More on the Trump/Zelensky/Vance blowup

The New Neo Posted on by

This is such a big story at the moment that I thought I’d start another thread for it. I’m still basically angry at all three parties, and continue to think that once it got going the much better thing to do would have been to call an end to the photo-op and go behind closed doors to try to iron it out. That way, whatever angry words were said would not be irrevocable because they would not be public, and taking them back wouldn’t be as difficult because it wouldn’t be seen as a public sign of weakness.

I also think that this goes back a ways. The genesis for Trump’s recent previous blowup at Zelensky – that he “started” the war and is a “dictator,” was sparked by the following, according to Rubio. Please watch; it’s only two minutes long. This interview with Rubio occurred about a week ago, and in it Rubio correctly states what the issues were then and what they still are now. When you look back on it you can see how prescient Rubio was about what happened today:

Here’s one take on the “who started it” question:

For those who aren’t on X, here’s a transcript (minus the videos, though):

If you watch the full Trump-Zelensky press conference, it is very clear that Zelensky, not Trump or Vance, became the antagonist. Both POTUS and VP were very respectful and cordial until Zelensky very publicly ignited a firestorm.

It all starts at 40:30

1) Zelensky essentially rejects how VP described the mandate of POTUS to conduct foreign affairs, and he insinuates that Trump term one did nothing to stop Putin.

2) He then basically tells Vance that his ideas are faulty and that the administration’s diplomacy won’t work.

These two comments are *deliberately antagonistic.* Everything was all well and good, but Zelensky took two major shots in a public forum, and they had to respond. And respond they did.

Recall, this is the guy who interfered in our electoral politics and called VP “too radical,” and bashed Trump in an interview with New York Mag weeks before the election.

Zelensky is ENTIRELY at fault here. 100%.

Here’s a similar breakdown of the breakdown:

Here my observations on Z’s comments/mindsets:
1. Z says in the first 2 minutes, “No concessions to Putin, he is a killer, a terrorist.”
2. He does not shake his head “yes” when T is talking about getting a deal done as he does when T praises soldiers and UK people.
3. It starts to get dicey when Z says Europe gave as much as US at 12:18.
4. Z starts to be antagonistic at 24:00 when he says that Putin broke ceasefire while T was president.
5. Z says “this document…will not stop Putin” at 26:30 and that Putin, since he started the war, needs to pay for it. (Doesn’t this undermine the whole basis of the negotiation?)
6. “You have big nice ocean, yes…but Putin does not want to stop….your soldiers will fight” at about 32:00.
7. At 40:00 “Nobody stopped him (when T was president)…We signed a ceasefire and Putin still invaded. So, what kind of diplomacy are you talking about (to JD)…Z says “you have the ocean but you will feel it…you will influence.” And, then it all goes to hell and Z continues to interrupt and T loses it…all goes to shit. …

Based on Z’s comments, tone of voice, and posture (crossed arms, etc.), I think Z had already decided not to accept the deal. His argument seems to be, it doesn’t matter our current (weak) negotiating position, Russia/Putin is a killer and we want enough money from EU and US affect “defeat” of Russia (which I guess means R out of Crimea and Donbas). I think this is why T thinks Z is not ready for peace. It’s sad.

Personally, I think Russia invading Ukraine at all was terrible, but T can’t rewrite history and end the killing. He can only work with the current situation and get a negotiated peace where, like in any negotiation, no one comes away with everything they want.

This may indeed be a correct interpretation. But it’s not the way half of America – and the MSM, and Europe – will see it. Whatever Zelensky said, Trump and Vance should have kept their anger under check and gone behind closed doors, as I already staated. Not everything has to be transparent and public. On the other hand, there’s plenty of reason to wonder about Zelensky and his motives. He can’t be trusted.

The IDF issues its report on how and why Israel failed to prepare for 10/7

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s a summary. An excerpt:

The investigations found that the State of Israel, including both political and defense echelons, believed or carried out the following, due to their perception of Gaza:

Over the past decades, Israel considered the threats from Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon to be the priority, while the Gaza Strip was secondary. …

Israel chose to “manage the conflict” with Hamas, to create long periods of quiet, under the false presumption that the terror group was uninterested in a large-scale war. There were no plans to conquer the Gaza Strip in a war, and there were no plans to reach a full diplomatic agreement with the terror group either, but rather return to normalcy after periodic escalation. Israel believed that leveraging improved civil conditions in Gaza would make Hamas less likely to launch a war. …

The threat of a surprise and wide-scale attack from Gaza was not perceived as realistic by the IDF, due to a major gap in Israel’s understanding of Hamas. The IDF believed Hamas to be a limited threat, in the event of it responding to incidents, rather than taking initiative. …

The most significant threat from the Gaza Strip, as seen by the IDF at the time, was rocket fire. At the same time, Hamas’s invasion capability was seen by the military as very limited, due to Israel’s advanced border fence and the false belief that the IDF had successfully destroyed significant elements of the terror group’s tunnel networks in the 2021 Gaza War. …

Israel’s fence on the border with the Gaza Strip was not intended to prevent a large-scale invasion, but to handle rioting on the border, and delay or disrupt limited infiltration attacks. …

Israel’s perceptions of Gaza were “rooted and deep.” Over the years there were no meaningful attempts to question the perceptions, and no proper investigation was held to think “Where are we [doing] wrong?”

I think a big part of the problem was also that Hamas was dissembling, and Israel was taken in due to wishful thinking.

Working on Gerard’s poetry book leads me to thinking about Emily Dickinson’s editors

The New Neo Posted on by

Let’s step away from politics for a moment.

Lately I’ve been working hard on Gerard’s poetry book. I’ve discovered that editing poetry is different than editing essays – in some ways easier and in some ways more difficult. And of course I can’t ask Gerard for help, although it might be a novel idea to go to a medium with the question: “In this particular poem of yours, did you mean to leave out the period at the end? Poetic license and all that?”

So I just have to wing it. Emily Dickinson’s editors had the same questions, I’m sure, and the very first efforts at editing her work sparked has since sparked controversy:

The poems published then were usually edited significantly to fit conventional poetic rules. Her poems were unique for her era; they contain short lines, typically lack titles, and often use slant rhyme as well as unconventional capitalization and punctuation. Many of her poems deal with themes of death and immortality (two recurring topics in letters to her friends), aesthetics, society, nature, and spirituality.

Although Dickinson’s acquaintances were most likely aware of her writing, it was not until after she died in 1886 – when Lavinia, Dickinson’s younger sister, discovered her cache of poems — that her work became public. Her first published collection of poetry was made in 1890 by her personal acquaintances Thomas Wentworth Higginson and Mabel Loomis Todd, though they heavily edited the content.

Gerard led a life so different from Dickinson’s as to be almost its polar opposite. And he certainly didn’t write 1800 poems, as she did; I don’t envy her editors that task. But his themes also are primarily (although not entirely) death and immortality, nature, and spirituality.

When he and I talked about poetry, Gerard often said he admired Dickinson. And I discover, as I delve more deeply into his work, that sometimes in his shorter poems I see distant echoes.

I also had to decide, as with the essay book, whether to include photos. Gerard loved the visuals and when he published poems or essays on his blog they always included beautiful photos. I can’t use the same photos for various reasons, so if I use photos in the book I must either use my own, or photos available without copyright. So it would be easier, and the book could be sold more cheaply, if I left out the photos. But I find that, without them, the work just doesn’t look like Gerard’s. The poems look like they’re missing something.

So now I’m working on the visuals to match the poems. My guess is that the book will be available for sale in a month or two. Whether there will be as many takers as there were for the essay book I really don’t know; what do you think?

Trump and Zelensky: tactics or tantrums, or both?

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: I’ve published a new post on the subject here]

I’ll start by saying that I really hate the sort of thing that happened today on the Trump/Zelensky front, and I’m tired of the roller coaster of clashing personalities and agendas. My feelings about it are of no special relevance to anyone but me, but they certainly get in the way of my writing about the topic. I’d rather turn away, but I won’t. However, it makes it hard to evaluate and understand – and I don’t think I’m alone in that. As is so often the case, people interpret this according to their previous positions: those who love Trump and hate Zelensky – and that seems to be a common combination on the right – say Yay Trump! Stick it to that little worm! And those who despise Trump and like Zelensky (or who merely despise Trump) say that Trump just showed that he has a temperament unfit for public office and that he’s been Putin’s puppet all along.

As for me, I’m not sure whether this is some sort of tactical jockeying for position that will end up being a tempest in a teapot, sort of like watching a WWE match, or whether it signals an irreparable breakdown in negotiations for peace. And I don’t feel I can trust anyone to say, unless I find an objective observer. I was thinking perhaps of Victor Davis Hanson, but I can’t find anything from him on the topic yet.

So I’ll just go with this commenter at Instapundit for now, who seems to come closest to my initial view of the blowup:

Whoever is advising Zelensky about the US, or Zelensky himself, just doesn’t understand Trump or US opinion. Mistake one was at the campaign event for Harris at the ammo factory. The other was today. He can push on Trump in private, but not in public.

Today Zelensky just needed to say this on camera: “Mr. President, thank you for inviting me here for talks. On behalf of the Ukrainian people, we are most thankful for all the help the US has provided over the years, and we look forward to discussing your ideas for peace.”

Save the rest for in private, and then deflect any reporter questions until the cameras are off.

Yes. Apparently the reason the cameras were rolling is that this was supposed to basically be a photo-op. What started the explosion? It’s hard to know from the coverage so far. Here’s Ace:

The summit got off to a bad start when Trump said of Zelenskyy, “Oh you got all dressed up today.”

Vance also pointed out that Zelenskyy went on a partisan political campaign in America, trying to get Biden and Democrats elected.

Things took a turn when Zelenskyy attempted to embarrass Trump and “re-litigate” his demands for unlimited US funding “in front of the media.” Then Trump and Vance began shutting him down.

Video here. Must watch. It starts out like a normal meeting, but then Zelenskyy starts doing what he always does, making demands on people like he’s Greta Fucking Thunberg.

Trump ultimately tells Zelenskyy that the US is out of Ukraine, one way or the other, so Zelenskyy can either begin negotiating or get ready to “fight it out” against Russia on his own.

How did this go wrong? Let me count the ways, and it’s by no means an exclusive count. Let’s just say that, IMHO, there’s plenty of blame to go around. I would much rather have had a bland photo-op from everyone, and leave the fireworks for backstage, because once huge egos are publicly involved it’s hard to repair the damage.

The following comment, which I also found at Instapundit, is way too optimistic in my opinion. But I really hope I’m wrong and this person is right:

Trump seems to be doing two things here:

1. Knocking down Zelensky’s sense that he can expect additional help from the US just for the asking. I’ve been sympathetic to Zelensky’s position of having to shamelessly ask for huge amounts of resources, just because the leader of a country in Ukraine’s position has to do that for their own defense. However, he has definitely come off as ungrateful. Trump has made it clear that he has no problem cutting Ukraine off if American interests aren’t being served. This will force Zelensky to take a more rational view of the situation than he has had to so far – and at the same time, any additional aid that Trump decides should go to them will be very clearly a gift rather than anything owed to them.

2. He’s putting daylight between the US and Ukrainian governments. This sort of blow-up will be loved by Russian media, and will be widely broadcast to the Russian public. Even if Putin sees it as theater, it will make the average Russian more willing to trust Trump as mediator rather than as a co-belligerent against them.

I guess we’ll see.

ADDENDUM: This is very surprising to me. I didn’t expect Lindsey Graham to defend Trump.

The Epstein files

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve long been curious about the so-called Epstein files. Most people seem to think that the list of names will be a list of perpetrators in the sexual abuse of minors. But I’ve never understood why they believe that, although it’s certainly true that some of those names may be of guilty people. But in terms of criminal evidence, what would the list mean? I’ve never seen a definitive description, perhaps because most people don’t know and are merely imagining.

Epstein was, among other things, a man who liked to sexually abuse underage girls in their teens, as far as I can tell. I don’t think there’s much doubt about that. But did he procure such women for others? And if so, who were those others who were also guilty of the sexual abuse of minors? Epstein also was a very rich man who was a major Democratic donor and had an enormous number of contacts and acquaintances. Those people almost undoubtedly would make up the bulk of those on his contacts list, I’ve always assumed.

Now the list – or some portion of the list – has dropped:

A source who has reviewed the files said the release spans more than 100 pages, including a list of contacts without further context.

The person said the unveiling was likely to be a “disappointment” to sleuths eager for bombshell new evidence about the billionaire pedophile’s connection to prominent political and business leaders.

It’s called “Phase 1.” Will there be a Phase 2? And what will that reveal? More names without context?

Reactions:

The limited scope of the release drew criticism from transparency advocates including Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), who leads a House GOP task force on government transparency. …

“THIS IS NOT WHAT WE OR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ASKED FOR and a complete disappointment. GET US THE INFORMATION WE ASKED FOR!”

Just what is that information? A list of guilty parties? I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that the government doesn’t have such a list, there’s only a list of contacts and flight logs and that sort of thing. Guilt by association, which isn’t guilt enough – although the public will infer guilt.

If the authorities do have better evidence than that, the proper way to deal with it is to prosecute.

You might believe that is naive of me and that obviously tons of smoking-gun evidence is being covered up. But I just don’t think so. Of course, I could be wrong. But until I see something that changes my mind, my best guess is that such a list says nothing about guilt and that the government lacks good enough evidence to prosecute. You might ask, what of the videos? As far as I can tell, Epstein made videos of himself having sex with minors. But I”ve never read anything about videos of others having sex with minors, other than speculation that such videos exist.

NOTE: Bondi seems to think the FBI is covering something up. But I think that perhaps Bondi just doesn’t want to look like Geraldo Rivera opening Al Capone’s vaults.

ADDENDUM: In response to some comments in this thread –

I thought I made my point of view quite clear. But perhaps not clear enough. So I’ll try a clarification.

Epstein was a sexual abuser of many underage women. I am not disputing that at all. And I am also NOT saying there couldn’t once have existed evidence that implicated others in some sort of sex ring run by Epstein, one that exploited underage women, with the evidence having been destroyed at some point. In fact, if there was such evidence and especially if it implicated powerful people, it probably would have been destroyed.

However, I think it’s wrong to assume either that there were such other people for whom Epstein was procuring underage women, and/or that strong evidence of their guilt existed, and in particular that anyone on an Epstein contact list was guilty simply by virtue of being on that list.

Regarding Epstein and whether there were other men involved – I understand that many human beings are guilty of very dark doings. I don’t think I’m the least bit naive about that. But I also believe that many such people are quite secretive about their crimes and do not necessarily like to spread the word around, and I think Epstein may have been of the latter variety. There are plenty of other reasons all those people might have associated with him short of engaging in sex with underage girls. He may also have been a voyeur who liked to spy on people with hidden cameras when they were his guests. But again, that doesn’t mean he procured underage girls for them. Just that he himself was guilty of sex crimes.

The evidence that Epstein procured girls for other powerful men rests solely – so far at least, as far as I can tell – on the testimony of a couple of the women years later as part of civil lawsuits they filed for money. I am not a proponent of the idea that women don’t ever lie about such things, especially where there’s notoriety and money involved.

It gets rather complicated, but one of the main people on whom this perception of Epstein shopping young women around for other rich and/or famous men rests is a woman named Virginia Giuffre. You can read about her here and in particular about her accusations against Alan Dershowitz here. Read about her here also. Note that in the latter article she says, “When you are abused, you know your abuser. I might not have my dates right, I might not have my times right… but I know their faces and I know what they’ve done to me.” And yet later, regarding her allegations that she had sex with Dershowitz six times, she said maybe her accusations against him were a case of mistaken identity. Oopsies!

I have come to my own conclusions about her veracity, and you can come to yours.

Actor Gene Hackman dies at 95

The New Neo Posted on by

Usually when a 95-year-old dies, it’s obviously of natural causes. In Hackman’s case the cause is unknown and is being investigated, because his 63-year old wife and one of his dogs were also found dead. Foul play? Some sort of accident, like carbon monoxide? Suicide?

We don’t know.

Hackman was an actor of great talent and believability in the roles he took on. I first saw him in Bonnie and Clyde, the film that made him famous – I use the word “famous” because I’m not sure he was ever a “star,” certainly not in the usual leading-man sense.

This was the scene when Hackman was found:

“Foul play is not suspected as a factor in those deaths,” the spokesperson said, though an exact cause has not been determined, and the sheriff’s office is investigating. …

Deputies did not see signs of forced entry into the Sante Fe, New Mexico, residence, and the front door was open upon their arrival, according to a search warrant. The Santa Fe City Fire Department, working with the New Mexico Gas Co., did not find evidence of a carbon monoxide leak or poisoning.

Hackman and [his wife] Arakawa were found in separate rooms. The actor was found in a mudroom near his cane, appearing to have fallen, while his wife was found in an open bathroom near a space heater, with an open prescription bottle and pills scattered on the nearby countertop, according to the warrant. …

One of the couple’s German shepherds was also found dead less than 15 feet from Arakawa in a closet, while their other two dogs were found alive in the bathroom near Arakawa and outside.

I can think of several scenarios – including, for example, an accidental death for Hackman and suicide for the wife after sequestering the dogs. But I certainly don’t know, and testing will take many many weeks.

I don’t want the sad ending to eclipse the life of achievement Hackman had. So I’ll let him have the last word on that:

RIP.

The art of the Ukraine minerals deal

The New Neo Posted on by

Well, well, well:

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy are set to sign a landmark mineral deal Friday that represents a breakthrough in their relationship, but leaves the work of hashing out the financial details for a later date.

“This is in some ways an agreement to make an agreement,” said Doug Klain, policy analyst at Razom for Ukraine. …

Unlike an earlier iteration of the deal, the newest version, approved by the Ukrainian Cabinet on Wednesday, establishes a fund with joint U.S.-Ukraine ownership instead of 100% U.S. ownership.

Ukraine’s Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal said Wednesday Ukraine would be funneling half of its revenues from future oil, gas and mineral projects into the fund, with some of that money being reinvested for more development. The deal would exclude existing natural resources projects. …

The U.S. initially demanded Ukraine offer $500 billion worth of its rare earths and other minerals as back payment for about $185 billion in aid. The latest versions of the deal do not include a concrete figure for how much of the mineral revenues the U.S. would receive or the size of the stake the U.S. would hold in the fund.

At a Wednesday news conference, Zelenskyy still said his country would not be repaying the U.S. for any of the aid that has already been allocated. …

“Perhaps U.S. companies will be contracted to do all the work of extraction, and could make big profits that way; perhaps the U.S. government would award itself an annual sum from the fund; or perhaps there would be a stipulation that U.S. companies could purchase the minerals at discounted rates,” explained Peter Harris, a political science professor at Colorado State and fellow at restraint-minded group Defense Priorities.

But rare earth mining is a long and arduous process.

Unspecified so far is just what security the US will put up to defend its interests, but Trump says it won’t be troops. He keeps saying it’s mostly Europe’s responsibility and that European nations – Ukraine’s much closer neightbors – must step up to the plate.

One thing that concerns me – and no doubt it concerns Zelensky and many others – is the lability of US foreign policy ever since Obama and perhaps ever since George W. Bush. Back and forth, back and forth we’ve gone – with a pendulum that seems to swing more widely than before, for the most part.

Will this deal really go through? I think it will. Can I say what the ultimate terms will be? Absolutely not. But I do think – as I’ve indicated before – that Trump has something in mind for Ukraine that represents a middle ground: the giving up of some territory, a promise (and not an empty one, I hope) of future security, and some economic benefit for the US and ultimately, Ukraine. If he could accomplish all that it would be deal-making wizardry – far from perfection but better than any other result I could realistically foresee in this war.

Roundup

The New Neo Posted on by

(1) The House passes a budget resolution along party lines with one holdout, Massie:

… [A]fter a hard-fought battle, Speaker Mike Johnson secured the win thanks to a crucial boost from President Donald Trump. This victory paves the way for Republicans to advance Trump’s “big, beautiful bill,” which includes $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and $2 trillion in spending reductions over the next decade.

(2) Alarming article about surgical training these days:

One of my colleagues heads a surgical residency at an elite medical institution and has served as his certifying board’s examiner for nearly 20 years, overseeing the certification of young surgeons. He has noted two changes during this period. First, many candidates for certification complete their surgeries slowly—taking, for example, seven hours to complete an operation that should take at most four. The problem is so widespread that some insurers have put a cap on anesthesia reimbursement for cases that take too long, even though it is the surgeon, not the anesthesiologist, who determines the duration of the procedure.

Second, and relatedly, my colleague noted a rise in patients’ post-operative complications. This makes sense, since operating time is one of the determinants of surgical-complication rates. Additionally, he lamented that too many training programs fail to give residents adequate surgical experience. This has several potential causes: there may be too many residency positions for the available cases; some programs allow residents to list procedures that they merely observe as part of their surgical experience; and work hours for doctors in training have been reduced, giving them less time to learn.

Another reason why the quality of surgeons and of surgery has declined: DEI in our medical and educational institutions. I have spoken to program directors in residency programs who say that they are afraid to correct, hold back, or drop underperforming minority trainees for fear of being reprimanded, accused of bias, or even losing their jobs.

(3) The same left that cared not one whit who was running the show during the Biden administration – or that he skipped a whole year between meetings and then brought wife Jill to one – is upset that Musk has attended a Cabinet meeting.

(4) Jeff Bezos issued a new directive for the WaPo:

We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets.

(5) Here’s an article trying to explain Mangione’s continuing popularity:

His fans embraced him as “our shooter.” The media made him a symbol of American rage towards a system that denies basic treatments with an eye toward the bottom line. Former Washington Post and New York Times reporter Taylor Lorenz defended the celebrations of Thompson’s murder, writing that in a nation with “a barbaric healthcare system,” where “the people at the top…rake in millions while inflicting pain, suffering, and death on millions of innocent people,” “it’s natural to wish” that people like Brian Thompson “suffer the same fate.”

So, one reason is leftist propaganda about health care insurance as a right that should not be handled by a nefarious capitalist system. Fine, folks; go to the UK and experience their government healthcare system and see how much you like it. Pay particular attention to what’s covered there and what’s denied. And while you’re at it, interview Canadians crossing the border into the US in order to get healthcare here.

I also believe the author fails to sufficiently emphasize what I think is actually the most important element of all, although a shallow one: Mangione’s looks.

The Bibas family is laid to rest

The New Neo Posted on by

The Bibas family – mother Shiri, baby Kfir, toddler Ariel, and father Yarden – have become symbols of all the Israelis who have suffered at the hands of Gazans since October 7th or in all the violence that preceded it. Today the murdered mother and children are being laid to rest in a single casket, and Israel and much of the world mourns:

“They will remain together and close, just as Shiri enveloped the children, always, including on that accursed day,” said Carmit Palty Katzir, who acted as MC at the funeral.

She was referring to a haunting video clip of traumatized Shiri, clutching her boys to her chest, as a mob of terrorists dragged them from their home. The images became symbolic of the horror of the attack and seared their fate into the national conscience.

Yarden Bibas, Shiri’s husband and the boys’ father, was released from captivity only a few weeks ago. He eulogized his family eloquently. I was going to quote his speech, but I decided I didn’t want to excerpt it; please just go there and read the whole thing.

RIP. RIP. RIP.

I don’t want to overuse the word “heartbreaking,” but here’s an article about how a 5-year-old friend of Ariel’s has been struggling to deal with the disappearance, and then the murder of, his good friend friend. The child’s mother tells the story:

“My husband was holding the photo of Ariel Bibas,” Avital remembered. “Yoav, my 5-year-old son, saw the photo and said to him, ‘He isn’t my friend anymore. He’s dead,’ and then fell asleep on the couch. He couldn’t contain all the pain, as we all broke down in tears.”

She went on, “After it was all over, he looked at me in the dining room and screamed through tears, ‘Ariel isn’t dead!! He’s not dead, Mom, he’s alive, he’s in his room, and you just don’t know what the room number is!’”

Democrats for waste and fraud

The New Neo Posted on by

As far back as I can remember, people considered the federal government wasteful and inefficient when it wasn’t being actively intrusive and confiscatory, as well as subject to fraud and corruption. It was the sort of thing just about everyone knew, but most people shrugged it off for the most part because it was deemed an inevitable and inherent part of government.

Over the years it appeared to get worse. Democrats seemed to want more and more people dependent on the federal government, and although Republicans paid lip service to wanting to cut back, it rarely if ever happened. One reason was lack of will and energy to change things. Another was that many politicians benefited personally from the situation. Another was that, as the federal government grew larger, the task of “fixing” it – whatever that would look like – seemed insurmountable.

When Trump ran on a platform of “draining the swamp” in his first term, not all that much draining took place. He was just getting his feet wet in the swampy mud and laboriously learning how to walk there without getting sucked down by quicksand. Under constant attack, it took a great deal of his rather considerable energy merely to keep going.

I’m not sure what you expected in his second term, but I expected just a bit more swamp-draining and some mild reforms. But so far, we’re getting a lot more, and at a lightning clip. I think most people are gobsmacked at the pace and scope of what’s been happening. The left and most Democrats are horrified. The right is blinking in disbelief and wonder, and for the most part (with some caveats) stunned delight.

It also strikes me that years ago, before the widespread use of computers to keep records – governmental and otherwise – sweeping reform would have been even more difficult because getting the information would have been more labor-intensive. Now, though – well, you know what’s been going on with DOGE. Or with things like Tulsi Gabbard’s firing of the 100 intelligence workers who were discussing, on company time, the finer points of their sexual kinks. That certainly wouldn’t have been possible without a computer trail. Despite that evidence, those workers felt insulated from any consequences for their actions, and until now it made perfect sense to think so.

Maybe this won’t continue. Maybe the courts will stop it; there certainly will be plenty of courtroom challenges. But it’s an extraordinary effort which has uncovered not just the expected waste and fraud – probably greater in scope than most people would have thought, but nevertheless along the expected lines – but also the fact that, through USAID in particular, the taxpayers were footing the bill for a host of leftist projects and even appearing to fund some terrorists (see this).

The upshot is that the Democrats have to take the position of defending – or denying – fraud and waste in government. I don’t think most people are sympathetic to that argument. So Democrats are also emphasizing the plight of the laid-off. But when government workers fight ordinary standards of accountability and act as though their jobs are entitlements, they don’t engender much goodwill, either.