Thank You to My Readers - Over 1 Million Page Views in July

Continuing to write this blog is at times a labor of love and at others a great outlet to vent political views and frustrations.   Some readers have been followers for years, while others are more recent followers. Overall, viewership has increased  markedly and last month, July 2026, the blog reached a new benchmark: over one million page views in a single moth.  While the highest viewership remains in the USA, readers continue to visit from all over the world with other top countries varying day to day and month to month.  To everyone who visit this blog, I want to say "thank you". 

More Saturday Male Beauty

 

The Felon's Biggest Error in the Iran War

Over the years, the Felon has shown himself to be a bully both in his business interests and now in the foreign policy pushed by his regime.  He has also displayed an attitude that he believes he knows more than anyone else and is hostile towards experts and career diplomats and intelligence personnel who are not willing to rubber stamp whatever he wants to do no matter how flawed.  All of this has been showcased by his treatment of long time allies and NATO members in particular , including his relentless obsession with seizing Greenland. Indeed, this mindset of bullying and ignoring the motivations of allies and foes alike is writ large in the Felon's war of choice against Iran that he now finds himself unable to exit without having to admit defeat. All of the current debacle, including rising gasoline prices in America, could have been avoided had the Felon but listened to warnings of how a war with Iran could go sideways and how Iran could use the Strait of Hormuz to disturb the global economy and use oil as an economic weapon.  Instead, the Felon's hubris and quest for a "legacy" won out and America now finds itself in a mess solely of the Felon's creation.  A piece at The Atlantic looks at the Felon's unforced error. Here are excerpts:

For 2,500 years, military commanders have heeded the injunction of Sun Tzu, the great Chinese military strategist: Know your enemy. Yet the Trump administration’s greatest mistake in the Iran war may be its persistent failure to understand Tehran’s priorities and motivations—and how much punishment the regime is willing to absorb to prevail.

Iran’s decision Tuesday to launch ballistic missiles at U.S. troops in Jordan was a prime example. It befuddled Washington. U.S. officials had come to expect that their actions would drive the war, and Iran would react. But here was Tehran, escalating matters just after the United States had suspended its 13-day barrage of strikes against Iranian defenses and infrastructure. U.S. Central Command, which is responsible for military operations in the Middle East, described the move as a “surprise attack.”

Tehran characterized the missile strikes as self-defense against what the regime saw as the Trump administration’s broadening of the war. Around the same time as the Iranian attack, U.S. and Saudi forces launched joint strikes on Iran-backed militias in Iraq, Riyadh’s first publicly acknowledged military strikes of the conflict.

This week’s events hardly represented the first time that the two sides had misread each other’s intentions. The convoluted and complicated war has swung almost weekly between peace overtures and fighting. Those misinterpretations appear set to continue, especially amid signs that others may be dragged into the fight.

The memorandum of understanding that Washington and Tehran signed in the middle of last month quickly devolved into one of the war’s signature misunderstandings. The very first clause of the agreement promised to end the fighting, but the two sides had fundamentally different interpretations of their obligations.

The memorandum did not end the dispute over the Strait of Hormuz but rather, it papered over it. Washington believed it had secured 60 days of open, toll-free commercial navigation. Tehran read the agreement as preserving its authority to manage traffic through the waterway. As the dispute erupted, some Iranian officials believed that the U.S. had purposely drafted a vague agreement to trigger a violation that could be used as a predicate to resume strikes . . . . Was anyone really surprised that the pact fell apart? Certainly not President Trump, who professed that he “couldn’t care less” after each side had walked away.

Even before the war began, in late February, the two governments were talking past each other. The U.S. believed that Iran was fragile and the regime susceptible to collapse after nationwide protests. The regime believed that nothing short of its total capitulation to U.S. demands would prevent a war. Trump ordered the war to begin while talks were still under way, and his administration believed that the death of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, on the conflict’s first day would quickly be followed by the collapse of the state. Instead, five months in, the regime remains intact and seems to have enough confidence to endure any U.S. response.

“America’s calculation is that escalation would lead to surrender. Iran’s calculation is that escalation would lead to deterrence,” Vali Nasr, a professor of international affairs and Middle East studies at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, told us. . . . But neither side seems able to answer the question that matters most: What if escalation doesn’t work?

Part of the confusion may stem from the fact that Trump himself appears to be of (at least) two minds about how he wants to proceed. He has vacillated between backing more military action and giving peace talks a chance. The U.S. cannot begin to understand its enemy if it has yet to settle on its own aims—or how to achieve them.

The U.S. is seeking to understand an enemy that is changing and adapting. Iran appears intent on reintroducing the element of military surprise, driven by the belief that it can outlast Trump and that negotiations no longer present a viable path. The regime operates differently under its new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, who replaced his late father. Iran is no longer content to let proxies across the region fight for its interests. It wants to use its missiles and drones to fight for its long-term security. And it is willing to endure strikes by the U.S. to the point that American military commanders are running short on viable targets it can hit to stop attacks on the strait.

“They are willing to sacrifice themselves and the public for the future of the regime,” Citrinowicz said. He doesn’t believe that Iran wants to fight an endless war any more than Trump does. But Tehran thinks Trump faces constraints, including the economic damage stemming from the strait’s continued closure and the tepid response of Gulf States. Iran’s position, in contrast, has been strengthened by support from the Houthis in Yemen, who recently began targeting Saudi interests and threatened to close the Bab al-Mandab Strait to commercial shipping. Iranian leaders, Citrinowicz said, “believe at the end of the day, they are able to shape the situation on the ground to their own benefit.”

A number of influential MAGA allies—including Laura Ingraham and Steve Bannon—have publicly and privately called for the White House to rapidly wind down the war, believing that the conflict has demoralized Trump’s base and will hurt the GOP in the midterms. . . . . Yet at same time, Persian Gulf allies have made clear that they find Iran’s control of the Strait of Hormuz untenable—especially if the regime charges tolls. That would, in effect, mean that the same countries battered by Tehran’s missiles would be stuck paying for Iran to rebuild.

For now, there are no good options for Trump and there is no clarity as to how two sides in a widening war can find off-ramps, particularly if they continue to misinterpret each other’s actions.

Trump could declare victory, noting that the U.S. and Israel killed the ayatollah, and vow to attack again should Iran resume its quest for a nuclear weapon. Or he could try to return to the terms of the MOU. But the administration would likely have to sign on to some aspects of Iran’s interpretation of it, such as its retention of control of the Strait of Hormuz. Or Trump can escalate, hitting Iran’s missile capabilities to make the targeting of U.S. bases and Gulf partners more difficult. But he would have to do so at a rate faster than Iran can reconstitute its forces. And he faces political opposition to a more prolonged conflict: . . . . More than two-thirds of respondents said the Trump administration should end the war now.

Both sides seem to agree on one thing: There is no end in sight to the war. U.S. defense officials told us that they believe conflict will continue into 2027. Iran is signaling that it plans for a fight even longer than that.

A self-made disaster.  The New York Times is reporting as follows:

To America’s allies, President Trump’s war in Iran, now in its sixth month, seems headed for a strategic defeat. They worry that the inability of the United States to turn military superiority into a sustainably changed Iran has displayed a vulnerability that Russia and China will welcome. In addition, Mr. Trump’s goals remain unmet, and the U.S. military is running short on key armaments that it needs for global reach.

Saturday Morning Male Beauty

 

More Friday Male Beauty

 

The Problem With Political Evangelical Christianity

But for evangelical and "conservative Christians' America and the world might have avoided the toxicity of the Felon's two terms in the White House.  No group has been more loyal in its support of the Felon despite his embodiment of evil, cruelty and immorality.  I have long argued that evangelicals and "conservative Christians" would ultimately what killed the Christian brand and a new poll reflects this: 48 percent of Gen Z adults surveyed said that Christians’ support for Trump made them less likely to want to attend church. Instead of being positive witnesses for Christianity they have become models of hypocrisy and loathing towards others as they support a man no one truly moral should support. Part of the Felon's appeal has been that he has played to the persecution complex of these "Christians" who see any restraint on their ability to force their beliefs on others or their ability to discriminate and harm others as "religious persecution."  The Felon promised to protect them and to work against those they dislike: gays, blacks, non-Christians and anyone else they dislike.  In exchange, they close their eyes to the Felon's immorality and support Republican reverse Robin Hood policies that are the antithesis to Christ's gospel message. A column in the New York Times looks at the damage being done to the Christian brand: 

[The Felon's] Trump’s presidencies are the evangelical church’s unwanted gift to America.

You don’t have to rehash all the events of the last decade to make that case. A single statistic tells the tale: In 2024, Trump received 82 percent of the white evangelical/born again vote. He lost the rest of the vote by a whopping 18-point margin, 58 percent to 40 percent.

And while their support for Trump is declining, white evangelicals are still Trump’s most loyal religious supporters. . . . . And this brings me to perhaps the least shocking statistic in America. The Billy Graham Center Research Institute at Wheaton College in Illinois recently released polling data showing that almost half — 48 percent — of Gen Z adults surveyed said that Christians’ support for Trump made them less likely to want to attend church, at least to some degree.

Actions have consequences. And one of those consequences is that a church that wraps its arms around arguably the most vulgar, most corrupt president in American history will repel good people, especially those people who’ve encountered MAGA’s claws.

That reality is reflected in the stark partisan divide in the Graham Center’s numbers. Two-thirds of Democrats said Christian support for Trump made them less likely to want to go to church. And 42 percent of independents were inclined to agree. I was a bit surprised to see that one in four Republicans was also put off from church by Christian support for Trump.

This is a finding that should trigger soul-searching among American evangelicals. . . . . it’s worth pondering whether the decision to so loyally support a man like Trump is worth actively repelling millions upon millions of Americans from church.  But I’m not holding my breath.

Last week the popular Christian podcaster Allie Beth Stuckey hosted two Christian apologists, Cliffe and Stuart Knechtle, to discuss the survey and its findings. Cliffe Knechtle’s and Stuckey’s different responses were almost perfect encapsulations of the different ways that evangelicals approach the political challenges of the moment.

First, Cliffe Knechtle, the senior pastor of Grace Community Church in New Canaan, Conn., . . . If Christians tie themselves too closely to any politician or party, that’s our fault. . . . . At the same time, no political party embodies Christianity, and while you can certainly argue as to whether any given party or given politician is more Christian in its platform or his personal conduct, God doesn’t have a party. And the effort to marry God to a political party will harm the church.

Stuckey had a different take, one that I’ve heard more often in the age of Trump. She questioned whether revulsion at Trump was the real reason people are retreating from church. In reality, Stuckey argued, “We don’t want to see our sin because it’s hard.” . . . I absolutely believe that people can be uncomfortable in church because of their own sin.

But that’s not what’s happening here. When many young people look at the church’s embrace of Trump, they’re not rejecting the church because it’s too moral. They’re rejecting it because they see the church’s immorality. They see its fear and moral compromise.

In other words, they don’t reject church because they’re afraid to shed their sin and become better people. They’re rejecting the church because they refuse to embrace sin and become, well, worse people. . . . We’ve seen the conduct of so very many Christians in the MAGA movement — we’ve seen their cruelty, their dishonesty and their racism.

If Christ says that we will know people by their fruits — by their character and actions — then what kind of fruits do you see in Trumpism? . . . . “The problem now is not that people think the church’s way of life is too demanding, too morally rigorous, but that they have come to think the church doesn’t believe its own moral teachings.”

The result is a sealed moral environment. First, there isn’t a single Christian I know who would admit to making politics his or her religion. Instead, all of them would argue that they voted for Trump because of their religion. Their politics flows from their theology, they’d say, and not the other way around.

But this means that many Christians then interpret an attack on their politics as an attack on their religion. If you’re angry at the choices you make because I’m a Christian, then you must also be angry at my Christianity. . . . . the very fact that Christians face criticism for supporting Trump becomes a perverse form of confirmation that they were correct. After all, they’re getting “persecuted.”

This self-conception, however, collides with reality. It turns out there is a lot of evidence that for many evangelicals, their faith flows from their politics, not vice versa. . . . Evangelicals are less churchgoing and more partisan. When you read the words and watch the conduct of MAGA Christians online, it can seem as if the church is more influenced by Trump than the church influences Trump. When it comes to politics, he’s the evangelical pope.

When Stuckey said, “We don’t want to see our sin because it’s hard,” she was correct. But in this instance, the community most unwilling to see its sin is in the Christian church. The sin lives in the people who allowed fear and anger to swallow their commitment to truth and character.

Now the entire world lives with the consequences of the choices they made.

Friday Morning Male Beauty

 

More Thursday Male Beauty

 

Trump Crashes Into Reality

Oil prices are up again today, the US and Iran are again conducting military strikes against each other, and a new poll reveals that two-thirds of Americans oppose the Felon's war of choice with Iran (even larger majorities say the Felon is focused on the wrong priorities).  Meanwhile, consumer prices are up further due to both the Iran war and the Felon's tariffs and the Felon's poll numbers are in the toilet, with many Americans angered by the Felon's claim that "affordability" is a Democrat hoax. And try as he might, the Felon cannot find a way to extricate himself from the Iran debacle.   Should Democrats regain control of one or both of the houses of Congress - something the Felon believes likely based on his desperation to pass the falsely named "Save Act" that would disenfranchise millions, especially married women - the Felon will likely face countless hearings into his grifting and misuse of Congressionally approved funds. For years the Felon has endeavored to get his cultist followers to believe in an alternate reality of the Felon's own making, but increasingly objective reality is forcing the Felon's lies into open view and eroding his followers' ability to pretend that they have not been duped and mislead.  Many fear how the Felon, a malignant narcissist, will deal with declining relevancy and the prospect of facing accountability.  A piece at The Atlantic looks at where we find ourselves:

[The Felon] President Trump has mused about being the most powerful man in history. He has started wars and remade his nation’s economic and strategic relationships with the world. He has demanded, and largely received, total obedience from his party. He has dominated the national discourse like no president has before, and he’s tried to recast his nation’s capital—and even its history—to his liking. He’s everywhere. He has said he believes that there are “no limits” to his power.

But if that was ever truly the case, it certainly isn’t now. Recent months have delivered a reckoning for [the Felon] Trump, who has crashed hard against some real limits. The war in Iran, a conflict that he’d once thought would take only a few weeks, hit the five-month mark today. The U.S. casualty count is growing, weapons stockpiles are running low, and gas prices are again surging. [The Felon] Trump desperately wants the war to end. He is receiving conflicting guidance from his advisers—escalate, some urge, as others tell him to cut and run—and has become just the latest U.S. president to be humiliated by hard-liners in Tehran.

[The Felon] Trump is also flailing domestically. His approval numbers have sunk, and Republicans are finally, in small doses, beginning to defy him. Trump has demanded that the Senate blow up the filibuster to pass the SAVE Act, which would make voting more difficult and require voters to provide proof of citizenship. But Republicans have refused.

Strategists from both parties predict that at least one chamber of Congress will flip to the Democrats, allowing the party to stall whatever is left of the president’s legislative agenda and open investigations into his administration and allies.

Once the midterms are over, [the Felon] Trump could face his worst fear: irrelevance. He will be a lame duck, down to his final two years in office, and at some point will no longer be the nation’s top topic of conversation. As focus shifts to the presidential primaries, Trump risks disappearing from the headlines. Even some of his closest allies don’t know how he’ll react.

[The Felon] Trump gathered a team of senior advisers at the White House on Friday to walk through the latest options in the war that he’d already declared won. The meeting came after nearly two weeks of the United States bombing Iran, with Tehran striking back against allies in the region, including a hit on a military base in Jordan that killed three American service members.

Iran has continued to menace the Strait of Hormuz and threatened to charge tolls for ships using the vital waterway, a nonstarter for American allies in the Persian Gulf. Meanwhile, the new wave of bombings, green-lit by Trump, has not produced meaningful change along the strait. The meeting was set to discuss the possibility of returning to an all-out war.

[T]he frustrated {Felon] president seemed more inclined to order a heavier assault—but he and his advisers once again opted against it. There were several reasons to discard the idea, at least for now, the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal conversations. That included the risk of dangerously depleting the number of defensive interceptor missiles available to the military’s Central Command, which is responsible for operations in the Middle East. Advisers also expressed worry about the prospect of a widening war in the Middle East, the anger of key Gulf allies targeted by Iran’s counterattack, and the potential for an energy or a refugee crisis. [The Felon] Trump repeatedly told advisers that he worried that an escalation could spark a global economic conflagration and “turn me into Hoover,” the senior official told me.

A number of influential Republicans and conservatives have begun to urge Trump to abruptly declare some sort of win and leave the Iran mess behind. They argue that the short-term benefit of doing so would be to lower prices, push Iran out of the headlines, and potentially salvage Republicans’ midterm chances this fall. But the geostrategic consequences would be significant; Tehran would possess an economic weapon—control of the strait—that it could wield at any time to inflict global economic pain. And the Iranian regime could strike with impunity at its neighbors, including Israel.

[The Felon's] Trump’s campaign swing through Michigan yesterday was a rarity in his second term. But his refrain there was not: He made unfounded claims about election fraud and, this time, appeared alongside a GOP congressman running for governor who falsely said that Trump had won the state three times. (Nope, only twice.) The [Felon] president exaggerated the nation’s manufacturing rebound under his watch and, once more, mocked the affordability crisis that polls suggest is top of mind for many voters. His recent moves seem designed to dissuade or prevent voters from casting their ballot, not to inspire them.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune has refused to do away with the filibuster, a move that would allow the GOP to push the SAVE Act through.

[The Felon's] Trump’s wish list has stalled. Some Republicans have sought permission to distance themselves from the unpopular president, and even loyalists such as House Speaker Mike Johnson said last week that, in terms of the war, it was time to “wrap it up.” By no means are Republicans in revolt. But Trump’s grip on the party has loosened, just a little.

[The Felon] Trump, a man who has spent his life in pursuit of attention, is also beginning to contemplate the limits of his relevancy. . . . . even those in [the Felon's] Trump’s inner circle aren’t sure what to expect if people start talking about him less. The political calendar is relentless: Once the midterms clear, Washington will turn its focus to the 2028 presidential campaign. With no incumbent in the race and no clear front-runner in either party, it will be as wide-open as any race in decades. Trump may no longer be among each day’s top stories . . . .

His widely panned speech at last week’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner seemed to offer a preview of his future: His grievances were met mostly with silence. Some of the president’s allies have begun to privately wonder how he might handle a new, reduced status. No one suspects that he’ll take it well.

Thursday Morning Male Beauty

 

More Wednesday Male Beauty

 

The Right's Masculinity Obsession

One of the things the Felon and his imitators have tapped into with far too males, especially, white males, is their fear of lost dominance, loss of social status and threats to their sense of white privilege. Part and parcel of this phenomenon is hostility to anyone who doesn't live up to the correct image of masculinity pushed by right wing influencers, some of whom seemingly struggle with their own masculinity while pushing a blame game against others and narrative that the misfortunes/emotional fragility is because of women, gays, and so-called elites. This obsession is on view in the way in which non-conforming males are ridiculed and attacked as not sufficiently masculine. In some ways its the same mindset of middle school and high school bullies who made the lives of their LGBT classmates - whether they were "out" or not - while seemingly shoring up and papering over their own inadequacies. A piece in The Atlantic looks at this right wing obsession with masculinity and how the blame game for personal failings is targeted at gays, blacks, women and anyone who is perceived as a threat to their societal standing. Pete Hegseth embodies this mind set. Here are article highlights:

American manhood is a fragile and precarious thing, shattered by the slightest deviation from ever-shifting norms—eating the wrong taco, tasting tofu, not eating meat, or maybe eating too much meat. Or at least, that is what right-wing commentators have suggested by their attacks on the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in Texas, James Talarico.

Since the 37-year-old state senator clinched the nomination, right-wing politicians and media figures have been running a bizarre smear campaign attacking Talarico for not being manly enough. President Donald Trump called Talarico a “vegan,” and Trump’s adviser Stephen Miller has twice declared that Talarico is “transgender.” Right-wing media figures have referred to him as “Tofu Talarico” and suggested that he is “against meat.”

Anyway, you get it. Talarico is gay or something, and for the GOP, there’s definitely something wrong with that. Its own candidate, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, is mired in allegations of corruption and infidelity, and is committed to some policies so extreme that, like Trump himself, they are unpopular even in deep-red Texas. Talarico’s choirboy looks and religiously inflected liberalism provide a stark contrast to Paxton’s hypocritical self-righteousness, and so Republicans are desperately trying to make those qualities seem like weaknesses.

George W. Bush’s advisers snickered that John Kerry looked “French.” Trump, of course, is famous for put-downs whose cruelty is part of their appeal. But there’s something new about the attacks on Talarico. Calling a man “French” or “vegan” retains a mote of the old deniability. Calling Talarico “transgender” does not. The rhetoric resembles nothing more than the frothing tone of masculinity influencers in the online manosphere, with its strict but arbitrary standards for what makes a man a man.

The Trump administration and the conservative movement seem to have taken this advertising strategy and transformed it into an ideology. The result is a secretary of health and human services who posts videos of himself working out in jeans and then presides over outbreaks of measles and explosive diarrhea; a director of Medicare and Medicaid who takes a break from stripping health care away from children to demonstrate how not to do a squat; and a defense secretary who interrupts his day job of starting and losing pointless, illegal wars in the Middle East to announce that he will force testosterone tests on service members. And Americans are supposed to be impressed by these overgrown children showing off their masculine prowess while failing at their basic adult responsibilities.

Any man who goes online today is apt to come across content telling him that he will never find a partner who will earn him the respect of other men if he lacks money and connections, if he is not bodybuilder-fit with a full head of hair, if he is not more than six feet tall. Online influencers who push this narrative have products to sell. . . . . It makes you insecure so you’ll pay for a product in hopes of temporarily silencing your gnawing sense of inadequacy.

 Ad campaigns have long preyed in this way on female insecurities, telling women how they are supposed to look and act. . . . That marketing, though, was designed to turn women against themselves; the manosphere now tells men to lash out at others instead. It encourages white men in particular, but not exclusively, to blame their problems on a society that has allowed their lessers to compete with them for employment, power, and prestige by removing the barriers that once kept them out.

Social scientists have found that when men think their masculinity is being questioned, they may dismiss that challenge as irrelevant, they may quietly feel bad or insecure, or they may overcompensate by trying to behave in a more stereotypically masculine fashion. And that last reaction is where the dollars are. Be a man and buy a gun. Get the manly cereal for men. Wipe your butt with the wet wipes for men. Get the manly smelling deodorant. Eat the manly steak. It’s no coincidence that gambling apps and crypto companies have spent so much money on ads that make giving them your money seem adventurous.

Just as the manosphere and its galaxy of hucksters want you to fork over your cash so you can feel better about yourself as a man, Republicans want to make you feel insecure about your masculinity so that you vote Republican. Masculinity, in this sense, is a lifestyle product: one that comes with a set of political beliefs predicated on the subjugation of women, minority groups, and anyone else who men are told are their inferiors.

When people are constantly told that the only way to be a worthwhile human being is to conform to gender norms, they will naturally strive to meet those expectations, even if it means being harsh to themselves or others. But the strength of those emotions is precisely what makes them so exploitable.

Adam Stanaland, a psychology professor at the University of Richmond, told me that what’s concerning is when insecure men feel pressured to validate their manhood by harming others. Stanaland co-authored a study on “fragile” masculinity that notes that such men may compensate by endorsing “political bigotry, homophobia, sexual violence, and anti-environmentalism,” and that they are “more likely to endorse policies and politicians that disproportionately harm marginalized groups.”

Stanaland speculated that for “white men especially, their masculinity is framed by this idea they must be at the top of not only the gender hierarchy, but also other social hierarchies, and so any kinds of threats to that positioning of them at the hierarchy could be responded to with these compensatory behaviors.”

Ironically, some of the most prominent masculinity influencers are not themselves white. Andrew and Tristan Tate, who were recently arrested on rape and sex-trafficking charges after being spared from legal consequences for years thanks to interventions by the Trump administration, are biracial. This has not stopped the brothers from repeating racist far-right arguments that play well online, such as Andrew implying that Jews are “subverting western populations into mass genetic suicide.” This idea, known today as the “Great Replacement” theory, is a continuation of old-timey racist fears of “race mixing”

When that disappointment sets in, the manosphere has an explanation: Can’t find a girlfriend? It’s because women who make their own living can no longer be forced into marrying guys they don’t like. Can’t find a job? It’s because undeserving women and minorities are being picked instead of you, even though you’re better. Feel bad about yourself? It’s because our feminized society deprived you of a life of meaningful toil, military adventure, and elevated social status. It is a bleak view of the world, a kind of male doomerism in which a meaningful life can be found only in the domination and exploitation of others.

There probably shouldn’t be a lot of overlap between religious-right leaders, government officials, and someone like Andrew Tate, who proudly describes himself as a “pimp.” Yet Tate’s belief that “society functions better as a patriarchy” is hard to distinguish from the views of Doug Wilson, the pastor invited by Hegseth to preach at the Pentagon, who thinks that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Pious or secular, these beliefs come down to the same idea: Men are people, and women are things.

As my colleague Helen Lewis has reported, “Woman-bashing plays well on social media and sells lots of ads for crypto, sports betting, and supplements.” She adds: “You can make good money telling men that they’re the truly oppressed sex.” You can win a lot of votes that way, too.

Wednesday Morning Male Beauty

 

More Tuesday Male Beauty

 

Will Netanyahu Pull the Felon Deeper Into War with Iran

By most reports Benjamin Netanyahu was one of the players that convinced the Felon to launch the misguided (at best) war against Iran. Netanyahu seemingly wants endless war to enhance his reelection chances in October and also protect himself from potential prosecution at home and likely duped the Felon into ignoring the advice of his own intelligence and military advisers.  Now, Netanyahu is coming to Washington, DC, and the White House yet again and some fear he will seek to convince the Felon through false claims and flattery to widen the war and further damage both America's economy and that of the entire world.  Many in the MAGA "America First" base are not pleased, yet seem to still cling to some semblance of belief that the Felon will put America's interest first rather than take actions to please his own ego and a desperate desire to be perceived as "winning" in a war that the vast majority of Americans oppose. Meanwhile, oil prices remain up everyone is holding their breath to see if the Red Sea gets closed down by Iran's allies in Yemen. The problem is that the Felon has few good options to extricate the nation from his foolish war.  A Piece at Politico looks at where we find ourselves:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, during his last in-person meeting at the White House, reportedly sold President Donald Trump on starting a war with Iran. Now, the GOP’s America First wing fears he’s about to pitch the president on ramping up attacks.

“I think all of President Trump’s most ardent non-‘Israel First’ supporters are furious,” said former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon. “Netanyahu has had twice as many visits to the White House in 18 months as Churchill had in all of World War II — with every one of them a disaster for America First.”

The two men are set to meet Tuesday morning for the first time since the two countries attacked Iran in February, with Netanyahu in Washington to attend the funeral of the late Sen. Lindsey Graham. The meeting comes at a moment of tension between the two allies: While Trump has long defended Israel, he has grown increasingly willing to publicly criticize Netanyahu for being too aggressive with Lebanon.

It also arrives at a pivotal moment in a war that has dragged on for five months, with the U.S. teetering between attempts at peace and a more aggressive phase of war.

Many of the president’s anti-interventionist allies had hoped the latest ceasefire attempt would lead to a permanent end to the conflict. Instead, they’re grappling with the possibility that Netanyahu, who is visiting the U.S. for the seventh time since Trump took office last year, may instead push the president into a new, more durable phase of war that could leave the U.S. embroiled in conflict in the Middle East for months, if not years.

The meeting comes as new polling shows that a growing share of the president’s base no longer believes the war is worth its economic costs. And Republicans are increasingly resigned to the fact that the war will likely still be hanging over voters in some form when they head to the polls in November.

Curt Mills, executive director of the American Conservative magazine, described the meeting as “DEFCON 1.” “Netanyahu is going to argue for the essential logic of escalation, which — if Trump is not willing to give the [memorandum of understanding] a chance and if Trump is not willing to walk away from the conflict entirely without a resolution — then I think we probably will escalate, and that’s what we’ve been seeing these last couple of weeks,” Mills said. . . . . “Netanyahu is going to push his agenda, which I don’t think in this instance necessarily is compatible with our interests . . .

Netanyahu has not been to the White House since the launch of the war, despite months of efforts to secure another invitation. Until Monday, the White House had not publicly confirmed the meeting, details of which were only just finalized as officials prepared for Graham’s funeral.

Strikes between the U.S. and Iran remain paused, though Trump on Monday threatened that the U.S. would “go back to doing what we were doing” if the latest attempt at diplomacy fails. Netanyahu could ultimately shoulder the burden of blame if the war continues to drag on — potentially deepening strains between the two allies.

“Netanyahu is kind of a problem-maker at the moment, right? This war has consumed the last five and a half months or so. There’s not a clear solution to it,” said a former official, granted anonymity to speak candidly about the dynamics of the meeting. “Trump probably, publicly or not, blames Netanyahu partially or associates him with a thing going badly. It’s not like it has to be his fault. It’s that he’s associated with it. And the president’s pissed off about it.”

Trump, who faces increasing pressure at home to bring the war to an end ahead of November’s midterms, has grown increasingly vocal in his frustration with Netanyahu.

The Israeli prime minister, who faces reelection in October, needs Tuesday’s meeting to understand Trump’s next steps — whether he intends to return to the memorandum of understanding or move toward further escalation, said Elliott Abrams, the U.S. special representative for Iran in Trump’s first term.

But Netanyau, who has built much of his political identity around confronting Iran’s security threat, also enters Tuesday’s meeting from a position of significant political risk as the two leaders are poised to broach several difficult subjects, including Lebanon, Syria and Gaza.

“The stakes are higher for Netanyahu both because Trump, not he, is the decision-maker here,” Abrams said. “And because his job and not Trump’s is on the ballot.”

Tuesday Morning Male Beauty

 

Monday Morning Male Beauty

 

More Sunday Male Beauty

 

The Ticking Clock on the Strait of Hormuz

Another day and the Felon continues to twist on the rope of his own creation as oil prices remain around $100/barrel and oil stockpiles around the world dwindle, Russian oil exports are down as Ukraine continues to hit Russia' oil infrastructure, and the specter of the Red Sea route for Saudi oil exports  being closed continues.  Driving around yesterday, literally every gas station As a piece in The Atlantic lays out, the Felon and his sycophants have few options options, none of which are good: (i) escalate with ground troops, something that would be immensely unpopular on the home front, (ii) continue the status quo ongoing military action with oil and gasoline prices increasing further as stockpiles are fully depleted and causing economic disruptions and even higher gas prices in the USA, or (iii) walk away and concede defeat.  As noted numerous times on this blog, the current quagmire could have been avoided had the Felon listened to experienced intelligence personnel and military commanders rather than the assurances of Netanyahu - which Marco Rubio reportedly described as "bullshit."  A piece in the New York Times describes the Felon's situation this way: "Having entered the conflict with little strategy for victory, he now is struggling for a face-saving way to exit."  Here are excerpts from the piece in The Atlantic:

Back in June, at the closing press conference for the G7 summit in Évian-les-Bains, [the Felon] Donald Trump explained why he had called a halt to hostilities with Iran. Continued bombing would not reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and as long as the war went on, commercial ships would stay away while emergency oil supplies dwindled.

“We run out of reserves in about four weeks,” he warned, conjuring up images of shortages, bedlam, surging prices, and a market collapse on the scale of 1929. Trump told the press that he had studied presidents, and “the one president I did not want to be was the late, great Herbert Hoover.”

Fast-forward to late July. The United States has bombed Iran for nearly two weeks, hitting coastal-surveillance sites and weapons-storage facilities as well as bridges, tunnels, rail lines, airports, and electrical infrastructure. Iran has answered with missiles and drones aimed at American bases in Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, and Qatar, as well as strikes on oil installations and a desalination plant, and repeated attacks on commercial shipping in and around the strait.

Trump resumed the war despite having already explained why military force could not achieve its most pressing objective. He has not resolved this tension. It may be irresoluble. In the meantime, he is betting that Tehran will buckle before economic pressure forces him to do the same.

To understand where we are, consider how the cease-fire collapsed. Each party believed that it had won the war and that the other should accede to its interpretation of the agreement on the strait. . . . . Tehran read it as permission to manage and control access through the waterway. Consequently, Iran sought to funnel ships through corridors it approved, and attacked or threatened vessels that used other routes.

In doing so, Tehran made a serious error in judgment. If it had laid low, it could have reaped the benefits of economic concessions for 60 days and then gradually introduced a toll. Instead, Trump felt compelled to respond, and the agreement broke down. Amos Hochstein, a senior adviser for energy and investment under President Biden, told me that Iran had thought it could boil the proverbial American frog, but it turned the temperature up too high too fast, and the frog got angry.

If Trump continues with limited strikes, he will face the very problems that he laid out in France last month. Hochstein posted on X that the current escalation in the Strait of Hormuz could be more economically dangerous than the previous one, because Russia, the U.S., and China can no longer buffer world markets as they did: Russia has reduced its diesel exports, U.S. crude and strategic reserves are unusually low, and China is cutting its oil consumption less deeply than before. In his view, markets are already signaling the inflationary risk, leaving Trump with a narrowing window to make a deal before another disruption produces a sharper fuel-price and financial shock, possibly as soon as mid- to late September.

Iran seems to want to keep the conflict at a simmer. It is striking back against the United States but has avoided direct attacks that would bring Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, or Israel fully into the war, even as it applies pressure indirectly, most dramatically through the Houthis’ campaign against Saudi shipping in the Red Sea. Reuters reported that Iran had previously asked the Houthis to prepare to close the Red Sea route if the United States struck Iranian power infrastructure.

Washington is trying to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, offer new economic and technological commitments to Gulf states, protect two maritime choke points, and fight an open-ended air war, all while the energy reserves and political patience needed to sustain those projects are running down.

Trump may inflict more pain on Iran, but this is unlikely to compel Tehran to abandon its attempt to control the Strait of Hormuz. Perhaps Iran will agree to put its ambitions on hold for 60 days in the hope that the previous agreement can be revived. But if the two sides remain gridlocked, Trump will have to decide whether to pay the economic price for continuing a low-intensity war indefinitely; escalate, with all of the risks that entails; or walk away.

Sunday Morning Male Beauty