Showing posts with label Angela Merkel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Angela Merkel. Show all posts

Friday, May 1, 2020

In Fragmented Response To Reopeninig - Survivng COVID -19 May Depend On Your State Getting the R-Nought Down To 1.0


Armed domestic terrorists  in Lansing, MI yesterday, antsy to rush back to croak from the SARS- Cov-2 virus.  Most are brainwashed dupes of the coronavirus truthers at FOX.


"Look, in a public swimming pool there is no separate area designated for urination. In the same sense, if you have one state opening up that hasn't controlled infections it affects all other states." - Health specialist last night on All In'

"Today, The Wall Street Journal ran an editorial about R nought - but they don't even look at their own news stories which feature the Asian successes.  I mean we're not so stupid in America that we can't learn from the others.  Right now it's like a madhouse that we don't know what to do.  Like governors and states are debating the dates to open and not the contact tracing.  Not following the confirmed cases, not preparing the quarantine.  This is the tragedy because we're wasting our time Do we have any sense of learning the most basic things, that's the real issue."-  Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, Columbia University, on 'All In' Wednesday night

" This is what I a deeply and profoundly concerned about, which is the over interpretation that some of these early antibody studies that suggest as many as 80fold more have actually seen the virus, that this is being used to suggest 'oh this is not a devastatingly deadly or virulent disease.  But anchor it on what we actually see. In the major cities that have been hit, whether in Wuhan, China, northern Italy or New York City iur intensive care units have been overwhelmed with virus. Even in the worst flu years we don't see the bodies piling up in morgues that can't handle them.  This is far worst than flu and we have to be careful as we interpret these early assessments of the percent of people in our communities that have seen the virus, We have to be careful that we don't reopen the economy too early because this will provoke a second wave of epidemic, and behind it we will see the deaths start to mount,
 -Dr. George Q. Daley, Dean of Harvard Medical School, Wednesday night on 'All In'

"You can't just leap over things and getting into a situation where you're really tempting a rebounf. That's the thing I get concerned about. I hope they don't do that."  Dr. Anthony Fauci, yesterday

"All of humanity’s problems stem from man’s inability to sit quietly in a room alone.”  -  Philosopher Blaise Pascal

In this pandemic era let us concede delusions run wild, not only amidst the ongoing culture wars where liars (coronavirus truthers)  and armed right wing terrorists run amuck. But also  in the rarefied realm of pie-eyed  than Wall Street  investors who have single-handedly  pumped the S&P 500 up by 31 percent since March 23rd.  This according to the NY Times, and despite waves of grim news: Over 1 million US. cases, 60,000 dead, 16 percent unemployment, a tanking GDP - irrational exuberance continues to hold sway.  Much of this is tuned to the belief - not really supported empirically - that the world in 10-12 months will look manifestly better than it does now. This despite states reopening their economies when they haven't even shown progress in declining infections, testing or lowering the transmission rate, otherwise known as R-nought.


As Chris Hayes so superbly explained on his 'All In' show Wednesday night: 


"There is actually a specific goal every society is trying to accomplish, and that is to keep the rate for transmission of the coronavirus down.  So that each infected person, on average, infects less than one other person.  This is the key benchmark: if the transmission rate is less than 1 the disease is declining. If the transmission rate is more than 1 the disease is spreading. That is literally the threshold to create a society and an economy that are working."


And unlike the trolls and Covid truthers on FOX News   - like Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity - this is basic  science biology if you will.   As opposed to propaganda to feed the gullible, poorly educated, or Right wing loons toting ARs into statehouses.  The warp and woof of this virus then, is defined by two fundamental parameters: the transmission rate ("R nought")  and fatality rate.  Both of which, I might add, assorted medical quacks have tried to lowball in recent weeks, even despite overflowing ERs, even dozens of rotting bodies as discovered in a Brooklyn funeral home yesterday.  According to the NY Times (April 30, 'Bodies Pile Up As N.Y. Struggles To Bury Its Dead'):


"With more than 18,000 announced fatalities and a total death toll that is almost certainly higher, the coronavirus crisis is the worst mass casualty event to hit New York since the Spanish flu pandemic a century ago. At the height of the outbreak in April, a New Yorker was dying almost every two minutes — more than 800 per day, or four times the city’s normal death rate. And though the daily toll has recently slowed, hundreds of bodies are still emerging each day from private homes and hospitals."
 

 Would a "seasonal flu"  cause such an overflow - or 60,000 dead in 2 months? No, only a dedicated liar, imbecile or quack would say so, given a low fatality rate virus would not generate nursing homes or funeral homes full of rotting corpses, or flooded ICUs. 

Unlike our moron leader, Germany's Angela Merkel holds a doctorate in quantum chemistry. She was thereby eminently qualified to explain the basis of the reproduction rate barely two weeks ago, as Germany prepared to open up its economy. She noted, for example, at this time (when the R-nought was about 1.0):


"I can only say that for one chain of infection, if one person will infect on other person that is an average of one person infecting one other. If we get to the point each person infects 1.1. other people then by October we would reach the capacity level of our health system, and its assumed number of intensive care beds. If we get to 1.2 people infected per person - which is just 20 percent more than what we have now - then we will reach the limit of our health care system in July.  And if it is 1.3 people infected per person we will reach the limit in June.


So that is where we can see how little the margin is. The margin for error."


As Hayes said, imagine having a leader with that kind of ability, to be able to describe the core issue to citizens, with that level of nuance.  Well, as we know, we lack such a leader in this country. We are left with only a pretender and dyspeptic brat moron, part of the reason we've now racked up more deaths than in the Vietnam war.   We also understand that propping up  this phony leader is an entire propaganda establishment, determined to try to shoehorn him into office again despite revealing himself as totally unfit in this pandemic. 

 Like FOX News and its coronavirus truthers, the Trump Propaganda Axis includes Rush Limbaugh, and the Wall Street Journal Editorial staff - responsible for its op-ed pages.  Hence, Jeffrey Sachs' reference (see quote at top) to these editors not even "looking at their own news stories".  Well, they don't because those pages are under the control of Rupert Murdoch himself and will always hew to the truther line echoed by FOX.  Hence, the 4/29 editorial ('Germany's R0 Experiment', p. A18) barking bollocks like:


"The upward drift in Germany's reproduction rate (R0) now suggests that those strict lockdown measures may not have stopped the disease in its tracks so much as delayed the inevitable at enormous cost."


But as Merkel herself stated in her speech (replayed on All In) that time bought by the lockdown actually freed up one third more capacity in hospital ICUs.  While it is true that the R-value has crept back up to 1.0 from 0.8,  Lothar Weiler - head of the Robert Koch Institute (which the WSJ editors quote)  has asserted:  "the increase alone is not cause for alarm" - but "we don't want it to go back up again" i.e. to 1.1.  That Germany is considering reimposing lockdown measures, then, merely shows Ms. Merkel has her hands on the brakes and is powering up the German economy under strict controls. 

This as opposed to the reckless "race car" ambitions of states in the U.S. - all headed for a huge crack up-- and Trump's refusal to take any responsibility.  It certainly doesn't mean Germany has only "delayed the inevitable" as the WSJ paints it.   It is also instructive to read - from the WSJ's own regular news pages (e.g. 'South Korea To Open Up But Carefully', p. A9) how South Korea is gearing up with multiple conditions for reopening.  This in a nation that's already tested almost to the limit, and now "has a rule for almost everything".   I.e.  "The guidelines spell how everything from how to work to how to relax ahead of a full resumption of daily activities."


This, compared to the U.S. where Trump has now insisted his guidelines for reopening  have been aborted from today, May 1st.  And further indicating lack leadership, this in a nation that's tested barely one percent of citizens while S. Korea has tested close to 10 percent. South Korea then, like Japan, Taiwan and other nations, has a rational basis to reopen. Again using testing and contact tracing to systematically track down the disease- to thereby KNOW where it is before unleashing its masses. The U.S under Trump and the truthers is doing just the opposite. Fortunately, many in the U.S. just aren't going to bite, and will remain in lockdown whatever nutsos - like Rick Desantis in FLA- recklessly open up. 


But the key point that may be lost on too many, is how many of the states now opening up are using the science and information described by Angela Merkel.  In other words knowing what their existing real time R value is, called  t , before opening up.   It appears hardly any are, in fact 8 states (Alabama, Idaho, Texas, North Dakota, Indiana, Iowa, Utah, Wyoming) are rushing to open despite having no declines over the past 14 days - one of the Trump bunch's "Phase 1"  determinants. Hence,  without thought of the exponential rate of infection which is why the margin for error is so small.  Err too much on the side of opening things up - while ignoring the R-value in your area- and you face a calamity such as now occurring in Black Hawk County, Iowa - thanks to a moron governor mandating sick people go to work.  Or listen too much to the rubbish data and "over interpretations"  (the term of Harvard's Medical School Dean)  trotted out by the quacks  (Joseph Ladapo)  and proto-quacks  like John Ioannides and his Stanford ilk


Other nations like S. Korea (WSJ, April 29, p. A9) and Taiwan have been able to keep the virus suppressed by lots of testing and contact tracing - which latter aspect the Trumpies seem to have barely heard of.  This, even as a nitwit like Jared Kushner brags that the response has been next to sublime.  Fortunately, intelligent state governors now have a tool at hand which can forecast for them the number of cases and deaths if they relent too soon on social restrictions.   The tool is known as the  Massachusetts General Hospital simulator, and can be found at this link:

https://analytics-tools.shinyapps.io/covid19simulator06/


One need only select the state and what level of extending existing sequester conditions apply.  The simulator will then show the total cases up to some date 'x' as well as expected fatalities.

According to The Boston Globe,  Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker plans to announce later this week whether the coronavirus order closing nonessential businesses in Massachusetts will be extended.  But according to this Massachusetts General Hospital  (MGH) simulator, the decision ought to be a no brainer .  According to the Globe (April 29)

"As other states across the country began easing restrictions meant to curb the spread of COVID-19 over the weekend, researchers at the Boston hospital released the new interactive online tool predicting a second wave of COVID-19 infections and deaths this summer if shutdown orders are lifted this spring — both across the country and in Massachusetts. According to the MGH simulator, the state’s business closure order and stay-at-home advisory should remain in place for another 12 weeks — or until roughly July 20 — to ensure against a late-summer surge in COVID-19 hospitalizations and to keep the number of statewide deaths due the disease just under 5,000 through the end of August. As of Monday, the COVID-19 death toll in Massachusetts stood at just over 3,000.
But if the state’s current restrictions were allowed to expire in four weeks and replaced by “minimal restrictions,” on May 25, the simulator predicts catastrophe.
The outbreak would accelerate again in July, killing more than 27,000 people in Massachusetts and infecting more than 2.8 million people — or roughly 40 percent of the state’s population — by the end of August. And if restrictions were lifted in just two weeks, the model predicts 42,700 deaths — and nearly 3.4 million cumulative COVID-19 cases in Massachusetts alone. In both scenarios, the state’s health care system would be completely overwhelmed by a second surge of patients dwarfing the number available hospital beds, according to the model."
Jagpreet Chhatwal, the MGH project lead, said the simulator is intended to inform coronavirus response efforts in the midst of the quickly changing and uncertain environment. But the staggering worst-case numbers belie the fact that the somewhat rigid, if illustrative, tool doesn’t cleanly map onto the policy options before the Baker administration.

The simulator models three differing intervention levels: a complete travel lockdown, the state’s current orders, and “minimal restrictions” — the latter of which includes no state mandates and only “learned social awareness” about the disease.  Even with those efforts in mind, Chhatwal told WBUR in an interview Sunday that the model suggests the state shouldn’t lift restrictions until the end of June, when the state will have enough testing to isolate all active COVID-19 cases.  In the words of the MGH researcher and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School:

Before that, if we lift restrictions, the virus can spread in the community, which can be difficult to trace,”  
Is this simulator result a shot over the bow of other states, especially the likes of Iowa and Georgia where Governors are literally mandating workers (e.g. in meat packing plants in Iowa) go back to work? You bet it is.  Right now, from what research professional such as Prof. Ashish Jha and Harvard's Medical Dean, Dr. George Q. Daley argue, we are in deep trouble.  That's because this reopening operation is moving ahead blindly with too limited testing capacity - despite enormous capacity being unused. ('U.S. Testing Capacity Is Going Unused', WSJ, 4/ 30, p. A5)   Why is this happening? Because of a total abdication of responsibility by the Trump administration. To wit, "largely leaving the challenge up to the states" .

 So: "the result is a disorganized system that isn't matching limited supply with demand."

Without that testing, and a rigorous program of contact tracing,  we are witnessing too many states and citizens acting like lemmings in their yen to jump into an open economy- rife with the virus.  They need to settle down, put rifles away, and study the news images from a  Brooklyn neighborhood, i.e.  when the police found dozens of decomposing bodies stashed inside two trucks outside a funeral home on Utica Avenue in Brooklyn.

See also:

And:

And:

Monday, July 2, 2018

The Migrant Crisis Is Ultimately A Global Population Crisis

Image result for Keleti station crowds
Part of scene at Keleti Rail Station in Budapest, Hungary - a few days after we left.

It was on the evening of Sept. 2nd, 2015,  that we learned that thousands of migrants - mainly Syrian  refugees -   were flooding into Keleti train station in Budapest. The grim scenes  televised over the BBC into our hotel room were not encouraging, with thousands occupying the station - and mats, people spread all over. The word "bedlam" perhaps best described what we beheld.

After grabbing an early breakfast on Sept, 3rd, we went to the front desk to checkout, hoping to arrive at Keleti by no later than 9.55 a.m. to avoid any delays or confusion.  But Lili, the amiable hotel front desk  manager,  informed us that the station has been totally shut down - no trains running at all. Period. The existing chaos featured tens of  thousands of migrants attempting to board trains to Western Europe on their own, forced the authorities' decision.

By now we know the end result of that mass panic migration, which saw Angela Merkel's Germany taking in nearly 1 million immigrants, triggering enormous impacts - not only in Germany but across Europe.  (cf. WSJ, ' Europe Raises Barriers To Immigration',  June 30- July 1, p. A6).  To sum up: Merkel's right centrist party (CDU) which formed a governing coalition with the Bavarian CSU,  is on the ropes  (cf.  'Merkel Faces Showdown With Coalition Partners', Financial Times today)  splitting with the CSU's Horst Seehofer, over migrant issues. According to the FT account, "if the two fail to bury the hatchet, Horst Seehofer said he will resign, a move that would mark a historic rupture in the center right of German politics."

This is happening  even while Right wing, anti-immigrant governments have come to power in Austria, Italy and been powerfully re-elected in Hungary - with Viktor Orban..

In addition, the EU has been forced by popular pressure to consider diverting the incoming migrant masses,  shifting the processing of asylum claims to African countries.  African nations themselves have been reluctant to host what the EU calls "disembarkation platforms"  fearing they could become magnets for migrants and targets of jihadists.

The disembarkation platform concept itself  is inspired by a model long adopted by Australia, i.e. in which thousands of migrant boats have been turned back and sent to 3rd country centers run by local authorities. In other words, the Aussies have no more stomach to deal with processing migrant asylum requests themselves. Like Pontius Pilate, they are washing their hands of the problem.  Naturally, the Aussie solution has prompted international outrage (ibid.)

European leaders, mindful of the Australian experience, have assured one and all that  the disembarkation platforms will be operated in UN- approved centers within African and other 3rd party nations.  The "bloc has also pledged 500 million euro (about $580 m) to support African countries in managing migrations and to create a new fund to support border security".

The long and short of it is that migrants from whatever nation are getting hostile receptions on both sides of the Atlantic - as well as in the Pacific (with the Australians).  Put bluntly, the world doesn't want migrants. Not now, not ever. The "prosperous" world nations, at least, believe they can keep their quality of life if they prevent their borders from being traversed by millions of "others".  This is magical thinking, to be sure.

In the U.S. we learned ('Shifts In The Search For Asylum', WSJ,  op. cit., p. C4):

"The policy makers who crafted the 1980 Refugee Act never imagined that within a generation the U.S. would have a vast asylum bureaucracy ."

But they should have,  given the exploding global population which must be linked to exploding mass migrations.  It is common sense that if overall human numbers grow out of resource bounds in too many overpopulated, economically stressed nations, those numbers will overflow into other nations less besieged by problems.

The author of the piece, Maria Cristina Garcia,  also noted:

"From 1973 to 1980, only 23, 722 requested asylum....A decade later petitions for asylum increased dramatically due to political turmoil in Haiti and civil wars in Central America."

Noting that in the years from 1980-1991,  400,000 requested asylum.

Apart from the political instability let's note how the human numbers have changed in those cited years. For example, 3.9 billion populated the planet in 1973, compared to 4.4 billion in 1980. But then by 1990  it was 5.2 billion.  All other things being relatively equal one would expect an increase in migrants as well as asylum seekers given the added population. Flash forward now to 2015, the year of the great influx of Syrian and other refugees into Europe and we find the world at 7.4 billion - or 2.2 billion more people than in 1990.  Why wouldn't there be vastly more migrants, asylum seekers?

The false assumption of global planners is that nations ought to remain in population equilibrium and hence not see a third or more of their populations fleeing to 'greener pastures.'  But we know this isn't the case, and any nation can devolve into civil war or other instability if the right confluence of factors emerges, such as they did in Syria.  Let us also process the U.S. has had a major role in a lot of the incipient political instability over the years, especially in Central America. For example, in 1954, the U.S. overthrew the democratically elected Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala, leading to 200,000 civilian deaths and  endless strife.  Arbenz sought to nationalize the vast banana plantations of United Fruit – but  was ousted in a U.S. engineered coup (“Operation PBSUCCESS”) in 1954. See :
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/

The U.S. also, in 1977, backed the bloodthirsty military regime in El Salvador, leading to 70,000 civilians massacred and paving the way for the internal strife and drug linked gangs operating with impunity now. Then starting in 1981, the Reagan administration trained and funded the 'Contras" in Nicaragua, leading to 30,000 civilian deaths and much civil upheaval.  In many ways, therefore, the U.S. could be said to have a direct responsibility to care for those fleeing the violence in Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala.

Will things get worse, and mass migrations vastly increase? Of course, because the most vulnerable nations are seeing the largest population increases, combined with severe resource depletion, including food crops (much of this from climate change).  Overpopulation in the African continent is especially worrisome,  as it ought to be to Europeans who fret over the numbers of asylum seekers liable to drown in risky crossings.

In the WSJ piece, 'Humans Lions Struggle to Co-Exist', Aug. 8-9,  2015, p. A7, it was noted:

"Africa's human population is the fastest growing in the world. In roughly the same period as the lion decline (42 percent over 21 years), the number of Africans has doubled to nearly 1.2 billion people. The population will double again to 2.5 billion by 2050 according to the United Nations."

In fact, short of a global catastrophe - say like an Avian flu pandemic or airborne Ebola -  it is projected to reach 5.8 billion by 2100. That means nearly 1 of every 2 people on Earth will be African. Where will the resources be to support them? The jobs? The water? The life quality?   Even if those billions are fortunate to have wise leaders with the best intentions, resource scarcity - including from enhanced climate change - is likely to defeat them, certainly without vast economic support.

Fact is, that the current  global population growth is unsustainable and means either vast numbers will perish, likely of disease, war or famine - or they will do everything they can to go to places with greater opportunity and resources- like Europe and the U.S.  By 2030, with the global population at nearly 8.8 billion, there will emerge total overshoot by one whole planet - that is, we will require an entire extra Earth's worth of resources, e.g.

This means we will need the equivalent of two Earths to support us by 2030, a physical impossibility.  Given the stress on African (and Central American, SE Asian) nations will be even greater, there will likely be migrant flows on the order of 200-400 million per year compared to the 68.5 million this year, according to the United Nations Refugee Agency which released its annual report 2 weeks ago.  The UN report noted refugees pouring out of diverse places, nations including: Syria, Myanmar, Congo and Venezuela.

Ms. Garcia, author of the last cited WSJ piece, correctly points out there are now "few opportunities for lawful entry" for Central American refugees, and the U.S. now -  under Trump - takes a dim view of whatever excuses most have to offer for coming. Basically, traversing Mexico to escape economic hardship simply doesn't cut it and U.S. immigration law "gives priority to those with financial means, education and skills necessary to the U.S. economy"

This is pretty well what Australia also demands, and what the EU is liable to require soon.  In other words, it's a tall order for refugees from any stressed nation to gain entrance to a more developed, economically secure or prosperous one.

What is the solution given the immense increase in numbers leading to overshoot day by 2030? It  is emphatically NOT to increase human numbers purely for economic purposes as some knot headed economists have proposed.  People need to grasp that by reproducing to appease a warped economic system they are merely perpetuating gross economic inequality by helping to sustain a vast pool of surplus labor.  If this numbers game is encouraged worldwide we are asking for a mass migration problem that will make the current one look like a walk in the park. (If labor is needed in the more prosperous nations, the OECD reports there are nearly 230m under or unemployed workers in its constituent nations. Also, there are millions of Central American, African and other immigrants willing to do the jobs Americans and Europeans won't, such as construction, landscaping, and farm labor.)

What to do?  If the U.S, EU, Australia and other centers of greater relative prosperity are serious in their unwillingness to take in millions more refugees they need to dispense more effective artificial contraception and on a scale that dwarfs what is presently available,  This will be most focused on the poorest regions - with fewest resources-  which can least afford more population stress.

This move is dictated by several propositions:

1) Human resources cannot sustain numbers at the overshoot level or even half the overshoot level

2) If those numbers increase, then concomitant mass migrations will as well

3) Since few newly reproduced people will be admitted to existing "prosperous" nations - without negatively impacting them - a solution to limit future population growth must be implemented.

4) If any nations or its leaders claim to oppose mass-dispensed artificial contraception then they are effectively saying they will accept the overflow migrant numbers, so the stressed nations "need not worry".

5) Nations cannot at the same time be against mass birth control programs AND mass migration!

If you are unwilling to limit the numbers on our planet, for whatever "moral" or other reason, you have no choice but to accept responsibility for the vastly added numbers of migrants - whatever their cause-  because of your opposition!

It's time the moralizers who spout off about "protecting life"   and even argue against birth control,  take moral ownership for their decisions and policies.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/jim-hightower/79930/a-wall-wont-fix-immigration

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/jeff-biggers/79932/trump-is-following-arizona-s-playbook-on-immigration-we-know-how-to-fight-back

Monday, May 21, 2018

Europeans Still Need To Confront The U.S. Over Scuttling Iran Nuclear Deal

No automatic alt text available.

 "The truth is that the deal had frozen in place a huge reduction in Iran's capacity to pursue nuclear weapons. Trump's false assertion to the contrary comes at a high price, including a weakening of United States credibility in all of its future international negotiations, particularly with North Korea.  That collapse of the U.S. diplomatic reputation will also extend far beyond Trump; the fear that some equally erratic president might be waiting in the wings may take a generation to fade." -  David Goldfischer, 'Trump's Dangerous Decision On Iran', Denver Post, May 13, p. D1.)

 
Given that every sentient citizen now grasps the full folly of Trump's decision to back out of the Iran nuclear deal, including that the U.S. has now lost the moral high ground to Iran, e.g.

It ought to be incumbent on the European signees and their allies (e.g. China, Russia) to come full force to rescue the deal anyway they can, and trash or ignore all U.S. sanctions.  As reported by Michael Birnbaum in The Washington Post

"The European Union's chief diplomat took a defiant stance Tuesday after meeting with Iran's foreign minister and other top European diplomats to try to salvage the Iran nuclear deal following Trump's decision to withdraw the United States.   Federica Mogherini, who negotiated the deal on behalf of the European Union, listed a string of proposals that taken together may not be enough to convince Iran's leaders to hold to the deal but probably will be seen in Washington as a raised fist against U.S. policy."

To which I say, terrific!  Or at least I did - before reading the WSJ  article (Saturday, p. A7) that both Angela Merkel and  Emmanuel Macron had gotten cold feet about challenging the U.S. Trumpies about sticking to the Iran deal. But they need to know the betrayal and rejection of that policy was spawned by a cabal of  international gangsters, grifters, swamp parasites  and traitors trying to pass themselves off as a legitimate government. Trump, the chief 'don' of gangsters and uber traitor (which will be proven after Mueller indicts him for conspiracy with the Russians to undermine and steal a U.S. election) was behind the torpedoed deal - which destabilizes geopolitics on a level that his reptile base can't begin to understand.

That is all the more reason for the EU and allies  need  to have acted to bust the Trumpie Imperium in the snout, and demonstrate there is at least one credible Western side that remains committed. This even while Ms. Mogherini admitted the EU is "operating in a very difficult context" especially given Washington's (aka the swamp's) ability to "strike around the world because of the reach of the U.S. financial system".

But this is why the spectacle of Macron and Merkel throwing their hands up instead of fighting was so dispiriting. Macron himself, as reported by the NY Times Friday- has become a subject of derision by 55 percent of French citizens for his fawning display on his visit with the Dotard in D.C.. This included letting the arrogant swine remove "dandruff" from his suit coat in a display of alpha male supremacy. Most Frenchmen were aghast calling Macron a "serf", a "stooge", Trump's lap dog and worse. Had he no shame, no pride? Plus they regarded him as a loser for doing all the posturing and getting nada. He, above all, could have shown he did possess some few milligrams of testosterone by putting up a fight. (Most French poll respondents didn't believe his subsequent, hard hitting speech to the U.S. congress was good enough to overcome the image of a submissive little whelp to Trump's Top dawg earlier.)


As for Merkel, she has much more power in terms of the German economy - i.e. we know it will be carrying a large surplus forward through 2020. She could easily have committed to a more powerful Iranian deal without losing any face. But I suspect perhaps she's terrified of the rising German "Alt" party nationalists,  especially after the flood of refugees that poured in by Sept. 2015. So maybe by not taking on Trump in an Iran face -off she hopes to curry some favor with the new brand of German fascists.

Or maybe, taking the kindest interpretation, neither Merkel nor Macron knew there were remedies despite the EU having tried them before and succeeded -  with the U.S.  I refer, of course, to the EU's use of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to defy the U.S. embargo against Cuba in 1996.   The WTO ruled in the EU's favor and the Yankee imperialists had to back off. The world's rejection of the U.S. position - including Europe - meant the D.C. "swamp" wasn't able to dislodge the Cuban government and the Castros.  And yeah, I have a dog in this fight - namely with the U.S. in its Cuba posture - given it was the CIA -abetted terrorist Luis Posada, e.g.





Who was responsible for blowing up Cubana Airlines Flight 455  off the southwest coast of Barbados on Oct. 6, 1976, killing all 73 on board. I  was at the Paradise Beach with my five nieces when it occurred. We witnessed the plane come down, and wondered what the hell had happened – then watched in horror barely an hour and a half later as bloody body parts began to wash ashore.  See also the video:
If you are not up to speed on the event. Certainly that act of terror is just as emblazoned in Barbadian neurons as the 9-11 attack for those in New York. Maybe worse,  since the scale of Barbados is radically smaller than New York, or the U.S. On a national scale of devastation, that Cubana Airline bombing took out a percentage of people equal to 0.03% of the total populace, while numerically as a % of NYC, 9-11 took out roughly 0.0001%. Thus, in purely proportionate numerical terms, Cubana 455 was much deadlier. But sadly, it's not on most citizens' radar - certainly not in the US Of A.

Anyway, that is why I fully backed the EU end around using the WTO of the then Cuban embargo. Not because I am necessarily a fan of the Castros, but because the Cuban nation suffered at the hands of U.S.-backed terrorists who've yet to receive their just deserts. 
The European governments have as much right now to protect their own companies and business interests vis-à-vis the Iran nuclear deal  -especially given France's Total SA and Airbus SE have billion dollar projects in the works that stand to be scuttled.   This despite the WSJ's  Dan Henninger recent caterwauling ('America's So-Called Allies' , May 16, p. A13) that the Europeans were "only in the Iran deal for the money they could get". To which my response was a pronounced, "Meh".

If the US. stood to lose such business does anyone believe it would stand idly by? Does anyone with more than air between the ears not believe it would jump at a similar nuke deal?  In addition, France's financial system still has $163 million in cross -border claims on Iranian banks as of the last quarter. - according to the Bank of International Settlements (WSJ, May 12, p. A3)
Another option would have been for the EU to draw up counter legislation to the U.S. and also order European companies to ignore U.S. sanctions, equivalent to the thumb in the eye of the Amerikkan Trumpie nationalists and warmongers.

Meanwhile, it's since been learned the U.S. "wants to restart nuclear talks with Iran" with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to "outline a new strategy today" (NY Times, May 19, p. A8).  This would be nothing more than a brain fart effort given it "is centered around a demand  that the European allies have already rejected."   What is this hare brained scheme? It basically entails putting indefinite limits on Tehran ever gaining access to nuclear weapons. (Whereas the deal just scuttled set a ten year limit).  The plan is hare brained because the Iranian hardliners had even barked loudly about the original deal and 10 year delay. SO why would they now accept an "indefinite" postponement? Fact is, they wouldn't,  and the Europeans know that too.

This is why the  Europeans -  perhaps with Russian and Chinese help -  need to do something to beat aback the Trump- Nazi cabal.  The WTO gambit seems like the best bet, combined with alternate legislation to neutralize the Trumpite treachery.  It's an issue of essential peace, not to mention saving the U.S. from itself - given it's being run by money pirates, conspirators and gangsters.  
See also: