Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
It's not exactly front-and-center in the news, but Republicans have entered a budgetary crunch time in a big way. The outcome is going to be extremely significant to hundreds of millions of Americans, but reporting on it is time-consuming and detail-oriented, so it's a lot easier to just chase whatever shiny object Donald Trump trots out for the press instead.
After another 24 hours of rapidly-unfolding developments, we thought it was worth taking another look at where things stand. Donald Trump announced a ceasefire agreement yesterday between Iran and Israel, and after a shaky start (with both sides accusing the other of breaking the ceasefire) it seems to be holding for now. It also seems that Iran will not retaliate further against the United States, after a rather pro forma attack on a U.S. base in Qatar. And today, details leaked of an intelligence assessment that shows the result of the American attack on Iran's nuclear program may not have been "obliteration" (as Trump and others have claimed), but rather just "set back by months."
We stand at a turning point, but as is common at such a juncture, nobody knows exactly what is going to come next. By bombing Iran's nuclear facilities, the United States is now at war, but what that will mean going forward is really anyone's guess right now.
Maybe Donald Trump missed his calling in life. Maybe he secretly dreams of running a car dealership lot. Previously, he turned the White House lawn into a showroom for Teslas (as he showed his tenuous grasp of the English language, saying: "It's all computer!"). Now he has erected two very tall flagpoles on the White House grounds, complete with the sort of giant flag one usually sees from a highway to signify an auto dealership. Which means our title this week pretty much had to be based on the maxim: "Let's run it up the flagpole and see who salutes!"
Today Donald Trump was asked whether he had made the decision to attack Iran's nuclear sites or not. He answered with perhaps the truest words he has ever spoken: "You don't seriously think I'm going to answer that question. You don't know that I'm going to even do it. You know, I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do." It's hard to disagree with that, really.
But the subject deserves more than just snark, since it is a serious decision Trump has to make -- and it would be an equally tough decision for any U.S. president to have to make. Entering the country into a war is always a serious decision, and it should be treated as such by all concerned.
The stakes are high. There are valid arguments to be made on both sides of the issue. Whatever Trump decides, it will come with some degree of risk -- both for the country and for him politically.
So there's a public gathering in Washington this week that aims to fix what's wrong with the Democratic Party. It is called "WelcomeFest" and is yet another effort to make the party "more moderate" (they talk of being "partisan centrists"), while admittedly trying to emulate the amount of energy from the progressive side of the party. One of the founders of the "Welcome Party" summed this up: "We respect the very robust and multifaceted effort on the progressive faction of the party over the last few years. They had a lot of clear coherency behind it, and there was a lot of action. We are essentially just trying to emulate that faction of the party." However, one has to wonder what they really mean when they talk of being centrists and moderates, since the lion's share of the funding behind the effort comes from Democratic deep-pocket donors, instead of being supported by any sort of authentic grassroots effort.
In the annals of warfare, at times new inventions completely revolutionize how wars are fought. The full list of these is long, so here are just a few prominent historical examples: gunpowder, the rifle cartridge (as opposed to musket balls), the machine gun, airplanes, and tanks. War-changing inventions don't always have to be offensive weapons -- radar would certainly qualify. In each case, however, the introduction of something new onto the battlefield has completely changed how wars are fought. Battleships had to give way to aircraft carriers. Before that, cavalry gave way to tanks. So it goes.
If you'll check a historic calendar (which is easy enough to do), you will clearly see that there are three possible days which could validly be celebrated as marking the end of World War II. They are: August 14th, August 15th, or September 2nd. The initial announcement of the surrender of Japan was made on August 14th, in Japan. Due to the nature of time zones, this happened when it was August 15th in America already. Then the formal surrender, which happened on the deck of the battleship U.S.S. Missouri, was signed on September 2nd. The president at the time, Harry Truman, announced the United States would celebrate what was known as "V-J Day" (for "Victory over Japan Day") on September 2nd. So that would be the most likely day you'd expect any subsequent American president to announce as a new semi-holiday, since it was when World War II actually officially ended. But you'd be wrong.
Donald Trump hit two milestones this past week: his first 100 days in office, and his first quarter of negative G.D.P. growth. True to form, he celebrated the first of these with a rally, while blaming the second on Joe Biden. He even tried to front-load any bad economic news in the second quarter as Biden's fault too. Oh, and for good measure, Trump expressed a desire to become the next pope. Which would probably be fine with plenty of Americans -- as long as he quits his current job in order to do so.
Which brings us to Trump's strongest point, albeit one where his polling is also falling fast. On the subject of the southern border, the public does approve of what Trump has been doing. But on the larger subject of immigration, Trump is underwater in most polls, after starting out his term with those numbers in the positive ranges.