The exploding cost of Pres. Donald J. Trump's White House Ballroom are creating a flurry of proposals for related public improvements. One such proposal is to repurpose an existing federal property in California as a west-coast arts and culture hub, which would have the added benefit of assuaging the anguish of western citizens at being ignored by the eastern political establishment.

That location, of course, is Alcatraz Island, an underutilized space, conveniently located in San Francisco Bay, within a metropolitan area of around 7.5 million inhabitants, a western equivalent of the WH Ballroom that could become a venue for many forms of entertainment and cultural development. Interest has already been expressed by NASCAR (aquatic division), WWE and the Mud-wrestling Admirers Guild of America (MAGA).

In addition, Alcatraz has long been a focus of Pres. Trump's attention, he having spoken of it many times during his first term as a place to host any number of other US politicians.The California Bay Ballroom would economize by using the planned eastern façade of the White House Ballroom, oriented to the south with a view of San Francisco already famed worldwide. The façade would be constructed over existing residential space that could be converted to hotel space for guests and to preparation for festivities.

It is anticipated that the facility will include residential space for Mr. Trump, who will no longer be in office when it is completed. There will also be a presidential library, where the former president will be assigned (correction, invited -Ed.) to work.

Not shown in the accompanying image is the proposed electric sign facing the Golden Gate, tastefully flashing "TRUMP" in gold letters 50 feet tall, supported by global network transmission of its image on Fox News.

The attached rendering envisions Pres. Trump en route from San Francisco to the inauguration of the new facility.

What is this?

Someone on a Farcebook group suggested sending Mr & Mrs Bezos to Mars along with a few other would-be oligarchs. Our take was that "Actually, sending them to Mars might improve both planets. Mars gets organic matter (and, it appears a generous supply of silicone), while Earth gets relief from the current celebration of shallow values."

PS: One also notes that this gown is reminiscent of those one saw on the stage of the old Burbank Theater on L.A.'s Main Street in the 1950s, at least for the first 16 bars.

Click me

Last month at the DC Hilton a man allegedly attempted to assassinate the President and/or other cabinet officials during the White House Correspondents' Assn. (WHCA) gala. The event had 2,600 guests, many of whom were working press and their spouses or others. No doubt there were also network executives and other "dignitaries" (read Trump fans). Several members of the Cabinet attended, including according to multiple reports, a majority of the "line of succession" to the presidency, which frankly seems crazy on its face.

Because the venue is within a larger public building, it has been suggested that some other location would be preferable. Press reports have noted that the location was traditional for an event that has been held there for decades. Other writers have noted that there are numerous other DC locations capable of hosting similar crowds with much greater security.

Trump acolytes in the White House have suggested that one purpose of "The Ballroom" is to create a more secure DC location for public presidential events. Some have suggested the ballroom is just another sop to Trump's vanity. Let's walk that through.

According to a web search today,
• Initial White House and media briefings in mid‑2025 described a ballroom of about 90,000 square feet with a seated capacity of around 650 guests.
• Later statements from President Trump and project descriptions indicated that the target capacity was revised upward, first to 900 and then to 999 seated guests.
• By early 2026, updated briefings and news coverage described finalized plans for a ballroom space of about 22,000 square feet within a larger 90,000‑square‑foot addition, designed to seat roughly 1,000 dinner guests, which is the figure generally cited now.

So on first analysis, the proposed space is at best 100-(1000/2600*100)=61% smaller than the Hilton Ballroom.

Let's assume The Ballroom is complete in time for the 2028 celebration, presumably Trump's last hurrah. So who will be able to attend in the new space?

The WHCA has around 900 members representing about 250 news organizations. Let's assume the journalists and each of their bosses want to attend and bring one guest. That's 2,300 people, plus, let's say 100 government officials. Oops!

Let's assume that only half can attend due to distance, scheduling, etc. That's 1,200 people. Oops!

To whom do you suppose the Trump Administration will prefer to send a gold-embossed invitation, the actual journalists, or their bosses, or big political donors? (Hint: Consider which group is more likely to have contributed to the Trump campaigns over the years.) So there is a strong possibility that future WHCA galas will consist of appointed government officials chatting with financiers and management types who like to pretend they're associated with journalism.

Fun fact: Submit to any AI search engine the query "What US president has experienced the most assassination attempts?" Many people are saying you will probably not be surprised by the response.

For those of you who think war is grand and glorious and a really good way to spend our spare time and spare cash, a little arithmetic might change your minds.

The rescue of downed pilots pulled off by the US military was a nice piece of work, and apparently a bargain at around $500 million or perhaps a billion give or take when factoring in all the overtime, support personnel and lost equipment (image; apology to Al Jazeera). The tip of the iceberg for us who have been pay, and paying again, since 1945.

The combined cost of the Vietnam war and all the "9/11" wars plus the current clstrfk is order of magnitude somewhere between 6 and 8.5 trillion dollars. Might we have spent that more wisely?

The cost of rebuilding a mile of interstate highway is about 15-20 million dollars. There are 48,900 miles of interstate. Now, I could have done it manually, but I let my computer tell me that for the amount of money spent on war (and those are just the cost of the wars, not the cost of maintaining the capacity for war, we could rebuild the entire interstate system 8.2 times (assuming the $15MM/mi estimate).

If we have to rebuild the system every 40 years, the annual cost would be a few miles at a time for $82/40=$2.05 billion per year. If we do it once and put the other $6 trillion into mutual funds at only 6%, we'd earn $360 billion in interest every year, minus the $2 billion for the roads. The $358 billion would pay the interest on the debt to Social Security at a rate of $300bn/yr would pay off the debt in less than ten years.

Happily, that leaves $58bn to pay me for the idea and the strenuous effort of these calculations.

Here's the deal: I'll settle for a million, leaving $57 billion for my beloved compatriots, each of whom would get a check for around $170 X the number of persons in the household, which compares nicely to the $X hundred you supposedly got from Fearless Leader, which actually came from an expansion of the national debt, while this would be a true rebate.

Are these the real numbers? Perhaps not exactly, but they're in the ballpark. And they do show that war is not just cruel and stupid; it's also very, very expensive and the reason we can't all have nice things.

Rescue story

Observing the current situation in Iran, it would appear that the
DIVERSE population of young, old, rich, poor, professional and laboring classes, religious and secular all have a roughly
EQUAL chance of being blown to smithereens by an overwhelmingly more powerful military force in an incessant and apparently indiscriminate campaign bordering on obliteration and
INCLUSIVE of the entire society.

It appears we've misunderstood. The Right's oft-stated opposition to DEI is in fact merely a quest to redefine it. I am much comforted, as I'm sure are the Iranians.

I recently exchanged comments with a fellow Farcebook user. He wanted to justify Trump's bomb-the-bejabbers-out-of-em campaign by drawing historic parallels, and I demurred, both as to applicability and rectitude.. Draw your own conclusions.

Robert C asserted...

Some folks really need a history lesson!

Franklin D. Roosevelt & Harry S. Truman (World War II, 1941–1945): Under Roosevelt and subsequently Truman, the US led massive strategic bombing campaigns in Europe and the Pacific. These campaigns targeted railway networks, bridges, refineries, and factory infrastructure.

Harry S. Truman (Korean War, 1950–1953): The U.S. Air Force carried out an intensive campaign against North Korean infrastructure, including bridges, dams, and industrial factories, to disrupt supply lines.

Lyndon B. Johnson (Vietnam War, 1965–1968): Operation Rolling Thunder, a massive, sustained bombing campaign against North Vietnam, targeted military and industrial infrastructure, including key bridges like the Thanh Hóa Bridge.
Richard Nixon (Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos, 1969–1973): Continued bombing campaigns that targeted infrastructure along the Ho Chi Minh Trail and in Cambodia to disrupt supply routes.
George H.W. Bush (Gulf War, 1990–1991): The U.S.-led coalition targeted Iraq’s military support infrastructure, including command centers, communication facilities, and power grids, often using precision-guided weapons.
Bill Clinton (Bosnia/Kosovo, 1995–1999): NATO-led bombing campaigns targeted infrastructure in Yugoslavia, including bridges, industrial plants, and oil facilities, often without formal congressional declarations of war.
George W. Bush (Iraq War/Afghanistan, 2001-2009): The 2003 "Shock and Awe" campaign in Iraq destroyed substantial civilian and military infrastructure, including electricity networks and government bridges.
Barack Obama (Libya/Syria/Yemen, 2009–2017): Oversaw NATO airstrikes in Libya that hit regime-controlled infrastructure, and used drone strikes on infrastructure targets in Yemen and Syria, often acting without new congressional approval.
Donald Trump (Syria/Iran Threats, 2017-2021/2026): Continued bombing in Yemen and Syria and, in April 2026, made public threats to destroy Iran’s electrical grid and transportation bridges, a policy referred to as "bridge and power day".
Joe Biden (Syria/Iraq, 2021–Present): Authorized airstrikes against targets in Iraq and Syria, targeting militia infrastructure.

Wikipedia

These actions frequently spanned multiple administrations, with the United States engaging in airstrikes in over 30 countries since 1945.

And I replied...

Robert, there are several obvious difference between the present and past wars.

* During WWII military operations in all theaters were against countries that had previously launched comparable campaigns agains vital US interests including those in US territory. (Pearl Harbor comes to mind.) Neither Iran's religious antipathy toward a third party nor the actions of its surrogates rises to the same level of threat to the USA.

* The Cold War was a clear and unambiguous threat, but the US chose instead to put us on the wrong side of history by supporting the return of French colonial forces to Vietnam, leading to a ten-year war and a major US defeat in which thousands of Americans and perhaps millions of Vietnamese died. Hardly glorious.(See earlier exchange in this thread regarding Wm. Calley.)

* The Bush clan's adventures in the Persian Gulf had little to do with US security but a lot to do with the fortunes of oil interests in the USA and abroad, including those of the Bushes themselves.

* Obama did for sure strike in Syria and Yemen under the cloak of the "War Powers Act" left over from the Bush era. The Syria incursions were quite clearly related to assaults on US forces and on international shipping in the Red Sea and were supported by the UN (see UN Security Council approved Resolution 1973 ), NATO (NATO allies like the UK and France strongly supported the operation and flew many of the combat missions) and other nations. As for Yemen, human rights groups and some UN investigators criticized the US program for lack of transparency, civilian casualties, and possible violations of international law, urging clearer legal justification and accountability mechanisms. At the same time, Obama’s 2013–2014 speeches tightening rules for drone use and acknowledging civilian risks were cautiously welcomed by Pakistan, Yemen, and a UN special rapporteur as steps toward more constrained and transparent use of force. Overall, a mixed bag.

* The first Trump administration, despite campaign statements critical of Obama, largely continued the policies of the Obama era directed at Syria and Yemen.

* The Biden administration responded to Iran-directed attacks on US forces in Syria and Iraq.

In summary, virtually all other administrations you mentioned were acting DEFENSIVELY to actual threats and/or attacks and were fully or partially supported by allies and others. One cannot rationally apply those actions as a road map to future US foreign policy.

In contrast, the present warfare in the Persian Gulf is OFFENSIVE (in every sense of the word). It is rather obviously, as reflected in public statements by the administration, addressing fear of a theoretical future threat that would surely result in obliteration of the attacker, based on the unlikely choice of a foreign government to commit national suicide. And oh by the way, have you noticed few people are mentioning the Epstein affair this month? The vulgarity and hyper-machismo of Trump & Hegspeth is a national embarrassment adding insult to injury.

[BTW, none of the statements herein is sourced from Wikipedia, which is an autodidactic (look it up) source in which many articles written by amateurs contain errors of fact and reason.]

Bottom line: Two wrongs still don't make a right, and no number of paeans to past violence can turn the present tragedy into poetry.

US President D.J. Trump has remonstrated loudly with NATO leaders over their disaffection from the war he has launched in the Persian Gulf. We wondered, "where in the NATO charter is the provision whereby one member state may initiate a war in another part of the world and demand that the other states are obliged to participate?"

So we asked "AI" to do the necessary homework.

Check the answers...

Plans for the Trump Presidential Library are well under way as president Donald J. Trump continues toward January 20, 2029. It is now estimated that the project's result may be among the largest structures ever conceived.

The reason for the scale of the project is that the intent of the committee is to include a printed copy of every book that Trump has never read. Since this is likely to amount to almost every book ever printed, the library would need to be as tall as Dubai's Burj Khalifa and occupy a footprint 3.5 times that of the Pentagon. The volume of the building would be approximately 3,135,361,680 cubic feet, or 25 times the volume of the Superdome in New Orleans.

The Committee has neither confirmed nor denied reports that the lobby of the Library will feature a 1953 Volkswagen beetle with a luggage compartment containing all the books Trump has read. A committee insider, however, who asked to remain anonymous, supplied the author with the accompanying image.

Fact Check

We asked Perplexity: "Has (Alabama senator and gubernatorial candidate) Tommy Tuberville ever spoken a complete sentence extemporaneously?" having never heard him do so.

Perplexity answered "Yes" with the following examples.

On the future of American industry: "Hopefully, in the near future, we’ll put a shovel in the ground."
Evoking every young person's dream job.

and

On government organization: "If a talking filibuster can work, let’s try it. If not, I say we eliminate the filibuster and pass it with 51 votes."
No ambiguity there, of course.

and

On social relations: "We’re in a fight for our life. I’m going to fight and I want you to fight."
A stirring appeal to our better nature.

We stand corrected.

A few facts about "the problem" of "criminal alien" residents. Consider "the worst of the worst" to mean those who kill other inhabitants, the term by which the Contitution describes those who live in the USA, eschewing "citizen" because crime is crime. In fact the Constitution says very little about crime, leaving public safety primarily to the states.

Continues...

What is the cost of the Save America act for a woman? We asked Perplexity a few questions.

R: Estimate the "all-in" cost of a US passport for a woman who has no driver's license or birth certificate, has been married three times with consequent name changes, and has no utility bills or credit cards in her current name.

Continues...

From our The Buck Stops Here Dept.:

Surprise! Fearless Leader has denied responsibility for the scurrilous trope posted on his Truth Anti-Social account Feb. 5 that depicts former President and Mrs. Obama as animals. He claimed that he decided to post it based on "the first part," which he did not define by content or time signature, and the purpose of which "first part" no one has separately identified, explained or praised. He then assignedblame for the "mixup" to an unnamed staff member.

]There would appear to be several possibilities.

1. He's lying.
2. The staff member does not exist.
3. The staff member exists and has not come forward to accept responsibility.
4. One or both of them is a cowardly racist with no scruples or personal honor.

The possibilities are not mutually exclusive.

It remains to be seen if some low-ranking toady will be thrown to the wolves by name or if some true believer will throw him/herself on the pyre of this self-igniting administration and sacrifice his or her reputation forever by taking the blame.

In case you're trapped in an elevator with a Make America Groan Again friend or relative, someone we know asked a popular AI application:

How many violent crimes were committed by non-citizens in the USA during the most recent ten years for which numbers or rates are available?

The response suggests the reason why so many citizens have been arrested by ICE: It is they (we?) and not the aliens who are the principal perpetrators. The app said...

Some might conclude that ICE is just picking low-hanging fruit, with the primary purpose not of expelling violent offenders but of instilling fear. What do you think?

Don't be led astray by Tr$mp's peregrination into polar politics. As shown in a recent meme, the (R)s don't know where or how big Greenland might be. He was only told that it's big and belongs to another kid and that he cannot have it, so of course he threw a tantrum.

PS: If you think this is an accurate map of the arctic region, you really need to go back to geography school. Click the link below the map for a polar primer.

Geographically unhinged

Those old enough to remember the Vietnam War will recall that the Pentagon issued daily "body counts" implyig that the ratio of dead Vietcong to dead Americans was somehow an index of success. The apparent assumption was that second-hand Russian AK-47 rifles were equal in firepower to US tanks and B-52s.

The White House and ICE have neither confirmed nor denied that they will soon use that format to report daily ICE activities across the USA.

The ajacent photo of Gen. Wm. Westmoreland has no relation to this story.