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.

What the Pandemic Reveals

So far it seems that the elderly and impaired in residential/nursing homes and workers in meatpacking plants are especially susceptible to the novel coronavirus and at least the former are more likely to die. 

The unseen portion of our population is the category which is now proving vulnerable in Singapore, migrant workers, those living in group quarters.

There may also be vulnerability among the Haredim, the ultra Orthodox Jews.

All of these groups are outside the what I'd call the "core" population of our society, they're marginal-they aren't who we think of when talking about American workers.

Unfortunately for meat eaters, the packinghouse workers are essential.

Do We Get More Innovation With Federalism?

There have been some stories during the pandemic focusing on local and private efforts to innovate in response.  I don't remember them all, but there have been stories on individuals sewing face masks or setting up organizations to provide help and companies changing over to produce ventilators, face mask, personal protection equipment, coronavirus tests, etc.  Nasal swabs is the most recent one I've noticed; in this case people are using 3-D printers to produce them.

As an aside, I was surprised by a mention in the article of how well-established 3-D printing had become.

Back to innovation:  I wonder whether such stories could be found in any society, the desire to help and the spirit of innovation being innate in humans?  Or does the relatively decentralized nature of American society and the federalism of our government create a favorable atmosphere for such innovation which can't be matched by most other societies?  Or is the key how advanced the economy and technology of the society?

On Reopening After the Coronavirus

The Trump administration's task force has outlined a 3 stage process to reopen the economy.The steps make sense to me.  There's pressure from various places to go faster in reopening, particularly in southern states.

My own feeling is complicated:

• there's likely some, perhaps many, things which could be reopened with minimal additional risk to propagating the virus.  I' ve tweeted the suggestion that libraries could be reopened, at least to the extent that you can put a hold on a book or DVD online, then pick it up from the library.  That process could track closely to carryout orders from restaurants.
• the problem is the trade-off between having a strong simple rule which establishes a red line and more complicated rules which are harder to understand and enforce, particularly without a bureaucracy geared to that enforcement.  Using uniformed police isn't the answer. 

Bottom line: as usual the US will muddle through.

Metaphors Again

I loved this metaphor in Gerson's column in the Post today.

Trump unfiltered is like a badly polluted canal. The scraps of narcissism, the rotten remnants of conspiracy theories, the offal of sour grievance, the half-eaten bits of resentment flow by. They do not cohere. But they move in the same, insistent current of self, self, self.

Read the whole thing.

Close Knit Networks in Cities

"Over time, density became a boon, economically, socially, intellectually. Living in a city became a way to encourage health. People could walk where they needed to go and support one another in tight-knit social networks."

That's from a NYTimes article on people leaving big cities.

Back in the day  the stereotype was that cities were the places where people were alone and lonely, finding solitude and privacy, enjoying anonymity.  At least that was one stereotype.  Another was cities were homes to ethnic groups (representing the last gasp of immigration before the restrictions of the 1924? act kicked in).  By the 60's the stereotype was of the black inner city ghetto.  

Perhaps it's true that for WASP migrants from the rural areas and suburbs the cities represented a freedom from small-minded prejudices and rigid social norms enforced by the community, or at least it was true enough for a sufficient number of writers for them to perpetuate the stereotype. 

Anyhow, things change.