(Yes, I said I was taking the day off — and I did, for the most part. But this has made me angry enough that I just had to jump in and share it. So I’m back, a few hours early.)

The first time I read about it, I assumed — wrongly — that it was a joke. I should have recalled the old advice, “Never assume anything.”

Because yesterday, I saw yet another article about potential plans for an over-the-top military parade on Donald Trump’s 79th birthday on June 14th: an extravaganza, presumably up Pennsylvania Avenue in our nation’s capital, calling for “more than 6600 soldiers, at least 150 vehicles, 50 helicopters, seven bands and possibly a couple [of] thousand civilians.” [Associated Press, May 1, 2025.]

Apparently, this year marks the 250th birthday of the U.S. Army, and a festival on the National Mall in June has been in the planning stages for some time. But the Trumph Triumphal (my name for it) is something that has been newly included in the Army’s most recent plans, dated April 29th and 30th.

According to the information available to the AP, no price estimate for this additional feature was given; but the type of parade described — one that, for some not-so-mysterious reason, brings to mind the sort of military exhibitions common in Moscow’s Red Square — would involve “the movement of military vehicles, equipment, aircraft and troops from across the country to Washington and the need to feed and house thousands of service members.” [Id.]

And that doesn’t take into account the likely damage to Pennsylvania Avenue from the weight of those tanks and trucks!

The plans foresee “bringing in soldiers from at least 11 corps and divisions nationwide. Those could include a Stryker battalion with two companies of Stryker vehicles, a tank battalion and two companies of tanks, an infantry battalion with Bradley vehicles, Paladin artillery vehicles, Howitzers and infantry vehicles.” [Id.]

The official word from the Army is that no final decisions have been made. But one Army spokesman, Colonel Dave Butler, said they’re very excited about the event:

“We want to make it into an event that the entire nation can celebrate with us. We want Americans to know their Army and their soldiers. A parade might become part of that, and we think that will be an excellent addition to what we already have planned.” [Id.]

What do I think about the whole thing? Well, since you asked . . .

I think a tribute to the U.S. Army is a wonderful idea, and the National Mall is the perfect spot for it: a huge area, open to the public (not on a military base), the site of many a memorable event in the past. Our men and women in uniform deserve recognition, and such an event might serve to bring people together in a moment of patriotic appreciation of what the United States really has stood for over the past 250 years.

But the addition of such a parade — specifically in tribute to the birthday of an individual who has done nothing but divide the country, destroy the morale of its people, and reduce it to a laughingstock in the eyes of the rest of the world — is an abomination.

Not to mention a waste of tens of millions of dollars . . . money stolen from the life-affirming programs Trump has decimated in his first 100 days in office. There is simply no way that can be justified. None.

So, if this parade plan actually does move forward and become a reality, I say . . .

DON’T GO. Boycott the parade.

Don’t stay home; do, by all means, attend the festivities on the Mall, and pay homage to the true heroes of this nation. Just stay off of the parade route.

Sometimes, absence is the loudest form of protest.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
5/2/25

Just posting this to keep my streak going. But I won’t be sharing it on Facebook, because it really isn’t saying anything . . . except that I’m tired, and giving myself a Friday break.

Back tomorrow.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
5/2/25

Today was my regularly scheduled medical checkup . . . every six months, whether I need it or not. I’m at that age.

So I dutifully dragged myself out of bed earlier than usual, picked out a nice top with sleeves that roll up above the elbow so the phlebotomist (a.k.a. “Vampire”) could get to my veins, and even put on a bit of makeup in order not to frighten them into thinking I was at death’s door.

When I arrived, about 15 minutes early, they were ready for me . . . off to a very good start. And it was all smooth sailing from there, except for one thing: When I left, I didn’t feel as though I’d been to the doctor at all.

First, a nurse (or P.A., not sure which) took my vital signs and asked a few questions, as usual. Then the doctor — a lovely young woman, knowledgeable and pleasant — came in, listened to my heart and lungs, and sat down for a chat. We discussed the usual things, and I voiced two complaints: a recurring pain in my left side, and my constant tiredness.

The tiredness is an ongoing issue, as I tend to be a bit anemic, so the lab results will tell us what, if anything, we need to do about that. Not a problem.

But here’s where I began wondering what the hell they’re teaching med students these days? Because she never offered to feel the site of the pain in my side for any anomalies.

And I don’t know whether it’s just here in the southland where I’ve been living for the past five years, or whether it’s consistent throughout the U.S.; but I can’t help wondering what has happened to the days when you had to disrobe for an exam, lie down on a table, and allow yourself to be groped by someone you hardly knew. Not that I miss that feeling of starring in an episode of “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” — but I do miss feeling reassured that, if there were something wrong, the doctor would most likely be able to detect it.

I used to have a doctor — my general practitioner — who was like a member of the family. And he could diagnose anything, only referring you to a specialist if you needed surgery, or for the most serious conditions. Today, if you have a cold, you need an otolaryngologist. Upset tummy? See a gastroenterologist. Arthritis? Talk to an orthopedist. And for a pain in the ass, there’s everyone’s favorite: the proctologist.

And so on. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn there’s a specialty for treating hangnails!

The medical profession doesn’t seem to understand that, as people reach an age when they develop the greatest number of physical problems, they’re also the least able to run from doctor to doctor to doctor. It’s exhausting.

I miss one-stop shopping.

Maybe that’s what gerontologists are for.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
5/1/25

Not since King John of England signed the Magna Carta in the year 1215 A.D. had there been such a document. But from the time the Constitution of the United States was ratified in 1788, it has stood as the bulwark of democracy and freedom for this country, and as a shining example to the rest of the world of how — despite inevitable differences and imperfections — people can live together as a peaceable and prosperous nation.

But that is not to say that the framers of the Constitution were infallible. They did foresee the possibility of a future tyrant taking control of the government; and so they provided for three separate branches of government, and carefully set out the responsibilities of each in order to prevent one branch from usurping the powers of either of the other two. But they did not specifically state that this separation was immutable, thus leaving room for flexibility . . . and more than two centuries (thus far) of debate.

And they made two additional mistakes in this regard. They gave a good deal of unspecified power to the President, leading to further debate as to whether the holder of that office is legally permitted to take virtually any action, so long as it is not specifically prohibited by the Constitution. Since a single document could never conceivably predict the character of every future president, that unfortunately left the door open to potential disaster should the American people somehow choose to elect an autocrat to lead the country.

And third, they designated the Vice President of the United States as “President of the Senate.” While having no vote of his own in normal circumstances, he has the power, and the responsibility, to cast the deciding vote in the event of a tie, thus preventing a stalemate. The original intent was honorable; but naming a member of the Executive Branch to that role clearly presents a case in which the Executive is able, at times, to cross that line of separation and exercise control over the Legislative Branch . . . a circumstance destined eventually to lead to trouble.

Which is exactly what has just happened.

Yesterday, the Senate voted on a resolution to block Donald Trump’s onerous global tariffs by revoking his emergency order. Half of the Senate — in a bipartisan move — realized the likely disastrous worldwide effect such tariffs are having, and will continue to have, if Trump is allowed to willy-nilly continue imposing, revoking, reimposing, increasing, suspending, decreasing, and reinvoking tariffs as it suits him from one day to the next.

But since we have two senators from each state, we have a legislative body with an even number of votes (100) and a potential tie at any given time. And despite the heroic effort, the rational half on this occasion was unable to persuade just one more Senator to see the light. There was a tie vote; JD Vance happily stepped in to wield the deciding vote; and . . .

Well, to say it was a foregone conclusion would be a gross understatement. The White House overtook Congress’ mandate, and confirmed its own executive order.

*. *. *

It would take a Constitutional amendment to designate a different individual to act as tie-breaker for the Senate. And since a Constitutional amendment requires, not just a majority, but a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress, that appears unlikely to happen under the current administration. But it might be something to consider for the future.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
5/1/25

NOTE: The foregoing is solely the opinion of the writer, and not a scholarly treatise. Feel free to disagree, to add polite comments, or to correct any factual errors (though hopefully there aren’t any of those). And thanks for reading to the end.

No, I haven’t gone mad — not in the sense of having lost my sanity. But “mad,” as in inexpressibly angry? Oh, indeed, yes! Haven’t we all, to some extent, these past 100 days?

I was reminded by History.com that yesterday was the 51st anniversary of then-President Nixon’s release of the Watergate tapes to the Congressional committee investigating the break-in of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters some two years earlier.

Not all of you were around back then, though I’m sure you’re at least somewhat familiar with the history of the Watergate scandal. But I lived through those turbulent times, and I have always hoped and prayed that this country would never again have to experience anything like it.

Each day felt as though you had popped through Alice’s looking glass and found yourself in the most bizarre version of her psychedelic nightmare . . . day after day, month after month.

Without trying to regurgitate the already heavily-documented history of that era, let me just say that — instead of Alice’s White Rabbit, the Cheshire Cat, the hookah-smoking Caterpillar with his magic mushrooms, the Mad Hatter, and the Queen constantly screaming “Off with their heads” — Watergate had Richard M. Nixon, H.R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, John Dean, John Mitchell, E. Howard Hunt, G. Gordon Liddy, the ever-popular Martha Mitchell . . . and an organization ironically known by its acronym: CREEP (the Committee for the Re-election of the President).

And, of course, the notorious 18.5 minutes of erased tapes.

Numerous analogies have been drawn between the illegal acts undertaken by Nixon and his people and those of Donald Trump’s band of merry men (and women). But there are vast differences . . . differences that make this time around much, much worse . . . two of which were circumstances that enabled our country to finally resolve the issues surrounding Watergate and to begin healing from the trauma of those years.

Those conditions do not exist today; and their absence may well be our undoing.

First was the fact that both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives consisted in 1964 of Democratic majorities, while the President — Richard Nixon — was a Republican. He did not own the Congress. He did not own the Supreme Court. Those estimable bodies were comprised of members who had the interests of the country at heart; who remembered that they had sworn to uphold the Constitution; and who had the cojones to stand up to a president who sometimes forgot his own oath. When the Watergate break-in, and the subsequent fallout from that failed adventure, became known, Congress launched an appropriate investigation and followed through without fear of retribution or having to make concessions.

And second, Richard Nixon — though certainly possessed of an outsized ego and an instinct for self-preservation — was not delusional. Though he thought he could get away with it, in the end he did not believe he was a god, above the law, impervious to punishment. When he realized he was about to be impeached, he did the smart — actually, the honorable — thing: he resigned.

And that is the part of the Watergate episode — the ending — that I would like to see repeated now. What we are missing is a government with guts: a legislature that truly represents the will of the people who elected them; a judiciary, up to and including the U.S. Supreme Court, that will consistently rule in accordance with the law of the land, and enforce those rulings through proper action by a Department of Justice that understands and reveres the concept of “justice.”

But in order to do this, they need to come together. And as long as they continue to be guided and controlled by partisanship and fear of retribution, that won’t happen.

What will happen, though, is that many of those who have failed us will be standing for election again next year. And if things don’t improve, but continue to deteriorate under this administration, those elections will accomplish the very thing they have been trying to avoid: the loss of their jobs and their political careers.

That is, if we survive that long. And to ensure our survival, the government we elected needs to take action now, and not wait for another election cycle.

We need to take our country back . . . even if it means another Watergate investigation.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
4/30/25

On Thursday of last week, Jeffrey Goldberg — the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic who was accidentally included in one of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s classified Signal conference calls concerning attack plans against the Houthis in Yemen — met with Donald Trump in the Oval Office. With Goldberg were The Atlantic journalists Ashley Parker and Michael Scherer, about whom I commented yesterday with regard to their earlier interview of Trump.

When Goldberg asked Trump if SignalGate actually happened as reported, the reply was, “Yeah, it was real . . . you got it out very much to the public . . . it became a very big story.” [Sharon Knolle, The Wrap, April 28, 2025.]

Trump — the man who represents the United States of America on the world stage — was then asked what he had taken away from that security breach. And this was his nearly unintelligible response:

“I think we learned: Maybe don’t use Signal, OK? If you want to know the truth. I would frankly tell these people not to use Signal, although it’s been used by a lot of people. But, whatever it is, whoever has it, whoever owns it, I wouldn’t want to use it.” [Id.]

“Maybe don’t use it”? “Whatever it is”?

Right.

And he gave the citizens of the U.S. further assurance that everything is under control and we can all sleep well tonight by adding that he has no plans to fire Hegseth . . . this despite the two major security breaches that have made headlines around the world and potentially endangered the lives of our military personnel . . . saying simply, “Yeah, he’s safe.”

Well, I don’t know about you; but I’m sure I’ll sleep better knowing that my country is in the hands of a person who doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about . . . and doesn’t care.

Sleep? Yeah . . . sure.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
4/30/25

And if you don’t believe me, just ask this guy:

In late March, two journalists from The Atlantic — Ashley Parker and Michael Scherer — through sheer perseverance and a stroke of good luck, scored an interview with Donald Trump.

Their report on that conversation is detailed, fascinating . . . and chilling. From my perspective, it is well worth your time to read it in full, as I could not begin to do it justice here.

But one paragraph — near the end of the interview and before the authors segue into a discussion of how Trump’s second term even came to be — leapt out at me. I just want to quote that part, and let you judge for yourselves what to make of it.

The interviewers had asked Trump if his second term felt different from his first. And this was his response:

“The first time, I had two things to do — run the country and survive; I had all these crooked guys. And the second time, I run the country and the world.” [Ashley Parker and Michael Scherer, The Atlantic, April 28, 2025.]

I have nothing to add . . .

Brendochka
4/29/25

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
4/29/25

I don’t need Snopes to tell me that all but one of the following statements are untrue. See if you can find the single truth amongst all the lies . . . or if you need serious help.

*. *. *

#1: The moon is made of cheese.

*. *. *

#2: Ukraine started the war.

*. *. *

#3: The stork delivers babies.

*. *. *

#4: Vladimir Putin sincerely wants to end the war.

*. *. *

#5: Kissing a frog will give you warts.

*. *. *

#6: Bobby Kennedy, Jr. has a functioning brain.

*. *. *

#7: The Earth is round, not flat.

*. *. *

#8: Higher tariffs will lead to lower taxes.

*. *. *

#9: Black cats are bad luck.

*. *. *

#10: Elon Musk will establish the first colony on Mars.

*. *. *

#11: Sitting on cold pavement will cause hemorrhoids.

*. *. *

#12: Donald Trump will make America great again.

*. *. *

So how did you do? My guess is that the vast majority of you got it right, while those wearing the MAGA hats are still trying to figure out how to pronounce “hemorrhoids.” (By the way, MAGA people, #7 is the correct answer.)

Just a little fun for Tuesday . . .

Brendochka
4/29/25

Vladimir Putin’s unilateral Easter ceasefire turned out to be — not that anyone was surprised — a big, fat red herring: a distraction from his continuing refusal to negotiate seriously any meaningful peace terms with Ukraine.

So now, to “prove” his sincerity, he is offering, not just a single day, but a three-day temporary ceasefire . . . this time to allow him to enjoy Russia’s annual Victory Day celebrations on May 8th: the 80th anniversary of what is called in his country “the Soviet Union’s victory over Nazi Germany.”

The statement issued today by the Kremlin on its official Telegram channel said:

“Based on humanitarian considerations, the Russian side declares a truce during the 80th anniversary of the Victory Day. For this period, all hostilities are stopped.” [David Brennan, GMA, April 28, 2025.]

Well, isn’t that special! But wait . . . there’s more:

“Russia believes that the Ukrainian side should follow this example. In the event of violations of the truce by the Ukrainian side, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation will give an adequate and effective response.” [Id.]

Aha! The escape clause.

Are we really supposed to take this at face value? After all of the lies, the broken promises, the continued bombardments (even on Easter Sunday, during the so-called “ceasefire”) . . . is there any reason to believe that this time will be different?

And why just three days? If Putin is truly interested in “humanitarian considerations,” why not offer the 30 days suggested by the Ukrainian side? As Ukraine’s President Zelensky has said,

“ . . . [there is] no reason to wait [until May 8]. Russia has consistently rejected everything and continues to manipulate the world, trying to deceive the United States. Now, yet again, another attempt at manipulation: for some reason everyone is supposed to wait until May 8 before ceasing fire — just to provide Putin with silence for his parade.” [Id.]

Even the Trump administration isn’t satisfied with this latest hollow gesture from Putin. On Sunday, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said:

“While President Trump welcomes Vladimir Putin’s willingness to pause the conflict, the president [Trump] has been very clear he wants a permanent ceasefire and to bring this conflict to a peaceful resolution.” [Darya Tarasova, Daria Tarasova-Markina, Edward Upright and Sana Noor Haq, CNN, April 28, 2025.]

But since April 19th, when Putin ordered the Easter ceasefire to take place the following day, at least 62 civilians have been killed and another 290 injured in Ukraine by Russian attacks. [Id.]

*. *. *

So what do we make of this latest exchange? Once again, I find that no one (least of all myself) can say it better than my favorite old reliable, William Shakespeare:

“It is a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”
– Shakespeare, Macbeth, Act V, Scene 5

Such is life . . . still today, five centuries later.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
4/28/25