What did Trump Voters vote for?

Trumpists clearly voted for Donald J. Trump, the man, not for his policy positions.   Or they selectively paid attention only to that which they wanted to hear.


President-Elect Donald Trump took 141 distinct stances on 23 major issues during his bid for the White House. 

After more than a year and a half of stadium rallies, around-the-clock interviews, sweeping primary wins, and one stunning general election victory, the Republican president-elect has the most contradictory and confusing platform in recent history. This is a catalog of his views over a 511-day span, from June 16th 2015 to November 8th 2016. 

As to Donald Trump, the man, the reports from the off-the-record meeting with the chiefs of the news organizations are:

The overall impression of the meeting from the attendees I spoke with was that Trump showed no signs of having been sobered or changed by his elevation to the country’s highest office. Rather, said one, “He is the same kind of blustering, bluffing, blowhard as he was during the campaign.”

Secretary of State - John Bolton?

The people who hang out at Retd. US Army Colonel W. Patrick Lang's blog Turcopolier greatly dislike Obama, utterly hate Hillary Clinton, but over the years, a lot of vitriol has been reserved for John Bolton.

There is also a danger that the neocon faction among Trump's advisers will succeed in achieving power in his cabinet.  The appointment of John Bolton to State, would be ,IMO, an unmitigated disaster.(W.P.Lang)

This is because apparently Bolton hasn't seen a foreign entanglement he didn't like.  Bolton is most certainly of the school "bomb Iran, don't negotiate with it".

Well, the rumor is that Bolton is the top candidate for Trump's Secretary of State.   Some people hope that since the Democrats in 2005 filibustered his nomination as Ambassador to the UN and Bush had push him through in a recess appointment, he won't get the nod.

But in November 2013, the Senate agreed that no executive appointments or judicial nominees other than those for the Supreme Court can be filibustered; and those rules are still in place.  So the Democrats won't be able to rescue us from a Bolton nomination, it will be up to the Republicans to produce some No! votes.

I think it is only just that Trump supporters be subjected to the same nervousness that the rest of us will be subjected to for the next four years, as Trump brings the dregs of American politics all the way to the top.

Bond sell-off

Just the facts from here:

[Bond] Sellers remained in control on Thursday, and the market was able to take a breather on Friday as it was closed in observance of Veterans Day.
However, sellers are back in charge on Monday. Heavy selling across the complex has yields higher by at least 8 basis points. Here's a look at the scoreboard as of 7:15 a.m. ET:

• 2-year +7.3 bps at 98.8 bps
• 3-year +10.4 bps at 1.27%
• 5-year +11.2 bps at 1.67%
• 7-year +11.5 bps at 2.03%
• 10-year +10.2 bps at 2.25%
• 30-year +9 bps at 3.02%

Several notable developments have taken place amid Monday's destruction. The 2-year yield crossed the 1.00% threshold for the first time since January, and the 10-year is also at levels last seen since the beginning of the year. Additionally, the 30-year yield is above 3.00% and at its highest level since early December. All of this comes as the Fed readies for its first rate hike since December 2015. Fed fund futures data compiled by Bloomberg shows an 84% probability of a 25 bp rate hike at the upcoming meeting.

There is a narrative around all this, which I'm omitting, but the meaning of this market signal is that the market expects inflation.

Climate Change: Modi v Trump

PM Modi delivered the Indian ratification of the Paris Climate Agreement on October 2, Mahatma Gandhi's birthdate. 

The message of Gandhi Ji inspires all of us. India will always work with the world to overcome climate change & create a green planet. https://t.co/IgGDJwPG4m

— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) October 2, 2016

Trump doesn't accept the scientific evidence that climate change is real, and wants to dismantle the Paris Agreement.

GOP vs Modi

This is Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's statement:

Why do we need the state? There are five main components:

.. The first is public goods such as defence, police and judiciary.

.. The second is externalities which hurt others, such as pollution. For this, we need a regulatory system.

.. The third is market power, where monopolies need controls.

.. The fourth is information gaps, where you need someone to ensure that medicines are genuine and so on.

.. Last, we need a well-designed welfare and subsidy mechanism to ensure that the bottom of society is protected from deprivation. This especially includes education and health care.


These are five places where we need government.

We do not know where Trump stands, because he has made statements on both sides of most issues; and he has no record of public office.

We do know where the Republicans stand:

1. On defence, police, judiciary - yes, they mostly agree.  However, note that they are in favor of privatizing prisons, even though the American experience so far has been that private prisons are very abusive.  After Trump's victory that has put Republicans in control, the stock price of private prison companies rose more than 40%.  (Defence companies rose by 6% or so.)

2.  On the regulatory system to control externalities that hurt others, the Republicans are utterly opposed, whether it is with the environment or with the financial system.

3. On market power, the Republicans have no desire to control monopolies.  Their hero, Reagan, dismantled much of the New Deal anti-trust controls.

4. On information gaps, this is a mixed bag; but I would rate the Republicans as mostly against the government doing anything to fix information gaps.

5. On the safety net, we know that the Republicans are against any such.

I repeat, on many of these, we don't know where Trump stands; he has made contradictory statements during the campaign, and he has no record of public office.

In any case, policy-wise, PM Narendra Modi is very explicit and clear; the situation with Trump is ambiguous, and there is utterly no basis for comparison of the two men.  It is not apples vs oranges; it is apples vs. BS.

What 325 million Americans did in the 2016 elections

Max Tegmark (@tegmark) made this great graphic:

And an Old Liberal talks about what is going to hit those 325 million Americans.

Some very good articles

The New Yorker: George Packer: Hillary Clinton and the Populist Revolt

The Atlantic: Matt Stoller: How Democrats Killed Their Populist Soul

As a side-note, I find it interesting how a history of ideas helps to show us their limits, and at least temporarily, to liberate us.

Pakistani social media birthers Trump

This "news-item" says as per information collected on social media, and contributed to by many, Donald Trump was born Daud Ibrahim Khan in Waziristan and received his initial education in a madrassa there. Daud's father died in an accident, and Captain Stockdale of the British Indian Army on retiring, took him to London.  In 1955 the Trump family adopted him, and brought him to New York. 

PS: (Nov 14) UK's Daily Mail caught up with the story.

Season Finale

There was a (turns-out-not-to-be-funny) joke circulating, of the form "Omg I'm so excited for the season finale of America".

Well Season Finale has arrived.  So what will the next season of this reality show bring?

Having been wrong about so many things, what's a few more among friends?   Here are my prognostications:

1. The world will have to solve the crisis of global warming and climate change without much help and perhaps some hindrance from the US federal government.  I don't know what happens to the Paris Accord if Trump walks the US out of it, as he has said he would do; but the rest of the world should, in my opinion, try to stick with the program.

2. The financial markets will be very volatile until Trump's intentions (and ability to act on them) become clear.  For example, Trump has stated positions against the Dodd-Frank financial industry regulations, but also in favor of the older Glass-Steagal regulations.  What does he mean to do and what will he be able to get through Congress?

3. If the financial markets don't stabilize, then perhaps there will be a US recession.  There will be little to pull the US out of recession and the people who voted Trump in are likely for a bitter disappointment.  Their economic prospects will likely not improve. (I'd be really glad to be disappointed about this.)

4. Obamacare will be repealed, the chokehold the medical/pharma industry has on the US economy will tighten, healthcare will become much more expensive, and less available (again, a blow for the people who voted for Trump, and a prediction I really hope I'm wrong about.)

5. Europe which ought to band together more tightly for its own protection because of the uncertainty of the American umbrella will likely not be able to do so.  They are all in the grip of Trumpist movements of their own.  I expect Europe to be in a prolonged recession, too.

6. Trump might scrap the nuclear deal with Iran, and Iran may resume its climb up the nuclear capabilities ladder.   If this happens, it is almost certain that there will be a war, an attempt to bomb Iran into submission.   I think one side-effect will be that Shia terrorism will also start to globalize (right now only Sunni terrorism is global in scope).

7.  India's hope of export-driven economic growth will simply be dashed with the US and Europe in recession.  India's economic growth will have to be driven internally and thus will be slower than otherwise possible (but perhaps more sustainable?)  With a large chunk of the global economy in recession, India will be able to count on low prices for energy.

8. The Middle East is a major source of employment for Indians (I think annual remittances are of the order of $80 billion per year) and some of India's largest trading partners are in the region.   Things like a US-Iran war will tend to place this in some jeopardy.

9. Back to America - the US will have an extremely conservative Supreme Court for the rest of my lifetime.  We will see more guns, choice taken away from women, the further enshrinement of corporations as people with religious beliefs, free speech rights and so on.   Labor unions are going to completely wither away. Much of civil rights will devolve back to the States, and the cultural divide between the liberal coasts and the Christianist middle and south will intensify. 

10. All in all, the leadership in the world that Americans have pretty much taken for granted is going to evaporate, initially because of the uncertainty of Trump, and later possibly because of the policy Trump and the Republicans enact.


PS: The main immediate issue is the uncertainty.  Trump could boost US economic growth with a massive infrastructure program, but that requires going into deficit, which may not be politically feasible; and Trump also wants to reduce the deficit.  Trump has made a number of promises that are inconsistent, and no one knows which ones he will honor.

Rangoli 2016

Previous years.

USPS Diwali Stamp

The US Postal Service issued a Diwali stamp, a sheet of which looks like this:

Americans on Opioids

This paper from 2012 uses data from 2008 to study the Geographic Variation in Opioid Prescribing in the U.S.

Some excerpts (refer to the original paper for full details):

.....Geographic variation in prevalence of prescribed opioids is large, greater than variation observed for other healthcare services. Counties having the highest prescribing rates for opioids were disproportionately located in Appalachia and in Southern and Western states. The number of available physicians was by far the strongest predictor of amounts prescribed, but only one-third of county variation is explained by the combination of all measured factors......

Wide geographic variation that does not reflect differences in the prevalence of injuries, surgeries, or conditions requiring analgesics raises questions about opioid prescribing practices. Low prescription rates may indicate under-treatment, while high rates may indicate overprescribing and insufficient attention to risks of misuse.....

...Regression analysis was conducted to identify the correlates of prescribing prevalence at the county level....

Chief Arvol to President Obama

From here:

Chief Arvol Looking Horse to Obama: Keep Your Word

Chief Arvol Looking Horse

10/28/16

Mitakuye (my relative),

I greet you with our traditional greeting,

Mitakuye Oyasin – all things are related!

As Keeper of our Sacred C’anupa (Pipe) Bundle of the Lakota/Dakota/Nakota Nation, I address you from our original governance of our people, Woope – Creator’s Law. I am not a member of leadership under any political government, I stand in position as the center of our people, the voice of our traditional government, and so this communication is nation to nation, as indicated by our treaties. Additionally, we have over 300 flags of indigenous nations including other countries supporting our stand, because they are suffering as well.

In our honor ways, when we leave this Unc’i Maka – Grandmother Earth, the only thing we truly own is our word. When you met with our people on your campaign trail in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, you stated that you are a lawyer and understand treaty documents. You told us that you realized our treaties were violated and you would address these violations against our people if you became President. This was your Word. You then took a photo of us together at that time and then I found out you used my photo for your campaign brochure, even without asking me. I accepted you as a man of his word and ignored people asking me if I gave you permission, because I thought you understood Woope - in keeping one’s Word.

Yesterday, October 27, 2016, our Elders stood with their sacred items, including their sacred C’anupa pleading for sanity in a state of distress, and were arrested. Once we stand with our sacred filled C’anupa, we make a commitment to the Creator that we cannot break. We stand under the Freedom of Religion Act of 1978 with our Pipe of Peace and the Treaty of 1851. Our protectors had no lethal weapons, but we were met with an army of lethal weapons. In the middle of our water protectors we found a DAPL worker (infiltrator placed to discredit) who had lethal weapons, stating he was ordered to lay a pipeline, and he would shoot anyone to do just that… when asked if he was planning to shoot women and children. Yet media states he was one of our people, his credentials in his truck were from DAPL when the BIA police arrested him.

You are ignoring our pleas to use your time as President to move us toward sustainable development as fast as possible, because of our Mother Earth – our Grandmother Earth, is sick and has a fever. We as people that want to do Creator’s work to create these changes and are stuck with using oil, because it is all you have allowed to invest in to transport this country.

It is time you stop this desecration of our sacred sites, which have been indicated by our Traditional Cultural Tracker, Tim Mentz. He has been ignored by DAPL, who now have police and National Guard’s protection as they continue to desecrate our sacred places.

I would like to include a statement from our Traditional Elders Council:

We are a part of Creation; thus, if we break the Laws of Creation, we destroy ourselves
We, the Original Caretakers of Mother Earth, have no choice but to follow and uphold the Original Instructions, which sustains the continuity of Life. We recognize our umbilical connection to Mother Earth and understand that she is the source of life, not a resource to be exploited. We speak on behalf of all Creation today, to communicate an urgent message that man has gone too far, placing us in the state of survival. Not heeding warnings from both Nature and the People of the Earth keeps us on the path of self-destruction. These self-destructive activities and development continue to cause the deterioration and destruction of sacred places and sacred waters that are vital for Life.
We respect and honor our spiritual relationship with the lifeblood of Mother Earth. One does not sell or contaminate their mother’s blood. These capitalistic actions must stop and we must recover our sacred relationship with the Spirit of Water

In a Sacred Hoop of Life, where there is no ending and no beginning!

Onipiktec’a (that we shall live).
Nac’a (Chief) Arvol Looking Horse, 19th Generation Keeper of the Sacred White Buffalo Calf Pipe Bundle.

Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2016/10/28/chief-arvol-looking-horse-obama-keep-your-word-166266

Two paths through the woods

Ross Douthat, conservative columnist for the New York Times, October 2016, about American conservative intellectuals (don't laugh at the oxymoron) who have lost their way:

History does not stand still; crises do not last forever. Eventually a path for conservative intellectuals will open.

But for now we find ourselves in a dark wood, with the straight way lost.

Mahatma Gandhi, conservative Hindu, September 1929:

"The Shastras have taught us both our ideal dharma and our practical dharma....

"However, we do not seek solutions to [such] problems by regarding them as matters of absolute dharma. Relative dharma does not proceed on a straight path like a railway track. It has, on the contrary, to make its way through a dense forest where there is not even a sense of direction. Hence in this case, even one step is sufficient. Many circumstances have to be considered before the second step is taken and, if the first step is towards the north, the second may have to be taken towards the east. In this manner, although the path may appear crooked, since it is the only one which is correct, it can also be regarded as the straight one. Nature does not imitate geometry. Although natural forms are very beautiful, they do not fit in with geometrical patterns."

 Commentary:  The real world is complicated.  Gandhi acknowledges this, finds it natural.  American conservatives like Douthat do not.

Americans on Amphetamines

 How the first amphetamine epidemic came about (emphasis added):

From 2008:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2377281/
America’s First Amphetamine Epidemic 1929–1971
Am J Public Health. 2008 June; 98(6): 974–985.

The first amphetamine epidemic was iatrogenic, created by the pharmaceutical industry and (mostly) well-meaning prescribers. The current amphetamine resurgence began through a combination of recreational drug fashion cycles and increased illicit supply since the late 1980s. On the basis of treatment admissions data, methamphetamine abuse doubled in the United States from 1983 to 1988, doubled again between 1988 and 1992, and then quintupled from 1992 to 2002. According to usage surveys, during 2004, some 3 million Americans consumed amphetamine-type stimulants of all kinds nonmedically, twice the number of a decade earlier. As noted, 250000 to 350000 of them were addicted. Thus, in terms of absolute numbers, the current epidemic has now reached approximately the same extent and severity as that of the original epidemic at its peak in 1970, when there were roughly 3.8 million past-year nonmedical amphetamine users, about 320 000 of whom were addicted. (Of course, the national population then was about 200 million compared with 300 million today, meaning that in relative terms today’s epidemic is only two thirds as extensive.)

Another striking similarity between present and past epidemics relates to the role of pharmaceutical amphetamines. Although illicitly manufactured methamphetamine launched the current epidemic, in step with rising amphetamine abuse in recent years, the United States has seen a surge in the legal supply and use of amphetamine-type attention deficit medications, such as Ritalin (methylphenidate) and Adderall (amphetamine). American physicians, much more than those in other countries, apparently are again finding it difficult to resist prescribing stimulants that patients and parents consider necessary, or at least helpful, in their struggle with everyday duties. According to DEA production data, since 1995, medical consumption of these drugs has more than quintupled, and in 2005, for the first time exceeded amphetamine consumption for medical use at the epidemic’s original peak: 2.5 billion 10-mg amphetamine base units in 1969 vs 2.6 billion comparable units in 2005. Thus, just as the absolute prevalence of amphetamine abuse and dependency have now reached levels matching the original epidemic’s peak, so has the supply of medical amphetamines.

...

(Of course, the national population then was about 200 million compared with 300 million today, meaning that in relative terms today’s epidemic is only two thirds as extensive.)

and (emphasis added)

Besides iatrogenic dependence and diversion to nonmedical users, there is another way that widespread prescription of amphetamine-type stimulants can contribute to an amphetamine epidemic. When a drug is treated not only as a legal medicine but as a virtually harmless one, it is difficult to make a convincing case that the same drug is terribly harmful if used nonmedically. This is what happened in the 1960s and is presumably happening today. Thus, to end their rampant abuse, amphetamines had to be made strictly controlled substances and their prescription sharply curtailed. Today, amphetamines are widely accepted as safe even for small children, and this return of medical normalization inevitably undermines public health efforts to limit amphetamine abuse. We have not yet reached the point where up to 90% of the amphetamines sold on the street are products of US pharmaceutical firms, as the federal narcotics chief reluctantly admitted before Congress in 1970. But with half the nation’s nonmedical users evidently consuming pharmaceutical amphetamines only, the comments made by Senator Thomas Dodd in those hearings echo strongly today. America’s drug problems were no accidental development, Dodd observed; the pharmaceutical industry’s “multihundred million dollar advertising budgets, frequently the most costly ingredient in the price of a pill, have pill by pill, led, coaxed and seduced post–World War II generations into the ‘freaked out’ drug culture” plaguing the nation. Any effort to deal harshly with methamphetamine users today in the name of epidemic control, without touching medical stimulant production and prescription, is as impossible practically as in 1970—and given historical experience, even more hypocritical.

We have seen a similar opioid epidemic created in a similar way; and opioids are a gateway to heroin. 

Obviously, criminalization is not a solution, but medical normalization, removal of tight regulations, and making it socially acceptable (e.g., the way alcohol is) is not going to help either.  It is not clear to me why society cannot find getting intoxicated/getting high as socially unacceptable as body odor or even perspiration.

Not learning from history: legalization of drugs

History doesn't provide any comfort about the legalization of drugs. Per Alan Schwarz in ADHD Nation: Children, Doctors, Big Pharma and the Making of an American Epidemic, in the 1960s:

Dexedrine had become perhaps the most widely abused drug in the United States—more than hippies' marijuana, more than Timothy Leary's LSD, more than the heroin that would soon kill Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin. In the 1960s, doctors prescribed amphetamines so willingly—for weight loss, depression, all but hangnails—that an estimated four billion tablets were dispensed by American pharmacies per year, or enough for every man, woman and child in the United States to have twenty apiece.

The United States military handed out Dexedrine so freely that an estimated 7 percent of its Vietnam forces became abusers and addicts. About eight hundred thousand Americans were dependent on amphetamines, about three hundred thousand of them flat-out addicted—and many of them average housewives. These addicts weren't the young beatniks and hippies so reviled by the establishment; they were, in many cases, the establishment itself.

There was talk in about banning amphetamines in the United States altogether, its medical uses be damned. Instead the federal Controlled Substances Act placed unprecedented restrictions on the handling of addictive pharmaceuticals like Dexedrine and Ritalin. Prescribers were now required to maintain a special government license, fill out much more paperwork, and prescribe no more than a thirty-day supply at a time. Drug companies could not produce such medications in quantities higher than the government deemed clinically necessary.

It was the ultimate buzzkill. US production of amphetamine plummeted an astonishing 90 percent in only a few years. Stimulants could no longer be handed out as mere pick-me-ups for tired professionals, but only for narcolepsy or short-term weight loss. And for a children's malady just now hitting America's living rooms: minimal brain dysfunction.

Minimal brain dysfunction is simply the old name for Attention Deficity Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). The author says it is a real malady, but where about only 5% of children are actually affected by ADHD, about 15% are diagnosed with ADHD, leading to a massive over-prescription of drugs. Why?  There are simply too many perverse incentives in the system.

I expect there is a similar story behind opioids and their widespread abuse today; and in a few years, I expect the states busy legalizing pot, whether for medical purposes only or more comprehensively, will have similar findings.

FYI: alcohol use is a leading cause of death in the USA and in the world; but in the USA the deaths due to alcohol are parceled up among many different buckets to disguise that fact.  While Daniel J. Levitin's very timely book A Field Guide to Lies: Critical Thinking in the Information Age does not mention this example, it does mention the template of this lie. Levitin calls it "specious subdividing".

Suppose you work for a manufacturer of air purifies, and you're on a campaign to prove respiratory disease is the leading cause of death in the United States, overwhelming other causes like heart disease and cancer. 

 But respiratory disease is only the third leading cause of death, and doesn't make for an impressive ad campaign.  So subdivide heart disease into categories like rheumatic heart disease, hypertensive heart disease, acute myocardial infarction, and so on, and likewise with the various cancers.

By failing to amalgamate, and creating these fine subdivisions, you've done it! Chronic lower respiratory disease becomes the number one killer.  You've just earned yourself a bonus.

 

Hurricane Matthew

The forecasts are highly uncertain, but since they look highly unusual (from tropicaltidbits.com) to my eye, here they are.  This hurricane could possibly go around in a complete circle and hit Florida twice.

PCA, Neighbor-joining

This is from the 2016 Reich paper:

 The pink dots at the top of the PCA diagram are "West Eurasia".  The green dots down the side are "South Asia".  The blue dots further below are East Asia/C.A.S., clustered along with the dots for Amerindians.

The PCA diagram would lead you to believe that the green and pink are more closely related than the green and blue.   But the first two principal eigenvectors account for only 7.8% and 4.0% of the variance.   The remaining 88% of the variance is in dimensions not shown in the diagram.  It is a very high dimensional space, and perhaps the normal intuitions of distance do not apply, and that is why we see the counter-intuitive result that the group of green dots is closer connected to each other by neighbor-joining rather than some green dots being put close to some pink dots, and other green dots being put close to some blue dots.  The spread of green dots along PC2 does not preclude them from being closer to each other than to any other pink dot (the Tajik being the exception). Likewise the wide spread of the blue dots along PC2 does not preclude them from joining in one group; and finally, the green and blue join together before the green joins with the pink. 

The PCA in the 2009 Reich paper does not present how much of the variance is captured in their first two principal eigenvectors, as far as I can tell.

ANI, ASI, etc.

CIP wrote in the comments to the previous post about the 2016 Reich paper:

This is in accord with the conventional view that Europeans and Asians probably separated after leaving Africa in the Middle East. East Asians then separated from South Asians in India and Amerindians and related groups separated from East Asians much later.

Guest wrote in the comments about the 2009 Reich paper:

One, the ‘Ancestral North Indians’ (ANI), is genetically close to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans, whereas the other, the ‘Ancestral South Indians’ (ASI), is as distinct from ANI and East Asians as they are from each other. By introducing methods that can estimate ancestry without accurate ancestral populations, we show that ANI ancestry ranges from 39–71% in most Indian groups, and is higher in traditionally upper caste and Indo-European speakers. Groups with only ASI ancestry may no longer exist in mainland India. However, the indigenous Andaman Islanders are unique in being ASI-related groups without ANI ancestry.

Guest wrote this in another comment:

You are confusing the ANI and Indians who currently live in the North. All Indians studied in the Reich paper (except Andamese) are mixtures of ANI and ASI, and consequently more related to each other than to outside groups like West Eurasians. The two papers are quite consistent, and David Reich is an author on both papers.

My response:

New indications on the peopling of India

The NYT reports:

In the journal Nature, three separate teams of geneticists survey DNA collected from cultures around the globe, many for the first time, and conclude that all non-Africans today trace their ancestry to a single population emerging from Africa between 50,000 and 80,000 years ago.

The three teams are led by Eske Willersley of the University of Copenhagen (A genomic history of aboriginal Australia), David Reich of Harvard University (The Simons Genetic Diversity Project: 300 genomes from 142 diverse populations), and Mait Metspalu of the Estonian Biocentre (Genomic analyses inform on migration events during the peopling of Eurasia).

Unfortunately all the articles are behind a paywall, and a visit to the nearby university library is not in the plan for now.  The article with the most to do about anything Indian is the Reich article.

Some observations follow.