Blog

Trump Derangement Syndrome Isn’t Just a Pejorative Term Anymore

A pair of Republican representatives is pushing Congress to address one of the most serious domestic issues of our time. What started out as a joke – a slur, of sorts – has become a very real public mental health crisis. Since late 2016, Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) has spread as swiftly as COVID-19 and could, for most of the infected, be more debilitating. And it’s no longer just a humorous dig at leftists – especially after two attempts on President Donald Trump’s life. Back in May, Reps. Warren Davidson (R-OH) and Barry Moore (R-AL) released statements on the introduction of the Trump Derangement Syndrome Research Act of 2025. This was not an epic prank. The congressmen want the National Institute of Mental Health (NIH) to study the disorder.

The late Charles Krauthammer, a political writer and pundit but a psychiatrist by training, coined the term “Bush derangement syndrome” in 2003. Leftists certainly displayed a visceral hatred of then-President George W. Bush, though it did not push them to adopt extreme and often irrational positions, as Trump Derangement Syndrome does.

Diagnosing Trump Derangement Syndrome

Anti-Trump journalist Fareed Zakaria once described TDS as “hatred of President Trump so intense that it impairs people’s judgment.” He wasn’t wrong. Personality disorders – what some clinical psychologists would collectively call sociopathy – affect the way the afflicted view themselves, their fellow human beings, and everyone’s place in the world. Emotions are governed by these disorders.

Keep reading

The Push Toward Legal DMT: Is The World Ready?

The Rise of legal DMT in the Psychedelic Conversation: As discussions around psychedelic legalization continue to evolve, one substance has gained notable traction: DMT (N,N-Dimethyltryptamine). Known for its intense, short-acting hallucinogenic experience, DMT has historically remained in the shadows compared to psilocybin or LSD. But now, thanks to changing perceptions and renewed research, the movement toward legalizing DMT is growing louder.

Legal DMT? A Patchwork of Global Policies

While DMT remains a Schedule I substance in the U.S. under the Controlled Substances Act, exceptions exist. Religious groups, such as the União do Vegetal (UDV), have received legal protection for ceremonial use of ayahuasca, a DMT-containing brew. Meanwhile, countries like Brazil and Peru tolerate traditional and spiritual use. In Canada, Section 56 exemptions are being considered for DMT therapy, and several psychedelic startups are lobbying for rescheduling.

Why DMT Is Different

Unlike other psychedelics, DMT offers a rapid and immersive experience — often lasting just 10–20 minutes when inhaled or vaped. This brevity makes it attractive for potential clinical applications, such as fast-acting trauma interventions or consciousness research. Companies like Small Pharma in the UK are developing DMT-based treatments for depression, and early-stage results are promising.

The Ethical and Medical Questions

However, the intensity and unpredictability of the DMT experience raises ethical concerns. Critics argue that even in supervised settings, the sheer strangeness of the DMT “breakthrough” could be destabilizing for vulnerable patients. Others emphasize that more controlled studies are needed to determine optimal dosing and preparation methods.

Cultural Roots vs. Commercial Interests

There’s also a growing dialogue about cultural appropriation, particularly regarding 5-MeO-DMT from toads and DMT-containing plants used in Amazonian traditions. Legalization efforts must balance respect for indigenous knowledge with the interests of Western medical and commercial frameworks.

Market Implications and Public Reception

If legalized, DMT could create a new niche within the psychedelic therapeutics market, projected to reach $10 billion by 2027. Yet public perception still lags behind psilocybin. Many associate DMT with “trip reports” and underground chemists rather than structured medical environments — a barrier advocates must overcome.

Keep reading

When Smart Meters Turn Into Spy Tools

California’s robust privacy protections are facing a critical test as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and community advocates press forward with a lawsuit to dismantle what they describe as an illegal and biased surveillance operation run by Sacramento’s public electric utility.

In a legal filing submitted last week, the EFF laid out evidence that the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD), which serves more than 650,000 customers, has spent over a decade monitoring detailed home electricity data and funneling it to police without a warrant. The organization calls this an unconstitutional “dragnet surveillance” program that unlawfully invades household privacy on a massive scale.

We obtained a copy of the filing for you here.

“This case is about Sacramento Municipal Utility District’s…dragnet surveillance of SMUD customers’ homes using sensitive and confidential energy usage information,” the brief begins. “The decade-long surveillance violates the California Constitution and a state privacy statute.”

SMUD’s so-called “smart meters,” installed in nearly every home it serves, transmit power usage in 15-minute intervals to the utility multiple times per day. This data, the lawsuit argues, offers a detailed portrait of home life, including sleep patterns, occupancy, and even personal routines. “SMUD analysts can, in effect, use the data to digitally peer into a person’s home,” the brief explains.

EFF alleges that SMUD has routinely handed over customer information to local police departments, including names, addresses, and usage history, without any individualized suspicion or judicial oversight. In many cases, these disclosures were based solely on arbitrary consumption thresholds. “SMUD has turned over…the names, addresses, and electrical consumption information of more than 33,000 customers through a zip code list,” the brief states.

Keep reading

Marijuana Prohibition Is And Always Has Been A Sham

Since its inception, efforts to criminalize the marijuana plant and stigmatize those who consume it have been predicated almost entirely upon gross exaggerations, racial stereotypes, and outright lies.

The initial push for cannabis criminalization, which began in earnest more than a century ago, had little to do with promoting public health or safety. Instead, the decision to target and prosecute cannabis users was fueled by xenophobia and media sensationalism.

For instance, a July 6, 1927 story in the New York Times, headlined “Mexican Family Goes Insane,” farcically claimed: “A widow and her four children have been driven insane by eating the marihuana plant, according to doctors, who say there is no hope of saving the children’s lives and that the mother will be insane for the rest of her life.”

An academic paper titled “Marijuana,” published in 1933 in The Journal of Law and Criminology, similarly made over-the-top allegations about the plant’s supposed dangers. The authors wrote, “The inevitable result [of consuming cannabis] is insanity, which those familiar with it describe as absolutely incurable, and, without exception, ending in death.”

In 1937, Harry J. Anslinger — America’s first ‘Drug Czar’ — successfully lobbied Congress to ban cannabis nationwide. He did so through the continuous use of racist rhetoric. “There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana use,” he asserted. “This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others.”

Fast-forward to 1971. That’s when the Nixon administration declared drug abuse to be “public enemy number one.” The lynchpin of this campaign was stamping out the use of marijuana, which Congress had just classified as a Schedule I controlled substance — the strictest federal category available. Yet, privately, Nixon acknowledged that he did not think cannabis was “particularly dangerous,” and he lamented the “ridiculous” penalties faced by those arrested for possessing it.

Keep reading

Marijuana Legalization Doesn’t Increase Youth Use, Top Researcher Says At Federal Meeting

At a webinar hosted by the federal Substances and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) last week, a leading cannabis researcher threw cold water on the notion that legalizing marijuana leads to increases in youth use of the drug. He also touched on problems with roadside assessments of cannabis impairment, the risk of testing positive for THC after using CBD products and the need for more nuanced regulation around cannabinoids themselves.

The public talk, from Ryan Vandry, an experimental psychologist and professor at Johns Hopkins University’s Behavioral Pharmacology Research Unit, was aimed at providing continuing education on marijuana for healthcare professionals. Titled “Behavioral Pharmacology of Cannabis – Trends in Use, Novel Products, and Impact,” it focused primarily on how variables like dosage, product formulation, mode of administration and chemical components such as terpenes can influence the drug’s effects.

Vandry began by noting that marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug in the United States. While self-reported consumption by adults has risen as more states have legalized in recent years, he noted, use by youth has generally remained flat or fallen.

“Use among youth is one of the biggest areas of concern related to the legalization and increased accessibility of cannabis,” he said, “but surprisingly, that cohort has actually maintained relatively stable [for] both past-year and daily use.”

Pointing to data from California going back to 1996, when the state ended prohibition for medical patients, Vandry said there has “really been no change in the rates of cannabis use among eighth, 10th or 12th graders. And in fact, in very recent years, we’ve seen a decrease in rates of consumption.”

Keep reading

New Congressional Bill Would Allow Interstate Marijuana Shipping By USPS To Help Small Growers Compete Against Large Corporations

A pair of Democratic congressional lawmakers have introduced a bill intended to help small marijuana growers compete against large corporations when cannabis is federally legalized—proposing to give them the ability to ship and sell products directly to consumers within and across state lines via the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) and commercial carriers.

The legislation—titled the “Small and Homestead Independent Producers (SHIP) Act—is being sponsored by Reps. Jared Huffman (D-CA) and Val Hoyle (D-OR). It represents a slightly revised version of a measure filed two sessions ago that was not ultimately enacted.

As Congress continues to work toward ending cannabis prohibition, there have been concerns that smaller businesses will struggle to compete against the handful of multi-state operators that have the resources and infrastructure to quickly expand, threatening to further consolidate the market when the federal floodgates finally open.

The SHIP Act is designed to minimize that risk and maximize opportunities for those smaller farmers and producers.

“Larger, commercialized cannabis operators are infiltrating the market and squeezing out our local farmers in the process,” Huffman said in a press release on Tuesday. “So when the antiquated federal prohibition on cannabis finally gets repealed, we need to have substantial legislation ready to help these small businesses survive.”

“My legislation would ensure that folks can ship their products straight to consumers, which would both help expand small businesses and ensure farmers stay afloat,” he said. “When full legalization is guaranteed, we must commit to not leaving our smallest family-farmers behind.”

The proposal has been amended in certain ways compared to the original version, including a new requirement that the Postal Service or “any private or commercial interstate carrier” transporting cannabis must verify that recipients of cannabis products are at least 21 years old.

It also clarifies provisions related to federal preemption of state marijuana laws as it concerns interstate commerce, making it clear that states that prohibit cannabis can continue to do so, except that they can’t prevent the transportation of marijuana across their borders. On the flip side, states with legal marijuana programs would be preempted by federal law “to the extent that such laws restrict the interstate or intrastate shipment of cannabis or a cannabis product directly to an individual with respect to whom the possession of cannabis or a cannabis product is lawful under the laws of the State.”

Finally, the latest version includes a new section that would amend U.S. postal laws by stipulating that the “Postal Service is authorized and directed to permit the transmission in the mails, under regulations to be prescribed by it, of cannabis.”

Keep reading

Democrats’ All-Electric USPS Fleet Sees Each Truck Come With A $6.8 Million Price-Tag

According to a recently published New York Post report, the Biden administration played a major role in the push to massively electrify the United States Postal Service mail truck fleet. From a USPS press release in 2022:

The United States Postal Service today announced that it expects to acquire at least 66,000 battery electric delivery vehicles as part of its 106,000 vehicle acquisition plan for deliveries between now and 2028. The vehicles purchased as part of this anticipated plan will begin to replace the Postal Service’s aging delivery fleet of over 220,000 vehicles.

The Postal Service anticipates at least 60,000 Next Generation Delivery Vehicles (NGDV), of which at least 75% (45,000) will be battery electric.

But, like Buttigieg’s E.V. charging stations, which cost about a billion dollars each, or Kamala Harris’s $42 billion rural internet “flop” that connected a whopping zero rural Americans to the web, or her one-billion-dollar solar panel plan for Puerto Rico which resulted in “only a few” installations), Biden’s “green” USPS plan has been an absolute cluster.

From the Post item:

A Biden administration plan to create a ‘green’ fleet of postal vehicles has churned out a mere 250 electric mail trucks in just over two years — after shelling out taxpayer funds meant to build thousands…

The nearly $10 billion project — which called for more than 35,000 battery-powered US Postal Service (USPS) vehicles to be completed by September 2028 — was funded in part by $3 billion in funding from former President Joe Biden’s 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.

(I suspect the Post item has a typo, because as you see above, the number from the USPS is 45,000, not 35,000.)

So far, the disbursed IRA funds are around $1.7 billion, which means that if Congress is able to claw back the $1.3 billion still allocated for the project, each of these 250 trucks have cost U.S. taxpayers a minimum of $6.8 million a piece—the whole plan was a $10 billion “investment,” so who knows how much else was spent from other sources. Now, “investments” are supposed to give the investors a return on their money, haven’t these financial whizzes heard?

Keep reading

New York Man Arrested After Building and Stashing 7 Bombs on Subway Tracks, Rooftops

A New York man was arrested and charged after building at least seven bombs and stashing them on rooftops and subway tracks.

Michael Gann, 55, was taken into custody last month and on Tuesday was charged by prosecutors in the Southern District of New York.

According to prosecutors, Michael Gann “manufactured at least seven improvised explosive devices (“IEDs”) using precursor chemicals—chemicals that can be combined to create an explosive mixture—that he had ordered on the internet, stored at least five IEDs and shotgun shells on adjoining rooftops of residential apartment buildings in the SoHo neighborhood of Manhattan, threw at least one IED onto the subway tracks of the Williamsburg Bridge, and subsequently lied to law enforcement about having disposed of his explosives and supplies in a dumpster.”

Gann stored 5 IEDs (pictured below) on the rooftops of residential buildings in SoHo.

Gann tossed one of the IEDs on the subway tracks on the Williamsburg Bridge.

Keep reading

Tulsi Fires Back at Barack Obama, Says She Will be Releasing More Trump-Russia Hoax Docs Tomorrow to Refute Obama’s Statement

ODNI Tulsi Gabbard fired back at Barack Obama on Tuesday afternoon after the former president released a rare statement in response to Trump’s assertion Obama was the ringleader of the Russia hoax.

The office of former President Barack Obama responded to Trump’s assertion that Barack Obama was the “ringleader” of the Russia collusion hoax.

According to a declassified presidential briefing from December 2016, Barack Obama knew the Trump-Russia collusion narrative was a hoax.

Barack Obama knew it was a hoax and he was personally involved in manufacturing and politicizing the intelligence to create the Trump-Russia collusion narrative.

On Tuesday President Trump said Obama is guilty of treason.

“Barack Hussein Obama is the ringleader. Hillary Clinton was right there with him and so was Sleepy Joe Biden… and so were the rest of them. Comey, Clapper, the whole group,” Trump said on Tuesday during remarks to reporters in the Oval Office.

“This was treason…they tried to steal the election…” Trump said.

Keep reading

Maybe AI Isn’t Going To Replace You At Work After All

AI fails at tasks where accuracy must be absolute to create value.

In reviewing the on-going discussions about how many people will be replaced by AI, I find a severe lack of real-world examples. I’m remedying this deficiency with an example of AI’s failure in the kind of high-value work that many anticipate will soon be performed by AI.

Few things in life are more pervasively screechy than hype, which brings us to the current feeding-frenzy of AI hype. Since we all read the same breathless claims and have seen the videos of robots dancing, I’ll cut to the chase: Nobody posts videos of their robot falling off a ladder and crushing the roses because, well, the optics aren’t very warm and fuzzy.

For the same reason, nobody’s sharing the AI tool’s error that forfeited the lawsuit. The only way to really grasp the limits of these tools is to deploy them in the kinds of high-level, high-value work that they’re supposed to be able to do with ease, speed and accuracy, because nobody’s paying real money to watch robots dance or read a copycat AI-generated essay on Yeats that’s tossed moments after being submitted to the professor.

In the real world of value creation, optics don’t count, accuracy counts. Nobody cares if the AI chatbot that churned out the Yeats homework hallucinated mid-stream because nobody’s paying for AI output that has zero scarcity value: an AI-generated class paper, song or video joins 10 million similar copycat papers / songs / videos that nobody pays attention to because they can create their own in 30 seconds.

So let’s examine an actual example of AI being deployed to do the sort of high-level, high-value work that it’s going to need to nail perfectly to replace us all at work. My friend Ian Lind, whom I’ve known for 50 years, is an investigative reporter with an enviably lengthy record of the kind of journalism few have the experience or resources to do. (His blog is www.iLind.net, ian@ilind.net)

The judge’s letter recommending Ian for the award he received from the American Judges Association for distinguished reporting about the Judiciary ran for 18 pages, and that was just a summary of his work.

Ian’s reporting/blogging in the early 2000s inspired me to try my hand at it in 2005.

Keep reading