"Let me be clear. I don't think the homoeroticism is the weird part...."

Says Democratic Congresswoman Becca Balint (D-VT), talking about Pete Hegseth and testosterone:

"There are so many people in this administration that have some weird, like, intense homoerotic feelings toward men while also being incredibly homophobic and not just homophobic but, like, hate mongering, fear mongering about the LGBT community. Let me be clear. I don't think the homoeroticism is the weird part. The weird part is that they pretend that that's not what it's about. And so, Pete Hegseth was, like, the example of this, like the manly-manly rugged macho man, and I don't know if you know who Tom of Finland is. Tom of Finland — this is gay male porn that was drawn by a man, and, like, Pete Hegseth is the embodiment of that. So I feel like they must be looking at that as, like, their example of what men look like...."

I blogged about Tom of Finland back in 2014 in a post titled, "Finland issues stamps honoring an artist whose 'sleek sado-masochistic drawings with abundant amounts of beefy male nudity' portrayed 'a sensual life force and being proud of oneself'" ("The first quote in this post title is the way the NYT described the work of Touko Laaksonen, AKA Tom of Finland, and the second quote is from someone in Finland who chose the particular images for the stamps, who added: 'There is never too much [sensual life force and being proud of oneself] in this northern country'")(the only image at my post is of one of the stamps issued by Finland).

Balint gets pretty excited about her ideas in that clip, and that made me want to look up what she studied in college.

"Trump seemed very low-T in his East Room address."

Taunts Maureen Dowd, in "Low-T, High Chair" (NYT).

I’m surprised that Pete Hegseth, who says his “High-T Department of War” will start screening testosterone levels of “war fighters” age 30 and older, didn’t rush over to shoot up the flaccid 80-year-old commander in chief with the elixir of manhood needed, as he put it, to give America “the leading edge of lethality.”.... 

There was barely a peep from Republicans on Capitol Hill about the speech.... You could almost hear the fervent wish of Republican lawmakers watching the president: Please, Donald, move on! But he can’t. His father’s admonition that there are only "killers" and "losers" plays in a loop in his head, reducing him to jelly.... 

[H]e seemed impotent, raving about nonsense....

Tearing Trump down like that, Dowd adds to the mythology of male sexuality as the center of strength, courage, and reason. That's not feminism. 

"Pete Hegseth wants a manly military. And he really, really wants you to know how badly he wants a manly military."

"In his 2024 book, The War on Warriors, Hegseth worried that the military risked becoming 'effeminate, and apologetic'; he insisted that what liberals really want is 'soft men, and a weak military,' and he scolded 'Pentagon pussies' who refuse to stand up for soldiers on the battlefield. As secretary of defense, Hegseth has blocked the promotion of female military officers, removed the first woman to lead the Navy, and ordered a review of women’s 'effectiveness' in ground-combat roles. He has also used the Defense Department’s social-media channels to post a steady stream of tougher-than-thou videos...."

So begins the Atlantic article, "Pete Hegseth Wants YOU to Test Your Testosterone/The secretary of defense has a questionable plan to monitor the hormone levels of every service member over 30" (gift link).

"If we need to negotiate with bombs, we’ll negotiate with bombs. And we’re very good at it. Nobody better in the world."

Said Pete Hegseth, quoted in "Iran War Live Updates: U.S. Will Strike Iran Again Tonight, Hegseth Says/The secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, said a new American attack would be launched on Wednesday night. Earlier, President Trump said more attacks were coming, a day after he predicted peace" (NYT).

"Mr. Hegseth has said repeatedly that he is determined to change a culture corrupted by 'foolish,' 'reckless' and 'woke' leaders from previous administrations."

"But his heavy scrutiny, especially of female and minority officers, is eroding confidence in a promotion system that is supposed to be apolitical and merit based, his critics have said.... In his 2024 book, 'The War on Warriors,' Mr. Hegseth disparaged many of the senior officers who rose up under Mr. Austin’s tenure as 'cowards hiding under stars' and 'whores to wokesters.' 'The Left captured the military quickly, and we must reclaim it at a faster pace,' he wrote. 'We must wage a frontal assault. A swift counterattack, in broad daylight.'..."

From "Hegseth Strikes Two Black and Two Female Officers From Promotion List/Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s highly unusual decision to remove officers from a one-star promotion list has spurred allegations of racial and gender bias" (NYT). The sources for this article are anonymous current and former military and administration officials.

Note that the language purports to know why one person was targeted:

"It is unclear whether one particular photo — or the sum total of the day’s shots — led to consternation among Hegseth’s staff."

From "Pentagon bars press photographers over ‘unflattering’ Hegseth photos/Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s staff took issue with images taken in a rare briefing last week and decided to shut out photographers from two subsequent news conferences" (WaPo).

Pete Hegseth on "60 Minutes."

CBS News chief Washington correspondent @MajorCBS sat down with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in Washington, D.C. They spoke on Friday, March 6th about the state of the war with Iran, potential American casualties, what an Iranian surrender could look like, and more.

Editor's… pic.twitter.com/JRnKcYs5IY

— 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) March 9, 2026

That's the "extended version" of what aired on the show last night. And it's helpful to see the transcript (which I generated using ChatGPT)(the boldface is mine):

Part of your propaganda.

Hey White House, please remove the Tropic Thunder clip. We never gave you permission and have no interest in being a part of your propaganda machine. War is not a movie. https://t.co/dMQqRxxVCa

— Ben Stiller (@BenStiller) March 6, 2026

"We can sustain this fight — easily — for as long as we need to..."

"Ultimately, we set the pace and the tempo.... We know their ability to shoot versus our ability to defend. That difference gets wider and wider every day.... When we say the throttle's going up, the throttle's going up and it's going to stay on high...."

"We are not defenders anymore. We are warriors.... We will finish this on 'America First' conditions of Trump's choosing..."

Hegseth succeeds in pressuring Scouting America — AKA the Boy Scouts of America — to rid itself of DEI.

"No more DEI. Zero."

The Department of War has officially put Scouting America on notice.

It’s time to get back to basics — and DoW is leading the charge. pic.twitter.com/EnY9mvaFLX

— Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (@SecWar) February 27, 2026

 

From the Department of War:

"Six weeks ago, Senator Mark Kelly — and five other members of Congress — released a reckless and seditious video that was clearly intended to undermine good order and military discipline...."

"[T]he Department of War... has initiated retirement grade determination proceedings under 10 U.S.C. § 1370(f), with reduction in his retired grade resulting in a corresponding reduction in retired pay."

Six weeks ago, Senator Mark Kelly — and five other members of Congress — released a reckless and seditious video that was clearly intended to undermine good order and military discipline. As a retired Navy Captain who is still receiving a military pension, Captain Kelly knows he…

— Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (@SecWar) January 5, 2026

Why withhold video of death?

I'm reading "Trump says Hegseth will decide whether to release boat strike video/The comments come after the president previously said his administration would release video of a controversial military operation, 'no problem'" (WaPo).

If there's something people want to see, why not let them see? I don't want to see it, because I was taught as a child not to look, and I've always regarded this a moral requirement. If I know it is video of a real person dying, I will read about it if it is newsworthy but I don't watch. I read about the death of George Floyd, but I did not watch. 

Do people gain better understanding by watching video of human beings dying? In the case of the boat strike, there are fact questions, and it is evidence – inflammatory evidence, but evidence. And some people want to stare at it and make up their own mind — stare at human beings, desperate and then blown up. How much can be seen?

"To comply with a spoken order from Hegseth to kill everyone, the Special Operations commander overseeing the mission ordered a second strike..."

"... that killed the two survivors, according to two people with direct knowledge of the operation. Those people, along with five others in the original report, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity. Trump said he would look into the issue. 'I wouldn’t have wanted that. Not a second strike. The first strike was very lethal. It was fine,' the president told reporters."

From "Trump says Hegseth denied issuing order to kill boat crew/The president also said he would not have wanted a second strike on a boat allegedly carrying drugs, which occurred after U.S. forces realized the initial attack left two survivors, as The Post reported" (WaPo)(gift link, so you can read the whole thing).

UPDATE: "Hegseth Ordered a Lethal Attack but Not the Killing of Survivors, Officials Say" (NYT): "According to five U.S. officials, who spoke separately and on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter that is under investigation, Mr. Hegseth, ahead of the Sept. 2 attack, ordered a strike that would kill the people on the boat and destroy the vessel and its purported cargo of drugs. But, each official said, Mr. Hegseth’s directive did not specifically address what should happen if a first missile turned out not to fully accomplish all of those things. And, the officials said, his order was not a response to surveillance footage showing that at least two people on the boat survived the first blast. Admiral Bradley ordered the initial missile strike and then several follow-up strikes that killed the initial survivors and sank the disabled boat. As that operation unfolded, they said, Mr. Hegseth did not give any further orders to him."

"At the heart of Mr. Hegseth’s vision is an insistence that waging war is fundamentally different from other vocations in society because it is deadly and is meant to be."

"'This is life or death,' he said. 'As we all know, this is you versus an enemy hellbent on killing you.'... [T]he government’s duties to citizens who find themselves in harm’s way, fighting for their country, are not like its duties to citizens in other circumstances.... In a life-or-death occupational setting, there is no room for preferential treatment like affirmative action. No soldier should ever be led or covered by someone who has been promoted for reasons other than military effectiveness. That criterion is not bigoted. It arises from a reasonable philosophy of the limited mission of the military...."

Writes Christopher Caldwell, in "That Hegseth Speech Was Actually Pretty Good" (NYT).

Best bad headline from the Hegsethathon.

The award goes to The New Republic: "Hegseth Summoned Military Leaders to Say 'FAFO' in Disturbing Speech."

I think it's ludicrous for a journalistic article to call it a "disturbing speech."  Who is disturbed? The headline writer? Were the military leaders disturbed? All of them? Some of them? Don't create fake objectivity. Someone needs to have been disturbed. I want to know who and why.

From the article:

“To our enemies: FAFO,” Hegseth said, using an acronym that translates to “Fuck around and find out.”

Hegseth ordered hundreds of U.S. military officials around the globe to meet him at a spontaneous assembly in Virginia.... The message shocked members of the U.S. military, who could not recall another instance in which a defense secretary summoned so many commanders for a sudden in-person meeting—especially without a clear rationale.

Was it a "disturbing speech" because of what Hegseth said or was a "disturbing speech" because it was disturbing to have to travel and sit in the audience to hear?

Hegseth gives the military leaders a talking-to.

"It’s meant to be an eyeball-to-eyeball kind of conversation. He wants to see the generals."

Said an unnamed person who, we're assured, knows what he's talking about.

Quoted in "New details emerge on Hegseth’s unusual mass gathering of top brass/The defense secretary is expected to lecture about the 'warrior ethos' for less than an hour, according to multiple people familiar with the event. But top generals are bracing for possible firings or demotions" (WaPo).

Some Pentagon officials questioned the wisdom of launching a relatively large gathering on short notice to hear Hegseth speak for a matter of minutes, and bristled at the idea that long-serving military leaders — a segment of whom spent years in combat earlier in their careers — needed instruction on how to fight. 

“They don’t need a talk from Secretary Hegseth on the warrior ethos,” a defense official said.... 

“Warrior ethos” across the services can have different meanings, but in general it refers to professional dedication to fighting and winning wars. It is a regular focus of Hegseth, a former National Guard infantry officer, who has also rhetorically championed a “return to lethality.”... 

The in-person nature of the meeting has generated frustration as hundreds of senior officers and their staff prepare to fly in on either commercial or military aircraft, and book lodging and transportation to be in the audience for Hegseth’s remarks early Tuesday....

Frustration at the difficulty of travel arrangements — does that sound like the warrior ethos? I don't know. I'm not a general, but I assume that part of war-fighting is transporting members of the military effectively across the face of the earth. And not complaining about it, just getting it done.

"In my ideal society, we would vote as households. I would ordinarily be the one to cast the vote, but I would cast the vote having discussed it with my household."

Said the pastor Toby Sumpter, quoted in "Pete Hegseth reposts video that says women shouldn’t be allowed to vote/Progressive evangelical group says ideas shared by pastors and amplified by defense secretary are 'very disturbing'" (The Guardian)

1. What are you saying when you repost something? I post things I don't agree with all the time. Often my posting means: This is obviously a terrible idea. Or: This is weirdly interesting.

2. Sumpter's idea is weirdly interesting: He's talking about his "ideal society." I could see saying: In an ideal society, we wouldn't need voting at all. And we know what Jesus said about government.

3. How could we have voting at the "household" level without insane intrusion on everyone's privacy? Wilson doesn't seem to have thought about this since he's relying on the notion of what would "ordinarily" happen. And what would happen to the un-ordinary people? Maybe in Wilson's "ideal society," everyone is clustered into formal, officially designated families, but you can't get there from here, so it's a fantasy, for your contemplation. A weirdly interesting idea, as noted in point #1.

4. But, ooh, that terrible Hegseth!

ADDED: I've corrected the source of the quote which I'd mistakenly attributed to Doug Wilson, co-founder of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches. Wilson is also quoted, saying "I would like to see this nation being a Christian nation, and I would like this world to be a Christian world." And, before bringing up Sumpter, The Guardian says that Wilson "raises the idea of women not voting." That's confusing, though I should have been more careful. I've also swapped in the name Sumpter on point #2. Thanks to Aggie, in the comments, for pointing out this problem.

"Because you — and I mean specifically YOU, the press corps — because you cheer against Trump so hard, it's in your DNA and in your blood to cheer against Trump..."

"... because you want him not to be successful so bad, you have to cheer against the efficacy of these strikes, you have to hope maybe they weren't effective, maybe the way the Trump administration has represented it isn't true. So let's take half truths, spun information, leaked information, and then spin it, spin it in every way we can to try to cause doubt and manipulate... the public mind, over whether or not our brave pilots were successful. How many stories have been written about how hard it is to, I don't know, fly a plane for 36 hours? Has MSNBC done that story? Has Fox? Have we done the story how hard that is?... There are so many aspects of what our brave men and women did that — because of the hatred of this press corps — are undermined because you people are trying to leak and spin that it wasn't successful. It's irresponsible...."