The BLUE PRESS JOURNAL

We aim to be a voice in the ongoing political discourse, providing both factual information and opinionated analysis, from a progressive or center-left perspective, free from the direct influence of major
established Main Street Media.

  • The Strait of Hormuz Truce: A Fragile Birthday Gift for the White House

    You can’t ignore the buzz about the new US-Iran agreement, even if it feels a bit early for celebration. As the deal comes into view, it honestly looks like a birthday present for President Trump though what’s inside is still a mystery, hidden under layers of wrapping.

    Trump did what he always does best: he grabbed his phone and blasted the news all over social media, saying the naval blockades were over and ships would soon pass through the Strait of Hormuz again. His post on Sunday—”Let the oil flow!”—put his classic, upbeat spin on things, painting this diplomatic move as the dawn of a more stable region.

    But let’s be real, that kind of hype is just Trump’s style. He likes to sound strong and ahead of the curve. Still, in international politics, the stakes are high. The press release is nice, Main Street media loves it, but what really matters is what’s written in the deal, the tricky details lawyers and diplomats obsess over.

    Supposedly, the agreement puts limits on how far Iran can push its nuclear program. Vice-President JD Vance says he’s absolutely sure those tough checks are in place to stop Tehran from getting nuclear weapons. President Obama’s 2015 agreement with Iran permanently banned from pursuing a nuclear weapon, so why did Trump pull out of that agreement? Looks like we are just at the same place we were in 2015, but millions of dollars of wasted munitions and hundreds of lives lost. 

    Even so, big questions linger. It’s still not clear how much uranium Iran can enrich or what’s going to happen to the enriched uranium they already have. Officials say these knotty technical points are on hold for sixty days, during the ceasefire, and will be discussed later. So people are understandably cautious.

    Looking back, US-Iran relations have always been a bit of a guessing game, no matter how optimistic Washington gets. Iran’s Supreme National Security Council made it clear: before anything is final, both countries need to prove they’ll actually stick to the deal.

    On the ground, energy experts aren’t convinced oil shipments will get back to normal instantly. The Strait of Hormuz is still risky, littered with mines and tangled up by supply chain problems. So, any promise of smooth sailing and stability feels pretty shaky.

    And there’s always the wildcard. Israel’s unpredictable actions are well known. Trump told the Wall Street Journal that he actually scolded Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over those recent strikes in Lebanon, warning that such moves could blow up this fragile peace. Whether the agreement can survive future Israeli actions or if Iran hits back, is anyone’s guess.

    Back home, the administration is facing massive pressure to bring down rising energy costs. Vice-President Vance promised the public prices would drop soon, which, if it happens, would give folks some relief and help the White House win back some goodwill.

    At the end of the day, this weekend’s agreement just brings things close to what they were before, except now Iran has influence over the Strait of Hormuz. We still don’t know if the deal can hold together both Trump’s economic plans and his political interests. The next few months will reveal if this administration can actually keep things steady.

  • Unpacking the Social Security Shortfall: Beyond the Headlines

    Group of smiling senior adults engaged in activities like reading, biking, and gardening in a park with U.S. Capitol building in background and social security benefits icons


    The recently released 2026 Social Security Trustees Report has ignited a fervor of alarm among fiscal conservatives and so-called policy experts. Their fixation is on the alarming headline: by 2034, Social Security may face the grim reality of being unable to fulfill its commitments, potentially resulting in a staggering 22 percent cut for recipients unless lawmakers act decisively to secure new funding.

    But after spending sometime with the actual projections, I see three major points that usually get lost in the noise:

    First, the supposed economic catastrophe of the trust fund running dry simply isn’t as bad as people make it sound.

    Second, the main reason Social Security faces this shortfall is fifty years of wealth shifting toward the very top.

    Third, the so-called Social Security “crisis” doesn’t even come close to matching the kind of military spending increases Donald Trump is pushing in his 2027 budget. Let’s break these down one by one.

    The Nuance of Trust Fund Accounting
    Start with the first point: the trust fund itself. There’s always confusion around how it really works. When Social Security starts tapping its trust fund, which could happen in 2033, it’s drawing on the bonds the fund holds—money that comes from the Treasury, ultimately. The key thing here? Whether the program is redeeming bonds in 2033 or has run out of them by 2034, the Treasury is the one paying the bills either way.

    Yes, it’s true that—under current law—Social Security has a legal right to the funds needed to redeem those bonds, but not an explicit right to keep paying full benefits once the trust fund runs out. Legally, this distinction matters when it comes to running the program. But economically, the money still comes from the same place. If we can afford full benefits when the trust fund is being redeemed, nothing fundamental changes once the trust fund’s empty—Congress just has to change the law. The capacity to pay benefits is a matter of real resources, not accounting rules.

    So, when people talk about the trust fund running out, it’s much more of a legal and political challenge than an actual economic wall. That’s a detail people need to understand before declaring a “crisis.”

    How Wealth Redistribution Impacts Social Security
    The next factor is income distribution. Go back to 1982—the last major Social Security reform. At that time, about 10 percent of all wage income went over the payroll tax cap (now around $185,000) and escaped the 12.4 percent Social Security tax. Today, that’s nearly 17 percent.

    We’re not just talking about more rich people—the whole system tilts more wage income past the cap, exempting it from taxes that support Social Security. And this doesn’t even factor in the broader shift from wages to corporate profits over twenty-five years. Put simply: revenues that should have supported Social Security have been steadily siphoned upward, out of the program’s reach.

    Here’s the kicker: many of the folks who pushed the trade deals, intellectual property protections, bank bailouts, and tech policies that concentrated this wealth are now the loudest in calling for Social Security cuts. When I look at the numbers, the pattern is clear: years of economic policies pushed the money upward, and now, those same voices argue that programs for everyday Americans are unsustainable. That only makes sense if you ignore where the money went.

    Military Spending vs. Social Security: A Matter of Scale
    Finally, let’s put the Social Security “shortfall” in perspective by comparing it to military spending. The media loves to toss around giant budget numbers, but rarely do we get real context. The same people sounding alarms about Social Security’s budget gap barely blink at massive defense increases.

    Just look at Donald Trump’s proposal: he wants the Pentagon’s budget to leap from $864 billion (Biden’s last year) to a wild $1.5 trillion in 2027. Even if you adjust for inflation, that’s nearly $590 billion more in a single year. And what’s the reasoning for that kind of jump? You won’t find it in Trump’s campaign promises.

    Stack up the numbers: at an inflation-adjusted 2.5 percent annual rate, Trump’s military spending request hits almost $700 billion above current levels (in 2034 dollars). Social Security’s projected shortfall for that same year? $314 billion.

    No matter how you slice it, Trump’s planned military bump dwarfs Social Security’s gap—it’s over twice as big. If Social Security’s deficit is a “major fiscal challenge,” then logically, Trump’s military buildup is much, much worse.

    Even more, remember: Social Security’s funding isn’t just another line item—it’s payroll money already paid in by millions of workers. It’s a shuffle within the government’s own finances. But the military increase is pure new spending: an extra 1.6 percent of GDP yanked straight from the Treasury, putting real strain on the broader economy.

    If you’re serious about fiscal responsibility, you can’t claim Social Security is a problem and then look away from military spending on this scale. It’s just not honest.

    Here’s what it Means
    Let’s cut to the chase: the so-called looming Social Security “crisis” is nothing but a flimsy narrative that disintegrates under real scrutiny. The trust fund? It’s merely an accounting gimmick, not a hard economic boundary. The so-called funding shortfall is a reflection of deliberate choices that funneled billions into the pockets of the GOP’s billionaire elite, not some unavoidable demographic catastrophe. It’s striking how those who scream about a $314 billion gap in Social Security conveniently overlook the staggering nearly $700 billion surge in military spending.

    So the real question isn’t about whether we can “afford” Social Security. It’s whether we’re ready to have a genuine, all-in conversation about what our priorities are—with every number, not just the convenient ones.

  • Struggling to Keep Up: Why Your Paycheck Doesn’t Go as Far as It Used To

    Worried family sitting at table with bills, calculator, laptop, and newspaper about inflation

    It’s been a tough week for the typical American wallet, and honestly, the President’s latest comments about the economy aren’t offering much comfort.

    Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released numbers that aren’t pretty: inflation’s pushed past 4% for the first time since 2023. The worst part? It’s buried in the details. After adjusting for inflation, the average worker’s weekly paycheck has actually dropped by 0.4% compared to last year. The kicker—people are logging more hours, but even that extra effort isn’t enough to break even anymore.

    Living costs keep climbing. Energy prices? Through the roof. Fuel oil is up nearly 60%, gasoline has spiked over 40%. Experts warned these energy hikes were coming, thanks to trouble in the Strait of Hormuz, but honestly, just knowing that doesn’t make it any easier at the checkout counter. And it’s not just gas—groceries are about 3% higher than last year, and nearly every other item on the shelves costs more, too.

    So what’s the President’s take on all this? Earlier today, he told reporters,

    “You know what I really love?” Trump said. “I love the inflation.”

    He argues that once current global conflicts fade—and after referencing some mysterious U.S. operation tied to Iranian oil—prices will supposedly tumble. “When the war’s over?” he said. “It’s going to come down like a rock.”

    But right now, prices aren’t dropping at all, and most Americans are left wondering when this grind of working harder and earning less is ever going to stop.

  • The Perfection Standard: Why Democrats Keep Shooting Themselves in the Foot

    by Winston Wendell

    Look, I know some people won’t like hearing this, but I have to say it: The Democratic Party has a huge problem right now, and it’s not Donald Trump. The real issue is us. More specifically, it’s this weird, self-sabotaging urge to demand perfection from our candidates, while we watch Republicans pretty much celebrate, sometimes even reward their candidates’ flaws.

    When a Republican messes up, supporters shrug it off or chalk it up as part of their personality. When a Democrat falters, even a little, we’re first in line to tear them apart. This exhausting cycle really hit me during the latest Senate primary. It’s time we get honest about the double standard that’s hurting our future.

    Let’s talk about Graham Platner.

    Platner’s a veteran who went through multiple combat tours. And if you haven’t been there yourself, let me be clear: war changes you. Sometimes it leaves scars that take years to even see, much less heal.

    What I respect about Platner is that he never ran from his past. He talked, publicly, about some of the darkest stretches of his life, about drinking to cope, about struggling in his relationships after coming home. He didn’t offer excuses. He talked about recovery, and that takes guts.

    So what did we do? We basically did the opposition’s job for them. The New York Times’ dug up his history, amplified exes, obsessed over his tattoos in search of “problematic” ties. We picked apart his lowest moments and asked if he was even qualified to serve, and lost sight of the man he is now. 

    Their star witness, Lyndsey Fifield, who dated Platner for a couple of years. She previously worked for former Republican South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley’s 2024 presidential campaign and right-wing organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, the US Chamber of Commerce, the Independent Women’s Forum, and Ladies for Kavanaugh—a group she co-founded to support the US Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, who faced sexual misconduct allegations. Seriously, where’s the sense of proportion? Really. 

    Meanwhile, look at the Republican establishment. They put a Supreme Court justice on the bench despite credible sexual misconduct accusations. They re-elected a president who literally bragged about sexual assault on tape and seemed to treat the Constitution like a nuisance. Republican voters, for the most part, just circled the wagons, loyalty and power matter most. And here we are, Democrats, tearing into our own whenever someone shows their humanity.

    I’m not saying we should lower our standards. I’m saying we need to apply those standards with some real-world perspective, not just for show. We say we’re the party of redemption and growth, the party that leads with empathy. But when a veteran openly owns his trauma and his healing, we act like he’s not “perfect” enough to support.

    We say we’re afraid of Republican attacks, but by shredding our own candidates over old mistakes, we’re doing the right wing’s dirty work for them.

    I support Graham Platner because I believe people can change. Because he chose to serve again, putting himself out there, flaws and all. But most of all, I support him because the idea that we’d toss aside a guy with real experience and a serious commitment to recovery, for the sake of some imaginary “perfect” candidate, is just not something we can afford.

    We can keep chasing after some flawless unicorn who doesn’t exist, or we can build a party that gets what it means to grow, that values redemption, and that understands the stakes are just too high to keep sabotaging ourselves.

  • The Perfect Storm: How Economic Woes and Middle East Tensions Undermine Trump’s Political Base

    Digital sign showing Shell gas prices: Regular $4.79, Midgrade $5.05, Premium $5.29, Diesel $5.59

    President Trump’s approval ratings keep slipping, and the latest polls paint a pretty grim picture for his political future. A fresh Reuters/Ipsos poll out this Monday shows only 35 percent of Americans approve of Trump’s job performance, a number that’s almost scraping the bottom of his political history. To make matters worse, that figure barely edges above the 34 percent approval he got in April and mid-May, which marked the lowest point of his second term.

    As the country heads into the 2026 midterm election cycle, the fallout from these low Trump poll numbers is hard to ignore. They’re right in line with his first-term low of 33 percent from December 2017, and it’s clear Trump is up against major political resistance. With economic troubles and international tensions coming together, the storm keeps chipping away at public trust in his leadership.

    Iran War and Energy Crisis Take a Toll on America’s Wallets

    On top of that, the ongoing conflict with Iran has thrown global oil supplies into chaos, hitting Americans where it hurts, 

    at the gas pump. Closing the Strait of Hormuz cut off crucial oil shipments, and energy prices shot up everywhere. Back in late February, when the war kicked off, Americans paid less than $3 for a gallon of gas. Fast forward to today and those prices have exploded.

    Still, there’s been a bit of relief for drivers lately. The nationwide average for a gallon of gas stands at $4.24 as of Monday, down 18 cents from the week before. It’s a small break, but economists warn it won’t last, especially as summer demand pushes prices higher. The Strait of Hormuz remains closed, so oil supplies will stay tight, and no one expects prices to drop much anytime soon.

    American Pessimism Grows As Expectations Sink Lower

    People are losing hope about their financial outlook. That same Reuters/Ipsos poll found nearly 60 percent think gas prices will keep getting worse over the next year, while just 17 percent expect things to improve. This deep pessimism shows how worried folks are about inflation and energy security.

    The Trump administration’s tried casting rising prices as a temporary issue caused by the Iran crisis, promising things will calm down once peace is achieved. Officials have even floated getting rid of gas taxes to help consumers. But honestly, these efforts aren’t moving the needle. The 4,531 respondents from June 3-8 made it clear: Americans don’t believe a quick economic turnaround is coming, and that’s bad news for Trump’s chances as he moves forward.

  • Trump Abruptly Ends ‘Meet the Press’ Interview After Clashing with Host Kristen Welker

    Politician angrily pointing and speaking at a journalist holding a microphone labeled news

    President Donald Trump suddenly walked out of an interview with NBC News’ Meet the Press host Kristen Welker on Sunday, upset by her fact-based questions and accusing the press of being “dishonest.” The whole thing played out on a rainy afternoon at a farm in Wisconsin, where Trump didn’t hold back—he kept pushing back on Welker’s questions about a range of topics.

    Welker stood her ground and challenged Trump’s false claims, like his suggestion that FBI agents somehow helped Capitol rioters. Even with investigations still in the works, Trump denied any responsibility for possible payouts to January 6 rioters.

    Then the conversation shifted to California’s primary election process. Trump started insisting—again without evidence—that there was “cheating” in the election. Welker asked him to show real proof. All Trump said was, “It’s — all I have to do is look. All I have to do is look,” making it clear he had nothing solid to offer.

    Things got even tenser when Trump started hurling insults, calling the media “crooked” and telling Welker she was “either crooked or stupid.” Before storming off, he tossed out a final jab, saying a great country shouldn’t have a dishonest press, then yanked off his mic and left.

    Welker tried to keep the conversation going, mentioning the long travel and the rough weather they’d both dealt with for the interview. Trump didn’t budge—he just left.

    All in all, this explosive clash underscores the relentless divide between Trump and the media, with Meet the Press unwavering in its commitment to fact-checked reporting.

    He behaves like a petulant child when things don’t go his way, resorting to lies in a desperate bid for control.

  • Let’s Not Al Franken Graham Platner

    By Winston Wendell

    When things heat up in politics, it’s easy to forget there’s a real person behind every headline. I want to talk about why I think Graham Platner deserves a fair chance in this Senate race.

    From what I’ve seen, Graham Platner truly cares about Maine. He doesn’t just want a fancy title, he’s taken the time to understand what matters to regular people. Whether it’s healthcare, jobs, or education, he comes at these issues thoughtfully, looking for real solutions.

    What stands out is his willingness to listen. In my experience, the best leaders aren’t the ones who pretend to know everything, they’re the ones who stay curious and open to new ideas. Who have lived a “real life” with all its issues and problems.

    Here’s what really worries me right now: everyone’s rushing to judge. These days, an accusation can feel like a conviction, and that just isn’t right. Everyone deserves the chance to tell their side.

    I’ve learned that taking time to get all the facts helps everyone. It protects not just the accused, but the accuser and it keeps our political system honest. Leaping to conclusions without the full picture really doesn’t help anyone.

    Honestly, our political debates would be a lot healthier if we focused on ideas instead of “gotcha” moments. Whether you like Graham Platner’s positions or not, he deserves the same fairness we’d want for ourselves or people we care about.

    Let’s let the process play out. Let’s ask for real evidence. And let’s not forget what we say actually matters.

    Maine deserves a senator who’ll stand up for them, and I believe Graham Platner can do that. More importantly, Maine deserves a process that’s fair to everyone. Let’s give this race the thoughtful, honest debate it needs.

  • The Unattainable Dream: How the Trump Administration’s Policies Have Crushed the American Dream

    by Winston Wendell

    Family with two children and a golden retriever playing on the front lawn of a blue house with an American flag

    Reading the latest report from the Roosevelt Institute, I can’t help but feel disheartened. The report lays out a grim reality. America is tumbling into economic turmoil, with most people too discouraged even to imagine life getting any better. This is what we’ve inherited from the Trump administration: a government that chipped away at the very idea of the American Dream.

    Elizabeth Wilkins, who leads the Roosevelt Institute, gets straight to the point: “We’re not just asking if people can afford the basics, but if they can afford the things that give life meaning and purpose… We’re talking about a sense of security, of being able to plan for the future, of being able to enjoy the fruits of your labor.” For most Americans now, these aren’t real aspirations, they’re just distant illusions.

    The numbers are hard to stomach. Only 20% of Americans feel any sense of income security. That leaves an overwhelming 80% stuck worrying about their finances today or down the road. Over a third—35%—have simply stopped trying to save because keeping up with the basics is all-consuming. That says it all. The system is set up to benefit the wealthy few, and the rest are picking over what’s left.

    Wilkins puts it bluntly: “The problem is not just economic; it’s also about fairness and the sense that the system is rigged… People see the yawning gap between the haves and have-nots, and it fills them with frustration and anger.” No wonder trust in politicians has fallen off a cliff. People watch Donald Trump cater to billionaires while ignoring everyone else.

    Even though cynicism runs deep, people still want the government to do something. Programs like universal healthcare, affordable childcare, and free public colleges still get strong support. So, even if people are fed up, they’re not out of hope, they still believe a better future is possible, though Trump Administration keeps failing to deliver it.

    Now that we’re facing the fallout of Trump’s policies, something has to give. Everyone can see that the current path is a dead end. The big question is, will those in power Trump and the GOP Congress, finally admit that the system is broken? Or are they just going to keep maintaining this slow grinding decline that kills hope and opportunity for most people?

  • How AI Is Changing American Politics

    by Winston Wendell

    I watched the Thomas Massie primary unfold with a growing sense of dread. Here was a sitting congressman, one who’d actually voted against Trump on occasion, finding himself on the receiving end of something entirely new in American politics. A pro-Trump super PAC dropped an AI-generated video depicting Massie in a fake, scandalous romance with members of the progressive “Squad.” Massie called it out for what it was, a sleazy, desperate lie. It didn’t matter. He lost anyway. Welcome to the future of American democracy, where fabricated, synthetic disinformation can take down a sitting congressman and barely raise an eyebrow.

    The Weaponization of Synthetic Reality

    Living through the Trump era means living in a constant state of reality vertigo. You see AI-generated images of Trump playing savior, then viciously doctored shots of his opponents and frankly, the ridiculousness never lets up. Psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton has a name for this: “malignant normality,” where people become numb to ceaseless distortion because there’s simply too much of it to process. I feel this numbness creep in sometimes, and I think many Americans do too.

    Philosophers have started calling these synthetic attacks “slopaganda,” and the term fits perfectly. Slopaganda doesn’t need to be true. It doesn’t even need to be convincing. It just needs to get under your skin and stir up emotions like paranoia or tribal rage. The goal isn’t persuasion, it’s chaos. When nothing can be proven, these games don’t just spread misinformation; they systematically undermine society’s trust in anything at all.

    Democratized Destruction

    The Republican Party has become remarkably efficient at deploying these tools. The RNC pumps out AI-generated scare ads depicting American collapse under Democratic leadership. Trump himself shares bogus clips showing journalists in fictional scenarios. The bar for political discourse has dropped so far it’s practically subterranean.

    What terrifies me most is the accessibility of this technology. Researchers at places like Brookings have been warning us: these tools let anyone do what used to require professional troll farms and significant resources. Deepfakes are cheap, fast, and everywhere now. Spreading dangerous fake information barely costs a thing, while the resources needed to combat it, fact-checking, verification, education struggle to keep pace.

    State attempts to regulate this, like California’s new laws, run into the familiar obstacles: free speech debates, technology racing far ahead of lawmakers, and plain political inertia. I keep waiting for a comprehensive response, but Washington moves while AI moves faster.

    The Death of Shared Truth

    This digital arms race isn’t just messy, it’s potentially devastating. When people can’t agree on basic facts, participation in civic life collapses. We slide toward “hypernormalization,” a term borrowed from Soviet-era analysis: official stories and reality drift so far apart that nobody believes anything anymore.

    I see this happening in real-time. Voters get lost in the fog, so they cling to strongmen and simple answers for complicated problems. As AI continues pouring into our political system, the collapse of our shared truth feels less like slow decay and more like an active demolition. The real question isn’t whether individual citizens can tell what’s real, it’s whether democracy can survive at all once the distinction between real and fake dissolves entirely.

    At what point do we stop being citizens and start being passengers in a simulation we didn’t choose? I’m not sure we’re far from that line.

  • A Hole in the Ground where American History Once Stood

    by Winston Wendell

    I stood at the edge of the Ellipse this week, just staring at what used to be the East Wing of the White House. Honestly, I’ve seen a lot in Washington, but nothing quite like this—a massive hole in the ground where American history once stood, and no one really knows what’s supposed to happen next.

    That’s what you get with this administration: ambition isn’t a problem. If Trump wants a ballroom—actually, let me fix that. If Trump wants a magnificent ballroom, one so spectacular Marie Antoinette would cry into her croissants, he’ll tear down a perfectly good historic building to make it happen. You gotta give him credit for going all in, even if you’re left wondering who’s paying the bill.

    About that bill: Congress was supposed to handle it. Republicans put together a shiny $1 billion package just for what they called the “East Wing Modernization Project,” which, in D.C. speak, means, “Please Mr. President, take the cash and build your big dance hall.” But then everything just collapsed, faster than a Jenga tower during an earthquake.

    Why? Well, turns out the ballroom wasn’t the only thing up for debate. There was also this $1.8 billion slush fund hanging around to pay off the January 6 rioters—or, as the White House likes to call them, “people who were just exercise-walking through the Capitol, dressed like medieval peasants.” Suddenly, Republicans started crunching the numbers and figured maybe, just maybe, this was worth voting on.

    So they ditched the bill, stormed out of Washington all annoyed, and now we have this huge hole in the ground where someone’s grandma used to have an office. I talked to a construction worker on site, and he just shrugged. “We have the excavators,” he said. “We’re ready to pour concrete as soon as someone tells us what it’s for. Right now, I’m just digging holes and filling them up again. Great exercise, honestly.”

    The courts haven’t helped either. Some judge decided you can’t just demolish parts of the White House without Congress signing off, which sounds pretty reasonable until you remember it’s the actual White House, where the President technically lives. If I want to knock out a wall in my own place, I don’t need my neighbors’ permission, but apparently the Founders had other ideas about presidential home renovations.

    So here we are. A hole. The dream of gilded chandeliers and a dance floor big enough for 500 Americans to do the hustle. And absolutely zero way to connect the two.

    Trump could appeal. He could drag this through the courts until the judges are begging for a break. He could wait for a new Congress that might play along, if that ever happens. For now, though, the hole just sits there—a monument to ambition crashing straight into a very specific budgetary Waterloo.

    I asked a White House spokesman what he thought, and he just sighed. “Sir, we’ve got a hole to stare at.” Then he wandered over and did exactly that.

    Somewhere out there, Karl Marx is probably nodding. History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as a $1 billion unfinished ballroom with really good chandelier potential.