The White House just released a really good executive order on cleaning up America's streets, re-institutionalizing insane people, and ending open air drug abuse and the problems it creates.
Here's a quick overview🧵
The first section is the one I'm most excited for. An alternative name for it could be "Bring Back The Asylums"
It instructs the administration to make it possible to involuntarily commit crazy people again
That crazy hobo pushing a cart full of urine bottles? He's going away!
The next section is one that you'll need to familiarize yourself with if you're interested in 'what happens next'.
This was a never achieved goal in Trump-I.
The idea is to compel cities to do what you want by withholding, barring, and giving discretionary funds for compliance.
So, for example, one idea that has made its way through the whisper networks is to compel cities to adopt housing plans and to build more homes by taking away all possible federal funds if they don't
Upzone? Here, have money
Stagnate? No soup for you
Downzone? Fighting words
This will be the first attempt at actually making this happen.
The grantees who will be preferred by this program will be those that
Don't let people use drugs in public, don't let hobos set up tents and mill about, don't let people squat in homes that aren't theirs...
Preferred grantees will be those who try to lock up insane hobos, and
Actually comply with using sex offender registries.
You might not have known, but a lot of hobos are sex offenders with criminal histories. You won't find their 'address' listed though, since they lack one.
This section also instructs the AG to make federal criminals subject to evaluation as sex pests who can be involuntarily committed
It also says to start doing things to stop the catch-and-release game that's played with crazy people, where they're let out due to 'lack of space'
The next section cuts off the infinite spigot of pointless funding for so-called "harm reduction" programs that keep people using drugs 'safely' instead of seeking real treatment
This section also funds assistance for commitment, comprehensive services, and crisis interventions
You might ask yourself:
Where's the court capacity to do all of this?
Not a worry: The EO funds the expansion of drug and mental health courts.
The last section begins by calling for an end to "Housing First" programs.
These are programs that seek to get homeless people into homes prior to getting them into treatment for their mental health and drug abuse issues.
They often lead to wasted public funds.
A recurring theme in all this is that the administration wants homelessness programs to be more effective.
For too long now, programs have failed to push people into treatment. But now that's required.
The Order also calls for prosecuting people who run programs that facilitate drug use.
This admin wants a cold turkey stop to drug use, no more excuses and partial-measures that don't resolve the issue. They want people to toughen up and end soft approaches.
The final part of the order demands recipients of grants for homelessness provide data where requested to make programs work better.
And this part, which shouldn't need to be said: stop sex offenders from being housed with unrelated children.
This Order is bound to make a lot of people upset
People have terrible theories about homelessness that signal all sorts of perverse psychodrama and mandate programs fail in predictable ways
Smart people tend to earn higher educations and higher incomes, and to work in more prestigious occupations.
This holds for people from excellent family backgrounds (Utopian Sample) and comparing siblings from the same families!
This is true, meaningful, and the causal relationship runs strongly from IQ to SES, with little independent influence of SES. Just look at how similar the overall result and the within-family results are!
But also look at fertility in this table: quite the reverse!
The reason this is hard to explain has to do with the fact that kids objectively have more similar environments to one another than to their parents.
In fact, for a cultural theory to recapitulate regression to the mean across generations, these things would need to differ!
Another fact that speaks against a cultural explanation is that the length of contact between fathers and sons doesn't matter for how correlated they are in status.
We can see this by leveraging the ages parents die at relative to said sons.
The internet gives everyone access to unlimited information, learning tools, and the new digital economy, so One Laptop Per Child should have major benefits.
The reality:
Another study just failed to find effects on academic performance.
This is one of those findings that's so much more damning than it at first appears.
The reason being, laptop access genuinely provides people with more information than was available to any kid at any previous generation in history.
If access was the issue, this resolves it.
And yet, nothing happens
This implementation of the program was more limited than other ones that we've already seen evaluations for though. The laptops were not Windows-based and didn't have internet, so no games, but non-infinite info too
So, at least in this propensity score- or age-matched data, there's no reason to chalk the benefit up to the weight loss effects.
This is a hint though, not definitive. Another hint is that benefits were observed in short trials, meaning likely before significant weight loss.
We can be doubly certain about that last hint because diabetics tend to lose less weight than non-diabetics, and all of the observed benefit has so far been observed in diabetic cohorts, not non-diabetic ones (though those directionally show benefits).
The reason why should teach us something about commitment
The government there has previously attempted crackdowns twice in the form of mano dura—hard hand—, but they failed because they didn't hit criminals hard enough
Then Bukele really did
In fact, previous attempts backfired compared to periods in which the government made truces with the gangs.
The government cracking down a little bit actually appeared to make gangs angrier!
You'd have been in your right to conclude 'tough on crime fails', but you'd be wrong.
You have to *actually* enforce the law or policy won't work. Same story with three-strike laws, or any other measure
Incidentally, when did the gang problems begin for El Salvador? When the U.S. exported gang members to it