I'm not sure what planet you are coming from, but if scientists found a way to rear a baby in an artificial womb why would would anyone need to be carrying the baby in their body?
Printable View
I'm not sure what planet you are coming from, but if scientists found a way to rear a baby in an artificial womb why would would anyone need to be carrying the baby in their body?
I think the pelvis might make a difference
Quote:
Originally Posted by nitron
Forgive me for restating the obvious , but I have been hearing the criticism of Obama health care insurance system that it makes people who don't require much care at this time pay for those people who do.Isn't that the basic principle behind any insurance system ?
Yes, any system of universal health insurance has to rely on the healthy subsidising the sick. If you allow people to opt out then the only people who take out insurance will be those who are more likely to be making claims, which means it will be very expensive (the adverse selection problem).Quote:
Originally Posted by sukumvit boy
Almost every other advanced country addresses this problem through the government funding universal health care, so that the subsidy occurs through taxation. The only real alternative is something like Obamacare, ie a combination of requirements to cover existing conditions, mandatory insurance and subsidies for low-income earners. The claim that there was some alternative that could provide the same or better cover without compulsion and more cheaply was always complete nonsense.
This chart shows how poorly the US health system has performed to date http://economistsview.typepad.com/ec...penditure.html The US spends 2-3 times as much per person on health care as other advanced countries, yet life expectancy in the US is significantly lower.
Excellent link flighty2 , thanks for that . Frightening evidence that the US is an 'outlier' in terms of life expectancy and health expenditure .Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
Further evidence of the importance of the need for universal health insurance coverage in the US that can provide basic life style counseling to reverse this trend.
Meanwhile , more contradictory words and actions from the Trump White House in terms of North Korea .
On the one hand Tillerson begins his Asia tour in Japan with the statement that " North Korea and its people need not fear the United States or its neighbors in the region who only seek to live in peace with North Korea ".
Does that mean that we are now going to ignore the horrible human rights abuses in North Korea ?
Also , does he forget that the North Korean 'people' will never be able to hear his message ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...h-north-korea/
While on the other hand the US announces the deployment of missile carrying drones across the border in South Korea.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...om-north-korea
http://europe.newsweek.com/kurt-eich...t-569813?rm=eu
Thought this was an interesting piece. Have followed Kurt Eichenwald on twitter for a few months because he occasionally has useful things to say. He is a journalist who is known to suffer from epilepsy and has suffered dozens of debilitating seizures in his lifetime. Trump supporters have sent him seizure inducing images such as strobe lights to try to give him a seizure. Finally, one of the images did induce a seizure and he is moving to have the person prosecuted.
After he had a seizure, many on the right claimed they thought he was making it up for sympathy and continue to send him these images. Strange that someone would send a person a strobe image in order to induce a seizure, it does what they intend it to do, and then they would claim he must be lying. The FBI is now moving forward against twitter user jew_goldstein.....probably a lovely person who is not at all anti-semitic.
Just thought it a lovely illustration of what kind of human beings Trump supporters are.
The original Hillary Clinton report on health care, '94, came to the conclusion that it could only work as a single payer system.
They decided to work through private insurers in order to keep them onside. Obamacare was based broadly on the scheme introduced by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts, so they were hoping to get some bipartisan support. That didn't work because the Republican leadership decided to oppose everything Obama did for political reasons. Ironically, many of the problems with Obamacare that contributed to its lack of popularity were a result of the compromises involved in working through the private insurance market.
Many conservatives are attracted to a philosophy of statutory interpretation called textualism. According to textualism, a statute has an unambiguous meaning based purely on the denotation of the words contained in it and a Judge should never consider the purpose of the statute as a whole when interpreting it. Although language can yield agreed upon meanings, legislators have often not contemplated the applications of the many generic words they use in statutes. It is an aspect of humility to understand that anything that is intended for broad based application is going to be tested by unusual circumstances and that the purpose of the statute is a better guide to its application than a literal rendering of the words.
This may not seem obvious until you see examples of textualism in action and realize that most things that are intended to be used as guideposts contain unintended ambiguities. It does not resolve the ambiguity to say let's simply take the statute as it is regardless of whether the result is counter-intuitive or incoherent. The best way to figure out what something means is to understand where a sentence or clause fits within a scheme and by asking why that scheme was constructed to begin with. I understand the concern of conservatives about the proper role of each branch and the fact that legislation is adopted by Congress as it is without implicit meanings appended to it. But if you assume that a legislative body really intends to prohibit activities or protect persons, then it's reasonable to use our native powers of inference and ask what is consistent with their meaning.
Let's say a statute imposes a life sentence for the use of a gun in a drug transaction. If someone trades a gun for cocaine, should they qualify for a life sentence even if the entire debate that took place in the senate and house before voting on the statute centered around shooting deaths during drug transactions?
Just some thoughts:Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
I can understand someone arguing in the long run it’s better to force the legislature to amend a law that can at times be unjust, then for a judge to stretch it’s application in a single case to prevent a miscarriage of justice. This argument saves the judge from distinguishing just from unjust or right from wrong: his only job, according to this argument, is to read the letter of the law as written by the legislators and apply it to the case at hand. I understand the attraction here is that such a view of the law preserves (or rather attempts to preserve) a rigid boundary between the legislative and judicial branches of the government.
As a mathematician I appreciate rigorous, clear cut lines. As a physicist I realize they don’t exist in real life. I expect most judges have no problem applying the law as written to most of the cases that come before them. However, I expect that is almost never the case for Supreme Court Justices. It seems to me that one of the major functions of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law in cases where the letter of it out of joint with legislative intent, our sense of justice and our common sense of decency. The ‘frozen-trucker’ case is, I think, an excellent example of how this philosophy goes wrong. You may have noticed how uncomfortable Gorsuch was when Franken was addressing just this case.
Is it actually better to treat one man unjustly in the hope that legislators will rework the law so future injustices of that sort might be prevented? It seems to me that establishing a precedent will prevent those future injustices and at the same time prevent the current miscarriage.
Gorsuch claims he never brings politics to the bench. Yet it is his record on the bench that recommends him to conservatives and gives liberals pause. When a judged is faced with a decision upon which the law is ambiguous I expect him to bring to bear his own sense of what is just, his sense of what is right, his sense of human dignity etc. A libertarian, a moderate conservative, a liberal, a Christian, an atheist will naturally have divergent takes on all of these essential matters. That’s why courts, especially the Supreme Court, have majority and dissenting views on almost all of their decisions.
A Judge should of course always try to be objective, but (in my view) there is no judicial philosophy he can follow that guarantees his decision will not be influenced by his political or religious philosophy. I’m not even sure it’s advisable to keep those things entirely out of the mix. The only real way to keep the courts fair is to keep them diverse.
I agree with everything you say here. The ability of the legislature to "correct" what they see as a judicial error of interpretation goes both ways, as they can in effect repudiate a decision that interprets their intent too broadly. You're also right that if the court establishes a precedent, it applies to a very specific fact pattern and they can distinguish future cases or if the facts are consistent apply it. To wait for the legislature to codify the meaning that appears latent in the statute is to force them to admit they didn't express themselves perfectly and wait. If the precedent does justice in one case, if applied properly it will again.
I understand the obsession with purism when it comes to interpreting laws. I do think Judges should show some restraint when interpreting intent and only move beyond the text to legislative history (discussions on the floor of Congress) when there is an ambiguity. As we saw in the frozen trucker case, refuse to operate a vehicle was the contested language. A few people pointed out that even a literal translation could have yielded a just outcome; the vehicle could have been considered the truck and trailer, which meant leaving the trailer was a refusal to operate the vehicle as a whole. The difference is that Gorsuch interprets the language without respect to the purpose of the statute. He and Scalia would say, the best guide is the dictionary definition of vehicle and would quote the dictionary.
But for instance, I would not support a decision where a Judge basically says that since the statute is meant to avoid workplace harms, then there doesn't even have to be a vehicle because Congress really just wants to protect workers. Oftentimes the choice is between two tenable definitions and one makes sense given the purpose of the statute.
You are right that Judges are calling upon their values in interpreting statutes and the constitution. Scalia and other textual originalists claim that they are least likely to be political because they are bound by the text. A famous Judge named Richard Posner said that may seem true, but they promote small government by thwarting legislative intent. If one looks at the bare text of the Constitution and then looks at the jurisprudence of the court interpreting it, it becomes apparent that a workable system of government requires Judges to adapt to unforeseen eventualities.
In constitutional law, the entire area known as substantive due process is extrapolated from a section of the constitution (14th amendment) that says government cannot deprive someone of liberty without due process of law. From this, the court in Roe v. Wade said that the right to privacy is a fundamental right, and that a law prohibiting abortion infringes on that right to privacy. Scalia would say, where in the Constitution does it say anything about privacy and who are you as an unelected Judge to tell us what rights are fundamental to liberty? But really why should they abstain?
I was just thinking as an amusing idea, how would the legislature amend the statute to repudiate OSHA's interpretation in the frozen trucker case? They could add a section to the statute that says, "In order to receive the protection of the statute an employee must cease to operate any component of the vehicle. This includes using the vehicle or any component of it for the limited purpose of shuttling himself to a safe destination." Now given that the statute was meant to protect workers and encourage them to report unsafe work conditions, would they have done it? Even if they thought, we didn't consider this possibility to begin with I don't think they would.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
There was a shooting in a Cincinnati nightclub this weekend killing one and wounding fourteen. But it's all okay, the shooter wasn't Muslim.
Bet he was an immigrant though - some way back in his family line
Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
I'm hopeful that the Trump Russia story materializes into something but we have to be careful of the rumor mill. All sorts of rumors abound such as that Flynn has flipped and is talking to the FBI, that the FBI provided Nunes with the information about Trump being swept up in surveillance to test his loyalty, and that Christopher Steele is set to testify. Anything could be true, but these things are not confirmed and the slow pace of the investigation, or the fact that what's known is not public, is causing people to pretend that their speculation is grounded in something more. At least the first two have been repeated by reputable journalists before being walked back as mere speculation by the person who conceived them. I think there has been nothing new (both public and confirmed) since Nunes showed he would obstruct the house investigation.
I think if the story doesn't materialize into something by the time we have reached Trump's 100 days in office, then the both Democrats and the media to need to put the story on the back burner for awhile. Just until they can find concrete evidence that can't be refuted by even the most irrational Trump supporter.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Nice link from the N Y Times Trish,thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Here's a link to the Charlie Rose Show from 3-13-17 ,interview / discussion with N Y Times columnist David Brooks who I find exceptionally insightful yet compassionate regarding the Trump presidency as well as the philosophical underpinnings of our current mind set .
Regarding the "crisis of solidarity" plaguing our society he says that it is a sense of isolation that we all feel because our society followed the wrong philosophers : Rene Descartes rather than St. Augustine , Jeremy Bentham rather than Viktor Frankl and J G Milne rather than Martin Buber . That discussion begins at 29:50 in the clip.
http://charlierose.com/videos/30216
Correction , that should be :" John Stuart Mill ( not J G Milne) rather than Martin Buber" . Sorry.
I think you're right. I think the minority party does not have subpoena power for these investigations though I could be wrong. But if all the Democrats can do is complain and can't compel documents or testimony then we should wait. In the House it's obvious Nunes will do anything to stall and distract.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackchubby38
The FBI investigation that Comey confirmed is taking place proceeds regardless and we have to have some faith that something will materialize. There are some legitimate pieces of the puzzle, but there's also a lot of noise. If even a fraction of what has been alleged is true, then at least a few people who have been associated with the campaign will probably be in trouble.
Interesting clip, thanks. Not sure I agree with David’s perspective on the philosophers we chose to follow. For one, I’m not sure that as a group we chose to follow the philosophers he said we chose. did we really choose Descartes, the skeptic over Augustine, the man of faith? Did we really choose reason over emotion? Should we choose emotion over reason? Are David’s characterizations of these philosophies accurate?Quote:
Originally Posted by sukumvit boy
I almost always read David’s weekly column in the NYT and I look forward to the spot he shares on PBS News Hour each Friday with Mark Shields. I usually find his point of view understandable, if sometimes over intellectualized.
Very true Trish , however I find the whole idea very compelling. That as a society and as individuals we have lost the capacity to come together , compromise and make Democracy work . And that this is due , in part , to the sense of isolation that has resulted from our egotistical viewpoint ( Descartes " I think therefore I am" ) and utilitarianism ( Bentham and Mill) rather than humanism and compassion ( Buber) and morality and ethics (St. Augustine).
Furthermore , I find it interesting hearing David Brooks , an American Jew and Republican, citing R R Reno a Christian philosopher and Reno's ' crisis of solidarity'.
Brooks' parents were Jewish intellectuals. He relates a funny story about how growing up he was told to "think Yiddish , act British " and that his grandparents gave their children British names like Milton , Norman and Sidney in order to fit in ,which are now considered Jewish names.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._R._Reno
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...g-idea-society
In the Guardian article Brooks seems to be saying we rely on rationalism too much in policy decisions. The debate between rational v. intuitive thinking reminds me of the debate people have about nature and nurture, where they want one to clearly predominate. I have played enough games involving probability to know that intuition is indispensable, but if I had to choose between reason and intuition I would choose reason because when intuition goes wrong the errors are often systematic.
If you don't know explicitly why you've made a decision, it's difficult to calibrate the next decision when you make an error. This may be true even if one is less likely to make an error depending solely upon intuition. But thankfully it's not an either or question. Intuition operates best if the person using it starts with a certain base of knowledge...you can make a better intuitive decision once you've looked at all the data.
It sounds like an interesting book overall. I'd have to read it to know whether I agree with its thesis or not.
I do not believe the issue of reason vs intuition, or the issue of individuality vs community are issues of quantity.
Until we join the Borg, we ARE individuals (as Descartes showed, there is no way to avoid it) and we BELONG to and depend upon communities. That dependency gets us involved in questions about what we owe to each other. Religion, ethics, ideology and politics have evolved divergent approaches to these questions.
Reason has no desire or motive. It has no focus of it’s own. But it is indispensable when we are motivated to solve particularly complex problems. The ‘ah-ha’ moments in science are moments of intuition and exuberant creativity. Coming up with a hypothesis to be developed and tested is the work of intuition. Developing and testing those hypothesis is largely a work guided by reason.
What is dangerous about intuition is also what’s good about it: the hold it has on ego and imagination. When a hypothesis fails, has been tweaked and fails again - one has to be willing to give it up. This is difficult enough to do when the puzzle to be solved is one without a lot of political, religious or economic consequence. But when the puzzle involves governance, the urge to stick with your hypothesis come hell or high water can be insurmountable. There is way too much science denialism going around today, and it’s not because people are too reasonable. It might be argued that the GOP’s ideology is too individualistic, disposing them against imposing regulations on individuals like big oil and coal. I don’t really buy it - not only because big oil and coal aren’t persons: The real culprit here is the lure of high profits for those who have a lot to gain from relaxed governmental (read communal) interference and regulation.
i remember that town hall meeting where farmer john stole the nation's heart. with tears in his eyes he said "i want you to sell my private information".
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/o...ders.html?_r=0
My thought for the day is that if Donald Trump is eventually impeached, and it's too early for me to tell if that will happen, it may actually improve confidence in the strength of our institutions to resist dangerous leaders, despite the increasing hyper-partisanship of both parties.
If Trump requested that the Russians hack the DNC then he should be removed from power. If it is the Justice Department that brings him down, it would do a lot to restore people's confidence in the efficacy of our system of government, if not the common sense of our electorate.
I have a feeling that enough people are entangled in this that if he did it we will find out about it. I have no idea what degree of complicity he has, and at first I was concerned about whether anyone would diligently investigate, but I am starting to believe it's being taken seriously. It will be an interesting six months to find out what shakes loose. As I'm sure some of you saw, it turns out that Flynn did ask for immunity. It's not clear what he wanted immunity for, but he was denied it. But there's much more we don't know, so we'll see.
Here's an amazing stat I came across recently. Since 1980 the share of US pre-tax income going to the top 1 per cent has increased from 11% to 20%, while the share going to the bottom 50% has fallen from 20% to 12%. http://voxeu.org/article/economic-gr...-two-countries
Given this it's not surprising that so many people are unhappy with the existing system. What I find hard to understand is why so many of them thought the answer was Trump - the classic 1 per center who was proposing big tax cuts for the rich.
In response to the Saint Petersburg subway bombing Putin vows that those responsible for murdering Russian citizens will be hunted down and brought to justice , other than himself.
Attachment 1002986Attachment 1002987
supposedly he'll also be hunting down and bringing to justice whichever asswipe painted this lovely picture of him in drag. vlad keeps it all too real sometimesQuote:
Originally Posted by sukumvit boy
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/ar...-putin-in-drag
https://d.justpo.st/media/images/201...4d23719eb3.jpg
It's hard to imagine Russia behaving any worse than they are without launching WWIII. In 2013, in response to the Syrian regime using Sarin gas on civilians, the Russians promised they would make sure the Syrians did not retain chemical weapons capabilities. They failed in that endeavor as the Syrian government once again launched a deadly gas attack on civilians.
Trump's response was to strike the base from which the attack was likely launched. The military has said it was not their intent to destroy the base or prevent any operations from being launched from that base but to merely destroy some planes and munitions to let Syria know that chemical weapons attacks will not be tolerated. Trump did not have authorization to launch the attacks as the aumf covers attacks on Al Qaeda and possibly Isis, but can in no way be stretched to cover action against the Assad regime.
Russia's response to the attack has been to provide more support and weaponry to Assad. It is one thing to coordinate attacks against Jihadists with Syria, but quite another to bolster Syria's ability to do so when they've shown themselves so willing to use gas on civilians. In my view, Trump should have destroyed the entire base from which that attack was launched. Yes, that may seem extreme, but if the point was deterrence and this was not just some token action, that's the type of action that could deter Assad.
I think it was an appropriate response by President Trump. We can quibble about his personal reasons for doing it, but I think in total it conveyed exactly what I believe the intent was. It's also interesting to see the responses on social media and news sites in the 'comments' area - both extreme ends of people's political views seem to have been against it...for different, but often predictable reasons.
...and I agree to a lot of what you have stated in your post Bronc.
I also think this is a pretty balanced view on the Gorsuch nomination :
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/s...icle-1.3031486
I have to admit, the article makes sense on this point. Even without the Republicans invoking the so-called one year rule, they could have just run out the clock by voting down every nominee put before them because they controlled Congress. It's a purely political move, but one they could have plausibly done. But I do mind the Republicans pretending like there should not be a confirmation in an election year. I am willing to bet if there is an opening on the court in 2019 and the Republicans have a majority in Congress, that person will be confirmed. As for the filibuster....does it protect the minority political party or just allow obstructionism and slow the pace of legislation? A little of each. I'm willing to judge it by how it's been used...often as a lever rather than to protect against extreme policies. But we'll see what happens going forward.
I think it was an appropriate response as well. Although now the question becomes, what happens next and how much leverage is Congress and the American people going to give President Trump. As I see it, here are our options:Quote:
Originally Posted by fred41
1. Regime change- Next.
2. Provide air support for the rebels so they have an fighting chance. The wrong fighter gets shot down and next thing you know its WW III.
3. Arm the rebels and provide them with logistical support. I would be for it we knew for 100% that the rebels would remain friendly to United States interests once they achieved victory. Or if we knew that those weapons wound't fall into the hands of terrorists.
4. Wait it out and just let Assad know that the use of chemical weapons won't be tolerated. That's great and all but then he is just going to kill the rebels with conventional weapons.
5. Wait it out and hope for the best possible outcome. The rebels themselves are able to overthrow Assad and then it doesn't turn into a failed state.
6. Try for a diplomatic solution. At this point, I don't see it happening.
So unless the United States is able to form a coalition of nations to go in and aid the rebels in overthrowing Assad, I think things will remain the same as they were before the chemical attack.
An alternative scenario, based on the prospect of the Russians deciding Asad is now too risky to be supported without looking to the end of the war and its aftermath without him, thus leading to a revival of the peace process in Geneva, but one that requires new thinking on all sides, much as happened with the peace process in Northern Ireland.
1. An end to the war -a commitment on all sides to stop fighting, possible with all except Daesh and fragmented groups, but violence that will have to be 'tolerated' while the main business continues.
2. A transitional arrangement that would see the Asad and Makhlouf families, and all current chiefs of staff in the military stripped of their official positions and denied any role in the transitional arrangement. To be replaced by a transitional government that would be representative of all the factions in Syria, including the Ba'ath Party, whose commitment would be over five years to draw up a new constitution for Syria and plan for the reconstruction of the worst affected areas of the country, a plan similar to that drawn up in the aftermath of the civil war in Lebanon, but guaranteed not to enrich current elites in the Syrian state.
3. These transitional arrangements to be endorsed by the Security Council of the UN with primary guarantors being the USA, Russia, Iran, Turkey and either France or China.
4. Syria to be reformed as a federal state with powers devolved to regions in order to prevent Damascus from making decisions that affect the whole of the country. This would in any case reflect existing divisions in Syria between the historically rebellious Hauran in the south, for example, the merchant expertise of Damascus and Aleppo, and the more religious interests of the north-west and so on. However much one disapproves of these divisions, they exist, much as there is a large swathe of the USA populated by fanatical 'Christians' who believe the Bible is the 'word of God' and should be the foundation of the nation's laws.
5. A bi-cameral parliament will adopt an American model -two representatives from each devolved province sit in the Senate, representatives elected from each province sit in a House of Representatives, a revival of the parliamentary system that existed in Syria before 1970. It will be illegal for any political party in Syria to accept or solicit donations from any foreign political party, donor or government. There will be an executive Prime Minister drawn from the House, and a ceremonial President, in order to ensure that one man can no longer enrich himself and his family at the expense of the state as has happened in recent times with Milosovic in Yugoslavia, Putin in Russia and the American currently raiding the US taxpayer from his branded establishments in the USA.
6. Justice and reconciliation. This may be the hardest part of the the new dispensation of power, but it may be necessary to heal the wounds opened up by the autocracy associated with the Ba'ath Party and the Asad family and their hangers on. Whether or not this means that Bashar al-Asad should be prosecuted for war crimes I don't know, finding hard evidence that would stand up in a court of law would be difficult, and after all, former members of the Provisional IRA involved with the worst atrocities in the UK were let out of prison.
7. The plan needs a commitment by the Syrian people, and by the guarantors who should place the priorities of Syria above their own.
What is clear, is that the worthless gesture politics of the American President have made the situation in Syria worse, yet the USA for the time being continues to sit on the Security Council even if it has no coherent policy on Syria, but not surprising when amateurs suddenly find themselves having to make real decisions that affect real people. What advance has been made when a five-year old Syrian boy is cast as a threat to the security of the USA, or manipulated by a shameless liar and a crook to justify a military action that achieved nothing? No advance, only headlines.
But one lives in hope that once that crooked liar has been cleaned out of the White House someone in the USA will step forward with a plan that makes sense. McMaster looks the best bet right now. In fact the only one with the brains to do the job.
My thought for the day is that a divide appears to be emerging (perhaps something that has been magnified on social media) between the "globalists" and "nationalists" who advise Donald Trump. The word globalist is used for anyone who does not want to shut down trade with the rest of the world and is not a Charles Lindbergh style America First-er on foreign policy. A nationalist is, in the style of Steve Bannon, for lack of a more charitable description, a xenophobic creep of the first order who's afraid of being displaced by a non-white person in the workplace and/or the bedroom.
Anyhow, the alt-righters believe Steve Bannon is the nationalist and Jared Kushner is the globalist. Now, in no narrative is Jared Kushner a hero or a stand-up guy or even minimally qualified to work in a lower level diplomatic position. But if it comes down to a choice between his view of the world, whatever that is, and Bannon's, I choose him. A choice between plutocracy and white supremacy. I can't imagine that Kushner is the bubbling cauldron of hate that Bannon is but I don't know very much about him except that like Bannon, he is not qualified to be a senior level adviser.
agreed.
I wish they would get rid of that shit stain Bannon once and for all. Of course, once Trump does that, he will lose the Alt right, Alex Jones, extreme-isolationist , right conspiracy theorist kook vote..
But I don't really see that as a problem, at this point, since Trump should just try to get through/fulfill a decent one term presidency. I believe guys like Bannon, will continue to cause embarrassing distractions...the kind of weirdo crackpot shit any presidency should do with out.
(Hopefully that might happen very soon, since there is no way on this Earth Bannon would agree with an act such as the air strike). Hopefully, from now on, Trump will only take advice from his chosen foreign policy and security experts.