US president Donald Trump loves being “first.” Whenever something newsworthy happens, big or small, in fact or in fantasy, he reliably touts it as being unprecedented in American, possibly even world, history, and a either a personal, positive accomplishment or an unjustified persecution (“witch hunt”).

When it comes to bragging rights, he’s certainly entitled to some:

He’s the first president elected without previously either holding public office or achieving significant military victory as a general.

He’s the first Republican, and second ever, president to serve non-consecutive terms (Grover Cleveland did so in the 19th century).

He’s the first president impeached twice (Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton only managed that one time each), the first president inaugurated while under indictment for a crime, and the first former president convicted of a felony.

He’s the first president to host an Ultimate Fighting Championship match at the White House (are you not entertained?).

And now, he’s the first president to oversee US surrender in not one, but two, wars.

James Madison, Harry Truman, and Richard Nixon were forced to eat crow in one war each.

Like Nixon with Vietnam, Trump didn’t start, but did negotiate US surrender in, the 20-year war in Afghanistan. Personally, I put that on the positive, not negative, side of the “accomplishment” ledger, even though he failed to follow through on the actual withdrawal, leaving that job (and the blame for what exit from a lost war looks like) to Joe Biden.

Like Madison and Truman with the War of 1812 and Korea, Trump now says he’s ending a war he started and lost, this time with Iran.

The terms of the US surrender remain partially under wraps, but in broad outline seem to consist of 1) the US getting out, 2) Iran letting the US get out, 3) so long as the US lifts sanctions and pays reparations.

Which, really, isn’t a bad deal if Trump can pull it off. The war was stupid, evil, and pointless from the beginning, and the absolute best outcome we could ever hope for was minimal American casualties and an eventual end to the attendant economic disaster.

That outcome may be on the table, if we can get two flies out of the ointment.

Fly Number One: The victors also insist that Trump must force a real ceasefire in Israel’s invasion of Lebanon.  Benjamin Netanyahu is  shaking his fist and yelling that he’ll do whatever he pleases. The only way Trump can likely force that issue is to credibly threaten an end to US military aid/ assistance and an invitation to Iran to keep fighting the Israelis absent US interference. It’s not obvious he’s possessed of the testicular fortitude to make that wise move.

Fly Number Two: Trump’s own credibility. Between February and this week, he announced that a “deal”  was”near,” “very close,” etc., no fewer than 38 times before finally saying a “deal” was done.  He announced strikes that ended up not happening, ceasefires under which firing didn’t cease,  and other seeming moves in which the only actual movement turned out to be hot air rising as hot air naturally does. This “deal” could turn out to just be more of those false promises and more of that hot air.

But hey, maybe things will work out. Maybe Trump will withdraw his “armada” from the Persian Gulf region and let the world get back to shipping  oil, fertilizer, and other products through the Strait of Hormuz. Maybe the US economy can  get started on a “return to normalcy.”

If so, hey, let the guy add another “First Place” trophy to the shelf in his vivid imagination.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

“Daylight Saving Time (DST) transitions,” researchers wrote in Brain Sciences earlier this year,  “act as a population-wide circadian stressor, leading to sleep disruption, cognitive impairment, emotional dysregulation, and short-term increases in psychiatric symptoms, including depression, anxiety, and suicidality. … At the population level, findings support growing calls to reconsider or eliminate seasonal clock changes …”

We already knew that, though, didn’t we? Twice a year, every year, for more than a century now, most Americans “spring forward” or “fall back,”  pretending that an hour has been deleted from, or inserted into, our sleep schedules.

Our bodies spend weeks adjusting to each “new normal,” leading to, among other things, measurable increases in traffic fatalities.

The practice never made much sense, even back before cheaper, more reliable lighting in factories and higher daytime productivity on farms. It stopped making any sense at all decades ago as shift and store schedules moved further and further away from “9 to 5” and toward “24/7/365.”

US president Donald Trump wants the government to knock off its weird time-shifting magic routine. Some Trump-watchers even suggest that he cares enough to make it one of his “loyalty test” issues, punishing politicians who don’t toe the line.

Therefore, Congress will likely vote on something called the “Sunshine Protection Act” later this summer.

Here’s where the usual quibbling starts:

The Sunshine Protection Act would put the United States permanently on “Daylight Saving Time” rather than “Daylight Standard Time,”  meaning the sun would be out “later” rather than “earlier” according to our clocks.

Some people (for example, those who enjoy, or have businesses catering to, outdoor activities that people tend to do after, not before, work) want it that way.

Others (for example, people who don’t want their kids leaving home for school in the dark, and some doctors who think darker wake times are worse for circadian rhythms in those who have to be up early) want it the other way around.

My own preference: Pick one — either one is fine — and stick to it year-round.

Let America’s 340 million people work the rest out for ourselves, just like we do with pretty much everything else.

There’s no reason employers and employees, schools and parents, doctors and patients, stores and customers can’t adapt to whatever schedules meet their mutual needs … and change those schedules from time to time (see what I did there?), if it makes sense TO THEM, with no need for the government’s input at all.

It’s bad enough that we tolerate the US government’s existence. It’s even worse that we allow the US government to tell us what time it is. Let  it hop back and forth on the matter? Just no.

Thank you,  President Trump, for your attention to this matter!

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

On June 11, the US House voted down — on a bipartisan basis, with 19 Republicans joining most Democrats — the latest attempt to renew Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Absent some kind of mid-June legislative miracle, Section 702 will expire on June 12.

Good! FISA itself is a terrible law, and Section 702 in particular legalizes insane levels of government spying — not just on foreigners, but on Americans. Here’s how it works:

First, FISA gives the government very broad surveillance permission where foreigners are concerned. While warrants are theoretically required, such warrants are secretly issued, by a secret court, and seemingly never denied.

Which is bad enough, but FISA also allows the government to spy on Americans who communicate with those foreigners … and to “chain” such surveillance at least two or three (some say six) “hops” out.

So if your spouse’s boss communicates with a foreigner who’s under surveillance, the US regime can collect data not just on the foreigner but also on your spouse’s boss,   on anyone your spouse’s boss communicates with (like, say, your spouse), and on anyone that second person communicates with (like, say, you).

All without going to a real, identifiable judge, from a non-secret court, to issue a warrant based on probable cause that anyone down that chain has committed any kind of crime.

FISA was always terrible, and section 702 always made it even worse. I’m glad it failed of re-passage. It needs to die in a fire, permanently.

But there’s nothing really to celebrate here, because we’ve known — since at least as far back as 2013 — how the US regime operates with regard to its surveillance powers.

If the US regime doesn’t like the law, it breaks the law.

If US regime figures are asked (under oath) about breaking the law, they deny (under oath) breaking the law.

If a whistleblower outs the evidence that the US regime is breaking the law, the US regime charges the whistleblower with espionage and chases him out of the country, while the perjurers continue their skulduggery without penalty or punishment.

If you’re unfamiliar with the 2013 case I’m talking about here, look up the name “Edward Snowden.” If you prefer your information in movie form, consider watching the documentary “Citizenfour,” or the dramatization “Snowden,” starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Both films are available on popular streaming platforms.

Big Brother is indeed watching you, and he’s doing so in ways and to extents that Orwell never dreamed possible.

While I’m glad to see Congress resisting demands for renewal of Section 702, it’s all just a bunch of meaningless theatrics unless they actually prosecute the evildoers who spy on Americans, then lie about it, then persecute whistleblowers because they know they can get away with doing so.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY