March Madness

 

The recent and continuing strikes on Iran have the effect of becoming a kind of geopolitical Rorschach test: everyone involved sees what they want to see, while the inkblot itself is unmistakably dark, ugly, and poorly defined. The U.S.–Israeli operation has moved far beyond “surgical” and into the realm of regime‑shaping warfare, and Iran’s retaliation has turned the Persian Gulf into a live‑fire zone stretching from Doha to the Strait of Hormuz.

        Flash back to Operation Desert Storm, when, at Dick Cheney’s suggestion, Bush 41 eschewed “regime building.” Key advisors, most notably Joint Chiefs Chairman General Colin Powell and Sec Def Dick Cheney, urged President George H.W. Bush not to go to Baghdad or remove Saddam Hussein from power during the 1991 Gulf War. They advised that invading Baghdad would create a power vacuum, require massive troop commitments, lead to a "quagmire," and split the international coalition. Five weeks later it was over, Kuwait was freed and we came home, less about 300 fewer US soldiers.

H.W.’s more malleable son, encouraged by the revised opinion of then Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and amplified by fabricated tales of weapons of mass destruction, later initiated a regime change attempt in Iraq which resulted in over 8,000 dead US troops and 32,000 wounded.

In both cases, it was Coalition troops vs a Middle East state. In the current instance the conflict is not only The US vs Iran, but there is also a centuries old underlying theme of Islamic sectarian hatred/mutual disrespect between Sunni and Shiite adherents.  Sectarian identity is a regional political tool in much the same way as the Crusades were 900 years ago. Shia–Sunni divides are more than seven hundred years old, but in modern geopolitics they’re often used as branding, not belief. Governments invoke sectarian identity the way corporations invoke “family values” — loudly, selectively, and usually when they want something.

While Iran positions itself as the champion of Shia communities across the region, from Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen, Saudi Arabia and several Gulf states cast themselves as defenders of Sunni order against Iranian influence.

Militias and political parties across the region use sectarian labels to secure funding, legitimacy, and weapons. This doesn’t mean the theological divide isn’t real — it is — but the political use of it is often opportunistic rather than doctrinal. The current kerfuffle fits that pattern.

The attacks on Iran and the subsequent regional escalation have revived old sectarian narratives, but in ways that reveal how flexible they are when power is at stake. Sunni-majority Gulf states are condemning Iran’s retaliation while simultaneously trying to avoid being dragged into a war they didn’t ask for. Shia communities in Iraq and Lebanon are split, as their populations’ sectarian tenets are. Some see Iran as a protector, others as a reckless actor endangering them as collateral damage. Militias aligned with Iran frame the conflict as resistance, while governments frame it as destabilization.

Meanwhile The Ayatollah Trump calls this the “last best chance” to deal with Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, which is the diplomatic equivalent of saying, “Trust me, I know what I’m doing,” right before he pulls the cord to start the chainsaw while holding the bar between his legs.  He’s already admitted the war may last longer than the four to five weeks he predicted—because of course it will. Wars are like home renovations: double the time, triple the cost, and someone always ends up bleeding. Meanwhile, Iran’s death toll is officially 787 and unofficially “much higher,” which is government‑speak for “we stopped counting when the numbers got depressing.”  

Israel has moved troops into Lebanon, Hezbollah is firing back, and the Gulf states are swatting missiles like mosquitoes. The U.S. has closed embassies, evacuated personnel, and warned Americans to leave 14 countries—because nothing says “regional stability” like telling your citizens to run for their lives.

George W. Bush’s legacy is now the Middle East’s version of the “Don’t stick your fork in the toaster” warning label. Everyone knows it’s there. Everyone ignores it. Why?

Bush toppled a regime with no plan for the day after, while   Trump has launched a region‑wide conflict with no plan for the day after lunch. Bush underestimated sectarian blowback, while Trump underestimated everything, including how many countries Iran can hit with missiles before breakfast. Bush said the mission was accomplished, Trump has said it would take “four to five weeks”. Both are shining examples of wishful thinking. It is, in the words of H.L Mencken, “The triumph of wishful thinking over experience.” On a more worldly note, the late George Carlin would call it “The same old shit with a new paint job.”

In conclusion it is worth remembering that none of this was likely to happen if we had continued honoring The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed July 14, 2015.  It was a multilateral agreement between Iran and the U.S., U.K., France, Russia, China, and Germany plus the EU. It followed two years of negotiations and was designed to ensure Iran’s nuclear program remained exclusively peaceful. The agreement provided for key nuclear restrictions on Iran, including: Enrichment limits: Iran agreed to cap uranium enrichment far below weapons‑grade levels.

Stockpile limits: Iran drastically reduced the amount of enriched uranium it could possess.

Facility restrictions: Sensitive sites like Fordow and Natanz were placed under strict operational limits.

Centrifuge reductions: Iran removed or mothballed thousands of centrifuges.

Inspections: The IAEA was granted an unprecedented verification regime—continuous monitoring, access to declared sites, and oversight of the entire supply chain.

In return, Iran Got sanctions relief:  Nuclear‑related sanctions were lifted, allowing Iran access to frozen assets and international markets. Economic reintegration: Iran could sell oil, conduct banking, and rejoin global trade networks. In other words, resume normal relations and interact with the rest of the world, vice remaining isolated and angry.

President Obama framed the JCPOA as the most consequential foreign‑policy debate since the Iraq War. His argument was simple. Without a deal, Iran would continue enriching without oversight and with a deal, Iran’s pathways to a bomb would be blocked or slowed, and inspectors would have eyes everywhere. The White House at the time emphasized that the agreement “blocked every possible pathway” to a nuclear weapon while maintaining intrusive verification. It was a narrow, technocratic arms‑control agreement—and intentionally so.

And yet: In 2018, Trump pulled the U.S. out of the JCPOA, calling it a “bad deal” (don’t you love the man’s gift of language?) and arguing it didn’t address missiles or Iran’s regional activities. This withdrawal is widely cited as one of the most consequential foreign‑policy moves of his first term. After the withdrawal, Iran gradually resumed higher‑level enrichment, expanded stockpiles, and restarted activities previously frozen under the deal.

Why does this matter today? It matters because the current war is happening against the backdrop of a nuclear program that was once heavily constrained under the JCPOA but lost those constraints after the U.S. withdrawal. Since, then, Iran’s Nuclear facilities have survived multiple Israeli and U.S. strikes, and Iran still retains significant enriched uranium, according to the IAEA.

The Obama accords are now being invoked as the “road not taken”, and as a moment when diplomacy, not violence and death, temporarily froze the nuclear clock. It’s running once again.

We, and the world, deserve so much better.

Clean, Beautiful Coal???

                                     

               Clean, Beautiful Coal – Really?

In 2018, America’s chief executive, in his State of the Union address, assumed the missionary position for the energy lobby. His exact words? “We have ended the war on American Energy, and we have ended the war on beautiful clean coal. We are now, very proudly, an exporter of energy to the world.”  Being Donald Trump, he was lying. We didn’t become net exporters until a year later. There has never been “A war on American energy.” There have, however,  been differing opinions on what we should use to produce electrical power.

Recently, in an Oval Office meeting with a group of coal miners (inexplicably in their working clothes, as if the White House had become a themed attraction)), President Trump used the moment to spotlight his administration’s push to revive the coal industry, inviting them in as he signed an executive order aimed at boosting production and rolling back regulations. He also repeated his ludicrous “Clean, Beautiful, Coal” mantra. The event was staged as a celebration of coal’s future, even as federal regulators simultaneously moved to delay new miner‑safety rules designed to limit hazardous dust exposure — a juxtaposition that left critics noting the miners were present for the photo op, while the protections meant for their protection were quietly put on hold.

Seven years ago, I wrote that coal was neither clean nor beautiful. At the time, I thought the point was obvious enough that the argument would age quietly, like an old reactor vessel—solid, inert, and unlikely to need revisiting. I underestimated the American talent for alchemy: the ability to turn political nonsense into a renewable resource.

In the years since, the chemistry hasn’t changed, the epidemiology hasn’t changed, and the physics certainly haven’t changed. What has changed is the rhetoric, which has grown even more baroque. We now have leaders praising coal with the enthusiasm of a late‑night infomercial while simultaneously loosening the safety rules meant to keep miners from coughing up half of Appalachia every morning. It’s Al Sleet the Hippy Dippy Weatherman reporting a forecast written by Jon Stewart: “Tonight’s outlook calls for particulate matter, fly ash, mercury, and a 100% chance of miners being treated like an expendable prop.”  So yes — this is the revised and emended edition. Not because the facts demanded it, but because the lunacy does.

“Clean, Beautiful Coal” In truth, these are three lies. Two are venal sins, one mortal. To begin with, there isn’t, and never has been, a “war” on American energy. That’s simply Republicanese for “any attempts to preserve the environment for posterity”, with the subtext of climate change denial. Also, in truth, while the US is now a net energy exporter, when it comes to individual energy sources, the U.S. status as a net exporter of coal, gas  and refined petroleum really means we are sending more coal abroad because until recently (the Biden years) some coal plants were being retired and not replaced with new ones, while a number of obsolete plants were/are being nursed along. The far more egregious lie was the use of the word “Clean” in any context with reference to coal.

        If coal is, in fact, “clean and beautiful” why is it that coal miners today have life expectancy about 3–5 years lower than the general U.S. population? Why?  Persistent black lung resurgence (due to thinner coal seams → more silica dust) and higher rates of COPD, cardiovascular disease, and lung cancer in Appalachia. Apparently, the assumptions of the corporate entities in New York (you didn’t really think they’d live in  Kentucky, did ya?) were:  a) “They’re poor and have no advocates” and/or b) “They’re also illiterate and don’t vote.”

        Accordingly, and since I have not only the time and the disdain for coal fiction, but also because I worked for decades in an industry which unlike coal is safe and clean – nuclear power, I have distilled relevant data from several reputable sources regarding “beautiful, clean coal.” 

        The American Lung Association (ALA) released a report on the dramatic health hazards surrounding coal-fired power plants.  The report, which was headlined “Toxic Air: The Case for Cleaning Up Coal-Fired Power Plants,” revealed the dangers of air pollution emitted by coal plants.

Statements which leap off the page include:

“Particle pollution from power plants is estimated to kill approximately 13,000 people a year.”

“Coal-fired power plants that sell electricity to the grid produce more hazardous air pollution in the U.S. than any other industrial pollution sources.”

The report further details over 386,000 tons of air pollutants emitted from over 400 plants in the U.S. per year. Interestingly, while most of the power plants are physically located in the Midwest and Southeast, the entire nation is threatened by their toxic emissions.

A graph accompanying the report shows that while pollutants such as acid gases stay in the local area, metals such as lead and arsenic travel beyond state lines, and fine particulate matter has a global impact. In other words, while for some workers the pollution may be a tradeoff for employment at a plant, other regions don’t reap the same benefits but still pay for the costs to their health.

        One facet of this report is the connection of specific pollutants to the diseases with which they are associated.  According to the ALA study, 76% of U.S. acid gas emissions, which are known to irritate breathing passages, come from coal-fired power plants. Out of all industrial sources, these plants are also the biggest emitter of airborne mercury, which can become part of the human food chain through fish and wildlife — high mercury levels are linked to brain damage, birth defects, and damage to the nervous system. The three main pollutants from coal-fired power stations are sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and invisible particulate matter known as PM2.5, 30 times thinner than a human hair. Collectively, these pollutants inflame the lungs, scar the airways, stunt children’s lung development, and  once the particles enter the bloodstream — trigger heart attacks and strokes.”

        Perhaps one of the most surprising coal related facts is:  Recent data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration and independent energy trackers show that coal’s share of U.S. electricity generation has fallen to roughly 15–16%.

•       The EIA projected coal’s share at 16.1% in 2024.

•       A 2025 update notes that coal’s share fell to “under 15%” in 2024, an all‑time low. So, the best current estimate is that: ≈15–16% of U.S. electricity now comes from coal‑fired plants.

Research estimates that 24 people die for every terawatt hour (TWh) of coal burnt. Children are at even higher risk from air pollution because they breathe more for their body weight than adults. Another report, authored by three University of Wisconsin researchers, was entitled “Estimating the Health Impacts of Coal-Fired Power Plants Receiving International Financing”

The authors summarized what is a large technical study thus: “Summary:  In addition to the environmental and human health harm caused by greenhouse gas emissions, coal-fired power plants emit massive amounts of toxic air pollutants that result in significant numbers of deaths and disease. We estimate that between roughly 6000 and 10,700 annual deaths from heart ailments, respiratory disease and lung cancer can be attributed to the 88 coalfired power plants and companies receiving public international financing.”

        Air pollution from coal-fired power plants is also associated with other health outcomes, including infant deaths, asthma and other lung diseases.  Clean and beautiful, huh?

        Conclusions: “Coal-fired power plants were among the country's greatest sources of pollution. They are the biggest industrial emitters of mercury and arsenic into the air. They emit 84 of the 187 hazardous air pollutants identified by the Environmental Protection Agency as posing a threat to human health and the environment.”

        “Coal-fired power plants also emit a menu of nasty materials:  • Heavy metals: arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel • Organic toxins: dioxins, furans, PAHs, benzene, toluene, xylene • Acid gases: hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride • Radionuclides: radium, thorium, uranium.  A separate study done years later actually estimates the radioactivity (defined as the total amount of radioactive material released) of coal fired plant smokestack fly ash as 50 times that of any operating US nuclear power plant!

        Coal-fired power plants account for 81 percent of the electric power industry's greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to global warming and climate change. The most significant greenhouse gas emitted by coal-fired power plants is carbon dioxide. They also emit smaller amounts of methane and nitrous oxide. As stated earlier, The hazardous air emissions from coal-fired power plants also cause serious human health impacts. Arsenic, benzene, cadmium, chromium compounds, TCDD dioxin, formaldehyde, and nickel compounds are listed as carcinogens in the Fourteenth Report on Carcinogens published by the National Toxicology Program. Furan and lead are listed as "reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens" in the Fourteenth Report on Carcinogens.

        In summary, as shown above, hazardous air pollutants emitted by coal-fired power plants can, and, statistically, do cause a wide range of health effects, including heart and lung diseases, such as asthma. Exposure to these pollutants can damage the brain, eyes, skin, and breathing passages. It can also affect the kidneys, and nervous and respiratory systems. Exposure can also affect learning, memory, and behavior.

If, in the face of the above statistical data, you think coal is “clean” you are beyond either education or redemption.  Trump’s “Clean and Beautiful” belies the fact that in reality coal is by far the worst polluter of all the fossil fuels.

“Despite coal’s documented harms, critics often deflect by attacking renewable energy instead.” In point of fact: Trump frequently denounces wind production with rambling, and sometimes unintelligible, word salad garbage minimizing it’s contribution to clean energy efforts. Recently he publicly stated that China only made wind turbines to sell to the West and had no domestic wind power production. Trump is a world class fibber, but this one was a doozy. China actually has almost 650 gigawatts of wind produced electrical power. That is   more than double total US capacity and more than all of Europe’s combined.

 Another example was several years ago when Texas suffered abnormally cold conditions and wind turbines froze. Trump, Fox News talking heads, and the equally misinformed  Texas governor immediately blamed the wide-spread power outage on iced up wind turbines. Reality is that, in February 2021, wind supplied only about 24–25% of Texas’ electricity going into the storm. But there are two key points the haters omitted. Here’s the first: the largest generation losses came from natural gas, not wind. The drop in natural‑gas output was more than five times larger than the drop in wind generation. So even though wind was roughly a quarter of ERCOT’s generation capacity at the time, it was not the primary cause of the grid collapse.

Of equal significance is the fact that Texas “wind farmers” cut corners and opted not to have the optional freeze packages installed on their turbines.  For a mere .7 percent more of the original cost, they could have ensured the turbines continued operation to as low as minus 30 degrees. Think about it; North Dakota produces 40% of their power from wind. Their wind turbines never freeze, even with single digit temperatures.

Now, another one of the reflexive counters to the “facts of coal” argument is the mindless retort “Oh yeah, what about nuclear power.”  Let me lead off with two factual statements: Neither of the plant designs involved in the world’s (only) two reactor accidents which resulted in the release of measurable contaminants to the environment (Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi) could ever have been licensed to operate in the United States. “The U.S. regulatory framework simply does not permit the design flaws that caused those accidents.”

        And finally, not coal related, but as support for my assertion that nuclear power is a superior and light years safer alternative for electric power production: This final paragraph comes from a study which, in its long form, is entitled, “Cancer in populations living near nuclear facilities. A survey of mortality nationwide and incidence in two states.” It is long, data filled, and technical, so I’ll close with just the abstract.

Reports from the United Kingdom have described increases in leukemia and lymphoma among young persons living near certain nuclear installations. Because of concerns raised by these reports, a mortality survey was conducted in populations living near nuclear facilities in the United States. All facilities began service before 1982. Over 900,000 cancer deaths occurred from 1950 through 1984 in 107 counties with or near nuclear installations. Each study county was matched for comparison to three "control counties" in the same region. There were 1.8 million cancer deaths in the 292 control counties during the 35 years studied. Deaths due to leukemia or other cancers were not more frequent in the study counties than in the control counties. For childhood leukemia mortality, the relative risk comparing the study counties with their controls before plant start-up was 1.08, while after start-up it was 1.03. For leukemia mortality at all ages, the relative risks were 1.02 before start-up and 0.98 after. (ed. Note: this is actually a lower cancer incidence than before the plants went on line! It also is absent any of the coal associated contaminants). If any plant specific cancer risk was present in US counties with nuclear facilities, it was too small to be detected with the methods employed.

In Summary:  

Coal has never been clean, beautiful, or benign. It is the dirtiest fuel in the American energy portfolio, responsible for more toxic air pollution, more premature deaths, and more environmental damage than any other source of electricity. Every hour a coal plant runs, it vents a cocktail of heavy metals, carcinogens, acid gases, particulates, and even measurable radionuclides directly into the air the public breathes. That is not an energy policy — it is a slow‑motion and well documented public‑health disaster.

By contrast, a nuclear power station releases no particulate pollution, releases no heavy metals, releases no carcinogens. releases no radionuclides into the air during operation, and produces zero operational carbon emissions

All radioactive material is: sealed inside fuel pellets, inside fuel rods, inside a reactor vessel, inside a containment building. 

It’s four layers of engineered confinement.

        Coal has zero. Decades of epidemiological data show no increase in cancer rates around U.S. nuclear facilities — a fact that stands in stark contrast to the documented health impacts of coal‑fired generation.

So, the next time a politician tries to sell you “clean, beautiful coal,” call it what it is: marketing spin wrapped around a 19th‑century fuel source. And when someone reflexively invokes nuclear fear, remind them that the safest, cleanest, most reliable zero‑carbon electricity ever produced in this country has come from reactors — not from smokestacks.

And for those who say, “Oh yeah, but what about hydro power?” the response is: But — and this is the key — hydro is geographically constrained in a way nuclear is not. You can build a reactor anywhere you can pour concrete. You can only build hydro where geology, hydrology, and politics line up.  That’s why hydro is maxed out in most of the U.S. Nuclear isn’t.

Energy policy should be grounded in evidence, not nostalgia. Coal belongs in the history books. Nuclear belongs in the future. And your elected officials should know exactly where you stand on that distinction.

                         

 

              History Repeats (sort of)

“So, Greg Bovino, the most generously compensated Hobbit in government since Linda Hunt left NCIS, is being escorted back to California under the plain vanilla soothing euphemism of a ‘normal transition.’ Turns out that ignoring fatal shootings and child abuse, all while treating the Constitution like a suggestion box, isn’t disqualifying so much as… “mildly inconvenient.”

His move out of Minnesota comes after two fatal shootings, a public‑relations crater, and a weekend where his claim that an ICU nurse planned to “massacre” agents collapsed under witness accounts and unassailable video evidence. Under his phantom control, ICE became a street gang empowered by a complete lack of conscience and concern at the top. One is almost surprised that Kristi Noem didn’t volunteer to pick up the homicidal slack on her weekends off. CNN’s sources called Bovino’s exit a “mutual decision,” which in Washington is code for: “Everyone agreed he should leave, especially the people who actually make decisions.”  Supposedly Administration officials were allegedly “deeply frustrated” with his handling of the Pretti shooting and the messaging meltdown that followed.

While the Minnesota violence had continued for weeks, and the death of Renee Good had been all but swept under the asphalt, Bovino’s weekend assertion that Alex Pretti intended to “massacre” agents — offered without evidence — became the accelerant on an already raging fire. Witnesses and video clearly contradicted him, and suddenly the administration’s “face of the operation” became the “please just shut up” guy.

News outlets, based on such actual information as is reasonably accurate, report that he’s headed back to his old post in California’s El Centro sector — the bureaucratic equivalent of “Go to your room, young man and think about what you’ve done.”  There has been speculation regarding the possibility of retirement, though DHS publicly denied he’d been relieved.

This current debacle and overreach is all new to those who forget their High School history class, but something similar happened 93 years ago in the nation’s capital. And you know I’m gonna tell you about it because there are sad similarities

    Back in 1932, Washington, D.C. played host to the Bonus Army — a ragtag force of World War I veterans who made the tactical error of believing that the government might honor a promise. WWI veterans' bonuses were initially enacted into law on May 19, 1924, (“roaring 20s” economy) through the World War Adjusted Compensation Act (or Bonus Act). This act promised compensation for lost wages, but payments were structured as certificates not payable until 1945. 

    However, the stock market crash and subsequent Depression left many WWI vets jobless and without the means to feed themselves or their families.  The 1932 Bonus March was a non-violent protest by roughly 20,000 to 45,000 WWI veterans, known as the "Bonus Expeditionary Force," who camped in Washington, D.C., to demand early payment of bonuses promised for their service.

        The group, consisting of men, women and children, camped in tents and shanties (called by the press “Hoovervilles” after then President Herbert Hoover) on the Anacostia flats. At first, Hoover, a fiscal conservative, acknowledged the reality, that they were largely honest, struggling veterans. While opposing their demand for early bonus payments due to budget concerns, he allowed them to assemble and even ordered the military to provide tents, cots, and rations.  As the camp grew to tens of thousands and remained after Congress rejected their bill, Hoover became irritated, viewing them as a chaotic, lawless element that needed to leave Washington. It is noteworthy that there were no contemporary reports of violence on the part of the veterans. Until…

         On July 28, 1932) Capitol police attempted to          remove the veterans and used force. After a violent confrontation between police and veterans left two veterans dead, Hoover, ever the humanitarian, responded to the sight of starving veterans and their families by calling in the U.S. Army — because, apparently, nothing says “thank you for your service” like cavalry charges and tear gas.

        Enter Army Chief of Staff, General Douglas MacArthur, a man who never met a situation he couldn’t escalate. He rolled into Anacostia Flats with tanks, infantry, and even some cavalry, and the kind of self‑importance that requires its own railcar (This ego would later get him removed from command during the Korean war). His mission: remove the veterans. His method: remove the veterans and their encampments and any lingering public sympathy Hoover might have had left. The result was a national spectacle in which decorated soldiers were gassed, beaten, and burned out of makeshift shelters, many of them, while wearing their old uniforms. It was the only time in American history when the Army attacked its own veterans and then tried to spin it as “maintaining order.” Sound familiar? 

        Hoover insisted it was all necessary. MacArthur insisted it was all glorious. Major Dwight Eisenhower, who was there under MacArthur’s command, later reflected on how he had hated the event.  The American public insisted Hoover pack his things. And by that November, they made that insistence official. (Coda: Enter FDR, who treated those that were left humanely, authorizing food, shelter and CCC jobs.)

      There are too many similarities to overlook between ICE bullies’ actions in 2025 and the Army’s in 1932. In both cases the rights of citizens were and have been ignored and any violence in response is reaction to the initial violent acts of government agents. 

These brutal actions in the current free for all are frequently “justified” by many, from Donald Trump to the dumbest MAGA marginally literate nose picker, by claims that undocumented immigrants (and many of them really mean any immigrant at all), are rapists, murderers, drug dealers, etc. They imply that eliminating these folks would greatly reduce the incidence of such heinous crimes. 

Sadly, you’ll never hear Trump, Noem or any red hatted simpleton ever admit the truth of the matter. In Trump’s case, it’s simply his inveterate lying to people dumb enough to believe him. In many more, it’s simply refusing to consider data which doesn’t fit their bias. So, you ask …what is the data? Read on, children.

Those claims aren’t supported by any credible data. Federal and state statistics consistently show that undocumented immigrants are much less likely to commit violent or sexual crimes than native‑born Americans. Texas — the only state that tracks immigration status at arrest and conviction — finds lower rates for rape, child molestation, and violent offenses among undocumented immigrants. The stereotype isn’t based on evidence; it’s based on isolated anecdotes and political rhetoric.”

The numbers: What the Data Actually Shows

1. Incarceration Rates: Immigrants vs. Native‑Born: Multiple years of analysis using U.S. Census and American Community Survey data show:

Native‑born Americans have the highest incarceration rate:            1,221 per 100,000 natives (2023).

Undocumented immigrants have a much lower incarceration rate:613 per 100,000 undocumented immigrants. Conclusion: Undocumented immigrants are about half as likely to be incarcerated as native‑born Americans.

2. Sexual Offenses: Actual Conviction Numbers

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) tracks convictions among individuals apprehended at the border who already had criminal histories. Sexual offense convictions among undocumented immigrants apprehended by CBP in recent years are very low relative to total apprehensions:

For FY2025 (through June): 89 sexual offense convictions nationwide.  FY2024: 284    FY2023: 365   FY2022: 488

These numbers represent convictions among people already apprehended, not the entire undocumented population—and still remain extremely small. Conclusion: There is no statistical basis for the claim that undocumented immigrants disproportionately commit rape or child molestation.

3. Violent Crime Convictions

For FY2025 (through June): 469 violent crime convictions among undocumented immigrants apprehended by federal authorities. This includes assault, domestic violence, and other violent offenses. Again, this is a tiny fraction of the millions of undocumented people living in the U.S.

4. Broader Criminality Research

Independent criminological studies consistently find: Immigrants (legal and undocumented) are less likely to be arrested, convicted, or incarcerated than native‑born Americans. Immigrants do not increase crime rates in communities and often correlate with lower crime rates.

Bottom Line: The claim that undocumented immigrants are disproportionately “rapists and child molesters” is demonstrably false when compared to actual federal data. Every major dataset—CBP, ICE, FBI-linked analyses, and independent research—shows lower criminality, including sexual offenses, among undocumented immigrants relative to native‑born Americans.

So, why does the myth (because that’s what it is) persist? There are a few reasons, none of them based on reality. First: anecdotes overshadow statistics. A single horrific case gets amplified far more than millions of peaceful lives. Sadly, racial bias plays a part. Also, political rhetoric often frames immigration through the lens of crime so it becomes a partisan issue. And yet ICE, enabled by Trump, is treating people, whose status they don’t even know or haven’t even tried to determine, and whose proof of citizenship they ignore, with total disregard for legal rights, Constitutional rights and basic human decency. It is an American tragedy.

 

 

 

                           

                       Some of us Have Short Memories

 

Ah, the selective amnesia of the American political memory—where yesterday’s architects of war become today’s elder statesmen, and the cost of blood is buried beneath the shifting sands of narrative control. Rewind to 1991: Then–Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney was a voice of restraint, cautioning President George H. W. Bush against marching to Baghdad after liberating Kuwait. His reasoning? Toppling Saddam Hussein would destabilize the region, embroil the U.S. in a prolonged occupation, and cost untold American lives. Cheney’s own words from that era are chillingly prescient: “It’s not worth it,” he said. “It’s a quagmire.”

Fast forward to 2003, and that same man—now Vice President—was the chief evangelist for regime change. Armed with shaky and fabricated intelligence and a post-9/11 appetite for vengeance, Cheney helped steer George W. Bush into a war that would do precisely what he once warned against. The irony is not just historical—it’s tragic. Over 4,400 American service members dead, tens of thousands wounded, and a generation of veterans carrying the physical and psychological scars of a war sold on the premise of weapons that didn’t exist.

And yet, here we are. Cheney’s role in that pivot—from caution to crusade—is rarely invoked in mainstream retrospectives. .The media moved on. The public, exhausted by the war’s duration and ambiguity, let the narrative fade. Cheney himself, never one for public remorse, has been recast in some circles as a grizzled sage of national security, his legacy burnished by time and the short attention span of the electorate. Today’s paper carries a large, and largely laudatory, spread of what amounts almost to a eulogy.

It’s not just about Cheney, of course. It’s about how we metabolize history. How we allow complexity to be flattened, culpability to be diluted, and consequences to be abstracted. The Iraq War wasn’t a bipartisan misstep—it was a calculated gamble by a small cadre of powerful men, with Cheney at the helm and a naïve POTUS at his bidding, and the cost measured not just in lives, but in trust, credibility, and the moral authority of a nation that once claimed to liberate, not occupy.

So yes, we’ve forgotten. Or perhaps we’ve chosen to forget. Because remembering demands reckoning—and reckoning is rarely convenient or satisfying. If speaking the truth about the dead is speaking ill of the dead, then the truth is simply the truth. Sorry, not sorry!

 

                                  

                          You Can’t Make This S**t Up

If you ever thought maybe Donald Trump was actually as “brilliant” as he, and he alone, claims, then perhaps you are either a suck up sycophant toady (ala Pam Bondi) or more likely, you are as blind to his mental decline as he, himself seems to be.

In a week where the U.S. government at home remained shuttered, and some Americans were denied essential food assistance, the Commander-in-Chief embarked on a diplomatic tour of Asia that felt less like statesmanship and more like a traveling vaudeville act. Japan, ever the gracious host, received President Trump with military honors, a red carpet, and—unfortunately—an electromagnetic elevator.

We see the odd anecdotal comment about private moments of less than lucid behavior, but this visit to Japan was a world stage shit show of accelerating mental decline. We’ll get to that momentarily but first, let’s reflect on Trump’s description of a recent MRI as “routine.”   According to actual doctors who are knowledgeable in the field, there is nothing “routine” about an MRI. MRIs are diagnostic tools, not “routine” screening tests. They’re used to investigate symptoms like unexplained headaches, seizures, or signs of neurological decline—not as part of a general wellness check. Dr. Jonathan Reiner, a cardiologist and CNN medical analyst, emphasized that an MRI is “not part of a routine screening examination”—especially in the context of President Trump’s recent Walter Reed visit, where he also bragged about “acing” a routine cognitive test. But … back to Japan.

The recent Trump Japan visit included two truly surreal moments: a rambling, (and physics denying) “magnet” rant aboard a U.S. aircraft carrier and a video recorded and circulated clip of him, seemingly confused as to where he was, wandering away from Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi during a formal ceremony. Both incidents have ramped up the ongoing speculation about his cognitive state and political theatrics. Here’s the breakdown of the two episodes.

The “Magnet” Rant on the USS George Washington:

During a speech to U.S. Navy personnel at Yokosuka Naval Base on October 28, Trump launched into a bizarre critique of electromagnetic systems on modern aircraft carriers.  He mocked the Navy’s shift to electromagnetic catapults and elevators, saying he preferred steam and hydraulics, as if he would know the difference. This was not the first time he has ranted about the Navy’s newer electromagnetic aircraft carrier catapult systems. In tone it was reminiscent of similar mindless natterings about wind turbines.

        The President, aboard the USS George Washington, took one look at the Navy’s modern catapult system and declared war—not on China, not on inflation, but on magnets. “You drop a little glass of water on magnets,” he warned, “I don’t know what’s going to happen.” Neither do physicists, apparently, because they’re still trying to decode the “science” behind that statement. He then vowed to replace electromagnetic launch systems with steam-powered ones, citing their “beautiful hiss” and “real American pressure.” Hydraulic elevators, he claimed, are “more trustworthy than anything run by magnets, which are basically woke metal.” (WTF?) This came after his theatrical entrance to the carrier’s flight deck, set to the tune of “YMCA”, and included complaints about the elevator system itself. (we know how he is about elevators and escalators!) The navy’s newer Ford-class carriers do use electromagnetic systems, but Trump’s technical claims were inaccurate. The comments drew laughter from the mandatorily assembled sailors but raised eyebrows among defense analysts.

The welcoming ceremony ramble:

      The shipboard rambling followed an earlier welcoming ceremony in the presence of the newly elected Japanese Prime Minister when Trump appeared confused during a welcoming ceremony in Tokyo.  As he walked through a room of dignitaries and a military band, he abruptly wandered away from Prime Minister Takaichi, leaving her stranded like a forgotten NPC in a diplomatic role-playing game. The footage, now viral, shows him meandering toward a military band as if drawn by an invisible steam whistle only he could hear. The moment was caught on video and widely shared, with captions like “Bro has no idea what is going on.”  Critics have cited this as further evidence of cognitive decline, especially following Trump’s own admission that he’d recently undergone that “routine” MRI at Walter Reed Medical Center.  He also described taking a “very hard aptitude test” involving animals like “tigers, an elephant, a giraffe,” which resembled cognitive screening for dementia.

So, we’ve got a president who rails against magnets, praises steam and strolls off like he’s chasing a butterfly—while the Japanese PM stands frozen.

The Trump Asia tour has become a surreal blend of Top Gun, Alice in Wonderland, and a Home Depot plumbing aisle. He’s not just rejecting modernity—he’s steamrolling it. Literally. And while critics cite cognitive decline, supporters see a man unshackled by electromagnetic tyranny. After all, who needs coherence when you have charisma, catapults, and the promise of a future Nobel nomination from a Prime Minister? In the end, Trump’s Japan visit wasn’t about policy. It was about propulsion. And if the future of diplomacy is steam-powered, we’d better start boiling.

        While most world leaders arrive in Asia armed with policy briefings and diplomatic nuance, President Trump came equipped with a cognitive aptitude test involving jungle animals. “They showed me a tiger, an elephant, a giraffe,” he said, “and I got them all right.” The test, reportedly administered at Walter Reed, was described by Trump as “very hard,” though it remains unclear whether it was designed for presidents or preschoolers.

This revelation came amid his week of steam-powered declarations and magnet paranoia. Trump, fresh off his rant against electromagnetic catapults, now seemed to be measuring global leadership in giraffe recognition and elevator reliability. Forget the SATs—can you identify a giraffe under pressure? Can you distinguish a tiger from a particularly aggressive housecat? These, apparently,  are the metrics of modern governance. Critics argue this signals cognitive decline. Supporters say it’s cognitive defiance. After all, who needs policy when you’ve got pachyderm proficiency? Apparently, in this new age of evaluating executive aptitude, the jungle is the cabinet, the elevator is the litmus test, and the giraffe is the gold standard.

God help us if he ever sees a platypus.

                                       

                    More “Florida Man” Antics

 For those of you who live elsewhere, let me indoctrinate you into the cult of our state goofy headline generator  – Florida Man. (and occasionally woman.)  “Florida Man”—equal parts meme, myth, and mugshot. He’s the unofficial state cryptid, and he lives in headlines such as (and these are real!):  

“Florida Man throws alligator through drive-thru window.”

“Florida Man arrested for driving stolen vehicle filled with stolen items to court for his stolen vehicle hearing.”

“Florida Man tries to light cigarette with blowtorch, burns down apartment.”

The phenomenon largely stems from Florida’s broad public records laws, which make arrest reports easily accessible to journalists. Combine that with a humid cocktail of heat, eccentricity, and questionable decision-making, and you get a steady stream of surreal news stories that start with “Florida Man…”

But it’s not just about the headlines—it’s a cultural reflection.  “Florida Man” is a chaotic, common sense impaired, icon of American folklore: unpredictable, unfiltered, and often unintentionally profound. He’s the guy who wrestles a bear in his backyard, then sues the HOA for not warning him about the bear.

Florida Man never sleeps, and neither do the headlines. Here’s some more gator-wrestling, meth-surfing, raccoon-smuggling chaos:

 “Florida Man claims to be time traveler from 2048, warns of alien invasion, demands to speak to the president.” (this guy also stole a truck and drove to Patrick Space Force base insisting that he had to warn the President of the alien invasion. Considering  the current POTUS, this bordered on redundant.)

“Florida Man arrested after spaghetti-fueled rampage at Olive Garden—shirtless, shoeless, and covered in marinara.”

“Florida Man caught stealing iguanas to “start a Jurassic Park-themed petting zoo.”

And just when you think it’s peaked, Florida Woman enters the chat:

“Florida Woman pulls python from her pants during traffic stop.”

“Florida Woman rides motorized shopping cart through Walmart while sipping wine from a Pringles can.”

 Here’s a fresh batch of headlines that feel like they were written by a fever dream in a bait shop:

“Florida Man arrested for trying to duel a neighbor with live chickens—claims it's “Old Seminole tradition.”

“Florida Man builds homemade air conditioner using igloo cooler, leaf blower, and frozen shrimp—declares it “better than NASA’s.”

“Florida Man spotted flying drone shaped like UFO over retirement community—says he’s “testing panic response for future alien overlords.”

“Florida Man steals flamingo from zoo, names it “Chad,” and takes it to court as emotional support animal.”

“Florida Man caught siphoning Capri Sun from school vending machine—tells police he’s “just hydrating the youth.”

And: Even more outré:

“Florida Man runs through gym naked, hides in tanning bed at closing time. Deputies dubbed him the “Birthday Suit Bandit”.

“Florida Man tries to steal $1,500 of merchandise from Lowe’s, flees on the back of a UPS truck.” A Citizen tip helped track him down.

“Florida Man shoots neighbor’s pregnant cow after it wandered onto his property.” He’d previously threatened to shoot any animal that crossed the line.

“Florida Man arrested after dog-fighting ring uncovered—alongside a neglected 9-foot alligator” The gator was kept in inhumane conditions.

“ Florida Man dubbed “Nail Bandit” charged after damaging fire rescue vehicles with sharp objects—for over a year and a half.”

“Florida Man leads deputies on chase, then offers them a can of vodka spritzer.” Bodycam footage confirmed the bizarre peace offering.

“Florida Man under fire for holding a dolphin out of water for a photo.”
 Wildlife officials were not amused.

“Florida Man wakes up in hospital missing an arm—last thing he remembers is going to the bathroom near a body of water.” Gator encounter confirmed.

These are just a sampling of the Florida State Doofus in action. For more, check out our Governor and Surgeon General.

 

Donnie and Pete’s Shameful Pep Talk: Mandatory Indoctrination or Morale Hazard? The Theater of Trump and Hegseth’s Military Sermons

It was a mandatory attendance spectacle of forced submission. It’s one thing to brief the brass on emerging threats. (the sort of briefings which Trump frequently either doesn’t attend or sleeps through).  It’s another to subject them to a flagrantly politicized tent revival disguised as “leadership development.”

When Generals and Admirals—men and women who’ve commanded fleets, divisions, and nuclear assets—are required to sit through ideological monologues from draft dodger Don, and  lush/misogynist Pete we’ve crossed the line from professional development, mutuality of mission purpose and National security into mere performative loyalty. This isn’t about national security. It’s about political narrative control. This is theater of the absurd, aimed at Maga dolts who pleasure themselves to old copies of “Sgt. Rock of Easy Company.” (for those of you much younger than I, this was a popular Post WWII comic book, which survived until 1988)

This was a classic example of the chain of command meets the ratings machine, most likely spawned by burgeoning negative public reaction to the illegal deployment to US military forces to US cities and Trump’s slavish worship of “ratings” (his) and concern over their recent retrograde direction.

Even more sickening, Pete Hegseth, whose military credentials include a stint in the National Guard and a long tenure on morning television, now lectures the Joint Chiefs on patriotism. Trump, whose grasp of military strategy is rivaled only by his grasp of spelling, delivers rambling stump speeches to an audience trained to salute, not swoon.

Yes, Pete Hegseth’s relationship with alcohol has been a source of controversy and scrutiny throughout his post-military career—especially during his time leading veterans’ advocacy groups and working in media. He has openly acknowledged that after returning from deployments, he often coped with trauma by drinking yet, despite these admissions, he insists he never had a “drinking problem.”  Still, multiple former Fox News employees claimed they saw him intoxicated at work.  He was reportedly forced out of two nonprofits—Veterans for Freedom and Concerned Veterans for America—due to intoxicated behavior, mismanagement, and other misconduct. A whistleblower report described him as “totally sloshed” at public events, sometimes needing to be carried away.

While he characterizes it as a common veteran coping mechanism, his drinking history has raised serious concerns about judgment, professionalism, and leadership. Yet, here he is, carping about facial hair and chromosomes.

As an aside and based on personal experience, I served with female sailors and officers and never saw an issue of any sort.

There have been no documented or credible examples showing that the inclusion of women, even on submarines, has caused a decrease in readiness or performance. In fact, the available evidence and official commentary suggest the opposite: that integration has been successful and beneficial. Despite Hegseths whining and implication, here’s what the record shows. I’m using the submarine force because it is the ultimate daily close contact, professional stress situation other than combat, and I have 26 years of experience in the area:

Historical Context & Integration: Women began optional assignment to on U.S. Navy submarines in 2011, following a policy change by Defense Secretary Robert Gates in 2010. This integration was phased, starting with female officers on Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines, then expanding to fast-attack submarines and enlisted ranks. No Navy reports or peer-reviewed studies have linked female presence on submarines to degraded operational performance. In fact, the Navy has emphasized that readiness and professionalism are gender independent. Female submariners are held to the same standards and have earned warfare qualifications (“dolphins”) just like their male counterparts.

Admiral John Richardson, a former Chief of Naval Operations, has stated that inclusive teams “achieve maximum possible performance” and “maintain high standards”. This is the sort of thing Hegseth, a flaming misogynist, even described as such by his own mother, detests. Anecdotal accounts from female submariners, including my recent conversations with a friend’s niece, herself a submarine qualified (USS Florida) intelligence expert, highlight mutual respect, strong crew cohesion, and the absence of gender-based limitations on performance. As might be expected, early discussions of such integration faced some initial resistance and heightened concern, but the result has not translated into measurable declines in readiness. If anything, such scrutiny underscores the need for fair evaluation rather than assumptions.

The U.S. military has long prided itself on remaining above the partisan fray. It’s why officers don’t campaign in uniform, why political rallies are off-limits on base, and why the oath is to the Constitution—not to any individual. But when attendance at these events becomes mandatory, the message is clear: neutrality is no longer enough. Visibility is loyalty. Applause is allegiance. This isn’t just a morale hazard. It’s a constitutional one.

It's not as if we haven’t seen this type of shitshow before.  In banana republics, strongmen parade before the military to affirm their dominance. In autocracies, generals are props in the theater of power. The U.S. has always stood apart—until now.

Even MacArthur, with all his ego, never demanded the Army sit through his political musings. Patton may have slapped a soldier, but he didn’t slap the Constitution. What we’re witnessing is not leadership—it’s political liturgy. If things remain as they are supposed to be, and the military is to remain the last bastion of nonpartisan service, its leaders must resist becoming simply stoic stagehands in a political pageant. That means pushing back on mandatory attendance. That means refusing to conflate patriotism with partisanship. That means remembering that the oath is not to a man, but to an idea, because when the generals are forced to clap, the republic begins to crack.

The irony in this situation is flagrant: a man who dodged the draft now commands the attention of those who’ve faced live fire. A true “fake media“ pundit, who once called diversity “a cancer” now lectures a force that thrives on cohesion and inclusion. As a veteran who knows better, it turns my stomach.