Wednesday, April 17, 2024

Looking Again At The E-P-R Paradox- And How It Was Exposed As A Non-Paradox

 The EPR Paradox

In 1935, Einstein along with two colleagues, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, devised a thought experiment.[1]  This has since been called the EPR experiment based on the first initials of their names.  Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (E-P-R) imagined a quantum system (helium atom A) which could be ruptured such that two electrons were dispatched to two differing measurement devices, X1 and X2. 

X1  (+ ½ ) <-----(A)------>(- ½ ) X2

Each electron would carry a property called 'spin'. Since the helium atom itself had zero spin (the 2 electrons canceling each other out), this meant one would have spin (+ 1/2), the other (-1/2). 

 Thus, we manage to skirt the Indeterminacy Principle, and obtain both spins simultaneously without one measurement disturbing the other. We gain completeness, but at a staggering cost. Because this simultaneous knowledge of the spins implied  that information would have had to propagate from one spin measuring device (on the left side) to the other (on the right side) instantaneously!  This was interpreted to mean faster-than-light communication, which violates special relativity. 

In effect, a 'paradox' ensues: quantum theory attains completeness only at the expense of another fundamental physical theory - relativity. By this point, Einstein believed he finally had Bohr by the throat. Figuring Bohr might come up with some trick or sly explanation up his sleeve, Einstein went one better at the 6th Solvay Conference held in 1930, actually designing a thought experiment device that he was convinced would have Bohr in tears trying to find a solution:

                                           Einstein’s Thought Experiment Device

 

According to reports, it very nearly did, and a number of participants insisted "Neils was in a state of  shock".   Einstein wasn't a meanie, he merely wanted to put to rest once and for all the notion that quantum mechanics was complete, or was in any way a proper science. The device contrived by Einstein was designed as a counter-example to the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle for energy and time which states:


ΔE Δ t 
³  h/2π

                                                       

The "device" featured a spring-based weight scale is located and one can see it when a door (front of box) opens, with the door controlled by a clock timer. Whenever the door flaps open, even for a split second, one photon escapes and the weight difference (between original box and after) can be computed using Einstein's mass-energy equation, e.g.: m = E/ c2. Thus, the difference is taken as follows:

Weight(before door opens) - weight (after)

(E.g.  with 1 photon of mass m = E/ c2   gone)

Since the time for brief opening is known (Δ t) and the photon's mass can be deduced from the above weight difference, Einstein argued that one can in principle  find both the photon's energy and time of passage to any level of accuracy without any need for the energy-time uncertainty principle.

 In other words, the result could be found on a totally deterministic basis! 
     Bohr for his part nearly went crazy when he studied the device, and for hours worried there was no solution and maybe the wily determinist was correct after all. When Bohr did finally come upon the solution, he realized he'd hoisted the master on his own petard.

The thing Einstein overlooked was that his very act of weighing the box translated to observing its displacement (say, dr = r2 - r1) within the Earth's gravitational field. But according to Einstein's general theory of relativity, clocks actually do run slower in gravitational fields (a phenomenon called 'gravitational time dilation') In this case, for the Earth, one would have the fractional difference in proper time, as a fraction of time passage t:

dt/ t 
» GM(1/r1 - 1/r2) » g(dr)/ c2

where G is the Newtonian gravitational constant, M is the Earth's mass, and g is the acceleration of gravity (g = 980 cm/ sec2 in cgs) and c = 3 x 1010 cm/sec.

Let us say the box deflection (r2 - r1)was 0.001 mm = 0.0001cm, then:

dt/t ~ (980 cm/s2)(10-4 cm)/ (3 x 1010 cm/sec )2

dt/t 
»  10-22

and for an interval say t = 0.01 sec, 

dt = (10-22 )(0.01 sec) = 10-24 sec


     In other words, the observation would actually generate a time uncertainty of 10-24  sec- and hence an uncertainty dE in the energy of the photon. In other words, after the displacement (r2 - r1) arising from the measurement, the clock is in a gravitational field different from the original one. (The Energy uncertainty can meanwhile be computed from the Heisenberg energy -time relation to be dE  
» 10-10 J)

Quantum theory prevails again!

Decades later, to actually test the original E-P-R quantum system (used in the EPR thought experiment), Alain Aspect and his colleagues at the University of Paris, set up an arrangement as sketched below.  (In the original EPR set up both spins could be identified - with the sole assumption that both were in definite states from the instant of their parent atom's disruption.)

In the Aspect experiments this was not the case, the spins - or rather polarizations-  had to be detected and determined. The detection of the polarizations of photons was the key. These were observed with the photons emanating from a Krypton-Dye laser and arriving at two different analyzers, e.g.

 

P1 ¯| <------------[]-------------> |­ P2

        A1                  D                         A2

 

Here, the laser device is D, the analyzers (polarization detectors) are A1 and A2 and two representative polarizations are given at each, for two photons P1 and P2. The results of these remarkable experiments disclosed apparent and instantaneous connections between the photons at A1 and A2. In the case shown, a photon (P1) in the minimum (0) intensity polarization mode, is anti-correlated with one in the maximum intensity (1) mode.

 Say, twenty successive detections are made then one obtains at the respective analyzers (where a ‘1’ denotes spin  +1/2 detection and ‘0’ spin  (-1/ 2):

A1:   1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0

A2:   0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1

 On inspection, there is found to be a 100% anti-correlation (i.e. 100% negative correlation) between the two and an apparent nonlocal connection. In practice, the experiment was set out so that four (not two - as shown) different orientation 'sets' were obtained for the analyzers. These might be denoted: (A1,A2)I, (A1,A2)II, (A1,A2,)III, and (A1,A2)IV.  Each result is expressed as a mathematical (statistical) quantity known as a 'correlation coefficient'.[3] The results from each orientation were then added to yield a sum S:

S = (A1,A2)I + (A1,A2)II + (A1,A2,)III + (A1,A2)IV

 In his (1982) experiments, Aspect determined the sum with its attendant indeterminacy to be:   S = 2.70 ±  0.05 and in so doing experimentally validated Bell’s Inequality and in the process reduced the EPR Paradox to a simple misunderstanding of quantum mechanics in the authors' minds.

 Einstein's challenges to Bohr in the aftermath were all kind of half-hearted and had nowhere near the intensity of his clock-door device work of art. Rather than join happily with other QM theorists at the last Solvay Conference in 1933 Einstein - the perpetual determinist- remained on the sidelines "feeling the same uneasiness as he had before".

 He went to work separately, on a "unified field theory" while the quantum theory edifice was formulated to its present maturity without him.    
In the orthodox Copenhagen (and most conservative) interpretation of quantum theory, there can be no separation of observed (e.g. spin) state until an observation or measurement is made. Until that instant (of detection) the states are in a superposition, as described above.

     More importantly, the fact of superposition imposes on all quantum phenomena an inescapable ‘black box’. In other words, no information other than statistical can be extracted before observation.


    [1] Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen.:1935, Physical  Review, 777.

[2] More technically, this is what is referred to as ‘the z-component of electron spin’, since the electron is visualized as a spinning top, with z-axis (i.e. component) in the axial or z-direction.

3] For example, if a set of data: 1, 1, 1, 1 is correlated with another set: 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, the correlation coefficient is 1.0. The range is between 0 (no correlation) and 1.0 (perfect correlation).

.

SEE ALSO:   

Monday, April 15, 2024

Our Economic Reality: Do You Prefer Higher Unemployment - Or Higher Inflation? There Is No 3rd Option

                                                                     



In a previous post I cited a Wall Street Journal piece:

What’s Wrong With the Economy? It’s You, Not the Data

Showing how little Americans know about the economy. For example, Half of the respondents to the WSJ survey defined inflation incorrectly, conflating high prices with high inflation. The sobering fact is that once prices rise they seldom go back down to what normal plebes believe to be 'proper' levels, in this case pre-pandemic.

But the true guide for high inflation is whether the overall year's average rate is higher than the long term average inflation rate. Beyond this most survey takers seem not to know (or care) that a good economy, i.e. growing jobs, higher GDP etc. is by its nature going to be a more inflationary one. It will inevitably be more inflationary after a once in a century pandemic, given supply side problems which predictably increase scarcity of supply and hence costs -  if demand ever increases (as it did after the pandemic).  

But it is even more basic, more fundamental than this. In the 1970s the Federal Reserve developed what it called:  "the Employment Cost Index."   -  basically a per capita index of how much cost is attached to keeping each 'unit' of workers in jobs. This includes benefits and overtime pay, as well as regular salary. The higher this index, the greater number of people employed. Also the scarcer the remaining workers available, so employers must compete for their services.

The lower the index the greater the number out of work. But....the lower the inflation rate, because the more people earning means more money in circulation an also more instances of demand for higher wages.  As  noted in a Baltimore Sun Business piece from January, 1997 (Employment Cost Is A Hot Number):

"When available workers become scarce, employers must often bid more for their services and then raise consumer prices to make up for  higher costsEconomists and Wall Street investment firms have learned that every 1.3 million people out of work cuts inflation by 1%."

Is this a mind blower? It should be!  Also that when the Fed commenced a series of rate cuts in the early 2000s (under Alan Greenspan) the effect was a transfer of wealth from savers to borrowers and Wall Street speculators.  The savers ended up with lower fixed bank interest rates, while borrowers got lower rates, i.e. for mortgages, other loans, credit cards.  Meanwhile, the speculators got the benefit of 'cheap money' which fed the stock market and the DOW.  But for savers the effect was to drive up the cost of money and chase many into the stock market - where they risked their retirement nest eggs.  

For sure, people need to wrap their brains around the fact that there's little Biden can do to staunch inflation (WSJ, April 12, p. A1).  As noted therein most factors (like the Key Bridge collapse in Baltimore, the Ukraine war and ongoing labor shortages  are beyond his control. As the piece observed:

 "Most economists concur there is little Biden can do at this point to bring down inflation.  Absent major tax increases or spending cuts that could curtail spending - but even those would take time to work their way through the economy."   

Adding:

 "As frustrated as voters are by inflation, the annual pace of consumer price increases has fallen significantly since mid- 2022, when it peaked at round 9 percent.  To the surprise of many economists that has come despite stronger- than- expected economic growth and a resilient labor market.  Just last week, new data showed that the economy has added a seasonally-adjusted  303,000 jobs in March, far more than economists had anticipated." 

Another cogent aspect is how companies have exploited the inflation trope to pad their profit margins (e.g.'WSJ: 'Big Profits, High Prices: There Is A Link', March 15, p. A2).  Columnist Greg Ip notes therein that there "is  a factual core" to Biden's SOTU accusations of corporate "price gouging".  Ip goes on to cite profits increasing by 41 percent since 2019 while prices went up 17 %, "outpacing both labor and non-labor costs."

Finally, it is well to point out that inflation can vary according to location.  As the main story ('Inflation Dips To Lowest In 3 Years')  in the Business section of the Denver Post noted yesterday: 

 "Outsized declines in food and gasoline prices pushed consumer inflation in the Denver-Aurora-Lakewood area below 3 % for the first time in three years according to a bimonthly update from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics."

The takeaway from all this? 

Your blunt, bare bones binary choice is either : a) more people out of work, or b) more inflation. Don't like the choice? Too bad! There are no third options, or manifest fantasies whereby low inflation co-exists with low unemployment.

What I have described is what our current economic reality offers. If you really pine for less inflation then we risk deflation, and you can ask the Japanese about their decades in that pit!   E.g.

Japan’s Three Lost Decades – Escaping Deflation | Nomura Connects

The key point to bear in mind is that irrespective of how bad you believe inflation is under Biden, electing Trump will make it ten times much worse.  Why?  Dumpster Donnie has already come out and said he will be imposing a 10% tariff on all outside goods, and their nations.  Contrary to Dotard's "economics" or imaginary fringe beliefs, tariffs aren't paid by foreign governments.  So he won't be hurting them.  He will be dunning his own low wage earning MAGA crowd and any would-be new voters dumb enough to be suckered by his BS.

Remember that all the foreign nations Dotard wants to whack with his tariffs are paid initially by U.S. companies that import whatever goods - whether baby formula, Apple iPhones, Nike running shoes, guitars or HDTVs - and then these higher prices are passed on to American consumers. Result? Higher costs, more inflation. 

Thus, Trump's universal tariffs would push costs up on just about everything and increase inflation dramatically.  Worse, the increased costs will hit the low-income, rural demographic the hardest, most of whom are diehard Trump supporters.   This is because they spend a larger share of their income on goods.  Thus, if baby formula goes up 25% low income people - laborers, family farmers, etc. will feel it much more than Wall Street mavens.  

Americans then need to wake up about the actual workings of their economic system and grasp that another Trump reign will not confer any economic advantages.  Indeed, they will likely be worse off than they are now, given the fallout from Trump's intended tariffs. Rather than make a reactionary voting pick this November it is better to make an intelligent one.

Friday, April 12, 2024

Is The U.S. Power Grid Truly Unsustainable Without Fossil Fuels, Nuclear Energy?

                                                                                 






The March 29 WSJ editorial (The Coming Electricity Crisis) made a bold claim, specifically that the combination of A.I. and climate rules are pushing the U.S. power grid to "the breaking point."  The Journal's Pooh-Bahs quoted former Obama Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz to the effect: 

"We're not going to build 100 gigawatts of new renewables in a few years."  

In other words, utilities will have to rely more on coal, gas and nuclear plants to even get us to 2030.  Failing that look for massive blackouts and power grid snafus - and that's assuming there are no violent 'extracurricular' events from the Sun as it ramps toward sunspot maximum.

There are, in the lower 48, three major interconnected systems that comprise the power grid — one covering everything east of the Rocky Mountains (the Eastern Interconnection), one for everything west of the Rocky Mountains (the   Western Interconnection), and  one for Texas- governed by ERCOT.   The power system that serves 95 percent of the state is intentionally isolated from the rest of the country.   This has been deliberate given a severely deregulated energy system is incongruent with regulated ones.  In this case Texas features a competitive wholesale power market but which offers scant incentives for investment in backup power. 

Given this background, how accurate is the WSJ editorial claim?  In fact, it is more spot on than many on the left may wish to acknowledge. As long ago as 2012, , Matt Savinar (Life After the Oil Crash) showed that NONE of the renewable sources usually cited: from wind to geothermal to solar will do squat to totally replace the energy now being consumed for our entire infrastructure, from powering a military-industrial complex with umpteen bombers, and now missile defense, plus more tanks for occupations and wars, not to mention sustaining growth in industries (e.g. aircraft and car manufacture), new computers, maintaining the electrical power grid.  And that was way before bit coin mining which consumes gigawatts each year.   (And the WSJ editors inform us:  "About 20 gW of fossil fuel power are due to be retired over the next two years.")

For reference, current yearly U.S. energy consumption is roughly 97 EJ. To put the numbers in a harsher perspective, any serious major effort to "decarbonize" the planet will require an amount of clean energy on the order of 100 trillion kilowatt-hours per year  or 360 EJ. To reach this target even within 3 decades the world's nations would need to add 3.3 trillion more kwh of clean energy every year. Solar and wind simply cannot scale up to that level in that time, so the only remaining form of energy - apart from fossil fuels - is nuclear and at least one climate scientist (James Hansen)  has recommended such incorporation . 

As Jay Hanson (www.dieoff.org) has pointedly noted:

“The fact that our society can‘t survive on alternative energy should come as no surprise, because only an idiot would believe that windmills and solar panels can run bulldozers, elevators, steel mills, glass factories, electric heat, air conditioning, aircraft, automobiles, etc., AND still have enough energy left over to support a corrupt political system, armies, etc. Envision a world where freezing, starving people burn everything combustible -- everything from forests (releasing CO2; destroying topsoil and species); to garbage dumps (releasing dioxins, PCBs, and heavy metals); to people (by waging nuclear, biological, chemical, and conventional war); and you have seen the future. “

But how accurate is he? One needs to process that different kinds of energy resources have fundamentally different "qualities". For example, a BTU of oil (oil before it is burnt) is fundamentally different than a BTU of coal. Oil has a higher energy content per unit weight and burns at a higher temperature than coal; it is easier to transport, and can be used in internal combustion engines. A diesel locomotive wastes only one-fifth the energy of a coal-powered steam engine to pull the same train. Oil's many advantages provide 1.3 to 2.45 times more economic value per kilocalorie than coal.


This means you need that factor increase in coal to equal a similar amount of oil, to get the same work done.

Ditto with solar. Unlike energy derived from fossil fuels, energy derived from solar power is diffuse and also extremely intermittent: it varies constantly with weather or day/night. If a large city wants to derive a significant portion of its electricity from solar power, it must build fossil-fuel-fired or nuclear-powered electricity plants to provide backup for the times when solar energy is not available. Solar power has a capacity of about 20 percent. This means that if a utility wants to install 100 megawatts of solar power, they need to install 500 megawatts of solar panels. This makes solar power a prohibitively expensive and pragmatically poor replacement for the cheap and abundant fossil fuel energy our economy depends on, especially if one intends to use it operate missile factories.

Back to the grid, what are the key components and issues?

  The primary problem with the U.S. power grid is the lack of volt-amp-reactive (VAR) dynamic compensation elements. Instead, an array of conventional methods are employed to give a rough equivalence to true VAR-compensation. If instead of this approach, HTS dynamic synchronous condensers (see Fig. 1) were more generally used many advantages would accrue, including:

i) Large Q (imaginary) power output
ii) Rapid dynamic response
iii) Minimizing of switching transients
iv) Long term reliability from the stable operating temperature (of HTS coils)


To better grasp the HTS condenser’s remarkable abilities, a basic inductive physics set-up (often employed to teach physics students) is useful. We obtain a U-shaped magnet wrapped with n turns of conducting wire. Then the magnetic flux induced in the gap is proportional to nI (product of no. of turns n by the current I) and inversely proportional to the gap length, x. Thus:

Flux ~ n I/ x

Note as x is decreased, the flux gets larger. In like manner, the closely spaced iron teeth in rotor and armature of a conventional motor are closely spaced precisely to enhance the flux by minimizing the gaps. Logically then, a machine with HTS rotor coils and no iron teeth has much greater effective gap between the armature coils and magnetic components in the core.

This lowers the flux, but this is compensated for by the fact the high current density HTS wire is so fine that many more turns n are allowed. This enables any HTS device to generate a much greater flux than its conventional counterpart.

When d.c. HTS rotor coils spin they generate a time –varying flux that induces an rms excitation voltage  V exc   according to Faraday’s law such that: 
V exc    = - d(F)/dt

Where 'F' is the magnetic flux.


Meanwhile, the a.c. armature current  
I a  induces a back emf ( V B) in the armature coils that is proportional to I a but out of phase with it. The proportionality constant is denoted as X S the synchronous reactance. Then:

V exc    =  X S I a   - V B

Now, the sum of the two voltages induced in the armature coil must equal the grid voltage: V G  so the out of phase reactive armature current coupled to the grid is given by:

I a    =  X S  (V exc     -   V G

Note what happens above if the grid voltage  
drops below the level set by V exc  say to  V exc /10 or 0.01 (V exc).   Then the HTS synchronous condenser injects capacitative current into the grid. If the converse holds, and V G > V exc, the condenser injects inductive current. (Since recall the current lags behind the voltage). Most importantly, the magnitude of V exc can be adjusted in seconds by changing the HTS rotor coil current.

It is precisely the "hair-trigger" control over V exc  that allows a dynamic response to the VAR-compensation needs of the grid.

Thankfully, first generation HTS wire-based dynamic sychronous condensers have already been field tested by the TVA (Tennessee Vallee Authority), and additional orders have been placed. This is good, but such technological enhancements need to be made throughout the U.S. grid to bring us up to date, as electrical power needs ramp up. In addition, we simply cannot take nuclear power off the table prematurely.

In the meantime, lack of transmission capacity remains  a bugbear and one of the major obstacles to expanding clean energy in the U.S.  Replacing existing power lines with cable made from state-of-the -art materials could approximately double the capacity of the electric grid in many areas of the country, making room for much more wind and solar power.  

This technique is known as "advanced reconductoring" and is widely used in other nations, but many U.S. utilities have been slow to embrace it. This is because of unfamiliarity with the technology but also regulatory and bureaucratic hurdles.  

But the climate stakes are high.  In 2022 Congress approved hundreds of billions of dollars for solar panels, wind turbines, electric vehicles and other non-polluting technologies to tackle global warming (as part of the Inflation Reduction Act).  But if the U.S. can't add more transmission capacity more rapidly about half the emission reductions expected from that law may never materialize.

This will be especially important as global warming is exacerbated, with mean global temperatures` expected to increase by a further 3 degrees Celsius by 2100, which actually may be an underestimate.  See e.g.


See Also:


And:


Wednesday, April 10, 2024

Rural WI Voters Are Convinced Trump Is "Anointed By God" - Can They Be Rescued From Their Delusions?

                                                                

                  "I'm the father of lies, but my dummies don't believe it."
                                                                          
                                                                                
                                                                                 
                                    "Thank you, my MAGA muppets!"



 Reading the recent piece Monday (p. 1A, 'He's anointed': Donald Trump's Wisconsin faithful cloak the 2024 race in messianic zeal) in the Milwaukee Journal -Sentinel had my brain ready to blow a gasket.   Therein, the Journal -Sentinel contributors- Lawrence Andrea and Molly Beck- reported that before Republicans sat down for their “Lincoln-Reagan-Trump” dinner here late last month, "they bowed their heads for a prayer centered squarely on November."

Adding:

"A local pastor began by saying “we pray for these upcoming elections” and asking God to be “with every ballot box or be with every voting station.” He hoped young people would see that “America needs their votes.” 

“This isn’t really a battle of Republican versus Democrat. It’s not even a battle of conservative versus liberal. It’s a battle between good and evil, God and the devil,” Giganti said to cheers and whistles. 

“And we must choose God.

Translation: Meaning these fools must choose Donald Trump, meaning a metaphorical Devil in the guise of a human presidential candidate.  One need only cite another quote to validate this infection. Take Pam Nowak, interviewed by the J-S:

He’s anointed from God,” Nowak said.

But why would any truly righteous deity "anoint" a traitor, coward, and pussy grabber? Nowak has no answers, other than that her personal deity sees something special in Trump. Or rather, and more likely, his feral (nee demonic) energy has seizeed her brain and caused her to see a "holy" guy when a hellish one really inhabits the form.

Most rally attendees interviewed at Tuesday's event told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel the issue key to their support is immigration. Which is difficult to believe, given Trump had his Reepo brigands scuttle perhaps the most sane and comprehensive border bill ever put forward, e.g.

GOP Goes To Obstruction of Sane Immigration Bill To Ding Biden - Under Orders From Trump 

Yet  University of Wisconsin-Green Bay freshman Nate Kromrey, 19, said:

"We should have secure borders, lower the inflation rate, lower crime and then lower gas prices." 

 Kromrey said the fall election will be his first as a voter but given the kid's profound lack of information about issues one hopes he doesn't vote, period.   Indeed, his comment discloses that youthful Wisconsin voters are every bit as dumb and uninformed as young Michigan voters. And likely many others who can't seem to keep facts straight, including that the inflation rate IS lower e.g.

Latest WSJ Survey Finally Reveals Extent Of Americans' Economic-Financial Ignorance 

As well as crime, i.e. from a March 21, Newsweek piece:

The FBI crime data released on Tuesday showed a drop in nearly every type of crime from the fourth quarter of 2022 to 2023

As for gas prices, refinery capacity and the ongoing war in Ukraine have put these largely beyond President Joe Biden's  control - see e.g.

Why Biden can't bring gas prices down (axios.com)

Would these Wisconsin voters really rather put Trump in office to try to bring them down when the mutt has vowed a 10 percent tariff on all imports, from all nations??  Give me a break.

This mental detachment to the point of schizoid psychosis also begs the question of why so many - self-proclaimed Christians - have no problems with Trump's pussy grabbing admission (on the Access Hollywood tape) as well as other perversions, i.e.

Why Do White Christian Evangelicals Worship A Pervert Prez Who Loves Spankings & Golden Showers?

They are even prepared to give this roach the benefit of the doubt when he changes his mind (purely for his own political gain) on one of their pet issues, abortion.  They rationalize their Trump fealty and worship by shrugging shoulders and saying: "Heck he could just change his mind again."

Failing to see it isn't a case of changing Trump's mind but of Trump manipulating his deaf, dumb and blind followers with lies.  But then, perhaps these MAGA minions forget that according to Christian scriptures "Satan is the Father of lies."

What remains is the hope that a majority in the battleground states don't fall under his sway and stream of lies.  Failing that, we could be facing the destruction of whatever remnant of democratic institutions remain. Along with labor rights, civil rights, environmental protections, social wage policies and public goods and services across the board.  Not to mention the imposition (via Trump's Project 25) of a brutishly draconian and punitive autocratic regime.  As blogger Amanda Marcotte notes (see first link below):

"For those still unaware, Project 2025 was created by a coalition of MAGA forces, including all these Christian right groups, to draft the blueprint for Trump to use to destroy rule of law and force an authoritarian agenda on the nation if he gets back into power. They are especially keen on abusing presidential powers to impose a Christian nationalist worldview, complete with abortion bans, reversal of LGBTQ rights, and a crackdown on sex education and contraception usage. They know Trump will do whatever they ask of him, which is why they aren't sweating this whole thing where he pretends to be moderate to sucker the mainstream press."

Basically, there is no margin for error or indecision in this upcoming election. It is a case of either voting Blue (for Biden and Dems) or opting to take us all down a bottomless draconian shithole. As for the Wisconsin rubes convinced Trump is "anointed by God" to deliver the nation from evil, they need to examine their own threadbare, miserable lives to ask why they have allowed one psychotic narcissist's lies and mockery to so profoundly fuck up their brains. To the extent of being convinced this traitor and coward is their only lifeline to a decent life.

See Also:

by Amanda Marcotte | April 10, 2024 - 6:39am | permalink

— from Salon

On Monday, with great fanfare, Donald Trump released his "plan" on abortion in a video posted to Truth Social. As with most things Trump says, the short statement was an avalanche of lies. He claims overturning Roe v. Wade was "about will of the people." In reality, strong majorities of Americans disapprove of the Supreme Court's actions. He claims "all legal scholars" on "both sides" wanted to repeal Roe, another lie. Most legal scholars, except far-right ones, agree the right to privacy is justified by the Constitution but that such a dramatic reversal of precedent is bad law. He claimed, as he does routinely now, that Democrats want abortion "after birth," a vile lie that has become normalized through brute repetition. But the most consequential deceit is from Trump implying — but notably never actually saying — he's on the "leave it to the states" bandwagon.

Despite all his word games, Trump has never believed there's a legal reason to avoid a national ban. Before they settled on this cleverly dishonest video, his campaign was leaking trial balloons to the press about considering a 15- or 16-week ban. As the Washington Post reported, "as president, he backed a national 20-week ban." So he's lying when he claims to believe this "shouldn’t be a federal issue."

But most telling is the muted response on the Christian right. The anti-abortion group SBA List said they were "disappointed," but promised to "work tirelessly" to elect Trump in 2024 and that "he will get there" on a national ban. Alliance Defending Freedom, which argued the Dobbs case before the Supreme Court that ended Roe, completely ignored Trump's statement. Americans United For Life, Family Research Council, the Heritage Foundation, Turning Point USA: All loudmouthed fundamentalist groups, all angrily anti-abortion, and all responded with either silence, or in some cases, eager support to Trump's video. Penny Nance of Concerned Women for America, a longstanding anti-feminist group, seemed confident Trump will stick by the forced childbirth cause.

That's because they all know it's a crock, and Trump will sign any abortion ban a Republican-controlled Congress passes. Moreover, they all know that, if he gets into the White House, Trump will abuse executive powers to create a backdoor ban on most, if not all abortion, by using the defunct-but-never-repealed Comstock Act to legally persecute those who transport drugs or materials that are used in abortions. They know he will do this, because they are all involved in developing the plan to do so, through Project 2025.

....As Melissa Gira Grant wrote at the New Republic, "On January 20, 2025, conservatives plan to resurrect a 150-year-old defunct law to ban abortion across the nation." And as she notes, "This is not a secret plan—far from it." It's published and heavily talked about in right-wing circles."

And:

Jeff Sharlet's Article: "Trump The Chosen One To Run America" - Yeah, From Hell 

And:

by Maya Boddie | April 8, 2024 - 6:32am | permalink

— from Alternet

Donald Trump's "Messiah complex" perhaps, may have reached its peak last month when the former president announced he was selling $59.99 'God Bless the USA' Bibles.

Laura Brodie noted in a TIME Magazine article the MAGA hopeful's recent antics include telling his supporters "that he’s suffering for their sake, sharing a faux courtroom sketch of Christ at his side, and circulating actor Jon Voight’s bizarre claim that he is being 'destroyed as Jesus.'"

Boston College history professor Heather Cox Richardson, in a Sunday, April 7 op-ed for Milwaukee Independent, submits, "Trump is not the first president to compare himself to Jesus Christ."


And:

by Robert Becker | April 8, 2024 - 6:18am | permalink

Equal to endless lies are endlessly self-serving fantasy projections that defy reality

Know anyone who lies all the time? Eventually, except for cultists, credibility vanishes. Know anyone who spouts absurd, laughably wrong-headed predictions? Trump the lead Chicken Little is thus special, managing to hit bottom when bad lying impels bad predictions. Behind all such devilry is the arrogant, fake self-confidence that lying seers must be right because they’re the ultimate know-it-alls. For a partial list, Trump’s jaw-dropping bluster self-anoints himself both incapable of error and the world’s great expert at everything. Why, this model of modesty knows more than world-class stars in science, climate, money, debt, pandemic diseases, war, ISIS, courts, lawsuits, trade, taxes, technology, drones, even the weather.

And so the culmination of this bluster is to commit political blackmail if he’s not made dictator-for-a-day: only Trump stands between the entire USA and catastrophe – from a guy who only picks primitive yes-men. Lying about the present facilitates inventing your own future – but instead of some visionary futurist, Trump is now the buffoon of doomsday predictions. The latest lie/fake projection is that America will implode, indeed will “no longer exist,” if he’s not re-elected. That tantrum of logic awards his non-election with a one-to-one-correlation, equating his fate with America’s entire critical mass.

She writes, "In 1866, President Andrew Johnson famously did, too," and, "While there is a financial component to Trump’s comparison that was not there for Johnson, the two presidents had similar political reasons for claiming a link to divine power."