bureaucracybusters

Posts Tagged ‘BLOOMBERG NEWS’

AN EVERYDAY THREAT TO GOVERNMENT

In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on October 15, 2025 at 12:06 am

It’s wonderful to believe that when you have a problem, you can write your local / state / federal representative and s/he will “give it my fullest attention.”    

Unfortunately, that’s usually not what happens.  

Two cases on the futility of expectations:

Case #1: On August 12, 2021, Mark (a pseudonym) wrote a letter to Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg. The subject: The disgraceful performance of San Francisco’s Municipal Railway (MUNI) bus lines during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mark had previously complained to MUNI and his member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors—without result.  So now he decided to literally make it a Federal case:

“MUNI bus drivers are the highest-paid in the nation: The average MUNI driver makes $79,617, 51% above the national average bus driver salary of $52,730. This pay is 27% higher than the combined average salaries of drivers in Dallas, Boston and Atlanta.

“Yet  for  more  than  a  year,  many  of  these  drivers  have  been  ‘earning’ their pay by staying at home—or  going on  what  amounts to  an  extended vacation at the expense of San Francisco voters and MUNI riders.”

Muni | SFMTA

Many bus routes, Mark wrote, had been eliminated. This forced riders to cram themselves aboard the first bus available—making it impossible to “maintain social distancing” as recorded messages aboard MUNI buses advised.

Other routes had been substantially altered, with passengers learning this only after they were deposited far from their expected drop-off point.

These changes were especially difficult for elderly and/or disabled riders.

Mark suggested that Buttigieg threaten MUNI with:

  1. The loss of the Federal monies it received through the Department of Transportation; and
  2. An Americans With Disabilities lawsuit on behalf of San Franciscans unable to receive the transit services they needed.

Mark never received even the courtesy of a reply, let alone a positive change in MUNI’s operations.  

Pete Buttigieg official photo.jpg

Pete Buttigieg

Case #2:  Janet, a chef in Los Angeles, was fed up with getting Spam calls on her cell phone. Each time she got one, she blocked the number. Being on the national Do Not Call Registry, she believed she had an airtight case to take to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) which regulates the airways.

So she called the FCC and spoke with one of its representatives.

She said that she had saved to her phone the numbers of Spam callers—and she was prepared to turn these over to the FCC.

The FCC’s rep applauded Janet’s willingness to turn over this information.

“Then what happens?” asked Janet.

“We’ll put it into our files.”

In short: the FCC had no intention of acting on the Spam-caller numbers that Janet was prepared to turn over.

Did you submit a net neutrality comment to the FCC? Are you sure?

Janet didn’t hide her disappointment: “If someone went to the FBI and said, ‘I’m being shaken down by the Mafia,’ and the FBI said, ‘Well, we’ll put this into our files’ but wasn’t willing to do anything more, how many people do you think would be willing to report crimes to the FBI?”

The FCC rep admitted that this would greatly reduce the willingness of the public to report crimes to the FBI. But she made no effort to help Janet stop the harassing Spam calls.

Incidents like the ones above are a potent reason why so many people have lost their trust in government—at all levels.

Untold numbers of average citizens feel their elected officials—and the agencies they administer—don’t care about their problems. Even worse, they believe—accurately—that if they were wealthy contributors to the Democratic or Republican party, their complaints would be addressed promptly.

On April 24, 2016, CBS’ longtime documentary series, “60 Minutes,” aired a segment titled “Dialing for Dollars.”  

It opened with the following: “The American public has a low opinion of Congress. Only 14 percent think it’s doing a good job. But Congress has excelled in one way. Raising money. Members of Congress raised more than a billion dollars for their 2014 election. And they never stop. 

“Nearly every day, they spend hours on the phone asking supporters and even total strangers for campaign donations—hours spent away from the jobs they were elected to do. The pressure on candidates to raise money has ratcheted up since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010. That allowed unlimited spending by corporations, unions and individuals in elections.”

Coat of arms or logo

In short: Members of Congress—the branch that writes the laws governing the lives of 328.2 million Americans—have essentially become telemarketers.

People who write to their members of Congress expect at least the courtesy of a reply addressing their concerns within a reasonable period of time. Many constituents will not receive even that.

Or the “reply” they receive arrives weeks or months later—and opens with: “Thank you for writing me to support my bill….”

Usually they haven’t even heard of the bill cited—and couldn’t care less about it. As they scan the letter—no doubt drafted by a low-level staffer—they search in vain for an offer of help, or at least empathy. 

Millions of Americans will have no other contact with government officials than this. And it will convince them that if government isn’t their enemy, it’s certainly not their friend.

TRUMP AND HITLER: PARALLEL LIVES: PART TWO (END)

In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on October 14, 2025 at 12:10 am

Syndicated columnist Mark Shields (now deceased) and New York Times columnist David Brooks appeared every Friday on the PBS Newshour to review the week’s major political events.   

On March 25, 2016, Shields—a liberal, and Brooks, a conservative—came to some disturbingly similar conclusions about Donald Trump.      

Eerily, their conclusions echoed those reached by former Panzer General Heinz Guderian about German dictator Adolf Hitler.

Guderian created the concept of motorized blitzkrieg warfare, whereby masses of tanks and planes moved in coordination to strike at the vital nerve centers of an enemy.

Heinz Wilhelm Guderian: The Father of Modern Armored Warfare Heinz Wilhelm  Guderian was not just another general in the German military during World  War II; he was a visionary who transformed the

Heinz Guderian

Guderian thus enabled Hitler to conquer France in only six weeks in 1940, and to come to the brink of crushing the Soviet Union in 1941. He recounted his career as the foremost tank commander of the Third Reich in his 1950 autobiography, Panzer Leader.

On the PBS Newshour, moderator Judy Woodruff noted that “polls show Trump’s standing with women voters had worsened in recent months.”

Related image

Judy Woodruff

Mark Shields noted that Trump clearly had an obsession with Fox News Correspondent Megyn Kelly. 

MARK SHIELDS: But there is something really creepy about this that’s beyond locker room. It’s almost like a stalker….It actually did the impossible. It made Ted Cruz look like an honorable, tough guy on the right side of an issue.

Related image

Donald Trump

HEINZ GUDERIAN: Once in power, Hitler quickly—and violently—eliminated his opposition. He make no attempt to disguise this aspect of his character, because the opposition was weak and divided and soon collapsed after the first violent attack. This allowed Hitler to pass laws which destroyed the safeguards enacted by the Weimar Republic against the dangers of dictatorship.  

MARK SHIELDS: And I don’t know at what point it becomes…politically, he’s still leading. And I would have to say he’s the overwhelming favorite for the Republican nomination.

HEINZ GUDERIAN: Hitler promised to “make Germany great again” both domestically and internationally. And this won him many followers. In time he controlled the largest party in the land and this allowed him, by democratic procedure, to assume power.  

DAVID BROOKS: The odd thing about [Trump’s] whole career and his whole language, his whole world view is there is no room for love in it.  You get a sense of a man who received no love, can give no love, so his relationship with women, it has no love in it. It’s trophy.

HEINZ GUDERIAN: [Hitler] was isolated as a human being. He had no real friend. There was nobody who was really close to him.  

Related image

Adolf Hitler

There was nobody he could talk to freely and openly. And just as he never found a true friend, he was denied the ability to deeply love a woman.  

DAVID BROOKS: And [Trump’s] relationship toward the world is one of competition and beating, and as if he’s going to win by competition what other people get by love.

HEINZ GUDERIAN: Everything on this earth that casts a glow of warmth over our life as mortals—friendship with fine men, the pure love for a wife, affection for one’s own children—all this was and forever remained unknown to him. 

DAVID BROOKS: And so you really are seeing someone who just has an odd psychology unleavened by kindness and charity, but where it’s all winners and losers, beating and being beat. And that’s part of the authoritarian personality, but it comes out in his attitude towards women.

HEINZ GUDERIAN: He lived alone, cherishing his loneliness, with only his gigantic plans for company. His relationship with Eva Braun may seem to contradict what I have written. But it is obvious that she could not have had any influence over him. And this is unfortunate, for it could only have been a softening one.

* * * * *

In his bestselling 1973 biographyThe Life and Death of Adolf Hitler, British historian Robert Payne harshly condemned the German people for the rise of the Nazi dictator:  

“[They] allowed themselves to be seduced by him and came to enjoy the experience….[They] followed him with joy and enthusiasm because he gave them license to pillage and murder to their hearts’ content. They were his servile accomplices, his willing victims.”

On November 5, 2024, 77 million ignorant, hate-filled, Fascistic Americans catapulted Donald Trump—a man with an “odd psychology unleavened by kindness and charity”—once again into the Presidency.

Appeals to their hatred, racism, misogyny and greed proved far more seductive than preserving America’s 248 years of democratic traditions.

They ignored the 400,000 American deaths in 2020 by his ignoring the dangers of COVID-19 and alienating America’s longtime allies like England and Canada while clearly showing preference for its mortal enemies like Russia and North Korea.

Future historians will similarly and harshly condemn those Americans who, like “good Germans,” joyfully embraced a regime dedicated to

  • Lies
  • Vindictive prosecutions
  • Censorship
  • Celebrating Trump’s egomania
  • Depriving America’s poor of their only source of healthcare
  • Further enriching the ultra-wealthy and
  • Threatening the use of force against those who desired to live as citizens in a republic, instead of a dictatorship.

This should be remembered the next time an American blames Germans for their embrace of Adolf Hitler.

TRUMP AND HITLER: PARALLEL LIVES: PART ONE (OF TWO)

In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on October 13, 2025 at 12:22 am

On November 5, 2024, Americans faced a monumental choice: Save their democracy by electing Vice President Kamala Harris, or speed its destruction by re-electing former President Donald Trump.   

They chose Trump—and democracy’s destruction.

This despite:

  • His egomania and vindictiveness;
  • His 34 criminal convictions for falsifying business records;
  • His plans to gut the American healthcare system; and
  • His having tried to violently overturn a legitimate Presidential election.

Eight years before the 2024 election, liberal syndicated columnist Mark Shields and conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks had reached some disturbingly similar conclusions about the character of Trump, then the Republican Presidential front-runner.

They did so on the March 25, 2016 edition of The PBS Newshour, to review the week’s major political events. 

Shields and Brooks on the mail bombs and politics as an identity | PBS News

Mark Shields and David Brooks 

Eerily, their conclusions about Trump echoed those reached by former Panzer General Heinz Guderian about  the character of German dictator Adolf Hitler.

Guderian created the concept of motorized blitzkrieg warfare, whereby masses of tanks and planes moved in coordination to strike at the vital nerve centers of an enemy.

As a result, Guderian enabled Hitler to conquer France in only six weeks in 1940, and to come to the brink of crushing the Soviet Union in 1941. He recounted his career as the foremost tank commander of the Third Reich in his 1950 autobiography, Panzer Leader.  

Heinz Guderian - Wikipedia Bahasa Melayu, ensiklopedia bebas

Heinz Guderian 

Bundesarchiv, Bild 101I-139-1112-17 / Knobloch, Ludwig / CC-BY-SA [CC BY-SA 3.0 de (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/de/deed.en)%5D, via Wikimedia Commons

Moderator Judy Woodruff opened the Newshour discussion by alluding to the blood feud then raging between Trump and his fellow Republican, Texas United States Senator Rafael Eduardo “Ted” Cruz.

Both were ruthlessly seeking their party’s Presidential nomination.

Cruz accused Trump of being behind a recent National Enquirer story charging him with having a series of extramarital affairs.

An anti-Trump Super PAC posted on Facebook a photo of a scantily-clad Melania Trump–-his wife. The photo had been taken 16 years ago when, as a model, she posed for British GQ.

Its publication came just ahead of the primary caucuses in sexually conservative Utah, which Cruz won.

Trump quickly responded on Twitter, accusing the Cruz campaign of leaking the photo, warning Cruz: “Be careful or I will spill the beans on your wife.”

Cruz struck back, defending his wife, Heidi, and calling Trump a coward. The next day, Trump retweeted an unflattering image of Mrs. Cruz.

Ted Cruz - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rafael Eduardo “Ted” Cruz

This “war of the wives” had cost Trump dearly in his standing with American women. In March, 2016, a Washington Post/ABC News poll showed that 64% of women felt highly unfavorably disposed toward him.

DAVID BROOKS: The Trump comparison of the looks of the wives, he does have, over the course of his life, a consistent misogynistic view of women as arm candy, as pieces of meat.

Related image

Donald Trump

It’s a consistent attitude toward women which is the stuff of a diseased adolescent. And so we have seen a bit of that show up again.

But if you go back over his past, calling into radio shows bragging about his affairs, talking about his sex life in public, he is childish in his immaturity. And his—even his misogyny is a childish misogyny….

He’s of a different order than your normal candidate. And this whole week is just another reminder of that.

HEINZ GUDERIAN: As Hitler’s self-confidence grew, and as his power became more firmly established both inside and outside Germany, he became overbearing and arrogant. Everyone appeared to him unimportant compared to himself.  

Previously, Hitler had been open to practical considerations, and willing to discuss matters with others. But now he became increasingly autocratic. 

Judy Woodruff asked Mark Shields if the uproar over Donald Trump’s disdain for women could really hurt his candidacy.

MARK SHIELDS: The ad featuring a scantily-clad Melania Trump elicited from Donald Trump the worst of his personality, the bullying, the misogyny, as David has said, brought it out.  

But I think it’s more than childish and juvenile and adolescent. There is something creepy about this, his attitude toward women.

Take Megyn Kelly of FOX News, who he just has an absolute obsession about, and he’s constantly writing about, you know, how awful she is and no talent and this and that.

Related image

Megyn Kelly

And I don’t know if he’s just never had women—strong, independent women in his life who have spoken to him. It doesn’t seem that way….

She just asked him tough questions and was totally fair, by everybody else’s standards.

HEINZ GUDERIAN:  Hitler’s most outstanding quality was his will power. It was by this that he compelled men to follow him. When Hitler spoke to a small group he closely observed each person to determine how his words were affecting each man present.   

If he noticed that some member of the group was not being swayed by his speech, he spoke directly to that person until he believed he had won him over. But if the target of his persuasive effort still remained obstinate, Hitler would exclaim: “I haven’t convinced that man!”

His immediate reaction was to get rid of such people. As he grew increasingly successful, he grew increasingly intolerant.   

THE REPUBLICANS’ LATEST HORST WESSEL

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on September 24, 2025 at 12:06 am

Legitimate similarities abound between the tactics—and often the goals—of yesterday’s Nazis and today’s Republicans

One of these is the need for martyrs by both parties. 

The Nazis found theirs in Horst Wessel (October 9, 1907 – February 23, 1930).

As a teenager growing up in the Weimar Republic of Germany, he joined the Viking Liga (“Viking League”), a Right-wing paramilitary group. Its goal, wrote Wessel, was “the “establishment of a national dictatorship.”

Wessel soon became a local leader, engaging in street battles with rival Leftist groups such as the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Communist Party (KPD). In 1926, he joined the paramilitary Sturmabteilung (“Storm Detachment” or SA) of Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers (Nazi) Party.

Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1978-043-14, Horst Wessel.jpg

Horst Wessel

Bundesarchiv, Bild 146-1978-043-14 / Heinrich Hoffmann / CC-BY-SA 3.0, CC BY-SA 3.0 DE <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/de/deed.en&gt;, via Wikimedia Commons

His unit had a reputation as “a band of thugs, a brutal squad.” One of his men described the way they fought against the Communists: “Horst made Adolf Hitler’s principle his own: Terror can be destroyed only by counterterror.”

In September 1929, Wessel met Erna Jänicke, a 23-year-old ex-prostitute, in a tavern. Some sources claim Wessel acted as Jänicke’s pimp. She soon moved into his room. 

Wessel’s landlady, Elisabeth Salm, wanted Jänicke to leave. But Jänicke refused to do so.

Salm appealed to Communist friends of her late husband to evict Jänicke, They agreed to beat Wessel up and evict him from Salm’s flat. 

On February 23, 1930, Albrecht Höhler, an armed pimp and petty criminal, knocked at Wessel’s door. When Wessel opened it, Höhler shot him dead.

He was 22 when he died.

Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels quickly turned Wessel into a Nazi martyr. Wessel had written the lyrics for a new Nazi fight song: “The Unknown SA-Man.” It later became known as “Raise the Flag” and finally the “Horst Wessel Lied.” 

Its opening stanza.

Raise the flag! The ranks tightly closed!
The SA marches with calm, steady step.
Comrades shot by the Red Front and reactionaries
March in spirit within our ranks.

“The Horst Wessel Lied” became the official anthem of the Nazi Party from 1930 to 1945.

Fast forward to September 10, 2025—when the Republican Party got its own martyr: Charlie Kirk.

Kirk (October 14, 1993 – September 10, 2025) was an American Right-wing political activist, entrepreneur and media personality. 

He co-founded the organization Turning Point USA (TPUSA) in 2012 and was its executive director. He published a range of books and hosted a talk radio program, The Charlie Kirk Show.

Charlie Kirk

Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0&gt;, via Wikimedia Commons

Kirk opposed gun control, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and abortion. Asked if he would support abortion for his 10-year-old daughter if she were raped, he said: “The baby would be delivered.”

Kirk spread misinformation about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, masks, lockdowns, and related public health measures during the pandemic. As a result, he was at least partially responsible for untold numbers of the 400,000 Americans who died of COVID during 2020, Trump’s final year in office.

He was a major promoter of the “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory—that white populations in Western countries are being systematically replaced by non-white immigrants, with the complicity of liberal governments.

Kirk accepted wholesale Trump’s lie that the 2020 election had been stolen from him by massive voter fraud. And he played a pivotal role in re-electing the 34-times convicted felon in 2024.

Head-and-shoulders shot of Trump with a serious facial expression, his right eye partly closed. He is wearing a dark blue suit, a pale blue dress shirt, a red necktie, and an American flag lapel pin. Parts of the image are slightly out of focus. The background is black.

Donald Trump

On September 10, 2025, Kirk was shot by a sniper while speaking at a Turning Point USA public debate event on the Utah Valley University campus in Orem, Utah.

The Republican party responded with outrage comparable to that expressed by the Nazis upon the assassination of SS-Obergruppenfuhrer Reinhard Heydrich on May 27, 1042.

In an Oval Office address the same day as the shooting, Trump blamed the “radical Left,” even as the killer’s identity and motivation remained unknown. Totally ignored in his speech was his own role in fomenting politically motivated violence.

Trump’s high-ranking political appointees uttered similar threatening statements: 

On September 15, his Attorney General, Pam Bondi, vowed to attack those who engaged in “hate speech” following Kirk’s assassination: “There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech, and there is no place—especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie—in our society.

“We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech, anything, and that is across the aisle.”

Pam Bondi

On September 15—five days after Kirk’s death–-Vice President J.D. Vance hosted Kirk’s podcast: “So, when you see someone celebrating Charlie’s murder, call them out and, hell, call their employer. We don’t believe in political violence, but we do believe in civility.”  

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller vowed to use law enforcement to go after Americans who mocked Kirk’s death, calling that domestic terrorism:

“We will not live in fear, but you will live in exile, because the power of law enforcement under President Trump’s leadership will be used to find you, will be used to take away your money, take away your power, and if you have broken the law to take away your freedom.” 

Donald Trump is clearly seeking to turn Charlie Kirk’s murder into the equivalent of that of Horst Wessel. 

A LIFE–AND PRESIDENCY–BASED ON HATRED

In Bureaucracy, Entertainment, History, Politics, Social commentary on September 22, 2025 at 12:05 am

During his 1992 Presidential campaign, Bill Clinton had “It’s the Economy, Stupid,” as his mantra for staying focused on the issue that recession-suffering Americans most cared about.  

Donald Trump’s mantra—as Presidential candidate and President—could be summed up as: “It’s the Hatred, Stupid.”  

From June 15, 2015, when he launched his first Presidential campaign, until October 24, 2016, Trump fired almost 4,000 angry, insulting tweets at 281 people and institutions that had somehow offended him— in politics, journalism, TV and films.

Donald Trump

The New York Times needed two full pages of its print edition to showcase them.  Among his targets:

  • Women
  • Blacks
  • Hispanics
  • Asians
  • Muslims
  • News organizations
  • The disabled
  • POWs

And his base is equally motivated by hatred—of the same persons and organizations whom Trump regularly attacks. During the 2016 campaign, countless such voters told interviewers: “He says what I’ve long been thinking!”

Trump didn’t implant hatred in them—he simply gave it legitimacy. And they love him for it.

And since coming to power once again as President on January 20, Trump has given his lust for hatred free reign. 

  • Issued pardons to about 1,500 of his followers who violently tried to overturn the outcome of the 2020 Presidential election in the January 6, 2021 attack on Congress. Move than 250 of those pardoned had been convicted of assaulting police.
  • Withdrew the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO). 
  • Suspended all foreign aid for at least three months.
  • Withdrew from the Paris climate agreement.
  • Through his appointment of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. as Secretary of Health and Human Services, has declared all-out war on established medical institutions.
  • Ordered the dismissal of 5,000 FBI agents who investigated his incitement of the January 6 riot and his own hoarding of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.

Federal Bureau of Investigation - Wikipédia

  • Declared “a national emergency” targeting migrants—legal and illegal.
  • Sought to cancel automatic citizenship for U.S.-born children, known as birthright, and enshrined within the United States Constitution.
  • Withdrew the security detail assigned to former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley for rightly criticizing him as a wannabe dictator.
  • Cancelled travel to the United States for refugees, including those who had been approved to resettle within the country.
  • Withdrew the security detail assigned to Anthony Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease. Fauci’s crime: Contradicting Trump’s lies about the dangers of COVID-19.
  • Ordered all Federal Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility offices, positions, plans, actions, initiatives or programs to be scrapped within 60 days.
  • Through his Federal Communications Commission Chairman, Brenden Carr, forced CBS to cancel “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert”—a fierce Trump critic. 

Upon being named Chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933, Adolf Hitler ruthlessly moved to make himself absolute dictator.

During his first eight months since again taking office on January 20,  Donald Trump has ruthlessly moved to make himself absolute dictator

* * * * * * * * * *

As non- and anti-Fascist Americans have watched Trump’s behavior with fear and morbid fascination, many of them have asked: “What makes him do the things he does?”

It’s a question asked—and answered—in the 1993 Western, Tombstone. And the answer given in that movie may just hold the answer to the question so many Americans are now asking about Trump.

Tombstone Movie Poster 1993 1 Sheet (27x41)Amazon.com: Tombstone Movie Poster US Version 24x36: Posters & Prints

Tombstone recounts the legendary blood feud between the Ike Clanton outlaw gang and the Earp brothers—Wyatt, Morgan and Virgil—in  the famous gold-mining town in 1880s Arizona.

Wyatt Earp has been challenged to a gunfight by quick-trigger gunman Johnny Ringo. Although he impulsively accepted the challenge, Wyatt now realizes he’s certain to be killed. Thus follows this exchange with his longtime friend, the pistol-packing dentist, John H. “Doc” Holliday: 

WYATT EARP:  What makes a man like Ringo, Doc? What makes him do the things he does?

JOHN H. “DOC” HOLLIDAY: A man like Ringo’s got a great empty hole right through the middle of him. He can never kill enough or steal enough or inflict enough pain to ever fill it.

EARP:  What does he need?

HOLLIDAY:  Revenge.

EARP:  For what?

HOLLIDAY: Bein’ born.

Donald Trump was born into a world of wealth and privilege. His father gave him $200 million, which he channeled into a real estate empire. He has claimed to be worth a billion dollars.

He has been linked—often by his own boasts—to some of the most beautiful women in the world. He has been a major force on TV through his “reality show,” The Apprentice. He has literally stamped his name on hundreds of buildings.

And now he holds the Presidency of the United States, the most powerful office in the Western world. 

Yet he remains filled with a poisonous hatred that encompasses almost everyone.

Since taking office, he has offered nothing positive in his agenda. Instead, he has focused his efforts on what he can take from others. At the top of his list: Declaring war on millions of illegal immigrants—many of whom hold menial jobs most other Americans refuse to take.

As first-mate Starbuck says of Captain Ahab in Herman Melville’s classic novel, Moby Dick: “He is a champion of darkness.”

THE DANGERS OF MERCENARIES–IN REALITY AND FICTION

In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on September 15, 2025 at 12:08 am

In May, 2014, Yevgeny Prigozhin founded the Kremlin-affiliated mercenary army Wagner Group.

Since Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a “special military operation” against Ukraine on February 24, 2022, Wagner has played a major role in the fighting. 

Prigozhin had repeatedly clashed with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, blaming him for a lack of ammunition to his embattled fighters—resulting in thousands of casualties. 

YevgenyPrigozhin.jpg

Yevgeney Prigozhin

Government of the Russian Federation, CC BY 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0&gt;, via Wikimedia Commons

On June 23, 2023, Prigozhin claimed that regular Russian armed forces had launched missile strikes against Wagner forces, killing a “huge” number.

He announced: “The council of commanders of PMC Wagner has made a decision—the evil that the military leadership of the country brings must be stopped.”

In response, criminal charges were filed against Prigozhin by the Russian Federal Security Service—the renamed KGB—for inciting an armed rebellion.

Wagner withdrew from Ukraine, occupied the Russian city of Rostov-on-Don and headed for Moscow. While doing so, Wagner shot down a Russian fighter plane and several military helicopters.

Putin decried the action as treason, and vowed to quash the uprising. 

Talks between Prigozhin and Belarussian president Alexander Lukashenko resulted in charges being dropped. Wagner ceased its march on Moscow. Prigozhin would move to Belarus but remain under investigation for treason. Wagner troops would return to Ukraine. 

On August 23, 2023, Prigozhin was killed along with nine other people when a business jet crashed in Tyer Oblast, north of Moscow.

American military sources believe the crash was likely caused by a bomb on board or sabotage.

The danger of relying on mercenaries forms the plot of The Profession, a 2011 novel by bestselling author Steven Pressfield.

The Profession

Pressfield made his literary reputation with a series of classic novels about ancient Greece.

In Gates of Fire (1998) he explored the rigors and heroism of Spartan society—and the famous last stand of its 300 picked warriors at Thermopylae.

In The Virtues of War (2004) he entered the mind of Alexander the Great, whose armies swept across the known world, destroying all who dared oppose them.  

But in The Profession, Pressfield created a plausible world set into the future of 2032. The book’s own dust jacket offers the best summary of its plot-line:

“Everywhere military force is for hire. Oil companies, multi-national corporations and banks employ powerful, cutting-edge mercenary armies to control global chaos and protect their riches.

“Force Insertion is the world’s merc monopoly. Its leader is the disgraced former United States Marine General James Salter, stripped of his command by the president for nuclear saber-rattling with the Chinese and banished to the Far East.”

Steven Pressfield Focused Interview

 Steven Pressfield

Salter appears as a hybrid of World War II General Douglas MacArthur and Iraqi War General Stanley McCrystal.

Like MacArthur, Salter has butted heads with his President—and paid dearly for it. Now his ambition is no less than to become President himself—by popular acclaim. And like McCrystal, he is a pure warrior who leads from the front and is revered by his men.

Salter seizes Saudi Arabian oil fields, then offers them as a gift to America. By doing so, he makes himself the most popular man in the country—and a guaranteed occupant of the White House.

Douglas MacArthur

Stanley McCrystal 

“The United States is an empire…but the American people lack the imperial temperament,” asserts Salter. “We’re not legionaries, we’re mechanics. In the end the American Dream boils down to what? ‘I’m getting mine and the hell with you.’”

Americans, says Salter, have come to like mercenaries: “They’ve had enough of sacrificing their sons and daughters in the name of some illusory world order. They want someone else’s sons and daughters to bear the burden….

“They want their problems to go away. They want me to to make them go away.”

Returning to the United States, he is acclaimed as a hero—and the next President.

He knows that his country is on a downward spiral toward oblivion: “Any time that you have the rise of mercenaries…society has entered a twilight era, a time past the zenith of its arc.”

And he doesn’t believe that his Presidency will arrest that decline: “But maybe in the short run, it’s better that my hand be on the wheel…rather than some other self-aggrandizing sonofabitch whose motives might not be as well intentioned….” 

More than 500 years ago, Niccolo Machiavelli warned of the dangers of relying on mercenaries:

“Mercenaries…are useless and dangerous. And if a prince holds on to his state by means of mercenary armies, he will never be stable or secure; for they are disunited, ambitious, without discipline, disloyal; they are brave among friends; among enemies they are cowards.

 Niccolo Machiavelli

“They have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is. For in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy.”

Centuries ago, Niccolo Machiavelli issued a warning against relying on men whose first love is their own enrichment.

Steven Pressfield, in a work of fiction, has given us a nightmarish vision of a not-so-distant America where “Name your price” has become the byward for an age.

Both warnings are well worth heeding.

IT’S THE EGO, STUPID!

In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on September 3, 2025 at 12:09 am

It’s commonplace to read about the role sex plays in motivating behavior. But the power of ego to determine history is often ignored.   

Consider the role that ego played in igniting the American Civil War (1861 – 1865).

According to The Destructive War, by Charles Royster, it wasn’t the cause of “states’ rights” that led 11 Southern states to withdraw from the Union in 1860-61. It was their demand for “respect,” which, in reality, translates into “e-g-o.”

“The respect Southerners demanded did not consist simply of the states’ sovereignty or of the equal rights of Northern and Southern citizens, including slaveholders’ right to take their chattels into Northern territory.

“It entailed, too, respect for their assertion of the moral superiority of slaveholding society over free society,” writes Royster.

It was not enough for Southerners to claim equal standing with Northerners; Northerners must acknowledge it. But this was something that the North was less and less willing to do. 

Finally, its citizens dared to elect Abraham Lincoln as President in 1860.

An iconic photograph of a bearded Abraham Lincoln showing his head and shoulders.

Abraham Lincoln

Lincoln and his new Republican party damned slavery—and slaveholders—as morally evil, obsolete and ultimately doomed. And they were determined to prevent slavery from spreading any further throughout the country.

Southerners found all of this intolerable.

The British author, Anthony Trollope, explained to his readers: “It is no light thing to be told daily, by our fellow citizens…that you are guilty of the one damning sin that cannot be forgiven.

“All this [Southerners] could partly moderate, partly rebuke and partly bear as long as political power remained in their hands. But they have gradually felt that this was going, and were prepared to cut the rope and run as soon as it was gone.”

Only 10% of Southerners owned slaves. The other 90% of the population “had no dog in this fight,” as Southerners liked to say.

Yet they so admired and aspired to be like their “gentleman betters” that they threw in their lot with them.

There were some Southerners who could see what was coming—and vainly warned their fellow citizens against it.

One of these was Sam Houston, the man who had won Texas independence at the 1836 battle of San Jacinto and later served as that state’s governor.

Sam Houston

On April 19, 1860, addressing a crowd in Galveston, he said: “Let me tell you what is coming. After the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives, you may win Southern independence if God be not against you.

“But I doubt it. I tell you that, while I believe with you in the doctrine of states’ rights, the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates.

“But when they begin to move in a given direction, they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche; and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South.”

Four years later, on April 9, 1865, Houston’s warning became history.

Confederate General Robert E. Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia to Union General Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Courthouse.

Huge sections of the South had been laid waste by Union troops and more than 258,000 Southerners had been killed.

And slavery, the mainstay of Southern plantation life, had been ended forever.

The South had paid an expensive price for its fixation on ego.

Even more proved at risk a century later, when President John F. Kennedy faced off with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev.  

Portrait of President Kennedy smiling

John F. Kennedy

In August, 1961, faced with the embarrassment of East Berliners fleeing by the thousands into West Germany, the Soviet leader erected the infamous Berlin Wall, sealing off East and West Berlin.

Khrushchev pressed his advantage, threatening Kennedy with nuclear war unless the Americans abandoned their protection of West Berlin.

In April, Kennedy had been humiliated at the Bay of Pigs when a CIA-sponsored invasion failed to overthrow the Cuba’s Fidel Castro. So he was already on the defensive when he and Khrushchev met in Vienna.

Kennedy’s reaction: If Khrushchev wants to rub my nose in the dirt, it’s all over.”

In short: Kennedy was prepared to incinerate the planet if he felt his almighty ego was about to get smacked.

Nuclear missile in silo

What has proved true for states and nations proves equally true for those leading every other type of institution.

Although most people like to believe they are guided by rationality and morality, all-too-often, what truly decides the course of events is their ego.

For pre-Civil War Southerners, it meant demanding that “Yankees” show respect for slave-owning society.  Otherwise, they would leave the Union.

For Kennedy, it meant playing a game of “chicken,” backed up with nuclear missiles, to show Khrushchev who Numero Uno really was.

And during the Cuban Missile Crisis, in October, 1962, humankind almost disappeared as Kennedy set out to make Khrushchev “blink.”

It is well to keep these lessons from history in mind when choosing political leaders—and when making our own major decisions.

READY TO END GUN MASSACRES? HERE’S HOW

In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on August 29, 2025 at 12:14 am

The victims of the violence are black and white, rich and poor, young and old, famous and unknown. They are, most important of all, human beings whom other human beings loved and needed. No one—no matter where he lives or what he does—can be certain who will suffer from some senseless act of bloodshed. And yet it goes on and on.   

–Robert F. Kennedy, April 4, 1968  

undefined

Senator Robert F. Kennedy announcing the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

By https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPYNb4ex6Ko, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=14289385

A total of 262 people had been killed and 1,161 people had been wounded in 268 shootings, as of July 31, 2025.

What should the surviving victims of gun massacres do to seek redress?

And how can the relatives and friends of those who didn’t survive seek justice for those they loved?

Two things:

First, don’t count on politicians to support a ban on assault weapons.

Politicians—with rare exceptions—have only two goals:

  1. Get elected to office, and
  2. Stay in office.

And too many of them fear the economic and voting clout of the NRA to risk its wrath.

Consider Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama.

Both rushed to offer condolences to the surviving victims of the massacre at the Century 16 Theater in Aurora, Colorado, on July 20, 2012.

And both steadfastly refused to even discuss gun control—let alone support a ban on the type of assault weapons used by James Holmes, leaving 12 dead and 58 wounded.

Second, those who survived these massacres—and the relatives and friends of those who didn’t—should file wrongful death, class-action lawsuits against the NRA.

There is sound, legal precedent for this.

  • For decades, the American tobacco industry peddled death and disability to millions and reaped billions of dollars in profits.
  • The industry vigorously claimed there was no evidence that smoking caused cancer, heart disease, emphysema or any other ailment.
  • Tobacco companies spent billions on slick advertising campaigns to win new smokers and attack medical warnings about the dangers of smoking.
  • Tobacco companies spent millions to elect compliant politicians and block anti-smoking legislation.
  • From 1954 to 1994, over 800 private lawsuits were filed against tobacco companies in state courts. But only two plaintiffs prevailed, and both of those decisions were reversed on appeal.

  • In 1994, amidst great pessimism, Mississippi Attorney General Mike Moore filed a lawsuit against the tobacco industry. But other states soon followed, ultimately growing to 46.
  • Their goal: To seek monetary, equitable and injunctive relief under various consumer-protection and anti-trust laws.
  • The theory underlying these lawsuits was: Cigarettes produced by the tobacco industry created health problems among the population, which badly strained the states’ public healthcare systems.
  • In 1998, the states settled their Medicaid lawsuits against the tobacco industry for recovery of their tobacco-related, health-care costs. In return, they exempted the companies from private lawsuits for tobacco-related injuries.
  • The companies agreed to curtail or cease certain marketing practices. They also agreed to pay, forever, annual payments to the states to compensate some of the medical costs for patients with smoking-related illnesses.

The parallels with the NRA are obvious:

  • For decades, the NRA has peddled deadly weapons to millions, reaped billions of dollars in profits and refused to admit the carnage those weapons have produced: “Guns don’t kill people.  People kill people.”  With guns.

  • The NRA has bitterly fought background checks on gun-buyers, in effect granting even criminals and the mentally ill the right to own arsenals of death-dealing weaponry.
  • The NRA has spent millions on slick advertising campaigns to win new members and frighten them into buying guns.
  • The NRA has spent millions on political contributions to block gun-control legislation.

  • The NRA has spent millions attacking political candidates and elected officials who warned about the dangers of unrestricted access to assault and/or concealed weapons.
  • The NRA has spent millions pushing “Stand Your Ground” laws in more than half the states, which potentially give every citizen a “license to kill.”
  • The NRA receives millions of dollars from online sales of ammunition, high-capacity ammunition magazines, and other accessories through its point-of-sale Round-Up Program—thus directly profiting by selling a product that kills about 30,288 people a year.
  • Firearms made indiscriminately available through NRA lobbying have filled hospitals with casualties, and have thus badly strained the states’ public healthcare systems.

It will take a series of highly expensive and well-publicized lawsuits to significantly weaken the NRA, financially and politically.

The first ones will have to be brought by the surviving victims of gun violence—and by the friends and families of those who did not survive it. Only they will have the courage and motivation to take such a risk.

As with the cases first brought against tobacco companies, there will be losses. And the NRA will rejoice with each one.

But, in time, state Attorneys Generals will see the clear parallels between lawsuits filed against those who peddle death by cigarette and those who peddle death by armor-piercing bullet.

And then the NRA—like the tobacco industry—will face an adversary wealthy enough to stand up for the rights of the gun industry’s own victims.

Only then will those politicians supporting reasonable gun controls dare to stand up for the victims of these needless tragedies.

REPUBLICAN SOUTHERNERS: TREASON DIDN’T WORK, MAYBE CORRUPTION WILL

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Medical, Politics, Social commentary on August 22, 2025 at 12:08 am

It’s the racism and sexism, stupid!  

That’s how Lilliana Mason, an associate professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University’s SNF Agora Institute, sees the reason for the animosity between Republicans and Democrats. 

“Part of the reason that partisan animosity between Democrats and Republicans is so terrible right now is because what the parties are fighting over are really matters of racial and gender equality—the traditional social hierarchy—and whether we’re going to go back to being a country where White Christian men were always at the top of that hierarchy or become a more egalitarian, multiethnic democracy.” 

Lilliana Mason : Stavros Niarchos Foundation SNF Agora Institute at Johns HopkinsLilliana Mason

Lilliana Mason

Referring to the book she co-wrote with fellow political scientist Nathan P. Kalmoe, Radical American Partisanship: Mapping Violent Hostility, Its Causes, and the Consequences for Democracy, she said:

“What we found in our data was that, particularly on the right, Republicans who really hated Democrats the most were also the highest in racial resentment and sexism.

“And those who hated Democrats the least were those who were lowest in racial resentment and sexism. Actually, in our data, racial resentment is one of the most powerful predictors of Republicans hating Democrats.”

Once again—as in the years leading to the Civil War—it’s the South trying to impose a slavocracy mentality and control over the rest of the nation. 

From 1860 to 1865, the South—Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia-–produced the greatest case of mass treason in America’s history.

Map of U.S. showing two kinds of Union states, two phases of secession and territories

Union (blue) and Confederate (red) states: 1860 – 1865

According to The Destructive War, by Charles Royster, it wasn’t the cause of “states’ rights” that led 11 Southern states to withdraw from the Union in 1860-61. It was their demand for “respect.” 

“The respect Southerners demanded did not consist simply of the states’ sovereignty or of the equal rights of Northern and Southern citizens, including slaveholders’ right to take their chattels into Northern territory.

“It entailed, too, respect for their assertion of the moral superiority of slaveholding society over free society,” writes Royster.

It was not enough for Southerners to claim equal standing with Northerners; Northerners must acknowledge it. But this was something that the North increasingly refused to do. 

Finally, its citizens dared to elect Abraham Lincoln President in 1860. 

An iconic photograph of a bearded Abraham Lincoln showing his head and shoulders.

Abraham Lincoln

Lincoln and his new Republican party damned slavery—and slaveholders—as morally evil, obsolete and ultimately doomed. And they were determined to prevent slavery from spreading any further throughout the country. 

Southerners found all of this intolerable.

On April 12, 1861—just over a month since Lincoln’s inauguration on March 4—Southern batteries opened fire on Union Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, triggering the Civil War.

More than 750,000.Americans died—when the population of the United States stood at 31,443,321.

Four years later, on April 9, 1865, Confederate General Robert E. Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia to Union General Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Courthouse.

Now Southerners are trying to win through political manipulation what they couldn’t by open treason.  

Red states are adopting Fascistic social policies on such issues as abortion, gay rights and classroom censorship. And they are trying to prevent the federal government or their own largest metro areas to resist those policies.

In the case of abortion, Red states are not only outlawing it within their own borders but trying to prevent states where abortion is legal from providing that service.

Thus Republicans, who began as the party of freedom, have mutated into the party now trying to end it.

According to Donald Kettl, the former dean of the public policy school at the University of Maryland:

“The only time I can recall in American history even remotely like this [divergence] was after the Civil War when the separate but equal doctrine began to emerge” across the South as a backlash against the attempts of the 13th, 14th and 15th Constitutional amendments to ensure equality for the freed slaves.”

CNN Correspondent Ronald Brownstein warns of this development: 

“The real threat in the red state effort to set their own course may be less an advantage for one side or another than a challenge to the nation’s underlying cohesion. 

“As red states grow more aggressive about going their own way, while working to preempt challenges from above (the federal government) or below (blue local governments), they are testing how much divergence the nation’s fundamental cohesion can take before it begins to unravel.”

Thirty-one states voted for Donald Trump in 2024. Of these:

  • Twenty-four rank in the bottom 25 for the percentage of adults holding at least a four-year college degree;
  • Twenty-seven fall into the top half when ranked by the share of their population that are White Christians of who own guns; 
  • Twenty-one rank in the top 26 states for total energy-related CO₂ emissions;
  • These states have long sought to reverse the “rights revolution” of the last 60 years—on such issues as abortion, same-sex marriage and contraception.

Today’s Republican party is no longer the party of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight D. Eisenhower.

It has become the party of John Wilkes Booth, Benito Mussolini and Donald Trump.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: CHARMING A TYRANT, OUTFOXING A FOOL–PART TWO (END)

In History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on August 19, 2025 at 12:04 am

On August 15, 2025, President Donald Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Anchorage, Alaska.    

While flying to Alaska, Trump said his main goal was a ceasefire in Ukraine—and warned of “severe consequences” if it didn’t happen.

But shortly after meeting Putin, Trump reversed himself and said a ceasefire in the Russia-Ukraine war wasn’t critical.

He wrote on social media that “it was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up.”

Through “by all” he meant that he—a would-be tyrant, and Putin, a demonstrated one—decided that Ukraine should submit to Putin’s imperialistic demands.

In short: There would be no “consequences” for Putin.

Trump has always shown a deference to dictators—and a disdain for democracies. He admires tyrants who can—and do—order the arrest and murder of their political opponents. And no doubt he wishes he could do the same.

This latest meeting between Trump and Putin is essentially an updated version of the infamous Munich Conference. There, on September 29, 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain met with German Chancellor Adolf Hitler.

Hitler had threatened war with Czechoslovakia—and even with Great Britain—if the Czechs did not cede to Germany the “Sudetenland.” This consisted of the northern, southwest and western regions of Czechoslovakia, inhabited mostly by ethnic Germans. 

Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler

Hitler now demanded not only the annexation of the Sudetenland but the immediate military occupation of the territories. This would give the Czechoslovak army no time to adapt their defense measures to the new borders.

On September 29, Hitler, Chamberlain and  French Prime Minister Edouard Daladier signed the Munich Agreement, which accepted the immediate occupation of the Sudetenland.

The Czechoslovak government had not been a party to the talks. Nevertheless, it promised to abide by the agreement on September 30. 

Like Ukraine with Trump, it had been deserted by its pledged allies: Britain, France and the Soviet Union. 

On February 28, Trump had given Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky a foretaste of the outcome of this meeting. 

Having invited Zelensky to the White House, Trump insulted and threatened him with the loss of American support if he didn’t make concessions to Russia: “You’ve done enough talking. You’re not winning this. You gotta be thankful. You don’t have the cards.”

ZELENSKY: I’m not playing cards. I’m very serious, Mr. President. I’m the president in a war.

TRUMP:  You’re gambling with World War Three. And what you’re doing is very disrespectful to the country, this country, that’s backed you far more than a lot of people said they should have.

VICE PRESIDENT J.D. VANCE: Have you said ‘thank you’ once this entire meeting? No. 

It’s impossible to imagine a scene like this occurring between President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill.

But, then, Roosevelt was a President who championed democracy and hated tyrants.

The opposite of the man now occupying the White House.

Before Trump substituted tyranny for patriotism, his predecessor, George W. Bush, substituted naïveté for common sense.

In June 2001, Bush and Putin met in Slovenia. During the meeting a truly startling exchange occurred.

Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush

Putin, a former KGB Intelligence officer, had clearly done his homework on Bush. When he mentioned that one of the sports Bush had played was rugby, Bush was highly impressed.

“I did play rugby,” said Bush. “Very good briefing.”

Bush knew that Putin had worked for Soviet Intelligence. So he should not have been surprised that the KGB had amassed a lengthy dossier on him. 

But more was to come. 

BUSH: Let me say something about what caught my attention, Mr. President, was that your mother gave you a cross which you had blessed in Israel, the Holy land.

PUTIN: It’s true. 

BUSH: That amazes me, that here you were a Communist, KGB operative, and yet you were willing to wear a cross. That speaks volumes to me, Mr. President. May I call you Vladimir? 

Putin instantly sensed that Bush judged others—even world leaders—through the lens of his own fundamentalist Christian ideology. Falling back on his KGB training, Putin seized on this apparent point of commonality to build a bond.

He told Bush that his dacha had once burned to the ground, and the only item that had been saved was that cross.

“Well, that’s the story of the cross as far as I’m concerned,” said Bush, clearly impressed. “Things are meant to be.”

Afterward, Bush and Putin gave an outdoor news conference.

“Is this a man that Americans can trust?” Associated Press Correspondent Ron Fourmier asked Bush.

“Yes,” said Bush. “I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul, a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country. I wouldn’t have invited him to my ranch if I didn’t trust him.”