Global
During the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, I never once heard claims that the U.S. military was running low on munitions.
Yet after just five months of “Operation Epstein Fury,” we are being told that the U.S. military is nearly running out of critical munitions.
That raises serious questions. The head of U.S. European Command (EUCOM) has reportedly warned Pentagon leaders that he does not have enough missiles and U.S. Navy destroyers to meet all of the military’s commitments. If that is the case, would EUCOM ultimately have to choose between protecting U.S. forces and protecting Israel?
If so, how does that make sense?
Critics argue that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has diverted too many U.S. military resources to support Israel. If our military is facing shortages, the American people deserve a clear explanation of the logic behind these decisions.
As a retired U.S. Air Force veteran, I believe our first responsibility must be to ensure that American service members have the resources they need to protect themselves and our country.
The second week of August 1945 is one that was indelibly etched in the minds of those that Tom Brokaw immortalized in his book The Greatest Generation. It has also been the subject of numerous documentaries, movies, and one of the most studied acts of war in 20th century history, foreign affairs, political science/international relations and comparative politics.
On Monday, August 6, 1945, the United States became the first nation to use nuclear weapons, “Little Boy,” against another country and in so doing forever altered the worlds’ geopolitical landscape in myriad ways. In the days leading up to the history making move on July 26, 1945, at the Potsdam Conference, President Harry Truman, Prime Minister Winston Churchill and President Chiang Kai-shek of China announced the Potsdam Declaration, which laid out in bold relief the terms of Japan’s surrender. This ultimatum stated if Japan did not surrender, it would face “prompt and utter destruction.”
A couple of cool cats, Dr. Bob and Dan-o Dougan, play tunes on the theme of cool-ness. Songs with cool in them, songs by artists named Cool, songs they thought were cool back in the day, and just songs they think are cool.
Listen live at 11pm Fridays, August 7 and 14, and Mondays at 10am August 10 and 17, streaming at wgrn.org or on the radio at 91.9FM
and
Mondays at 2pm streaming August 10 and 17 at wcrsfm.org or on the radio at 92.7 or 98.3FM.
BANGKOK, Thailand -- When you come to Bangkok, a visit to the capital's sprawling, inexpensive, amulet market will take you on a trip into another dimension.
Here in the market's crowded riverside amulet market, a two-headed baby "zombie" is the most terrifying thing you can buy, but if you promise to feed it every day, the undead spirit could become your loyal slave and protect you against misfortune.
"In Thailand, the lowest level of believers buy these zombies and other amulets like this," said a saffron-robed Buddhist monk, warily examining the grotesque doll-like totem.
"The next highest level of believers buy amulets which have the faces of Buddhist monks.
"The highest level of believers are people like me, who believe only in Buddha," the monk said.
Most Thais are Buddhists, but they also mix a bewildering slew of other beliefs -- including Hindu, animist, and superstitious -- into their spiritual outlook.
Buddha was not into amulets, and advised followers to ignore such illusions.
The events in Tell, southwest of Nablus, were not an isolated act of violence. They were a warning.
For years, Israel has treated Palestinian villages in the occupied West Bank as open spaces for military raids, settler invasions, land theft and collective punishment. The expectation was that Palestinians would endure the violence, bury their dead and return to the same unbearable routine.
In Tell, however, that carefully maintained equation was briefly disrupted.
The confrontation began when armed Israeli settlers entered the area near the village, attempting to attack Palestinian homes. Villagers confronted them. Israeli soldiers and armed settlement personnel then intervened, transforming the settler attack into a broader military assault.
The introduction of the Anti-Corruption Bureau Creation Act marks a significant potential shift in how ordinary citizens can check governmental overreach. By empowering citizens and state attorneys general to sue federal officials—up to the President—to claw back funds obtained through corruption, this federal proposal opens a compelling dialogue about structural accountability.
When examining how initiatives like "Protecting Ohioans' Constitutional Rights" align with this federal framework, we see a shared underlying philosophy: the belief that immunity doctrines and bureaucratic red tape should never place public officials above the law. At its core, the movement to protect constitutional rights—whether on a state level regarding qualified immunity or on a federal level regarding executive corruption—asserts that rights are meaningless without a direct mechanism for enforcement and remedy.
I felt both saddened and angered after reading the Associated Press story on August 5 reporting that "Trump's immigration crackdown has detained more than 50 military spouses and parents."
When the parents or spouses of military service members are taken into ICE custody, nobody may be available to care for their children or their property if those service members are deployed overseas to a war zone. Why should there be no exception for such extenuating circumstances?
Whether the spouse or parent of a military service member was once undocumented is, in my view, beside the point. Consider a simple analogy: if my car insurance or registration lapsed, I would be driving illegally until I renewed them. Once I obtained valid insurance and registration, I would be legal again, and my previous lapse would not continue to define my status.