Photo, left: Twenty-one million years ago there was a large gap between Panama and South America. Somehow, some monkeys managed to travel across: we think they floated on mats of vegetation over 160 km of water.  More, we think their ancestors did the same thing for several thousand km from Africa to South America. This photo is of a Costa Rican monkey who looks a bit similar to what scientists surmise Panamacebus transitus may have looked like.
UK Telegraph: Monkeys resembling today's capuchins accomplished the astonishing feat of crossing at least 100 miles of open ocean 21 million years ago to get from South America to North America eons before the two continents joined together. Scientists said on Wednesday they reached that conclusion based on the discovery of seven little teeth during excavations involving the Panama Canal's expansion, showing monkeys had reached the North American continent far earlier than previously known.
The teeth belonged to Panamacebus transitus, a previously unknown medium-sized monkey species. South America at the time was secluded from other continents, with a strange array of mammals evolving in what 20th century American paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson called "splendid isolation".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/20/monkeys-made-monumental-ocean...
 
JOHN BATCHELOR SHOW
Co-hosts: Gordon Chang, Forbes.com & Daily Beast. Dr. David M. Livingston, The Space Show.
 
Hour One
Wednesday 20 April 2016   / Hour 1, Block A: Anne Stevenson Yang, co-founder of J Capital Research in Beijing and author of China Alone: The Emergence from, and Potential Return to, Isolation, in re: Chinese capital outflow last year was almost surely over $1 trillion: lack of confidence in Chinese economy by foreigners and Chinese people. The Mexican finance minister who spoke well of Chinese economics was describing a unicorn he’d imagined, in concert with Mme Lagarde.    Question: what changed in the first quarter? Nada, except the govt put 10% of GDP into t he system  To no useful end.  Beijing’s happyface.  Promised not to reflate with tons and tins of cash – how to do way helicopter in Chinese language? – and what’s different now is that so much of he money they print is flowing over the border.   When you examine the numbers: China has zero trade surplus right now.  The yuan has de facto depreciated by 60% over the last year.  Massive PR campaign vs their own people and against us. The China Miracle is inoperative.   Chris Balding, in Beijing, is the pioneer who discovered this.  How long can this go on? China can't stop the outflow, so the limit is he extent of the reserves.  About a year? Dunno for sure. Soros says: capital outflow – which he cites as $512 bil in 2015 – looks like the 2007-8 crisis in the US.  The alarm is about to go off.  What metaphor? Perhaps “on fire.”  Uncontrolled downward trajectory.  Chinese writer published a parable of a train on fire – rear cars on fire, train races through the night, the front cars speeding ahead don’t know there’s a fire in back.  http://www.wsj.com/articles/china-reforms-give-global-economy-some-breathing-room-leaders-say-1460898644
Wednesday 20 April 2016   / Hour 1, Block B:    Bob Collins, 37-year veteran advisor to the Department of Defense, in re: A peace treaty with the US – advocated by Secy Kerry to appease the Chinese; a terrible idea - would merely serve to get the US off  the peninsula faster and pave the way for a Northern attack on the South. After 1953, no peace treaty but no major conflict: because the US has backstopped. Need the US military to prevent invasion. For two millennia, attacks were constant; only when Korea was an ally with a major power did the fighting stop.  At no time in history have Koreans been as prosperous as they are now.  If the South loses the US alliance, it may well decide that it needs to go ahead with nuclear weapons.  . . . Beijing has been intimidating South Korea on missile defense.    And btw, who's been arming the North Koreans?  http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiledefense-china-idUSKCN0XF2C3  ; http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article/Article.aspx?aid=3017463
Wednesday 20 April 2016   / Hour 1, Block C: Lara M Brown, George Washington University, in re: The New York primary.  Thirteen per cent gender gap ‘twixt Bernie and Hillary.  . . . The GOP has long had a problem with the female vote; but with Trump, this would reignite the matter more than would anything else in sight. Chttp://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/04/20/should-bernie-sanders-call-it-quits
Wednesday 20 April 2016   / Hour 1, Block D: Joshua Green, Bloomberg, in re: . . .  There’s one group of women who refuse to abandon Trump: white, married (older), Republican women.  In fact, old white people are his core.
Donald Trump has a female firewall.  It's not just protester-punching white men keeping him afloat, but June Cleaver, too.   Heading into the home stretch of the Republican presidential primaries, Donald Trump remains the front-runner, although his frequent, disparaging statements about women often make it seem as though he’s eager to lose that designation. Trump has, of course, criticized Carly Fiorina’s appearance (“Look at that face!”), implied that Fox News’ Megyn Kelly was tough on him because she was menstruating, and insisted that women should face “punishment” for having abortions if the procedure is outlawed (an assertion he later walked back).
It’s no shock, then, that Trump was found cratering in a poll conducted for Bloomberg Politics this month of married women likely to vote in the general election: Nearly 60 percent found the language he used to talk about women offensive and embarrassing, while 70 percent held an unfavorable opinion of him. Single women regard him like the plague, survey after survey shows. And a recent Democracy Corps poll found that even women in the stalwart pro-Trump “blue-collar” demographic are peeling away.
But there is one group of women who, despite all this, are stubbornly sticking by him: married, white Republican-primary voters. The Bloomberg Politics poll, conducted online by Purple Strategies, found they not only held a favorable view of Trump and preferred him to Ted Cruz, but 41 percent said they’re more likely to vote in November if Trump is the Republican nominee (only 5 percent said they’re less likely).  http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-04-18/donald-trump-has-a-female-firewall-too
 
Hour Two
Wednesday 20 April 2016   / Hour 2, Block A:  Chris Harmer, senior military analyst at the Institute for the Study of War, in re:  When the US sends warplanes, a major battle group and he SecDef, doesn't Beijing understand? “What part of ‘no’ doesn't it get?”   Yup, it hears but thinks the US isn’t serious.  Is the Scarborough Shoal the new red-red line?  . . . China is militarizing the Paracels, the Spratlys, and now Scarborough Shoal. We've failed to prevent the other militarizations, much to our detriment. Tens of trillions of dollars of economically recoverable assets- fishing, oil, navigation rights - this is our last chance. Our entire economic construct is based on freedom of navigation. http://www.philstar.com/opinion/2016/04/17/1573637/war-scarborough-shoal
Wednesday 20 April 2016   / Hour 2, Block B: Charles Burton, professor at Brock University, in re: Xi Jinping – big boss?  S’posed to be in charge for six more years till the 2022 Party Congress, but he may not last that long.  Significant element in the Party who are unhappy with factionalism he’s engendered and with how the Party is losing momentum, and with his Stalinist policies. Further people heard him say to invest in the stock mkt – which they did, and lost a lot of money.  Civil society not allowed to exist, stultifying economy, loss of intl prestige.  Fifty years ago Mao started the Cultural Revolution.   Mao’s audience thought they were creating a society with freedom for all; Xi doesn’t even have an ideological greater good; only that the Party has to stay in power.  And Xi isn’t exactly inspirational. . . .  The falsehoods of the Chinese economic miracle.  Xi took over just as the economy fell; and because it's weak, his moves to bolster his legitimacy have not worked: tyrannical endeavors.  When the people show disdain, the Party recoils. Xi could go out in a violent and chaotic whirl. His plan is to use the military to maintain domestic stability; a genuinely unpleasant tale.  The PLA Army and Navy are owned and run by the Communist Party, not by the people of China. http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2016/04/18/think-chinas-xi-jinping-is-in-trouble-think-again/  ; http://www.weeklystandard.com/chinas-caesar/article/2001978
 
Wednesday 20 April 2016   / Hour 2, Block C:  Elbridge Colby, Center for a New American Security, in re:  US & PRC Nuclear Weapon Engagement & Escalation [starting on page 21].
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY   This essay lays out U.S. and Chinese views on and interests in the nuclear weapons domain, describes how the stability model could serve as an appropriate framework for bilateral engagement, proposes specific collaborative initiatives the two nations could profitably pursue, and identifies remaining disagreements that will need to be managed.
MAIN ARGUMENT   Nuclear weapons play an important role in Sino-U.S. relations. In light of changing strategic dynamics and the potential for deeper competition between China and the U.S., that role could grow. While the two sides differ on a range of issues and in their perspectives on the appropriate role of strategic forces, both countries profit from intelligent and constructive interaction on strategic matters and would benefit from deeper and more focused engagement grounded in a stability model. In particular, such engagement could help diminish the chances that relations deteriorate or even of crisis or conflict due to essentially mistaken, misperceived, or accidental causes. Given the consequences of a substantial deterioration in relations, let alone the outbreak of war, it is important and of common benefit for the two states to pursue such initiatives.  
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
·       The U.S. and China should base their relations in the nuclear weapons domain on the concept of strategic stability.
·       The U.S. and China should focus dialogue on eliciting greater insight into how the other thinks about the role and potential use of nuclear weapons, its red lines, its perception of vital interests, its conception of escalation, and related topics.
·       The U.S. and China should pursue a range of specific initiatives focused on developing agreed-upon concepts of and frameworks for strategic stability, enabling the two sides to demonstrate that their military programs are consistent with such frameworks, and generating mechanisms to help avoid accidental escalation and de-escalate crises if they arise.
·       http://www.nbr.org/publications/specialreport/pdf/Free/06192016/SR57_US-China_April2016.pdf.   (1 of 2)
 
Wednesday 20 April 2016   / Hour 2, Block D: Elbridge Colby, Center for a New American Security, in re:  US & PRC Nuclear Weapon Engagement & Escalation [starting on page 21].
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY   This essay lays out U.S. and Chinese views on and interests in the nuclear weapons domain, describes how the stability model could serve as an appropriate framework for bilateral engagement, proposes specific collaborative initiatives the two nations could profitably pursue, and identifies remaining disagreements that will need to be managed.
MAIN ARGUMENT   Nuclear weapons play an important role in Sino-U.S. relations. In light of changing strategic dynamics and the potential for deeper competition between China and the U.S., that role could grow. While the two sides differ on a range of issues and in their perspectives on the appropriate role of strategic forces, both countries profit from intelligent and constructive interaction on strategic matters and would benefit from deeper and more focused engagement grounded in a stability model. In particular, such engagement could help diminish the chances that relations deteriorate or even of crisis or conflict due to essentially mistaken, misperceived, or accidental causes. Given the consequences of a substantial deterioration in relations, let alone the outbreak of war, it is important and of common benefit for the two states to pursue such initiatives.  
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
·       The U.S. and China should base their relations in the nuclear weapons domain on the concept of strategic stability.
·       The U.S. and China should focus dialogue on eliciting greater insight into how the other thinks about the role and potential use of nuclear weapons, its red lines, its perception of vital interests, its conception of escalation, and related topics.
·       The U.S. and China should pursue a range of specific initiatives focused on developing agreed-upon concepts of and frameworks for strategic stability, enabling the two sides to demonstrate that their military programs are consistent with such frameworks, and generating mechanisms to help avoid accidental escalation and de-escalate crises if they arise.
·       http://www.nbr.org/publications/specialreport/pdf/Free/06192016/SR57_US-China_April2016.pdf.   (2 of 2)
 
Hour Three
Wednesday 20 April 2016   / Hour 3, Block A:   Monica Crowley, Fox News, Washington Times; in re:  Hoosiers Await Trump vs Nevertrump. HRC vs Player to be named later.  It may be Indiana or bust for Donald Trump.  If the polls are right, he will dominate in New York on Tuesday and in the coming races across the Eastern Seaboard. He could win nearly all of the delegates at stake — keeping him on a narrow path toward the Republican nomination. That would set him up for what will probably be the most important test of the race: Indiana on May 3.
It may sound strange, but when you start gaming out the rest of the primary contest, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that his quest to reach a majority of delegates before the convention could all turn on Indiana. If you divvy up the states by expected results, Mr. Trump wins big in the East and West Virginia, loses the winner-take-all rural Western states, and earns his expected share of proportional delegates in Washington, Oregon and New Mexico.
That puts him about 175 delegates short of the required 1,237. Only two real toss-up states remain: California (172 delegates) and Indiana (57).  You can see the basic issue: If he doesn’t win Indiana, he has to sweep California and get some lucky breaks elsewhere, which isn’t realistic. He would need an upset in a state like Montana, in a region that has been hostile to him.  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/20/upshot/the-most-important-primary-is-w...
Wednesday 20 April 2016   / Hour 3, Block B:  Monica Crowley, Fox News, Washington Times; in re:   Primaries: Indiana; and Mrs Clinton’s victory over Sen Sanders. (2 of 4)
Wednesday 20 April 2016   / Hour 3, Block C:  Monica Crowley, Fox News, Washington Times; in re:   Primaries: Indiana; and Mrs Clinton’s victory over Sen Sanders.  (3 of 4)
Wednesday 20 April 2016   / Hour 3, Block D:  Monica Crowley, Fox News, Washington Times; in re:  Primaries: Indiana; and Mrs Clinton’s victory over Sen Sanders.   (4 of 4)
 
Hour Four
Wednesday 20 April 2016   / Hour 4, Block A:  Custer's Trials: A Life on the Frontier of a New America by T.J. Stiles. Part I of II (segment 1 of 8)
Wednesday 20 April 2016   / Hour 4, Block B:  Custer's Trials: A Life on the Frontier of a New America by T.J. Stiles. Part I of II (segment 2 of 8)
Wednesday 20 April 2016   / Hour 4, Block C:  Custer's Trials: A Life on the Frontier of a New America by T.J. Stiles. Part I of II (segment 3 of 8)
Wednesday 20 April 2016   / Hour 4, Block D:  Custer's Trials: A Life on the Frontier of a New America by T.J. Stiles. Part I of II (segment 4 of 8) 
..  ..  ..