Melania mystifies, distracts from Donald?

While struggling to make sense of government (including legislative) efforts to address the economic crisis brought on by our utter dependence on imported stuff, from petroleum products to essential foodstuff, and while keeping track as best I can of what is really going on with Trump and Netanyahu and the on-again off-again savage war vs. Iran and Gaza and Lebanon, here comes Melania Trump in a suprise press conference denying allegations of any sexual relationship with either the “disgraceful” Epstein or Maxwell, and even calling for Congress to give a hearing to victims of Mr. Epstein’s crimes. This, a few days after Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the Epstein Files should not be part of anything going forward.” It is said that Trump knew nothing about it and Fox News and the rest of media are baffled: Why now? And then again, why not now. Something’s coming down, malamang?

Melania Trump’s surprise Epstein statement prompts bafflement
The Guardian

Melania Trump’s surprise statement denying she had any relationship with Jeffrey Epstein sparked confusion about why she had chosen to speak out, and whether Donald Trump knew that the first lady was planning to draw attention to a subject he has called for the public to move on from.

Even normally well-sourced correspondents for rightwing outlets were at a loss to explain why Melania Trump felt the need to issue the seemingly out-of-the-blue statement about her relationship with Epstein, the late sex offender who socialized with her husband for nearly two decades, or his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell.

The Fox News senior White House correspondent Jacqui Heinrich said that she and her team were baffled.

“We’ve been trying to understand why she made it today, if there was something that she is reacting to that might already be in the news that has upset her, or if there’s a story that’s yet to come out, that’s about to drop that she wanted to get ahead of,” Heinrich told Fox viewers. “Because it did feel like it came out of left field for us. … I’ve called every contact in my phone, including the president, and not gotten any answers.”

The New York Post, which, like Fox, is owned by Rupert Murdoch and often acts like an arm of the Trump White House communications team, was also puzzled. “It’s unclear why the first lady chose to hold the press event at a time when the White House is trying to move on from the Epstein saga that has been a drag on her husband’s second term,” the New York tabloid reported.

Marc Beckman, a senior adviser to the first lady, told the Post only that she “spoke out now because enough is enough”.

“The lies must stop,” Beckman added in his cryptic statement. “It is time for the public and media to focus on her incredible achievements as first lady, the lives she has positively impacted, and her commitment to our nation.” Read on

Ituloy ang impeachment

Of course the Duterte camp is again whining against the VP’s impeachment, not just because she’s innocent daw but also because of the economic and energy emergencies that deserve daw the full attention and resources of government. Nakakapagpa-dalawang-isip naman talaga. Except that this is a take-two, nakialam kasi ang Supremes in 2025, and postponing again would be to set an umistakeable and virulent pattern. Former senator and defense chief Orly Mercado is right, “Unresolved scandals breed repetition…. When justice is delayed in the name of stability, both are often lost.” Nasimulan na rin lang, ipagpatuloy na hangga’t kaya.

THE SWORD ABOVE POWER 
Orlando Mercado

THERE are times when power must be reminded of its limits.

The impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte come at an unfortunate moment of global anxiety. With the ongoing war in the Middle East, rising energy prices, and fears of a recession, some now argue that this is not the time. They say that leadership attention should be focused elsewhere, particularly in helping Filipinos navigate volatility.

It’s a convenient argument. It is also a dangerous one.

More than two millennia ago, Cicero retold the story of Damocles, a courtier who envied a king’s power until he saw a sword hanging above the throne by a single thread. In that instant, he understood that power is never without peril. This image endures because it captures a truth that remains unchanged: Authority always carries within it the possibility of its own undoing. That is the Sword of Damocles.

Public office does not insulate one from accountability. It demands it. The higher the office, the sharper the obligation. Delaying the impeachment proceedings because the world is in crisis is a grave misunderstanding of governance. Crises do not suspend the rule of law; they test its resilience and expose its limits. If accountability can be postponed for convenience, then it’s no longer accountability. To pause the process for external events is to suggest fragility where there should be resilience.

History is unforgiving on this point. When justice is delayed in the name of stability, both are often lost. Public trust erodes, cynicism deepens, and institutions weaken. Our own political history offers several reminders of what happens when accountability is deferred in the name of expediency. By the time the next crisis arrives, the damage has already been done, and the state finds itself standing on hollow ground.

We have seen this before, yet we continue to ignore it at our own peril. Unresolved scandals breed repetition. Selective accountability breeds impunity. Over time, the public ceases to expect justice, which becomes the most dangerous erosion of all.

Impeachment, therefore, is a test of institutional character. It tests whether our institutions can function under pressure, whether power remains subject to law, and whether we still believe that no one is above scrutiny — especially those who occupy the highest offices. Addressing economic uncertainty while upholding accountability should not be treated like an extraordinary feat. It is the baseline expectation of a functioning state.

To proceed swiftly is not to ignore global threats. It is to strengthen our footing in facing them. After all, a government that strictly enforces accountability at home commands credibility abroad. Leadership that is bound by law inspires confidence in uncertain times. And in moments of instability, consistency in principle becomes a form of strength. It serves as a tether.

In my years in public service, I have seen how easily institutions bend when convenience prevails. I have also seen how they endure when principles hold. More often than not, the difference lies in decisions that seem small at the time but prove decisive in the long run. The temptation to defer, to wait for calmer waters, can be strong. Yet calmer waters rarely arrive on their own. They are shaped by deliberate action and adherence to rules that remain steady even when circumstances do not.

The lesson of Damocles is simple: Power is never secure. It is always conditional: held in trust, bound by law, and shadowed by consequence. The sword is always there, acknowledged or not.

The more important question is whether we still have the will to let it fall when it must.

Let the trial proceed swiftly, fairly and without fear. Because in the end, democracy is not defined by who holds power, but by whether power is held to account. To wait for a more convenient moment is to risk waiting indefinitely. As Martin Luther King Jr. reminded us, “the time is always right to do what is right.”

Trump & fake news

When I heard him on CNN saying that “productive negotiations” with Iran were ongoing, I decided not to believe him until Iran confirmed it — and Iran didn’t, fake news daw — but stock markets rose and oil prices fell anyway. Nobelist economist Paul Krugman is thinking insider trading. 

ADVENTURES IN FANTASY DIPLOMACY 
Paul Krugman
March 23 2026 

It’s Monday morning. Donald trump has for the time being called off plans to bomb Iran’s civilian infrastructure. He has done so because, according to him, highly productive negotiations are underway involving the government of Iran and an invisible six-foot white rabbit and his Canadian girlfriend.

Hi, I’m Paul Krugman. What I just said is not strictly true. Or it’s not all true. Trump did not say anything about the invisible rabbit or the Canadian… but the gist of it is true.  He said that there’s highly productive talks underway, and shortly afterwards the Iranian government and Iranian state media said no, they aren’t, this isn’t happening.

Not gonna say that Iranian state media is necessarily a credible source but the odds are that they are in fact telling the truth and the president of the United States is either lying or  fantasizing, or both. There’s really no reason at all to believe that anything like what he said is happening is in fact happening.

Why do I say that, aside from the fact that Trump has not exactly been truthful about a lot of things. Beyond that, there are three important reasons to believe he might be making this stuff up.

First, he put himself in a very bad spot with his threat to commit a massive war crime if Iran doesn’t open the Strait of Hormuz, and must be looking for a way out. Another president in another time might say that, on careful consideration we have recalibrated the policy, or something like that. Trump doesn’t do that. Trump is always winning. Never admits that he’s had a setback, never admits that he’s changed his mind. So, saying that, oh, but the Iranians have, you know, come to the table, probably big strong Iranians with tears in their eyes, but anyway, that the Iranians have come to the table and that’s why we’re not doing what I said we would do is a very Trumpian out.

Second, why would the Iranians be making a deal at this point? We can talk a lot about how the war is going, but it’s pretty clear that, as the Iranians are likely to see it, they’re winning. I mean, they’re not winning militarily, but that was never on the cards. They are… they have successfully turned what was supposed to be a lightning decapitation of their government into a protracted contest in relative ability to bear pain. And all indications are that the Iranians are nowhere near cracking. And all indications are that the U.S. — although obviously we’re not losing thousands of people and we aren’t having our whole life disrupted, but the American public really doesn’t like higher gas prices — it does not believe Trump. The clock is ticking for Trump on this in a way that it’s apparently not for the Iranian regime. So Iran has the upper hand here. Very hard to see why they would be wanting to make a deal until they basically humiliated us substantially more.

Finally, consider possible motives. Imagine that you were somebody close to Trump, somebody close enough to actually have an influence on his decisions, as well as inside knowledge. Here’s what you could have done. Really, just between last night and now: you could have sold a bunch of crude oil futures at very high prices. Brent was over $112 over the weekend. Then bought them back immediately after Trump’s announcement of, you know, triumphal progress, but before the Iranians said that it is not happening. And you know you could have turned a very very nice very large profit.

To say that insider trading might be driving US policy would have been outrageous in the past. Who thinks that that’s beyond the realm of possibility now. So all of this could be happening.

Last point to make here. Think about how much America’s position in the world has been weakened not just by apparent failure to subdue a fourth rate power but by the fact that everybody now knows that you cannot trust anything, cannot trust any promises the US makes. You cannot count on the US carrying through with promises [or] with threats. Not just promises, but threats are also not incredible in the sense of not being at all credible. And that the default assumption should be that anything that this administration says is a lie. That is a really really bad thing.

That we’re [a] world power is not simply a matter of missiles and bombs although we seem to be running low on those, too. It’s very much a matter of people taking what you say and what you promise and what you threaten seriously, and we are not ruled by serious people.

Have a great day. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc120RAcx48

EDSA, Iran, Trump

In the early days of Trump’s and Netanyahu’s madly unsustainable killer attempt to bring about “regime change” in Iran, two Manila Times columnists opined on our EDSA event forty years ago. “WAs EDSA 1 not an American project?” tanong ng isa, in effect saying, reminding kuno, na EDSA was a “regime change” event na pakanâ ng Amerika. Sabi ng isa pa, tiyak na may kinalaman ang C.I.A. sa snap election returns at dapat ay i-declassify ng U.S. government ang records of that event, now na, para magkalinawan.

Expected naman ang ganyan from loyalists who don’t think, or know, much of People Power circa 1986. So, dedma. Besides I was deep into browsing the internet, needing to understand the Trump-Netanyahu War for World Domination. Until a day or so ago, nabasa ko itong “Iran: Scenarios and odds” ni Stephen CuUnjieng, also of the Manila Times.

For CuUnjieng there is no telling how long Iran’s active resistance will last, which would depend on how much pain they can take, and that could be a lot and for long, given the successful outcomes of “asymmetric warfare” in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Also, depending on how fast its weapons stockpiles are depleted or destroyed. But regime change?

With the Vietnamese and Afghans, the effect was largely limited to their area and the cost to their enemy. Alas, with Iran, it affects the Middle East more broadly through the cost and supply of oil, and the social and political order in the region. The US and its ally Israel may find out yet again that when you throw a stick, it may be a boomerang.

As noted by others on regime change, it is hard to make work and has rarely worked when caused by an invasion. When it works like the Velvet Revolution in then-Czechoslovakia (now peacefully divided into the Czech Republic and Slovakia) and EDSA, it came from within. There can be help from outside, but the impetus for change and the alternative needs to be internally driven. As the Buddhists say, change comes from many countries, including China, which is one of our major suppliers of gasoline and diesel within.

Salamat nang marami, Stephen CuUnjieng! Indeed EDSA “came from within” and “was internally driven” — the Americans knew about RAM planning to kill and replace Ver and some of them approved, and they helped RAM with intel, but they had nothing to do with Cory or the civil disobedience and crony boycott campaign or Butz’s call for people to march to EDSA and shield the military from Marcos forces [Cardinal Sin echoed Butz only after a lot of dillydallying].

Two more points to keep in mind:

Besides the military cost, there is the economic cost in price, availability and activity of oil. Brent Oil was $59 on Dec. 17. On March 9, it breached (proper use of the word unlike in much of Philippine journalism as breach means to exceed with a negative connotation) $111, and as of March 11 was around $93, or a 57-percent increase in three months. Then there is availability as the Strait of Hormuz is basically shut down for shipping so there goes the supply chain. Many countries, including China — which is one of our major suppliers of gasoline and diesel — have curtailed exports to reserve supplies for themselves.

And this.

Bloomberg’s weekend email on March 7 quotes the excellent interview Mishal Husein had with Bernard Haykel of Princeton (available on YouTube) which was very insightful. He says there are three ways the war can end — “the regime could fall. It could stay but soften its stance and cut a deal with the US. Or it could simply hold on and survive — but “hardened even further in its determination to be a revisionist power.” The last one is the most likely.

To my mind, it all hinges in, on, Trump’s head. I checked out his astrological birthchart and I’m not surprised to find that he has Sun in Gemini (sign of the lower mind) opposed to his Moon in Sagittarius (higher mind) — he’s pronouncedly two-minded (if not multiply-minded) about everything, this and that, below above, maybe certainly, we did we didn’t, at nangingibabaw ang kababawan. AND his ascendant is on the cusp of Leo and Virgo, signs of the lion, the commander|performer, and of the perfectionist.

Trump’s not as dumb as many think, just open to every game worth winning by elitist capitalist standards and more than well-connected enough to be untouchable, especially while he’s president, if he stays president. The Virgo in him hates to be criticized, and he is being widely and wildly criticized now for being goaded into this war that he cannot win, the Iranians are going for broke. So I pray na kakayanin niya to call a ceasefire soon, make a deal, give in some, surprise us all, change his mind as he has done before, maybe tomorrow, as I pray every night, surely long before the November midterm elections. Hope springs.