Life takes us in many strange directions and wonderful discoveries. It never turns out the way we thought it would.
Saturday, February 7, 2026
The Guthrie Family Will Pay A Ransom To Get Mom Nancy Back
https://thefrankfigliuzzi.substack.com/p/new-nancy-guthries-family-to-pay?utm_source=podcast-email&publication_id=2960239&post_id=187249646&utm_campaign=email-play-on-substack&r=pxp3m&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Friday, February 6, 2026
Why Luigi Mangione "Beat The Death Penalty"
Will Luigi Mangione be executed?
The federal judge in the trial of Luigi Mangione has declared that the stalking charges and other aggravating factors do not amount to a capital offence under current federal law.
District Judge Margaret Garnett came to this conclusion during a hearing on January 30, 2026, in which she dismissed the most serious charges for the following reasons:
Ideologically motivated murders do not constitute terrorism, especially under New York State law, where the murder took place
The prosecution failed to prove a wider conspiracy of violence that went beyond the scope of what actually happened — a single murder
Travelling through interstate, and using electronic communications for the purpose of stalking the victim did not in itself constitute the “crime of violence” needed to secure the capital offence elements
It is also quite suitable that Luigi Mangione would not be executed, regardless of one’s personal opinion on the circumstances of the case, seeing as former President Joe Biden had himself commuted the sentences of all but three federal death row inmates — Dylann Roof, Robert Bowers, and Dzhokar Tsarnaev — shortly before Christmas 2024.
Reversing this trend and imposing the death penalty on a defendant over a gunshot-related homicide against a single victim for no other reason than because the person was wealthy, powerful, and well-known among the elites of society, would serve as even more evidence of justice inequality among the millions who have already long become disillusioned by the legal system.
Earlier this week, a reported supporter of Luigi Mangione who is known as a Minnesotan by the name of Mark Anderson, was himself arrested and detained when he tried to break into his cell, posing as an FBI agent, so that he could set his idol free.
While the attempt failed, I am certain he now feels relieved at the news that Brian Thompson’s alleged killer will never have to face lethal injection over the incident, though the two of them may or may not grow old behind bars together, depending on which way the jury goes.
This means that while the terrorism charges have been effectively dropped against Luigi Mangione, the non-capital charges at both the federal level, as well as the murder charge in New York — where the death penalty was struck down as unconstitutional in 2004 — remain in place, and will be the deciding factor in whether or not the social vigilante/assassin of UnitedHealthCare CEO Brian Thompson walks away a free man or spends the remaining days of his life behind bars when the starting date of the first trial takes place on October 13, 2026.
17.6K views
View 193 upvotes
View 7 shares
1 of 2 answers
Thursday, February 5, 2026
Wednesday, February 4, 2026
Tuesday, February 3, 2026
Monday, February 2, 2026
Sunday, February 1, 2026
Saturday, January 31, 2026
I Had A Wonderful Experience With A U.S. Government Agency
Now, let me share with you something uplifting. I had a wonderful experience with a US government agency, the Social Security Administration. For 14 years, my monthly pension check was deposit to the American Express Centurion Bank. This bank decided to end personal accounts and only focus on commercial accounts. I had to find a new bank to receive my check. I went to my local Social Security office. I was in and out in 10 minutes. It was efficient and painless. Two days later, my check no longer went to my old bank. It showed up at my new bank. Yesterday, I received a most gracious letter from the Social Security Administration. They took note of the recent change in my receiving bank. They hoped that my experience with this process had been satisfactory.
Friday, January 30, 2026
Thursday, January 29, 2026
Wednesday, January 28, 2026
The Kaiser Medicare Advantage Fraud Lawsuit
Kaiser’s $556M Medicare Advantage whistleblower lawsuit: 10 things to know
Advertisement
By: Patsy Newitt
10 hours ago
Print
Share
In the largest Medicare Advantage fraud settlement to date, Oakland, Calif.-based Kaiser Permanente agreed to pay $556 million to resolve allegations it violated the False Claims Act by submitting unsupported diagnosis codes to Medicare Advantage.
The government alleged the scheme occurred between 2009 and 2018 in California and Colorado, according to a complaint filed in 2021.
Here are 10 things that ASCs and physicians need to know:
1. The case centers on Medicare Advantage risk adjustment. Under Medicare Advantage, CMS pays health plans a fixed monthly amount per enrollee, adjusted based on diagnosis codes that reflect patient severity. Higher-risk patients generate higher payments.
2. Physicians were allegedly pressured to add diagnoses after visits. Federal prosecutors alleged Kaiser pressured physicians to retroactively add diagnoses through medical record addenda, even when those conditions were not evaluated or treated during the original visit, according to a blog post from law firm Brown, which specializes in whistleblower protection.
3. Post-visit addenda were a key enforcement issue. The Justice Department alleged diagnoses were sometimes added months or more than a year after encounters, and were unrelated to the care provided, violating CMS documentation rules.
4. Data mining and physician targets were part of the allegations. Prosecutors said Kaiser used internal tools to identify diagnoses from patients’ historical records that had not been submitted to CMS, set aggressive coding targets, flagged underperforming physicians and tied incentives to diagnosis submission, according to Brown.
5. The government alleged roughly $1B in improper payments. According to court filings the government alleged Kaiser added roughly 500,000 diagnoses, generating about $1 billion in improper Medicare Advantage payments.
6. Six whistleblowers triggered the case. The settlement resolves multiple qui tam lawsuits filed under the False Claims Act by former Kaiser physicians and employees. Whistleblowers will collectively receive about $95 million, the Justice Department said.
7. Kaiser said it settled to avoid prolonged litigation. Kaiser called the case a dispute over how Medicare risk-adjustment documentation requirements should be interpreted and noted that other plans have faced similar scrutiny.
“We chose to settle to avoid the delay, uncertainty and cost of prolonged litigation,” the health system said in a Jan. 14 statement. “Multiple major health plans have faced similar government scrutiny over Medicare Advantage risk-adjustment standards and practices, reflecting industrywide challenges in applying these requirements. The Kaiser Permanente case was not about the quality of care our members received. It involved a dispute about how to interpret the Medicare risk-adjustment program’s documentation requirements.”
8. Why this matters for ASCs and physicians. The case underscores the department’s continued focus on risk adjustment, documentation standards and post-visit coding, according to Brown. For physicians, it highlights exposure tied to addenda, peer pressure around coding targets and compensation linked to diagnoses, even when care is delivered in lower-cost outpatient settings.
9. The Justice Department framed the case as a warning to the industry. According to Brown, the case sends a clear message that submitting false information to CMS, even through retroactive documentation, jeopardizes program integrity and will be aggressively pursued.
10. Other major health plans are also under scrutiny. The settlement comes amid broader investigations into Medicare Advantage billing practices. A recent U.S. Senate report accused UnitedHealth Group of similarly inflating risk scores to boost revenue, and several other insurers are facing whistleblower lawsuits or audits over upcoding and risk-adjustment abuse.
Tuesday, January 27, 2026
Monday, January 26, 2026
Sunday, January 25, 2026
Ukraine Has Made Brilliant Strides In Drones
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/31/magazine/ukraine-ai-drones-war-russia.html
If Nuclear War Had Broken Out During The Cuban Missile Crisis, Which Side Would Have Won?
Profile photo for Thierry Etienne Joseph Rotty
Thierry Etienne Joseph Rotty
·
Following
Former Central Planning at NATO6y
If the nuclear war had broken out during the Cuban Missile Crisis what side would have been hurt less?
At the time, the US had 2,952 strategic nuclear weapons that were ready to be used against the Soviet Union while the Soviets had only 149 strategic weapons that could hit CONUS. While 9 MRBMs could hit Alaska.
The total number of British nuclear weapons, both tactical and strategic was 179.
The total number of US nuclear weapons, including those under NATO Dual-Key Agreement, was 27,387.
The total number of Soviet nuclear weapons was 3,322.
It is clear that NATO would have pulverized the Warsaw Pact. NATO was at Reinforced Alert. The Generated Operations Plan called for the hitting of the Communist Bloc (China, North Korea, Albania, and Cuba were also targetted) with 8,757 nuclear weapons within the first 8 hours of the war.
Follow-up nuclear strikes would be conducted by long-range bombers, fighter-bombers, and naval attack aircraft. These were called “Yo-Yo Missions”. The aircraft would land, be re-armed, refuelled, and go out again.
The intent was to first take out the Soviets nuclear capabilities first. All available missiles would be launched as quickly as possible against Warsaw Pact Air Defences and C³I capabilities to facilitate the penetration of the aircraft.
Attacks would continue until 75% of Soviet industry was destroyed and at least 140 million out of 200 million Soviet citizens would be killed.
Other Communist countries would have been attacked until 50% of their industry was destroyed and at least 20% of their population.
Then the Western Bloc would go on the offensive and “liberate” the non-Soviet Communist countries. The Soviet Union would have been carved up into smaller agricultural states.
The sheer amount of NATO’s nuclear weapons makes a Western victory a certainty.
22.2K views
View 465 upvotes
View 2 shares
1 of 20 answers
Saturday, January 24, 2026
Friday, January 23, 2026
Thursday, January 22, 2026
Wednesday, January 21, 2026
Tuesday, January 20, 2026
Monday, January 19, 2026
What A Collapse Of The Iranian Regime Would Mean
What the collapse of Iran’s regime would mean
Thousands have died and America has threatened to strike back against the horror there
Save
Share
Photographs of Ali Khamenei and deceased protesters
Illustration: The Economist/Getty Images/AP
Jan 15th 2026
|
5 min read
Listen to this story
WHEN PROTESTERS took to the bazaars and streets of Iran, the supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, met them with bullets. After two weeks of chants of “death to the dictator”, militiamen allied with the Revolutionary Guards and toting automatic rifles rode in on swarms of motorbikes. With snipers, they shot their fellow citizens, aiming at their faces and genitals. Morgues are overflowing. Bodies in bags are stacked on bloodied pavements. Several thousand may be dead. Thousands of the wounded have been arrested, some dragged from hospital beds to prison cells and an uncertain fate.
This ought to be the moment that ends the theocrats’ 47 years in power. Iranians deserve to live in a democratic and prosperous country, not least because of their bravery. The world would benefit if Iran was turned from being a nuclear threat and an exporter of violence across the Middle East to a tolerant, stable trading power. But protests alone don’t end tyranny. What would an American strike contemplated by President Donald Trump do to bring about the mullahs’ downfall? And if the regime were to topple, what might follow?
Read the rest of our cover package
Bereft of legitimacy, the reeling regime in Iran massacres its own people
How Iran’s regime tried to hide its brutal crackdown
Reza Pahlavi says Iran is undergoing a revolution
Iran’s rulers are merciless because of their weakness. They have nowhere to turn and nothing to offer their people but violence. At home, Iran’s citizens must endure a shrinking economy, rapidly rising food prices, joblessness and worsening poverty. Abroad, the regime has been humiliated, as its proxy forces in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza were battered or destroyed, mostly by Israel, since 2023. Last year’s 12-day war showed that the regime could not even protect its own commanders and nuclear sites. After crushing protests in previous years Mr Khamenei sometimes offered concessions, such as relaxing the dress code for women. This month his government proposed a general stipend worth $7 a month, hoping to buy off public anger. That was met with derision.
The days ahead are fraught with uncertainty and danger. The protesters have withdrawn from the streets, though for how long nobody can say. The bleakest outcome would be that the regime remains in power, bonded by blood, condemning Iranians to a stagnant, enduring oppression. Bad, too, would be a collapse of Iran into worse violence. The break-up of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and civil war in Syria offer stark lessons in how hard it is to end decades of repression without provoking mass bloodshed. Kurdish, Azeri, Baluchi or other separatists could rise up and Iran could descend into chaos. Add the presence of enriched uranium, nuclear scientists and religious extremists, and the risks are grave. Fear of what comes next may explain why some inside Iran have so far failed to join the protests.
In between are scenarios in which the regime fragments. Perhaps the Revolutionary Guards will oust the supreme leader. Or a faction of guards may seize power in the name of the people, and seek legitimacy by holding rival factions to account for the recent killings. If so, they could be helped by the regular army, which so far has stood aside. Either way, the new men in charge could seek to strike a deal in which America lifted sanctions in exchange for strict limits on Iran’s nuclear programme and ballistic missiles.
America could attempt to land a blow against a regime that has been a running sore in Washington for over four decades. This week Mr Trump first threatened “very strong” action against Tehran, while calling for more protests, and then appeared to retreat—whether as a ruse or out of caution is unclear. If he attacks, his preferred option would surely be a limited strike. Perhaps he could aim for a political decapitation, somewhat like the one he recently oversaw in Venezuela, whereby the detested Mr Khamenei is deposed or killed. Or America could drop bombs and missiles on selected sites inside Iran, perhaps targeting structures associated with the Revolutionary Guards.
At less risk, America could help end the communications blackout imposed by the regime, by smuggling Starlink kits into Iran. One sign this matters is that security forces are hunting for those already in the country. The White House is also giving tacit support to an exiled opposition figure, Reza Pahlavi, the former crown prince, who fled from Iran when the shah was toppled in 1979. From a safe distance in Maryland he, too, has been urging protesters to rise up to bring democracy. In the absence of organised opposition inside Iran, perhaps the country could restore some form of monarchy, (see our interview with Mr Pahlavi).
However, just to run through the options shows how hard it will be for American action to succeed. If Mr Trump orders strikes, Iran is armed with a formidable battery of short- and long-range missiles that could hit back across the Middle East, leading to an unpredictable escalation—which is why countries there are warning against an American attack. A decapitation from the air would require exquisite intelligence against an adversary who is forewarned. Even with the ayatollah gone, a Caracas-style deal with the Revolutionary Guards is unlikely to create lasting stability, because grieving Iranians will yearn for vengeance against generals with so much fresh blood on their hands.
The new way of the world
The stakes are extraordinarily high. With Mr Trump in office, old certainties in geopolitics are melting away. His concern will never be to respect international law, nor to foster a club of liberal democracies. But, even as Iran is abandoned by its allies, China and Russia, he is readier than any recent American president to bring about big changes if he believes they will enhance America’s influence and his own prestige. Each intervention is a test of what sort of world that will create.
Once every popular uprising seemed to herald the birth of a new democracy. Alas, after the failures of the Arab spring, it is no longer easy to imagine that Iran’s path could be so simple. The hope nonetheless is that, in time, the collapse of the regime will favour Iran’s courageous people, who have proved once again that they are their country’s greatest blessing. ■
For subscribers only: to see how we design each week’s cover, sign up to our weekly Cover Story newsletter.
Explore more
Sunday, January 18, 2026
Saturday, January 17, 2026
Friday, January 16, 2026
Thursday, January 15, 2026
Wednesday, January 14, 2026
Tuesday, January 13, 2026
Monday, January 12, 2026
Sunday, January 11, 2026
Saturday, January 10, 2026
Friday, January 9, 2026
Thursday, January 8, 2026
Wednesday, January 7, 2026
Tuesday, January 6, 2026
Monday, January 5, 2026
Sunday, January 4, 2026
Saturday, January 3, 2026
Friday, January 2, 2026
Thursday, January 1, 2026
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)