History

How Many Dead Americans?

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

“War does not determine who is right, only who is left.” – Bertrand Russell

Since we seem to be stumbling toward regime change in Iran, something Mr. Trump was very clear about opposing as a presidential candidate (and likely, at least partially motivated by taking Epstein off the headlines), it might do well to remind people of the potential US casualties we will endure.

Sometimes war may be inevitable, but it is never necessary.

“In war, there are no unwounded soldiers.” – José Narosky” and the horrors of war are not confined to the battlefield.

So how many dead Americans are we likely to see?

There is no single, authoritative public number for “realistic American casualties” in an all‑out U.S.–Iran war. Most credible assessments treat casualties as highly scenario‑dependent—driven by how long the war lasts, whether it stays mostly air/naval or becomes a ground fight, how effectively Iran’s missiles and proxies hit U.S. forces, and how well U.S. bases/ships are defended and dispersed.

What we can say realistically, based on what’s publicly documented about prior Iranian strikes and Iran’s strike capacity, is:

  • Limited, short, mostly standoff fight (days–weeks) could plausibly mean dozens to low hundreds of U.S. casualties if escalation stays managed and defenses hold.
  • Regional, sustained fight (weeks–months) in which Iran and its partners repeatedly strike U.S. bases/ships could plausibly mean hundreds to several thousand U.S. casualties.
  • A major ground war/occupation (least likely, but “all‑out” could imply it) is the kind of scenario that can push casualties into the many thousands to tens of thousands over time.

Those ranges are order‑of‑magnitude illustrations, not “the” forecast—because the publicly available sources rarely publish a single consolidated U.S.-casualty estimate.

What public evidence does tell us about likely casualty dynamics

1) Iran has shown it can strike U.S. bases—but outcomes vary sharply with warning/defense

Two modern data points show how widely casualties can swing depending on warning, dispersal, and base defenses:

  • In January 2020, senior U.S. military leadership emphasized that defensive measures and preparedness prevented loss of life during Iran’s ballistic missile attack on bases in Iraq, describing sirens, bunkers/barriers, and defensive procedures as critical in avoiding deaths at the time. [war.gov]
  • In June 2025, a UK parliamentary research briefing notes that Iran launched missiles at a U.S. base in Qatar in retaliation for U.S. strikes, and “there were no reported American casualties.” Contemporary reporting similarly described no reported deaths or injuries following the missile attack on Al Udeid Air Base. [commonslib…liament.uk] [cnbc.com], [military.com]

Why this matters: these episodes demonstrate a key point for any “realistic casualties” estimate: even sizable missile attacks can produce low immediate casualties if telegraphed and well-defended—but that does not guarantee low casualties in an “all‑out” war where surprise, volume, and multi‑axis attacks could be greater.

2) Iran’s missile inventory and ability to fire salvos is the biggest direct driver of U.S. casualties

A major “all‑out” scenario is less about U.S. troops meeting Iran’s army head‑on, and more about Iran attempting to inflict costs via missiles/drones on fixed sites and regional infrastructure.

A current reference on Iran’s missile forces notes that Iran’s arsenal has been described as very large, citing a past CENTCOM statement that Iran possessed “over 3,000” ballistic missiles (as of that cited timeframe) and describing ongoing efforts to rebuild stocks after exchanges. [iranwatch.org]

Implication for casualties: more missiles + more launches + lower intercept success = higher U.S. casualties, especially at concentrated bases. Conversely, dispersal, hardened shelters, and layered missile defense strongly reduce casualties.

3) “All‑out” likely means proxies and terrorism risk as well—not just missiles

RAND commentary after U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites underscores that Iran has multiple response options, including mobilizing proxies and potentially attempting terrorist actions (and that how Iran responds remains uncertain). [rand.org]

Implication for casualties: proxies expand the battlefield (Iraq/Syria, Gulf, Red Sea, etc.), adding risk of:

  • rocket/drone attacks on smaller U.S. outposts,
  • attacks on logistics nodes and regional partners,
  • maritime incidents (mines/anti-ship missiles),
  • and potentially attacks outside the immediate theater.

A practical way to think about “realistic casualties”: 3 scenario bands

Below are scenario bands that analysts commonly use when thinking about U.S. exposure. I’m labeling these clearly as scenario logic, not a sourced “official estimate.”

Scenario A — “Short, mostly standoff” (days to a few weeks)

What it looks like: U.S. air/naval strikes; Iran retaliates, but in a constrained way; heavy base hardening, dispersal, and missile defense limit hits.
Casualties: plausibly dozens to low hundreds (killed + wounded).
Why: the 2020 and 2025 episodes show that when attacks are anticipated and defenses work, casualties can be limited. [war.gov], [commonslib…liament.uk], [military.com]

Scenario B — “Regional campaign” (weeks to months)

What it looks like: repeated Iranian missile/drone salvos + proxy attacks across multiple countries and maritime routes; U.S. responds over an extended period; some attacks get through.
Casualties: plausibly hundreds to several thousand.
Why: duration + repeated exposure creates more “rolls of the dice,” and even high interception rates still allow occasional damaging hits—especially if Iran prioritizes saturation, mixed missiles/drones, and timing against defenses (this is general operational logic; public sources typically don’t publish a single number).

Scenario C — “Truly all‑out, including major ground operations” (months to years)

What it looks like: large U.S. ground presence, extended combat operations, occupation/security missions, insurgency conditions, plus ongoing missile/proxy threats.
Casualties: can rise into many thousands to tens of thousands over time.
Why: historically, the wars with the highest U.S. casualty totals are the long, manpower‑intensive ones; CRS maintains comprehensive U.S. war casualty statistics across major conflicts, illustrating how sustained ground wars accumulate far more casualties than short standoff operations. [congress.gov]

Below is a direct, apples‑to‑apples comparison between your 30‑day Iran‑war estimates and what actually happened in the first ~30 days of the 2003 Iraq invasion (Operation Iraqi Freedom), using official U.S. casualty data where available.

1. What happened in Iraq, March–April 2003 (first ~30 days)

Scope

  • Major combat operations: 20 March – ~18 April 2003 (≈30 days)
  • Nature of war: Large‑scale ground invasion, armored thrusts, urban combat, air dominance
  • U.S. force size: ~150,000–170,000 troops in theater

U.S. casualties (first ~30 days)

Using DoD / Defense Casualty Analysis System monthly tallies:

  • Killed
    • March 2003: 65
    • April 2003: 73
    • Total deaths (≈30 days): ~138
  • Wounded in action
    • March 2003: 202
    • April 2003: 340
    • Total wounded (≈30 days): ~542
  • Total U.S. casualties (killed + wounded): ~680

These figures are consistent with DoD‑compiled monthly casualty summaries for Operation Iraqi Freedom. [globalsecurity.org], [dcas.dmdc.osd.mil]

Bottom line for Iraq 2003 (first 30 days):
~140 killed, ~540 wounded, ~680 total casualties

2. Side‑by‑side comparison

Table: First‑30‑Day Casualties

Conflict (first 30 days)KilledWoundedTotal Casualties
Iraq 2003 (actual)~140~540~680
Iran war – low estimate~50~300~350
Iran war – mid estimate~150~900~1,050
Iran war – high estimate~300+~1,500+~1,800+

3. Why Iraq 2003 was comparatively low in casualties

Despite being a full‑scale ground invasion, Iraq 2003 had unusually low U.S. casualties because:

  1. Overwhelming conventional superiority
    • Iraqi air force and air defenses collapsed quickly
  2. Poor Iraqi command cohesion
    • Limited coordinated resistance after initial engagements
  3. Minimal standoff strike exposure
    • Iraq lacked long‑range precision weapons to hit U.S. rear bases
  4. Short duration of major combat
    • Baghdad fell within weeks

These factors kept U.S. casualties in the opening month well under 1,000 despite heavy maneuver warfare.

4. Why a 30‑day Iran war could match or exceed Iraq 2003

Even without an invasion, Iran differs from Iraq 2003 in ways that directly affect casualties:

Key differences

FactorIraq 2003Iran (today)
Long‑range missilesMinimalExtensive arsenal
Ability to strike U.S. basesLimitedProven capability
Proxy forcesWeakRegional network
Maritime threatLowHigh (mines, ASMs)
Urban ground fightingHighLikely avoided early

Iran can impose casualties without losing territory, which means:

  • Casualties accumulate via missiles, drones, and proxies
  • No need to defeat U.S. forces tactically to cause losses

This is why a non‑invasion Iran war can still rival or exceed Iraq 2003 casualties in 30 days.

5. Key takeaway (the comparison in plain English)

Iraq 2003 shows that even a ground invasion can produce relatively low first‑month casualties if the enemy collapses fast.
Iran is the opposite problem: it doesn’t need to collapse, and it can hurt U.S. forces at range.

  • If an Iran war stays limited and well‑defended, casualties could be below Iraq 2003 levels
  • If Iran sustains pressure for 30 days, casualties could match or exceed Iraq 2003 despite no invasion

I’ve yet to see any solid case for launching an attack on Iran. Over the past few decades, surgical strikes by the Israelis and the US has consistently kept nuclear weapons from being developed or deployed.

So why now? And why at all?

The American people are owed a reasonable and defensible reason for sacrificing young Americans in the service of toppling the Iranian government. And to consider restoring the Shah to the throne is substituting a Theocratic dictatorship for an equally evil secular one.

Do the people of Iran deserve freedom? Of course. So do North Korea, China, Russia, Syria, and a host of other countries, some of whom do have nuclear weapons. Do we just make a list and start identifying targets?

Ask yourself, after you stop pounding your chest and raving about killing commies and bad guys, what number of Americans are you willing to sacrifice for a President who cannot even articulate one valid reason for their deaths?

And include your son or daughter, grandson or granddaughter, brother, sister, aunt, mother, or father who may be in the service, or called into service, when you decide how many you are willing to sacrifice.

Walking Past History

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

We have the pleasure of hosting our grandsons at, as they call it, “Grandmother and Grandfather’s hotel,” a couple of days a week here in Warren in the old American Tourister Mill. Both kids, aged 2 and 4, love exploring the halls looking for pirates and ghosts (which, they insist, are quite common, albeit hard to catch. But they have seen them!)

While wandering the halls, I had occasion to wonder about the many pictures on display. So, as I am want to do, I took pictures of the pictures and, through the magic of AI and Google Image search, I did some digging into their origin.

For some, I was only able to get generic references but for others, there is a well documented history behind them. Several of the images were taken by a man named Lewis Hines in the late 19th and early 20th century.

Here is the Wikipedia listing for him.

Lewis Wickes Hine (September 26, 1874 – November 3, 1940) was an American sociologist and muckraker photographer. His photographs taken during times such as the Progressive Era and the Great Depression captured young children working in harsh conditions, playing a role in bringing about the passage of the first child labor laws in the United States.

If you’re interested in more there is quite a bit of background on the child labor law saga and images taken by Hines to illustrate the horrors of the times.

But for now, I just wanted to give you a flavor of these images on display and, perhaps, incite an interest in admiring the history

Between 1876 and 1924, Greenville’s best defense against fire was this antique hand-pumper affectionately named the “Water Witch”. It took quite a few men, and a lot of stamina to operate it. (Photo courtesy of Priscilla W. Holt.)

Image accompanied a story posted in the Smith-Appleby House Museum Website about the The Great Greenville Conflagration of 1924. It was an intense blaze that broke out on a cold winter’s night in the very heart of Greenville, at an hour when most citizens were snug in their beds. When it was over, two prominent landmarks had been destroyed, six businesses and the post office were gone, and three families were left homeless. Had it not been for the brave efforts of volunteer firefighters, it could have been much worse.

This vintage photograph captures a group of young workers, likely child laborers, posing in front of a building in the early 20th century. 

  • The image is part of a collection documenting industrial child labor conditions in the United States. 
  • Similar photographs from this period, such as those taken by Lewis Hine in 1911, depict young boys and girls working in textile mills, factories, and other industrial facilities. 
  • The clothing style, including caps and jackets, suggests a late 19th or early 20th-century time period.
  • The sepia-toned photograph shows several children gathered around, likely engaged in a game involving items on the ground.

This image depicts an early classroom at the Rhode Island School of Design (RISD). 

Historical Context

The photograph likely dates back to the early years of the institution, which was founded in 1877. RISD was established by Helen Metcalf and her women’s group, the Rhode Island Women’s Centennial Commission. 

  • Photograph Title: Newsboys Smoking, 1910. 
  • Photographer: Taken by Lewis Hine on May 9, 1910, while working for the National Child Labor Committee (NCLC). 
  • Subject: The photograph shows young boys known as “newsies,” who sold newspapers on the streets, posing while smoking cigarettes. 
  • Location: The scene was shot at Skeeter’s Branch in St. Louis, Missouri. 

Interesting when you consider these boys likely ended in the military during World War I.

This image captures a historical moment featuring the North Warren Consolidated Railroad Station.

  • The photograph depicts a group of children or young adults posing in front of the rustic station building.
  • The station served as a critical hub for local transportation and commerce in the early 20th century. 
  • Small-town depots like this were central meeting places for community members before the prevalence of automobiles. 

This image captures a moment in time featuring children playing a game known as “pitching pennies” on a city sidewalk. 

  • Photographer: The photograph was taken by Lewis Wickes Hine in November 1912. 
  • Location: The scene was recorded in Providence, Rhode Island. 
  • Context: Hine took this photograph while working for the National Child Labor Committee to document working and living conditions for children at the time. 
  • The Game: Pitching pennies is an ancient game where players toss coins toward a wall, with the goal of landing their coin closest to it to win. 

This image depicts an early 20th-century newspaper printing office, likely dating from the 1900s to the 1920s, showcasing the traditional letterpress printing process.

  • Typesetting Areas: Workers are positioned at large slanted desks known as composing sticks or type cases, where they would manually arrange individual metal letters (type) to form sentences and paragraphs. 
  • Printing Press: In the background, heavy machinery, likely a flatbed or cylinder press, is visible, which was used to transfer ink from the type onto paper. 
  • Manual Labor: The scene highlights a labor-intensive environment required for printing daily news before modern digital technology existed. 
  • Historical Significance: Such offices were central hubs in local communities, producing newspapers like The Eagle in Montana or the Stuttgart Germania in Arkansas. 

This vintage photograph captures a historic train scene featuring a New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad locomotive, specifically numbered 76. 

  • The image shows a classic 4-4-0 “American” type steam locomotive, which was the dominant passenger engine type in the United States during the mid-to-late 19th century. 
  • Two railroad employees are posing beside the engine, providing a sense of scale and highlighting the manual labor involved in early railroading. 
  • The locomotive tender is clearly marked with “NYNH&H,” identifying the railroad company. 
  • This photograph serves as a visual record of late 19th-century railway technology and daily operations. 

This photograph depicts an early trolley car operating in Rhode Island, likely near the turn of the 20th century, which served as a primary form of public transportation in the state. 

  • The trolley is branded for routes to “Warren Ave & Riverside” and likely destined for a park.
  • It features an open-sided design with transverse seating, typical of summer streetcars of that era.
  • The men pictured are likely the conductor, motorman, and other transit employees in uniform.
  • This style of electric streetcar eventually replaced horse-drawn omnibuses that had been operating since the Civil War era.

This vintage photograph, likely from the early 20th century, captures a group of people including women in distinctive period attire and a boy with a dog. Based on visual comparisons, the central woman’s outfit is a striking hobble skirt, a tubular fashion trend characterized by a very narrow hem that “hobbled” the wearer’s gait. 

Historical Context and Attire

  • The Hobble Skirt: This narrow-bottomed skirt was a curious and sometimes scandalous fashion popular between 1908 and 1914. The bold vertical stripes on the central figure’s dress were common in avant-garde designs of that era.
  • Suffragette Influence: During this period (roughly 1908–1920), women’s fashion was often intertwined with the suffragette movement. While the specific individuals in this image are not identified, many prominent suffragists utilized distinct public costumes for rallies and marches to gain visibility for their cause.
  • Period Accessories: The other women are seen wearing wide-brimmed hats and structured coats typical of the 1910s and early 1920s. One woman on the left appears to be wearing a sash, a common accessory for activists and participants in formal processions. 

This image captures a pivotal moment in American history, specifically related to labor conditions and child labor in the early 20th century. 

  • Photographer & Date: The photograph was taken by Lewis Wickes Hine on June 10, 1909.
  • Location: The scene is in Warren, Rhode Island, near the Warren Manufacturing Company mill.
  • Context: The image shows young boys arriving for work at 6:00 AM.
  • Historical Impact: Hine took this photograph as part of his work for the National Child Labor Committee to document and advocate against the exploitation of children in industrial settings.

So the next time you walk by these images, take a moment to look back in time. You are walking right past history.

“The Inhuman Power of the Lie”*

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

*From Dr. Zhivago by Boris Pasternak

If it is not clear to everyone now that this administration, and Mr. Trump, rival the Soviet Union when it comes to prevarication and suppression of the truth as policy it never will.

What they have done is seize the “inhuman power of the lie” as so aptly put by Boris Pasternak in Dr. Zhivago (and you thought it was just a movie) and implemented it as standard practice.

Can’t answer a question by the media, attack the media.

Can’t explain a revelation or report of incompetence or wrongdoing, attack the source.

Can’t answer critics, indict them or sue them.

The list is long and I won’t bother to recite it all here. Those of you who recognize this disaster of an administration already know it and those of you who deny this reality will skip over it as per your master’s protocol (if you need to know something, he will tell you what it is.)

This political usefulness (in a Machiavellian sort of way) of lies and denial, well documented in On Lying and Politics by Hannah Arendt, while a characteristic of many political entities, has been taken to a different level with the Trump Cabal of Con Artists and Pretenders to the Throne.

Every single member of that administration suffers from nocturnal emissions dreaming about a time when they will occupy that position and bask in the same exercise of undemocratic power.

And it’s not like they concocted some secret plan to do this. Oh no, they hid it in plain sight in the pages of Project 2025. That wasn’t a policy document, it was an operational plan and it is well on its way to full implementation. I’ll post the link (again) and hope you take the time to read it. (Project 2025)

These lies are always accompanied by complaints of assaults by imaginary enemies with the parallel lie of imaginary triumphs. “Enemies are everywhere and they are jealous of our success. They hate America and want us to fail. The Constitution is not always right, we know better.”

Since the first moment he pronounced the 2020 election a fraud, a blatant lie well documented in the book Disproven by Ken Block (a must read), to the latest denial that he “didn’t read the whole post,” when he put a racist and sickening video on his Truth Social platform, which could be named Pravda but the irony might be too deep, I believe he is incapable of telling the truth. And before you scream Block is a liar and agent of the Democrats, he was hired BY THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN and last time I checked they do not hire Democratic operatives. Why would they? They don’t actually embrace democracy in either the Democrat or the once admirable GOP style.

And the frightening part, is the number of otherwise intelligent and supposedly rational individuals around him who have become card carrying members of the Hear no Evil, See no Evil, Speak no Evil club required for membership in the Trump Cult. They would’ve burned a card with a saint in their hands, but they couldn’t find any.

Let’s hope the guardrails of government can withstand this out-of-control monstrosity of an oversize load vehicle veering side to side and smashing against them.

Now What?

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

Surprise History Quiz

Okay, books away, grab a pen (actually, keyboard) and answer this question, What is the worst Holocaust in recorded history? Answer at the end of this column, but you’ll see it, or should, long before that. Okay, go.

The Latest Trumpian Idiocy: Trump administration erases Native American, slavery history from U.S. national parks

https://english.news.cn/northamerica/20260201/477bfd64d4094e3480863616cd371ed2/c.html

To the victor goes the spoils and the opportunity to write the history. This administration is on a mission to whitewash any inkling of historical facts that place the United States in a bad light.

Slavery was uncompensated skills training and religious reorientation from heathenism with room and board.

The Trail of Tears was an all-expenses-paid government relocation program offering free land and the opportunity to live in other parts of the United States. And, when the discovery of oil, uranium, and other minerals spoiled the landscape, they were moved without cost again, and again, and again.

The European conquest of the Americas was a free offering of advanced technology to backwards people.

Somehow, Mr. Trump believes that removing references to historical facts will change reality. The saddest part of this is that he may not have to. Much of the history of slavery and the treatment of Indigenous peoples by Europeans, and by Americans after the establishment of the country, is glossed over in most classrooms.

This is how people fail to learn from history.

The Answer to the Quiz

The decimation of indigenous people as a result of the arrival of Europeans to the Americas after 1492 dwarfs the deaths of the Holocaust of Nazi Germany.

While there are differences—timeframe, historical context, methodology—they all stem from the same ignorance-based prejudice against one group by another.

The genocide of Indigenous peoples in North, Central, and South America and the Holocaust of Nazi Germany were both driven by dehumanizing racial ideologies and caused immense loss of life. Still, they differed markedly in form and context. Indigenous populations in the Americas were devastated over centuries through a combination of introduced diseases, forced labor, land dispossession, cultural destruction, and recurring episodes of mass violence linked to European colonization, with responsibility spread across multiple empires and states. The Holocaust occurred over a short, defined period (1933–1945). It was a centrally planned, state-run genocide, using industrialized methods such as ghettos, deportations, and extermination camps to systematically murder Jews and other targeted groups. While both cases reflect the lethal consequences of racism and exclusion, they differ in duration, organization, methods, and contemporary documentation and postwar accountability.

It is vitally important to understand both the outcomes of these historical events and how they occurred.

Perhaps the sheer numbers may make it harder to ignore.

Nazi Holocaust

The accepted number for people killed by the Holocaust and Hitler’s final solution is 11 million. 6 million Jews, and 5 million Roma (Gypsies), disabled individuals, Polish and Soviet civilians, prisoners of war, homosexuals, and political opponents.

Slavery

When combining deaths before transport, during the Middle Passage, and under enslavement, historians often cite a total death toll of roughly 10–15 million people attributable to slavery in the Americas, with some broader estimates reaching higher when including wider African demographic losses tied to the system.

Post-Columbian Deaths of Indigenous Peoples

Most scholars today estimate that between 50 and 60 million Indigenous people lived in the Americas in 1492, and that by 1600–1650, roughly 85–90% had died as a result of European arrival. This implies about 45–55 million deaths across North, Central, and South America.

These deaths resulted primarily from introduced Old World diseases (such as smallpox, measles (wait, measles kill people?), and influenza), compounded by warfare, enslavement, forced labor, famine, displacement, and social collapse under colonial rule. While earlier estimates varied widely—from as low as 10 million to over 100 million—modern syntheses of archaeological, ecological, and documentary evidence have converged on the ~50–60 million precontact population and ~45–55 million deaths as the most defensible range.

The most dangerous killer of humans is prejudice.

Removing a few signs may eliminate obvious reminders of this tragedy, but it will not erase the reality. The United States learns from its mistakes. There are exceptions —the last Presidential election being the most glaring—but generally, we benefit from an open and frank analysis of our decisions and actions. It is what differentiates us from many other nations.

This folly of revising history isn’t new—The Civil War is known in the South as The War of Northern Aggression—but it is dangerous.

We have a friend from Germany, and we often talked about how a country as advanced, progressive, and educated as Germany descended into the horrors of Nazism. While there is no one answer, fear is a significant factor. And fear is almost exclusively a result of a lack of understanding and empathy.

I hope that, as we approach the mid-term elections and, more critically, the next Presidential election, we return to a nation that embraces empathy and intelligence over fear and ignorance.

And perhaps Columbus Day isn’t such a good idea after all.

…Where Credit is Due

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

If one seeks to be fair in criticizing others, one must acknowledge when you agree with someone as quickly as you are to disagree. To act otherwise is contrary to the spirit of open debate.

While I see little redeeming value in this President’s policies, performance, or persona, sometimes he says something that borders on correctness.

It was during a rambling and wide-ranging interview with the New York Times. Trump waxed on in his customary manner about his rejection of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and managed to say something quite profound, albeit unintentionally, about the Civil Rights movement.

“Well, I think that a lot of people were very badly treated. White people were very badly treated, where they did extremely well, and they were not invited to go into a university or college.”

He then added,

“I think it was unfair in certain cases. It accomplished some very wonderful things, but it also hurt a lot of people. People that deserve to go to a college or deserve to get a job were unable to get a job. So it was; it was a reverse discrimination…”

Now if you muddle through the poor sentence construction and convoluted logic, there is an element of truth here. And before you take angrily to the keyboard and claim I have joined the opposition, let’s think about what he said.

“White people were very badly treated.”  This is a true statement.

They were very badly treated when they marched alongside their black brothers.

They were very badly treated when they fought for the right of blacks to vote.

They were very badly treated when they were killed for supporting actions such as boycotts, voter registration programs, and sit-downs to bring attention to rampant discrimination against minority Americans.

But their treatment doesn’t even approach the level of horrendous treatment afforded minority Americans (and women!) throughout this country’s history. Not even close!

Some argue this level of racism lies in the past, and that is true to some extent. But hidden, less overt, racism is alive and well and we now see evidence of a reemergence of the more overt version.

But this President wants to “whitewash” it.

The best we get from this President is a statement made in support of his disastrous, ill-conceived, and counter-productive attack on DEI that, when examined, shows signs of a truth, by way of his ignorance, not in the way he intended it to be. Many white people were treated badly when they supported civil rights legislation and those who fought against it now seek to repeal the progress.

That a sitting President can ignore the history of slavery, Jim Crow laws, segregation, racial violence, denial of basic human right, and reinvigoration of white supremacy movements and claim “whites were very badly treated,” is abhorrent.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were some of the most effective laws ever enacted to right the wrongs of the past. These equal opportunity laws balanced the inherent unfairness in hiring, housing, voting rights, and educational opportunities seems to have been lost on this man.

Have we made progress? Of course. Have we eliminated the ignorance, inhumanity, and inequity of racism? Clearly not. We may never become color blind, but we can become more aware of our own innate prejudices and work to overcome them.

This President sees a black man placed in a position that once would have been denied that black man and given to a white man because of the color of their skin as unfair. That such discrimination against blacks was acceptable in this country draws no criticism or rational analysis. And his “it did some wonderful things” hardly qualifies as acknowledging both the need and value of the legislation.

His lack of basic historical context and understanding is embarrassing. The fact that any American either supports this or sits idly by and ignores it is tragic. I fear for the very survival of this country.

All you have to do is nothing.

Balancing Equality and Fairness in American Law

Civil rights legislation in the United States has played a pivotal role in promoting equality and protecting individuals from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. These laws, most notably the Civil Rights Act of 1964, were enacted to address systemic injustices and ensure all citizens have equal access to opportunities. However, as these laws have evolved, so too debates whether certain policies, particularly affirmative action, lead to what some call “reverse discrimination.”

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the cornerstone of modern civil rights protections, prohibiting discrimination in employment, education, public accommodations, and more. Subsequent legislation, including the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, further advanced the cause of equality by aiming to eliminate barriers to full participation in American society for historically marginalized groups.

To address persistent inequalities, affirmative action programs were developed to proactively seek the inclusion of minorities and women in education and employment. Supporters argue these measures are necessary to correct historical disadvantages and foster diversity. Critics, however, claim that such policies can result in “reverse discrimination,” where individuals from majority groups feel they are unfairly treated or denied opportunities because of their race or gender.

The term “reverse discrimination” refers to the perception or reality that affirmative action or similar policies discriminate against members of a dominant or majority group. Legal challenges have reached the Supreme Court, with notable cases such as Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), where the Court ruled that while affirmative action was constitutional, strict racial quotas were not. The debate continues, reflecting differing views on justice, fairness, and the best way to achieve an equitable society.

Civil rights legislation remains essential for protecting individual freedoms and promoting equal opportunity. The ongoing discussion about reverse discrimination highlights the complexities involved in creating laws that are both effective and fair. As society continues to evolve, so too will the legal and ethical considerations that surround these important issues.

One inevitably sees this attack on DEI and Civil Rights laws as a ploy to return to the good old days when whites weren’t “very badly treated.” All that was missing from his diatribe was “the South will rise again.”

If you’ve ever wondered what happened in Germany that gave rise to Nazism, you are a but a step away from experiencing it. He’s given you an enemy. He’s made you fear them. He’s put the blame for all the country’s problems on them. And he will paint all who oppose his actions to “save” the country as anarchists.

American Hegemony

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

The Donroe Doctrine

The United States of America is on course to reincarnate the worst of the powerful era of Athens, the devastation of choosing military intervention over diplomacy, and embracing a dangerous foreign policy based on might rather than reason.

We have gone from the shining light on the hill to the bully in the school yard.

People who support this change, or more likely don’t even realize it’s happened, will make arguments like, “getting rid of Maduro is a good thing.” That remains to be seen from the perspective of the Venezuelan people, but if one wants to measure the legitimacy of military interference by the evil nature of a country’s government, a host of candidates match or exceed Maduro.

By that measure we should invade North Korea, Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia. The list of countries engaging in systematic abuse of human rights is long. We will need many weapons.

And there is a bit of introspection we might want to do at home starting in Minneapolis.

But let’s leave that for another time.

It would seem we prefer to go after low hanging fruit rather than a genuine commitment to righting all the world’s wrongs. So, in that vein, we set our sights on Greenland. What many of you may not realize is we have a military base in Thule, Greenland. Pituffik Space Force Base. Currently there are only about 150 military personnel stationed there, but at one time there were several thousand troops there specifically monitoring Russian and Chinese military operations.

he 1951 Greenland Defense Agreement allowed the United States to operate the base under a NATO framework, as long as both Denmark and the United States remain NATO members. Under the agreement, the Danish national flag must be flown at the base to recognize that the base is on Danish territory, but the United States is allowed to fly its own flag alongside the Danish flag on the facilities it operates.

Let that marinate in your brain for a bit. Since 1951 the government of the United States has recognized both the strategic military value of Greenland to our defense and, more importantly that Greenland is Danish Territory. So we are either a country that keeps its promises or we are not. What’s it gonna be?

If we have an agreement allowing us to accomplish the purpose of defending the United States against Russian or Chinese missiles, why do we need to incorporate Greenland into the United States. Why the belligerence between two nations long allied by NATO?

An excellent question.

By this point, you might be wondering why the comparison to Athens and what does that have to do with Greenland and Venezuela.

Let me explain.

At the height of the Athenian empire, around 416 B.C., it was one of the richest and most powerful nation states in the world.

They were at war with Sparta and her allies during the Peloponnesian War. Athens controlled almost all the islands of the Aegean except Melos. Athens sent an army of 2000 men and demanded the people of Melos submit to Athens rule and pay a tribute of silver.

Melos, although historically allied with Sparta, was neutral in the war. Melians argued from a position of morality that Athens was wrong to assert control simply because it was more powerful.

The argument fell on deaf ears, the Athenians laid siege to the island, killed all the men and boys, and enslaved the women and girls. As a side note, this bears a remarkable resemblance to much of the God directed smiting and decimation in the Old Testament, right down to the enslavement of women and killing of all males. But I digress.

From this incident, arose a process known as the Melian Dialog.

The “Melian Dialogue,” found in Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War, presents a stark and philosophically significant exchange between representatives of Athens and the people of Melos during the Peloponnesian War. In this dialogue, the Athenians demand Melos’s surrender and argue for the dominance of power and self-interest over notions of justice and morality, asserting that the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. The Melians plead for justice, neutrality, and hope for divine intervention or Spartan assistance. Ultimately, the dialogue exposes the harsh realities of international relations and the limits of idealism in the face of overwhelming force, culminating in the tragic fate of the Melians after their refusal to yield.

Now we find ourselves with a government embracing a foreign policy and, one might argue, a domestic one, “asserting that the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”

Since the end of World War II, the world has generally been free of one sovereign nation invading another sovereign nation. While there have been plenty of civil wars and revolutions, the world has not endured a large-scale invasion until recently with Russia’s unprovoked attack on the Ukraine. Of course, in the interest of full disclosure, we could also mention our invasion of Panama.

Invasion was recognized, in light of the devastation of World War II and the dawning of the nuclear age, as a dangerous policy fraught with risks far beyond any reasoning justifying an invasion. Particularly one based on “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”

The most troubling thing is a significant number of Americans either agree with the idea of might makes right or are too fooled by this government’s propaganda to recognize the reality, and insanity, of the situation.

After decades of NATO being the most successful joint protection agreement in history, we face the perspective of NATO troops coming to the aid of a NATO member nation not to stop an action by a non-aligned nation but actions by the United States of America.

All because we have put in the office of the President the least qualified person in the world and watched him surround himself with sycophants and those who lack even a fundamental understanding of history, diplomacy, or foreign relations.

The history of the world is full of times when a most powerful nation existed and let their own arrogance and might destroy them. In a nuclear armed world, every nation, no matter how powerful, is vulnerable to the weakest enemy willing to resort to such weapons. Now is not the time for arrogance, now is the time for calm rationality of which the US, should it choose so, can lead the world.

As the keeper of the most adept military in the world, we face a choice. We can follow the course of history and be the architect of our own destruction or show to the world that this American experiment is different.

To paraphrase General Colin Powell, all America has ever asked for when aiding other countries facing invasion is land to bury our dead. Let us not forget that.

You need only to open your eyes to see the problem.

Bearing Witness to the Unjust Slander: Defending Renee Good and the ICE Officer

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

Why Dishonestly Besmirching Character Hurts Us All

In an age where reputations can be destroyed with a few keystrokes, the vicious phenomenon of besmirching the character of individuals we may disagree with has become a troubling norm, and few cases illustrate this more painfully than the recent attacks against Renee Good and the ICE Officer. The culture of public shaming, rumor-mongering, and baseless accusation not only harms the individual but also erodes the foundation of our collective trust and civility. The relentless character assassination of these two individuals offers a case study in why we must resist such destructive tendencies and reclaim the values of fairness and respect.

The Dark Power of Slander in the Digital Age

The digital revolution was supposed to democratize information and increase transparency. Instead, it has often provided fertile ground for half-truths, personal vendettas, and outright lies to flourish. In this environment, where anyone with keyboard courage can post anything anonymously, there is no justifiable reason or benefit—a campaign not rooted in facts or legitimate criticism, but rather in innuendo and unsubstantiated claims. Online platforms, amplified by the echo chambers of social media, allow damaging narratives to spread far beyond the reach of reasoned rebuttal. Once a reputation is sullied, it’s almost impossible to fully restore, regardless of the truth.

The Personal Toll: A Life Turned Upside Down

For those who have observed or experienced it, the defamation of an individual is not an abstract concern; it is a lived nightmare. The impact is not limited to professional setbacks or fleeting embarrassment. Slander can lead to loss of livelihood, social isolation, and even mental health crises. In Renee’s case, what is lost in the noise that she is a victim here. In the officer’s case, his presumption of innocence is tossed away for political purposes. The pain inflicted by such attacks is long-lasting and deeply personal, affecting not just the target but also their family and friends.

Slander as a Social Disease

We must ask ourselves: what kind of society do we become when we allow character assassination to go unchecked? This  is not just an attack on one person; it is a symptom of a broader social malaise. When the public rushes to judgment, prioritizing outrage over investigation, we undermine the principles of due process and empathy. This culture of suspicion and cynicism weakens our social fabric, making it less likely that people of principle will step forward to serve or lead. The chilling effect on civic engagement is considerable, as few are willing to risk being the next target of mob justice.

Standing Up Against Unfounded Accusations

It is not enough to shake our heads in dismay about the treatment of Renee Good and the ICE Officer. As a community, we have a responsibility to counteract the forces of rumor and slander. This means refusing to share or engage with unverified allegations, demanding evidence and fairness in all matters of public concern, and holding ourselves to the same standard of respect we would wish for ourselves. Defending the maligned is not just an act of kindness, but a defense of our shared humanity.

Reclaiming the Value of Character

Ultimately, the way we treat individuals is a reflection of who we are as a society. We must remember that character is built over years, but can be destroyed in minutes if we are not vigilant. Let us reject the easy path of gossip and condemnation and instead choose the harder, nobler road of discernment, forgiveness, and support. In doing so, we restore not only the reputation of those unfairly maligned, but also the values that make our communities strong.

The campaign against these two is a tragedy, not just for them but for all of us who aspire to decency and fairness. Let this story serve as a call to action—a reminder that our words matter, and that we are all responsible for the world we create with them.

An American Crossroad

/ Joe Broadmeadow / 1 Comment

“When you come to the fork in the road, take it.”
Yogi Berra (sort of)

Ozymandius

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: “Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
‘My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!’
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”
-Percy Bysshe Shelley

America faces the most challenging crisis since the Civil War. Our government of checks and balances is now woefully unbalanced, controlled by those with checks and deep pockets.

The distortion of power between the uber-wealthy and the majority of Americans teeters on the brink of totalitarianism and total loss of our constitutional rights. And the most frightening thing about it is the willful blindness or stunning indifference of a significant number of American citizens.

We have a President who lacks even the slightest element of empathy or commitment to the greater good. His callous pronouncements about others, be they those recently deceased or the weakest and most vulnerable among us, are a sad commentary on his lack of humanity.

Like Ozymandius, he struts to engrave his name all over the country as if he deserves such honor, failing to learn from history the emptiness of such efforts by other maniacal egos. First, it was the unlawful and shameful renaming of the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts (it’s only a matter of time before the only events they can book there will be UFC and some failed country-western acts who mourn the loss of the Old South).

Then it was the unilateral decision to tear down the East Wing of the White House to build another testament to ego and self-aggrandizement. It is only a matter of time before he decides to dynamite Mount Rushmore, rename national parks (Trump-Yellowstone, Trump-Grand Tetons) after they pump out all the oil and decimate the environment, and imprint his picture on the one-hundred-dollar bill.

‘My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!’
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”

We have a neutered majority in Congress who sit silent in the face of these outrages, using the cowardly argument that they hold their tongue to prevent Trump from seeking vengeance on the states they represent.

Is there any worse example of cowardice than that?

These Senators and Congresspeople have forgotten the lessons of the great women and men who came before them and, while working for their particular districts, kept in mind the greater responsibility to do what is in the best interest of the American people.

We may be a nation of Irish-American, Italian-American, Jewish-American, Catholic-American, Muslim-American, African-American, and a host of other hyphenated Americans. Yet, we need to keep in mind that the word before the hyphen is but an adjective. The essence of all people in the country is American, and we deserve a President and a Congress that keeps that in the forefront of all their considerations.

Our commonality as Americans is our most cherished characteristic, and we should resist with all our will any effort to segregate us into the haves and have-nots.

2026 is America’s crossroads. Unless we send a clear message that we will resist this march toward an authoritarian President with unrestrained power, we may not survive as the country our founding fathers created.

When a President can order the military to kill wounded individuals, even if we accept they are enemies of the United States and wish us harm, how can we object the next time an American pilot is shot down, captured, then executed by others?

Combat, despite the horrors and fog it engenders, has rules of engagement. We cannot hold ourselves up as people to be admired and emulated if we descend into the behavior of those we most criticize.

Mr. Trump has denigrated, diminished, and demeaned the Office of the President of the United States and this country in the eyes of the world. That most people outside this country are shocked by the sudden decline in our standing is telling. That many people within the United States are blind or indifferent to it is horrifying.

The list of acts that confirm this contention is long and dismaying, but there is hope. There are positive signs of resistance within the once-admirable Republican Party and encouraging signs of a revitalized and refocused Democratic Party.

Let’s strive to put people in office who will re-establish the balance of power among the three branches, remember their oath is to the Constitution of the United States, not partisan political parties, and seek a consensus among differing perspectives to preserve and protect this country.  

Now is the real moment to make America great again. If these last few months have not demonstrated the danger of the alternative, nothing will.

A Policy Dichotomy of Extraordinary Hypocrisy

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

Okay, class, we are going to start the day with a pop quiz. Simple two question test on current affairs. Ready?

Who WAS Alejandro Carranza?

Who IS Juan Orlando Hernández?

Come on, now. This should be easy. Okay, times up. Can anybody tell me the answers? No? Okay, I’ll explain.

Alejandro Carranza was the name of a Columbian fisherman on a boat allegedly smuggling cocaine into the United States. While the identification is unconfirmed, as is the allegation of drug smuggling, Mr. Carranza now resides in the digestive tract of any number of species of fish or other ocean going carnivores having been obliterated by a US Navy missile(s).

Juan Orlando Hernández, on the other hand, is the former president of the Honduras arrested, tried, and convicted under our due process procedures after an extensive multi-year investigation by the Department of Justice for orchestrating and benefitting from smuggling 400 ton of cocaine into the United States.

Now, here’s an easy bonus question. Besides one being alive and breathing and one being disintegrated, what is the difference between them?

In Mr. Carranza’s case, the President of the United States unilaterally ordered him executed. In Mr. Hernández’s case, the President ordered him pardoned and released.

So the policy of the United States government, this most Christian nation born of the doctrine of Jesus of Nazareth and, apparently, less than enthusiastic about innocent until proven guilty, is to kill people on the lower end of the drug cartel hierarchy we “think” might be smuggling drugs and to pardon those of the upper echelon we CONVICTED of smuggling drugs.

I can see how this will indeed make us great again.

While we are at it, in keeping with our new naming policy of various departments within government, i.e. Department of War, let’s rename the Department of Justice to the Department of Smiting Offenders without Having a Trial (SO WHAT)

The Longest War

/ Joe Broadmeadow / 1 Comment

If you were to ask most Americans to name the longest war we have ever fought, they would say the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They would be wrong by a factor of three. This one is still ongoing.

The longest war, a war the President declared at the time with the advice and consent of Congress, is the war on drugs. President Richard Nixon, in 1971, a few months before his fateful decision to authorize the Watergate break-in, announced drug abuse to be “public enemy number one” (don’t you miss the days when we declared public enemies?) and began increasing the funding for federal, state, and local law enforcement.

For ten years, the war on drugs was more public relations than combat. It took President Ronald Reagan, in 1981, fresh off his “success” with the Iranian Hostage crisis, to fully ramp up the effort.

Focusing almost exclusively on enforcement and incarceration, the number of people imprisoned for non-violent drug offenses went from 50,000 in 1980 to  400,000 in 1997. Reagan’s wife, Nancy, contributed in her own way with the wildly “effective” Just Say No campaign.

The U.S. Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which allocated $1.7 billion to the War on Drugs and established a series of “mandatory minimum” prison sentences for various drug offenses. A notable feature of mandatory minimums was the massive gap between the amounts of crack and powder cocaine that resulted in the same minimum sentence: possession of five grams of crack led to an automatic five-year sentence. In comparison, it took the possession of 500 grams of powder cocaine to trigger that sentence. Since approximately 80% of crack users were African American, mandatory minimums led to an unequal increase in incarceration rates for non-violent Black drug offenders, as well as troubling indications that the War on Drugs was fundamentally racist.

This is not a Republican or Democratic policy issue; it is shared across the political spectrum.

When the use of civil process to seize drug dealers’ assets became available, it was like winning the lottery. We took cars and cash and, as the theory held, used them to enhance drug investigations. Making drug dealers pay for the investigations into drug dealing seemed genius.

It turned out to be our own form of addiction. Many agencies became more focused on seizing the assets to pay their budgets than on stopping drugs. They lost sight of the goal. If an agency became aware of a kilo of cocaine in a location, they could get a search warrant and seize it. But, if they waited a few days, they could seize the remaining cocaine AND get the money from the sale of the rest.

Don’t believe that happened? It did, all over the United States. A very astute Assistant U.S. Attorney in Rhode Island at the time predicted as much in a conversation we had one day.

Not every agency engaged in such questionable activity. Still, it was enough to create a challenge to effectiveness and a stain on the whole purpose.

Now I was a loyal soldier during these halcyon days of the war, having served in a police department and working in various units focusing on drug enforcement. But over time, it became apparent that we were fighting a single-front war on a multi-front battlefield.

The majority of people we arrested, while engaged in breaking the law, were as much slaves to the drugs as those in the higher echelons were to the revenue.

If one is going to fight a war, one needs a strategy that identifies the enemy’s strengths and weaknesses.

In the war on drugs, we face three enemies. First, those engaged in the manufacture and distribution of drugs, both domestic and foreign. Second, we face the powerful force of addiction. And lastly, we face an even more powerful force, greed.

Putting all of our resources into targeting just one aspect of this three-pronged front is self-defeating. Over the years, the type of drugs has changed, the methods of smuggling adapted, and the avenues for laundering the proceeds have grown more sophisticated. Yet we continue fighting with the same strategy.

It hasn’t made us drug-free. It has put us in the top five countries in terms of the number of individuals we incarcerate per capita. We are just behind El Salvador, Cuba, Rwanda, and Turkmenistan at 541 per 100k.

And, one might argue, one of the “benefits” to come from the war on drugs is private prisons. Now, there is something we should be proud to have invented. Good old capitalism at its best.

To put it in the context of a war. If we had focused all our efforts on fighting Japan during World War II, because it was the only nation that directly attacked us, what would have happened in Europe?

Some Presidential administrations and some state and local authorities recognize the need to expand the war to address these other fronts. But not consistently. Treatment facilities for addiction, alternative sentences for non-violent drug offenses, and targeting the banks, businesses, and financial institutions reaping the largesse of drug money are not conducive to public relations campaigns.

Blowing up boats makes for great theater, like a 21st-century Circus Maximus. It is all show and little substance. It makes people who don’t understand the complexities involved excited, gives the politicians a moment in the public spotlight (their own addiction,) and accomplishes nothing.

I dare say some would embrace the idea of putting drug dealers in the middle of a stadium and letting lions devour them for the entertainment of the masses. It would generate excellent TV ratings, even better than UFC. But it would have no effect on reducing the level of drugs being consumed in this country, would be another waste of efforts, and do nothing for the lions but make them lazy and fat.

 Our fifty-five-year war on drugs drags on, casualties mount—and not just the ones clinging to an overturned boat miles from shore—and we are no closer to our goal.