Stupid Is As Stupid Does

How Trump’s Vulgar, Criminal Easter Threat Enriches Iran

Juan Cole 04/06/2026

Ann Arbor (Informed Comment) – On Easter Sunday, God’s chosen in the White House issued a vulgar and unbalanced posting on his “Truth Social” that epitomizes the insanity of his Iran War. Attending to it closely will help us understand how Trump has strengthened the government of the Islamic Republic and put it in control of global energy. Trump fondly imagines that he can dislodge Iran from this new ascendancy, but he is wrong, since it depends on sabotage, a sabotage that cannot be policed.

Piers Morgan

@piersmorgan·

This is embarrassing, Delete it, President ⁦@realDonaldTrump⁩ – unless you want everyone to think you’ve lost your marbles.

The foul language and clear mental imbalance visible in this announcement sparked a further round of calls for Trump’s removal under Article 25 of the Constitution, which is nothing more than an internet meme since Trump has surrounded himself on his cabinet with people even more certifiable than he is, and who wouldn’t dare move against him.

Trump, having imbibed whatever substance it is that makes him manic, announced that “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!!”

He is repeating a threat he made previously, to bomb Iran’s civilian electricity-generating plants as well as its civilian bridges.

Iran has 98 major power plants fueled by fossil gas, which generate 85% of the country’s electricity. The largest, the Damavand power plant south of the capital, Tehran, has a generating capacity of over 2.8 gigawatts.

One of Iran’s power plants is nuclear, at Bushehr. If Trump or Israel bombs it, the consequent radiation pollution will deeply harm the Arab Gulf states, not only through airborne particles but also by contaminating sea water, which is drawn on by the region’s desalinization plants. This exposure to radiation would certainly increase cancer risk in the region. There are mountains between Bushehr and the Iranian interior, so the radioactive particles would be blown west toward other countries such as the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Striking civilian power plants, and above all nuclear ones, endangers the noncombatant population of children, women and unarmed men and violates International Humanitarian Law.

In fact, the International Criminal Court in the Hague issued “warrants of arrest for two individuals, Mr Sergei Kuzhugetovich Shoigu and Mr Valery Vasilyevich Gerasimov, in the context of the situation in Ukraine for alleged international crimes . . .” on June 24, 2024. They were indicted for “for the war crime of directing attacks at civilian objects (article 8(2)(b)(ii) of the Rome Statute) and the war crime of causing excessive incidental harm to civilians or damage to civilian objects (article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the Rome Statute), and the crime against humanity of inhumane acts under article 7(1)(k) of the Rome Statute.”

Among the “civilian objects” that these Russian officials ordered attacked in Ukraine were power plants and structures such as the Kryukovsky Bridge.

So Trump is talking like a war criminal, which tells you why he has placed sanctions on International Criminal Court judges.

Trump already struck the unfinished B1 bridge linking Tehran to Karaj. Since it was not finished, it could not possibly have had a military purpose, contrary to the lies of the lying liars in the Trump administration who gave that as the excuse for hitting it.

Trump continued, “Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell– JUST WATCH!

It is not clear how a body of water such as a strait could copulate. However, it can engender revenue, and does so for Iran. A lot of revenue.

Iran has not actually closed the Strait of Hormuz entirely. It is exporting its own petroleum through that narrow aperture, mainly to China. Trump has been forced by the global oil shortage to lift sanctions on the Iranian tankers, and so Iran is also selling again to India. Before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rushed Trump into war on Iran on February 28, Iran was exporting about 1.4 million barrels a day to China. The price of petroleum was about $67 a barrel then, but Iran had to offer a steep discount to offset American sanctions, and so was probably only getting $57 or less a barrel. So Iran was getting something like $29 billion a year for its petroleum from China and a few other customers (90% goes to China).

China is now likely having to pay $110 a barrel for Iranian petroleum.

Iran’s oil income just went up to $55 billion a year if these prices and this volume of trade persists, which is plausible. So the “crazy bastards” in charge of Iran have nearly doubled their income off the Netanyahu-Trump war because of the fertility, under their control, of the “fuckin’ Strait.” The Iranian oil industry is state-owned, so all the money goes to the clerics and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, as well as to the conventional army and the elected institutions, the parliament and president. This extra income helps the government tamp down resistance, strengthening it against civil society. In any case, many Iranians under foreign attack are rallying around the flag. Of course there are also tax losses from the economic disruption of the war, but the vastly increased oil income helps make up for them as far as the government is concerned. If the price of oil goes to $200 a barrel, as it may well, Iran’s government could get $100 billion a year for its petroleum.

Not only that, but Iran has instituted a toll system, wherein countries that have good relations with Iran and pay a fee can transit the Strait without fear of an Iranian drone attack. In contrast, countries that Iran believes contribute to the American war effort against Tehran such as the Emirates and Kuwait, are blockaded by the threat of such strikes. These tolls could be an ongoing and lucrative source of income for the government. Before the war, 138 ships transited the Strait daily. If that traffic resumes but each has to pay Iran a $2 million toll, that would bring in $96 billion a year, i.e. four times what Iran was getting for its petroleum before the war.

So here’s the thing. With the advent of Iran’s Shahed drones, which can be manufactured inexpensively and of which it has tens and thousands, there is no way for anyone, including Trump and the US military, to stop Iran from sabotaging ships that won’t pay the $2 million. At least, I don’t see how it could be done. You’d need tens of thousands of interceptors, and we hardly have any left. Moreover, interceptors cost $1.5 million apiece, so it makes much more sense to allow each ship to pay Iran the $2 million.

Container ship in Strait of Hormuz. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Indra Beaufort).Public Domain. Via Picryl .

Trump has shown Iran how it can go into the protection business in the Gulf for the long term. Nice oil shipping industry you have here, it would be a shame if anything happened to it. And off that, Iran actually increases its GDP substantially.

If Trump takes out Iran’s electricity and bridges, he can interfere with its economy and its society in a big way. But he can’t stop the drones or the protection racket that way. Moreover, Iran has made it clear that its response will be to take out the power plants in the Gulf Arab states as well as in Israel. Since the US and Israel are running low on interceptors, and since even small Shahed drones have great range and can do a lot of damage, Iran’s threat is credible.

If Trump takes out Iran’s petroleum-production capability, Iran will crash oil production in the Gulf, taking 20 million barrels a day off the market for years to come. That would certainly be another Great Depression and likely would spell the end of the oil industry, since everyone in the world would migrate to electric vehicles quickly.

So although Trump meant the phrase ironically and blasphemously, the Iranian authorities may well end up saying “Praise be to Allah” over Trump’s monumental stupidity.

https://www.juancole.com/2026/04/trumps-vulgar-criminal.html

From The “MUTTS” Blog:

Helping Pets and People When the World Feels Uncertain

There are many ways in which the world feels uncertain, and with every news update, we ask ourselves questions: What role do we play? How can we help? We know many readers turn to Mooch and Earl for a daily dose of comfort and joy. Recently, someone told us MUTTS is their “place to go for a warm hug each day.” Will raising a particular issue interrupt that sense of refuge that readers value here?

Not long ago, we received a letter from a reader named Tyla. With her permission, we’re sharing part of it below.

“With recent ICE raids impacting Minneapolis and communities across the country, some families are being separated very suddenly, and in many cases this has meant pets are left without caregivers. Animal shelters and rescues have shared that they’re seeing more animals being taken in or surrendered unexpectedly, and in some situations, people have stepped in to foster or adopt pets whose families were detained.

“The health and well-being of both people and animals isn’t always part of the conversation when issues like this come up, even though both are affected. Animals, especially, rely entirely on their families for care and stability, and sudden disruptions can be very hard on them.

“I was wondering if this is something the [MUTTS] team might feel comfortable acknowledging this, specifically from the perspective of how animals are affected.

“I understand this is a sensitive and complicated topic … I also know that many readers, including myself, turn to MUTTS as an escape from the real world, and I truly respect that. I just wanted to offer this suggestion thoughtfully, since when people are affected in situations like these, animals are often affected too, and their needs can easily be overlooked.”

Tyla’s letter moved us. We’d been thinking about this, too. We started drafting a blog post based on one specific concern: What happens to pets when their families are detained or deported? We were discussing this internally, and considering ways to help, when the scope widened. The news headlines, unfortunately, have not slowed down.

The world feels increasingly uncertain, but one thing we know for sure is that pets depend on the humans who love them. They don’t understand geopolitics or political parties. And the truth is, preparing for any unexpected event — from a natural disaster to a family emergency or something else — is an act of love and responsibility.

At MUTTS, we believe in compassion for all creatures. With that spirit, here are practical ways we can all help our human and animal neighbors.

If You’re a Pet Parent: Plan Ahead

Choose a backup caregiver. Identify a trusted friend, neighbor, or family member who could step in temporarily if you can’t be home. Make sure they’re willing and understand what would be involved. Share basic care information in advance so nothing is left to guesswork. If you’re comfortable with it, you may even want to give them a spare key to your home (or tell them where one is hidden).
Keep identification current. Ensure your pet’s tags and microchip records are up to date. Consider listing a secondary contact (such as your backup caregiver) on file with your vet.
Prepare a small “just in case” kit. Put together a bag with essentials: medications, vaccination records, feeding instructions, favorite comforts like a blanket or toy, and a short written profile of your pet’s personality and needs. Think of it as something you’d want ready in any unexpected situation.

If you currently need assistance caring for your pet, know that there are many community resources around the country that may be able to help. You can start your search with PetHelpFinder.org, which allows you to search for pet pantries, affordable veterinary services, and other resources in your area. You might also contact your local animal shelter for guidance. Many shelters offer community assistance — and even if yours does not, it’s very possible they can help point you in the right direction.

If You Want to Help In Your Community

Volunteer at a local shelter. Many animal shelters are already stretched thin, and shelters across the country are receiving pets whose guardians were detained or unexpectedly displaced. Time, donations, and supplies all help.
Consider fostering. This is an incredibly impactful way to help pets in your community, especially right now. Fostering gives an animal stability during a time of upheaval. In some cases, it provides time and space for an eventual reunion with their family. It also helps shelters by freeing up room so they can care for more animals.
Offer to be a backup pet caregiver for friends, family, or neighbors. You don’t need a specific reason to make this offer. You can simply say you’ve been thinking about family preparedness and realized how comforting it would be to know someone nearby could step in for your own pet if needed. Sometimes people hesitate to ask for help, and by offering proactively (and gently), you can remove that barrier and replace it with reassurance.
Create or strengthen local support networks. If your area doesn’t have a pet food pantry, consider starting one. Offer to deliver pet food or walk dogs for families facing temporary hardship. Some communities have organized quiet grocery or supply deliveries for neighbors who are unable to leave home. No pet should go hungry because their family is going through a difficult time.

Build Real Connections In Your Community

This may sound simple, but it really matters. Support systems don’t appear overnight. They grow from familiarity and trust. If you don’t already have a close-knit community, consider planting the first seed. For example:

Start a “take one, leave one” table or box. This could include books, baked goods, even extra apples or herbs from plants in your own yard.
Bring back front-yard or porch time. Read or drink your coffee outside. Smile and wave at anyone who passes. This invites casual conversation without any pressure.
Check on neighbors during extreme weather. A quick knock before a storm or heat wave can go a long way.

Remember that when communities feel connected, pets are safer too.

Share Your Ideas to Help Pets and People

If you have ideas we haven’t mentioned, we would love to hear them. In the spirit of MUTTS, we ask that comments remain friendly and constructive, aimed at helping animals and strengthening compassion. That’s something we can all stand behind.

— Ali Datko

This Week, From Joyce Vance

The Week Ahead

Joyce Vance

The president of the United States greeted the country with this Truth Social post about his intentions in Iran on Easter Sunday: “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell – JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP

No one seems to have got so far into the post as to notice that he said “Praise be to Allah,” which he would most certainly say was a jest, if asked. But imagine Joe Biden, or worse still, Barack Obama, saying that “in jest” and how Republicans would have responded. Trump is completely off the rails and Republicans are turning a blind eye, pretending it’s not happening.

Earlier this week, Trump’s “spiritual advisor” Paula White-Cain compared him to Jesus. Trump, too, was “betrayed and arrested and falsely accused,” she said. No one in the Republican Party seems to have believed they need to strenuously resist that characterization.

And so, we enter the new week with an unstable president at the helm in wartime. Meanwhile, at home, there are plenty of issues mounting. But Trump seems to have largely gotten away with knocking his connection to Jeffrey Epstein and allegations about his personal conduct off the front burner.

Laura Loomer is influencing policy changes at DOJ

After Trump fired Attorney General Pam Bondi, there appears to be another significant personnel change in the works at DOJ, this one inspired at least in part by Laura Loomer’s dislike of the number three official at DOJ, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward. Trump appears to be on the verge of replacing him with the current Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, Harmeet Dhillon, who has upended its work and overseen a mass exodus of career personnel.

Woodward was the defense lawyer for one of Trump’s co-defendants in the Mar-a-Lago case, Walt Nauta. His client hung in there with Trump, instead of flipping and offering testimony against him in exchange for a deal. That worked out well for Nauta, but only because Trump won the election. Most lawyers acting in the client’s best interests in that type of situation would have worked toward a plea. Lost in the plot from that case was the conflict of interest Woodward had that could easily have kept him from representing Nauta and might have resulted in another lawyer voluntarily stepping aside. Woodward had previously represented one of the witnesses who decided to cooperate with the prosecution after receiving advice from a lawyer who wasn’t connected to other defendants. Judge Cannon permitted Woodward to represent Nauta despite that conflict, after Nauta waived it. Woodward has also represented White House adviser Peter Navarro, who was prosecuted for obstructing Congress when he ignored a subpoena from the January 6 committee, FBI Director Kash Patel when he testified before a grand jury about Trump’s retention of classified documents, and one of the defendants in the Oath Keepers prosecution.

All that to say, Woodward was a known quantity for Trump when he appointed him. But that doesn’t seem to have been enough to save his job, just over a year into it.

There’s been some suggestion on social media that Laura Loomer is, at least in part, responsible for the change. Loomer is a conservative activist and online influencer who has claimed the ability to impact Trump’s hiring and firing decisions in the past. Last August, Trump was asked about that and said, “She makes recommendations on things and people. And sometimes I listen to those recommendations, like I do with everybody. I listen to everybody. And then I make a decision.” Loomer has never been a fan of Woodward’s.

Her concerns center on Woodward’s wife, apparently, not Woodward. She has had them since before he was confirmed.

Woodward’s wife apparently has the audacity to have her own views on issues, and they are…not racist. Loomer reiterated her take just before Trump made his move at DOJ, also attacking Todd Blanche, the former Trump criminal defense lawyer who is now in charge of the Justice Department in an acting capacity. Blanche and Woodward may have been surprised to learn that, according to Loomer, they’re now Democrats.

That’s a lot of maneuvering, that benefits Dhillon, who has overseen the dismantling of much of the Civil Rights Division’s work, including voter and election protection, and gone on the attack for the administration. That might have made her an attractive candidate for the position to Trump without more. If confirmed by the Senate as “the Associate,” as the number three position at DOJ is called, Dhillon would supervise her old division, Civil Rights, as well as the Civil Division, the Antitrust Division, the Environment and Natural Resources Division, and an administrative division that oversees grant funding. It’s a substantial role and could be a stepping stone to a still higher office.

This is more than a personnel squabble within DOJ and warrants our close attention. Since taking over the Civil Rights Division, Dhillon has made a number of decisions with significant consequences that run contrary to the history of the Division, including:

Setting priorities for the Division that included putting an end to DEI, supporting gun rights, protecting religious liberty by filing lawsuits challenging what DOJ views as anti‑Christian discrimination, and opposing transgender participation in women’s sports.
Pressuring colleges and universities over DEI programs and allegations of antisemitism. In one notable instance, the president of the University of Virginia was forced out for failing to move quickly enough to end DEI.
Ending, as her predecessor Jeff Sessions did, consent decrees with Police Departments. In her case, it was Minneapolis (George Floyd) and Louisville (Breonna Taylor), in cases involving systematic misconduct. She ended investigations in other jurisdictions, changing the environment to one that is far more tolerant of police misconduct.
Abandoning employment discrimination cases, as well as the work of the disability section to protect access, and work combating housing discrimination.
Countermanding early work in the U.S. Attorney’s office in Minneapolis to investigate ICE agent Jonathan Ross, who fired the shots that killed Renee Good. Much of the career leadership in that office resigned in the wake of that decision.

We don’t yet know who Trump will nominate to be the next Attorney General. Dhillon was confirmed 52-45 for the Civil Rights job, garnering no votes from Democrats but mustering support from every Republican. She’s been effective at pushing her priorities, which are Trump’s priorities, and at pushing career people out the door. A Justice Department under her leadership might make people long for Bondi’s simpering incompetence.

To come full circle, this was Dhillon’s response to Trump’s “Fuckin’ Strait” post this morning:

The Trump Administration appeals Anthropic’s victory.

Thursday morning, the government filed its notice of appeal after Anthropic won a victory against it in the lower court. That means it will try to overturn Judge Lin’s injunction, which prevents Trump/Hegseth’s designation of Anthropic as a supply-chain risk. We’ll likely see an effort to get an order from the Ninth Circuit to set that injunction aside while the litigation is underway this week

The federal civil rights investigation and prosecution we won’t see.

The Buffalo Medical Examiner ruled that the death of a legally blind elderly Burmese refugee dropped off by Border Patrol at a closed shop late at night in winter was a homicide. The facts of the case are terrible. And there’s a federal criminal law designed to address this kind of civil rights violation by federal agents acting “under color of law.”

NBC reported that Nurul Amin Shah Alam died of a burst ulcer caused by severe stress brought on by dehydration and hypothermia, which was brought on by the agents’ abandonment of him. The statute permits prosecution of agents who deprive a person of their rights because they are an alien. If DOJ were operating properly, there would be an open investigation. The potential charge is a serious one, based on the denial of rights, not a homicide. The punishment under the law, “if death results” from agents’ actions, can be life imprisonment or even the death penalty. Any other DOJ would be focused on getting this case and doing justice.

The DHS shutdown is still on.

The House failed to take action to pass the Senate’s bipartisan funding deal to reopen the Department of Homeland Security last week. That means the shutdown will continue at least until Monday, when Congress is back in Session. The Senate compromise withhold money the administration wanted to push Trump’s immigration agenda, but would fund DHS until the end of the fiscal year.

TSA workers in the Portland, Maine, airport cheerfully told me last week that they had received some back pay, but had no assurances of receiving paychecks going forward. Hard-working TSA employees are being forced to bear the brunt of Trump’s inability to run the government. It’s surprising Democrats aren’t driving this message every day. And, with hurricane and fire seasons approaching, FEMA funding is sure to be an issue soon, as well.

And, DOJ still hasn’t released all of the Epstein Files.

I have no intention of forgetting that there is more to that story.

Thank you for being here with me at Civil Discourse. It’s going to take all of us, staying informed and working together, to keep the Republic. If you’ve been enjoying the free posts, upgrading to a paid subscription is a great way to help keep the newsletter coming and to contribute to the time and resources it takes to stay on top of law, politics, and this administration.

We’re in this together,

Joyce

For Those Of US Who Wondered…

Scottie mentions restroom etiquette sometimes. Turns out, there’s an actual etiquette, as he says, and here’s a story about it!

1976 research study confirms science behind ‘urinal etiquette’

The “buffer urinal” is more important than we realize.

By Evan Porter

There’s a theory that most men, and people in general, intuitively understand “urinal etiquette.” It’s the art and science of where to stand in relation to other men when using a public restroom. Stand too far away, and you risk coming across as standoffish or rude. Stand too close, and you’ll make the other person uncomfortable.

Most people prefer to have a “buffer” between themselves and strangers, and it’s not limited to urinals or public restroom stalls. When given the option, most of us will sit at least one seat away from the nearest stranger in a movie theater or auditorium. We’ll leave a bench or treadmill between ourselves and a fellow gym-goer.

The buffer may seem like common decency and consideration for the people around us, but there could be more to it than that, according to a decades-old research study.

Scientists put theory to the test

In 1976, a team of researchers actually got the idea to test whether the proximity of a stranger had an effect on the way men urinated. Yes, really.

More specifically, they wanted to test what happens when someone invades your personal space. Do you just feel awkward or uncomfortable, or are there more measurable things happening in the body.

Objectively, the worst kind of urinal. Photo Credit: Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons

For the experiment, researchers began with a pilot study in a men’s public restroom. An observer stood by the sink, appearing to busy himself with washing and grooming, all while secretly keeping tabs on the men who entered. The published study takes it from there:

“When a potential subject entered the room and walked to a urinal, the observer recorded the selected urinal and the placement of the next nearest user. He also noted (with a chronographic wristwatch) and recorded the micturation delay (the time between when a subject unzipped his fly and when urination began) and the micturation persistence (the time between the onset and completion of urination). The onset an cessation of micturation were signaled by the sound of the stream of urine striking the water in the urinal.”

Ethical concerns about observing unsuspecting men in a restroom aside, the study found that none of the 48 subjects chose to stand directly next to another “user” at the urinal banks. The data also showed that men urinated longer the farther they were from the nearest person.

The study was repeated, but this time, confederates were involved. Volunteers were stationed at specific distances from unsuspecting bathroom users, while another observer hid in a nearby stall and used a “periscope” to get a clear sightline of the urine stream.

The surprising findings

Once again, the data was extremely conclusive: men who stood directly next to a confederate while urinating took longer to begin and also urinated for longer overall.

“These findings provide objective evidence that personal space invasions produce physiological changes associated with arousal,” the authors noted in their abstract.

It was an important, if controversial, study in advancing the field of proxemics—the study of physical space in human nonverbal communication. Research like this unusual bathroom study has helped us understand “intimate distance,” a space very close to our bodies that we reserve for romantic partners, children, and close friends.

Research in the field has also mapped the “personal bubble,” or “personal distance,” typically reserved for family members and friends. However, when strangers invade this space—in a crowded elevator, a packed subway car, or by standing next to us at the urinal—that’s when things get really interesting.

Our bodies respond, and MIT Press notes that people often deal with an invasion of personal space by “psychologically removing themselves from the situation” by listening to music or staring blankly at a wall.

Now we know a little more about the physiological response behind this aversion, and it makes urinal etiquette make much more sense. It’s not just “machismo” or homophobia—it’s a way of avoiding a serious stress and anxiety trigger. Or, at the very least, a way to have a much more satisfying pee.

Political Tests?

How gender-affirming care is becoming a political test for top medical groups

Orion Rummler

This story was originally reported by Orion Rummler of The 19th. Meet Orion and read more of their reporting on gender, politics and policy.

The largest medical association in the United States supports gender-affirming care — a stance it has reiterated in different ways over the last 10 years. But as Republicans press leading medical organizations on health care for transgender youth, the American Medical Association (AMA) is the latest group caught between political rhetoric and the complex realities of specialized care that few people receive.

As patients, families and doctors navigate this care in an increasingly confusing and hostile landscape, what medical groups say matters. But lately, what they’ve had to say — and how politicians interpret it — has only caused more uncertainty.

The AMA’s stance was already in question after a January meeting between leaders of major medical groups and Dr. Mehmet Oz, the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. After that meeting, which was first reported by The New York Times, one group in attendance — the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) — muddied the waters about whether it had taken a more restrictive stance on gender-affirming care.

Questions soon followed for the AMA, the nation’s most prominent organization representing doctors.

Twenty Republican state attorneys general are pushing for the AMA to broadly oppose gender-affirming care for minors, in response to news coverage about their recommendations around youth surgeries. The attorneys suggest that the AMA may be violating state consumer protection laws by confusing, or even misleading, medical providers and patients about their stance. They mention wanting to “avoid a formal investigation” into the issue.

The attorneys, led by Steve Marshall in Alabama, wrote a letter in February asking whether the group recommends hormone therapy or puberty blockers to treat gender dysphoria in minors.

“If you agree that there is insufficient evidence to support using surgical interventions to treat gender dysphoria in minors — as your recent statement indicates — we do not understand how you can find that there is sufficient evidence to support using hormonal interventions to treat gender dysphoria in minors,” their letter reads.

This is an escalation of a familiar tactic, said Khadijah Silver, director of gender justice and health equity at Lawyers for Good Government. And if it works, it will be a major weapon in the political fight to delegitimize gender-affirming care, they said.

“If you can convince the public that they have shifted stance, that’s extremely powerful,” they said, referring to the AMA.

In some ways, that impact is already being felt.

In a recent congressional hearing on rising health care costs, the board of trustees chair for the American Medical Association was asked about how patients across the country are struggling to find doctors. Two hours into the hearing, he was also asked about gender-affirming care for trans youth — a topic that affects few Americans, but takes up a lot of political air.

Rep. Erin Houchin, a Republican from Indiana, asked why the medical group changed its position on surgeries for trans youth.

But the AMA maintains that it has not changed its position.

“In surgery and minors, our belief is that it should generally be deferred until adulthood. But, we respect the physician-patient-family relationship in determining that,” Dr. David H. Aizuss answered in response to the question from the congresswoman.

That exchange took only a few minutes out of a hearing that spanned the gamut of crises facing the U.S. health care system, like skyrocketing insurance premiums and a worsening physician shortage. But it represents a growing tension between Republicans and medical groups, as elected officials who oppose gender-affirming care push for major health care organizations to do the same.

The American Medical Association declined to comment on the attorneys general’s letter, which had asked for a response by March 25. In a broader statement, the medical group said it supports gender-affirming care.

“We support evidence-based treatment for medical care, including gender affirming care,” an AMA spokesperson said in an email. “Currently, the evidence for surgical intervention in minors is insufficient for us to make a definitive statement. In the absence of clear evidence, surgical interventions in minors should be generally deferred to adulthood. Treatment decisions should be made between the physician and the patient (and family) based on the best medical evidence and clinical judgment.”

That position aligns with the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), an authority on medical care for trans people. WPATH recommends that patients generally wait until adulthood before seeking surgery. Trans youth rarely undergo surgery of any kind; of the small number performed on adolescents, the majority are mastectomies.

If an adolescent does need surgery, WPATH recommends they meet extensive criteria — including a full understanding of reproductive side effects, a year’s worth of hormone therapy, sustained gender incongruence, plus emotional and cognitive maturity.

The questions surrounding surgery come on the heels of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons’ response to the January meeting with Oz. In what the Times described as a “tense” meeting, Oz pressed leaders of organizations including the AMA and the ASPS on why they recommend gender-affirming care for trans youth. At that meeting, the surgeons group said it would be changing its position, per the Times.

Weeks after the meeting, ASPS released a nine-page statement saying that gender-affirming surgery should be delayed for minors until a patient is at least 19. The surgeons’ group cited insufficient evidence that benefits for surgery outweigh risks, and pointed to a controversial report created by the Trump administration to back its position.

The surgeons group noted that it still opposes criminalization of such medical care. The Trump administration celebrated the announcement.

“Today marks another victory for biological truth in the Trump administration,” said former Deputy Health and Human Services Secretary Jim O’Neill, in a press release. Oz, who has compared gender-affirming care for minors to lobotomies, applauded the American Society of Plastic Surgeons “for placing itself on the right side of history.”

In the following days, the surgeon’s group appeared to backtrack. The American Society of Plastic Surgeons reportedly told NPR that its position “does not include a blanket recommendation for surgery for minors.” The ASPS did not respond to a request for comment on this story.

The AMA has had its own trouble communicating its position. In a recent internal newsletter from the board chair, the association said that its policy on gender-affirming care has not changed at all; and that it requested a correction from The New York Times in response to the outlet’s coverage of its initial statement on youth surgeries. However, the Times says it has received no such requests.

This back-and-forth is taking place against an intense political backdrop: Six states have made it a felony for doctorsto provide gender-affirming care to trans youth. Hospitals across the country have shuttered gender clinics in response to pressure from the administration. As a result, some young patients are cut off in the middle of treatment and medical professionals are grappling with how the law impacts them.

And despite ample news coverage, gender-affirming care is still not widely understood.

Very few transgender youth seek and access surgeries. More rely on hormone therapy and puberty blockers to treat gender dysphoria, which is a medical condition that can cause significant distress for trans people.

Puberty blockers delay the hormones that cause kids to go through puberty, which can be an intense and emotionally fraught time for trans youth. Many families say this treatment is crucial for their child’s wellbeing and prevents distress caused by dysphoria. There are potential risks, like decreased bone density, which is monitored by medical providers. Some providers recommend weight-bearing exercise or diet optimization to boost calcium and vitamin D levels while on puberty blockers.

Hormone therapy, which involves taking testosterone or estrogen to cause physical changes that align one’s body with their gender identity, is another treatment that some trans youth receive to alleviate dysphoria. As with puberty blockers, clinics require a mental health assessment as well as parental or guardian consent for the treatment.

Multiple studies have found that access to these treatments decrease depression and anxiety for trans youth. Butthey are now banned in much of the country, after Republican politicians and conservative lobbying groups flooded statehouses with bills aiming to restrict the care for minors.

The Endocrine Society and the American Academy of Pediatrics are under federal investigation over their support for gender-affirming care. Both medical groups have sued, as the government seeks information to determine if they have made “false or unsubstantiated representations” regarding the care.

The attorneys’ general letter to the American Medical Association is leveling up that pressure on medical groups, Silver said.

“Because the care is so politicized, any association that stands up and asserts its support for physicians who provide the care, will be made an example of,” they said.

Internet Shutdowns Should Be Discussed

When repression meets resistance: internet shutdowns in 2025

PUBLISHED: 31 March 2026 LAST UPDATED: 31 March 2026

“Everyone is on high alert, constantly watching the sky with fright and exhaustion […] We also keep our eyes on our mobile phone connections — the moment the signal drops, we immediately take cover in underground shelters. We’ve come to understand that a loss of communication signals an impending airstrike.— Humanitarian aid worker on the internet shutdown that took place in Myanmar during air strikes near Tamu township in the Sagaing region.

The 2025 data and analysis confirm a horrific reality: internet shutdowns are increasing, not decreasing — and their impact on people’s lives is devastating. Shutdowns reached a new record high in the past year, continuing the steady increase since 2020. Our new report, Rising repression meets global resistance: Internet shutdowns in 2025, documents how democratic and autocratic governments alike deploy them to silence, collectively punish, and terrorize populations, as well as to hide human rights violations and killings. At the same time, we highlight how resistance is growing and people’s power is rising, and offer recommendations for stakeholders to push back. From Myanmar to Iran, Tanzania to Nepal, communities are challenging repression, demanding accountability, and devising new ways to reconnect during blackouts.

read the report

In 2025, Access Now and the #KeepItOn coalition documented 313 shutdowns in 52 countries, surpassing the appalling records from 2024 (304) and 2023 (289). Seven new countries joined the offender list in 2025, meaning that people in 100 countries have now experienced a shutdown since we started tracking in 2016. As 2026 began, there were 75 shutdowns in 33 countries that persisted from 2025, a significant increase from the 54 shutdowns in 26 countries that were ongoing from 2024 into 2025. This shows that perpetrators are increasingly attempting to permanently block communications platforms or even keep entire populations cut off from the internet indefinitely.

If you can’t see the highlights below, please check your privacy-enhancing browser extensions. Open in desktop view for the best experience.

(snip-go see. The site is Access Now, it’s safe, the subject of this story (internet access) is its specialty, and my Ad Blocker even shows no blocked ads on the page! Go finish reading this, because forewarned should be forearmed, as to organizing locally.)

https://www.accessnow.org/internet-shutdowns-2025/

Earth Month On Friday

Every litter bit helps, as was sung on TV when I was a child. Here is a thing that might be done these days, or we can share it and that will still help. Earth is our only home (no matter where our legislators tend to spend their time…)

Earth Month Ecochallenge, running from April 1st to April 30th, is a 30-day program focused on environmental and social engagement. During this month, you’re invited to select actions that resonate with your values, committing to them for 30 days to foster and reinforce positive habits. Each action you complete earns points and generates real-world impact. Your efforts, combined with those of your team, contribute to a significant collective difference.

This year’s theme, People and Planet: Resilient Together, focuses on resilience: the capacity to adapt, recover, and grow stronger through change. Resilience lives in people, in communities, and in the natural systems that sustain us. In a world shaped by uncertainty, it helps us stay grounded, connected, and capable of creating positive change. Our new actions and categories will help you explore resilience at many levels – personal, in your community, in the organizations you are part of, and in nature. (snip)

https://earthmonth.ecochallenge.org/challenges

2 Items Regarding Book Bans, & Time Travel For World Improvement

What to Know About the National Book Ban Bill

House Resolution 7661 is a potentially significant piece of book ban legislation. Here’s what you need to know about it.

On March 17, the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce advanced H.R. 7661. There is no word regarding when the bill will be voted on, but the vote is expected to occur sometime in the coming weeks. While that bill number may not sound familiar, there’s a good chance you have recently heard it referred to as the National Book Ban Bill.

Though that title is not formally associated with the proposed resolution, it does speak to the concerns many have regarding the bill’s language, intentions, and potential long-term impact. While it can understandably feel overwhelming to keep up with every potentially impactful piece of legislation in the modern United States government, the details of H. R. 7661 (including those not printed, which only exist between the lines) make it worth knowing about for anyone who opposes the growing trend of book bans and public education funding.

What is H. R. 7661, or the Stop the Sexualization of Children Act?

Formally, what is sometimes referred to as the National Book Ban Bill is being presented as H.R. 7661 or the “Stop the Sexualization of Children Act.” You can read that act here. It has also been referred to as the “National Don’t Say Gay bill,” a reference to a 2022 statute that triggered significant school policy changes, including legislation that restricted public schools from introducing material in kindergarten through 3rd-grade classrooms that was deemed to be related to matters of sexual orientation and gender identity. The law also included requirements specific to students in higher grades and age ranges.

A sweeping initiative, the Don’t Say Gay bill (formally referred to as the “Parental Rights in Education” bill) established several education restrictions regarding both curricula and school policies that could be enforced via various means (including potential legal action). It required schools to inform parents if their children received any mental health services at school, it allowed parents to have greater access to formerly private documents related to their kids, and it enacted a series of moderation policies that effectively enabled legislators to have greater control over what is (and isn’t) taught to students in those age ranges via funding decisions and similar policies. Said policies included book bans, which are also at the heart of H.R. 7661’s many potential effects.

The Main Provisions of H. R. 7661

The primary purpose of H. R. 7661 is to enable the U.S. government to deny federal funding to schools that use those funds for programs and materials the bill deems to be inappropriate.

The bill is effectively an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. The act was designed to provide expanded federal funding to public schools to ensure that their students (more specifically, public school students in lower-income areas) didn’t continue to fall far behind students at schools with access to more resources. It was a milestone piece of legislation that remains one of the cornerstones for federal public school funding in the United States to this day.

While H. R. 7661 would not eliminate that act, it would, in the bill’s own language, “prohibit the use of funds provided under such Act to develop, implement, facilitate, host, or promote any program or activity for, or to provide or promote literature or other materials to, children under the age of 18 that includes sexually oriented material, and for other purposes.”

The broad nature of that language is one of the more controversial aspects of the bill. For instance, it would deny schools the ability to use federal funding for programs, literature, and related texts that include “sexually oriented material” and “material that exposes such children to nude adults, individuals who are stripping, or lewd or lascivious dancing.” H. R. 7661 also includes exemptions for scientific texts, works related to major religions, as well as “classic works of literature” and “classic works of art” (more on those in a bit) that may naturally include references to the content it intends to restrict. Furthermore, the authors of the bill note that “sexually oriented material” includes “any depiction, description, or simulation of sexually explicit conduct (as defined in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 2256(2) of title 18, United States Code).” You can read those United States Code subparagraphs here. They largely reference material such as “bestiality” and “sadistic or masochistic abuse” but also include the far more general idea of “sexual intercourse… whether between persons of the same or opposite sex” as sexually explicit content. It is a rather large collection of topics which could potentially fall under that umbrella definition.

However, H. R. 7661 would expand the definition of “sexually oriented material” to include material that “involves gender dysphoria or transgenderism.” Along with suggesting that matters of identity should be considered a sexually obscene topic, the inclusion of that language has significant legal implications. That choice of wording makes it clear that this bill will most directly and immediately affect transgender students, transgender-related materials, and it could be argued, gender non-conformity topics in general, which may include discussions of specifically prohibited subjects in affected schools.

What’s important to remember is that the bill specifies works that will be excluded, but it is more vague regarding what, exactly, could be impacted. It could, for instance, be determined that a variety of LGBTQIA+ books that make passing reference (or even perceived passing references) to such materials could also be effectively banned from federally funded schools. The policies for such determinations and review procedures are not set. It should also be noted that the use of “sexually oriented material” and similar pieces of broad language have often been contested as the basis for similar pieces of legislation (more on those below).

There are undoubtedly concerns regarding the direct targeting of students and materials that would be most obviously impacted by the “gender dysphoria or transgenderism” language. The reason that this is being referred to as a “National Book Ban Bill,” though, is due to both the bill’s relationship with current federal funding policies (and thus its potential reach) and the ways that its language could be used to legally justify a variety of bans or create a precedent for similarly sweeping bills.

What Would Happen If H. R. 7661 Passes?

(snip-More, at link right up there. Go read it, so you know what we each need to know-)

And as a brain cleanser, enjoy

Five Time Travel Stories About Taking Out Hitler

Exploring very different takes on a familiar thought experiment.

By Lorna Wallace

It’s a familiar question in time travel narratives: If you could go back in time and kill Adolf Hitler, would you? Sometimes, of course, there are time travel rules in place that prevent such interference; for instance, in About Time (2013) time travelers can only go back to moments in their own pasts. But there are plenty of other stories where the opportunity does present itself (although not everyone is able to follow through with it, including antihero Deadpool).

While the basic premise—removing Hitler from existence in some way (often as a baby, or before he can be born)—is sometimes only briefly touched on in time travel narratives, there are a number of stories that explore the problems and ramifications of such an action in a bit more depth. Here are five short stories (well, four stories and one comic, which is arguably a short story with art) that do just that.

“I Killed Hitler” by Ralph Milne Farley (1941)

Just a few years into World War II—before America had even joined the fight—Ralph Milne Farley wrote the earliest known story about using time travel to kill Hitler. The unnamed main character is one of the Nazi leader’s distant cousins but he lives half a world away in Massachusetts. He’s deeply unhappy about Hitler’s warmongering—partly because the genocidal leader’s actions are unequivocally wrong, but also partly (and honestly… largely) because being drafted into the war is going to interfere with our narrator’s painting career.

After complaining to a friend about all the Allies who haven’t taken the chance to assassinate Hitler during their face-to-face meetings, our protagonist gets the chance to go back in time and murder the Führer while he’s still a young boy. Although the outcome is now a fairly basic rendition of the theme, this story remains notable for being the first take on the idea.

“I Killed Adolf Hitler” by Jason (2006)

Set in a world where being a killer-for-hire is a legitimate profession, this comic book sees our protagonist, an anthropomorphic dog who is once again unnamed, take on an unusual job: killing Hitler. The time machine that sends him back only has enough energy for one round trip every 50 years, so it’s crucial that he doesn’t mess it up—which, of course, he does. Not only does he fail to kill Hitler, but the Führer uses the time machine’s one ride back to the present and then promptly blends in with modern society.

Our hitman still needs to finish the job, though, and now he’s tasked with tracking down the Nazi leader, in spite of the fact that he’s much older once he’s caught up to his target (because, after being stranded in the past, he had to live through the years to get back to the present). He decides to enlist the help of his (now much younger) ex-girlfriend and the journey they go on together is filled with both dry humor and unexpectedly tender moments. Sure, their goal might be murder, but there’s still room for touching character growth along the way…

“Missives from Possible Futures #1: Alternate History Search Results” by John Scalzi (2007)

Written in the second person, this short story sees you sampling a technology called Multiversity™, which is essentially Google Search for the multiverse. You enter “THE DEATH OF ADOLF HITLER”—one of the most popular searches—and are shown eight sample realities based on the various ways that Hitler has died in alternate histories. This story is short and sweet, with only a few sentences outlining each scenario (although you’re informed that you can get a more detailed breakdown for the low, low price of $59.95!).

The hilarious scenarios become increasingly unhinged (and one does explicitly feature time travel!), but because there are only eight I don’t want to spoil any of them by going into too much detail, here. What I will say is that I would absolutely pay to find out more about the squids in Scenario #8…

This short story served as the basis for the “Alternate Histories” episode in the first season of Love, Death & Robots—so if this concept seems familiar to you, that might be why.

“Wikihistory” by Desmond Warzel (2011)

“Wikihistory” is written entirely as a series of online forum posts from members of the International Association of Time Travelers. The first post in the story comes from FreedomFighter69, a new member of the IATT who is celebrating their first excursion: going to the opening of the 1936 Olympic Games to kill Hitler. SilverFox316 is none too impressed with this move and a few minutes later posts to say that they’ve successfully gone back and stopped FreedomFighter69. Much to the frustration of SilverFox316, new members continue making this same mistake (which could be avoided if they’d simply read Bulletin 1147 as they’ve been repeatedly asked to do!).

The forum format is inventive, the time travel plot is chaotically fun, and the bickering dynamic between the posters feels hilariously true to life.

“It’s OK to Say if You Went Back in Time and Killed Baby Hitler” by Jo Lindsay Walton (2018)

This is another short story written in the second person; this time you’re a member of a small group of anti-fascists intent on using a time travel rig to kill baby Hitler. Umeko volunteers for the gruesome mission and when she returns, she’s confident that she got the job done. But then she learns that history hasn’t changed, which makes no sense because she’s certain that she beheaded baby Hitler.

While the group squabble over this unexpected result, you as the protagonist take the opportunity to slip into the rig and go back to 1890 to figure out what went wrong with the original mission. You get your answer, but unfortunately both time travel and group projects are a very messy business, so combining the two isn’t exactly a recipe for success.

Although using time travel to put an end to Hitler and his rise to power is a fairly well-trodden trope at this point, hopefully this list has proven that there are still plenty of creative ways to tell this kind of story. I’d love to hear if you have any particularly intriguing, thoughtful, and/or original stories that riff on this theme, regardless of format!

(no snip; they’re all here.)

The Active Month Of April

Lots of awareness items for this month! Of course, one designation I’m fully aware of is for Autism, another for Earth Day/Month. I was feeling a bit overwhelmed thinking of blogging these things, which are pertinent to our interests, then thought, well, I don’t want to omit anything. So, I did a search, and holy cow. There are a lot! Below see some; click through to see them all. I ain’t bloggin’ everything, but I love NATIONAL MONTH OF HOPE – April Founded in 2018 by National Day Calendar® and Mothers In Crisis, Inc., so I’ll try to include it this month.

April – Month

NATIONAL ARAB AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH | April

NATIONAL PICKLEBALL MONTH | April

LIMB LOSS AND LIMB DIFFERENCE AWARENESS MONTH | April

NATIONAL AFTERNOON TEA MONTH | April

Founded in 2022 by National Day Calendar® and Tea Tea and Company.

ESOPHAGEAL CANCER AWARENESS MONTH – April

NATIONAL BRUNCH MONTH | April

Founded in 2021 by National Day Calendar® and Ebb & Flow.

(snip-so much MORE!)

History Repeats

While I dread the idea that people in the US will be starved to this degree of desperation, well.

TODAY IN HISTORY

April 2

Featured Event

1863

Today in History—April 2: The Story of the Richmond Bread Riot

April 2, 1863: “Bread or blood!”

On this day in 1863 more than 100 women armed with knives, axes, and pistols marched to Richmond, Virginia’s capitol to demand a meeting with the governor. When questioned by passersby, some held up their emaciated arms in explanation: They were starving.

Nine inches of snow had just fallen, the 20th storm that winter. Routes into the city had become rivers of mud, making food transport nearly impossible. Farming was suffering because of labor shortages (with farmers enlisted in the Civil War) and fields damaged by battles. Inflation had sent food prices to 10 times the prewar cost.

Then Confederate president Jefferson Davis issued a proclamation declaring March 27 “a day of fasting, humiliation, and prayer.”

For many of the city’s working-class residents, that was what they were already doing.

As the Confederate capital, Richmond’s population had swelled to 100,000, crowded with troops and government workers. Because it was such an important spot, the Union had set up a blockade of its ports. What little food made it through was requisitioned to feed troops.

On April 1 a group of women—wives and mothers of soldiers—met at Belvidere Hill Baptist Church. Led by Mary Jackson and Minerva Meredith, they agreed to confront the governor the next day.

Some sources say the governor’s feeble answers failed to appease the women; other sources say he declined to meet. Either way, the crowd marched on—toward government food supplies, mercantile facilities, and private businesses. By now they had a rallying cry: “Bread or blood!” Their ranks swelled to hundreds or even thousands. They seized flour, ham, bacon, clothing, and shoes. The public guard was summoned but quickly overrun.

Fun Fact

May Walker, a “toothless old woman,” took an axe to the warehouse door and made off with 500 pounds of bacon.

It only ended when Davis ordered the guard to open fire—in five minutes. He waited, holding his watch. The crowd still debated defiance but dispersed at the last possible moment.

In the aftermath, more than 60 men and women were arrested. The city council met that day and dismissed the riot as “uncalled for”—then stationed cannons near the food supplies.

Two days later, however, another meeting was held to discuss how to feed the “meritorious poor,” which did not include the women who’d rioted; they were villainized in the press.

But two weeks later an additional $20,000 was allocated to keep Richmond’s citizens fed.