Iran Bombing

So we have bombed Iran and severely limited their ability to create a nuclear weapon. Now what?

Before beginning this post, I read a number of articles about the decision to execute the plan, about the evidence for and against the premise that Iran was "weeks away" from achieving the capability to create a nuclear bomb, and the possible ramifications of our intervention, militarily, at this time.

Like most Americans, those opinions were overwhelmingly in favor of the President's decisive action, while also expressing admiration for our military's impressive ability to execute such an elaborate plan without (apparently) the Iranians knowing what was imminent. There were even decoy planes!

And, while we know that Iran will respond in some way, perhaps by missile attacks on the various American bases in the area as was already done, or by strangling the flow of oil through the Straight of Hormuz, or simply by activating its proxies to engage in small, but deadly assaults on Americans, tourists, military personnel, business interests, etc, we hope that both sides are content with "appropriate" responses, as opposed to ones which escalate the situation.

Of course, how Americans and our president define "appropriate" on the part of Iran, and then by us should one of their efforts result in the loss of American life, is hardly predictable.

Unfortunately, that is a big problem, the idea that America, in general, and Trump in particular, have a say in how Iran reacts to being attacked. Certainly, if America was the victim of an unprovoked air raid on our infrastructure, we would not give a hoot how our enemies graded our response, yet we maintain the assumption that we have a right to evaluate Iran's response as appropriate or not.

This, of course, is nothing new. America has been arrogant in our relations with our friends and rivals for decades, and even more so since Trump's appearance on the political scene.

Still, again, just to be clear, President Trump accomplished something that every president since Reagan has wanted to do, but did not, and not because they were concerned about achieving the goal of hampering or destroying Iran's nuclear weapon goals, but because they were worried about what might have happened afterwards. 

Whether Trump calculated that Iran was at its weakest after the last week of missile strikes by Israel, as well as the dozens of assassinations of Hamas and Hezbollah leaders, in addition to the fall of the Assad government in Syria, which created the perfect opportunity to strike, or whether he believes that "strength through superior power" is the only mantra that a country which possesses the greatest military on the planet should follow, he didn't hesitate, nor did he "run it up the flagpole" for consent or advice by informing our allies, or the other side of the aisle (there is some evidence that a few GOP Congressmen were informed).

Or perhaps because his birthday bash was overshadowed by the five million or so No Kings" protests which occurred the same day, and so he approved the attack to win back the narrative. 

Whatever the reason, he acted strongly, with the certainty that he was right, no doubt.

Clearly a trait which Americans respect, and, to be honest, one which I wish more Democrats would emulate.

But was he right?

The premise for our military action is that Iran, should they develop a nuclear weapon, will immediately use it against the West, most likely Israel, but also, possibly, the Great Satan, America.

We have been told this for decades, so much so that it is a given among most people, those with the knowledge of Iranian thinking and the rest of us who hear it over and over and over again.

And why wouldn't we believe it when it is simple enough to google speeches by the various Iranian mullahs and leaders who call for the destruction of Israel and America, and easy enough to find videos of Iranians burning American flags while chanting death to America as they march in the streets.

Of course, we are also told that North Korea would use their nuclear weapons if provoked, as they are certainly no friend of the West. And, the country with the largest number of nuclear warheads, Russia, has often threatened the use of their arsenal if certain events occur. Plus, the always-at-each-other countries of India and Pakistan have nuclear capability, yet have not used them against each other, despite their constant bickering and aggression towards each other.

https://www.icanw.org/nuclear_arsenals

And, finally, we have the only country in history to have actually deployed a nuclear weapon on a civilian target, twice, the United States of America.

Would Iran actually use their weapon if they develop one? It is clearly an act which would result in their own destruction. Still, I am in no position to know for sure. Perhaps the end of the world would work for them as they may sincerely believe that something akin to the rapture would result in their salvation. But that is not dissimilar to some evangelicals who seem all to eager for the end times, some who actually believe that Trump is here to accomplish such an event.

The question then is, would the concept of MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, that has, allegedly, kept America and Russia from lobbing warheads at each others' cities, not be in effect for Iran? And if so, why not?

There is a Sting song, called "Russians" in which he hopes that deploying a nuclear weapon would be "such an ignorant thing to do, if the Russians love their children too". 

Do we not believe that Iranians love their children any less than the Russians, or Israelis, or those of us who live in America?

We just can't take that chance, is the most common response to such a query. Fortunately, we don't apply that same assumption to the leaders of other countries that fund terrorism around the world, North Korea and Russia to name two. If so, we might have already tested the MAD concept by now.

Additionally, did we actually "obliterate" their ability to create a nuclear weapon, as the president stated in his late night address? 

As of this post, there has not been any radioactivity detected in the areas around the sites which we bombed. Does that mean the enriched plutonium was moved in anticipation of the attack? If nothing else, after a week of air attacks by Israel, there is some sense to thinking that Iran might have moved the fruits of their efforts, along with the scientists who brought them those results. 

Or perhaps they have one, or more, other sites at which their nuclear program has been in development. After all, just because the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had been allowed to inspect the facilities at Natanz, Fordow and Isfahan, doesn't mean the Iranians (who we distrust, correct), don't have another site.

Also, I read a really interesting and enlightening article about the advance of concrete over the past 30 years, specifically in response to the creation of the kind of "bunker busting" bombs used in the recent attack. In a nutshell, as the ability of these bombs to penetrate and destroy underground facilities increased, so did the recipes for concrete to withstand such bombs. In a classic, tit for tat, after each advancement on one side of the equation there was a response to negate it on the other side.

Did Iran have the latest and greatest concrete in place to withstand our current iteration of these large and powerful bombs? If so, and despite the obvious destruction at the sites, it may not take as much time to bring those sites back online, if the actual hardware was not reached.

Regardless of whether the sites were obliterated, badly damaged, or mostly spared due to the advancements in concrete, there will be, must be, negotiations between Iran and the US. 

But to honest, why should either party believe the other, trust the other to negotiate faithfully. To me, that is the big hole in Trump's approach, to frankly, any subject. He expects fear to be the ultimate motivator, and while, I don't necessarily blame him as it has worked for him, most of his life, and certainly works for him in regards to taking over the GOP, there is a limit to how far such a strategy will take you. And, ultimately, a limit to what can be accomplished as, the very first reaction that most people have to being told no, as the parent of any two year old knows, is to do it anyway, to resist. 

So, while it is certainly debatable to believe that an atomic non-proliferation agreement with Iran would be adhered to by Iran, at least we knew of the three sites we bombed because of previous diplomacy.

Now that we have attacked them unilaterally, what chance is there that any future agreement can be reached, or followed if signed. And, if they are able to achieve the ability to create a nuclear weapon in six months or six years, will we have a means towards convincing them to abide by the MAD philosophy, or will they actually use their weapon to enact revenge for the past weeks attacks on their sovereignty. 

At that point, then, will, just bomb them again, be our only option? 

After all, the real purpose of having a nuclear weapon is deterrence, the threat that it would be used if provoked. Isn't that why we maintain thousands of nuclear warheads, to send the message that we can end anyone (and everyone, sadly) if we are pushed? 

What is really ironic is that America has not deployed any nuclear weapons since WW2, even though we were attacked on 9/11. Does that simple fact make our stores of these powerful means of mass destruction a paper tiger? Or, are we just smart enough to know that a nuclear war has no winners. (Although, to be honest, I have little faith that Trump believes this axiom.)   

Finally, I struggle with the idea that America has the right to tell Iran that it can't have a nuclear program, for energy or self defense. We certainly would not tolerate any country telling us what forms of energy to create, what weapons to store, what military capabilities to enhance, yet presume the right to dictate to Iran. 

Why? 

Should Iran develop a nuclear weapon, and use it on Israel, as everyone fears, the consequence would be incomprehensible. Perhaps lead to a nuclear war. Devastation all around, although that destruction would primarily be the result of the USA and Russia launching their warheads.

It would be up to the leaders of America and Russia to decide to take a beat, or reject the tenets of MAD.

Considering that not that long ago, Trump berated Zelensky in the Oval Office, accusing his actions as the potential for a World War would it be ironic, or just typical of an act inspired by power and pride and hatred, should last weekend's attack on Iran prove to be the catalyst to just such horror. 

We can only hope that all three sides, Israel, Iran and America choose the least obvious, most common response to being attacked and hated.

Can you say Love thy neighbor as thyself? 

 

 

 

The Final Reckoning, Perhaps

Nora and I went to see "The Final Reckoning" a couple of weeks ago. For those of you who have not been following the last few Mission Impossible movies, this is supposed to be the last in the series.

First, we enjoyed the movie, although I felt that it was not quite as good as the last two, "Fallout" and "Dead Reckoning".

If you are planning to see the movie, you may want to wait until doing so to read the rest of this post, as I will discuss the ending. Not that it isn't easy to guess the ending of any these movies, as Ethan Hunt always catches the bad guy and/or averts world catastrophe.

One of the reasons I didn't enjoy the movie as much as some of the previous efforts was that I thought there were some moments when the movie plodded along, especially the extended time spent in the submarine.

Also, while so many of the exploits of Ethan and his team seem fantastical, the plan in which Hunt is to be rescued by the rest of the team as he floats in the frigid water under the Arctic ice, a rescue which requires exact timing and loads of luck, seemed unrealistic, again, even for this series of movies. Also, the rescue itself was not really displayed on screen; he is floating, presumably lifeless, underwater one scene then is being given mouth to mouth on an ice floe the next scene.

I mentioned this movie in my last post, in relation to our changing relationship with technology, AI in this case. This highlights another hard-to-believe scenario as we are supposed to accept that the only way to defeat The Entity, as the evil AI technology is called, is to act in a completely unpredictable way as any logical approach, any rational plan, will have already been predicted by The Entity, and therefore been addressed, before it even happens.

There is a bit of uncertainty among Hunt's team, when they wonder if The Entity had allowed Hunt to figure out where the key to disabling it was located, so that it could take it from him thereby eliminating the only plausible way to defeat it, but Hunt is, if nothing, the always positive action hero who believes that by gaining access to the key and allowing the Entity to acquire it is exactly what needs to be done to win the day. 

If The Entity was a person, one might call that playing to its over confidence, or bravado, or pride that no one could possible outsmart it.

In some ways, that could be a nice moral, be careful of technology, or a person, who claims to always know the best path, to always be the smartest person in the room.

When Grace, one of Hunt's teammates, suggests that perhaps they should try to control The Entity, rather than destroy it, I was impressed by Ethan Hunt's response in which he asks her who could be trusted to control such extreme power. I was further impressed when, after she answers, you, he immediately dismisses the thought, hopefully, in recognition that such power should never rest in the hands of any one person. Again, nice lesson considering the rhetoric emanating from the White House.

Sadly though, after a plan that requires Grace to react in the "blink of an eye", about 100 milliseconds, The Entity is captured in a hand held holding devise created by the Luther character, who, unfortunately, dies in the movie before he can witness the success, or failure of the mission.

I say sadly, because the device is given to Ethan Hunt, despite his claim that he didn't want it, and contrary to what everyone in authority is told, that The Entity was destroyed.

Since this is Hollywood, I assume that last scene leaves the possibility of another Final Reckoning in the future.

As I mentioned above, the Luther character dies in the movie. But at the end, there is a message from him to Ethan that he had recorded before he died. It is presented as a message that he made specifically for Ethan, knowing that when it was played he would be dead. It is a message of hope, that he had no doubt that Ethan would prevail because, as sappy as is sounds, he is a good man. Someone who has a history of actions that, at times, created the possibility of large scale death, but which were done to save just one person, often his wife who appears on and off in the series, or one of his teammates.

I took it as the belief, by Luther, that precisely because Ethan would risk many lives to save just one, he always knew that Ethan would prevail. That too many people justified the sacrifice of one, or the few, to save the many, as opposed to fighting with all one's strength to save each and every person because once it is accepted that this person, or those people, can be left to die, it is a short step to playing god and picking and choosing without conscience.

Again, analogous to the current administration's rounding up of all illegal immigrants to catch the really bad ones. It doesn't matter how many innocent lives are ruined in the course of that plan, as long as some criminals are removed from our country. Guilty until proven innocent one would think is not very American, but since when does the current president care about honoring the foundations of our country that has made it great.

Anyway, The Final Reckoning is certainly worth seeing as there are a number of thought provoking lessons that one could discern from the story, despite portions of the plot bordering on the truly impossible. 

 

2001 Revisited

I watched 2001: A Space Odyssey again a few days ago, again. I did a post about this movie back in 2017 which I have provided a link to below.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2017/01/2001-reflection.html 

That post reflected on my perceived disappointment that those who were involved in that movie, the author of the book, Arthur C. Clarke, etc, but also all those who worked for NASA in the 1960's who were challenged by then President Kennedy to put a man on the moon, and did so, within the decade, must have felt when the actual year 2001 rolled around and the reality of our space age accomplishments were far less than what 2001, the movie, predicted.

I also commented on my personal disappointment that the cooperation between nations that was exhibited in the movie was no where near what we were experiencing in 2017. It was if we had forgotten the lessons of the two World Wars and were back on a path towards isolationism within certain countries and aggression by others via economic and military means.

This time, however, I was struck by the relationship between the astronauts in the movie and the computer, HAL, and how this dynamic has changed astronomically, in the last decades.

One of the lessons of 2001, was that when a computer with advanced logic and thinking skills is told to withhold information from the crew, it becomes paranoid, begins to suspect, in this case its human crew mates, as plotting against it through actions that endanger the mission. 

After a conversation between the two astronauts which occurs out of earshot of HAL, the computer kills the co-pilot during an EV, then turns off the life support machines of the three other crew members who have not been "awakened" yet. When asked why by the remaining human on board, HAL tells him that he was able to lip read that covert conversation, and that it was clear that the humans planned to disconnect him, an action that would clearly endanger their objectives. Remember, HAL has information that is not to be shared with the crew, so it is logical to the computer that the potential actions that the humans discussed were in direct conflict to the goals of the mission.

2001.. was released in 1969, over 55 years ago. While advanced computers with thinking skills were predicted at that time, we were no where near achieving such creations.

While everyone kind of assumed many blue collar jobs in the low wage industries were certainly on the chopping block, there are many who predict that AI, which is already being used to generate everything from college papers to automatic answers to Google queries, will also replace all kinds if white collar jobs in the not too distant future.

So, while our accomplishments in space as portrayed by 2001... are far from reality, the advancements in the science behind it, technology and computing, have produced a computer in everyone's hand (the cell phone), and a low level doctor on many wrists. 

My wife and I saw the last installment of the Mission Impossible movies a couple of weeks ago. (I plan to do my next post on that topic). Without taking anything from that post, the nemesis in this last movie is The Entity, a force which emerged in the previous Mission Impossible movies.

As in 2001.., the Terminator series, among others, the Final Reckoning portrays advanced AI abilities as a threat to humanity. Like Frankenstein's monster, we create a tool which is supposed to help us in some way, but we lose control over it and it becomes a threat.

I wonder if the current anti-science vein that has resulted in attacks on the various institutions that are science based, is tied, in part, to this fear. Certainly, vaccines that have been documented to have saved millions of lives in the last 100 years, are now being questioned, even condemned, as being unsafe, not just by those on the fringes of our society, but by some of the people in charge of our national health and disease fighting organizations.

It is such a severe contrast to the time of my childhood when the future was filled with wonderful inventions that would make life easier, provide more leisure time, remove humans from doing extremely dangerous jobs, perhaps even conquer some of our most deadly diseases. This dynamic has now been replaced with, at best, skepticism that those developing those life saving instruments have our overall interests at heart, at worst, that such advancements and technology are either just another way to make vast amounts of money or actually harmful, meant to reduce the populations of people not acceptable.

Advanced eugenics, if you like.

The ironic thing about eugenics is that most people would be in favor of, even rejoice at a science based breakthrough (such as the work with CRISPR) that would enable doctors to remove the faulty DNA which causes diseases such as Alzheimers, Parkinsons, MS, etc, yet shrink in horror when someone mentions eugenics due to its associations with the Nazis attempts to eliminate specific types of people. 

I posted about eugenics in 2015, link below.  

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2015/07/eugenics.html 

For me, it all seems to come back to the idea that we need to remember that it is possible to have two thoughts in one's head at the same time. Respect for those in science who can think outside the box and develop tools that enable the rest of us to live better, while also acknowledging that, like any tool, that invention or advancement can be used improperly if not regulated or monitored.

In 2001.. the meaning of the monolith, that black rectangular thing that appears in the movie among the apes, and then appears again on the moon after humanity has established a presence there, seems to indicate that some extraterrestrial force exists that is monitoring, even directing, our progress on Earth.

I would prefer to think that humanity might be able to figure it all out on our own, without outside assistance, whether that aid comes from space or from heaven as it just seems too easy to excuse our mistakes, our inhumanity towards each other as out of our control. 

One more link, if I may. Created in late 2023, it discusses original sin, which is one explanation for why all of humanity is flawed, and in need of salvation. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/11/original-sin.html 

 

Protests, and Civil Disobedience

A few days ago, my wife and I decided to attend the local "No Kings" protest. Unrelated, however, my son was in town last night to stay over as he had agreed to help his friend move from our old neighborhood in Perkasie to the York, Pa area.

I mention this visit because JW and I had an hour long discussion last night about what it would take to change America from our current slide towards an authoritarian government. 

What was different about that late-night conversation, was that JW was more hopeful, citing the protests in Los Angeles as a sign that people were starting to wake up, while I was less so, a stark switch from most of our previous talks where he was less positive that there would be a strong enough push back from the electorate.

While we both remain frustrated by our two main political party's active restriction of other viable political parties, their dependence on monies from the super rich which then leads to policies that benefit them, and their lack of putting the everyday American first when governing, we do disagree in our perception of the democratic party as I still believe that the democratic party is more than just the lesser of two evils when deciding how to vote (not starkly less, but less).

He specifically blames the Dems for losing the 2024 election, which I partly agree with, as I have stated in previous posts, that our message was not clear enough, and that Harris did not separate herself enough from Biden's problems. But more so, I believe that the 2024 loss was more about the selfishness of the American electorate which is now OK with open cruelty to people that are different, immigrants, the LGBTQ+ community, etc, as long as their dozen eggs and gallon of gas cost $2.

It seems clear to me that hate is the best motivator for winning an election, while love/compassion is a distant second. That as long as we have a sickness in our collective souls, leaders like Trump will continue to win elections.

Which brings us to the protest we attended yesterday.

The good news is that it was well attended, despite the rainy weather. Certainly hundreds of people turned out, the majority with signs indicating their reluctance to allow a king to run our government. It was heartwarming, not just to see all the people there, but to witness the reaction by many of those who drove past the protest which lined both sides of the street. Lots of honking (for the Honk if you support Democracy signs), lost of waving, lots of smiles, lots of people using their phones to document the event.

While I certainly don't know what percentage of those who drove past did not know that this was a No Kings protest, and more specifically, that the local protest would be at that particular location, it seemed to me that many people were surprised to see all of us standing in the rain chanting "Dump Trump" and "No More Kings". And that a majority, while not overwhelming majority, supported our efforts.

Again, it made me feel a bit more hopeful. But is it enough?

Obviously, Trump will continue to assail the Constitution, will continue to deport illegal immigrants for no other reason that they entered America under the radar, with little regard to getting rid of the worse of the worse, as, I believe, many people who held their nose and voted for him, thought he would do.

It won't matter that hundreds of rallies were held in cities all around the country, attended by far more people than will be at his military fest/birthday bash. Trump will continue to demand that ICE deport a few thousand people, yes, they are people, by the way, from our country.

He will continue to spit in the face of Lady Liberty, will continue to equate racism with patriotism, and will continue to be supported by millions of Americans who think they are immune to the cruelty because they are white, or male, or wear a red hat.

So again, is today's protests enough?

Or do we need to take the next step beyond protests, and begin a program of civil disobedience?

I asked someone I had never met before who was standing next to me at the protest, when were we going to block the intersection and cause a traffic jam? When were we going to cause some inconvenience to our fellow Americans? 

She looked at me without answering, so I gave her a break and said that I thought that, while I was certainly encouraged by the size of the protest, I didn't believe it would make a difference.

To give her credit, she said that given that Trump's electoral victory was marked by close races in all seven swing states, and that even though he won them all, he won by a couple hundred thousand votes, in total, and that in four of those states the Democratic Senator prevailed, perhaps it will only take exposure to people in their own neighborhood to swing them back.

I am glad she is hopeful, but I don't share her optimism.

I think we need real action.

#OWPAT

Old White People Against Trump

There is no hesitancy among Trump and his acolytes when it comes to displaying cruelty against black and brown people. We saw that in action with the handcuffing of Senator Padilla a few days ago.

But perhaps if more old white people placed themselves between ICE agents and people of their community whose only crime is to have come here illegally, two, five, even ten years ago, the optics might galvanize the resistance, and stiffen the spines of our politicians, on both sides of the aisle, to just say no, as Nancy Reagan preached.

No to deporting hard working members of communities all across our country, no to the use of extortion against universities and law firms, no firing thousands of federal workers, no to gutting our environmental laws, no to entrusting our health care to a man with admitted brain worm disease who has spent the last few decades spreading misinformation about vaccines, no to aligning our country with war criminals such as Putin and Netanyahu.

Even better, when will the Christian community, Catholics, Protestants, Methodists, etc, begin to hear from their pastors and ministers that belief in Christ's message compels them to get out into the street and surround and protect those among us who are being persecuted?

Economics matter, certainly the result of the election last November in which the memory of inflation paid a large part proves that, so perhaps when grocery prices start to rise because the people who do the really hard jobs in our meat packing plants and on our farms are no longer there because they have been deported or are afraid to go to work, Americans might actually connect the dots ans realize that we need immigrants, just as immigrants have always played a significant part in the creation of our great country.

But just as important, optics matter. It is easy to dismiss the protests when those in the streets are the wrong color, or just young (and presumed to be) stupid, but when old white people are being arrested, or beaten, or otherwise subjected to police brutality, perhaps America might begin to realize that the lie that anyone who is protesting is being paid, is just another big lie from a man who has no moral compass, and very little grasp on any reality that differs from his perception that he is always right.

Even more so, when the real Christian community, and I know you are out there, is inspired by pastors and ministers who apply the teachings of Christ to the events of the day and encourage their flocks to reread the Sermon on the Mount, and apply the Beatitudes to the atrocities that are being perpetrated every day in our country, when Christians are being arrested for interfering in the rounding up of good people from their communities, even more Americans will wake up to the evil they are supporting.

Is it time to cross that line to civil disobedience? Is it possible to turn our country from its path towards authoritarianism without it? 

More importantly, do we possess the fortitude, the guts, to be inconvenienced as we fight against a president and his cult, as they trash the perception of America as the "shining city on the hill?"

I have posted a few times with the label First Amendment. Here is one from early 2021.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2021/01/freedom-of-speech.html 

Also, speaking of the Sermon on the Mount, here is my take on those lessons, An Atheist for Christ

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2024/04/an-atheist-for-christ.html 

  

Messy Divorces

Before I begin this post, I wanted to provide a link to one I wrote in 2017, just as the first Trump presidency began. As I have noted, I have been updating my old posts to reflect a larger font, using a method driven by posts which are accessed by my readers. If a post has been accessed that is still in the smaller font, I enlarge it, reading it again in the process. Someone accessed this one in the last few days.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2017/02/hidden-figures-not-so-hidden-prejudice.html

In this post, I warn the electorate to be careful about aligning itself with someone with such obvious incongruities embedded in his message. Someone who is a product of very slack immigration policies, yet who preaches strict immigration policies while casting aspersions on today's immigrants. And, incomprehensibly, to me at least, finds a willing audience in a population which itself is comprised of a large percentage of first and second generation Americans.

Now, here we are, eight years later, about to embark on another four years of open hostility and cruelty to immigrants, but with the added horror that it will also be directed at American citizens who dare to disagree with our leader's opinions, and worst inclinations.

As the protests against Trump's authoritarian edicts and actions ramp up, there will be more occurrences like what is happening in Los Angeles with the National Guard called to quell "disturbances". From there, it is only a matter of time before American soldiers are authorized to fire into crowds of American citizens. 

Don't say you weren't warned.

---

Divorce is a difficult process for those involved, especially if there are children included. While the divorce rate has been steadily declining in America for the past 15-20 years, it is still true that a majority of marriages that end in divorce include the disposition of children; who gets custody, who pays alimony, etc.

Currently, the news outlets are ablaze with commentary and speculation concerning a very high profile couple who are airing their differences in public; Donald Trump and Elon Musk.

Yes, strictly speaking, their current estrangement does not quality as a divorce as they are not married. But one can certainly state unequivocally, that they have been tied at the hip, in lockstep, since last summer when Musk began spending millions of dollars to help Trump win the presidency.

I don't consider it hyperbole to state that no couple's actions in recent history, have effected so many Americans, so quickly and deeply, than the actions of this power couple in the last year in general, and the last four months in particular.

And, while the general fallout of their divorce will not play out in court, at least not right away, the ramifications of their initial "separation"is already being felt across the spectrum of American life.

In a regular divorce, one of the biggest areas of debate is who will get custody of the kids. In this case, there are already clear signs that Trump has the big advantage here as most MAGA politicians and pundits are making it clear that they support the president over the billionaire. Not surprising, as they are far more invested in Trump, have far more to lose if they get on his wrong side, but still curious considering how enthralled so many of the MAGA crowd was with Musk's program to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in the government.

I mean they gave him carte blanche to access the personal records of every American citizen with nary a negative response. Don't any of them now worry that some of the data he has mined without restraint might reveal some damaging tidbits? Financial records can be very revealing when in the wrong hands.

Another big concern in a divorce is money. Often, the bigger breadwinner must provide alimony to the person, usually the woman, who may have sacrificed her own career to raise the children, or now has primary custody of the kids.

Musk is already threatening to divulge secrets to continue to get his government sweetheart deals and contracts, while Trump is alluding to "the consequences" of Musk changing his allegiance to another political party. Usually the lawyers of the battling couple will advise their clients to stay out of the limelight so as to not provide fodder which might give an advantage to the other side. 

In this case, each of the "adults" has a social media outlet which they control and dominate, so that advice is long moot. 

One might say that since both men are super rich, it won't matter much who comes out on top, financially speaking. But it could certainly matter to the kids, and not just those who are all in on Trump's TACO tariff presidency. 

All of us could experience economic blow back from their divorce. Perhaps enough Republicans are emboldened to vote against the "big, beautiful bill" that passed in the House and is being amended in the Senate. 

Among other things, lots of other things, in fact, many not actually read or understood by those who voted for it, there are provisions for increasing the national debt limit which will become even more critical as we head into the summer, changes to Medicare and Medicaid, and limits on the SALT deduction.

Or, should Trump alter his retribution tour to include everything Musk, thousand of jobs will be effected should those contracts and subsidies disappear overnight.

Funny how all those who disavowed accusations that Trump would use the government's resources to go after his enemies, are either silent at this threat, or applauding it.

Of course, it is entirely possible that some form of reconciliation will occur. When there are two such overt egomaniacs involved, anything is possible as no matter what actually occurs, each will spin a reduction in animosity as a win for them.

Sadly however, there are just as many divorces that are not amicable. Even sadder, it is Americans, regardless of political preference, who will suffer the most.

Finally, I can't help but wonder what might be really going on here. While such a public feud might warm the hearts of democrats, I can't shake the thought that this is just theater, a distraction. 

I have mostly jettisoned the moniker of evil genius when describing Trump, but still recognize that he is a master at drawing our attention away from his real intentions by providing low hanging fruit to grouse about. 

The question is, are they both so stubborn and egotistical that they would actually continue such a public dispute knowing each might suffer, at least temporarily, or is it a concerted effort by one or both to give us a nice show while they work behind the scenes on something even more nefarious, and lucrative, for them.

I often discuss wealth accumulation, even when related to winning the lottery, as a goal which I eschew. Not only don't I believe that money provides happiness, I think that for people like Musk and Trump, it makes them miserable, perhaps even lonely. 

Unfortunately, it is also addictive, and like any addiction, cannot be overcome unless one admits its existence.

In the case of Musk and Trump, it will not come as a surprise to me if it is disclosed at some point in the near future that either together, or separately, their quarrel was all window dressing while they worked to feed their shared addiction of gaining wealth and power. 

If it is truly two narcissists battling over who has the biggest di$$, I won't be surprised, but if it turns out that they have the last laugh over the rest of us, having fallen for the faux fall out, I won't be any more surprised, just disappointed that we were fooled, again.