Sweden Lunches at Neighbors

 This thing about a neighbor's child not eating at a nearby home is oldish. I don't remember ever eating at a neighbor's house when I was young, or vice versa.  There weren't many children in my neighborhood in the first place.  In the second, I think the common expectation was that meals were at a set time and you were expected to go home to eat. 

Ken Feinberg

 Saw the movie "Worth", which is based on Kenneth Feinberg's work administering compensation for victims of 9/11, and his book.

They juiced the movie by focusing on people and incidents, as movies do, but both are good.

The book is interesting from a bureaucratic standpoint--though Feinberg doesn't say so, he goes through the classic steps of American bureaucracy (for a distribution program*), reading the law (very general), meeting management (Attorney General Ashcroft and DOJ), writing regulations, creating forms to gather data, then selling the program, accepting some as participants, disqualifying others, then dealing with the friction between the bureaucratic model and the real reality, and finally issuing checks.

Feinberg had some experience before 9/11 with mediating and doing compensation, but afterwards he handled many more such situations.  It's interesting, because he doesn't endorse the 9/11 process as an example, particularly the use of "economic value" of a life, an after-the-fact life insurance program.  

* My government professor, Theodore Lowi, had categorized government programs into: redistribution, regulation, and distribution.

Jan 6 Hearing Starts

 I don't have high expectations for the Jan 6 committee's work to change many minds. Those who oppose the former guy may watch; those who (incredibly) love him won't. 

Why I Don't Believe in Great (White) Replacement Theory

 It's true that the current white majority of Americans will diminish as we accept more immigrants from areas other than Europe, and as new immigrants tend to have a higher birth rate than non-immigrants.

I expect "whites" to continue to be a plurality of the country for the foreseeable future because:

• immigration will ease somewhat as the non-European world becomes richer
• immigrant birth rates will converge to the rates of non-immigrants
• the definition of "whites" will change and expand as it has in the past.  Acculturation (loss of accents, etc.) and intermarriage will see to that.  

I expect the culture to continue to be "white", although with changes as the world changes. I think you can still see the imprint of the early white settlers, especially in New England but also in the South, for good and bad on the culture and beliefs of America.  I think that will continue. 

I might have a different opinion if the "replacements' represented one culture, but they don't.  Wherever you look there's variety among the immigrants: Asians from many different countries; Latinos from many different countries; Africans and Afro-Caribbeans from different countries. As they arrive, we lump them together, and they in part accept the lumping. But the differences continue for decades.  It's taken more than my lifetime for the differences betwee the WASPs and Eastern/Southern European immigrants after the Civil War to lose their power. 

It's not like Eire and Northern Ireland or Israel, where you have two groups, one majority that's shrinking, the other a minority that's growing.  That's a much dicier situation, harder to keep calm and more likely, I think, to see a "replacement" occur (though I suspect the cultural differences between Catholics and Protestants, Jews and Arabs are less than those among our immigrants.

See this Post article

All the Little Silos

 The Times has an article on the high-tech weaponry reaching Ukraine and the problems associated with it. Some of the technology is striking, particularly the laser range finder, which works at night, uses GPS and provides targeting coordinates. 

 Mostly it's lack of trained personnel, but in the case of the range finder it's also the lack of a tripod and monitor, the auxiliary tools to make it work smoothly.

But what I found blog-worthy were the incidental mentions of the various silos which humans have erected. 

For example, the long range howitzers the US just provided are built according to US measuring systems (our "imperial" system, aka inch/foot), not the metric system Ukraine and the rest of the world uses (every country except Liberia and Myamar), That means to perform maintenance and/or repair them the mechanic needs US tools, wrenches, not Ukrainian. 

The range finder uses NATO grid coordinates, not the Soviet system Ukraine has, so a conversion is necessary. 

Of course the howitzers and other technology come complete with manuals--the military is great on manuals.  And everyone knows English, of course. (Apparently Google Translate has been helpful to break through this silo wall.)

Elsewhere in the media there's been another mention of the problem of different railroad gauges complicating the export of grain by rail through Poland.

What Did Historians Make of Muskie's (Supposed) Tears?

 Bob Somerby doesn't have a high opinion of the media, or of liberal thinkers, usually.  Sometimes his posts are tedious, but sometimes not.

Because he's close to my age, Harvard-educated, and former Baltimore schoolteacher, I read him.

Today's post discusses the episode of Muskie's tears, back when he was the leading contender for the 1972 Democratic nomination, having done a good job as Humphrey's VP partner in 1968.  Part of the Watergate investigation revealed/highlighted  Nixon's dirty tricks campaign against Muskie.  Woodward and Bernstein discussed it in yesterday's Post as part of their 50th anniversary piece on Watergate.

I remember both the report of Muskie's "tears" when he spoke defending his wife, and the dirty tricks campaign, as well as the Waldman piece in the Post this century which Bob covers. 

I've wondered over the years what today's historians have made of the story. By today's standards Muskie's defense of his wife is goodish, his vulnerability if he actually cried should not have been disqualifying, the question of whether he actually cried and whether the reporters/media types handled it correctly makes it too complicated to cover briefly.  That's assuming they understand the story. But when I'm cynical I'm guessing it's the sort of factoid which isn't closely examined; it just gets added to the text to provide color, etc. 

Is my cynicism correct?

What's Watergate? Teapot Dome?

 I quote from a NYTimes piece on a focus group, asking Americans about various topics.

The first response when Nixon and Watergate is raised:

"I don’t think it gets taught enough. My high school students, when they think of Watergate, they think it’s a new shower head or something. It’s a time in our history that shows the demise of a leader who was taking advantage of the American people, as well as the government itself. I’ve never heard the kids coming home and saying, “Oh, we learned about Watergate.”

My wife and I roared with laughter.

Stanford Research on Farm Programs and Politics

 Here's a Stanford Phd candidate doing research on the relationship between participation in farm programs and political views.

How to Build Infrastructure and State Capacity

 Ezra Klein has an essay on building government infrastructure. Some thoughts on the topic, most unrealistic in today's polity:

• review and revise the statistical infrastructure. As I've written before, my guess is that the various statistical agencies of the government are operating in the context of yesterday's world. Because statistics is a boring subject, it doesn't attract much controversy or oversight.  
• there's lots of real-time data out there, as we're reminded regularly in articles voicing concerns about consumer privacy.  Can the government tap that?
• concerns about privacy mean that the census and other reports anonymized--is there a better approach to this?
• what gaps in statistical coverage have developed as the economy has changed over the last 40 years? 
• Jimmy Carter had a vision for changing the federal personnel system with the Senior Executive Service, making it more like the UK system.  IMO it's not worked as it was supposed to. 
• Slowly slowly the government is moving towards more standardization with gov.id and the US Digital Service. Maybe over many years the US will approach the UK in the degree of uniformity in govt sites.
• Probably should be more interaction between the various associatons of state and local government entities and the federal govt.  I'm just vaguely aware that such associations exist--like state legislature, county govts, sheriffs, etc. Possibly there is some formal interface which I don't know about
• Trying to encourage more standardization of state and local government operations would help, as shown by the problems with the unemployment insurance systems during the pandemic recession.
• Maybe giving each legal resident a no-charge banking account and govt email account  would be good.
• 
  

Assault Weapon Ban?

 Statistia has an article on an assault weapon ban, including links to studies, like this Stanford one on the effect of the Clinton 1994 ban, which expired after 10 years. 

The sunset provision was likely a compromise to get it passed.  I wonder if it would have worked to include a criteria in such legislation--i.e., specifying that if after 10 years there was a decline in fatalities the law would continue, if not, it would end?

Biden is speaking tonight, presumably to urge passage of something which will disappoint gun safety advocates and irk those in gun advocacy organizations. 

An interesting advance in 3-D printing described in the paper today--using a person's own cells to print an ear, inserted beneath the skin (person's one ear was small and misformed).  In terms of guns, it shows how 3-D printing is advancing, reminding me of the "ghost guns".  Technology may have already outstripped any law which can be passed, at least in my lifetime.