father was a cop for 21 years, but because of a medical condition he wasn't a "street cop" for most of that time. He spent the majority of his time in uniform at a desk. My brother was a sergeant, supervising a squad of homicide detectives. He joined the NYPD after I had moved away, so I never heard much about his job. (One thing he did say was that the ubiquitous portrayal of detectives disrespectfully ordering uniformed officers around was the most unrealistic part of television police. Uniformed officers have a separate chain of command from the detectives). I learned a few things recently after serving on a grand jury that investigated a police shooting, but I don't know anything, not experientially. 

The television show Blue Bloods in my opinion does a good job of presenting multiple sides of an issue. The main characters, all one family, include the NYPD police commissioner; his father, a former police commissioner; one son who is a detective; another son who is a uniformed officer and later a sergeant; a daughter who is an assistant district attorney; and several grandchildren. Other characters include the Deputy Commissioner for Public Relations, and a Lieutenant who is tasked with keeping the commissioner informed of how the cop on the street thinks. The different characters are archetypes, representing different positions on the continuum. Controversial topics are handled even-handedly, characters change their minds sometimes. Even though the show does have a pro-police bias, other points of view are considered. But I watched an episode last night that was very disturbing. 

The episode starts with four officers responding to a call at a housing project. It turns out to be nothing, but as they're leaving they're taunted and insulted by various men. They look pretty rough, and I assume that we're supposed to think they're gang members. None of the men lay a hand on any of the cops, throw anything at them, or threaten them in any way. They're just smack talking as some of their friends record the whole incident on their phones. One of the officers turns, clearly angry, but is dissuaded by his partner. The cops don't take the bait and just get in their cars and leave. The whole scene shapes up as an illustration that there is tension between the police and the neighborhood residents. A normal Blue Bloods might have one of the regulars intervening in a crime at the project and winning over one or two residents. Or even having one of the men involved in a scheme to provoke a cop to violence in order to sue the city. Not this episode. 

The next few scenes focus on the reaction of the Police Commissioner and his team to his police being "humiliated" after the video of the incident makes its way across social media. They bring in the captain whose precinct the incident took place. The "rip him a new one" for allowing his officers to be humiliated without doing anything about it. The captain pushes back at first, maintaining that his officers did the right thing in not escalating. The PR guy takes the position that while embarrassing, the cops handled the situation correctly. He is definitely in the minority. Every other character takes the position that they could have come up with some violation as a pretext to "cuffing" a few of them. 

The next morning the scene shows an assault on the housing project, tanks, helicopters, what looks like hundreds of cops, including ESU's (NYPD's version of SWAT). The PR guy is horrified. The commissioner and the rest of his team are adamant that this is the only appropriate response. They conduct the same raid on another housing project the next morning. It's unclear whether everyone that they have arrested, so many that they can't fit them all in the cells, but keep them in the vans, have committed a crime. It's unlikely that they have. A side note that I guess is supposed to justify the whole thing is that one of the cops recognizes a guy she tackled as he tried to run away as a suspect in a brutal multiple murder the year before. Violate the rights of hundreds to catch one bad guy? Sounds familiar. 

One of the commissioner's sons, a sergeant in the precinct where the first incident took place briefly expresses some concern, but in the end even the PR guy comes around. The assistant DA daughter is off on a subplot of her own and there are no lawyers or judges objecting to these actions, just "community members" justifiably upset, which the cops laugh off. Ironically, it's the detective brother, who is usually the designated asshole on this show, who gets to display some empathy for once. 

This was the most disturbing episode of this show that I can recall. I don't remember seeing this exact thing happen lately -- at least not as a response to some shit talking -- but it mirrors what I see as a general cop attitude. How many times have we heard about cops who have escalated a situation because someone sassed them? Or argued? Or demanded their rights? I'm all for showing an officer of the law proper respect, and not looking for trouble, but when you've been stopped, they have all the power. It's up to them to interpret your actions and determine to their satisfaction that you are complying. Even if you file a complaint against illegal force, there's nothing you can do while you are in the situation.

This brings me to a general observation about cop shows. In most media portrayals of law enforcement the cop who "does what it takes" to catch the bad guy, to solve the crime, to get some justice for the victim, is the hero. We reflexively cheer the cop who won't be bogged down by silly rules or unscrupulous lawyers. Suspects are dragged with little to no evidence and are berated. Doors are kicked in, and imaginative ways are devised to conduct warrantless searches. Anyone who demands a lawyer is assumed to be guilty. Often, demands for a lawyer are ignored and the cops keep interrogating. These characters are not the ones playing rogue cops who will get their comeuppance at the end of the hour, no, these are the good guys, the stars, the heroes of the story. 

We are being conditioned to admire and excuse extra-legal actions by law enforcement, as long as they catch the bad guy. 

This is a political blog, so of course I'm tying this to politics. Right now many things are happening in the federal government, perpetrated by the president and his administration, that are illegal and even  unconstitutional. Some of these things, it could be argued, are necessary, or at least have some support. Illegal immigration had to be gotten under control, criminal immigrants here illegally should be deported, government waste and fraud needs to be rooted out, but many of our fellow Americans are perfectly fine with achieving these goals illegally. It's a whole different argument whether these actions are effective, or even desirable, but even if they were, if they indeed made life better for all Americans, is it worth turning us into a dictatorship to do so? It will take longer than just to the end of the hour for the resolution.

Whiskey Pete

"Whiskey Pete" Hegseth -- what can I say about him that would convey the depth of his incompetence? His view of the mission of the military, despite his own service (National Guard officer commanding a unit guarding detainees in Iraq) appears to a be a combination of romanticized views of the Crusades pushed by White Christian Nationalists, video game imagery, and the "kill 'em all, God will sort 'em out" rationale of several recently pardoned war criminals.

He has stated that his goal is to make the military more efficient and effective "warfighters" and restore a "warrior ethos", yet one of his first moves was to eliminate the group that studies and makes recommendations on how to respond to future threats. What his actual goal has been, is to eliminate any hint of "wokeness" (defined as "stuff we don't like" that doesn't align with White Christian Nationalism). In this he is simply echoing one of the goals of his boss, Figurehead President Trump, who, in breaks from exacting retribution on his enemies, his also eliminating any "wokeness" from the federal government. Somehow, by getting rid of otherwise competent transgender service members and firing top generals and admirals who aren't warrior enough (translation: white male) this will transform our military into a cadre of warriors feared throughout the world. I am not a veteran, and many who served may believe that I have no right to an opinion about this, but I don't want our military to observe a "warrior ethos". I don't want our soldiers and sailors and airmen to be warriors -- screaming barbarians out for individual glory, undisciplined, with no concept of a chain of command -- I envision our military as protectors of our sovereignty and defenders of freedom. If you're truly buying into a warrior mindset, are you also accepting the related concept of the warrior caste, a warrior aristocracy? Trump's first tern Chief of Staff, retired General John Kelly certainly seemed to think that civilians had no right to question the military. Here's a link to a great article about why the term "warrior" is inappropriate for a modern military: Warrior vs. Soldier

In addition to Whiskey Pete's repulsive mindset, he's incompetent. By now we should all be used to incompetence being a feature, rather than a bug, of Trump's administration. His first administration was the very definition of incompetence. Trump arguably didn't think he'd be elected and had no idea how things worked. This time around, he still doesn't really understand how things work, but the difference is that he doesn't care and wants to break things. He's got people on his staff from Project 2025 who can write the executive orders for him to sign and compliant cabinet secretaries who will let Elon Musk gut their departments. Expertise will just get in the way. Hegseth is where he is 95% due to his loyalty to Trump and 5% due to his military service which gives an illusion of experience. Running an entire military is orders of magnitude more involved than commanding a platoon with a few dozen soldiers with one mission (in Hegseth's case, guarding prisoners of war in Iraq). In other words, Hegseth lacked relevant management experience. In a normal administration a Secretary of Defense would have extensive government experience, and understanding of the necessity to utilize the knowledge of the experts under their command. A First Lieutenant with a few years command of a limited mission with no background overseeing large organizations is the very definition of unqualified. 

Of course, this week's debacle where the plans to bomb another country were discussed over a non-secure messaging/chat app that accidently included a journalist was a stark illustration of what a cluster fuck decision making in the Department of Defense and this administration is. The ass covering and contradictory lies would be hilarious if the potential for disaster wasn't present (and only narrowly averted). One attempt at explanation blamed the editor from The Atlantic for "hacking into" the chat, as if the possibility that operational security was so flimsy that a journalist with zero technical proficiency was able to sneak into confidential government planning was somehow better. They tried to smear Goldberg, accusing him of fabricating the whole thing, (simultaneously denying that any classified information was discussed on the chat that Goldberg supposedly made up) -- then had to backpedal after he published the whole chat. They went for hair splitting, claiming that they weren't "war plans", since it wasn't technically a war. 

To be fair, something had to be done about the Houthis and their disruption of shipping. They made a big deal about Biden's actions being ineffective, but it remains to be seen if this week's mini-war is any more effective. 

What a mess...but not unexpected.