PS: One also notes that this gown is reminiscent of those one saw on the stage of the old Burbank Theater on L.A.'s Main Street in the 1950s, at least for the first 16 bars.
News and Commentary
☰
Commentary
Where is David Rose when we really need him?
Someone on a Farcebook group suggested sending Mr & Mrs Bezos to Mars along with a few other would-be oligarchs. Our take was that "Actually, sending them to Mars might improve both planets. Mars gets organic matter (and, it appears a generous supply of silicone), while Earth gets relief from the current celebration of shallow values."
PS: One also notes that this gown is reminiscent of those one saw on the stage of the old Burbank Theater on L.A.'s Main Street in the 1950s, at least for the first 16 bars.
PS: One also notes that this gown is reminiscent of those one saw on the stage of the old Burbank Theater on L.A.'s Main Street in the 1950s, at least for the first 16 bars.
Future WHCA galas could get a bit crowded
Last month at the DC Hilton a man allegedly attempted to assassinate the President and/or other cabinet officials during the White House Correspondents' Assn. (WHCA) gala. The event had 2,600 guests, many of whom were working press and their spouses or others. No doubt there were also network executives and other "dignitaries" (read Trump fans). Several members of the Cabinet attended, including according to multiple reports, a majority of the "line of succession" to the presidency, which frankly seems crazy on its face.
Because the venue is within a larger public building, it has been suggested that some other location would be preferable. Press reports have noted that the location was traditional for an event that has been held there for decades. Other writers have noted that there are numerous other DC locations capable of hosting similar crowds with much greater security.
Trump acolytes in the White House have suggested that one purpose of "The Ballroom" is to create a more secure DC location for public presidential events. Some have suggested the ballroom is just another sop to Trump's vanity. Let's walk that through.
According to a web search today,
• Initial White House and media briefings in mid‑2025 described a ballroom of about 90,000 square feet with a seated capacity of around 650 guests.
• Later statements from President Trump and project descriptions indicated that the target capacity was revised upward, first to 900 and then to 999 seated guests.
• By early 2026, updated briefings and news coverage described finalized plans for a ballroom space of about 22,000 square feet within a larger 90,000‑square‑foot addition, designed to seat roughly 1,000 dinner guests, which is the figure generally cited now.
So on first analysis, the proposed space is at best 100-(1000/2600*100)=61% smaller than the Hilton Ballroom.
Let's assume The Ballroom is complete in time for the 2028 celebration, presumably Trump's last hurrah. So who will be able to attend in the new space?
The WHCA has around 900 members representing about 250 news organizations. Let's assume the journalists and each of their bosses want to attend and bring one guest. That's 2,300 people, plus, let's say 100 government officials. Oops!
Let's assume that only half can attend due to distance, scheduling, etc. That's 1,200 people. Oops!
To whom do you suppose the Trump Administration will prefer to send a gold-embossed invitation, the actual journalists, or their bosses, or big political donors? (Hint: Consider which group is more likely to have contributed to the Trump campaigns over the years.) So there is a strong possibility that future WHCA galas will consist of appointed government officials chatting with financiers and management types who like to pretend they're associated with journalism.
Fun fact: Submit to any AI search engine the query "What US president has experienced the most assassination attempts?" Many people are saying you will probably not be surprised by the response.
Because the venue is within a larger public building, it has been suggested that some other location would be preferable. Press reports have noted that the location was traditional for an event that has been held there for decades. Other writers have noted that there are numerous other DC locations capable of hosting similar crowds with much greater security.
Trump acolytes in the White House have suggested that one purpose of "The Ballroom" is to create a more secure DC location for public presidential events. Some have suggested the ballroom is just another sop to Trump's vanity. Let's walk that through.
According to a web search today,
• Initial White House and media briefings in mid‑2025 described a ballroom of about 90,000 square feet with a seated capacity of around 650 guests.
• Later statements from President Trump and project descriptions indicated that the target capacity was revised upward, first to 900 and then to 999 seated guests.
• By early 2026, updated briefings and news coverage described finalized plans for a ballroom space of about 22,000 square feet within a larger 90,000‑square‑foot addition, designed to seat roughly 1,000 dinner guests, which is the figure generally cited now.
So on first analysis, the proposed space is at best 100-(1000/2600*100)=61% smaller than the Hilton Ballroom.
Let's assume The Ballroom is complete in time for the 2028 celebration, presumably Trump's last hurrah. So who will be able to attend in the new space?
The WHCA has around 900 members representing about 250 news organizations. Let's assume the journalists and each of their bosses want to attend and bring one guest. That's 2,300 people, plus, let's say 100 government officials. Oops!
Let's assume that only half can attend due to distance, scheduling, etc. That's 1,200 people. Oops!
To whom do you suppose the Trump Administration will prefer to send a gold-embossed invitation, the actual journalists, or their bosses, or big political donors? (Hint: Consider which group is more likely to have contributed to the Trump campaigns over the years.) So there is a strong possibility that future WHCA galas will consist of appointed government officials chatting with financiers and management types who like to pretend they're associated with journalism.
Fun fact: Submit to any AI search engine the query "What US president has experienced the most assassination attempts?" Many people are saying you will probably not be surprised by the response.
War just might not be the best way
For those of you who think war is grand and glorious and a really good way to spend our spare time and spare cash, a little arithmetic might change your minds.
The rescue of downed pilots pulled off by the US military was a nice piece of work, and apparently a bargain at around $500 million or perhaps a billion give or take when factoring in all the overtime, support personnel and lost equipment (image; apology to Al Jazeera). The tip of the iceberg for us who have been pay, and paying again, since 1945.
The combined cost of the Vietnam war and all the "9/11" wars plus the current clstrfk is order of magnitude somewhere between 6 and 8.5 trillion dollars. Might we have spent that more wisely?
The cost of rebuilding a mile of interstate highway is about 15-20 million dollars. There are 48,900 miles of interstate. Now, I could have done it manually, but I let my computer tell me that for the amount of money spent on war (and those are just the cost of the wars, not the cost of maintaining the capacity for war, we could rebuild the entire interstate system 8.2 times (assuming the $15MM/mi estimate).
If we have to rebuild the system every 40 years, the annual cost would be a few miles at a time for $82/40=$2.05 billion per year. If we do it once and put the other $6 trillion into mutual funds at only 6%, we'd earn $360 billion in interest every year, minus the $2 billion for the roads. The $358 billion would pay the interest on the debt to Social Security at a rate of $300bn/yr would pay off the debt in less than ten years.
Happily, that leaves $58bn to pay me for the idea and the strenuous effort of these calculations.
Here's the deal: I'll settle for a million, leaving $57 billion for my beloved compatriots, each of whom would get a check for around $170 X the number of persons in the household, which compares nicely to the $X hundred you supposedly got from Fearless Leader, which actually came from an expansion of the national debt, while this would be a true rebate.
Are these the real numbers? Perhaps not exactly, but they're in the ballpark. And they do show that war is not just cruel and stupid; it's also very, very expensive and the reason we can't all have nice things.
The rescue of downed pilots pulled off by the US military was a nice piece of work, and apparently a bargain at around $500 million or perhaps a billion give or take when factoring in all the overtime, support personnel and lost equipment (image; apology to Al Jazeera). The tip of the iceberg for us who have been pay, and paying again, since 1945.
The combined cost of the Vietnam war and all the "9/11" wars plus the current clstrfk is order of magnitude somewhere between 6 and 8.5 trillion dollars. Might we have spent that more wisely?
The cost of rebuilding a mile of interstate highway is about 15-20 million dollars. There are 48,900 miles of interstate. Now, I could have done it manually, but I let my computer tell me that for the amount of money spent on war (and those are just the cost of the wars, not the cost of maintaining the capacity for war, we could rebuild the entire interstate system 8.2 times (assuming the $15MM/mi estimate).
If we have to rebuild the system every 40 years, the annual cost would be a few miles at a time for $82/40=$2.05 billion per year. If we do it once and put the other $6 trillion into mutual funds at only 6%, we'd earn $360 billion in interest every year, minus the $2 billion for the roads. The $358 billion would pay the interest on the debt to Social Security at a rate of $300bn/yr would pay off the debt in less than ten years.
Happily, that leaves $58bn to pay me for the idea and the strenuous effort of these calculations.
Here's the deal: I'll settle for a million, leaving $57 billion for my beloved compatriots, each of whom would get a check for around $170 X the number of persons in the household, which compares nicely to the $X hundred you supposedly got from Fearless Leader, which actually came from an expansion of the national debt, while this would be a true rebate.
Are these the real numbers? Perhaps not exactly, but they're in the ballpark. And they do show that war is not just cruel and stupid; it's also very, very expensive and the reason we can't all have nice things.
Tr$mp Reverses DEI Course
Observing the current situation in Iran, it would appear that the
DIVERSE population of young, old, rich, poor, professional and laboring classes, religious and secular all have a roughly
EQUAL chance of being blown to smithereens by an overwhelmingly more powerful military force in an incessant and apparently indiscriminate campaign bordering on obliteration and
INCLUSIVE of the entire society.
It appears we've misunderstood. The Right's oft-stated opposition to DEI is in fact merely a quest to redefine it. I am much comforted, as I'm sure are the Iranians.
DIVERSE population of young, old, rich, poor, professional and laboring classes, religious and secular all have a roughly
EQUAL chance of being blown to smithereens by an overwhelmingly more powerful military force in an incessant and apparently indiscriminate campaign bordering on obliteration and
INCLUSIVE of the entire society.
It appears we've misunderstood. The Right's oft-stated opposition to DEI is in fact merely a quest to redefine it. I am much comforted, as I'm sure are the Iranians.
To bomb or not to bomb, that is the question
I recently exchanged comments with a fellow Farcebook user. He wanted to justify Trump's bomb-the-bejabbers-out-of-em campaign by drawing historic parallels, and I demurred, both as to applicability and rectitude.. Draw your own conclusions.
Robert C asserted...
Some folks really need a history lesson!
Franklin D. Roosevelt & Harry S. Truman (World War II, 1941–1945): Under Roosevelt and subsequently Truman, the US led massive strategic bombing campaigns in Europe and the Pacific. These campaigns targeted railway networks, bridges, refineries, and factory infrastructure.
Harry S. Truman (Korean War, 1950–1953): The U.S. Air Force carried out an intensive campaign against North Korean infrastructure, including bridges, dams, and industrial factories, to disrupt supply lines.
Lyndon B. Johnson (Vietnam War, 1965–1968): Operation Rolling Thunder, a massive, sustained bombing campaign against North Vietnam, targeted military and industrial infrastructure, including key bridges like the Thanh Hóa Bridge.
Richard Nixon (Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos, 1969–1973): Continued bombing campaigns that targeted infrastructure along the Ho Chi Minh Trail and in Cambodia to disrupt supply routes.
George H.W. Bush (Gulf War, 1990–1991): The U.S.-led coalition targeted Iraq’s military support infrastructure, including command centers, communication facilities, and power grids, often using precision-guided weapons.
Bill Clinton (Bosnia/Kosovo, 1995–1999): NATO-led bombing campaigns targeted infrastructure in Yugoslavia, including bridges, industrial plants, and oil facilities, often without formal congressional declarations of war.
George W. Bush (Iraq War/Afghanistan, 2001-2009): The 2003 "Shock and Awe" campaign in Iraq destroyed substantial civilian and military infrastructure, including electricity networks and government bridges.
Barack Obama (Libya/Syria/Yemen, 2009–2017): Oversaw NATO airstrikes in Libya that hit regime-controlled infrastructure, and used drone strikes on infrastructure targets in Yemen and Syria, often acting without new congressional approval.
Donald Trump (Syria/Iran Threats, 2017-2021/2026): Continued bombing in Yemen and Syria and, in April 2026, made public threats to destroy Iran’s electrical grid and transportation bridges, a policy referred to as "bridge and power day".
Joe Biden (Syria/Iraq, 2021–Present): Authorized airstrikes against targets in Iraq and Syria, targeting militia infrastructure.
Wikipedia
These actions frequently spanned multiple administrations, with the United States engaging in airstrikes in over 30 countries since 1945.
And I replied...
Robert, there are several obvious difference between the present and past wars.
* During WWII military operations in all theaters were against countries that had previously launched comparable campaigns agains vital US interests including those in US territory. (Pearl Harbor comes to mind.) Neither Iran's religious antipathy toward a third party nor the actions of its surrogates rises to the same level of threat to the USA.
* The Cold War was a clear and unambiguous threat, but the US chose instead to put us on the wrong side of history by supporting the return of French colonial forces to Vietnam, leading to a ten-year war and a major US defeat in which thousands of Americans and perhaps millions of Vietnamese died. Hardly glorious.(See earlier exchange in this thread regarding Wm. Calley.)
* The Bush clan's adventures in the Persian Gulf had little to do with US security but a lot to do with the fortunes of oil interests in the USA and abroad, including those of the Bushes themselves.
* Obama did for sure strike in Syria and Yemen under the cloak of the "War Powers Act" left over from the Bush era. The Syria incursions were quite clearly related to assaults on US forces and on international shipping in the Red Sea and were supported by the UN (see UN Security Council approved Resolution 1973 ), NATO (NATO allies like the UK and France strongly supported the operation and flew many of the combat missions) and other nations. As for Yemen, human rights groups and some UN investigators criticized the US program for lack of transparency, civilian casualties, and possible violations of international law, urging clearer legal justification and accountability mechanisms. At the same time, Obama’s 2013–2014 speeches tightening rules for drone use and acknowledging civilian risks were cautiously welcomed by Pakistan, Yemen, and a UN special rapporteur as steps toward more constrained and transparent use of force. Overall, a mixed bag.
* The first Trump administration, despite campaign statements critical of Obama, largely continued the policies of the Obama era directed at Syria and Yemen.
* The Biden administration responded to Iran-directed attacks on US forces in Syria and Iraq.
In summary, virtually all other administrations you mentioned were acting DEFENSIVELY to actual threats and/or attacks and were fully or partially supported by allies and others. One cannot rationally apply those actions as a road map to future US foreign policy.
In contrast, the present warfare in the Persian Gulf is OFFENSIVE (in every sense of the word). It is rather obviously, as reflected in public statements by the administration, addressing fear of a theoretical future threat that would surely result in obliteration of the attacker, based on the unlikely choice of a foreign government to commit national suicide. And oh by the way, have you noticed few people are mentioning the Epstein affair this month? The vulgarity and hyper-machismo of Trump & Hegspeth is a national embarrassment adding insult to injury.
[BTW, none of the statements herein is sourced from Wikipedia, which is an autodidactic (look it up) source in which many articles written by amateurs contain errors of fact and reason.]
Bottom line: Two wrongs still don't make a right, and no number of paeans to past violence can turn the present tragedy into poetry.
Robert C asserted...
Some folks really need a history lesson!
Franklin D. Roosevelt & Harry S. Truman (World War II, 1941–1945): Under Roosevelt and subsequently Truman, the US led massive strategic bombing campaigns in Europe and the Pacific. These campaigns targeted railway networks, bridges, refineries, and factory infrastructure.
Harry S. Truman (Korean War, 1950–1953): The U.S. Air Force carried out an intensive campaign against North Korean infrastructure, including bridges, dams, and industrial factories, to disrupt supply lines.
Lyndon B. Johnson (Vietnam War, 1965–1968): Operation Rolling Thunder, a massive, sustained bombing campaign against North Vietnam, targeted military and industrial infrastructure, including key bridges like the Thanh Hóa Bridge.
Richard Nixon (Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos, 1969–1973): Continued bombing campaigns that targeted infrastructure along the Ho Chi Minh Trail and in Cambodia to disrupt supply routes.
George H.W. Bush (Gulf War, 1990–1991): The U.S.-led coalition targeted Iraq’s military support infrastructure, including command centers, communication facilities, and power grids, often using precision-guided weapons.
Bill Clinton (Bosnia/Kosovo, 1995–1999): NATO-led bombing campaigns targeted infrastructure in Yugoslavia, including bridges, industrial plants, and oil facilities, often without formal congressional declarations of war.
George W. Bush (Iraq War/Afghanistan, 2001-2009): The 2003 "Shock and Awe" campaign in Iraq destroyed substantial civilian and military infrastructure, including electricity networks and government bridges.
Barack Obama (Libya/Syria/Yemen, 2009–2017): Oversaw NATO airstrikes in Libya that hit regime-controlled infrastructure, and used drone strikes on infrastructure targets in Yemen and Syria, often acting without new congressional approval.
Donald Trump (Syria/Iran Threats, 2017-2021/2026): Continued bombing in Yemen and Syria and, in April 2026, made public threats to destroy Iran’s electrical grid and transportation bridges, a policy referred to as "bridge and power day".
Joe Biden (Syria/Iraq, 2021–Present): Authorized airstrikes against targets in Iraq and Syria, targeting militia infrastructure.
Wikipedia
These actions frequently spanned multiple administrations, with the United States engaging in airstrikes in over 30 countries since 1945.
And I replied...
Robert, there are several obvious difference between the present and past wars.
* During WWII military operations in all theaters were against countries that had previously launched comparable campaigns agains vital US interests including those in US territory. (Pearl Harbor comes to mind.) Neither Iran's religious antipathy toward a third party nor the actions of its surrogates rises to the same level of threat to the USA.
* The Cold War was a clear and unambiguous threat, but the US chose instead to put us on the wrong side of history by supporting the return of French colonial forces to Vietnam, leading to a ten-year war and a major US defeat in which thousands of Americans and perhaps millions of Vietnamese died. Hardly glorious.(See earlier exchange in this thread regarding Wm. Calley.)
* The Bush clan's adventures in the Persian Gulf had little to do with US security but a lot to do with the fortunes of oil interests in the USA and abroad, including those of the Bushes themselves.
* Obama did for sure strike in Syria and Yemen under the cloak of the "War Powers Act" left over from the Bush era. The Syria incursions were quite clearly related to assaults on US forces and on international shipping in the Red Sea and were supported by the UN (see UN Security Council approved Resolution 1973 ), NATO (NATO allies like the UK and France strongly supported the operation and flew many of the combat missions) and other nations. As for Yemen, human rights groups and some UN investigators criticized the US program for lack of transparency, civilian casualties, and possible violations of international law, urging clearer legal justification and accountability mechanisms. At the same time, Obama’s 2013–2014 speeches tightening rules for drone use and acknowledging civilian risks were cautiously welcomed by Pakistan, Yemen, and a UN special rapporteur as steps toward more constrained and transparent use of force. Overall, a mixed bag.
* The first Trump administration, despite campaign statements critical of Obama, largely continued the policies of the Obama era directed at Syria and Yemen.
* The Biden administration responded to Iran-directed attacks on US forces in Syria and Iraq.
In summary, virtually all other administrations you mentioned were acting DEFENSIVELY to actual threats and/or attacks and were fully or partially supported by allies and others. One cannot rationally apply those actions as a road map to future US foreign policy.
In contrast, the present warfare in the Persian Gulf is OFFENSIVE (in every sense of the word). It is rather obviously, as reflected in public statements by the administration, addressing fear of a theoretical future threat that would surely result in obliteration of the attacker, based on the unlikely choice of a foreign government to commit national suicide. And oh by the way, have you noticed few people are mentioning the Epstein affair this month? The vulgarity and hyper-machismo of Trump & Hegspeth is a national embarrassment adding insult to injury.
[BTW, none of the statements herein is sourced from Wikipedia, which is an autodidactic (look it up) source in which many articles written by amateurs contain errors of fact and reason.]
Bottom line: Two wrongs still don't make a right, and no number of paeans to past violence can turn the present tragedy into poetry.
Numbers don't shoot
A few facts about "the problem" of "criminal alien" residents. Consider "the worst of the worst" to mean those who kill other inhabitants, the term by which the Contitution describes those who live in the USA, eschewing "citizen" because crime is crime. In fact the Constitution says very little about crime, leaving public safety primarily to the states.
Don't hold your breath for action on health care
Once again the House of Rs is today dinking with trivia concerning public health.
Meanwhile, it is clear to most that only a comprehensive healthcare system covering all Americans can resolve the rampant inequities that block us from fully enjoying the benefits of modern medicine. The insurance model, which is now over 400 years old, just doen't work, and will only get worse if the present trend toward increasing concentration of wealth and income continues. Someone in your town will die this year, while someone else nearby is out buying his fourth large-screen TV, which will hang unwatched in the guest room of his rarely visited vacation home.
The reason we don't have universal healthcare is not about cost savings or fear of losing access. In no uncertain terms it's about the continuing effort to maintain "carve-outs" for executives and nefarious middlemen (aka "donors") throughout the system (or non-system if we're being honest). "Shareholder value"— both in health-related sectors and at the company making that unwatched TV—are clearly more important to lawmakers than health outcomes, as that marginal cash flow enables donations to those who willngly block progress, so that they might hang onto their perks a bit longer.
Meanwhile, it is clear to most that only a comprehensive healthcare system covering all Americans can resolve the rampant inequities that block us from fully enjoying the benefits of modern medicine. The insurance model, which is now over 400 years old, just doen't work, and will only get worse if the present trend toward increasing concentration of wealth and income continues. Someone in your town will die this year, while someone else nearby is out buying his fourth large-screen TV, which will hang unwatched in the guest room of his rarely visited vacation home.
The reason we don't have universal healthcare is not about cost savings or fear of losing access. In no uncertain terms it's about the continuing effort to maintain "carve-outs" for executives and nefarious middlemen (aka "donors") throughout the system (or non-system if we're being honest). "Shareholder value"— both in health-related sectors and at the company making that unwatched TV—are clearly more important to lawmakers than health outcomes, as that marginal cash flow enables donations to those who willngly block progress, so that they might hang onto their perks a bit longer.
The Epstein Files May Dominate Trump Legacy
Jeffrey Epstein's famous island lies within the US Virgin Islands, giving the US absolute jurisdiction. Any failure to prosecute individuals for crimes committed there lies entirely at the peril of the US Justice Dept., and there is no statute of limitations (viz: The Mann Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 2421–2423) is subject to federal statutes of limitations, with some important exceptions for cases involving death or certain child‑victim provisions). It would be interesting to assess the culpability, including impeachment, of a DOJ official who so failed in "her" duty (Attn: Pam Bondi). Any prosecution of a "high ranking government official" for crimes committed under such law prior to "his" assuming office would presumably not be impeded by any grant by any court of immunity during such tenure of office.
MTG: If the shoe fits, run away home
Before you watch CBS "60 Minutes" tonight and sit weeping at Marjorie Taylor Greene's sad tale of her victimization by the MAGA crowd, consider this exchange with Perplexity.ai.
Query
Act as a modern history researcher. Create a list of gratuitous, ad hominem attacks by Marjorie Taylor Greene while a sitting member of the US Congress in which she verbally assaulted or humiliated private individuals or called them by false names or monickers.
Response
Marjorie Taylor Greene has repeatedly used personal, ad hominem insults and derisive monickers while serving in Congress, often drawing criticism for targeting both colleagues and private individuals or activists by name.[1][2][3] Below is a concise, sourced list of notable examples that fit your criteria.
Harassment of Parkland survivor David Hogg (private individual)
- In 2019, after the Parkland shooting and before her election, Greene followed survivor-turned-activist David Hogg near the U.S. Capitol, filming herself as she aggressively confronted him, accusing him of being “paid,” implying he was a puppet, and mocking his activism; this video resurfaced and was widely reported after she took office in 2021, at which point it was condemned as a sitting member of Congress harassing a private individual.[2][4]
- In a separate 2019 interview that remained public during her time in Congress, she described Hogg as an “idiot,” compared him to a “trained” animal, and belittled the young women working with him as “clueless,” language that continued to circulate and be defended by her after she was sworn in.[1][5]
Appearance-based attack on Rep. Jasmine Crockett
- During a May 2024 House Oversight Committee hearing, Greene interrupted a Democrat’s questioning with a jab at Rep. Jasmine Crockett’s physical appearance, sneering about her “fake eyelashes,” which immediately provoked objections as a gratuitous and personal insult unrelated to the subject of the hearing.[6][7]
- The exchange escalated as Democrats moved to strike her words from the record, and Greene refused to apologize, instead doubling down with mocking, sarcastic retorts when colleagues labeled the attack as unacceptable.[6][8]
Mocking and belittling Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
- In the same May 2024 hearing, Greene turned from Crockett to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, questioning her intelligence and taunting her with diminutive nicknames such as “baby girl,” which AOC characterized as disrespectful and unserious in the context of a formal proceeding.[6][7]
- The back-and-forth devolved into shouted insults about intellect and professionalism, with Greene using dismissive, gendered language that watchdogs and commentators flagged as a pattern of ad hominem rather than policy-based criticism.[7][8]
Use of derisive labels and false monickers
- Greene has frequently referred to political opponents and ideological targets with sweeping epithets such as “groomers,” “communists,” and similar labels in social media posts, speeches, and interviews catalogued in running lists of her controversies; these terms are applied broadly rather than tied to specific conduct and are criticized as defamatory-style slurs rather than substantive argument.[9][3]
- In a notorious television appearance, she attempted to describe security and investigative functions under then–Speaker Nancy Pelosi using a mangled phrase that sounded like “gazpacho police,” which commentators highlighted both as an ignorant misuse of “Gestapo” and as part of her habit of affixing inflammatory, mocking labels to opponents rather than engaging their positions.[10][11]
Pattern of bullying rhetoric as a member of Congress
- News outlets and compendia of her record describe Greene’s style in office as characterized by direct personal attacks, including mocking colleagues’ appearance, intelligence, or gender, and amplifying conspiracy-laden nicknames for perceived enemies within government.[8][3]
- Critics, including other Republicans, have publicly argued that this pattern of insults toward both private individuals (like Hogg) and fellow officeholders undermines institutional norms and is more akin to online trolling than to conventional legislative debate.[1][3]
Ed.: We note that Reps. Crockett and Ocasio-Cortez are members of Congress and political opponents and may not qualify as "private individual," however, Greene did subject them to ad hominem insults on multiple occasions as a substitute for actual examination of political differences.
Sources
[1] Marjorie Taylor Greene mocked Parkland survivor in unearthed video https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/marjorie-taylor-greene-mocked-parkland-survivor-unearthed-video-idiot-who-n1256516
[2] Resurfaced video shows Marjorie Taylor Greene confronting ... https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/resurfaced-video-shows-marjorie-taylor-greene-confronting-parkland-survivor-david-hogg-in-2019
[3] A running list of Marjorie Taylor Greene's controversies https://theweek.com/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-controversy
[4] Congresswoman confronts Parkland survivor - BBC https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-55849877
[5] Video surfaces of Marjorie Taylor Greene confronting Parkland ... https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/27/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-david-hogg-video
[6] House committee meeting devolves into chaos amid personal insults https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-committee-meeting-devolves-chaos-personal-insults-marjorie-taylo-rcna152698
[7] Reps. Greene, AOC, Crockett get into insult-filled House hearing fight https://19thnews.org/2024/05/house-hearing-fight-insults-greene-crockett-aoc/
[8] 'Oversight After Dark': Lawmakers Hurl Insults at Session https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/17/us/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-insults-crockett.html
[9] Marjorie Taylor Greene - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marjorie_Taylor_Greene
[10] Marjorie Taylor Greene Slams Pelosi’s “Gazpacho Police” & Republicans Downplay January 6th Violence https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J20tOqet7oI
[11] Marjorie Taylor Greene Claims 'Gazpacho' Police Backed By Nancy Pelosi Are After Her https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5VjFONQeIE
[12] Personal insults, Greene vs. Boebert and alleged drinking ... - Politico https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/05/17/congress/oversight-descends-into-chaos-00158632
[13] Congress erupts into chaos with Marjorie Taylor Greene ... - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ll-ZrNtX3XU
[14] Reps. Jasmine Crockett and Marjorie Taylor Greene spat highlights ... https://www.npr.org/2024/05/23/g-s1-519/reps-crockett-and-greene-hearing-racial-gender-tensions
[15] Insults by the right-wing Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene led ... - Instagram https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7FV73WvPcn/
[16] Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene insults colleague's appearance on ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okafqwnDC24
[17] Sun Sentinel: Video surfaces showing QAnon-promoting ... https://wassermanschultz.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=2578
[18] Lawrence: Rep. Greene’s ‘Gazpacho Police’ Rant A ‘Stunning Display Of Stupidity’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iqg2S8fthMw
[19] Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) was confronted about ... https://www.facebook.com/HuffPostPolitics/posts/rep-marjorie-taylor-greene-r-ga-was-confronted-about-condoning-one-of-the-presid/1248924787100853/
[20] After years of stoking partisan fights, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene ... https://www.facebook.com/cnn/posts/after-years-of-stoking-partisan-fights-rep-marjorie-taylor-greene-tells-cnns-dan/1218563370136312/
Query
Act as a modern history researcher. Create a list of gratuitous, ad hominem attacks by Marjorie Taylor Greene while a sitting member of the US Congress in which she verbally assaulted or humiliated private individuals or called them by false names or monickers.
Response
Marjorie Taylor Greene has repeatedly used personal, ad hominem insults and derisive monickers while serving in Congress, often drawing criticism for targeting both colleagues and private individuals or activists by name.[1][2][3] Below is a concise, sourced list of notable examples that fit your criteria.
Harassment of Parkland survivor David Hogg (private individual)
- In 2019, after the Parkland shooting and before her election, Greene followed survivor-turned-activist David Hogg near the U.S. Capitol, filming herself as she aggressively confronted him, accusing him of being “paid,” implying he was a puppet, and mocking his activism; this video resurfaced and was widely reported after she took office in 2021, at which point it was condemned as a sitting member of Congress harassing a private individual.[2][4]
- In a separate 2019 interview that remained public during her time in Congress, she described Hogg as an “idiot,” compared him to a “trained” animal, and belittled the young women working with him as “clueless,” language that continued to circulate and be defended by her after she was sworn in.[1][5]
Appearance-based attack on Rep. Jasmine Crockett
- During a May 2024 House Oversight Committee hearing, Greene interrupted a Democrat’s questioning with a jab at Rep. Jasmine Crockett’s physical appearance, sneering about her “fake eyelashes,” which immediately provoked objections as a gratuitous and personal insult unrelated to the subject of the hearing.[6][7]
- The exchange escalated as Democrats moved to strike her words from the record, and Greene refused to apologize, instead doubling down with mocking, sarcastic retorts when colleagues labeled the attack as unacceptable.[6][8]
Mocking and belittling Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
- In the same May 2024 hearing, Greene turned from Crockett to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, questioning her intelligence and taunting her with diminutive nicknames such as “baby girl,” which AOC characterized as disrespectful and unserious in the context of a formal proceeding.[6][7]
- The back-and-forth devolved into shouted insults about intellect and professionalism, with Greene using dismissive, gendered language that watchdogs and commentators flagged as a pattern of ad hominem rather than policy-based criticism.[7][8]
Use of derisive labels and false monickers
- Greene has frequently referred to political opponents and ideological targets with sweeping epithets such as “groomers,” “communists,” and similar labels in social media posts, speeches, and interviews catalogued in running lists of her controversies; these terms are applied broadly rather than tied to specific conduct and are criticized as defamatory-style slurs rather than substantive argument.[9][3]
- In a notorious television appearance, she attempted to describe security and investigative functions under then–Speaker Nancy Pelosi using a mangled phrase that sounded like “gazpacho police,” which commentators highlighted both as an ignorant misuse of “Gestapo” and as part of her habit of affixing inflammatory, mocking labels to opponents rather than engaging their positions.[10][11]
Pattern of bullying rhetoric as a member of Congress
- News outlets and compendia of her record describe Greene’s style in office as characterized by direct personal attacks, including mocking colleagues’ appearance, intelligence, or gender, and amplifying conspiracy-laden nicknames for perceived enemies within government.[8][3]
- Critics, including other Republicans, have publicly argued that this pattern of insults toward both private individuals (like Hogg) and fellow officeholders undermines institutional norms and is more akin to online trolling than to conventional legislative debate.[1][3]
Ed.: We note that Reps. Crockett and Ocasio-Cortez are members of Congress and political opponents and may not qualify as "private individual," however, Greene did subject them to ad hominem insults on multiple occasions as a substitute for actual examination of political differences.
Sources
[1] Marjorie Taylor Greene mocked Parkland survivor in unearthed video https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/marjorie-taylor-greene-mocked-parkland-survivor-unearthed-video-idiot-who-n1256516
[2] Resurfaced video shows Marjorie Taylor Greene confronting ... https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/resurfaced-video-shows-marjorie-taylor-greene-confronting-parkland-survivor-david-hogg-in-2019
[3] A running list of Marjorie Taylor Greene's controversies https://theweek.com/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-controversy
[4] Congresswoman confronts Parkland survivor - BBC https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-55849877
[5] Video surfaces of Marjorie Taylor Greene confronting Parkland ... https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/27/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-david-hogg-video
[6] House committee meeting devolves into chaos amid personal insults https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-committee-meeting-devolves-chaos-personal-insults-marjorie-taylo-rcna152698
[7] Reps. Greene, AOC, Crockett get into insult-filled House hearing fight https://19thnews.org/2024/05/house-hearing-fight-insults-greene-crockett-aoc/
[8] 'Oversight After Dark': Lawmakers Hurl Insults at Session https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/17/us/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-insults-crockett.html
[9] Marjorie Taylor Greene - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marjorie_Taylor_Greene
[10] Marjorie Taylor Greene Slams Pelosi’s “Gazpacho Police” & Republicans Downplay January 6th Violence https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J20tOqet7oI
[11] Marjorie Taylor Greene Claims 'Gazpacho' Police Backed By Nancy Pelosi Are After Her https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5VjFONQeIE
[12] Personal insults, Greene vs. Boebert and alleged drinking ... - Politico https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/05/17/congress/oversight-descends-into-chaos-00158632
[13] Congress erupts into chaos with Marjorie Taylor Greene ... - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ll-ZrNtX3XU
[14] Reps. Jasmine Crockett and Marjorie Taylor Greene spat highlights ... https://www.npr.org/2024/05/23/g-s1-519/reps-crockett-and-greene-hearing-racial-gender-tensions
[15] Insults by the right-wing Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene led ... - Instagram https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7FV73WvPcn/
[16] Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene insults colleague's appearance on ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okafqwnDC24
[17] Sun Sentinel: Video surfaces showing QAnon-promoting ... https://wassermanschultz.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=2578
[18] Lawrence: Rep. Greene’s ‘Gazpacho Police’ Rant A ‘Stunning Display Of Stupidity’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iqg2S8fthMw
[19] Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) was confronted about ... https://www.facebook.com/HuffPostPolitics/posts/rep-marjorie-taylor-greene-r-ga-was-confronted-about-condoning-one-of-the-presid/1248924787100853/
[20] After years of stoking partisan fights, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene ... https://www.facebook.com/cnn/posts/after-years-of-stoking-partisan-fights-rep-marjorie-taylor-greene-tells-cnns-dan/1218563370136312/
Just deify me now to save time
The USA seems to have a president who wants to be our ruler, unencumbered by law or by a desire to reconcile justly the inevitable conflicts that arise among citizens of a free republic. One cannot but conclude that he thinks of himself as the modern model of the Roman emperors and the inheritor of the mantle of great Christian leaders, so let's look at the extremes of those ancient souls.
Just for fun, we asked Perplexity about the best and worst of the emperors who followed the end of the Roman Republic.
Just for fun, we asked Perplexity about the best and worst of the emperors who followed the end of the Roman Republic.
Making up law as one goes along...
One J. Sweeney commented this week on a Farcebook post regarding Pres. Tr$mp's recent high dudgeon over his call for punishment of certain congresspersons who have reminded military personnel of their obligation to follow both their oaths of service and the UCMJ under which they serve. Sweeney asserts that the penalty for "sedition" is—and apparently should be—death.
Actually, that's only true in theory and only for serving military personnel under very narrow criteria. No one has ever been executed for sedition alone in the history of the USA, thanks mainly to the First Amendment. A few persons have been imprisoned for "seditious conspiracy" in which calls for violence were a contributing offense.
Since Mr. Sweeney calls for "Facts," here are some that would appear to be relevant.
The typical criminal sanctions for sedition in the United States depend on whether the accused is a civilian or military personnel. For civilians, the closest federal offense is "seditious conspiracy" under 18 U.S. Code § 2384, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison, fines, or both[1][2][3][4][5][6]. For military personnel under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), mutiny or sedition can be punishable by death, although the death penalty is extremely rare and generally reserved for the most serious cases[7][8].
Civilian Sanctions Under Federal Law
- Maximum prison sentence: Up to 20 years for seditious conspiracy[1][2][3][5][6][4].
- Fines: Can be substantial, ranging from thousands to millions of dollars, depending on the case[5].
- The actual charge of "sedition" does not exist as a standalone crime in U.S. law; prosecutions are generally for "seditious conspiracy"[9][10].
- Examples: Recent convictions related to the January 6 Capitol attack involved seditious conspiracy charges with multi-year sentences, though these did not reach the maximum possible penalties[11].
Military Sanctions Under UCMJ
- Punishment for sedition or mutiny may include the death penalty or other penalties as determined by court-martial[7][8].
- Execution is extremely rare, requiring substantial bureaucratic and presidential approval; historically, prison sentences are more common for less severe cases[7].
Additional Consequences
- Convicted individuals face long-term civil disabilities, including loss of certain civil rights, employment difficulties, and reputational harm[5].
- Asset forfeiture may apply for related crimes, such as rebellion or insurrection[4].
Summary Table
| Offender Type | Possible Penalty | Citation |
|---------------------|----------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|
| Civilian | Up to 20 years' imprisonment, fines | [1][2][3][4][5][6][9] |
| Military (UCMJ) | Death penalty or court-martial directed | [7][8] |
In practice, maximum penalties are rarely imposed, and most sedition-related prosecutions result in substantial—but not maximal—prison terms[11][6].
Sources
[1] 'Punishable by death': Trump decries Dems as seditionists. What does he mean? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/11/20/sedition-death-trump-democrats/87379339007/
[2] 18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy - Cornell Law School https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384
[3] 18 U.S. Code CHAPTER 115 - Office of the Law Revision Counsel https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=%2Fprelim%40title18%2Fpart1%2Fchapter115&edition=prelim
[4] Las Vegas Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities Defense ... https://www.legalmann.com/las-vegas-treason-sedition-and-subversive-activities-defense-lawyer/
[5] Sedition Charges? What You Need to Know for Defense https://www.mastersonhall.com/sedition-charges-what-you-need-to-know-for-defense/
[6] A Civilian's Guide to Insurrection Legalese | The Marshall Project https://www.themarshallproject.org/2021/01/08/a-civilian-s-guide-to-insurrection-legalese
[7] Uncommon Knowledge: Trump Shouts ‘Sedition,’ But Troops Don’t Agree https://www.newsweek.com/uncommon-knowledge-trump-sedition-death-troops-11085969
[8] Trump says 'seditious' Democrats urging US troops to refuse illegal orders should face death https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-says-democrats-who-told-us-military-refuse-illegal-orders-deserve-death-2025-11-20/
[9] No, Democratic Lawmakers Didn't Commit Sedition - The Free Press https://www.thefp.com/p/no-democratic-lawmakers-didnt-commit-sedition
[10] Trump calls for arrest of Democrats who told troops to refuse illegal orders https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-arrest-democrats-troops-illegal-orders-b2869176.html
[11] Seditious Conspiracy: What to Make of the Latest Oath Keepers ... https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/seditious-conspiracy-what-make-latest-oath-keepers-indictment
[12] What US Law Says About Sedition and Troops Defying Illegal Orders https://www.newsweek.com/what-us-law-says-sedition-troops-defying-illegal-orders-11084527
[13] Trump accuses Democrats of 'seditious behavior, punishable by death,' for urging military to ignore illegal orders https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-democrats-death-penalty-sedition-military-orders-rcna245003
[14] Democrats file police complaints over Trump’s posts accusing them of sedition https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/11/21/congress/democrats-trump-sedition-police-complaint-00665862
[15] Trump: Telling troops to refuse illegal orders is 'seditious behavior' https://www.govexec.com/defense/2025/11/trump-accuses-lawmakers-seditious-behavior-encouraging-troops-refuse-illegal-orders/409710/
[16] Sedition - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition
[17] Trump says Democrats’ message to military is ‘seditious behavior’ punishable by death https://apnews.com/article/trump-military-traitors-sedition-illegal-orders-c5fc3c5bd2fbc6b1204550e4203c24b2
[18] ‘Punishable by DEATH’: Trump threatens Democrats with sedition charges https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/11/20/punishable-by-death-trump-threatens-democrats-with-sedition-charges
[19] Here's a brief look at what sedition is under U.S. law, the penalties ... https://www.facebook.com/KCRA3/posts/heres-a-brief-look-at-what-sedition-is-under-us-law-the-penalties-and-whether-th/1290437416456910/
[20] Federal Treason, Sedition, & Subversive Activities Criminal Charges https://www.lvcriminaldefense.com/usc/treason-sedition-and-subversive-activities/
No one has ever been executed in the United States purely for the crime of sedition. While sedition carries severe penalties under both civilian and military law—including the possibility of the death penalty in military cases—historically, individuals prosecuted for sedition or seditious conspiracy have received prison sentences or fines, not execution[9][3].
Several high-profile sedition and seditious conspiracy cases in U.S. history, such as those involving Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman in the 1990s, Puerto Rican nationalists in the 1950s, and even earlier prosecutions under the Alien and Sedition Acts, resulted in imprisonment, not capital punishment[9][4][3]. The last executions related to treason or similar crimes have typically involved espionage or treason, not sedition itself[3].
Sources
[1] 'Punishable by death': Trump decries Dems as seditionists. What does he mean? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/11/20/sedition-death-trump-democrats/87379339007/
[2] What US Law Says About Sedition and Troops Defying Illegal Orders https://www.newsweek.com/what-us-law-says-sedition-troops-defying-illegal-orders-11084527
[3] A primer on treason, seditious conspiracy, and the Constitution https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/a-primer-on-treason-seditious-conspiracy-and-the-constitution
[4] Alien and Sedition Acts - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
[5] Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) | National Archives https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/alien-and-sedition-acts
[6] Notable treason and sedition cases in American history - WPMI https://mynbc15.com/news/nation-world/notable-treason-and-sedition-cases-in-american-history
[7] The Sedition Act, 1798 - Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History | https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/spotlight-primary-source/sedition-act-1798
[8] May 16, 1918: The Sedition Act of 1918 Enacted https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/sedition-act-1918/
[9] Notable sedition, treason cases in American history | AP News https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-government-and-politics-capitol-siege-809273dd6e90d08a5109dd5a451a5c09
Actually, that's only true in theory and only for serving military personnel under very narrow criteria. No one has ever been executed for sedition alone in the history of the USA, thanks mainly to the First Amendment. A few persons have been imprisoned for "seditious conspiracy" in which calls for violence were a contributing offense.
Since Mr. Sweeney calls for "Facts," here are some that would appear to be relevant.
The typical criminal sanctions for sedition in the United States depend on whether the accused is a civilian or military personnel. For civilians, the closest federal offense is "seditious conspiracy" under 18 U.S. Code § 2384, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison, fines, or both[1][2][3][4][5][6]. For military personnel under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), mutiny or sedition can be punishable by death, although the death penalty is extremely rare and generally reserved for the most serious cases[7][8].
Civilian Sanctions Under Federal Law
- Maximum prison sentence: Up to 20 years for seditious conspiracy[1][2][3][5][6][4].
- Fines: Can be substantial, ranging from thousands to millions of dollars, depending on the case[5].
- The actual charge of "sedition" does not exist as a standalone crime in U.S. law; prosecutions are generally for "seditious conspiracy"[9][10].
- Examples: Recent convictions related to the January 6 Capitol attack involved seditious conspiracy charges with multi-year sentences, though these did not reach the maximum possible penalties[11].
Military Sanctions Under UCMJ
- Punishment for sedition or mutiny may include the death penalty or other penalties as determined by court-martial[7][8].
- Execution is extremely rare, requiring substantial bureaucratic and presidential approval; historically, prison sentences are more common for less severe cases[7].
Additional Consequences
- Convicted individuals face long-term civil disabilities, including loss of certain civil rights, employment difficulties, and reputational harm[5].
- Asset forfeiture may apply for related crimes, such as rebellion or insurrection[4].
Summary Table
| Offender Type | Possible Penalty | Citation |
|---------------------|----------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|
| Civilian | Up to 20 years' imprisonment, fines | [1][2][3][4][5][6][9] |
| Military (UCMJ) | Death penalty or court-martial directed | [7][8] |
In practice, maximum penalties are rarely imposed, and most sedition-related prosecutions result in substantial—but not maximal—prison terms[11][6].
Sources
[1] 'Punishable by death': Trump decries Dems as seditionists. What does he mean? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/11/20/sedition-death-trump-democrats/87379339007/
[2] 18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy - Cornell Law School https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384
[3] 18 U.S. Code CHAPTER 115 - Office of the Law Revision Counsel https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=%2Fprelim%40title18%2Fpart1%2Fchapter115&edition=prelim
[4] Las Vegas Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities Defense ... https://www.legalmann.com/las-vegas-treason-sedition-and-subversive-activities-defense-lawyer/
[5] Sedition Charges? What You Need to Know for Defense https://www.mastersonhall.com/sedition-charges-what-you-need-to-know-for-defense/
[6] A Civilian's Guide to Insurrection Legalese | The Marshall Project https://www.themarshallproject.org/2021/01/08/a-civilian-s-guide-to-insurrection-legalese
[7] Uncommon Knowledge: Trump Shouts ‘Sedition,’ But Troops Don’t Agree https://www.newsweek.com/uncommon-knowledge-trump-sedition-death-troops-11085969
[8] Trump says 'seditious' Democrats urging US troops to refuse illegal orders should face death https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-says-democrats-who-told-us-military-refuse-illegal-orders-deserve-death-2025-11-20/
[9] No, Democratic Lawmakers Didn't Commit Sedition - The Free Press https://www.thefp.com/p/no-democratic-lawmakers-didnt-commit-sedition
[10] Trump calls for arrest of Democrats who told troops to refuse illegal orders https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-arrest-democrats-troops-illegal-orders-b2869176.html
[11] Seditious Conspiracy: What to Make of the Latest Oath Keepers ... https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/seditious-conspiracy-what-make-latest-oath-keepers-indictment
[12] What US Law Says About Sedition and Troops Defying Illegal Orders https://www.newsweek.com/what-us-law-says-sedition-troops-defying-illegal-orders-11084527
[13] Trump accuses Democrats of 'seditious behavior, punishable by death,' for urging military to ignore illegal orders https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-democrats-death-penalty-sedition-military-orders-rcna245003
[14] Democrats file police complaints over Trump’s posts accusing them of sedition https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/11/21/congress/democrats-trump-sedition-police-complaint-00665862
[15] Trump: Telling troops to refuse illegal orders is 'seditious behavior' https://www.govexec.com/defense/2025/11/trump-accuses-lawmakers-seditious-behavior-encouraging-troops-refuse-illegal-orders/409710/
[16] Sedition - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition
[17] Trump says Democrats’ message to military is ‘seditious behavior’ punishable by death https://apnews.com/article/trump-military-traitors-sedition-illegal-orders-c5fc3c5bd2fbc6b1204550e4203c24b2
[18] ‘Punishable by DEATH’: Trump threatens Democrats with sedition charges https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/11/20/punishable-by-death-trump-threatens-democrats-with-sedition-charges
[19] Here's a brief look at what sedition is under U.S. law, the penalties ... https://www.facebook.com/KCRA3/posts/heres-a-brief-look-at-what-sedition-is-under-us-law-the-penalties-and-whether-th/1290437416456910/
[20] Federal Treason, Sedition, & Subversive Activities Criminal Charges https://www.lvcriminaldefense.com/usc/treason-sedition-and-subversive-activities/
No one has ever been executed in the United States purely for the crime of sedition. While sedition carries severe penalties under both civilian and military law—including the possibility of the death penalty in military cases—historically, individuals prosecuted for sedition or seditious conspiracy have received prison sentences or fines, not execution[9][3].
Several high-profile sedition and seditious conspiracy cases in U.S. history, such as those involving Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman in the 1990s, Puerto Rican nationalists in the 1950s, and even earlier prosecutions under the Alien and Sedition Acts, resulted in imprisonment, not capital punishment[9][4][3]. The last executions related to treason or similar crimes have typically involved espionage or treason, not sedition itself[3].
Sources
[1] 'Punishable by death': Trump decries Dems as seditionists. What does he mean? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/11/20/sedition-death-trump-democrats/87379339007/
[2] What US Law Says About Sedition and Troops Defying Illegal Orders https://www.newsweek.com/what-us-law-says-sedition-troops-defying-illegal-orders-11084527
[3] A primer on treason, seditious conspiracy, and the Constitution https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/a-primer-on-treason-seditious-conspiracy-and-the-constitution
[4] Alien and Sedition Acts - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
[5] Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) | National Archives https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/alien-and-sedition-acts
[6] Notable treason and sedition cases in American history - WPMI https://mynbc15.com/news/nation-world/notable-treason-and-sedition-cases-in-american-history
[7] The Sedition Act, 1798 - Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History | https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/spotlight-primary-source/sedition-act-1798
[8] May 16, 1918: The Sedition Act of 1918 Enacted https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/sedition-act-1918/
[9] Notable sedition, treason cases in American history | AP News https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-government-and-politics-capitol-siege-809273dd6e90d08a5109dd5a451a5c09
A piece of a prize
The idea that The Donald should get the Nobel Peace Prize is at best premature.
1. The fact that Israel, which needs the US to stay afloat in its hostile environment, has of course agreed, is not peace.
2. The principal terms of the proposal are essentially the same as those proposed early in the war by the previous administration.
3. Hamas has yet to agree.
4. "A decent interval" of, e.g., five years, would be an appropriate wait to see if anything real results from these announcements.
In the longer term, IMHO it would be a good idea to limit candidacy for the Prize to deceased persons, omitting thereby all those with a proclivity to turn the medal into the backdrop forn photo ops.
Here's a thought. Gut the Qatari bribe airplane and use it to ferry food, medicine and other supplies to Gaza. The payload of that aircraft, fitted out as a freighter is about 140,000, according to official specs. Allowing for a crew of 20, with a remaining payload of 120,000 kg, approximately 200,000 MRE (Meal, Ready-to-Eat) meals can be delivered, based on an average MRE weight of 625 grams per meal. Assuming 5 cycles per day from any of several possible staging points in Europe, such a project could provide one meal per day to 1,000,000 people. Instead of millions of Gaza residents hating us for generations, millions would remember who helped them in their time of need.
The projected cost of retrofitting a new AF1 from the Qatari bribe, presumably including a golden toilet in the master suite, ranges depending on whom one asks from $400 million to $1 billion. I will use an estimate halfway between those extremes, $700 million.
Perplexity estimates the cost of a round trip from Berlin to Cairo (surrogate from "generic European city" to the major airport nearest Gaza) at $175,000, including all the basic elements. so for the $700,000,000, approximately 4,000 trips could be financed, delivering a total of about 800 million meals, enough to feed Gaza one meal per person per day for 400 days. This number could be increased by creation of any number of high-turnaround industrial sites, similar to the maquiladoras that line the US-Mexico borders, with the intent of putting Gazans back to work with real wages ASAP. Products could include a myriad of assembly work or packaging, etc., jobs that require only brief training and can be performed in temporary shelters, followed by longer-term investments.
IMHO Israel should be "encouraged" to contribute to that development, given its—shall we say—overzealous prosecution of the current war, during which they have failed to accomplish their stated objectives across the board.
Such a modern Marshall plan would be cheaper and more effective than a lifetime of the current crop of little man-boys playing King of the Hill. It might even pull Gaza out of its cycle of isolation and poverty.
1. The fact that Israel, which needs the US to stay afloat in its hostile environment, has of course agreed, is not peace.
2. The principal terms of the proposal are essentially the same as those proposed early in the war by the previous administration.
3. Hamas has yet to agree.
4. "A decent interval" of, e.g., five years, would be an appropriate wait to see if anything real results from these announcements.
In the longer term, IMHO it would be a good idea to limit candidacy for the Prize to deceased persons, omitting thereby all those with a proclivity to turn the medal into the backdrop forn photo ops.
Here's a thought. Gut the Qatari bribe airplane and use it to ferry food, medicine and other supplies to Gaza. The payload of that aircraft, fitted out as a freighter is about 140,000, according to official specs. Allowing for a crew of 20, with a remaining payload of 120,000 kg, approximately 200,000 MRE (Meal, Ready-to-Eat) meals can be delivered, based on an average MRE weight of 625 grams per meal. Assuming 5 cycles per day from any of several possible staging points in Europe, such a project could provide one meal per day to 1,000,000 people. Instead of millions of Gaza residents hating us for generations, millions would remember who helped them in their time of need.
The projected cost of retrofitting a new AF1 from the Qatari bribe, presumably including a golden toilet in the master suite, ranges depending on whom one asks from $400 million to $1 billion. I will use an estimate halfway between those extremes, $700 million.
Perplexity estimates the cost of a round trip from Berlin to Cairo (surrogate from "generic European city" to the major airport nearest Gaza) at $175,000, including all the basic elements. so for the $700,000,000, approximately 4,000 trips could be financed, delivering a total of about 800 million meals, enough to feed Gaza one meal per person per day for 400 days. This number could be increased by creation of any number of high-turnaround industrial sites, similar to the maquiladoras that line the US-Mexico borders, with the intent of putting Gazans back to work with real wages ASAP. Products could include a myriad of assembly work or packaging, etc., jobs that require only brief training and can be performed in temporary shelters, followed by longer-term investments.
IMHO Israel should be "encouraged" to contribute to that development, given its—shall we say—overzealous prosecution of the current war, during which they have failed to accomplish their stated objectives across the board.
Such a modern Marshall plan would be cheaper and more effective than a lifetime of the current crop of little man-boys playing King of the Hill. It might even pull Gaza out of its cycle of isolation and poverty.
Tr$mpist anti-health cabal strikes again
Every aluminum can in my fridge knows more about medicine than does Donald Tr$mp.
The idea that he has any concept of the influence of medications on pathologies that exist years or decades after treatment is ludicrous, exceeding only the fantasies expoused by RFK Jr. They both reveal their lack of expertise every time they open their mouths.
This acetominophen claim is being touted only to take the light off other spurious, unproven claims this administration has promoted and anti-public-health measures it has imposed.
I have little doubt that my late father-in-law, a confirmed Republican and lifelong physician and public health professional, is spinning in his grave and spitting nails at rapid fire.
When will the US just give these fools the horse laugh they deserve? As John Snow might say, "winter is coming" for them.
—A. R. Clark, Ph.D. Not a physician, but a reader of scientific literature for over 65 years.
BTW: Here is the query and results from a brief AI-assisted web search on the topic. Feel free to replicate the exercise, which is how actual science is done, not by listing to podcasts and watching Faux News.
Q: Act as a medical conultant. Review medical literature on co-effects of acetiominophen. Is there any evidence that it causes autism? Cite examples. Summarize the consensus view of that hypothesis in the medical community?
A: There is currently no definitive evidence in the medical literature that acetaminophen (paracetamol) causes autism, though some studies have explored potential associations. The overwhelming consensus in the medical community is that any observed links are small, likely due to confounding factors, and do not prove causation.
Review of Medical Literature
• Large-scale population studies, including one using data from 2.5 million Swedish births, found a very slight increase in autism diagnoses among children whose mothers used acetaminophen during pregnancy (1.42% vs 1.33%), a difference researchers call “very small.”
• Critical sibling comparison studies, which control for genetic and environmental factors, have shown that this small association disappears when comparing siblings—one exposed and one unexposed—implying that family or environmental background, not the drug, likely explains the observed association.
• Meta-analyses and systematic reviews (e.g., Mount Sinai, 2025), even those synthesizing dozens of research articles, conclude that evidence for causation is lacking: “correlation does not imply causation” and more rigorous research is needed.
• Most studies that report any link are observational and acknowledge potential biases, such as confounding by parental mental health, socioeconomic status, and other unmeasured variables.
Regulatory and Expert Consensus
• The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) and other medical societies continue to recommend acetaminophen as the safest pain reliever during pregnancy when needed, emphasizing that current evidence does not justify avoiding it completely.
• Medical experts, including leading researchers and autism advocacy groups, have repeatedly stated that the evidence for a link between acetaminophen and autism is weak, inconsistent, and insufficient for policy change.
• The FDA began the process for a label change to reflect that more research is ongoing but has not concluded that acetaminophen causes autism.
• Research groups stress that pain and fever during pregnancy, if left untreated, also carry risks, and alternative drugs like aspirin and ibuprofen are generally riskier in pregnancy.
Examples from Recent Studies
• The JAMA 2024 study found a slight increased risk in exposed children, but this vanished in sibling analyses; unmeasured confounders were likely responsible for the association.
• The 2025 Mount Sinai review of 46 studies found a slight correlation between heavy, prolonged acetaminophen use and neurodevelopmental problems, but could not confirm causation, stressing the need for caution and further studies.
• Ann Bauer, author of a study linking acetaminophen to autism, herself cautioned that her findings should not be regarded as conclusive and advocated balanced, judicious use.
Summary: Medical Consensus
The current consensus is that evidence does not support a causal link between acetaminophen exposure (including in pregnancy) and autism. Associations found in some studies are weak, likely attributable to confounding, and are not grounds for a change in medical advice or public health recommendations at this time. Research continues, but current guidance is to use acetaminophen as needed, at the lowest effective dose and for the shortest required duration, while consulting healthcare providers for specific concerns.
Citations
These resources provide in-depth scientific reviews, news coverage, and official statements regarding acetaminophen and autism risk.
The idea that he has any concept of the influence of medications on pathologies that exist years or decades after treatment is ludicrous, exceeding only the fantasies expoused by RFK Jr. They both reveal their lack of expertise every time they open their mouths.
This acetominophen claim is being touted only to take the light off other spurious, unproven claims this administration has promoted and anti-public-health measures it has imposed.
I have little doubt that my late father-in-law, a confirmed Republican and lifelong physician and public health professional, is spinning in his grave and spitting nails at rapid fire.
When will the US just give these fools the horse laugh they deserve? As John Snow might say, "winter is coming" for them.
—A. R. Clark, Ph.D. Not a physician, but a reader of scientific literature for over 65 years.
BTW: Here is the query and results from a brief AI-assisted web search on the topic. Feel free to replicate the exercise, which is how actual science is done, not by listing to podcasts and watching Faux News.
Q: Act as a medical conultant. Review medical literature on co-effects of acetiominophen. Is there any evidence that it causes autism? Cite examples. Summarize the consensus view of that hypothesis in the medical community?
A: There is currently no definitive evidence in the medical literature that acetaminophen (paracetamol) causes autism, though some studies have explored potential associations. The overwhelming consensus in the medical community is that any observed links are small, likely due to confounding factors, and do not prove causation.
Review of Medical Literature
• Large-scale population studies, including one using data from 2.5 million Swedish births, found a very slight increase in autism diagnoses among children whose mothers used acetaminophen during pregnancy (1.42% vs 1.33%), a difference researchers call “very small.”
• Critical sibling comparison studies, which control for genetic and environmental factors, have shown that this small association disappears when comparing siblings—one exposed and one unexposed—implying that family or environmental background, not the drug, likely explains the observed association.
• Meta-analyses and systematic reviews (e.g., Mount Sinai, 2025), even those synthesizing dozens of research articles, conclude that evidence for causation is lacking: “correlation does not imply causation” and more rigorous research is needed.
• Most studies that report any link are observational and acknowledge potential biases, such as confounding by parental mental health, socioeconomic status, and other unmeasured variables.
Regulatory and Expert Consensus
• The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) and other medical societies continue to recommend acetaminophen as the safest pain reliever during pregnancy when needed, emphasizing that current evidence does not justify avoiding it completely.
• Medical experts, including leading researchers and autism advocacy groups, have repeatedly stated that the evidence for a link between acetaminophen and autism is weak, inconsistent, and insufficient for policy change.
• The FDA began the process for a label change to reflect that more research is ongoing but has not concluded that acetaminophen causes autism.
• Research groups stress that pain and fever during pregnancy, if left untreated, also carry risks, and alternative drugs like aspirin and ibuprofen are generally riskier in pregnancy.
Examples from Recent Studies
• The JAMA 2024 study found a slight increased risk in exposed children, but this vanished in sibling analyses; unmeasured confounders were likely responsible for the association.
• The 2025 Mount Sinai review of 46 studies found a slight correlation between heavy, prolonged acetaminophen use and neurodevelopmental problems, but could not confirm causation, stressing the need for caution and further studies.
• Ann Bauer, author of a study linking acetaminophen to autism, herself cautioned that her findings should not be regarded as conclusive and advocated balanced, judicious use.
Summary: Medical Consensus
The current consensus is that evidence does not support a causal link between acetaminophen exposure (including in pregnancy) and autism. Associations found in some studies are weak, likely attributable to confounding, and are not grounds for a change in medical advice or public health recommendations at this time. Research continues, but current guidance is to use acetaminophen as needed, at the lowest effective dose and for the shortest required duration, while consulting healthcare providers for specific concerns.
Citations
These resources provide in-depth scientific reviews, news coverage, and official statements regarding acetaminophen and autism risk.
Just a tad short of sainthood
Frankly, I never heard of Churlish Krik before last week. (Name changed to frustrate web searches by wingnuts, an unfortunate requirement of our times.) The current attempt to present CK as a latter day embodiment of Benjamin Franklin, Horace Greeley and H.L. Mencken begs exception.
Interestingly, an AI or web search brings back descriptions of his self-vaunted "free speech" posture, which one might better call posturing. In fact, a review of a half-dozen or more of his campus outings reveals a victim-baiting pattern in which a well prepared, experienced debater invites 18-year-old college freshmen to ask questions, whereupon he challenges, recites a talking point from memory, berates the student to tears, declares himself vindicated, and takes a victory turn.
Sometimes being, shall we say, extra mature, has the advantage of relevant examples. I am reminded of the 1960s when an early practitioner of this art named Joe Pine did the same shtick on syndicated radio. He would lure people to his call-in show with a "sujet du jour," and proceed to exercise his erudition with the goal of making the caller seem foolish, often falling back onto the traditional "what about this...!" excursion.
Once again there is nothing or little new under the Sun, and sve for acknowledgment of personal and civic tragedy in one family, nothing save "every man's death" to be lamented, and little likelihood of lasting sainthood religious or civil. It seems more likely that history will record this latest incarnation in the same chapter as Rush Limbaugh and Father Charles Caughlin.
Interestingly, an AI or web search brings back descriptions of his self-vaunted "free speech" posture, which one might better call posturing. In fact, a review of a half-dozen or more of his campus outings reveals a victim-baiting pattern in which a well prepared, experienced debater invites 18-year-old college freshmen to ask questions, whereupon he challenges, recites a talking point from memory, berates the student to tears, declares himself vindicated, and takes a victory turn.
Sometimes being, shall we say, extra mature, has the advantage of relevant examples. I am reminded of the 1960s when an early practitioner of this art named Joe Pine did the same shtick on syndicated radio. He would lure people to his call-in show with a "sujet du jour," and proceed to exercise his erudition with the goal of making the caller seem foolish, often falling back onto the traditional "what about this...!" excursion.
Once again there is nothing or little new under the Sun, and sve for acknowledgment of personal and civic tragedy in one family, nothing save "every man's death" to be lamented, and little likelihood of lasting sainthood religious or civil. It seems more likely that history will record this latest incarnation in the same chapter as Rush Limbaugh and Father Charles Caughlin.
Histo(R)y? Not really, it appears
Yagottabe fascinated by the scramble among (R)eactionaries to distinguish "good slavery" from "bad slavery" in US history. The very idea of good slavery is of course a pure oxymoron, the etymology of which I take to be indicative of the adherents' moral and intellectual prowess.
Here's a review of his nibs' view of the subject. (Apologies if it's behind a paywall for you, but if you download a news reader application you can probably bypass.)
BTW, JD Vance's grasp of historic detail is similar. In a recent interview about peacemaking efforts in Ukraine, he recently stated that World War II ended with negotiation.
In fact, the war ended due to weather conditions in Nagasaki on August 9, 1945. The summary: 4,000ºC and very bright. (Sorry to be flippant, but as Santayana pointed out, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. The Vance corollary: Those who gloss over history and elect fools are doomed to suffer by their ignorance.)
Other US wars that ended by negotiation, of course, Include the American Revolution, the Civil War, WWI, the Iraq War, and the list goes on; just ask Gen. Cornwallis, Gen. Lee, Gen. von Hindenburg, Sadaam Hussein, et al.
Actual exceptions to the rule were the Anglo-American War of 1812, the Mexican-American War (1846-48), The Spanish-American War (1898), the Korean War (1950-53), and the Vietnam War (1964-75), all of which ended with negotiation.
One concludes that Mr. Vance's vast knowledge of history is in fact half-vast.
Here's a review of his nibs' view of the subject. (Apologies if it's behind a paywall for you, but if you download a news reader application you can probably bypass.)
BTW, JD Vance's grasp of historic detail is similar. In a recent interview about peacemaking efforts in Ukraine, he recently stated that World War II ended with negotiation.
In fact, the war ended due to weather conditions in Nagasaki on August 9, 1945. The summary: 4,000ºC and very bright. (Sorry to be flippant, but as Santayana pointed out, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. The Vance corollary: Those who gloss over history and elect fools are doomed to suffer by their ignorance.)
Other US wars that ended by negotiation, of course, Include the American Revolution, the Civil War, WWI, the Iraq War, and the list goes on; just ask Gen. Cornwallis, Gen. Lee, Gen. von Hindenburg, Sadaam Hussein, et al.
Actual exceptions to the rule were the Anglo-American War of 1812, the Mexican-American War (1846-48), The Spanish-American War (1898), the Korean War (1950-53), and the Vietnam War (1964-75), all of which ended with negotiation.
One concludes that Mr. Vance's vast knowledge of history is in fact half-vast.
Categories
Recent Posts
- Alternate Western National Ballroom Contemplated
- Where is David Rose when we really need him?
- Future WHCA galas could get a bit crowded
- War just might not be the best way
- Tr$mp Reverses DEI Course
- To bomb or not to bomb, that is the question
- AI to the Rescue!
- Tr$mp Library Takes Shape
- Tuberville's Reach for the Syntactical Stars
- Numbers don't shoot
- Tr$mp Poll Tax Favored by Many
- Truth Anti-social
- Ignorance is Bliss Presidential
- A flash in the pond
- Today's Body Count Unreported by ICE
