More Saturday Male Beauty

 

In Trump’s America, It Takes a King to Praise Democracy

The Felon is widely hated in the United Kingdom. So hated in fact that many wanted Charles III to cancel his state vising to America. Charles ignored the calls to cancel and not only seemingly charmed the Felon - a man easily impressed by wealth and titles - but also gave a remarkable speech to the joint houses of Congress where he spoke of the benefits of liberal democracy, the rule of law, Magna Carta (signed by one of my distant ancestors), fighting climate change, and the importance of the NATO alliance, Basically, Charles praised everything the Felon is working against as if he were an agent of Vladimir Putin and those who hold democracy in contempt.  In the process, Charles gently trolled the Felon who seemed to be oblivious to the fact that he was being trolled in a sophisticated way. The contrast between Charles and the Felon could not be more stark: one the symbol of old wealth, tradition and public self-control versus the Nouveau riche Felon who prefers ostentatious and flashy displays rather than subtle, traditional luxury while acting in a boorish manner.  A piece in the New Yorker looks at Charles giving a speech that should be given by any worthy occupant of the White House, something that obviously is beyond the current crude and vulgar occupant.  Here are article highlights: 

Two hundred and fifty years into the American experiment, it turns out that it takes a King to tell us how to run our Republic.

On Tuesday, His Majesty King Charles III, the great-great-great-great-great-grandson of George III, the British monarch who lost the Revolutionary War to a bunch of impertinent colonists enamored of Enlightenment ideas about the natural rights of man, spoke to the U.S. Congress. With dry wit and a sense of irony that was surely lost on the host he so subtly trolled, Charles extolled the virtues of American-style liberal democracy now under threat by America’s own leader. What does it say about our current politics that polite British-accented clichés about the benefits of the rule of law, an independent judiciary, and the strengths that flow from “vibrant, diverse, and free societies” could end up sounding downright subversive?

The King’s biggest applause line was a tribute to Magna Carta, the thirteenth-century compact between an English monarch and his restive nobles, which, Charles noted, has become a pillar of American constitutional jurisprudence, with the Supreme Court citing it at least a hundred and sixty times in its history, not least to establish “the principle that executive power is subject to checks and balances.” It was a telling sign of our dysfunctional times that members of Congress from both parties, having been increasingly iced out of decision-making by a President claiming unprecedented executive power for himself, immediately rose for a standing ovation.

Did it matter that Donald Trump did not get the joke?

Even as Charles was speaking, Trump’s White House posted on social media an image of the two men with the caption “TWO KINGS. 👑” Later that evening, during a toast at a state dinner for his royal visitor, Trump praised his “fantastic” speech and lauded Charles for accomplishing what he could not—getting Democrats to stand and applaud him. He seemed utterly oblivious to why they had done so, and remained apparently unaware for the rest of the King’s trip. “He’s a great King,” Trump said on Thursday, at the conclusion of the state visit. “The greatest King, in my book.”

Trump spent the rest of the week proving Charles’s point about unchecked powers, with his Justice Department indicting the former F.B.I. director James Comey, for a social-media post of seashells—which prosecutors improbably claim constituted a threat on the President’s life—and his Federal Communications Commission ordering a review of the broadcast licenses for ABC stations just days after the comedian Jimmy Kimmel had used the network’s airwaves to make a joke that the First Lady did not like.

So here we are, two and a half centuries later, with a King who venerates the American Bill of Rights and a President who, increasingly, rejects it. It hardly seemed a coincidence that, on the same day as the King’s speech, reports emerged about the Trump State Department’s plans to honor America’s two-hundred-and-fiftieth anniversary with a commemorative passport whose distinguishing feature will be a large likeness of the President. Watching Trump and Charles together this week, I could not help but think of the bizarre contrast between the public modesty of the crowned monarch and the pomposity of the self-styled populist President; of these two, it’s not George III’s heir who is the one planning to erect golden statues of himself in his palaces.

The contrast between Charles and Trump was nowhere clearer than when it came to the King’s vision for America’s continued leadership in the world. In his speech, Charles, like every American President of my lifetime except Trump, hailed NATO as the foundation of our common defense. Then he exhorted Congress to defend “Ukraine and her most courageous people” with the “same unyielding resolve” that the United States has shown in fighting two world wars and other international threats to democracy over the past century. The times, he insisted, demand that America “ignore the clarion calls to become ever more inward-looking.”

These comments, as striking as they were in confirming a major international pivot by the United States, got little attention. They did, however, seem to prompt Ukraine’s President, Volodymyr Zelensky, to shift his own tactics. . . . . “If the Vice-President is proud that he’s not helping us, it means he’s helping Russians, and I’m not sure that it’s strengthening the United States.”

On Wednesday, Trump spoke on the phone with Putin about the wars in the Middle East and Europe. Although Russia has, according to intelligence officials, been aiding the Iranians with targeting information in their war with the U.S., Trump claimed that Putin would “like to be of help” in resolving the conflict. As for Ukraine, he told reporters that Putin “was ready to make a deal a while ago,” all but publicly blaming Zelensky, once again, for the continuation of the Russian invasion.

Trump, in other words, was privately trash-talking Zelensky in what he himself called another “very good” conversation with his “friend” Putin. He may not have got Zelensky to agree to peace on Russia’s terms, but, in little more than a year, Trump has practically run down a checklist of other Putin priorities: undermining America’s European allies, effectively ending billions of dollars in funding for Ukraine, attempting to shut down Radio Free Europe and other U.S. government agencies that promote democracy in the former Soviet Union, even lying publicly on Putin’s behalf to claim that Ukraine, not Russia, started the war,

Just this week, while Charles praised the NATO alliance to the U.S. Congress as the West’s indispensable bulwark, Trump was threatening to pull troops out of U.S. bases in Germany, apparently because he’s angry about criticism of his war in Iran by the German Chancellor, Friedrich Merz.

There is, sadly, no other conclusion to draw from all this than the obvious one: Trump, however personally dazzled he is by the wealth and splendor of the British monarchy, much prefers the policies and the power of the modern-day tsar he spoke with on Wednesday to those of the King he hosted with such pomp the day before.

Saturday Morning Male Beauty

 

More Friday Male Beauty

 

The Iran War’s Impacts Have Only Just Begun

Another morning arrives and the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, the price of oil is more than $105/barrel, the average gasoline price in America is around $4.18/gallon, higher fuel prices are driving up the cost of numerous consumer products, and there are no schedule negotiations to end the war of choice that the Felon launched against Iran. The Felon was warned about the potential for Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz and chose to ignore the warns and now the world is living with the consequences of the Felon's arrogance and poorly thought through (if thought through at all) war.  Despite the Felon's attempts to distract and spin the situation, the one thing he cannot avoid is that he and he alone is to blame for the current quagmire.  Also bearing culpability are congressional Republicans who have voted down war power resolutions that would have put some constraints on the Felon. Obviously, the longer the quagmire continues, the higher the economic price to be paid by regular Americans and, hopefully, the higher the political price paid by Republicans (only 22% of Americans approve of the Felon's handling of the economy). As a piece in The Atlantic lays out, the consequences of the Felon's actions will linger for quite some time with economic pain continuing:

[The Felon] President Trump, celebrating Tehran’s declaration that the Strait of Hormuz would reopen to commercial shipping, posted on Truth Social on April 17, “IRAN HAS JUST ANNOUNCED THAT THE STRAIT OF IRAN IS FULLY OPEN AND READY FOR FULL PASSAGE.” The opening didn’t last. But, in his haste, [the Felon] Trump had inadvertently spelled out possibly the most consequential result of his eight-week war: The Strait of Hormuz now looks, in practice, like the “STRAIT OF IRAN.”

Although none of the Trump administration’s goals—an end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, destroying Iran’s missile capability, neutralizing proxy forces, regime change—has been fulfilled, the war has led to enduring changes. Two sweeping conclusions—one short-term, one longer—have become clear, experts in defense, diplomacy, business, and economics told us.

In the short term, despite an indefinite cease-fire that kicked in last week following an initial two-week pause in hostilities, a durable end to the war isn’t coming anytime soon. The disparity in U.S. and Iranian demands for how negotiations should proceed, along with blockades by their respective forces in the strait, has locked the two sides in a stalemate. Many Americans still expect a quick end to the war’s economic strain. But that’s unlikely. . . . A retired general, a retired CIA analyst, and an energy-industry executive said anywhere from two to nine months, prompting a collective intake of breath from the audience.

Meanwhile, the economic geography of the Persian Gulf is likely changed forever. Iran now has greater authority over the strait than before the war began and stands to benefit from its closure. Iran might start charging exorbitant tolls for all ships that cross the strait. Or a consortium of nations, including Iran, might manage the waterway and split the profits. . . . the regime has proved that it can close the strait at will, despite being confronted by the world’s most powerful military.

That gives Iran extraordinary leverage over the roughly 20 percent of global oil and liquefied-natural-gas supplies that used to pass through the strait. In response, energy companies and shippers are exploring options that could involve billions of dollars in investment in new pipelines, port expansions, and alternative (though hardly fail-safe) routes through the Red Sea. Such a rewiring of global trade routes—akin to supply-chain changes made after the coronavirus pandemic—could ultimately render passage through the Strait of Hormuz unnecessary. But any such result is likely years away.

In the meantime, the grip Iran has on the strait is expected to disrupt business, keep global energy and fertilizer prices elevated for years, exacerbate inflation—and make it much harder for Trump to claim a win in the war he started. . . . Iran has shown no inclination to abandon its leverage, and no further negotiations are scheduled. . . . . That leaves the two countries in a test of who can endure more economic pain.

[P]ushing Iran to the point of yielding could take months or even years, potentially tying up U.S. military resources to enforce the blockade, respond to disruptions, and enforce the terms of any peace settlement.

Representative Ro Khanna of California claimed that the war will cost the average American household $5,000 a year in increased gas and food prices. Trump may face his own imperative to make concessions, given those costs and what the war has done to his popularity: A Reuters/Ipsos poll released this week found that the president’s approval rating stood at 34 percent.

The White House has heard from unhappy Gulf and European allies about the strait’s closure and the unwelcome prospect of future Iranian control. China, whose economy was already struggling, depends heavily on the strait and has urged its reopening. A senior White House official told us that Trump is concerned that the issue could complicate his summit with Xi Jinping in Beijing in a little over two weeks. Yet there are no signs of a quick resolution.

The global economic damage from the first two months of the war has been stark. Traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has been reduced by about 90 percent, from some 120 to 150 daily transits to a handful, according to a new dashboard by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. This week, Brent crude reached its highest level in four years, at $126 a barrel. The gas-station billboards that line so many American roads reflect the increase: The average price of a gallon of gas hit $4.18. . . . The World Bank forecasts a 16 percent rise in food-commodity prices this year, driven by increased transport costs and the supply squeeze on the fertilizer industry, which relies on exports from the Gulf. The International Energy Agency has said that the world is on the brink of “the biggest energy security threat in history.”

The prevailing question facing those whose economic survival relies on Gulf exports is no longer when the Strait of Hormuz will reopen, but what role the strait will play in the postwar marketplace. Perhaps in anticipation of the disruptions to come, the UAE announced Tuesday that it was leaving OPEC, which it has long threatened to do, allowing the small country to chart its own course outside OPEC quotas.

Before investing billions, Gulf nations and companies are likely to want some reassurance that those new investments won’t become Iranian targets. In addition to shutting down traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, Iran in the past two months has hit energy infrastructure in neighboring countries. In Saudi Arabia alone, daily oil output is down by 600,000 barrels because of Iranian strikes, a Saudi state news agency said earlier this month. The Fujairah port, a potential new alternative, also has been targeted by Iranian forces.

One diplomat from the Middle East stressed to us that anything other than a return to the strait’s prewar status of being free and open would be unacceptable. But other observers aren’t sure how feasible that is, noting that countries dependent on the strait may decide to work with Tehran instead. “The longer this goes on, the higher the likelihood that countries will look to protect their own economic interests and cut deals with the Iranians, even if that triggers the wrath of the U.S.,” Richard Nephew, a former U.S. deputy special envoy for Iran, told us.

“One of the ironies of this war is that Iran discovered that it had this weapon,” he said. “There was so much talk about nuclear ability, but they have the strait.” . . . Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a Monday appearance on Fox News that the U.S. would not tolerate Iran “trying to normalize” its control of the strait.

How the U.S. and its Gulf allies might avoid that reality is a question that will linger long after the fighting has ended.

Friday Morning Male Beauty

 

More Thursday Male Beauty

 

Energy Experts Expect Another Spike at the Gas Pump

At the moment, the price of oil is over $106/barrel and there is no end in sight to the Iran war and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.  The Felon continues to lie and bloviate about the war ending "soon" and has manipulated both the oil and stock markets (which have seen evidence of insider trading), but energy experts are anything other than upbeat about lower prices for oil or gasoline anywhere in the near term.  Indeed, even if the war ended tomorrow, the impacts on oil prices, the global economy and gas prices at the pumps in America would likely take months to subside much less slide back to pre-war levels.  The Felon and his sycophants are ignoring expert warnings - just as the Felon ignored warnings about Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz - that any recovery will take months and seek to spin a tale where everyday Americans will not be bearing the consequences of the Felon's war of choice. A piece in the New York Times sums up the current situation: 

Oil prices continued to surge on Thursday, hitting a fresh wartime high above $126 a barrel on concerns that the war in Iran could escalate, leading to a longer disruption of fuel supplies from the Middle East.

The average price of regular gasoline in the United States has followed oil higher, hitting $4.30 a gallon on Thursday, up 27 cents in a week, according to data from the AAA motor club.

Higher energy prices and the lingering effects of Mr. Trump’s tariffs are expected to keep inflation elevated through the rest of the year, Bernard Yaros, the lead U.S. economist at Oxford Economics, wrote in a note. “Inflation will get worse before it improves,” he added.

The World Bank estimated that the war in Iran would push energy prices up 24 percent this year, according to a broad index covering oil, gas and coal. “The war is hitting the global economy in cumulative waves: first through higher energy prices, then higher food prices and finally, higher inflation, which will push up interest rates and make debt even more expensive,” Indermit Gill, the World Bank’s chief economist, said this week.

The Felon promised during the 2024 campaign that he'd lower prices and inflation and supposedly many working class Americans believed the lie (rather than being attracted by the Felon's racism and bigotry) yet the opposite has been the case. The latest Comey indictment and attacks on ABC will not long distract voters from the economic pain the Felon has caused.  A piece at Politico looks at the potential longer term impacts of the Felon's war of choice:

Energy experts say another oil price spike is coming — and it may be made worse by the president’s social media posts.

[The Felon] President Donald Trump has repeatedly spurred temporary dips in oil prices by claiming on Truth Social that the Iran war is near an end and that U.S. oil production would ensure sky high gas prices would soon retreat.

The jawboning has mostly worked. Even as the global price of oil has crept up over $100 per barrel on the futures market, it is significantly less than the $140 per barrel spot price, or what it would take to buy a barrel today. But the [Felon's] president’s promises can only work for so long. Supply of oil — especially in Europe and Asia — is dwindling and a price shock is coming, said Dan Pickering, chief investment officer at Pickering Energy Partners. He said that when the summer driving season begins there will be another gas price shock that “hits people in the face.”

“There’s a day of reckoning coming,” he said. “It will be painful because I can tell you that the stock market’s ignoring this.”  Another spike in prices around Memorial Day could be a fatal blow to Republican chances for holding onto the House next year, as Americans’ confidence in the economy continues to drop.

[The Felon] Trump on Monday was reviewing Iran’s latest peace proposal, which arrived after he canceled his top negotiators’ planned trip to Pakistan for talks. He continues to maintain that a quick resolution to the war with an agreement to reopen the Strait of Hormuz is within reach.

And inside the White House, confidence remains high that markets will soon stabilize, despite U.S. gasoline prices having increased by more than $1 a gallon since the Iran war began, a major reason why the conflict is so unpopular with the American public.

Last week, [the Felon] Trump said gas prices would drop as soon as the war ends.  But Rosemary Kelanic, director of the Middle East Program at the libertarian-leaning Defense Priorities think tank, said the administration’s confidence that normalcy is just over the horizon is keeping American oil companies from producing more. Why, they say, invest in production when the war is about to end. The problem is if the war doesn’t end very soon there won’t be enough oil for the world, she said.

“By talking down the market so effectively, when the price spike becomes inevitable, it’s going to hurt way worse because we’ll have lost weeks or even months of time where producers could have been ramping up output,” she said.

“Our hypothesis is [that] the paper market is being manipulated,” the respondent wrote. “This will likely lead to an even worse supply and demand imbalance and higher prices in the medium term (next 12 months).”

A growing number of market analysts are reaching a similar conclusion. On Sunday, Citigroup revised upwards by $15 its expected average price for a global barrel of oil to $110 in the second quarter and $95 in the third quarter. But if the Strait of Hormuz remains closed through June, Citi forecasts a barrel of oil reaching $150.

Since the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran in February, much of the world has been using oil and liquefied natural gas loaded on tankers before the war broke out, supplemented by what’s in storage. But that will only last so long. Asia is already experiencing “steep declines” in storage, said Jenna Delaney, Rapidan Energy Group’s Director of Global Crude.

“Global refineries have already cut runs due to challenges sourcing crude,” she said. “Refined product supplies are already strained at current refinery run levels, and demand typically rises in the summer.”

Oil inventories in some countries are days or weeks away from hitting “operational minimums,” Natasha Kaneva, head of global commodities research at JPMorgan wrote in a recent note to investors. That could mean parts of the global energy system start to collapse, refineries will struggle to operate, energy flows will bottleneck and more.

[I]n a best case scenario, it will be take longer than just a few months before gas prices settled to the level they were before the war, said Emma Anderson, author of “Oil, the State, and War: The Foreign Policies of Petrostates” and a senior fellow at the Stimson Center, a foreign policy research institute in Washington. The real impact on Americans will be inflationary and is likely already locked in, she said.

“Prices at the pump are going to go up over time,” she said. “The costs of goods are going to go up as diesel goes up. Shipping will get more expensive. Trucking will get more expensive. The things you buy at the store will get more expensive.”

More "winning" thanks to the Felon.

Thursday Morning Male Beauty

 

Wednesday Morning Male Beauty