Legislating Good Norms

Our current president has broken a lot of the norms and a few of the laws which existed before 2017.  One of the tasks of whoever succeeds him will be to figure out how to return to those norms.  One pathway is for Congress to pass and the president to sign laws which have that effect.  One such effort is already under way, as described in this post from FCW.  Rep. Porter is proposing to tighten the rules on "acting" officials.  President Trump has admitted he likes to have acting officials so he has more power: he can intimidate them more easily and fire them if they won't bend.  In normal times presidents and Congress acted reasonably quickly to fill most vacancies, although they were instances where a Senate would put a hold on a nominee in order to pressure the administration to take some particular action.

My opinion of Porter'sbill: we shouldn't have needed it but we do. The bureaucracy does not work well with "acting"officials at the top.

On Fences and Hedgerows

Here's an article on hedgerows in the UK. 

I remember visiting North Carolina ASCS offices with the district director (this was 1968 or 9) and noticing some barbed wire fences (not many in the tobacco-growing area) with the wire on the outside of the posts.  I was struck because in NY we put the wire on the inside; dad explained it meant that cows pushing against the wire were pushing against the post, while if it were on the outside they would be forcing the staple out of the wood.

Years later I learned the difference related to the way agriculture developed in the Northeast versus the South.  In the Northeast livestock were fenced in; field crops were attractive to livestock.  In the South livestock, especially hogs, were left to roam free, field crops of tobacco and cotton weren't attractive to livestock, fields of corn etc. that were attractive were protected by fencing out.

Now I'm guessing the use of hedgerows in the UK reflects the relative scarcity of wood--no split rail fences there,  the fact that fields developed long before barbed wire became available, and the development of a historic pattern.  Hedgerows would seem to require a long lead time to grow; not like a fence which can go up in a few days.  So if farms have been around for centuries, there was time for hedgerows to develop.

Superspreader Individuals or Situations

Megan McArdle offered this thought in a thread commenting on an elaborate analysis of probabilities (too elaborate for me to even try to follow):

Over the long term, I think this stuff matters less; if you remain open, in any moderate population center, a superspreader will find you. But early in the epidemic, a random walk will make some places look smart and others look dumb, purely by chance.

— Megan McArdle (@asymmetricinfo) May 4, 2020

I can venture to comment on this, however.  The assumption here seems to be that "superspreading" is a function of an individual (think Typhoid Mary perhaps, but not necessarily asymtomatic).  That's certainly been my understanding from the past. 

But in the context of this new pandemic, I ran across an interesting report by someone who tried to assemble worldwide reports of mass contagion and then to analyze common features. I may have mentioned this before.  The features were crowds plus intimate contact and/or a lot of vocal activity--cheers, shouts, etc. 

One would think we could rely on people to avoid such situations, although when you look at the rallies protesting against lock-downs you have to wonder.  But in principle avoiding such situations is easier than identifying potential superspreaders.  It's likely unknowable currently to determine the proportion of total infections occurring from superspreader individuals, versus crowd contagion, versus individual contact.

Comparing to Whom?

I don't think I posted during the Kavanaugh confirmation process, except to predict it wouldn't matter much in 2020.  Now Biden is facing questions on his past, and the right is accusing the left of inconsistency, of applying a different standard to Biden than Kavanaugh.

Let me opine;

• first, the context.  In the Kavanaugh case the issue was whether to confirm him to a life position on the basis of known facts, and some allegations.  In the Biden case there are two possible framings: either he's just a candidate for the Dem nomination, and therefore the Dems should choose someone else, or at least investigate more, OR he's the Dem nominee in all but name and the issue is whether to vote for him or someone else in November. I think the latter position is more logical, as well as favoring my "priors". Sanders is the logical alternative to Biden as nominee, but he's my least favorite.  A dispute over who replaces Biden would kill chances to win the presidency IMO.
• In my mind some of the "We Too" movement is what was called "pour encourager les autres". In other words, we're trying to establish new social norms by levying punishments which, in some cases, are disproportionate to the crime.  I'd view Al Franken's case in that light. If he had apologized at the time of the incidents and the woman accepted it, that would have closed the case.  Even if she didn't accept it, it wouldn't be a problem for a future political career.  You have to distinguish between Franken and Weinstein or Cosby, who were accused and convicted of actual crimes. 
• The distinction between contemporaneous incidents, where the response by the victim and possibly law enforcement quickly follows the incident, and the asynchronous ones, where the victim comes forward well after the incident is important.
• Biden's touchy-feely episodes, for which he's apologized, seem not to have been crimes but breaches of good behavior as now understood. 
• The Tara Reade incident would have been a crime when committed, although a recourse to HR and not the police would be the usual response, I think.
• In judging the evidence as between the Kavanaugh and Biden cases these seem relevant:

1. alcohol involved in the Kavanaugh case on both sides, perhaps explaining behavior but also blurring memories.
2. no other accusers of Biden, which if it continues, is strong evidence--as in the Franken case once the ice is broken other people come forward.  Even with Kavanaugh others came forward.
3. the scenario for Kavanaugh drunken teenagers in an otherwise empty house seems more likely than groping in an office building presumably with other people in it.
4. Dr. Ford seems to have been more consistent with her story than Ms Reade, and her life has been smoother than Reade's.  That's classist, yes, so be it.
5. Reade has told more people her story at different times, though it's not clear how many times she alleged digital penetration. Without that there could have been a touchy-feely incident at the core of the story.
6. "Me too" movement and Biden goes too far when saying the woman must be believed: the story must be heard and carefully weighed.
7. While the difficulty of searching Biden's 1800 boxes of records can be exaggerated, assuming his office manager was well organized, I doubt the worth of doing the research.  A manager of interns and mail is likely to pass through an office without leaving much written history.

So my bottom line is I support Biden and will vote for him.  On treatment of women, Biden's record with women is much much much better than Trump's.  Indeed, on everything his record is better than Trump's.

The Wearing of Hats

One of the things which fascinate me is the wearing of hats in the US.

If you look at pictures showing massed men in the 1920's/30's, as in unemployment lines or baseball stadiums, you see all the men wearing hats.  There also seems to be a lot of uniformity in dress, like business suits, but the hats are the easiest to see.

Recently I noticed a picture of Abraham Lincoln addressing a crowd, I think the 2nd Inaugural, and noticed his audience was also wearing hats.  The picture wasn't as clear as more modern ones, but it looks as if there's a bit less uniformity in the types of hats being worn.  In another photograph his audience in front is hat wearing, the big shots behind him are hat carrying, mostly top hats.

When you google "when did American men stop wearing hats" the first result is an Esquire article saying hat wearing started to decline in the later 1920's.  Why--perhaps because more people were in cars so they were less needed and some were more awkward to wear.

This NPR page has good comparison pictures and blames Ike but also cars.

Neither of the pieces comment on the change which seems apparent to me--fewer hats correlates with greater variety in menswear.

What About Dispersion Measures of Height

Scholars in recent years have researched heights of different populations, being dependent on the rare instances when a government recorded the heights of individuals and the records survived.  Economic historians have used the data to support hypotheses about the prosperity of societies at different times, on the theory that if height increases over time, it means the people are better fed and so can realize more of their genetic potential.

I find that interesting.  I may have mentioned previously on this blog occasions when I notice a group of individuals from different countries seeming to have the same height.  For example, soldiers in various Asian countries or dancers in different ballet groups. I'd add another group: Latino laborers in the US.  It seems these days most workers on road building/repairing or building construction are Latino, and visually there seems not be little variation in height.

I assume that the lack of variation reflects a restricted diet, that Latinos have  genes which would  permit same variability in height as other populations groups, given an abundant diet.  So with all that, I wonder whether any of the researchers have figured out the distribution of heights over the population.

Trump Obeys the Law

Or at least his OMB director does--the administration is required by law to begin preparing for a transition.  According to this GovExec piece, they're doing so. Given their actions after Trump won, I'm a bit surprised.  It remains to be seen whether it's more than a pro forma exercise.

Top Three National/World Events in My Life?

Someone on twitter asked the question, specifying 9/11 and the coronavirus as two, and excluding anyone who might say Nixon's resignation. That got me thinking.  It's not clear what sort of criteria one would use--the emotional impact, the impact on the nation or the world, the significance?

Depending on the criteria, these events might qualify for my top three:

1. Soviet H-bomb
2. JFK assassination
3. Moon landing
4. Nixon's resignation
5. Oil embargo
6. Reagan's election
7. 9/11
8. Great recession
9. Covid19

The first item on the list is there because it, and the fall of China to the Communists were the two events I remember and halfway understood which had world impact. The others are fairly self-explanatory.  The list is notable for nothing on civil rights, Vietnam, or feminism; those were less definable as events than most of the others (although neither the pandemic nor the Great Recession were less definable than the others.

Iron Triangle: I Was Wrong

Soon after the 2016 election we had lunch with cousins we hadn't met before, and the future under our new president was a topic of conversation.  As a longtime Washington resident I offered my opinion, partly shaped by my experience and partly by my long-ago college education. My government courses had included the concept of the "iron triangle", a congruence of interests among government bureaucrats in an agency, members of Congress with a particular interest in the agency's operations, and lobbyists/NGO's. 

I argued that the iron triangle would limit the amount of change Trump could effect.

I was wrong.  And I think the iron triangle concept is limited.  The iron triangle works fine in situations where the NGO's, Congress and the agency can work together to advance their interests, taking positive action.  I think the concept was developed at a time where you could say the farm lobby, farm Congressmen, and USDA agencies could work together in what was called the "farm bloc".

I think the 3.25 years of the Trump administration have shown bigger change is possible:

• for many agencies there's deep disagreement among the relevant NGO's and Congressmen--the divide between the "ins" and the "outs" has gotten much bigger, so there's more energy to change direction in EPA, Interior, etc.
• Congress has given itself new tools, specifically the Congressional Review Act, to reverse agency actions, while SCOTUS seems more and more likely to limit agency discretion.
• personnel makes a difference.  In the old days, the "ins" and "outs" would alternate and with each having expertise and, to some extent, an indoctrination in agency culture. With the Trump administration there seems to be less of that, perhaps because people (as is the case with foreign policy) reluctant to serve under the President. 
• the president, through force of personality and unique traits, and lack of experience with governing is willing and able to break old norms.
• the base of support for the president packs a lot more anger and energy than a president's base usually has.: 

What's Most Dangerous Today?

An interesting essay which tried to identify superspreader events and tease out commoalities among them. https://quillette.com/2020/04/23/covid-19-superspreader-events-in-28-countries-critical-patterns-and-lessons/

From his summary:

"When do COVID-19 SSEs happen? Based on the list I’ve assembled, the short answer is: Wherever and whenever people are up in each other’s faces, laughing, shouting, cheering, sobbing, singing, greeting, and praying."

I take this to mean that sporting events in the ways we're used to will be slow to resume. On the other hand, ordinary work should be quicker to resume. 

How about education--the theory being people can't go back to work if the schools are not open?  That's more difficult.