DayVectors

* 23 entries including: US Constitution (series), economic dislocation of globalization (series), designer proteins against flu, black holes of the galactic core & neutron-star collisions, vaccines against drug resistance, First Solar company, AI in medicine, universal health care prospects, alternatives to passwords, microcredit schemes to deal with climate change for developing countries, and attack on Syria.

[THU 31 MAY 18] NEWS COMMENTARY FOR MAY 2018

* NEWS COMMENTARY FOR MAY 2018: As discussed in an essay by Bagehot, THE ECONOMIST's rotating blogger on UK affairs ("This Is A Bad Time For The Special Relationship To Be Under Strain", 18 January 2018), Britain and the US have long spoken of a "special relationship" between the two nations. It has always been a confusing notion -- as the saying goes, the US and the UK are two countries separated by a common language -- and it hardly seems less so now.

To US President Donald Trump, there's no such thing as a special relationship with the UK, or anyone else for that matter, and his contempt for America's allies has strained relations with Britain. Multiply this by the current strength of Left Labour in Britain, under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn. Corbyn has no great use for the special relationship either, his attitude towards the USA being: "Whatever America is for, I'm against."

There is of course an interlocking symmetry between these two negative attitudes, one feeding off the other. This is unfortunate, since the special relationship has never been more important. Britain, preparing for an exit from the European Union, needs to establish a comfortable trade deal with the US. More subtly if arguably more importantly, America and Britain have traditionally been champions of a liberal international order, with both now afflicted by Rightist nationalist-populism; seeking to reaffirm the special relationship would be a reminder of their common liberal heritage, and the benefits it has brought.

In the current political climate, that seems a faint hope, but the current nasty political climate won't last forever, and possibly won't last that long: sooner or later, both Trump and Corbyn will, thankfully, be history. There are still those in positions of influence on both sides of the Pond who want to join hands, and they have a good case to make for their convictions. That case is stronger for an understanding of what the special relationship really amounts to.

There has been an inclination to expect too much of the special relationship. Tony Blair thought he could be an influential partner to George Bush, but ended up being more of a cheerleader. Brexiter Tories want to use the US as a counterbalance to "Euro-socialism", but even before Trump, American trade negotiators were notably tough. Of course, it's no arrogance, just an obvious fact, to point out that Britain means less to America than America means to Britain. However, as THE ECONOMIST points out, it is unwise to expect too little of the special relationship, either:

BEGIN QUOTE:

END QUOTE

So, instead of romanticizing the special relationship or trashing it, might it be better to make the most of it? It has been re-invented several times, having been initially forged in the struggle against Naziism, to then confront communism, and terrorism. Another update seems in order:

BEGIN QUOTE:

END QUOTE

* As discussed by an article from REUTERS.com ("Ireland Ends Abortion Ban As 'Quiet Revolution' Transforms Country" by Padraic Halpin & Conor Humphries, 26 May 2018), Ireland has long been known for its ban on abortions, which forced Irish women after an abortion to go to the UK or other countries. In late May, all that changed, with Irish voting two-to-one to overturn the country's constitutional amendment that granted civil rights to the unborn.

Prime Minister Leo Varadkar, who campaigned to repeal the laws, had called the vote a once-in-a-generation chance. The turnout was 64%, one of the highest ever for a referendum. The referendum was expected to pass, but the margin was higher than expected -- though the fact that Varadkar is gay and doesn't conceal it might have suggested Ireland is not the same place that it used to be. The once all-powerful Catholic Church had been marginalized by child sex abuse charges, while the Yes campaign had obtained drive from the death in 2012 from a septic miscarriage of Savita Halappanavar, 31-year-old Indian immigrant who had been refused a termination.

Deputy Prime Minister Simon Coveney said he believed a middle ground of around 40% of voters had decided to allow women and doctors, not lawmakers and lawyers, to decide whether a termination was justified. The Irish Parliament is now moving forward on the changes in law required by the referendum. Northern Ireland still retains strict anti-abortion laws; with abortion services just across the border, the pressure on change there is only going to increase.

* The feud over abortion rights has always been uncomfortable. Nobody really likes abortion; it is, in all respects, the worst form of birth control, and it is not surprising that many people are vehemently opposed to it. Alas, there is no compromise position between the two sides: one is either for legal abortion, or wants to ban it. One must win and the other must lose.

The problem with the "no-choice" position is that it is a cure worse than the disease, invariably leading to an assault on reproductive rights in general. Legal coercion to stop abortion is an absurdity; making sure contraception is readily available and encouraging its use would do far more to reduce the number of abortions. The vehemence of the defenders of no-choice -- refusing to acknowledge the defects of their position, proclaiming an ambiguous moral issue that overrides all ugly specifics -- has diminished them. Their self-defeating inflexibility and stridency has turned the ballot box against them.

Not everyone who has embraced the pro-choice position has done so without misgivings; but the fall of Ireland's notoriously repressive anti-abortion laws is nonetheless is a relief to all. The second decade of the 21st Century has been dominated by Rightist nationalist populism, with no-choice being part of the package to turn back the clock. The clock, it seems, is not so easily going to be turned back.

As further evidence of the irreversibility of change, during the month a group of American clerics released a manifesto titled "Reclaiming Jesus", that was unsparing in its criticisms of the current political order, of course particularly as manifested in the USA, as the citations below show:

BEGIN QUOTE:

END QUOTE

Overblown? Simplistic? One-sided? Maybe so, but when those striving to turn back the clock are unapologetic, even defiant, in their crude assaults on civil society, calling them out on it doesn't seem out of line. Michael Curry, the primate of the Episcopal Church, and one of the signatories of the manifesto, told CNN: "It's like somebody woke up Jim Crow, and said let's not just segregate Americans over race, let's separate people along religious and political and class lines, too."

Curry was arguably wrong in saying that Jim Crow had awakened; it might be better said that he never gone to sleep. In the early 1960s, extreme Rightist organizations like the John Birch Society lived on the fringes of society -- but in the wake of desegregation, Rightist organizations like the Heritage Foundation grew in strength, backed by money from Rightist businessmen like the Kochs, amplified by Rightist political commentators like Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter, working to destroy the legitimacy of government by claiming it was rigged to help minorities, at the expense of whites.

In short, the consequences of the US Civil War continue to work themselves out, as a Civil War in farce. While current events are discouraging, a longer-term view gives encouragement. The Trump Administration has proven inept and malign in all regards; in its time, it will pass, leaving a legacy of defeat. The blowback against Trump will be ferocious, possibly a danger in itself -- but we can't cross that bridge until we get to it.

[WED 30 MAY 18] DESIGNER PROTEINS AGAINST FLU

* DESIGNER PROTEINS AGAINST FLU: As discussed by an article from SCIENCEMAG.org ("Designer Protein Halts Flu" by Robert Service, 12 June 2017), the influenza A virus is highly troublesome, in that it can be dangerous to victims, spreads easily, and mutates readily, making it a difficult target for vaccines.

Influenza sickens millions of people a year and kills hundreds of thousands of them, mostly the elderly and people with weakened immune systems. Every year, public health officials design a vaccine for the three flu subtypes circulating in humans, in preparation for the next winter season. However, the flu virus predominating in that winter season may be imperfectly targeted by the vaccine, and in any case, in some people the vaccine won't provoke a strong immune response. Researchers have now synthesized a "designer protein" that has been demonstrated to stop the influenza virus from infecting cells in culture, and protects mice from getting sick after being exposed to a heavy dose of the virus.

There are already drugs to treat influenza A, most of them targeting the proteins on the virus's outer coat, "neuraminidase" and "hemagglutinin (HA)". Some of the drugs that interfere with neuraminidase, which helps the virus escape from cells it has infected, are starting to run into resistance -- and so researchers are now focusing on HA. This mushroom-shaped protein is used to help infect target cells, first by binding a triplet of sites on its head to three separate sugar molecules on the surface of targeted cells. Once the virus latches on to the cell surface, parts of HA's stem operate as a grappling hook to draw the virus in close, allowing it to fuse with the cell membrane and release its contents inside.

In 2011, researchers led by David Baker, a computational biologist at the University of Washington in Seattle, created a designer protein that binds to HA's stem, and prevented viral infection in cell cultures. The difficulty was that that stem may be shrouded by other protein, and so it's a hard target for drugs. As a result, Baker's team went on to design proteins that target HA's more exposed head group.

The researchers began by analyzing x-ray crystal structures that showed how flu-binding antibodies in humans latch on to the three sugar-binding sites on HA's head. They copied a small part of the antibody that wedges itself into one of these binding sites.

They used protein design software named "Rosetta" to triplicate that head-binding section -- creating a three-part, triangular protein, which the software calculated would fit like a cap over the top of HA's head group. Finally, they synthesized a gene for making the protein and spliced it into bacteria, which churned out copies for tests. In the tests, the researchers immobilized copies of the protein on a paperlike material called nitrocellulose, and then exposed it to different strains of the virus, which it grabbed and held. Baker says: "We call it flu glue, because it doesn't let go."

Follow-up experiments showed the protein blocked the virus from infecting cells in culture, and prevented mice from getting sick when administered either a day before or after viral exposure. Baker warns that the protein is not in itself suitable for use as a medication, one reason being that it doesn't bind to all flu strains that infect humans; a practical medicine may require a set of designer proteins.

There's also the question of safety, since the designer proteins will be distinctly different from natural antibodies, and could have significant unforeseen side effects. However, Baker is optimistic that his team's research will lead to effective medicines to treat flu, and may also be useful for creating cheap and effective diagnostics for flu.

[TUE 29 MAY 18] BLACK HOLES AT THE CORE

* BLACK HOLES AT THE CORE: As discussed by an article from SCIENCEMAG.org ("A Swarm Of Black Holes May Be Lurking In Our Galaxy's Heart" by Sid Perkins, 4 April 2018), one of the big science announcements in April was of a discovery of hundreds of black holes at the center of our Milky Way Galaxy.

Galaxies often have supermassive black holes in the core; our Galaxy has one, named "Sagittarius A*" AKA "SgrA". They grow by gradually drawing in smaller objects, such as stars and star systems. Astronomers have suggested the Galaxy's core region also included many smaller black holes orbiting the supermassive core black hole. The idea was plausible -- but up to now, the evidence was lacking.

Now a team led by Charles Hailey -- an astrophysicist at Columbia University in New York City -- has inspected data obtained over the past dozen years of by the Chandra X-ray Observatory, which picked up high-energy emissions from the extremely hot material surrounding exploded stars and near black holes. When the researchers looked at the region of space within about twelve light-years of SgrA, they discovered hundreds of X-ray sources. When they then compared the X-ray emissions for those closest to SgrA with those a little farther away, they found major differences.

For example, Hailey says several X-ray sources within 3.3 light-years of the galactic core have an extraordinarily high proportion of emissions at the highest energy wavelengths. Current models of galactic evolution suggest that only one such source could be found that close to SgrA, but the researchers found a dozen. At least six, and possibly all twelve, are what are known as "X-ray binaries" -- which are double-star pairs, one of the members being a normal star, the other either a neutron star or black hole. Binaries with neutron stars tend to generate surges of emissions every five to ten years, while black holes tend to be stable; since X-ray emissions from these sources haven't varied in the past 12 years, the binaries apparently include black holes instead of neutron stars.

In our galactic neighborhood, X-ray binaries are not very common -- but for every one such relatively nearby binary system that astronomers have spotted, they've found many more black holes that don't have companions. The implication is that, though solitary black holes can't be spotted in the region around SgrA, the X-ray binary "tracers" suggest there are a large number of such solitary black holes in the core region. Hailey and his team suggest that even if only six of the sources they found include a black hole, there are between 300 and 500 solo black holes orbiting within 3.3 light-years of the galactic core.

The study may also help determine how X-ray binaries form and develop. The heart of the galaxy is crowded, and so there may be more opportunities for black holes to hook up with other stars. The center of the galaxy provides a fascinating target for further research.

* In related science news, as discussed by an article from SCIENCEMAG.org ("Neutron Star Mergers May Create Much Of The Universe's Gold" by Sid Perkins, 20 March 2018), in the beginning of the Universe, following the Big Bang, the cosmos consisted mostly of hydrogen, some helium, and traces of lithium. Heavier elements were then synthesized by giant stars that quickly ended their lives in supernovas, scattering their heavy elements to the cosmos.

However, such giant stars couldn't synthesize elements heavier than iron; the nuclear reactions that produce the heaviest elements soak up energy, instead of producing it, meaning they can't support stellar nuclear processes. The origins of the heavier elements, such as gold and lead, have remained a puzzle for astrophysicists. A recent study suggests that the merger of neutron stars may be the source of gold and the other heavier elements.

Some of the elements heavier than iron -- such as gold and europium -- are generated by a process known as "rapid neutron capture", in which an atomic nucleus quickly absorbs a series of neutrons, reaching a stable state before the intermediate steps have time to decay. There is debate among astrophysicists on the largest proportion of such elements in the universe come from: some believe it happens deep within collapsing supernovas, while others propose that it occurs during the relatively rare but spectacular merger of neutron stars.

The new study was based on data obtained during a neutron star merger observed in August 2017, this event having taken place at a distance from 85 million to 160 million light-years away; the colliding stars together weighed about three times the mass of our Sun. The conclusion was that this event produced between 1 and 5 Earth masses of europium, and between 3 and 13 Earth masses of gold. If only one or two such mergers take place each year in a cube of space 6 million light-years on a side -- for comparison, our Galaxy is 100,000 light-years across -- they would still be the dominant source of europium in the Milky Way.

[MON 28 MAY 18] LEFT BEHIND (6)

* LEFT BEHIND (6): As discussed by an article from BLOOMBERG.com ("Robots Are Making Your Sushi, and That's Good for the Economy" by Jeanna Smialek, 19 December 2017), the vision of automation putting everyone out of work is, if not completely false, at least not completely right.

As a case in point, consider the sushi-making machine sold by Autec USA INC, of Torrance CA. The machine, which is about the size of an office printer, automates the process, using a roller to press sticky rice onto a bed of seaweed, with the bed precisely sliced into a rectangle, then slapped onto a steel tray. An operator stuffs the rectangle with tuna or smoked eel, to be rolled up into a finished product.

The robot costs $14,000 USD. It allows a food prep worker to turn out 200 sushi rolls an hour -- four times as many as a chef could turn out by hand. Taka Tanaka, the CEO of Autec USA, says orders have quadrupled over the past five years, in the face of rising sushi consumption and a chef shortage.

The service industry has been a laggard in adopting automation; as long as the labor market was loose and wages stagnant, it seemed more cost-effective to hire than to automate. The labor market has tightened, meaning rising pay for workers, when they can be found at all, with the result of making investment in automation more attractive. According to financial services company Morgan Stanley, there's been an uptick in capital investment in services, ranging from luxury retail to internet services, and expect it to continue.

The result has not, on the whole, been layoffs of workers, but improvement in worker productivity -- depressed for a decade, but now showing signs of life. If rising productivity proves sustainable, it could mean boosted economic growth and rising wages. Ellen Zentner, chief US economist at Morgan Stanley, believes that growing productivity is "the salve for everything. It's something that has been sorely needed in the US, and it is finally here."

Services make up a growing share of the US economy -- 64% of gross output in 2016, up from 40% in the 1950s -- but their share of capital expenditures stayed flat for a long time. A Morgan Stanley analysis of 1,500 publicly-traded companies found that many service businesses are now investing in new technology, as well as buildings and established production equipment.

However, productivity increases ran at 2.7% from 2000 to 2007; in 2017, they were only 1.5%, and Morgan Stanley only sees 1% for the future. Companies are not inclined to invest as they did two decades ago. On top of that, baby boomers are retiring; they're now the most experienced workers, and their loss is likely to depress productivity. The current increase in productivity is nonetheless welcome, strengthening the economy against a future recession.

With more automation, the exit of skilled older workers won't hurt the industry as much, and the higher productivity should, in principle, mean more pay for workers. Tanaka doesn't see demand for his robots softening soon, and doesn't see them as obsoleting workers, instead simply handling the tedious part of the job of making sushi. He says: "It's half-automated. People can still be entertained by watching the chef." Indeed, the machine only makes the performance more interesting. [END OF SERIES]

[FRI 25 MAY 18] AMERICA'S CONSTITUTION (15)

* AMERICA'S CONSTITUTION (15): Section 10 of Article I, in a complementary fashion to Section 9, listed restrictions on states from infringing on Congressional authority. Significant elements included the "Contracts Clause", denying the states the right to nullify valid contracts; the "Import-Export Clause" AKA "Export Clause", denying the rights of states to obtain funding from duties or tariffs, that being reserved to the Federal government; and the "Compact Clause", which limited the ability of states to establish agreements between each other and with foreign states.

BEGIN QUOTE:

END QUOTE

The 1st clause, the Contracts Clause, was something of a catch-all. States were denied the right to establish treaties among themselves -- though with a big catch, explained below. The ban on states authorizing privateering seems out of place in the Contracts Clause; also more on this below. The Contracts Clause placed severe restrictions on the ability of states to cook up their own currencies; control of the currency system was the domain of the Federal government, and the states were not going to confuse matters by issuing rival currencies. Irresponsible monetary policies of the states had been one of the big drivers for the creation of the Constitution.

The ban on bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and titles of nobility echoed the Titles of Nobility Clause in Section 9 -- but added a puzzling ban on states passing a law "impairing the Obligation of Contracts". That referred to something like an ex post facto law, involving a law passed to invalidate a legally valid contract. During the period of the Articles of Confederation, states were inclined to grant unilateral "debt forgiveness" to citizens who weren't able to pay back foreign loans. The Federal government did not want states taking such provocative actions, since they would play hell with foreign relations. That's why the Federal government assumed the right to establish presumably rational bankruptcy procedures.

The 2nd clause, the Import-Export Clause, made it clear that the Federal government was firmly in control of duties on imports and the like. States might charge what amounted to fees for inspections; but Congress could override anything the states did along such lines. Beyond the fees, the Federal government got the money for any such duties. Since the Federal government's practice in the youth of the Republic was to obtain its funding from tariffs, the Import-Export Clause ensured that the Federal government had a source of funding with which the states couldn't interfere. Of course, at the same time, the Import-Export Clause prevented the states from conducting overt economic warfare with each other.

The 3rd clause, the Compact Clause banned states from maintaining standing forces in peacetime, unless authorized by Congress. This added to the Contracts Clause's ban on states authorizing privateers, which the states were not allowed to do under any circumstances. The reason the ban on authorizing privateers was put in the Commerce Clause was apparently because privateering was a commercial venture first, and a military venture second -- which is why privateering would gradually be seen as a bad idea, and abandoned. The states also could not engage in warfare -- unless it were forced on them by invasion.

Echoing the Contracts clause, the Compact Clause also denied states the right to establish treaties and such among themselves, or with any foreign powers -- although with "the Consent of Congress", they could enter into an "Agreement or Compact" with another state, or foreign power. In short, states could not form treaties with each other or a foreign power, but could establish agreements, as long as Congress assented.

So what's the difference between a treaty and an agreement? Obviously, a military alliance between a state and a foreign power meant a treaty, and just as obviously was out of the question. As for agreements, it was also obvious that states would often need to come to practical arrangements with each other or with foreign powers. In modern terms, suppose states want to collaborate on an environmental issue, or they want to collaborate in an international environmental initiative. They are perfectly free to do so, as long as they don't challenge Federal policy in doing so.

As far as "the Consent of Congress" goes, that doesn't mean a state has to ask permission; the states can look back on previous agreements that have been legitimately established, and so can assume no difficulties with a new agreement along similar lines to earlier ones. Having to get formal permission from Congress in every case would be a useless complication for both the states and Congress. To be sure, occasionally there are conflicts between states and the Federal government over such matters, with the judiciary required to sort them out. [TO BE CONTINUED]

[THU 24 MAY 18] WINGS & WEAPONS

* WINGS & WEAPONS: In the age of nuclear submarines, the diesel-electric submarine would seem to be a relic of World War II -- but it's actually a lively technology. While lacking the world-spanning range of nuclear submarines, diesel-electrics are perfectly satisfactory for defensive or regional oceanic operations.

According to an article from JANES.com ("China Targets Export Market With Latest Submarine Designs" by Kelvin Wong, 12 December 2017), China has been particularly fond of diesel-electric submarines, having introduced the "Type 039", with a submerged displacement of 2,250 tonnes -- their first design, as opposed to copies or derivatives of Soviet boats -- in the late 1990s, following it up with the larger "Type 039A", displacement 3,600 tonnes, which evolved to the refined "Type 039B".

They feature a teardrop-shaped double hull -- an internal pressure hull surrounded by an external hydrodynamic hull -- and an air-independent propulsion (AIP) system to allow them to remain submerged for an extended period of time. They have six torpedo tubes, with munitions including homing and wire-guided torpedoes, mines, or antiship missiles.

Pakistan has ordered eight "S20" derivatives, displacement 2,300 tonnes, of the type 039A. Of this order, the first four boats are being built in China, with deliveries commencing from 2022. The rest will be built in Pakistan by the Karachi Shipbuilding & Engineering Works. Thailand has ordered a single similar but refined "S26T", for delivery in 2023, with an option for two more.

Chinese state-owned naval shipbuilder China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation (CSIC) has unveiled a range of new small diesel-electric submarine concepts targeted at the export market, including:

• MS200: A 200-tonne minisub, with two torpedo tubes, six crew, and accommodations for eight special-forces personnel.
  
  
• S600: A 600-tonne submarine with AIP, four torpedo tubes, and a crew of 15.
  
  
• S1100: A 1,100-tonne submarine with AIP, four torpedo tubes, and a crew of 18.

China is also selling refurbished submarines retired from the Chinese Navy on the international market.

* As discussed by an article from AVIATION WEEK ("Bell Takes Tailsitter Route To VTOL Cargo Drones" Dec 8, 2017 by Kelsey Atherton, 8 December 2017), the "tailsitter" or "pogo" configuration for "vertical take-off / landing (VTOL)" aircraft was tinkered with in the 1950s and 1960s, but it was a nonstarter. It was very difficult for a human pilot to land tail-first, and the reliance on raw thrust to get into the air limited payload.

In an era of robotic drones, the pogo configuration has enjoyed a renaissance; smart machines with the right software can take off and land tail-first, no problem. Bell Helicopter is now testing two pogo drones, The "Hybrid Drivetrain Research Aircraft (HYDRA)", and the "Autonomous Pod Transport (APT)".

Hydra has a circular wing, with rotors mounted on both the wing and the spokes that connect the wing to the central fuselage. Each rotor is driven by its own electric motor, permitting flight control by selective throttling of the motors, as well as redundancy to keep the machine flying if a motor or two fails. Its radially-symmetric body simplifies the mechanics of pogo take-offs and landings.

It only took Bell five months to go from concept to first flight. Not too surprisingly for an experimental demonstrator, as one of the project engineers put it, the vehicle occasionally has had, ahem, "unwanted experiences with the ground." However, it was designed to be easily repaired. The designers are moving towards an hydraulic engine system.

The APT has attracted more attention than Hydra. It's a biplane with a cargo pod in the center, both wings having the same form-factor, with a tilting electric motor / rotor at the top of each wingtip, and a tail at the end -- each tail featuring a tilting tailplane, and a long tailfin that doubles as a landing leg. It takes off and lands like a quadcopter, then tilts over to fly like a biplane.

While the APT demonstrator can only carry a payload of 4.5 kilograms (10 pounds), Bell envisions the design as scalable to payloads up to 450 kilograms. A medium-sized derivative could have range up to 370 kilometers (230 MI / 200 NMI), while a big derivative could have range up to 555 kilometers (345 MI / 300 NMI). There's no commitment to any sort of operational version yet, however -- though Bell reports Pentagon interest.

* There's been work for decades on "long-endurance" drones that could orbit at high altitude for a week or so, operating as communications relays or remote sensing / surveillance platforms. Nobody's fielded a drone with such endurance yet, but it's not for lack of trying. In one of the latest exercises, the "VA001" experimental drone from the Vanilla Aircraft Company of Falls Church, Virginia, set an endurance record of over five days in October 2017, flying in an orbit at 1,525 meters (5,000 feet) over the NASA space facility on Wallops Island.

The VA001 has a bulbous forward fuselage, tapering into a thin tailboom; a wide, slender wing with upturned tips, the wing attached to the top of the fuselage with twin pylons; a tee tail; and a pusher prop at the end of the tailboom. Although other candidates in the long-endurance drone field often use solar or hydrogen power, the VA001 is powered by a diesel engine.

The test flight carried a NASA multispectral imager and a military payload; further test flights will carry an electro-optic / infrared imager, a signals intelligence payload, a communications relay, or a synthetic aperture radar. It is not clear if there is customer interest there is in the VA001.

[WED 23 MAY 18] VACCINES AGAINST DRUG RESISTANCE

* VACCINES AGAINST DRUG RESISTANCE: As discussed by an article from NATURE.com ("Vaccines Promoted As Key To Stamping Out Drug-Resistant Microbes" by Alison Abbott, 19 July 2017), drug developers have been desperate to slow down the emergence of "antimicrobial resistance (AMR)", attempting to develop new antimicrobial treatments -- as well as reducing the overuse of existing ones, to keep from encouraging the emergence of resistance.

A meeting was conducted in early July 2017 at the facility of pharma giant GlaxoSmithKline in Wavre, Belgium, to examine an alternative to antimicrobials: therapeutic vaccines. Researchers came to the meeting to discuss the idea with representatives from funding agencies and regulatory authorities. Rino Rappuoli -- chief scientist in GSK's vaccines division, who organized the meeting -- said: "Vaccines should be part of the general strategy to combat antimicrobial resistance."

Some global health funds are already on board, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation having committed to vaccines as the charity's main AMR strategy. The change in emphasis is being driven, in part, by desperation. At the meeting Helen Steel, a vice-president for infectious-diseases research at GSK, said she had inspected 200 separate development programs from several firms, all attempting to find new drugs by searching through chemical libraries -- and none of them succeeded.

While the hunt for new antibiotics continues, vaccines have clear potential in the fight against AMR. In the first place, by reducing cases of a disease, they slow the emergence of drug-resistant pathogens. For example, US studies show the introduction of vaccines against the most common strains of pneumococcus bacteria (Streptococcus pneumoniae) in the 2000s cut instances of pneumonia, while simultaneously slashing the number of infections resistant to front-line antibiotics such as penicillin1. Much the same was seen in South Africa when the country introduced a pneumococcal vaccine in 2009.

Although antibiotics don't work on viral diseases, such as influenza, vaccines against such pathogens can still reduce the use of antibiotics. Antibiotics often need to be prescribed to treat opportunistic bacterial infections that occur in people weakened by flu; people who don't get the flu don't get the opportunistic infections. At the meeting Nicolas Van de Velde, the director of global health economics at GSK, said that a European trial running from 2011 into 2014 of a GSK flu vaccine showed that children who were vaccinated but caught flu anyway had such mild cases that use of antibiotics against other infections was halved.

Studies have also shown that vaccines that protect against one pathogen may boost resistance against another, related pathogen. Vaccines have a particular advantage over antibiotics in that vaccines are much less likely to encourage resistance among target pathogens. Antibiotics are used on patients who have come down with a disease, meaning the antibiotic sorts for resistance among a large population of pathogens. Vaccines, in contrast, prevent infections from occurring in the first place.

Nonetheless, vaccines are expensive to develop, and not big money-makers for pharmaceutical firms -- all the more so because they're generally one-shots, administered once or every some number of years to patients. David Salisbury, a former chair of the World Health Organization's strategic advisory group of experts on vaccines, said at the meeting that governments and health organizations need to provide incentives for new vaccines, for example by guaranteeing a market for them.

That puts a burden on vaccine advocates to demonstrate that they're worth the money. According to Salisbury: "We need to make a stronger, more evidence-based case for more vaccines."

[TUE 22 MAY 18] FIRST SOLAR THRIVES

* FIRST SOLAR THRIVES: As discussed by an article from BLOOMBERG.com ("First Solar Is Using Robots to Better Tap the Sun" by Chris Martin, 24 January 2018), in 2017 First Solar INC -- of Tempe AZ -- appeared to be in dire straits. The maker of solar panels was being painfully undercut by Chinese competition, forcing the company to bet big. First Solar laid off hundreds of workers, sold off some assets, and shut down its factory on the outskirts of Toledo, Ohio, for renovation.

Now the Ohio factory, which went online again in December 2017, is humming. It's almost fully automated, and is rolling out solar panels that are undercutting the competition in turn. First Solar's trick is to make extra-large panels using cadmium telluride -- a metal compound that First Solar engineers figured out how to spray on glass sheets in a thin film. First Solar pumped more than a billion USD over two decades into developing the process.

First Solar CEO Mark Widmar knew how much of a risk he was taking, recalling how apprehensive he was when the factory renovation began: "I thought: What have we done? But we're now in a better competitive position than ever."

A visitor to the factory today sees a line of robotic arms guiding sheets of specialized conductive glass onto rollers that run almost 5 kilometers (3 miles) through cleaning, grinding, and spraying machines. A robot at the end of the line takes the finished panel -- about the size of a large flatscreen TV, and packs it in a box for shipment to end users. There's only a few dozen workers about, making sure the machines are doing their jobs. There were an order of magnitude more before the renovation; those that are left are, however, getting better pay and have better working conditions.

First Solar's process takes three and a half hours to turn out a solar panel, compared with the three days the leading Chinese solar companies need to make similar-size silicon panels. The conventional process requires more than 100 steps, including fabricating silicon ingots in a furnace, slicing them into wafers, wiring on metal contacts to make cells, and assembling 60 or so of those cells into a panel. The panels coming off the line in Ohio are triple the size of First Solar's earlier model, and produce 244% more power at a manufacturing cost of as little as 20 cents per watt, about 30% less than the cheapest Chinese equivalent. The advantage increases in hot, humid, and low-light conditions.

Cad-tel solar cells are not a new idea; they date back to the 1950s, with companies including General Electric, Kodak, and BP worked on the technology before giving it up. In the 1990s, First Solar founder Harold McMaster came up with a scheme for spraying cad-tel onto sheets of glass. He later sold the company to John Walton, a son of Walmart founder Sam Walton, with the Walton family still being First Solar's largest shareholder.

A decade ago, First Solar was a leading supplier of solar panels, but then the company began to fall behind the competition. China in particular was able to leverage off low-cost labor and achieve economies of scale; the rapidly declining cost of silicon also put pressure on First Solar's cad-tel technology. Many US solar firms went bust. Thanks to Federally-funded contracts in California, First Solar survived.

Although cad-tel has been a minority player in commercial solar power technology to date, First Solar is of course bullish on it, with chief technology officer Raffi Garabedian calling it the "best semiconductor", elaborating: "It's just 3 microns thick, and it's black, so it absorbs all the light." One of the problems is that tellurium is rare, about as scarce as platinum.

Nonetheless, First Solar is spending $1.4 billion USD more into 2020 to bring up two new factories in Vietnam, to retrofit four others the company runs in Malaysia. Output from these factories is exempt from US tariffs. Wall Street is bullish on First Solar in turn; although solar stocks have been flat as of late, First Solar stock has doubled in value over the same timeframe. The company is still going to have to run as fast as possible just to stay in place.

[MON 21 MAY 18] LEFT BEHIND (5)

* LEFT BEHIND (5): An article from ECONOMIST.com ("Making It In America", 12 October 2107), suggests that, despite difficulties, there's no fundamental cause to think America's economy is going down the tubes.

Welcome to Oak Creek, Wisconsin, home to a plant run by PPG, a major manufacturer of paints, coatings, and specialty materials. The factory runs with 550 employees; according to the manager, Jack Marshall, they end up working overtime, simply because he can't find enough warm bodies: "We are always short ten to 20 people." Marshall says the big problem is that people still believe factory jobs are focused on grinding and dull assembly-line work -- when most of the grunge work has been automated.

As part of trying to dispel this image, for five years America's manufacturers have celebrated the first Friday in October as "National Manufacturing Day". In 2017, roughly 2,800 events took place across the USA, ranging from factory tours to banquets. Chip-maker Intel showed off its wafer-fabrication equipment at its sprawling semiconductor manufacturing campus outside Portland, Oregon. Toyota showed visitors its robots and other advanced equipment used to make trucks at its factory in San Antonio, Texas.

American manufacturing is alive and well. It shrinkage has only been relative to the growth of other sectors of the economy. To be sure, manufacturing employment has been falling on an absolute basis, but that's not so much due to foreign competition, but the ever-increasing automation of factory work. American manufacturing has more than doubled output in real terms since the Reagan era, to over $2 trillion USD today. Output per labor-hour rose by 47% between 2002 and 2015, outpacing gains in Britain, France, and Germany.

Bosses of manufacturing firms are optimistic that they will outpace their Chinese competition in the near future, both because of increases in productivity, and rising pay for Chinese workers. Leading-edge American manufacturers are expanding, with little worry of becoming overextended. Take, for example, factories in Connecticut. In the 1800s, Connecticut was a manufacturing powerhouse; although the share of employment in the state's manufacturing sector is not what it was, manufacturers there are still thriving.

In the old days, Connecticut workshops made muskets and machine tools; now the state's manufacturers are decidedly high-tech. General Dynamics Electric Boat (EB), a local defense contractor, won a $5.1 billion USD contract in September 2017 to develop the next generation of the US Navy's nuclear-powered ballistic-missile submarines. The firm expects to hire between 15,000 and 20,000 workers by 2030. Similarly, Pratt & Whitney (P&W), a division of United Technologies Corporation that makes jet engines, plans to hire some 8,000 workers in Connecticut, plus 25,000 worldwide, over the next decade.

For all the talk about lost American jobs, these companies are hard-pressed to find enough skilled workers. Studies show that there will be nearly 3.5 million manufacturing job openings in the USA in the decade to 2025, but that 2 million may go unfilled. Scott Peterson, chief human-resources officer at Schwan's, a privately owned food-manufacturing firm based in Minnesota, says he can't find enough workers; and the state is short of about 200,000 employees.

To get trained workers, in 2014 a coalition of research institutes, manufacturers, and Federal agencies launched the "National Network for Manufacturing Innovation" -- the objective of which is to speed up the development and adoption of such advanced techniques as 3D-printing and digital manufacturing, and to help train workers in these areas. Policymakers, educators, and companies in several states are also trying to promote innovative local training schemes. Money is being pumped into training and development in struggling locales like Chicago's South and West Sides, as well as Detroit.

In Connecticut, schools are being upgraded in parallel with the factories. Mary Moran, the principal of Eli Whitney Technical High School near New Haven, says that just five years ago its facilities looked like something out of the 1950s. Its workshops are now equipped with computerized lathes and precision-measurement machines. At Housatonic Community College in Bridgeport, students earn qualifications in metalworking, factory safety and "Six Sigma" -- a statistical method for quality control -- while gaining work experience with local manufacturers.

Such individual efforts are not enough, but they're a start. Hidden in all the fuss over issues such as health care and trade, America's educational system has to be brought into the 21st century. This will require collaboration between industry, the government at all levels -- and not least, the educational system itself. There's no reason to think the challenge impossible, but it would help a great deal if there were less ranting about China and Mexico stealing American jobs, and more focus to getting America's machinery humming again. [TO BE CONTINUED]

[FRI 18 MAY 18] AMERICA'S CONSTITUTION (14)

* AMERICA'S CONSTITUTION (14): The 3rd Clause of Section 9, Article I, puzzlingly denied the right of Congress to pass "bills of attainder" or "ex post facto laws". A "bill of attainder" is a curious and, fortunately, extinct notion, having been known in earlier history of Britain, in which a law was specifically passed to target an individual, who was then arrested and treated with extreme prejudice. Such a process is of course inconsistent with any honest notion of democratic rule; but bills of attainder are also absurd for modern authoritarian states, which usually establish a handful of very broad and vague laws -- against "anti-state activities", for example -- that allow anyone to be arrested for anything, and punished any way the authorities see fit.

An "ex post facto Law" is a related concept, if more straightforward: it just means passing a law, and then arresting people who violated the law before it came into effect. An ex post facto law makes a mockery of legal due process; in fact, there was a debate in the Philadelphia Convention over whether it should have been even mentioned, since it was a concept so absolutely contrary to the Preamble's declaration that the Constitution "Secure the blessings of Liberty" for the American people. The consensus was to include it, at least to underscore the point.

The 4th, 5th, and 6th clause specified taxes proportional to state headcount, no tax or duty on exports, and common rules among the states for duties. The rule in the 4th clause about "capitations or other direct tax" is more confusing, since it leads to the question of "direct" and "indirect" taxes. On the face of it, the difference seems clear: direct taxes are imposed directly on individuals or organizations, for example income taxes; indirect taxes are imposed on those who don't actually pay the tax themselves -- for example, sales taxes obtained from merchants, but paid for by customers.

That seems simple enough, but the argument over what is defined as a direct or indirect tax could and did become complicated. Suffice to say that, at the outset, the Federal government got its money from indirect taxes -- tariffs on imports -- with direct taxes on the states reserved for a national emergency. Direct taxes were to be imposed on the states proportionally to their representation.

Reliance on tariffs made imports more expensive, but it also protected American producers, and since imports tended to be luxury goods in those days -- it was hard to make money hauling low-margin commodities over long distance in that era -- tariffs were seen as more just than a capitation tax. Tariffs would be the preferred source of Federal revenue until well into the 20th century. Notice the stipulation that taxes, duties, and so on be "uniform": the Framers didn't want Congress to play favorites with the states, reducing taxes on states that were agreeable and increasing them on those that were disagreeable.

The stipulation of no taxes on exports was, of course, a perk to promote exports. Significantly, there were to be no interstate duties; the United States was to be a free-trade zone within itself. The states were not going to conduct blatant trade warfare against each other.

The 7th clause prohibited government from drawing funds unless they were specifically appropriated, with the government also required to publish its finances on a regular basis. The 8th clause, the Titles of Nobility Emoluments Clause, said that:

• The government would not award any titles of nobility -- America was going to be democracy, not an aristocracy, and so there weren't going to be any formal hereditary aristocrats in the United States. Incidentally, there was a discussion during the Philadelphia Convention of how the chief executive was to be addressed; the push to use "Your Highness" fortunately ran into unyielding resistance.
  
  
• Nobody in the service of the Federal governments could accept presents, emoluments (payments for services rendered), offices, or titles from a foreign power.

There was a loophole in the denial of presents and such, in that they were okay if Congress assented to them. There would be no reason for Congress to object to a Federal official accepting a petty personal gift from a foreign friend, or accepting a purely honorary title from a foreign entity. As far as a public official receiving anything more substantial than that went, it would only be troublesome if Congress decided to make it so. [TO BE CONTINUED]

[THU 17 MAY 18] SPACE NEWS

* Space launches for April included:

-- 02 APR 18 / SPACEX DRAGON CRS 14 -- A SpaceX Falcon booster was launched from Cape Canaveral at 2030 UTC (local time + 4), carrying the 14th operational "Dragon" cargo capsule to the International Space Station (ISS). It docked with the ISS a day and a half after launch. The Dragon capsule was refurbished from a previous flight; the Falcon 9 first stage was not recovered.

The flight carried a smallsat named "RemoveDebris" which, as its name said, was intended as a demonstrator for a satellite to collect space debris. It was a cube with a weight of about 100 kilograms (220 pounds), carrying two CubeSats for deployment as test targets. One CubeSat was ejected and then captured with a net. The other was ejected as a target to be tracked and maneuvered against. The RemoveDebris satellite also had a target on a extensible arm that was speared with a harpoon. When the mission was done, the RemoveDebris satellite deployed a de-orbit sail and fell from orbit.

The Dragon also carried a payload named the "Atmosphere-Space Interactions Monitor (ASIM)" -- an instrument system funded by the European Space Agency and implemented by Danish researchers to study lightning from the space station. It carried optical, X-ray, and gamma-ray instruments to observe upper-atmosphere electrical phenomena, with names like "blue jets", "red sprites", and "elves". It was mounted on the European Columbus module.

-- 05 APR 18 / SUPERBIRD 8 (DSN 1), HYLAS 4 -- An Ariane 5 ECA booster was launched from Kourou in French Guiana at 2134 UTC (local time + 3) to put the "Superbird 8 (DSN 1)" and "Hylas 4" geostationary comsats into orbit.

Superbird 8 (DSN 1) was built by Mitsubishi Electric Corporation under Nippon Electric management for Tokyo-based SKY Perfect JSAT Corporation, and the Japanese Ministry of Defense. It had a launch mass of 5,438 kilograms (11,790 pounds). It was also known by the name of "Kirameki 1". "Superbird 8" was the commercial part of the payload; it provided Ku-band and Ka-band communications services over Japan, replacing the aging Superbird B2 satellite launched in 2000. "DSN" was the military component, being used by the Japanese Ministry of Defense through a commercial provider named DSN Corp., a subsidiary of Sky Perfect JSAT. The Japanese military's first dedicated communications satellite, known as DSN 2, launched on an H-2A booster in January 2017.

Hylas 4 was built by Orbital ATK for Avanti Communications of the UK; it was based on the Orbital GEOStar 3 bus and had a launch mass of 4,050 kilograms (8,928 pounds). It provided 64 fixed Ka-band beams to reach Avanti customers in Europe and Africa, with four additional steerable Ka-band beams aboard providing coverage over Europe, Africa and South America.

-- 10 APR 18 / YAOGAN WEIXING 31-01 -- A Chinese Long March 2D booster was launched from Jiuquan at 0425 UTC (local time - 8) to put the "Yaogan Weixing 31-01" payload into orbit. The payload was not described in any detail; it was a triplet of satellites, very likely a "naval ocean surveillance satellite", a "flying triangle", to track Western shipping from their radio emissions. A nanosat named "WEINA 1" was launched as well.

-- 11 APR 18 / IRNSS 1I -- An ISRO Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle was launched from Sriharikota at 2234 UTC (next day local time - 5:30) to put the eighth "Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System (IRNSS)" spacecraft into orbit. The satellite had a launch mass of 1,425 kilograms (3,140 pounds), and was placed in the geostationary slot at 25 degrees east longitude, at an orbital inclination of 29 degrees. It replaced the faulty IRNSS 1A satellite, launched in 2013.

The full constellation consists of seven satellites, three in geostationary orbit, four in high-inclination geostationary-altitude orbit. Each IRNSS satellite is designed for a 12-year lifetime and carries L-band and S-band navigation signal transmitters. A C-band transponder aboard each spacecraft helps generate location estimates for the satellites, and a rubidium atomic clock keeps time aboard each platform. All carry laser retro-reflectors for ranging measurements as well. The booster was in the "PSLV XL" configuration, with six solid strap-on boosters. The previous IRNSS launch, in August 2017, was a failure, the payload shroud not being released.

-- 14 APR 18 / AFSPC 11 -- A Delta 4 booster was launched from Cape Canaveral at 2313 UTC (local time + 4) to put the USAF "AFSPC 11" payload into space. It carried two payloads, including the "Continuous Broadcast Augmenting SATCOM (CBAS)" and the "Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Secondary Payload Adapter (ESPA) Augmented Geosynchronous Laboratory Experiment (EAGLE)".

CBAS was a geostationary-orbit satcom intended to provide secure communications for senior military brass and top-level government officials. No details were released, not even the name of the contractor who built the satellite. EAGLE was developed by Orbital Sciences, apparently being a payload adapter assembly modified as a free-flying, maneuvering satellite, carrying a number of experiments -- one being a sub-satellite named MYCROFT, said to be the size of a dorm refrigerator, intended to maneuver around EAGLE.

EAGLE also carried a "hypertemporal" imager, operating across the infrared, visible, and into the ultraviolet. Two other, undescribed, payloads were also released from EAGLE. Not many other details of EAGLE and MYCROFT were revealed, the Air Force Research Laboratory announcing blandly that EAGLE "hosts experiments designed to detect, identify, and attribute threatening behavior as well as enhance space situational awareness."

-- 18 APR 18 / BLAGOVEST 12L -- A Proton M Breeze M booster was launched from Baikonur in Kazakhstan at 2212 UTC (next day local time - 6) to put the "Blagovest 12L" geostationary comsat into orbit. The satellite was built for the Russian military by ISS Reshetnev, being based on ISS Reshetnev's Express 2000 satellite bus. It had a payload of C / Ka-band transponders and a design life of 15 years. It was placed in the geostationary slot at 128 degrees east longitude to provide high-speed Internet, television and radio broadcast, and voice and video conferencing services for Russian domestic and military users.

-- 18 APR 18 / TESS -- A SpaceX Falcon 9 booster was launched from Cape Canaveral at 2251 UTC (local time - 4) to put the NASA "Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS)" into orbit. It was designed to spot extrasolar planets performing transits of their parent star. TESS had a launch mass of about 325 kilograms (717 pounds), and a payload of four wide field-of-view cameras. It was placed in a highly elliptical orbit, with its primary mission to last two years.

-- 25 APR 18 / SENTINEL 3B -- A Russian Rockot booster was launched from the Plesetsk Northern Cosmodrome at 1757 UTC (local time + 3) to put the "Sentinel 3B" Earth observation satellite into Sun-synchronous orbit for the European Space Agency and the European Commission. It was the seventh satellite in the ESA/EC "Copernicus" Earth observation system.

Sentinel 3B was built by Thales Alenia Space and had a launch mass of about 1,150 kilograms (2,535 pounds). It carried an ocean and land color instrument; a sea and land surface temperature radiometer; a dual-frequency synthetic aperture radar altimeter; and a microwave radiometer. The payload was intended to monitor ocean pollution and track ocean currents, measure the temperature of sea water and ocean waves, and detect changes in ice and vegetation coverage. The Sentinel 3A and 3B satellites could also measure the height of rivers and lakes, and spot wildfires.

Sentinel 3B joined an identical satellite named "Sentinel 3A" which launched in February 2016. For the first few months of operations, Sentinel 3B flew close to Sentinel 3A, about 233 kilometers (138 miles) apart, permitting cross-calibration from measurement of the same targets by both satellites. After calibration, Sentinel 3B adjusted its orbit away from Sentinel 3A.

The Rockot is a recycled UR-100N (NATO SS-19) intercontinental ballistic missile, the two stages of the missile being mated to a Briz KM upper stage. Rockot boosters have flown 28 times since 2000, including two launch failures.

The launch of Sentinel 3B may have been the last commercial Rockot flight under the umbrella of Eurockot, a partnership between European-based Ariane Group and Moscow-headquartered Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center. Several more Rockot missions are planned for Russian government satellites, but Eurockot has no more commercial missions booked, and Russian news reports have suggested the Rockot program will soon end. Small ESA satellites will be launched on the European Vega booster instead.

-- 26 APR 18 / ZHUHAI 1 x 5 -- A Long March 11 solid-fuel booster was launched from Jiuquan at 0442 UTC (local time - 8) to put a set of five "Zhuhai 1" remote sensing satellites into Sun-synchronous orbit, as elements of a commercial constellation of Earth-imaging craft being created by Zhuhai Orbital Control Engineering Company.

Four of the satellites carried a hyperspectral imager operating in 32 bands and best resolution of 10 meters (33 feet); they had weights ranging from 80 to 100 kilograms (175 to 220 pounds). The other satellite was a video imaging satellite designated "OVS-2", with a video resolution of about 90 centimeters (35 inches), and a launch mass of about 90 kilograms (200 pounds). The constellation will ultimately have 34 satellites.

[WED 16 MAY 18] AI & MEDICINE

* AI & MEDICINE: As discussed by an article from BLOOMBERG BUSINESSWEEK ("The AI Doctor Orders More Tests" by Mark Bergen, 8 June 2017), health care has become both a fundamental element in the US economy, and a chokepoint. Companies offering cyber cloud services -- Amazon.com, Microsoft, Google -- accordingly see health care as a big business opportunity.

Unfortunately, hospitals and health insurers are not noted for being forward-looking, and continue to focus on proprietary information systems, maintained under their own roofs. The public-cloud companies think they can bring the health care industry forward by offering artificial intelligence (AI) solutions that automate routine tasks like data entry; consulting work, like patient management and referrals; and even diagnosis in highly skilled fields such as pathology.

Amazon Web Services, the biggest cloud provider, is already processing and storing genomics data for biotech companies and clinical labs. Number-two Microsoft's cloud unit's Healthcare Next system provides automated data entry and cancer treatment recommendations to doctors based on visible symptoms. Gregory Moore -- vice president for health care at Google and a radiologist in a previous existence -- says he's preparing Google Cloud to provide "diagnostics as a service."

Google's cloud division is working on genomics data analysis and making Google Glass, the augmented-reality headgear that failed as a consumer item, useful to doctors. German cancer specialist Alacris Theranostics GMBH leverages off Google infrastructure to pair patients with drug therapies. Google expects, even hopes, there will be strong competition, Moore saying: "Health care systems are ready. People are seeing the potential of being able to manage data at scale."

In November 2016, Google researchers demonstrated an AI system that scanned images of eyes to spot signs of diabetic retinopathy, which leads to blindness. Another group of Google researchers had developed a similar system to scan lymph nodes, saying they had identified breast cancer from a set of 400 images with 89% percent accuracy, a better record than most pathologists. In 2016, the University of Colorado at Denver moved its health research lab's data to Google's cloud to support studies on genetics, maternal health, and the effect of legalized marijuana on the number and severity of injuries to young men. Michael Ames, the university's project director, says he expects eventually to halve the cost of processing some 6 million patient records.

The obstacle is the ingrained conservatism of the health care industry. Each entity clings to its own systems; in fact, Google's first major effort in the industry, an online health records service, was abandoned in 2011 because the company couldn't convince potential customers their data would be safe. This was somewhat ironic, in that existing data systems of health care entities aren't seen as particularly safe to begin with.

There's more interest now, but developing AI systems that can demonstrate real medical expertise is a challenge, Moore saying: "There literally have to be thousands of algorithms to even come close to replicating what a radiologist can do on a given day. It's not going to be all solved tomorrow."

[TUE 15 MAY 18] UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE?

* UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE? As discussed by an essay from THE ECONOMIST ("Universal Health Care, Worldwide, Is Within Reach", 26 April 2018), by many measures, the world is healthier than it's ever been. Since the year 2000, the number of children who die before their fifth birthday has been cut in half, to 5.6 million; global life expectancy is 71 years, a gain of five years. More children than ever are being vaccinated, while malaria, TB, and HIV/AIDS are in retreat.

However, that's only the good half of the story, the bad half being dire. At least half the people on Earth don't have access to what the World Health Organization (WHO) judges essential health services, including prenatal care; insecticide-treated bednets; screening for cervical cancer; and vaccinations against diphtheria, tetanus, and whooping cough. 5 billion people do not have access to basic, safe surgical services.

Even those who do have access to medical services may find them painfully expensive. More than 800 million people spend over 10% of their annual household income on medical expenses, while nearly 180 million spend over 25%. The quality that healthcare is variable; in studies of consultations in rural Indian and Chinese clinics, just 12% to 26% of patients get a correct diagnosis.

The irony is that good and affordable healthcare could be available to all, even in poor countries. It would be a benefit to society in the same way that, say, universal basic education is; a healthier society is more productive and, in a virtuous circle, spends less on health care. To libertarians, the idea of universal health care is outrageous, since it means -- and nobody honestly denies it -- the rich will subsidize the poor, the young will subsidize the old, and the healthy will underwrite the sick. To have universal health care means that everyone who can pay will pay, either through taxes or a mandate to buy health insurance.

The hostility of libertarians to universal health care demonstrates their contempt for the doctrine of "nobody gets left behind" -- but more significantly, it demonstrates their failure to grasp their own enlightened self-interest. Access to medical care is cheaper when it's supported by the broadest economic base, and it's more cost-effective when governments make their concerns about efficacy and cost of treatment known to the healthcare industry. Furthermore, the healthier a society is, the more productive it is, while bad health is an economic dead weight.

If healthcare is left to itself, market economics tends to skew it towards gold plate -- expensive treatments for which a premium can be charged, as opposed to cheap but effective treatments that don't bring in the money. A coordinated universal healthcare system, in contrast, would encourage the best treatments at the lowest cost, pressing the healthcare industry to be more efficient.

That's not a fairy-tale vision: Chile and Costa Rica spend about an eighth of what America does per person on health, but have similar life expectancies. Thailand spends $220 USD per person a year on health, and yet has outcomes nearly as good as in the OECD. Rwanda has introduced ultra-basic health insurance for more than 90% of its people, with the result that infant mortality has fallen 75% since 2000.

Research led by Dean Jamison, a health economist, has identified over 200 effective interventions, including immunizations and neglected procedures such as basic surgery. In total, these would cost poor countries about an extra $1 USD per week per person and cut the number of premature deaths there by more than a quarter. Around half that funding would go to primary health centers, not city hospitals, which today receive a disproportionate share of healthcare money.

Libertarians also denounce the idea of the government running healthcare, insisting that it will leave everyone worse off. This is exaggerated. There's no need for the government to run everything; it can instead provide insurance for all, with the private sector providing services. Private insurers, with a need to make a profit, have an incentive to charge as much and deliver as little as they can -- and insurance is not given to price transparency, meaning competition doesn't foster efficiency very well. It's not necessary for governments to even provide insurance: governments can instead dictate an individual mandate for all to buy health insurance, to get around the "free rider" problem, and have insurance sold through competitive online exchanges.

It is the undeveloped world that is worst in need of effective healthcare systems -- but the USA has demonstrated that developed countries need better healthcare systems as well. Achieving universal healthcare will not be easy, but it will be less troublesome than trying to get along without it.

[MON 14 MAY 18] LEFT BEHIND (4)

* LEFT BEHIND (4): South Carolina's determination to bring in the BMW plant ended up establishing a cluster. State and local officials had to overcome a catch-22: firms wanted to locate in places where workers, suppliers, and infrastructure was available; but it was troublesome to obtain such things without the firms being there in the first place. South Carolina had to push on multiple fronts to achieve success -- that it did so is a rebuke to another Trump Administration's delusion, that government always gets it wrong; that government is the despicable enemy of enterprise and prosperity.

Of course, there are only so many big plants to go around, and impoverished locales may not have an opportunity to land such a windfall. However, less far-reaching government measures could also have a clear positive impact. For example, instead of attempting to build up clusters, governments could instead focus on spreading know-how in order to make laggard regions more attractive to energetic firms.

Charging up the investment climate in struggling areas could help as well. In 2015 the Economic Innovation Group, a US think-tank, published a report by two economists -- Jared Bernstein, a Democrat, and Kevin Hassett, a Republican -- with a proposal for how to do this. Their idea was to use tax incentives to create new financial vehicles, something like venture-capital firms, with a locale-specific investment mission. The scheme would turn a poor region into something like an emerging market, with a central management organization coordinating investments. The concept has bipartisan support in Congress.

The public sector might also get more directly involved. Late in the 19th century, the US Federal government set up "land-grant universities", with the government granting Federal lands to states. The land was to be sold off to fund the creation of "agricultural & mechanical" colleges. The A&M colleges were initially intended to provide a good technical education for young farmers and engineers across the great American expanse.

Starting from that base, the A&M colleges expanded their mission -- first, by carrying out agricultural and engineering research; and second, through what was termed "extension" -- connecting with working farmers and mechanics in order to spread knowledge of new techniques and best practices. Today, many of those institutions have become fully-fledged research universities, which often cooperate with local firms to commercialize research findings, develop curricula, and place students in new occupations.

More recently, Germany set up its own version of this model, called the "Fraunhofer Gesellschaft". Started in 1949, the system now consists of a network of 69 applied research institutions, which receive 30% of their funding from national and local government, and with a mission to develop and improve technologies in partnership with German firms.

In short, it pays to invest in education and practical research. There's a real case for governments to fund institutions with those missions -- or invent them if necessary. In the 21st century, there's a big place for extension, helping firms to master new technologies such as machine learning, augmented reality, additive manufacturing, and so on. In an era when many useful resources are available for free or on a shared basis, such institutions would also be able to direct companies to tools they need while sparing them cost. Of course, enhanced post-secondary education would provide more workers to keep 21st-century companies rolling, with automation keeping the costs down.

One of the objectives would be dispersal of economic power. There's nothing inherently wrong with giants like Google or Amazon; but such companies tend to concentrate economic growth in the booming regions. Getting laggard regions up to par will take well-thought-out government assistance. It's not just a question of one region versus another, either; growing inequality drove votes for Brexit and for Trump. If the have-nots see nothing being done to help them, they will grow even more desperate. [TO BE CONTINUED]

[FRI 11 MAY 18] AMERICA'S CONSTITUTION (13)

* AMERICA'S CONSTITUTION (13): Section 9 of Article I of the Constitution listed restrictions and restraints on Congress, significant elements being a denial of control over the slave trade under the "Migration or Importation Clause" AKA "1808 Clause"; establishing the right of "habeas corpus", under the "Suspension Clause"; denying the award of titles of nobility under the "Titles of Nobility Clause"; and denying the right of members of Congress to accept payment for their duties by anyone but the government, under the "Emoluments Clause":

BEGIN QUOTE:

END QUOTE

It is notable that the very first clause in Section 9, the Migration or Importation Clause, declared that the Federal government could not interfere with the imports of slaves until 1808, though a tax on slaves was allowed. The intent was to give a window to allow the slave states to bulk up their slave populations, and via the 3/5ths Clause their representation of the House. The limit on taxes was to make sure the Federal government couldn't impose a stiff tax on slaves to discourage their importation.

Granting this rule first priority clearly shows how wired for slavery the Constitution, as originally conceived, really was. There were hard dealings over this issue in the Philadelphia Convention; Madison argued during the ratification debate that there was no way certain Southern states, it seems most significantly South Carolina and Georgia, were going to sign up if they weren't given a guarantee that they could continue to import slaves. In addition, although the window on slave importation was to stay open to 1808, there was no declaration that it would definitely end at that time.

The 2nd clause of Section 9, the Suspension Clause, denied the ability of the government to suspend the right of "habeas corpus", except in times of national emergency. The term "habeus corpus" is Latin for "possession of the body"; a "Writ of Habeas Corpus" is issued by a court to order the authorities to produce a prisoner, and justify the prisoner's incarceration. If the justification is unsatisfactory, the court can order the prisoner's release. Any state or Federal court could produce a valid writ of habeas corpus. [TO BE CONTINUED]

[THU 10 MAY 18] GIMMICKS & GADGETS

* GIMMICKS & GADGETS: As discussed by an article from SCIENCEMAG.org ("3D Printing Doubles The Strength Of Stainless Steel" by Robert F. Service, 30 October 2017), there's a certain prejudice that 3D printing is no good for making high-strength items. True, at present 3D printing is mostly focused on fabrication with polymers and porous steel -- but now a research team at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California under materials scientist Yinmin "Morris" Wang has figured out how to 3D-print tough and flexible stainless steel.

Stainless steel was invented in the 19th century. It's made by melting conventional steel -- itself an alloy of iron and carbon, plus sometimes other metals like nickel -- along with some chromium and molybdenum, resulting in a material that resists corrosion. An elaborate sequence of cooling, reheating, and rolling steps gives the material a microscopic structure with tightly packed alloy grains and thin boundaries between the grains, creating a cell-like structure. When the metal is bent or stressed, planes of atoms in the grains slide past one another, sometimes causing crystalline defects to connect with each other -- promoting fractures. However, strong boundaries can halt these defects, making the material tough, yet still flexible enough to be formed into a desired shape.

The trick in 3D-printing stainless steel is to lay down this nanostructure. The process developed by Wang's team starts with a powdery layer of metal alloy particles, deposited on a flat surface. A computer-controlled, high-powered laser beam then scans the surface, melting the particles and fusing them together. That done, the surface drops down a step, another layer of powder is added, and the laser scans again, binding the newly melted material to the layer below. After many scans, the end result is an elaborately-shaped part.

The process is carefully controlled, to ensure that the structure isn't porous, which would weaken it. Tests show that 3D printed stainless steel parts made by the process were up to three times stronger than steels made by conventional techniques, but still ductile. Wang sees the process as opening the door to fabrication of a wide range of high-strength stainless steel parts for everything from fuel tanks in aircraft, to pressure tubes in nuclear power plants.

* As discussed by an article from SCIENCEMAG.org ("Warning: This Electronic Will Self-Destruct" by Matthew Hutson, 1 September 2017), a group of Chinese researchers have developed "degradable" electronic circuits that gradually dismantle themselves after use.

The scheme involves circuits laid down on a base layer of a specific polymer that dissolves in moisture, to release organic acids that dissolve the circuitry. A device built using the degradable circuitry would be shipped sealed, to be unsealed for use and then begin degrading. Modifying the recipe for the polymer alters the rate at which it breaks down. The researchers were able to change the interval to failure from hours to days.

This may sound perfectly useless, but the scheme could be used to disable devices containing sensitive information, or disarm bombs on a preset timeout period after they've been armed. They could also be used to turn off temporary medical implants, without requiring they be removed at the time.

Of course, circuits disable themselves all the time; as "sparkies" like to say: "It's smoke that makes these things work, let the smoke out and they don't work any more." In this case, however, there's no need for any smoke.

* As discussed by an article from SCIENCEMAG.org ("Why Modern Mortar Crumbles, But Roman Concrete Lasts Millennia" by Zahra Ahmad, 3 July 2017), modern concrete structures may last as little as 50 years before the concrete begins to crumble. The Romans, however, build concrete structures that are still standing. Researchers have finally determined why Roman concrete lasts so long: it includes an ingredient that makes the cement on which the concrete is based grow stronger over time.

The Roman engineer Marcus Vitruvius wrote down a recipe for cement in 30 BCE, calling for a mixture of volcanic ash, lime, and seawater, mixed together with volcanic rocks and spread into wooden molds that were then immersed in more sea water. Researchers drilled cores out of Roman concrete structures from Possuoli Bay near Naples, Italy; analysis showed the seawater used in creating the cement dissolved components of the volcanic ash, allowing new binding minerals to move in. Within a decade, a rare hydrothermal mineral known as "aluminum tobermorite (Al-tobermorite)" had formed in the concrete.

It has long been know that Al-tobermorite gives Roman concrete its strength; the difficulty has been figuring out how it got there, nobody knowing the trick. The researchers found that it was the percolation of seawater through the cement matrix; the seawater reacted with volcanic ash and crystals to form Al-tobermorite and a porous mineral called phillipsite. Putting this knowledge to use may be a bit tricky, since it can take centuries of the percolation to strengthen the concrete.

[WED 09 MAY 18] WHO NEEDS PASSWORDS?

* WHO NEEDS PASSWORDS? As discussed by an article from MONEY.CNN.com ("Beyond Passwords" by Selena Larson, 18 March 2018), companies are increasingly getting rid of password protection, turning instead to fingerprints and other biometrics -- palmprints, iris scans, face recognition -- for data security. Alex Simons, director of program management in Microsoft's identity division, comments: "We're seeing a very rapid evolution from what used to be passwords, then smart cards, and now to biometrics."

It is estimated that over 60% of businesses currently use biometrics, with the proportion expected to rise to 90% by 2020. Fingerprint scanning is, at present, the most common type of biometric authentication, with face recognition running a distant second. Microsoft introduced a biometrics scheme named "Windows Hello" for Windows 10 in 2015, allowing users to log in with face scans or fingerprints. Now it's used by tens of millions at home and in the office.

An update of Windows Hello is being introduced, based on the "Fast ID Online (FIDO) 2.0" standard. FIDO was launched in 2012, with Paypal and Lenovo among the original founders; the alliance now includes Aetna, American Express, Google, Intel, Mastercard, Microsoft, Qualcomm, Samsung, Visa, and others. FIDO provides a standards framework for ID systems, including not only biometrics, but also smart cards and plug-in / near-field wireless hardware keys.

FIDO 2.0 effectively does away with passwords. According to Simons: "Passwords are the weak link. They have terrible characteristics about them, and they're hard for you to keep track of. Passwords are also super expensive for companies."

They're expensive because people forget them, meaning more work for system administration. Passwords are still widely used, of course, and they have the benefit of being easy to change if they're leaked. Biometrics don't have that convenience, since users can't change their faces or fingerprints; and biometrics can be stolen, just like passwords. A 2015 break-in at the Federal Office of Personnel Management grabbed 5.6 million people's fingerprints. Researchers have demonstrated they can spoof fingerprint and face-recognition ID systems with fake inputs.

Those working on FIDO technology see the problems as correctable. Biometrics aren't regarded as a magic cure in themselves; they are instead seen as a component of a multi-factor ID scheme. FIDO tech was designed from the outset with the tricks of the Black Hats in mind, and will evolve to keep ahead of them -- not only to block spoofing, but to spot it when it does happen, and track down the Black Hats behind it.

Simons says biometrics collected with Windows are stored on the device directly, not being not shared to the cloud or with other third-party companies. Microsoft also provides the option to use a PIN number, instead of a biometric scan, to reassure those who don't like sharing their physical attributes.

Artificial intelligence is being used to improve security, determining the usual habits or "behavior profile" of employees, and demanding more security when a log-in deviates from the norm. People are uncomfortable with having their behavior tracked, but developers of FIDO systems know that.

State laws restricting biometric collection have hindered face and fingerprint-scanning tools or apps in some places. In 2008, Illinois passed a law that requires companies to let users know when biometric identifiers are collected and how they will be used; it's also necessary to obtain consent from users before collecting and storing that data. Texas passed a similar law in 2009. The new European Union General Data Protection Regulation -- discussed here last month -- also requires consent before processing biometric data.

FIDO is not intended to provide a bullet-proof ID system, instead giving users options to trade off security for convenience, while still providing robust security and guaranteeing privacy. Simons comments:

BEGIN QUOTE:

END QUOTE

[TUE 08 MAY 18] MICROCREDIT AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE

* MICROCREDIT AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE: As discussed by an article from THE ECONOMIST ("Bucks After The Bang: How Microcredit Can Help Poor Countries After Natural Disasters", 25 January 2018), early this year VisionFund, a microlending charity, and Global Parametrics, a venture that crunches climate and seismic data, joined forces to offer what they called the "world's largest non-governmental climate-insurance program". The scheme will offer microfinance to about 4 million people across six countries in Asia and Africa at risk from climate-change-related calamities.

Climate change is making natural disasters more common and severe. Poor countries are particularly vulnerable, since many of their citizens eke out a meager living from near-subsistence agriculture. Poor countries suffer a "double whammy", in that when they are hit with disasters, people can't get credit to help recover. Microfinance institutions (MFI), faced with defaults, pull back lending; they get little support from donors and relief programs, which are more interested in humanitarian aid.

The new program will offer "recovery lending" -- small loans on special terms -- that can provide a "safety net" for stricken households, helping businesses get back on their feet. It's not a completely new thing; it's been done to an extent, with experience suggesting it's effective and the default rates are low. In 2016, using a 2 million GBP ($2.7 million USD) grant from the British government's development arm, VisionFund's MFIs gave microloans to 14,500 families in Kenya, Malawi, and Zambia hit by El Nino, a weather system that generates severe weather. The MFIs took on high-risk loans, without raising rates; they loaned out far more than expected, but found that 93% had been repaid by May 2017.

However, moving beyond such pilot efforts is troublesome. In the wake of a calamity, loans need to be provided as soon as possible -- but the MFIs are certain to also be affected by the disaster, and may not have the depth to cope with it well. They may also be tied down by inflexible local regulations, but the biggest problem is getting the funds to make loans in the first place, with nobody bankrolling the MFIs.

The new initiative will give MFIs prompt access to funds after a disaster to help meet the surge in demand, for an annual premium of about 0.5% of the value of their portfolios, on top of the normal cost of funds. Global Parametrics is backed by the InsuResilience Investment Fund -- an initiative of KfW, a German government development bank -- and risk capital from the Natural Disaster Fund -- supported by the British government. Funds from private investors are also being sought.

Other institutions could chip in as well. The World Bank has set up a disaster risk-pooling system that covers the Pacific Islands, which are very prone to climate-related hazards. The countries pay a premium into a common pot, from which they can draw cash when things go south. Some of the bank's programs also include a "zero" component, where funds allocated to a project can be switched to emergency relief at the government's request, if a disaster is declared. In both cases, a share of the proceeds could be allocated to recovery lending.

Whether MFIs would qualify for that money is up to each government -- which means that microlenders need to be an element of national disaster-contingency plans, says Michael Goldberg of the World Bank. Recovery lending could be a big help to countries in trouble; but they won't work unless local regulators and governments buy in.

[MON 07 MAY 18] LEFT BEHIND (3)

* LEFT BEHIND (3): Helping people to relocate from impoverished regions would be a good thing; the problem is that the end result would be to make life even worse for the stay-behinds. That's why the inclination has been to try to revive locales that aren't doing well. The subsidies and tax incentives awarded to northeastern Pennsylvania are by no means unique: similar attempts to reboot run-down areas can be found around the world.

Economists find such efforts dubious, with some good reason. In January 2017, for example, American Paper Bag moved its corporate headquarters near to Scranton, thanks in part to employment tax credits, funding for workforce training and a $1.4 million subsidized government loan -- but the effect is expected to be only the creation of 38 jobs. In much the same way "enterprise zones", which typically use tax incentives and hiring subsidies to encourage businesses in areas of concentrated poverty and joblessness, don't have much effect.

Studies show that California's 42 enterprise zones failed to raise employment in targeted areas, and it's much the same elsewhere. In the "zones franches urbaines", which France started to tinker with in the 1990s, small businesses were temporarily exempted from taxes and some social-security contributions. What ended up happening was that firms just outside of the zones relocated into them, with the result that employment in a zone was unfortunately balanced by unemployment just outside that zone.

In other cases, policies do seem to properly boost local output and reduce unemployment, but the gains aren't sustainable. EU structural funds, which are monies pumped into poorer places to bring them up to speed, were pumped into Cornwall and South Yorkshire in the UK showed that the funds did reduce unemployment -- but when the funds for South Yorkshire ended in 2006, the gains there ended.

However, a case can be made that these efforts were duds because they didn't go far enough, not because they went too far. Consider the town of Greenville, South Carolina, at the confluence of two rivers, which long drove waterwheels to make it a national textile hub. That industry collapsed in the last half of the 20th century. What could be done to save Greenville?

In the early 1990s, South Carolina's leadership found out that BMW had plans to open an American factory. There was intense competition; South Carolina won by offering $100 million in tax incentives, plus a $1-per-year lease for the four square kilometers (1.5 square miles) of land on which the plant would be sited. The state and local governments promised hefty investments in infrastructure -- while Clemson University and local community colleges were encouraged to develop training programs in coordination with the carmaker and its suppliers. A center for automotive research in Greenville was also an attraction.

BMW's South Carolina plant at Spartanburg is the company's third biggest on the planet. However, that's not all the state's effort brought in. BMW production is of course dependent on a network of suppliers, and so has attracted other companies to the region -- a process also aided by the upgrade of transport connections to North Carolina and Georgia. Even South Carolina firms that aren't closely linked to BMW have shown a a general benefit from the charged-up environment. South Carolina having proven a good place to set up shop, other firms are finding it attractive as well. Volvo of Sweden, actually owned by Geely of China, is now planning to set up a factory near Charleston, with the network of supplier companies being a particular plus.

There are obstacles, notably the Trump Administration's gut dislike of free trade. Protectionist warriors have hinted they would like to impose tariffs on products made in the USA by foreign firms; not very likely, the states would scream -- and besides, foreign or not, they're giving Americans jobs, which politicians would undercut at their peril.

To be sure, South Carolina has not become a grand manufacturing powerhouse; in fact, manufacturing employment is lower in the region than it was when BMW set up shop. Manufacturing can't support mass employment as it once did, because it's inevitably becoming more automated. However, even if humming factories don't mean as many jobs as they once did, they act as engines to pump up the economies around them. In Greenville, real incomes are growing and the population is booming. The city is 70% bigger than it was in 1990. [TO BE CONTINUED]

[FRI 04 MAY 18] AMERICA'S CONSTITUTION (12)

* AMERICA'S CONSTITUTION (12): The 17th clause of Article I, like the 16th clause, also had its troublesome implications. Congress, in short, had legislative authority over the District of Columbia, the seat of the national government -- with the quirk that the District of Columbia had no representatives in Congress, and wouldn't have them for a long time -- as well as over military installations and other Federal holdings in the states. That would, of course, result in a long-running tug-of-war between the Federal government and the states, who would sometimes object to not having effective control over tracts of land within their borders. The presence of the Federal holdings in the states also further complicated the notion of a state seceding from the Union, as if it weren't problematic enough to begin with.

All that said, the puzzling 9th clause, concerning the establishment of "Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court", can now be discussed without unduly side-tracking the narrative. At first sight, it's not so tricky; as discussed later, the Constitution defines a Supreme Court, but it doesn't define any other lower-level Federal courts -- instead leaving the definition and implementation to Congress of what would become in the present day the "US Courts of Appeals", beneath the Supreme Court, and the "US District Courts", beneath the Courts of Appeals.

However, what makes the 9th clause confusing is that there are also "Article I tribunals" -- or "legislative courts", as opposed to the "constitutional courts" of the judiciary -- that exist to pass judgements on regulatory and other matters of concern to the executive branch. In modern times, they include:

• US Court of Military Appeals: The military has its own justice system, independent of the mainline Federal justice system. There was a time when the Army and the Navy each had their own justice systems, but they were consolidated in 1951 as the "Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)". The Court of Military Appeals provides -- as per the principle that the US military is, at the top, under civilian control -- an appeal mechanism for the judgements of military court-martials. It should be noted that the Federal Supreme Court also does pass judgements on such matters, though the details of how and when are another long-winded scholarly exercise.
  
  
• Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB): Of course, in charge of patent appeals. Appeals against the PTAB can be made to the Federal judiciary's US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. There's a comparable board for trademarks.
  
  
• International Trade Commission: To pass judgements on international trade disputes.

Other Article I tribunals cover veteran's affairs, claims against the Federal government, taxes, immigration, bankruptcy, and so on. The District of Columbia also has an Article I judiciary, instead of a judiciary through the mainstream Federal courts. Of course, since the judicial branch reviews the laws and actions of the government, it necessarily reviews the Article I tribunals as well.

Trying to nail down the current state of the Article I tribunal system, its relationships with the mainstream Federal judiciary, and the evolution of the system would be a major task not in the domain of this introductory document, and so little more is said about it here.

It should be added that, from the outset, Congress has had the ability to conduct investigations -- setting up investigative committees to look the conduct of its own members or the executive, or as an aid to legislation. There is no specific authorization of this practice in the Constitution, but it's never been seriously challenged: obviously, Congress has to get the facts to do the job.

In any case, the final clause in Section 8, the Necessary & Proper Clause AKA Elastic Clause, gave Congress the power to take any actions in the performance of its duties not specifically forbidden by the Constitution. The Elastic Clause is effectively redundant, merely declarative. Consider, for example, that Andrew and Zachary sign a contract to bind themselves to a mutual task. The contract will specify what they are required to do, and specify what they can't do. If Zachary then decides to do something in the domain of the contract, but neither required nor ruled out, there is nothing to stop him from doing so.

If Andrew objects in response: "But the contract didn't say you could do that." -- then Zachary can shoot back: "There's nothing in the contract that says I can't." As long as Zachary in no way contradicts the contract in his action, the law will side with him. On the basis that people might take Andrew's negative position -- they have, and are still doing so -- the Constitution featured the Elastic Clause, to tell Andrew to be quiet. The Articles of Confederation, in contrast, had explicitly stated that Congress had no rights except those "expressly delegated".

Madison had wanted to grant Congress a right of some sort to veto state laws. Exactly how that would have worked is obscure, since Madison was heavily voted down, and it didn't make it into Section 8. Few wanted Congress to tell the states how to run their internal affairs. The primary importance of the Elastic Clause, at least at the outset, was that it gave Congress the flexibility to shape the details of the government as a whole, including the executive and judiciary branches. Incidentally, the Elastic Clause is sometimes also called the "Implied Powers Clause", the "Basket Clause", and the "Sweeping Clause" -- the last as something of a gibe by anti-Federalists, who didn't like the idea of Congress being given such unrestrained powers. [TO BE CONTINUED]

[THU 03 MAY 18] SCIENCE NOTES

* SCIENCE NOTES: In October 2017, the Pan-STARRS project at the University of Hawaii spotted an asteroid passing by the Earth at distance of about 85 times that of the Moon. The object, formally designated "1I/2017 U1", was observed to be moving at a very high velocity along its trajectory -- 315,600 KPH (196,000 MPH) at its fastest -- suggesting it had fallen into the Solar System from interstellar space, and would be slung back out into interstellar space after its passage. No other interstellar asteroid has ever been observed.

The object was given the name of "Oumuamua", a Hawaiian term meaning roughly "advance messenger". Close inspection showed that had a very unusual shape -- not like a big flying boulder, as is usual for asteroids, but cigar-shaped, about 230 meters (750 feet) in length, but only about 35 meters (115 feet) in width and height.

Inspired by Arthur C. Clarke's 1973 sci-fi novel RENDEZVOUS WITH RAMA, which envisioned a huge cylindrical starship falling into the Solar System from deep space, there was some curiosity about the possibility that Oumuamua might be artificial. That seemed like a long shot, but just to be safe, the visitor was scanned by the Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope in West Virginia for ten hours to see if was producing any radio signals. To no surprise, nothing was found.

* As discussed by an article from SCIENCEMAG.org ("So Much For The Abominable Snowman" by Sid Perkins, 28 November 2017), DNA analysis of nine biosamples obtained from the high lands of Tibet and the Himalayas, supposedly left by the "yeti" AKA "abominable snowman", actually showed they were from bears native to the region.

Along with supposed sightings of the alleged giant white primate, scattered "remains" have been held by monasteries and shamans. Early genetic analysis of a few hair samples collected in India and Bhutan found that a stretch of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) resembled that of polar bears -- which was puzzling enough in itself, since polar bears are Arctic creatures. Maybe the yeti was some unfamiliar species of bear, possibly a hybrid of known species? Charlotte Lindqvist -- an evolutionary biologist at the State University of New York (SUNY) in Buffalo -- and colleagues decided to dig in more deeply, obtaining a more extensive set of samples.

Some were obtained when she worked with a UK production crew on the 2016 documentary YETI OR NOT?, which tried to sort through the evidence. The filmmakers got hold of a tooth and some hair collected on the Tibetan Plateau in the late 1930s, plus a sample of scat from Italian mountaineer Reinhold Messner's museum in the Tyrolean Alps. More recent samples included hair collected in Nepal by a nomadic herdsman, and a leg bone found by a shaman in a cave in Tibet. The team also analyzed samples recently collected from several subspecies of bears native to the area, including the Himalayan brown bear, the Tibetan brown bear, and the black bear.

The scientists analyzed 24 samples, including nine said to be from yeti. Eight were from bears native to the region, while one was from a dog. Similar studies of hair samples supposedly from the yeti's American cousin, the sasquatch AKA Bigfoot, have showed those fibers came from bears, horses, dogs, and a number of other creatures, including a human.

None of that was very surprising. The study was more rewarding in that it produced the first full mitochondrial genomes for the Himalayan brown bear (Ursus arctos isabellinus) and the Himalayan black bear (Ursus thibetanus laniger). Further work may unravel the evolutionary relationships of the bears in the region.

* As discussed by an article from ECONOMIST.com ("Smelly Farms May Succumb To Subtle Science", 9 November 2017), it is not news that animal husbandry is smelly, no thanks to the excrement produced by farm animals. This can be unhealthy and problematic to farm workers, and the neighbors don't like it much either. Indeed, studies show that improving the air quality of the places where pigs and other livestock are housed results in healthier and more productive animals. So what can be done to freshen up such buildings at reasonable cost? Jacek Koziel of Iowa State University thinks the answer is titanium dioxide (TiO2) and ultraviolet lights.

In the late 1960s, researchers at the University of Tokyo discovered that Ti02, exposed to ultraviolet light, promotes the breakdown of a wide range of organic compounds. It does so by causing oxygen and water vapor in contact with its surface to react and form molecules known as "free radicals" -- which oxidize and break down organic compounds, turning them into small molecules, mostly carbon dioxide and water. Since the smell of manure is generally due to large organic molecules, and Ti02 is cheap, Koziel decided it might be useful to de-odorize stables, sheds and other animal dwelling places.

In initial experiments, he and his team created a standardized manure-like stench from a mixture of dimethyl disulphide, dimethyl trisulphide, diethyl disulphide, butyric acid, para-cresol and guaiacol. Enough to say it smells really bad. The researchers then coated the interior surface of a commercial preparation of crystals of titanium dioxide, known as "PURETi Clean".

With the layer of crystals in place, the researchers pumped the nasty gas into the container, exposed it to a low-powered UV "black light", and varied temperature, humidity, and ventilation levels to simulate summer and winter conditions. Under summer conditions, the reduction in odorant level was in the range from a bit over a quarter to over half; under winter conditions, it was up to 100%.

That proving encouraging, the researchers went to a pig farm in Iowa, to set up a tunnel with an interior coated with Ti02, exposed to black light. Air was drawn through the tunnel, with levels of odorants reduced by 16%. The researchers believe better results could, of course, be obtained by exposing the air to more surface area. Painting the interior of an animal shed with Ti02 would be no more expensive than using conventional paint, while UV LEDs are both cheap and energy-efficient. The scheme has yet to be commercially adopted.

[WED 02 MAY 18] SYRIA STRIKE

* SYRIA STRIKE: As discussed by an article from AVIATIONWEEK.com ("US & Allies Launch Over 100 Precision Missiles On Syria" by Lara Seligman and Tony Osborne, 14 April 2018), before dawn in Damascus on 14 April, a joint force of American, British, and French combat aircraft and naval elements launched 105 cruise missiles to strike Syrian military targets, in retaliation for the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons on the village of Douma.

A wide range of launch platforms were used in the operation:

• Two US Air Force B-1Bs out of Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota fired 19 Joint Air To Surface Missiles (JASSM), including the new "extended-range" variant -- this being the first combat use of JASSM-ER. The B-1Bs were shielded by fighter escorts, presumably stealthy F-22 Raptors.
  
  
• From the Red Sea, the US Navy TICONDEROGA-class cruiser USS MONTEREY fired 30 Tomahawk Land-Attack Missiles (TLAM) and the ARLEIGH BURKE-class destroyer USS LABOON fired seven TLAMs.
  
  
• From the North Arabian Gulf, the destroyer USS HIGGINS fired 23 TLAMS.
  
  
• From the Mediterranean, the VIRGINIA-class submarine USS JOHN WARNER fired six TLAMs.
  
  
• The British Royal Air Force launched eight MBDA Storm Shadow cruise missiles from Tornado GR.4 strike aircraft and Eurofighter Typhoon fighters.
  
  
• France launched nine MBDA Scalp cruise missiles from Dassault Rafale fighters and Dassault Mirage 2000 fighters.
  
  
• From the Mediterranean, a French frigate fired three ship-launched Scalp MdCNs -- the new French naval cruise missile, this being its first combat use.

Coalition forces also flew a number of tanker and electronic countermeasures aircraft to support the strike elements. Targeted were three sites associated with Syria's chemical weapons program, including:

• The Barzah research and development center in the Damascus area used for development, production, and testing of chemical and biological agents.
  
  
• The Him Shinshar chemical weapons storage facility west of Homs and ....
  
  
• The associated Him Shinshar chemical weapons bunker facility about 7 kilometers (4.3 miles) from the second site.

The Syrian government, along with its Russian and Iranian backers, denounced the attacks, saying they were a breach of international law. A statement released by French President Emmanuel Macron declared: "We cannot tolerate the normalization of the employment of chemical weapons, which is an immediate danger to the Syrian people and to our collective security."

The British Ministry of Defense said the strikes were carefully targeted "to maximize the destruction of the stockpiled chemicals, and to minimize any risks of contamination to the surrounding area." Although Syria claimed most of the missiles were shot down, US military officials said the attacks met expectations. The attack was twice the size of the TLAM strike against Shayrat air base ordered by US President Trump in April 2017.

The White House said that no additional strikes were in the works, but new strikes might be performed if the Syrian government didn't get the message. US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis announced that more strikes "will depend on Mr. Assad should he decide to use more chemical weapons in the future. For now, this is a one-time shot and I believe that it sent a very strong message."

However, on 3 April, Trump had announced -- in a tweet, of course -- that he wanted the US out of Syria, which projected a lack of resolve. As reported by an 18 April article from CNN.com, senators given a classified briefing on US policy in Syria were not pleased with what they were told, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) saying he was "very unnerved". Graham told reporters that the White House has no military strategy to counter Iranian and Russian influence and seems willing "to give Syria to Assad, Russia, and Iran."

It is true that there is little public enthusiasm for US intervention in Syria. However, as long as US troops stay out of the line of fire, the public doesn't care so much, either. There is a certain grim satisfaction in watching the fumblings of the Trump Administration on Syria, after all the abuse heaped on the Obama Administration over the issue. Could anyone have a satisfactory policy on Syria? It's hard to think so -- but the bottom line remains, as articulated by Senator Chris Coons (D-DE):

BEGIN QUOTE:

END QUOTE

[TUE 01 MAY 18] ANOTHER MONTH

* ANOTHER MONTH: The Era of Trump keeps coming up with surprises, and among them was the emergence of the 2018 BLACK PANTHER movie as a cultural phenomenon. On the face of, given the wide reach of the Marvel entertainment franchise, with endless movie and TV series releases, few would have thought that a movie about a second-string Marvel superhero -- no offense meant to Black Panther, but he's never had the reach of Iron Man, Spider-Man, or the Incredible Hulk -- would have been anything more than another popular amusement.

However, as discussed by an article from TIME.com ("It's Not Just Black Panther -- Afrofuturism Is Having a Moment" by Alex Fitzpatrick, 20 April 2018), BLACK PANTHER ended up in the right place at the right time. Along with the fact that ethnic consciousness, for better or worse, is running higher than normal, there was a big draw to black Americans to have a high-budget movie with a mostly-black cast and a black director. The movie, set in the Marvel-comic African kingdom of Wakanda, became one of the highest-earning films in American cinematic history.

BLACK PANTHER proved more than a mere entertainment, instead becoming an empowerment statement. Sean "Diddy" Combs, reflecting on Chadwick Boseman's role as the film's title character, commented:

BEGIN QUOTE:

END QUOTE

BLACK PANTHER is also fueling a surge in "Afro-futurism", the black experience as seen through the lens of sci-fi. Why should black culture be limited to the past and present? Why not extend it to the future and to alternate worlds?

While some Afro-futurist visions are dystopian, exploiting themes of black oppression, others are positivist, focused on themes of black empowerment. The nation of Wakanda remains obscure to the outside world, seen as backward and impoverished; but the country is actually rich, due to deposits of the mysterious element known as vibranium, and has developed technologies ahead the leading edge. Once the veil of secrecy is penetrated, Wakanda emerges onto the world stage as a superpower.

The concept of Afro-futurism emerged in the 1990s, though it had antecedents going back decades before that, such as avant-garde jazz musician Sun Ra and the science fiction novels of Samuel R. "Chip" Delaney. With the success of the BLACK PANTHER movie, the movement is now positioned for a boom. It's black culture on a public stage, for us all to enjoy.

* Free Exchange, THE ECONOMIST's rotating economics blogger, jumped on the BLACK PANTHER bandwagon with an essay ("Wakandanomics", 31 March 2018) that suggested the movie provided lessons in economics.

First, when vibranium deposits were discovered in Wakanda, the country's leadership worried that, instead of prosperity, the country would suffer a "resource curse" -- the phenomenon in which natural riches keep a country behind by skewing development, or promoting thievish government. In reality, the resource curse is exaggerated. Many resource-rich economies, including Botswana and Norway, have prospered.

According to an article in 2015 by Brock Smith of Montana State University, the 17 countries that discovered big oil, gas, or diamond deposits after 1950 achieved GDP per person 40% higher on average than if they had continued to evolve in line with their peers. The resource curse, it turns out, is partly a statistical illusion: countries that use their natural resources to foster growth then become less dependent on the natural resources, and so those natural resources are not identified as a curse.

Wakanda escaped the resource curse through development of advanced technology, resulting in a futuristic "post-scarcity" society, in which vibranium is no longer as significant as it was. However, that is a comic-book fantasy. It's like Botswana not only mined, cut, and polished diamonds, but also designed and produced the world's diamond necklaces, drills, and bearings; it's like Norway had a monopoly on oil, petrochemicals, and plastics.

Wakanda took its economic isolation to an extreme, refusing to let the outside world even know about its advanced technologies, much less buy them. The only consumers of Wakandan technology were Wakandans. That, in turn, is like imagining the people of Botswana were the only ones to wear diamond necklaces, or Norwegians the only consumers of petrochemicals.

In economics, autarky -- national self-sufficiency -- is identified with poverty and authoritarianism, North Korea as the model, the place being far more a "scarcity society" than a "post-scarcity society". Like it or not, and some don't like it at all, we have a global economy; it's inefficient or simple folly for a country to try to do everything. The best place to cut and polish diamonds is not Botswana, with its population of 2.3 million souls, but coastal India, which has a lot more hands to put to the task. A country prospers by focusing on doing what it does best, and letting others do what they do best.

Not all Wakandans like autarky: Erik Killmonger, the villain of the movie, has an MBA and wants to bring Wakanda into the global commerce system. Killmonger knows that Wakanda would be far richer selling its technology, which would foster a boom in the rest of the world as well. T'Challa, the Black Panther, thinks instead of reinforcing Wakanda's economic isolation -- but then reverses himself, acquiring a new super-power: a peg to the US dollar.

* On the 11th of April, I took a day trip from Loveland to Denver to take photos. I have it down to a system: I came in after morning rush hour, going out to Denver International Airport to plane-spot with my camera. DIA has runways in all four compass directions; the west runways are the best for planespotting. They're parallel to the freeway back into town, and there's a travel plaza there with gas, fast-food joints, a convenience store. I just park there and run across the freeway, having a nice view of aircraft take-offs.

They rarely fly the bigger jetliners on that runway, though. Nobody hassles me -- it would be too much trouble to stop on the freeway. Somebody did lean on their horn as they went past ... I shined on it, paying no attention: "Wot's yer problem? Eh, like I care."

That done, I got over to the Denver Zoo before lunch rush hour -- HOO-RAY, now I get the senior discount. I spent about two hours there, got many nice shots, though none particularly new. That done, I went back to DIA for more shots, getting out before afternoon rush hour -- I was hungry, all I'd eaten since breakfast was a candy bar, so I went to a Panda Express Chinese restaurant on 120th Street North, and then back to Loveland.

I had a great day, got over 300 raw shots, about 75 after throwing out the junk, with about 45 keepers after giving them a good look-over, that being an excellent ratio. The only real flaw in the exercise was when I was walking through the zoo and felt droplets of rain. I looked up, couldn't see where it came from -- then realized that it wasn't rain, I'd been bombed by some flying pest: CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE BIRD KIND. I went to a washroom and cleaned up my clothes with paper towels. Fortunately, I hadn't been hit as badly as I thought; I doubt anyone noticed.

* As for the Real Fake News for April, early in the month President Trump set National Guard unit south to reinforce border protection. That appears to have been a cosmetic exercise, compensating for the refusal of Congress to fund Trump's border wall. Both Obama and Bush also sent National Guard forces to the border, and it didn't amount to much.

Along with playing the National Guard card, Trump spent a few days Twitter-bombing Amazon.com, accusing the company of ripping off the US Postal Service (USPS) and driving small businesses to ruin. Trump's real problem, it appears, is the fact that Jeff Bezos, the boss of Amazon, owns THE WASHINGTON POST newspaper, and WAPO is persistently critical of the Trump Administration. The USPS does have problems, but Amazon isn't one of them: the company pays the same bulk rate as everyone else, and is much more a benefit to the USPS than a liability.

As far Amazon's pressure against small businesses go, that's just an inevitable consequence of the shift away from brick-and-mortar retailing. Amazon pointed out that many small businesses benefit from partnerships with Amazon, most notably used book shops that sell via Amazon -- as discussed here in 2015. It was also pointed out that Jeff Bezos didn't inherit money, built a world-class business from scratch, and never went bankrupt, and so it's inevitable that Trump hates him.

The only consequence of Trump's assault on Amazon was that it highlighted the superficiality of Trump's control over his voter base. They like his theatrics, but that's about it; it's hard to believe Amazon suffered the slightest drop in sales over Trump's tantrums. He soon moved on to other things, but he'll come back to it later. Indeed, following the Amazon exercise, Trump spent a little time crying "voter fraud" again, though that didn't last long.

Trump got derailed from his Amazon theatrics on 9 April, when the FBI raided the offices of attorney Michael Cohen, his long-time "fixer". Robert Mueller's investigation into the 2016 election keeps trundling along unexcitedly, but that was big news. Exactly what the Feds had or might get on Cohen was unclear; nonetheless, the raid made a big problem for Trump, in that hiring an attorney became very difficult. Who would take Trump as a client, to then become a target as well? Comedian Jimmy Fallon noted: "You know it's bad when you call your lawyer ..." -- and get the response: "You'll have to speak to my lawyer."

On top of that blow, Trump was then hit with the release of ex-FBI director James Comey's tell-all book, which was unsparing in its attacks on Trump, comparing him to Mafia bosses Comey had investigated at the FBI. Comey was criticized for being a self-serving prig, but few, aside from Trump, thought he said anything untrue about the president. Piled on top of that, the pressure on Scott Pruitt, Trump's EPA director, continued to grow, with tales that he ran the agency like he was raiding the joint, working to wreck the organization while enjoying all the perks he could get. It is widely thought that Pruitt's political days are numbered.

Nonetheless, late in the month the Trump Administration did get a boost when North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un put on a charm offensive, talking of a peace treaty with South Korea -- the Korean War ended in a cease-fire, technically it never ended -- and nuclear disarmament. That was encouraging, but long-time Korea hands were unimpressed, having seen the North Koreans play the peace card before. The trick is that Kim will insist as a precondition for nuclear disarmament the withdrawal of US forces from South Korea, which isn't going to happen, and the removal of the US nuclear shield from South Korea, which would be lunacy.

In any case, Trump didn't seem particularly upbeat. Trump had nominated Rear Admiral Ronny Jackson, the White House physician, to head the Veterans Administration, with Jackson then running into a storm of allegations that he hit the bottle too much, passed out drugs like candy, and so on. Comedian Conan O'Brien suggested that Jackson not be judged too harshly:

BEGIN QUOTE:

END QUOTE

On the morning of 26 April, the White House announced the nomination had been withdrawn. Not long after that, Trump called up the FOX AND FRIENDS talk show on Fox News, to engage in an overheated, incoherent, rambling rant that exceeded even Trump's standards for such. The FOX AND FRIENDS hosts are notably partial to Trump, but they grew ever more pained and grim in appearance as the president ranted on -- until he was given a gentle hint that maybe he had better things to do. Somewhat surprisingly, he took the hint and rang off.

And then, to cap off the month, as discussed here in the previous posting in this blog, French President Emmanuel Macron visited the White House, engaging in a distinctly French contest of physical dominance, to then methodically critique Trump Administration policies and mindset in front of Congress. Also somewhat surprisingly, Trump didn't lash back at Macron; it appears he rather likes the feisty Frenchman, despite the fact that Macron is only subservient to Trump in the most obviously superficial fashion. It seems that's good enough for Trump.

Macron does appear to have some ability to work Trump. The most immediate item on Macron's agenda in his visit appears to have been Trump's determination to withdraw from the Iran nuclear treaty. Macron flatly said that Trump was likely to do so, but put the action in the proper frame. After all, none of America's five partners in the deal are going to be cooperative with the US in giving it up. What's Trump going to do if they keep dealing with Iran -- place sanctions on them? He might just try it, with the consequences being distinctly hard to figure out.

Macron made it clear in his address to Congress that it made no sense to abandon the deal without having a better one. Macron made the case for Trump to not simply junk the deal, but work to define a "super deal" that might lead to a comprehensive Middle East peace treaty. Macron thinks big. It's an attractive idea, but we'll see what happens.

* Although Trump's performance in office continues to be erratic, possibly getting even worse, his supporters continue to back him. Indeed, early in the month, public opinion polls showed a modest uptick in his approval rating. That was puzzling, since attitudes towards Trump are effectively frozen: neither those who like nor those who dislike him are going to change their minds. So, where did the uptick come from?

After consideration, it appears there were some Trump voters who became disillusioned after finding out that Trump couldn't back up his absurd campaign promises, most visibly the Mexico border wall. Trump's clear abandonment from March of such restraint that had been imposed on him seems to have revitalized them. However, approval then sagged again, since nothing had really changed. Trump still isn't going to get his border wall. Indeed, late in the month he was threatening another government shutdown in September if it wasn't funded, no doubt to snickers among Democrats. Comedian Jimmy Kimmel quipped:

BEGIN QUOTE:

END QUOTE

There's been a lot of fuss over Trump voters, with a consensus now emerging that they don't amount to much. Radio host Clay Cane, writing in CNN about the reboot of comedienne Roseanne Barr's blue-collar sitcom of the 1980s, expressed weariness with concerns over them:

BEGIN QUOTE:

END QUOTE

Roseanne Barr is, in real life, a hardcore Trump supporter, spewing bigotry and crackbrained conspiracy theories. She is also rich, with an estimated worth of about $80 million USD -- yet another hint that the perception of Trump's support being fully rooted in the white lower middle class is not exactly the truth. In any case, if Barr is held as representative of Trump supporters, she underlines the reality that efforts to understand or come to terms with them are a waste of time. They have nothing to say worth listening to, and discussion with them is futile. Trump's support rests on a foundation of trash.

Princeton Professor Julian Zelizer, also writing in CNN, blasted the idea that economic considerations drove Trump's support. Hillary Clinton was bitterly criticized by the hothead Left for lacking a coherent economic plan, but the election was never directly about any such thing. Trump's economic rhetoric was based on half-truths and frauds, with Trump offering solutions such as counterproductive trade protectionism and a heavy-handed approach to immigrants. The election wasn't about the economy, it was about bigotry and: "LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!" According to Zelizer:

BEGIN QUOTE:

END QUOTE

Zelizer adds that Hillary Clinton and mainstream Democrats were hardly on the wrong track:

BEGIN QUOTE:

END QUOTE

In other words, don't worry about the Trumpies one way or another, just do the right thing. The 2016 election was a stinging defeat for the Democrats, but assessment of the current operational landscape suggests the injury was superficial and passing; it has energized the Democrats, encouraging people to decide where they really stand. Support for Trump hovers in the range of 35% to 40%; hostility to him, in the range of 55% to 60%. A 15% edge means a lot in national politics. Democrats need to shrug off the sneers of the Trumpies and realize: "They are weak and we are strong."