Is Vladimir Putin giving up on the Ukraine War?

Russia is hurting economically, as a result of the costs of the Ukraine war, and sanctions. In addition, Russia is suffering increasing domestic attacks from the extremely sophisticated Ukrainian drone program, and these are, to some extent, anyway, undermining the confidence of Russians in his leadership, although his support still remains quite strong, in general. And, of course, Russia is suffering regular heavy casualties from its infantry assaults in Ukraine itself, which have only been making incremental, minimal advances for some years now. So, it does look quite possible that this temporary "victory" ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia might be the prelude to something bigger, and more permanent, in the way of a peaceful settlement. Now, of course, the main obstacles to peace here have always been the intransigence of both sides. Ukraine insists on full integrity of its original pre-2014 borders, although Crimea and much of Donbas are probably happier belonging to Russia than to Ukraine. Ukraine also insists on its right to join NATO, which Russia sees as a direct threat to its own territory. Russia basically wants to go back to the status of Ukraine under the USSR, where it is a semi-autonomous Republic fully under Russian control. Obviously, by this time, neither side is going to get its way completely. Given Putin is now acknowledging that Russia is willing to end the conflict soon, and that Donald Trump is only providing limited assistance and support from the US to Ukraine, and even this with strings attached, Ukraine may be under pressure to make concessions, as well. The most likely outcome, I suspect, will be one in which Ukraine volutarily cedes the territory conquered by Russia to Vladimir Putin -- Crimea, Donbas, and much, but not all of the Black Sea Coast -- and, in return, Russia accepts the presence of NATO troops in Ukraine as "peacekeepers", although, effectively, this, of course, gives the remaining 80% of Ukraine effective status in NATO, by the mere presence of these NATO peacekeepers there. If, as seems likely, Poland and Germany continue their planned military buildup over the next few years, these two NATO states alone could, quite possibly, be sufficient to provide adequate military support to discourage any further Russian military incursions into the rest of Ukraine. Thus, a stable peace, with both sides getting something could be obtained. The 80% of Ukraine remaining would get genuine security, and Vladimir Putin would have acquired a sizable, important new piece of territory to add to the Russian federation, and claim as his legacy to greater Russia.

How well do secular leaders who challenge religious leaders usually do, historically speaking?

As a general rule, secular rulers who directly challenge religious leaders have a lot of problems, and are often crushed completely. We think of the medieval popes excommunicating leaders, who had to come begging to them on their knees for forgiveness, we think of the key role Pope John Paul II played in bringing down the Soviet Union, we think of the need for secular leaders in the medieval world to create alternative popes to support them, in their ambitions and worldly goals, because they knew how essential it was to have some religious backing, even an artificially created one. The critical social role that religion always has, and still does play in the lives of ordinary citizens muust never be underestimated. Religion has always aided in education and social services, and it has always played a key role in setting guardrails on the actions of politicians, not allowing them to overstep their bounds in their actions, protecting the people against the excessive oppression of ruthless tyrants. To some extent, so called "atheistic" societies simply make a religion of the state itself, but, frequently, this disappoints, and these so called atheistic societies have to admit and tolerate more conventional religious figures, whether they like it or not. Robespierre was largely brought down by his attempt to formally replace Roman Catholicism, in France, folowing the Revolution, with the worship of the "Supreme Being", perhaps a projection of the state itself. The communist Chinese have found they can't really do entirely without Confucious, Buddha, and even Roman Catholicism, and some traditional polytheistic religions like the worship of the sea Goddess Mazu. Lenin and Stalin would have been truly horrified to see Tsar Nicholas II now worshipped as a Holy Saint of the Russian Orthodox Church, after they murdered him and his entire family!

Trump is playing games again

Donald Trump is an entertainer and a businessman. This makes him a pretty good politician, in some ways anyway, in the US, in any case. However, he has no real concept of war, real war, at all. None. How could he? Trump has been protected his entire life, he really doesn't know what it means to fight for survival and freedom, it's not a concept he understands. His own freedom has never been signficantly constrained, he has always gotten his way, for his entire life. So, he just doesn't get why other people, and sometimes other nation states, don't want to give him entirely what he wants, just because he wants it. The notion that other people and other countries really don't care what he wants, doesn't register on his psyche, or consciousness. So, he pulls stunts like Project Freedom, where the entire US Navy is assigned, at immense expense, to attempt to escort of couple of insignicant merchantmen through a hail of Iranian fire, while Iran also trashes the neighboring Gulf States, and the US can do nothing about it, because the Congress won't pay for any more missiles or drones for the US Navy. Trump is trying to make it look like he's doing something. He's also trying to somehow persuade other world nations to put themselves in harm's way to do the same thing, which they certainly will not do.

The Assassination attempt on Adolf Hitler in 1944 -- An excellent, gritty treatment from Germany, in 1956

This is a gritty, painfully realistic, detailed treatment of the assassination attempt on Adolf Hitler, in 1944, produced just 12 years later, in 1956. The environment of paranoia, desperation and hopelessness in Germany at the time of the assassination attempt is lovingly recreated, there is no question whatsover to the viewers -- contemporary Germans themselves -- why this assassination attempt was made. These were all loyal German citizens, but, they had been forced to the end of their patience, and their tolerance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8rHvP37nek

William Shakespeare couldn't possibly have been antisemitic

Many people make the mistake of thinking that The Merchant of Venice proves that Shakespeare was an antisemite. Nothing could possibly be further from the truth. In fact, The Merchant of Venice proves that Shakespeare could not possibly have been an antisemite. Sure, Shylock is presented in fairly antisemitic terms, as being at times, and with some people, greedy and predatory. However, he is also presented as being capable of deep love and devotion, and of having extremely human feelings and needs, and of experiencing deep suffering for very human reasons, that anyone can relate to. And, bear in mind, this was during a period in which England, and Europe as a whole, were still virulently antisemitic, despite tendencies to religious tolerance under Elizabeth I. Also, remember who we're dealing with here. We're dealing with William Shakespeare, a man of infinite subtlety of expression, perhaps no one in history more so, almost certainly no one in English, more so. The Merchant of Venice presents Shylock in terms, however superficially antisemtic, that can actually be rather easily acted, without changing the text at all, to represent Shylock as the hero of the play, and this has actually been done, particularly in the early twentieth century, in the Yiddish theatres of New York City. Shakespeare certainly would not have written the play this way, unless it was his quite specific intention to write the play this way. Indeed, the subtext of the Merchant of Venice probably is, quite specifically, that Jews were being put in a position by Christians where they must, always, have their "pound of flesh", for money, simply to survive, and Shakespeare is indeed criticizing society for this fact, and for arranging things this way. It can quite easily be seen that Shakespeare isn't criticizing Jews, he is satirizing European Christianity, and its marginalization of those "outside the fold". Shakespeare was obsessed with and fascinated with religion. He grew up a few years after the heretic burnings during the reign of Bloody Mary, he had heard and read of, from across the English Channel, the horrific massacres of Protestants perpetrated by Catherine de Medici, in particular the St. Bartholomew Day Massacre, during his own lifetime. He was living, in England under Elizabeth I, during a period of comparative freedom of expression and religion, and he valued this immensely. However, he could see what was coming, and anticipated the thirty years war, and Oliver Cromwell. Shakespeare's own treatments of religion are extremely tentative and coded -- notably, the presentation of Falstaff aka John Oldcastle, leader of the Lollard rebellion, executed as a rebel and a heretic, in Henry IV parts I and II, and in the Merry Wives of Windsor, all of which, particularly the latter, are coded historical representations of Oldcastle's rebellion and execution. No one has ever even attempted to present The Merry Wives of Windsor for what it really is -- not a silly farce, but, actually, an extremely black satire of John Oldcastle, and of Christianity in Europe, prior to the Reformation. Wouldn't it be interesting to present these two great works of Shakespeare -- The Merchant of Venice, and the Merry Wives of Windsor -- for what they really were, perhaps on a single double bill: satires of European Christianity, and the extreme dangers of religious intolerance?

Why is Trump saying the Iran war is over?

In his latest twist on the Iran War, Trump is now saying that it is officially "terminated". This is, presumably, of course, to allow Trump's efforts to maintain large naval forces in the Middle East to try to influence Iran, without any congressional oversight. Trump is playing word games, as per usual. Or, is he? There probably is a quite real sense in which the war is terminated. Trump failed to eliminate the Iran regime, and, Trump also failed to prevent Iran from taking over the Strait of Hormuz, and shutting down sea traffic in the Middle East. Furthermore, he doesn't know what to do about it. So, effectively, there is no point to further military action against Iran, so, the Iran war is over. Of course, the situation might change, and, in any case, Trump would like to be able to pressure Iran, somehow, although he isn't quite sure how to do it. So, really, the reality of the situation is that the US has lost the war, which Trump will never say, of course, but, Trump is still hoping to win another future war against Iran, which, however, the US public appears extremely disinclined to support. And, this puts Trump in a very awkward position politically, which might result in his political demise, and the loss of his freedom, perhaps as soon as next year. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/us--iran-congress-040412863.html

George Orwell's dialectical paradoxes

Two of my favorite quotes are from George Orwell: "Pacifists don't mind violence, as long as it's violent enough", "Only an intellectual could believe something like that. No ordinary man could be such a fool." These are humorous paradoxes, internal dialectical arguments, along the lines of Hegel, or Marx, that resolve themselves into a synthesis in our minds, that approximates the truth. They are funny, because they are contradictory, on the surface anyway -- pacifists are very violent, intellectuals are stupid. Now, of course, it's not as simple as that. Pacifists do, sincerely abhor violence, insofar as they really are pacifists. And, in their own lives, they generally are gentle, non-violent people. However, they tend to only exist in relatively peaceful societies, or they couldn't possibly survive at all. So, they tend to focus on the relatively mild examples of violence in their own societies -- police arrests of demonstators, for example -- and totally ignore mass violence in other societies, completely, as it doesn't impact them. When Orwell says "Only an intellectual could believe something like that. No ordinary man could be such a fool," he is referring to a very specific example, to illustrate a point in his excellent essay "notes on Nationalism". When American troops began arriving in large number in Great Britain, in order to prepare for the Normndy invasion in 1944 of Nazi Germany, the local communist intelligentsia in Britain actually responded with hostility to their presence, claiming that, actually, they were there to prevent a communist revolution in Britain! And, they believed it! Perfect example, eh? Orwell's paradoxes help to illustrate the difficulties of really understanding reality, and our own prejudices, in a world where nothing is as it really seems. After all, this is a world in which Adolf Hitler really was, as a young man, a "typical Viennese charmer", happily earning his living selling his charming paintings to Jewish art dealers in mutual respect and admiration!

Economists don't understand war

Economists don't understand war. Economics represents an attempt to define all human activity rationally. At times, human beings do seem to behave rationally. However, often, they do not. Modern economics struggles to reconcile doing what makes money, with doing what is right, because there is no rational way to know for certain what is right. Adam Smith created the modern economic concept of capitalism for moral reasons, particularly to discredit slavery, as inefficient, and as immoral. As we can see with the current Iran war, modern economists are quite incapable of reconciling the strategic failures of the American military -- Iran's governmental stability and long term control of the Srait of Hormuz, despite an extremely expensive military assault by the US -- with their perception of the economic power and superiority of the US over Iran. From a strictly rational, economic point of view, it should be impossible for Iran to withstand such an expensive economic assult relatively unscathed, and to emerge strategically more powerful than it was before. This is "economically" irrational. Yet, it is a self-evident fact! The fact that the stock markets remain quite strong may be attributed in part, at least, to the belief that oil prices must soon fall, because it is " economically impossible" for Iran to retain control of the Strait of Hormuz. However, they will not fall. There is no rational reason to think that Iran must cede control of the Strait of Hormuz, yet, the economic models insist that economically, they must cede to the "superior" economic power, the US. War is existential, and therefore, irrational.

Vive le bombe! (2006)

This film provides an excellent insight into both a fascinating botched nuclear test in Algeria, in 1962, and to French attitudes towards war and nuclear weapons. Known as the Beryl accident, it was an underground nuclear test that breached containment, irradiating a number of French soldiers guarding the site. They were required to keep their exposure a secret, following eight months of hospitalization, in order not to "undermine French security" -- confirm that French nuclear technology wasn't necessarily all that it was cracked up to be! The film is particularly interesting because of what it reveals about the French attitude to their nuclear deterrant, which is particularly relevant today, as it is becoming more and more critical for the defense of Europe against threats from Russia, and as it is effectively being expanded to, and subsidized by, both Germany, and Poland. The French undersecretary of for defense who is central to the action here explicitly states that nothing is worse than War, and the purpose of this essential nuclear deterrant, is that France should never be threatened by war, again. Arguably, the purpose of the Maginot Line in 1939 was to ensure this, as well, but, that didn't work very well, at all! Arguably, the French just sat out WWII, not particularly caring who won, as long as they didn't lose millions of men, like they did in WWI. This is the reason that FDR thought France was a "failed state", and wanted France split up divided between the US and Britain. Churchill vetoed this, however, and backed DeGualle, saving France. Basically, since 1919, and the end of the First World War, the French have had enough of war. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzlZtAMHHNM

We are approaching endgame in Iran --- The Emperor Donald Trump has no clothes

Trump has been playing his Apprentice President games with Iran, and the world as a whole, for a couple of months now, and as he vacillates wildly between threats of mass destruction, and promises of eternal peace and goodwill throughout the Middle East, most people, and very particularly the IRGC, are beginning to find it more and more difficult to actually take him seriously. Sure, he may bomb Iran some more, or not. But, history teaches us that it's impossible without nuclear weapons to actually defeat a nation with air power alone. So, there is babbling in the Trump camp about "economic fury", as if somehow Iran can be brought to its knees by blockading and pirating some Iranian vessels in the Persian Gulf. Possibly, if Iran was an isolated Island, this might have some effect, but, quite obviously, Iran is not. Actually, even mass bombing of all civilian infrastructure in Iran would only make her people more determined to resist America and Israel. Such acts would prove the violence, irrationality and imperialism of the American regime under Donald Trump. As if more proof was really necessary! So, by this time, Iran is simply refusing to negotiate, and Trump is frantically sending offers to Iran via intermediaries simply to get Iran back to the bargaining table. Will Iran come back? Probably only if Trump essentially concedes control of the Middle East, and more particularly the Strait of Hormuz, to Iran. In other words, if Trump runs away, with his tail between his legs. The Emperor has no clothes.

Why was William Shakespeare so obsessed with Sir John Oldcastle?

William Shakespeare was a very adroit survivor, unquestionably, he wrote plays for public viewing of an variety and intensity that was without precedent up to this point in human history. Of course, even Shakespeare had to accommodate his "masters", the government in power in England, there were things he couldn't possibly say. However, Shakspeare did enjoy under Eliabeth I of England, a degree of freedom of expression that was extremely unusual, his "Fairie Queen" was using her authority with a lightness of touch that bordered on semi-democracy, to some extent because she was a genius, and to some extent because it worked rather well, indeed. So, Shakespeare was undoubtedly very grateful to the system, and the people behind this system, that allowed him to write his very experessive plays. This probably explains Shakespeare's fascination with the character of Sir John Oldcastle, the military leader of the heretical protestant Lollard Sect, and early boon companion of Henry V. Because Oldcastle was really an earlier incarnation of Martin Luther. Martin Luther got lucky, and he knew it. Luther was well aware, throughout his entire life, that he could well share exactly the same fate as other so called "heretics" -- burning at the stake. However, if no one tried, if no one took the necessary risks, then no social progress would ever occur, ever. Society would remain stagnant under the control of ignorant bureaucrats and priests, and humanity would never advance. Shakespeare saw Sir John Oldcastle as an example of one of these great men, and a native son of England, who had failed, but, who had helped to lay the foundations for the ultimate freedom of the English people, by his great courage and sacrifice. Shakespeare knew he still couldn't, even under Elizabeth I, openly discuss this man who tried to kidnap his sovereign, Henry V, and to force desired religious reform on the English people before its time. However, he did the best he could. He created a satirical character in Sir John Falstaff to immortalize in encoded form his sacrifice, and his courage, and his contribution. This characerization is a very interesting and compelling illustration of the incredibly convoluted and unupredictable and distorted path of true human progress. https://ota.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/repository/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20.500.12024/A02633/A02633.html?sequence=5&isAllowed=y

Shakespeare's The Merry Wives of Windsor is not what it seems.

William Shakespeare was obsessed with Sir John Oldcastle. This is hardly surprising, Oldcastle had been a close friend of the young Henry V, before he became King, fighting alongside him heroically. After Henry was crowned, Oldcastle joined the heretical, Protestant Lollard sect, more than a century before Martin Luther. He fought to kidnap Henry V, in 1414, and to stage a military coup in England, in order to force Protestant religious reforms. He escaped, was a fugitive for three years, and was captured in 1417. His manner of execution was particularly bizarre, he was chained and hung up by his midriff, and set on fire, to symbolize the twin crimes of rebellion and heresy. Shakespeare was born in the early years of the reign of Elizabeth I, and just following the reign of Bloody Mary, and her persecution of English protestants. Hundreds were burned at the stake. Naturally, Shakespeare was fascinated and terrified of religious persecution. To Shakespeare, John Oldcastle was the perfect tragic hero, as a protestant martyr, but, as a rebel against the crown, he was simply too controversial to be dealt with directly. So, he created the character of John Falstaff, and turned it into a caricature of John Oldcastle. effectively inverting his characteristics. Instead of a puritan martyr, he becomes a profligate, greedy, sensual drunkard. Effectively, Shakespeare's way of dealing with John Oldcastle parallels the nursery rhymes, particularly: Mary Mary, quite contrary How does your garden grow? With silver bells, and cockle shells, And pretty maids all in a row. This is about Bloody Mary, expanding cemeteries, instruments of torture, and people awaiting execution. Shakespeare is inverting reality, to deal with it, as nursery rhymes do. Falstaff seeks money and seduction, Oldcastle seeks religious reform. Falstaff escapes, Oldcastle escapes. Falstaff is beaten, Oldcastle is captured. Falstaff is pinched and burned with tapers, Oldcastle is hung in chains and burned alive. Falstaff is accepted at the end of the play, Oldcastle is accepted as a protestant martyr by Shakespeare's time.

This blockade of a blockade that the US Navy is conducting in the Persian Gulf is just a show

Donald Trump has already concluded that the Iranians are too tough a nut to crack. Let's give him credit for that, Trump is no one's fool, although he is a bit of a clown. Trump can't very well say "Hey, I can't beat them, I'm out of here!", can he? So, instead, he's created this rather surreal blockade of a blockade concept -- Trump is very creative -- to give him a bit of cover before he completely shuts down all military operations. After he finds, to no one's surprise, especially himself, that the Iranians really don't care if he wants to blockade their own blockade of the Persian Gulf, he will announce that he has "totally defeated Iran on air, land and sea, and, therefore, they are no longer a threat." Then, his ships will sail away, careful not to get too close to Iran. The Iran war will formally end within a couple of months, with Trump sounding the triumphs of his own military operations, and with Iran in full control of the Persian Gulf, and, really, of the entire region. Trump's already said that oil prices will remain high, so, he's basically acknowedging that he has no control whatsoever in the Middle East anymore, at all.

Military technology has changed, that's why the Iran and Ukrainian wars have been unpredictable.

Neither the Iran nor the Ukrainian wars have followed a predictable path. In particular, both Iran and Ukraine have done rather better than expected against -- superficially at least -- more powerful adversaries. What are the reasons for this? Historically, changes in the nature of technology as it applies to military activities have always had dramatic impacts on war, and on politics. The invention of the stirrup gave mounted calvalry a huge advantage over heavy infantry, the basis of the power of the imperial armies of Rome and China, among other great powers. Even a small number of armed horsemen, firmly mounted in stirrups, could overcome large numbers of heavy infantry, organized by great imperail powers. Thus, the Huns, the Mongols, Tamerlane the Great and others were able to run rough-shod over great and stable powers, for many centuries. Thus, we had the age of chivaly, from "cheval", the French for horse. The invention of heavy cannon changed the balance of power again, to large centralized nation states like the French, the Russians and the Ottomans. These heavy cannons required heavy industry and centralized social control to be produced, maintained and transported. Then, the invention of light, portable muskets and rifles once more shifted the balance of power to smaller groups that could function largely independently of the great powers, leading to the Amerian and French Revolutions. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, mass industrialization again favored the great powers and centralized control, with machine guns, fighter plans, tanks and, finally, nuclear weapons, crushing individuals. In the late twentieth century, with the Gulf War, the US used expensive, advanced computer controlled weapons to crush Iraq's Saddam Hussein. What's happened now? Advanced, computer controlled weapons have gotten very cheap. Nations that are outmatched in terms of industrialization and wealth by great powers, can use the power uf fleixibility and independence of highly motivated individuals to effectively annihilate the full power of these same highly industrialized great powers, through the vehicle of these very cheap controlled weapons, the so called "drones". Their ability to produce and deploy these drones cannot be undermined, except by total annhilation, which is impractical except with nuclear weapons, and, first use of nuclear weapons will result in global annihilation. The great powers are in a box!

Why the term "passing the buck" is no longer current in the English language

I've just noticed that one my favorite phrases -- passing the buck -- is no longer current, at all. Young people have never heard it. Even highly educated young people, like young educators and librarians have never heard it, or don't know what it means. It's really a wonderful and highly efficient way of describing government and instituional irresponsility, not doing anything about obvious problems, saying it's not their problem, it's someone else's problem -- "buck passing". So where did it go, and why? I think this might really be rather simple. In the past in Britain, America, Canada and Australia, say 50 or 100 years ago, it was generally assumed that government and institutions in general did their jobs pretty well. They were responsible and effective, most of the time anyway. If they could do something about an obvious problem, they would. So, when they didn't, people got mad about it, and complained that the authorities involved were just "buck passing", a term of contempt and denigration. However, by now, everyone knows, particularly young people, that, as a general rule, institutions and government never take any responsibility for anything, if they can possibly avoid it, and, they usually can avoid it. Unless they are absolutely forced to do something, these bureaucrats really never do anything at all, ever! And, this is quite common knowledge. So, effectively, this very efficient way of describing official irresponsibility has ceased to be useful or necessary, because, effectively these days, it is actually tautological. Officials are always irresponsible!

What was the "martyrdom" of Thomas Beckett really about?

Now, in popular culture, the martyrdom of Thomas Becket is presented as a fairly simple thing. Thomas Becket was a commoner from a prosperous background, who, after obtaining an excellent religious education, advanced through his ability to the position of archdeacon of the Archbishop of Canterbury. As a result, he was then recommended to the still very young King Henry II as Chancellor, and he served this role with distinction, if with some corruption and extravagance. Then, as they both got older, and the Archbishop of Canterbury died, it was perfectly natural for Henry II to have his friend and advisor elevated to the position of Archbishop of Canterbury himself, particularly to advance his own agendas of centralizing power under his control, something Thomas Beckett had thorougly supported as his chancellor. Then, something rather strange apparently happened. Thomas Becket suddenly "got religion", to an extraordinary extent to which led him into direct and fairly violent confrontation with his heretofore master, Henry II. Now, in popular culture, this conflict is generally represented as being little more than public argumentation, in which Beckett puts forward the case that God cannot be controlled by King, so the Church must remain independent of the State. And, again in popular culture, Henry II eventually gets tired of this public arguing, and makes an indiscreet remark to his knights at arms, "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest," which leads to the public "martyrdom" of Thomas, very much against the will of Henry II himself. Actually, the truth of the matter is rather different. This conflict was highly political in nature, and, actually, perhaps a bit counter-intuitively, the Pope himself was by no means a supporter of Thomas Beckett in the position he adopted. Indeed, if the Pope had supported Thomas, Thomas certainly would not have been martyred, and Henry would almost certainly have been forced rather quickly to submit to Church independence, something he had to do in any case, following the martyrdom of Thomas. Now, in many ways, the conflict between the Pope and Holy Roman Emperor Fredrick Barbarossa mirrored the conflict between Thomas and Henry. However, while Fredrick was in an excellent position to invade Italy and threaten the Pope, Henry, with his power base primarily in England, and with the French King between his Western French dependencies and Rome, was not. Also, Henry's Angevin Empire and the Holy Roman Empire were competitors for power in Europe. So, actually, Henry II of England, was a supporter of the Pope in his battle for Church power, with respect to Fredrick, so, actually, the Pope was disinclined to support Thomas Beckett's aspiration's to essentially the same power, in England! Hence, to describe this conflict as being effectively about God, or the Church, is a gross oversimplification. It was more a conflict about pure power, itself, or, more specifically, about the balance of power, in England specifically. Thomas Becket virtually set up his own mini-Kingdom in Angevin controlled France for a time, after having escaped from custody after being convicted of embezzlement, and was a fleeing fugitive when he arrived in Norman controlled France. For years he engaged in a cat and mouse power game with Henry, excommunicating English bishops who opposed him, and was thought by many to be trying to actually make himself King. Eventually, he did return to England, after a half-hearted "reconciliation" with Henry. Inevitably, this just escalated the level of confrontation, until Henry finally ordered him arrested. When he refused, along with his armed guard, they killed him. Nevetheless, this "martyrdom" discredited Henry with his own people, and, did result in continued church independence in England for three centuries, until the Reformation of Henry VIII.

Trump is about to cut and run --- but, he's going to do it in P.T. Barnum style!

To give him credit, Donald Trump has correctly recognized that he has no way whatsoever to defeat the the Iranians. They're too tough, too well backed up by Russia and China, too experienced, too big a country, and they're, actually, too smart. Too smart for Trump, anyway. Also too smart for the Israelis. No matter how much is thrown at them, they just keep coming back for more. So, Donald Trump has given up. He's throwing in the towel. He's going to cut and run, and claim victory. However, being Donald Trump, he's going to do it in P.T. Barnum style. Donald Trump is, indeed, going to provide a "grand finale" to his ridiculous failed war, in a rather pathetic attempt to give people the impression that he actually accomplished something. He's going to bomb Iran some more, probably knock out some more of their infrastructure, and then claim that Iran has been bombed back into the stone age. Then, Donald Trump is simply going to run away, leaving Iran in control of the strait of Hormuz, and leaving Israel, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrein, Dubai etc., all to the tender mercies of the Iranians. And, henceforth, Iran is the master of the Middle East!

Trump's speech on the Iran War -- The Gettysburg Address, this was not!

I'm not sure that Trump's speech on the Iran War was the worst presidential speech in American history, but, it was certainly getting there. It was repetitive, uninformative, demented, delusional, confused, inaccurate and effectively meaningless. What is particularly disturbing is how the media is trying to downplay just how very bad it actually was. Rather than simply admitting that the US president isn't playing with a full deck, the media is attempting to pretend that this was actually a serious speech that was intended to convey information, rather than acknowledging that Donald Trump, even when on national televsion, is basically just talking to himself, for his own pleasure, at hearing his own voice reassure himself about how magnificent he always is.

Trump has a difficult choice -- give up, or forever war

Trump has bitten off more than he can chew with Iran, and he knows it. The Iranians will not be easily defeated. However much Trump escalates, the Iranians have the manpower and the resources, especially backed up by Russia and China, to give back with interest anything the US throws at them. At this stage, it's unclear what will happen next. Trump may launch ground troops at Kharg Island, or other locations. Or, Trump may turn tail and run. Trump is even acknowledging he has no capacity to open the strait of Hormuz, which will mean oil prices will continue high for a very long time. None of these options are even remotely attractive, and Trump has no one to blame but hiself for this. The nidterms are likely to be a disaster because of this, for the GOP, whatever Trump does, or doesn't do. If he uses ground troops, massive casualties are likely, and the war will continue. If Trump simply "declares victory", oil prices remain high, the US economy remains weak. In either case, the voters will punish him in November. The question is, can Trump survive the year 2027?

Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz is an event of massive historical significance

Throughout human history, nations that controlled the trade routes, controlled the world. The Minoans, the Phoenicians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Vikings, the Spanish, the British, the Americans -- they all achieved the apogee of their power, by controlling the seas, the routes of trade, the means of acquiring and transferring wealth, and goods. In particular, the Ottoman Empire transformed itself from a regional power, to a world superpower, by conquering Constantinople, at the isthmus of the Dardenelles, the route to the Black Sea, and thus cutting off the West from the trade routes to Russia, India and China. It may be happening again. The real and critical consequence of the current Iran war, is proof that Iranian drones and missiles are cheap enough, and effective enough, to defeat the most advanced and expensive weapons systems in the world, including those fielded by the US and Israel. Most changes in power dynamics in world history are caused by advances in weapons systems by new powers, who thus overtake and conquer the old powers. We may be witnessing one, right now. While Israel and the US are babbling about "winning overwhelmingly", Iran has systematically shut down the middle east, and hobbled the entire world economy. Thus, Iran has acquired immense power, a power only slightly and occasionally being acknowledged by the West. We may, actually, be witnessing the birth of a new Persian Empire, a new superpower.

Sing Sing Sing on Jeff Pressler's Magic Ballroom

Every year Jeff Pressler presents in his wonderful 91 year old radio program "The Magic Ballroom", the full 12 minute version of Benny Goodman's arrangement of "Sing Sing Sing", performed at Carnegie Hall in 1938, much of which was improvised on the the stage itself. I think Jeff Pressler actually understates how great this is. It is magnificent, it is poetry, it is rhapsodic, it is brilliant, it is miraculous. Benny Goodman has created something on a par with the finale of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. This is Benny Goodman's true and perfect "Ode to Joy", and I think he knew it, too! #music https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyht_FPMidI

Donald Trump has drawn up the curtain on an emerging Iranian super-state in the Middle East

As Iran has demonstrated its ability to simultaneously defeat both Isarel and the US in prolonged continuous warfare, and to crush all other nations in the region as well, while hobbling the entire world economy by controlling the strait of Hormuz, it is becoming quite clear that -- far from "destroying" Iran -- all Donald Trump has succeeded in doing is showing that Iran effectively controls the entire middle east, single-handed, and there's nothing whatsoever the US, or the West can do about it. This is the nightmare scenario that the West has been desperately trying to avoid since the Ottoman Empire was totally destroyed, in WWI. This is why the entire Middle East was systematically balkanized, with an aggressive Jewish State of Israel placed in the middle of it, as the icing and cherry on the top of the cake. All to ensure that the arabs would never unite again, to pose a threat to the West. Well, this nightmare scenario is now a reality. Saudi Arabia is already conducting behind he scenes diplomacy with the Iranian leadership, to try to iron out a modus vivendi with the new middle east superpower. They know they can't fight Iran. Iran has proven that they are more than a match for both Israel and the US. Iran controls the straits of Hormuz, and nothing can be done about that ever. The Ottoman Empire is reborn! The Caliphate is reborn, at last!

Trump has finally self-destructed completely with his War on Iran, just like Saddam Hussein

Remember how powerful Saddam Hussein seemed, before his war on Iran? Remember how he seemed invincible? Remember how popular he was in the US, and Europe, for "getting Iran in hand", after the Shah fell, and the Iranian hostage crisis? How did that work out for him? Having lost the war, and having to give back all the territory he had held in Iran, beccause his nation was totally exhausted, and he couldn't possibly fight anymore, despite the fact the US was 100% behind him, Saddam Hussein found his financial and political situation so weakened, that he had the really bright idea that he'd invade Kuwait. After all, they had plenty of oil, plenty of money, why not just "take them over"? Doesn't that sound just like Donald Trump? Of course it does! But, Saddam Hussein was biting off more than he could chew here, once more, because he had bitten off more than he could chew, by invading Iran. And, Saddam Hussein ended up paying the ultimate price, didn't he? Is history repeating itself, once again?

"Can"t buy me love", as Philosophy

https://www.thebeatles.com/cant-buy-me-love While Paul McCartney is not generally considered to be a great philosopher, there is something to this partcular song that may represent a unique and signifcant analytical treatment of the limitations of Capitalism. Sure, we have many, many commentaries on the limitations and problems with money. Money is the root of all evil. Money will not protect you in the hour of anger. Money is a good tool, but a bad master. Money can't buy you happiness. However, the conjunction of 'I don't care too much for money', with "money can't buy me love', represents a remarkably accurate summary of all of the limitations of capitalism. Notably, Paul McCartney does not say he doesn't care for money at all, just that it has its limitations. It can't buy him love. What is love? That which is most important to us, in our lives, whatever that may be. Money has its uses, but, that which is most important to us can never be obtained with money alone, no matter how much money we may have. Paul McCartney is willing to give all his money away, to help someone. However, what would satisfy him, is to know that his friend doesn't want money at all, but those things that are more important than money, and cannot be bought with money. Because such a person, understands life, and is worthy of his time and trouble. He insists that his friends share his values, and also understand that money is not the most important thing in life. The song is remarkably simple, but, actually, I think it may be the best critique of Capitalism that exists.

Trump is unlikely to get any more money to fight his Iran war, anytime soon.

While Trump is preparing a new 50 billion dollar supplementary request for funding his fantastically expensive war on Iran -- with costs of a billion dollars a day, or more -- the Congress is expected, because of extreme public dissatisfaction, and Democratic Party pressure, to simply stonewall the request for an indefinite period of time, while the Democrats systematically pillory the administration for its total incompetence and lack of planning in this incredibly destructive and pointless war of attrition between Israel and the US, on one side, and Iran and its allies like Russia and China, on the other. If they get anything at all, the Democrats are rather likely to offer only a fraction of the requested funds, and those will be tied strictly to defensive operations, to prepare for a retreat. If this is unacceptable to the Trump administation, the Democrats are likely to leave both Trump and the military hanging, to fend for themselves. This war is so very unpopular, that the American public are likely to blame Donald Trump, and not the Democrats, for any negative fallout, or blowback. Trump created these problems for himself, and the US military, the American people have had enough of his nonsense.

Trump is right when he says that his Iran war isn't like Iraq

Trump's current war in Iraq is, of course, nothing like the Iraq war. The US won the Iraq War, quite easily. There were problems in maintaining control of the country after this victory, of course, but even these were only moderate. Over a long period of time, they were significant, though. In Iran, in contrast, there isn't the slightest possibility of achieving victory. Iran is a superpower, whether the US chooses to acknowledge this fact, or not. The entire power of the US military combined, including all possible ground troops, could not defeat Iran. The US would probably have to triple the size of its military to do this. And, there isn't the slightest possibility of that happening. What, Trump's Iran war is somewhat like, is the War in Vietnam -- an unwinnable war, with no endgame, at all. However, it's rather worse than the US invading Vietnam following the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964. It's rather more like if the US had invaded communist China following the Gulf of Tonkin incident, in 1964. Now, they could have done this, of course, it might even have made a certain amount of sense. After all, China was Vietnam's chief backer, along with the USSR, so taking out China would kill two birds with one stone. China was, like Iran, an up and coming world power, developing nuclear weapons. So, why didn't President Lyndon Johnson decide to attack China? I think the reason was quite simple. He didn't want to bite off more than he could chew. It seemed possible that he could defeat Vietnam, a small, but formidable country. As it turned out, he couldn't do it, and neither could Richard Nixon, but, they couldn't really know this, at the time. There was no possibility of the US defeating China, a nation of 600 million people developing nuclear weapons. The Congress would never have supported it, he would have obtained no funding, and would have gotten precisely nowhere, in any case. And, that is precisely the situation currently. The Congress won't give him the money to proceed further, and he is getting nowhere. On the contrary, the Iranians are having a terrific time shooting up the entire region, shutting down its economy, and massively disrupting the entire world's economy. The question is, as Trump indicates he is "almost done", will the Iranians stop? Why should they?

The violence of "bloody Sunday" in the 2006 Russian production of Dr. Zhivago is ridiculously downplayed.

As part of their effort to whitewash the image of "Saint Nicholas", the newly canonized Russian Tsar Nicholas II, the producers of the 2006 Russian version of Boris Pasternak's masterpiece, Doctor Zhivago, ridiculously downplay the incredible violence of "Bloody Sunday", during the Russian Revolution of 1905, in which thousands were pointlessly slaughtered by Tsar Nicholas II. https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3ygd24 To look at this version, you would think there was no violence at all, and the soldiers were merely defending themselves against overly aggressive protesters using minimal force!

Trump's intention to endorse "moderate" Cornyn in Texas Senate race, shows how frightened he is that the Republicans will lose the Senate in November

It is rather unusal for Donald Trump to want to endorse the more "moderate" Senate candidate -- the one who isn't to the right of Attila the Hun -- these days, but, he appears to be about to do just that, in the Texas Senate race. The Democratic candidate, James Talarico, is an appealing moderate, with an excellent chance, given Trump's unpopularity, that is infecting all Congressional races this year. The favored Republican Senate candidate to win the primary, Ken Paxton, is scandal ridden, but, an extreme right, MAGA candidate, of the type that Trump generally approves of. However, for the first time in over thirty years, the Democrats have an excellent chance of taking a Senate seat in Texas, so, Trump is considered quite likely to endorse the relatively moderate incumbent, John Cornyn, instead. Will this help? If Ken Paxton refuses to leave the race, probably not. And, Paxton says he is refusing to leave the race. Paxton might still win, after considerable damage being done in preparation for the runoff in the Republican primary. If John Cornyn wins, he'll be beaten up so badly in the runup to the runoff election, that he'll probably lose, since MAGA voters will stay home. If Ken Paxton drops out, and John Cornyn is endorsed by Trump, then, that would probably give him a better chance of surviving. But, given the current electoral climate, who knows? https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/bad-him-trump-gives-toxic-182803838.html

Trump wants to control Iran, but, he probably never will!

As the vague Cold War "threat" of Communism motivated the development of the expanding military-industrial complex in the twentieth century, Donald Trump is attempting to motivate a new, expanding military industrial complex, perhaps purely for business reasons, on the basis of fear of "radical" Islam. So, Donald Trump is presenting as "intolerable" the idea of Iran presenting a nuclear weapon, in a world in which the far less democratic and far more unstable leadership of North Korea certainly does possess many nuclear weapons. It's pretty clear that Trump neither knows nor cares what really happens in Iran. He just feels like doing some damage. Of course, this is totally shutting down the entire region now. What is the end game here? There isn't one. Will there be "boots on the ground". I suspect probably there will be, perhaps up to 50,000, not enough to fully invade and occupy Iran, but, just possibly, enough to assist in destroying more thoroughly some underground missile and nuclear sites. Possibly, there may be some attempt to "overthrow" the regime using these 50,000 troops and local opposition. However, it seems unlikely that local support will be strong enough, for that. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/why-trump-attacking-iran-hes-180140133.html So, what happens next? More bombing, more counterattacks by Iran. Continued shutting down of the Straits of Hormuz, and all travel in the area. Effective shutdown of the economy of the entire region. Will Iran be "degraded" enough that Iranian counterattacks will cease? I doubt it very much. How will the 50,000 US troops far in their attempt to land and attack within Iran itself? Not well, I strongly suspect. And, I think that's the rub here, for Trump. If the American troops are stopped cold, or suffer massive casualties, as seems fairly likely, this mission will be over. I think that may be how this ends.

An interesting Russian report on how Trump has engineered the escalating war between Pakistan and Afghanistan

The escalating conflict between Pakistan and Afghanistan serves the interests of the US, by putting two Muslim nations at each others throats, and with both sides getting weapons from the US, to fuel the conflict. This was likely engineered, more or less anyway, by Donald Trump, the "great peacemaker". The international financial community, under the control of the US, plays a major role here, having no fondness for either nation -- a nuclear armed Muslim nation, and a fundamentalist Muslim regime. Do you think Donald Trump should get the Nobel Peace Prize for this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5l1ItaHIXbU