A Series of Three Comments, on Different Subjects: Babbit, RFKJ, and Trump-and-the-Epstein Files
They are, in order: Ashli Babbitt's Military Funeral with Honors; RF Kennedy Jr's. Plan for Change at the DHHS; and "Is the Campaign to Have all of the 'Epstein files' Released a Democratic Hoax?
On the Ashli Babbitt Military Funeral
As is well-known, one of the protestors (in some quarters also referred to as "insurrectionists") in the violent events of Jan. 6, one Ashli Babbitt, is to receive a formal military funeral. Earlier this year her family had received $5 million in compensation from the Trump government. That was based on the notion that the officer who fired the shot, as Babbitt was part of a gang that was trying to break through a door, which if success had been obtained in that endeavour would have given them direct access to members of the Congress, was negligent in his duties. That one depends upon just what definition of negligent one is using. Most defenders of Constitutional law and government would regard that definition of negligent to be, to use a common term of the laws, off the wall. But that is a horse of another color.
But this upcoming event has much more significance. Because it says that an Air Force veteran, retired, and not even in the reserves, is somehow to be considered a member of an official U.S. armed force, presumably acting under some kind of orders, or orders assumed by that particular veteran. And if so, who would her Commander-in-Chief have been at the time? (Your guess is as good as mine.)
But what do we have here? On the one hand, a vet out-of-the-service, presumably acting on her own. But wait. Her family received compensation. And then Ms. Babbitt receives full military honors? In order for her to be dealt with in that way, she would have to have been considered to be in the military, in one way or another, at the time of her death, within some sort of command structure.
And so, this decision, action, by the Air Force --- that is the military funeral with honors --- clearly granted to a person who at the time she was (unfortunately, to be sure) killed --- would seem to say that she was acting under some sort of military orders, which could have been as minor as wink and a nod. But the next question is, from whence did those orders come? If they did not come, Babbitt, whose highest rank before her retirement was Enlisted Airman (not an officer), could not have qualified to be considered still to be a member of the military, and entitled to the military honors which she is being given (posthumously to be sure).
Further, this is a legalistic argument. Much more important is how this decision feels to one of the Capitol Policeman who was there faced the vicious onslaught of that day, Harry Dunn (click here).
"This decision is more than just misguided. It is an insult to me, to my colleagues who fought for our lives that day, and to the very idea of what military service means. Military honors are supposed to be reserved for those who upheld their oath, who served with honor, and who lived in a way that embodied sacrifice for their country. Ashli Babbitt forfeited that honor when she turned against the very Constitution she once swore to defend.
"Let’s be clear: She died while attacking democracy. That is the truth. You can try to rewrite history, but you cannot change what happened on January 6. No matter how much some politicians and pundits try to paint her as a martyr, she wasn't. She was part of a mob that left a trail of broken windows, broken bodies, and broken trust in the very heart of our republic.
"I can’t help but think of my fellow officers, the ones who still wake up with nightmares, the ones who can't return to work because of their injuries, and the ones we buried because the weight of that day was too much to carry. Where are their honors? Where are the proclamations, the ceremonies, the symbolic gestures that tell their families, your sacrifice mattered?
"Instead, we watch as the government honors someone who tried to silence democracy with violence.
"This isn't just about Ashli Babbitt. It’s about what we choose to celebrate as a nation. Do we honor those who defended the Capitol often at great personal cost or do we glorify those who attacked it? Every time we elevate someone like Babbitt, we tell the world that violent insurrection is excusable, even honorable. That message is dangerous."
No further comment from me is necessary.
On the Changes being made by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. at the Department of Health and Human Services
From a newspaper headline concerning the resignations at The Centers for Disease Control following the firing by the Sec. of Health and Human Services, R.F. Kennedy Jr., of the Trump-nominated/Senate confirmed most recent director, Dr. Susan Monarez, HHS Employees Accuse RFK of Endangering America, Demand His Resignation, Dr. Jennifer Margulis https://substack.com/@jennifermargulis posted the following comment:
"My point is that Americas health is in the toilet. I love this country. And we are a nation full of overweight, endocrine-disrupted, cancer-ridden, diabetic, brain-injured, unhappy, digitally addicted humans. Ask me how I know.
"We also have a for-profit greed-motivated healthcare system in this country, one that benefits every day from keeping its citizens fat, sick, and nearly dead.
"The status quo has been doing a very good job making Americans sick and keeping them that way.
"RFK, Jr. wants to heal our nation’s health.
"Those 1040 employees can go work for the vaccine and drug manufacturers. I'm sure they'll be welcomed with open arms.
"In the meantime, there are over 340 million Americans whose health will benefit from RFKs initiatives.
"Including me."
On a listserv on which I am a listee, I posted the following comment:
Hello everyone. I have spent my 50-year career in public health/preventive medicine, and health care delivery system analysis (FYI, I created the first textbook ever on that subject, currently in its 13th ed.), and, among other subjects, I have also done work (including a book) on the addiction problem (which of course begins with tobacco and alcohol use), as well as several books on healthy eating and exercise. I find myself largely in agreement with both the health-risks list and the critique of the US health care delivery outlined above. However, it is limited.
As it happens, I have looked at the Secretary's recommendations for change in the US system, but have not (yet, at least) found the following items which collectively would do much to reduce the high morbidity/mortality numbers cited below, in addition to reducing the profit motive for providing (or not) health care services.
A comprehensive national health insurance program (if not a national health service, and there is a difference), not income-based. The US is the only industrialized nation in the world that does not have one.
A comprehensive long-term care insurance program, not income-based.
A comprehensive program to deal with two of the major killers in the U.S., tobacco (approx. 450,000 deaths per year) and alcohol use (approx. 175,000 deaths per year). These numbers compare with Fentanyl overdose deaths, many of which could be avoided if the drug were sold legally with the dosage clearly marked on the container, about 75,000. (As it happens, I have written a book on that subject too.)
A comprehensive program to promote healthy eating and exercise (as it happens, I co-authored the American College of Sports Medicine's book on that subject, plus several books on triathlon/duathlon racing (plus I did 257 of them myself, over a 36 year period), (plus I co-authored several books on healthy eating and weight management).
A comprehensive, life-long, cancer screening program, available at no or low cost.
A comprehensive national program for healthy eating in all schools.
I do look forward very much so seeing the details of RFKJ's plans to promote and then create these programs (and others, of course) that would be aimed at dealing with the extensive, and correct, morbidity/mortality list that Dr. Margulis has put together. I say, well done, Dr. Margulis!
On President Trump and his (currently claimed) Democratic Hoax
With increasing frequency President Trump has been claiming that the increasingly broad campaign to have all of the Epstein Files released is, in his terminology, a Democratic Hoax. So sure of himself is he that he even used the term in describing the press conference held by a number of Epstein sex-crime victims, most of whom who appeared in public for the first time. He actually used the term while the victims press conference was being held.
Assuming that the President's name is nowhere to be found in those files, or at least nowhere to be found that would indicate that he did, shall we say, anything improper, there is a very simple way to convince the public, pro-Trump and con-Trump, that indeed there is nothing to see there. Just agree to having the full batch of files released (under the watchful eyes of non-Dept. of Justice personnel, of course). Then, if the whole affair indeed constitutes a Democratic hoax, the hoax indeed would be laid bare.
In this context, we might note a comment that appeared on The Daily Kos (9-4-25):
Every time Trump gets caught, it’s the same script: hoax. Russia's efforts to elect him? Hoax. Losing an election? Hoax. January 6? Hoax. His sexual assaults? Hoax. Now even the Jeffrey Epstein files --- which he ran on releasing --- are supposedly a hoax.