Tuesday, June 4, 2019

UFOs May Well Be Extraterrestrial In Origin - But Humans Are Too Enthralled By Their Supposed "Sovereignty" To Admit It

                                                                           

"The UFO compels decision because it exceeds modern governmentality, but we argue that the decision cannot be made. The reason is that modern decision presupposes anthropocentrism, which is threatened metaphysically by the possibility that UFOs might be ETs. As such, genuine UFO ignorance cannot be acknowledged without calling modern sovereignty itself into question."-  Alexander Wendt and Raymond  Duvall,  'Sovereignty and the UFO', Political Theory, Vol. 36, No. 4, p.612.


The headline on the front page of The Sunday Denver Post  Perspective section featured at least three-inch letters as shown above.   Just as noteworthy, the subheader screeched: 'Everyone needs to adjust to that fact.'  It was obviously intended to snatch attention (say away from the Sports pages or the latest front page news about Trump tweeting nonsense) and it succeeded.  The author was Daniel W. Dresner, not an astrophysicist but a professor of international  politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

Which elicits the question of why an international politics prof would be writing about UFOs. Well, because the ramifications of UFOs clearly extend beyond the domain of astronomers and astrophysicists. Specifically, author Dresner cites a key paper by Alexander Wendt and Raymond Duvall  in the journal Political Theory which I strongly urge every blog follower to read (you can download the PDF version) e.g.

Sovereignty and the UFO - Alexander Wendt, Raymond Duvall, 2008




Therein you will clearly see why the issue of the UFO and specifically what the paper's authors call the "UFO taboo" has come to the attention of political theory researchers.  (By "UFO taboo" I and they mean the aversion to scientifically studying this phenomenon because it risks larger societal derision and even ostracism.  A stupid reaction but an understandably human one, especially from  a species that fancies itself the 'lords of creation' but actually might conceivably be seen as two-legged termite by a truly advanced civilization. )

As Perspective author Dresner writes: "UFOs are usually only brought up to crack jokes, and have been dismissed for decades."

He goes on, referencing the paper for which I provided the link above:

"In that paper, eventually published in the journal Political Theory, Wendt and Duvall argued that state sovereignty as we understand it is anthropocentric, or 'constituted and organized by reference to human beings alone'.  They argued that  the real reason UFOs have been dismissed is because of the existential challenge that they pose for a world view in which human beings are the most technologically advanced life forms.

'UFOs have never been systematically investigated by science or the state, because it is assumed to be known that none are extraterrestrial. Yet in fact this is not known, which makes the UFO taboo puzzling given the ET possibility.  The puzzle is explained by the functional imperatives of anthropocentric sovereignty, which cannot decide a UFO  exception to anthropocentrism  while preserving the ability to make such a decision. The UFO can be known only by not asking what it is."

The conclusion of the authors (Wendt and Duvall) from this is that: "UFO ignorance is political rather than scientific".

Now let's try to unpack this for the more casual reader.  Basically, Dresner and the paper's authors are asserting that humans are too fragile to handle the potential truth that we share the universe with more advanced beings. If then the UFOs seen in our skies, e.g. by military pilots going on record, are actual advanced ET craft, then it helps to avoid that unpleasant reality in one of two ways.  One either dismiss the topic out of hand as the province of cranks or better (more "rational skeptic" approach), don't press the topic and instead leave the nature of the UFO unknown. Then everyone can go home and sleep at night without fretting that some advanced civilization is using our skies as their personal playground.

Certainly they would have to be more advanced- much more- if they can get to our planet from light years way, perhaps many light years.

How many?  Well, it turns out a seminal paper: Galactic Civilizations: Population Dynamics and Interstellar Diffusion’ by William Newman and Carl Sagan, in Icarus, Vol. 46, June 1981, page 293, gave some of the answers.  In particular they sought to give a general answer to how long an alien colonization wave front ,might take to reach the Earth. They used the known diffusion equation of mathematical physics to work it out along with a set of reasonable assumptions..


The authors began with a standard diffusion equation, treating the spread of any colonizing civilization similarly to any medium that diffuses – for example, viruses, or general infections, or even human populations (say in the early colonization of the New World).. The basic diffusion equation used was (p. 301, eqn.12):

d(r)/dt = DIV (D(x,t,
r) · grad r(x,t)

where, r (x,t) describes the population density at time t, and position x, and D is the diffusion coefficient in terms of x, t and r. The preceding equation is then tweaked and used as the basis for future refinements.

Rather than weary the casual reader with the dozens and dozens of equations leading to the Results section (page 314), I will simply commence at that section and then go from there.

The authors' first major computation is of N’, the steady state number of extant advanced civilizations in the Milky Way. This is essential to obtain because it is one of the key variables used to compute the mean distance between advanced civilizations in the Milky Way:

L M = (2.5 x 10 11  /N’) 1/3

Where the numerator refers to the number of  stars estimated in the galaxy, and N the estimated civilization-bearing stars. The result is in parsecs, assuming the mean separation between stars in the galaxy is 1pc = 3.26 light years. (Bear in mind while our region near the outer rim is sparse with stars, the interior third of the Milky Way is teeming with them, very densely packed)

Based on a star –planet formation factor, f * ≈  1, and a mean lifetime for an advanced civilization of 106 years, the authors obtain: N’ = f(106) = 106 , or one million advanced civilizations in the Milky Way alone.


(* Note: my inclination is actually to increase f  to  ≈ 2, based on the discovery of more than 950 actual extra-solar planets, which were unknown at the time Newman and Sagan published their paper. This would yield double the number of advanced civilizations, but we will retain the more conservative estimate)

Then, the mean distance between advanced civilizations in the Galaxy is:

LM = (2.5 x 10 11  /106 ) 1/3  = 63 pc = 205 Light years


Readers may well not appreciate this, but this is literally “next door neighbors” in terms of the galaxy!

The authors’ next task is to obtain the velocity of the colonization wavefront which they give as (Eqn. (79), page 316):

V = (v  j )(D g) 1/2

Here, (v j ) is a dimensionless constant of order unity(1), and g ≈  0.1 (based on the rate of migration of human populations today (Newman and Sagan estimated 0.01 /yr, but that was nearly 30 years ago before the age of globalization). The diffusion coefficient, D, they (very) conservatively estimate at: D ≈ (2 x 10 -8 pc 2 /yr).



Thus, the colonization wave velocity would be:

V = (1)[ (2 x 10 -8 pc 2 /yr) (0.1 /yr)] 1/2 = 6.3 x  10 -9 pc/ yr

But the authors adjust this value (with "bias") i.e. toward younger civilizations - using historic Earth colonization rates-   to: 3 x  10 - 4 pc/ yr.  I removed some of that bias using a statistical algorithm, leading to the slower  colonization wave rate of : 

V =   4.4 x  10 -5 pc/ yr



Which would imply 1.4 x  106   or 1.4 million years  (instead of 210,000 yrs.) before the colonization wave reached Earth, assuming a 63 pc distance to the planet of the nearest advanced colonizers.  (The lifetime of these advanced colonizer civilizations is assumed to be greater than 30 million years. In other words, they all would have had to survive their critical nuclear energy development phase.)

Now, before anyone gets too ecstatic, bear in mind:

1) Sagan and Newman based their diffusion coefficient on relatively low travel speeds (v much less than c) since anything near v ~ c would be enormously expensive in terms of shielding, propulsion (page 312). They opted then for speeds far below relativistic (e.g. ≈ 40,000 km/h).

2)They deliberately assumed a “random walk” diffusion with directional bias “away from population centers".


I personally suspect the first is way too conservative and ignores the sort of ingenuity and enterprise that may well apply to a truly advanced civilization which is also space faring. And again, just because we can’t imagine humans attaining relativistic speeds, doesn’t mean advanced aliens couldn’t. So, just a shift (reduction) of the base travel time to about one ten thousandth of what the authors use enhances the diffusion wave speed, V to 0.004 pc/yr.    This reduces the time to encounter to 1.57 x 10 4 yrs. or just over 15,700 years. A blink of an eye.

The conclusion here is that any of the strange craft we've seen in the previously released Pentagon files, i.e.


Newly Released Pentagon UFO Files - Not A Laughing ... - Brane Space




 Could well be craft from an advanced civilization, based on fine tuning the Sagan- Newman diffusion wave equations.  This doesn't prove the unusual craft seen in one released Pentagon video, e.g.  https://youtu.be/Ce6ZevfbIK0  is an actual alien craft, only that this hypothesis can't be excluded. Especially in light of the Sagan-Newman paper, especially with factors tweaked after the emergence of the exoplanet discovery era.   More to the point let's recall that in retrospect Sagan - a once UFO skeptic - disclosed to J. Allen Hynek that he believed them to be "real", i.e. possible alien craft,  but "couldn't admit it in front of colleagues."  See e.g.



https://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=76926

Dresner, for his part, has noted the military pilots' UFO reports - on the record - cannot just be dismissed given their backgrounds, and so a crack has appeared in the "official authority" narrative. That is, "that no official authority can take seriously the idea that UFOs can be extraterrestrials."     The fracture of this trope, as Dresner notes, was reinforced by the NY Times story in 2017 (by Helene Cooper, Ralph Blumenthal and Leslie Keun) concerning the Defense Department's 'Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program' cataloging the reports of the pilots. Further, Defense Dept. officials had confirmed its existence.  In Dresner's words:

"Though this story generated some justified skepticism, it represented the first time the U.S. government acknowledged the existence of such a program."

Dresner then adds to this the research by Harvard's Avi Loeb into the nature of the strange object Oumuamua  e.g. his co-authored paper appeared in Astrophysical Journal Letters in November last year.    

All of this has led inexorably to:

"the official organs of the state now acknowledging that UFOs exist even if they are not literally using the acronym."

In other words, adopting a strategy I used in my first ever published paper nearly 40 years ago, e.g.

Transient Optical Phenomena of the Atmosphere - a Case Study

The upshot is that the cracks in the once pervasive belief in human cosmic sovereignty may finally be ready to open to the size of a yawning canyon - from a tiny fissure.  Especially as officialdom is finally ready to come around and at least admit UFOs could pose aerial threats to pilots, even if they may not be ET in origin.  It will be interesting in any case to see what now unfolds.  This is given my now deceased middle brother Jerome (who was based at Wright -Patterson while in the USAF) predicted on July 30, 1990 (while we were at a Stahl family reunion in Pt. Charlotte,  FL):

"I'm predicting the first alien craft to land in full public view will land sometime in the year 2020."

Alas, Jerry won't get to see if his alien prophecy is fulfilled. He died of a ruptured abdominal aneurysm on Aug. 5,  2016.  

I end with Prof. Dresner pointing out that "in recent years the U.S. national security bureaucracy has met the first criterion (UFOs exist)  and one wonders what happens to our understanding if great powers meet the second one (UFOs might be ETs)."

I venture to say if the last happens, humans may finally have arrived at cosmic maturity, via a willingness to accept they aren't the smartest denizens on the cosmic 'block'  - and can deal with that letdown.

See also:





Monday, June 3, 2019

Pursuing "Immortality" & Treating Aging As A "Disease": The Province of Cranks And Quacks

Image result for brane space, Barbara Ehrenreich













Barbara Ehrenreich has provided an antidote to the imbecilic view of aging as a disease, in her book 'Natural Causes'.  Basically the only reason humans fight aging (and mortality) is to continue the fantasy of a 'neverending', individual conscious self. 


In a recent Financial Times piece featuring an interview with bio-researcher and wunderkind Laura Deming, we learn:

"Anti-aging science seems to be the latest gold rush in youth-obsessed Silicon Valley. Like long-ago emperors, some tech elites are pursuing immortality through unproven treatments."

Let's first accept as a proposition that pursuing immortality for humans is a fool's errand. The corollary to that is treating aging as a "disease" with the daft aim to eliminate it like one might eliminate Measles or smallpox is equally balmy.  One of the best retorts to that bollocks came via a comment from one FT reader: 

"Aging is NOT a disease. It's life's  natural conclusion. Death is necessary for renewal of the species. Imagine being 200 years old or 300 years old. Eventually, the planet will be filled with old people."

Terse, but splendid logic which only a quack would attempt to refute. Why? Well because the quest for immortality is an idiotic fantasy which gets more at the nature of  human hubris in refusing to accept that death is an integral part of evolution.  Thus,  we need death to remove species' members to make way for either better adapted offshoots or new species. Imagine if Australopithecus never died out to make way for humans!  Imagine if the dinosaurs never died out to make way for the mammals.

But this tripe is now circulating from otherwise sober heads, even in journals such as Nature, wherein one reads in one issue (June 28, 2018): 

“If there is a mortality plateau, then there is no limit to human longevity,” says Jean-Marie Robine, a demographer at the French Institute of Health and Medical Research in Montpellier, who was not involved in the study.
That would mean that someone like Chiyo Miyako, the Japanese great-great-great-grandmother who, at 117, is the world’s oldest known person, could live for years to come — or even forever, at least hypothetically."
Live forever, because this demographer  (and others) found one Japanese elder who's 117? Give me a break! And this is supposedly on the basis of "statistical analysis" which then means either that analysis omitted selection effects or  indicates a total misreading of the data. In this case that a mortality plateau translates to the conclusion that "human lifespan doesn't have an upper threshold."  Did any of these specialists even take a course in basic logic? Evidently not.  And who are the main morons behind this twaddle?  Well, "anti-aging startups".    E.g.


Anti-Aging Startups Leading the Longevity Research Revolution



https://www.boldbusiness.com/.../anti-aging-startups-leading-longevity-research-revol...


Now, it is essential  here to differentiate those like Deming- who simply seek  to "increase humans' 'health span'  (i.e. the number of years of healthy life), from the brigade of cranks and quacks  in techie startups who want to convince you humans can actually aspire to achieve some cockeyed "immortality".  And to that end, the sheer chutzpah to treat aging as a "disease" that can be cured. 

Rather than aim at immortality like the cranks and quacks, Ms. Deming's goal is a tad more temperate:  simply to extend healthy years for normal lifespans. When asked by the FT about one of her experiments pertaining to longer life for worms, she references "starving them, mutating them, then cutting their gonads off." 

Translated to humans, think of near  starvation diets (like me doing the 5:2, 800 calories a day, 7 days a week), altering key genes and also cutting off the sex organs and hormone-producing glands (testes, ovaries). Somehow I doubt that sort of extreme 'cure' would fly for most Americans . But it gets to the core of what REAL measures would be needed to add even ten (quality) years to the lifespan of humans, far less 40 or 50!  In other words, vastly more draconian measures than merely getting a blood transfusion from a penniless millennial at a vampire center, e.g.

Blood ready to be infused into old farts - to try to stave off aging - at a vampire center

 Indeed when the FT asked Deming for real world evidence she replied "Korean eunuchs!"  Quickly adding she "wouldn't mess with her own fertility".  Gee, that's nice to know!  Bear in mind this is merely to add a few healthy years, not to advance some absurd proposal for indefinitely long lifespan.

At least to her credit, Deming admits there is no 'magic bullet' to stopping or slowing aging.  This shows she has her feet planted on the ground.  Also, her head isn't up in the clouds some place like the gaggle of longevity promoters who believe they can get human life spans up to 120 or 140 years, or "living forever".  (They'd do better to conquer Alzheimer's disease first!)

Author (and Atheist) Barbara Ehrenreich appears to grasp how this yen to conquer aging and death arose. She  is convinced it's all about a form of egotism, in this case belief in a never ending ego as tied to the conscious self.  As she writes in her book 'Natural Causes: An Epidemic Of Wellness, The Certainty Of Dying, And Killing Ourselves to Live Longer''


"Contemporary society is so deeply invested in the idea of an individual conscious self that it becomes both logically and emotionally impossible to think of a world without it."

She elaborates much more several pages on,


“No matter how much effort we expend, not everything is potentially within our control, not even our own bodies and minds. In death we will once again be equals - and so an egalitarian politics also means accepting this outcome.  You can think of death bitterly or with resignation, as a tragic interruption of your life, and take every possible means to postpone it.  Or, more realistically, you can think of life as an interruption of  an eternity of personal nonexistence, and seize it as a brief opportunity to observe and interact with the living, ever surprising world around us."


This is a tough pill for the longevity cult  and their startups to accept, but eventually they will.  Her take here is the basic atheistic premise that death represents nothingness, no being at all, hence no consciousness of self or anything. If one had to compare it to something in human experience it would be closest to general anesthesia for a major surgery.  No sensation of time, and no memory...nothing.  So Ehrenreich's theory is that the longevity quacks are pursuing their fantasy as a means to escape this ego nothingness, the loss of fundamental personal identity. This makes perfect sense given the techie launching startups in this area perhaps possess the biggest egos - next to hedge fund owners and investment bankers. So it's no surprise they'd desire to go on forever.

But because they can't accept this ego-destroying state that Ehrenreich proposes, this condition of perpetual nothingness-  and they don't buy into religious immortality -  they conjure up a physical equivalent.  A kind of  ersatz biological immortality  based on cockeyed notions of extending life indefinitely. (Invoking the statistics of "death risk plateaus")

Now, don't get me wrong.   This is not to say there aren't advantages to living longer, provided good health is part of the package. (See e.g. WSJ,  May 21, 'The Advantages and Limits Of Living To 100', p. A13).  However, one huge disadvantage is that one needs to have plenty of wealth to support those added years. 

 In previous posts to do with this topic I already noted a  $550,000 net worth is probably okay for most 65 year -olds currently to have a comfortable 20 years of retirement.  Now extend that to 95 but with 2 percent inflation (conservatively) factored in each year and you come to $770,000. Take the tally on to age 105 and you are looking at $880,000 and to 115 we get, $990,000 and to 125 you're at $1.1 million and to 135 you're at $1.21 million.  We haven't  reached 142 yet, and I've not even factored into the mix medical inflation.

The reality now? Most Americans currently at age 65 don't even half that $550k net worth amount saved up, say to last until 85.  (The amount cited from a recent MONEY magazine issue was $195k)   So how are they going to last until 100 or 120 or 142 as some cockeyed longevity research quacks have suggested?  It is pure nonsense and wishful thinking. Also believing you will be hired by some corporation at age 90 or 100 or 110.  

If you believe that codswallop you probably believe in unicorns and flying monkeys too.

So why this obsession with increasing human lifespans when the last thing we need is a burgeoning population of oldsters?  It's because a segment of our species admits to no limits - either biological (in terms of lifespan), in energy consumption, or sex or anything else.  These denizens live in a universe of their own and the only way they will be brought back to reality is when it begins to actually bite. Such as when the energy finally runs out, the sex can no longer be sustained even with 200 mg of Viagra a day, and when the runaway greenhouse hits,  turning the planet into a massive oven - to cook all species.

As a prostate cancer survivor unsure of how many years he has left, or what the disease is doing now (though the last PSA test May 14 did show the velocity slowing  from 0.21 ng/ml / mo. to 0.12 ng/ml/ mo. , i.e. over two consecutive 6 month intervals).   I am trying to take an open minded approach combined with a realistic one.  Basically this means (and my primary care doc agrees) postponing any hormone treatments until I become symptomatic.   Thus, in my frame of reference, longevity is automatically tempered, not unbounded. It's measured in increments of additional quality years, not dozens or "forever". I look at each added day of quality as a relative achievement in quality of life and less so in quantity 

This is because I value quality of life more than quantity  - as these longevity startups ought to as well. Hence, using their funds to pursue Alzheimer's research, not living forever.  For me there is no ambition to live until 100 or 120.  Only to postpone the worst effects of the cancer as long as I can., and take those quality years as they come.  If that means only to age 77 or 80, so be it. I am not greedy, and I certainly don't inhabit the unhinged fantasy island of these startup longevity folks.

  I wouldn't presume to assert my approach is right for everyone, but for me it works, and I don't need to win a Powerball of $300 million to make it so. 

Saturday, June 1, 2019

Dotard Doubles Down On Crashing The Economy By Imposing Escalating Mexico Tariffs.

Related image
"I know I'm a stupid pig!  But I love tariffs even if the economy crashes"


It now appears certain that Donnie Dotard is determined to destroy the only remote reason for his re-election:   the economy,  We know a marginal number of independents are willing to give this slime a pass if the once roaring economy (mistakenly attributed all to Trump) preserves their 401k balances.   We also know the Republican voters will put party over country whichever way the economy goes. Hence, Trump's ability to escape indictment  for his obstruction crimes in 2021 hinges on his re-relection.

But he's on a tear to destroy it with his latest gambit, an absurd escalating tariff on Mexico.

Unable to control himself as a group of 1,306  migrants were apprehended crossing the border in El Paso, fleeing brutal conditions in Central America, he pulled the tariff trigger.   This as thousands of people remained stranded in the southern Mexican state of Chiapas, unable to obtain immigration documents, while asylum seekers waited in northern Mexican border cities .  So unable to use his "border wall" (since a federal judge blocked it) Trump lashed out using his old standby means of  retribution: tariffs.. Thus he bellowed in a  belligerent tweet:


"Mexico has taken advantage of the United States for decades. Because of the Dems, our Immigration Laws are BAD. Mexico makes a FORTUNE from the U.S., have for decades, they can easily fix this problem. Time for them to finally do what must be done!”
All of which is bollocks and B.S. given the U.S. enjoys as much or more trade benefits, namely in lower prices for many fruits and vegetables (especially those precious avocados). And yes, cars too - which will now cost an extra $1,300 each on importation.  Bear in mind these are American automobiles but made in Mexican plants set up by U.S. auto companies. Trump, Wharton grad that he is, still hasn't grasped that tariffs do not punish the nation on which they are imposed but the consumers of that nation's goods.  For perspective, a  5% tariff would amount to a tax increase of more than $17bn that will largely be passed on to U.S. consumers. (Last year Mexico sent about $346.5bn of goods such as avocados, tomatoes, clothes and cars across the border.)   As a piece in today's NY Times points out:

"The United States imported more than $345 billion in goods from Mexico last year, and shipped $265 billion the other way. But if anything, those numbers understate the interdependence. American refiners process crude oil from Mexico, then sell it back as gasoline. Automakers ship parts back and forth repeatedly during manufacturing. About 30 percent of the content of Mexican exports originated in the United States, according to a recent study."
Further noting:

"General Motors has three Mexican plants that make some of its most important models, including the highly profitable Silverado and Sierra pickup trucks and the new Chevrolet Blazer sport-utility vehicle. G.M. and Fiat Chrysler rely on Mexico for about a quarter of their North American production, and Ford for 10 percent."

So Dotard is actually firing at AMERICAN car makers, but is clearly too dense to see it.

Nonetheless on Thursday Dotard announced that he was placing a 5% tariff on “every single good coming into the United States from Mexico” starting on 10 June, to pressure the country to do more to curb immigration into the U.S.   Worse, this buffoon who somehow broke into high office with Russian help and covering up lies about payoffs to porn stars, intends to escalate the tariffs every month thereafter. Thus, by July 10%, then August 15%, September 20% and October 25 %.  Avocado toast? Millennials won't even be able to afford the damned toast, let alone the avocado..
Even before Herr Swine's reckless tariff announcement investors were skittish and seeking safety. According to a WSJ Business & Finance front page report (May 30, p. B1) nervous investors fled to bonds and cash, as opposed to a stock market (equities)  that would surely be riled by this asshole's words. Sure enough,  as he blurted out his decision to  impose new tariffs on Mexico  stock markets worldwide suffered a selloff, with the DOW going down nearly 355 pts. and below 25,000 for the first time in years.  This as  the FTSE 100 in London dropped 0.8% according to The Financial Times.
At least a few Republicans  (like Sen. Charles Grassley) appear to have summoned a few micrograms of testosterone to mount complaints. It's wondrous to hear these cowards at least complain about something Trump does. Meanwhile, The Business Roundtable-  one of Washington’s most influential lobby groups-   called the decision a grave error.  A statement put out stated in part:

“Business Roundtable strongly urges the administration not to move forward with these tariffs, which would create significant economic disruption and tax US workers, farmers, consumers and businesses,

Unilateral tariffs on all Mexican imports will not solve the urgent problems of securing our border and fixing our broken immigration system. We urge the administration to engage constructively with our neighbors and allies to resolve trade, migration and security issues in ways that will benefit Americans, not cause economic damage."
Trump’s insanity - which is what it is, let's call a spade, a spade - comes as the U.S., Mexico and Canada are still negotiating the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), a trade pact to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It also comes on the heels of ramping up the trade war with China which has now threatened to use its "nuclear" option, i.e. withholding trade in any rare earths. These are the critical ,materials for a host of electronic gadgets, including those iPhones millions are so mesmerized by. Well, enjoy them while you can, kiddies!
Mexico’s President, Andrés Manuel López Obrador,  responded to Trump with a two-page letter in which he wrote: “The Statue of Liberty is not an empty symbol … With all due respect, even though you have the right to say it, ‘make America great again’ is a fallacy because, until the end of times, and beyond national borders, universal justice and fraternity should prevail.”

López Obrador, however, was also blunt about the crisis. “President Trump, social problems aren’t resolved with taxes or coercive measures,” he said, defending his administration’s handling of the migration issue."
The news elicited support for Mexico from China, the other target of Trump's imbecilic tariffs., In Beijing, the foreign ministry spokesman, Geng Shuang, said: “The United States has repeatedly taken trade bullying action. China is not the only victim.”  He didn't say so in any veiled threats, but the Chinese also hold the ultimate weapon: the rare errths.

Will Trump back off an avoid calamity? Doubtful, his ego is too invested and he has to "win" - even if the majority of Americans lose.

See also:
Bob Burnett's picture
Article Tools E-mail | Print Comments (0)