GS search = deepseek r1
For those unfamiliar: https://scholar.google.com/ >> search term >> return list
_________UPDATE_________
As to latest news, DeepSeek may have discovered some insight from OpenAI LLMs via "knowledge distillation," and whether that was fair use or wrongful. News links will be added, but for now that is enough to start a GoogleScholar search = knowledge distillation -- to have some idea what it means in viewing news reports.
When it comes down to character and class, manner of discussion, who is your choice for who'd you want visiting your home, meeting your household members, selling you a viewpoint and way of seeing the world? In answering that, are you only a high school grad, or a holder of one or more college degrees?
And, yes, race is a fact we deal with.
Bankman-Fried wants clemency, and his parents are working on it. So, how can there be two spins to that? Parents supportive of their children is a generally normal thing. Expected.
Well:
One should note, reading both brief reports, spin touches headlining, lead images, and text, where wording and scope of choosing what to say and how to say it interplay. Neither source has a hot-button obvious motive at play, but the mood of things differ. Perhaps academicians are viewed differently by ownership as well as salaried senior editorial policy makers of the two outlets - as a factor suggesting biased worldview.
Seattle Times, carrying the AP report: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/stock-market-today-asian-markets-are-mixed-after-wall-street-edges-back-from-its-record/
Headline of ST item:
These AI plungers surely are a nervous bunch.
Is it real? As real as crypto? If not as real, at least as touchy-volatile; not your stable bluechip public utility stock, or moving in sync with federal bonds.
It appears a Chinese successful trading company is self-financing DeepSeek, open source, not with a closed source moat as OpenAI operates despite its name, while Memphis must assure it has enough electric power for plans of saluting-Elon and his xAI biggie.
So far, who is on board, in China or elsewhere? Other big China tech firms are putting out copy cat AI and chat offerings; but - big there -DeepSeek is cutting price. With other Chinese firms following with their pricing.
The AP item which ST published states -
The S&P 500 was down 1.7% in afternoon trading and heading for its worst day in more than a month. Big Tech stocks took some of the heaviest losses, with Nvidia down 16%, and they dragged the Nasdaq composite down 3.2%.
Stocks outside of AI-related industries held up much better, though, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average was up 137 points, or 0.3%, as of 12:42 p.m. Eastern time. The Dow has much less of an emphasis on tech than the S&P 500 and Nasdaq.
The shock to financial markets came from China, where a company called DeepSeek said it had developed a large language model that can compete with U.S. giants but at a fraction of the cost. DeepSeek had already hit the top of the chart for free apps on Apple’s App Store by Monday morning, and analysts said such a feat would be particularly impressive given how the U.S. government has restricted Chinese access to top AI chips.
Skepticism, though, remains about how much DeepSeek’s announcement will ultimately shake the AI supply chain, from the chip makers making semiconductors to the utilities hoping to electrify vast data centers gobbling up computing power.
“It remains to be seen if DeepSeek found a way to work around these chip restrictions rules and what chips they ultimately used as there will be many skeptics around this issue given the information is coming from China,” according to Dan Ives, an analyst with Wedbush Securities.
DeepSeek’s disruption nevertheless rocked AI-related stocks worldwide.
There are a number of recent papers on arXiv authored out of DeepSeek, and web search will uncover popular reporting. Heating up things is not for the nervous.
Nor is crypto. The beat goes on. AI promises, but does it deliver?
UPDATE: Seattle Times carries (no paywall) a Bloomberg feed re DeepSeek.
I want to call it DeepSleep, which is what we all need to stay healthy.
FURTHER: This is for friend Hegseth, who presumably has suitable advisers, possibly even the author of that Aug 2004 item where DeepSeek gets mention in a chart, but nothing like the recognition it is earning today.
That paper, on a brief scan, shows how AI open sourcing has some folks worried.
All for now.
In order, Bessent is a Soros allied historically macro-attentioned economist and successful fund manager, he's gay, and his policies fit Trump's outlook and plans. He would not have been selected to head Treasury if not in harmony, nor if untalented or without a track record, since Trump has no intention to tank the economy and be hated for it. Wikipedia. Inflation will be a question Trump must face.
Regarding Bessent, MSN, saying
In his first interview following his selection, Bessent said his policy priority will be to deliver on Trump’s various tax-cut pledges. Those include making his first-term cuts permanent, and eliminating taxes on tips, social-security benefits and overtime pay.
Enacting tariffs and cutting spending will also be a focus, he said, as will be “maintaining the status of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.”
Bessent became one of Trump’s closest advisers by adding depth to his economic proposals and defending his plans for more activist trade policies. He has argued that the president-elect’s plans to extend tax cuts and deregulate parts of the U.S. economy would create an “economic lollapalooza.”
Trump selected him from several candidates jockeying for the job partly because he trusted him to execute the administration’s policies more than the other contenders, The Wall Street Journal has reported. The decision came after Elon Musk criticized Bessent as a “business-as-usual choice” while lobbying for Cantor Fitzgerald CEO Howard Lutnick instead. (Trump later nominated Lutnick to lead the Commerce Department.)
Many on Wall Street, including hedge-fund managers Daniel Loeb and Bill Ackman, applauded the selection of Bessent. Investor Kyle Bass said on the social-media platform X that Bessent was “the single best choice.”
People who have worked with Bessent describe him as reserved and professorial. He once taught economic history at Yale University,
So, not a head-rattling choice as is yet-to-be-tested Hegseth, and set to be easily approved since his nomination was passed out of committee with bipartisan majority support.
..................................
The deportation template: This is Trump, and not entirely apart from Bessent's responsibilities, but not overlapping too much. Breitbart explains:
Colombian President Gustavo Petro backed down on his declaration that he would not accept deportation flights from the United States. He now says he will send his presidential plane to personally pick up the deported migrants, a U.S. official with knowledge on the matter told Breitbart News.
The Colombian president’s backpedaling came after President Donald Trump announced he would impose numerous sanctions—including “emergency 25% tariffs”—on Colombia in response to Petro’s reversal of his promise to accept deportation flights.
On Sunday, Petro — who initially said he would accept deportation flights from the U.S. but then refused to receive two flights containing a total of 160 deportable migrants — suggested he changed his mind about accepting the flights because the U.S. treats “Colombian migrants as criminals.”
Petro then demanded the United States “establish a protocol for the dignified treatment of migrants before we receive them.”
President Trump responded to the matter in a Sunday Truth Social post, declaring, “I was just informed that two repatriation flights from the United States, with a large number of Illegal Criminals, were not allowed to land in Colombia.”
“This order was given by Colombia’s Socialist President Gustavo Petro, who is already very unpopular amongst his people,” Trump continued. “Petro’s denial of these flights has jeopardized the National Security and Public Safety of the United States.”
President Trump went on to reveal that in response to this, he directed his administration “to immediately take the following urgent and decisive retaliatory measures:”
-Emergency 25% tariffs on all goods coming into the United States. In one week, the 25% tariffs will be raised to 50%.
-A Travel Ban and immediate Visa Revocations on the Colombian Government Officials, and all Allies and Supporters.
-Visa Sanctions on all Party Members, Family Members, and Supporters of the Colombian Government.
-Enhanced Customs and Border Protection Inspections of all Colombian Nationals and Cargo on national security grounds.
-IEEPA Treasury, Banking and Financial Sanctions to be fully imposed.
“These measures are just the beginning,” Trump added. “We will not allow the Colombian Government to violate its legal obligations with regard to the acceptance and return of the Criminals they forced into the United States!”
Other outlets might have covered that, or not, but it is wise to go to Breitbart on occasion to see things other outlets might emphasize less.
So, squeeze them by the nuts on relative economic heavyweight power, schoolyard bully style, but get the intended capatulation result. That is a deportation template.
Perhaps it is a template for Democrats and the media, although denying access seems enough to manage media. It seems to have worked spiffy-well on Joni Ernst with Hegseth getting a bare 51 votes because JD rode into the Senate on a white horse named 51. Mitch had to vote against Pete, so JD could perform. So -- Mitch did so JD could do so, proving he is more than Trump's bellboy. That he can show up and do something even Elon cannot, so there, do your salute car-boy!
It's not sensible, however, to minimize JD having a say in everything Trump considers. Trump listens, then does what he wants, thinking it best. Trump has four years, and then JD defines himself with an administration low public profile now so that he can fashion things as seem best to him four years from now.
In effect, JD seems deliberately set apart from public responsibility for administration actions. As if apart from decision consequences. Which is a wise way to go.
So, bottom line on the economy is Trump picks practical and experienced public sector money managers for Treasury and Commerce, Senate approval being almost certain, and ones picked are conservative and sycophantic, but smart and unlikely to poison any wells.
And that is good. We clearly do not need to make depressions great again.
Again, in closing, Breitbart is clearly biased, but sometimes things show up there besides Schumer's ineffective whining, and generic Tulsi hate. As if the Dems learned nothing from being hammered last election, same faces, same whines, while Trump resumes 2000 lb bunker buster bomb shipments to Isreal which Biden had paused to get Isreal to ease up on genocide. Which got ignored in the whining.
And, in closing, this and this, both of which CNN lets slide. The immediacy and aggressiveness of the deportation effort is news, as is Hollywood not pushing the election to Harris being true and how the party can fix things, by changing faces and power structure, and having actual and attractive policies rather than feel good identity politics and razzle dazzle that don't move the needle. Fix the fucking party, please, as a viable Medicare for All alternative to Trump/JD might be good for the nation even if Schumer and Pelosi have to step into the background for real reform.
Prominent egos largely empty of ideas but strong on Hollywood stars did not cut it, so why not CHANGE and HOPE? Or don't and see how JD handles two terms after Trump's second one. The message is on the wall. So set folks, please read it.
Please.
Mayor Pete "McKinsey" and Governor California won't cut it, talking glibly but with no policies to make people's economic lives better, the failure including Schmer's two to one suburban to urban worker joke, which did not materialize, and was bullshit from the start. Yes, unions are still in the Dem tent, at least at the leadership level, but do admit union membership has shrunk to where it could be countered by choking it in a bathtub. New people. Real ideas. Real effort to help people's economic lives instead of parading social bloc politics and personalities devoid of ideas. As if appealing only to easily snowed members of the masses, whom you call "deplorables." Reach out. Be sound. Not smoke and mirrors and Hollywood.
As an example, AOC is worth listening to, which is why people do listen and then ask, why is her party not listening? They then can see it is because they have donors with agendas apart from what people want. That is clear enough, and absent adjustment results will not change.
Cat lady Swift ended up a blip without promise of substance or lasting impact.
Get wise to it. I went with it as not-Trump, pitched it, and hoped. No luck, so I can see, do better, or not. The opportunity to retool is there needing only an intent.
Wall Street is not the answer to hating on immigrants as demographics change. Trump's scapegoating worked, and with that in mind, why oversell identity bloc answers with no policy? Medical and economic Angst are not well met with expensive Taylor Swift concerts, which matter little paycheck to paycheck.
____________UPDATE__________
Setting the record straight. The Columbia arrangment on repatriation flights is getting other media coverage. Breitbart simply pulled the trigger on the story a day earlier than other reports showing up. Strib, the local Minnesota daily today carried the AP feed, for example, while CNN wrote its own story. It is reassuring that the story got sufficient coverage. Breitbart being a day before others initially confused this Crabgrass post.
FURTHER: AP also reported upon things to be expected as Hegseth takes over his post as Pentagon head; AP headlining that report, "As Hegseth takes charge at the Pentagon, here’s what changes could be in store." Focal attention is on troops on US soil, in particular being used for border enforcement. There are other reported items too. Troop deployment ordered by executive order may face court challenges, given the Posse Comitatus Act. That AP item expressly notes:
Active-duty forces are prohibited from doing law enforcement duties on U.S. soil under the Posse Comitatus Act. Trump has signed an executive order directing that his defense and homeland security secretaries report back within 90 days on whether they think he should invoke the 1807 law called the Insurrection Act, which allows troops to be used for civilian law enforcement on U.S. soil during emergencies.
Should Secretaries say "Do it," that would be the point at which citizens would seek judicial relief based upon absence of true emergency situations; and at that point a battle up to SCOTUS may happen.
Politico - in a short item, this quote -
Harris has kept any considerations about political future close to the vest, but she has told advisers and allies to keep her options open, POLITICO reported in November. There are essentially three options for Harris: run for governor of California in 2026, run for president again in 2028 or decline to run for office and be a leader of the party from the sidelines.
A fourth option, in light of the election outcome, is to spend more time with her family.
Trump, what intention?
He did it, so, what's he up to?
Politico -
Trump fires independent inspectors general in Friday night purge
[...] Trump, speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One Saturday evening, said that he didn’t know the inspectors general who were dismissed but that “some people thought that some were unfair, or some were not doing the job,” and maintained that the firings were “a very common thing to do.”
Asked whether he planned to install loyalists in those positions, Trump said that he didn’t “know anybody that would do that.”
“We’ll put people in there that will be very good,” he said.
As with cabinet nominees, opinions and guesses can differ.
Out of sequence -
It also presents a test for Trump’s new Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who was narrowly confirmed by the Senate Friday night, with the Defense Department’s inspector general among those dismissed. Hegseth, in response to written questions from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) during the confirmation process, said that he would “commit to protecting the DoD IG’s independence,” according to a document reviewed by POLITICO.
Inspectors general are tasked with ridding the government of waste, fraud and abuse, one of Trump’s stated goals.
Readers must read that sentence's use of "one" to get the gist, as opposed to "several" which, if used, would alter the meaning. (And would he state that, however he really intends to move there?) Back to the quote -
Hannibal Ware, the inspector general of the Small Business Administration and leader of a council that represents inspectors general across government, suggested that the removals may be invalid because they appear to violate federal law requiring a 30-day notification to Congress before any watchdogs can be removed.
“I recommend that you reach out to White House Counsel to discuss your intended course of action,” Ware wrote in a letter obtained by POLITICO to Sergio Gor, the director of the White House Office of Presidential Personnel. “At this point, we do not believe the actions taken are legally sufficient to dismiss Presidentially Appointed, Senate Confirmed Inspectors General.”
A sense of a brewing dispute is unavoidable. More -
Some advocates for inspectors general said they were baffled by the Trump White House’s choices of whom to dismiss. Several of those who were fired were appointed by Trump and at least one — Sean O’Donnell at the EPA — was perceived as closely allied with Trump by Democrats, who sharply criticized his conduct
[...] Trump’s brazen move provides an early test for Congress, less than a week into Trump’s return to office, and in particular to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) who has long championed the independence of inspectors general. And it shows how willing the president is to stretch the limits of his authority to dismantle the federal government bureaucracy that he and his allies label the “deep state.”
[...] Grassley told POLITICO in November that Trump shouldn’t pursue a broad ouster of inspectors general.
“I guess it’s the case of whether he believes in congressional oversight, because I work closely with all the inspector generals and I think I’ve got a good reputation for defending them. And I intend to defend them,” he said.
He struck a more measured tune Saturday morning, saying in a statement that there “may be a good reason the IGs were fired” and that he would like “further explanation” from Trump about the dismissals. But, he added, Congress was still not given the 30-day notice required by law.
Trump’s decision caught other Senate Republicans off guard as well, with several indicating when they arrived for a rare weekend session that they either hadn’t gotten a heads up from the White House or hadn’t heard of Trump’s actions.
“I don’t understand why one would fire individuals whose mission is to root out waste, fraud and abuse. So this leaves a gap in what I know is a priority for President Trump,” said GOP Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).
[...] Warren, in a post on X Saturday morning, said that Trump is “dismantling checks on his power and paving the way for widespread corruption.”
We must be thankful to Sen. Warren for explaining it to us, because otherwise, none of us would have even guessed about the motivation Warren sets out so clearly.
Don't you love Warren for gaining knowledge of what Trump is up to?
Or might it be only speculation on her part, and if so, what would fuel such guessing?
Read the remainder of the Politico report or check the AP report of the IG mischief for detail of which agencies were targeted early, and which may later find similar treatment.
UPDATE: Are IGs the swamp? In it for the glory, or the money? It seems not so.
Wanting them out, new people in, makes a distressingly worrisome situation?
Four years from now, we may know more.
CNN, here:
Vice President JD Vance cast the 51-50 tie-breaking vote after former GOP Leader Mitch McConnell and GOP Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine joined Democrats to oppose Hegseth’s nomination. It was just the second time in history that a vice president has broken a tie for a Cabinet nominee – the other being then-Vice President Mike Pence for Betsy DeVos’ 2017 confirmation to lead the Education Department.
Each of those two tie breaking votes were for nominees with questionable competence. And each involved major biases. Each, a mistake, although opinions can differ. In the Hegseth case, Trump threatened showman Ron DeSantis as nominee if Hegseth was not approved. With that, Hegseth looked better than by himself. If the option is Hegseth or a joke, avoid the joke, which was Crabgrass logic in saying Hegseth merited approval in the totality of circumstances, (not by his qualities, but because of DeSantis' defects).
Again, opinions can differ. but Crabgrass opinion is DeSantis would have been an absolute, in all ways, disaster. Hegseth only a Christian Nationalist threat to a status quo. Or as the saying goes, six of one, two dozen of the other.
It is now going to go all the way to SCOTUS, unless Trump decides it will not.
AP's report stated -
SEATTLE (AP) — A federal judge on Thursday temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order denying U.S. citizenship to the children of parents living in the country illegally, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional” during the first hearing in a multi-state effort challenging the order.
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution promises citizenship to those born on U.S. soil, a measure ratified in 1868 to ensure citizenship for former slaves after the Civil War. But in an effort to curb unlawful immigration, Trump issued the executive order just after being sworn in for his second term on Monday.
The order would deny citizenship to those born after Feb. 19 whose parents are in the country illegally. It also forbids U.S. agencies from issuing any document or accepting any state document recognizing citizenship for such children.
The Crabgrass bet is Trump and AG Bondi will appeal all the way, and SCOTUS will either take the 14th Amendment's clear language as binding, or finagle.
Under Roberts, this bunch could well finagle. They've done it before, often enough to not be certain either way. So know the question is posed and wait and see.
The report states -
“Come make your product in America and we will give you among the lowest taxes as any nation on earth,” Trump said. “But if you don’t make your product in America, which is your prerogative, then very simply, you will have to pay a tariff — differing amounts — but a tariff, which will direct hundreds of billions of dollars and even trillions of dollars into our treasury to strengthen our economy and pay down debt under the Trump administration.”
Trump, who spoke Wednesday to Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, also said Thursday that the kingdom wants to invest $600 billion in the U.S. but that he would ask Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to increase it to $1 trillion. The remark drew some laughter from the crowd in the hall in Davos.
AP reported yesterday that today there would be a vote -
▶ Follow live updates on President Donald Trump’s return to Washington
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate advanced the nomination of Pete Hegseth as President Donald Trump’s defense secretary Thursday on a largely party-line vote, despite grave objections from Democrats and stirring unease among Republicans over his behavior and qualifications to lead the U.S. military.
Two Republicans, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, broke ranks with Trump and his allies who have mounted an extensive public campaign to push Hegseth toward confirmation. The former combat veteran and Fox News host faces allegations of excessive drinking and aggressive actions toward women, which he has denied. The vote was 51-49, with a final vote on confirmation expected Friday.
[...] Still, Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, herself a combat veteran and sexual assault survivor, has signaled her backing.
51-49 is not strong approval, but Joni Ernst has her reasons to be backing Trump's nomination. She's the swing vote, but if switching Vance would break the tie, so it is basically a done deal. Secretary Hegseth a reality.
Strib's subheadline tells it all, "Tim Noel joined the company in 2007 and most recently ran the business for Medicare health plans."
Not going outside to leaven the culture, staying inside, and gender determined.
..........................................
He probably has a track record. Presumably his branch of the business was run at a profit suitable to Witty, the man who heads the entire thing. Witty and the board.
If not turning a sizable profit, would you guess they'd look elsewhere?
Strib's report does not mention how profitable Noel's leadership of a branch of UH was. But be real. The entire venture has a track record, claim denials above industry norms.
If there is not a record of turning a large profit on the ship he piloted, would the man have been considered?
If UH does care to dispel a perception of extreme greed running and being a part of the venture, they should publicly discuss the profitability=advancement question. With data, not declarations. Then, gender bias seems a factor to explore next.
Silence about the profit potential of Mr. Noel's leadership is circumstantial evidence, when there is cause and capability to be specific, and we can draw our inferences accordingly.
My guess, clearly: He rang the profits over other aims bell, that is my circumstantial inference, and further evidence to the contrary would be welcome. It is an open minded guess, that way, but the company decided what it would, and would not, say.
I bet I am correct. But happy if the company comes forward with real evidence that my guess is in error. Strib's item noted -
“As a business leader, Tim views the path to success through a simple prism: Listen to employees and customers, focus on what they say matters most, then consistently and reliably deliver on those expectations. Every time. No exceptions,” Andrew Witty, UnitedHealth Group CEO, wrote in a message to employees obtained by the Minnesota Star Tribune.
“As a leader of teams and of people, Tim is a consummate collaborator,” Witty wrote. “He’s the first to tilt the spotlight onto others. He channels his energies into developing the people around him.”
If that is not blowing smoke, what is it? The firm is in litigation with former customers. Going to court suggests grievances. Without examining complaints the guess is coverage decision making and cost to customer are at issue.
Being sued does not necessarily stand in contradiction to, delivering "consistently and reliably" on what customers want and expect. But, give me numbers. Surely the ratio of non-suing customers vs. those willing to take things to court is greater than 1:1, but there is a threshold to being aggrieved enough to go to a lawyer.
If the company has released data on litigation prevalence for the company vs health insurance industry-wide litigation levels Crabgrass has not seen any such data, and again, the company has it and can publicize or hide it, as they see fit.
But delivering "Every time. No exceptions," means no lawsuits, and it appears that's not the case.
Prove me wrong.
And then, gender of the bosses? All the bosses?
UPDATE: Quality of care is NOT the issue. Providers and insurers are separate groups. Cost of care is questionable. My guess, single payer Medicare for All would cost less than private for-profit insurance, with no major change of the provider group.
Currently being provided clinic care by the Health Partners - Park Nicollet merged entity, I am very happy to have a top-quality doctor attending to my needs. Under Medicare.
It's comforting having that.
Medicare has been good on claim coverage, with reasonable co-pays, so far. With that in mind, Medicare for All is advocated, since I am no more deserving of high quality care others also might need, beyond qualification now - by age.
Age is an arbitrary criterion, but it's there. All ages, having the same reliability, evenly, seems only fair. After all, in truth, healthcare is a right. One all deserve, by being human citizens deserving their rights in the wealthiest nation the world has ever seen.
Republicans hold majorities in both Houses, and this is Trump's main election issue, so, big surprise.
Here and here. The first item's ending paragraphs -
The White House press office didn’t answer questions on Wednesday about whether Trump might [after canceling a Biden executive order on ethics mandates for executive officials] have his own ethics rules in the works to replace the Biden-era ones he nullified. Trump himself has in the past criticized the “revolving door” of people who move from government positions to posts in government and back.
That last sentence reads funny. The revolving door worry is movement from government sector to private sector and back and forth, to profit by peddling influence or using influential connections to lobby, grow income, and repeat the process. Likely an editorial oversight there. Continuing the quote -
During a 2022 interview with podcast host Theo Von, Trump said, “I was not a big person for lobbyists.”
Rob Kelner, chair of the election and political law practice at the firm Covington & Burling, said Trump might sign his own new set of executive actions on ethics. But he also said that the new president might not be anxious to do so given that it could ultimately be redundant. “There are already hundreds of pages of ethics laws and rules that govern executive branch employees,” Kelner said.
Kelner said a more immediate impact of Trump scrapping Biden’s order might be that it gives former members of the Democratic administration additional employment options by wiping out bans they would have otherwise had to heed.
“As they’re all out looking for jobs, this takes a burden off their shoulders,” Kelner said.
If Trump will be chopping heads per Musk/DOGE/Project 2025, there will be less anger and opposition if people can more easily transfer to private sector paychecks. And, to attract people he may want in his administration, Trump might feel it counterproductive to impose restrictions upon what they can do if/when leaving his administration. Finally, unless the item posts links to the new executive order and to the old one, we only know what the reporter tells us. There may be relevant detail omitted.
Details online here. Investment is a key word. They come with expectations of a ROI.
Anything else?
This websearch; and this Bulletin of Atomic Scientists item.
Quids often have pro quos, and details matter. The two links in the prior paragraph explain concerns. Strangely, the headlined AP item linked in the first paragraph is free of any nuclear consideration.
Seattle Times carrying a Jan 22, 2025 item -
Getting a contract with a retirement home can last a remaining lifetime.
Sometimes, yours. Sometimes the life of the retirement home before bankruptcy -
Data tracking bankruptcies and closures in senior housing are scant. Dee Pekruhn, who directs life plan community policy at LeadingAge, said there had been “very, very few examples of actual bankruptcies,” though there were recent close calls.
But Lori Smetanka, the executive director of the National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care, said that state and local long-term care ombudsmen were increasingly reporting “problems with facilities that are financially troubled.”
Recent crises include the closure of Unisen Senior Living, a CCRC in Tampa, Florida. After it filed for bankruptcy for the second time last spring, more than 100 residents had to move out.
In Charlotte, North Carolina, in 2023, state officials stepped in to oversee a long-established CCRC called Aldersgate, which had floundered financially for years. The state approved a “corrective action plan,” and Aldersgate avoided bankruptcy. But it remains months behind on refund payments, and state supervision continues.
In Steamboat Springs, Colorado, a CCRC called Casey’s Pond entered court-ordered receivership last summer. Since sold to a nonprofit health care system, it will continue operations — but only after two municipalities, a local foundation and hundreds of community members raised $30 million to rescue it.
Other kinds of senior housing can shut down, too. About 1,550 nursing homes closed between 2015 and mid-2024, according to the American Health Care Association.
But when CCRCs fail, residents and families face not only the physical and psychological ordeal of relocating, but also the possible loss of their life savings.
In bankruptcy, residents entitled to refunds “are at the very bottom of the list” among creditors seeking payment, said Nathalie Martin, a University of New Mexico law professor who has written about insolvent CCRCs.
Secured lenders with collateral have the first crack at collecting what they’re owed, followed by lawyers, accountants and employees.
Because the people who live in a CCRC that has promised refunds are unsecured lenders, “residents are in a very vulnerable position, and they don’t know it,” Martin said. Without refunds, they may be unable to afford to pay for care elsewhere if forced to move.
Traps for the unwary exist because somebody besides the unwary gets a benefit.
Note the two links which truly are related. One, lists community services which to an extent can help Washington State residents, with similar services likely offered in other states. The other just shakes more fear at readers. Growing old is not understood by too many young, who may have boomer dislike without full knowledge. The young will suffer what has happened, while the old had to live through its happening, frustrations and disdain included. It's us and them. They prosper, we expect fairness. Trump voting can be explained on those grounds.
Expectations often enough go unmet.
UPDATE: Seattle Times carrying a NYT Jan 22, 2025 post -
Ulbricht had also solicited the murders of people whom he considered threats — but acknowledged there was no evidence that the killings took place.
Despite his crimes, Ulbricht has remained popular with crypto enthusiasts because Silk Road was one of the first venues where people used bitcoin to buy and sell goods. For years, his supporters have argued that his sentence was overly punitive and adopted the slogan “Free Ross” online and at industry gatherings.
“It’s hard to argue that Ross Ulbricht wasn’t the most successful and influential entrepreneur of the early bitcoin era,” said Pete Rizzo, an editor at the news publication Bitcoin Magazine. “This is the industry banding together and saying, ‘We’re going to reclaim our own.’”
Ulbrich’s pardon was eagerly anticipated by crypto enthusiasts. On Monday, after Trump granted clemency to nearly 1,600 people charged in connection with the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol, Elon Musk, one of the president’s biggest supporters, responded to a concerned post on the social platform X, writing that “Ross will be freed too.”
Ulbricht, who grew up in Austin, Texas, was arrested in 2013, after the FBI tracked him down at a library in San Francisco. At his sentencing in U.S. District Court in Manhattan two years later, a judge called Ulbricht “the kingpin of a worldwide digital drug-trafficking enterprise” and said that his actions were “terribly destructive to our social fabric.”
[...] But the life sentence struck many observers as harsh. In 2017, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in affirming Ulbricht’s conviction, acknowledged the severe nature of the punishment [...] “on the facts of this case a life sentence was within the range of permissible decisions that the district court could have reached.”
Ulbricht has been serving his sentence at a federal prison in Tucson, Arizona. Supporters in the crypto industry, in calling for his release, have noted that he was convicted of a nonviolent crime and was never tried on prosecutors’ most explosive allegation that he paid to have people killed. At a bitcoin conference in Miami in 2021, Ulbricht’s supporters played a recording of him speaking from prison.
“I had so many big dreams for bitcoin,” he said.
Last year, Trump embraced Ulbricht’s cause on the campaign trail, first in a speech at a libertarian event and later at an annual bitcoin conference in Nashville, Tennessee. He doubled down on social media, posting the hashtag #FreeRossDayOne on Truth Social, the site he owns.
Big dreams for bitcoin, indeed. Ten years served is a lot. Released, half his life is gone. Half remains. With the unconditional and total pardon he can run for office or buy a gun. He can again sit at a keyboard free to again get in trouble.
As to the excessive sentence, judges can be arbitrary and severe. Discretionary allowances allowed Ross to get hammered hard. Bankman Fried got less than life. Zhao paid a lot, but skated.
Ross was first and made an example. Harshly so. Now -
Bitcoin has passed him up and he starts anew.
.......................................
Trump has a knack for sniffing out pockets of votes and wealth, and Musk . . .
Musk and friends are an example. Trump won the election and has started his final four years in office. Unless . . .
Let's not even touch any "unless" dimensions. Yet keep it in mind and hope other powers will quell any "unless" will or thinking. JD has ambition and expects a torch to be passed to him.
The order does not purport to authorize U.S. agents to enter Mexico, even if hot on the trail of terrorists who cross the border to avoid imminent capture.
Ultimately U.S. military members might be ordered into border and terror operations in U.S. areas, and efforts against Mexico may escalate, but for now the order is limited to what it says. Trump can ammend it, revise and amend its reach, or issue another Order. For now, it is alone as to "cartels" whatever they are. Expect that to be litigated so that a judicial definition will evolve, specific entities may be designated as "cartels" under the order, etc. It is a first draft effort to give notice of more to follow.
Will Hegseth send troops to the border, will some troop segment or group cross the border, and will that be diplomatically resolved? It is likely if the question arises Department of State will negotiate something with Mexican comparable authorities.
First step has been issuing the Order, giving notice even if vague, and no U.S. officials are likely to express much opinion in support of "cartels," who have been a near constant target of press disapprobation.
The order is there, what grows from it is to be seen, and it is expected that in the first hundred days something related to that order will arise.
UPDATE: Related: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/guaranteeing-the-states-protection-against-invasion/
Are we being invaded? Does saying so make something a reality? Is there a ready answer or must we wait to see how things shake out?
The new administration has edited whitehouse.gov and that means what?
With a tux monopoly I'd do alright.
Jan 6er opinion is it was a nice inauguration. Somehow, I missed it.
Did anything noteworthy happen?
https://x.com/IDF/status/1879564125648327017?mx=2
UPDATE: Two related things: the repo and redeployment of our arms out of Lybia after Gdaffi Muammar Gaddafi was "Arab Spurng" from power and from his life was different, (deep state meddling -- and a Clinton problem made that by Republicans).
Then, leaving stuff for the Taliban in exiting Afghanistan on the Trump-set timetable recognizes Afghanistan's bordering Iran as a reality where armed Taliban might discourage neighborhood adventuring.
Entering and exiting military events/situations may each have its own details. If Israel exits Syria, which is anything but a certainty of exiting without some accretion of land in border reshaping movements before exiting, there is the valid claim of neighborhood policing, not stealing.
Trump/Hegseth assurance of no more unending wars in other nations is good news, but then troops might be freed to deploy stateside, which is a feared and loathed possibility. Call it that, not a probability, since the first hundred days is by tradition a "honeymoon." But U.S. troops on the streets and soil of the U.S. conducting anything called "policing" is wrong. That it is wrong is a certainty, that it might happen, a possibility. Leave it there for now, and we'll see.
Two searches:
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=projected+inflation+from+deporting+illegal+immigrants&ia=web
Run those yourself, and see which returned items ring your bell. One thing Musk's shit-fit assured us, deportions will not be skilled H-1B high tech wage breakers.
One returned item dated November 23, 2024 - https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-u-s-industries-that-rely-most-on-illegal-immigration/ stating -
Over Six Million Undocumented Workers
The U.S. is estimated to have over six million undocumented workers across various industries.
Construction has the highest concentration of undocumented workers, who make up 13.7% of its workforce.
Industry Illegal Immigrant Workers Share of Workforce 1. Construction 1,544,600 13.7% 2. Agriculture 244,700 12.7% 3. Hospitality 1,002,200 7.1% 4. General Services 500,800 6.5% 5. Wholesale Trade 193,400 5.5% 6. Transportation and Warehousing 460,500 5.5% 7. Manufacturing 870,400 5.4% 8. Professional Services 970,800 4.7% 9. Retail Trade 708,500 3.9% 10. Mining and Extraction 22,100 3.6% Agriculture relies heavily on undocumented labor, with these workers constituting 12.7% of its labor force.
Hospitality employs over one million undocumented immigrants, representing 7.1% of its workforce.
If you think for one minute that Trump will deport any human being from his hotels' labor force you are one certain fucking fool. That said, enjoy your grocery prices.
The Crabgrass guess - a flight or several of actual criminals and then tapering off with Homan, Stephen Miller, and their new hires still getting their paychecks for posturing. Because Trump likes them and because of appearances. Only a guess, nobody knows for certain.
........................................
UPDATE: If you like comparative charts, the Cato Institute in a Nov 2023 item gives you charts. So check out: https://www.cato.org/blog/us-labor-market-explains-most-increase-illegal-immigration
The charts in general show Bush era and Biden era illegal immigration levels were above Trump and Obama eras. Biden's being highest. With the layoffs now happening, laid off workers might have to replace deportees, making beds and picking melons in the hot sun. Laid off labor which voted Trump might feel resentment, with Trump not being their retribution.
Day One Soon.
FURTHER: Union trades might do better if construction workers are deported, which might happen, but if we have a housing crisis now, construction costs will go up on any new housing built; while deported renters will make current landlords adjust. It is an uncertain possible trade-off. Long term, after the next four years and onward, who knows?
Link - https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2025-01/60870-Outlook-2025.pdf
Trump did run up budget deficits during his first term; with help from Congressional folks. Will implementation of Project 2025 stem a trend?
Verboten staffers need not apply. Enough others to go around, e.g., former Michele Bachmann staffers. And might a particular one be in mind? Already on board, disliking illegal immigrants?
Link. Ross Perot once famously said, "Big sucking sound," but in a different context.
I looked it up, what Perot said, "Giant sucking sound," not big. There's a Wiki page.
Quoting Wikipedia:
In the second 1992 Presidential Debate, Ross Perot argued:
We have got to stop sending jobs overseas. It's pretty simple: If you're paying $12, $13, $14 an hour for factory workers and you can move your factory South of the border, pay a dollar an hour for labor, ... have no health care—that's the most expensive single element in making a car— have no environmental controls, no pollution controls and no retirement, and you don't care about anything but making money, there will be a giant sucking sound going south.
... when [Mexico's] jobs come up from a dollar an hour to six dollars an hour, and ours go down to six dollars an hour, and then it's leveled again. But in the meantime, you've wrecked the country with these kinds of deals.[1]Perot ultimately lost the election, and the winner, Bill Clinton, supported NAFTA, which went into effect on January 1, 1994.
Arguably, plant mobility overseas has been supplanted by labor mobility, from overseas or cross-border to here. Trump promised deportations. Musk promised an H-1B "war."
Citizen Laborers, in large numbers among non-union labor, voted for Trump.
Aside from distant and yesterday's history, AP reports:
Zuckerberg once seemed a foe of the former president, banning him from Facebook and Instagram after a mob of Trump’s supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. But lately, he’s been endearing himself to Trump as one of a number of tech executives who have been seeking to improve their relationships with the new president.
Meta declined to comment Tuesday.
In a between-paragraph thing, AP notes another of its stories -
As Biden warns of an ‘oligarchy,’ Trump will be flanked by tech billionaires at his inauguration
where checking out the story it is saying -
Elon Musk, the world’s wealthiest person, took an unprecedented, hands-on role in the final stretch of Trump’s campaign, spending some $200 million through a super PAC. Musk has a new role reshaping government in the upcoming administration and will be joined on the dais by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. Both men’s companies have enormous contracts with the federal government.
Rounding out the trio is Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who recently changed his company’s priorities to align with Trump’s and has cozied up to the president-elect less than six months after Trump threatened to imprison him.
The three men are worth nearly $1 trillion combined and will be joined at the inauguration by the chief executive officers of OpenAI and the social media platform TikTok, which is scheduled to be shut down in the U.S. over the weekend under a new law that Trump opposes.
[links in original]
On the dining room table, a bookmark from The Nation, an outlet with the slogan, "Truth to Power," had that particular bookmark printed having an image of Franklin Roosevelt and a quote from him -
The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.
And Roosevelt, who was s polio sufferer, might think little of the Kennedy health czar nominee, for we have effective polio vaccines now, along with anti-vaxxer idiot denialists, at the current time where Franklin, if alive, would be expected to opt for the pro-vaccine faction and think the Kennedy man is a total worthless blithering idiot. And a danger if given any power.
Perhaps Roosevelt might not think so, some can doubt for he's not around to ask for likelihood confirmation..
But we can rationally extrapolate.
Sheldon Adelson's first trip to Israel, he put his father's shoes on since his father died before being able to set foot on Israeli controlled soil. Widow Adelson, now atop the gambling empire, and having that basketball team while the nation allows sports betting, is also a pro-Israel maven who Trump gave, first term, the Presidential medal Biden gave to Hillary and Soros, and widow Adelson gave the campain a bundle while liking a Greater Israel policy where the occupied Palestinian land would be annexed. Zuck, we know him, while readers can google the other co-sponsoring billionaires if they care to know detail.
I've seen enough already
Link. Your trust is our badge of honor. Bet your life on it!
____________UPDATE___________
Yes, being ironic. That link is good, no pay wall nor subscription wall. Realizing readers might see a subscription wall with Strib, on a newer and different UH report, here is a quote of enough to give a fair-use flavor of reported outrageous crap - while if you want more, deal with Strib. It is their content and fair use is the rule.
In case the headline does not say enough, a bit of the report is quoted too:
[...] Andrew Witty, CEO of the Eden Prairie-based health care giant, [,,,] during a conference call with investors that he opened by acknowledging condolences many have offered since the fatal ambush of Brian Thompson, 50, of Maple Grove.
[...] Witty said Thompson worked on improvements to prior authorization rules that are part of a broader system for claims processing that can frustrate patients and health care providers, [... ! ]
The country’s system for health care offers the most advanced clinical care in the world, Witty said, [...] At the same time, industrywide fixes are needed for handling medical claims, he said, and the experience for consumers suffers from too much confusion and complexity.
Industrywide displacement by sane and far cheaper non-confusing and non-complex Medicare for All IS a different option which Witty apparently declined to mention. Talking to investors per a conference call. Next paragraph -
“America faces the same fundamental health care dynamic as the rest of the world: The resources available to pay for health care are limited, while demand for health care is unlimited,” he said.
So? Rationing done by sincere government experts not under a greedy profit-making motive can suffice better and cheaper than profit oriented goons for greed now deliver. Witty's perspective is limited. Next paragraph, says much
The commentary came as UnitedHealth Group released financial results showing the company beat estimates for fourth quarter earnings by posting a profit of $5.54 billion during the final three months of 2024.
End quote.
Dylan sang, You Don't Need A Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows. We had Weathermen, but the authorities stifled them.
Yet . . . here we are, decades later, Dylan now an old man, but worth 1000 Wittys.
More even.
Nobody ever said a UH top dog bean counter should hold a Nobel price.
Any straight shooter can tell you that.
EmptyWheel phrased the matter -
IF YOU CAN'T STAND THE HYPOTHETICALS, GET OUT OF THE CABINETFirst it was Pete Hegseth who said it, followed 24 hours later by Pam Bondi. In the days ahead, I am sure we will hear the same from Tusli Gabbard, Robert Kennedy Jr., Marco Rubio, Kash Patel . . . et cetera, et cetera. et f-ing cetera: “Senator, I am not going to talk about a hypothetical.” Implied in the body language and tone of voice is the unstated addition “. . . and how dare you ask me about mythical future possibilities, rather than focus on the here and now.” Though to be fair, sometimes, as with Bondi’s exchange with Adam Schiff, that “how dare you” is spoken out loud.
But here’s the thing: the job description of every member of the Cabinet, and every senior leader of a federal agency, is centered on hypotheticals.
The Department of Defense is certainly focused on hypotheticals. The senior leadership — the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs, the various regional commanders, and a host of others — spend a huge amount of energy imagining hypothetical situations, and then planning on how to address those situations. “What would we do, if Iran successfully lobs a bomb at Israel?” or “How would we react to China sending a fleet up and down the coast of New Zealand, at the same time that they run ‘war games’ around Taiwan?” or “How would we respond to a North Korean missile that appears headed to strike Japan?” Senior DOD folks fear one thing above all: something happens that they never even imagined would happen.
The State Department and the Intelligence agencies operate with much the same fear. Every one of them dwells on hypotheticals every day, both reactive (“What do we do if they do X?”) and also proactive (“How might we game out a path to Z, knowing how others would react to our actions?”) None of these national security leaders want to have to face the question “How could you have missed this?” Lower level staffers put together voluminous briefing books for senior leaders, trying to prepare them for all the hypothetical situations they might encounter on a foreign trip, or when meeting with a foreign counterpart here in the US.
[...] If Pete Hegseth and Pam Bondi hate talking about hypotheticals, they are angling for the wrong jobs. The jobs for which they are nominated require that they embrace hypotheticals, not reject them.
[...] Then, of course, there are agencies like the CDC, NIH, and FDA. Their whole reason for being, at the top of a public health system that goes down to local health departments, is to get ahead of diseases. Two questions drive every bit of their work: (1) How can we slow and stop a disease from spreading? and (2) How can we prevent an outbreak from starting in the first place? Both of those questions require imagining hypotheticals, [...]
The point is driven home by additional examples in EmptyWheel writing, so, again, the link is given at the start so readers can view the entire thing, with reader commentary there as part of the item, such as
David Brooks says: One of the questions asked of Pam Bondi (by Adam Schiff) was of “Are you aware of any factual predicate to investigate Liz Cheney?” She even called that a hypothetical which, ftr, it isn’t.
...........................
Unfortunately, the EmptyWheel post gives no links to any online hearings video by which readers could assess assertions. Some wonks may be spending all day watching hearings, others might have less discretionary time or other priorities.
Crabgrass thinking on that argument: The future being uncertain to everyone, the "hypotheticals" trick is akin to nominated folks for SCOTUS saying it might come up for judgment so I defer. Here, this round, whether or not it might come up, I defer.
And it seems Bondi bent things more that way than Hegseth.
So, justify past conduct and decisions as a predictive tool of how an uncertain future might be handled? Well, not even that if one can simply say assertions are being made while clearly intended to frustrate my confirmation chances and that is wrong. But why say that much, say, "Anonymous smear."
In effect, why have hearings if a noninee will not justify a single thing about him\her\their-self\selves? (Pronoun use-choice by Hegseth not needing any inquiry since he'd want his kind, his gender and only his gender to be in combat.)
Having sought out some video via web search, this segment is viewed positively -
Richard Blumenthal Presses Pete Hegseth About 'Financial Mismanagement' Of Veterans Group
It is about the size and scope and looseness of Hegseth's past management of two veteran-oriented nonprofits. It is about worry over the money. More thought on that later, below. Inexperience on the big stage. At higher ranks.
Worrisome, not as much for its anti-woke start as things happened, and which some hammer on, or about pushups, but the ending about expensive ship-building from an ex-Navy guy, (similar to Bannon and DeSantis loyal to their service).
Tim Kaine just went smarmy with the smear, showing an insincerity which might be why Ms. Clinton picked him.
Angus King, "Your Position Is Torture's Okay—Is That Correct?': Angus King Grills Pete Hegseth In Senate Hearing" mattered, and Hegseth's answers were troubling.
Nominee good or bad manners may show, (possibly hot-headedness or hubris or weasel-like body language when the shoe pinches), there are things shown if the nominee declines to answer specific current fact, (not future policy) questions or argues over them?
I strongly expect Hegseth does not think he has a drinking problem, but when asked at least he did not say, "Not to my knowledge." Instead he was confronted and gave a different non-answer. Give him one point for that. And when asked about how many pushups Pete can do, Pete did not ask, "On a good day, or as a regular thing?" So give him a second point. For giving one direct answer. Proving he's above average on doing pushups and well versed on minutia of weapons that can be carried by combat infantry - but again, the ending dialogue about shipbuilding.
Bessant did well in saying Trump will set the policy, as Rubio did in discussing diplomacy with Rand Paul.
..............................
(Stupid is as stupid does, so did Norm Coleman write Hegseth's script, or was he scripted by committee? Maybe Tom Emmer prepped him the way Tom did for JD's VP debate.)
Give Hegseth a third point - when asked about possible military deployment stateside he fudged (going hypothetical we call it) instead of saying, "Haitians WILL NOT EAT eat other people's pets - CITIZEN's pets - when I'm heading the Defense Department [!!] and that's in Ohio or any other God-blessed state of the entire God-blessed U.S. of A.which I love! That will not happen or I'll eat my tattoos!"
BOTTOM LINE: This may not sit well with many, but, first there was earlier video about perhaps Trump switching DeSantis as nominee if Hegseth does not pass.
During the Trump-absent Republican candidate extravaganza, DeSantis articulated something not too different from Hegseth. Six of one, a half-dozen of the other.
But, personally, DeSantis creeps me out and seems a confrontation chaser, per earlier commentary and sidebar items.
Hegseth is sincere, DeSantis' sincerity is questionable, and Hegseth is willing to give up a very cushey big Murdoch FOX paycheck to take a cut in pay with much harder responsibilities, which favors him on sincerity scoring.
Crabgrass sees a bottom line truth that DeSantis, talk being cheap, would kick the can down the road but Hegseth would embody a cultural remake, aware of money being a factor and doing okay with that. Those vet nonprofits did not build him his mansion in Tennessee, FOX did, and while sloppy with the books at the nonprofits it looks as if Hegseth ran them without looting them, no proof of that came out and if that were the case it would have washed out that way, and the Pentagon has, if anything, too many bean counter mess-ups where the top guy is not responsible for counting beans. With the haze that way over the nonprofit money Pete will watch things.
Back to Sen. Sheehy's and Hegseth's discussion of Navy and shipbuilding, Hegseth in passing said people talk of unmanned aircraft (where ships if monitored well by satellite are sitting ducks), Hegseth mentioned unmanned undersea vehicles. Those, as well as the nuclear submarine fleet, and carrier fleet missle ships as carrier defense craft, are part of the equation. It was an apt reply while giving the Senator the reply he sought.
It was well handled. Last, Hegseth is smarter than Ron DeSantis ever was, is or will be and that counts. Passionate for the job, willing for a pay cut for more reality than FOX could ever give him, Pete really wants the job. I would expect a better result there with him in, over DeSantis as a fall-back offering. Faults exist, but confirming him is the better option over anything DeSantis could bring to the office. And Pete offers a better chance of the mess being lessened than DeSantis, who seems in over his head with Florida. Making Florida worse not better is the Ron DeSantis track record, so don't kick that upstairs unless having much love for a status quo.
Go with Hegseth. Trump setting policy is a bigger worry than Hegseth implementing it. And as ever, Trump could fire him on a whim whether he does a good or bad job, so that will be a constraint upon Hegseth straying too far in his own mood and direction.
I think Pete would close the revolving door on generals and admirals, which Ron also noted as a problem to be fixed. Pete seems less inclined to schmooze the defense contractors, while Ron could be buttered up. Defense contractors using connected former generals and admirals for entry and favors does need attention.
Trump had Flynn problems but seems to have been artful enough to put that into the past and forever so. Trump will not be lulled by revolving door former officers.
The military will be okay, even perhaps better, so long as Trump backs away from his noise about using them on U.S. soil against Americans. Which is expected.
_____________UPDATE_____________
There is a sense in the air that Hegseth and DeSantis each read Project 2025 and that Trump was somewhat disingenuous in disavowing any ownership there. That, going that way while JD wrote the preface of Kevin Robert's book. A Big Club and you're not in it?
Which Senator has been most aggressive in quizzing nominees about Project 2025, or will they all act shocked SCHOCKED once they see it happening.
Other possibility - if nobody is so crass as to mention it, the sense of it happening will not even take hold? Gee. And I went and mentioned it. Well, nobody yet . . . not anybody in the big club. Will that possibility gain mention in the Bezos Post?
Unlikely. But, Big Club, surprise me. Do you think Amy Klobuchar will be the one to point out our being Project 2025ed? Jake Sullivan? Will a peep be heard from anybody on Martha's Vineyard? A silence so universal that the Federalist Society will not crow over it?
From there you get names of the finger-pointing players saying, "Not me."
If you care about it, it might help hone your own web research to see what happened, and who is responsible for it. If nothing else, public servant compensation packages in LA seem prime from checking those links.
https://patriotpost.us/articles/111897-trumps-hegseth-pick-is-unconventional-2024-11-13
Slanting things too much can be a turn-off for all but fanboys.
And, yes, Crabgrass is more editorial than unbiased. And it can be argued as less effective for being that. Readers are invited to check the link and decide, does it encompass a "Breitbart Effect" to where it might be accessed less?
The Internet is allowing subjectivity to be "Thinking outside the Beltway" as much as quoting Bernie is not Beltway chapter/verse. Quoting Bernie makes sense to me, but it is like this site, just from the other political pole.
As another example, when Republican Senator Ron Johnson and Breitbart tell you this, how do you react? Thankful for the advice, or more skeptical than before?
Going to the other side's influence peddling sites has its value, in giving notice and informing about something possibly worth informed skepticism.
"Thinking outside the Beltway" is a good phrase, but it makes me no more a Hegseth fan than previous to stumbling onto the post. But it does inform me that Pete has supporters, vocal supporters, and gives me a better idea of his chances of Senate confirmation as DoD head. How he may act if confirmed, no insight there, but the fear factor is heightened somewhat from the manner in which support is voiced. Over four years, Trump could even change his mind. He's undone appointments first term, and has not changed much, or seems not to have.
If Trump likes what Hegseth does, he keeps him. Just liking Hegseth will get him more leeway, but they will talk and work together, unless they don't.
______________UPDATE_____________
There is this, linked to from here, where you can check the longer speaking example on YouTube, and see what you think better than from reading touting from within a clear tout website.
The man talking to friends. He sells speeches. See who he is when doing that. Compare here, a not too subtle hit piece disguised as news. He will have a close vote, whatever the outcome.
But seeing him in action with a friendly crowd, skimming through parts of that video if not watching the whole thing, perhaps a best view scenario. (Yet what if anything has that got to do with likely performance if confirmed to head DoD?)
Trump likes him, for now if not forever, and thinks he's good for the job. That really is the most we know of him.
