Wondering on Wednesday 7/15/26

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Today I learned (from reporting by The Guardian) that Secretary of Manly Manliness, Defense, and War Pete Hegseth is "authorizing a new screening program for testosterone deficiency for our service members," to ensure they "have the right testosterone levels to operate at (their) absolute best.” 

As we know, the modern battlefield is brutal and unrelenting,” he added. “It requires and demands maximum psychological and mental readiness, and by addressing these health markers early, we’re keeping you on the leading edge of lethality, and giving you the same level of support that you give this nation – the absolute best.”

The plan will require "warfighters" who are at least 30 years old to have the test as part of their regular health assessment; folks younger than 30 who are, um, 'T-curious' can also participate. His announcement video says that treatment for those with low levels is optional, but I can't help wondering what'll happen the first time someone says 'no thanks' to the T tea, or however they treat it. 

And if you had to guess if there were any other members of the 'Make America' hat letters administration who know anything about this, I wonder if you'd be surprised to learn that RFK, Jr. has talked about getting testosterone injections as part of his "anti-aging' regimen? 

Nah... didn't think so.

Remember all the folks getting doxxed, or censured, or even fired for expressing opinions after the murder of Charlie Kirk? Well, it seems that some folks who got caught up in the "Don't Speak Ill of Charlie" mania are getting their just rewards.

According to The Hill and others, the Sunshine State must make a sizeable payment to a biologist at a state agency.

Brittney Brown lost her job at the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) in September after reposting a message to her private Instagram account claiming Kirk did not care about children being shot in their classrooms. 

The post read: “The whales are deeply saddened to hear about the shooting of Charlie Kirk, haha just kidding, they care exactly as much as Charlie Kirk cared about children being shot in their classrooms, which is to say not at all.”

Her repost of someone else's words was seen by "popular conservatives" on social media, which, according to her lawsuit, cost Brown her job. The settlement requires Florida to pay a total of $485,000 to cover the loss of her job, back pay, and legal fees. 

And it turns out Brown is not alone. A retired law enforcement officer in Tennessee was paid $850,000 after being jailed - for more than a month - after sharing a post about Kirk on social media. And a teacher's union has filed a lawsuit against Texas for investigating teachers who shared comments about Kirk online. 

And, with the passing of Sen. Lindsey Graham, who had a long career and left plenty for people on both sides of the proverbial aisle to be grumpy about, I'm wondering how folks will be treated if they post their honest opinions about him on social media? 

Will they fall victim to the massive cancel culture machine that the FOTUS himself has promoted for years, and which was perfected by those "popular conservatives" on social media? Or will they get a pass and be allowed to say what they want without being reported to their employer, their church, their golf league, and the rest?

Last but not least, here are some of the remarks the FOTUS made when talking about experimental medications and the 'right to try' them. Here's what he said about one unnamed drug:

We've taken people that were dead. We had a person given the last rites - gone; the kids were crying and everything - and started him on this drug. And the person became better. It works.

The wondering here is rampant, as you might imagine, and honestly, some of what I'm thinking would probably get me in trouble with some agency or other, in DC, or Kentucky, or Iran, or... 

Anyway: what's on your wondering mind tonight? Drop a comment!

Quick Takes (v74): What I'd Ask Todd Blanche

Todd Blanche, a key FOTUS personal attorney (FPA) and current acting Attorney General of the US, is appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee today as it considers his nomination to lose the 'acting' tag and assume the AG role for real.

I expect he'll get many questions about the Epstein files; that's fine. After all, his predecessor (and fellow FPA) Pam Bondi said all things Epstein were in his portfolio.  And, as we all know, the one thing our highly partisan DC politicians can agree on is that all publicity is good, and asking Epstein questions will guarantee them the attention they crave.

Me? With very few exceptions, I'm much less interested in questions about Epstein (I'll tell you why in another post) than I am in hearing him differentiate his work as an FPA from his work in the DOJ. Here's what I'm interested in as far as Epstein goes:

• The Federal Bureau of Prisons maintains strict rules that generally disqualify sex offenders from serving time in white-collar-crime type 'prison camps. Do you agree with those rules, yes or no?

• You interviewed Ghislaine Maxwell, who had been sentenced to 20 years in prison, for nine hours. Shortly after, she was transferred to a prison camp in Texas, putting her closer to family members. Her transfer appears to go against the rules.

Yes or no, did you promise her a transfer in return for her testimony?

Yes or no, did you ask that she be transferred or considered for transfer?

Yes or no, did you approve her transfer?  If you didn't approve her transfer, who did?

• How many other convicted sex offenders has the DOJ transferred to be closer to their family members?  Were you involved in any of those decisions?

• Yes or no, did you make any promises to Maxwell for her testimony?

• Yes or no, did you have any discussions with the FOTUS in advance of your interview with her? If yes, what was the nature of those discussions?

• Yes or no, have you been involved in any discussions regarding a potential pardon for Maxwell? 

Other questions I'd love to have answered, regarding the FOTUS lawsuit against the IRS:

• Generally speaking, in your current role as Acting AG, who is your client, the United States or the president?

• Do you believe there is enough separation between the president as an individual and the president as head of the Executive Branch - and your boss - that a lawsuit such as his against the IRS can meet the requirement that the plaintiff and defendant must be truly different parties?

Based on your answer to the 'who is your client' question, do you believe it was appropriate to be personally involved in settling the president's IRS lawsuit, yes or no?

Why did you not wait until the Courts determined the legitimacy of the lawsuit before proposing the settlement you did? 

Did you believe, or do you believe, that the fund you proposed to award taxpayer money to people not involved in the settled lawsuit was in the best interests of the United States?

Did you believe, or do you believe, that barring the IRS from completing any open audits, or opening any new audits on taxes filed before May 2026, was in the best interests of the United States?

Would you have approved either settlement provision with any other taxpayers?

• When the president's taxes were leaked by an IRS employee, how many other individual or corporate taxpayers also had their information released - was it hundreds of people? Thousands of people? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands?

Not counting corporate taxpayers, how many of those whose taxes were released, including the president, sued the IRS for the unauthorized disclosure?

How many of those who sued were successful?

And how much money, on average, did each receive as a result?

How many of those suits were you personally involved in?

• Yes or no, are you aware of The Judgment Fund, established by Congress in 1956, to pay people who have successfully sued the government and been awarded a monetary judgment? 

Since that Fund already exists, and doesn't place any cap on payments, why was it necessary to create a special fund as part of the deal with the president?

You have said that the DOJ will not be moving ahead with the so-called 'Anti-Weaponization Fund,' but you've refused to put that in writing. Why is that?

Yes or no, is it your intention to use The Judgment Fund to handle payments to the alleged 'weaponization' victims?   

 If that is the intention, yes or no, will you require that the alleged victims follow the process and obtain a court judgment before releasing any funds?

I would not waste more than a few seconds thanking him for appearing before the Committee before diving into this list, and I'd likely have to reclaim the couple of minutes of my time he would have wasted in his efforts not to answer me. 

And then, hopefully I'd be turning it over to a colleague who'd ask different questions, so the American people can see and hear for themselves how awful a choice he is for this position.

What would you want to ask him? Drop a comment!