More Wednesday Male Beauty

 

Trump 2.0: Mistaking Cruelty and Brutality for Strength

One of the hallmarks of the Felon's second regime is the zeal with which gratuitous cruelty is visited on those disliked by the Felon and/or his principal henchmen and henchwomen. Be it the horrible treatment of mostly brown-skinned undocumented immigrants, the use of the National Guard to intimidate citizens and immigrants alike, or most gruesomely the murder of those on alleged "drug boats" when no documented proof of guilt or actual drug running has yet to be provided.  Part of this cavalcade of cruelty may stem from the Felon's desire to be a strongman/dictator like Vladimir Putin and others while part seemingly stems from the racial hatred of the all too visible white supremacists within the regime. Yet more of this embrace of cruelty, in my view, arises from the Christofascists within the regime and the MAGA base who thrill at seeing their perceived enemies suffer harm like some of the brutality found in the Old Testament (these people are anything but true followers of Christ).  The problem for the Felon and his regime is that a majority of Americans have not walked away from basic morality and view the regime's cruelty and brutality with revulsion. Hence the Felon and his regime's resistance to releasing the unedited video of the second strike against two hapless men struggling in the water and clinging to wreckage after their boat was destroyed by a drone strike.  As a piece in The Atlantic lays out, this confusion of cruelty and brutality for strength has American allies ceasing intelligence sharing and much of the public even less supportive of the Felon's regime:

In the late 19th century, the British explorer Henry Morton Stanley set out on what he believed would be his greatest achievement: the Emin Pasha Relief Expedition. He imagined himself crossing Africa, rescuing an isolated provincial governor, and returning home to the applause of a grateful empire.

The expedition he led, however, was anything but noble. Stanley’s caravan pillaged some villages for food, burned others that resisted, and killed many Africans who resisted his advance. Disease and starvation claimed many of his own porters. What he saw as necessary resolve looked, even to some of his contemporaries, like something far more troubling.

When Stanley published In Darkest Africa, in 1890, he recounted these episodes with a confidence that now seems astonishing. He assumed the British public, which had initially welcomed him home to great acclaim, would admire his firmness. Instead, they recoiled at his brutality.

Those who had once celebrated imperial adventure now saw needless killing and a man who appeared unmoved by the suffering he caused. Stanley had mistaken brutality for strength, and the public recognition of his error marked the beginning of his fall from national hero to cautionary tale.

I thought about this history as new information emerged about the Trump administration’s campaign of boat strikes in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. Under this program, small vessels suspected of carrying drugs were hit with military-grade munitions, often without any attempt to detain or even warn those aboard. In at least one case, the strikes didn’t end when the boat was destroyed. Survivors adrift on the wreckage in open water were killed in a second attack, a “double tap” designed to finish the job.

During my 18 years in the House and Senate, I sat through countless briefings on when and how lethal force could be used. Later, as ambassador to Turkey, I saw how closely the world watches when we choose to honor those limits—or choose not to do so. That perspective makes these boat strikes impossible to wave off as routine. They reflect choices that fall well outside the standards we have long claimed to uphold.

The administration has resisted releasing full video of these incidents, citing national security. But the more plausible concern is political and moral. It knows what the public reaction would be. Americans have strong feelings about drug trafficking, but few believe that killing people as they attempt to stay alive in the ocean fits within the bounds of justifiable force. Once confronted with the footage, most Americans would question not only the legality of the operation but the instinct behind it.

This is the thread that links President Donald Trump to Stanley. Both believed their missions were righteous enough to justify whatever means were employed. Both assumed that the public, deep down, would admire their toughness. But democracies have never fully embraced that logic. Citizens can support firm action while still holding on to their humanity. Death inflicted on the helpless is never an act of strength; it is what remains when strength forgets its purpose.

That recognition seems to exist even among some in the administration. The reluctance to release the footage suggests an awareness of the moral intuition that they fear the public will follow. Americans may disagree on many things, but they still distinguish between necessary force and needless killing.

Stanley misread the public of his time. He thought it would see heroism where it saw cruelty. The question now is whether our own leaders are making the same mistake.

The public deserves the chance to judge for itself. Release the video, Mr. President.

Wednesday Morning Male Beauty

 

More Tuesday Male Beauty

 

Is the MAGA Coalition Beginning to Fray?

The elections last month and this past week's special election in Tennessee suggest that perhaps - if the nation is lucky - the MAGA coalition may be beginning to unravel.  The GOP losses in Virginia were steep in part because the Republican ticket had a horrible standard barer and the GOP wins four years early were, in my view, a fluke. Youngkin ran a slick and deeply deceptive campaign while his Democrat opponent made serious missteps and statements that were very damaging to Democrat prospects.  But the GOP losses across the rest country are not so easily explained away, by allegations of poor candidates merely a return to more normal voting patterns, particularly in red states and historically Republican districts and county legislative bodies. Indeed, while all races have their local issue components, the overarching issue was the Felon's regime and policies that have not improved so-called "affordability" - supposedly a major concern in 2024 by those voting for the Felon - and in many ways that are outright harming many working class and other voters in red states. As a piece in the New York Time notes, both voters and Republican office holders may be awakening to the reality that the Felon is toxic to their lives and finances or political viability as applicable.  One can only hope more Americans wake up to the need to be rid of the Felon.  Here are column highlights:

It hasn’t happened much in my life, but last Tuesday night a place I know very well was at the center of national attention. The bright red congressional district where I lived until this summer delivered a sharp warning to the Republican Party.

I’m speaking about the special election results in Tennessee’s Seventh Congressional District, a mostly suburban and rural district that includes parts of Nashville. The Republican candidate, Matt Van Epps, defeated his Democratic opponent, Aftyn Behn, by just under nine points.

In some places, a nine-point Republican margin is considered a resounding victory. But not in Tennessee 7. . . . This is not a swing district or one that Democrats expect to win this side of the apocalypse.

But for a few days in October, it seemed like the end was nigh. I’d been hearing rumors that Republicans were starting to worry about the race, and a poll taken between Nov. 22 and Nov. 24 showed Van Epps leading by only two points. . . . That it was close at all was stunning, not least because Behn is hardly an ideological match for one of the most conservative districts in Tennessee. She’s been labeled — and not as a gesture of love and respect — the “A.O.C. of Tennessee.”

So, no, this race was not what it looks like when Democrats strategically nominate someone who will appeal to Tennessee Republicans. This is what it looks like when your coalition is coming apart at the seams.

The end of the Trump era is coming into view, and too much attention is focused on what Republicans think of Trump and too little is focused on what Republicans think of one another.

Last Monday the Manhattan Institute released the results of a poll of nearly 3,000 voters that was designed to identify the ideology and beliefs of the American right. What it found was fascinating — and almost exactly mirrors my personal experience living in a deep-red district in a deep-red state. . . . “Roughly two-thirds of the coalition are what we call ‘Core Republicans’: longstanding G.O.P. voters who have pulled the Republican lever for years. They are consistently conservative on economics, foreign policy and social issues. They still prefer cutting spending to raising taxes, still see China as a threat, still support Israel, and remain firmly opposed to D.E.I. and gender ideology.”

And what about the rest? Roughly 30 percent are what the Manhattan Institute terms “New Entrant Republicans.” They are more diverse, younger and “more likely to have voted for Democratic candidates in the recent past.” . . . But there’s more to the New Entrant Republicans than diversity and ideological moderation. Again, here’s Arm: “Many of them have also absorbed the ugliest content sloshing around online. One-third of New Entrant Republicans believe in all or most of the six conspiracy theories we tested — including about vaccines, 9/11 and the moon landing — compared with just 11 percent of Core Republicans. Sixty-three percent of that highest-conspiracy group previously voted for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden.”

You can see the culture clash with your own eyes in the Seventh District. I lived in Williamson County, a prosperous suburban region just south of Nashville, and in the years since the pandemic, we made national news for multiple Republican intramural fights.

There was the time when a gang of far-right, anti-mask activists gathered around a small group of proponents of masking in public schools, shouting “We know who you are” and “We will find you.” Then, a local Moms for Liberty chapter tried to ban the book “Ruby Bridges Goes to School: My True Story,” among others, from the elementary school curriculum — claiming that the book violated Tennessee’s ban on teaching critical race theory.

Each of these disputes has created enmity between the different factions. And that enmity isn’t just rooted in ideological differences; it’s rooted in mutual resentment. Establishment Republicans resent the extremism and cruelty of the new right, and the new right is furious that the establishment — the Core Republicans — is not sufficiently radicalized.

In fact, the new right is often angrier at traditional conservatives than it is at the left. . . . The depth of these Republican divisions has been obscured by two things: shared affection for Trump and shared revulsion at the left. But Trump is no longer on the ballot, and there is increased alarm over the new right. Those two factors are working together to shrink the Republican tent, and in the Seventh District we watched the tent shrink right in the middle of the Republican heartland.

Core Republicans may like Trump, but they have much less affection for MAGA ideology or MAGA political figures not named Trump. As a result, they’re far more willing to take on figures like Pete Hegseth and Kash Patel. They’re certainly more willing to take on the likes of Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes.

MAGA took the ferocity and extremism and dialed it up. Now there are actual fans of Adolf Hitler in the new right universe, and explicit antisemitism and ethnonationalism is all over right-wing social media.

It’s a common human failing that it’s often hard to see extremism as a problem when extremists aim their fire outside the tent. But when the fire is aimed inside — at you — it becomes impossible to ignore.

If the internal Republican clashes are helping to push people out of the party, it’s still incumbent on Democrats to try to pull wavering Republicans and swing voters in. I don’t know if a more moderate Democrat could have won last week . . . . . but it’s worth noting that Behn’s 13-point blue swing has been the smallest among special elections and primaries thus far. Every other blue shift was between 16 and 28 points.

If a number close to 13 is the minimum swing for Democrats, then the consequences could be devastating for the Republican Party, and no amount of gerrymandering will save it. In fact, if present trends continue (and, of course, much can change between now and November 2026), it could backfire substantially.

In other words, if you’ve been doing nothing but shedding support since Trump was sworn in, and if the Democrats work to win over decent Republicans who are repulsed by what their party has become, then the gerrymandering party may be reminded of one of Solomon’s most memorable proverbs: “Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.”

Tuesday Morning Male Beauty

 

Monday Morning Male Beauty

 

More Sunday Male Beauty

 

The Impending Health Care Premium Crisis

The wrongly labeled "big beautiful bill" passed by the Republican controlled Congress and signed into law by the Felon provides massive tax cuts for the very wealthy, adds three trillion to the federal deficit, and slashes funding for programs that aid working Americans and the poor.  The funding slashes include reductions in funding for SNAP, cuts to Medicaid and ending subsidies for insurance premiums under the Affordable Care Act ("ACA") that will cause premiums to more than double for tens of millions of Americans.  These draconian cuts are part and parcel of the Republican Party's reverse Robin Hood agenda and goal of ushering in a new Gilded Age where the few have immense wealth while the rest of us struggle to survive, trying to pay down debts while faced with ever rising costs.  America remains the only advanced nation without some form of universal health care system and based on numerous studies, Americans pay more for health care than if we had a universal coverage system (even on Medicare, the husband and I together pay around $2,000/month, even as we continue to pay into the system  through payroll deductions). If nothing is done by Congress and the Felon, come January 1, 2026, many of those reliant on federal premium subsidies for ACA coverage will have to make the choice of losing coverage or having major damage done to their monthly budgets.  Sadly, most Republicans seemingly could care less.  A piece at The Atlantic looks at this looming nightmare which will hit residents of states like Florida particularly hard.  Here are excerpts:

Catalina Jaramillo is beginning to envision what her life in South Florida will look like without the financial help that allows her to afford health insurance, medication, and treatment for a series of ailments. Jaramillo has been insured through the Affordable Care Act since being diagnosed with acute kidney disease in 2022, when she was 39. Expanded subsidies help her afford the coverage—and they will expire at the end of the year unless Congress extends them. Jaramillo told me she has little doubt that her life would begin to unravel without them. Her monthly health-insurance premium would more than double, and the treatment she depends on to manage her vulnerable kidneys and other health issues would become prohibitively expensive. “I’m terrified. I’m kind of like a deer in the headlights,” she said.

The problem for Jaramillo—and for the 22 million other Americans who receive the ACA subsidies in question—is that policy makers in Congress and at the White House also can’t figure out what to do. They’ve been immobilized on the issue for months, consumed by indecision and infighting that led to a record-long government shutdown. There’s a growing feeling that not much of anything will happen before the year runs out, which would lead to massive premium hikes for most people on ACA plans.

A Senate committee convened on Wednesday to find solutions; Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican, opened the hearing by asking his colleagues “not to yell at each other” and emphasized the importance of remaining focused on the fast-approaching deadline. . . . . His words had little effect. Senators traded accusations and insults just as freely as proposals with little to no chance of becoming law. Republicans spent two hours cycling through a list of gripes with the ACA, highlighting familiar critiques of its rising cost, alleged fraud, and burdensome regulations. . . . . The hearing came to a close with no consensus. Democrats continued to call for subsidies to be extended, and Republicans maintained that doing so would be wasting money on a flawed system.

Senator Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, was one of the few lawmakers to break from his party, arguing for a sense of urgency as the deadline nears. “If Congress does not take action on this issue in the next few weeks, this will be a crisis for 24 million Americans,” he said, citing the total number of people on ACA plans. “We are looking at a massive crisis unless Congress acts, and acts soon.”

Democrats in the House and Senate have coalesced around a three-year extension of the subsidies that would put off massive premium hikes until after the 2028 presidential election. The proposal has little Republican support. . . . . “Republicans have one week to pick a side—join us and prevent premiums from skyrocketing, or block our bill and condemn the American people to financial disaster,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said yesterday.

But prospects of creating a bipartisan proposal that could clear a 60-vote majority in the Senate and win widespread support among House Republicans seem further away today than when the government shut down for 43 days. The shutdown was not successful in Democrats’ aim of getting Republicans to agree to extend the subsidies, but it served to publicize the implications of letting them expire.

The stakes are significant: Premiums for the 22 million affected Americans would increase by 114 percent on average, according to KFF, a nonprofit health-policy-research organization. As a result, the Congressional Budget Office projects, the population of uninsured people would rise by more than 2 million next year, and the number would increase to 3.7 million the following year. The fallout could extend beyond the people who lose insurance; costs may also increase for those who remain on ACA plans.

Trump, who earlier this week described Democrats’ focus on affordability as a “con job,” appears prepared to allow the subsidies to expire at the end of the year. . . . . Trump has instead focused on lowering prescription-drug costs and addressing what he believes is rampant waste, fraud, and abuse in the health-care industry.

Democrats say the White House’s disengagement on this issue will only help their party sharpen what has become a potent message about the cost of living—an issue the party believes helped propel it to victories in last month’s elections. “We’re going to have the health-care debate in full view of the American public, and they’re going to see who’s standing up for them on affordability and who’s not,” Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, a Democrat, told me.

Jaramillo, a Trump supporter who has spent most of her life voting Republican, said that her health-care predicament—and broader struggles with everyday expenses—has left her support for the party “wavering.” In a KFF poll released yesterday, 52 percent of ACA enrollees who are registered to vote said that if their health-care costs spike, it will have a “major impact” on which party they will support in next year’s midterm elections. Almost two-thirds of respondents enrolled under the ACA said they would blame Trump or Republicans in Congress for any large increases.

Florida, which Trump carried by 13 points in the 2024 election, is likely to be hit especially hard. No other state has more people participating in ACA exchanges, and enrollment there has more than doubled since 2020, to 4.7 million. The large majority of Floridians on the exchanges receive subsidies. Because of the state’s tourism-focused economy, many of the people who rely on the health-care exchanges are working full-time, Scott Darius, the executive director of the health-advocacy organization Florida Voices for Health, told me. He said that he began hearing from angry and fearful residents last month as they received notices of steep premium increases that are set to take hold in January.

[P]art of the reason the original subsidies were so limited is that the White House at the time wanted the law to be deficit-neutral. He pointed to the tax law that Republicans passed earlier this year, which is projected to add more than $3 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. By contrast, extending the enhanced subsidies for 10 years would cost about $350 billion.

“For one-tenth of what Trump just spent on tax cuts to the rich, we can have 10 years of guaranteeing people affordable health insurance in America,” Gruber said. “Why shouldn’t we do that?” A disproportionate number of those people live in areas that voted heavily for Trump, and West Virginia, Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi have had some of the fastest-growing populations of ACA enrollees over the past five years. . . . “Congress really should avoid jerking people around with their finances,” he said. “I think that’s a very serious argument against simply letting them expire.”

But as the new year arrives, we may be about to find out what happens to America’s economy, politics, and psyche when millions of people suddenly lose a benefit they have come to rely on.

Sunday Morning Male Beauty