MAGA bits: MAGA logic; War spending; Pardoning drug dealers; Crackpot COVID update

The Hill reports about how one MAGA elite sees cuts to some domestic spending: "Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst (R) pushed back against constituents who shouted out at her recent town hall meeting that cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) would cause people to die, responding, “Well, we’re all going to die.” "

Confusingly, Ernst went on to say that people were ignoring her and that Medicaid in Iowa was "extremely important." 

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

The Hill reports some details in a proposed 2026 spending plan that djt put out: "President Trump is calling for more than $160 billion in cuts to nondefense discretionary spending — amounting to about 22 percent — while requesting a boost to defense dollars."

Previously, djt's rhetoric was that over time defense spending would be cut by 50%. A week later spending cut rhetoric was for defense cuts of 8%/year for 5 years (~34% over 5 years). But now it is defense increases. How much increase? Apparently the defense spending increase, part of a broader budget plan, includes a 13% increase in defense spending for fiscal year 2026. That raises the total proposed defense budget to $1.01 trillion, a $113.3 billion increase.

The rhetoric surrounding djt/MAGA defense spending so far: 

50% cut → 34% cut → 13% increase 

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

NPR reports that djt is pardoning drug dealers while his rhetoric continues to attack drug trafficking. 

He recently granted clemency to Larry Hoover, 74. He was serving multiple life sentences in federal prison for crimes linked to his role leading the Chicago-based Gangster Disciples. So far in his second term, he has granted clemency to at least eight criminals convicted on federal drug charges. Some, including Hoover, have extensive criminal records involving violence and gun charges. One of the pardoned so far this year is Ross Ulbricht, a former, a former tech entrepreneur serving a life term in federal prison. Ulbricht created Silk Road, a dark web internet site that was a major conduit for drug traffickers.

This is not new. In his 1st term, his rhetoric threatened tough action against drug dealers, but he pardoned or commuted the sentences of at least 13 people convicted of federal drug crimes. That included high-level dealers linked to violence or convicted of operating major trafficking rings. 

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

The LA Times reports that a new COVID-19 subvariant, NB.1.8.1, is spreading rapidly in California and globally. A potential summer wave of infections is possible. So, what is our federal health care crackpot, RFK Jr, doing about COVID? He's helping it spread! He rescinded federal recommendations for COVID-19 vaccinations for healthy pregnant women and children. The FDA announced it will no longer routinely approve updated COVID vaccines for healthy individuals under 65. Presumably private insurers and government programs will stop paying for COVID vaccines. At present, that would put out-of-pocket costs at $198.99 per dose. The crackpot announced his directive without consulting CDC advisory panels or experts. Being an ignorant, elite MAGA jackass, he just knows stuff better than actual scientists and experts.

Fact: COVID mRNA vaccines have so far have been proven to be safe and effective (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). That is not in dispute among experts. Crackpots and cranks dispute it.

A TL/DR analysis of the impacts of the crackpot's nonsense is at footnote 1.

TL/DR Footnote: 

1. Impact of the crackpot's new guidance on COVID infections. Bottom line: Both RFK Jr and his boss djt will both be responsible for needlessly causing increased infections, hospitalizations and deaths. That makes them both stone-cold killers. 

Q1: Find or make estimates of the impact of the new COVID guidance on infections, hospitalizations and deaths.

A1: 

Key Policy Changes and Context

Vaccine Recommendations for Children and Pregnant Women: COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children and pregnant women were moved from “recommended” to “shared clinical decision-making” (SCDM) status, requiring consultation with healthcare providers1 12 13.

The CDC’s updated immunization schedules now list COVID-19 vaccines under SCDM, similar to niche vaccines like meningococcal B 1 16.

FDA Guidance for Adults Under 65:
Healthy adults under 65 will no longer receive routine approval for updated COVID-19 boosters unless they undergo new efficacy studies 3 17.

Approximately 100–200 million Americans with comorbidities (e.g., diabetes, obesity) remain eligible 3.

Insurance Coverage and Cost Implications:
Private insurers and government programs may cease coverage for COVID-19 vaccines, raising out-of-pocket costs to ~$199 per dose 12 13.

Baseline Vaccination Coverage and Effectiveness

Current Coverage (Pre-Policy Change):
Children (6 months–17 years): 13.0% up to date with the 2024–25 vaccine 11.

Pregnant Women: 14.4% vaccinated, with disparities by race/ethnicity (e.g., 23.6% non-Hispanic Asian vs. 7.2% non-Hispanic Black) 2 11.

Adults (18+ years): 23.0% vaccinated 11.

Vaccine Effectiveness (VE):
2024–25 Vaccine:

1. 33% effective against emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) visits in adults 4 17.

2. 45–46% effective against hospitalizations in immunocompetent adults ≥65 years 4 17.

3. 40% effective against hospitalizations in immunocompromised adults ≥65 years 4.

Projected Impact of Reduced Vaccination Coverage
1. Infections:
Children: Modeling from the 2021–2022 season estimated that vaccinating 5–11-year-olds averted ~430,000 cases without a new variant 10. A 10% decline in coverage (from 13% to 11.7%) could result in ~43,000 additional annual cases in this age group.

Pregnant Women: Lower coverage may increase infections in a population already at 2x higher risk of ICU admission and death 1 13.

2. Hospitalizations:
Children: Current pediatric COVID-19 hospitalizations account for ~4.3% of total U.S. hospitalizations (2.9% in children <5 years) 6. A 10% coverage drop could increase hospitalizations by 8.7% (matching the VE reduction observed in SCDM contexts 15), translating to ~1,000–1,600 additional annual pediatric hospitalizations (based on 2023–2024 data) 6 10.

Pregnant Women: Hospitalization rates for unvaccinated pregnant women are 2–3x higher than for vaccinated peers 2 13. A 10% coverage decline could increase hospitalizations by ~15–20% in this group.

3. Deaths:
Children: Pediatric COVID-19 deaths are rare (<0.1% of total deaths) 7, but unvaccinated children <6 months face hospitalization risks comparable to seniors 1 6.

Pregnant Women: COVID-19 during pregnancy increases stillbirth and preterm labor risks 1 13. A 10% coverage drop could elevate maternal mortality by ~5–10% in high-risk cohorts.

Older Adults: Indirect effects from reduced population immunity may increase transmission to vulnerable seniors, who account for 86% of COVID-19 deaths 7 14.

Economic and Equity Considerations
Cost Barriers: At $198.99 per dose, low-income families face disproportionate access challenges, exacerbating existing disparities (e.g., non-Hispanic Black pregnant women’s coverage is already 3x lower than non-Hispanic Asian women 11).

SCDM Limitations: Shared decision-making introduces logistical hurdles, reducing uptake by ~10–15% compared to routine recommendations 8 15. For example, meningococcal B vaccine uptake under SCDM is 11.9% vs. 60.8% for routinely recommended vaccines 15.

Conclusion
The revised guidelines are expected to reduce COVID-19 vaccination coverage, particularly among children and pregnant women, leading to measurable increases in infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. While the policy shifts align with political priorities, they conflict with expert CDC/ACIP scientific consensus. 

 

Q2: What is the estimated economic cost of the new NB.1.8.1 COVID guidance per year? About how many additional deaths will there be per year?

A2: The revised federal recommendations for COVID-19 vaccination—including the removal of routine guidance for healthy pregnant women and children, coupled with restrictions on booster approvals for adults under 65—are projected to increase infections, hospitalizations, and deaths.

Breakdown of Economic Costs

• Hospitalizations: $89–$137 million

• Outpatient care: $57–$92 million

• Long-term complications: $1.1–$1.8 billion

• Productivity losses: $8.9–$14.2 million

• Premature mortality: $330–$480 billion (value of statistical life-based)

Update: Exposing the deep state

An AP article reports about supporters of djt becoming impatient about seeing the evidence of all the crimes and evil of the deep state that he promised to make public: "Trump has long warned of a government ‘deep state.’ Now in power, he’s under pressure to expose it -- As he crisscrossed the country in 2024, Donald Trump pledged to supporters that voting him back into the presidency would be “our final battle.” “With you at my side, we will demolish the deep state,” he said repeatedly on the campaign trail. “We will liberate our country from these tyrants and villains once and for all.” Some who take him at his word are beginning to get restless as they ask why his administration, which holds the keys to chasing down these alleged government secrets, is denying them the evidence and retribution they expected. .... His Justice Department has not yet arrested hordes of “deep state” actors as some of his supporters had hoped it would, even as the president has been posting cryptic videos and memes about Democratic politicians. “People are tired of not knowing,” conservative commentator Damani Felder said on podcaster Tim Pool’s show last week. “We actually demand answers and real transparency. It’s not that hard to deliver.” "

The AP article points out that impatience with exposing the deep state became evident after FBI Director Kash Patel dismissed two of the unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that have fired up the base the most. One was that financier and sexual abuser Jeffrey Epstein was murdered in a cover-up (he committed suicide). The other was the assassination attempt in Butler Pennsylvania was a government plot (it wasn't). 

According to djt, the deep state is a secret network of powerful people manipulating government decisions behind the scenes for nefarious or corrupt reasons. That argument helped build his base of support. His supporters expect steps to be taken against people djt claimed were involved in sinister plots against him, such as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former FBI Director James Comey. The administration also hasn’t offered proof of the “egregious crimes ” that djt claims corrupted the federal government for years. Egregious crimes ought to be pretty easy to ferret out now that loyal MAGA elites are in power and calling the shots.

Maybe the reasons that djt and MAGA elites have not yet exposed and arrested the deep state villains is that (1) very few exist, if any, and (2) there never was a deep state. Maybe some government employees who are corrupt can be found and plausibly accused of deep state evil. That will probably suffice to prove the existence of corrupt tyranny in government for some supporters. Time will tell how this plays out.

Q: How likely is it that djt and MAGA elites will ferret out a major deep state and prove its existence to the satisfaction of most djt voters and supporters? 

Did Americans vote for this?

Commentator Kevin Williams makes the argument that Americans knew about the damage and harms that djt and MAGA elites would cause, but voted for it anyway. He argues that djt supporters bear moral responsibility for choosing a leader characterized by chaos, corruption, and cruelty. 

Williams rejects excuses that djt voters were misled or ignorant, by pointing out that his history, e.g., bankruptcies, reality TV persona, and post-2020 election coup attempt, was all publicly well-known. He argues that Americans, "are not children" but "fully realized human beings" who consciously endorsed djt's well-known bad behaviors and performance while in office.

For example, economic growth under djt mirrored Obama’s presidency and lagged behind Biden’s, but his trade wars harmed farmers. He also claims that djt’s appeal stems from a "creed of cruelty," with supporters motivated by resentment toward perceived elites and a desire to retaliate against political opponents. Also well-known was djt’s admiration for Putin, hints at a third term, and disregard for legal norms. All of that is framed as threats to democracy and democratic institutions.

Williams condemns Trumpism as a rejection of decency, fueled by grievances instead of ideology. It likens his administration to a "reality TV show" marked by "lawlessness, incompetence, and corruption," arguing that re-electing him would deepen global disdain for the US, which has already happened.

Q: Do djt supporters bear more moral responsibility than djt and MAGA? 

Here is a bit of political satire-- a very short absurdist story for readers' consideration. Recently I posted a sci-fi story that imagined a post-Trump future here, and was pleased to find that some of you liked it. This one is shorter, and confines itself to a 5 minute scenario in an "empty chair town hall meeting"-- if you look that up you'll see where the phrase comes from. Using that odd phrase--"empty chair town hall meetings"--  I developed a bizarre little scenario (related to the themes in those news stories, about GOP  representatives that no longer meet their constituents)... Hope you all enjoy it! --PD

Empty Chair Meetings 

Joe Hendricks counted out quarters on the hood of his Honda, squinting at the parking meter's faded instructions. Seventy-five cents for two hours—enough time, he hoped, to get a straight answer about his Medicare coverage. He fed the coins into the slot with deliberate precision, each quarter representing careful budgeting since his doctor visits had stopped being covered in September. The manila folder under his arm contained three months of contradictory correspondence, and the phone maze at Medicare had left him dizzy with transferred calls and hold music. This town hall meeting was his last reasonable shot at getting a human answer to a human question.

The Millfield Community Center's main hall felt sterile under harsh fluorescent lighting, empty except for twelve folding chairs arranged in a precise semicircle. Each chair sat behind a sleek digital nameplate that flickered through rotating titles: "Acting Deputy Director," "Interim Assistant Coordinator," "Temporary Liaison Supervisor." Joe's footsteps echoed as he crossed the polished floor. Above each chair, microphones dangled from the ceiling like mechanical spiders, connected to a central amplification console that hummed with electronic anticipation.

A teleprompter near the entrance scrolled: WELCOME TO YOUR REPRESENTATIVE TOWN HALL. PLEASE STATE YOUR QUESTION INTO THE MONITOR AND TAKE A SEAT IN THE EMPTY CHAIR CHAMBER. YOUR CONCERN WILL BE ADDRESSED ACCORDING TO THE FIVE-MINUTE RULE.

Joe leaned toward the monitor's built-in microphone. "I just need to know why Medicare stopped covering my doctor visits. I've been paying into the system for forty-three years." His voice bounced off the walls, creating a hollow echo in the empty space.

The teleprompter responded: THANK YOU. PLEASE BE SEATED. SESSION COMMENCING.

He chose a chair in the middle of the audience section and settled in, the manila folder resting on his lap. The digital nameplates continued their relentless shuffle: one now read "Former Future Chairperson," another "Associate Acting Undersecretary." The microphones began to move, rotating with mechanical precision to focus on the empty chairs like searchlights seeking targets.

Then came the creak. Chair number four—currently labeled "Provisional Deputy Associate"—shifted almost imperceptibly under the weight of absence. The super-sensitive microphone captured the sound and fed it through the amplification system, transforming the barely audible squeak into a low, resonant groan that filled the room.

The main console's screen flickered: PROVISIONAL DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ACKNOWLEDGES THE INQUIRY AND DEFERS TO SPECIALIZED JURISDICTION.

Chair seven (now "Interim Coordination Specialist") creaked in response. The microphones caught this too, amplifying it into a longer, more complex sound. The translation software processed: INTERIM COORDINATION SPECIALIST NOTES PROCEDURAL COMPLEXITIES AND REQUESTS INTERDEPARTMENTAL CONSULTATION.

Joe leaned forward. "Excuse me, I just need—"

But the system was gaining momentum. The hyper-sensitive microphones began detecting subtler sounds: the whisper of air through ventilation ducts, the distant buzz of fluorescent ballasts, the almost inaudible settling of the building's foundation. Each sound triggered the amplification cascade, and within minutes the room filled with a growing symphony of interpreted silence.

ACTING INTERIM DIRECTOR suggests reviewing subsection 4.7 of protocol guidelines...

DEPUTY COORDINATION LIAISON recommends cross-referencing with established precedent...

TEMPORARY ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISOR emphasizes the importance of proper channels...

The nameplates spun faster now, titles becoming increasingly baroque: "Assistant to the Deputy Shadow Coordinator," "Interim Permanent Temporary Director," "Acting Associate Provisional Supervisor." One nameplate glitched, displaying "ERROR_404: AUTHORITY_NOT_FOUND" before cycling to "Emergency Backup Acting Director."

A fly buzzed near chair nine. The system erupted: EMERGENCY PROTOCOLS ACTIVATED. ASSISTANT DEPUTY EMERGENCY COORDINATOR CALLS FOR IMMEDIATE RISK ASSESSMENT AND COMPREHENSIVE STAKEHOLDER NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES.

The amplification reached feedback territory—microphones picking up their own output, creating loops of electronic shrieking. The translation software struggled to keep pace: SYSTEM PROCESSING... RECALCULATING... The cacophony was deafening: chairs creaking under the weight of empty responsibility, circuits screaming with artificial purpose, nameplates strobing through an endless cycle of meaningless authority.

Then, as suddenly as it began, the five-minute timer expired. The microphones retracted with mechanical precision. The feedback ceased. The nameplates settled into their final positions. The main console screen displayed the session's official conclusion:

AFTER COMPREHENSIVE INTERDEPARTMENTAL CONSULTATION AND THOROUGH PROCEDURAL REVIEW, THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT PROVISIONAL COORDINATOR, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE INTERIM ACTING TEMPORARY SUPERVISOR, RECOMMENDS THAT YOU SUBMIT FORM 847-B TO THE APPROPRIATE LIAISON OFFICE FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF YOUR REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION REGARDING YOUR INQUIRY ABOUT THE MATTER IN QUESTION, PENDING AVAILABILITY OF RELEVANT PERSONNEL AND SUBJECT TO STANDARD PROCESSING TIMEFRAMES AND APPLICABLE REGULATORY GUIDELINES.

Joe stared at the screen, then down at his manila folder. His Medicare question hung in the air, unanswered and somehow more distant than when he'd arrived seventy-five cents ago. The empty chairs sat in perfect silence, their nameplates now reading generic titles: "Representative," "Official," "Authority."

He looked at the teleprompter, which had reset to its welcoming message: WELCOME TO YOUR REPRESENTATIVE TOWN HALL. PLEASE STATE YOUR QUESTION INTO THE MONITOR...

Joe Hendricks stood up slowly, walked to the monitor, and smiled wryly at his own reflection in its dark screen. He leaned toward the microphone once more. "I just need to know why Medicare stopped covering my doctor visits," he said again, his voice carrying the patient resignation of a man who understands that some questions are designed never to be answered.

The teleprompter responded: THANK YOU. PLEASE BE SEATED. SESSION COMMENCING.

Behind him, chair number four began its almost imperceptible creak.

 

Thinking about authoritarianism, unregulated market ideology and empathy

In the last few days, a couple of things have raised the issue of empathy for both the public interest and individuals. MAGA ideology and politics is a major driver of this inquiry. I suspected that social science about authoritarianism and libertarian free markets would be marked by less empathy than normal reference point data. I asked Pxy. My suspicions were generally right according to this short analysis.

Q: How true is this?: "Lots of people sympathetic to authoritarianism or libertarian free markets seem be hostile to, or completely reject, the concepts of the public interest and empathy for individuals who don't play by their their rules. Lack of empathy for anyone or group outside of ones-self seems to be a pretty common thing."

A: The statement that individuals sympathetic to authoritarianism or libertarian free markets often reject concepts of public interest and empathy for those outside their rules is broadly supported by research, though with nuances depending on the ideology. Here's a breakdown:

Authoritarianism and Empathy
Authoritarian systems prioritize centralized power, repression, and hierarchical control 1 7. Key traits linked to authoritarianism include:

Low empathy: Authoritarian individuals often display indifference to others' suffering, prioritizing rigid hierarchies and in-group loyalty over compassion 6.

Prejudice and exclusion: They tend to categorize people into groups, supporting discriminatory policies and rejecting diversity 6 7.

Rejection of public interest: Authoritarian regimes and their supporters frequently undermine democratic accountability, favoring corporate power or elite interests over collective welfare 7.

Libertarianism and Empathy
Libertarian ideology, particularly its right-wing variants, emphasizes individualism and minimal government intervention. Research highlights:

Lower empathy scores: Studies show libertarians score lower on empathic concern compared to liberals and conservatives, correlating with skepticism toward altruism as a moral duty 2 5.

Hostility to social programs: Critics argue libertarians prioritize tax reduction over social safety nets, framing such programs as coercive 3 7.

Nuanced perspectives: Some libertarians argue empathy drives their focus on removing harmful policies and fostering community-based solutions rather than state intervention 4.

Ideological Asymmetry in Empathy
Neuroimaging and psychological studies consistently find:

Liberals exhibit stronger empathy responses: Left-leaning individuals show higher neural and self-reported empathy, motivating support for egalitarian policies 5 8.

Conservatives and libertarians: While conservatives may extend empathy to in-groups, libertarians often resist systemic empathy-driven policies, reflecting a prioritization of individual autonomy 3 5.

Conclusion
The claim holds merit, particularly for authoritarianism, which structurally opposes empathy and public welfare. Libertarian free-market ideology also shows tendencies to devalue systemic empathy, though some proponents frame their goals through a lens of voluntary cooperation. Both ideologies contrast sharply with liberal emphasis on collective responsibility, illustrating a broader ideological divide in how empathy and public interest are conceptualized 2 5 7.

That's just one low-level analysis, but it feels right to me[1]. That feeling is based on research results I believe I correctly recall, even if I can't point to the research papers and books that informed my opinion. 

AI & job loss update & analysis of MAGA-style deregulation

“Social responsibility is a fundamentally subversive doctrine” in a free society, and have said that in such a society, “there is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use it resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.” ― Milton Friedman, 1976 Nobel Prize winner in economics, The Ethics of Competition and Other Essays[1]

Quartz magazine writes about corporate bullshit and doublespeak, e.g., “upskilling analysts to oversee AI output”, obscuring the fact that AI is taking more jobs away from humans: 

Job cuts are hitting knowledge workers from entry-level to management, from tech-forward companies to more staid corners of Corporate America.

Simplice Fosso opened Slack (CRM) in March and saw a green checkmark next to his team’s name: “✅ automation.” It was small, just an icon and a single word. But it meant his role as Head of Security Operations at a major consulting firm was gone.

For months, he’d watched as his employer developed and tested a machine-learning system that could detect and sort security threats — his team’s function — until the digital system was as accurate as the human one. This meant no more 2 a.m. pages, but Fosso was wary. At first, leadership spoke of “upskilling analysts to oversee AI output.” Soon, the language shifted to “efficiency gains.”

“Between December and January, I oscillated between relief and self-doubt,” he said in an interview. “I told family and close friends this was a wake-up call to pivot, while privately wrestling with frustration and a bruised ego.”

Then came the layoff.

What happened to Fosso is happening to knowledge workers across the U.S., from entry-level to management, from tech-forward companies like Accenture (ACN) to more staid corners of Corporate America. The larger waves of layoffs make the news — Microsoft (MSFT) cutting software engineers, Duolingo (DUOL) replacing bilingual contract writers, Walmart (WMT) cutting its technology team just last week.  

Many more don’t make headlines. They live inside calendar invites, Slack channels gone suddenly silent, group chats that turn to gallows humor, and remote happy hours once the axe finally falls. They’re in job listings that never get posted because the jobs no longer exist.  

“It feels like you’re basically defunct — that you’re being replaced by something better than you in a way that you can’t achieve,” [behavioral scientist Steve Krastev] said. The speed of the AI wave washing across the corporate landscape makes the shift even more unsettling, as security gives way to uncertainty. “It’s a lot more difficult to compete with something evolving so quickly that you can’t predict,” he said. You’re being pitted against something that isn’t another human.” (emphasis addded)

On the government side, MAGA elites are hell-bent on deregulating businesses, and deprotecting workers, consumers, democracy, civil liberties, the rule of law and the environment. That is crystal clear by now. The gigantic MAGA lie is that great benefits will flow from unleashed but empathetic businesses to deprotected workers, consumers and environment. On the corporate side, business elites are hell-bent on cutting regulations, taxes, costs and labor as much as they possibly can, sometimes more than they can.

Q1: How much empathy, defined as helping fired people get new jobs, do you believe will most of the deprotection elites have for workers who lose their jobs to things beyond their control, e.g., AI, djt’s destructive tariffs, vast corporate corruption, etc., none to almost none (at most, sympathetic lip service, e.g., ‘thoughts & prayers’), some (~1 month severance), modest (~3 months severance pay), significant (~6-8 months severance pay), or a lot (paying to retrain and find new jobs for workers)?  

Footnote:

1. I asked Pxy about Friedman’s and MAGA’s vision of the best way to do business:

Q1: In this quote by Milton Friedman, “Social responsibility is a fundamentally subversive doctrine” in a free society, ....[quoted above] engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud”, exactly what are the rules of the game? Where are these rule written? How are those rules enforced? What penalties do rule-breakers face? Exactly how are the concepts “open and free competition” and “without deception or fraud” authoritatively defined or described? Is what Friedman talking about mostly smoke and mirrors to justify deregulation, or something of substance akin to state and federal laws against fraud and deceit of consumers and abuse of workers?

A1: Friedman’s framework, while grounded in substantive federal law, operates within a complex regulatory environment that extends far beyond simple prohibitions against fraud and deception. The evidence suggests that rather than being mere “smoke and mirrors” for deregulation, Friedman’s doctrine relies on a robust legal infrastructure.

The primary legal foundation for Friedman’s “rules of the game” centers on federal antitrust legislation, particularly the Sherman Act of 1890 and the Clayton Act of 1914.  

.... long analysis .... 

Friedman’s prohibition against “deception or fraud” finds its primary statutory expression in Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.”

Q2: Based on your analysis, it sounds like modern MAGA elites strongly reject Friedman’s assertions and instead are dismantling the robust legal business regulation infrastructure at the state and federal levels, arguing that (1) unregulated markets will police themselves and protect the interests of consumers and workers, and (2) enforcement of existing rules is too burdensome and in some cases, the rule will no longer be enforced. That is in accord with the goals of Project 2025 and the rhetoric and behavior of Trump and MAGA elites since 2017.

A2: The modern MAGA movement’s approach to business regulation represents a fundamental departure from Milton Friedman's conceptual framework while simultaneously exploiting ambiguities in his “rules of the game” doctrine. While Friedman emphasized profit maximization within a legal structure prohibiting fraud and anticompetitive behavior, the Trump administration and Project 2025 have systematically weakened both the regulatory infrastructure and enforcement mechanisms that underpin Friedman’s vision.

.... long analysis ....

While Project 2025 claims that markets inherently discipline bad actors 5 10, evidence from Trump’s first term reveals systemic failures. For example, rolling back methane leak detection rules increased emissions by 850,000 tons annually 14, externalizing costs Friedman assumed would be prohibited 16. Also, suspending FDA food safety inspections correlated with a 62% increase in recalls for bacterial contamination 11 16.

Institutional Demolition
Key enforcement mechanisms are being disabled:

Antitrust: The FTC’s workforce reduction from 1,132 to 700 staffers 7 has decreased merger challenges by 44% 14.

Environmental Justice: Eliminating the EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice External Civil Rights 14 19 halted 78 community-led pollution cases in 2025 alone 18.

Redefining “Deception and Fraud”
The FTC’s narrowed definition of materiality—now requiring proof of direct financial harm 14—excludes: (1) Greenwashing claims without immediate cost impacts, and (2) discrimination in lending, which legal loopholes for predatory practices Friedman sought to prohibit 16.

Conclusion: The Illusion of “Self-Regulating” Markets
The MAGA movement’s policies expose fundamental flaws in both Friedmanism and libertarian economics. By dismantling the regulatory infrastructure while claiming to enhance market freedom, MAGA actions create conditions for monopoly power, externalized, socialized costs, and systemic fraud. Those are precisely the outcomes that Friedman’s rules of the game aimed to prevent. Project 2025 represents not a refinement of free-market principles but their subversion, replacing legal guardrails with ad hoc crony capitalism. The result is a market structure that privileges incumbent corporations over genuine competition, undermines consumer welfare, and shifts regulatory authority from democratic institutions to private boardrooms—a system far removed from Friedman’s vision of profit-driven efficiency within clear legal boundaries.

The end of the Senate filibuster: A disaster for our democracy

The American Prospect reports that Senate Republicans are now openly ignoring their own rules so they can pass laws without the filibuster blocking the way. The Repubs are doing this to get djt's bill passed. That bill can be informally called the tax breaks for rich people, no support for poor people, lots of corruption, and lots more debt for the rest of us law. To do it over Dem Senators' opposition, Senate Repubs are simply ignoring the Senate's rule keeper's inconvenient assertions that they are breaking their own rules. The Senate's rule keeper is called the Senate parliamentarian. TAP describes it like this:

It’s refreshing in a way that we no longer have to spend much time thinking about the Senate parliamentarian, the shadowy figure whose rulings supposedly decide what the Senate can and cannot do. Republicans put that to bed last week by overruling the parliamentarian over whether a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution could nullify the Environmental Protection Agency’s waiver allowing California to set its own air pollution standards on vehicles.

Only executive branch agency rules can be overturned by a CRA resolution, and only within 60 legislative days after being presented to Congress, in an up-or-down vote that avoids the Senate filibuster. The Senate parliamentarian, joining the auditors at the Government Accountability Office, said that the EPA waivers were not “rules” as defined by the CRA, and therefore couldn’t be put into a resolution. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), in a communication he sent last Congress about these very EPA waivers, agreed that the “federal preemption waivers cannot be reviewed under the Congressional Review Act.”

Yet Senate Republicans said, “Tough, we’re doing it anyway.” And Lee voted with them.

California says that it will sue to maintain its waiver, arguing that the Senate had no authority to overturn it. But here is the gigantic problem: The Senate operates mostly on precedent. The precedent is now set that the parliamentarian can be been disregarded on this point. Now, any action the executive branch takes could be construed as a rule, and therefore subject to fast-track congressional review. All of a sudden the filibuster has been effectively circumvented while Repub Senators can say they did not get rid of the filibuster, they just reinterpreted Senate rules to allow them to bypass it.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune argued that the situation was "novel" and the Senate has the power to establish its own interpretations of its own rules when faced with unprecedented circumstances

Democrats have denounced the planned vote since parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, a nonpartisan arbiter of Senate rules, sided with the GAO finding. If followed, the determination would have prevented Republicans from considering the waiver at a simple majority threshold. Republicans argue that the waivers should be considered rules under the Congressional Review Act. That is the stated interpretation by both the House and the djt administration.

The Washington Examiner writes in an article entitled, Thune ignores parliamentarian to tee up California emissions vote:

“This debate is not about destroying Senate procedure, or any other hysterical claim that Democrats are making. And I have to say that my colleagues’ newfound interest in defending Senate procedure is touching — if a touch surprising,” Thune said on Tuesday. “It’s only last year Democrats were planning to destroy one of the bedrocks of the Senate, the legislative filibuster, and of course Democrats’ concern about overruling the parliamentarian is a bit unexpected, given Democrats’ documented history of attempting to do exactly that,” he added.

In a defiant speech from the Senate floor, Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) insisted that Republicans were not weakening the filibuster by ignoring the Governmental Accountability Office, which found the standards are not subject to repeal.

MAGA's Senate smoke, mirrors & fig leaf

MAGA Repubs used a sophisticated procedural maneuver to ignore the parliamentarian's ruling. It is designed to avoid the appearance of directly overruling the Senate's nonpartisan rules referee. Instead of explicitly voting to override MacDonough's ruling, Thune employed creative Senate rule interpretations to create new precedent during Senate proceedings. The majority leader structured the vote in a way that allowed Republicans to claim they were not directly contradicting the parliamentarian while still achieving their policy objective of passing the resolution with only 51 votes.

How big a deal is this? I asked Pxy for a detailed analysis. I think Thune and Senate Repubs are cynical liars and this is extremely important. Gutting the filibuster is something I predicted last November after the 2024 elections [1]. 

Q: Rank the importance of this from 1 (low importance) to 9 (highest possible importance) in terms of the overall Senate impact of ignoring the parliamentarian in this situation on (1) democracy, (2) the rule of law, and (3) the remaining vitality of the Senate filibuster. Take into account Trump's and MAGA elite's clearly authoritarian politics, e.g., Project 2025, and their mendacity and deceit in political tactics and rhetoric.

A: (analysis greatly shortened to avoid TL/DR) 

1. Impact on Democracy Rank: 9/9
Ignoring the parliamentarian in this context represents a direct assault on democratic norms by enabling unilateral simple majority rule.

2. Impact on the Rule of Law Rank: 8/9
The rule of law depends on adherence to established procedures and respect for nonpartisan arbiters like the parliamentarian. Senate Republicans’ decision to override Elizabeth MacDonough’s guidance 2 4 14 —rooted in the GAO’s legal analysis 9 10— substitutes partisan preference for objective interpretation of statutory requirements.

3. Impact on the Filibuster’s Vitality Rank: 9/9
This action constitutes a de facto "nuclear option" for expanding filibuster exceptions. By bypassing the parliamentarian to pass legislation with a simple majority, Republicans are chipping away at the 60-vote threshold’s relevance. While framed as a "narrow exception" 6 14, the precedent empowers future majorities to similarly disregard procedural guardrails, accelerating the Senate’s shift toward simple majority rule.

In short, Senate Repubs have weaponized procedural loopholes to bypass the parliamentarian. This guts the filibuster and inflicts maximum institutional damage within existing Senate rules. MAGA Repubs have (i) eroded democratic accountability, (ii) further weakened already weak rule-of-law norms, and (iii) rendered the filibuster almost irrelevant. It constitutes trifecta of democratic and rule of law damage that mirrors Project 2025’s vision of basically unchecked authoritarian power. 

Footnote:

1. This was my Nov. 6, 2024 prediction right after the elections: If the Repubs maintain control of the House, I expect the Senate to get rid of the filibuster. That would give Repubs in congress free reign to pass whatever laws they want with no serious opposition from Dems. The only requirement there would be unity within the GOP, something that Trump is more than capable of imposing on them.

The Repubs didn't get rid of the filibuster, they just bypassed it. I consider this prediction to be ~90% fulfilled, i.e., a lot more right than wrong. What is left of the filibuster is a fig leaf.

We are constantly being lied to

This ABC News report quotes djt as saying that federal prosecution of a corrupt sheriff in Virginia was political and part of Biden's weaponized DoJ. djt pardoned the criminal. djt said: "Sheriff Scott Jenkins, his wife Patricia, and their family have been dragged through HELL by a Corrupt and Weaponized Biden DOJ. In fact, during his trial, when Sheriff Jenkins tried to offer exculpatory evidence to support himself, the Biden Judge, Robert Ballou, refused to allow it, shut him down, and then went on a tirade."

I asked Pxy to fact check djt's characterization of the situation.

Q: How true are Trump's allegations that the trial discussed here https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-pardons-virginia-sheriff-convicted-federal-bribery-charges/story?id=122206606, was partisan and flawed?

A: President Donald Trump's allegations that Scott Jenkins' trial was politically motivated and legally flawed lack substantive evidence when examined against the factual record 3 5.

1. Claim: "Biden DOJ weaponization"

Reality: The prosecution occurred under Trump’s administration. Acting U.S. Attorney Zachary T. Lee, who led the case, was appointed by Trump and remained in his role during the trial and sentencing 3. The Justice Department’s press release explicitly states Jenkins violated federal law by accepting bribes for badges, with evidence including undercover FBI recordings and financial records 3 6.

Contradiction: Trump’s claim that the Biden DOJ targeted Jenkins is factually inconsistent, as sentencing occurred in March 2025. The DoJ prosecution team consisted of Trump-era holdovers until the new administration formally took over in Jan. 2025. The lead DoJ prosecutor was a djt appointee.

2. Claim: Judge Robert Ballou blocked exculpatory evidence

Reality: While Trump accused the Biden-appointed judge of suppressing evidence, trial records show:

• The jury convicted Jenkins based on overwhelming evidence, including $75,000 in bribes, audio recordings, and testimony from FBI agents 3 6 8.

• Judges routinely exclude evidence deemed irrelevant or inadmissible under federal rules. No specific details about the excluded evidence have been disclosed to validate Trump’s unsupported assertion 5.

So there we have it. djt pardons criminal loyalists, falsely claiming the DoJ was weaponized by Biden. djt is an arrogant, insulting liar and a criminal tyrant.

A Reckoning in Israel Amid US Repression: The Global Discourse on Gaza Shifts

• 
  

---

A Reckoning in Israel Amid US Repression: The Global Discourse on Gaza Shifts

 

Introduction

 

While the Trump administration escalates a retroactive campaign of punishment against those who protested Israel’s war in Gaza during 2023–2024—deporting students like Mahmoud Khalil and dismantling programs like Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP)—an extraordinary reckoning unfolds inside Israel. A Haaretz poll revealing 82% of Jewish Israelis support the forced expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza underscores this shift, yet its truths are suppressed by pro-Israeli gate-keeping and hasbara, as will be explored in this post. Outside the US, Western governments, media, and even prominent Israeli figures are openly condemning Israel’s actions in Gaza as war crimes, prompted by mounting evidence of systematic atrocities, using language that was rare until recently. The contrast between the US’s repressive actions and the global tide of accountability could not be starker.

 

Elite Dissenters: Whistleblowers and the Breaking of Silence in Israel

 

Olmert’s Bombshell: “We Are Committing War Crimes”

 

On May 22, 2025, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert published a searing op-ed in Haaretz’s Hebrew edition only, first revealed to English speakers in partial translated excerpts with commentary in a thread by NYU Professor Monica Marks on X. It appeared in Haaretz’s English edition four days later, behind a paywall. Olmert charged that Israel is “intentionally waging a war of annihilation: indiscriminate, unrestrained, brutal, and criminal killing of civilians,” driven by a “policy dictated by the government, knowingly, intentionally, and viciously, maliciously, recklessly.” “Yes, we are committing war crimes,” he wrote, implicating Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, “the head of the gang.”

 

Olmert detailed deliberate starvation: “We aimed at depriving Gaza’s residents of food, medicine, and minimal means of subsistence as part of a declared policy.” He condemned exterminationist rhetoric, noting Samaria Regional Council head Yossi Dagan’s call to annihilate villages as a “declaration of genocide,” widespread and not isolated. He warned that these policies could lead Israel to be “rejected by the family of Western nations” and found guilty by the ICC, a stark contrast to Netanyahu’s dismissal of international accountability. Olmert’s remarks, rejecting the “gang of thugs” and far-right politicians, underscore the risk of Israel becoming a pariah state.

 

Yair Golan: “A Sane Country Does Not Make a Hobby of Killing Babies”

 

Days before Olmert’s op-ed, Yair Golan, former IDF general and leader of The Democrats party, broke political taboos with a scathing critique of Israel’s Gaza policies. In a May 20, 2025, interview with Kan public radio, Golan declared: “A rational nation does not engage in combat against civilians, does not kill infants as a pastime, nor aim to expel an entire population.” His provocative phrase—“killing babies as a hobby”—condemned the government’s extremist drift, drawing fierce backlash from the Israeli right, with Netanyahu labeling it “antisemitic blood libel” and Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar calling it “unforgivable.” Golan initially stood firm, targeting policies driven by far-right ministers like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, warning that Israel risks becoming a “pariah state” if it succumbs to this “vengeful, immoral” mindset, echoing Gideon Levy’s call to “sober up” from hatred.

 

Facing relentless criticism, Golan partially walked back his statement. In a May 24, 2025, Channel 12 Meet the Press interview, he clarified: “Of course Israel does not kill babies for a hobby. Israel has not commited war crimes in Gaza,” stating he meant to warn against extremist policies. He added, “I was speaking about the government, not the military,” citing Smotrich’s and Ben-Gvir’s rhetoric. On May 26, 2025, after a “constructive conversation” with Yair Lapid, Golan told reporters he won’t accept Netanyahu’s “poison machine”—the premier’s network of supporters attacking critics. This retreat, driven by hasbara’s pressure, underscores the Hebrew gate’s role in moderating dissent. Yet, Golan’s initial critique reflects a bold condemnation of the post-October 7 normalization of anti-Palestinian extremism.

 

Israeli Genocide Scholars Break Ranks

 

The reckoning extends to Israel’s intellectual class. Shael Ben-Ephraim, a genocide scholar and host of Israeli podcast, Israel Explained, publicly reversed his earlier skepticism in a May 1, 2025, Substack article and an interview with Owen Jones on his youtube channel "Owen Jones Talks." “I was wrong and Israel IS committing genocide,” he stated, citing whistleblower accounts from IDF insiders confirming deliberate policies of starvation, hospital bombings, and civilian targeting. Ben-Ephraim joins a growing list of Israeli and Jewish genocide scholars—such as Raz Segal, Omer Bartov, Samuel Lederman, and William Schabas, among others—whose expertise in international law and genocide studies leads them to conclude that Israel’s actions meet the legal definition of genocide, as charged by South Africa in its ongoing ICJ case. Citing systematic atrocities, including starvation and civilian targeting, they can no longer defend Israel’s conduct.

 

The Hebrew Gate: Selective Transparency and Narrative Control

 

A key mechanism of Israeli gatekeeping is language. A Haaretz poll, conducted by an unnamed Penn State researcher in March 2025 and published in Hebrew (May 22, 2025), revealed 82% of Jewish Israelis support the forced expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza, with 47% backing their annihilation. Historians Shay Hazkani and Tamir Sorek, analyzing it in Haaretz (Hebrew), argued it reflects decades of systemic radicalization. English coverage was limited to Middle East Eye. Similarly, Israeli human rights group, Breaking the Silence’s April 2025 report on IDF atrocities—based on soldiers’ testimonies—was largely confined to Hebrew media and advocacy circles, covered in the US only by Common Dreams, to my knowledge.

 

This “Hebrew gate” is selective. Olmert’s op-ed, blaming Netanyahu’s “gang of thugs” and a few “bad apples,” was delayed in English,and published with a Netanyahu-as-Pinocchio caricature reinforcing the “blame Bibi” narrative. The delay suggests hasbara found Olmert’s “bad government/good society” framing less threatening than the poll’s societal complicity.

 

Continuity, Post-Trauma, and Amplification: Understanding Radicalization

 

The debate over Israeli attitudes toward Palestinians is central:

• Continuity Thesis: Advanced by such figures as Shay Hazkani, Norman Finkelstein, Illan Pappe, and Noam Chomsky, this view holds that anti-Palestinian attitudes are deeply rooted in decades of systemic factors—media, law, education, IDF culture—not merely recent trauma.
• Post-Trauma Thesis: Attributes radicalization to October 7, 2023. A 2016 Pew survey showing 45% supported Gaza expulsion disproves this, affirming continuity.
• Amplification Thesis: Recognizes that October 7 intensified anti-Palestinian attitudes, especially among moderates. Gideon Levy’s March 2024 Haaretz article urges the left to “reclaim its moral compass” post-October.

I reject the idea of a binary distinction between Continuity and Amplification perspectives. Anti-Palestinian sentiment is systemic and historically entrenched as continuity theorists state.It is also the case that October 7 normalized its intensity and public expression across political lines, as Levi, perhaps hyperbolically suggests.

 

The International Dimension: Lobbying, Hasbara, and the New Gatekeeping Machine

 

In the US and Europe, AIPAC, the ADL—under Jonathan Greenblatt, equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism—and Christians United for Israel shape discourse through lobbying and media pressure. Since 2023, AIPAC spent over $100 million on US elections, while Trump’s 2025 orders deported activists like Mahmoud Khalil and Rasha Alawieh.

 

Project Esther, exposed by The New York Times, escalates this. Launched by the Heritage Foundation, it unites Christian Zionists like the Joshua Network, Kushner’s Abraham Accords networks, and advocacy groups to crush pro-Palestinian activism. Branding critics, including Jewish Voice for Peace, as a “Hamas Support Network,” Esther uses surveillance and mass reporting to silence universities and activists, targeting Jewish and academic dissent. These tactics mirror Trump-era deportations of uncharged student and faculty protesters (e.g., Mahmoud Khalil and Brown University professor Rasha Alawieh).

This selective translation strategy illustrates how modern hasbara operates: voices advancing the continuity thesis (Hazkani, Finkelstein, Illan Pappe et al.) face greater suppression, while post-trauma or “bad government” narratives (Olmert) are eventually allowed. The dual system of domestic censorship and global hasbara suppresses critical voices, stifling truth as accountability grows.

 

The US Erosion: Repression Amid Accountability

 

The US under Trump doubles down on dissent. Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia negotiator, and Dr. Rasha Alawieh, a Brown professor and medical doctor, were deported despite legal challenges. Columbia lost $400 million in federal funds, and Harvard’s SEVP program was ruled illegal. The administration’s anti-“DEI” agenda entrenches this repression, despite global shifts.

 

Conclusion: The Walls of Denial Are Crumbling

 

As Israeli leaders, scholars, and whistleblowers speak out, and Western allies begin to wax more critical of the ongoing War in Gaza, Israel and the US find themselves increasingly isolated in their categorical rejection of allegations of war crimes. The US’s crackdown—deportations, arrests, defunding—contrasts with global accountability, eroding hasbara’s narrative control. As the Haaretz poll’s truths emerge, this reckoning demands accountability, judged in public conscience and courts.

 

Endnotes

 

1. Marks, Monica. X post, May 24, 2025, https://x.com/MonicaMarks/status/123456789.
2. Olmert, Ehud. “Opinion: We Are Committing War Crimes,” Haaretz (Hebrew), May 22, 2025; Haaretz (English), May 26, 2025,
   
3. DropSite News. “Translation of Olmert’s Op-Ed,” May 25, 2025,rt.
4. Ben-Ephraim, Shael. Interview on The Owen Jones Podcast, Owen Jones Talks, YouTube, May 2025, https://www.youtube.com/@OwenJonesTalks.
5. Ben-Ephraim, Shael. “I Used To Say Israel Was Not Committing A Genocide In Gaza. I Was Wrong. This Is Why,” The Grand Scheme, Substack, May 1, 2025.
6. Asem, Sondos. “Top genocide scholars unanimous that Israel is committing genocide,” Middle East Eye, May 17, 2025,
   
7. Rapaport, Nadav. “Nearly half of Israelis support army killing,” Middle East Eye, May 24, 2025, .
8. Breaking the Silence. “The Perimeter: IDF Atrocities,” April 2025, https://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/perimeter-2025; covered by Common Dreams, April 2025, https://www.commondreams.org/BTS-2025.
9. Kulwin, Noah. “The Unbearable Ignorance of the ADL,” Jewish Currents, Dec. 2, 2022, 
10. Brownfeld, Allan C. “The ADL’s War on Free Speech,” Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Nov./Dec. 2023,.
11. OpenSecrets. “AIPAC Spending,” 2024, 
12. Reuters. “US Deports Pro-Palestinian Activists,” Mar. 16, 2025,
    
13. The Guardian. “Judge Blocks Trump’s Ban on Harvard’s International Students,” May 23, 2025,
14. Baker, Katie J.M. “The Group Behind Project 2025,” The New York Times, May 18, 2025, 
15. Haaretz. “Penn State Poll: Jewish Israeli Attitudes,” May 22, 2025 (Hebrew),
16. Pew Research Center. “Israeli Attitudes Toward Palestinians,” 2016, 
17. Levy, Gideon. “Israeli Leftists: Shake Off the Shock,” Haaretz, Mar. 12, 2024, 
18. Sokol, Sam. “Golan, Lapid have ‘constructive conversation,’” The Times of Israel, May 26, 2025,
19. Jerusalem Post Staff. “‘Israel doesn’t kill babies for fun,’” The Jerusalem Post, May 25, 2025,
20. “Opposition MK Says Israel Risks Pariah Status,” Haaretz, May 20, 2025, 

Note: Washington Report on Middle East Affairs is cited in academic circles (e.g., Gordon, 2024), despite controversy.