Authored by Matt Margolis via PJMedia.com,

Once again, the failing New York Times is running interference and burying the real story to protect their preferred narrative. 

An article headlined "Missteps, Equipment Problems and a Common but Risky Practice Led to a Fatal Crash," which is about January's devastating crash at Reagan National Airport, is a textbook example of mainstream media malpractice.

An honest headline would have read, "Helicopter Pilot Ignored Multiple Safety Warnings Before Fatal Crash."

The liberal paper of record spent roughly a thousand words dancing around the obvious truth: a helicopter pilot directly caused this tragedy by ignoring multiple explicit warnings.

But that wouldn't fit their preferred story about "systemic failures," would it?

Let me spell out what the Times buried deep in their article: The Black Hawk pilot received clear, explicit warnings about altitude from their co-pilot. 

The co-pilot explicitly instructed them to turn away from the passenger jet. And what did they do? They ignored those warnings and flew straight into the path of an American Airlines flight carrying 64 innocent people.

The Black Hawk was 15 seconds away from crossing paths with the jet. Warrant Officer Eaves then turned his attention to Captain Lobach.

He told her he believed that air traffic control wanted them to turn left, toward the east river bank.

Turning left would have opened up more space between the helicopter and Flight 5342, which was heading for Runway 33 at an altitude of roughly 300 feet.

She did not turn left.

But instead of leading with these crucial facts, the Times gives us a meandering story about "visual separation procedures" and "aviation practices." Classic mainstream media sleight-of-hand — when the facts don't fit your preferred narrative, bury them under a mountain of context and systemic analysis.

Here's what the Times doesn't want you to focus on: This wasn't some complex system failure that Democrats can use to blame the Trump administration for.

This wasn't about equipment problems or procedural issues. 

This was about a pilot who ignored basic safety protocols and clear warnings from their co-pilot. Full stop.

As we know, the liberal media and the Democratic Party immediately sought to blame the Trump administration for the crash, claiming that FAA cuts created the environment for the crash to happen. 

The Army Black Hawk was flying well above its approved altitude. 

The co-pilot knew it. 

Air traffic control knew it. 

The families of the 64 people who lost their lives in this entirely preventable tragedy deserve better than the Times' narrative manipulation. 

They deserve the truth, plainly stated: Their loved ones died because a pilot ignored multiple explicit warnings and violated basic safety protocols. 

They don’t want us focusing on the pilot because then some uncomfortable questions have to be asked.

Remember this the next time the mainstream media tries to lecture us about "speaking truth to power" or "holding people accountable." Their idea of accountability apparently depends entirely on whether the truth fits their preferred narrative.

In the meantime, I'll keep doing their job for them -- telling the truths they won't tell, and calling out their propaganda for what it is.

While the nevertrump world, which includes the entire US mainstream media, and a sizable portion of the US population are rooting for China in the ongoing transpacific trade war, China quietly seized a disputed reef just miles away from the Philippines’ most important military outpost in the South China Sea, in a sharp escalation of a regional dispute with the Philippines, raising the risk of a new military stand-off between the two rival claimants.

According to the FT, the China Coast Guard “implemented maritime control and exercised sovereign jurisdiction” over Sandy Cay this month, the military channel of state broadcaster CCTV reported on Saturday. It released images of four officers, wearing all black and holding the Chinese flag, declaring sovereignty over the reef in the Spratly Islands.

Sandy Cay is near a Philippine military outpost on Thitu Island, which Manila reportedly uses to track Chinese movements in the area.

The move marks the first time in many years that Beijing, which claims the South China Sea almost in its entirety, has officially planted its flag on another previously unoccupied land feature.

It comes as the Philippines and its ally the US are conducting Balikatan, their largest annual military exercise, which will include coastal defense and island seizure drills. They will be held from next week on the Philippine territory closest to the Spratlys.

Although just a sand bank measuring little more than 200 square metres, Sandy Cay has strategic value for China because international law grants it a territorial sea. That 12-nautical-mile radius overlaps with Thitu Island, the South China Sea reef the Philippines uses to track Chinese moves in the area.

Source:

The Philippine government has yet to formally respond. Both China and the Philippines have staked their claims on various islands and zones. Their dispute has been escalating, with frequent confrontations including vessels colliding and scuffles.

The White House said the reports of China seizing Sandy Cay were “deeply concerning if true”.

“Actions like these threaten regional stability and violate international law,” said James Hewitt, National Security Council spokesperson. “We are consulting closely with our own partners and remain committed to a free and open Indo-Pacific.”  

Beijing’s official declaration of sovereignty over Sandy Cay will raise fears that Beijing intends to build up unoccupied reefs and banks. Over the past two years, Manila has increased coastguard patrols and sent scientific teams to investigate reports of Chinese reclamation activity at Sandy Cay and three other reefs further south.

Some maritime experts argue new Chinese reclamation is unlikely because artificial islands built and militarized by Beijing over the past decade have given its military and coastguard sufficient presence and reach.

There is so far no sign of a permanent Chinese occupation of Sandy Cay or construction on it. A Philippine maritime security official said on Saturday that the Chinese coastguard had left after unfurling the flag.

But the official declaration of sovereignty indicated China could “increase their harassment against us at Pag-Asa”, he added, using the Philippine name for Thitu.  

The Philippine coastguard has been operating a monitoring base on Thitu since late 2023, but Manila is now upgrading a runway and other infrastructure on the island. The building is part of efforts to make its South China Sea reefs more habitable and push back against increasingly aggressive Chinese activity.

Thitu Island

Lyle Morris, a former Pentagon China expert now at the Asia Society Policy Institute, said Sandy Cay had been a source of tension for years between China and the Philippines.

“China has established a near constant presence around Sandy Cay for years, mostly using their maritime militia vessels to surround nearby waters,” said Morris. “They have stepped up their presence ever since the Philippines began to fortify Pagasa island [Thitu] and its runway.”

Morris said the Chinese action did not pose a test for the US, saying it was more a “tactical move” targeting the Philippines.

“This puts more pressure on the Philippines to respond in some way,” Morris added. “If China were ever to physically occupy the feature, the Philippines would likely feel compelled to respond. What kind of response is unclear.”

The Chinese move also comes as Washington and Beijing are mired in a deepening trade war. US allies are also watching closely to see how the Trump administration will deal with Chinese actions in the South China Sea.

“The People’s Republic of China has been increasing its pressure on Philippines outposts for years. But it’s notable that this action comes amidst an escalating US-China trade war and is exactly the sort of action that is hard for the US to respond to, while spooking its Philippines ally,” said Mira Rapp-Hooper, former National Security Council senior director for east Asia in the Biden administration.

China’s law gives its coastguard a mandate to board and inspect foreign vessels “intruding” into waters claimed by Beijing and detain their crews. That raises the risk of clashes with Philippine military and coastguard at Thitu, in waters China now treats as its territorial sea.

China’s military assets are far stronger than the Thitu outpost. Its installations on nearby Subi Reef include surface-to-air missiles, hangars, a runway, radar and a deepwater shelter port. But because it is categorized only as a low tide elevation, Subi lacks a territorial sea under international law.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

India and Pakistan are back to the brink of war after last week’s Pahalgam terrorist attack, which saw allegedly Pakistani-affiliated terrorists massacre 26 Indian tourists in Kashmir who were targeted on the basis of their Hindu faith, thus prompting many to wonder about the US’ stance towards this crisis.

America’s position is important since it’s still the most significant country in the world and it’s nowadays in the process of “Pivoting (back) to Asia”. 

Here’s what Trump said on Friday when he was asked about it:

“I am very close to India and I'm very close to Pakistan, as you know. And they've had that fight for 1,000 years in Kashmir. Kashmir has been going on for 1,000 years, probably longer than that. And it was a bad one yesterday, though, that was a bad one. Over 30 people.

There have been tensions on that border for 1,500 years. So, you know, the same as it's been, but they'll get it figured out one way or the other. I'm sure… I know both leaders. There is great tension between Pakistan and India. But there always has been.”

The first part of his response can be interpreted as signaling the US’ neutrality given its traditional strategic partnership with Pakistan and its comparatively newer one with India. 

Pakistan has been a “Major Non-NATO Ally” since 2004 while India was designated as the US’ first “Major Defense Partner” in 2016. This state of affairs explains why Trump offered to mediate the Kashmir Conflict in July 2019 per what he claimed was Modi’s request, which India denied, and then reiterated his intent that September.

Accordingly, the first part of his response can be seen as a reaffirmation of this policy, which could lead to him once again offering to mediate. In that scenario, given the precedent of him seeking to formalize the status quo between Israel-Palestine via 2020’s proposed “deal of the century” and him reportedly attempting to replicate that between Russia-Ukraine, he’d be expected to propose the same between India and Pakistan. That would take the form of turning the Line of Control into the international border.

Moving along, his historical review of the Kashmir Conflict is grossly inaccurate since it stems from the partition of the erstwhile British Raj, not some over-millennium-long dispute. 

Nevertheless, he might have wanted to convey that its religious dimension owes its origins to the Muslim invasion of hitherto almost entirely Hindu India centuries ago, to which end he embellished a lot like he’s known to do. This part of his response can therefore be interpreted as reminding everyone that this isn’t a new conflict.

The last part of his response suggests that he’s not interested in mediating at the moment though seeing as how he quipped that “they’ll get it figured out one way or the other.” That said, he’s not ruling out his personal involvement in this matter either since he also reminded everyone that “I know both leaders”, meaning Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Pakistani counterpart Shehbaz Sharif. He should thus already know that India rejects mediation, however, while Pakistan has always been open to it.

All told, Trump’s reaction to the Pahalgam terrorist attack can be interpreted as predictable condemnation of the killings and an unsurprising reaffirmation of American neutrality vis-à-vis India and Pakistan, which is intended to position the US to mediate if tensions worsen. 

It doesn’t want to get involved for now and prefers for this latest crisis to resolve itself but isn’t discounting a diplomatic intervention if the scenario of tit-for-tat strikes quickly spirals out of control into a nuclear standoff.

Authored by Chase Smith via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law on April 23 a sweeping regulatory reform measure known as the Regulatory Reform and Efficiency Act, aimed at streamlining government processes and reducing the regulatory burden on businesses and residents.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signs the newly introduced Senate Bill 14 in the State Capitol in Austin on April 23, 2025. Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Senate Bill 14 creates the Texas Regulatory Efficiency Office within the Office of the Governor and has been characterized as the Texas version of the federal Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) created by President Donald Trump and led by businessman Elon Musk.

The new office is tasked with identifying outdated or duplicative rules, assisting state agencies in simplifying regulatory procedures, and establishing public access to rulemaking processes through a centralized online portal.

“We are putting at the forefront of legislation the shaping, formation, and recalibration of government in the State of Texas to make it more responsive and more efficient,” Abbott said in a statement. “We in Texas will now have our own DOGE, known as the Texas Regulatory Efficiency Office. This law will slash regulations, put stricter standards on new regulations that could be costly to businesses, and put a check on the growth of the administrative state.”

The governor added that the office would make the government more efficient and less costly and that the state would operate “at the speed of business.”

The bill also establishes a Texas Regulatory Efficiency Advisory Panel composed of members of the business community, academia, and regulatory law to support the office’s mission. The new office will produce regulatory analysis manuals and reduction guides, and coordinate with other state entities to improve transparency and consistency.

Abbott said the measure is important for the state’s economic health and limiting regulations.

“Texas has won the national championship for economic development for 13 years in a row—business could not be doing better,” Abbott said in remarks while signing the bill. “With one exception. Among the CEOs that I talked to every single week, there were growing concerns that were repeated time and again. The regulatory environment in Texas is getting too burdensome.”

Abbott added that although Texas is generally known as business-friendly when it comes to regulations, the regulatory environment was “not as easy to navigate as it once was.” He cited a 2024 study that showed Texas had the fifth-highest regulatory burden of any state.

Critics of the bill questioned why it was necessary, as there is already a state Sunset Advisory Commission. According to its website, the mission of that agency is “to enhance government accountability to the Legislature and people of Texas by objectively evaluating the need for and value of state programs and services.”

Republican state Rep. Brian Harrison, who voted against the bill, said in a post on X after the governor signed the bill that it “grows government, increases spending, expands bureaucracy, gives more power to the executive branch, protects the Chevron deference, and makes Texas courts more liberal than federal courts.”

In a speech on the House floor earlier in the session, Harrison said: “The point of DOGE is to cut government, reduce spending, and shrink the bureaucracy. Unfortunately, this bill does the exact opposite.”

Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick dubbed the measure “DOGE Texas-style,” and said it is about cutting red tape and saving taxpayer dollars.

“Texas DOGE will ensure the Texas Miracle continues long into the 21st century,” Patrick said in a statement. “Texans understand that by cutting red tape, more money stays in the pocket of taxpayers. Our conservative approach to regulation will keep Texans prosperous and our state the best place to do business in America and across the globe.”

Speaker of the Texas House Dustin Burrows, also a Republican, called the law a win for transparency and government accountability.

“A major theme of this session is government efficiency, and today the state is delivering on its promise to cut red tape and empower Texans with greater oversight of their government,” Burrows said in the statement. “As the first bill signed by Governor Abbott into law this session, the Regulatory Reform and Efficiency Act brings our state into the 21st century in terms of government rulemaking and will strengthen economic opportunity.”

The law includes provisions for a biennial report from the office to state leadership and a mandate for rulemaking procedures to be written in plain language. It also removes judicial deference to agency interpretations of law in many court cases, allowing judges to review agency rulemaking.

Jeff Burdett, state director for the National Federation of Independent Business, called the bill “a historic step for Texas small businesses.” Glenn Hamer, president and CEO of the Texas Association of Business, said the law follows key recommendations from the Governor’s Small Business Freedom Council and called it “a model for the nation.”

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Market Finds Some Hope

Last week, we discussed the issue with the spat between President Trump and the Federal Reserve chairman, Jerome Powell. As noted then:

“While the markets await the next Federal Reserve meeting, the uncertainty over monetary policy weighs on markets as much as the uncertainty about tariffs. This past week, the market reversed some of its gains from the massive “tariff reprieve” surge. With the MACD back on a buy signal and money flows turning positive, buyers are tepidly stepping back into the market. The 20-DMA continues to act as overhead resistance, defining the current downtrend. While there is undoubtedly a risk of another test of recent lows, which should be expected and why caution remains advisable, a break above the 20-DMA would lead to a rally to the 50-DMA. (Monday’s article addressed the “Death Cross” and what it means for investors.)“

The market rallied above the 20-DMA this past week as investors found some “silver linings” to the ongoing tariff dispute. Despite China saying “no negotiations” had started with the U.S., comments from both President Trump and Scott Bessent suggested that the Administration would “be nice” to China and that a “very good deal” could be done between the two countries. As we have noted previously, given the more extreme oversold condition of the market, any “good news” would allow investors to push stocks higher.

As stated, the market cleared initial resistance at the 20-DMA, but there is a heavy band of resistance just ahead at the level where the market was trying to bottom ahead of the tariff announcements. Just above that is the confluence of the 50- and 200-DMAs. While markets are not overbought yet, sellers will likely re-emerge if the market pushes further into those resistance levels. As we have suggested over the last two weeks, we are likely in for a rather protracted consolidation action as the market digests ongoing trade negotiations, slower economic growth, and reduced earnings expectations. Therefore, we should expect continued pullbacks and rallies until the market resolves the seller imbalances.

What is very interesting about the recent market decline is that while professional and “older investors,” who are presumably more experienced, are very “bearish” about their investment outlook, retail investors have been “buying the dip” at the most on record going back to early 2023.

However, while you may shake your head in disbelief, buying markets when they are down has been an essentially winning strategy for dip buyers over the last decade. Of course, such should be unsurprising given repeated rounds of monetary and fiscal interventions. As previously discussed, the Fed has engendered an entire generation of young investors with a sense of “moral hazard.” To wit:

“From a market perspective, the liquidity flows from the Federal Reserve increased speculative appetites and investors piled into “zombies” with reckless abandon. Why?  Because of a lack of incentive to guard against risk as investors believe the Fed is protecting them from the consequences of risk. In other words, the Fed has “insured them” against potential losses.”

Will this time be different? Maybe. There will be a point where taking on excessive speculative risk in leveraged ETFs and options leads to poor outcomes. However, that may not be today. As such, we need to be mindful that buyers and sellers drive markets. Until the markets change investors’ speculative attitudes, we will likely continue to find support in markets even though we may think there shouldn’t be.

Such is the message of today’s discussion: learning to be “unemotional” when managing our money.

Spock And The Vulcan Approach To Investing

In “Is Risk Off Positioning Signaling A Market Low,” we discussed the extremely oversold market conditions that are beginning to suggest the market may be approaching a near-term low. That analysis was based on various indicators, including extremely negative investor sentiment, positioning, and technical oversold conditions. As we stated, the current market environment is much like 2022. The first chart below shows the 2022 market correction versus 2025. The rally that began this past week could certainly rally further. Still, as we have warned, any rally in the near term will likely be met with sellers until there is a resolution on tariffs, monetary policy, and more certainty around recession risks.

The following chart compares our weekly Technical Composite Index. You will note that the market bounced or bottomed when the technical composite reached below 20.

The current conundrum is whether the extremely low technical readings preceding this week’s rally were a technical bounce or a market bottom. Unfortunately, we won’t know until after the fact. Still, our gut instinct suggests that given the depth of the decline and the technical damage to the market overall, any significant bounce will be met with sellers. Historically, the first market low during a correction phase is not usually a bottom. Regardless, the market continues to follow the 2022 playbook closely this year, but I would not expect the rest of the year to be an exact match.

The optimistic view is that while there are never any guarantees when it comes to investing, history suggests that after such a volatile period, we tend to perform better in the future, barring the onset of a recession or credit-related event. The bad news is that these increases in volatility tend to lead investors to make many emotionally driven investment mistakes. We rationalize, try to avoid losses, fail to take action when needed, or take action when we shouldn’t—all driven by our emotions. Yet being unemotional about your money is crucial to long-term investment outcomes.

As Howard Marks once stated:

“If I ask you what’s the risk in investing, you would answer the risk of losing money. But there actually are two risks in investing: One is to lose money, and the other is to miss an opportunity.

You can eliminate either one, but you can’t eliminate both at the same time. 

So the question is how you’re going to position yourself versus these two risks: straight down the middle, more aggressive or more defensive.

I think of it like a comedy movie where a guy is considering some activity. On his right shoulder is sitting an angel in a white robe. He says: ‘No, don’t do it! It’s not prudent, it’s not a good idea, it’s not proper and you’ll get in trouble’.

On the other shoulder is the devil in a red robe with his pitchfork. He whispers: ‘Do it, you’ll get rich’. In the end, the devil usually wins.

Caution, maturity and doing the right thing are old-fashioned ideas. And when they do battle against the desire to get rich, other than in panic times the desire to get rich usually wins. That’s why bubbles are created and frauds like Bernie Madoff get money.

How do you avoid getting trapped by the devil?

I’ve been in this business for over forty-five years now, so I’ve had a lot of experience.  In addition, I am not a very emotional person. In fact, almost all the great investors I know are unemotional. If you’re emotional then you’ll buy at the top when everybody is euphoric and prices are high. Also, you’ll sell at the bottom when everybody is depressed and prices are low. You’ll be like everybody else and you will always do the wrong thing at the extremes.

Therefore, unemotionalism is one of the most important criteria for being a successful investor. And if you can’t be unemotional you should not invest your own money, period. Most great investors practice something called contrarianism. It consists of doing the right thing at the extremes which is the contrary of what everybody else is doing. So unemtionalism is one of the basic requirements for contrarianism.”

If you didn’t read that quote carefully, I would reread it.

During periods of market volatility, investors often let emotions drive decisions. However, the investors who perform best under pressure tend to think less like adrenaline-fueled traders and more like Spock from Star Trek. Emotionless, logical, and consistent, Spock’s mindset offers guidance for navigating turbulent markets. As he once said, “Insufficient facts always invite danger.” That mindset is exactly what investors need when fear or greed threaten sound decision-making. Here are some points to consider.

Emotion Is The Enemy of Reason

Market volatility heightens stress, which in turn amplifies emotional responses. As a result, investors often chase rallies or panic-sell during drawdowns. Spock’s detachment offers a counterpoint.

“When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

Investing means cutting through noise, avoiding speculation, and relying on data. For example, the media is jammed with emotionally charged headlines about tariff-induced trade wars, recessions, and de-dollarization. In reality, those events rarely occur. As we discussed in “Probabilities vs Possibilities:”

“The chart below is a normally distributed “bell curve” of potential events and outcomes. In simple terms, 68.26% of the time, typical outcomes occur. Economically speaking, such would be a normal recession or the avoidance of a recession. 95.44% of the time, we are most likely dealing with a range of outcomes between a reasonably deep recession and standard economic growth rates. However, there is a 2.14% chance that we could see another economic crisis like the 2008 Financial Crisis. But what about “economic armageddon?” That event where nothing matters but “gold, beanie weenies, and bunker.” That is a 0.14% possibility.”

This concept of possibilities versus possibilities is crucial to navigating investment outcomes. Spock never claimed to predict the future. Instead, he calculated the probabilities of potential outcomes. That approach mirrors sound portfolio management. Rather than trying to guess what markets will do tomorrow, successful investors assess various outcomes and plan accordingly. As Spock once stated

“Change is the essential process of all existence.”

In other words, if your current reaction to recent market volatility is to expect it to continue indefinitely, you will likely be disappointed. This is why we continually suggest managing risk, rebalancing, taking profits, and focusing on allocations. Building portfolios that account for downside risks, multiple economic scenarios, and margin of safety allows investors to remain calm when markets shift. The only thing investors need to fear is fear itself.

Emotional decisions typically underperform disciplined ones. Investors can’t eliminate volatility, but can control their reactions to it. Behavioral finance confirms this. Loss aversion, herd behavior, and recency bias drive many of the worst investment decisions.

Discipline Outperforms Reactivity

Reacting emotionally to short-term moves often destroys long-term returns. Spock’s strength was never his speed, but his steadiness.

“Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end.”

The ability to step back, re-evaluate with clarity, and follow a predetermined investment process keeps portfolios aligned with goals. Legendary investor Charlie Munger confirmed this view when he stated:

“The big money is not in the buying and selling, but in the waiting.”

Patience is a strategic advantage. During volatile markets, as we have currently, it is crucial to step back and focus on the broad performance of the portfolio relative to your goals. A disciplined approach before volatility sets in is the key to navigating outcomes. Spock’s analytical mindset lends itself to rigorous risk assessment. He didn’t avoid danger; he quantified and prepared for it. Likewise, investors must separate perceived risk from actual risk. Volatility may feel like danger, but it is often simply price movement around a trend. Actual risk lies in permanent capital loss, overconcentration, or misalignment with one’s time horizon and objectives.

As we discussed previously, volatility begets volatility. Periods of low volatility always lead to high volatility, like now. However, the opposite is also true. The trick is navigating the periods of high volatility well enough to participate in the extended periods of low volatility.

Ray Dalio, founder of Bridgewater Associates, advocates for a similar analytical approach to risk:

“If you’re not worried, you need to worry. And if you’re worried, you don’t need to worry.”

In other words, constant vigilance and preparation are more productive than panic. Investing during periods of uncertainty can be dangerous; however, there are some steps to take when investing in uncertain markets.

• Have excess emergency savings, so you are not “forced” to sell during a market decline to meet obligations.
• Extend your time horizon to 5-7 years, as short-term stresses can take time to resolve.
• Don’t obsessively check your portfolio.
• Consider tax-loss harvesting (selling stocks at a loss) to offset those losses against future gains.
• Stick to your investing discipline regardless of what happens.

Spock would agree.

Emotions Cloud Opportunity Recognition

Lastly, one overlooked cost of emotional investing is the inability to recognize opportunity during downturns. As Spock once said:

“Fear is the enemy. It is the great destroyer of logic.”

One mistake that investors make when volatility strikes is to assume that since the market is going down, EVERYTHING is going down simultaneously. That is rarely the case.

“The first law of thermodynamics states that, when energy passes into or out of a system (as work, heat, or matter), the system’s internal energy changes in accordance with the law of conservation of energy. This also results in the observation that, in an externally isolated system, even with internal changes, the sum of all forms of energy must remain constant, as energy cannot be created or destroyed.”

In the financial markets, money is not created or destroyed; it merely changes form. As the old Wall Street adage states, “There is always a bull market somewhere.” In other words, as capital is extracted from one asset, that capital is reinvested into another asset. Eventually, that same flow of capital will reverse, and the asset that rose previously will become a source of liquidity to return to what was sold off. A good recent example of this is Gold versus the S&P 500 index. As shown, there is a very high negative correlation between the 36-month rate of change of the two assets. Simply put, when one rises, it becomes a source of liquidity for the falling asset.

This doesn’t mean that one asset is good or the other is bad, it just means that money is changing form.

Crucially, when volatility strikes, prices disconnect from fundamentals. Investors with emotional discipline can identify undervalued assets while others flee. Such is why the best buying opportunities occur during maximum pessimism, but few are brave or logical enough to act. As Warren Buffett put it plainly:

“Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful.”

That kind of contrarian thinking requires emotional restraint. Spock would likely view investor sentiment as a signal to be observed and discounted, not followed.

Conclusion: Adopt A Vulcan Framework

As an investor, you can take a page from Spock’s playbook and approach volatility not as a crisis but as a condition. Here are some basic steps:

1. Rely on process, not prediction;
2. Focus on probabilities, not possibilities.
3. Discount possibilities that fall well outside historical norms.
4. Question assumptions, most importantly your own.
5. Suppress reactive behavior,
6. Manage risk with calm precision.

In short, do what great investors have always done: stick to a disciplined, rational approach while others lose their heads.

I realize that you are not a Vulcan and are not afforded the luxury of being raised to be devoid of emotions. Fortunately, you don’t need to be Vulcan to benefit from the mindset. But you do need to recognize that emotions, while natural, often do more harm than good in investing. So while the market has declined this year, and headlines are screaming panic, remember Spock’s most crucial wisdom:

“Live long and prosper.”

That’s the goal, after all.

Authored by Guy Birchall via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Britain’s highest court has ruled that the words “woman” and “sex” refer to “a biological woman and biological sex,” in a landmark decision that follows years of confusion, anger, and campaigning.

Protesters gather outside the Supreme Court in London on Nov. 15, 2023. On April 15, Britain’s highest court ruled that the words "woman" and "sex" refer to "a biological woman and biological sex" in a landmark case. Leon Neal/Getty Images

The case sought to clarify the question of whether a person who holds an official certificate recognizing their gender as female is entitled to the same women’s rights protections under the law.

A commonly cited example was the question of whether women-only services—such as a rape crisis support group—were allowed to exclude men with a gender recognition certificate.

A gender recognition certificate means that a person’s chosen gender identity is legally recognized.

Obtaining the certificate requires a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, having lived as the identified gender for at least two years, and the intention to live as that self-identified gender until death.

More than 8,000 gender recognition certificates have been granted in the United Kingdom since their introduction under the Gender Recognition Act of 2005.

1. How Case Was Sparked

The case was instigated by campaign group For Women Scotland in 2022, who brought a series of legal challenges, beginning in Scotland and culminating in the UK Supreme Court, over the definition of the word “woman” in the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018.

This legislation was passed by the Scottish Parliament and mandated that 50 percent of individuals on public boards be female, including in its definition males who identify as women.

Lawyers for For Women Scotland argued that not tying the definition of sex to its “ordinary meaning” could have far-reaching consequences for sex-based rights, as well as “everyday single-sex services” such as bathrooms, changing rooms, hospital wards, and domestic violence and rape crisis centers.

Counsel for the Scottish government argued at the Supreme Court hearing in November 2024 that a person with a gender recognition certificate is “recognized in law” as having changed sex.

Celebrations outside the Supreme Court in London on April 16, 2025. The court ruled unanimously that “the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.” The decision allows men who identify as women, even with a gender recognition certificate, to be excluded from single-sex spaces. Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

2. The Ruling

On April 15, the Supreme Court ruled that sex is rooted in biology, not whether a person has chosen to identify as a certain gender.

Delivering the judgment, Lord Patrick Hodge, deputy president of the UK Supreme Court, said the central question is how the words “woman” and “sex” are defined in the Equality Act of 2010.

“The terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex,” Hodge said.

This means that men who identify as women and who hold a gender recognition certificate may be excluded from single-sex spaces if “proportionate.”

The judges said that while the word “biological” does not appear in the definition of man or woman in the Equality Act, “the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman.”

The decision stated that if the word “sex” did not mean biological sex in the 2010 legislation, providers of single-sex spaces—including changing rooms, homeless hostels, and medical services—would face “practical difficulties” and any other interpretation would render rules against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation meaningless.

The court said that this interpretation of the law does not disadvantage people who identify as transgender, who were described as a “potentially vulnerable group.”

They said the group is still protected from discrimination, and “would be able to invoke the provisions on direct discrimination and harassment, and indirect discrimination” if needed.

The justices also said that transgender-identifying people are protected from discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment.

Campaigners who described themselves as women's rights activists stand next to the suffrage activist Dame Millicent Fawcett in Parliament Square in London on April 16, 2025. The Supreme Court ruled that sex is rooted in biology, not whether a person has chosen to identify as the opposite gender. Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

3. Lawmakers Could Overturn Court

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is the final court of appeal for all civil cases in the UK and of all criminal cases originating in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

It also covers a limited number of criminal cases from Scotland, which technically has a separate legal system.

However, a Supreme Court judgment in the UK carries a lot less weight than it would in the United States.

Lawmakers in the UK are not bound by a codified constitution that can only be changed through a super majority and other hurdles to ratification.

Rather, parliament can effectively negate a supreme court ruling by voting in new legislation.

So a simple majority vote by lawmakers is all that would be required to repeal that legislation and pass a new law that requires males who identify as women to be treated exactly the same as women.

4. Unanswered Questions

Since the decision, many public bodies and institutions have updated their rules, while others are still waiting for clarity.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission, which has responsibility for the promotion and enforcement of equality and non-discrimination laws in Britain, is expected to put an updated statutory code of practice before Parliament by the summer, and said it is working “at pace to incorporate the implications of this judgment” into the code for public bodies setting out their duties under the Equality Act.

This means that, currently, despite the Supreme Court ruling, the situation is far from clear.

5. Police Strip Searches

The British Transport Police became the first public body to take action when it changed its strip search policy a day after the judgment, saying that it had adopted a new “interim position” that will see transgender-identifying people in custody strip searched by an officer in line with their biological sex.

This means males in custody will be searched by male officers, while male officers who identify as trans women will no longer be able to search female detainees.

The National Police Chiefs’ Council has said it will be reviewing its policies, but “will need time to consider the full implications of the court’s decision, as will many other public bodies.”

Read the rest here...

With the funeral out of the way, the conclave begins and every vote will count.

During the pontificate of the late Francis, the number of cardinals worldwide shifted somewhat away from a heavy focus on Europe. However, European cardinals continue to be overrepresented when considering the share of the world's Catholics that live on the continent. The change could have implications in the vote for the next pope, which could start in a few weeks' time.

Statista's Katharina Buchholz reports that, according to various sources collected by Pew Research Center, 41 percent of cardinals eligible to vote for a new pope upon Francis' death Monday are from Europe. This is down from 50 percent in 2013, the time of the last vote.

You will find more infographics at Statista

The pope appoints cardinals and under Francis, the number of cardinals from the Asia-Pacific region grew from 10 percent to 18 percent.

The relative share of cardinals from Sub-Saharan Africa also grew from 8 percent to 12 percent.

While the share of the world's Catholics that lives in Africa is even higher, at 19 percent, it is Latin America and the Caribbean which is the most underrepresented in terms of cardinals. 

According to Vatican records, 41 percent of the world's Catholics live in the region. Under Francis, the share of Latin American and Caribbean cardinals only rose slightly, from 17 percent to 18 percent.

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán firmly denied allegations made by Polish opposition leader Donald Tusk that Hungary might leave the European Union, clarifying that his intent is to reform, not abandon, the bloc.

Orbán’s comments came in response to an X post from Tusk, who suggested Orbán was openly considering a Hungarian exit from the EU — a claim that Orbán labeled as misleading.

“Prime Minister Orbán is speaking openly today about Hungary’s exit from the European Union. It was worth winning the elections so that Kaczyński’s dream of “Budapest in Warsaw” would never come true. This is also at stake in the upcoming elections,” Tusk tweeted, referencing the famous remarks made by the leader of the Polish opposition Conservatives (PiS), Jarosław Kaczyński, after his party lost the 2011 Polish election.

Addressing Tusk directly, Orbán replied on the same platform:

“Dear Donald, don’t raise your hopes too high. Hungary will not leave the EU. We will transform it with the Patriots for Europe, to restore it to what it once was when Poland and Hungary joined.”

Dear Donald,
Don’t raise your hopes too high. Hungary will not leave the EU. We will transform it with the @PatriotsEU, to restore it to what it once was when Poland and Hungary joined.

Back then, Brussels bureaucrats served the people instead of themselves. Back then,… https://t.co/AmbCyl6Q9d

He emphasized that the EU at that time was focused on serving the interests of its member states, rather than interfering in their internal politics, a criticism he frequently directs at current EU officials.

Tusk’s statement was based on Orbán’s recent appearance at a public forum, where the Hungarian leader discussed ongoing tensions with Brussels but explicitly stated that exiting the EU would be irrational. “It is not reasonable to quit,” Orbán stressed, reminding the audience of his own support for Hungary’s accession in the 2003 referendum.

Orbán also shared an anecdote of former U.S. President Donald Trump repeatedly asking when Hungary would leave the EU, to which he joked in response, “Mr. President, we need a better offer.”

Orbán made clear that Hungary’s interest in EU membership extends far beyond financial benefits, pointing out the importance of a single market of 400 million consumers to Hungarian exports, 85 percent of which flow to EU member states. Instead, he advocated for substantial reforms, suggesting that his newly formed group in the European Parliament, Patriots for Europe (PfE), would eventually become influential enough to “dictate” terms for the bloc’s transformation.

Tusk’s comments drew fierce criticism from Poland’s conservative politicians. PiS MEP Arkadiusz Mularczyk accused Tusk of “scaring people” instead of engaging in meaningful discussions about the EU’s challenges. Konrad Berkowicz, vice president of the right-wing Confederation party, went further, asserting that Tusk was once again embarrassing himself by needlessly antagonizing influential leaders and countries.

The debate between Tusk and Orbán comes at a sensitive political moment in Poland, ahead of the presidential elections scheduled for May 18. Rafał Trzaskowski, mayor of Warsaw and a close ally of Tusk, is seen as the frontrunner but faces growing competition from conservative rivals Karol Nawrocki of PiS and Sławomir Mentzen from Confederation.

Read more here...