I have to say, when I read the CBS headline “Michigan Democrat Abdul El-Sayed’s deleted tweets on Sept. 11 attacks invite scrutiny of past remarks,” I was expecting something at least kind of, vaguely objectionable. Maybe a little too strident on anti-imperialism? Maybe a little too “both-sides” about the attack and what led up to it? At the very least, a tweet that could be taken out of context? There had to be something, right? This was before we learned that Bari Weiss, the extremely well-paid bootlicker for fascism, had “personally directed” the headline. If I had known that beforehand, I wouldn’t have even bothered clicking the link. That’s like opening a bag labeled “rancid dog shit.”

But even without Weiss, I should have known better than to expect anything remotely newsworthy. Not because Abdul El-Sayed is flawless, but because the legacy press has been frantically casting about for something ANY FUCKING THING to hang around his neck to drag him down for months. Honestly, I’m not an El-Sayed-stan. He’s a little too comfortable with people who are a little too comfortable with antisemitism for my taste, even if El-Sayed hasn’t strayed down that path himself. What the press is doing, though? This crazed witch hunt? That’s just fucking embarrassing, and Weiss is leading the clown show, apparently. The amount of effort they’re putting into this tells me a lot about how threatened they are by the Michigan candidate. The one who’s ahead in the polls despite weeks of obviously coordinated media attacks. Ha. Ha. Fuck you. Ha.

The legacy media has abandoned us in favor of sucking up to oligarchs and fascism. Find voices you trust (other than me) and subscribe where you can. Independent voices like the Opinionated Ogre will be needed in the coming days, and we require your support. This newsletter is free,but for $5 a month or just $50 a year (a 17% discount!), you can keep the lights on.

If subscriptions aren’t your thing, you can leave a one-time PayPal or Venmo tip instead!

To be clear, if you turn your head sideways, squint, and try REALLY fucking hard, you could find some tiny sliver of…something to be offended about? But that would require you to admit your outrage is solely based on El-Sayed being a brown-skinned Muslim. Outside of that, saying that the incredible death toll of Covid should motivate America to fight for public health and against poverty the same way the deaths on 9/11 motivated us to fight terrorism is about as controversial as grilled cheese.

Media Matters compiled a helpful list of public figures, many of them Republicans, who said something similar at the time. Curiously, none of these statements generated any outrage at all. It’s soooo fucking weird that Bari Weiss is having a meltdown over El-Sayed saying the same thing! I wonder why…?

Oh, but we don’t have to wonder, do we? We know what is happening here.

1. El-Sayed is (incorrectly) perceived as the candidate most at risk of not flipping a critical seat.

2. El-Sayed has committed the sin of being an unapologetic Democratic Socialist.

Put those two together, and the legacy press is highly incentivized to destroy the Democratic candidate in Michigan.

It’s important to understand that the legacy press, especially scumbags like Bari Weiss, are not “neutral observers.” They’ve been working nonstop to protect the Republican Party and the increasingly fascist status quo for decades. The 2026 midterms are no different. The House is a lost cause. There is no stopping the tidal wave of Republican losses that is coming in November. But the Senate? That is something the press can help Republicans keep control of. At least, that was the hope before Texas and Iowa came into play. After all, they blew up Graham Platner, why not Abdul El-Sayed?

I want to be clear about this: Platner was a piece of shit who raped at least one woman, and he had to go and eat a bag of dicks far away from our party. But there is, right fucking now, a Republican running for re-election who broke the bones of his 2-year-old daughter, and the press hasn’t mustered one-thousandth of the howling outrage over Max Miller that they did over Platner. I usually say that Republicans aren’t held to a lower standard; they’re held to no standard at all, but that’s not what this is. This is a choice by the press to intervene in the election, and they’ve chosen a side. Hint: It’s not ours.

The House in Democratic hands can cause Trump problems. The Senate, though? That puts the Supreme Court at risk, and that shit cannot be allowed. If Democrats gain control of the Supreme Court, it’s all over for the GOP, and everyone knows it.

But that pales in comparison to the threat Democratic Socialism poses to the status quo. I’ve been writing about this recently, and I continue to watch with malicious glee1 as all the right people are losing their fucking minds over it. Not just Republicans, the press, and centrists who fear losing power,2 but the alt-left ratfuckers who work to keep Republicans in power. It’s been delicious to watch.

Let’s focus on the press, though. I wrote about this a few weeks ago, and I will be repeating it for the foreseeable future because it’s obviously going to be shaping our news coverage for a long time. If you’re the legacy press whose main task has been to shield the Republican Party and maintain the status quo, what bigger threat is there than Democratic Socialism?

Democrats were bad enough. They allowed Republicans to obstruct most of their agenda, true. But every now and then, they shoved the country to the left, and terrible things like Obamacare and Bidenomics happened. Republicans could contain and undo the damage given enough time, but Democratic Socialists? They weren’t going to play by the rules and allow Republicans to gum everything up for years on end. They’re “radicals” and “extremists” who keep threatening to change things in ways that the public will notice. Large splashy things like universal healthcare and a living wage and fully funding public schools.

That’s the kind of stuff that can’t be undone so easily, and once the public got a taste of that? Screaming about how oppressed white men are isn’t going to get voters to the polls anymore. No one is going to be interested in worshipping billionaires. Why, taxes on the rich sound pretty good, after all!

Not OK! Not OK!!! That motherfucker Mamdani in NYC is a goddamn nightmare.3 How many more of these do-gooder assholes are we going to have to put up with?! American politics is about protecting the rich, not helping the average Joe! Worse, if the Democratic Party becomes too productive, how will the press sell the “both sides” story that both parties are useless and nothing can ever be fixed? Imagine having to actually explain that the Republican Party is a fascist shithole of grifters, pedophiles, and Nazis who wouldn’t lift a finger to help a drowning baby, and this is who they’ve been for the last 60 years? That sounds perilously close to doing journalism, and that’s not the business of the legacy press, buddy!

So, yeah, Bari Weiss is just the latest example of the press crusading against Abdul El-Sayed. He’s an existential threat, on multiple levels, to everything the legacy press has been working to keep in place since at least the 80s. It must be making their blood boil that polling continues to show El-Sayed in the lead no matter how much shit they fling at him. Suck it, bitches.

When El-Sayed is sworn in next January as part of the Democratic Senate majority, I’m going to drink a toast to the abject failure of the legacy press to help the regime stay in power. But for now? The press has annoyed me enough to make my first donation of the midterms. Fuck y’all.

I hope you feel better informed about the world and ready to kick fascists and their enablers in the teeth to protect it. This newsletter exists because of you, so please consider becoming a supporting subscriber today for only $5 a month or just $50 a year (a 17% discount!). Thank you for everything!

Not a fan of long-term subscriptions? That’s OK! I’ll be your one-night stand with a one-time donation through PayPal or Venmo! I’m easy like that! Just don't tell Mrs. Ogre! 😜

There are 62 days until the most important midterm election in American history. The regime is afraid, and they should be. We are legion, and they are weak. Stay strong. You are never alone.

Of all the moments that capture Dolly Parton’s musical talents, fierce intelligence and driving ambition, I often find myself thinking back to an awkward, ad-libbed live television duet on “The Porter Wagoner Show.”

The year was 1973. Parton had been performing alongside Wagoner on the syndicated variety show since 1967. Though this had been her big break in Nashville, Parton was feeling confined by playing second fiddle to Wagoner, who, as her producer, often took control of the musical arrangements of her songs. Despite Parton’s commercial success, he was often dismissive of her creative vision.

With Parton and Wagoner set to perform “Run That By Me One More Time” – a song Parton had written in 1970, about a marital quarrel – Wagoner begins by saying, “Me and my sidekick, she just kicked me in the side.” Dolly retorts, “Not yet, but I think I will after this.”

After the two sing the opening lines, Parton dives into her verse:

“Well you’re late again I see

What’s your excuse this time?

Don’t try to kiss and make up

When you smell so strong from wine.”

Right as Wagoner moves in to sing his excuse for coming home late, Parton unexpectedly interrupts him by singing a prolonged, “Well, I –” as if she were going to sing another line. Porter, caught by surprise, pauses. Parton laughs, “I thought I’d throw that in.” A flustered Wagoner asks Parton where they are in the song.

Back on track, Wagoner begins the next verse, demanding to know what Parton has done with the rent money. She ad-libs her explanation: “You seen me put that money in that cookie jar the same day you brought it home and one day I come back from shopping and I looked and every dime of that money was gone but I didn’t get it and you know I didn’t get it.”

She’s gone well over her allotted time, and Wagoner starts singing his planned retort. But Parton doesn’t let up and starts speaking over him: “I didn’t get it. I don’t know who got it but I don’t want you packing it on me no more.”

Guffaws are audible from the crowd. All Wagoner can do is awkwardly laugh as he says, “Would you run – me by that one more time.”

Wagoner eventually recovers and the two cheerfully finish the song to applause. But for anyone watching, it’s clear who’s in control and whose song it is.

A year later, Parton left the show after writing the hit songs “Jolene” and “I Will Always Love You.” Her 1976 album, “All I Can Do,” was nominated for a Grammy for Best Country Vocal Performance, Female.

The rest – 25 No. 1 country singles, 10 Grammy awards, 44 Top 10 country albums – is history.

Turning the Tables

Parton, who died on Aug. 25, 2026, didn’t simply tell jokes for cheap chuckles.

In my work as a scholar of country music, I’ve written about how female country artists from the mid-20th century to the 2010s deployed humor to elbow their way into an industry that has often been hostile to women.

Throughout the genre’s history, female country artists could be treated as window dressing for the male main attractions. And when women did achieve success, the industry could be quick to portray them as climbers who abandoned their country roots in pursuit of pop stardom.

Women also traditionally have had a harder time getting recording contracts and radio airplay. As recently as 2015, radio consultant Keith Hill controversially said that country stations should play mostly male artists, describing men as the “lettuce” and women as the “tomatoes” in a salad.

One way female artists fought back? By using humor to upend expectations about how women should behave.

In Lulu Belle’s comedic take on marriage in her 1939 song “I Wish I Was a Single Girl Again,” she plays the part of the female rube. By assuming the caricature of female hillbilly, she was able to do or say things that a conventionally respectable female character couldn’t.

Similarly, June Carter often played the unruly country girl who aimed her punchlines at male hosts and duet partners, including Johnny Cash. And in the uproarious “Got My Name Changed Back,” the contemporary trio Pistol Annies use humor to turn the pain of divorce into a celebration of female empowerment.

But few have ever wielded humor as deftly as Parton. She used quick-witted retorts and self-deprecating jokes as weapons to disarm audiences and shine a spotlight on double standards and gendered biases.

She often did this by making men the butt of her jokes.

Take two of Parton’s first commercial hits: “Dumb Blonde,” written by Curly Putman, and her self-penned “Something Fishy.”

In “Dumb Blonde,” Parton tells the story of a cheating man who, upon being confronted, angrily accuses her of being a “dumb blonde.” After announcing that “this dumb blonde ain’t nobody’s fool,” the song’s narrator triumphantly declares, “If there’s one thing this blonde has learned, blondes have more fun,” before walking away from the relationship on her own terms.

“Something Fishy” is another song about a cheater. Parton’s lyrics contrast the man’s thin lies about “going on fishing trips” with her suspicion of his infidelities.

“Something fishy is going on,” she says wryly, playing up the pun. The audience is in on the mockery of this dim-witted man, whose astute wife can see right through him.

Dolly’s World

In the same way that Parton took the spotlight from Wagoner during that televised duet in 1973 – and makes it clear who’s in control and who isn’t – Parton also took control of the narrative of her career. When critics questioned her commitment to country, she demonstrated that popular stardom and country authenticity were not mutually exclusive. When they condemned her ambition, she made no apologies for wanting more. When they tried to ridicule her look, she owned her Dolly image by means of her wit.

As Parton would often say, “It costs a lot of money to look this cheap.”

There’s so much in that line. For one, it’s hilarious. But it also signals that she intentionally crafted her campy persona, and that her calculated appearance also contributed to her wild success.

That was Dolly: self-deprecating, self-aware, self-assured and, yes – wickedly funny.

This article was originally published by The Conversation on April 28, 2026.

“FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IS NOT JUST IMPORTANT TO DEMOCRACY, IT IS DEMOCRACY.” – Walter Cronkite. CLICK HERE to donate in support of our free and independent voice.

The post Dolly Parton Took Control of Her Career by Making Men the Butt of the Joke appeared first on DCReport.org.

The digital transformation of finance means that almost every transaction, from buying groceries to managing investments, now has an online component. This convenience brings new responsibilities for consumers.

Protecting your financial information online is no longer optional; it is a fundamental part of personal financial health. Understanding the landscape of online threats and adopting strong security practices are essential skills for navigating the modern economy safely.

Understanding Online Threats

To protect your finances , you first need to know what you’re up against. Cybercriminals use many sophisticated methods to access sensitive information. Phishing is one of the most common. This happens when an attacker pretends to be a trustworthy entity and tricks a victim into opening an email, instant message, or text.

These messages often contain links to malicious websites that look identical to legitimate ones, fooling you into entering login credentials, credit card numbers, or other personal data. For example, you might get an email that looks like it’s from your bank, complete with the official logo and branding, asking you to “verify your account” because of a supposed security issue. The link, however, leads to a fake site designed to steal your information.

Malware is another significant threat. This is short for malicious software and includes viruses, spyware, and ransomware that can be unknowingly installed on your computer or mobile device. Spyware can secretly record your keystrokes to capture passwords and financial details, while ransomware can encrypt your files and demand payment for their release. This software often gets onto devices through infected downloads, email attachments, or even by visiting a compromised website.

Man-in-the-middle (MitM) attacks are especially dangerous when you use public Wi-Fi networks, like those in cafes, airports, or hotels. In a MitM attack, a criminal secretly intercepts and can even alter communication between two parties who think they are talking directly. For instance, an attacker could set up a fake Wi-Fi hotspot named “Airport Free WiFi.” When you connect, the attacker can monitor your internet traffic, capturing any unencrypted data you send, including login details for your banking app or e-commerce sites.

Securing Your Digital Wallet

As financial transactions increasingly involve digital currencies and mobile payments, the digital wallet has become central to online security. Digital wallets  are described as software applications that securely store your payment information. They can hold everything from credit and debit card details to loyalty cards and digital currencies like Bitcoin or Ethereum. Many users wonder, are digital wallets safe ? The answer is that their security largely depends on the type of wallet and the user’s own practices.

There are two main types of wallets: hot wallets and cold wallets. Hot wallets are connected to the internet, offering convenience for frequent transactions. Cold wallets are offline hardware devices, providing a higher level of security for long-term storage. Given the importance of digital wallet security , it’s crucial to choose a reputable provider and enable all available security features.

As more activities move online, from everyday shopping to specialized entertainment platforms like no deposit bonus crypto casinos , protecting your digital assets becomes critical. Before engaging with any site that involves digital currency, making sure your wallet is secure is the first and most important step.

To enhance your digital wallet safety , always use a strong, unique password for the wallet itself and enable two-factor authentication. For cryptocurrency wallets, your private key or seed phrase is the most critical piece of information. Never store this information digitally where hackers could access it. Write it down and keep it in a secure physical location.

Blockchain and Data Integrity

Many digital currencies and some modern financial systems are built on blockchain technology, which offers unique security advantages. A blockchain is a distributed, immutable ledger. Think of it as a digital record book shared among a vast network of computers. This decentralized structure means there is no single point of failure. If one computer on the network is compromised, the ledger’s integrity remains intact because thousands of other copies exist.

The immutability of the blockchain is another key security feature. Once a transaction is recorded on the blockchain, it is cryptographically linked to the previous transaction, forming a chain. Altering a past transaction would require altering all subsequent blocks in the chain, an effort that is computationally impossible. This makes it extremely difficult for anyone to tamper with transaction records or commit fraud. This feature provides a high degree of data integrity, ensuring that records are accurate and trustworthy.

Furthermore, while transactions on a public blockchain are transparent and verifiable by anyone on the network, they are also pseudonymous. Transactions are tied to wallet addresses, which are strings of letters and numbers, not to personal identities. While it’s not complete anonymity, it does provide a layer of privacy that isn’t always present in traditional banking systems. This combination of decentralization, immutability, and transparency makes blockchain a powerful tool for securing digital financial interactions.

Best Practices for Online Safety

Beyond securing specific wallets or understanding blockchain, several universal best practices can significantly improve your overall online financial security. These habits should become part of your daily digital life.

• Use Strong and Unique Passwords:  Avoid using simple, easy-to-guess passwords like “123456” or “password.” A strong password should be long and include a mix of uppercase and lowercase letters, numbers, and symbols. More importantly, use a unique password for every single online account. A password manager can help you generate and store complex passwords securely.

• Enable Two-Factor Authentication (2FA):  2FA adds a crucial second layer of security to your accounts. Even if a criminal steals your password, they won’t be able to log in without the second factor, which is typically a code sent to your phone or generated by an authenticator app. Always enable 2FA on your email, banking, and social media accounts.

• Be Cautious on Public Wi-Fi:  Avoid conducting sensitive financial transactions when connected to public Wi-Fi networks. If you must use one, use a Virtual Private Network (VPN). A VPN encrypts your internet traffic, making it unreadable to anyone trying to snoop on the network.

• Keep Your Software Updated:  Software updates often contain critical security patches that fix vulnerabilities discovered by developers. Regularly update your computer’s operating system, web browser, and any other software you use, especially antivirus programs.

• Verify Website Security:  Before entering any personal or financial information on a website, check for “https” at the beginning of the URL and a padlock icon in the address bar. This indicates that the connection between your browser and the website is encrypted.

• Monitor Your Accounts Regularly:  Don’t wait for your monthly statement to arrive. Log in to your online banking and credit card accounts frequently to review recent transactions. The sooner you spot unauthorized activity, the easier it will be to resolve.

Adopting these practices creates multiple layers of defense, making it significantly harder for criminals to compromise your financial information. Security is not about a single solution but a combination of tools and vigilant habits.

Photo: Karola G via Pexels

CLICK HERE TO DONATE IN SUPPORT OF DCREPORT’S NONPROFIT MISSION

The post Digital Security: Protecting Your Online Financial Interactions appeared first on DCReport.org.

You knew it was coming. Yesterday, the U.S. shot missiles at two rocket launchers located on Larak Island, a small island sitting just off the coast of the much larger Qeshm Island just off the coast of Iran at the north end of the Strait of Hormuz.

Got that? They shot at two missile launchers that U.S. Central Command says were observed preparing to launch mines into the Strait of Hormuz. The U.S. has claimed that mines have been cleared from a route through the south end of the Strait. Larak, along with sections of Qeshm Island, are the closest pieces of land controlled by Iran to the route the U.S. has been using to escort civilian ships through the south side of the Strait.

It is unknown if the U.S. missiles hit their targets, but it is likely that they did. The U.S. would have probably used Tomahawk cruise missiles to hit the Iranian targets, as they are very accurate and very hard for anti-missile defenses to shoot down. If the U.S. Navy did shoot Tomahawks at the Iranian launchers, that’s at least two more of our severely depleted stock of cruise missiles that are gone.

Iran responded to the missile attack by firing several missiles at U.S. forces in Jordan. Central Command reported late today that the Iranian missiles were intercepted before they reached U.S. targets. Patriot missile interceptors are usually deployed to defend against Iranian ballistic missiles, so there went several more Patriots, the other kind of munition that we have severely depleted during Trump’s tit-for-tat war with Iran.

Iran has multiple underground factories which manufacture several models of medium-range ballistic missiles capable of hitting targets in Jordan: The Shahab 3, range 2,000 km; the Ghadr, range 2,000 km; the Sejjil-2, range 2,500 km; and the Khorramshahr, a powerful liquid-fueled rocket capable of carrying heavy warheads, range 3,000 km.

It is not known what sort of ballistic missiles Iran fired at U.S. targets in Jordan, but it is known that Iran’s stocks of offensive missiles were not seriously depleted during the initial phase of Trump’s war.

Iran, of course, knows everything about our depleted stocks of Tomahawk and Patriot missiles, because the actual numbers of both sorts of missiles remaining in U.S. stockpiles have been in the news over the past few weeks. It goes without saying that Iran knows exactly how many ballistic missiles are in their own stockpiles. Iran has full knowledge of our satellite intelligence capability. They know that every move made by their military is being watched 24-7. It would cost Iran almost nothing to put a couple of missile launchers on Karak Island and make a show of preparations, moving a bunch of soldiers around and then stashing them safely away and wait to be attacked. Knowing that their ballistic missiles would be intercepted, Iran could launch a few of its cheapest missiles at U.S. forces in Jordan in retaliation.

Then Iran could sit back and add up who wasted the most money on the most expensive-to-replace missiles.

Iran knows the arithmetic being done in Hegseth’s Pentagon: how many thousands of testosterone shots will be needed to put in the rear ends of how many over-30 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines whose tests come back wanting.

It is simply astounding to think that our country’s military leadership is falling for the simple tactics being used against them after six months of on-again off-again war. Iran knows who controls the Strait of Hormuz. They do. Today, fewer than 20 ships are transiting the Strait daily. Before the war, as many as 100 to 150 ships passed through the Strait each day carrying oil, fertilizer, liquid petroleum and other precious cargo.

Compared to what it is costing this country to maintain 50,000 ground troops in the Middle East and the naval blockade of Iran’s ports, it is costing Iran almost nothing to limit trade through the Strait of Hormuz to an expensive trickle. Donald Trump wanted a war against Iran. He got one. Iran’s larger strategy against Trump is to keep him guessing and the Strait of Hormuz largely shut down until the November elections.

Iran won the shooting war. Now they’re winning the political war on Donald Trump and the Republican Party whose loyalty to him is so unblinking, it will likely cost them the midterm elections.

Watch this space for news about more of our extraordinarily expensive missiles wasted on a war that Trump cannot bring to a satisfactory end.

Leave a comment

Share

Give a gift subscription

Less than a year after all the military’s generals and admirals were ordered to gather in Quantico, Virginia, where they heard speeches from both the Secretary of Defense and Donald Trump, the Wall Street Journal reports today that Pete Hegseth is once again considering issuing the same order, to the same generals and admirals, to return to a lecture room in Quantico for another speech. Last year, Hegseth’s speech was a chest-pounding tirade in which he told the generals there would be “no beardos” and “no dudes in dresses” and every service member would meet the same standards of physical training. The generals and admirals sat stone-faced as they listened to Hegseth’s tirade and a speech from Trump that was more typical of one of his rallies than it was an address to the nation’s top military leaders.

Last year’s speech to the senior officers and non-commissioned officers in the military was unprecedented. To order another such gathering for yet another speech in the space of about a year, right after Hegseth has fired several of the top generals in the Army and removed other senior officers from positions of leadership in the Navy and Air Force, isn’t just unprecedented, it’s unhinged.

The Wall Street Journal didn’t speculate on the reason Hegseth is considering gathering all the generals and admirals together for a second time in a year, so I will. Hegseth has lost the trust of the senior military leadership. During Trump’s utterly useless war on Iran, Hegseth ran through the military’s stockpiles of both offensive and defensive missiles to the point that stories are being leaked from the Pentagon that the U.S. doesn’t have enough Patriot anti-missile launchers to defend Europe from a missile attack by Russia or our allies in Asia from an attack by China or North Korea.

When the Pentagon starts leaking stories that involve major national security secrets like the weak status of munitions reserves, there is something very seriously wrong. Every time there are leaks like those we’ve been seeing out of the Pentagon, it means that things are even worse than we’re hearing. CIA Director Ratcliffe was sent to Moscow this week with the mission of warning Russia not to attack NATO countries. That story alone indicates two things: The U.S. has intelligence that Russia is considering such an attack, and we don’t have the kind of defensive arsenal to repel it.

Hegseth wouldn’t be considering ordering the generals and admirals to Quantico for another dressing down if he wasn’t panicked that he’s losing them. He has already reduced the number of four-star generals in the Army from 10 to five. He has made no announcements of replacements for those he fired, which indicates to me that he’s looking for generals whom he considers loyal to himself and Trump’s political agenda, and he’s not finding anyone.

The military simply doesn’t operate by the rules that Hegseth and Trump want. When you have to ask for loyalty and dedication to duty from someone in the military, you’ve already lost them. When you feel the need to threaten generals with dismissal, which is what Hegseth has done by firing so many senior generals, you’ve dug a hole you can’t get out of by issuing orders and more threats.

By the time an officer in the military service has reached the rank of general or admiral, he or she has spent most of their adult life in the service of this country. Generals and admirals are given the task of being in charge of thousands of people in uniform. An equivalent job in civilian life, when an executive reaches the top of the corporate ladder and is in charge of thousands of employees, pays in the millions, even the tens of millions of dollars. Generals and admirals earn less than $20,000 per month, with a maximum yearly salary of just over $200,000 per year. To put it plainly, they aren’t in it for the money.

It must frustrate Hegseth and Trump no end that they can’t offer money in return for loyalty. It just doesn’t work that way in the military. I can’t believe I’m having to write this sentence, but here it is: members of the military swear an oath to the Constitution, not to the Secretary of Defense and the President. Period.

Sure, there are some generals and admirals who could probably be described as MAGA followers of Trump. But there is a phrase to describe them in the military, and it is not a positive one. They are called “political generals” or “political admirals.” No self-respecting senior officer or non-commissioned officer in the military wants their compatriots to think of them as achieving rank by kissing political ass.

I think Hegseth has been casting around for “political generals” he can appoint to fill the slots he created with his recent firings, and he’s not finding any candidates worth serious consideration. Hegseth has hollowed out the top ranks of the services, and it’s starting to cost him. He and Trump want a military on their terms. Trump has ordered that new aircraft carriers be redesigned so they resemble those he remembers seeing in movies about World War II. Recent leaks from the Pentagon say that Trump’s obsession with ship design will cost the military tens of billions in additional money and produce ships that the Navy did not order and does not want. Hegseth just disbanded the only Army battalion dedicated to drone warfare because he’s obsessed with soldiers’ testosterone levels, not with the necessities of modern warfare.

The mere fact that Hegseth is even considering another lecture to the assembled generals and admirals tells them, and us, one thing. He’s scared shitless that he has already lost their respect.

He has lost it, and he’s not going to get it back by telling them to get their testosterone checked, especially not the women.

Give a gift subscription

Leave a comment

Share