On Pot

 I suspect I've written on the subject before, but the president just pardoned everyone convicted of marijuana possession under federal law, and recommended that governors do the same with regards to state law. I noticed in the media today a poll in which a majority of Americans, a sizeable majority, favored the legalization of marijuana.

I'm ambivalent. I think the argument from alcohol and prohibition is strong. I've no experience with marijuana, though I'm open to using edibles if my arthritis gets worse. But a question: if you legalize marijuana, what else: heroin, crack, etc.?  I'm not sure where society could draw the line.

My major concern is change.  It will take some time for society to implement legalization. So far it appears that different states have taken different approaches with perhaps different results. Ideally in the eyes of this bureaucrat when the first couple states started legalizing the feds would have set up a cross-agency group (i.e DOJ, HHS, FDA, etc.) to track how the states were approaching it.  It would share experiences and study results.

We've learned to live with alcohol, not perfectly, but we accept the costs, the addictions, the accidents. But we've been coping with alcohol for decades; we may need a similar time for pot. 

Upgrading to Windows 11

 I understand Microsoft is ending the free upgrade from Win 10 to Win 11 tomorrow. So I went through the process to upgrade the desktop my wife and I share. Eventually I got it done, but next time I think I'll just buy a new desktop for her. 

Housing Codes--Needed or Not?

Some bloggers, maybe all bloggers, have a hobbyhorse.  Matt Yglesias fights against zoning codes, arguing that home prices would be lower if anyone could build anything on any land they own. [In fairness to him, I'm sure I'm exaggerating his position. 

Meanwhile FCW has a post praising the "faceless bureaucrats", which is my hobbyhorse, for their work in enforcing housing codes.  Matt hasn't commented on that.  I suppose he'd probably argue that building codes are essential,  that when he writes "build anything" he doesn't really mean "anything", but buildings built to fulfill their purpose.  That may be a slippery slope, however.

The Big Sort

[Note: I drafted this several days ago but didn't publish.  Then I wrote yesterdays post. Although I never added the links, I ]

I've played with the idea that our big sort  resulted from the proliferation of housing developments after WWII. 

Today from pieces in my two newpapers I'm more persuaded by another factor:

• The Post had a graphic showing how population had shifted--people had moved from the smaller states to the bigger states, presumably the big metropolitan areas within the states (i.e., Massachusetts, New York, DC, Texas, Florida, California.
• The Times had a graphic showing the party splits in presidential elections from 1988 to 2020.  You see some states moving to the Democrats (Virginia, Colorado, New Jersey) and some states moving to the Republicans, and other states become more of what they were before (especially Dakotas)

So my new idea is the younger Democrats are moving to economic opportunity. The nation has emphasized the value of higher education since the 1940's.  The jobs for college graduates tend to be in the bigger metropolitan areas, not in the more rural ones. 

Take a look at the rankings of states by education level.  Eyeballing the HS graduation, it looks as if the non-Southern Republican stats do very well. The South and NY (40th) are low  and CA ( is at the bottom. When you change to bachelors degrees the picture changes drastically.  NY has jumped from 40th to  10th, CA  to 14th, and the top is dominated by Democratic states.  When you go to advanced degrees the spread at the top widens a lot.

Where are the divisions? 

They identify four areas of gradually deepening division: economic inequality, political partisanship, and questions of identity relating to race, as well as gender and sexuality.

From wikipedia:

 Additionally, since the 1970s, income disparities have disproportionately increased in metropolitan areas due to the concentration of high-skilled jobs in urban zones.[10][11] For example, even though New York is the state with the highest inequality levels in the country, the upstate part of the state has a much lower rate of income inequality than the downstate, as the economy of New York City (Gini index 0.5469)[12] is highly reliant on high-salary earners.[11] States with better financial development tend to be more unequal than those with worse financial opportunities, but the trends go in the opposite directions for high-income and low-income states, with the former actually seeing more equality up to a certain level of development, beyond which the inequality rises non-linearly

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.