To include your event in the Briefing and Live Calendar, please fill out this form.
Weather: Sunny. Highs in the mid 80s. East winds 5 to 10 mph. Wednesday Night: Mostly clear in the evening, then becoming partly cloudy. Lows in the lower 60s. Southeast winds 5 to 10 mph.
- Daily weather briefing from the National Weather Service in Jacksonville here.
- Drought conditions here. (What is the Keetch-Byram drought index?).
- Check today’s tides in Daytona Beach (a few minutes off from Flagler Beach) here.
- Tropical cyclone activity here, and even more details here.
Today at a Glance:
At the US Supreme Court: The justices hear arguments in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, a dispute that “could open the gates for public funding to go directly to religious schools,” according to Scotus Blog. “In 2023, the Oklahoma charter school board approved an application to establish a virtual Catholic charter school, St. Isidore of Seville. The school would “fully embrace” the Catholic Church’s teachings. But the state supreme court invalidated that contract, concluding that as a public school it was required to be non-sectarian. On Wednesday, the court will consider whether St. Isidore can become the nation’s first religious charter school.”
Separation Chat, Open Discussion: The Atlantic Chapter of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State hosts an open, freewheeling discussion on the topic here in our community, around Florida and throughout the United States, noon to 1 p.m. at Pine Lakes Golf Club Clubhouse Pub & Grillroom (no purchase is necessary), 400 Pine Lakes Pkwy, Palm Coast (0.7 miles from Belle Terre Parkway). Call (386) 445-0852 for best directions. All are welcome! Everyone’s voice is important. For further information email [email protected] or call Merrill at 804-914-4460.
Weekly Chess Club for Teens, Ages 9-18, at the Flagler County Public Library: Do you enjoy Chess, trying out new moves, or even like some friendly competition? Come visit the Flagler County Public Library at the Teen Spot every Wednesday from 4 to 5 p.m. for Chess Club. Everyone is welcome, for beginners who want to learn how to play all the way to advanced players. For more information contact the Youth Service department 386-446-6763 ext. 3714 or email us at [email protected]
Notably: Lovely. From Statista: “Global military spending hit $2.7 trillion last year, according to the latest data by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). More than 100 countries increased their military spending in 2024, with Europe’s military spending surpassing levels last seen at the end of the cold war, driven mainly by the war in Ukraine, while the Middle East’s expenditure reached an estimated $243 billion, a 15 percent increase on 2023, as the Israel-Gaza war and the conflict with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon continue. Asia saw its biggest annual increase since 2009 at 6.3 percent amid heightened tensions, particularly in East Asia. The countries to see the biggest change in spending between 2023 and 2024 were Guyana (+78 percent), Myanmar (+66 percent), Israel (+65 percent), Lebanon (58 percent) and Zimbabwe (52 percent). Russia increased its military spending by 38 percent, while many countries in Europe also upped their spending significantly, including Romania (+43 percent), the Netherlands (+35 percent), Sweden (+34 percent), Czechia (+32 percent), Poland (+31 percent) and Germany (+28 percent). In Latin America, Mexico stands out for having spent 39 percent more on its military budget in 2024. Countries in the Americas accounted for 40 percent of global military spending in 2024, followed by countries in Europe (26 percent), Asia and Oceania (23 percent), the Middle East (9 percent) and Africa (1.9 percent).”
View this profile on Instagram
The Live Calendar is a compendium of local and regional political, civic and cultural events. You can input your own calendar events directly onto the site as you wish them to appear (pending approval of course). To include your event in the Live Calendar, please fill out this form.
May 2025
Flagler Beach Farmers Market
Coffee With Flagler Beach Commission Chair Scott Spradley
Grace Community Food Pantry on Education Way
Peps Art Walk Near Beachfront Grille
Pool Safety Day
ESL Bible Studies for Intermediate and Advanced Students
Grace Community Food Pantry on Education Way
Palm Coast Farmers’ Market at European Village
Gamble Jam at Gamble Rogers Memorial State Recreation Area
SunBros Cafe Celebrates the Life of Travis Sundell
Al-Anon Family Groups
For the full calendar, go here.
It was just this sort of thinking that lay behind the Democratic-Republicans’ excitement over the undersea warfare inventions of Robert Fulton. Fulton, who spent two decades abroad between 1787 and 1806 mingling with radicals like Thomas Paine and Joel Barlow, became convinced that submarines and torpedoes could revolutionize naval warfare. By being able to destroy warships “by means so new, so secret, and so incalculable,” submarines, said Fulton, would render conventional naval warfare impossible. Not knowing where the underwater attacks would come from, sailors would be demoralized and fleets would be “rendered worthless.” Without navies, nations, in particular Great Britain, would be compelled to liberalize their trade and practice the freedom of the seas that Americans had long advocated. This in turn would lead to the universal and perpetual peace that every enlightened person, but especially Americans, yearned for. Fulton built a prototype of a submarine and called it Nautilus . Although he knew his submarine was but an infant, he saw in it “an Infant hercules which at one grasp will Strangle the Serpents which poison and convulse the American Constitution.”23 Fulton returned to the United States eager to demonstrate his new invention. In 1807 he used one of his torpedoes, which were actually mines, to blow up a brig in New York Harbor, an experiment that Washington Irving’s Salmagundi mocked as the destruction of the British fleet in effigy. Nevertheless, the Republicans were excited. In a Fourth of July address in 1809 his friend and patron Joel Barlow declared that Fulton’s submarine project “carries in itself the eventual destruction of naval tyranny” and the possibility of freeing “mankind from the scourge of naval wars.”24 With this kind of support from a leading Republican intellectual and with the publication of his Torpedo War and Submarine Explosions in 1810, Fulton was invited to address the Congress and to conduct further tests of his underwater devices. The Republican Congress, despite its reputation for penny-pinching, even appropriated five thousand dollars to fund his experiments. Although Fulton had many doubters, especially in the navy and among the Federalists, Jefferson had nothing but praise for his devices. In April 1810 the former president told Fulton that he hoped that “the torpedo may go the whole length you expect of putting down navies.” Indeed, he wished the scheme to succeed “too much not to become an easy convert & to give it all my prayers & interest. . . . That the Tories should be against you is in character, because it will curtail the power of their idol, England.” Although most of Fulton’s torpedo experiments were unsuccessful, the Jeffersonian Republican dream of creating the conditions for a universal peace did not die.”
–From Gordon S. Wood’s Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815 (2009).
Pogo says
@More is more
“Gordon Wood says his 15 minutes of fame came with “Good Will Hunting” (Interview)
by Scott Porch
Gordon S. Wood, a Brown University emeritus professor of history, has just completed a collection of 39 of the more significant pamphlets for the Library of America in the two-volume The American Revolution: Writings from the Pamphlet Debate 1764‒1776. Wood is the recipient of the Bancroft Prize for Creation of the American Republic, 1776–1787 (1969) and the Pulitzer Prize for History for The Radicalism of the American Revolution (1992). We had a wide-ranging discussion about pamphlets, changes in the media environment, and the current state of historical writing, but we started with Wood’s cameo — or more accurately his name’s cameo — in the 1997 film Good Will Hunting…”
https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/gordon-wood-says-his-15-minutes-of-fame-came-with-
“The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …”
― George Orwell
Ray W, says
Perhaps many FlaglerLive readers find interesting the idea that Thomas Jefferson held hope for a future of “universal and perpetual peace” through a technological military innovation that he believed capable of destroying naval fleets at any place and at any time.
The debate over the possibility of universal and perpetual peace through military might did not end with Thomas Jefferson.
Barbara Tuchman, a widely acclaimed historian, wrote of such a philosophical possibility in her expansive work, The Guns of August:
“The last two years of the decade while Europe enjoyed a rich fat afternoon, were the quietest. Nineteen-ten was peaceful and prosperous, with a second round of Moroccan crises and Balkan wars still to come. A new book, The Great Illusion by Norman Angell, had just been published, which proved that war had become vain. By impressive examples and incontrovertible argument Angell showed that in the present financial and economic interdependence of nations, the victor would suffer equally with the vanquished; therefore war had become unprofitable; therefore no nation would be so foolish as to start one. Already translated into eleven languages, The Great Illusion had become a cult. At the universities, in Manchester, Glasgow, and other industrial cities, more than forty study groups of true believers had formed, devoted to propagating its dogma. Angell’s most earnest disciple was a man of great influence on military policy, the King’s friend and advisor, Viscount Esher, chairman of the War Committee assigned to remaking the British Army after the shock of its performance in the Boer War. Lord Esher delivered lectures on the lesson of The Great Illusion at Cambridge and the Sorbonne wherein he showed how ‘new economic factors clearly prove the inanity of aggressive wars.’ A twentieth century war would be on such a scale, he said, that its inevitable consequences of ‘commercial disaster, financial ruin and individual suffering’ would be ‘so pregnant with restraining influences’ as to make war unthinkable. He told an audience of officers at the United Service Club, with the Chief of the General Staff, Sir John French, in the chair, that because of the interlacing of nations war ‘becomes every day more difficult and improbable.’
“Germany, Lord Esher felt sure, ‘is as receptive as Great Britain to the doctrine of Norman Angell.’ How receptive were the Kaiser and the Crown Prince to whom he gave, or caused to be given, copies of The Great Illusion is not reported. There is no evidence that he gave one to General von Bernhardi, who was engaged in writing a book called Germany and the Next War, published in the following year, which was to be as influential as Angell’s but from the opposite point of view. Three of its chapter titles, ‘The Right to Make War,’ ‘The Duty to Make War,’ and ‘World Power or Downfall’ sum up its thesis.
“As a twenty-one-year-old cavalry officer in 1870, Bernhardi had been the first German to ride through the Arc de Triomphe when the Germans entered Paris. Since then the flags and glory interested him less than the theory, philosophy, and science of war as applied to ‘Germany’s Historic Mission,’ another of his chapter titles. He had served as chief of the Military History section of the General Staff, was one of the intellectual elite of that hard-thinking, hard-working body, and author of a classic on cavalry before he assembled a lifetime’s study of Clausewitz, Treitschke, and Darwin, and poured them into the book that was to make his name a synonym for Mars.
“War, he stated, ‘is a biological necessity’; it is the carrying out among humankind of ‘the natural struggle for existence.’ Nations, he said, most progress or decay; ‘there can be no standing still,’ and Germany must choose ‘world power or downfall.’ Among the nations Germany ‘is in social-political respects at the head of all progress in culture’ but is ‘compressed into narrow, unnatural limits.’ She cannot attain her ‘great moral ends’ without increased political power, an enlarged sphere of influence, and new territory. This increase in power, ‘befitting our importance,’ and ‘which we are entitled to claim,’ is a ‘political necessity’ and ‘the first and foremost duty of the state.’ In his own italics Bernhardi announced ‘What we now wish to attain must be fought for,’ and from here he galloped home to the finish line: ‘Conquest thus becomes a law of necessity.’
“Having proved the ‘necessity’ (the favorite word of German military thinkers), Bernhardi proceeded to method. Once the duty to make war is recognized, the secondary duty, to make it successfully, follows. To be successful a state must begin war at the ‘most favorable moment’ of its own choosing it has ‘the acknowledged right … to secure the proud privilege of such initiative.’ Offensive war thus becomes another ‘necessity’ and a second conclusion inescapable: ‘It is incumbent on us … to act on the offensive and strike the first blow.’ Bernhardi did not share the Kaiser’s concern about the ‘odium’ that attached to the aggressor. Nor was he reluctant to tell where the blow should fall. It was ‘unthinkable,’ he wrote, that Germany and France could ever negotiate their problems. ‘France must be so completely crushed that she can never cross our path again’; she ‘must be annihilated once and for all as a great power.'”
Make of this what you will.
Me?
Can it be argued that when Churchill argued to the American people in 1943 during an address to Congress that Prussian militarism must be “extirpated”, it was the philosophy of General von Bernhardi that was the target of his intent? And does the language emanating from the Kremlin in support of its war of aggression against the Ukraine mirror the language of General von Bernhardi? Is there in fact a philosophy of Russian militarism that differs little from Bernhardi’s Prussian militarism?
Pogo says
@Ray W
One vote for extirpation; who or what would you propose as the scalpel? And the surgeon?
Being acquainted with both, I prompted Copilot, “intersection of barbara tuchman and joseph conrad”.
FWIW, Copilot quickly responded:
“Barbara Tuchman and Joseph Conrad intersect in their shared ability to weave historical and human narratives with profound insight. Tuchman, a historian and Pulitzer Prize-winning author, often explored the complexities of human behavior and decision-making in historical contexts, as seen in works like The Guns of August. Conrad, a novelist, delved into the psychological depths of his characters, often set against the backdrop of imperialism and maritime adventures, as exemplified in Heart of Darkness.
Both writers grappled with themes of power, morality, and the consequences of human actions. Tuchman’s historical analysis often highlighted the unintended consequences of political and military decisions, while Conrad’s fiction explored the moral ambiguities and psychological struggles of individuals in challenging circumstances. Their works resonate with readers who seek to understand the interplay between individual choices and broader societal forces.
If you’re interested, I can delve deeper into specific works or themes that connect them!”
Insight, or incitement:?
I smell blood and an era of prominent madmen.
— W.H. Auden
So Copilot, what about: intersection of trump, putin, munroe doctrine?
Copilot, deeply, responded:
“The intersection of Trump’s recent foreign policy rhetoric, Putin’s assertive maneuvers on the world stage, and the long-standing Monroe Doctrine lies in how historical principles are repurposed—and often contradicted—to serve modern power plays.
Trump’s Revitalization of the Monroe Doctrine
Traditionally, the Monroe Doctrine was invoked by the United States in 1823 to deter European interference in the Western Hemisphere. In recent years, Trump has flirted with a modern adaptation of this doctrine, proposing policies and even bold territorial hints (such as acquiring Greenland or asserting control over the Panama Canal) to reassert American dominance. His approach reframes a 19th-century policy to confront contemporary challenges, such as the rising influence of powers like China and Russia, signaling a return to unilateral American action reminiscent of past eras.
Putin’s Assertive Geopolitics
Vladimir Putin’s strategy, by contrast, has long been defined by the reassertion of Russian influence through realpolitik—whether in Eastern Europe, Ukraine, or other neighboring regions. While Trump’s declarations invoke a revival of American exceptionalism, his sometimes ambivalent stance toward Putin (simultaneously offering negotiation while projecting strength) creates a kind of diplomatic ambiguity. This duality is exploited by Putin, who uses the uncertainty to bolster Russia’s position against what he perceives as American overreach.
Where Old Doctrine Meets Contemporary Tactics
At the heart of the intersection is a blend of historical nostalgia and modern power projection. Trump’s revival of the Monroe Doctrine is not merely about preventing external interference in the Americas but is an effort to adapt a venerable nationalistic principle into a tool of 21st-century geopolitics. However, unlike the original doctrine—which was meant to protect U.S. neighbors from European colonial ambitions—this new formulation also serves as a pivot against emergent global competitors, including Russia. Here, Trump’s bold, sometimes contradictory posture (asserting hemispheric dominance while reaching out to adversaries like Putin) has blurred the lines between aggressive expansion and strategic negotiation. This makes it challenging for allies and adversaries alike to predict U.S. intentions.
Broader Implications and Future Concerns
The merging of these approaches underscores a larger shift in international relations. Reviving an old doctrine can be seen as a call back to grand, unilateral instincts that once defined U.S. international policy, but when applied in a multipolar world, it risks alienating traditional allies and destabilizing established norms. Putin’s effective use of such mixed signals—where rhetoric and action coexist in tension—exemplifies a broader trend where the past is reinterpreted in ways that serve current power agendas, often with unintended consequences. The resulting dynamic leaves the global order caught between historical legacies and the unpredictable nature of modern realism.
There’s much more to explore here—from the impact on U.S. alliances and economic policies to how these shifts affect global perceptions of power and legitimacy in international relations.”
I would love to hear trump, on his own, respond. Would you — care to hear trump’s response?
Ray W, says
Thank you once again, Pogo. If you wish to go further, I am for it. I take the position that the Ukraine has already won the war. Only the killing remains to be done before Russian imperialism is crushed. Only the United States can save Russia now. Not one square kilometer should be ceded to Russia.
Ed P says
Who leaves a gig paying them somewhere between $6.3 million and $9 million in income in the last 2 years to earn $246,400 annually as Secretary of Defense?
A fool ?
A narcissist?
A Patriot?
Answer
Peter Brian Hegseth
Pierre Tristam says
You forgot a drunk, a showman, a lout, an ignoramus, a nullity, etc. in other words, an ordure in his master’s image.
Pogo says
@Ray W
I completely agree with you, “… Only the United States can save Russia now…” has haunted me for some time. Trump’s perfidy is galling and disgraceful — and that sums him up.
And who else is aligned with Putin? And then, what other bilious hearts, and addled minds, find succor in that venal host?
A dark and stormy night indeed.
Pogo says
@P.T.
Re: “… an ordure in his master’s image.”
Exactly. Trump has us supine and leaderless in the most dangerous epoch in human history — while he wallows in his grotesque excesses of greed, sadism, and goddamn unreckonable insanity.
Sherry says
Thank you Pierre and Pogo. . . very well said!