Oil Refinery Fires in Tehran, Iran

US president Donald Trump says that his war in Iran — currently in a supposed ceasefire — resulted in “total and complete victory. 100%. No question about it.” The Iranian regime, via a statement from its Supreme National Security Council, also claims “great victory.”

If the war is really over (I’m skeptical), who actually won?

Well, not you.

“You can no more win a war,” said Jeannette Rankin, “than you can win an earthquake.”

Rankin, the first woman ever elected to the US House of Representatives, entered Congress in 1916, just in time to vote against US entry into World War 1. Unseated in 1918, she managed a comeback in 1940, just in time to vote against US entry into World War 2.

We could use a few Jeannette Rankins these days.

Not so much to vote against going to war, though: Congress hasn’t bothered with that formality since 1942, leaving such decisions up to whatever emperor-in-all-but-name happens to occupy the White House and suddenly find himself in need of a distraction from the various domestic problems that presidents always get blamed for (and are sometimes actually to blame for).

The real function of a Jeanette Rankin or her equivalent is to remind us now and then of an immutable and irrefutable truth:

War is always a damaging and destructive thing.

Apart from a few politicians and generals who get to crow about “winning,” and some politically connected profiteers pre-positioned to knock down fat contracts at the expense of taxpayers,  everyone, on all sides, loses.

Some — soldiers and civilian non-combatants alike — lose their lives or end up maimed or orphaned.

Others see their homes destroyed and are forced to flee to hopefully safer locations, sometimes never to return.

Even those far from the front and seemingly safe from shelling, aerial bombardment, or rocket attack find that their paychecks don’t go nearly as far and that some things just aren’t nearly as available at any price as during peacetime. I still have my mother’s World War 2 ration book. Fortunately, Americans haven’t suffered those levels of privation at any time since, but many people, in many places, have seen that and worse.

War may be, as Randolph Bourne said, “the health of the state,” but it’s all down side for regular people who just want to live their lives in peace and prosperity.

Here’s hoping that the Iran earthquake wasn’t just a foreshock, and that the aftershocks are minor. Support peace!

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

$1.5 trillion.

With a “t.”

That’s how much US president Donald Trump wants Congress to appropriate for military (falsely called “defense”) spending in 2027.

And that number — there’s no other way to put this — is insane. The only proper date for such a spending request, followed by a winking grin emoji, is April 1.

Let’s compare.

At the height of the US war in Vietnam, in 1969, the US government spent about $85.5 billion ($761 billion in inflated 2026 dollars) on “defense.”

In 1991, when the US deployed hundreds of thousands of troops for Desert Storm, the US government spent about $313 billion, or $750 billion accounting for inflation.

In 2004, while fighting wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, that number was about $450 billion, or $780 billion in 2026 dollars.

Yes, it’s wartime again.

As usual, the war — this time with Iran — is entirely illegal/unconstitutional (only Congress can declare war, and it hasn’t).

And, as usual, the war is entirely optional and serves no defensive purpose whatsoever.

The president keeps telling us THIS war will be over Real Soon Now, and he started talking about a $1.5 trillion military budget months before he launched Operation Epic Fail, so the 40% bump clearly isn’t about Iran.

In what universe does the already bloated US military need nearly half again as much money next year as this year, and twice as much as it needed during previous wars?

I’m not one of those people who waxes sentimenal over what the US government COULD spend money on rather than fake “defense.”

That money SHOULD be left in the wallets of taxpayers rather than being taxed from them or borrowed in their names.

But I guess it’s worth mentioning that Trump wants to partially “pay for” Operation Epic Dumb Idea with a 10% cut (less than $75 billion) to “nondefense spending” programs that he considers “woke.”

If the current US “defense” budget was cut by 90%, a country that’s geographically isolated from credible enemies by two oceans, hasn’t been invaded since the War of 1812, and never really gets in a fight unless its government actively seeks one out, would still have far more actual “defense” than it needs.

Everything beyond that $100 billion (at most) falls into one or more of three categories: Waste, fraud, and abuse.

Perhaps congressional pushback will trim Trump’s demands … but don’t bet on it. Congress usually ends up giving the Department of Defense MORE than the president asks for as Representatives and Senators advocate for military contracts that pad the bottom lines of campaign contributors’ businesses in their districts and states.

If Congress won’t cut off Pete Hegseth and take away his car keys, American taxpayers should cut off Congress and take theirs. Type “National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee” into your favorite search engine for more information.

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 March 31, the US Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Chiles v. Salazar, a Colorado case centering on the practice of “conversion therapy” for minors.

The court ruled correctly, by eight votes to one, with only associate justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting,  on the main issue in dispute: The free speech rights of Kaley Chiles.

Chiles is a “licensed professional counselor” who uses “talk therapy” to — in accordance with her belief in a version of Christian dogma —  assist non-heterosexual clients who want to become heterosexual (or maybe, if the client is a minor, whose parents want a heterosexual, rather than non-heterosexual, child).

BECAUSE Chiles engages only in “talk therapy” rather than, say, electroconvulsive therapy, drug therapy, aversion/punishment therapy, etc., she’s clearly engaged in conduct that’s protected by the First Amendment. The state of Colorado doesn’t get to decide what people believe or want and whether they’re allowed to talk about it with each other.

As it happens, I’m extremely skeptical of “conversion therapy.” So far as I can tell, sexual orientation isn’t something that can be consciously/intentionally altered using talk or any other kind of “therapy.”

Nor, for that matter, is it a “medical condition” at all. It doesn’t need to be “treated.” It’s just a characteristic (and perhaps an evolving, rather than static/permanent characteristic) that people discover in themselves.

But that doesn’t mean people shouldn’t be able to think or say otherwise, or to attempt to “convert” consenting others through speech.

Note the qualifier: “Consenting.”

When a news story mentioned that Jackson’s dissent brings up consent, I was hoping for a thoughtful analysis of what constitutes consent and whose consent should be required for “conversion therapy.”

Unfortunately, the “consent” hooks in Jackson’s opinion are just about “informed” consent — whether “conversion therapy” practitioners adequately warn “patients” of possible risks. And she seems to be fully on board with the idea that the state, rather than patients, should get to decide what constitutes “treatment” (for anything), who may provide that “treatment,” etc.

The question of “patient consent” versus “parental consent” doesn’t seem to show up at all in the justices’ opinions.

As both a legal matter and cultural norm, it’s understood that parents and guardians have broad authority to make medical decisions for children … but there are limits.

I suspect that most people (me included) would oppose a claimed right of parents to “consent” to, say, “sex reassignment” surgery, cosmetic breast implants/reductions, etc., “for” their minor child over that child’s opposition and stated non-consent.

If “conversion therapy” really is “therapy,” it should be held to the same consent standard.  Kaley Chiles should only be talking to “patients” who have consented for themselves, not “patients” whose parents force her on them.

If you disagree, let’s apply your disagreement to a flip-side analogous situation:

One day, Mom and Dad decide their little boy is “really” a girl and needs “gender-affirming” counseling. If the boy says “no, I’m a boy and happy that way,” do the parents have a right to force that “therapy” on him without his consent?

If you say “yes,” well, at least you’re consistent. But wrong.

And if something is only “therapy” when it agrees with your religous or social beliefs, it’s not “therapy,” it’s just attempted brainwashing … and the “patient” should be free to refuse it or walk out on it. Even if the “patient” is your child.

I’m glad SCOTUS got it right on the First Amendment implications of this particular case. I hope they eventually take a case that lets them reach, and correctly handle, the issue of minor vs. parental consent for medically unnecessary “therapies.”

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