While there are happily no new reports of arrests this week, I’m sorry to say there is one devastating story of a Ukrainian journalist who died while in Russian captivity.

Included in a recent exchange of bodies of victims on both sides of the Russia-Ukraine war were the remains of a young Ukrainian journalist, Viktoria Roshchyna, who had gone missing in August of 2023 during a reporting trip and had been held incommunicado for months. She is said to have died in or around September 2024, though her family were not notified by Russian authorities for another month.

When her body was finally returned to Ukraine in February of this year, forensic examination showed “numerous signs of torture and ill-treatment … including abrasions and hemorrhages on various parts of the body, a broken rib and possible traces of electric shock.” [Ivana Kottasova, Victoria Butenko and Daria Tarasova-Markina, CNN, April 30, 2025.]

Yuriy Belousov, head of the war crimes department of Ukraine’s Prosecutor General’s Office, said that the injuries were inflicted while Roshchyna was still alive. [Id.]

He added that her body had arrived labeled as “an unidentified male,” and it was only through repeated DNA analyses that her true identity was able to be determined. According to her colleagues at Ukrainska Pravda, she was returned with missing organs, including her brain, eyeballs, and parts of her trachea (windpipe), in an apparent attempt to disguise the cause of death. [Id.]

A colleague, journalist Evgeniya Motorevskaya, said about Viktoria:

“For her, there was nothing more important than journalism. Viktoria was always where the most important events for the country took place. And she would have continued to do this for many years, but the Russians killed her.” [Id.]

A young life, full of promise, snuffed out in the most horrendous way by the brutal regime of a man who cares nothing for humanity . . . but only for his own political gains.

Viktoria never made it onto our hostage list because we didn’t know about her until it was too late. Tragically, she is far from the only victim of Vladimir Putin’s mad killing spree.

*. *. *

And in continuing support of those hostages still confined to Russian prisons and penal colonies, we remember them once again:

The Azov 12
David Barnes
Ales Bialiatski (in Belarus)
Gordon Black
Andrei Chapiuk (in Belarus)
Antonina Favorskaya
Konstantin Gabov
Robert Gilman
Stephen James Hubbard
Sergey Karelin
Ihar Karney (in Belarus)
Vadim Kobzev
Darya Kozyreva
Artyom Kriger
Uladzimir Labkovich (in Belarus)
Michael Travis Leake
Aleksei Liptser
Ihar Losik (in Belarus)
Daniel Martindale
Farid Mehralizada (in Azerbaijan)
Nika Novak
Marfa Rabkova (in Belarus)
Igor Sergunin
Dmitry Shatresov
Robert Shonov
Eugene Spector
Valiantsin Stafanovic (in Belarus)
Siarhei Tsikhanouski (in Belarus)
Laurent Vinatier
Robert Romanov Woodland
Vladislav Yesypenko (in Crimea)
Yuras Zyankovich (in Belarus)

. . . and any others I may have missed.

Safe home, everyone . . . and soon.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
5/4/25

First it was King of the World:

Now it’s Pope:

What’s next . . . God Himself?

*. *. *

The fact that the AI-generated picture of Donald Trump, dressed in Papal vestments, was posted on official White House social media defies comprehension.

I am not Catholic; I am Jewish. And I am appalled beyond words.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
5/4/25

The other day, I spent ten minutes studying a picture of the British royal family’s second and third generations — William, Katherine, George, Charlotte and Louis (with an unidentified fourth child) — trying to determine whether they’re really that beautiful, or if the picture was the product of artificial intelligence. (Hint: Always look carefully at the hands.)

Well, there went ten minutes of my life I’ll never get back. But that’s nothing compared to the panic that might ensue if some idiot were to post a fake story — complete with AI “photos” — of, say, a mass shooting in a neighborhood near you, or a “War of the Worlds” alien invasion in Outer Mongolia.

And that started me thinking about the daily barrage of unreality to which we are all exposed as we go about the routine of checking our social media accounts and our email Inboxes and trying to sort the real news items from the fake, the legitimate advertisements from the come-ons, and — worst of all — the genuine public service announcements from the potential viruses . . . like the one I’ve been receiving daily for weeks, telling me that I’ll lose all my data if I don’t make an immediate online payment on my iCloud account — an account that is paid to Apple monthly by automatic withdrawal.

Most of us develop an instinct over time that allows us to detect and avoid the bad stuff. But in clearing out my email Junk box the other day, I was reminded of some of the more amusing attempts to gain access to my personal information. And I have to wonder how stupid these people must be in order to think that I, or anyone, would actually respond to:

— “Payment-Declined” — Telling me, without identifying themselves, that this is my “LAST REMINDER” (in all caps) that my payment method has expired and I need to update my payment information. But who are they? Do they think I don’t know when my credit cards have expired and been renewed? Seriously?

— And I really love the messages purporting to be from actual friends of mine . . . friends who have long since passed away. There’s one with pictures attached, that I would have to click on to open. I assume those would be photos of my deceased friend living her best life in Heaven, right?

— This is one of my favorites: “DOGE Alerts VDB” — teasing me with an opening line that says “DOGE GIVING $5,000 REFUNDS?” (Note the question mark — a dead give-away that this is not real.) But I’m supposed to believe that the pernicious organization that is slashing the federal budget to bits is now giving back money? Do people really buy into this crap?

— I’ve also seen ads purporting to be from Ukrainian women seeking companionship, presumably anywhere outside of Ukraine. That has to be illegal, doesn’t it?

— And all the ones that tell you you’ve won something, or start out with “Congratulations,” “Last chance to claim,” “You’ve been chosen,” etc. Get real, people . . . Surely you’ve lived long enough to know that no one is giving away anything of value to total strangers. No one. End of story.

Sadly, though, there must be thousands of people who fall for these hoaxes each day, and by the time they realize it’s a scam, they’ve already clicked on a link that gives some low-life access to their personal information.

*. *. *

Inevitably, this train of thought — learning to distinguish the real from the unreal — led me to the more existential question of how we humans, on this tiny planet floating around in the midst of an immeasurable vastness, can be sure that anything is really real?

In a world in which Artificial Intelligence has become commonplace, how do we know, for example, that the events of the past three months have actually happened as we think they have? Or are they, in fact, the creation of some Machiavellian 13-year-old, hunkered down in his basement with an iMAC and a lifetime supply of junk food, gleefully creating artificial people with names like Donald Trump, JD Vance, Elon Musk, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and Kim Jong Un?

Is that brilliant and twisted 13-year-old the one who is really in control, guiding his creations to take the most outrageous actions, making choices that no sane human being would ever make? And if so, when is he going to confess, un-create his monsters, and let us get back to our real lives, when everything was — if not perfect — at least manageable, and sometimes even joyful? Wouldn’t that be the best possible outcome of all?

Or is that, too, just a dream?

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
5/3/25

Even before taking office in January, Donald Trump had begun trying to force . . . sorry, negotiate . . . a peace treaty between Russia and Ukraine. He campaigned on a promise that he was the only person in the world who could succeed in doing just that . . . and that he could accomplish it within 24 hours of taking office.

Well, he’s had over 100 days, and he’s still trying to juggle Russia’s outrageous demands with one hand, and Ukraine’s refusal to simply lie down, and allow itself to be raped, with the other. And he’s finding it more difficult than he had ever imagined to keep his balls up in the air.

For three months, Trump has clearly exhibited a strong preference for Russian President Vladimir Putin, while denigrating Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at every opportunity. He has pressed Ukraine to give away 20% of its territory, and to forego any hope of ever joining NATO. And in return, he has tried to convince Zelensky that it would be a tremendous “concession” on Putin’s part merely to end the war he started — no withdrawal from occupied land, no restitution . . . nothing more.

But Putin isn’t satisfied with nearly everything; he wants the whole enchilada. And so he has stalled, and stalled, and stalled some more, while his murderous attacks continue killing and wounding Ukrainian civilians, and thousands of kidnapped Ukrainian children remain in his “re-education camps.” But he screams “terrorism” as he declares the killing of one of his officers in Moscow to be the work of Ukrainian intelligence.

Lately, though, Trump’s tone has moderated a bit; in fact, he has expressed impatience with Putin’s stalling, warning that he would pull out of negotiations if there were no appreciable progress . . . and soon. His vice-president, JD Vance, has said that while he was optimistic about securing a ceasefire, it would ultimately be up to Kyiv and Moscow:

“They’re the ones who have to take the final step. [It is] going to be up to the Russians and Ukrainians now that each side knows what the other’s terms for peace are. It’s going to be up to them to come to an agreement and stop this brutal, brutal conflict. It’s not going anywhere … It’s not going to end any time soon.” [RFE/RL, May 2, 2025.]

And on Thursday, Trump and Zelensky, through their respective representatives, finally signed a modified mineral rights agreement that was considerably more favorable to Ukraine than the original deal offered by Trump earlier this year. It still requires ratification by the Ukrainian Parliament, and there are a number of fine points that need to be ironed out. But it appears to be a major step forward, specifically setting forth U.S. “support for Ukraine’s security, prosperity, reconstruction, and integration into global economic frameworks, [and a] long-term strategic alignment” between Washington and Kyiv. [Id.]

Not surprisingly, Moscow is clearly unhappy at this turn of events. In a post on Telegram, Sergei Markov, a Kremlin-connected lawmaker, called it a “Big Deal,” saying it was bad for Moscow:

“The fact is that the Big Deal will shift the US position away from Russia and towards Zelenskyy.” [Id.]

But U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said it sent a clear message to Moscow:

“This agreement signals clearly to Russia that the Trump administration is committed to a peace process centered on a free, sovereign, and prosperous Ukraine over the long term.” [Id.]

*. *. *

So what does it all portend for the future? I’d be surprised if anyone would seriously try to second-guess either Putin, who remains steadfastly committed to his ever-increasing demands, or Trump, who is as mercurial as the weather . . . and who — even now, as I write these words — could very well be lying in bed, plotting an entirely new tactic.

But how long can he keep up the juggling act before it becomes painfully obvious, even to him, that he is simply not the showman he thinks he is?

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
5/3/25

(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