Blog

Thune Just Called Bull on Trump’s Beef Deal

The Senate Majority Leader sides with ranchers over the president.

Well, I didn’t expect to see John Thune throw a punch at his own party’s president, but here we are.

The Senate Majority Leader just came out against Trump’s plan to flood the U.S. market with Argentine beef. Thune told reporters he thinks the deal undercuts American ranchers, which is a polite way of saying it’s a dumb idea that screws his voters.

You don’t usually see a Senate leader break ranks like this. Their job is to defend the president’s policies, not roast them. But South Dakota runs on cattle, and Thune’s constituents are already struggling with high feed and land costs. Letting in cheap Argentine beef would gut local producers. Farmers who once thought Trump had their backs are now realizing he’s shaking hands with their competition.

Trump’s framing this as a strategic play to counter China’s influence in South America. But ranchers aren’t thinking about geopolitics – they’re thinking about staying in business. They voted for “America First” and got “Argentina First” instead.

Thune’s pushback isn’t just about cows. It’s about survival. He’s signaling to farm-state Republicans that it’s okay to tell Trump no when his deals hit too close to home. Others from Nebraska, Iowa, and Kansas are reportedly just waiting for someone else to go first. Well, Thune went first.

This also exposes the core contradiction in Trump’s trade pitch. He built his brand on protecting American workers from foreign competition, then cut a deal that does the opposite. The White House’s claim that this will help consumers with lower prices won’t land in places where “cheaper beef” means “fewer ranchers.”

Agriculture groups are mobilizing, warning that Argentine beef doesn’t meet U.S. safety or quality standards. Whether that’s true or not doesn’t matter much – what matters is the politics. And the politics say Trump just handed Democrats a talking point in farm country.

So now Trump’s boxed in. Push the deal, and he alienates his own senators. Kill it, and he looks weak. Either way, Thune just cracked the door open on Republican dissent, and that’s something we haven’t seen in a while.

If you’re a cattle rancher, Thune’s your guy this week. If you’re Trump, you just got outflanked by your own majority leader.

Trump Killed Weather Disaster Database, Volunteers Revived It

The Trump administration quietly retired a federal database that tracked billion-dollar weather disasters back in May. The database, maintained by NOAA, documented the most expensive storms, floods, wildfires, and other climate-related events in U.S. history. It was a key tool for researchers, policymakers, and insurance companies trying to understand the growing costs of extreme weather.

Now the database is back, but not because the government brought it back. An independent group relaunched it outside the federal system using the same methodology NOAA developed. And the first update shows more than 100 billion dollars in disaster losses that occurred while the tracker was dark.

This is climate data suppression dressed up as bureaucratic housekeeping. The Trump administration claimed the database was being retired for technical reasons and promised a replacement. Five months later, no replacement appeared. Instead, the data simply vanished from public view.

The timing was suspicious from the start. Trump has spent years downplaying climate change and dismissing scientific warnings about worsening extreme weather. Killing a database that showed those warnings were accurate fits the pattern. If the data is inconvenient, get rid of the data.

NOAA’s Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters Database had tracked major events since 1980. It provided a clear picture of how disaster costs were escalating. The total reached over 2 trillion dollars before the database went offline, with costs accelerating sharply in recent years. That trend contradicted Trump’s repeated claims that climate concerns were overblown.

The independent relaunch came from a coalition of climate scientists and data analysts who refused to let the information stay buried. They obtained the historical data, applied NOAA’s methodology to recent events, and published the results. What they found was stunning.

More than 100 billion dollars in disaster losses occurred between May and October 2025 while the federal tracker was offline. That includes massive wildfires in California, severe flooding in the Midwest, and hurricane damage along the Gulf Coast. All of it would have been documented by the NOAA database if it still existed.

The losses are not just numbers on a spreadsheet. They represent destroyed homes, ruined businesses, displaced families, and communities that will take years to rebuild. The database existed to make those costs visible so policymakers could respond appropriately. Shutting it down did not stop the disasters, it just made them harder to track.

The administration never provided a coherent explanation for retiring the database. The official statement mentioned outdated technology and the need for modernization, but NOAA scientists said the system worked fine. It was regularly updated and widely used. The problem was not technical, it was political.

Suppressing climate data serves several purposes for the Trump administration. It makes it easier to roll back environmental regulations when the consequences are less visible. It helps fossil fuel industries avoid accountability for their role in worsening climate impacts. And it lets politicians deny the severity of the crisis without inconvenient facts getting in the way.

But data suppression only works if no one notices. The independent relaunch ensures the information remains public even without federal support. That is good for transparency, but it should not be necessary. Americans should not have to rely on volunteer scientists to track information the government is supposed to provide.

The 100 billion dollar figure is also likely an undercount. The independent group had to rely on insurance claims, news reports, and state-level data to reconstruct disaster costs. NOAA’s original database had access to federal resources and standardized reporting that made the numbers more accurate. Losing that infrastructure means losing precision.

Climate change is making extreme weather more frequent and more expensive. That is not a political opinion, it is observable reality. The costs show up in insurance premiums, federal disaster aid, and local budgets strained by repeated emergencies. Pretending those costs do not exist by hiding the data does not make them go away.

The relaunch also highlights how vulnerable federal climate research has become under Trump. If a president can simply shut down databases that document inconvenient facts, scientific integrity is at the mercy of whoever holds office. That sets a dangerous precedent for future administrations of any party.

NOAA employees were reportedly frustrated by the decision to retire the database but were overruled by political appointees. Career scientists understand the value of long-term data collection. Political leaders focused on short-term messaging do not care. The clash between science and politics is not new, but it is getting worse.

The independent group that relaunched the database has committed to maintaining it as long as necessary. That could mean years if the Trump administration refuses to restore the federal version. It also means relying on donated time and resources instead of stable government funding.

This is a ridiculous way to track a national crisis. Weather disasters are not partisan. They hit red states and blue states. They cost taxpayers billions in federal aid regardless of who is president. Having accurate data should be basic governance, not a political football.

But here we are. A volunteer effort is doing the job the federal government abandoned because the data was politically inconvenient. That tells you everything you need to know about how seriously the Trump administration takes climate change.

The 100 billion dollar figure will keep growing as more disasters hit and the costs compound. At some point, the numbers will be too large to ignore even for the most determined deniers. But until then, we are left piecing together information that should be readily available from official sources.

If you think tracking weather disasters should not require a volunteer rescue mission, that is a reasonable position. If you think the government should not suppress data because it contradicts the president’s preferred narrative, that is also reasonable. But reasonable is not the world we are living in right now.

Coast Guard Gets Luxury Jets While Troops Work Without Pay

Noem signs $200 million contract for private aircraft during shutdown

The government may have run out of money for paychecks but somehow found $200 million for private jets.

While Coast Guard crews are working without pay through the third week of the shutdown, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem just approved a sole-source contract for two Gulfstream G700s – luxury aircraft normally reserved for billionaires and Bond villains. Her signature is on it. No competitive bids, no emergency justification. Just a “need” for nicer wings.

Democrats in the House sent her a letter reminding her that she personally approves every DHS contract over $100,000. They also noted she’s one of the primary users of these planes. So this wasn’t some autopilot procurement mix-up – it was a choice. A $200 million choice made while Coast Guard families are visiting food banks.

The Coast Guard’s mission doesn’t stop when budgets do. Forty-two thousand service members are still out there saving lives, interdicting smugglers, and guarding ports – all without paychecks. Meanwhile, the Secretary of Homeland Security apparently decided the department’s biggest operational gap was “insufficient legroom.”

Gulfstream G700s are top-of-the-line luxury jets – leather seating, onboard suites, full entertainment systems. DHS already owns aircraft suitable for official travel. This was about comfort and optics, not capability.

Noem has built her brand around fiscal restraint and “supporting the front lines.” Yet here we are: frontline workers unpaid, leadership airborne in a $200 million contradiction. The same administration insisting we can’t afford federal salaries somehow found the cash for luxury interiors.

Noem calls this shutdown a stand for “responsible spending.” If this is responsibility, I’d hate to see indulgence.

How to Read Me

I’ve been meaning to write this post for 6 months. Better late than never I guess. Of course, only a small percentage of you will even see it – but whatever.

Here’s a thought experiment for you.

I’ve noticed many times over the years – some people read my comments as defensive or insulting when I’m really just being dry and unbothered.

The reason is simple misinterpretation.

I read an article a long time ago about how psychologists have found that the way your parents spoke to you can become your inner voice – that little narrator in your head that processes everything you read and hear. If you grew up with defensive or accusatory parents, that’s probably how you’re reading most things, including my comments. These attitudes get embedded in your earliest childhood experiences and stick with you into adulthood.

Now – while your inner voice is programmed, it can also be reprogrammed – through awareness or just life experience – knowingly or unknowingly. Just like some people take on their parents’ religion without question, others can out right reject it.

Anyway, often when I write something straightforward – no emotion, no agenda, just stating facts – some people’s brains automatically add a defensive or aggressive tone that isn’t there. They’re filling in the blanks with their own assumptions and feelings. It’s like they’re reading everything through a filter installed decades ago.

Research shows that people think others understand their messages about 90 percent of the time, but the actual number is closer to 50 percent. That’s a massive gap. And without tone, facial expressions, or body language, text communication forces people to project their own emotional state onto whatever they’re reading.

I’ve struggled with understanding this many times over the years – as you probably have too – thinking that you have communicated something so clearly and then being shocked when someone misinterprets you.

Here’s the thing – my comments should be read in the tone of Daria Morgendorffer – from the 90s Daria cartoon.

Daria observes absurdity and hypocrisy in a completely flat, monotone delivery. She’s not trying to be mean – she’s just calling out what’s ridiculous about a situation. Zero emotion. Just observation with a side of sardonic commentary. That’s my natural state in text.

But some people read me like I’m Kathy Griffin – loud, aggressive, confrontational. When really I’m just… there. Existing. Saying words. Pointing out contradictions. Being direct.

And people often confuse directness with meanness. I don’t do the whole sandwich method of criticism where you say something nice, slip in the real point, then say something nice again to soften the blow. I just say the thing. If someone asks a question, I answer it. If someone’s wrong about something, I correct it. There’s no malice in that – it’s just efficient communication.

This style is usually only a problem for women. People expect us to be “nice” and nurturing, like the whole world is our child. But I communicate with other adults like they are adults. And that may because since I do not have any children (by choice) – I’ve never had to code switch.

That being said – when people communicate with me in a kind and respectful way – I tend to mirror that back.

People tend to assume the worst when the intent of communication isn’t clear, which is probably an evolutionary thing. Our brains still have that negative bias that once alerted our ancestors to potential dangers, and now it just makes us read “OK” as passive-aggressive.

Fun Fact: People who know me in real life have been calling me Daria-like for years. Whether that’s because I actually have that personality or because I absorbed it from working on the same floor as the Daria team at MTV in the late 90s when I was in my 20s – who knows. Probably both.

The RATC character is literally designed to be the anti-Curtis Yarvin. I saw this ridiculous photoshoot where he was wearing a moto biker jacket trying to look edgy, so I put her in one too. The heart sunglasses also serve a specific purpose – they signal that there’s love behind everything I say. Because in the end, I do want the best for everyone.

When I worked with musicians, I’d often have to remind clients that if they thought I was being too critical, it was only because I wanted them to succeed. I respected them enough to be honest with them instead of blowing smoke up their ass. Same principle applies here.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

But don’t get me wrong – to be clear – I don’t care if people disagree with me.

Disagreement is fine. Debate is fine. What gets old is when people come in hot and antagonizing, or when they take a simple factual statement and somehow turn it into a personal attack in their heads. And I admit I sometimes do this too, but honestly, I don’t even mind being insulted as long as you can take it as well as you give it. That’s just fair play.

Anyway, this whole misinterpretation thing is worth thinking about.

Next time you read something and feel yourself getting defensive or offended, ask yourself if the words actually say what you think they say, or if you’re hearing them in a voice that isn’t there. Maybe you’re reading them in your mom’s disappointed tone or your dad’s critical voice, when really they were just written by some person who types the same way they’d order coffee – direct, no frills, moving on with their day.

The point isn’t that I’m being misunderstood and everyone needs to adjust for me. The point is that we’re all walking around projecting our childhood baggage onto neutral text all day long, and maybe – just maybe – we should all take a breath before assuming someone’s being a jerk when they’re really just being… dry.

Okay – good talk.

Protests Don’t Win Overnight, They Build the System That Does

No Kings rallies are recruiting grounds, not final battles

I’ve seen a lot of people say that the No Kings Protest really didn’t move the needle, and they don’t see what the point is.

And they’re right to say marches alone rarely change policy. I’ll say it plainly: rallies do not reopen a shuttered government. They do not flip a single vote in Congress overnight. They are not a shortcut to ending authoritarian moves.

But that is exactly why they matter. Protests are the recruiting ground, not the final battle. They convert passive resentment into active participation. They teach people how to organize permits, marshals, speakers, and media. They build local networks that can register voters, staff campaigns, pressure elected officials, and sustain boycotts or strikes if things get worse. That’s the slow, boring work that actually shifts power.

If you think the arc of democratic defense bends on a single march, you misunderstand how movements work. If you think the last step looks like a march, you’re missing all the other steps. The last step – the one that would seriously force an authoritarian pivot – only becomes thinkable after years of escalating civic engagement, institution-building, and yes, anger that ran out of legal and electoral channels. I am not going to map out those steps. I will not sketch plans to overthrow anything. That is illegal and reckless, and I would NEVER do such a thing.

So I accept the critique: showing up is insufficient. But I also accept the other truth: showing up is necessary.

Each protest is recruitment and rehearsal. Each one widens the pipeline from outrage to action. The people who show up today learn how to do the harder, less photogenic labor tomorrow. And the more who flow into that pipeline, the harder it becomes for an authoritarian push to succeed without encountering organized resistance.

Call the marches symbolic. Fine. Symbols are also scaffolding. If those scaffolds swell into durable institutions, then meaningful pressure follows. If they evaporate, so does the chance to stop something far worse. Which is why I keep showing up and asking how we make the next step less likely to be a last resort.

The Impact of COVID-19 on IQ and Its Potential Influence on Political Decisions Among the Unvaccinated

COVID doesn’t just attack your lungs – it rewires your brain. Oxford researchers found survivors lost up to 10 IQ points – like aging seven years overnight. For the unvaccinated making political choices with diminished cognitive capacity – it’s like navigating a complex chess game while missing critical pieces.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Read More

Trillions Down the Drain and Lives Torn Apart: Trump’s Ukraine-Russia Stance Pisses on America’s Sacrifice

For generations, the United States has been the world’s self-appointed hall monitor. It has spent trillions of dollars. Military bases have been scattered like confetti. The Pentagon counts 750 in 80 countries, all to keep the playground bullies in line. Why? To stand against aggressors who think “might makes right” is a foreign policy. It’s not some noble crusade. It’s survival. Since World War II, we’ve given blood and sweat. We’ve spent about $30 trillion on defense since 2000 (thanks, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute). This was to stop Nazis, Soviets, and every other tin-pot dictator from turning the world into their personal fiefdom. And it’s cost us way more than money.

Think about the toll – over 400,000 American lives lost in World War II, 36,000 in Korea, 58,000 in Vietnam, and 7,000-plus in the post-9/11 wars, according to official counts. That’s not just numbers. That’s kids who never came home, parents who spent years staring at empty chairs, and spouses who got a flag instead of a hug. Soldiers missed birthdays, first steps, and Christmases, deployed to dusty hellholes or frozen outposts, all so some jerk with a tank wouldn’t redraw the map. Then there’s the veterans. Millions came back broken, haunted by PTSD, missing limbs, or fighting VA red tape for decades. The Department of Veterans Affairs says 20 vets die by suicide daily, a gut-punch reminder that the war doesn’t end when the shooting stops. Families crumbled under the strain, kids grew up with ghosts for parents, and communities patched themselves together while the brass counted medals. All of that happened just to keep the world from sliding into chaos.

Now here comes Donald Trump, strutting in like a reality TV reject, ready to piss all over it with his Ukraine-Russia nonsense. Putin, the border-ignoring poster boy, snags Crimea in 2014 and invaded Ukraine full-tilt in 2022. So, we stepped up with $175 billion in aid (Council on Foreign Relations tally) and NATO muscle to keep Putin from turning Eastern Europe into his nostalgia project. This wasn’t a handout. It’s strategy. Let Russia win, and it’s not just Ukraine’s funeral. It’s a domino effect. Poland, the Baltics, whoever’s next on Putin’s list could follow, and suddenly we’re back in a world where every thug with a missile calls the shots. Deterrence costs less than cleanup. Ask the ghosts of the Cold War.

But Trump? He’s picking fights with our allies, kicking the President of Ukraine out of the White House, and fawning over Putin like a groupie. He’s muttering about letting Russia “do whatever the hell they want.” Trump acts like NATO must pay up like it’s his casino’s protection money. This isn’t him “putting America First.” It’s him spitting on every American who died, every family that shattered, every vet who still wakes up screaming. We’ve spent decades and trillions. Brown University pegs $6.4 trillion on the “War on Terror” alone, building a global web to stop this exact kind of power grab. Trump’s acting like it’s all a big “who cares,” unraveling the sacrifices of people who gave everything because they believed in democracy and that we shouldn’t bow down to bullies. Now, he, and by proxy we, ARE the bully.

Let’s make it really simple for the “America First” geniuses: Russia taking Ukraine isn’t some far-off soap opera. It’s a breadbasket, energy leverage, and a new NATO border that’ll cost us more lives and dollars later. That’s way more than arming Ukraine now. Strategy’s about stopping the fire before it hits your house, not shrugging while it burns. Trump’s too busy polishing Putin’s boots to see that. He’s not just clueless. He’s a middle finger to every soldier who fought, every family that grieved, every vet who suffered long after the guns went quiet. All that pain, all that loss, happened just for him to play dealmaker with a dictator. What a guy.

Voter Suppression Law Blocked by 9th Circuit Court

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals just dealt a blow to Arizona’s voter laws. They ruled against provisions requiring documentary proof of citizenship for presidential elections. The three-judge panel didn’t mince words, calling these measures “unlawful voter suppression.” Like a Pavement song that seemed straightforward until you really listened to the lyrics, this ruling has layers beneath its surface.

Arizona Republican leaders aren’t taking this lying down. State Senate President Warren Peterson is already eyeing the Supreme Court while asking the Justice Department to back off.

The 9th Circuit also criticized the district court for claiming one of the laws wasn’t meant to discriminate. They remanded that decision for a second look, which is basically judicial speak for “try again.”

Both laws – HB 2492 and HB 2243 – came from former Governor Doug Ducey’s desk in 2022. The official line was preventing noncitizen voting – a problem about as common as a two-dollar bill. HB 2492 demanded citizenship proof for presidential elections even from people using the federal registration form that doesn’t require it. HB 2243 told county officials to cancel registrations if there was any hint someone might not be a citizen.

The Biden administration, DNC, and voting rights groups sued immediately. A district court blocked the laws during the 2022 midterms. The Supreme Court partially stepped in, allowing some requirements for new voters while the case continued.

The fight isn’t over – but for now, the 9th Circuit is keeping these measures blocked.

The 88 County Problem: Comparing Nixon, Reagan, and Trump’s Election Numbers

In U.S. presidential history, landslide victories are rare but unforgettable. Richard Nixon in 1972 and Ronald Reagan in 1984 didn’t just win – they dominated, and these Republicans flipped A LOT of counties to their respective party – but their opponents still were able to flip some to theirs. Fast forward to 2024, and this election has an anomaly that sticks out like a sore thumb: Trump flipped 88 counties from blue to red, while Kamala Harris flipped zero from red to blue. What are the odds?

Read More