Death: How Long Can We Live? The Limit Hasn’t Been Reached, Study Finds: My Comment --NYT Pick

My Comment: Why do I loathe thinking about this subject? I think I loathe it because when parents give life to a child they usually do not belabor the fact that they have bestowed death on him/her as well. It's simply a fact we all die and in youth parents usually did not tell us that until we are much older so we are not horrified. Some couch the sting in religious myth. Sure Mrs. Calment, a subject of the reporting, can defy the odds by living to 122. So what? She died anyway and most will not live to that age.

Death is, I believe, nature's way of preserving life on the planet which could not sustain any species living forever. The myth is Ponce de Leon looked ever so hard for the Fountain of Youth and we have been looking ever since. The conundrum I face is this: I love to experience consciousness, I love learning, I fear suffering and the natural decomposition of the body. Since I do not know what death is I fear jumping into it and yet nature says not only that I will but I must. My mother never told me that or, perhaps, I would never have emerged from the womb.

Hobbs said life is nasty, brutish and short so why did my parents or does any parent bring a person into this world to face the natural often massive suffering of old age to its natural end while watching whatever hard-worked-for fortune we have left disintegrate into dust (especially in a Trumpian world) a metaphor for life. Our bodies impossible to recognize at even 90, or 80 are a shadow of the beauty we were at 21. It is reality but I don't have to like it and I don't.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/28/science/human-age-limit.html?em_pos=medium&emc=edit_sc_20180702&nl=science-times&nl_art=1&nlid=75028030emc%3Dedit_sc_20180702&ref=headline&te=1

Evidence Russia Tipped Election for Trump ‘Staggering,’ Says Former U.S. Intel Chief James Clapper + My comment: Evidence

Intel Chief Jame's Clapper's statement above and link above is chilling.  Still, the biggest bombshell lies in the answer to the question did TRUMP himself collude with the Russians.  The most profound question becomes is there EVIDENCE for Trump himself colluding with Russia or even working with the Trump campaign itself to elect him president with Russian help?

Trump deafeningly says he did not collude.  To us who loathe this presidency it surely does appear that he did collude but circumstantial evidence is NOT enough to use as evidence to impeach, most importantly to convict and remove him from office.  The biggest truth lies in the answer to the question was TRUMP himself involved with the Russians and is there EVIDENCE for Trump himself colluding with Russia or was he even involved with the forces of Trump to make him president with Russia's assistance. If there is no evidence as Trump deafeningly says then circumstantial evidence is not enough to convict and remove. The rule of law means EVIDENCE not merely the assumption he, in fact, did these dastardly acts that is necessary even if we just know in our bones he did.

It may be that Trump knew of the meeting in Trump Tower with the Russians; that he was fully aware because we conclude that Trump knew everything about his campaign and surely knew everything about what Donald Jr. did every day. That I postulate that is not enough even though it may be an obvious inference. It is not enough to conclude what it appears Trump probably -- emphasis on probably -- did know. Evidence, evidence, evidence; we must have the evidence to impeach and convict him of collusion which would be a high crime of treason. The rule of law means EVIDENCE not just assumption of evidence must be shown.  Mueller may have all the evidence he needs to show this inept unfit president did collude with the Russians or that he knew and approved of what his forces did with Russian help.  If so Mueller, will present that evidence to the American people in due time.   Please God let it be so!