The Middle East: The Houthis Enter the Conversation

How many different ways can we write an item that boils down to "Donald Trump is screwing up the Iran War, badly?" Quite a few, it would seem. Today, our approach will be to run down five different bad signs, each of them presenting themselves in the last (roughly) 24 hours:

1. The Houthis: The Houthis are an Iranian-backed Shia militia based mostly in Yemen. And, presumably at the instigation of the Iranian government, they just fired upon two Saudi tankers in the Red Sea, while threatening to close that waterway to all shipping traffic. Here is a map of the Middle East:
   
   
   
   As you can see, threats against the Red Sea would create two chokepoints for oil, one on either side of the Arabian peninsula, making it somewhat more difficult to get oil out of Saudi Arabia and through the Suez Canal, and making it nearly impossible to get oil out of Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, etc.
   
   And now, take a look at the average price of a barrel of Brent crude over the last month:
   
   The trendline is consistently upward, which probably suggests that oil buyers have lost any optimism that this war will end soon. Meanwhile, after the Houthis lashed out, the price spiked to almost $110/barrel before closing at a little over $100/barrel yesterday. This probably suggests that, with two key shipping lanes threatened, and with Russian oil supplies under attack by Ukraine, the oil buyers are really freaking out. The only other time when oil has been over $100/barrel in the last decade is during the pandemic.
   
   Naturally, if the price stays that high, it will reverberate throughout the U.S. and global economies. For example, the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield rose to 4.71% yesterday; it had been right at 4% before the Iran War. This, of course, means that it's getting much more expensive for the federal government to borrow money, which means either bigger deficits (and higher inflation) or cuts to government programs (and unhappy voters).
   
   Trump isn't exactly Amartya Sen when it comes to macroeconomics, but he certainly knows enough to know these are bad things for him and for his in-power political party. And so, the President responded angrily to the Houthis' maneuvering. First, he got on his paper-tigery social media platform to announce how very disappointed he is in the Houthis. Undoubtedly, they are devastated. Then, he followed with this threat:

   Please let this statement serve to represent, until further notice, that from this point forth, any and all damages done to Ships, Cargo, or anything related thereto, will be paid for by Iranian Money that the United States has in its possession, and controls. These damages may be very substantial but, nevertheless, this is the fair and equitable thing to do. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP

   Here, Trump is doing what he so often does—like, say, with the money gained from seizing Venezuelan assets—and spending it in several different places at the same time. Recall that this is the same money that Trump's negotiators are trying to use to bring an end to the Iran War, by returning it to the Iranians.
   
   
2. Funding: Meanwhile, for nearly 2 weeks straight, since the not-really-a-ceasefire failed completely, the U.S. has resumed trying to bomb the Iranians into submission. Here is where the American stockpile of missiles stood before the newest wave of attacks:
   
   

   Missile Type	Cost Per Unit	Pre-War Supply	Used on Iran	Time for New Deliveries
   Tomahawk	$2.6M	3,100	1,000+	47
   JASSM	$2.6M	4,400	1,100+	48
   PrSM	$1.6M	90	40-70	46
   SM-3	$28.7M	410	130-250	64
   SM-6	$5.3M	1,160	190-370	53
   THAAD	$15.5M	360	190-290	53
   Patriot	$3.9M	2,330	1,060-1,430	42

   
   In other words, even before the latest wave of bombing, the U.S. had burned through an enormous chunk of its inventory of fancy missiles. It's going to cost a lot of money and take a long time to replenish the stockpile. In some cases, like say with the THAAD missiles, the stockpile is getting close to being exhausted. That means that not only will that option not be available for use against Iran, it also won't be available to give/sell to allies, like Ukraine.
   
   This said, it's not the dwindling missile supply that's the big story of the last 24 hours (or so), it's the money needed to replace them (and to pay for the other aspects of the war). Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, following his boss's lead, told Congress back in April that the war was won, and that was that. Yesterday, he asked for $67 billion in additional funding, so that the U.S. can win the war that was supposedly already won.
   
   
3. Congress: With the war, and the costs of fighting, expanding by the day, the Iran War has "quagmire" (or, if you prefer, "sinkhole") written all over it. That said, Republicans in Congress love the military, and so they might be open to writing the check that the administration wants written. However, things have gotten complicated, in part due to Trump's unwillingness to accept reality.
   
   To start, the war is unpopular with Americans, and with some/many members of Congress. Yesterday, the House voted on yet another (basically symbolic) resolution to end hostilities in Iran. It passed that chamber, with the Democrats and a handful of Republicans voting in favor. Then, the Senate rejected the measure 47-49, with Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) crossing the aisle in one direction, Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) crossing the aisle in the other, and Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Rand Paul (R-KY), who previously supported such resolutions, voting "present."
   
   Shortly thereafter, the House passed a $95 billion reconciliation bill that would give the Department of Defense the money Hegseth wants. That means that at least some House Republicans voted "yes" on an anti-war resolution, where their vote will have no meaningful impact (since the resolution won't be signed into law by Trump), but then also voted "yes" to fund the war, where their vote certainly could have a meaningful impact (since Trump WILL sign a funding bill). This is rather inconsistent, and certainly suggests that voting "yes" on the anti-war resolution was just so they'd have something to point to for the benefit of anti-war folks back home.
   
   After the House passed the reconciliation bill, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) sent his members home for an extended break. Part of the point of this is to put pressure on the Senate—effectively, "take it or leave it." The political problem here is that, taking marching orders from Trump, the House's bill also contains the SAVE Act. That is not going to survive a Byrd Bath, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) has made clear that he will not ignore Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough.
   
   Leading House Republicans, most vocally House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA), aided by Trump, spent yesterday afternoon trying to put the screws to Thune. The President, for example, said that he's "trying to be nice" with Thune, but that his patience is "running out." The first problem here is that neither Scalise nor Trump have any particular power over Thune. The second problem is that when Thune says he doesn't have the votes, he means it. He's not being entirely explicit about this, for obvious reasons, but "I won't fire the Parliamentarian" isn't ONLY about maintaining a tool that is useful to the minority party, it's also about keeping some of his most vulnerable members (e.g., Collins) from taking a vote they do not want to take on the SAVE Act. It is also possible, though this is not entirely clear, that there aren't 50 Senate Republicans (or, 49 plus Fetterman) who are willing to dump another bunch of money on the DOD.
   
   
4. The Saudis: We wrote yesterday about the deal that the administration signed with Saudi Arabia, which would put that nation on the glide path toward developing nuclear weapons. The deal is clearly a product, at least in part, of all the money the Saudis have lavished on Trump and his family, particularly First Son-in-Law Jared Kushner. It's probably also an example of how geopolitics works in the mind of the President. If he recognizes that keeping Shia Iran from becoming nuclear is a lost cause, then allowing Sunni Saudi Arabia to become nuclear is a check on the Iranians, presumably.
   
   The problem here is that while Trump can afford to trust the Saudis (after all, even if they become a nuclear power, it won't be until after he's left office), other nations in the region cannot take that risk. That includes, most obviously, Israel. But it also includes Turkey, Egypt and Iraq, among others. If the Kingdom of Saud is indeed able to move toward being a nuclear power, it is guaranteed to start an arms race that probably doubles the number of nuclear-capable nations in the world, and that makes the Middle East, and the world, a less safe place.
   
   It is possible that someone, maybe Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, got in Trump's ear and made him aware of this. In any event, the President tossed a giant wrench into the situation yesterday when he announced that the deal with the Saudis is off unless they join the Abraham Accords and formally recognize the nation of Israel. The White House claimed that this was always part of the deal, and that Secretary of Energy Chris Wright should have known that, and should not have made any announcements until the Saudis granted that concession. This is either very dishonest (if it's a lie), or it's a sign of gross incompetence and mismanagement (if it's true).
   
   To the extent that the U.S. has an ally in this Iran conflict (besides Israel), it's Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have allowed their nation to be used as a base of operations, and they have gotten involved in the bombing of Iran. However, if their ships are being attacked, and if they cannot trust the Trump administration to honor its commitments, then that is certainly not going to make the Saudis a more supportive ally. It could make them less so, however.
   
   
5. No Endgame: Finally, the fact that Trump has no real concept of what's going on here, and no real sense of an endgame, has been clear for much, much more than 24 hours. However, a speech he gave in Georgia yesterday affords some insight into how off-base his thinking is. He actually said a bunch of nutty stuff, but the most instructive part, we think, was this:

   You combine us and Venezuela. We have about 62% of the world's oil market. So we don't need straits. We don't need anything. We don't need the Hormoon Street. But we do it because we have to do it, because we cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon.

   As we have written many times, the oil market is global. If he is telling himself that U.S. oil plus captured Venezuelan oil (which most U.S. refineries cannot process) effectively insulates the United States from the effects of the Iran mess, allowing the U.S. to just keep pounding away without concern for how much time has passed, he is absolutely delusional.
   
   And it's not just Trump's speech that served as a reminder that the administration really has no clear vision for this war. After Hegseth asked the Senate for a boatload of money, several Republican Senators told reporters that nobody in the administration seems to have a clear sense of what the "off ramp" is here—how the U.S. will achieve what it's trying to achieve, and how the U.S. will know when it's time to exit the war.

So, another day's worth of setbacks for the White House. That said, yesterday was unusually bad, even by the standards of this disaster of a war. The conclusion remains the same as it has for months: It's time for the U.S. to cut its losses. However, as the staff at The Bulwark pointed out yesterday, the only thing more politically unpopular than starting a war is losing a war. Trump now has the Iranian tiger by the ears: He wishes he didn't have it, but he doesn't dare let it go.

In truth, though, maybe the first part of that last sentence is not true. If you believe that a big part of the goal here was to create profit opportunities for the president, or else that he serendipitously discovered those opportunities once the war was underway, then maybe he's actually pretty happy to have the tiger by the ears. One indication that he's quite OK with what's happening right now is this: Despite being stuck in a war that has no obvious endgame, the administration is currently kicking around the idea of starting ANOTHER war, this time in the African nation of Mali.

The ostensible reason for a possible attack on Mali is to undermine the al-Qaeda affiliate JNIM. However, one cannot help but notice that Mali is a far easier target than Iran, and that "success" there might obscure some of the failures taking place in the Middle East. It would be quite a thing if the administration commenced a war to deflect attention from the war that was commenced, in part, to deflect attention from the Epstein files. That's like Wag the Dog squared. We also have no doubt, at this point, that either Trump or his inner circle would find a way to make some money from a war in Mali. It's a leading producer of gold, so hoarding gold would seem to be an obvious choice. (Z)

P.S.: Yesterday, we wrote that Trump might well have bought Westinghouse stock before announcing the plan to help Saudi Arabia become a nuclear power. It turns out that the Westinghouse that makes nuclear reactors is not the one that's publicly traded. Our error. That said, this does not change the fact that if a president is willing to exploit opportunities to profit from their office, as this president clearly is, then there are almost unlimited opportunties for them to do so.

Oh, and it's not impossible that some traders made the same error we did, and bid the stock up, thinking they were buying the correct Westinghouse. This COULD be a story of both corruption AND incompetence.

The Economy: This Is What a Frantic Tariff Policy Looks Like

Think, for a moment, about the half-dozen or so "signature" issues of the two Trump administrations. That list would probably be something like: making America great again, America First, cutting taxes (on the rich, at least), hostility to immigrants and immigration, increasing presidential power, and tariffs. And of those, the one that has been a political football for far and away the longest time is tariffs. Americans have been arguing about them for at least 200 years. That pretty clearly implies that tariffs serve some very useful purposes (or they wouldn't have been in use, as a policy tool, for so long) but also that they come with some serious downsides (or they wouldn't have been bitterly opposed, by at least part of the populace, in every era of American history).

Earlier this week, as we wrote, Donald Trump announced brand-new 50% tariffs on a whole bunch of (alleged) Canadian imports. He probably did this as a negotiating tactic, because he wants to (once again) re-negotiate the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. It would seem the previous negotiators (who just so happen to be Trump and some of his underlings) did a poor job, in his view.

The 50% tariffs, by law, won't kick in for another 4 weeks, and even then, only if Trump doesn't chicken out (yet again). Inasmuch as they came out of nowhere, with not the slightest hint prior to the announcement, it was likely that Trump made the decision impetuously, and then promulgated it in an overly rapid and careless fashion. Now that the dust has had a couple of days to settle, it turns out that supposition was well-founded. As it turns out, of the roughly 500 products on the "50% tariffs on Canada" list that the White House announced earlier this week, 85 of them aren't actually made in Canada. Oops. At least the administration did not slap any tariffs on Canadian penguins. Possibly that is because they don't have penguins in Canada, as they are a Southern Hemisphere species (Canada's Penguin Islands are named, inaccurately, after the great auks that used to live there).

Meanwhile, readers will recall that, back in February, the Supreme Court struck down the tariffs that Trump had imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (which was the lion's share of the Trump tariffs). What readers might not recall is that, a few days later, Trump imposed a new round of (mostly 10%) tariffs, under the terms of Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.

The problem with Section 122, from the administration's perspective, is that the tariffs can only last for 150 days. And when does that 150 days expire? Why, today, of course. And knowing that, it's not exactly a surprise that the administration announced a new round of 10%-12.5% tariffs, imposed on 60 different countries, under authority granted by a different section of the Trade Act of 1974, namely Section 301.

In contrast to the wacky 50% Canadian tariffs (which rely on a reading of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act of 1930 that has not been tested in court), the authority Trump is using here has withstood a couple of court challenges. Further, Section 301 does not have a built-in expiry, the way that Section 122 does. And rates of 10%-12.5% are not crazypants, the way that 50% is. So, if you squint, yesterday's tariffs could just look like a mature, well-reasoned trade policy.

However, here is the problem with Section 301. Its terms require that the tariffs be used to prevent the import of goods made with forced labor. It seems improbable that many of the countries targeted by the new tariffs, among them Canada and the U.K., are relying on forced labor (certainly no more than the U.S., which still has both sharecropping and, for prisoners, slavery). It also seems improbable that this administration particularly cares about the plight of workers worldwide, or that it has done the due diligence necessary to justify the conclusions it has supposedly reached. Add on top of that the fact that the White House was searching desperately for a way to save the tariffs first imposed in February, and the weight of the evidence is that the White House thinks it's found a loophole, and is exploiting that loophole for all it's worth.

We would guess that someone (probably importers) will file suit against the new tariffs since, unlike the ones from February, these duties could last for a long time. Meanwhile, Trump is already getting an earful from allies around the world, who are tired of being jerked around, and an even bigger (louder?) earful from Republican pooh-bahs, who understand that tariffs are just a tax on American consumers, and who say (correctly) that the tariffs run counter to the "affordability" message the GOP is trying to sell going into the midterms. One of these three prongs of attack (lawsuits, diplomatic pressure, political pressure from Republicans) will probably kill the new tariffs sooner or later, but we have no guess as to which of the three prongs it will be. (Z)

TrumpWatch 2025: "Air Force One" Is the Story That Just Keeps on Giving

We put "Air Force One" in quotes because, of course, we don't mean the real Air Force One. We mean Qatar Force One, the jumbo jet that the Qataris gifted to Donald Trump the United States, purely out of the kindness of their hearts, and for no other reason whatsoever. Conveniently, the plane will be transferred to the Donald Trump Presidential Library on the last day of Trump's presidential administration, such that no other president will ever use it.

To start with, we think it is beyond dispute that Trump rushed the new plane into service before it was appropriate to do so. He might have done so because he likes shiny, new toys, and he doesn't have the impulse control to wait 2+ years. Or, he might have done so in order to undermine the stories about how it would take years for the plane to be ready, and that it would pretty much only be used after his presidency, with John and Jane Q. Taxpayer paying hundreds of millions or billions of dollars to spruce up his private plaything. Actually, it is probably both of these things.

If the President had just used the plane domestically, perhaps this would not have come to light (or at least it would not have come to light so quickly). But he just HAD to fly it to Turkey for the G7, which meant coming very close to Iranian airspace. And then, he could not fly it home, at risk of it being shot down due to its lack of proper security features. Pretty much anyone could have put 2+2 together here, but it was The New York Times that did so with authority, backed by insider information from sources within the Secret Service.

Trump was reportedly humiliated by this news. Perhaps because he thought it made him look cowardly that he would not fly on the less safe plane. Or perhaps because it suggested he was being played by Israel, since it was their intel that led to the plane switch. Maybe both. Whatever was going on, the prudent course of action was to take the "L" and let the story die down. But that is not how Trump, who continues to demonstrate that he's never heard of the Streisand effect, rolls.

Consequently, in a manner reminiscent of the sharpie-hurricane map fiasco, Trump and his underlings flailed around, trying to "fix" the situation. First up was a claim that Trump only used the old Air Force One to get home because Qatar Force One was scheduled to go on a tour of U.S. military bases in Europe. When absolutely nobody bought that ridiculous tale, the White House shifted gears, and insisted that Qatar Force One was fully renovated and the Times was lying. The ever-pliant Department of Justice followed that with subpoenas aimed at getting the Times to reveal its sources. This is a maneuver that pretty much never works, in part because most in most reporter-source communications the reporter is covered by the First Amendment. And in part because no matter what the law might say, most reporters' lips are zipped, since they have a sense of ethics and also since they don't want to communicate to their current and future sources that they (the reporter) cannot be trusted.

A few days after that, while the White House was at war with the Times, Trump decreed/bragged that Qatar Force One will be out of service again, so its security features can be "maxed out." Trump either does not realize, or does not care about, the implications of his words, but this makes crystal clear that his previous claims about the renovations being complete were baldfaced lies. He also said that the "maxing out" would take a month. Anyone who believes that should let us know what they're smoking. And if there is any doubt he's fudging the truth, Trump also announced that Qatar Force One would only do domestic duty from here on out. Why would that limitation be necessary if the plane is just as safe as the original Air Force One?

And finally, the news from yesterday that may represent the final defeat in this little drama. The Times, as we have noted a couple of times, was trying to get the subpoenas quashed. There was a hearing yesterday on the matter in the courtroom of Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Arun Subramanian. The Judge advised the government's lawyers that the subpoenas were clearly improper, and should be withdrawn, or else they would indeed be quashed. He also casually observed that if this were a civil proceeding, as opposed to a criminal one, he would consider sanctioning the government's attorneys for professional misconduct. Trump's DOJ stooges got the message, and "voluntarily" withdrew the subpoenas. "Voluntarily" is how it's officially recorded in the court proceedings, so they saved face a little, we suppose.

Perhaps we have finally reached the end of this little tragicomedy, and Trump will realize that the less attention that he draws to his new toy, the better. But, truth be told, we doubt it. (Z)

Political Bytes, Sports Edition: We Would Bet Number 42 Is Rolling in His Grave

This is yet another Friday post that is going to run to something like 10,000 words, and is going to be published late. Sigh. It's really hard to keep up with all the news. We're WAY behind on political bytes, so today we're going to start trying to catch up. And we have so very many stories in the hopper that we're able to do an all-sports edition:

Take Me Out to the Ballgame, Part I: Champion basketball teams pretty much all take a pass on their Trump presidential visits. With champion hockey and football teams, it can go both ways. But champion baseball teams pretty much always show up, because they all play at least one series a season in both Baltimore and in D.C., and because a fairly large number of baseball players are Trumpers. The current reigning champions, the Los Angeles Dodgers, made their visit yesterday. Someone played the song "I Love L.A." by Randy Newman. An understandable, but lazy, choice since Trump most certainly does not love L.A., and since the very politically liberal Newman undoubtedly does not like his song being associated with Trump. Meanwhile, getting in on the recent trend of giving Trump awards he did not earn, the Dodgers presented the President with a World Series ring. It was apparently a replica, but since he apparently can't tell fake gold from the genuine item, he probably won't figure it out.

Our Take: Is this going to be part of the rigamarole going forward; that champion teams have to bring a ring to give to the president? And, if so, will this "tradition" continue for the next president, or will it only be in effect while Trump is in office?

---

Take Me Out to the Ballgame, Part II: During the same speech in Georgia where he made his comments about Venezuelan oil (see above), Trump waded into a culture-wars battle that predates even his first term by many years. He brought Atlanta Braves manager Brian Snitker up on stage, and then demanded that the team bring back the "Tomahawk Chop." This is when fans swing their right arms in unison like they are swinging/throwing tomahawks, while also performing what they imagine a Native American war chant sounds like. Note that while the Chop is unpopular in some quarters given that it's rooted in stereotypes, and is mothballed in certain circumstances (such as when Native American pitcher Ryan Helsey, of the Baltimore Orioles, is on the mound), it hasn't actually been done away with. If Trump were actually a sports fan, he would know that.

Our Take: The headline of this item refers to these first two items. The most famous #42 of them all is former Dodger Jackie Robinson. He lived in the era where Black voters were transitioning from being all Republicans to being mostly Democrats, and you will sometimes see people making hay out of the fact that he was once a registered member of the GOP. However, he had clearly moved into the Democratic column by the end of his life, and was a supporter of both John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. Beyond that, he would absolutely hate it that his team gave a championship ring (even a fake one) to someone who thinks the Tomahawk Chop is a good idea.

---

The World Cup, One More Time: For better or worse, Donald Trump's fingerprints were all over the World Cup, throughout its run. This continued to the very end; after Spain's victory, Trump was on stage to present the winners with their trophy. This was appropriate, and consistent with recent custom. What was not appropriate was that, consistent with his habit of stealing glory that is not his own, Trump lingered on stage, to the point that FIFA president Gianni Infantino had to not-so-gently lead/pull Trump away from the center of the scrum.

Here are two pictures of the Spanish team celebrating, taken within a couple of seconds of each other. The one on the left was posted to FIFA's social media accounts. The one on the right was posted to the White House's social media accounts:

Did you notice the difference?

Our Take: It's really something when you've even become an embarrassment to Gianni Infantino and FIFA. You'd think the inaugural winner of the FIFA Peace Prize would get a little more respect, right?

---

OK, The World Cup, Two More Times: There's one other lingering, World Cup-adjacent story we thought we would pass along, because it's just so absurd, and yet so on-point for this president. Bryson DeChambeau is the whiniest professional golfer in the world right now, and is also a well known Trumper. During the British Open last weekend, he hit his ball into some high grass. He then walked all over the grass behind his ball, and also took some practice swings. There is disagreement over whether he did this deliberately, or merely thoughtlessly, but either way he turned it into a much easier shot. And the penalty for improving your lie like that, whether intentional or not, is a 2-stroke penalty. When DeChambeau was informed of the penalty, he pitched a tantrum, threatened to drop out of the tournament, and warned he would get his buddy Trump on the phone to force the tournament directors to cancel the penalty. DeChambeau did not actually drop out, and apparently did not follow through on his threat to involve Trump.

Our Take: Trump might be able to get a penalty assessed at the Masters, held in Augusta, GA, overturned. But probably not one assessed at the British Open.

---

The "Worst Analogy of the Year" Award Is Already Locked Up: This is something we've been meaning to mention, and now's a pretty good time, but it's a little tricky, so bear with us.

Caitlin Clark is, at the moment, the most famous women's basketball player in the world. She is also straight and white in a league where the majority of the players are Black and/or lesbian. The other players are sometimes extra rough with Clark, while Clark also has a well-deserved reputation for flopping. Though it's not necessarily by design, stars like her are incentivized to flop, because stars are more likely to get calls than non-stars. And guards, which Clark is, are also incentivized to flop, because it's more plausible that a smaller player would be knocked over by a larger player (say a forward or a center) than vice-versa.

For reasons related to racism, homophobia, and a misguided sense of chivalry, many MAGA types have taken ownership of Clark, and concluded she needs them to protect her. This despite the fact that she's never revealed her political leanings (though there's some evidence to suggest she's left-leaning), and that she's perfectly capable of taking care of herself, thank you very much. Anyhow, for these reasons, she's definitely got her own chapter in the culture wars playbook.

And that brings us to the actual news, which is a reminder that folks on the left are definitely capable of MAGA-level nuttiness. USA Today columnist Nancy Armour, who is apparently a different kind of white savior, published a piece yesterday under the headline "Caitlin Clark's flopping isn't just annoying—it's becoming dangerous." Armour's argument is that when Clark flops, it makes people angry at her Black opponents, and causes them to say racist things on eX-Twitter. This is not entirely incorrect, for what it's worth. But then, Armour continues by asserting that the eX-Twitter abuse is Clark's fault, since she could bring an end to it if she'd stop flopping. This is dubious, to say the least. And then, Armour goes in for the coup de grâce, and decrees that Clark really ought to know better, since she just played in the WNBA All Star game in Chicago, the same city Emmett Till was from.

Our Take: So, being the target of boorish language on Twitter is like being lynched? And in her flopping, Clark is really no different from a murderous white supremacist? Ok, then, Nancy.

We will definitely have a more regular Political Bytes next week. (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: The Devil's Own Crop

You might think the headline refers to marijuana, but that's actually the devil's lettuce. The Devil's Own Crop refers to an incident many centuries ago when a wealthy landowner tried to under-pay his day laborers, and then thought his crops caught on fire that night, and then found the next morning that they had been scythed properly, and with great precision. He concluded—perhaps rightly, perhaps not—that it was the work of Satan. This tale, which was well-covered in the periodicals of the day, is considered the inspiration for the "crop circle" phenomenon, although those tend to be attributed to aliens rather than Satan.

We gave two hints for last week's theme. The first, in brief, was that the only thing we really had to work with for one headline (though one we did not end up using) was "#22." The second, when the first proved to be not nearly enough, was: "we'll tell you that among the phrases we might have used, but didn't, are 'A Falling Star,' 'Your Breath' and 'of the Day.'"

And here is the solution, courtesy of reader A.D. in Gaithersburg, MD:

Each headline contains a word or words that mean something when prefaced with the word "catch":

• The Speech: Trump Announces "Discovery" and Release of "Election Integrity" Documents — Catch and Release
• The Debate: Giving 'em Hell, Maine Style — Catch Hell
• Legal Bytes: Trump Decides to Fire U.S. Attorney after 1 Hour on the Job — Catch Fire
• I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Wrestling with Wesley vs. Westley — Catch Wrestling (an English wrestling style)
• This Week in Schadenfreude: $3 Million, Up in Smoke? — Catch up
• This Week in Freudenfreude: On with the Wind — Catch on

Saturday's hint gave it away for me (Catch A Falling Star, Catch Your Breath, Catch of the Day).

Friday's hint was meant to refer to "Catch-22." And today's headline has "Crop," a catch crop is one planted in between growing seasons to replenish the land and keep the topsoil in place.

Here are the first 60 readers to get it right:

J.N. in Zionsville, IN R.S. in Landing, NJ S.K. in Ardmore, PA G.K. in Blue Island, IL M.W. in Altea, Spain D.L. in Springfield, IL T.K. in Half Moon Bay, St. Kitts P.R. in Kirksville, MO S.B. in Palm Harbor, FL R.E. in Birmingham, AL J.S. in Huntington Station, NY R.S. in Landing, NJ M.L. in West Hartford, CT E.S. in Cincinnati, OH A.F. in Minneapolis, MN M.S. in Canton, NY J.T. in Philadelphia, PA M.K. in Long Branch, NJ K.R. in Austin, TX S.K. in Henderson, NV A.T. in Bloomington, IN G.W. in Avon, CT A.D. in Gaithersburg D.H. in Portland, OR P.A. in Redwood City, CA J.H. in Lake Forest, CA E.S. in Providence, RI M.C. in Falls Church, VA S.F. in Pemberton Borough, NJ K.J. in Toronto, ON, Canada

H.B. in Santiago, Chile M.B. in Albany, NY L.B. in Veldhoven, the Netherlands M.M. in Dunellen, NJ T.B. in Detroit, MI D.B. in Mountain View, CA M.G. in Stow, MA P.H. in Ft. Lauderdale, FL M.K. in Seattle, WA R.R. in Chewelah, WA M.T. in Wheat Ridge, CO J.E. in Whidbey Island, WA D.D. in Bucks County, PA M.H. in Ottawa, ON, Canada K.H. in Albuquerque, NM D.M. in Oakland, CA M.B. in Denver, CO T.B. in Los Angeles, CA R.E. in Chicago, IL U.G. in Springfield, IL M.M. in Dallas, TX J.K. in Boston, MA K.K. in Miami, FL D.Z. in Miami, FL R.A.B. in Portland, OR M.B. in Springfield, OR C.B. in London, England, UK P.M. in Paris, France J.J. in New York City, NY C.W. in Atlantic Beach, FL

We gave credit for some responses that weren't what we expected, but were: (1) creative and (2) correct as alternate answers.

The 60th correct response was received at 7:55 p.m. PT on Saturday.

For this week's theme, it relies on one word in some headlines, multiple words in others, and it's in the category Movies. For a hint, we'll say that, after last week worked out so poorly, we have a bad feeling about this.

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line July 24 Headlines. (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: Nolan's Heroes Fight the Trojan War AND the Culture Wars

It would not be summer without right-wing culture warriors soiling themselves over at least one of the blockbuster films of the season. It happened last year with Sinners, it happened in 2024 with Wicked, it happened in 2023 with Barbie, it happened in 2022 with Avatar: The Way of Water and... well, you get the point. The current film that is in the right-wing crosshairs, and has been since well before it was released, is The Odyssey.

The culture warriors' gripes with the newest from director Christopher Nolan largely boil down to three things, in this order:

1. Several of the characters are played by non-white actors. Most notably, and causing far and away the most discontent, Helen of Troy and her twin sister are played by Lupita Nyong'o. Nyong'o is Kenyan and Mexican, so that's two sh**hole countries for the price of one.
   
   
2. Nolan cast trans actor Elliot Page in a major role, as Sinon. Right-wingers who know the original work (and not too many of them do) are annoyed not only by the trans casting, but by the fact that the movie Sinon is much more noble than the epic poem Sinon.
   
   
3. The entire movie is a critique of the sort of masculinity and rah-rah approach to war that is embodied by people like Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. "The main struggle for Nolan and his producer wife is that they can't make the ancient Greeks too heroic, masculine, iconic because that would uphold the Euro-supremacist roots of all Western Civilization," wrote one Twitterer, "so you cast a woke manlet as the King." Note, in particular, the gratuitous reference to Nolan's producing-partner wife, Emma Thomas, implying that he makes the films he makes because he's been emasculated by her.

Interestingly, Donald Trump has not—as far as we can discover—waded into this particular fight. That could be a reminder that he has a pretty good nose for these things, and will sometimes avoid those fights that look like a loser. The absence of the President means that the "general" for this particular culture wars battle has been Elon Musk, who has been using his vanity project social media platform to crap on the film for many months. The South African is particularly upset about the presence of a trans actor (recall, it is Musk's anger at having a trans child that is reportedly responsible for remaking him into a right-wing reactionary).

Inasmuch as ex-Twitter has substantially become a right-wing bubble for many users, and one where those same users get constant exposure to Musk's heavily prioritized tweets, the right-wing Twittersphere was absolutely convinced that The Odyssey was going to bomb. At this point, let us list every feature film Nolan has directed this century, along with that film's adjusted gross:

• Oppenheimer (2023): $1,073,234,902
• Tenet (2020): $473,016,245
• Dunkirk (2017): $719,198,602
• Interstellar (2014): $964,130,364
• The Dark Knight Rises (2012): $1,583,613,011
• Inception (2010): $1,272,923,187
• The Dark Knight (2008): $1,562,503,392
• The Prestige (2006): $182,316,737
• Batman Begins (2005): $640,806,952
• Insomnia (2002): $211,831,322

So, of the ten films he's done since the start of the 21st century, only three have failed to break half a billion dollars in box office revenue. One of those was released during the pandemic, the other two were somewhat artsy films released 2+ decades ago. And Nolan is now well into the "tentpole" phase of his career, wherein his studio partners lavish money on his production budgets ($250 million for The Odyssey) AND on promoting his films (reportedly another $150 million).

The upshot is that you'd have to be nuts to bet against The Odyssey. And yet, apparently that is what a lot of the Muskovites did. Using Kalshi and other platforms, they placed bets that the film would either underperform its predicted gross during the first weekend, or that it would end up short of $1 billion in total worldwide gross. As to the former, it was projected to take in $250 million during the opening weekend, and it actually took in $387.6 million. As to the latter, the film is at 95% with critics and 97% with viewers on Rotten Tomatoes, is just about to cross over the $500 billion mark worldwide, is sold out well into August at nearly every IMAX theater in the U.S., and is well ahead of the pace of the $1 billion-grossing Oppenheimer. Add it up, and the weekend bets against The Odyssey were losers, while the overall box office bets against the films should become so by mid-August, if not sooner.

In view of this, the wisest course of action for the image-obsessed Musk would seem to be to stand down, and move on to the next culture wars fight. But, like his buddy Trump, Mr. Trillionaire just can't let things go. So. he has now made this promise:

Before this year ends, Grok Imagine will make a full-length movie of The Odyssey that is historically accurate and true to the art of Homer.

Because, of course, there's nothing worse than a historically inaccurate movie based on a story that includes a cyclops, a witch that turns soldiers into pigs, several sentient sea monsters, and regular visits from the goddess Athena.

In view of the fact that Grok Imagine is AI, we are not sure why it would take until the end of the year to crank out the movie Musk envisions. Does it require substantial human intervention to make the project happen? Or some enormous amount of computing time? We just don't know. Maybe Musk will lose interest, and won't follow through on his threat. Really, what he and his followers should do is follow the advice of actor Colman Domingo, who is guest-hosting Jimmy Kimmel's show this week: "If you want to see a film with a cast of all white people who are cursed by the gods, the Melania movie is currently streaming." (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: A Witness to History, in a Small Way

This is a nice little story. Back when he was president, Barack Obama got an average of 40,000 letters a day. He would have his staff pick 10 per day for him to answer personally, and would spend time each day taking care of that task. Among the many letters he got, and responded to, was one from a 7-year-old named Emily Smith, who wrote to the then-president to tell him that her mother, who had supported him, had recently died of cancer. Obama responded with this handwritten note:

It's a little hard to read, because that's a screen capture from video, but it says:

Emily, Thanks for the wonderful letter. My mom died of cancer too, so I know how you feel. I'm sure your mom and mine are both in heaven, and are both proud of you. I am too! Dream big dreams, Barack Obama.

That's not bad, given that he was cranking out ten of these a day.

As chance would have it, Emily Smith's original letter was chosen as part of an exhibit at the newly unveiled Obama presidential library. And Obama did a TV hit with the Today show to talk about the library. As part of the Obama appearance, the Today staff tracked down the now-24-year-old Smith, and asked her to record a video message. You can see that part of the interview here here:

It's only 90 seconds, but for those who don't care to watch, Smith says that Obama's letter helped inspire her to pursue a career in nursing, and that is how she is employed today. And Obama was visibly touched by her response.

We trust that the relevance of this story to modern-day politics is clear, and that we do not need to spell it out.

Have a good weekend, all! (Z)

---

Previous report         Next report

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.
• Guidelines for questions (Saturdays) and letters (Sundays

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger