Stating the (Apparently Not So) Obvious

Several months ago, as Trump's war against Iran was in the midst of one of its many roadblock and with no exit strategy, a thought occurred to me. It didn't seem like all that special a thought, pretty basic, in fact, but that's all the more reason why I couldn't figure out why it wasn't being discussed anywhere.

At the time, Trump and Pete Hegseth were swaggering around about the great success the United States was having in Iran, despite a lack of evidence that Trump's was anywhere near ending. We were dropping bombs on the country, a massive number of bombs -- so many that now we're hearing about the U.S. stockpile getting depleted -- but it wasn't having much of an impact of getting Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz or negotiate a peace treaty. So, I figured that pretty much anything else would be worth trying. Especially things that have been effective in foreign relations against adversaries. That's why I wondered, well, what about trying economic sanctions? They seemed to have been effective in the previous nuclear treaty we had with Iran before Trump tore it up. Though that was before he attacked them, when it seemed he might want to negotiate a new treaty. But now that we are actually at war with Iran, it just seemed like one might use any "weapon" in your arsenal to attack your enemy. I'm not a military strategist, mind you, but that always seemed to be how wars worked, as far as I could tell.

But nothing. Not a word about sanctions. I couldn't figure it out. What was the downside? That Iran would be unhappy if we put sanctions on them? I mean, you have to figure they didn't appreciate being bombed every day, and that didn't stop us from doing it. So, what was I missing? After all, it seemed pretty basic. So basic that I was sure others had thought about it. People a whole lot smarter than me. Professional analysts. Government officials. Military officers. That guy down the block.

Not that sanctions would end the war, but they might at least put some pressure on Iran that wasn't there. I thought that that was one of the ways sanctions worked. Months passed, though, and bombs kept dropping, the Strait of Hormuz remained closed, and no end remained in sight. Trump bragged about his cool "Memo of Understanding" that went nowhere, despite him proclaiming, "Let the oil flow." And while I know that Trump had even offered almost $400 billion to Iran, which is the opposite of sanctions, that offer wasn't accepted, so maybe sanctions would help force the issue. Yet still, no mention of them.

And then yesterday, I saw this headline from an article by Axios.

"U.S. Officials believe sanctions could hurt Iran more than bombs."

I had to do a double-take to make sure I read it right. And I had. Administration officials were actually, really talking about how sanctions could have a positive impact on the war effort.

"The Iranians want to stop being bombed, and they want money," a senior administration official told Axios. "But that's almost in reverse order. They really want the money first."

The official continued: "They're in danger of runs on banks. There are gasoline shortages in this giant oil-rich country. "They're more scared of Treasury than the War Department."

Well, there you go! I wasn't alone in thinking the obvious. If an administration official was thinking about this, then it was as basic, obvious an idea as I'd thought!

Except...I realized that throughout the article, the administration official was always referred to as the "administration official." No name. Which means it was off-the-record. Which means he or she didn't want to be identified. Which means the idea was perhaps considered "radical" by the rest of the Trump circle. Perhaps not. Or perhaps it's something being discussed, but needs more time to gather support in the administration before something is done with sanctions.

Though...why?? More time? We're five months into Trump's war. I would have thought that sanctions would be something you'd consider on Day 1. But then, in fairness, I would have thought Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz would be something you'd consider before Day 1. So, what do I know? Which it seems is the same question one could ask about the Trump administration.

It's Alive!

Well, we're here. At least for most people. The new site went live around 1:30 PM Pacific Coast Time, though it could take longer in other parts of the country or world (perhaps up to two hours), as all the updates have to "populate," and different servers handle it differently.

If it did take longer in your location, sometimes the old site would continue to display -- though in some areas, a "Site down. Try again later" sort of message would appear. But all this is moot for those reading this, since it means it's up-and-running where you are.

As you can see, the new site here on Wix looks fairly close as before. And will operate pretty much the same for readers. I might keep tweaking a few things, as I settle in to acclimating to it all.

One of the last changes that hadn't kicked in yet -- since it can take up to two days -- was the "favicon". That's the little icon that shows up on a browser tab when someone is at a website. For Elisberg Industries, we've always used a graphic of a helpful waiter holding a tray. I had to update that here, and it wasn't showing up initially, so there was a plan tab. But I see it there now, so all is well! At least on the favicon end... If anyone has any questions about the new site, or sees anything that is missing or you think is not working correctly, please feel free to let me know. In fact, I encourage it, because I want to get things right -- when that's possible. (In some places, that just won't be possible because of the settings Wix uses.) The "Contact Us" icon is right where it was before, at the bottom of the page. Anyway, thanks for all your patience wading through all my yammerings about the changes coming. They are now, at last, finally here. The cheese dip is in the refrigerator. Huzzah!

Hot and Blathered

Over the weekend, an apparently angry but definitely delusional Trump posted an onslaught of 14 lunatic AI-generated memes, including him standing in front of the White House beside JFK like close buddies (or at least as close as buddies can be when one tried to abscond with the other’s legacy); a CNN anchor manipulated to look like a well-known transgender personality; attacking Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel and Jimmy Fallon as homeless, out-of-work bums in Skid Row; a slobby, food-stained Chris Christie pigging out; mocking his hated Rosie O’Donnell surrounded by a roomful of Irish artifacts and a leprechaun while she writes an adoring love letter to Trump; and even an exploding Iranian tank on Kharg Island in the Strait of Hormuz.  And a 15-second AI-video, "A Time Travel Epic," of Trump atop Mount Rushmore reaching down to drag up George Washington in need, as a helicopter searchlight scours the area and a giant clock appears in the sky. And other treats of delusion.  All of which is, of course, what commanders-in-chief do in the middle of a war they’re supposedly leading.

This came days after Trump’s White House Correspondent’s Dinner speech where, apparently under the flexible guise of “jokes,” Trump went into his standard, paranoid rally speech attacking his enemies, often based on cruelty and lies and off-color inuendo.  From those like Kimmel, Barack “Hussein” Obama, Bruce Springsteen, Kaitlan Collins, Rep. Ilhan Omar, Gov. Gavin Newsom, Sen. Adam Schiff and many more.  Generally to silence in the audience. 

After the near-universal bad review for how unfunny, cruel and in poor taste the speech was, and the subsequent criticisms of Trump’s barrage of weird AI-memes, the MAGOPs in Trump’s circle had a difficult time defending him. 

For instance, Stephen Miller’s wife Katie (who has a sort of interview podcast) did her best online to defend one of Trump’s efforts, where he compared CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins to a transgender influencer.  Miller wrote online, “The joke wasn’t transphobic. President Trump didn’t call Dylan Mulvaney a man.” 

Sometimes you want to tell a person, “I know you have a shovel, but you don’t have to keep digging yourself a deeper whole.”  Though, admittedly, sometimes it’s fascinating to watch.

The problem, of course, is that when you're saying a "joke" isn't transphobic, that’s a really bad starting point. And worse when you're trying to explain why a "joke," whose whole intent is to insult someone for seeming transgender, isn't (supposedly) transphobic. 

But most of the defense of Trump by MAGOPs on social media was less convoluted and basically went with just cries of “Free speech.”  Or as former Trump press secretary Sean Spicer put it, “You gotta love free speech.” 

And yes, you do gotta love free speech! Even Trump's right to lie and smear people. But -- the important thing that these attempts to defend Trump miss is -- they are still lies. And smears. And harmful.  And bizarre. And can be dangerous, particularly when coming from the U.S. president.  Just because someone has a right to say something doesn’t mean it’s a great idea to do so.  Especially when you’re the leader of a country. 

It’s also worth noting that while, yes, you gotta love free speech -- apparently Trump himself doesn't agree, particularly when it comes to museums and National Parks creating exhibits that are based on intense research and reality which he wants to censor -- and in many cases has -- and teaching history in schools (which transcends even free speech, since it’s educating people about facts and what actually happened), and editing out words related to DEI in government manuals, and more.

But still, yes, you gotta love free speech.   

You just should understand that crying, “Free speech!” doesn’t cancel out the concept that words have meaning and that you have responsibility for your words.

Nor is shouting, “Free speech!,” a defense for whatever words you say, merely because you said them out loud.  There are consequences to words, and some come at a cost, transcending just personal responsibility.  There are, in fact, laws against slander and libel.  And laws against hate speech.  And laws against calling “Fire!” in a theater when there’s no fire.

But mainly, most people recognize that as sacred as free speech is, it’s not the only thing sacred in life.  And we do our best in society to protect it all.  Which is why hiding behind a knee-jerk cry of “Free speech” for every uttered word out of our mouths doesn’t excuse lies and smears and harm.  Most people understand that our words and actions follow us everywhere.  And understand that how we handle our free speech is one of the things that defines us as individuals.

Not understanding that is what toddlers do.  Until an adult corrects them.  Or sends them to the corner for a time-out.

Or is what someone does his whole life who doesn’t have a filter.  Or a sense of understanding or empathy.  Having dementia only exacerbates the problem.  Made worse by not having any adult supervision around willing to correct him.  Worsening further by being degenerative.

Yes, you do gotta love free speech.  

But being free to lie and smear still means they are lies and smears.