Annals from Trump's Bogus Drug War: A Drug Abuser/Sex Offender Interviews a Narco-Dictator as Prelude to a Coup

Both men are grinning--the news anchor, professionally coiffed and tanned for camera, and the guest, having recently traded prison scrubs for suit and tie. Drug abuser and sex offender Matt Gaetz is interviewing Honduras's narco-dictator, Juan Orlando Hernández.

The teaser paragraph above the interview reads: 

The 38^th President of Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernández Alvarado, gives his first exclusive interview to One America News following his pardon by President Donald Trump. Alvarado (sic, his last name is Hernández but white supremacy prohibits the site from learning that Spanish-speaking countries use the first paternal last name) had been serving a 45-year sentence for drug-trafficking and related firearms offenses.

Is he a victim of Joe Biden’s lawfare, or is he one of the greatest narco-traffickers of all time? Matt Gaetz finds out.

Everyone who has come to the page already knows that the whole point of the interview is to fix in the public's mind the first part of that dichotomy. Never mind that that means erasing years of investigation and undercover work carried out by hundreds of U.S. government officials, including dedicated DEA agents, lawyers and judges, counternarcotics agents, academics, experts and congressional offices of both parties.

It's a rare moment of triumph for two men who have lived their own "rise and fall" stories, from public leaders to disgraced delinquents in their respective nations. Their tales are as dramatic as any Greek classic. 

But in the classics, the story ends with the fall--and a cautionary moral on the cost of men's hubris. In Trump's dystopia, the fall is merely a leap into the next level of depravity. 

*********

The interview is titled "Nowhere to Run" to drum up sympathy for a convicted drug and arms trafficker and former president responsible for the assassination of at least 38 of his own people in protests after he stole the 2017 election, deemed by the OAS too dirty to call. 

On Dec. 2, after being pardoned by Donald Trump, JOH as he's known by his initials, walked out of the Hazelton Penitentiary in West Virginia a free man. Shock waves spread through Honduras and the world as the leader who converted his impoverished Central American country into the principal route for illegal drugs and transnational cartel activity was released by the same government that just violently relaunched the war on drugs, with extrajudicial executions in the Caribbean and Pacific and the pirating of a foreign oil tanker, and now the invasion of Venezuela, the kidnapping of its president and the attempted approriation of its oil. 

All justified--illegally--by slapping a narcotics charge on a sitting president of a foreign country with coveted resources.

The invasion happened just weeks after this interview. The interview is repulsive on its own, but even more so as part of the propaganda leading up to launching war on Venezuela. The Trump team knew that violently overthrowing Nicolas Maduro for alleged drug trafficking without evidence would face criticism of hypocrisy after releasing Juan Orlando Hernández, whose case was widely documented by U.S. government agencies.

***** 

Juan Orlando Hernández has always been a useful pawn for the far right's geopolitical aspirations, so in some ways it's not a surprise that the Trump team yanked hum out of prison to clean him up for a new phase of dirty politics. 

But before going into the geopolitical power dynamics, let's take a closer look at these two men beaming out of One America's split screen. 

Juan Orlando Hernández is the headliner, overjoyed after being rescued for the second time by Trump (the first Trump administration was key in assuring the 2017 election steal). He just shirked a 45-year sentence for trafficking more than 400 tons of cocaine to the United States, after serving just over a year. 

But let's start with Gaetz, because it's his show.

The Sordid Story of Matt Gaetz

Matt Gaetz's history is long and convoluted and involves literally thousands of pages related to judicial and congressional investigations into his illegal behavior. However, it can be summarized fairly easily because many of the subplots are irrelevant attempts to distract from the extensive documentation of Gaetz's habitual abusive and criminal behavior and his hubris in attempting to avoid any consequences for it while climbing the political ladder as a rightwing libertarian politician. 

Florida's 1st District elected Gaetz to the House of Representatives in 2017. Just three years later, in 2020, he was formally accused of sex trafficking and statutory rape. Years of investigation followed. Firsthand testimony came from a close acquaintance of Gaetz, convicted sex trafficker, Joel Greenberg, who collaborated with investigagtors. Other key witnesses included Joseph Ellicott and numerous women victims of Gaetz and others who saw his crimes, which he made little attempt to conceal. Many of the women were deemed "not credible" as so often happens when women denounce sex crimes against them. 

Despite the overwhelming evidence, the Justice Department inexplicably announced it was dropping the case in February of 2023. Although hard evidence confirmed the statutory rape charge, the court claimed the sex trafficking charge could not be sufficiently substantiated. 

It is not clear why the trafficking investigation was halted, or why rape and drug charges were not pursued separately. Vague pretexts for whatever behind-the-scenes negotiation took place included that Florida has complex laws on statute of limitations, including a 3-year limit for the rape of minors. The lack of protection for children and women, and the impunity for male perpetrators it creates, is almost unbelievable--a 3-year limit is particularly unconscionable considering the psychological impact of rape on children and how they deal with it. 

Unless one's sole criteria is to promote and protect powerful male sex offenders, the legal loopholes make no sense. That does, in fact, seem to be the motive in Florida. After the charges, the 1st District re-elected Gaetz twice. 

While in office, Gaetz blocked a law that would prohibit revenge porn and hired a speechwriter closely associated with the White Nationalist movement. Multiple sources reported that he passed around photos of naked women on the House floor, boasting that he'd had sex with them.

As the evidence continued to pile up even after the DOJ desisted, the House Ethics Committee decided to reopen the case against Gaetz. In December 2024, the Committee made its report public, raising serious questions about the sitting Congressman and about the Justice Department's decision to call off the investigation. The report concludes:

Based on the above, the Committee determined there is substantial evidence that Representative Gaetz violated House Rules and other standards of conduct prohibiting prostitution, statutory rape, illicit drug use, impermissible gifts, special favors or privileges, and obstruction of Congress. 

Specifically related to prohibited drug use, the man Donald Trump originally chose to be Attorney General his second term was found to be an habitual drug user:   

There is substantial evidence that Representative Gaetz used cocaine, ecstasy, and marijuana. At least two women saw Representative Gaetz using cocaine and ecstasy at different events. Even more women understood him to regularly be using ecstasy. 

The Committee report cited at least 20 documented incidents in which Gaetz, publicly the defender of "family values", paid women for sex or drugs. As amply documented, a Black youth will spend years in prison for smoking a joint, while a powerful white man like Gaetz can flaunt his use of illegal drugs and girls' bodies and not even be charged. 

Gaetz resigned from Congress on Nov. 13, 2024 in a failed attempt to keep the House Ethics report from coming out. He also withdrew as nominee for Attorney General. Less than a month later, the far-right One America News network founded by Robert Herring Sr., which apparently has no moral compunctions regarding sex offenders and drug users, hired him as anchor. 

Considering all the evidence of sex and drug crimes amassed in the Greenberg case, the House Ethics Committee investigation and the aborted Justice Department investigation, the  government now has Matt Gaetz in its pocket. Theoretically it could still move against him at any time--and should, if all U.S. citizens were subject to the same rules. What this means is that the messaging on his show comes straight from the White House. Politically resuscitating Juan Orlando Hernandez was a Trump mandate and state policy.

From druglord to victim (and back again?): The return of Juan Orlando Hernández 

In the Dec. 10 interview, Hernández has been prepped to portray himself as the victim of a Deep State conspiracy orchestrated by the Biden administration. As if the judiciary were not an independent branch of government, which is the right's end game, JOH claims to be the victim of a "wrongful conviction" due to  "Biden lawfare", while thanking Trump repeatedly and obsequiously for correcting this "injustice". 

Gaetz steers the president-turned-felon into confirming the bizarre theory that the New York District court investigated, tried and prosecuted JOH for drug trafficking and arms possession solely as political punishment for cooperating with the first Trump administration to block migration flows to the U.S. Gaetz even resorts to journalistic ventriloquism at one point, asking his guest: 

"So you believe that they were targetting you becase you took positions on migration that would not have allowed for open borders and people just moving through Honduras and Nicaragua and El Salvador and Guatemala unchecked? You think it was a consequence of your border policies?"

Hernández, whose English is not good, only has to say yes.

Operation Honduran Whitewash has begun. 

The rest of the interview is a rewriting of history in which JOH, with Gaetz's help, attempts to present himself as a crusader against drug trafficking, maligns Honduran former president Mel Zelaya and President Xiomara Castro, and dodges the question of his brother Tony's 2019 conviction for drug trafficking (and using the proceeds to finance JOH's political career).  

This absurd PR piece on the former Honduran president raises the question: How does the immediate release and political rehabilitation of Juan Orlando Hernández serve the interests of Donald Trump and his cronies?

The answer is threefold: geopolitical influence, economic gain and dirty money.

 ****

On Nov. 28, just two days before the Honduran presidential election, Donald Trump posted a message calling on Hondurans to vote for the extreme right candidate, Nasry Asfura of the National Party. In a follow-up post he threatened to cut off U.S. aid if Hondurans failed to vote his candidate into office and he promised to release former president Juan Orlando Hernández. 

The first threat, according to interviews, influenced many who feared collapse if the country were expelled from the U.S. economic orbit. The threat also sparked rumors that if Hondurans did not follow orders and elect Asfura, Trump would cut off remittances. Remittances from the U.S. are the top source of income for the nation and for thousands of Honduran families.

The promise to release JOH seemed counterintuitve at first. President Xiomara Castro won the last election over Asfura by a landslide, based in part on popular outrage and the slogan "Fuera JOH!" "(JOH Out!"). The vast majority of Hondurans voted precisely to rid the country of corrupt National Party rule. While National Party core followers, estimated at around 20% of the population, would undoubedtly celebrate the return of their real leader, millions of Hondurans had long ago repudiated the convicted criminal and former strongman.

Also the move directly questions the U.S. justice system. For Trump to decide with a stroke of a pen that a years-long investigation and trial was a cover for a political persecution was to put many U.S. government officials in a very uncomfortable position. The April 22, 2022 State Department announcement of the extradition of Juan Orlando Hernández to stand trial in the United States details the extensive investigation behind the extradition and charges, citing Justice Department findings. 

Anne Milgram, the head of the DEA, which did most of the work on the case, stated: 

“DEA’s multi-year investigation revealed that Juan Orlando Hernandez, the former President of Honduras, was a central figure in one of the largest and most violent cocaine-trafficking conspiracies in the world. Hernandez used drug-trafficking proceeds to finance his political ascent and, once elected President, leveraged the Government of Honduras’ law enforcement, military, and financial resources to further his drug-trafficking scheme.” 

The DEA has remained silent on the pardon of their prize catch, while eagerly embracing the revival of the war that justifies their budget and celebrating the unproven claims against Venezuela. In a Jan. 6 interview, Terry Cole, the new DEA head, attempted to justify the overthrow of the Venezuelan president and the kidnapping of Maduro by employing a bizarre word salad, peppered with references to "terrorism", "narcoterrorism", "poison", and "drugs", while utterly devoid of evidence or causal links. The Fox news interviewer attempted to get a plausible answer to accusations that Venezuela does not ship significant amounts of prohibited drugs to the U.S. (according to DEA figures) and almost no fenatanyl. She failed--and obviously did not ask about the JOH pardon. 

The Congressional Research Service issued a document on the pardon recommending use of oversight autorization to launch an investigation:

Some Members of Congress have questioned and criticized the Hernández pardon. Resolutions condemning the pardon have been introduced in both houses (H.Res. 929 and S.Res. 530). In addition to considering those measures, Congress could use its oversight authority to examine the Administration's justification for the pardon and the potential implications for U.S. security interests and relations with Honduras, among other issues. 

The report also recommends requiring that the executive provide Congress with justification for the pardon: 

President Trump has asserted that Hernández was treated "unfairly" and was "set up" by the Biden Administration. To date, the Trump Administration has not provided any evidence to support those claims other than echoing some of Hernández's complaints about his trial. The U.S. investigation into Hernández spanned several U.S. presidential Administrations, including President Trump's first term, during which several of Hernández's co-conspirators were charged and convicted.

Needless to say, Congress did none of that.

In the U.S. war on drugs, the rules change at will. Indeed, hypocrisy is why it works so well as a vehicle for imperialist aims, repression and resource grabs. The operating principle is simple: Take a almost universal human activity (the use of mind-altering substances), selectively prohibit and criminalize it (not alcohol), and apply the draconian laws only to your enemies.

Hypercriminalizing the low-rent segments of the international black market that you've created through prohibition and uncontrolled consumption while largely ignoring the high-rent segments within your own country is the international corollary.

In the United States, Nixon's version led immediately to mass incarceration of youth,  people of color and political and sexual dissidents. In other countries, it brings bloodshed, U.S. foreign intervention and state violence. 

***** 

This long view of the war on drugs as a cover, seen alongside the increasingly transparent aims of the Trump administration, reveals the logic behind the pardon of Juan Orlando Hernandez. JOH has an important geopolitical role to play that goes well behond the small nation of Honduras. 

Honduras is a domino in the plan of Trump administration and the international extreme right to topple left-leaning governments that defend national sovereignty and control of resources in the "backyard"--the Western Hemisphere. The Honduras election of the LIBRE Party and break with the U.S.-friendly narcodictatorship was an affront to this plan. 

Honduras had begun to undo some of the most aggregious attacks on the welface of its own people. The government rescinded an extreme plan for control of Honduran territory and resources by transnational corporations call ZEDEs, which had many U.S. investors drooling and was the capital pilot for a future of complete access. 

Moreover, Honduras under Xiomara Castro played a role in building South-South alliances, including the Community of Latin American and Caribbean states (CELAC), which she directed during her term. Trumps hates the CELAC, a body that meets without the inclusion of the hegemon. 

There are many reasons behind the defeat of the left in the Honduran Nov. 30 election but the road map for the return of the far right, despite its direct links to drug trafficking, is clear. Trump refused even the leading rightwing candidate, Salvador Nasralla, who bent over backward to court his favor.  With Asfura he has pocketed the compliant leader he needs and has the power behind the throne, Juan Orlando Hernández, wrapped around his finger.

Having chipped off little Honduras, kidnapped the Venezuelan president, and strangled Cuba, he now turns his attention to Mexico, Brasil and Colombia. 

The second reason for dusting off Juan Orlando Hernandez for action is the economic exploitation of Honduras. The country has mining, biodiversity and agricultural resources and tourism possibilities that capitalism needs to invest and expand. The ZEDEs not only hand over those resources to foreign investors, they also represent the most radical experiment to date in ceding national territory and resources to foreign capitalist interests. Trump and company need to see it succeed in order to replicate the model in other countries. 

Finally, illegal drug trafficking is a murky area of tremendous impact. The United States invented the drug war to assure its ability to control and employ the underground profits it generates. The duo of Asfura and Hernández will restore Honduras as a major trafficking route under the watchful eye of the DEA and the Trump administration. It will likely pay what we call here "derecho de piso"--the right to operate while paying off the gang leaders--in the form of opening up investment and providing cheap labor and resources.

The dirty money that the multibillion-dollar drug industry generates is funneled into political campaigns (as revealed in the Tony Hernandez case), funds illegal paramilitary groups for counter-insurgency efforts (as seen in the financing of the Nicaraguan Contra), and is pocketed by politicians as payback. The complicities between the cartels and the global oligarchy can be seen on every level from the daily operation of mines and agribusiness, to the global financial  system. Since drug money is largely untraceable, this money can be used for any number of nefarious activities. 

Many Honduras warn that Trump's release of Juan Orlando Hernández and programmed asension to power of Asfura Jan. 27, illegitimate by national and international standards, signifies restoring Honduras to its key role as a hub for illegal drug trafficking, especially cocaine from South America to the U.S. market. After the current government og Xiomara Castro managed to reduce homicides by 15%. They fear the violence that accompanies a surge in state-sanctioned illegal drug activity. 

We must analyze all these intersecting dynamics must be analyzed and understood to predict risks in the future and defend rights and security. Matt Gaetz, Donald Trump, Juan Orlando Hernández--these are the men who are defining the future of millions. The only factor that they cannot control is the resistance provoked by their avarice and brutality and disdain for the laws that bind us. We have a moral responsibility to call out the lies even in a "post-truth era" when it seems like it doesn't matter, to stand up for the rule of law and society, and to reject the unchecked exploitation of women's bodies and the earth's resources.  

Men like these cannot define our future. Or we will not have one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

My First Argument with AI

 I had my first argument with AI today. I know that dates me, but I usually try to avoid it, except I often read the summaries that pop up when I'm researching.

It all started when I read the DEA's Drug Enforcement Agency's National Drug Assessment Report for 2024. I already knew because I track the issue that Venezuela is not a major trafficking route to the United States. Still, I was surprised when I  read the report. 

In the 57-page report on drug threats to the United States the total number of mentions "Venezuela" or "Maduro" is: ZERO. Neither is mentioned at all amid a full discussion of routes through almost every other country in the region. 

I wanted to double-check this so I asked Google by typing in: "National drug assessment 2024 mentions of venezuela". I immediately (no ehhs or ummms with AI) received this answer: 

"The 2024 National Drug Threat Assessment mentions that Venezuela is a significant transit country for illegal drugs, primarily cocaine, and is home to powerful criminal organizations, such as the

Cartel of the Suns, which are allegedly linked to high-ranking military officials and involved in international drug trafficking. These groups are central to the flow of drugs from South America to North America and Europe."

This is completely false. I had already established that there is no mention of Venezuela, much less the Cartel of the Suns, which even the Trump administration admits is not a cartel, in the report.  

So I pressed the button that says "Dive deeper into AI mode", which, frankly, is a kind of scary way of putting it. A not even veiled reference to the rabbit hole. There I got a totally different answer Copied straight off the screen and unedited):

The

U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) "National Drug Threat Assessment" (NDTA) 2024 report does not mention Venezuela as a significant factor in international drug trafficking to the United States. 

This lack of mention has been noted by several news sources and Venezuelan officials who point out that the report contradicts U.S. political rhetoric and military actions that have focused on alleged drug threats from Venezuela. 

Key details from the search results:

• Multiple sources state that Venezuela, the "Cartel de los Soles," and the "Tren de Aragua" transnational criminal organization were not mentioned in the DEA's 2024 NDTA report as major drug threats to the U.S..
• The report primarily identifies Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia as the primary source countries for cocaine in Latin America, with most shipments reaching the U.S. via the Eastern Pacific and Central American nations.
• Venezuelan officials, including the Foreign Minister and Vice President, have cited the 2024 and 2025 DEA reports and UNODC reports as evidence that the country is not a significant producer, trafficker, or transit point for drugs, and have used this to refute U.S. accusations.
• The 2024 NDTA is a strategic assessment of illicit drug threats, and its findings are used to establish law enforcement priorities and formulate counterdrug policies. The omission of Venezuela from this key document suggests it is not considered a primary focus for the DEA's U.S.-focused counter-narcotics strategy for that year.  

So I couldn't resist asking: "Why did you lie and say that Venezuela was in the NDTA in the first AI summary you provided?"

Then Google AI goes on the defensive, ignoring its first response, repeating its second response and adopting a disturbing first person singular:

 

I did not state in my first response that Venezuela was in the National Drug Threat Assessment (NDTA) 2024 report. My previous answer clearly stated that Venezuela was not mentioned in the report as a significant factor.

 Here is an excerpt from the previous response:

• The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) "National Drug Threat Assessment" (NDTA) 2024 report does not mention Venezuela as a significant factor in international drug trafficking to the United States.
  This lack of mention has been noted by several news sources and Venezuelan officials who point out that the report contradicts U.S. political rhetoric and military actions that have focused on alleged drug threats from Venezuela. 

• The previous response focused on how the report's omission of Venezuela was used by Venezuelan officials to refute U.S. accusations and political claims. 

   Please re-read the first summary, and you will see that I provided accurate information based on the search results, highlighting the absence of Venezuela from the 2024 DEA assessment.

Again, the quote is from the second-screen answer that almost nobody goes to. Now I'm a more than a little annoyed with this AI "I". How condescending can you get, with that snide litte "please re-read the  first summary... ? 

So I  quote "I" to "I-self", writing in: "Yes you did. Instead of saying it is not listed as a significant factor (in fact it is not listed at all) you wrote this to my query, which has nothing to do with what is actually  in the National Assessment: 

The 2024 National Drug Threat Assessment mentions that Venezuela is a significant transit country for illegal drugs, primarily cocaine, and is home to powerful criminal organizations, such as the Cartel of the Suns, which are allegedly linked to high-ranking military officials and involved in international drug trafficking. These groups are central to the flow of drugs from South America to North America and Europe. 

"I" apparently had nothing to say to that and refused to continue the discussion, especially having been confronted with its own words.  After originally posing as the objective arbitrar of universal data and providing completely false information, AI falls back on the role of mere conveyer, as if it were patiently trying to help a child understand a difficult problem, offering me this:

• Here are top web results for exploring this topic:

  

  Al Jazeera·https://www.aljazeera.com

  The US warships off Venezuela aren't there to fight drugs

  ... Drug Enforcement Administration's National Drug Threat Assessment of 2024 does not even mention Venezuela. ... transiting of drugs through ...

  

  Project Censored·https://www.projectcensored.org

  Venezuela, Propaganda, and the Promise (and Peril) of AI

  And the estimated traffic of cocaine through Venezuela last year was something like 110 tons. ... a threat to the United States is ludicrous on ...

  

  Washington Office on Latin America | WOLA·https://www.wola.org

  Facts to Inform the Debate about the U.S. Government's Anti ...

  If the people aboard the boats targeted so far were indeed involved in smuggling illegal drugs, they would have played minor roles in vast ...

  

  Facebook·https://www.facebook.com

  U.S. INTELLIGENCE: NO FENTANYL COMING FROM ...

  The 2025 National Drug Threat Assessment names Mexico and Chinese ... Pearce Robinson Thank you, I've read most of the illegal drugs ...

  

  U.S. Department of State (.gov)·https://www.state.gov

  Presidential Determination on Major Drug Transit or Major ...

  ... 2024 the United States averaged over 200 deaths daily due to illicit drugs. ... illegal drugs, drug stockpiles and ongoing production ...

  

  Yahoo News Singapore·https://sg.news.yahoo.com

  Trump claims Venezuela's Maduro is a drug-trafficking threat ...

  According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Venezuela is not a cocaine-producing country. Advertisement. Advertisement.

  

  TRANSCEND.org·https://www.transcend.org

  TRANSCEND MEDIA SERVICE » Targeting Venezuela

  The U.S. is the largest consumer of illegal drugs, as well as a major supplier of the chemicals and fertilizers needed to produce them in the ...

  

  Facebook·https://www.facebook.com

  The great hoax against Venezuela Oil geopolitics disguised ...

  The bulk of cocaine and heroin shipments produced by Venezuela's neighbours leave via the Colombian Pacific, arriving in Panama, Honduras and ...

  

  Facebook·https://www.facebook.com

  For the second time this month, President Trump ... - Facebook

  President Trump says that he ordered the US military to attack a boat that he says was carrying illegal drugs from Venezuela to this country.

  DNI.gov·https://www.dni.gov

  ATA-2024-Unclassified-Report.pdf - DNI.gov

  Mexico-based TCOs are the dominant producers and suppliers of illicit drugs to the U.S. ... Illicit fentanyl will continue to pose a major threat ...

   

  A random collection of articles that includes some critiques to dispell the impression of bias. 

  I write: "No wonder we can´t trust AI." 

   

  AI then attempts self-criticism: 

  I understand your sentiment. Concerns about trust in AI often stem from instances where it provides incorrect, biased, or inconsistent information. These issues arise for several reasons:

   

  • Data Limitations: AI models learn from vast amounts of data available on the internet, which can contain misinformation, biases, and subjective opinions. The AI may reflect these flaws.
  • Misinterpretation: Sometimes AI misunderstands the nuance or intent behind a prompt, leading to an irrelevant or inaccurate response.
  • "Hallucinations": AI models can generate information that seems plausible but is entirely made up (often referred to as "hallucinating"). This is a known technical challenge in AI development.
  • Lack of Real-Time Context: Although some AI systems can access real-time information, standard models often rely on a static training dataset, meaning they might not be aware of the most current events or corrected information. 
  •  

  The field of AI is actively working to address these challenges through ongoing research into improved training techniques, better data filtering, and mechanisms for fact-checking. 

  For important information, it is always best to cross-reference with reliable sources.

  I was going to leave it there until I noticed the category of "Hallucinations". 

   

  There was a time when we referred to intentionally offering "entirely made up" information as "lying". "A technical challenge in AI development"? Like some mechanical force is inventing false information because of a circuitry bypass or something? 

   

  Who ever thought mini Hals would eventually wind up in everyone's home?

   

  I'm the first to confess that I don't know much about AI. It has always seemed to me like a harbinger of a grim dystopia, beyond the pens of our most prescient science fiction writers. I tend to avoid reading about the warnings and the advances, the billions of dollars behind it and the infinite numbers of debates surrounding it. I have almost no idea how or where to evaluate intention with AI systems. I know very little about who or what are the driving forces, except for the big names we see in the news. 

   

  But by this time, me and just about everyone knows that algorythms are set up with political purposes. We know that the entire system is rife with surveillance targets and codes. We also know that a lot is going on that we don't know about. 

   

  I think I'm going to have to start paying more attention. Shit.

   

   
   

 

 

The Pentagon is a lethal sieve for taxpayer dollars

The U.S. government just sent one trillion dollars to the Pentagon--an agency that recently failed its 7th audit and has misaccounted for over $21 trillion dollars in taxpayer funds, 

Are we seriously OK with this?  

The $21 trillion dollar figure was discovered in a 2017 study by Michigan State University researchers for the period 1998-2015 and supported by government documents. It became controversial when some references insinuated that it was lost spending--it actually measures the total adjustments that were not properly documented or explained and not funds spent, although a significant percentage of that is quite likely to be funds spent without proper authorization and monitoring.

Even so, that is a stratospheric number to be chalked up to poor accounting practices. Not only that, what would happen to me or you if we failed seven audits in a row? Would the government reward us with millions more? Only if we were the Pentagon or maybe one of its giant defense contractors.

Today Mira published a new piece on the Trump administration's new "AI Action Plan", a hugely expensive plan that serves the Trump's two major priorities as president--funneling as much public money as possible to the Broligarchy and dominating the world and its resources. Written by one of our longtime contributors, Tony Phillips, the article looks at the implications of the giant giveaway to tech companies and the race against China for AI dominance. In addition to the sci-fi scenarios of AI gone awry, the article points out the extreme danger of environmental destruction. The mega data centers the plan supports require huge amounts of electrictiy to run the computers and millions of gallons of water to cool them. Data center expansion will also effect land as they look to locate them on public lands. 

The article mentions the controversy surrounding Elon Musk's Grok 4 x-AI large language model. Built near Boxtown, a predominantly Black community in Memphis, Tennessee the center has sparked a growing communitiy movement against the severe health and environmental impacts of the neighboring business. A study  found that peak nitrogen dioxide concentration levels have increased by 79% from pre-xAI levels in areas immediately surrounding the data center,

The new super centers have clear ties to military use. AI warfare could be vastly more effective in killing civilians and wiping out whole populations, while protecting the aggressors. As the US government rushes to fund and develop the technology, the implications and impacts for humanity are not even being widely discussed. We're opening up this can of worms and welcome your comments, tips and questions. 

 

 

"Disclaimer": A Feminist Analysis

The series Disclaimer has been praised and panned, in about equal measure. I began watching without much idea of the plot. I admire the work of Mexican director Alfonso Cuarón and the cast is exceptional--with Cate Blanchett, Kevin Kline, Sacha Baron-Cohn in the leads. Although there are some gaps in the story, it's beautifully shot (by the brilliant cinematographer--also Mexican--Emmanuel Lubezki) and masterfully acted. That was enough to draw me in, Then I found it absolutely fascinating. I was still thinking about the series-and my own reactions- long after the 7th and final episode.

It's the plot that's haunting, and the particular way--often forced, but always challenging-- of telling Catherine's story. The script was written by Cuarón, based on the novel by Renée Knight. It's a deep reflection on stereotypes of women and the power of misogynist narratives. That may sound trite as a social commentary, but when you experience it, which you will unless you've completely succumbed to the patriarchal separation of intellect from emotion,  it's powerful. Some reviewers have called it "a failed feminist commentary" or "misguided feminist thriller" because it grapples with conflicting views of women's experience of sexual assault and as film seems contrived. But although they freely throw around the word "feminist" just because of the gender violence portrayed, not one attempts a feminist analysis or even a semi-serious discussion of the feminist issues raised in the series.

It's necessary, because Disclaimer's flaws as a television series are far less important than the issues it raises and our responses to them. 

The story

***Read on only if you've already watched Disclaimer, you don't intend to watch it, or you don't care if you know the entire plot beforehand***

Catharine Ravenscroft is a successful documentary producer with money, prestige, a husband and a son. The beginning shows her receiving a professional achievement award. At the ceremony, Christiane Amanpour as the presenter delivers a core message:

“Beware of narrative and form. Their power can bring us closer to the truth, but they can also be a weapon with a great power to manipulate. They can manipulate us only because of our own deeply held beliefs and the judgments we make, and in this way, Catherine reveals something more problematic and profound: our own complicity in some of today’s more toxic social sins.”

Returning home, Catharine opens a package she got in the mail that contains a book. She soon recognizes that it's a novel based on her experience at an Italian beach resort two decades ago. It portrays a married woman seducing a young man, Jonathan, on holiday. After a night of passion, the woman falls asleep on the beach, leaving her five-year old unattended. She awakes to find him far out in the ocean, floating in a dinghy as a storm comes up. Jonathan leaps into the ocean and saves the child. He drowns.

The narrative of the novel, ostensibly written by Jonathan's father under a pseudonym but actually written by his mother, dominates the story line. The scenes written by the grieving mother show Catharine using the naive Jonathan to satisfy her desire. He takes erotic photos of her as part of their bedroom play as her son sleeps in the next room. The day after, she hugs her rescued son, surrounded by the Italian lifeguards and a crowd of beach-goers, and doesn't tell anyone that Jonathan is still out there in the waves, struggling for his life. She's portrayed as the heartless villain. 

The other voice is Stephen, Jonathan's father. He describes how the parents traveled to Italy to identify the body of their son. The mother of the drowned boy, the author, lives out her life in grief and isolation and dies early of cancer. Stephen finds the hidden novel years later and publishes it as the centerstone of his obsessive campaign of vengeance against Catharine. This is basically the only version of events we get in the first five episodes.

Stephen delivers the book Catherine's husband, son and coworkers. He also sends the pictures to her son and husband. Almost every detail of the storytelling connives to convince us that the self-centered Catharine led the teenager on, prevented his rescue, and kept the secret as she built her successful life.  But there are signs--the warning about narratives, the furtive appearance of foxes, a phone call indicating that the boy's girlfriend left due to something awful he did, and a comment by Catharine in the argument with her husband--that indicate something below the story's surface. Throughout this set-up, Catherine is not heard, we don't know her side of it at all. Her life falls apart as everyone, including the viewer, assume she is the woman portrayed in the novel.

Finally, Catherine goes to Stephen's house where she makes him listen to what really happened: Jonathan entered her hotel room and brutally raped her at knife point, forcing her to pose for the photos. At first, Stephen is still determined to carry out his revenge plan by murdering Catherine's son, who is in the hospital. But there he has an epiphany and realizes that Catherine's version is true. He tells her husband she was raped, and admits the real nature of Jonathan as a sexual predator and of his wife as an enabler.

Conflicting narratives

The last-minute twist comes after such intricate measures to cover it up that I felt tricked rather than surprised. But I also felt guilty for my own willingness at first to buy the version of the evil Catharine. As a feminist, I have always and will always believe the woman, unless there is overwhelming evidence otherwise. I felt like I'd been caught in an elaborate trap. I had to go back and figure out why.

That's the point. The plot carefully constructs antipathy towards Catherine using classic patriarchal prejudices. Catharine is a successful journalist in a society that censures women for prioritizing career over childrearing--a choice men are not expected to make at all.  When Catherine calls herself "a shitty mom", it is viewed as a blanket condemnation of her moral character, while "shitty" or absent fathers are considered normal, and negligent fatherhood does not reflect on men's characters or social standing. 

Society also censures women for expressing the kind of sexual desire vividly shown in the scenes of supposedly consensual sex between Catherine and Jonathan, adding yet another negative stereotype to the case against Catherine. And since Catherine's character defies the conciliatory and self-deprecating manners associated with femininity, her strength and anger manifest as narcissistic arrogance. 

The prejudices and stereotypes pile up against her so when she begs to explain her side to her husband, we see it as a plea to accept what we already think she did. Imagery conspires with other peoples' visions of reality and the patriarchal "deeply held beliefs" mentioned at the outset to seal judgement. 

This is Cuarón's intention and while some people comment that they figured it out from the outset, it's fair to say many, like me, did not. Cuarón said in an interview with the Hollywood Reporter that he talked to audiences and found that “Almost everyone has created a judgment of Catherine that is completely different from the ending that we reveal.” He added, “It was a way for audiences to confront their own judgments.”

The director describes the development of the narratives — Stephen's inner voice, the novel through graphic visual reenactment, Catherine's in a third-person voice (the most criticized aspect of the series and rightly so) and the narrative the audience builds as they watch. When asked if the critique of narratives has special relevance after the US elections, Cuarón replies: "I believe the reason of the results [the election of Trump] is nothing but a manipulation of narratives. And the danger [is] that we’re living in this world that is overpopulated by narratives... we’re invaded by these conflicting narratives all the time. The one that hits emotional cords is going to hit the strongest."

The story also uses society's lack of understanding and empathy for sexual assault victims as a tool to build the case against Catherine. It doesn't occur to us that she's a victim of an attack because she hasn't said so for twenty years. Why would Catherine remain silent for so long, even as her life is being viciously destroyed?

First, why didn't she report the rape in Italy? At the end, Catherine explains to Stephen that after being sexually assaulted she collected evidence (photos of bruises, semen) and weighed going to the police. She dreaded the consequences for herself and for her family. She went to the beach with her son in the morning and before she had made a decision, her attacker drowned. She felt like she could move on without going through months or even years of renewed trauma. 

Cuarón notes that the Mexican feminist journalist Lydia Cacho, who has specialized in sex trafficking, femicide and trauma from sexual abuse, served as a consultant and confirmed that Catherine's behavior is  is very common. The Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network (RAINN) estimates that less than 1 out of every 3 sexual assaults are reported, with some estimates as low as 5%. The reasons include revictimization as the victim's past and current behavior are placed under scrutiny, stigmatization, consequences for loved ones and a lack of faith in the justice system. 

Then why didn't she say something when Stephen went after her? Disclaimer makes the point that she tried to, but nobody listened. This is also common. The prospect of re-opening a trauma to share it with people who even then might refuse to believe you can be daunting, as thousands of testimonies of rape victims prove. Often even after making the difficult decision to talk, victims are shut up and shut down, even by those closest to them.

You also can't expect trauma victims to act in ways that seem logical to someone who hasn't experienced what they've lived through, much less blame them. A victim's silence, whether for days or years, should never be construed as guilt. And yet, in the early episodes of Disclaimer we are shockingly easily convinced to do just that. 

Reflections 

Not everything makes sense in the plot. There are missteps and cheats to lead us into the trap and the resolution at the end feels incomplete. But I still couldn't shake the disturbing question of how as a feminist I leapt to conclusions based mostly on the same patriarchal norms I work against. Why was I so quick to condemn the woman? What made me so susceptible to believing that Catharine was the villain for so long? Where are my blind spots?

In my daily life I work against the same stereotypes employed in the ruse. I have experienced sexual assault and told no one. Yet I saw, at first anyway, a manipulative woman who watched her lover die. Part of it is that the first episodes don't offer two conflicting versions of reality--the woman's and the man's-- as usually happens in real life. We see only Jonathan's parents' version, with a few clues that there is a different story (although some viewers claim to have read the trigger warning on "sexual violence" as a tip-off). The script employs a sanctimonious third-person narration to offer insights into Catherine in damage control mode without revealing the rape.  It is often purposely misleading in order to build up to the surprise ending.

So what we see is Catherine as a self-centered climber who manipulates those around her for her own interests. Again, this is a criticism that is typically leveled against women. The same traits in men are considered positive; "ambition", "motivation" and "drive" are the hallmarks of successful men and signs of ruthlessness in women.

The most damning fact is really the only confirmed fact the two versions share and one we have early on: Catherine watched the young man drown after saving her son and did nothing to save him. I work with women who have lost children, mostly sons, to disappearance and violence. I lost a son. I wrongly sided with the grieving mother. This moral issue is explained, but not resolved, by the rape.

The discussion

The reviews offered little insight into what it means to confront the judgments we are taught to make about women. Although many reviewers acknowledged the feminist subject matter, they chose not to engage with it--a typical response of mainstream media to gender violence. Instead they wrote glib and simplistic "thumbs-up" or "thumbs down" reviews. Most reflect the annoying hubris that seems to be a job requirement for commercial media film reviewers. One reviewer (The Spectator) wrote and published a negative review in which he admitted that he did not watch the full series. Another (The New Yorker) used the words "vacuity" and "dreck" to describe the series in a brief and substanceless review that exemplified vacuity and dreck. 

So I turned to social media to find out what other regular people (well, regular people who compulsively share their opinions on Reddit) had to say. I hardly ever delve into the discussions, threads and debates that thrive in that world. I find it a compelling rabbit hole, but foreign and a little bit scary. I was immediately impressed by the vitality and the depth of the debate on Disclaimer. 

These are just a few of the comments: 

One person wrote skeptical of the idea that Catherine didn't say anything sooner. "In a post-metoo world, she’s wielding a tactical nuke against a creepy old man. It’s utterly ridiculous."

I had also questioned why she didn't come out with the truth earlier. Long ago, I didn't tell anyone about an attempted rape. But I was only 14 and it was the seventies. The commenter, I found out they're called "subs", is right in pointing out that one gain of feminist movements is that women have more tools to identify and respond to sexual assault and can often find more support.

But I also agree to some extent with this writer, and her example is hard to argue with:

"Metoo is a farce. In reality no one believes you or cares more than they did before. This week's results are evidence of that - 25 accusations against a man found liable in court last year for sexual abuse, and its not only tolerated but rewarded, lifting him to the highest position in society in a country."

Other comments, clearly from women, also give context to Catherine's silence: 

"The price a victim has to pay to receive any empathy, let alone justice, is too high and drains whatever mental capacity they might have left, if any. Just risking being told you might have caused or deserved it, can permanently ruin whatever's left from your mental sanity. Could she have been sure that he would have believed her? And could a rape survivor really use that traumatic experience to defend herself against accusations of an affair?"

"You don’t necessarily need to have been raped as a woman to relate to Catherine’s character. There are countless situations where women are outright villainized and retraumatized all over without anyone even asking for the facts. It’s a cognitive shortcut, bias, that people have when it comes to women. I wish I could someday live in a world where I'm not defined by those biases and I could be seen just as a person. Until then, we will never know what life without these fears feels like, the way men experience it" 

"The part where she explains her relief for Jonathan’s death and says at least she 'didn’t have to prove her innocence' just hurt. It is not innocence that must be proved. And it should not be her scrambling to be believed nor needing to justify herself. Yet that is the way many of these instances go."   

"Gut wrenching. The strength it takes to become gentle and live a life of “truth telling” or whatever she was getting an award for in the beginning, after being raped and violated- this is a strength like no other. They were sucessful in make me dislike her in the beginning. Fucc."

"This series meant the world to me as a survivor of multiple rapes: how it effects relationships; how a person just wants to move on and not speak of what happened; and how the victim's external posture in the world is almost always misinterpreted."

Another Reddit sub called TruckWash Channel writes a lengthy commentary comparing the series to the book and criticizing the resolution in the final episode after Stephen realizes his son's monstrous crime. They quote a line from Stephen in the book, which could have added more depth to the theme of the power of narratives, and that we see what we are programmed to see:

"The photographs in the hotel room are different. There is nothing natural about them. They are posed, I see that now. And as I look at them, horror is added to my shock. I see something I had chosen to miss before. It is fear."

TruckWash argues that the twist should have been revealed beforehand, and that the series glorifies Catherine's right to determine when, if and how to tell her story even as her life is torn apart by false narratives. I don't agree though that it glorifies or blames her silence. And from a feminist perspective, that's positive, because that's a destructive judgment any way you look at it. 

I agree that for Disclaimer to be a more effective social commentary, the series could have worked less hard to cover up its tracks and harder to create coherency. The audience probably could have used more time after the climax to validate and support the truth that Catherine finally reveals. The ending feels rushed, incomplete and unconvincing--instead of getting something like her day in court, Catherine has merely convinced a deranged man and a deeply insecure and insensitive husband. When the pieces of the puzzle finally fit together, we don't have enough time or background to fully reassemble it. But in the end, we the viewers discover the truth of the story, and some truths about ourselves and our society. And life's lessons are rarely tied up neatly with a bow.