This is the home of grumpy opinions.
As part of my ongoing efforts to make sure that The Grumpy Doc is no more than 20 years out of date, I’ve added a search function to the site. If you look to your right, you will see it cleverly labeled as SEARCH. Just enter any keyword and search away.
Why Every Guru Thinks They’ve Found the Only Path to Health
There’s a peculiar affliction that seems to strike fitness influencers, biohackers, homeopathic healers, and wellness gurus with near-universal consistency — the unshakeable conviction that they, and only they, have cracked the code on human health. Whether it’s cold plunges at 4 a.m., microdosing mushrooms, coffee enemas, or whatever supplement stack is trending this week, every one of these prophets arrives at the same conclusion: their method is the path, the others are at best misguided, and mainstream medicine is a corrupt temple worth burning down.
Psychologists have a name for part of what’s happening here. It’s called the Dunning-Kruger effect — the tendency for people with limited knowledge in a domain to overestimate their own competence. But that’s only part of the story. Many of these figures are genuinely smart, sometimes even credentialed. What really drives the zealotry is something closer to what researchers call “belief perseverance” — the tendency to hold tightly to a conclusion even when contradicting evidence rolls in. Once someone has built an identity, a brand, and an income stream around a single idea, the psychological and financial cost of admitting nuance becomes enormous.
Take the biohacking community as a prime example. Some influencers — like the self-proclaimed “father of biohacking” — have built empires on the premise that optimizing the body is a matter of finding the right levers and pulling them correctly. They have championed everything from Bulletproof Coffee to infrared saunas to testosterone replacement, positioning each as a revelation that conventional medicine is too slow or too corrupted to acknowledge. The problem isn’t that all of these interventions lack merit — some have legitimate science behind them. The problem is the rhetorical framework: the idea that skeptics aren’t just wrong, they’re complicit. That’s not science; that’s a revival meeting.
Homeopathy sits at a different extreme but runs on the same engine. Developed in the late 18th century by Samuel Hahnemann, homeopathy is based on the idea that substances that cause symptoms in healthy people can cure those symptoms in the sick — and that extreme dilution actually strengthens a remedy’s potency. The scientific consensus is unambiguous: systematic reviews and meta-analyses have repeatedly found homeopathic remedies perform no better than placebo. And yet its advocates don’t merely disagree with this consensus — they dismiss the entire evidentiary framework, arguing that conventional research methods simply can’t measure what homeopathy does. It’s an airtight position: no evidence can ever count against it.
The fitness world runs its own version of this dogmatism on a perpetual loop. CrossFit devotees insist that anything other than functional high-intensity training is a waste of time. Carnivore diet advocates declare that vegetables are quietly poisoning you with antinutrients. Yoga instructors sometimes slide into the claim that breath control and mindfulness can substitute for actual medical care. Each subculture has its orthodoxy, its apostles, and its convenient explanations for why people who don’t follow the program are sick, lazy, or deceived. The irony is that many of these systems contain genuinely useful elements. Resistance training really does build muscle and bone density. Mindfulness really does reduce cortisol. Dietary quality really does matter enormously. But the insistence on one method to the exclusion of all others transforms useful practices into something closer to religious doctrine.
What’s lost in all the noise is the most important truth in medicine: human bodies are wildly heterogeneous. What works beautifully for one person may be ineffective or even harmful for another. This isn’t a flaw in the science — it is the science. Precision medicine, one of the most promising frontiers in modern healthcare, is built entirely on this recognition. The dream of a single universal protocol for human health isn’t just unrealized — it’s probably unrealizable. Yet that’s precisely what every wellness guru is selling.
There’s also a social dimension worth naming. The wellness industry is, in the most literal sense, an industry. It generated an estimated $5.6 trillion globally in 2022, according to the Global Wellness Institute, and that number continues to climb. When someone’s livelihood depends on their particular system being not just good but uniquely correct, objectivity becomes a luxury they can’t easily afford. Dismissing alternatives isn’t just tribalism — it’s good business.
None of this is to say that skepticism toward mainstream medicine is always misplaced. Conventional healthcare has real blind spots — in chronic disease management, in nutrition research, in the treatment of pain, and in its historical tendency to dismiss patient experience. The gurus often fill genuine gaps that the system has left open. But filling a gap is different from claiming you have the only map to the entire territory. The honest answer in health and fitness, as in most complex domains, is that we know a good deal, we don’t know quite enough, and anyone who tells you they’ve figured it all out probably hasn’t.
The next time someone tells you they’ve discovered the only way — whether it’s a supplement protocol, a spiritual practice, or a morning routine — it might be worth asking the simplest question in science: compared to what? If the answer is a dismissive wave at everything else, you probably have your answer.
Illustration generated by author using ChatGPT.
Sources
Global Wellness Institute — Global Wellness Economy Monitor: https://globalwellnessinstitute.org/industry-research/
Ernst E. — Homeopathy: The Undiluted Facts (Springer, 2016): https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-43592-3
Dunning D. — The Dunning-Kruger Effect, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065260111440024
National Institutes of Health — Precision Medicine Initiative: https://www.nih.gov/research-training/allofus-research-program
Medical Disclaimer
The information provided in this article is intended for general educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. It should not be used as a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment.
Always seek the guidance of a qualified healthcare provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition or treatment. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay seeking it because of something you have read here.
If you are experiencing a medical emergency, call 911 or your local emergency number immediately.
The author of this article is a licensed physician, but the views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not represent the official position of any hospital, health system, or medical organization with which the author may be affiliated.
If you’ve ever winced taking your first steps out of bed in the morning, you may have already made an involuntary acquaintance with heel spurs — or more precisely, with the condition that often travels with them. The term itself sounds alarming, and for a brief but colorful stretch of American political history, it became something far more charged than a footnote to podiatry. But before we get to the politics, it’s worth understanding what a heel spur actually is, because the medical reality is both more mundane and more complicated than the caricature.
What Exactly Is a Heel Spur?
A heel spur is a small bony outgrowth — technically called a calcaneal spur — that extends from the underside of the heel bone (the calcaneus). It forms at the spot where the plantar fascia — the thick ligament running the length of your foot from heel to toe — attaches to the heel bone. The spur is not, despite what the name implies, a sharp spike. It is typically smooth and rounded, though it can still cause irritation if it presses into surrounding soft tissue.
Heel spurs affect about 10% of the population, making them one of the more common foot conditions around, though most people who have one don’t know it. The spur develops gradually — usually over months or even years — as the body deposits calcium in response to chronic stress at that heel attachment point. Think of it less as damage and more as your skeleton’s attempt at reinforcement.
What Causes Them?
The underlying driver is repetitive mechanical stress on the foot. Heel spurs are particularly associated with strains on foot muscles and ligaments, stretching of the plantar fascia, and repeated small tears in the membrane covering the heel bone. Athletes who do a lot of running and jumping are especially prone.
But you don’t need to be an elite runner to develop one. Walking gait problems — particularly overpronation, where the foot rolls inward — place uneven stress on the heel with each step. Worn-out or poorly fitted shoes, which fail to absorb shock or support the arch, compound the problem. Obesity increases the mechanical load on the heel. Occupations that require prolonged standing or walking on hard surfaces put the plantar fascia under constant tension. And as people age, tendons and ligaments lose their elasticity, making the tissues more vulnerable to micro-tears and the subsequent bony repair response.
Heel spurs are also closely connected to a condition most people have heard of: plantar fasciitis. The two are related a but not identical. Plantar fasciitis is inflammation of the plantar fascia itself, usually from overuse. A heel spur can develop as a downstream consequence of that inflammation — the body lays down extra bone in response to the ongoing stress at the fascia’s attachment point.
Symptoms — or the Lack Thereof
Here’s the part that surprises most people: the majority of heel spurs cause no symptoms at all, and many are discovered incidentally on X-rays taken for other reasons. Only about 5% of heel spurs are estimated to be symptomatic.
When a heel spur does produce symptoms, the experience is heavily intertwined with plantar fasciitis. The classic description is a sharp, stabbing pain on the bottom of the foot first thing in the morning, or after any prolonged rest. Many people compare it to stepping on a tack. Paradoxically, this pain often eases somewhat after walking around for a few minutes, only to return after extended time on the feet or after another rest. It’s that “worse in the morning” quality that tends to be the giveaway.
Other symptoms, when present, can include localized swelling, warmth, and tenderness along the front of the heel, as well as increased sensitivity on the underside of the foot. It’s worth noting that the pain associated with a heel spur is not generally thought to come from the bony spur itself, but from the irritation it causes in the surrounding soft tissue — tendons, ligaments, and bursae.
How Is It Diagnosed?
Diagnosis typically begins with a physical exam. Your doctor or podiatrist will ask about when the pain started, what activities preceded it, and what makes it better or worse. They’ll examine your foot for tenderness at specific points, assess your range of motion, and check foot alignment and press on key areas to locate the source of pain.
Imaging confirms the picture. An X-ray can clearly show the bony spur and is the most commonly used test. That said, the size of the spur on an X-ray doesn’t necessarily correspond to how much pain a patient is experiencing — a small spur can be quite painful while a large one may cause no trouble at all. In more complex cases, an MRI may be ordered to assess the soft tissues more closely and evaluate whether plantar fasciitis or another condition is also in play.
Treatment Options
The reassuring news is that the vast majority of cases resolve without surgery. More than 90% of patients improve with nonsurgical treatment. The catch is that conservative management requires patience — improvement typically takes weeks, and more stubborn cases can take months.
The cornerstone of treatment is rest and reducing the activities that provoke pain. This doesn’t necessarily mean completely stopping exercise; low-impact alternatives like swimming, cycling, or rowing allow you to stay active while giving the heel a break from impact. Icing the bottom of the foot after activity helps manage inflammation. Over-the-counter anti-inflammatory medications like ibuprofen or naproxen can provide relief, though they’re intended for short-term use.
Footwear matters enormously. Supportive shoes with good arch support, cushioning, and a slight heel rise reduce the strain on the plantar fascia. Custom orthotics with molded insoles designed to redistribute pressure across the foot are often recommended, particularly for people with gait abnormalities or flat feet. Physical therapy can be part of the treatment plan, focusing on stretching the calf muscles and plantar fascia, strengthening the foot’s intrinsic muscles, and correcting biomechanical issues.
For cases that don’t respond to these initial measures, the next tier of treatment includes corticosteroid injections to reduce inflammation at the spur site, and extracorporeal shockwave therapy — a non-invasive procedure that uses sound waves to stimulate healing in chronically inflamed tissue. Surgery is reserved for the minority of cases where conservative treatment fails after nine to twelve months. Possible complications include nerve pain, infection, scarring, and — with plantar fascia release — the risk of foot instability or stress fracture. Most orthopedic surgeons regard surgery as a last resort.
Are Heel Spurs Debilitating?
For most people, the honest answer is: no. Heel spurs are a common condition with a favorable prognosis, especially with early diagnosis and appropriate management. Many people live with heel spurs for years without ever knowing it, and even those who develop pain typically find substantial relief with conservative treatment within four to eight weeks.
That said, the pain at its worst — particularly in conjunction with plantar fasciitis — can be genuinely disruptive to daily life. Athletes may find their training significantly limited. People who spend long hours on their feet at work may struggle with sustained discomfort. And a small percentage of patients do end up with prolonged, treatment-resistant pain that affects mobility. So, the more accurate framing might be: heel spurs have the potential to be significantly uncomfortable and functionally limiting during flare-ups, but with proper treatment most people recover well and return to normal activity.
Heel Spurs and the Vietnam-Era Draft
Which brings us to an improbable chapter in heel spur history. During the Vietnam War era, heel spurs became — for at least one famous case — a ticket out of military service. Understanding how that worked requires a brief detour into the draft system of the 1960s and 1970s, and what it meant to receive a medical deferment.
According to the National Archives, of the roughly 27 million American men eligible for military service between 1964 and 1973, about 15 million were granted deferments — mostly for education, and some for mental or physical problems — while only 2,215,000 were actually drafted into service—another eight million volunteered. Some of those who later served had previously had deferments. The system was sprawling, complex, and — as was widely acknowledged even at the time — deeply unequal.
Roughly 60% of draft-eligible American men took some sort of action to avoid military conscription. There were many routes: college deferments, fatherhood, conscientious objector status (170,000 men received those alone), National Guard enlistment, and medical exemptions. Medical deferments covered a wide range of conditions — from serious chronic illness to conditions that, in a different context, most people would consider minor. Flat feet, poor eyesight, asthma, and yes, bone spurs all appeared on the list of potentially disqualifying ailments.
The system was known to favor men with access to money, education, and well-connected physicians. American forces in Vietnam were 55% working-class and 25% poor — reflecting those who didn’t have the means to navigate the deferment labyrinth. A working-class kid from rural West Virginia was far more likely to end up in the Mekong Delta than the son of a New York real estate developer.
The Most Famous Heel Spur in American History
Which leads, inevitably, to Donald Trump. As confirmed by Selective Service records obtained and reported by multiple news outlets, Trump received five Vietnam-era draft deferments — four for college attendance at Fordham and the Wharton School, and a fifth in 1968, recorded as a medical deferment for bone spurs in his heels. The medical classification left him disqualified for military service.
The circumstances surrounding the diagnosis have been contested ever since. Reporting by the New York Times included accounts from the daughters of a Queens podiatrist named Larry Braunstein, who alleged that their father had provided or vouched for the diagnosis as a professional favor to Trump’s father, Fred Trump — a landlord to whom Braunstein reportedly owed a debt of gratitude. Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen also testified that Trump had admitted to fabricating the injury. Trump himself has maintained that the diagnosis was legitimate, stating that a doctor “gave me a letter — a very strong letter — on the heels.” The underlying medical records that would resolve the dispute are, conveniently, not publicly available; most individual Selective Service medical records from that era were subsequently destroyed.
It’s worth noting that Trump’s pattern — using legal channels, including a medical deferment of questionable validity, to avoid Vietnam service — was not unique to him. Historians have pointed out that numerous prominent figures on both sides of the political aisle received deferments of various kinds, including Joe Biden (asthma), Dick Cheney (student deferments), Bill Clinton (navigated the ROTC system), and George W. Bush (National Guard). The heel spur episode became politically charged in part because of Trump’s later hawkish rhetoric and his outspokenness in questioning the military service of others — most notably Senator John McCain, who spent years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam.
How Many People Got Heel Spur Deferments?
This is where the historical record hits a hard wall. No reliable statistics exist specifically for heel spur deferments. The Selective Service tracked broad categories — student deferments, hardship deferments, conscientious objector status, medical disqualifications — but it did not publish a breakdown by specific diagnosis, and most individual medical records from that era no longer exist.
What we can say is that bone spurs were a recognized medical disqualifier under Selective Service regulations, that medical deferments broadly were a commonly used — and commonly abused — avenue for avoiding service, and that the process was heavily influenced by access to sympathetic physicians. A man with means, connections, and a cooperative podiatrist had options that a man without those resources did not.
The honest answer, then, is that we don’t know how many men received deferments citing heel spurs specifically, and we almost certainly never will. The data either wasn’t tracked at that level of granularity or was long since destroyed. What we do know is that the condition became, for a time, a lens through which Americans examined something much larger: who serves, who doesn’t, and whether the systems meant to govern those decisions are applied fairly.
For most people, a heel spur is a manageable, if annoying, footnote in the story of their health. For at least one person, it became a footnote in the history of American politics.
Personal Note: I have heel spurs; I wish I’d known about them in 1967.
Images generated by author using AI.
Medical Sources
Cleveland Clinic — Heel Spurs overview
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/21965-heel-spurs
WebMD — Heel Spur Causes, Symptoms, Treatments, and Surgery
https://www.webmd.com/pain-management/heel-spurs-pain-causes-symptoms-treatments
Hackensack Meridian Health — Bone Spurs in the Heel: Symptoms and Recovery
https://www.hackensackmeridianhealth.org/en/healthier-you/2024/01/02/bone-spurs-in-the-heel-symptoms-and-recovery
OrthoArkansas — Heel Spurs
https://www.orthoarkansas.com/heel-spurs-orthoarkansas/
EmergeOrtho — Heel Bone Spurs: Causes, Symptoms, Treatment
https://emergeortho.com/news/heel-bone-spurs/
American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons — Plantar Fasciitis and Bone Spurs
https://orthoinfo.aaos.org/en/diseases–conditions/plantar-fasciitis-and-bone-spurs/
Vietnam Draft & Military Service Sources
History.com — 7 Ways Americans Avoided the Draft During the Vietnam War
https://www.history.com/articles/vietnam-war-draft-avoiding
Wikipedia — Draft Evasion in the Vietnam War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_evasion_in_the_Vietnam_War
Wikipedia — Conscription in the United States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States
Students of History — The Draft and the Vietnam War
https://www.studentsofhistory.com/vietnam-war-draft
University of Michigan — The Military Draft During the Vietnam War
https://michiganintheworld.history.lsa.umich.edu/antivietnamwar/exhibits/show/exhibit/draft_protests/the-military-draft-during-the-
Vietnam Veterans of America Chapter 310 — Vietnam War Statistics
https://www.vva310.org/vietnam-war-statistics
Vietnam Veterans of Foreign Wars — Fact vs. Fiction: The Vietnam Veteran
https://www.vvof.org/factsvnv.htm
New York City Vietnam Veterans Plaza — Interesting Facts About Vietnam
https://www.vietnamveteransplaza.com/interesting-facts-about-vietnam/
Medical Disclaimer
The information provided in this article is intended for general educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. It should not be used as a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment.
Always seek the guidance of a qualified healthcare provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition or treatment. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay seeking it because of something you have read here.
If you are experiencing a medical emergency, call 911 or your local emergency number immediately.
The author of this article is a licensed physician, but the views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not represent the official position of any hospital, health system, or medical organization with which the author may be affiliated.
Collection of the author
Ask most Americans what the Statue of Liberty means and they’ll say the same thing: she welcomes immigrants. She is the “Mother of Exiles,” keeper of the golden door. That image is so deeply woven into the national identity that it has been quoted, protested, and debated for more than a century. The only problem is that it wasn’t what her creators originally intended.
The story begins in 1865, just weeks after the Civil War ended, at a dinner party near Versailles. The host was Édouard de Laboulaye, a French historian and president of the French Anti-Slavery Society. Laboulaye was one of France’s most passionate admirers of American democracy and was deeply moved by both Lincoln’s assassination and the abolition of slavery. He proposed that France present the United States with a colossal monument — one that would celebrate two things at once: the centennial of American independence and the end of slavery.
Sculptor Frédéric-Auguste Bartholdi was at that dinner and took the idea and ran with it. Early models from around 1870 show Lady Liberty with her right arm raised — familiar enough — but in her left hand she holds broken shackles, not a tablet. The anti-slavery message was unmistakable.
That symbolism didn’t entirely disappear from the final design — it just got moved. According to the National Park Service, Bartholdi placed a broken chain and shackle at the statue’s feet, hidden beneath the copper drapery. Most visitors never notice it. The left hand now holds a tablet inscribed with the date of the Declaration of Independence.
Why the change? NYU historian Edward Berenson points to the political climate of the 1880s. By the time the statue was dedicated in October 1886 — more than 20 years after Laboulaye’s dinner — Reconstruction had collapsed, Jim Crow was spreading, and the country was trying to paper over sectional wounds by quietly forgetting the war’s racial roots. Nobody at the dedication mentioned slavery. The abolitionist origins were simply buried.
The statue was formally named Liberty Enlightening the World and the message broadened toward Franco-American friendship and American liberty in general rather than emancipation specifically.
Then came Emma Lazarus, and the second transformation. In 1883, a fundraiser struggling to pay for the statue’s pedestal asked prominent writers to donate works for an auction. Lazarus, a Jewish-American poet, initially declined as she was then deeply involved in aiding Jewish refugees fleeing wide-spread and organized violence in Russia. A friend persuaded her that the statue, sitting at the entrance to New York Harbor, would inevitably be seen as a beacon by arriving immigrants. She wrote “The New Colossus” — fourteen lines that reimagined Lady Liberty entirely, as a “Mother of Exiles” beckoning the world’s tired and poor to America’s golden door.
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
Strangely, the poem then vanished. It played no role at the statue’s 1886 dedication. Lazarus died in 1887, before Ellis Island even opened. It wasn’t until 1903 that a friend had the entire poem cast onto a bronze plaque that was mounted inside the pedestal——not engraved on the outside as many believe. By then, millions of immigrants had already sailed past the statue on their way to Ellis Island, and the association with immigration had taken hold in the public imagination.
The immigration meaning deepened through the early 20th century as the government used the statue’s image in campaigns to assimilate immigrant children, many of whom lived in ethnic enclaves in large eastern cities. Meanwhile, the abolitionist symbolism that had inspired the project in the first place faded almost entirely from public memory.
The broken shackles are still there, tucked under her robe, mostly invisible. Lady Liberty has been continuously reinterpreted for 160 years — by abolitionists, by a poet responding to a refugee crisis, by politicians, and by millions of people who looked up at that torch from the deck of a ship. Will Lady Liberty and her words continue to offer welcome and hope and be a source of national pride or is her meaning once again being rewritten as a symbol of American identity, dominance, and, perhaps, exclusion?
The Statue’s shackles and feet. National Park Service, Statue of Liberty NM, Public Domain
Sources
National Park Service – Statue of Liberty history: https://www.nps.gov/stli/learn/historyculture/statue-of-liberty.htm Library of Congress – Dedication and speeches: https://www.loc.gov/item/ihas.200197394/ Cleveland, Grover. Dedication Address (1886): https://www.nps.gov/stli/learn/historyculture/cleveland.htm Smithsonian Magazine – History of the Statue of Liberty: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/statue-liberty-180970340/
A Commentary on Selective American History
There is a version of American history that looks spectacular. Founding Fathers on horseback, industrialists building steel empires from nothing, pioneers pushing west into open lands. It is the kind of history that gets carved into marble, hoisted onto pedestals, and taught as national mythology. Clean. Inspiring. Incomplete. And right now, there is a visible push by some politicians, curriculum reformers, and commentators to make that marble-statue version the only version — to scrub away what one American Historical Association report called the “inconvenient” truths that complicate the picture. What we lose in that scrubbing is not just accuracy. We lose the full human story of this country, and with it, the lessons that might be useful today.
The selective telling is not new, but its current form has new energy. In recent years, legislation has been introduced across multiple states to restrict how teachers discuss slavery, Indigenous displacement, immigration history, and the treatment of women and the poor. The argument is usually dressed up as national unity and pride. But the practical effect is something else: a history curriculum where triumph and innovation are permissible but suffering and exploitation are edited out.
Historians surveying American teachers in 2024 found this impulse reflected in the classroom as well — students arriving with what teachers described as a “marble statues” version of history absorbed from earlier grades, one that freezes the Founders and other heroes in idealized civic memory, stripped of contradiction. The pitch is usually framed as morale: kids need pride and self esteem, not “division.” But the practical effect is a kind of historical editing that turns real people—enslaved Americans, Native communities, women, immigrants, and the poor—into background scenery rather than participants with agency, suffering, and claims on the national memory.
You can see the argument playing out in education policy and curriculum fights. The “patriotic education” push associated with the federal 1776 Commission is a clear example: it cast some approaches to teaching slavery and racism as inherently “anti-American,” and it encouraged a narrative that stresses national ideals while softening the lived realities that contradicted those ideals.
Historians’ organizations have answered back that this kind of narrowing doesn’t create unity so much as it creates amnesia. At the state level, controversies over how to describe or contextualize slavery—down to euphemisms and selective framing—keep resurfacing, because controlling the vocabulary controls the moral takeaway. Florida’s education standards went so far as to compare slavery with job training.
The tension between celebratory and critical history also appears in how we interpret national symbols. The Statue of Liberty, now widely read as a welcoming beacon for immigrants, was originally conceived in significant part as a commemoration of the end of slavery in the United States and of the nation’s centennial. Over time, its antislavery meaning was overshadowed by a more comfortable story about voluntary immigration and opportunity as official imagery and public campaigns recast the statue to fit new national needs. This shift did not merely “add” an interpretation; it obscured the connection between American liberty and Black emancipation, pushing aside the reality that millions arrived in chains rather than by choice.
The deeper problem isn’t that Americans disagree about the past—healthy societies argue about meaning all the time. The problem is when disagreement becomes a one-way ratchet: complexity gets labeled “bias,” and only a feel-good storyline qualifies as “neutral.” That’s not neutral. That’s a choice to privilege certain experiences as representative and treat others as “inconvenient.”
Nowhere does this distortion show up more clearly than in how Americans tend to celebrate the industrialists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries — the Gilded Age titans who built railroads, steel mills, and oil empires. Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, Cornelius Vanderbilt: these men are frequently held up as models of American ambition and ingenuity, visionaries who transformed a post-Civil War nation into the world’s dominant industrial power. And they did do that. But the marble-statue version stops there, and stopping there is where the dishonesty begins.
Look at what powered that industrial machine: coal. And look at who powered coal. The men — and children — who went underground every day to dig it out of the earth under conditions that were, by any modern standard, a form of institutionalized violence. Between 1880 and 1923, more than 70,000 coal miners died on the job in the United States. That is not a rounding error; it is a small city’s worth of human lives, consumed by an industry that knew the dangers and chose profits over protection. Cave-ins, gas explosions, machinery accidents, and the slow suffocation of black lung took miners in ones and twos on ordinary days, and in mass casualties during what miners grimly called “explosion season” — when dry winter air made methane and coal dust especially volatile. Three major mine disasters in the first decade of the 1900s killed 201, 362, and 239 miners respectively, the latter two occurring within two weeks of each other.
And those were the adults. In the anthracite coal fields of Pennsylvania alone, an estimated 20,000 boys were working as “breaker boys” in 1880 — children as young as eight years old, perched above chutes and conveyor belts for ten hours a day, six days a week, picking slate and impurities out of rushing coal with bare hands. The coal dust was so thick at times it obscured their view. Photographer Lewis Hine documented these children in the early 1900s specifically because he understood that seeing them — their coal-blackened faces, their missing fingers, their flat eyes — was the only way to make comfortable Americans confront the total cost of the industrial miracle. Pennsylvania passed a law in 1885 banning children under twelve from working in coal breakers. The law was routinely ignored; employers forged age documents and desperate families went along with it because the wages, however meager, kept families from starving.
Coal mining is a representative case study because the work was both essential and punishing, and because the labor conflicts were not metaphorical—they were sometimes literally armed. In the coalfields, many miners lived in company towns where the company controlled the housing and the local economy. Some workers were paid in “scrip” redeemable only at the company store, a system that locked families into dependency and debt. When union organizing surged, the backlash could be violent. West Virginia’s Mine Wars culminated in the Battle of Blair Mountain in 1921—widely described as the largest labor uprising in U.S. history—where thousands of miners confronted company-aligned forces and state power. The mine owners deployed heavy machine guns and hired private pilots to drop arial bombs on the miners.
If you zoom out, this pattern wasn’t limited to coal. The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in 1911 became infamous partly because locked doors and poor safety practices trapped workers—mostly young immigrant women—leading to 146 deaths in minutes.
When workers tried to organize for better pay and safer conditions, the response from the industrialists and their allies was not negotiation. It was force. Henry Clay Frick, chairman at Carnegie Steel, cut worker wages in half while increasing shifts to twelve hours, then hired the Pinkerton Detective Agency — effectively a private army — to break the strike that followed at Homestead, PA in 1892. During the Great Railroad Strike of 1877, when workers walked off the job across the country, state militias were called in. In Maryland, militia fired into a crowd of strikers, killing eleven. In Pittsburgh, twenty more were killed with bayonets and rifle fire. A railroad executive of the era, asked about hungry striking workers, reportedly suggested they be given “a rifle diet for a few days” to see how they liked it. Throughout this period the federal government largely sided with capital against labor.
This is the part of the story that the marble-statue version leaves out — and not because it is marginal. The labor movement that emerged from these battles shaped virtually every protection American workers have today: the eight-hour workday, child labor laws, workplace safety regulations, the right to organize. These were not gifts handed down by generous industrialists. They were won through strikes, suffering, and in some cases, death. Ignoring that history does not honor the industrialists. It dishonors the workers.
The same pattern runs through every thread of American history that is currently under pressure. The story of westward expansion is incomplete without the story of Native displacement and the deliberate destruction of Indigenous cultures. The story of American agriculture is incomplete without the story of enslaved labor and the systems of racial control that followed emancipation. The story of American prosperity is incomplete without the story of immigrant communities channeled into the most dangerous, lowest-paid work and then told to be grateful for the opportunity. Women’s history, for most of American history, was not considered history at all. In each case, leaving out the difficult chapter does not produce a cleaner story. It produces a false one.
The argument for the marble-statue version is usually that complexity is demoralizing — that children need heroes, that citizens need pride, that a nation cannot function if it is constantly relitigating its worst moments. There is something in that concern worth taking seriously. History taught purely as a catalog of grievances is not good history either. But the answer to that problem is not to swap one distortion for another. Good history holds both: the genuine achievement and the genuine cost. Mark Twain understood this when he coined “The Gilded Age” — a title that means literally covered in a thin layer of gold over something much cheaper underneath. That phrase has been in the American vocabulary for 150 years because it captures something true about how surfaces can deceive.
A country that cannot look honestly at its own history is a country that will keep repeating the parts it refuses to examine. The enslaved deserve to be in the story. Indigenous people deserve to be in the story. Women deserve to be in the story. The breaker boys deserve to be in the story. The miners killed by the thousands deserve to be in the story. The workers shot by militias while asking for a living wage deserve to be in the story. Not because the story should only be about suffering, but because they were there — and because understanding what they faced, and what they fought for, and what they eventually changed, is how the story makes sense.
Illustration generated by author using ChatGPT.
Sources
American Historical Association. “American Lesson Plan: Curricular Content.” 2024.
https://www.historians.org/teaching-learning/k-12-education/american-lesson-plan/curricular-content/
Brewminate. “Replaceable Lives and Labor Abuse in the Gilded Age: Labor Exploitation and the Human Cost in America’s Gilded Age.” 2026.
https://brewminate.com/replaceable-lives-and-labor-abuse-in-the-gilded-age/
Bureau of Labor Statistics. “History of Child Labor in the United States, Part 1.” 2017.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2017/article/history-of-child-labor-in-the-united-states-part-1.htm
Energy History Project, Yale University. “Coal Mining and Labor Conflict.”
https://energyhistory.yale.edu/coal-mining-and-labor-conflict/
Hannah-Jones, Nikole, et al. “A Brief History of Slavery That You Didn’t Learn in School.” New York Times Magazine. 2019.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/slavery-capitalism.html
Investopedia. “The Gilded Age Explained: An Era of Wealth and Inequality.” 2025.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gilded-age.asp
MLPP Pressbooks. “Gilded Age Labor Conflict.”
https://mlpp.pressbooks.pub/ushistory2/chapter/chapter-1/
Princeton School of Public and International Affairs. “Princeton SPIA Faculty Reflect on America’s Past as 250th Anniversary Approaches.” 2026.
https://spia.princeton.edu/
USA Today. “Millions of Native People Were Enslaved in the Americas. Their Story Is Rarely Told.” 2025.
https://www.usatoday.com/
Wikipedia. “Breaker Boy.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaker_boy
Wikipedia. “Robber Baron (Industrialist).”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist)
America250 (U.S. Semiquincentennial Commission). “America250: The United States Semiquincentennial.”
https://www.america250.org/
Bunk History (citing Washington Post reporting). “The Statue of Liberty Was Created to Celebrate Freed Slaves, Not Immigrants.”
https://www.bunkhistory.org/
Upworthy. “The Statue of Liberty Is a Symbol of Welcoming Immigrants. That’s Not What She Was Originally Meant to Be.” 2026.
https://www.upworthy.com/
When I first started hearing debates about Critical Race Theory, I thought these people can’t possibly be talking about the same thing. There seemed to be no common ground—even the words they were using seemed to have different meanings.
Critical Race Theory (CRT) has become one of the most contested intellectual concepts in contemporary American culture. Originally developed in law schools during the 1970s and 1980s, CRT has evolved into a broad analytical method of examining how race and racism operate in society. Understanding its origins, core principles, and the political debates surrounding it requires examining both its academic foundations and its journey into public consciousness.
Origins and Early Development
Legal scholars who were dissatisfied with the slow pace of racial progress following the Civil Rights Movement laid the groundwork for CRT. The early figures included Derrick Bell, often considered the father of CRT, along with Alan Freeman, Richard Delgado, Kimberlé Crenshaw, and Cheryl Harris. These scholars were frustrated that despite landmark legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, racial inequality persisted across American institutions.
The intellectual roots of CRT can be traced to Critical Legal Studies, a movement that challenged traditional legal scholarship’s claims of objectivity and neutrality. However, CRT scholars felt that Critical Legal Studies failed to adequately address race and racism. They drew inspiration from various sources, including the work of civil rights lawyers like Charles Hamilton Houston, sociological insights about institutional racism, and postmodern critiques of knowledge and power.
Derrick Bell’s groundbreaking work in the 1970s laid crucial foundation. His “interest convergence” theory, presented in his analysis of Brown v. Board of Education, argued that advances in civil rights occur only when they align with white interests. This insight became central to CRT’s understanding of how racial progress unfolds in American society.
Core Elements and Principles
Critical Race Theory encompasses several key tenets that distinguish it from other approaches to studying race and racism.
First, CRT posits that race is not biologically real; it’s a human invention to justify unequal treatment. It also holds that racism is not merely individual prejudice, but a systemic feature of American society embedded in legal, political, and social institutions. This “structural racism” perspective emphasizes how seemingly neutral policies and practices can perpetuate racial inequality.
Second, CRT challenges the traditional civil rights approach that emphasizes color-blindness and incremental reform. Instead, CRT scholars argue that color-blind approaches often mask and perpetuate racial inequities. They advocate for race-conscious policies and a more aggressive approach to dismantling systemic racism.
Third, CRT emphasizes the importance of lived experience in the form of storytelling and narrative. Scholars use personal narratives, historical accounts, and counter-stories to challenge dominant narratives about race and racism. This methodological approach reflects CRT’s belief that experiential knowledge from communities of color provides crucial insights often overlooked by traditional scholarship.
Fourth, CRT introduces the concept of intersectionality, a term coined by legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw. This framework examines how multiple forms of identity and oppression—including race, gender, class, and sexuality—intersect and compound each other’s effects.
Finally, CRT is explicitly activist-oriented with a goal of creating new norms of interracial interaction. Unlike purely descriptive academic theories, CRT aims to understand racism in order to eliminate it. This commitment to social transformation distinguishes CRT from more traditional academic approaches.
Evolution and Expansion
Since its origins in legal studies, CRT has expanded into numerous disciplines including education, sociology, political science, and ethnic studies. In education, scholars like Gloria Ladson-Billings and William Tate applied CRT frameworks to understand racial disparities in schooling. This educational application of CRT examines how school policies, curriculum, and practices contribute to achievement gaps and educational inequality.
Conservative Perspectives
Conservative critics of CRT raise several concerns about the theory and its applications. They argue that CRT’s emphasis on systemic racism is overly deterministic and fails to account for individual differences and the significant progress made in racial equality since the Civil Rights era. Many conservatives contend that CRT promotes a victim mentality that undermines personal responsibility and achievement.
From this perspective, CRT’s race-conscious approach is seen as divisive and potentially counterproductive. Critics argue that emphasizing racial differences rather than common humanity perpetuates division and resentment. They often prefer color-blind approaches that treat all individuals equally regardless of race.
Conservative critics also express concern about CRT’s application in educational settings, arguing that it introduces inappropriate political content into classrooms and may cause students to feel guilt or shame based on their racial identity. Some argue that CRT-influenced curricula amount to indoctrination rather than education.
Additionally, some conservatives view CRT as fundamentally un-American, arguing that its critique of American institutions and emphasis on systemic oppression undermines national unity and patriotism. They contend that CRT presents an overly negative view of American history and society.
Some conservatives go further, calling CRT a form of “anti-American radicalism.” They believe it rejects Enlightenment values—reason, objectivity, and universal rights—in favor of ideology and emotion. Others criticize CRT’s reliance on narrative and lived experience, arguing that it substitutes storytelling for empirical evidence.
Liberal Perspectives
Supporters of CRT argue that it provides essential tools for understanding persistent racial inequalities that other approaches fail to explain adequately. They contend that CRT’s focus on systemic racism accurately describes how racial disparities continue despite formal legal equality.
To them, CRT isn’t about blaming individuals; it’s about recognizing how systems work. Advocates say that color-blind policies often perpetuate inequality because they ignore how race has historically shaped opportunity. They see CRT as empowering marginalized communities to tell their stories and as pushing America closer to its own ideals of justice and equality.
Liberal and progressive thinkers see CRT as a reality check—a necessary tool for understanding and dismantling systemic racism. They argue that laws and policies that seem neutral can still produce racially unequal outcomes—for example disparities in school funding or redlining in housing. (Denying loans or insurance based on neighborhoods rather than individual qualifications.)
From this perspective, CRT’s race-conscious approach is necessary because color-blind policies have proven insufficient to address entrenched racial inequities. Supporters argue that acknowledging and directly confronting racism is more effective than pretending race doesn’t matter.
Liberal defenders of CRT emphasize its scholarly rigor and empirical grounding, arguing that criticism often mischaracterizes or oversimplifies the theory. They point out that CRT is primarily an analytical framework used by scholars and graduate students, not a curriculum taught to elementary school children, as some critics suggest. Progressive educators also note that much of what critics call “CRT in schools” is really teaching about historical facts—slavery, segregation, civil-rights struggles—not law-school theory. They argue that banning CRT is less about protecting students and more about suppressing uncomfortable conversations about race and history.
Supporters also argue that CRT’s emphasis on storytelling and lived experience provides valuable perspectives that have been historically marginalized in academic discourse. They see this as democratizing knowledge production rather than abandoning scholarly standards.
Furthermore, many on the left argue that attacks on CRT represent attempts to silence discussions of racism and maintain the status quo. They view criticism of CRT as part of a broader backlash against racial justice efforts.
Why It Matters
You don’t have to buy every part of CRT to see why it struck a nerve. It forces us to ask uncomfortable but important questions: Why do some inequalities persist even after laws change? How do institutions carry the weight of history?
Whether you agree or disagree with CRT, it’s hard to deny that it has shaped how Americans talk about race. The theory challenges us to look beyond personal prejudice and ask how systems distribute power and privilege. Its critics, in turn, remind us that any theory of justice must preserve individual rights and shared civic values.
The real challenge may be learning to hold both ideas at once: that racism can be systemic, and that individuals should still be treated as individuals. CRT’s greatest value—and its greatest controversy—comes from forcing that tension into the open.
Sources:
JSTOR Daily. “What Is Critical Race Theory?” https://daily.jstor.org/what-is-critical-race-theory/ (Accessed December 3, 2025)
Harvard Law Review Blog. “Derrick Bell’s Interest Convergence and the Permanence of Racism: A Reflection on Resistance.” https://harvardlawreview.org/blog/2020/08/derrick-bells-interest-convergence-and-the-permanence-of-racism-a-reflection-on-resistance/ (March 24, 2023)
Bell, Derrick A., Jr. “Brown v. Board of Education and the Interest-Convergence Dilemma.” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 93, No. 3 (January 1980), pp. 518-533.
Columbia Law School. “Kimberlé Crenshaw on Intersectionality, More than Two Decades Later.” https://www.law.columbia.edu/news/archive/kimberle-crenshaw-intersectionality-more-two-decades-later
Crenshaw, Kimberlé. “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics.” 1989.
Britannica. “Richard Delgado | American legal scholar.” https://www.britannica.com/biography/Richard-Delgado
Wikipedia. “Critical Race Theory.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory (Updated December 31, 2025)
MTSU First Amendment Encyclopedia. “Critical Race Theory.” https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1254/critical-race-theory (July 10, 2024)
Delgado, Richard and Jean Stefancic. “Critical Race Theory: An Introduction.” New York University Press, 2001 (2nd edition 2012, 3rd edition 2018).
Teachers College Press. “Critical Race Theory in Education.” https://www.tcpress.com/critical-race-theory-in-education-9780807765838
American Bar Association. “A Lesson on Critical Race Theory.” https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/civil-rights-reimagining-policing/a-lesson-on-critical-race-theory/
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. “What is Critical Race Theory, Anyway? | FAQs.” https://www.naacpldf.org/critical-race-theory-faq/ (May 6, 2025)
The illustration was generated by the author using Midjourney.
Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them. —Thomas Jefferson
I originally posted this article about a year and a half ago. I was concerned about the future of newspapers then and I’m even more concerned now. I’ve updated my original post to reflect recent losses of newspapers.
When I was growing up in Charleston WV in the 1950s and early 1960s, we had two daily newspapers. The Gazette was delivered in the morning and the Daily Mail was delivered in the afternoon. One of my first jobs as a boy was delivering The Gazette. It worked out to be about 50 cents an hour, but I was glad to have the job. (It was good money at the time.)
Ostensibly, the Gazette was a Democratic newspaper, and the Daily Mail was a Republican one. However, given the politics of the day there was not a significant difference between the two, and most people subscribed to both.
There weren’t a lot of options for news at the time. Of course, there were no 24-hour news channels. National news on the three networks was about 30 minutes an evening with local news at about 15 minutes. By the late 1960s national news had increased to 60 minutes and most local news to about 30 minutes. Although, given the limitations of time on the local stations, most of the broadcast was taken up with weather, sports, and human interest stories with little time left to expand on hard news stories.
We depended on our newspapers for news of our cities, counties, and states. And the newspapers delivered the news we needed. Almost everyone subscribed to and read the local papers. They kept us informed about our local politicians and government and provided local insight on national events. They were also our source for information about births, deaths, marriages, high school graduations and everything we wanted to know about our community.
In the 21st century there are many more supposed news options. There are 24-hour news networks as I’ve talked about in a previous post. And of course, there are Instagram, Facebook, X and the other online entities that claim to provide news.
There has been one positive development in television news. Local news, at least in Charleston, has expanded to two hours most evenings. There is some repetition between the first and second hour and it is still heavily weighted to sports, weather, and human interest, but there is some increased coverage of local hard news. However, this is somewhat akin to reading the headlines and the first paragraph in a newspaper story. It doesn’t provide in-depth coverage, but it is improved over what otherwise is available to those who don’t watch a dedicated news show. Hopefully, it motivates people to find out more about events that concern them.
The situation has become dire in recent months. The crisis that was building when I first wrote about newspapers has now reached catastrophic proportions. On December 31, 2025, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution published its last print edition after 157 years, making Atlanta the largest U.S. metro area without a printed daily newspaper. Think about that—a major American city, home to over six million people in its metro area, now has no physical newspaper you can hold in your hands.
Just weeks ago in February 2025, the Newark Star-Ledger, New Jersey’s largest newspaper, stopped printing after nearly 200 years. The Jersey Journal, which had served Hudson County for 157 years, closed entirely. These weren’t small-town weeklies—these were major metropolitan dailies that once served millions of readers. The Pittsburgh Post Gazette, founded in 1786, has announced that it will cease publication effective May 3, 2026.
Even more alarming is what just happened at the Washington Post. Just days ago, in early February 2026, owner Jeff Bezos ordered the elimination of roughly one-third of the newspaper’s workforce—approximately 300 journalists. The Post closed its entire sports section, shuttered its books department, gutted its foreign bureaus and metro desk, and canceled its flagship daily podcast. This is the same newspaper that brought down a presidency with its Watergate coverage and has won dozens of Pulitzer Prizes. The Post’s metro desk, which once had 40 reporters covering the nation’s capital, now has just a dozen. All the paper’s photojournalists were laid off. The entire Middle East team was eliminated.
Former Washington Post executive editor Martin Baron, who led the paper from 2013 to 2021, called the cuts devastating and blamed poor management decisions, including Bezos’s decision to spike the newspaper’s presidential endorsement in 2024, which led to the cancellation of hundreds of thousands of subscriptions. The Post lost an estimated $100 million in 2024.
The numbers tell a grim story. Since 2005, more than 3,200 newspapers have closed in the United States—that’s over one-third of all the newspapers that existed just twenty years ago. Newspapers continue to disappear at a rate of more than two per week. In the past year alone, 136 newspapers shut their doors.
Fewer than 5,600 newspapers now remain in America, and less than 1,000 of those are dailies. Even among those “dailies,” more than 80 percent print fewer than seven days a week. We now have 213 counties that are complete “news deserts”—places with no local news source at all. Another 1,524 counties have only one remaining news source, usually a struggling weekly newspaper. Taken together, about 50 million Americans now have limited or no access to local news.
Will TV news be able to provide the details about our community? The format of the newspaper allows for more detailed presentations and for a larger variety of stories. The reader can pick which stories to read, when to read them and how much of each to read. The very nature of broadcast news doesn’t allow these options.
I beg everyone to please subscribe to your local newspapers if you still have one. Though I still prefer the hands-on, physical newspaper, I understand many people want to keep up with the digital age. If you do, please subscribe to the digital editions of your local newspaper and don’t pretend that the other online sources, such as social media, will provide you with local news. More likely, you’ll just get gossip, or worse.
If we lose our local news, we are in danger of losing our freedom of information and if we lose that, we’re in danger of losing our country. For those of you who think I’m fear mongering, countries that have succumbed to dictatorship have first lost their free press.
I believe that broadcast news will never be the free press that print journalism is. The broadcast is an ethereal thing. You hear it and it’s gone. Of course, it is always possible to record it and play it back, but most people don’t. If you have a newspaper, you can read it, think about it, and read it again. There are times when on my second or third reading of an editorial or an op-ed article, I’ve changed my opinion about either the subject or the writer of the piece. I don’t think a news broadcast lends itself to this type of reflection. In fact, when listening to the broadcast news I often find my mind wandering as something that the broadcaster said sends me in a different direction.
In my opinion, broadcast news is controlled by advertising dollars and viewer ratings. News seems to be treated like any entertainment program, catering to what generates ratings rather than facts. I recognize that this can be the case with newspapers as well, but it seems to me that it’s much easier to detect bias in the written word than in the spoken word. Too often we can get caught up in the emotions of the presenter or in the graphics that accompany the story.
With that in mind, I recommend that if you want unbiased journalism, please support your local newspapers before we lose them. Once they are gone, we will never get them back and we will all be much the poorer as a result.
I will leave you with one last quote.
A free press is the unsleeping guardian of every other right that free men prize; it is the most dangerous foe of tyranny. —Winston Churchill
The only way to preserve freedom is to preserve the free press. Do your part! Subscribe!
And you can quote The Grumpy Doc on that!!!!
Sources
Fortune (August 29, 2025): “Atlanta becomes largest U.S. metro without a printed daily newspaper as Journal-Constitution goes digital”
https://fortune.com/2025/08/29/atlanta-largest-metro-without-printed-newpsaper-digital-journal-constitution/
Northwestern University Medill School (2025): “News deserts hit new high and 50 million have limited access to local news, study finds”
https://www.medill.northwestern.edu/news/2025/news-deserts-hit-new-high-and-50-million-have-limited-access-to-local-news-study-finds.html
NBC News (February 2026): “Washington Post lays off one-third of its newsroom”
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/media/washington-post-layoffs-sports-rcna257354
CNN Business (February 4, 2026): “Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post conducts widespread layoffs, gutting a third of its staff”
https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/04/media/washington-post-layoffs
Northwestern University Medill Local News Initiative (2024): “The State of Local News Report 2024”
https://localnewsinitiative.northwestern.edu/projects/state-of-local-news/2024/report/
Northwestern University Medill School (2025): “News deserts hit new high and 50 million have limited access to local news, study finds”
https://www.medill.northwestern.edu/news/2025/news-deserts-hit-new-high-and-50-million-have-limited-access-to-local-news-study-finds.htm
Recently, there’s been a a lot of attention given to RFK Jr. and his war on vaccines. More potentially devastating than that is Russel Vought and his war on environmental science.
Russell Vought hasn’t exactly been working in the shadows. As the director of the Office of Management and Budget since February 2025, he’s been methodically implementing what he outlined years earlier in Project 2025—a blueprint that treats climate science not as settled fact, but as what he calls “climate fanaticism.” The result is undeniably the most aggressive dismantling of environmental protections in American history.
The Man Behind the Plan
Vought’s resume tells you everything you need to know about his approach. He served as OMB director during Trump’s first term, wrote a key chapter of Project 2025 focusing on consolidating presidential power, and has openly stated his goal is to make federal bureaucrats feel “traumatized” when they come to work. His philosophy on climate policy specifically? He’s called climate change a side effect of building the modern world—something to manage through deregulation rather than prevention.
Attacking the Foundation: The Endangerment Finding
The centerpiece of Vought’s climate strategy targets what EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has called “the holy grail of the climate change religion”—the 2009 Endangerment Finding. This Obama-era scientific determination concluded that six greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride) endanger public health and welfare. It sounds technical, but it’s the legal foundation for virtually every federal climate regulation enacted over the past fifteen years.
Just last week EPA Administrator Zeldin announced that the Trump administration has repealed this finding. This action strips EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act—meaning no more federal limits on power plant emissions, no vehicle fuel economy standards tied to climate concerns, and no requirement for industries to measure or report their emissions. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said this action “will be the largest deregulatory action in American history.”
More than 1,000 scientists warned Zeldin not to take this step, and the Environmental Protection Network cautioned last year that repealing the finding would cause “tens of thousands of additional premature deaths due to pollution exposure” and would spark “accelerated climate destabilization.” Abigail Dillen president of the nonprofit law firm Earthjustice said “there is no way to reconcile EPA’s decision with the law, the science and the reality of the disasters that are hitting us harder every year.” She further said they expect to see the Trump administration in court. Obviously, the science is less important to Trump, Zeldin and Vought than the politics.
The Thirty-One Targets
In March 2025, Zeldin announced what he proudly called “the greatest day of deregulation in American history”—a plan to roll back or reconsider 31 key environmental rules covering everything from clean air to water quality. The list reads like a regulatory hit parade, including vehicle emission standards (designed to encourage electric vehicles), power plant pollution limits, methane regulations for oil and gas operations, and even particulate matter standards that protect against respiratory disease.
The vehicle standards are particularly revealing. The transportation sector is America’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, and the Biden-era rules were crafted to nudge automakers toward producing more electric vehicles. At Vought’s direction, the EPA is now reconsidering these, with Zeldin arguing they “regulate out of existence” segments of the economy and cost Americans “a lot of money.”
Gutting the Science Infrastructure
Vought’s agenda extends beyond specific regulations to the institutions that produce climate science itself. In Project 2025, he proposed abolishing the Office of Domestic Climate Policy and suggested the president should refuse to accept federal scientific research like the U.S. National Climate Assessment (NCA). The NCA, published every few years, involves hundreds of scientists examining how climate change is transforming the United States—research that informs everything from building codes to insurance policies.
According to reporting from E&E News in January, Vought wants the White House to exert tighter control over the next NCA, potentially elevating perspectives from climate deniers and industry representatives while excluding contributions made during the Biden administration. This is a plan that has been in the works for years. Vought reportedly participated in a White House meeting during Trump’s first term where officials discussed firing the scientists working on the assessment.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has also been targeted. In February 2025, about 800 NOAA employees—responsible for weather forecasting, climate monitoring, fisheries management, and marine research were fired. Project 2025 had proposed breaking up NOAA entirely, and concerned staff members have already begun a scramble to preserve massive amounts of climate data in case the agency is dismantled.
Budget Cuts as Policy
Vought’s Center for Renewing America has proposed eliminating the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the EPA’s environmental justice fund, and the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. During the first Trump administration, Vought oversaw budgets proposing EPA cuts as steep as 31%—reducing the agency to funding levels not seen in decades. In a 2023 speech, he explained the logic bluntly: “We want their funding to be shut down so that the EPA can’t do all of the rules against our energy industry because they have no bandwidth financially to do so.”
This isn’t just about climate, it is also about fairness and the recognition that environmental policies have had a predominately negative effect on low income areas. EPA has cancelled 400 environmental justice grants, closed environmental justice offices at all 10 regional offices, and put the director of the $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund on administrative leave. The fund had been financing local economic development projects aimed at lowering energy prices and reducing emissions.
Eliminating Climate Considerations from Government
Perhaps more insidious than the high-profile rollbacks are the procedural changes that make climate considerations disappear from federal decision-making. In February, Jeffrey Clark—acting administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) under Vought’s OMB—directed federal agencies to stop using the “social cost of carbon” in their analyses. This metric calculates the dollar value of damage caused by one ton of carbon pollution, allowing agencies to accurately assess whether regulations produce net benefits or defects for society.
Vought has also directed agencies to establish sunset dates for environmental regulations—essentially automatic expiration dates after which rules stop being enforced unless renewed. For existing regulations, the sunset comes after one year; for new ones, within five years. The stated goal is forcing agencies to continuously justify their rules, but the practical effect is creating a perpetual cycle of regulatory uncertainty.
The Real-World Stakes
The timing of these rollbacks offers a grim irony. As Vought was pushing to weaken the National Climate Assessment in January 2025, the Eaton and Palisades fires were devastating Los Angeles—exactly the type of climate-intensified disaster the assessment is designed to help communities prepare for. The administration’s response? Energy Secretary Chris Wright described climate change as “a side effect of building the modern world” at an industry conference.
An analysis by Energy Innovation, a nonpartisan think tank, found that Project 2025’s proposals to gut federal policies encouraging renewable electricity and electric vehicles would increase U.S. household spending on fuel and utilities by about $240 per year over the next five years. That’s before accounting for the health costs of increased air pollution or the economic damage from unmitigated climate change.
Environmental groups have vowed to challenge these changes in court, and the legal battles will likely stretch on for years. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear many cases initially, though the Supreme Court will probably issue final decisions. Legal experts note that while Trump’s EPA moved with unprecedented speed on proposals in 2025, finalizing these rules through the required regulatory process will take much longer. As of December, none of the major climate rule repeals had been submitted to OMB for final review, partly due to what EPA called a 43-day government shutdown (which EPA blamed on Democrats, though the characterization is widely disputed).
What Makes This Different
Previous administrations have certainly rolled back environmental regulations, but Vought’s approach differs in both scope and philosophy. Rather than tweaking specific rules or relaxing enforcement, he’s systematically attacking the scientific and legal foundations that make climate regulation possible. It’s the difference between turning down the thermostat and ripping out the entire heating system.
The Environmental Defense Fund, which rarely comments on political appointees, strongly opposed Vought’s confirmation, with Executive Director Amanda Leland stating: “Russ Vought has made clear his contempt for the people working every day to ensure their fellow Americans have clean air, clean water and a safer climate.”
Looking Forward
Whether Vought’s vision becomes permanent depends largely on how courts rule on these changes. The 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA established that the agency has authority to regulate greenhouse gases as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act—the very authority Vought is now trying to eliminate. Overturning established precedent is difficult, though the current Supreme Court’s composition makes the outcome possible, if not likely.
What we’re witnessing is essentially a test of whether one administration can permanently disable the federal government’s capacity to address climate change, or if these changes represent a temporary setback that future administrations can reverse. The stakes couldn’t be higher: atmospheric CO2 concentrations continue rising, global temperatures are breaking records, and climate-related disasters are becoming more frequent and severe. Nothing less than the future of our way of life is at stake. We must take action now.
Full disclosure: my undergraduate degree is in meteorology, but I would never call myself a meteorologist since I have never worked in the field. But I still maintain an interest, from both a meteorological and a medical perspective. The Grump Doc is never lacking in opinions.
Illustration generated by author using Midjourney.
Sources:
Lisa Friedman and Maxine Joselow, “Trump Allies Near ‘Total Victory’ in Wiping Out U.S. Climate Regulation,” New York Times, Feb. 9, 2026.[nytimes +1]
Lisa Friedman, “The Conservative Activists Behind One of Trump’s Biggest Climate Moves,” New York Times, Feb. 10, 2026.[nytimes +1]
Bob Sussman, “The Anti-Climate Fanaticism of the Second Trump Term (Part 1: The Purge of Climate from All Federal Programs),” Environmental Law Institute, May 7, 2025.[eli]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Trump EPA Kicks Off Formal Reconsideration of Endangerment Finding,” EPA News Release, Mar. 13, 2025.[epa]
Trump’s Climate and Clean Energy Rollback Tracker, Act On Climate/NRDC coalition, updated Jan. 11, 2026.[actonclimate]
“Trump to Repeal Landmark Climate Finding in Huge Regulatory Rollback,” Wall Street Journal, Feb. 9, 2026.[wsj]
Valerie Volcovici, “Trump Set to Repeal Landmark Climate Finding in Huge Regulatory Rollback,” Reuters, Feb. 9, 2026.[reuters]
Alex Guillén, “Trump EPA to Take Its Biggest Swing Yet Against Climate Change Rules,” Politico, Feb. 10, 2026.[politico]
“EPA Urges White House to Strike Down Landmark Climate Finding,” Washington Post, Feb. 26, 2025.[washingtonpost]
“Trump Allies Near ‘Total Victory’ in Wiping Out U.S. Climate Regulation,” Seattle Times reprint, Feb. 10, 2026.[seattletimes]
“Trump Wants to Dismantle Key Climate Research Hub in Colorado,” Earth.org, Dec. 17, 2025.[earth]
“Vought Says National Science Foundation to Break Up Federal Climate Research Center,” The Hill, Dec. 17, 2025.[thehill]
Rachel Cleetus, “One Year of the Trump Administration’s All-Out Assault on Climate and Clean Energy,” Union of Concerned Scientists, Jan. 13, 2026.[ucs]
Environmental Protection Network, “Environmental Protection Network Speaks Out Against Vought Cabinet Consideration,” Nov. 20, 2024.[environmentalprotectionnetwork]
“From Disavowal to Delivery: The Trump Administration’s Rapid Implementation of Project 2025 on Public Lands,” Center for Western Priorities, Jan. 28, 2026.[westernpriorities]
“Russ Vought Nominated for Office of Management and Budget Director,” Environmental Defense Fund statement, Mar. 6, 2025.[edf]
“Project 2025,” Heritage Foundation/Project 2025 backgrounder (as summarized in the Project 2025 Wikipedia entry).[wikipedia]
“EPA to repeal finding that serves as basis for climate change,” The Associated Press, Matthew Daly
https://vitalsigns.edf.org/story/trump-nominee-and-project-2025-architect-russell-vought-has-drastic-plans-reshape-america
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Vought
https://www.commondreams.org/news/warnings-of-permanent-damage-to-people-and-planet-as-trump-epa-set-to-repeal-key-climate-rule
https://www.eenews.net/articles/trump-team-takes-aim-at-crown-jewel-of-us-climate-research/
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-launches-biggest-deregulatory-action-us-history
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/trump-administration-moves-to-repeal-epa-rule-that-allows-climate-regulation
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-epa-unveils-aggressive-plans-to-dismantle-climate-regulation/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-02-10/trump-s-epa-to-scrap-landmark-emissions-policy-in-major-rollback
Every February 14th, we’re reminded that we’re supposed to understand love well enough to celebrate it with cards, chocolates, and carefully chosen gifts. Yet if you ask a hundred people to define love, you’ll get a hundred different answers—and most of them will involve a lot of hand-waving and phrases like “you just know.”
So, what is love? After thousands of years of poetry, philosophy, and now neuroscience, we still don’t have a tidy answer. But we do know more than we used to about how it works, why it matters, and what makes it one of the most powerful forces in human experience.
The Chemistry of Connection
Let’s start with the brain, because love—for all its mystery—has a biological basis we can measure. When you’re falling in love, your brain lights up like a Christmas tree in very specific ways. The caudate nucleus and ventral tegmental area, both parts of the brain’s reward system, show intense activity when people look at photos of their romantic partners. These are the same regions that activate when you’re anticipating a reward or experiencing pleasure. Your brain is essentially treating your beloved like the best possible prize.
The neurochemistry is equally dramatic. Dopamine floods your system, creating that giddy, can’t-eat, can’t-sleep sensation of new love. Norepinephrine heightens attention and memory—which is why you remember every detail of your early dates. Meanwhile, serotonin levels actually drop, which creates the obsessive thinking patterns familiar to anyone who’s ever fallen hard for someone. It’s not unlike the neurochemistry of obsessive-compulsive disorder, which explains why new love can feel so all-consuming.
But here’s where it gets interesting: long-term love shows different neural patterns than early infatuation. In established relationships, the brain’s attachment systems become more active, involving oxytocin and vasopressin—hormones that promote bonding and trust. The frenzy calms, but a different kind of connection deepens.
More Than Just Romance
Our cultural obsession with Valentine’s Day focuses almost exclusively on romantic love, but we experience love in multiple forms that are equally powerful. The ancient Greeks understood this—they had several words for different types of love.
There’s eros, the passionate romantic love we celebrate on Valentine’s Day. But there’s also philia, the deep friendship love that bonds us to chosen family and lifelong companions. Storge describes familial love, the affection between parents and children or siblings. Agape is selfless, universal love—the kind that drives people to help strangers or dedicate their lives to causes. And pragma is the mature, enduring love that develops in long partnerships built on compatibility and mutual respect.
Research on attachment theory, pioneered by psychologist John Bowlby, shows that our capacity for all these forms of love develops from our earliest relationships. The bonds we form with caregivers in infancy create templates that influence how we connect with others throughout life. Those early experiences shape whether we tend toward secure, anxious, or avoidant attachment patterns in adult relationships.
The Meaning We Make
So, what does love mean to us? The answer seems to be almost everything.
Love is fundamentally about connection in a species that evolved to be deeply social. We’re not built to survive alone. Anthropological evidence suggests that cooperation and bonding have been essential to human survival for hundreds of thousands of years. Love—in its various forms—is the emotional mechanism that makes us want to stay together, protect each other, and invest in relationships that extend beyond immediate self-interest.
Psychological research backs this up. Studies consistently show that strong social connections are among the most reliable predictors of happiness and wellbeing. A famous Harvard study that followed people for over 75 years found that close relationships—more than money, fame, or achievement—were what kept people happy throughout their lives. The quality of our relationships influences everything from our physical health to our resilience in facing life’s challenges.
Love also gives us a sense of meaning and purpose. Philosopher Martin Buber wrote about “I-Thou” relationships—moments when we genuinely see and are seen by another person, not as objects to be used but as complete beings. These connections, he argued, are where we find authentic existence. Whether or not you buy the full philosophical framework, there’s something to the idea that being truly known and still loved is profoundly meaningful to us
How We Describe the Indescribable
The challenge with love is that it’s simultaneously a biological process, a psychological state, a social bond, and a subjective experience. It’s a feeling, but also a choice. It involves chemistry but transcends chemistry. It’s universal, but manifests differently across cultures and individuals.
When people try to describe love, they often resort to metaphors: it’s a journey, a flame, a force of nature, a home. These metaphors capture something real—that love is dynamic (a journey), consuming (a flame), powerful beyond our control (a force), and provides security (a home). Each metaphor reveals an individual facet of love but is incomplete in itself.
Psychologists sometimes describe love through its components. Robert Sternberg’s triangular theory proposes that love involves intimacy (closeness and connection), passion (physical attraction and arousal), and commitment (the decision to maintain the relationship). Different combinations create different experiences: romance without commitment is infatuation; commitment without passion is companionship; all three together create what he calls “consummate love”.
But even these frameworks feel incomplete because love is also characterized by paradoxes. It makes us feel both euphoric and vulnerable. It’s intensely focused on one person yet can expand our capacity for compassion generally. It’s simultaneously selfish (wanting the beloved) and selfless (wanting their happiness above our own). It’s stable and changing, rational and irrational, simple and impossibly complex.
What We Know, and What We Don’t
Here’s my honest assessment of our understanding: We’re fairly confident about love’s neurological basis and its importance for human wellbeing. The research on attachment, bonding hormones, and the psychological benefit of connection is solid and replicated across many studies.
We’re less certain about the boundaries between types of love or whether our categories reflect universal realities or cultural constructs. The line between deep friendship and romantic love can be fuzzy. What Western culture calls romantic love may be experienced or expressed differently in cultures with arranged marriages or different social structures.
And we really don’t know how to explain why one person falls for this particular person and not that one, why some relationships endure while others fade, or how exactly the alchemy of genuine connection works. We can identify correlates and patterns, but the lived experience of love retains its mystery.
The Point of It All
Maybe the reason love resists simple definition is that it’s less like a thing and more like a capacity—the human ability to extend beyond our individual boundaries and form bonds that transcend pure self-interest. It’s what allows parents to sacrifice for children, friends to show up in crises, partners to build lives together, and strangers to feel compassion for people they’ll never meet.
Valentine’s Day, for all its commercial trappings, is trying to celebrate something genuinely important: our ability to connect, to care, to find meaning in each other. Whether you’re celebrating romantic love, friendship, family bonds, or simply the human capacity for affection, you’re acknowledging one of the most fundamental aspects of what makes us human.
Love might be indefinable, but that doesn’t make it any less real or necessary. It’s the force that pulls us out of isolation and reminds us we’re part of something larger than ourselves. And maybe that’s enough of a definition to work with.
Sources
Cole Porter – What’s This Thing Called Love? Lyrics, 1929
Scientific American – The Neuroscience of Love https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-neuroscience-of-love/
Greater Good Science Center, UC Berkeley – The New Science of Love https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_new_science_of_love
Simply Psychology – Bowlby’s Attachment Theory https://www.simplypsychology.org/bowlby.html
Harvard Gazette – Harvard Study on Adult Development https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/04/over-nearly-80-years-harvard-study-has-been-showing-how-to-live-a-healthy-and-happy-life/
Verywell Mind – Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love https://www.verywellmind.com/triangular-theory-of-love-2795884
Illustration generated by author using ChatGPT.
Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén
“86” — A Little Number With a Big History
By John Turley
On May 2, 2026
In Commentary
Fifty some years ago when I was in the Marines, we used the term “86” to refer to something that should be ignored or discarded—in the colorful vernacular of the Corps, “shit canned”. That’s trashed to you civilians. The Marines have never been known as a peaceable lot and we had many colorful euphemisms for doing grievous bodily harm, but “86” was never among them.
So why is “86” suddenly everywhere in the news? Blame James Comey. The former FBI Director posted a beach photo on Instagram showing seashells arranged to spell out “86 47” — and the internet promptly exploded. Republicans argued it was a death threat against the 47th president. Comey said it simply meant he wanted Trump removed from office. That dispute has brought a piece of century-old American slang back into the spotlight, so it’s worth taking a look at what the term means and where it came from.
The Short Answer
Eighty-six is slang meaning “to throw out,” “to get rid of,” or “to refuse service to.” It most likely comes from 1930s soda-counter slang meaning that an item was sold out. This was part of a broader diner code that included: 13 “the boss is around,” 81 “glass of water,” and 95 “customer left without paying”. Over the decades it evolved from a kitchen noun into a verb with broader reach, and today it shows up everywhere from restaurant kitchens to Twitter and now worldwide headlines.
The Longer Answer
Here’s the honest answer: nobody knows for certain. Its etymology is unknown, but it seems to have been coined in the 1920s or 1930s. There are many theories about its origin — one article enumerates 18 possibilities, and another suggests there are “about 86 theories about 86.”
While the leading contender is the mundane diner option, there are several other more or less plausible and frequently more colorful options.
The most linguistically grounded explanation is that “86” is simply rhyming slang. The most common theory is that it is rhyming slang for “nix.” That’s the same “nix” meaning to reject or say no.
One of the more colorful stories involves a Prohibition-era speakeasy. Chumley’s, a bar with multiple entrances including one at 86 Bedford Street in New York. The story goes that the bar was supposedly warned by police before raids. Customers were told to “86 it” — meaning leave through the Bedford Street exit while cops came through the other door. It’s a great story, and if it’s not true it should be.
How It Evolved
First appearing in the early 1930s as a noun, it did not take long for the word to broaden its use beyond the realm of the soda counter. In the 1950s the word underwent some functional shift and began to be used as a verb — initially meaning “to refuse to serve a customer,” and later taking on the slightly extended meaning of “to get rid of; to throw out.”
It was quickly adopted and members of the military services who love slang, shortcuts, and inside terminology. It may just be a coincidence that Article 86 of the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice concerns Absence Without Leave, or AWOL.
By the 1970s it had moved well beyond the restaurant world. In the 1972 film The Candidate, a media adviser says to Robert Redford’s character, “OK, now, for starters, we got to cut your hair and eighty-six the sideburns.”
Where It Stands Today
These days, people use “86” when they cancel plans, dump something, or boot someone from a chat. Social media picked it up — Twitter and TikTok users will “86 a trend” or “86 a person” in a heartbeat.
In professional kitchens and bars, it remains “everyday lingo” — one hospitality industry veteran called it “probably the most overused word in hospitality.”
The Comey controversy also resurrected an older, arcane, and darker shade of the term. According to Cassell’s Dictionary of Slang, “to 86” can alternatively mean “to kill, to murder; to execute judicially.” That said, Merriam-Webster notes this use is infrequent, and they do not include this sense due to its relative recency and sparseness of use.
The bottom line is that “86” is one of those wonderfully slippery pieces of American slang that started in a noisy kitchen, picked up mythology along the way, and is now flexible enough to mean anything from “we’re out of the salmon” to a loaded political statement — depending entirely on who’s using it and who’s listening.
Or, perhaps this entire tempest is just the response of one thin skinned man to his pathologic fear of seashells.