The Big Sort and Rural Migration

 Can't find sources for my guesses.  This is the closest, showing the ratio of women to men in rural areas went from 99.8 in 1990 to 99.0 in 2000. My guesses are:

• in the old days, women were more conservative in rural areas, men could migrate to urban areas for jobs, both manufacturing and others.
• smart rural women could find jobs as teachers.
• smart rural men went to college and ended up in jobs in urban and suburban areas.
• the sex ratio was heavier female (despite the "norwegian bachelor farmers")
• in the modern world more women go to college and end up in jobs in urban and suburban areas.
• women are now more into social issues and tending to be liberal.

The forgoing focuses on out-migration, but there's also in-migration, from suburban/rural areas to rural. I think when it happens it's generally older people, who also tend to be more conservative.

The combination of all these trends means rural areas have become less Democratic and more conservative; urban areas the opposite.

No Hemp in Texas

The dream of legal hemp, of a new crop which can save the farm, is often just a dream.  So it seems in Texas.

I remember ostrichs, and llamas, and a handful of exotic plants which were permitted on "set-aside" acreage back in the 1970's.  All dreams which turned into nightmares for those who gambled on them. 

Boundary Setting

Who knew that we have government bureaucrats worrying about our actual borders, as opposed to migration across them?  FCW had a piece  on Trump's infamous Schedule F, which described the two agencies which had reported their plans to OPM.  One was OMB, as you'd expect.  The other:

Over at the U.S. International Boundary and Water Commission, only five of the agency’s 234 employees were slated to move into Schedule F. The agency submitted its plan on Jan. 19, 2021, and OPM was unable to review the proposal before Biden rescinded the executive order.

Officials at the agency, which applies boundary and water treaties between the U.S. and Mexico, said the expedited hiring and firing offered by Schedule F was appealing to senior leaders, particularly given the location of its offices in remote locations along the southern border.

Have Rules on Agencies Sharing Data Changed?

 FCW reports on a White House deal about improving the nation's health and food situation.  Reading between the lines it sounds as if some of the plans involve USDA and other agencies sharing data so they can improve participation in USDA food programs. 

That may be mistaken, but 30 years ago there was a law restricting our ability to share data.  I wonder whether that's changed or is now being ignored, or maybe privacy advocates no longer wish to oppose such deals? 

States Rights and Bureaucracy

 Reading Dr. Deborah Brix's "Silent Invasion", her memoir of her work in the pandemic. It's basically chronological, and I'm just about 2 weeks in.

She is trying to maneuver among the various camps in the Trump administration:

• economics interests such as Sec. Mnuchin and Larry Kudlow, worried about economic impacts.
• politicos like Joe Grogan worried about political impacts.
• CDC scientists worried about science and being right.
• HHS bureaucrats who worry about implementation.
• Poli-scis, like Bob Redfield who's head of CDC and Tony Fauci, who's reluctant to get beyond the data.

Based on her experience in Pepfar--fighting HIV in Africa, she believes in the importance of data and worries about asymptomatic spread of virus.  She's also concerned about being a woman in a male world and an outsider/newcomer to the administration's effort.

Most of all she's concerned about maneuvering the players towards what she sees as important. 

A big hurdle is the lack of timely detailed data.  She explains that CDC did not require data from the states; indeed they were afraid of antagonizing state officials and had the history of coaxing them to cooperate.  I see this as fitting into a pet idea of mine--the fact that few federal government bureaucracies directly deal with citizens--FSA being one of the few. 

The Future of the Chinese Military

 Putting together this Powerline post, which includes a graph projecting China's population to 2100, which shows it crashing.  Meanwhile Mr. Kilcullen in his book notes the "little emperor" syndrome, with parents and grandpartents focusing attention on their one child/grandchild. He argues that it will make China's leaders very reluctant to incur casualties in a war. 

Sputnik and Equity

 An article on "equity", which is tl:dr, but it's a hook for a memory--we're coming up on the 55th anniversary of the launch of Sputnik, which set off a panic. The wikipedia article is rather narrowing focused. My memory is that education was impacted as well--sputnik was seen as reflecting weaknesses in US schools, particularly in math and science.  There was also a perceived lack of focus on talent; education schools were seen as under the influence of John Dewey and progressive education.

Part of the response to Sputnik was the 1958 National Defense Education Act, which included student aid and an emphasis of science.

We didn't talk about equity back then, but it seems the pendulum has swung the other way now.

Organic Cotton--Benefits Other Than Yield?

 Here's an assessment of the impact of growing organic cotton in India. It seems the  result is not higher yields (no surprise) but the benefits which are less tangible. I note the support from a number of NGO's and the psychic rewards of being involved in something of a crusade, or at least a good cause, rather than just grubbing for the added dollar.  

A cynic would believe that those who chase the monetary rewards will, in the long run, win out. 

 

Kilcullen II

 I blogged previously about David Kilcullen's book.  Not done yet. 

Interesting discussion of the Russia military, particularly in light of their performance in the Ukraine.   One striking bit is the idea of "escalate to descalate"--fast, aggressive strikes to establish a position where resistance is unlikely.  

One example was the Georgian war.  It seems as if the original Russian plan for Ukraine 2022 was the same--a fast strike to decapitate Ukrainian leadership, take Kyviv before NATO could respond.  There's also the possible use of nuclear weapons--small nukes (300 ton TNT equivalent)--use them early betting that retaliation will be hindered by the need for an alliance to coordinate.

Kilcullen describes the evolution of the Russian military since the breakup of the Soviet Union, but might have been surprised that the reforms haven't been as effective in Ukraine as they were thought to be.

Hasidic School in New York

 NYTimes recently ran an article, seeming to show that because of their political clout, Hasidic schools spend most of their time on religious subjects, slighting the basics, which mean their students, particularly boys, do not pass state exams. The article has led to a lot of discussion.

When you have a diverse society, we have a problem in drawing lines. Over my life the society has often backed off an original decision: no facial hair for military, no afros, no turbans for Sikhs, etc. The Amish do schooling up through 8th grade only, and don't participate in Social Security.  There's no problem with the hijab and the burka, the sari and the whatever, though low-slung jeans that show underwear are, or were, controversial.

There's always been controversies over books in school, not to mention the behavior of teachers.  No pregnant teachers in the past, no beards, etc. We once wanted books which embodied the Protestant version of Christianity.  I don't remember whether, when we said the Lord's Prayer every morning in my school, whether we said "debts" or "trespasses". 

There's always tension between the authority/teachings of the professional teacher and the authority/teachings of the parents (and these days, between parents who are separated or divorced).

I wonder how nations who are more diverse than the US, such as India or Indonesia, handle the lines.  I doubt we'll ever get consensus on the lines.