That’s a paraphrase. But it’s descriptive — Alexei Navalny skewered Putin’s Russia for its corruption. And paid a price with his life — because that’s what authoritarian regimes demand: your loyalty or your life. Yet a Russian-style mafia state is the end goal of Trump and his cronies.
These two ideologies are battling it out in today’s geopolitical landscape. The rise of nationalist and right-wing parties of all stripes across the globe has been unsettling yet unmistakable over these past number of years. Upset victories and near misses have dotted the landscape, as left-wing parties still are (perhaps rightfully) reeling over the idea that anyone could abandon the conviction that societies thrive best when the laws are applied equally, or that it’s probably a bad thing to concentrate too much power into one person’s hands, or that concentration camps are wrong — to name but a few.
The right-wing moral universe seems to see the vague suggestion that Hunter Biden once tried (and failed) to broker a meeting with his VP dad as an impeachable offense while Trump hawking his own line of egregiously priced perfumes from the White House, or shilling Teslas on the lawn, or inking multi-billion dollar deals with Saudi Arabia while in office is just business as usual. Nothing to see here.
That’s how the system works — they normalize corruption and bad behavior when it’s a Republican doing it, and criminalize it if a Democrat does. Selective enforcement of the law means there really is no law anymore — it’s just the President’s whim that day. Or should I say, the King’s.
Alexei Navalny: Human rights is the goal of politics
This is the stuff they don’t want anybody to see. This is the very basic demands of a civilized society that we ought to expect — ideas so powerful that men like Vladimir Putin have to kill him in a desperate attempt to make the dangerous idea of self-worth more widely known. They really do not want you to have rights — and this is how far they are willing to go:
Trickle down economics is known by a number of names: supply side economics, Reaganomics, the Laffer Curve, voodoo economics, deregulation, Libertarianism, Mudsill Theory, Two Santa Claus theory, horse and sparrow theory, and the Trump tax cuts, to name a few. It has been espoused by everyone from Ayn Rand to Milton Friedman to Alan Greenspan to Gordon Gecko.
Trickle down economics involves focusing the brunt of government effort on helping the wealthy, at the expense of the middle class and the poor. The theory says that the wealthy elites of the country have proven themselves capable patricians for stewarding the lives of the masses through myth and fairytale in the name of patriotic duty. The “supply” in supply side are the rich, who will create companies that sell products to people who didn’t even realize they needed them. If we give enough of our collective tax pool to them, they say, they’ll create jobs and prosperity for everyone else.
The problem for trickle down economics is that that isn’t true at all. It simply doesn’t happen. Time and time again over the past approximately 200 years, the ideology of rewarding the wealthy for being wealthy has proven its premises to be completely false. Deregulation and starving the government don’t produce a prosperous utopia — they produce recessions and depressions. They produce conglomerates too big to fail, that get rewarded for their brazenly irresponsible speculation with Main Street’s money, and flaunt their ability to simply capture government in our collective faces.
Trickle down economics since the 1970s
In its most recent incarnation as trickle-down, supply-side, or Reagonomics, tax cuts are pitched as paying for themselves when they have in actual fact succeeded in blowing up the deficit and the national debt. The work of Arthur Laffer and Jude Wanniski at a fateful meeting with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld in 1974, trickle-down economic theory was put into practice during the Reagan years and has been failing to produce the promised results of paying down the debt for almost half a century.
Jude Wanniskiβs βTwo Santa Clausβ strategy laid the political groundwork for what would soon be branded as supply-side, or trickle-down, economics. Observing in the 1970s that Democrats played βSantaβ by expanding popular social programs, Wanniski warned Republicans that positioning themselves as the party of spending cuts cast them as the βanti-Santa.β His fix was simple but potent: become a second Santa by promising sweeping tax cuts. Republicans, he argued, could shower voters with fiscal βgiftsβ while leaving beloved programs intact, sidestepping the backlash that traditionally followed austerity talk.
This tactical reframing meshed perfectly with the emerging supply-side creed. By asserting that lower taxes on corporations and high earners spur investment, production, and ultimately broad prosperity, Republicans could claim that their giveaways werenβt merely political theaterβthey were an economic necessity. The brilliance (and cynicism) of the scheme was its indifference to short-term deficits: ballooning red ink would corner future Democratic administrations into either raising taxes or cutting spending, both politically toxic options.
In practice, the Two Santa Claus playbook flipped classical, demand-driven thinking on its head. Rather than boosting middle-class wages to stoke consumption, it poured resources into the top of the income ladder and trusted prosperity to βtrickle down.β The approach reached full throttle in the Reagan eraβtaxes slashed, spending still highβand its legacy endures: chronic deficits, rising inequality, and an ongoing partisan tug-of-war over who pays the bill.
The Big, Beautiful, Debt-Ballooning Bill
Look no further than the monstrosity of a bill the Republicans are trying to jam through the reconciliation process. Expected to make the 2017 Trump tax cuts a permanent welfare handout to the wealthiest billionaires on the planet, the so-called “Big, Beautiful Bill” is also slated to add $4 trillion to the national debt.
We can’t keep going on this way.
It’s long past time we undertake the difficult work of educating the population more broadly about this GOP economics scam that’s been running for the past 50 years and running up the till while nurturing a truly nasty partisan political divide as insult to injury.
Trickle down doesn’t work. Tax cuts to billionaires doesn’t work — at least, not for anyone other than the billionaires and political elite class. We need an economic system that works broadly for everyone, otherwise sooner or later it all comes crashing down and we are in for a (literal) world of hurt.
Fierce realness on the destructive effects of Republican trickle down economics policy/conspiracy theory over the past decades. https://t.co/Y7E9Lp4Ldn
When Elon Musk assumed his role as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in the second Trump administration, he claimed his goal was to slash wasteful spending and eliminate government fraud. Yet a damning new report from Senator Elizabeth Warren reveals a starkly different reality: Musk’s 130 days in the White House appear to have been very little about serving the public interest and more about engineering one of the most audacious wealth transfers from taxpayers to a single individual in modern American history. Why are people protesting Elon Musk? In short: everybody hates corruption. And during his time with DOGE, Musk’s net worth soared by over $100 billion and his companies secured billions in new federal contracts, regulatory approvals, and policy changes that directly benefited his sprawling business empire.
The Warren report exposes how Musk’s anti-fraud rhetoric served as convenient cover for systematically dismantling the very agencies responsible for investigating his companies’ workplace safety violations, environmental damage, and discriminatory practices. Under the guise of “efficiency,” DOGE targeted the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) that would regulate his planned X Money venture, gutted OSHA while it investigated Tesla’s worker safety record, and fired inspectors general who had been scrutinizing his companies. Meanwhile, agencies that provide essential services to working familiesβfrom the Department of Labor to social safety net programsβfaced devastating cuts that threaten to leave the most vulnerable Americans without crucial protections. What emerges is a troubling pattern: Musk’s government role functioned less as public service and more as a strategic position to eliminate oversight of his businesses while redirecting taxpayer resources into his own coffers.
The Massachusetts Senator and champion of the CFPB kept an eagle eye on Musk as he burrowed his way through the federal government with his 20-somethings alt-right goon squad. She compiled this exhaustive report on Elon Musk’s corrupt dealings during his time in the White House — and these are just the ones we know about thanks to intrepid investigative journalists, whistleblowers, and other patriotic informants. A full accounting of the heist will likely not be known for some time, if at all — given the Trump administration’s power (and proclivity) to memory hole theoretically anything they wish.
Maybe not the best rendering… blame Musk’s Grok!
The report, “Special Interests Over the Public Interest: Elon Muskβs 130 Days in the Trump Administration (PDF),” details numerous instances where the tech megabillionaire and richest man on earth, serving as a “Special Government Employee” while leading DOGE, engaged in actions that allegedly benefited his private financial interests. On top of a net worth increase of $100 billion+ since Election Day, his companies (Tesla, SpaceX, X and xAI, the Boring Company, and Neuralink) had extensive financial conflicts of interest that were completely disregarded.
Here are the highlights from the report, followed by a timeline and cast of characters.
List of Elon Musk’s corrupt activities inside the White House
This is a comprehensive list of examples from the report illustrating how Musk allegedly used his power to further his personal interests, as of June 2025:
1. Government Resources to Promote Muskβs Businesses
Trump and Musk turned the White House lawn into a Tesla showroom.
Commerce Secretary Lutnick, reportedly “close to Elon Musk,” appeared on Fox News telling viewers to “buy Tesla”.
The Commerce Department changed terms of the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program to allow Starlink to apply, despite warnings of inferior service and higher costs.
The White House called for 13% more spending for the Department of Defense (DoD), and SpaceX is considered likely to be the top recipient of new Pentagon funding.
For years, Republican lawmakers and right-wing media outlets frothed at the mouth over Hunter Biden’s laptop and fabricated tales of Burisma “corruption” β stories so thoroughly debunked that the FBI informant who invented them, Alexander Smirnov, is now serving six years in prison for his lies. The GOP knew the Burisma bribes were fake Russian disinformation from the start, yet they weaponized these fabrications to launch impeachment proceedings and relentlessly smear the Biden family. Meanwhile, they’ve maintained a deafening silence about the brazen, documented, and ongoing Trump corruption stench emanating from the convicted fraudster‘s second presidency.
The hypocrisy is breathtaking in its audacity. While Republicans manufactured outrage over phantom millions supposedly flowing to the Bidens β money that never existed, deals that never happened, corruption that was entirely fictional β they’ve turned a blind eye to the very real, very documented flood of cash pouring into Trump’s coffers from foreign governments, cryptocurrency schemes, and pay-to-play access deals that would make a banana republic dictator blush. Maryland Representative and House Judiciary ranking member Jamie Raskin called it a “gangster state” in a recent interview with MSNBC‘s Chris Hayes.
What follows is not speculation, not innuendo, not the fever dreams of political opponents. This is a meticulously documented catalog of corruption so vast and shameless that it dwarfs anything previously seen in American presidential history. From $346 million in inaugural slush funds to $5.5 billion foreign real estate deals, from cryptocurrency pump-and-dump schemes netting nearly a billion dollars to a $400 million plane gift from Qatar β the Trump administration has transformed the presidency into a personal ATM with all the subtlety of a smash-and-grab robbery.
The Teapot Dome Scandal of the 1920s served as the quintessential symbol of government corruption for decades — over a mere $7 million worth of bribes to Interior Secretary Albert Fall. It was eclipsed and replaced by Watergate, shortly preceded by the resignation of Vice President Spiro Agnew over the discovery of his $300,000 operation that funneled cash stuffed into plain envelopes by bag men into the White House. Trump’s corruption represents a quantum leap beyond even these watershed moments in terms of sheer orders of magnitude, as well as the brazen manner in which the heists are being conducted in broad daylight.
The same party that spent years screaming about imaginary Ukrainian energy company bribes and fantasy Chinese business deals has remained conspicuously silent as their standard-bearer openly auctions off American foreign policy, drops federal investigations for donors, and literally sells dinner invitations for millions of dollars. The cognitive dissonance would be comical if it weren’t so dangerous to our democracy.
What is an example of political corruption in the United States? You cannot find a bigger collection of brazen examples. This is the story they don’t want you to focus on β the real corruption, the documented grift, the unprecedented monetization of the American presidency happening right before our eyes. I’ll be aiming to keep this list updated with the inevitable additions to come.
Financial Gains from Inaugural Funds and Campaign Donations
Donald Trumpβs two inaugural committees raised an astounding $346 million, which is more than all other inaugural committees combined since Richard Nixonβs in 1973. There is no oversight on how Trump uses the money that was not spent on festivities, although allies claim it will go to projects like his presidential library (…for the guy who doesn’t read.).
Companies and executives who donated heavily to Trump’s inaugural fund have seen direct benefits in return. For example, the Trump administration withdrew a Biden-era rule requiring poultry companies to keep salmonella bacteria levels below a certain level. Pilgrimβs Pride, which gave $5 million to Trumpβs inaugural committee (making it the largest donor to that effort), had two executives on the board of the National Chicken Council, which celebrated the reversal.
Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg of Meta, the CEO of OpenAI Sam Altman, and AI search startup Perplexity each planned or did donate $1 million to Trumpβs inauguration fund, while Trump has refused to sign paperwork requiring him to disclose the donors. The fund has been described as a “slush fund” due to a lack of required accounting for how the money is spent.
Who are the Christian nationalists? They are people, groups, and congregations who tend to believe in Strict Father Morality, and Christian nationalist leaders desire to establish some sort of Christian fascist theocratic state in America. Nevermind that religious freedom and the ability to worship as one pleases was precisely one of the major founding ideals of the United States, as we know from the many, many outside writings of the founders at that time — these folks consider that context “irrelevant” to the literal text of the founding documents.
Getting “separation of state” backwards
Prominent Christian nationalist David Barton re-interprets the famous 1802 Thomas Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptists to allege support for a “one-way wall” between church and state. Barton contends that Jefferson’s metaphor of a “wall of separation” was intended to protect religious institutions from government interference rather than ensuring the government’s secular nature. By advocating for this one-directional barrier, Barton seeks to justify the integration of religious principles into public policy and government actions — improbably, given the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Barton and his fellow Christian nationalists are either intentionally or unfathomably not taking the logical next step in the chain of power and authority: if the government is informed, infused, or even consumed by religious dogma and doctrine, then is that government not by definition infringing on the rights of any citizens that happens not to believe in that code or creed?
The answer, as we well know from the colonization of America itself, is YES. We left the Church of England in large part to worship of our own accord — and to make money, of course. Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and Washington were especially concerned about religious liberty and the neutrality of government in religious matters.
Thus, in large part, the ideas of the Christian nationalists are misinterpretations at best, and willful invention at worst. In some it is clearly a naked power grab and not much more — think of Trump holding an upside-down Bible in Lafayette Square. In general, Christian nationalism doesn’t actually seem very Christian at all.
Whether they are True Believers or Opportunistic Cynics, the Christian nationalist organizations and right wing groups on this list — as well as a number of prominent individuals within these organizations — represent a threat to democracy as we know it — especially with Project 2025 so close to coming to fruition in a second Trump administration. Best we get a look at who they are.
Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that occur when arguments are constructed or evaluated. They are deceptive and misleading, often leading to false or weak conclusions. Recognizing and avoiding logical fallacies is essential for critical thinking and effective communication.
These flaws in rhetorical logic can be observed aplenty in modern political and civil discourse. They are among the easiest types of argument to dispel, because their basic type has been discredited and compiled together with other discarded forms of rational persuasion, to make sure that ensuing generations don’t fall for the same tired old unethical ideas.
By understanding and identifying these common logical fallacies, individuals can sharpen their critical thinking skills and engage in more productive, rational discussions. Recognizing fallacies also helps avoid being swayed by deceptive or unsound arguments — which abound in increasing volume thanks to the prevalence of misinformation, disinformation, and disingenuous forms of motivated reasoning.
In an age of information overload, critical thinking has never been more essential. Whether you’re analyzing a news story, debating with friends, or writing a persuasive essay, your ability to recognize and avoid faulty reasoning can be the difference between clarity and confusion, persuasion and propaganda. At the heart of this effort lies this powerful concept of logical fallacies.
Types of logical fallacies
Logical fallacies fall into one of two main clusters:
Formal Fallacies
Formal fallacies occur when there’s a flaw in the logical structure of an argument, rendering the conclusion invalidβeven if the premises are true. Think of formal fallacies as broken logic circuits: they donβt connect, even if the parts look sound.
Example:
If itβs raining, the ground is wet. The ground is wet, therefore it must be raining. (This is a classic fallacy known as affirming the consequent.)
Informal Fallacies
Informal fallacies, on the other hand, relate to the content of the argument rather than its structure. These occur when the premises don’t adequately support the conclusion, even if the structure appears valid.
These informal logical fallacies are more common in everyday conversation and rhetoric. Informal fallacies usually stem from misused language, assumptions, or appeals to emotion rather than flawed logic alone. They’re trickier to spot because they often feel intuitive or persuasive.
Example:
Everyoneβs doing it, so it must be right. (This is the bandwagon fallacyβpopular doesn’t mean correct.)
Within each of these two clusters is a number of different logical fallacies, each with its own pitfalls. Here are a few examples:
Ad Hominem: This fallacy attacks the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. For instance, dismissing someone’s opinion on climate change because they’re not a scientist is an ad hominem fallacy.
Straw Man: This involves misrepresenting an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. If someone argues for better healthcare and is accused of wanting “socialized medicine,” that’s a straw man.
Appeal to Authority: This fallacy relies on the opinion of an “expert” who may not actually be qualified in the relevant field. Just because a celebrity endorses a product doesn’t mean it’s effective.
False Dichotomy: This fallacy presents only two options when, in fact, more exist. For example, stating that “you’re either with us or against us” oversimplifies complex issues.
Slippery Slope: This fallacy argues that a single action will inevitably lead to a series of negative events, without providing evidence for such a chain reaction.
Circular Reasoning: In this fallacy, the conclusion is used as a premise, creating a loop that lacks substantive proof. Saying “I’m trustworthy because I say I am” is an example.
Hasty Generalization: This involves making a broad claim based on insufficient evidence. For instance, meeting two rude people from a city and concluding that everyone from that city is rude is a hasty generalization.
Understanding logical fallacies equips you to dissect arguments critically, making you a more informed participant in discussions. It’s a skill that’s invaluable in both professional and personal settings. Arm yourself with knowledge about this list of logical fallacies:
Fallacy
Definition
Example
Ad Hominem
Attacking the person instead of addressing their argument
“You can’t trust his economic policy ideas. He’s been divorced three times!”
Appeal to Authority
Using an authority’s opinion as definitive proof without addressing the argument itself
“Dr. Smith has a PhD, so her view on climate change must be correct.”
Appeal to Emotion
Manipulating emotions instead of using valid reasoning
“Think of the children who will suffer if you don’t support this policy!”
Appeal to Nature
Arguing that because something is natural, it is good, valid, or justified
“Herbal supplements are better than medication because they’re natural.”
Appeal to Tradition
Arguing that something is right because it’s been done that way for a long time
“We’ve always had this company policy, so we shouldn’t change it.”
Bandwagon Fallacy
Appealing to popularity as evidence of truth
“Everyone is buying this product, so it must be good.”
Begging the Question
Circular reasoning where the conclusion is included in the premise
“The Bible is true because it’s the word of God, and we know it’s the word of God because the Bible says so.”
Black-and-White Fallacy
Presenting only two options when more exist
“Either we cut the entire program, or we’ll go bankrupt.”
Cherry Picking
Selectively using data that supports your position while ignoring contradictory evidence
“Global warming can’t be real because it snowed last winter.”
Correlation vs. Causation
Assuming that because two events occur together, one caused the other
“Ice cream sales and drowning deaths both increase in summer, so ice cream causes drowning.”
Equivocation
Using a word with more than one meaning in a misleading way
“Evolution is just a theory, so it shouldn’t be taught as fact.” (Equivocating between scientific theory and casual speculation)
Fallacy of Composition
Inferring that something is true of the whole because it’s true of a part
“This cell is invisible to the naked eye, so the whole animal must be invisible too.”
Fallacy of Division
Inferring that something is true of the parts because it’s true of the whole
“The university has an excellent reputation, so every professor there must be excellent.”
Genetic Fallacy
Evaluating an argument based on its origins rather than its merits
“That idea came from a socialist country, so it must be bad.”
Hasty Generalization
Drawing a general conclusion from a sample that is too small or biased
“I had two bad meals at restaurants in Italy, so Italian cuisine is terrible.”
Middle Ground Fallacy
Assuming that a compromise between two extremes must be correct
“Some people say the Earth is flat, others say it’s round. The truth must be that it’s somewhat flat and somewhat round.”
No True Scotsman
Redefining terms to exclude counterexamples
“No true environmentalist would drive an SUV.” When shown an environmentalist who drives an SUV: “Well, they’re not a true environmentalist then.”
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Assuming that because B followed A, A caused B
“I wore my lucky socks and we won the game, so my socks caused our victory.”
Red Herring
Introducing an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the original issue
“Why worry about environmental problems when there are so many people who can’t find jobs?”
Slippery Slope
Arguing that a small first step will inevitably lead to extreme consequences
“If we allow same-sex marriage, next people will want to marry their pets!”
Straw Man
Misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack
“Vegetarians say we should eat no meat at all and let farmers go out of business.” (When they actually argue for reduced meat consumption)
Texas Sharpshooter
Cherry-picking data clusters to fit a pattern
“Look at these cancer cases clustered in this neighborhood – it must be caused by the power lines!” (While ignoring similar neighborhoods with power lines but no cancer clusters)
Tu Quoque
Avoiding criticism by turning it back on the accuser
“You say I should quit smoking, but you used to smoke too!”
Burden of Proof
Claiming something is true while putting the burden to disprove it on others
“I believe in ghosts. Prove to me that they don’t exist.”
How to identify logical fallacies
Spotting fallacies takes practice, but these tips can help sharpen your skills:
Slow down and dissect the argument. Look at the premises and conclusionβdo they logically connect?
Watch for emotional appeals. If an argument relies more on stirring feelings than presenting evidence, be cautious.
Ask: what’s being left out? Many fallacies omit key context or alternate explanations.
Compare to real-world examples. Would the logic hold up elsewhere?
Everyday example: βIf we allow students to redo assignments, next theyβll expect to retake tests, and eventually no deadlines will matter at all.β β This is a slippery slope fallacy. One action doesn’t necessarily lead to an extreme outcome.
Why avoiding logical fallacies matters
Logical fallacies donβt just weaken argumentsβthey erode trust, obscure truth, and inflame discourse. Here’s why learning to avoid them is critical:
In personal arguments: Fallacies can escalate tension and derail meaningful conversation.
In academic writing: Sound reasoning is the backbone of scholarship; fallacies undermine credibility.
In public discourse and media: Propaganda and misinformation often rely on fallacious reasoning to manipulate opinion. Recognizing these tactics is key to resisting them.
In a world where bad actors exploit fallacies for influence and profit, being fallacy-literate is a form of intellectual self-defense.
A Diplomatic Travesty in the Oval Office: Zelensky, Trump, and JD Vanceβs Foreign Policy Ambush
The Oval Office has seen its share of tense diplomatic moments, but the recent clash between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and former U.S. President Donald Trumpβjoined by Ohio Senator JD Vanceβmarks a new low in international decorum. What was expected to be a high-stakes discussion on Ukraineβs future and continued U.S. support instead devolved into a heated, profanity-laced exchange, described by German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock as ushering in a βnew era of profanity.β
In a tense and extraordinary meeting in front of the cameras, President Trump and Vice President Vance confronted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in what appeared to be a carefully orchestrated diplomatic ambush. With Russian state media present while major American outlets were excluded, Trump and Vance pressured Zelensky to accept terms highly favorable to Russia – including a ceasefire that would effectively cede Ukrainian territory and sign over rights to valuable rare-earth minerals without firm security guarantees in return. Zelensky pointed out that Putin had broken ceasefire agreements 25 times already — so what was his incentive to find this one credible, particularly without any concrete guarantees?
In response to a reporter’s question about the US’s sudden shift away from its staunch Cold War stance to embracing Russia, Trump complained that Zelensky showed “such hate” towards Putin, who — he alleged — has suffered very badly (hatred being more impactful than military invasion, I guess?). When Zelensky remained composed and warned that the United States might “feel problems” due to its shifting alliance toward Russia, Trump grew visibly agitated, repeatedly insisting Americans would “feel very good and very strong” instead, while Vance accused the Ukrainian leader of being ungrateful for American support — as someone insecure and in need of praise would do.
The situation escalated when Zelensky calmly but firmly stated that Trump and Vance would “feel influenced” by Russia, triggering an extended, angry tirade from Trump that veered into his grievances about Russian election interference investigations, criticisms of former Presidents Biden and Obama, and rhetoric that closely mirrored Putin’s talking points and invented conspiracy theories on Ukraine.
The situation is, as they say in the military, FUBAR’d. We are under a full-on authoritarian attack to democracy in progress in broad daylight, being carried out by the (unfortunately) legitimate president and his illegitimate best buddy Elon Musk. What can we do — the situation seems so bleak, you say. I hear you and I feel you. But AOC and HCR (two of my favorite acronyms) are here to break it down about how we should not go quietly — and how to do it.
First up: what are we facing? Among other things, what is most probably the biggest data breach of all time — perpetrated by Elon’s Musk’s fake department DOGE. Former Republican strategist Stuart Stevens called Musk’s land grab of the federal till and all its payment information about citizens “the most significant data leak in cyber history.” On top of that, the conflicts of interest inherent in this unlawful caper are so staggering they’re well out of scope of this single blog post.
Beyond that, Trump waited for Congress to go out of session before beginning the blitzkrieg of illegal Executive Orders and maneuvers designed to attack America and throw its citizens off balance. Here’s a list of the main actions we need to be pressing our Congresspeople to get answers for:
Events of the authoritarian push
Impoundment Attempt and Judicial Reversal:
Early in the Trump administration, an Office of Management and Budget memo attempted to freeze federal spending pending a review for alleged “DEI contamination”. A federal judge quickly ruled this action βblatantly unconstitutional,β forcing the administration to backtrack. However, related Executive Orders freezing some payments are said to “still be in order” which is (intentionally) causing confusion around the status of almost everything.
Elon Muskβs Intervention in the Treasury Payment System:
Muskβs people, reportedly a group of young men between 19 and 24 according to Wired, attempted to access a βsecret areaβ within USAID (the agency responsible for U.S. foreign aid). In the process, two top officials were sidelined (put on administrative leave), and Muskβs team gained access, potentially compromising sensitive U.S. intelligence data.
Announced Cuts to Federal Programs:
Following these breaches, Musk (acting as a Trump ally) has claimed on social media that he is βcuttingβ certain federally funded programs, including a human services organization linked to the Lutheran Church. This move threatens funding for critical services such as migrant support, nursing homes, and possibly even affects Social Security and Medicare (though Trump has stated these will not be touched).
Tariffs and International Implications:
Additionally, Trumpβs administration is imposing tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China, which could inflict economic pain, especially in regions that predominantly support the Republican agenda.
These recent events (the inimitable Heather Cox Richardson covers them in-depth in her Letters from an American column) highlight an aggressive attack on constitutional governance marked by executive overreach and the manipulation of public funds. Actions such as unilateral spending freezesβdisguised (thinly) as efforts to address DEI concernsβand the controversial transfer of control over federal financial systems to private interests like world’s richest man Elon Musk (who apparently still doesn’t have enough money) reveal a dangerous shift in power.
This reckless endangerment jeopardizes not only the integrity of critical public services and security measures but also the core democratic principle of accountability, underscoring an urgent need for citizens to remain vigilant and demand that elected officials uphold the constitutional order. We The People still wield the ultimate power — as AOC is about to so eloquently tell you more about.
In President Joe Biden’s farewell speech (already memory holed by the Trump administration — and archived on my GitHub) he delivered a parting shot to the tech oligarchs currently falling over themselves to bend the knee and kiss the ring. With no fucks left to give, the remarkably Keynesian 46th US President gave a strikingly woke warning about the class struggle rarely revealed so openly by either party — warning of a tech-industrial complex slavering to abuse power even more brazenly:
I want to warn the country of some things that give me great concern. And this is a dangerous β and thatβs the dangerous concentration of power in the hands of a very few ultrawealthy people, and the dangerous consequences if their abuse of power is left unchecked. Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead. We see the consequences all across America. And weβve seen it before.
More than a century ago, the American people stood up to the robber barons back then and busted the trusts. They didnβt punish the wealthy. They just made the wealthy play by the rules everybody else had. Workers want rights to earn their fair share. You know, they were dealt into the deal, and it helped put us on the path to building the largest middle class, the most prosperous century any nation the world has ever seen. Weβve got to do that again.
The last four years, that is exactly what we have done. People should be able to make as much as they can, but pay β play by the same rules, pay their fair share in taxes. So much is at stake. Right now, the existential threat of climate change has never been clearer. Just look across the country, from California to North Carolina. Thatβs why I signed the most significant climate and clean energy law ever, ever in the history of the world.
And the rest of the world is trying to model it now. Itβs working, creating jobs and industries of the future. Now we have proven we donβt have to choose between protecting the environment and growing the economy. Weβre doing both. But powerful forces want to wield their unchecked influence to eliminate the steps weβve taken to tackle the climate crisis, to serve their own interests for power and profit. We must not be bullied into sacrificing the future, the future of our children and our grandchildren. We must keep pushing forward, and push faster. There is no time to waste. It is also clear that American leadership in technology is unparalleled, an unparalleled source of innovation that can transform lives. We see the same dangers in the concentration of technology, power and wealth.
You know, in his farewell address, President Eisenhower spoke of the dangers of the military-industrial complex. He warned us that about, and I quote, βThe potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power.β Six days β six decades later, Iβm equally concerned about the potential rise of a tech-industrial complex that could pose real dangers for our country as well.
Americans are being buried under an avalanche of misinformation and disinformation enabling the abuse of power. The free press is crumbling. Editors are disappearing. Social media is giving up on fact-checking. The truth is smothered by lies told for power and for profit. We must hold the social platforms accountable to protect our children, our families and our very democracy from the abuse of power. Meanwhile, artificial intelligence is the most consequential technology of our time, perhaps of all time.
Biden farewell speech video
Despite the Trumpian regime’s attempt to erase history, there are many copies of the speech available for posterity. You can watch one of them here:
Meanwhile the GOP apparently knew the whole thing was made up — because they helped ferry the disinformation from Russian sources to further their political goals. Trump had sent Rudy Giuliani and Lev Parnas on a fishing expedition to “dig up dirt” on the Bidens in Ukraine circa 2018-2019, making them almost eager to be willfully conned by Russian active measures. The Russians of course did not disappoint — first implanting the Burisma disinformation through this channel.
The Lev Parnas story would become the basis of the excellent Rachel Maddow-produced feature-length documentary, “From Russia with Lev”:
Burisma bribes were fake
In other words, both arms of the “Biden bribes” story have been thoroughly debunked — which led House Republicans to drop the Biden impeachment inquiry, but not to drop their disinformation campaign around the alleged corruption. So, GOP lawmakers know the Burisma story is fake, that Russian spies planted it, and “disinformation courier” Smirnov will serve jail time for it — but they continue to push it anyway, in an attempt to create a vague veneer of corruption around sitting President Joe Biden.
The Republican flavor of whataboutism that tries lamely to stand up an entirely fake, intentionally fabricated story about $5 million bribes to the Bidens against the unprecedented scale of openly naked corruption as Trump brazenly seeks to profit from his public service is a morally reprehensible ethical stain that I hope follows them into history as a legacy of abject greed and lust for power that thoroughly characterizes the Republican Party in this era. To the extent the GOP stands for anything, it is corruption.
Since Donald Trumpβs election in 2016, a lot of people believe that new technologiesβand how foreign actors manipulate themβplayed a big role in his win and are fueling our βpost-truthβ world, where disinformation and propaganda seem to thrive.
Network Propaganda flips that idea on its head. The book dives into an incredibly detailed study of American media coverage from the start of the 2016 election in April 2015 to Trumpβs first year in office. By analyzing millions of news stories, social media shares on Facebook and Twitter, TV broadcasts, and YouTube content, it paints a full picture of how political communication in the U.S. really works. The authors dig into big topics like immigration, Clinton-related scandals, and the Trump-Russia investigation and reveal that right-wing media doesnβt play by the same rules as other outlets.
Their big takeaway? The conservative media ecosystem functions in a totally unique way, shaped by decades of political, cultural, and institutional shifts since the 1970s. This has created a kind of propaganda loop thatβs pushed center-right media to the sidelines, radicalized the right, and made it more vulnerable to both domestic and foreign propaganda. Thus Russia’s involvement was more like pouring gasoline onto an existing fire — a conflagration which was raging prior to Putin’s arrival on the scene.
For readers both inside and outside the U.S., Network Propaganda offers fresh insights and practical ways to understandβand maybe even fixβthe broader democratic challenges weβre seeing around the world.
Network Propaganda podcast book summary
I have been getting a kick out of NotebookLM‘s renditions of podcasts about the source materials uploaded to the Notebook. They are really quite good, and I can see them being useful for a number of purposes. Here’s an AI-generated discussion about Network Propaganda, taken from a PDF of the book as the source of the Notebook.
Kamala Harris should be proud of the race she ran, an almost flawless sprint through the tape at a scant 108 days’ worth of time to make her pitch to the American voters — many of whom complained that they did not know her very well as a candidate.
Disinformation continued relentlessly throughout the race — even doubling down when called out.
Not a Mandate
Trump’s lead keeps dropping as California and other western states finish counting their ballots after what seems like an eternity — mostly due to CA accepting ballots postmarked by election day, adding 7 days to the final count no matter what.
He dropped below 50% and never recovered — meaning that more people voted against him than voted for him.
As of the final count, his margin dropped below 1.5% — the 4th largest margin in any popular vote win in the past 100 years.
Vote Predictors
Education
Media Sources
Urban vs. Rural
I haven’t had the energy to give to this piece and I just learned about this feature of Google’s NotebookLM that can generate a podcast between 2 hosts, from your uploaded assets. I tested it out with a combined corpus of some of my own thoughts and some of the resources I found insightful.
What NotebookLM came up with was uncannily compelling. It would be something I would consider useful, particularly as a tool for initiating some of those folks less steeped in politics as I am. So I’m posting it here, in part as a signpost regarding where we’re heading — whether we like it or not.
The trajectory of the U.S. national debt is a compelling narrative that mirrors the nation’s evolving priorities, polarities, challenges, and triumphs. From the nascent days of the republic, grappling with the financial aftermath of the Revolutionary War, to the expansive fiscal policies of the 20th century, each era offers a unique lens into the economic and political forces at play in the history of the national debt.
In the late 18th century, under the stewardship of Alexander Hamilton, the United States established its first national debtβa strategic move to unify the fledgling states and build creditworthiness. The 19th century witnessed fluctuations driven by events such as the Civil War, which necessitated unprecedented borrowing, followed by periods of aggressive debt reduction during peacetime.
The 20th century introduced complexities with global conflicts like World War I and WWII, the Great Depression, and the Cold War, each leaving indelible marks on the nation’s fiscal landscape. Post-World War II prosperity facilitated debt reduction, but subsequent decades saw increases due to military engagements, economic policies, and social programs.
As we navigate the 21st century, the national debt continues to be a focal point of economic discourse, influenced by factors ranging from tax policies to global pandemics. Tax cuts for the wealthy under Reagan, the Bushes, and most notably Trump since 1980 have blown a hole in the debt. Military adventurism around the world including 2 completely unpaid for Gulf Wars in the ’90s and 2000s and the 20-year war in Afghanistan ballooned it as well.
This timeline delves into the pivotal moments that have shaped the U.S. national debt, offering insights into the decisions and events that have influenced its rise and fall over the centuries — so we can get intimately familiar with which policies increase or decrease it.
The Psychology of Sadism: Understanding the Dark Side of Human Nature
In the pantheon of human psychological traits, few are as unsettling β yet fascinating β as sadism. While the term often conjures images of extreme criminal behavior or medieval torture chambers, the reality is both more nuanced and more pervasive than most people realize. Let’s dive deep into the psychological architecture of sadism and explore what modern science tells us about this disturbing aspect of human nature.
The Spectrum of Sadistic Behavior
At its core, sadism represents the capacity to derive pleasure from others’ suffering. But like many psychological phenomena, it exists on a spectrum rather than as a binary trait. On one end, we find what researchers call “everyday sadism” β those small cruel behaviors that pepper ordinary life, like enjoying watching fail videos or taking pleasure in office politics gone wrong. On the other end lies clinical sadism, the domain of true predators and those who commit acts of serious violence.
This spectrum theory helps explain why perfectly “normal” people might engage in behaviors like internet trolling or workplace bullying. These acts represent subclinical manifestations of sadistic tendencies that, while concerning, fall well short of criminal behavior.
The Dark Tetrad: A Family of Malevolent Traits
Sadism doesn’t exist in isolation. It’s part of what psychologists call the Dark Tetrad β a cluster of interconnected traits including narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy (it’s the newest band member of the artist formerly known as the Dark Triad). Think of these as the four horsemen of malevolent personality, each bringing its own flavor of interpersonal toxicity to the table.
What makes sadism unique within this dark constellation? Unlike its siblings, sadism involves a willingness to incur personal costs just to harm others. A narcissist might hurt you to get ahead, but a sadist will hurt you simply because it feels good β even if it means sacrificing their own resources or social standing in the process.
The Anatomy of a Sadistic Personality
Modern psychological research has identified three key components of sadistic personality:
Physical violence isn’t just tolerated β it’s enjoyed. Whether participating in or merely witnessing violent acts, sadistic individuals experience positive emotions where others would feel revulsion.
Verbal sadism manifests as a love of cruel humor, cutting remarks, and psychological warfare. These individuals don’t just win arguments; they savor their opponent’s emotional pain.
Violent media consumption goes beyond normal entertainment preferences. Sadistic individuals actively seek out graphic content and experience genuine pleasure from witnessing violence, even in fictional contexts.
The Neuroscience of Cruelty
Recent neurobiological research has begun to unlock the physical basis of sadistic behavior. Studies show that sadistic individuals often display blunted startle responses similar to those seen in psychopaths. This suggests a fundamental difference in how their brains process threats and emotional stimuli.
Even more intriguingly, brain imaging studies have revealed potential alterations in regions associated with empathy and emotion processing. It’s as if the neural machinery normally responsible for sharing others’ pain has been rewired to experience it as pleasure instead.
Measuring the Unmeasurable
How do you quantify something as complex as sadistic tendencies? Researchers have developed several innovative approaches:
The Comprehensive Assessment of Sadistic Tendencies (CAST) provides a standardized way to measure sadistic traits across populations.
Behavioral experiments, including the infamous “bug-grinding study,” create controlled environments where sadistic tendencies can be observed in action.
Advanced neuroimaging techniques allow researchers to watch the sadistic brain in real-time, offering unprecedented insights into the neural correlates of cruel behavior.
Why This Matters
Understanding sadism isn’t just an academic exercise. It has profound implications for:
Improving workplace dynamics by recognizing and addressing subtle forms of sadistic behavior
Looking Forward
As our understanding of sadism continues to evolve, we’re faced with uncomfortable questions about human nature. Is the capacity for sadistic pleasure a bug or a feature of our psychological makeup? Can we develop effective interventions to curb sadistic tendencies? How do we balance the need to understand sadism with the risk of normalizing it?
These questions don’t have easy answers, but they’re crucial to address as we work toward creating a society that can recognize, understand, and ultimately minimize the expression of sadistic behavior.
The study of sadism reminds us that the darker aspects of human nature deserve neither glorification nor denial, but rather careful, clear-eyed examination. Only by understanding the psychology of cruelty can we hope to build a world with less of it.
For a deeper dive into related topics in psychology and human behavior (and more), explore more articles here on Doctor Paradox.
Kakistocracyβa term that may sound esoteric but is disturbingly relevant todayβrefers to governance by the least qualified or most unscrupulous individuals. Derived from the Greek words “kakistos” (κάκιΟΟΞΏΟ), meaning “worst,” and “kratos” (ΞΊΟΞ¬ΟΞΏΟ), meaning “rule,” it literally translates to “government by the worst people.”
Historical context of kakistocracy
The concept of kakistocracy isn’t new. It first appeared in the 17th century, notably in a 1644 sermon by Paul Gosnold, who lamented the transformation of a well-tempered monarchy into a “mad kinde of Kakistocracy.”
Later, in 1829, English author Thomas Love Peacock used the term in his novel “The Misfortunes of Elphin,” contrasting it with aristocracy. By 1876, American poet James Russell Lowell expressed his dismay over the “degradation of the moral tone,” questioning whether democracy had devolved into a kakistocracy.
Modern resonance
Fast forward to the 21st century, and the term has resurfaced in political discourse. Critics have applied it to various governments, from Russia under Vladimir Putin to Egypt under Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi, and notably to the United States during Donald Trump‘s presidency (the Trump corruption managed to get even worse during the convicted felon’s second term). The term gained traction as commentators highlighted perceived incompetence and corruption within these administrations.
Defining traits of kakistocracy
A kakistocracy is marked by several alarming characteristics:
Incompetence: Leaders lack the necessary skills or qualifications for their roles.
Corruption: Officials prioritize personal gain over public interest. The term kleptocracy also often applies to kakistocracies.
Nepotism: Appointments are based on personal connections rather than merit.
Disregard for Expertise: Scientific or expert advice is often ignored or dismissed.
Erosion of Institutions: Democratic norms and institutions are weakened or undermined.
Consequences
The ramifications of a kakistocracy are profound:
Moral Degradation: A decline in societal ethical standards.
Resource Mismanagement: Public resources are squandered or exploited.
Erosion of Trust: Public confidence in governmental institutions diminishes.
Structural Damage: Long-term harm to political, economic, and social frameworks.
Guarding Against Kakistocracy
To prevent or remedy such governance, several measures are essential:
Strengthening Democratic Institutions: Ensuring robust checks and balances.
Promoting Education and Civic Engagement: Empowering citizens to participate actively in governance.
Enhancing Transparency and Accountability: Holding officials responsible for their actions.
Supporting Independent Media: Encouraging investigative journalism and protecting whistleblowers.
In an era where the quality of leadership is under intense scrutiny, understanding and recognizing the signs of kakistocracy is crucial. By fostering informed and active citizenry, we can strive to uphold the principles of competent and ethical governance.
