Trans de Agua

 

Pam Bondi calls Tren de Aragua "trans de agua" pic.twitter.com/2wLfuhKPHq

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 20, 2025

February 20, 2025

So, a funny/not funny thing happened in Colorado, where conservatives made up a thing where Venezuelan gangs were taking up whole blocks of apartments. Which meant of course, if that were true, the first place ICE would have to raid would be those occupied dangerous gang apartment scary no-go zones, right?

Right?

Well, they did! And SOMEHOW, everyone and their mother found out about it, and the op was even delayed for a bit? (Even though ICE raids are basically, just like, Tuesday, even during the Biden Administration.) But then they did the thing, with hundreds of guys. Like, a whole multi-agency thing. 

Anyway, I guess everything was very disappointing for the Trump Administration, because maybe there weren't as many arrests as they hoped? So they sacked the experienced acting head of ICE. People figuring out there would be a stepped-up ICE presence out there was definitely the result of "leaks". And Kristi Noem is ready to get out the polygraph tests to sniff out the real problem in why deportation preparations have broken down, promising to get you and your little dog too if you were a DHS employee responsible for leaking. (I may have made that last bit up.)

Egads, I Hate JD Vance.

 

Of all the trifling twats that ever twatted triflingly, JD Vance feels like he might be both the most trifling and twattiest. The adoption of Trump's victimization fetish that the US has been "taken advantage of" is so uniquely lame and fucked up. Did Lady Liberty get railed by the big old Lumberjack? How sway? 

Trump himself conflated the Canadian trade deficit thing with our actual US debt, which this asshole put 8 trillion American dollars on. As a member of the party that DOES NOT swan about preaching "fiscal responsibility" while racking up losses by granting tax cuts to the rich at every opportunity, um. 

Fuck you. Fuck you from the soles of your shitty unspurred feet to the crown of your molting head. And what I say for Trump goes ditto (megadittoes. even!) for his mini-me. 

JD Vance tells stories. That is to say, more appropriately, he lies, and he knows and accepts that he lies. 

Let's know and accept that. too. And acknowledge how unacceptable that behavior is. 

Malicious Compliance?

 

Monday night, people became aware of a memo from the Trump Administration that halted payments regarding all sorts of things.  That memo said to pause "all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance." 

Well, that wasn't very specific. So maybe the memo was drafted by someone who didn't exactly know what all the programs were, but figured they were all suspect. Or maybe the memo was crafted by someone who really did want all the programs everywhere halted, but didn't know they would be leaving the Administration red-faced and red-assed.

Trump loves doing stuff, and also hates to be blamed for doing stuff. Somebody might get "you're fired'd" for this. I would like it to be Russell Vought, who hasn' t even been confirmed for OMB yet, but who is the Project 2025 guy who thought up this exact kind of thing, was singled out by the Trump Spokesperson Karoline Leavitt as the guy to contact, and is forever stuck in my mind as being the guy in the first Trump admin who halted the aid to Ukraine for the first Trump impeachment.

Trump Pardons Domestic Terrorists

 

Trump and his confederates (word choice definitely intentional) like to play off what happened in 1/6 as, variously, a love-in, a prayer circle, a tourist group, but many of these people were violent, were previous offenders and some have already started being violent-minded assholes again. Take Stewart Roades of the Oath Keepers, seditious conspirator, whose sentence was actually only commuted because he really is an admitted piece of work. He was just seen at the Capitol Complex with some GOP Reps, because I guess they are some kinds of piece of work, too.

He's got family who are nervous about him being out and about, and he's not the only one.

Something to Do With Ends and Means

 

The killer of the UHC CEO is apparently Luigi Mangione, although some people online have the idea that being caught with the weapon and fake ID of the shooter and carrying a three-page manifesto is a little too "on the nose".  I don't know what to tell you, folks. The above screen cap is his Twitter profile--he definitely did not have that many followers this morning!

I said the other day: 

I am a bit of a cynic at times, and we might find out that the killer is not actually a folk hero with a wronged loved one, bankrupted by medical bills or brought to an untimely end by denied claims. Some of the populist "death to the bloated ticks!" sentiment may be inauthentic (people do love a viral bandwagon).

The idea that a bright, promising young man was deranged by pain from a back surgery is appealing, but inapt. Many people experience pain and don't resort to violence. He deliberately chose a brutal, individualized solution to what could be potentially resolved by legal collective action based on the valorization of the man of action as a hero/martyr.

If he hoped through his actions to put the health care system on trial, the surprise is that he will be on trial for premeditated murder: full stop. 

TWGB: The Apple of Putin's Eye

 

There might be some residual gasps in the collective politics-viewing audience at the idea that Trump doesn't want to do any debates but get over yourselves--Trump never did. I remember when he ran a weird veterans' charity telethon thingie that ultimately resulted in a settlement regarding his fake charity, just for the purpose of dodging a primary debate in 2016. (His kids were even sentenced to "how not to rip people off" school.) He never changes. And in his circumstances, why debate? How awkward would it get, after all, him with the two impeachments and four so far indictments and 91 charges? 

He of all people knows he has the right to remain silent. (But can he?)

So of course he has to give something in return to focus your weary eyes on himself, so he's sat with Fox News has-been Tucker Carlson for what will certainly not be just an hour or so of indulgent ball-stroking. I'm sure the taint will be involved. (Oh, my goodness! Was I scatalogically minimizing Carlson's professionalism? Fuck no. Everyone knows paying attention to the taint is essential good whoring practices.)

Where was I? Oh, anyway, Trump says the weirdest things in the friendliest of interviews--like when he just recently told us he was the apple of Putin's eye, and that's why he'd be able to finagle the deal to end the war in Ukraine. 

Fox News Hates Families

 

what a monster pic.twitter.com/Nmj2HZl3BO

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 11, 2022

Last night, the above screencap sums up the argument that Sean Hannity wanted to make against President Biden--he's a loving father. 

That's it. Joe Biden, the man, not the politician, understood his son was going through a rough time and offered support and unconditional love, and that was...suspicious? As if, if your child was going through troubles, was imperfect, you should throw them out? 

It makes me wonder if conservatives like Hannity are the way they are because they don't have the grace to do that, and I understand a little better why they were ready to kill their own viewers with lies about COVID-19 and profoundly damage LGBT kids with lies meant to alienate their families from them, to not accept them for who they are. 

The most horrible lie--that we are not responsible to one another, that we don't need to care for one another, not even our own families, lies at the heart of it. Suddenly the sad stories of older people watching Fox News all day who can no longer talk to their family members makes sense--their sense of connectedness was undermined in a culture war. 

There is rehab for substance abusers. How does one rehab a person who does not understand compassion? How do you walk them through the baby-steps of learning to regard another human's feelings, their life? 

Fox News attacks Joe Biden through his family not because he is a bad man, but because he is not bad. But they must attack him somewhere, so they find what they think is the softest part. I do not think they understand--it is the strongest part. Compassion is the strength to support others, and Biden has used his time after time in a lifetime of loss and confrontation with the worries of the world. 

I am aghast they this is not understood, because it seems the most human thing to understand. 

Where Does It Go From Here?

 

Ingraham: It starts with Marijuana but where does it go from there pic.twitter.com/uSMfpNvANM

— Acyn (@Acyn) October 7, 2022

I really love when conservatives try to wrap their heads around the concept of limited government like WTF? People will just be responsible...for THEMSELVES? Apparently. What stops the government from legalizing shooting heroin into your eyeballs? Putting rainbow fentanyl in your socks and calling it the Devil's pedicure? If we don't treat potheads like criminals, how will the drunks know they are better substance users? Where the hell does it go from here? Anarchy? Bloodsports? The PURGE! AAAARGHHHH!

Or, follow the math on this, people doing a drug not more harmful than liquor, which is already legal, get to have it and use it responsibly, and are only fucked up with the system when they violate the law high on their little friend. It seems equitable to me. 

But our conservative friends have a problem with the concept of equity. We just saw this with a court case regarding folks who wanted to cancel President Biden's college debt forgiveness because it would really benefit Black people. This is shades of a case that our newest Justice, Ketanji Brown-Jackson, entirely revealed the lie at, regarding whether reparative justice is still justice. (It is, for all the necessary reason to having an equitable society is, and equity is not a dirty word. We all have that nasty euphemism: skin in the game.) 

It is a BFD Kind of Day

 

I can’t quite put my finger on it, but I just love this clip. pic.twitter.com/n1QSIHx8Ig

— PoliticsGirl (@IAmPoliticsGirl) August 16, 2022

President Biden handed Senator Manchin that pen like he was awarding him "MVP" for this whole deal coming into focus, and as we all have heard in our workspaces--"Teamwork makes the Dream work." I'm just happy this thing passed so I can't be mad about anything Democrats did--not when Republicans exist, and stripped out provisions like the $35 a month cap on insulin. We have seen who they are and what they want--and it isn't good things for their constituents, apparently. 

In the meanwhile, the Biden Administration made hearing aids more available and affordable and cancelled the debt of people who took now-defunct ITT Tech courses. He wants to do good things that make a meaningful, positive effect on how Americans live. That is what I think a president should do and be. 

Our having Joe Biden as president is a BFD. He cares about people. I trust him. I did not trust the former guy. He never earned that trust and never did anything I thought was for us. I think his supporters are very confused about what he stood for. Trump tried to kill the ACA. Biden wants the ACA to work, and for prescription drugs to be more affordable. 

They are not the same. 

Once again, from my heart, I am telling you, there is no good reason to vote for Republicans ever, but definitely not this cycle. Joe Biden has a congress right now that lets him deliver good things. Republicans will never do good things, only retaliatory and culture war bullshit. Give him more Democrats, and better things will happen. I goddamn guarantee. 

All-Natty

The President suggests his opponent will receive an injection of performance enhancing drugs “in the ass” before the debates pic.twitter.com/sXOGjrFltp

— Acyn Torabi (@Acyn) September 19, 2020

1) As with all things Trump, it is likely that he is projecting and in fact, is using a lil' something-somethin' to keep himself chipper, although I was assuming he blew it up his face and that's what made his lips so numb. (Poor slurry, sniffy Biffy!)

2) Is he for real then about doing a drug test, since he can't be bothered to do a cheek swab for his defamation trial? (Apropos of which, did you notice another accuser came forward this week? We should not ever become numb to this.)

3) It might be fun to speculate what's being injected in anyone's ass, but considering that Fox News, congressional Republicans, and the entire MAGA Mouse Fan Club are holding parties in his, I'll assume the party favors are amazeballs.

D-O-N (EEEEEnnnnyone believing this guy?) A-L-D (He's a real D bag!) T-R-U-M-P. (Flavor-Aid! Hydroxychloroquine! Bumps of Comet!)

4) He also said Biden is going to end God, so that's pretty trippy. I would not call what he's on "performance-enhancing" though.

5) There is nothing natural about any of this, but the idea that the current president is accusing his challenger of being on drugs because he shows up informed and capable of speaking reasonably at a townhall (which Trump um, totally did not) suggests that Trump is not only wary of elites, but actual competence. Is this why he doesn't show any?

And Now A Public Service Announcement....

Trump: I don’t use insulin. Should I be? Huh? I never thought about it. pic.twitter.com/rGv3tLru0d

— Acyn Torabi (@Acyn) May 26, 2020

This is Donny. He wonders if insulin, hydroxychloroquine, and Lysol can be used as recreational drugs. Don't be like Donny. Be smart. Not, you know (waves hands in his general area) like this.

(And yes, I guess this wasn't the most out-there thing he did on a day where he continued to claim that mail-in voting is cheating, that Joe Scarborough probably killed a lady, and thrashed about at the media--like always, but you know what? It's still pretty goddamn out there, isn't it?)

UPDATE: But regarding the disgusting and hurtful nature of Trump's claims, he is still at it:

Despite the pleas of the family of the deceased.

This does not look like the behavior of a healthy mind.

I Want to Buy Your Rock

What have you got to lose if you take a drug and weren't going to die anyway and then miraculously don't die. and what would anyone else have to gain? (I mean, what do you have to lose except maybe your hair or vision or life or whatever.) The thing with a certain kind of con artistry isn't that the con artist believes everyone is dumb, it's that they know there are always some people who want to believe.

I think it would be great if there was a good, not terribly expensive treatment. It's that I'm hearing a hard sell approach that makes me extra-skeptical (oh, yeah, and the source of the hard sell). But I'm cheesed off at people who say that people urging caution are "fearmongering" or "just don't want it to work". Drugs aren't magic. They also aren't like sports teams--they don't work better if people are rooting for them. That's just weird.

Mark Kirk Might Have Metaphorically Ganked Himself

Sometimes, when someone uses a metaphor, they are taking a little poetic license, dressing up things a bit, just adding a dash of color to their wording. And on the other hand, especially in politics, metaphors remind us that words mean things. For example, when IL Senator Mark Kirk, who is challenged by Rep. Tammy Duckworth in a contest for his US Senate seat, compares President Obama to a drug dealer in a contorted metaphor about the Iran deal, it might be necessary to wonder what the hell he meant. Do drug dealers regularly pay ransoms for hostages, I wonder? Is there anything about securing the release of Americans from a hostile government that is particularly drug-dealerish? There isn't really any valid reason for his metaphor as such, except to paint the President as some kind of "thug" (hmm) because he doesn't care for his policies. I don't know how one pays hostage-takers ransom with their own money. That's not how ransom works is it?

This isn't a metaphor that is new with Kirk, anyway. AR Senator Tom Cotton described President Obama as behaving like a drug cartel. There's a lot wrong what Tom Cotton says about the Iran deal as there would be . Not sure how conducting foreign policy is a drug-dealing thing, but ok. I get that they feel some kind of way about the deal--but what the hell is up with calling Obama a drug-dealer?

Maybe they have an Obeezy for Sheezy problem with him. I don't know. Except maybe I do. This line of criminalizing, Un-Americanizing, Un-Christianinzing, has been going on for too long for observers not to gather what, exactly, is up with those kinds of comments.

But it is the jig, damn it. The jig is up. It's more than dogs that heard that one. Mark Kirk, if that is what you have left, it is a terribly bad raft to cling to.

Rep. Tammy Duckworth better win the hell out of this Senate race--because metaphors can hurt. They also reveal how one looks at things. And he's got this thing very wrong.

Your Money or Your Life!

The extortionate view of Martin Shkreli underlines the (im)morality of capitalism--if one holds the means of production of a life-saving drug, then one can claim the price of one life for the supply of that drug. I was half the day trying to search my back issues for what the grim mercenary quality of Shkreli reminded me of, until I just this minute saw Loomis at LGM--and realized--Excitable Boy! This soulless gouger reminded me of the big talk of Alessio Rastani and how it gave me a very good appreciation of the relative psychopathy, or at least, sociopathy, of the mega-wealthy.
In the starkest terms, this is the crux of what health care regulation is about--if one's life is at stake, nothing but law prevents fuckery with the mechanisms of virtually, life-or-death processes. We have people out there prepared to charge a ransom without having the decency to kidnap anyone.

Takeaways--rich people really are different from you or me: I would say Donald Trump probably has a skewed worldview for example because, as Cyndi Lauper explained, "Money Changes Everything". So various groups are subservient to his ultimate ends. Because why not?

That medicinal costs need regulation because this economic power over life or death is monstrous.

And also, using Warren Zevon tunes as a mnemonic will help you in your blog searches.

Charles Murray: Important Thinker

So, if Charles Murray were totally high, like, maybe being high on himself (since he seems vaporous)? And I punched the shit out of his nose because he was totally asking for it? I'm pretty sure Charles Murray would, whenever he sobered up from being high on himself, totally turn around and be all up my ass for assault. As he should be, because just being drunk or high does not somehow make a person not a victim. Is he trying to say a drunk or high victim is not a very reliable witness?

Bingo. A high or drunk person is prone to remembering things badly and out of order and can't necessarily speak to what they did or did not do to defend themselves, for example. They were vulnerable, in other words. Which I think would make them more subject to being considered victims when someone took advantage of their screwed-up state, but I dunno. Maybe he's saying being fucked up enough to be vulnerable is your own damn fault, victims, so...

Ah. Maybe credibility is situational. Maybe more than one thing about anyone's life story might be dependent on the context of their lived experience. It could be that we don't live in a correlation/causation world, but a complex grid of inter-relating concepts where the experience of rape by a drunk girl is not dependent upon her being able to totally nail the obstacle of convincing judgmental old douches of her victimization, but of our ability to glean what happened in the context surrounding her (or him--men also experience sexual assault, and are also treated like shit for being imperfect victims.)

Does anyone exactly know what century Charles Murray is living in these days? I want to say the 19th because of the flagrant racism, but the rape-apologist edge  kind of makes him a man for all really awful seasons. That question might have seemed provocative to him--but it's old hat for people who care about victims' rights and the importance of hearing them out. So. Wow. I'm taking his brand-newness to this question very seriously. Does someone ask that question as an academic legitimately not knowing where it leads? Or is he trolling the contrarian point that imperfect rape victims must be liars, or deserving of what happened to them?

Both of those possibilities seem really horrible to me.  I just curate this comment for the benefit of my readers. Because otherwise--I can't sort out what else to do with it.

Why Is Senator Aqua Buddha Trolling the War on Drugs?

There are folks who claim there's a case to be made in favor of Rand Paul from a libertarian point of view, but I have had a hard time seeing it. For one thing, "libertarian" has become one of those nebulous labels that means what the people who use it want it to mean. For another, I'm not that sure how libertarian Rand Paul actually is--and by that I don't mean whether he wants to smother Big Government so that men can breathe free(ly of coal dust and who the fuck knows what else they'd put in the air without regulations), because you know he's on board with that. I mean I wonder whether he's in love with the iron glove, babies, and here's why:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has thrown his support behind legislation that Republicans could use to force President Barack Obama to crack down on legal marijuana in states like Colorado and Washington. 

Speaking to Fox News on Thursday, the libertarian-leaning senator said he supported the Enforce the Law Act, which has been approved by the House. The legislation would allow Congress to sue the president for failing to faithfully execute laws.

Now, follow my thinking on this--we have states that are copacetic with personal use of a substance Big Daddy Government is not okay with--and Rand Paul is in favor of a law that says Big Daddy must spank. That doesn't sound so libertarian to me. So what gives?

I'd say he's buying into the narrative that President Obama is some kind of tyrant who just makes up laws as he goes along, which is basically paraphrasing what Sen. Paul says in the article. But the thing of that is--it's bogus. For one thing, part of the reason that some Republicans want to go after Obama has to do with the the idea that he's strategically trying to delay parts of the ACA for political reasons--in other words, they want to force him to implement a law they don't like and many of them want to repeal! But there's a catch--that isn't even tyrannical on his part--it's built-into the law that there will need to be leeway with repects to implementation.  It's a little like the nonsense claim that he's a tyrant because of aaaalll those executive orders that...he doesn't even have, comparable to other presidents. It sounds great to the Obama-hating base--it's just not real-world factual.

Hypocrisy and Privilege: This is About Trey Radel

You know what? I'll even spot Rep. Trey Radel (FL-R) his weak, borrowed from Toronto Mayor Rob Ford, excuse that he only did cocaine because he was such a drunk, because sure. It's not like the sting that busted him was perpetrated because he already had a history of purchasing coke (it was), and in any event, I can't talk about what drunk people might get up to. I am only an indifferent drunk myself. I do know I can't afford $250 bucks worth of blow if I had that much to spend on bourbon. That is some fucking stupid drunkonomics. But maybe being wasted on microbrews made him wonder if he shouldn't maybe be doing lines, just like I interrupt a wine binge with espressos (I do no such thing). Sure. That's logical. (By which I mean "NOT".)

What isn't logical is being well aware that people acquire substances to help them through the bitter pain of their day to day existence and get dependent on them, and then thinking that it would be A-OK to penalize the poor for their propensity to self-medicate against the horror of a crappy reality by piss-testing people to qualify for their benefits. 

Do I think Rep. Radel was maybe in the midst of getting high his ownself when he thought this would be a nifty exercise to spring on the poor? Yeah. I think so. Do I think he thought he was fundamentally different from some wasted SOB who couldn't catch a job because he himself had a good one in Congress, and therefore, he was morally better than that other kind of substance-user? Yes, indeed. I think he believes he is morally and substantively different from some person who might use drugs, but does not have money.

In other words, he is a real prick. Now, there is drug and alcohol rehab, but I do not know that there is any successful "being a real prick" rehab. But he could use that kind. He surely could.

I give you--Rick Santorum Being Judgmental

Celebrities are the aristocracy of America....and they have a huge impact.

Gosh darn it all, I wish celebrities would stop glamorizing drugs by living tempestuous, difficult lives, often losing much of their money, their health, their reputations, squandering their talent and dying far too young because of their addictions--it sets a bad example.

I don't know how many people ever looked on the life and times of Whitney Houston and thought--"That's it--I think I'll self-medicate and then I can be successful, beautiful and talented like her." I'm pretty sure more of us were thinking "Oh, I really wish she would beat that shit; it is wrecking her. She is better than this."

Celebrities are human beings who live ridiculously public lives and bear a lot of stress because of it. No one wants to be a public addict. No one wants to be a spectacle or an object of pity. People keep their use on the down-low--they don't frequently flaunt or glorify it. And because of the stigma attached, the disease of addiction doesn't get the attention or treatment it requires. It gets gossip. It gets a frankly tabloid treatment. But I hesitate to think anyone would say our celebrity users are examples. It's far nearer to the truth to say they are victims of a disease that is exacerbated by their privilege.

Piers Morgan's question addressed a strategem that might address preventing a celebrity from meeting a terrible fate due to the privileges of their celebrity that enables them more access to the poison that could kill them. Rick Santorum could not conceive of backing a remedy--oh no! People who make mistakes should pay for them--and bear responsibility for others. Whitney Houston isn't just a symbol of how drug use may have ruined her life--she must serve as a public example for all. Her life, her death--her everything, is public property to Santorum. She failed to serve the good by setting the right example.

I don't like throwing all that on a person who you barely know, only know of. It certainly wasn't her choice to leave this earth like this--I doubt that her troubles with drugs were something she wanted. I see his brief comments as a reflection on the judgmentalism with which he seems to approach everything.