There are a number of things they’ve been talking about since I was in grad school (and dinosaurs ruled the earth) including nuclear fusion, artificial intelligence, and the hydrogen economy. At Newsweek Ed Browne reports on an interesting development in producing hydrogen:

Researchers at the University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC) have found a way to produce hydrogen by developing a special type of aluminum composite that reacts with water at room temperature.

On its own, aluminum is a reactive material that splits oxygen away from water molecules, leaving hydrogen gas behind.

Aluminum won’t necessarily do this on its own, however. That’s because at room temperature the metal forms a layer of aluminum oxide, which essentially protects it from reacting with water.

What scientists have discovered is that by using an easily produced composite of gallium and aluminum, it is possible to get this material to react with water at room temperature, producing hydrogen.

“We don’t need any energy input, and it bubbles hydrogen like crazy,” said UCSC chemistry professor Scott Oliver in a university press release. “I’ve never seen anything like it.”

The fact that this aluminum-gallium mixture produces hydrogen has been known for decades. But what the UCSC team found was that increasing the concentration of gallium in the composite also increased the production of hydrogen.

“Our method uses a small amount of aluminum, which ensures it all dissolves into the majority gallium as discrete nanoparticles,” Oliver said.

What’s more, the composite can be made with easily accessible aluminum sources like foil or cans.

The downside is that gallium is relatively expensive, although it can be recovered in this process and reused multiple times.

That sounds very promising. Now let’s see if their results can be replicated and it can be done at scale. Hydrogen would certainly be a better solution for many uses than solar or wind power.

The editors of the Washington Post remark on the occasion of the death of Mikhail Gorbachev:

Mr. Gorbachev, who died Tuesday at 91, never intended to destroy the Soviet system. But in a lifetime inside it, he saw its decay and the need for change. While many in the West viewed the Soviet Union as an implacable Cold War adversary and a rigid party hierarchy, Mr. Gorbachev saw cracks and failures, and drew lessons from them. In Stavropol, he had set out on a conformist career path in the Komsomol. Once, the job brought him to a rural village of low, smoke-belching huts along the River Gorkaya Balka. He was shocked at what lay before him: poverty and desolation. “On the hillside, I wondered: ‘How is it possible, how can anyone live like that?’ ” he later reflected. Another time, after Soviet and Warsaw Pact forces crushed the Prague Spring, Mr. Gorbachev visited a factory in the Czech city of Brno as part of a Soviet delegation. The workers refused even to talk to Mr. Gorbachev. “This was a shock to me,” he later said. “This visit overturned all my conceptions.” He realized that the Soviet use of force had been a mistake.

I think the encomiums being heaped on Mr. Gorbachev are mistaken. He differed from his predecessors in that he wasn’t a committed revolutionary but a bureaucrat. The obits being written are burdened by amnesia.

May he rest in peace.

One of these things is not like the others. It has recently been argued that China was following the “Japanese model” in its economy. The Japanese model was to move relatively unproductive labor from agriculture to manufacturing and utilize the economic surplus for personal consumption. That might have been a reasonable argument until 2000. What China has been doing is a lot more like the Soviet model.

The Soviet model was to move relatively unproductive labor from agriculture to manufacturing and utilize the surplus for government spending.

Call it “socialism with Chinese characteristics” or “capitalism with Chinese characteristics” but that is undeniably what the Chinese have been doing.

What of the United States? Our pattern is much more like that of Brazil or Mexico than it is like those of the Asian countries in the chart above. Our PCE are higher. As I have contended for some time, the United States is better understood as BOTH a First World and a Third World economy simultaneously within the same borders.

Thomas Fazi updates us at UnHerd on the “lab leak hypothesis” for the origin of COVID-19. The short version is that Jeffrey Sachs has co-authored a report calling for an investigation:

Considering the endless ways in which the pandemic and our response to it have changed the lives of every human being on the planet, it’s astonishing to consider how little is actually known about the origins of the virus. Two and half years on, we are still very much in the dark as to when, how and even where SARS-CoV-2 first made its appearance.

This isn’t because our efforts to get to the bottom of the mystery have proved fruitless, but rather because those efforts have been systematically thwarted by the world’s two most powerful governments: America and China. This is the mother of all Covid conspiracy theories — but it’s also true.

One of the main “conspiracy theorists” is none other than Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, president of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network and chair of the Lancet Covid-19 Commission. He is not your typical tinfoil-hat-wearing internet crank. Sachs recently co-authored a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences calling for an independent inquiry into the virus’s origins. He believes there is clear proof that the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the primary US public health agency, and many members of the scientific community have been impeding a serious investigation into the origins of Covid-19 in order to cover up evidence that US-funded research in Wuhan may have played a role in the creation of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

We’ll probably never know for sure. I can’t imagine the Chinese authorities cooperating fully on any study which might potentially reflect badly on China or the Chinese Communist Party.

If history is any gauge the virus probably arose naturally but things go against historical precedent every day. As I see we’ll probably never know for sure.

When the editors of the Wall Street Journal single out my home state for attention it always gets my attention. In this case they’re criticizing Amendment 1 on which I’ll be voting in November:

Democratic supermajorities in the state House and Senate voted last year to put the measure before voters. Amendment 1 would change the Illinois Constitution to read that “employees shall have the fundamental right to organize and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing for the purpose of negotiating wages, hours, and working conditions, and to protect their economic welfare and safety at work.”

The National Labor Relations Act already governs private workers and limits who can bargain about what. Illinois can’t expand the collective-bargaining rights of private employees beyond what federal law allows.

Democratic state Sen. Ram Villivalam, who is sponsoring the measure, admitted as much last year. “The Amendment refers to ‘employees,’ and not workers or individuals,” he said. “This was done with intention. As the Members of the House should be aware, the National Labor Relations Act governs organizing and collective bargaining in the private sector and, as such, preempts any direct State regulation on the subject.” He added that Amendment 1 thus “could not apply to the private sector.”

For the last several weeks we’ve been inundated with phone calls, many of which open with “do you support union workers”? Which probably polled better than “do you think public employees’ unions don’t have enough power in Illinois?”

I suspect that if you asked Illinoisans what the state’s most important priority was that probably wouldn’t be the pick of a large percentage of us. A greater problem is how we’re going to live up to the commitments we’ve already made to public workers with fewer Illinoisans than there were ten years ago and Illinois’s median household income declining.

At Brookings Andre Perry declaims that President Biden’s announced forgiveness of student loans doesn’t address the root cause of the problem but at least it’s a start:

According to the White House, the plan will “provide relief to up to 43 million borrowers, including cancelling the full remaining balance for roughly 20 million borrowers.” But it does not go far enough in addressing the root of the problem: a postsecondary education system that has seen tuition rise three-fold in the last 30 years. That same system will put future borrowers in peril.

The plan does take some admirable steps toward helping overburdened graduates. For example, borrower participation in income-based repayment plans was stunted by confounding complexity, bad management, and predatory practices on the part of loan servicers. The Biden plan lowers the amount borrowers have to pay from 10% to 5% of income and forgives loan balances after 10 years, down from 20. Making payments more affordable helps people whose wages do not keep pace with their cost of living and for those whose pay is throttled by wage discrimination.

Let’s stop right there. So, what’s the “root cause”? Mr. Perry seems to think that it’s that the cost of higher education is rising too fast.

In 1960 the tuition at my admittedly pricey alma mater was $1,800 per year. According to the Census Bureau the median household income then was $5,600. By 1970 tuition at my alma mater had risen to $5,400 per year and the Census Bureau tells me that the median household income was $9,870.

Putting my education (my grade school education) to work that means that in ten years tuitions had tripled while income had not quite doubled. Here’s what the St. Louis Federal Reserve says that college tuitions have risen over the years:

and here for comparison is GDP (I’m pretty sure I could combine those into one graph but I’m too lazy):

Said another way college tuitions were rising far faster than GDP. Note that it took ten years for college tuitions to triple back then. Assuming that Mr. Perry’s figure are correct, tripling over thirty years sounds like a major slowing of the increase in the cost of tuition.

Is the underlying problem, as Mr. Perry avers, that tuition is increasing in cost too fast? Or is it that incomes are not increasing fast enough to keep up?

Extra credit: will forgiving student loans decrease tuitions, increase tuitions, or have no effect?

At 1945 Christian D. Orr considers several historical precedents for the Russia-Ukraine War to answer the question could Russia win? After considering the American Civil War, the Russo-Finnish War, the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and the putting down of the Chechnyan insurgency he concludes:

To sum up, Russia could conceivably still “win” in Ukraine under sufficiently scaled-back mission parameters and objectives, but other than Moscow’s wounded national pride and bragging rights, what would Putin truly gain from such a costly “victory?”

which I think reflects a lack of understanding of Russian politics and history. Retaining the port at Sevastopol is not negotiable. That has been a key goal of Russian policy for over 200 years. It is no less important to Russia now than it was in 1783.

That brings up a point which is extremely frustrating to me. Why do supporters of the Ukrainians argue that U. S. support has not altered Ukraine’s objectives in the war at all? That is demonstrably false. Back in February the Ukrainians broached the subject of allowing the Russians to retain Sevastopol. Now Russia returning Sevastopol to Ukraine is apparently an essential goal of the Ukrainians. That’s a change.

What appears to me is that presently both sides of the war are expanding their objectives. I would interpret that as telling us that the prospects for a speedy resolution of the conflict are poor.

The editors of the Wall Street Journal take note of the conundrum in which AG Merrick Garland finds himself:

We don’t know everything about the documents Mr. Trump retained, how he handled them, what he told the FBI and other facts that are still hidden by the redactions in the affidavit. New details may emerge that differ in significant ways from Mrs. Clinton’s behavior.

But that isn’t evident so far, and Mr. Trump’s lawyers will surely argue that under the PRA he has some right to hold documents, even many that are classified, for some period of time or some personal purpose.

That is accentuated by the reality that former presidents generally receive more deference than secretaries of state do.

Consequently, Mr. Garland may decide to follow the precedent established by James Comey which will be seen by many Democrats as caving in to Trump, he may decide not to follow that precedent at all which will be seen by many Republicans as proof positive of a virulently partisan DoJ and FBI, or he might indict Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton for mishandling of public records and improper retention of classified materials.

IMO that last alternative is very far-fetched but one can always dream, can’t one?

As I’ve said before I would prefer it if searching the residences and private offices of former presidents for official records and classified materials were completely routine. That would eliminate charges of political partisanship.

I planned to post on an op-ed in the New York Times on the prospect of a second American Civil War but James Joyner beat me to it in his response at Outside the Beltway. I materially agree with his conclusion:

Regardless, rhetoric aside, a repeat is simply not going to happen. There is no relatively neat line of demarcation between “Red America” and “Blue America” that would allow the formation of two contiguous countries and two armies.

That doesn’t, however, mean that there’s no danger of violence if our war of words continues to escalate. Americans have lost faith in our institutions. Democrats, for good reason, don’t see the Electoral College as legitimate, having seen their candidate defeated twice in the span of 16 years despite garnering more votes. They also don’t see the Supreme Court as legitimate, largely because its majority is a direct result of minority rule (but, frankly, also because they simply dislike recent rulings). Republicans, meanwhile, seem not to see the votes of those who aren’t Republican as legitimate and therefore any means of suppressing or discounting them is justified.

If violence breaks out, though, it’ll be more like mass rioting than contending armies. And there will be no General Lee able to surrender.

although I think that we will see more than rioting. While I don’t think we will see pitched battles as occurred during the American Civil War I, I do think we’ll see rioting, skirmishes between small groups and the authorities or between small groups, terrorism, and civil disorder. I think we’re already seeing it. Don’t think in terms of Glory, Lincoln, or The Red Badge of Courage. Think Mad Max. As evidence I submit this:

CHICAGO — At least 35 people were shot, nine fatally, in Chicago shootings over the weekend.

Eight people were killed and 25 others were wounded – including a 5-year-old boy – in shootings over the weekend across Chicago.

or this:

CHICAGO (WLS) — Cellphone video showed the aftermath of a crash that police said killed a woman on the city’s Southwest Side.

It happened just after 1:30 a.m. Sunday. A 27-year-old man and a 19-year-old woman were speeding down Cicero Avenue near 64th Street, police said. That’s when the man changed lanes, hit the woman’s car and 40-year-old Shawman Meireis, who was standing on the sidewalk.

The victim died at the hospital. Police said the man behind the wheel was given two citations.

Hours after that, a chaotic confrontation was caught on video at South Canal Street and West Cermak Road in the Pilsen neighborhood. Police said they tried to respond to reports of more drifting and drag racing. Instead, they left with six squad vehicles pummeled by heavy objects.

Video shows people hitting a police SUV over and over again. Officers were then seen retreating. No officers were hurt.

Before, some people in that same group were involved in a street takeover at Madison and Morgan in the West Loop, police said. Video showed a vehicle dangerously drifting in that intersection.

both from ABC 7 Chicago. One of the things that struck me was the comments to James’s post. I think his commenters greatly misunderstand the present moment. To read their comments you would conclude that Republicans are vile, authoritarian bigots and that division in the country has been caused by Fox News. My retort would be that you could shutter every Fox outlet or magically cause every Illinois Republican to disappear and it wouldn’t solve one of Chicago’s problems. IMO they’re mistaking symptoms for causes.

The United States remains a center-right country while the leadership of both parties are significantly more extreme. Strict majoritarianism wouldn’t mean that more of what progressives want would be enacted into law. It means that more of what conservatives and moderates want would be enacted into law. According to Gallup progressives are outnumbered by both conservatives and moderates. Pew Research reports similar results. It’s only the undemocratic results produced by gerrymandering and Congress’s seniority system that enables progressives to get what they want.

I’m a Democrat but I want a Democratic Party that stands up for ordinary Americans rather than standing up for, as Ezra Klein put it, people who work for or contribute to Democratic campaigns.