Fighting cancer is pretty time-consuming. It left me with little time for Martinis with McGovern. That doesn’t mean I wasn’t writing, however. Douglas and I chronicled the entire experience. Then, we combined our journals into a book and we are proud to announce that Hard to Swallow: Don’t Let Dying Kill You is on step two of a three-step editing process. In other words, Coming Soon!

So how, exactly, is this Dick Cheney’s fault?

Dick Cheney’s spent four decades transforming the U.S. military from a self-sustaining force into one reliant on private contractors. Through his revolving-door roles as a legislator, Secretary of Defense, corporate CEO, and Vice President, Cheney laid the policy, commercial, and operational foundations for outsourcing large swaths of military functions, making a personal fortune along the way.

I used AI to help source the following information. "Tell me about dick cheney's role as a legislator, secretary of defense, Haliburton CEO and VP in privatizing the military" Gemini, August 2026 version, Google, 21 Aug. 2026, google.com.

1. U.S. Representative (1979–1989): Deregulation & Defense Hawkishness

Serving six terms as Wyoming’s sole member of the U.S. House of Representatives—eventually rising to House Minority Whip—Cheney established a consistent track record on national defense and government spending: [1, 2]

• Pro-Privatization Philosophy: Cheney championed deregulation and reducing the direct civilian footprint of the federal government, advocating that market efficiency could streamline defense operations.

• Defense Build-Up: As a member of the House Intelligence Committee and an ally of the Reagan-era military expansion, he consistently supported shifting secondary support and maintenance functions outside of uniformed personnel to maximize combat troop readiness.

2. Secretary of Defense (1989–1993): Commissioning LOGCAP

Following the end of the Cold War and the 1991 Gulf War, Cheney was tasked with cutting defense expenditures—the post-Cold War “peace dividend.” Rather than scaling back global commitments, Cheney spearheaded the strategy to outsource military logistics. [3]

• The LOGCAP Mandate: In 1992, Cheney’s Department of Defense commissioned a classified $3.9 million study from Brown & Root (which later became KBR, a Halliburton subsidiary). The study assessed whether private contractors could handle all non-combat military logistics during wartime. [3, 4]

• The LOGCAP I Contract: The study concluded that extensive privatization was cost-effective and feasible. In August 1992, Cheney’s Pentagon awarded Brown & Root the first overarching Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) contract, creating the formal legal and procurement pipeline for outsourcing troop dining, base construction, waste disposal, and transport. [3]

3. CEO of Halliburton (1995–2000): Scaling Defense Contracting

After leaving the Pentagon in 1993, Cheney transitioned to the private sector, serving as CEO and Chairman of Halliburton Company from 1995 to 2000. [5, 6]

• Acquisitions & Positioning: In 1998, Cheney oversaw the multi-billion-dollar merger between Halliburton and Dresser Industries, which fully brought Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) under the corporate umbrella. [6]

• Expanding Global Logistics: Under Cheney’s tenure, Halliburton doubled its federal contracting revenue. KBR executed massive military support operations in the Balkans (Bosnia and Kosovo) and established the blueprint for operating Forward Operating Bases (FOBs) overseas. Cheney famously remarked of KBR’s military integration: “The first person to greet our soldiers as they arrive and the last one to wave goodbye is one of our employees.” [7, 8, 9]

4. Vice President of the United States (2001–2009): The “Contractor War” in Iraq

Cheney resigned from Halliburton with a multimillion-dollar severance package and deferred compensation when chosen as George W. Bush’s running mate. During the post-9/11 “War on Terror,” the privatization policies Cheney had seeded reached an unprecedented scale. [5, 10]

• LOGCAP III Expansion: During the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, KBR won the LOGCAP III contract, handling virtually all aspects of base life-support, fuel transport, and waste management. At peak deployment, contractor personnel in Iraq outnumbered uniformed U.S. troops.

• No-Bid Contracts & Scrutiny: Halliburton/KBR secured billions in emergency sole-source and cost-plus contracts—including the controversial Restore Iraqi Oil (RIO) contract (Project RIO). [7, 8]

• Revolving-Door Controversies: Cheney’s continued receipt of deferred compensation and unexercised stock options from Halliburton while in office drew intense congressional investigations into war profiteering and conflicts of interest, though Cheney maintained he had severed all official ties and had no role in contract allocations. [4, 7, 8, 10]

Built in protections for contractors

For the Halliburton overview, I used AI to "Tell me about the lawsuit against haliburton for toxic exposure" Gemini, August 2026 version, Google, 21 Aug. 2026, google.com.

The multidistrict toxic exposure litigation against Halliburton and its former subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) spanned nearly a decade before coming to an end in January 2019, when the U.S. Supreme Court formally denied review (certiorari). [1, 2]

The lawsuits—which represented over 800 service members, civilian contractors, and surviving family members across more than 60 consolidated cases—never received a final trial or verdict on whether toxic fumes directly caused plaintiffs’ cancers, respiratory illnesses, or neurological conditions. Instead, federal courts dismissed the cases purely on jurisdictional and immunity grounds. [1, 3, 4, 5]

The Legal Grounds: The Underlying Claims

Plaintiffs alleged that Halliburton and KBR, operating under the Army’s Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP III) in Iraq and Afghanistan, acted negligently. The complaints alleged that: [5, 6]

• Open-air pits were constructed close to sleeping barracks and working quarters.

• The contractors incinerated hazardous items—including plastics, medical waste, batteries, petroleum products, tires, and ammunition—without adequate filtration or standard waste management equipment.

• Water supplies at various forward operating bases were improperly treated or contaminated. [4, 7, 8]

1. Multidistrict Litigation Consolidation & First Dismissal (2009–2013)

• Consolidation: In 2009, dozens of individual lawsuits across the country were consolidated into Multidistrict Litigation (MDL No. 2083: In re KBR, Inc., Burn Pit Litigation) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland before Judge Roger W. Titus.

• The First Dismissal (2013): In February 2013, Judge Titus dismissed the suits, ruling that the federal courts lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the Political Question Doctrine and that state tort claims were preempted by the Combatant Activities Exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). [5, 7]

2. Fourth Circuit Revives the Claims (2014)

• The Appeal (Burn Pit III): In March 2014, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case. [7, 9]

• The Ruling: The Fourth Circuit held that the factual record was insufficient to determine whether the military exercised “plenary and actual control” over every aspect of waste management. The court required further discovery to see if KBR retained unilateral discretion over how waste was disposed of. [7]

• Interlocutory Certiorari Denied (2015): KBR petitioned the Supreme Court to review the decision, but SCOTUS declined to intervene at that interlocutory stage, sending the case back to Maryland for deep factual discovery. [6]

3. District Court’s Final Dismissal on Summary Judgment (2017)

• Following extensive discovery involving thousands of military records and depositions from commanders and contractor personnel, Judge Titus granted summary judgment to KBR and dismissed all claims with prejudice in July 2017.

• The Core Findings:

  1. Plenary Military Command: The court determined that military commanders, not the private contractors, made the tactical and operational decisions to use open-air burn pits due to mission constraints, security threats, and lack of alternative waste infrastructure.

  2. Political Question Doctrine: The judiciary evaluating the military’s tactical logistics decisions during an active war would violate the constitutional separation of powers.

  3. Government Contractor Defense & Preemption: Because KBR adhered to military instructions and contract requirements within a combat theater, state tort claims were preempted. [5, 8, 10, 11, 12]

4. Fourth Circuit Affirms the Dismissal (2018)

• In June 2018, the Fourth Circuit unanimously affirmed the district court’s dismissal.

• The appellate panel held that the evidence established that the U.S. military exercised actual, operational control over base waste disposal methods. Because assessing negligence would force courts to question military policy and resource allocation during wartime, the claims were non-justiciable under the Political Question Doctrine. [5, 11, 12, 13]

5. The Supreme Court Appeal Rejection (January 2019)

• The Petition: The plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States (Metzgar v. KBR, Inc., No. 18-317), arguing that private military contractors should not receive sovereign immunity shields when private corporate negligence injures service members. [1, 7]

• The Order (January 14, 2019): The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari without comment, declining to hear oral arguments. [2, 14]

• The Legal Impact: Denying review left the Fourth Circuit’s dismissal in place, officially ending the decade-long toxic exposure lawsuit against Halliburton and KBR and extinguishing all remaining private tort remedies for the plaintiffs. [1, 2, 4]

The PACT Act offers help

Because civil litigation against defense contractors was blocked by immunity doctrines, veterans’ advocacy groups shifted focus toward congressional action. This effort directly culminated in the passage of the PACT Act of 2022, which established standard statutory presumptions of service connection for 23 toxic burn pit-related conditions through the Department of Veterans Affairs. [4, 15]

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

When the subject of an investigation resigns their federal post, the investigation is closed. Because the investigation wasn’t finished and isn’t available to the public, we don’t know what, if anything, Mack knew or didn’t know.

But we do know plenty about Mack’s time in Florida before his one-year play-date at the USDOL. Let’s work backwards, shall we?

In August of 2024, Mack was named Vice President of Strategy and Innovation at St. Thomas Aquinas University in Miami Gardens, which seemed odd given that Mack accepted a position as the Vice President for Academic Affairs at Northwest Florida State College (NWFSC) just six months earlier.

So what gives?

Well, it appears Mack got himself into a little bind at NWFSC. You see, in June of 2023, just six months before arriving at NWFSC, Henry Mack joined The Southern Group. He was hired as a higher education and workforce development lobbyist. Like law firms, lobbying groups have buy-in’s. The Southern Group buy-in amounts aren’t publicly available but rumor around Tallahassee puts the buy-in at $100,000. That has to be paid back by generating business, which Mack apparently failed to do during his six month tenure as a lobbyist.

So when Mack found himself at NWFSC, it appears he took the opportunity to steer a Triumph dollars to his former colleagues.

On January 10, 2024, Mack was coordinating a meeting with Tom Miller, Executive Director at Seaside Charter School about a “pre application” meeting.

A month later, on February 16, 2024, Mack emailed Miller (Seacoast) requesting “fodder” to justify moving the contract services to The Southern Group.

Behind the scenes, emails show that Mack was communicating with Carrie Henderson of The Southern Group about procurement opportunities. Mack was also trying to box out President Devin Stephenson and Senior Vice President Cristie Kedroski.

After Stephenson took the President’s position at Florida Polytech, Kedroski was named interim President at NWFSC. According to the rumor mill, the first thing she did was call for Mack’s resignation after these emails came to light.

The Florida Board of Education has an obligation to ask Henry Mack serious questions.

This is a developing story …

What we call Populism today is a political ploy designed to pit “the people” against a perceived corrupt or out-of-touch “elite.” Pretty much every politician - regardless of party - uses the tactic by claiming to speak for ordinary citizens and promising to restore their power.

But few have used populism while aggressively grifting the American people like Richard Nixon and Donald Trump.

US v. THEM

Both men constructed polarized binaries to mobilize supporters and justify policy priorities. Both exploited anxieties over social change. Both identified scapegoats to channel public anger and foster mistrust. Both appealed to our innate fear of chaos and criminality. Both used populist rhetoric to attract disgruntled Americans by stoking their disgruntledness.

Style

Nixon employed an indirect, polished, managerial populism. He used nebulous terms like the “silent majority” to tap into an undercurrent of uncomfortableness about the changing world.

Trump is more incendiary and performative. He uses crude, personal, emotionally charged language, social media amplification, and theatrical attacks to energize MAGA.

Strategy

Nixon relied on traditional media, party machines, and back-channel “elites.” Nixon employed secrecy, political manipulation and conspiratorial tactics.

Trump has built a direct-to-base media ecosystem through social media, rallies, and influencers. Trump promotes explicit conspiratorial claims (fraudulent elections, “fake news,” “deep state”) that delegitimizes opponents and processes openly and persistently. Hs tactics create feedback loops that harden group beliefs and mistrust of outsiders.

Both tied political loyalty to cultural identity. Nixon around patriotism/order; Trump around nativism and anti-elite belonging. In place of policy, the use of anger, fear, and grievance motivates voter turnout and continued loyalty. When policy is used, it is presented as a moral vindication rather than a solution.

Remember As You Prepare to Vote

In the short-term, populism may successfully consolidate disgruntled coalitions into a cohesive voting block. But the price is the erosion of political norms, increased polarization, weakened cross-party compromise, and displaced distrust of public institutions.

Share

Leave a comment

He married three women and fathered two sons. All of whom were named in his estate, which, after a lifetime of extreme poverty, ballooned to tens of millions in his later years. He was a private man. At various points, he self-medicated with alcohol. McCarthy was attracted to outlaws and academics alike. He was quiet. A good listener. A bit of a know-it-all, perhaps. And, he was a pedophile whose pursuit of “young girlfriends” earned him an FBI investigation and a stent on the run to Mexico.

McCarthy was deeply involved in the Santa Fe Institute as was - you guessed it - Jeffery Epstein.

In a piece for Vanity Fair, Vincenzo Barney called McCarthy’s relationship with Augusta Britt “the craziest love story in literary history.” Britt herself said, “I loved him. He was my safety.” She was sixteen when she met the forty-two-year-old man at a motel pool. Britt, who was living in foster care at the time, remained McCarthy’s secret muse until he died of prostate cancer. She, however, was not the inspiration behind “The Road.”

“The Road” was inspired by his youngest son, John. The man and the boy are barren identities to match the barrenness of their circumstances. They also provide the only sense of warmth, affection, and decency in an otherwise denuded, post-apocalyptic world. In the 2007 interview, Oprah Winfrey asked McCarthy if the book was a love letter to his son. “I suppose so.”

The dialogue, as stark as the world McCarthy created, serves as a prop that reinforces both despair and hope. McCarthy gives his main characters words that are brief, loaded, and poignant. The man protects his son as he searches for safety. Later, it becomes clear that the man isn’t simply searching for safety; he’s searching for a safe place to leave his son, who will soon be required to grow into a man in an apocalyptic world without a father to guide him.

Across all of McCarthy’s work, it is evident that McCarthy was a conservationist who was hellbent on sparing the lives of every quotation mark, comma, semi-colon, and dash he came across. In “The Road,” his stylistic handling, or mishandling, of the text contributes to the fullness of the story. Disjointed and simplified sentences mirror the shock and awe of the situation. Word repetition - gray, cold, wet, ash, burned, charred, dead – drives home the direness. Incomplete sentences bookmarked by never-ending sentences and one-word sentences convey the incongruent speed of the new world. Hurry up. Wait. Run. Freeze. Everything all at once.

McCarthy built a career bending genres, leaving critics like Michael Chabon of The New York Review of Books, classify “The Road” as “gothic horror … climate change fiction.” Alan Warner of The Guardian called it “American nightmare” fiction, while Janet Maslin told The New York Times readers that “The Road” unleashes a “biblical fury as he bears witness to sights man was never meant to see.” Regardless of label, McCarthy’s work is universally dark, bloody, and existential. According to McCarthy, “there is no such thing as life without bloodshed.”

“The Road” explores the brutality of societal decay and the violence that might accompany the end of times. Physical and psychological violence – to others and to self – are woven throughout. What is more difficult to pinpoint is love. If “The Road” was inspired by McCarthy’s fatherly feelings for his own young son, it is a clear commentary on the author as a man, husband, and father. It is a look at a man who can’t compel himself to write the word “love.” Not once.

The mother, depicted in flashbacks, killed herself to avoid the horrors of the new world. It’s not a far stretch to believe that the man’s emotional stuntedness affected his wife. It’s also not a far stretch to imagine that McCarthy, as he did in most of his other work, emotionally broke the woman and killed her off to punish his muse, Augusta Britt, who had rejected his proposal to marry a few years before (Barney, 2023). So, McCarthy rid the book of any semblance of a heroine and set off on a horrifying trek through cannibals without so much as an “I love you, son.”

McCarthy doesn’t just dialogue to move the story forward; he uses it as a prop. Like the leafless trees and an ashy Earth, McCarthy uses scarce dialogue to convey the urgent need to conserve energy. Conserve energy to survive. Sprouting leaves and spreading joy – and, apparently, saying “I love you” – takes too much energy. In a post-apocalyptic world, one must not sprout or spread. One must maintain enough energy to merely survive.

McCarthy, who, according to author D.T. Griffin, has a “disruptive writing style,” uses the refrain “carry the fire” as a metaphor. The man, the father, reminds his son to “carry the fire.” Sometimes, it’s a metaphor for hope. Sometimes, honor. Other times, humility. But always survival. It is always a metaphor for surviving with some semblance of humanity. McCarthy once said that the dialogue was taken. almost verbatim, from conversations with John.

We know that McCarthy dealt quickly and harshly with the women in his life and his books. We know that he was intrigued by depravity – incest, pedophilia, rape, cannibalism, and murder – and that at least some of that curiosity bled over into his real life. We also know that McCarthy plucked entire conversations, personalities, and experiences from real life and plopped them down on a page. It isn’t really any wonder that a man like McCarthy, who’s willing to step over the line of social norms in the flesh, is more than willing to blast open all constraints of human decency in ink?

So, what is there to take away from McCarthy’s stylistic choices? Well, first, I am now free of any forced use of quotation marks. I shall look for ways to recklessly abandon them. Second, brevity is just as important to storytelling as is rambling. Third, genre-bending is niche-building, and niche-building is branding. Finally, I remain disgusted by the ascension of abusive men just because they can (insert skill here).

Just like John Updike, McCarthy remains a cautionary tale of the societal misdefinition of success.

This isn’t new. We’ve been consuming and, thereby normalizing, rape in the arts for generations. It’s time to stop.

For Example: John Updike

John Updike (1932–2009) saw his first novel, The Poorhouse Fair, published in 1959. Nine years later, Couples was published. His last book, The Widows of Eastwick, was published in 2008 as a sequel to The Witches of Eastwick. Updike was so generous with his every thought, fellow author Philip Roth reportedly once asked, “Honestly, do we have to read every fucking word this guy writes?”

Several Updike books were scattered about in the little Tudor my mom bought in the early 70’s. The little pitched roof cottage sitting at the top of a hill, which magically transformed on snow days into a wonderland. The one so narrow our St. Bernard, Jenny, could slobber coat every wall with just one good head toss. The house that my divorced, twenty-five-year-old mother mortgaged before the Fair Credit Act passed was also home to John Updike novels.

Ironically, women like my mother didn’t exist in Updike’s world.

Updike Men Get To Do WTF They Want

Updike said that he endeavors to “give the mundane its beautiful due.” (Updike, 1991). He put the ordinary under a microscope. Ordinary people living in ordinary homes, shopping in ordinary markets, and working ordinary jobs. Then he flips the tables to expose what appear to be ordinary men who secretly reject cul-de-sacs full of little brick ranches and marriages full of missionary Saturday nights.

Updike’s legacy is just a bunch of men who are generally racked with moral ambiguity, alienation, and cell-level dissatisfaction. And we frequently meet these men just as they are about to come unglued.

Updike Women Don’t

Updike’s commercial success took off with the Rabbit series. Harry “Rabbit” Angstrom married his high-school sweetheart, Janice. Throughout the course of their marriage, Janice acts as an emotional anchor to Rabbit’s incessant man-child unravelings. Updike’s decision to box Janice into the long-suffering wife allowed Rabbit broad room to dilly in his every dalliance. For Rabbit to be big, Janice must be small. Small and resigned.

In Couples, Updike needed Angela to present as detached, disinterested, and selfish as a backdrop to Piet’s sexual quest to address his “spiritual confusion.” Like many women featured in Updike’s work, Angela is a cold fish, and cold fish get what they deserve. Had she just been more generous with her passions, she could have quenched his thirst at home. Had she prioritized Piet’s emotional needs more, she could have saved him from self-sabotage. She could have helped him live up to his full potential. Eventually, she gathered the courage to go. Despite her escape, Updike limits her to the expected. In Updike’s world, working women could choose from teaching, typing, or nursing. Angela chose teaching. In Updike’s world, women escape orgies and throuples for the “schoolmarm” life. Women can be thus or so but not thus and so.

In A&P, Updike describes three nameless teenage girls exclusively by their physical characteristics. Queenie, labeled for her obvious command of “fat” and “goony,” stumbled in her role ever so briefly when the storage manager referred to the girls as “indecent.” Indecently dressed for shopping in his beachside market. “We are decent,” Queenie replied while male employees drool and “house slaves” mosey up and down the aisles like “witches in pin curls” (Updike, 1961). It’s a particularly cruel arc of life that women live with—overly seen as girls and invisible as women.

Even Updike’s most woman-centric book, The Witches of Eastwick, features women who manipulate and manifest their wishes, which, of course, have everything to do with men. Dead ones, married ones, and bad ones. Their deepest desire isn’t to journey within but, instead, to fill a man-sized hole. Even if it’s certain to lead to humiliation. Even if they have to share him. Even if he’s the devil.

Janice, Angela, Queenie, and the Witches are all supporting characters in the lives of men. In Updike’s world, men – known and unknown – don’t need an invitation to leer, critique, control, or enter women. Women are not safe in an Updike world. They aren’t safe to be three-dimensional whole beings—or, at least, John Updike never took the time to make them so.

After Rabbit abandons, humiliates, and financially destroys Janice, Rabbit finally has the decency to die. It is a death that does not give Janice the freedom she seeks. Despite remarrying, Janice does not get a reprieve from Rabbit. In Updike’s world, women don’t rebuild their lives; they build shrines.

In Couples, after some highly charged sexual rumors begin flying around town, the church bursts into flames. Angela retreats to a solitary life teaching at an all-girls school—a possible act of repentance for her improprieties? Piet, on the other hand, flees scrutiny and finds a new sense of peace with his mistress-turned-wife and their soon-to-be-born baby (Updike, 1968). The baby who was saved in vitro when Angela agreed to have sex with the mistress’s husband, because, apparently, in Updike’s world, the price for the moral failings of men is paid by women.

In A&P, once the girls defend themselves, they leave the store, but Updike doesn’t take this as an opportunity to celebrate female or even youth empowerment. Instead, hero status goes to Sammy, the nineteen-year-old gawking cashier, who quits his job with a courageous “fiddle-de-dee,” before leaving the store in the shirt his mother ironed for him.

Updike doesn’t just want the Eastwick witches to be riddled with self-abandonment; he wants them to be so consumed by jealousy that they choose to kill a romantic rival, Jenny, with a cancerous ovary. Updike poisons one of the few uniquely female organs, and he uses other women to do it. In doing so, their coven is fractured, and the piggish man they coveted rejects them all in favor of Christopher, Jenny’s brother (Updike, 1984). In Updike’s world, even witches aren’t worthy of swine.

The Updike Legacy: A Penis With A Thesaurus

Is Updike’s craftsmanship enough to overlook the individual and collective psychological damage he leaves behind?

For some, the answer is undoubtedly “yes.” Nearly sixty years from the peak of his career, Updike still gathers praise for his sensory detail. His grasp of the mundane, they argue, points to a man who employs more than the five senses available to mere mortals. His short story, A&P, Updike illustrates their point: “The white counter and the cartons of dried soups, the metal racks hanging from the ceiling, the fluorescent light that buzzed softly above, the sharp scent of orange peel in the produce aisle...”

The fluorescent lights aren’t just lighting; they are buzzing. The scent of orange peels isn’t just present; it’s sharply present. Updike’s aim is to evoke a sensory experience by immersing the reader in sight, sound, and smell. But is it immersive or is a “spoon-fed?” world that leaves little room for the reader’s imagination? What if I, as the reader, want my fluorescent lights to hum or flicker? What if I want my oranges to smell sweet like the blossom or a little musty as they overripe? In Updike’s world, readers don’t get to participate in world-building.

Readers who like unpredictability enjoy Updike’s fluid sentences. His blending of long, short, run-on, and half-sentences creates movement that can be fun to surf. He once identified his aim as “unlock the traffic jams in other people’s heads,” which is evident as he uses varied sentences to control pacing, like a foot driver uses the pedals. Idle. Gas. Rev. Cruise. Break. Break harder. The rhythm is fun, but it doesn’t compensate for the grotesqueness of Piet slapping his mistress, Bea, to “prolong the length of time that he could inhabit a woman.”

Thematically, Updike employs mundane settings—suburbs, stores, quiet neighborhoods—to explore complex themes of love, sex, and religion. For example, in Rabbit, Run, Updike contrasts Rabbit’s shadowy inner life with the mundane daylight hours of suburbia, using everyday minutiae to highlight psychological turbulence. Updike uses the dichotomy to back his characters into holy wars from which they rarely emerge.

His hyper-focus on white men attempting to understand their evolving sexual, professional, and domestic identities is nearly universal. The Witches of Eastwick is thought to be Updike’s response to charges of misogyny. If that was Updike’s desire, this gross world filled with vixens prepared to do the unthinkable to their children, each other, and their foes is even more troubling.

Updike’s treatment of women had real-life consequences. His trope that women, not the voyeuristic men, require supervision has been effective in convincing husbands that their wives would be enticed – or stolen – by the divorcee down the street. Witchy women one and all. It was also probably effective in scaring some wives into staying. Better the devil you know...

From his fluidity to his oversharing of “every fucking word” to his obsession with abuse, Updike renders nuance meaningless. Under his pen, suburban life is Stepfordy, sex is creepy, women are irrelevant, and men are plagued with narcissism. Poet Sue Norton wrote that the threatening, demeaning, and abusive way Updike treats women during sex is as plentiful as it is “revolting.” Author David Foster Wallace famously proclaimed Updike “just a penis with a thesaurus.” Even so, Norton acquiesces, “I know enough of Updike’s fiction to accept that it offers so much psychological mimesis and so much sociological insight, that not to read him would be a loss.”

Platforming Men Like Updike

Men like Updike are allowed to use their talent, power, and access to wreak so much havoc that even their targets begin to nod in agreement. Men like him are the reason men like Mr. Kennedy would allow me to play with his daughters at his home, but never at mine. Men like Updike are the reason, in the words of author Anna Shapiro, women glare at themselves in the mirror and wonder, “how could anyone love that?”

Men like Updike are the reason girls like Molly grow into women like poet Molly Fisk, who one day ask why she wasn’t protected in the face of her father’s rage. Men like that are also the reason millions of mothers are left with one similar response: “You know what he was like! He would have broken my arm. No one could stop him.” Men like Updike find themselves, as Updike himself did, sitting face-to-face with a grown woman as she says, “Why didn’t you stop my father from raping me, Uncle John?”

Uncle John didn’t answer his niece. Not directly anyway. Men in Updike’s world avoid consequences. In the end, Molly Fisk concluded that “it was a dumb question to ask of someone who hadn’t spared the feelings for his own family or his social circle, who’d written so many intimate details about his wife when he was still married to her.” She also concluded that her uncle was and remained a “selfish bastard” (Fisk).

John Updike abused women. Women he knew and women he did not. The shame of that decision will follow him into the dustbin of history. Our everlasting shame is that America elevates men who deconstruct women into nothingness and calls it great literature.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

But it’s the men, of all ethnicities, that swayed toward Trumpism in alarming numbers. White men chose a man who bragged about physically, nonconsentually dominating women by a margin range of 17% (2020) to 30% (2016). Trump saw a steady increase in the Latino male voting bloc. African American men - while a much, much lower percent - increasingly lurched toward Trumpism in all three cycles.

The Manosphere Boomerang

In October 2025, the UN Commission on the Status of Women agreed to strengthen access to justice for women and girls. Delegations from 37 countries voted in support; six countries abstained. Only the United States of America voted in opposition.

The US objections, according to UN reporting, targeted language the delegation called “ambiguous” on gender and sexual and reproductive health, and sought to remove provisions on digital justice and AI governance.

The vote is jarring when set against the long arc of legal gains American women secured over the last century by systematically dismantling the doctrines of coverture and establishing legal personhood for women.

Coverture in America

Coverture was the legal doctrine that gave fathers and husbands dominion over women in their families. Simply put, men cover women. Sounds lovely, right? Women are blanketed in warmth and protection by the men around them. That isn’t the case, and it never has been.

Under coverture, women could not, for example, independently own property, enter into contracts, vote, serve as jurors, or inherit wealth. Women couldn’t gain custody of their children. Women could be physically “disciplined” by men. There is no way around it; coverture is state-sanctioned economic, physical, and emotional abuse of women.

In America, state-level Married Women’s Property laws began to spread in 1839. Once a few women began to control their own economic lives, change continued. Slowly. Almost one-hundred years later, women were first constitutionally recognized with the ratification of the 19th Amendment.

Not Talked About Enough: The 15th Amendment (1870) didn't apply to women because it only prohibited voting discrimination based on race, color, or previous servitude, explicitly excluding "sex" to prioritize black male suffrage over universal suffrage. It was believed that including women would guarantee the amendment's failure, resulting in the word "male" being added to the Constitution, separating women's rights from voting rights.

Legal changes to property ownership, contractual execution, and guardianship laws - for married women - continued throughout the early part of the 20th Century.

In mid 20th Century America, key federal and Supreme Court milestones expanded bodily autonomy, equal opportunity, and privacy. Landmark changes include:

• In 1963, the Equal Pay Act became law;

• In 1964, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act became law;

• In 1965, the Supreme Court (Griswold v. Connecticut) recognized married couples (assuming the husband agrees) have the right to contraception;

• In 1972, the Supreme Court (Eisenstadt v. Baird) allowed unmarried women to obtain contraception;

• In 1973, the Supreme Court (Roe v. Wade) recognized a woman’s right to privacy;

• In 1973, the Fair Housing Act made it illegal to discriminate against women in the renting and purchasing of a home;

• In 1974, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act made it illegal to discriminate in banking and lending decisions; and

• In 1974, Michigan became the first state to outlaw the raping of wives, children and “other men;”

• In 1978, John Rideout became the first man charged with raping his wife. The jury acquitted him, stating that to be married is to consent to sex. John Rideout went on to rape other women. He remains incarcerated in Oregon for two sexual assaults;

• In 1981, the Supreme Court (Kirchberg v. Feenstra) overturned state laws establishing a husband’s right to (as the head of the household) solely control jointly owned property;

• In 1981, the Supreme Court (County of Washington v. Gunther) ruled that women could bring lawsuits under Title VII for wage discrimination even if their jobs were not identical to those of male counterparts;

• In 1982, the Equal Rights Amendment dies;

• In 1982, the Supreme Court (Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan) established that public schools could not discriminate on the basis of sex;

• In 1984, Connecticut was the first state to recognize a “no fault” divorce;

• In 1984, the Supreme Court (Hishon v. King & Spalding) ruled that law firms cannot discriminate against women when promoting lawyers to partnership;

• In 1984, Congress passed the Retirement Equity Act, which made it easier for women to collect retirement benefits and allowed for maternity leave without loss of benefits;

• In 1986, the Supreme Court (Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson) ruled that sexual harassment is a violation of Title VII;

• In 1987, the Supreme Court (Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara) ruled that employers can consider gender in promotions to correct imbalances in the workforce;

• In 1988, Congress passed the Women’s Business Ownership Act, eliminating the requirement for women to have a male co-signer on business loans;

• In 1988, Congress passed the Civil Rights Restoration Act, expanding the federal government’s ability to combat discrimination based on gender, race, age, and disability;

• In 1991, the Civil Rights Act of 1991 enhanced the ability of women to sue for sexual harassment and discrimination;

• In 1993, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) passed;

• In 1993, Congress mandated that women be included in all NIH-sponsored clinical trials;

• In 1994, the Gender Equity in Education Act addressed discrimination in sports, math and science programs, which the Supreme Court affirmed in 1997;

• In 1994, Congress enacted the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and with that, domestic violence became a federal crime;

• In 1996, Congress passed the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, banning;

• In 1998, the Supreme Court (Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc.) ruled that same-sex harassment in the workplace falls under the protection of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and holds the sexual orientation of the harasser irrelevant;

• In 2003, the Supreme Court (Human Resources v. Hibbs) ruled that states can be sued in federal court for violations of the Family Leave Medical Act;

• In 2009, Congress passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, changing the 180-day statute of limitations for legal remedies;

• In 2013, the ban against women in military combat positions was removed;

• In 2016, The Survivors’ Bill of Rights Act amended the federal criminal code to establish statutory rights for sexual assault survivors, including the right to not be prevented from receiving a forensic medical examination and not be charged for an examination, have a sexual assault evidence collection kit preserved, be notified prior to destruction of a rape kit, and be informed of these rights and policies; and

• In 2022, VAWA was strengthened to include LGBTQ+ protections and to recognize the jurisdiction of First Nations courts.

Side Note: the list above does not include the women who became the “first,” or the legal setbacks, or the extensive list of applicable state laws. Nor does it include other civil rights advancements that also impact women (disability, Native, LGBTQIA+, children, elderly, and incarcerated people etc).

Great Victories - Keep Them Alive or Relive Them

Voters born between 1980 and 2006 increased their propensity to support Trumpism over all three election cycles.

In 2025, “Laura Barron-Lopez examined how Mr. Trump was able to court young men online by reaching out to them in spaces well beyond mainstream media outlets.”

“A recent study from the Pew Research Center found that about four in 10 voters under 30 regularly get their news from content creators,” Barron-Lopez said. These were friendly, fact-check-free platforms that allowed Donald Trump and Trump surrogates to avail themselves of “alternative facts” with reckless abandon.

The Men Are Not Okay

Ignore Their Psychosis At Your Peril

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

In 1970, after international public pressure mounted, President Richard Nixon ordered the phase-out of Agent Orange usage in Vietnam, with a full stop to aerial spraying ordered by early 1971.

According to Wars of the World, “On June 8th, 1991, in Washington DC, 8,000 US troops marched in triumph through the streets of their nation’s capital, having returned from the Persian Gulf, where they had just ousted Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi Army from Kuwait in one of the most spectacular military operations in history. Of those 8,000 men marching that day, statistically around 2,600 of them will have fallen extremely ill as a result of their time in the Persian Gulf, their lives marred by disease and pain.”

A later VA survey found that half of those who served in Kuwait were sick. Very sick. That blood is on the hands of President George H.W. Bush.

Sixty Years Later: A Dad’s Broken Heart

The Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act became Public Law No. 117‑168 when President Joe Biden signed it on August 10, 2022. It was meant to recognize the sacrifice and service, including Beau Biden, the son of President Joe Biden.

Burn Pits & Poo Ponds: Poisoned for Profit.

For fifteen years, the US Department of Defense knowingly exposed troops to airborne toxins (open burn pits, oil‑well/fire smoke, industrial fumes) and, in doing so, sentenced servicemebers, contractors, and local civilians to life long - or life ending - respitory distress, cancers, weakened cardio and puluminary functions and damaged digestive tracks — often show up years after service. My husband, Douglas, is among them.

SSGT Beaven’s Bell Ring - February 2025 - Frytag Cancer Center

Historically, the VA required veterans to prove that their service caused their illness, which, if you’ve ever battled a serious medical condition, you know, that’s a burden most laymen can’t manage. Especially the sick ones. The PACT Act put the burden of proof where it belongs: on the military.

The PACT Act is a recognition that “toxic exposures” are a cost of war and that veterans deserve a presumption when service placed them in known exposure settings. The legislative intent was to expand enrollment eligibility, screening, and to modernize claims technology.

Embedded in the PACT Act is the Cost of War Toxic Exposures Fund (TEF), authorizing appropriations to support VA implementation, research, claims processing, and related capacity.

Some Republicans claimed the legislation was fiscally irresponsible. Led by Senator Rand Paul, a bloc of Senate Republicans opposed the initial Senate measure (July 27, 2022). Defense contractors raised concerns about the inclusion of Camp Lejeune liability provisions and potential litigation/settlement costs.

Organizations like Concerned Veterans for America (CVA) feigned concern over cost and VA capacity. As it turns out, many of those organizations - including CVA - were created and funded by DoD contractors.

Led by Pete Hegseth, CVA (and associated PAC) was founded in 2010 as a conservative veterans’ advocacy group. The organization is directly tied to the Koch Brothers and their cash and pushes for privatization of VA services while opposing the expansion of federal benefits of veteran’s benefits.

Publicly and privately, CVA opposed the PACT Act as enacted. Their objections centered on the bill’s cost, budget treatment, and the use of the vehicle’s legislative mechanics rather than narrower, offset‑funded reforms. CVA argued the law would create large long‑term fiscal obligations, potentially burden the VA system without adequate offsets or structural reforms, and could expand entitlement spending without proper accountability.

Haliburton, et al

There is a special place in hell for Dick Cheney, George W. Bush and every other complicit war profiteer.

Public Pressure

Well-known figures, like Jon Stewart, played a vital role in public pressure and led to the passage of the PACT Act. Upon signing, President Biden called the law a “sacred obligation” to care for veterans. Sponsors Senator Jon Tester (Chair of Senate VA Committee) and Rep. Mark Takano (Ranking Member, House Veterans’ Affairs) said the bill was intended to address the gap in care for toxic‑exposed veterans.

By the Numbers

During the last year of the Biden administration, the VA had approved/awarded over one million PACT‑related claims and awarded around $5.7 billion. The VA’s public AHOBPR participants‑by‑state page reports a total of 4,395,961 Veterans and Service members participating in the registry as of February 19, 2025.

Congress is willing to send your kids to war - or, more accurately, they’re willing to abdicate their war powers to the president, but they aren’t willing to pay the bill. In 2024, for example, the national defense spending was approximately $874 billion, representing 13% of federal spending. The VA budget, however, was just 5% of total spending ($326 billion). And, even at 5%, that was a big ‘ol jump thanks to the PACT Act.

The Full Cost of War Act

“Two veteran lawmakers argue this framing leaves out one of the most predictable and enduring consequences of war: the obligation to care for those who return home. Their proposal, the Full Cost of War Act, seeks to hardwire that obligation into the earliest stages of any future conflict decision.”

“Pennsylvania Congressman Chris Deluzio (USN) and California Congressman Ted Lieu (USAF) have sponsored a bill that would require Congress to authorize funding for veterans’ medical care, disability compensation, and related benefits at the same time it authorizes the use of military force or declares war. The measure aims to ensure that caring for veterans is not treated as a downstream budget issue, but as an integral component of the cost of military action itself.”

In honor of those who are sick and those whose war with toxic exposure has ended, please call, email, or @ your congressional member to let them know that you want to live in an America where promises are kept.

And in the words of my warrior -

“Thank you for voting and paying taxes.”

America isn’t safe unless you do both.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

I was busy Tweeting and ReTweeting resignation announcements when it dawned on me; no way, no how the Nixon CREEP show shied away from extra super creepy stuff. And, what do you know?

America is rooted in human trafficking, of course. Outside of human trafficking for labor purposes, America is no stranger to trafficking, primarily, women for sex.

Subscribe now

In the early 1900s there was a nationwide moral panic over forced prostitution , which pushed Congress to pass the White‑Slave Traffic Act (AKA Mann Act, 1910). In 1913, heavyweight boxing champ, Jack Johnson, was prosecuted under the Mann Act. Johnson, who was African American, was convicted by an all-white jury of transporting his white companion, Belle Schreiber, across state lines for “immoral purposes”. He was sentenced to one-year-and-a-day in prison. Johnson fled to Europe and South America for seven years to avoid imprisonment. Ultimately, he surrendered to U.S. officials in 1920 and served his sentence at Leavenworth Federal Prison. He died in 1946 and was posthumously pardoned in 2018.

The Tenderloin/Red‑Light districts in New York were rife with corruption and trafficking during the late 19th century. In 2006, Operation G‑Sting resulted in the conviction of public officials in Nevada and California. On the otherside of nation, in 2006, the D.C. Madam (Deborah Jeane Palfrey) scandal exposed a high‑profile escort service catering to politicians and high-profile figures.

Share

Since the 1990s, the FBI has conducted hundreds of anti-trafficking operations as part of the Innocence Lost National Initiative. Operation Cross Country has recovered more than 4,800 children and secured over 2,000 convictions, including at least 15 life sentences. In 20019, Operation Independence Day replaced and expanded Operation Cross Country.

The FBI-led Violent Crimes Against Children International Task Force (formerly Innocent Images) focuses on identifying, locating, and rescuing children exploited via the internet in 2004. By September 2007, the initiative had opened over 20,000 cases, leading to more than 6,800 convictions.

Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), actively conducts domestic and international trafficking investigations. In FY2024, HSI identified and rescued 1,567 child victims of online exploitation. Recent 2025 operations led to 386 probable identifications, with 56 children rescued from active abuse situations.

Richard Nixon and his protege, Donald Trump Didn’t Invent Sex Scandals But They Sure Elevated Them.

• George Washington is rumored to have had plenty of extra-marital affairs, including Sally Fairfax.

• Thomas Jefferson raped Sally Hemings while holding her in enslavement.

• James Buchanan allegedly had a longstanding relationship with William Rufus King.

• Grover Cleveland impregnated Maria Halpin, who was later institutionalized.

• Warren G. Harding fathered Nan Britton’s child.

• Franklin D. Roosevelt was unfaithful to Eleanor with Lucy Mercer.

• Dwight D. Eisenhower allegedly had an affair with Kay Summersby.

  Leave a comment

• John F. Kennedy has a well-documented pattern of extramarital affairs, including allegedly prostitutes.

• Lyndon B. Johnson biographers have reported numerous extramarital affairs and allegations that he used prostitutes and preferred the company of young women.

• Richard Nixon is rumored to have had an extramarital affair with his best friend and to have used - or allowed the use of - “call girls” in the White House.

• Bill Clinton engaged in several documented extramarital affairs - including one with a White House intern that resulted in his impeachment - and appears in the Epstein Files for which he has agreed to appear before Congress.

• Donald Trump had documented long-term, intimate ties to Jeffrey Epstein. He has been accused of numerous extramarital affairs with women that he later agreed to pay for their silence. Additionally, lawsuits have alleged various instances of sexual misconduct, some involving claims against minors. In at least one case, a judge agreed.

  Support Martinis with McGovern subscribing.

In the end, it seems, there is only one thing left to do and it happens to be the one thing we haven’t tried yet: elect a woman to the White House until the men can collect themselves.

Martinis with McGovern was, in part, created to expose the circular nature of American politics. Using the Nixon era as the control group, Martinis with McGovern examines current events we thought were put to bed circa 1972 but were, as it turns out, merely lying in wait. Oh, all the Nixon policy, politics, and people who refuse to just go away.

In this edition: Venezuela.

Subscribe now

Venezuela declared independence from Spain on July 5, 1811. Oil was discovered in Venezuela in 1914 in the Zulia Oil Field near Lake Maracaibo. In January 2025, the Trump administration removed the (questionable) President of Venezuela.

Let’s explore, together, how we got here.

In 1958, Vice President Richard Nixon barnstormed Latin America. His mission? To blunt South Americans’ distrust of Americans amid recent U.S. Cold War policies. Latin American countries were struggling with economic and political challenges, which they attributed to America’s Cold War agenda and resulting arms deals that fledging Democracies saw as a threat to their security.

Back in 1954, America awarded Venezuelan dictator Marcos Perez Jiménez the Legion of Merit. Jiménez was an authoritarian but at least he wasn’t a Commie. Venezuelans living under his brutal, repressive, and corrupt regime were not amused. His dictatorship ended in early 1958 with a military coup and Jiménez moved to a luxury home in Miami on a visitor’s visa.

In true Nixon form, his goodwill mission quickly escalated into controversy. Students in Peru and Uruguay openly opposed the Nixon visit. Then, in Caracas, Venezuela, things turned aggressive. Shouting led to property destruction. Ultimately, the Secret Service agents drew their weapons and whisked Nixon out of the crowd. Nixon left Venezuela prematurely.

The South American discontent - including the “Caracas Incident” - propelled President Eisenhower to increase both military and economic aid. However, Latin America’s grievances continued, coming to a head with the rise of Fidel Castro in Cuba in 1959.

Share

In 1960, Venezuela became a member of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), securing its position as an oil-producing powerhouse.

President Kennedy focused on containing communism and generally supported Venezuela’s democratic government by establishing the Alliance for Progress. President Johnson sought to strengthen the relationship with economic aid.

Following the overthrow of Marcos Pérez Jiménez in 1958, Venezuela established a provisional government, which led to the formation of a constitutional assembly tasked with drafting a new constitution. In 1961, Venezuela adopted a new democratic constitution, complete with a multiparty system and protected civil liberties.

The two major political parties - Acción Democrática (AD) and Copei - formed a coalition to promote stability and democratic governance. The result was a decade of economic prosperity as Venezuela became one of the world’s leading oil exporters. That boom enabled Venezuela to invest in infrastructure as well as social programs, including improvements in education, healthcare, and housing.

Despite the initial optimism, inequality and poverty persisted. The political climate in Venezuela became increasingly polarized. Fresh off the heels of the Fidel Castro takeover of Cuba, Argentinian Marxist, Ernesto “Che” Guevara came to Venezuela in the 1960s. He intended to plant the seeds of revolution across Latin America. Guerrilla groups became violent, and the fledgling government faltered.

During the Nixon presidency, the global oil market fluctuated, leaving Venezuela’s economy vulnerable. Shifted U.S. focus towards securing oil supplies and fostering economic ties, while remaining cautious of Venezuela’s nationalization efforts.

Nixon left the Ford administration to face high oil prices. The Carter administration focused on the need for Venezuela to do more to protect human rights and democratic governance. The Reagan administration returned to a hard anti-communism stance and offered economic and military support to counter the “Cuban influence.” President George H.W. Bush tried to maintain a stable relationship with Venezuela by emphasizing economic cooperation (especially oil) while addressing drug trafficking.

Disillusionment with democracy caused a boomerang. By the late 1990s, Venezuela returned to strongman politics and in 1998 Hugo Chávez ascended to the presidency. President Clinton sought to engage Chávez until his authoritarianism grew too extreme for the Clinton administration.

Hugo Chávez (1999 - 2013) nationalized key industries, primarily oil and utilities. Chávez was the quintessential redistributor of wealth, which led to political polarization. The “Chavistas” celebrated while opposition forces, collectively known as the Mesa de la Unidad Democrática (MUD), were critical of riticized his authoritarian style, media censorship, and human rights violations.

There were a lot of protests. Those protests often led to violence.

Subscribe now

Chávez openly criticized the United States as an imperial power. He often used strong anti-American rhetoric. In 2002, a coup briefly removed him from power. He blamed the U.S., which led him to build alliances with Iran and Syria. The U.S. retaliated with sanctions for human rights violations and drug trafficking. Nonetheless, the U.S. was reliant on Venezuelan oil, which Chávez further exploited by snuggling up to China and Russia.

This, of course, strained relationships with the George W. Bush administration. The U.S. implemented sanctions, accusing Chávez of human rights violations and offering comfort to terrorists.

President Obama wanted to improve relations with Venezuela. But when colon cancer claimed Hugo Chávez on March 5, 2013, Vice President Nicolás Maduro assumed the top spot and pledged to continue Chávez’s policies. Soon, the Obama administration realized Nicolás Maduro planned to take an even more authoritarian approach. President Obama imposed more sanctions.

The first Trump administration took a hardline stance against Maduro by recognizing opposition leader Juan Guaidó as the legitimate president of Venezuela and levying more sanctions. President Biden’s administration maintained many of the sanctions but also expressed a willingness to diplomatically engage with Maduro’s opposition.

The second Trump administration, well that appears to be shaping up as a doctrine built on narco-terrorism, stolen oil, and a hijacked election.

So, what happened to all that oil field money? Why is Venezuela in economic despair?

• First, economic mismanagement. Namely, corruption.

• Second, the overreliance on oil left its economy vulnerable to fluctuations in global oil prices.

• Third, authoritarian leaders, particularly under Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro, led to political instability, hyperinflation, and emigration.

• Fourth, the resulting humanitarian crisis led to shortages of basic necessities and mounting sanctions.

• Fifth, a nation rich in both resources and strife is of interest to other nations.

Leave a comment

A nation full of resources succumbs to corruption. The people bear the economic price for that corruption. The rich get richer. The middle flee while the poor are trapped in an economic spiral.

Does any of this sound familiar?

“I have been outraged by the mental, physical, and emotional destruction of millions of our people by poverty and hunger. And I have seen our proposals to end those appalling conditions fail because _______________ cuts the funding.”

“I have seen a tax system that favors the rich over the poor; I have seen economic policies that place wealth and power in the hands of the ______ at the expense of the _______.”

“I have seen the minority of Americans who are red, black, and brown - the majority of whom are women - kept in their excluded place by _____________ both in and out of government.”

“I have witnessed the establishment of deception as an accepted __________ strategy. I have seen leaders who find their principles in public-opinion polls and who build their political careers on _________ and ________ by playing to the worst elements in the American character.”

“The _____________ of the United States can restore respect for truth. He can renew the country’s commitment to ________, and he can find the ___________ and _________ that also live in each American.”

“Our land today faces ____________ problems and overwhelming public needs. But there may be a tendency to regard them as more complicated than they are. There is a risk that some fundamental questions will be deliberated long past the time of decision.”

“We need no advisory group to uncover the ____________ in excluding any American from any job, from any educational opportunity, or from any office on the basis of ________.”

“These are questions which bear on the underlying philosophy and purpose of the ____________ government in this country. And they are difficult only if they are approached in the context of the old consensus politics, which attempts to feed every ___________ ________ and to reflect every old __________ point of view, at the same time as it professes the public good.”

“Well, I think we’ve had enough of that kind fo politics in the last painful __________.”

“Among the most glaring injustices, we need to address those which are less obvious but which still impose constant ______________ on the majority of American people - the collapse of public services in major cities, the isolation and dispair of the elderly, the shattered hopes and real fears of those who walk between the upper edge of poverty and the lower edge of comfort.”

“The new majority can be found amount __________ _________ who know that having an agricultural exhibit at the White House is not going to rescue them from a vertically integrated corporate takeover of agriculture.”

“But the bright promise of true ___________ has flatered at the higher threshold of economic justice, and the original outrage persists.”

“Yet no one can say that our politics today is much improved, that we have moved to a highter standard of ___________ and ___________.”

“The accumulation of domestic problems to crisis levels during the _________ brought with it a new sense of national responsibility for addressing human concerns and for meeting human needs.”

“I suggest to you today the the lessons of the ________ were purchased at too great a cost to be abandoned.”

Share

Leave a comment

Answer Key:

1. 1971

2. the Executive Branch

3. few

4. many

5. discrimination

6. political

7. prejudice

8. fear

9. president

10. justice

11. compassion

12. decency

13. perplexing

14. injustice

15. race

16. national

17. special interest

18. discredited

19. decade

20. frustration

21. family farmers

22. equality

23. tolerance

24. respect

25. 1960s

26. 1960s

Subscribe now

Excerpts taken from George McGovern’s December 9, 1971, remarks at Hunter College in New York. He titled the speech “The Young Can Make The System Work.”

Included were books by John Updike, Phillip Roth, Norman Mailer, and Saul Bellow. In response, historian and author Rebecca Solnit wrote Eighty Books No Woman Should Read, explaining, “I just think some books are instructions on why women are dirt or hardly exist at all except as accessories or are inherently evil and empty. Or they’re instructions in the version of masculinity that means being unkind and unaware, that set of values that expands out into violence at home, in war, and by economic means.”

As former Editor-in-Chief, Alex Bilmes confessed, Men’s magazines like Esquire have always considered women “ornamental.”

Subscribe now

Twenty-five years ago, research on men’s magazines out of the University of Sheffield analyzed responses from executives at leading men’s magazines. Making Sense of Men’s Magazines found that interviewees felt that their magazines were a push-back to “feminist extremism” and “political correctness.” Ultimately, the team of Sociologists concluded “that the magazines provide their readers with a form of ‘constructed certitude’ that represents a commodified response to men’s current gender anxieties.”

Books and men’s magazines morphed into the internet and now the internet is algorithiming and AI’ing some people into extremist views. Increasingly, those views are leading to violence.

If you didn’t see my piece on Simps, MRMs, Trad Wives, Incels, and Nihlists - here ya go.

Now Back to the “Penis with a Thesarus…”

John Updike, Phillip Roth, Norman Mailer, and Saul Bellow were heralded as giants in American fiction. They all wrote in a time of convulsion. American women were setting their bras on fire, inequality gave way to riots, marches and protests. They wrote when America came home from Vietnam and when cops were still billyclubbing dudes for kissing. People with limited mobility were sick of not being able to access public buildings and somewhere in all that was the Summer of Love.

In many ways, these “literary giants” were the precursor to men’s magazines and their work, like the magazines, was a direct backlash to women demanding equal pay, equal sexual pleasure, and equal bodily autonomy. I’ll focus specifically on John Updike, however, much of the same could be written about the others.

Share

John Updike (1932-2009)

John Updike saw his first novel, The Poorhouse Fair, published in 1959. Nine years later, Couples was published. His last book, The Widows of Eastwick, was published in 2008 as a sequel to The Witches of Eastwick. Updike was so generous with his every thought, fellow author Philip Roth reportedly once asked, “Honestly, do we have to read every fucking word this guy writes?”

I remember the Updike books in the stacks of books my mom kept around the house. The house my divorced mother mortgaged even before the Fair Credit Act passed was also home to Updike novels. Ironically, women like my mother didn’t exist in Updike’s world. The women Updike conjured up are hyper-characterizations of real women, leaving Updike with a deeply divided legacy.

Updike was famously quoted as saying that he endeavors to “give the mundane its beautiful due.” To that end, he put the ordinary under a microscope. Ordinary people living in ordinary homes, shopping in ordinary markets, and working ordinary jobs. Then the tables flip. For whatever they seem on the surface, Updike’s novels are really about men who secretly reject cul-de-sacs full of little brick ranches and marriages full of missionary Saturday nights. He writes about men who are generally racked with moral ambiguity, alienation, and cell-level dissatisfaction. He writes for men who are just about to come unglued.

In Updike’s world, women don’t get to decide to paint their lives with big, bold strokes. That’s reserved for men. Arguably, Updike’s commercial success began with the Rabbit series. Harry “Rabbit” Angstrom married his high-school sweetheart, Janice. Throughout the course of their marriage, Janice acts as an emotional anchor to Rabbit’s incessant man-child unravelings. Updike’s decision to box Janice into the long-suffering wife allowed Rabbit broad room to dilly in his every dalliance. For Rabbit to be big, Janice must be small. Small and resigned.

In Couples, Updike needed Angela to be detached, disinterested, and selfish as a backdrop to Piet’s sexual quest to address his “spiritual confusion.” Like many women featured in Updike’s work, Angela is a cold fish and cold fish get what they deserve. Had she just been more generous with her passions, she could have quenched his thirst at home. Had she prioritized Piet’s emotional needs more, she could have prevented his self-sabotage. She could have helped him reach his full potential. Eventually, she gathered the courage to go. Despite her escape, Updike limits her to the expected. In Updike’s world, women escape orgies and throuples for the “schoolmarm” life. Women can be thus or so but not thus and so.

In A&P, Updike describes three nameless teenage girls exclusively by their physical characteristics. Queenie, labeled for her obvious command of “fat” and “goony,” stumbled in her role ever so briefly when the storage manager referred to the girls as “indecent.” Indecently dressed for shopping in his beachside market. “We are decent,” Queenie replied, while male employees drooled and “house slaves” moseyed up and down the aisles like “witches in pin curls.”

It’s a particularly cruel arc of life that women live with—overly seen as girls and invisible as women - which Updike is sure to point out.

Even Updike’s most woman-centric book, The Witches of Eastwick, features women who manipulate and manifest not for their highest good but for men. Dead men, married men, and bad men. It doesn’t matter. Their deepest desire isn’t to journey within, but rather, to fill a man-sized hole. Even if it’s certain to lead to humiliation. Even if they have to share him. Even if he’s the devil.

Janice, Angela, Queenie, and the Witches are all supporting characters in the lives of men. In Updike’s world, men – known and unknown – don’t need an invitation to leer, critique, control, or enter women. Women are not safe in an Updike world. They aren’t safe to be three-dimensional whole beings—or, at least, John Updike never took the time to make them so.

After Rabbit abandons, humiliates, and financially destroys Janice, he finally has the decency to die. It is a death that does not give Janice the freedom she seeks. Despite remarrying, Janice does not get a reprieve from Rabbit. In Updike’s world, women don’t rebuild their lives; they build shrines to the men who tried to destroy them.

In Couples, after some highly charged sexual rumors begin flying around town, the church bursts into flames. Angela retreats to a solitary life teaching at an all-girls school—a possible act of repentance for her improprieties? Piet, on the other hand, flees scrutiny and finds a new sense of peace with his mistress-turned-wife and their soon-to-be-born baby. The baby, who was allowed to live after Angela agreed to have sex with her husband’s mistress’s husband. Read that again because in Updike’s world, the price for the moral failings of men is always paid by women.

In A&P, once the girls defend themselves, they leave the store, but Updike doesn’t take that as an opportunity to celebrate their chutzpah. Instead, the hero status goes to Sammy, the nineteen-year-old gawking cashier, who quits his job with a courageous “fiddle-de-dee,” before leaving the store in the shirt his mother ironed for him.

Updike doesn’t just want the Eastwick witches to be riddled with self-abandonment; he wants them to be so consumed by jealousy that they choose to kill a romantic rival, Jenny, with a cancerous ovary. Updike poisons one of the few uniquely female organs, and he uses other women to do it. In doing so, their coven is fractured, and the piggish man they coveted rejects them all in favor of Christopher, Jenny’s brother. In Updike’s world, even witches aren’t worthy of swine.

Updike’s rhythm may be fun, but it doesn’t compensate for the grotesqueness of Piet slapping his mistress, Bea, to “prolong the length of time that he could inhabit a woman.”

His hyper-focus on white men attempting to understand their evolving sexual, professional, and domestic identities is nearly universal. The Witches of Eastwick is thought to be Updike’s response to charges of misogyny. If that was Updike’s desire, this gross world filled with vixens prepared to do the unthinkable to their children, each other, and their foes is even more troubling.

Updike’s treatment of women had real-life consequences. His trope that women, not the voyeuristic men, require supervision has been effective in convincing husbands that their wives would be enticed – or stolen – by the divorcee down the street. Witchy women one and all. It was also probably effective in scaring some wives to stay. Better the devil you know…

Under his pen, suburban life is Stepfordy, sex is creepy, women are irrelevant, and men are plagued with narcissism.

Poet Sue Norton wrote that the threatening, demeaning, and abusive way Updike treats women during sex is as plentiful as it is “revolting.” Author David Foster Wallace famously proclaimed Updike “just a penis with a thesaurus.” Still, Norton acquiesces, “I know enough of Updike’s fiction to accept that it offers so much psychological mimesis and so much sociological insight, that not to read him would be a loss.”

Is Updike’s craftsmanship enough to overlook the individual and collective psychological damage he leaves behind?

That is the danger of giving Red Pill content a platform. Men like Updike are allowed to use their talent, power, and access to wreak so much havoc that even their targets begin to nod in agreement. Men like Updike are the reason, in the words of author Anna Shapiro, women glare at themselves in the mirror and wonder “how could anyone love that?”

Men like Updike are the reason girls like Molly grow into women like poet Molly Fisk who one day ask why she wasn’t protected in the face of her father’s rage. Men like that are also the reason millions of mothers are left with one similar response: “you know what he was like! He would have broken my arm. No one could stop him.” Men like Updike find themselves, as Updike himself did, sitting face-to-face with a grown woman as she says, “why didn’t you stop my father from raping me, Uncle John?

Uncle John didn’t answer his niece. Not directly anyway. Men in Updike’s world avoid consequences. In the end, Molly Fisk concluded that “it was a dumb question to ask of someone who hadn’t spared the feelings for his own family or his social circle, who’d written so many intimate details about his wife when he was still married to her.” She also concluded that her uncle was and remained a “selfish bastard.”

John Updike used his words to abuse women. Women he knew and women he did not. The shame of that decision will follow him into the dustbin of history. So, Sorry Simps and Incels and MRMers and Trad Husbands, and Nihilists… you’re just a bunch of copy cats who will, eventually, ash-to-ash and dust-to-dust like those who came before you.

To our everlasting shame, America has a history of elevating men who deconstruct women into nothingness. Sometimes we turn them into best-selling authors and sometimes we elect them president.

Leave a comment

“Something is going on with our boys…and we can not ignore it any longer…”

First, let’s do a little housekeeping.

Terminology:

A “Simp” is slang for someone, typically a man, who shows excessive (unreciprocated) admiration. They perceive themselves as “trying too hard.” You might perceive them as stalkerish.

When a “Simp” grows frustrated with the object of their obsession, they may turn to “Red Pill” content. Taking the “Red Pill” is a reference to the movie, “The Matrix,” and symbolizes an awakening to the truth. In this case, a perceived truth about society. In this world, feminism undermines masculinity, which has destroyed the “natural roles” of both men and women.

You know someone is digesting “Red Pill” content if you hear terms like Alpha/Beta, Hypergamy or Hypergamous, Cucky / Cuckold, Incels, Biological or Evolutionary Psychology, Red Pill Truths, MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way), Blue Pill, or Lâw.”

Further down the “Red Pill” rabbit hole, we find the Men’s Rights Movement (MRM) and the Trad Wife movement. The MRM movement is based on the idea that modern women undermine the rights of women and feminism has created an unfair disadvantage for men.

The Trad Wife (Traditional Wife) movement refers to women who are embracing traditional gender roles, emphasizing homemaking, motherhood, and submission to a husband. Trad Wives range from women who prefer domesticity over professional careers to women who advocate returning to coverture laws (AKA over turn the 19th Amendement). In the Trad Wife world, a woman’s identity exists only in relation to their family.

More troubling, we find the Incels.

Short for “involuntary celibate,” Incels struggle to find romantic or sexual partners despite wanting them. The term has come to be associated with online communities where individuals share feelings of frustration, anger, or resentment about their lack of romantic success. Many incels gather in online forums or social media spaces where they discuss their experiences, often expressing feelings of hopelessness or bitterness about their dating lives.

Incels can easily slip into Nihilism. Nihilists believe that society can not be saved and, therefore, must be destroyed and rebuilt. Nihilists are willing to engage in extreme violence even at the expense of their own lives.

The Lost Boys Project details a harrowing truth about how young men grow more antisocial as they consume Red Pill content. What starts out as self-hatred turns into a hatred of women and then society as a whole.

Hyper-masculinity and female subservience aren’t new, however, this may be the first time in modern America that we have an entire Presidential administration full of Red Pill content creators. Incels, Nihilists, MRM, and Trad Wives are philosophically more attracted to the GOP talking points about “family values” and “the breakdown of the family.”

Donald Trump Loves The Manosphere & It Loves Him

Next Up:

We’re gonna talk about how Red Pill content harkens directly back to the 1970s onslaught of authors like John Updike, Philip Roth, Saul Bellow, and Norman Mailer.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Fast Forward

And here is Ron controlling other people’s lives to perpetuate himself and using our own money to do. The irony is rich.

“Between the five state agencies and two charities funded by the state — one of which, the Hope Florida Foundation, is at the center of a criminal investigation — Seeking Rents now estimates that Ron DeSantis spent between $35 million and $40 million in public funds on commercials intended to weaken support for…”

Amendment 3 (56% “YES” vote): “Adult Personal Use of Marijuana Allows adults 21 years or older to possess, purchase, or use marijuana products and marijuana accessories for non-medical personal consumption by smoking, ingestion, or otherwise; allows Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers, and other state licensed entities, to acquire, cultivate, process, manufacture, sell, and distribute such products and accessories.”

Amendment 4 (57% “YES” vote): “No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider. This amendment does not change the Legislature’s constitutional authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion.”

But that $40.0 million-ish is just a guess.

Because the DeSantis administration has a nasty habit of ignoring Florida public records laws.

Seeking Rents

Hidden consultants and hurried payments: Records reveal details of DeSantis' campaign against abortion and marijuana amendments

This is Seeking Rents, a newsletter and podcast devoted to producing original journalism — and lifting up the work of others — about Florida politics, with an emphasis on the ways that big businesses and other special interests influence public policy in the state. Seeking Rents is produced by veteran investigative journalist …

Read more

a year ago · 41 likes · 16 comments · Jason Garcia

Subscribe now

The Smell of Irony

Tea Party Ron, the one that was trying to get elected to Congress, was incensed when President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama with he viewed as “taxpayer-funded public relations campaigns.”

Governor Ron DeSantis, however, has a different take on the matter now.

Share

Republicans:

“Democrats want ‘illegal aliens’ to have free healthcare!”

Democrats:

“What we want is the people who rely on the Affordable Care Act to continue receiving tax credits for purchasing health insurance.”

Democrats:

“P.S. federal law already prohibits healthcare coverage for people who aren’t here legally.”

Republicans:

“But we passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act. We only want Cubans, Haitians, and South Pacific Islanders who came here legally to have access to Medicare and Medicaid.

Democrats:

“So, you are saying you want to cut off access to healthcare coverage for green card holders, refugees, and those here under asylum protection? Because you’re talking about ending healthcare coverage for 1.4 million refugees, asylees, and lawful immigrants who are all here legally and with the government’s permission.”

Republicans:

“Many, many of those 1.4 million people are only legally here because Biden illegally made them legal with his magic wand.”

Democrats:

“Okay, we get it. You don’t want people from Venezuela and Ukraine accessing healthcare coverage. But, can we FOCUS on the 16 million Americans who use the tax credit to help cover the cost of health insurance?”

Vice President JD Vance:

Democrats want to “take from the American people in order to give taxpayer-funded healthcare to illegal immigrants!”

The American People:

“OH FFS. Ya’ll should go without pay…or better yet, all ya’ll should be fired.”

And Scene

It’s Day 2 of the 2025 shutdown. Let’s get into it.

Our laws should reflect the social, political, and technological changes that occur as time marches on. As the saying goes: When you know better, you do better. This is especially true when it comes to the accessibility and affordability of healthcare.

First, let’s look at the company America keeps. Currently, in the United States, citizens pay for healthcare through private insurance, out-of-pocket, or employer-sponsored plans. The only significant departure from that is Medicaid, Medicare and the VA.

That means, when it comes to accessing healthcare, the United States of America is swimming in the same pond as Somalia, South Sudan, Yemen, Liberia, Central African Republic, Haiti, Afghanistan, Monaco, and Vatican City.

Subscribe now

The Business of Health

In 1850, the Franklin Health Assurance Company of Massachusetts introduced the first accident in the United States. For .15 cents passengers could be covered in the event of injury ($200) or disability ($400) during their travel by rail. It wasn’t health insurance, per se, but it did allow for some financial protection during recovery.

By the 1830s, mutual aid and fraternal organizations began offering accident and sickness benefits. These policies were based on mutual aid principles and were exclusive to dues-paying members. The most commonly recognized early form of health insurance appeared in the 1850s to cover hospital stays and medical expenses incurred as a result of injury. In the 1880s commercial insurers began offering health insurance policies to targeted industries or groups (e.g., railroad workers, telegraph operators). Throughout the late 1800s, insurance plans grew and expanded coverage, but remained primarily focused on what we would call “catastrophic coverage.”

The Policy of Health

In 1914, Congress passed The Smith-Lever Act (1914) and Health Education Initiatives. At its core, the Act governs agricultural policy by establishing the AG extension offices and much of the farmer education and agricultural research that continues to this day. It’s not directly related to access to healthcare but it is cornerstone legislation signaling that Congress saw a federal role in the health of citizens.

In 1918, by passing The Wounded Soldiers and Veterans’ Legislation, Congress pledged to care for wounded soldiers and signified America’s committment to the health of injured military personnel.

Share

In 1946, President Truman signed the Hill-Burton Act, providing federal funds for hospital construction projects. President Truman is often cited as the first presidential candidate to champion universal healthcare and the father of the National School Lunch Program.

President Eisenhower signed the Hospital Survey and Construction Act, the Federal Employees’ Health Benefits Program.

In 1955, under the leadership of President Kennedy, the Mental Health Study Act marked the first significant federal investment in mental health. In 1961, President Kennedy established the President’s Scientific Advisory Committee to fund medical research and in 1963, President Johnson signed the Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act on behalf of the former Commander-in-Chief. President Johnson also signed the Social Security Act Amendments of 1965, creating Medicare and Medicaid.

President Nixon was prolific when it came to healthcare legislation. He signed the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) in 1970, establishing minimum workplace safety standards. Two years later, in 1972, he signed the End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) Program, which expanded Medicare coverage to patients with end-stage renal disease, including dialysis and kidney transplants. That same year, he signed the Maine Medical Care Act to incentivize community-based and state-managed healthcare services. A year later, he signed the Rehabilitation Act, laying the groundwork for later disability rights and healthcare access initiatives. Additionally, the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) System Act and the Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) Act were both signed in 1973.

President Ford signed the Veterans’ Health Care Amendments of 1975 to improve healthcare facilities and services for veterans as well as the Community Health Centers Act. President Ford established the Federal Emergency Assistance Act (FEMA) to offset expenses related to public health emergencies and natural disasters. In 1972 and 1976, President Ford expanded the Social Security Act to include coverage for certain populations.

In 1977, President Carter established the President’s Commission on Mental Health, which led to the Mental Health Systems Act of 1980. The 1977 Rural Health Clinic Services Act provided funding to improve healthcare in rural America while increasing Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates.

Although President Reagan rolled back much of the mental health progress made during the Carter administration, he did advance access to live-saving care. He signed the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (1986). In 1986, President Reagan signed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act and in 1988, he signed the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act.

His predecessor, President George H.W. Bush, signed the Ryan White CARE Act, providing federal funding for HIV/AIDS treatment, care, and prevention programs. in 1990, he signed the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, the Children’s Health Act (1990) and legislation designed to control Medicare and Medicaid costs.

President Clinton signed the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, the Lobbying and Expansion of Mental Health Parity, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and the Medicare Preservation and Improvement Act of 2000.

President George W. Bush signed the Medicare Modernization Act, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act, the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act, the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act, the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act, the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA), and the Mental Health Parity Act.

President Obama ushered in the Affordable Healthcare Act, obviously. But, President Obama also signed the 21st Century Cures Act, the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act, the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, and the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act. President Obama also signed various lesser-known laws and executive orders to combat the opioid epidemic, expand mental health services, and improve healthcare transparency.

In his first administration, President Trump signed the Support for Patients and Communities Act, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the Right to Try Act, the FDA Reauthorization Acts and the Deregulation of Short-term Limited Duration Insurance Act.

Of course, most notable are the pandemic-related bills signed by President Trump, including the CARES Act, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, as well as several disaster declarations and executive orders such as “Operation Warp Speed.”

President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act, the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, the CHIPS and Science Act, and various executive orders designed to improve pandemic response efforts, promote vaccine equity, and expand access to testing and therapeutics.

After the death of his eldest son, President Biden also turned his attention to cancer research. The Cancer Moonshot Program renews and expands the work he started as Vice President. The Biden administration allocated historical levels of funding to programs like the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The Biden-Harris Cancer Research and Treatment Commitment pledged increased investment in cancer research, including a focus on precision medicine, immunotherapy, and early detection technologies.

So far, in his second term, President Trump has signed the HALT All Lethal Trafficking of Fentanyl Act and the ACES Act of 2025.

Government Shutdowns

The first government shutdown on record (1976) centered on spending levels and budget appropriations as did the second in 1977 and the third in 1978. In 1981, 1984, and 1986, fights over the budget resulted in shutdowns. Debt and deficit were cited as reasons for both shutdowns in 1990 and 1995.

In 2013, disputes over the Affordable Healthcare Act caused a fifteen-day shutdown, and immigration policy resulted in a thirty-three-day shutdown in 2018 and a one-day shutdown in 2023.

2025, however, marks the first shutdown that is not centered on debt and deficit but rather a policy issue. In this case, who gets to access government-subsidized health insurance coverage?

So is this a shutdown about healthcare or immigration? Yes.

It’s a big, beautiful blend. The remnants of the Tea Party Caucus get to go back to the district boasting about how they finally - fifteen years later - kicked the shit out of Obamacare while the MAGA members get to go home and tell their base how they sent those criminal aliens packing.

All the while escaping any real accountability for either the affordability of healthcare or the broken immigration system. Both of which were created by their predecessors.

Follow Along at Home

CNN Shutdown Coverage

CNBC Coverage

CBS Coverage

NBC Coverage

Reuters Coverage

Leave a comment

A year later, Representative Alex Andrade (R-Pensacola) took his obligation as the Chairman of the Healthcare Budget Committee seriously. The documents (or lack thereof) were undeniable and Andrade was obligated to ask questions on behalf of Floridians. He did that and journalists followed up.

A rushed settlement with Centene

Scandal brews and brews and brews some more

Mistakes were made and benefits were handed out

Resignations and more resignations

Document downloads

Procurement problems

Calls for Congressional and federal investigations

Criminal investigation opens

Governor DeSantis rages

Republican legislators say “no” to Hope Florida budget

Florida Department of Children and Families threatens legal action

The Hope Florida scandal seems to be predicated on the old adage “the ends justify the means.” In defense of diverting the $10 million in Medicaid dollars to defeat Amendment 3 (legalized cannabis), the DeSantis Administration has argued that Hope Florida is an innovative idea and is doing good work. However, that just begs another question; why divert $10 million to them only to divert those same dollars away from them?

As Hope Florida works its way through the investigatory process, let’s turn our attention to another faith-based initiative. This time, the Florida legislature agreed to hand $70 million to the DeSantis Administration annually. The Responsible Fatherhood Initiative dollars are to be used for “a public awareness campaign related to responsible fatherhood, and provide evidence-based parenting education to meet the individual’s (sic) needs of the fathers.”

Subscribe now

Florida has partnered with the National Fatherhood Initiative, which is operated by FatherSource. The 2023 tax filings for the National Fatherhood Initiative show revenue of $1.343 million and expenses of $1.274 million.

The President, Christopher Brown, earns $198,987 plus benefits. The Board Chair, Maggie Spain, is a principal at Spearca Communications which is contracted to provide marketing for the National Fatherhood Initiative and the Fatherhood Research and Practice Network, where she and Christopher Brown have oversight roles.

The “Responsible Fatherhood Initiative” in Florida

In 1995, Mark Merrill of the Florida Family Council publicly opposed Disney's decision to extend health benefits to partners, declaring it "anti-family" and inappropriate for a company that provides "wholesome, family-oriented entertainment." [LA Times, 10/19/95]. Again, this time on NPR (1996), Mark criticized Disney for putting domestic partnerships "on a same footing with heterosexual marriage.”

In 2008, former Governor Jeb Bush called for "all Florida public schools to host a Christian-based program designed to increase father’s (sic) participation in their children's lives." And, despite his earlier belief’s that government should stay out of family life, Mark Merrill capitalized on the faith-based, business-friendly environment. In 2009, Governor Charlie Crist gave Family First got their very own license plate. In 2014, the Florida Family Council became Family First.

In 2022, Florida Speaker of the House, Chris Sprowls declared that Florida was in a “Fatherhood Crisis.” HB 7065, entitled “An act relating to child welfare,” immediately met with criticism for including “black and racially-mixed children” in the legislative definition of “special needs children.”

Share

The bill passed without opposition and was signed by Governor Ron DeSantis. According to the legislative analysis, the law provides total recurring funding of $63,899,851 in taxpayer dollars to fund the Fatherhood Initiative through the Department of Children and Families ($27,585,000). New and existing children’s initiatives receive an additional $4,200,000 and $8,352,000 goes to DCF to increase college stipends for youth formerly in foster care. Community-based organizations saw a bump of $2,855,376 to add father engagement specialists and expand services targeted at fathers and $5,710,752 for readiness assessments. The Department of Health receives $4,420,000 to integrate better integrate fathers into their home visiting programs while the Department of Juvenile Justice receives $3,726,723 to expand vocational and education services and $7,050,000 goes to the Department of Economic Opportunity for Noncustodial Parent Employment Programs.

The law requires the state to contract with a nonprofit with a “history of focusing on responsible fatherhood, including providing online resources to fathers, and engaging fathers, father figures, and children through community-based and school-based events to encourage responsible fatherhood.” The selected nonprofit must provide inspirational materials “that will motivate and enable (every father) to enhance his abilities as a father, recognizing that some fathers have greater challenges than others and would benefit from greater support.” Materials must include print, televised, digital, social media and public events. All of which may include “public figures and influencers.”

Given the presence - and speaking role - of Tony Dungy at the bill signing, it’s shouldn’t be a surprise that the required contract went to Family First.

Family First

Family First has two main programs. All Pro Dad’s to help fathers “love and lead their families well,” and iMOM to “inspire moms to love their families well and to give them help and hope on the daily.”

If you need help loving your family well, you can check out the Family First inspirational resources here. Before you do, however, you might want to know that Family First (U.S.) is linked to the Family Research Council (FRC), which has designated as a hate group by several watchdog organizations.

Meet Tampa-based Mark and Susan Merrill of Family First.

When speaking of Family First, Mark is quick to point out that the organization is opposed to same-sex relationships, marriage equality and domestic partner employer benefits. Mark has also been called out publicly for his stereo-typical view on the roles men and women should play in their marriage.

Family First has a Florida license plate but the real money comes from their contracts with the Florida Department of Education and the Florida Department of Children & Families. According to the Florida Department of Financial Services, as of September 1, 2025, Family First has been paid $7,806,530.92 (FY 2024-25). During 2017-18 (the last year Rick Scott was Governor), the State of Florida paid Family First $1,124,812.29.

That same year, Family First 2017 taxes reported a revenue of $4,003,468 with expenses of $4,003,067 (+401). Mark Merrill was paid $251,874. His wife, Susan, was paid $114,890 for digital marketing services. The organization hovered around the $4.5 million mark until 2022, when revenue jumped to $10.0 million. Mark’s pay jumped to $478,232. Susan was added to the payroll at $134,626 while their daughter was paid just over $71,000.

In 2023, Family First reported just over $20.0 million in revenue to “PROVIDE PARENTING, MARRIAGE AND RELATIONAL TRUTH THAT HELPS PEOPLE LOVE THEIR FAMILY WELL AND GIVES THEM GREATER HOPE FOR THE FUTURE.”

And the Merrill family got a big fat raise.

Mark and Susan also sell their books on the Family First website, which is reported as outside income. Additionally, the couple owns the Bible Book Club and Susan owns Emme & Company, LLC.

Stewards of Taxpayer Dollars

In reaction to “the exorbitant compensation payouts for the executive leadership team of the Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Governor DeSantis signed Executive Order 20-44, limiting executive compensation for any nonprofit with the majority of their revenue coming from taxpayer dollars to 150% of the Department of Children and Families Secretary’s salary. Salaries over $331,320 are not allowed.

So who is deciding the Merrill salary? Well, the Board of Directors, of course.

Share

Leave a comment

Nineteen hours later, two children were killed and seventeen were wounded. The killer was armed with a rifle, shotgun, pistol, and a smoke bomb.

The first shooting was overshadowed by the second. Immediately, the NRA sycophants were pushing out their talking points. You know the ones.

• Bad guys have guns, good ones should too…

• It’s not a gun problem, it’s a mental health problem…

• Blah, blah, blah, TRANSGENDER blah, blah, blah…

• Jesus ordered Christians to sell their cloaks and purchase a sword…

• Inalienable Rights!

• God-Given Rights!

Wanna be prepared for your cultee cousin at the family picnic?

The first thing to know is that cultees love to deflect, so, in all honesty, nothing you say to your crazy-ass cousin, Cletus, is going to make a hill-a-beans difference to his crazy-ass. But it might make one of your less cultee family members ponder. Or, if you like whack-a-mole, it could be a fun way to spend an afternoon.

I’m not going waste your time on rehashing the good guy / bad guy, guns don’t kill people, or the transgender trope arguments. If Cletus wants to clamor on about that, he’s just being lazy.

The last three, however, not those are worth taking out for a twirl.

God Given Rights » Inalienable Rights: The Mash-Up

Hundreds of years before the Age of Enlightenment, some theologists began a whisper campaign. People have God-given rights just for being human. God, the argument went, loved all His children. Even the peasants.

During the Enlightenment Age, English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) took that idea further. Humans, he philosophized, have “Inalienable Rights” emerged during the Enlightenment Age. For Locke, it was a question of power, which he saw at the question of all times. “It is not whether there be power in the world or from whence it came, but who should have it.”

The idea of God-given rights is rooted in a philosophical and theological shift from a belief in the divine right of kings. This transition challenged absolute monarchical power and heavily influenced philosophers like John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Voltaire during the Age of Enlightenment. God-give rights, the men argued, are bestowed upon humans by a divine creator, and as such they:

1. Originate from divinity;

2. Are sacred and inviolable; and

3. Align with religious moral teachings.

Over hundreds of years, God-given rights came to be seen as the right to a freedom of conscience, the right to worship, and the right to life. What historic can you point to as examples of the ways God-given rights have been violated? How about current violations?

Leave a comment

Inalienable rights, according to Locke are the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Note: Locke was born into a family of means and, as an adult, earned a substantial amount from his investments in slave trading companies. Note: Women couldn’t own property or inherit wealth during the age of Locke. But for white, land-owing, Christian, heterosexual, able-bodied men, inalienable rights were defined as:

1. Inherent to human beings (God-Given);

2. Cannot be given up or taken away by any authority; and

3. Based on reason and “natural law.”

Note: "Natural law" is a philosophical and legal concept that refers to a system of universal moral principles or rules derived from the divine that are inherent in nature and can be discovered through human reason. The predominant counter theory is “legal positivity.”

Intertwining Alienable Rights and God-Given Rights

John Locke’s "Two Treatises of Government," a major influence on the American Founders, argued that white, Christian men have natural, inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, which are given by God. The conjoining of alienable rights and God-given rights became the cornerstone of Locke's social contract theory.

In 1689, the Glorious Revolution, led to the English Bill of Rights, which established "true, ancient, and indubitable rights" of English subjects. While not framing them as "inalienable," the rights were described as inherent and not subject to revocation by the Crown.

Almost one hundred years later, the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776) stated that "all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent natural rights." Thomas Jefferson synthesized these ideas into one sentence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Note:The point of the Declaration of Independence was to notify England that the Colonies were “absolved of all allegiance to the British Crowne.” Its text is not legally binding and is not considered a primary source for courts.

Share

Swords, Muskets, and Assault Rifles

People who believe that the 2nd Amendment is an absolute, uninfringeable right for Americans often point to Luke 22:36, which reads "He said to them, But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." It’s particularly offensive and hypocritical. And ironic.

Federalists, Anti-Federalists & Number 29

On January 9, 1788, Alexander Hamilton published Federalist No. 29. The short essay focused on militias and their role in the proposed system of government under the new Constitution.

Note: the Federalist Papers were meant to rally support for ratifying the Constitution and to amplify the Federalist point of view. Conversely, the less known Anti-Federalist Papers, who believed strongly in an armed civilian population wrote Essay V and Letter XVIII warning about the potential for disarming citizens.

In No. 29 of the Federalist Papers, Hamilton argued that a well-regulated militia would reduce the need for a large standing army as a tool for fighting oppression. He contends that federal oversight of militias is necessary to ensure uniformity and effectiveness across all states. Hamilton emphasizes the importance of proper training and discipline for militia members and the need to encourage military service as a civic duty. Hamilton simply believed that all Americans would fulfil their patriotic duty by serving in the military, where they would undergo proper weapons training.

First, it's crucial to understand the historical context. In 1788, when Hamilton wrote Federalist No. 29, the young nation was grappling with how to defend itself without relying on a large standing army, which many feared could become a tool of tyranny. Hamilton's solution? Well-regulated state militias.

Throughout the essay, Hamilton consistently emphasizes the importance of regulation and training. He argues for "the formation of a select corps of moderate size, upon such principles as will really fit it for service in case of need." Federalist No. 29 is not a call for unregulated gun ownership. On the contrary, No. 29 suggests a carefully chosen and trained Army - much like our modern National Guard.

Subscribe now

Okay but what about the Constitution?

The Founders, fresh off a bloody war that killed as many as 70,000 of their fellow colonists, believed that an armed citizenry was essential to prevent future tyranny. Federalists (e.g. Alexander Hamilton and John Adams) generally favored a strong central government and were less concerned about individual gun ownership rights. Anti-Federalists (e.g. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison) were more worried about potential government tyranny and strongly supported individual gun rights as a check on government power.

The two factions debated the merits of individual gun ownership. One side believed that individuals had the right to own weapons to protect themselves against criminals and foreign invaders as well as deter government oppression. They also argued that military service was a civic duty. The Founders who saw a need for some government regulation argued that unregulated gun ownership could jeopardize public safety and order. They pointed to Shay’s Rebellion as an example of armed insurrections and claimed that an armed, well-regulated military was more important than an armed citizenry.

The debate ultimately led to tempered language. Today, the Second Amendment reads: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Federalist James Madison was the primary author of the Second Amendment.

In other words, you can let Cletus know -

Killing is a sin against God,

Jesus did not direct his disciples to “bare arms” against each other,

Mortal men decided which rights God gave us,

Mortal men decided which rights governments either give or can’t infringe upon,

The 2nd Amendment wasn’t a compromise; it was an Anti-Federalist victory,

The Anti-Federalists were vocally concerned about armed civilians.

Leave a comment

Let’s dig in.

In a new piece published by PS: Political Science & Politics, Moniz and Swann delve into the “enduring support” of President Trump despite the widespread debunking of his claims of election fraud ( AKA the “big lie"). Their research is a look at the psychological ties between Trump and his supporters.

Interviews with Trumpers between 2020 and 2024 found four deep-seated, common characteristics.

Subscribe now

1) Identity Fusion

Identity fusion occurs when an individual’s sense of self becomes intertwined with a group leader. In other words, the identities of individual Trump supporters are linked directly to Trump himself.

Furthermore, the more strongly a person identified with Trump before the 2020 election, the more likely they were to believe the "big lie.” Consequently, accepting the "big lie" didn't just stem from identity fusion; it actually strengthened it. Believing the “big lie,” for example, reinforces identity fusion and results in compromised critical thinking skills as those skills become a threat to the emotional attachment supporters have with Trump.

2) Internalizing Misinformation

The "big lie" isn’t just about believing a specific claim. It is about setting a foundation for accepting any misinformation that reinforces a connection to Trump. That means that believing the "big lie" had a ripple effect, which then predicted:

• A willingness to downplay the seriousness of criminal charges; and

• A willingness to increase support for Trump's anti-democratic policies.

For Trump supporters, accepting the Trump administration’s misinformation protects and even reinforces their sense of self. It’s a psychological game employed by both cult leaders and authoritarians.

3) Motivated Reasoning

The research also found that people who believe the "big lie" process information selectively in ways that confirm pre-existing beliefs and protect self or group identity.

For Trumpers, believing the "big lie" positions them in a community that reinforces the belief in misinformation. People are naturally reluctant to challenge prevailing narratives within their social circles, even if those claims are demonstrably false.

In psychology, “motivated reasoning” is often referred to as “groupthink.”

4) Maintaining Consistency

Once an individual has accepted the "big lie," they are internally motivated to maintain consistency by accepting other forms of misinformation. Those who accept the “big lie” are willing to expand their protective beliefs to include, for example, criminal charges.

You may have heard the term “cognitive dissonance,” which is a psychological term describing “the state of discomfort felt when two or more modes of thought contradict each other.” Trumpers cling to misinformation consistency as a way to avoid the discomfort caused by contradiction.

Share

Deprogramming

In short, individuals who have a strong psychological investment in Trump find it psychologically painful to change their minds, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Rick Ross, a well-respected cult deprogrammer, seems to believe that Trump isn’t a strong enough individual figure to be a cult leader, but MAGA feeders (like QAnon) are cults. “Cult leaders don’t get booed and I don’t know of a cult leader who walks their beliefs back.”

Not America’s First Go

The use of misinformation by political leaders is, unfortunately, a recurring theme globally. In the 1800s, American politics were rife with misinformation. Newspapers, for example, were heavily aligned with political parties. Publications were biased, suppressive and rarely objective.

Competition for readership frequently led to sensationalism, exaggeration, and - what was then called - "yellow journalism.” Today, we call it “clickbait.” Personal attacks and character assassination were also freely employed. Mudslinging (the amplifying of rumors and whisper campaigns) was printed with an explicit intention of damaging reputations.

Meanwhile, political parties and grassroots organizations were busy using various tactics to manipulate public opinion. Pro-slavery advocates, for example, disseminated misinformation to justify continuing enslavement with claims that enslaved people were better off under slavery, that slavery was economically beneficial, and that enslaved people were incapable of self-governance.

Confederates used misinformation to justify secession, claiming that the federal government was infringing on their rights and that the North was intent on destroying their way of life.

The U.S. government used misinformation to justify the seizure of Native American lands by portraying Native Americans as savages who were incapable of properly using the land. The U.S. government broke treaties, distorted the terms of the agreements, and often claimed that tribes violated the treaty.

During the 1828 presidential election, John Quincy Adams circulated "coffin handbills" accusing Andrew Jackson of various atrocities, including the execution of soldiers during the War of 1812.

During Reconstruction, southern newspapers and political leaders often spread misinformation to demonize African Americans and promote the "Lost Cause" narrative.

During America’s involvement in Vietnam, President Johnson's administration faced accusations of misleading the public about the Vietnam War, particularly regarding the Gulf of Tonkin. Criticism over his lack of candor would be the primary driver for LBJ’s decision not to run in 1968.

Ronald Reagan lied to the American people about a arms-for-hostages deal that authorized $30.0 to Iran when in reality, Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North had been directed to divert $18.0 million to the Contras in Nicaragua.

Bill Clinton obstructed justice leading to an impeachment investigation that ended in acquittal.

George W. Bush at best misrepresented intelligence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, which were later found to be unsubstantiated. Over 650,000 people died as a result.

Still, Nixon was the King…until Trump

Nixon was unburdened by any sense of obligation to tell the truth.

He promised a “peace with honor” end the Vietnam War. However, while he claimed to be actively pursuing peace, he simultaneously expanded the war into Cambodia and Laos (secretly) and authorized heavy bombing campaigns. The true scale of which was hidden from the American people.

The Nixon administration, as did LBJ before him, faced pressure to demonstrate progress in Vietnam. Critics accused the administration of inflating enemy body counts and presenting an overly optimistic picture of the war's progress to maintain public support. When the media began to report on the war's realities and the growing anti-war sentiment, Nixon's administration attacked the press, accusing them of being biased and undermining the war effort.

Discrediting critical, credible reporting as a way to control the narrative has always been in vogue, it seems.

When Daniel Ellsberg leaked a secret history of the Vietnam War to the press, the Nixon administration focused on discrediting Ellsberg rather than addressing the content of what became known as The Pentagon Papers.

To prevent further leaks, Nixon created a secret unit known as "the Plumbers." This group engaged in illegal activities, including burglarizing Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office, in a hunt for his personal medical records.

Watergate is a textbook example of misinformation. When a break-in occurred at the Democratic National Committee offices and the McGovern for President headquarters, Nixon vehemently denied any involvement. His team mounted an extensive cover-up by shutting down the investigation, paying off witnesses, and destroying evidence. When that failed, Nixon invoked executive privilege to withhold evidence and prevent key aides from testifying before Congress.

There was a bunch of other shady bullshit going on in Nixon world as well. Wage and price controls. Market manipulation. Devaluing the dollar. Performative closing of the border. Misuse of campaign funds. Fraudulent tax deductions. Sketchy property purchases in Florida and California. Mortgage fraud. Unpaid taxes. Domestic violence. Drug and alcohol abuse. Enemies list. Wiretapping. And cross-filing (early in his career, Nixon filed in the California primary as a Democrat and a Republican candidate).

So it makes sense that Trump and Nixon were buds

“I think that you are one of this country’s great men, and it was an honor to spend an evening with you,” Trump wrote in 1982.

“These are two authoritarian personalities who would have a natural affinity for each other,” said (John) Dean, who helped expose the Watergate scandal and is a harsh critic of Trump.

In January 1993, Trump penned his final letter to Nixon. He wrote -

Leave a comment

Well, here’s what we know. Republicans ran on releasing the names found on the list. Trump is on the list. Repeatedly. Dozens of women have accused Trump of sexual assault, some of whom were girls at the time of the alleged assault. A court has validated E. Jean Carroll’s allegation. Seventy-three percent (73%) of Trump supporters do not care and Speaker Mike Johnson - who closed Congress until September - is betting on them continuing to not care.

Trump has, allegedly, been assaulting women for the last fifty-five years. How does a man get away with the worst-kept secret for fifty-five years? Welp, the answer is rooted in history, my friend.

The America of the 1970s was still deeply misogynistic, with Coverture laws firmly in place. In fact, before 1974, all fifty states required evidence that the victim of a sexual assault was not married to the offender. In other words, married women could not legally refuse sex with their husband, a legal doctrine known as the "marital rape exemption."

Donald and Ivana Trump were married in 1977. Ivana cited marital rape and extramarital affairs as reasons for divorcing Donald twelve years later. New York ended their “martial exemption” law in 1984. In other words, for most of their marriage, Donald Trump had a right to have sex with Ivana without her consent.

But, Dear, A Husband Has Needs…

In 1975, Michigan and South Dakota became the first states to change the “marital exemption” doctrine. Two years later, South Dakota restored the exemption. In 1978, Greta Rideout took the matter before a jury.

A jury of eight women and four men found John Rideout not guilty. John Rideout is currently living in the Snake River Correctional Facility for raping two other women.

It would take twenty years for marital rape to be illegal in all fifty states. However, still today, laws differ dramatically by state. In other words, still today, how protected a rape survivor is, is an accident of geography.

And, according to the FBI, it shows. About 40-50% of reported rapes led to arrests during the 1970s (FBI Crime Data, 1970s), with most cases going unprosecuted due to inadequate legal protections, lack of physical evidence, or societal skepticism. Once a case was cleared for prosecution, conviction rates hovered around 20-30% (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1983). For cases involving spouses, these rates were less than 10% due to “marital exemption” laws (Rape Law Reform, 1980s).

Meanwhile: What Were Your Wearing?

The first “Rape Shield” laws was passed in Michigan in 1974. Twenty-years later, then Senator Joe Biden ushered the Violence Against Women Act into law, making it illegal for the defense to discredit accusers by, for example, introducing evidence of sexual history.

There is A LOT More Work To Do…

Fast forward fifty years later, the data doesn’t look so different. Despite legal reforms, technological advancements, and increased public awareness, arrest rates have only improved by 10%. Once cases go to trial, thanks to scientific and legal advancements, conviction rates have doubled to 40-50% (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2020).

According to Kari Hong (American Criminal Law Review) "for every 1000 rapes that are estimated to occur, seven will result in a conviction. By contrast, of every 1000 estimated robberies, twenty-two will result in a conviction. Of every 1000 estimated assault and batteries, forty-one result in conviction.”

The discrepancy, Hong argues, is “odd because a rapist is known to the victim in approximately 80% of the attacks, and the robber is known to the victim in approximately 25% of those crimes.”

America treats rape as a minor inconvenience for survivors. Jeffrey Epstein, Donald Trump, Sean Combs and the 99% of accused rapists who go unpunished send that message very clearly.

The GOP Makes It Clear

Rape is inconvenient… for them.

Side Note: Men can be and are sexually assaulted. The data - and stigmatization - for those men is just as harrowing.

Resources and References

• FBI Crime Data: FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program

• Hirschi, T., & Gottfredson, M. (1983). Protective Factors and Delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency.

• Rape Law Reform (1980s): National Conference of State Legislatures

• National Conference of State Legislatures. (2023). State Laws on Rape and Sexual Assault.

• Legal Information Institute. (2023). Rape Laws and Definitions.

• National Institute of Justice. (2021). Forensic Science and DNA Evidence.

Just over nine million (9.087 million) people served in active-duty roles between 1964 and 1975. Around three million (2.7 million) of whom served in Vietnam and about half (est. 1.3 million) of those regularly experienced direct combat. Another three million (3.4) serviced in theater including Vietnam, Loas and Cambodia. Over seven thousand (7,484) women served in Vietnam, predominately as nurses.

Fifty-eight thousand two hundred and two (58,202) died and another three hundred thousand (303,704) were wounded. Over two thousand (2,338) went Missing in Action and almost eight hundred (766) were Prisoners of War. On average, the people who died were twenty-three (23) years old, however, the five of those casualties were sixteen years (16) old and one was just fifteen (15) years old.

One million seven hundred thousand (1.7) people were drafted with about half of serving in Vietnam. The last man was drafted on June 30, 1973. Men who served in Vietnam were predominately from working class white families. Ninety-seven percent (97%) of Vietnam era veterans were honorably discharged. Sixty-six percent (66%) report that they would serve again.

Vietnam era vets were paid between $65 and $215 per month. Sixty-six percent (66%) took advantage of their college benefits. In 2024, the military.com reported that 87,000 Vietnam Veterans May Qualify for $844 Million in Benefits.

How Did America Honor Thier Service?

The Vietnam War posed complex challenges for those who served. Unlike veterans of World War II, Vietnam era veterans often returned home to an indifference or even hostility. Employers and educational institutions were skeptical. Many were dealing with psychological trauma, and exposure to toxic chemicals sprayed to thin the jungles of Vietnam.

In reaction, Congress passed a series of critical laws from the late 1960s through the 1970s to help ease the transition back into civilian life. Over the decades, lawmakers have continued to expand those protections by acknowledging conditions like PTSD, Agent Orange-related diseases, and presumptive illnesses through legislation like the PACT Act.

Subscribe now

Foundational Laws of the Vietnam Era

Veterans' Pension and Readjustment Assistance Act of 1967

This early legislation laid the foundation for supporting Vietnam era veterans, expanding pension eligibility and extending basic readjustment benefits. It acknowledged that veterans of the Vietnam War needed assistance similar to what earlier generations had received—particularly in education, training, and employment.

Veterans' Education and Training Amendments Act of 1970

As the need for greater educational support became apparent, this act updated GI Bill benefits to better reflect the rising cost of education and training. It offered increased flexibility in program eligibility, ensuring more veterans could access vocational and academic paths aligned with their post-service goals.

Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1972 (VEVRAA)

A turning point in veteran employment policy, VEVRAA required federal contractors to take affirmative action in hiring and promoting Vietnam era veterans. It also prohibited discrimination against them, recognizing that returning service members were often met with workplace bias or indifference.

Veterans' Education and Rehabilitation Equalization Amendments Act of 1974

This legislation responded to gaps in previous programs by increasing monthly education assistance payments and expanding eligibility for vocational rehabilitation. It aimed to level the playing field for veterans with service-connected disabilities, giving them the tools to achieve long-term success.

Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974

Building on its 1972 predecessor, the 1974 update enhanced employment protections, tightened contractor reporting requirements, and broadened the definition of who qualified as a Vietnam era veteran. It was part of an evolving recognition that many veterans were still not getting the support they deserved.

Share

Expanded Protections in the Decades Since

While these foundational laws were crucial, they didn’t fully account for the long-term physical and mental health challenges Vietnam veterans would face. In the years since, Congress has made significant changes to better recognize and respond to those needs.

Recognition of PTSD (1980s–present)

For decades, Vietnam veterans were burdened by what is now recognized as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The condition wasn’t formally acknowledged by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) until the 1980s. Once recognized, PTSD became a compensable condition, making veterans eligible for disability benefits, mental health counseling, and rehabilitation services.

Agent Orange Exposure and Presumptive Conditions

As evidence mounted of the harmful effects of Agent Orange, a toxic herbicide used during the war, Congress responded with legislation such as the Agent Orange Act of 1991, which established "presumptive service connection" for certain illnesses. This meant that veterans who served in Vietnam and developed specific diseases—including certain cancers, Parkinson’s disease, and ischemic heart disease—would be presumed to have contracted them due to their military service, making it easier to obtain benefits.

The PACT Act of 2022

The Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act of 2022 represents one of the most significant expansions of VA health care and benefits in decades. While the Act primarily addressed post-9/11 veterans, it also expanded presumptive condition lists for Vietnam veterans, adding more Agent Orange-related diseases and new eligible locations, such as service in Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, and Guam. It made it significantly easier for veterans exposed to toxic substances to receive the benefits they earned—without the burden of proving direct causation.

Leave a comment

Start With The VA

Check out VA.gov for more information about benefits owed to Vietnam vets and their families.

VA Benefits for Vietnam Veterans

Vietnam Veterans may be eligible for a wide-variety of benefits available to all U.S. military Veterans. VA benefits include disability compensation, pension, education and training, health care, home loans, insurance, vocational rehabilitation and employment, and burial. See our Veterans page for an overview of the benefits available to all Veterans.

Disability Compensation for Veterans Exposed to Agent Orange

VA presumes that some disabilities diagnosed in certain Veterans were caused by exposure to Agent Orange during military service.

Learn more about VA health care benefits for Veterans exposed to Agent Orange on the Veterans Health Administration's Agent Orange page.

Learn more about VA compensation benefits for Veterans exposed to Agent Orange on the Disability Compensation Agent Orange page.

Children of Veterans with Exposure to Agent Orange

Children of Veterans exposed to Agent Orange who have a birth defect including spina bifida, a congenital birth defect of the spine, and certain other birth defects may be entitled to VA benefits. These include monetary benefits, health care, and vocational rehabilitation services.

Learn more about VA compensation benefits for children of Veterans exposed to Agent Orange on the Disability Compensation Birth Defects page.

How to Apply

There are many paths to eligibility, and applying is the best way to know if you qualify. Generally, Servicemembers, Veterans, and families can apply for VA benefits using one of the methods below.

• Apply online using VA.gov, OR

• Work with an accredited representative or agent, OR

• In person at the nearest VA medical center or clinic, OR

• By calling the toll-free hotline: 800-698-2411, OR

• Go to a VA regional office and have a VA employee assist you. You can find your regional office on our Facility Locator page.

File your claim using an Application for Disability Compensation and Related Compensation Benefits (VA Form 21-526EZ). Print the form, fil it out and send it to:

Department of Veteran Affairs
Claims Intake Center
PO Box 4444
Janesville, WI 53547-4444

Dive Deeper

• VA’s Agent Orange Registry

• PACT Act Information from VA

• VEVRAA Federal Contractor Guidelines

29 Palms has been in operation since 1940. Today, it is home to 12,500 warriors assigned to the Marine Corps Communications and Electronics School, 7th Marines Regiment, Headquarters Battalion, 3rd LAR, CLB 7, MCLOG, MCTOG, and TTECG. Thousands of American and allied warriors are trained in combat at 29 Palms every year.

7th Marines Regiment is a rapid deployment infantry regiment responsible for amphibious assault, stabilization operations, and ground combat.

3rd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion (3rd LAR) provides surveillance, reconnaissance, and security operations.

Combat Logistics Battalion 7 (CLB 7) provides logistical support, supply, maintenance, transportation, and other sustainment functions.

Marine Corps Logistics Group (MLOG) provides supply chain management, maintenance, and transportation.

Marine Corps Tactical Operations Group (MCTOG) is a specialized unit responsible for providing strategic-level operational planning, advanced force integration, and joint/combined operations planning support.

Tactical Training Exercise Control Group (TTECG) is responsible for planning, coordinating, and executing training exercises.

Like The Surface Of The Moon

Marines are pretty clear about life at 29 Palms. It’s hot, really hot. So hot there isn’t a blade of grass to be found. 29 Palm exists for one reason and one reason only; to prepare warriors for war.

Even the Army knows that “There only two kinds of people that understand the Marines: Marines and the enemy.” (General William Thornson, USA). During World War I, General John Pershing was quoted as saying, “The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle.”

Hell, even Winston Churchill declared that there was “no smarter, handier, or more adaptable body of troops in the world.” During his time in Korea, Marine Corps Chaplain Kevin Keaney called his fellow Marines “the most ferocious fighters on earth.”

The President of the Naval War College. Rear Adm. James R. Stark, who served in Vietnam said, “I see as two breeds, Rottweilers or Dobermans, because Marines come in two varieties, big and mean, or skinny and mean. They’re aggressive on the attack and tenacious on defense. They’ve got really short hair, and they always go for the throat.”

During the War on Terror, Navy SEAL Chris Kyle said, “In my experience, Marines are gung-ho no matter what. They will all fight to the death. Every one of them just wants to get out there and kill. They are bad-ass, hard-charging mothers.”

Marines answer to “Devil Dogs” or “Hellhounds.” Why? Well because when the Marines were ordered to take Belleau Wood Teufel Hunden from the Nazi’s they had to belly crawl through Nazi mustard gas to achieve the mission. What the Nazi’s saw coming was “a pack of tenacious, growling figures wearing gas masks, with bloodshot eyes and mouth foam seeping from the sides, advancing up the hill, sometimes on all fours, killing everything in their way.” As the story goes, Nazi’s thought they were witnessing “dogs from hell.”

Come The Weekend

There will be 700 Marines ordered to protect federal property in Los Angeles, California despite the fact that no such damage has been reported.

Not Our 1st Rodeo

Marines have been deployed multiple times to manage civil unrest and support law enforcement or federal authorities.

1. Integration of Little Rock, Arkansas (1957): Marines were assigned support the Army National Guard, however, Marines were not on the ground in Little Rock.

2. 1967 Summer of Riots (1967): Marines were activated to provide logistical support and assisted in crowd control alongside the National Guard and local police.

3. The Los Angeles Riots (1992): Marines provided logistics and transportation to support local law enforcement.

4. Hurricane Katrina (2005): The Marine Corps was deployed to assist with rescue, security, and humanitarian operations in affected areas.

5. Hurricane Harvey (2017): Marines were sent to aid in disaster relief.

The Marine Corps, like other military branches, can provide civil authorities under the Insurrection Act and when federal assistance in requested. However, the Posse Comitatus Act limits active-duty military use for law enforcement but allows for support roles like logistics, transportation, and aid.

Still, this feels different and quotes Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth like - “I think we’re entering another phase, especially under President Trump with his focus on the homeland, where the National Guard and Reserves become a critical component of how we secure that homeland,” - do not help calm the nerves.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment