Cacti

Agree 100%. It would be a win for us and for our neighbors to the South. And a minor defeat for China. Now, which of our elected officials can be bribed to make this happen?

Israeli engineers develop implants to help paralyzed people walk again

So you’re saying that my granddaughter would stand a good chance of getting into U.T. if she legally changed her name to Fatima Gomez Thunderhawk?

I’ll defer to other, better informed posters to answer this question, but if corruption or incompetence doesn’t cripple Ukraine; or if civil war doesn’t tear them apart; then it appears that in the longer term, demographics will be their downfall. NM. I see @956 Worldwide replied.

You—and other posters—paint a dire picture concerning the future of Ukraine, even if Russia doesn’t invade. This article supports the pessimism. Ukraine is the hollow man of Europe

Trump’s efforts in trying to prod NATO members to spend more money gained attention mainly because of his typical and undiplomatic heavy-handed approach. The reality is that most administrations and many influential political leaders from both parties have, over the years, sought to persuade our allies to contribute more to their own defense—with little success. This unequal sharing was even recognized by Eisenhower in the 1950’s: The fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 only exacerbated the unequal burden sharing. As the threat from Russia subsided, NATO members were able to cut defense spending; grow social programs; and make other domestic investments—and let us assume yet more of the burden. Yeah, NATO needs a big re-think.

The Biden administration is considering sending as many as 5,000 U.S. troops to Eastern Europe, a U.S. official confirmed to NPR… Are we to care more about the threat to Europe than do the Europeans? The U.S. ought to consider telling them to take the lead by sending their own troops to East Europe and quit depending on 'daddy' to take the initiative. Macron is always ranting about the need for Europeans to be quasi-independent of the U.S.; now is a perfect time for him to turn words into action and send French troops to, you know, show the Russians that Europe won't put up with their nonsense. Of course, France is not going to confront Russia over Ukraine, and neither should we.

Germany Helped Prep Russia for War, U.S. Sources Say The title is clickbait but the gist of the article is that we and our European allies have not only ignored/underestimated Russia’s military modernization, but perhaps facilitated it.

She’s good enough of a politician to be elected twice by her Massachusetts constituents. It’s just that her ultra-progressive message doesn’t sell nationwide.

Ms. Farkas also recently authored: The US Must Prepare for War Against Russia Over Ukraine

I’m interested in Shady Ray's and 956 Worldwide's reaction to this article: What does the Russian ultimatum to the West mean?

4 or 5 years ago (2017/2016), Leach had a record of 9/4 and 8/5, respectively, and followed with a 11/2 record in 2018. What makes you think WSU was really tired of that “shit” winning?

He’s closer to good than bad. Compiling a 59% win percentage at lower-tier schools such as Tech, Washington St., and Mississippi St. isn’t bad, at all.

You are in a better position than I am to judge whether or not the referenced countries would defend a NATO ally, but a 2020 Pew poll suggests otherwise.

A united Europe—or even a semi-united Europe—could indeed bully Russia. But that’s like saying that UT would be an annual football powerhouse if only they could build a consensus among the majority of Texas high school talent to play for the Horns. The latter is more likely to happen than the former.

Again, I question the fairness of judging Dole on one criteria (voting for Trump), when his accomplishments while in office more than offset that, imo. He, along with Moynihan, led the effort to save Social Security from collapsing. Due to their efforts, laws were passes, S.S. was reformed and is solvent for years to come. I don’t think the importance of shoring up a pillar of our society can be overstated. He was also instrumental in revamping the food stamp program. Along with McGovern, he helped shape legislation which resulted in additional millions of people being eligible for assistance. And he was a key figure in getting the Americans with Disabilities act passed. Fortunately, most people will choose to remember Dole for the good he accomplished, not for his Trump vote.

For those few who are willing to dismiss or minimize positive, lifelong accomplishments of a man because of occasional bad or perceived bad judgments, I’d ask you to reconsider. Voting for Trump—by itself—should not be the reason used to diminish Dole’s legacy as a respected lawmaker. If one is going to use a single criteria (a flaw, or perceived flaw) for judging, and consequently minimizing the overall accomplishments of a man, then it’s only logical to critique other men in other professions by the same standard. For example, are we to minimize the profound scientific contributions of Darwin and Einstein because of bad/flawed/erroneous personal judgements? After all, the former was a sexist while the latter was a racist. Isn't that enough to trivialize their contributions with an ‘eh’?

Sure, it would have been a great start but it doesn’t follow that our European partners could be convinced to join us. Unfortunately they don’t view China as either an imminent economic or military threat. As you pointed out, Trump was viewed as untrustworthy by the Europeans—and with good reason. But it doesn’t appear that Biden has done much to reestablish that trust (if there was any to begin with). In fact, several of our NATO allies complained about the lack of communication from the administration concerning the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the Australian/American/British submarine deal has set back relations with the EU. So, no, the Europeans didn’t trust Trump, but they don’t trust Biden, either. But that’s o.k., our European allies are also untrustworthy.

I’m in favor of any economic partnership to thwart China. But to be effective the partners must include the majority of western democracies.

To say that China is engaging in unfair trade practices is an understatement, and is mostly recognized by both parties. However, it seems that neither party has a solution, nor do our allies. Whatever the solution is, it’s clear that we can’t bully China, at least not by ourselves. And it’s equally clear Trump’s bull-in-the-china-shop approach (pun intended) has done more harm to our economy than to the economy of our adversary. But if Trump’s China tariffs were a fiasco, then the fiasco continues under Biden. And that’s because he has—for all practical purposes—left Trump’s tariffs in place. It’s fair to criticize Trump for his actions; it’s also fair to criticize Biden for his inactions.

Yeah, with a strong emphasis on hypocrisy.

Link

It’s evidently going to play a substantial role in the energy transition in China—us, not so much.

You’re right, of course. Mitigate was a poor choice of words, but substituting adapt for mitigate doesn’t quite work either. So let me rephrase: While it’s inevitable that we must adapt to a warmer Earth (we already are), it doesn’t follow that we must adapt to some of the negative consequences associated with a warming planet. There are steps we can take to lessen, or mitigate, those consequences. Take water, for example. A warmer U.S. will certainly exacerbate current and expected future water shortages. But if a certain temperature rise is already baked in (I believe it is), then we will have to adapt to the new normal, but we don’t necessarily have to adapt to the logical and expected drought-like consequences. Maybe there’s a way to mitigate those consequences. To state the obvious, the U.S. needs to find additional water sources in the coming years. And that’s true even if the temperature stabilizes at the current rate. If temperatures rise by 1.5, 2, or even 3 degrees, then obviously our water situation—especially in the west and southwest—goes from bad to worse to critical. This is where Canada comes in. They have more than 20% of the world’s fresh water and 7% of the planet’s renewable water supply - all to satisfy the needs of just 0.5 per cent of the world's population. In other words, they have vast amounts of surplus water that can be routed south to the U.S. This is not a novel idea; it’s been considered before. Naturally, most Canadians are against it, but public opinion and government cooperation can be influenced by money. And rest assured, it would cost a lot of money: tens of billions for the water and an enormous amount of money to get it where it is needed. So what does this have to do with lowering emissions? Nothing at all. But it does have to do with mitigating some of the consequences of an inevitable warming. And if there is a finite amount of money to spend on environmental issues (and there is), then assuring critical regions of our nation of an adequate water supply should take priority over measures that have little chance of success (reread Kerry’s quote).

In July, US climate envoy John Kerry said: China isn’t going to cut its emissions anytime soon and the rest of the world combined isn’t going to zero in 15 or 20 years. In fact, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, worldwide consumption (measured in quadrillion British thermal units) for liquid fuels, natural gas, and coal, will increase in the next 30 years from 182 to 248, 147 to 193, and 155 to 176, respectively. So, Instead of us and some European countries spending trillions trying to prevent what seems to be inevitable, maybe we should instead concentrate on how best to mitigate the inevitable.