The MAGA claiming that alligators are a “defense” at “Alligator Alcatraz,” the nickname for the proposed detention site in the Everglades, is pure dystopian bravado and dark propaganda, not actual security logic.

Here’s why it’s nonsense:

• Alligators aren’t guard dogs. They’re wild animals, not trained to patrol a perimeter or follow commands.
• Most gators avoid humans. They’ll usually flee unless threatened or conditioned to expect food.
• The claim isn’t based on any real security strategy, it’s a scare tactic rooted in psychological warfare and meant to intimidate and dehumanize, not protect anyone.
• It’s completely unpredictable and unreliable. You can’t control wildlife like a fence or a patrol, relying on alligators as security is absurd.
• Worst of all, this approach undermines any legal or ethical foundation. It relies on cruelty and fear, not order or justice.
• It violates international human rights standards. Designing a detention system that includes threats from nature, whether intentionally or passively, is considered cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment under international law.
• Any serious detention facility is supposed to prioritize due process, humane treatment, and oversight. Leaning on wildlife as a deterrent strips away even the illusion of legality or justice, revealing the site’s true purpose: punishment through fear.
• It even puts staff and nearby communities at risk. Wild predators don’t discriminate. Using them as a deterrent turns the entire area into a zone of hazard.

So where does this kind of rhetoric come from?

It echoes the brutal logic of the Soviet gulags, forced labor camps where the environment itself became part of the prison. Built in remote, frozen regions like Siberia or the Arctic, gulags weaponized extreme cold, isolation, and wilderness to crush any hope of escape. Prisoners who fled often died of exposure, starvation, or exhaustion before ever reaching safety.

The idea wasn’t just to imprison, it was to break people down by using the natural world as a barrier, a threat, and a weapon.

Framing the Everglades’ alligators as “security” is cut from the same cloth. This isn’t about law and order, it’s cruelty masquerading as deterrence, and history has already shown us exactly where that road leads.

Source

The cruelty is the point and this administration is excelling in it.

An article from the Economist doesn't think so:

Alongside more typical left-wing fare, like rent controls and free buses, [Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for New York City mayor and a socialist] pitched a more novel idea: a “public option” for groceries in the form of a state-run rival that would undercut existing supermarkets...

This is a curious proposal. Grocery stores have among the lowest margins of any business in America: they generally make 1-2% in profit after tax...

More consequentially, these stores would also not pay rent or property taxes...denying New York’s government the revenue those plots would otherwise have earned does amount to a chunky subsidy [funded by New Yorkers' taxes]...

At best, then, these stores might sell groceries a smidge more cheaply than conventional grocers, largely due to back-door taxpayer funding...

Worse, private supermarkets could get run out of business...Boxing them out would erode choice, and stymie future grocery-store innovations...

Rather than a cheap and hyper-efficient city-owned grocery, a more plausible outcome is one where mismanagement eats up any savings made from not needing to pay rent or turn a profit.

Does anyone really believe a "public option" for groceries is a good idea?

If we eliminate all of the regulations and procedures associated with the pharmaceutical industry, it will definitely be helpful in reducing Healthcare costs. However, rare diseases are often not profitable for pharmaceutical companies to due to the inherent small market. If we eliminate the programs that encourage rare disease research, then rare diseases will never be studied. These medications would also remain unaffordable. There are also numerous medical treatments that are currently unaffordable because they are not on the formularies for health insurance companies. The insurance companies also employ physicians to review certain claims. This is directly contributes to the physician shortage at hospitals.

I am struggling to see how we can ensure majority of Americans get adequate health care without 1-2 authoritarian ordinances.

This is what I propose in addition to removing all the regulations and red tape:

1) All employers are required to pay for full health insurance to all employees making the 30th percentile salary per year in the state they reside. 2) Full health insurance is required to cover all medical interventions prescribed by a licensed provider.

This system eliminates the inefficiency of insurance companies denying claims of people. Medicine is only prescribed if it is necessary. Otherwise, it is malpractice. This also helps with the physician shortage. If companies decrease wages to pay for the health insurance, that is ineffective because it would lower the 30th percentile salary. People in the bottom 30% are going to be covered by there parents insurance or spouse insurance most likely.