Tragedy and Policy.

            Venezuelan despots Hugo Chavez, then Nicholas Maduro sparked a gigantic flood of refugees from their country.[1]  By October 2022, an estimated 7 million people had fled the country, more than 20 percent of the population.  The emigration began with the country’s elites, then ate down into other layers of society as political oppression led to economic catastrophe.[2]  The Biden administration gestured at expelling some of the illegal immigrants under Covid-era “Title 42” provisions.  For the rest, it adopted a “remain in Texas” policy which infuriated both the people of border areas and Texas governor Greg Abbott.  In April 2022, the Biden administration ended “Title 42” expulsions.  Governor Abbott began bussing illegal immigrants from Texas to various self-proclaimed “sanctuary cities” in loudly Progressive areas.  New York City became the chief destination of both “Operation Lone Star” busees and the greater number who made their own way.[3]  Soon, New York City and many other places had migrant crises of their own.[4]  New York City began taking control of disused or under-used hotels to house the migrants.  For example, the city took over the Roosevelt Hotel as one of these facilities.[5]

            In September 2022 a Venezuelan named Jose Antonio Ibarra illegally entered the United States near El Paso, Texas.  Probably, he hoped to connect with a brother who had entered the United States illegally at an earlier date.[6]  ICE officers detained him soon afterward and then released him.  Like many other Venezuelan migrants, Ibarra traveled to New York City. where he stayed in the Roosevelt Hotel migrant shelter.  In September 2023, he was arrested for “acting in a manner to injure a child less than 17.”  Released on bond before ICE could issue a detainer order,[7] he blew town for Athens, Georgia, where his brother lived.  No sooner did the two get together than they went to stealing.  In October 2023, the brothers were arrested in possession of goods stolen from a local Walmart.  They were released.  Then Jose Antonio Ibarra was arrested for shoplifting.  He was released, but failed to appear for a court hearing in December 2023.  The judge issued a bench warrant for his arrest.   Athens, Georgia, police failed to locate Ibarra over the next two months.  On 22 February 2024, Ibarra murdered a 22 year-old nursing student named Laken Riley.  Arrested and tried, he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. 

            The case received a lot of media attention.  In March 2024, just after Ibarra’s arrest, the House of Representatives passed the “Laken Riley Act.”  The law required the Department of Homeland Security to detain illegal immigrants who “[are] charged with, [are] arrested for, [are] convicted of, [admit to] having committed, or [admit to] committing” theft-related crimes.  The vote was 251–170, with 37 Democrats and all Republicans voting in favor.  It went to the Senate, where it just sat.  Progressives argued that the law would allow the “indefinite detention, without bail, of any undocumented immigrant—including minors, asylum seekers, or “Dreamers” brought here as children—who is merely arrested for, not convicted of, nonviolent crimes like theft.”[8]  Democrats had control of the Senate at that point, so cooler heads (or colder hearts) prevailed. 

Put simply, the Laken Riley case asked the question: how many American citizens have to die in the pursuit of “a blinkered delusion with purchase on only the progressive fringes of American politics”?[9]  In November 2024, Democrats lost the Senate as well as the White House.  Anger over illegal immigration provided one big driver in the election.  In January 2025, the new Senate immediately passed the bill while adding “assaulting a police officer, or a crime that results in death or serious bodily injury like drunk driving” to the list of offenses.  In addition, the law allows states to sue the Department of Homeland Security if they believe that the law is not being enforced.[10]  This time, many Democrats scrambled to support the bill: 48 in the House and 32 in the Senate voted in favor.  The House approved the revised bill and President Donald Trump signed it into law. 

            A long and winding road from the rise of a Venezuelan Marxist dictator to the death of an American nursing student to a backlash bill over a neglected problem. 


[1] Probably not the sort of thing that gets your image on the currency a hundred years later. 

[2] A basic introduction is Venezuelan refugee crisis – Wikipedia  There is a good deal of journalism on the story, but—so far—no really good book to recommend. 

[3] GEORGE BENSON On Broadway Album Version 

[4] See: New York City migrant housing crisis – Wikipedia  See also: Nelson – ha ha 

[5] The Roosevelt Hotel had been built during a happier and more optimistic time in America.  See: Roosevelt Hotel (Manhattan) – Wikipedia and Terminal City (Manhattan) – Wikipedia  More evidence, if any is needed, that we are not the country we once were.  Could we be once more? 

[6] The brother is believed to be a member of the Tren de Aragua crime organization.  See: Tren de Aragua – Wikipedia  Both the violence and pervasiveness of the gang in the United States seems over-stated, notably by President Trump.

[7] “[T]he defining characteristic of a sanctuary city in the US” is prohibiting “the use of city funds and resources to assist federal immigration enforcement.” 

[8] “Immigration: the Laken Riley bill advances,” The Week, 24 January 2025, p. 17. 

[9] Senator John Fetterman  (D-Pennsylvania) quoted in ibid.   

[10] Laken Riley Act – Wikipedia 

Redeemable.

            Experts are gravely concerned about the state of the Defense Department and of America’s military forces.[1]  In a nutshell, it is doubted that the United States could win a conventional war with a great power opponent, by which is meant China.  We need an honest and probing discussion of these issues.[2]  Instead, Peter Hegseth’s nomination for Secretary of Defense unleashed a cloudburst of moral indignation about his philandering,[3] possible sexual assault, drinking, opposition to women serving in combat arms, and proven inability to organize even a two-car parade.[4]  Hegseth himself talked about restoring a warrior culture and “lethality” to American forces, in part by dismantling D.I.E. initiatives.[5]  Much less senatorial and press attention was devoted to his views on issues of budgeting, recruitment,[6] threat assessments, and strategy.  Then there was the charge that Hegseth “has also defended soldiers convicted of war crimes and urged their pardon, which puts our military’s honor at risk.”[7]  Indeed, he did.[8]  Again, the politics of personalities took pride of place.  (Lots of ‘literation let loose.)  Initially, many Republican senators found the allegations “very disturbing.”  Many people thought that he would go the way of the failed nominee for Attorney, Matt Gaetz.[9]  In response, Hegseth confessed that “I have failed in things in my life, and thankfully I’m redeemed by my Lord and Savior Jesus.”  However, President Trump dug in behind Hegseth.  After an intense lobbying effort,[10] Hegseth won confirmation by the narrowest margin possible.  If he fails as Secretary of Defense,[11] we’re all liable to be redeemed by his Lord and Savior. 


[1] For an alarming report, see: “The System Is Blinking Red” 2. | waroftheworldblog  For well-informed discussions of some specific issues, see: Ep 169: Dmitry Filipoff on Naval Warfare in 2025 | Nebulous; Ep 165: Shyam Sankar on a Defense Reformation | Nebulous; Ep 161: Mackenzie Eaglen on China’s Military Spending and Ours | Nebulous  I am grateful to my son, Evan Hill, for alerting me to Aaron Maclean and his  podcast “School of War.” 

[2] See the testimony to Congress of Secretary of Defense General Lloyd Austin (ret.).  Bing Videos 

[3] In one sense, this preoccupation is justified, rather than (OK, as well as) purely salacious.  Adultery is barred by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  Hegseth would be the civilian chief of an organization whose military personnel are required to live under a moral code he has had great difficulty acknowledging.  See: UCMJ Adultery: Punishment For Cheating In The Military

[4] “Senators grill Hegseth, other Trump nominees,” The Week, 24 January 2025, p. 5. 

[5] See the column by Bret Stephens, “D.E.I. Will Not Be Missed,” NYT, 29 January 2025. 

[6] Male recruitment has fallen by about 22 percent since 2015.  Female recruitment has not surged enough to make up the difference.  In any case, too many volunteers cannot meet the threshold qualifications for physical fitness and health (physical fitness).  They are rejected before they can flunk out of Basic Training.  “Noted,” The Week, 24 January 2025, p. 16 

[7] Editorial in WSJ, quoted in “Senators grill Hegseth, other Trump nominees,” The Week, 24 January 2025, p. 5.

[8] At the same time, it is uncomfortable at the least to observe the posturing on this matter by journalists and politicians.  One chief subject of Hegseth’s lobbying was Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher.  Gallagher was charged with—among other crimes—the murder of a wounded ISIS prisoner in Iraq.  Gallagher was on his eighth deployment.  The Defense Department doesn’t send SEALs (or Army Rangers) to guard convoys or the perimeter of airfields.  They send them into high-stress situations.  They do it repeatedly.  Someone is bound to crack.  Then they get court-martialed.  What about the civilian and military command structure that sent them?  In any event, see Eddie Gallagher (Navy SEAL) – Wikipedia 

[9] “Trump taps ‘Deep State’ critic Patel to lead FBI,” The Week, 13 December 2024, p. 4. 

[10] Some of which targeted Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), herself an Army National Guard veteran who served in Kuwait during the Iraq War.  Reportedly, some the pressure got ugly and went beyond normal jawboning or horse-trading.  “GOP senators fall in line behind Trump’s pick,” The Week, 20 December 2024, p. 5. 

[11] What am I saying, “If”?  He isn’t Bob Gates. 

Diary of the Second Addams Administration 1.

            President Donald Trump has been inaugurated.  I didn’t watch the inauguration, but I don’t watch any political speeches.  They’re all just flannel.  Well, truth be told, I did see a little bit of it.  Thing ran over into the news slot as if it was something important like a football game.  Trump was signing Executive Orders with a Sharpie.  Here we have a lesson.  If you ever see a president signing laws or Executive Orders, he’s doing it at his desk in the West Wing; then he hands the pens to the well-dressed (but not too well because we wouldn’t want to lose the common touch) politicians and dignitaries who have been invited into the presidential sanctum.  Trump diverged from traditional practice.[1]  He signed on the little stage in the Capitol, in front of an audience of his supporters.  Then he tossed the collection of pens into the crowd one by one.  Ordinary Americans (well, OK, “Trump supporters”), not a bunch of inside-the-Beltway lifers, got the souvenir pens.  Symbolic. 

            President Joe Biden went off into a dignified retirement after attending the inauguration.  Examining the entrails of the Democrats’ November 2024 disaster, some reporters tried an early assessment of the 46th President.  He ran in 2020 and again in 2024 to prevent Donald Trump from having a second term.  Succeeded the first time, then failed the second time said one.  He committed one long series of unforced errors, said another.  There was the retreat from Afghanistan; there was the border crisis; and there was the decision to run for re-election.  That list isn’t long enough, claimed two others.  Biden promised, and then failed, to govern as a centrist and healer of a divided nation.  In office, he veered hard left with inflationary financing of an expansive legislative program, an open border, sponsorship of D.I.E. policies, and characterizing Republicans as “semi-fascist.”[2] 

            Others sprang to Biden’s defense.  According to one, Biden made Covid vaccination widely available; he gave Ukraine enough arms and aid to “fight invading Russian troops to a stalemate”; and he spent $1.9 billion of new money on his favored projects.  He just had a messaging problem, said another.  Voter will be sorry they voted for Trump predicted a third.[3] 

            Biden’s reputation will be harmed by revelations of how his confidants managed his decline to deceive the public.[4]   Right at the moment, ordinary Americans take a dim view of Biden.  A recent Gallup poll reported that more than half (54 percent) of respondents think that Biden will go down in history as a below-average or poor president; 26 percent see him as average; 19 percent believe that he will be seen as above average or outstanding.[5] 

            So, “Let the Games of the Forty-Seventh Presidency Begin.” 


[1] Doubtless once again bursting through “the guardrails of our democracy.”  The NYT is a HOA, as well as other, more admirable things.  Dwight Manfredi vs. HOA 🫣 Tulsa King (Season 2) 

[2] The writers are Matt Lewis in The Hill, Anthony Zurcher in BBC News, Bret Stephens in the NYT, and Ruy Texeira in The Free Press.  All cited in “President Biden: How will history judge his legacy?” The Week, 24 January 2025, p. 6. 

[3] Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post; Peter Coy in NYT; and Doyle McManus in Los Angeles Times.  All cited in “President Biden: How will history judge his legacy?” The Week, 24 January 2025, p. 6.

[4] See: How the White House Functioned With a Diminished Biden in Charge – WSJ; How Biden’s Inner Circle Worked to Keep Signs of Aging Under Wraps – WSJ

[5] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 17 January 2025, p. 17. 

American Death Rates and the Improvement Thereof.

            I’m just copying this from a reliable source[1] that might not have come to your attention.  Some explanatory annotations have been added.  These are identified by “NB:” 

Figure 1—Age Adjusted Central Death Rates

by Sex and Calendar Year

U.S. Census longevity tables. 

            Basically, the death rate fell from about 2,500 per 100,000 people in the first two decades of the 20th century to about 1,000 (male) and 700 (female) per 100,000 people in the first two decades of the 21st Century.  Progress, no? 

A number of extremely important developments have contributed to the rapid average rate of mortality improvement during the twentieth century. These developments include:

  • Access to primary medical care for the general population.  NB: The “medical revolution” from the mid-19th Century on, then the creation of systems of medical insurance. 
  • Improved healthcare provided to mothers and babies.
  • Availability of immunizations.  NB: First, Edward Jenner and his successors, then “Big Pharma.” 
  • Improvements in motor vehicle safety.  NB: First, Ralph Nader, then the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 
  • Clean water supply and waste removal.  NB: Municipal water and sewage systems created from the later 19th Century onward.  See also: the “medical revolution.” 
  • Safer and more nutritious foods.  NB: First, Upton Sinclair, The Jungle, then the Food and Drug Administration.  No more finding a severed human thumb in your block of chewing tobacco—when it’s too late. 
  • Rapid rate of growth in the general standard of living.  NB: First, Industrialization, then the “distributive state.” 

Each of these developments is expected to make a substantially smaller contribution to annual rates of mortality improvement in the future.  [NB: That is, these improvements have squeezed out most of their gains, so progress will move at a slower pace. 

Future reductions in mortality will depend upon such factors as:

  • Development and application of new diagnostic, surgical and life sustaining techniques.
  • Presence of environmental pollutants. NB: The Environmental Protection Agency.
  • Improvements in exercise and nutrition.  NB: grocery shop around the outer rim of the store; got to the gym or go for a walk. 
  • Incidence of violence.  NB: Homicide rates have fluctuated a good deal, but we live in a less violent society than we once did.  Roger Lane, Murder in America: A History (1997) is a good guide.  Lane argues that the late 19th-early 20th Century drop in murder rates owed a lot to the creation of ordering institutions (like schools) that taught emotional repression, and the creation of lots of jobs that rewarded steadiness. 
  • Isolation and treatment of causes of disease.  NB: By “isolation” I take them to mean “identification.”  That’s produced by scientific research.  Metastatic breast cancer killed my first wife.  I would really like it if somebody made it go away. 
  • Emergence of new forms of disease.  NB: It’s going to happen.  See: Covid; see: Laurie Garrett, The Coming Plague: newly emerging diseases in a world out of balance (1994) and Betrayal of Trust: the Collapse of Global Public Health (2003). 
  • Prevalence of cigarette smoking.  NB: There’s already a lot less of it than there used to be.  Unless you live in China of course. 
  • Misuse of drugs (including alcohol).  NB: JMO, but I think most people have a “dimmer switch” when it comes to non-opioid drugs and alcohol, but some people only have an “on-off” switch.  How to tell the difference before the problem gets serious and what to do about it?  In any event, temperance societies did a lot to reduce alcohol abuse during the 19th Century, but Prohibition just made people angry and defiant.  Lesson here? 
  • Extent to which people assume responsibility for their own health.  NB: There are limits to what the government can compel you to do. 
  • Education regarding health.  NB: Sure put a dent in smoking.  Why is over-eating leading to Type II diabetes different?  Seems to be and Ozempic-type stuff may be the best treatment for now. 
  • Changes in our conception of the value of life.  NB: Sad to say, this murky phrase beats me. 
  • Ability and willingness of our society to pay for the development of new treatments and technologies, and to provide these to the population as a whole. 

NB: All of this collides with the current crisis of authority being suffered by elites, experts, and expertise.  Perhaps that is just a mood and will pass.  But there have been real failings among elites and experts.[2]  Perhaps those failings will need to be addressed before confidence in elites and experts can be re-established. 


[1] See: Life Tables 

[2] The opioid epidemic (1990s onward); the failure to discern or prevent 9/11/2001; the decision to attack Iraq, then the botched occupation (2003); the housing market bubble and the resulting financial crisis (2008-2009), followed by the “Great Recession”; the “replication crisis” in natural and social sciences (2010s onward); the problematic management of China’s participation in the World Trade Organization (2001 to the present).  Just a start at a list. 

Manosphere.

According to one student of these matters, “Legacy media is dying.”[1]  (Committing suicide might be closer to the mark.[2])  readers have fled the daily newspapers and viewers the network television news.  Expertise is deeply discounted.  What has taken/will take its place?  The commonly offered bogeyman is the fractured, unregulated, irresponsible internet.  Any idiot can spread his/her/their opinion, and many do.[3]  That monster is hydra-headed. 

One head rears in the “manosphere.”  It emerged as a reaction against hostile interpretations—chiefly by men–of “political correctness,”[4] “wokeness,”[5] “cancel culture,”[6] and feminism.[7]  Many conservative commentators took aim at all of these in elite publications.  What normal or ordinary people take any notice of elite sources, conservative or progressive?  However, schools and corporate human relations departments gobbled up the new thought.  Many young men felt bruised by the deprecation of traditional forms of manly behavior they encountered in school and at work.[8] 

The “Manosphere” emerged out of this reaction.[9]  It is a social media world that strongly attracts certain young men.  Not a few either.  Joe Rogan,[10] the Big Honcho of this circus, has 14.5 million followers for his podcast on Spotify, and 200 million downloads a month.[11]  In his earlier life, Rogan was a Mixed Martial Artist (MMA), a stand-up comic, and a host for the television show “Fear Factor.”  Since 2009, he has hosted “The Joe Rogan Experience.”[12] 

Rogan fills his shows with discussions of “comedy, mixed martial arts, alternative medicine, aliens, and psychedelic drugs.”  His competitors “banter about sports, fighting, women, pop culture, and video games.”[13]  Sometimes he strays into broadly politically-charged topics.  Rogan’s been called on some of his statements.  He’s responded by saying that he’s a “f…ing moron” and that no one should see him as “a respected source of information.” 

We need better versions of both “manliness” and “credible news.”  Abuse won’t do it. 


[1] Seton Hall professor of Communications Jess Rauchberg, quoted in “Joe Rogan’s world,” The Week, 13 December 2024, p. 11.    

[2] See ABC World News Tonight with David Muir Full Broadcast – Jan. 23, 2025, especially the second half of the show with the apparently obligatory stories on shootings with dramatic film; bad weather headed East with pictures of jack-knifed semis; non-fatal trauma in the skies or at the airport with dramatic film; courtroom report from a lurid crime; celebrity news, especially if it involves a product of ABC’s owner, Disney; and a heart-warming story under the label of “America Strong.”  Or you can follow Holman Jenkins’ columns in the WSJ upbraiding mainstream print journalism for its stupidity and bias in the treatment of Donald Trump, a politician whom Jenkins abhors. 

[3] Look at me.  I’ve got a WordPress account and an internet connection. 

[4] See: Political correctness – Wikipedia  Itself a model of political correctness.  Also, Inclusive language – Wikipedia 

[5] See: Woke – Wikipedia 

[6] See: Cancel culture – Wikipedia 

[7] See: Wells for Boys – SNL – YouTube  No, you really gotta! 

[8] See: After Dark – Fight Club | REJECT WEAKNESS, EMBRACE MASCULINITY    

[9] It appears to be an appropriation of the earlier British “Lad culture.”  Lad culture – Wikipedia  The following seems to capture the moment.  Chumbawamba – Tubthumping – YouTube   A new “British invasion.” 

[10] See: Joe Rogan – Wikipedia 

[11] “Joe Rogan’s world,” The Week, 13 December 2024, p. 11. 

[12] For a brief clip of Rogan, see: All Shooters Have One Thing In Common | Joe Rogan & Michael Shellenberger  For a full episode, see: Joe Rogan Experience #2260 – Lex Fridman  Rogan’s interviews run for about three hours and are unstructured.  Donald Trump sat for one.  Joe Biden, understandably, did not.  Oddly, neither did Harris. 

[13] “Joe Rogan’s world,” The Week, 13 December 2024, p. 11.    

Prologue to a Diary of the Second Addams Administration 15.

            The Agenda: Iran.[1] 

            The Iranian Revolution that overthrew the Shah (1979) spread chaos in the country.  Saddam Hussein, the dictator of neighboring Iraq, sought to exploit the situation by attacking Iran.  The subsequent war[2] (1980-1988) caused all sorts of troubles.  In its aftermath, during the 1990s, the Iranian Republic launched a program to develop nuclear weapons.  The program’s physical component—as opposed to intellectual and technological components–began with the construction of a uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and a heavy-water plant at Arak. 

            In 2002, Iranian dissidents obtained and published secret documents on the nuclear program for all the world to see.  In 2003, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei published a “fatwa” banning the possession or use of nuclear weapons.  No one believed him.[3]  Eventually, in 2006, the United Nations plastered Iran with economic sanctions.  In 2015, the Obama administration, busy with other quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan, led the negotiation of a deal with Iran.  Iran would limit uranium enrichment to 3.67 percent and send 97 percent of its already-enriched uranium to Russia for safe-keeping.[4]  The agreement would run for 15 years.  It hardly made it out the gate. 

            In 2018, President Donald Trump abandoned the agreement so far as the United States was concerned.  In Trump’s view, the agreement did nothing to address Iran’s non-nuclear aggressive behavior in the region.  Specifically, Iran was arming-up and coordinating allied forces in the region.[5]  Trump seems to have hoped that renewed economic sanctions would force the Iranian regime to cut a new and better deal.  To emphasize his point, in 2020 Trump ordered the killing of General Qassem Soleimani, a leading figure in the Revolutionary Guards. 

Next, in 2021, President Joe Biden[6] tried to revive the agreement, but the Iranians had moved on.  At about the same time that Biden entered the White House, Iran began enriching uranium to 20 percent, and then to 60 percent.  Enrichment to 90 percent creates “weapons grade material.”  All the while, economic sanctions and mismanagement have battered Iran’s domestic economy.[7]  

The last year or so has altered the situation.  First, Israel has inflicted immense damage on Iran’s clients through its wars in Gaza and Lebanon.  Turkey sponsored a rebel offensive in Syria that overthrew Iran’ ally Assad.  When Israel killed a Hamas leader in Tehran, Iran responded with a missile barrage; and, in October 2024; Israel answered with air strikes that wrecked key elements of Iran’s air defense system, among other things.  This leaves Iran open to follow-on strikes against nuclear facilities (and the Iranian leadership cadres) if Tehran doesn’t change its tune. 

Second, Donald Trump’s return to the White House has seemed possible (if not certain) since the beginning of 2024.  Tehran has been intensifying its drive to enrich uranium to 60 percent.  That is, apparently, a hop, skip, and a jump from 90 percent or weapons-grade uranium.[8]  I don’t know how much time that hop, skip, and jump would take.  Expert opinion holds that a basic sort of bomb could be manufactured six months after a sufficient quantity of weapons-grade uranium has been accumulated.  Another year after that and they could have a warhead for a ballistic missile.  One that could easily hit Israel. 

NOTHING in the history of Israel’s military and national security policy suggests that Israel will let Iran get anywhere near that point.  They will not allow Iran to get even one nuclear weapon.  Never mind the ballistic missiles.  “Just put it on a freighter bound for Haifa.”  The time-line for preventive action by Israel (and/or the United States) is very short.  Maybe a year at the outside?  There will be heavy pressure on the prime minister of Israel[9] to act soon. 

The time-line for Iran to decide what course it will choose is very short.  Will the rulers of Iran try to rush ahead and break-out to possession of nuclear weapons?[10]  If they do achieve a nuclear weapon, will they feel compelled to “use it or lose it”?   

Or will the leaders of Iran repent their disdain for Biden’s offer to revive the 2015 agreement?  The country’s alliance network is in shambles and its own defense vulnerabilities have been exposed.  Russia could divert no forces from the Ukraine war to save Assad, so it isn’t likely to do much for Iran.  Would the Iranian leaders—belatedly—seek to engage with the United States?  If so, how stiff-necked would they be about concessions? 

The stakes are high.  In theory, Israel would need the assistance of the United States to attack the key Iranian facilities.  A prime target would be an enrichment facility near the city of Qom.  It is tunneled into a mountain.  So is another site near Isfahan.  The American “Massive Ordnance Penetrator,” dropped by a B-2 bomber would be the only conventional weapon that could destroy the targets.[11]  In reality, Israel has its own nuclear weapons that might do the job.  That’s an awful thing to ponder.[12] 

Finally, there is a loose alliance between Iran, Russia, and China.  How would the Russians and the Chinese respond to either an Israel-America joint attack on Iran or to an Israel-alone attack (albeit with American blessing)? 

Can of worms.  Or, as the French say, “a basket of crabs.” 


[1] “Briefing: A looming nuclear crisis,” The Week, 17 January 2025, p. 11. 

[2] See: Iran–Iraq War – Wikipedia  If you want to explore in depth, see: Williamson Murray and Kevin M. Woods The Iran–Iraq War. A Military and Strategic History (2014).  Murray is deeply knowledgeable and hard-headed.   

[3] Iran is predominantly Shi’ite Muslim.  As a long-persecuted minority within Islam, Shi’ite theologians determined that Shi’ites could dissemble about their real religious beliefs.  Over the centuries, other people have come to believe that Iranian culture has generalized this originally purely religious easement on veracity. 

[4] So, as part of their recent mutual sliming-up to each other, has Russia secretly returned the enriched uranium to Iran?  I haven’t noticed reporting on this question.  My bad.  What does Mossad say? 

[5] Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and the Assad regime in Syria. 

[6] More recent developments cause me to wonder if it wasn’t the policy of President-for-Foreign-Policy Antony Blinken.  Who would have been President-for-Domestic-Policy?  Can’t have been Janet Yellen.  We wouldn’t have had the inflation mess.  I understand that this is a nasty remark.  But see “Biden: How to hide a president’s decline” The Week, 17 January 2025, p. 16.  Reports on a WSJ story on “how Biden’s aides and family hid his apparent cognitive decline from almost day one of his presidency.”  On which side of “day one” did the hiding begin? 

[7] Pakistan’s prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto once said that “Even if we have to eat grass, we will make a nuclear bomb.”  You couldn’t force that in a democracy, but neither Pakistan nor Iran are real democracies. 

[8] Obviously, I haven’t tried it myself.  Nor would I try.  Don’t want to get hauled into a black Escalade while I’m walking my dog. 

[9] Probably Benjamin Netanyahu, but it doesn’t matter.  The leaders of the IDF and Mossad seem likely to be on the same page. 

[10] The ever-shrewd Eliot A. Cohen raised this possibility in the Atlantic in December 2024.  For a sample of Cohen’s Atlantic pieces, see: Eliot A. Cohen, The Atlantic 

[11] It has been reported that the Pentagon has briefed President Biden on plans for American attacks on Iranian nuclear resources.  “Briefing: A looming nuclear crisis,” The Week, 17 January 2025, p. 11. 

[12] Many people outside of Israel already are appalled by pictures from Gaza. 

Think about this.

            “In a conversation with senior staff members on the morning of the scheduled visit [to the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery in 2018, burial place of many American dead from the First World War], Trump said, ‘Why should I go to that cemetery? It’s filled with losers.’ In a separate conversation on the same trip, Trump referred to the more than 1,800 marines who lost their lives at Belleau Wood as ‘suckers’ for getting killed.”[1] 

            Soon thereafter, “one unnamed senior official with the U.S. Department of Defense and one senior U.S. Marine Corps officer confirmed the 2018 cemetery remarks from the above report in interviews with The Associated Press (AP). According to the AP, the official had firsthand knowledge of Trump’s remarks, and the officer had been told about them.”[2] 

            Donald Trump, National Security Adviser John Bolton, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo all denied that Trump had said these things.  Bolton was not then and has never become a Trump loyalist. 

            In “a separate incident of Trump visiting the grave of [General John] Kelly’s son who was killed in action in Afghanistan, ….. Trump allegedly asked of military personnel who volunteered to join the service, ‘What was in it for them?’” 

            In an October 2023 speech, President Joe Biden referred explicitly to the reported remarks.  Immediately afterward, General John Kelly, who had been serving as Trump’s chief of staff, endorsed the original report. 

            The Snopes evaluation concluded: “In sum, the claim stemmed from a story by The Atlantic, which relied on anonymous, second-hand reports of Trump’s alleged words; there was no independent footage or documented proof to substantiate the in-question comments; and Trump vehemently denies that he once called service members “losers” and “suckers.” While it was certainly possible that he said those things, Snopes was unable to independently verify the claim.”  Nevertheless, those stories were widely reported by media outlets.[3] 

Personally, I believe them.  So, what to make of the following? 

First, the military faces a recruitment “crisis.”[4]

Second, based on November 2024 exit-polls for presidential candidates.[5] 

                                    Trump             Biden/Harris  Percent of the overall vote. 

Veterans                      65%                 34%                 13% 

Non-Veterans              48%                 50%                 87%    

            In the wake of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and related anti-Islamist raiding elsewhere, do veterans now think that Trump got it right?  Do they think that they have been betrayed by the country they volunteered to defend?  Did they put Trump in the White House?   


[1] Jeffrey Goldberg, “Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers’,” The Atlantic, 3 September 2020.  The accusations and denials are examined in Did Trump Call Fallen Soldiers ‘Suckers’ and ‘Losers’? | Snopes.com

[2] Report: Trump disparaged US war dead as ‘losers,’ ‘suckers’ | AP News 

[3] For example, see: Trump disparaged U.S. military casualties as ‘losers,’ ‘suckers,’ report says | PBS News; Did Trump call US war dead “losers” and “suckers”? | Vox

[4] The Military Recruiting Outlook Is Grim Indeed. Loss of Public Confidence, Political Attacks and the Economy Are All Taking a Toll. | Military.com makes interesting reading. 

[5] 2024 United States presidential election – Wikipedia 

Prologue to a Diary of the Second Addams Administration 14.

            On 6 January 2021, a mob of between 2,000 and 4,000 people attacked the Capitol building.  Their goal was to prevent the certification of Joe Biden as President.[1] 

            The numbers are more than a little wonky.  First, how many people attended the Trump rally?  “The House Select Committee that investigated the events of Jan. 6 estimated that Trump’s speech drew 53,000 supporters.”[2]  Second, how many people marched from the rally to the Capitol?  “Federal officials estimate that about ten thousand rioters entered the Capitol grounds,…”  The “grounds proper consist mostly of lawns, walkways, streets, drives, and planting areas” surrounding the actual Capitol building.[3]  Third, how many people actually attacked the police lines and then broke into the Capitol building?  “[T]he Secret Service and FBI have estimated that from 2,000 to 2,500 ultimately entered the building.”[4] 

So, the crowd funneled down from 50,000 at the rally to 10,000 who gathered around the Capitol to 2,500 people who actually entered the Capitol.  It seems unlikely to me that someone would attack the police lines, advance to the outside of the building, and then not enter.  So, did about 2,500 of the 53,000 at the rally take violent action? 

The attack on the Capitol made for a harrowing television spectacle.  Thereafter, Democratic political leaders called Trump a “fascist” and a “genuine threat to democracy.” 

These charges seem not to have resonated with many voters.  Why 6 January 2021 didn’t permanently sink Trump’s political fortunes presents something of a puzzle.  The mainstream news coverage, both in print and on the Devil Box, made the basic things pretty clear.  Despite its bitterly partisan make-up, the January 6 Committee did an excellent job of bringing forward a huge mass of evidence. 

And yet…  A recent YouGov poll reported that 29 percent of respondents “believe the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol was legitimate political discourse.”  Almost half (46 percent) “describe it as a violent insurrection.”[5]  Unless there is a big overlap between the two groups, then 25 percent of respondents either didn’t know what to think or thought that the events fell somewhere between legitimate political speech and a violent insurrection.  The favored explanation in the WSJ is that subsequent Democratic “lawfare” pushed people to rally around Trump.  The Democratic explanation might be summarized as “They’re a bunch of idiots who shouldn’t have the right to vote.”  Until many of their own voters jumped ship in November 2024.  Another explanation might be that many people have a pretty good idea of who Trump is as a person.  Maybe they went “Got that out of your system, Don?  Feel better now?” 

On 6 January 2025, Congress certified the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States.  Defeated Presidential candidate Vice President Kamala Harris presided gracefully over the ceremony. 

The story would be hard to believe if we hadn’t lived through it.    


[1] “Congress certifies Trump win on Jan. 6 anniversary,” The Week, 17 January 2025, p. 4. 

[2] Jonathan Limehouse, “Trump compare Jan. 6 crowd size to MLK march,” USAToday, 9 August 2024. 

[3] On the Capitol grounds, see: United States Capitol – Wikipedia 

[4] See: January 6 United States Capitol attack – Wikipedia and Alan Feuer, “Capital Attack Prosecutions Have Ensnared Over 1,380 People,” NYT, 16 April 2024. 

[5] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 17 January 2025, p. 17. 

Ruthless.

            Here’s the rot at the heart of the Republic: American voters of both parties have come to love “free stuff.”[1]  In a Democracy, politicians and political parties see the road to their own success running through giving voters what they want.  For Democrats, it means Tax-Spend-Elect; for Republicans it means Tax Cut-Spend-Elect. 

            As a result, in 2023, federal spending hit $6.75 trillion, with the federal deficit (not debt, just one year’s worth of spending above revenue) hitting $1.8 trillion.[2]  That deficit is 6.4 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).  That isn’t a record.  It has been surpassed before.  However, those other peaks occurred during some kind of emergency: wars, recessions, etc.  Those conditions don’t apply at the moment. 

“Goo-goos” hate this trait.[3]  In the present day, all sorts of experts and commissions offer warnings of coming catastrophe and plans to avoid same.  The trouble is that this is like trying to talk a drunk into giving sobriety a spin.  It isn’t going to happen until they “hit bottom” or have a “moment of clarity.”[4]  What might bring on such a change? 

            Can you cut federal spending by shrinking the federal government?  YES!  And this idea is supported by a majority of Americans.[5]  Can you cut a LOT of federal spending simply by shrinking the number of civil service employees?  NO! 

First, the cost of salaries for all civil servants runs in the area of $200-$250 billion a year.  You will recall (from just above) that this year’s deficit is $1.8 trillion.  So, $200-$250 billion is about one-eighth of the deficit. 

Second, there’s interest on the debt at $882 billion.  An actual default, not just cuts to existing spending, may be coming.  We’re not there yet and we may be able to fend it off. 

Then there’s “discretionary” spending.  This includes the defense budget and everything else.  This comes in at around $2 trillion.  You can cut the defense budget a bunch.  You just have to believe that we are entering an era of peace and tranquility in which no other country will seek to challenge American interests. 

            Third, there’s the elephant in the room: “mandatory” spending on Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and related programs.  This amounts to $4.1 trillion, more than double “discretionary” spending.  “So taming mandatory spending means reining in benefits.”  Ouch! 

            It seems impossible for either Congress or the American people in their present state of desiring “free stuff” from the government to address this issue.  Nor will they raise taxes. 

However, there is scope for executive action.  For example, one “Goo-goo” estimate suggests that as much as $1.4 trillion could be saved by reversing Biden administration executive actions.  All we need is a ruthless lame-duck president who doesn’t care about established traditions or Beltway verities or even what he may have promised to get elected. 


[1] This has become a cultural force.  How and why this has happened is worth exploring. 

[2] Greg Ip, “Cutting Deficits Is Easy—Just Unpopular,” WSJ, 27 December 2024. 

[3] See: Goo-goos – Wikipedia 

[4] You might think that the recent unpleasantness with inflation fueled by deficits would have awakened ordinary Americans to this issue.  It doesn’t seem to have done the trick.  Or perhaps the pre-existing interest groups and political habits were just too strong for a not-yet-crystalized change of attitude.   

[5] According to an Ipsos poll, 57 percent of Americans favor downsizing the federal government.  “Poll Watch,” The Week, 6 December 2024, p. 17. 

Interpreting Mangione.

            Polls in 2024 revealed that more than three-quarters (78 percent) of respondents believed that the United States “is headed in the wrong direction”; and that over half (55 percent) say that our political and economic system needs major changes.[1]  However, only one-fifth (20 percent) as yet think that violence may be required to reform the situation.  That’s still a large share compared to most bygone times. 

            In light of these reports, the reaction to the story of Luigi Mangione is interesting.[2]  Mangione is accused of murdering Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealthcare (UHC).[3]  Mangione immediately became a media sensation and, to some, a folk hero.[4]  Some 124,000 “laughing face” emojis were posted in the Comments section of UHC’s on-line statement about Thompson’s murder.                                              

This idolization of a guy who shot his victim in the back stuck in the craw of lots of decent people.  Matthew Continetti spoke for many when he wrote that the murder tested “America’s ability to distinguish right from wrong” and “far too many Americans have flunked.”[5]  As do we all, Ingrid Jacques found the inhumanity of the response “alarming to witness” and the Washington Post found the response evidence of a “sickness” in society.[6]

What to make of the murder itself?  Seemingly not a “random act of violence.”[7]  The early investigation of the murder produced evidence of careful planning.  The man accused of the killing remains a puzzle.  In the absence of anything beyond police leaks and gleanings from internet searches, people assigned their own preferred meaning. 

Thus the Wall Street Journal wondered if Mangione had adopted “the populist theme of blaming seemingly distant and faceless corporations for social ills.”[8]  Most commonly, commentators immediately assumed that it is related only to problems with health care costs.  Explanations appeared of how health insurers are merely the surface of a much more complicated problem.  What about Oxycontin?  What about Boeing’s planes and space vehicles? 

Or they posit that “congressional gridlock” lies at the root of high health costs.  What if “Government is [just] the entertainment division of the military-industrial complex”?[9]  What if NOT fixing the problems is just what big money donors want…and get?[10]  Regarding another case, the Washington Post argued that tolerating antisocial behavior can lead to vigilantism.”[11]  Is that going too “populist”? 


[1] “The way we were in 2024,” The Week, 27 December-3 January 2024, p. 26. 

[2] “Mangione: Why did he become a folk hero?” The Week, 27 December 2024-3 January 2025, p. 19. 

[3] A loving husband and father, who reportedly made $10.2 million. 

[4] Not the first: The hanging of the abolitionist John Brown, Virginia, 1859; Nick Cave – The Ballad of Jesse James – YouTube and The Highwaymen Chasing scene the Gang 🌟

[5] Matthew Continetti in National Review, quoted in “Mangione: Why did he become a folk hero?” The Week, 27 December 2024-3 January 2025, p. 19. 

[6] In USA Today, quoted in “Health insurance: A CEO’s murder and an explosion of rage,” The Week, 20 December 2024, p. 6. 

[7] Like, say, a mentally disturbed guy with “a record as long as a CVS receipt” (stole that from a “Law and Order” episode) setting fire to a sleeping person on a NYC subway car. 

[8] Quoted in “Suspect in CEO murder raged against ‘parasites’,” The Week, 20 December 2024, p. 5. 

[9] Attributed to Frank Zappa, but who knows. 

[10] For example, Leaked emails show what Clinton told executives in private | PBS News 

[11] “Daniel Penny: A hero or a murderer?” The Week, 27 December-3 January 2025, p. 18.