What names are most common for partisans?
The most Democratic-enrolled first names in New York: Maria, Jose, Elizabeth, Jennifer, Sarah, Jessica, David, Mary, Carmen, Emily.
The most Republican-enrolled first names in New York: Thomas, John, Joseph, Frank, Robert, Salvatore, Scott, Donald, Vincent, Dominick.
* Calculated by this SQL:
SELECT *
FROM ( ( pivot
(
SELECT firstname,
enrollment,
count(*) AS ct
FROM nov24voter.parquet
GROUP BY fristname,
enrollment) ON enrollment USING sum(ct)) ORDER BY dem-rep DESC LIMIT 10;
Because of the partisan gender gap, there are no women in the top 10 names for enrolled Republicans. But in case if you are wondering what the most Republican women first names in New York State – Irina, Tammy, Svetlana, Gianna, Alla, Lyudmila, Galina, Yelena, Inna, Larisa.
Republican women in New York tend to be either Russian or Italians, or in the case of Tammy, I’m thinking probably older and rural.
Should steel cans be a steal? 🥫
Lately there has been a lot of concern about how tariffs could raise prices. It’s no different then the argument that government regulations and business taxes raise prices, and while it’s a legitimate debate, one could also argue that steel — and materials more generally — are too cheap.
Does the United States really need to manufacture and throw away 135 billion cans every year? Maybe that should be the discussion. That’s a lot of cans, that could be avoided by choosing alternative packaging, or better yet foods that do not require packaging. A lot of canned goods are loaded with salt and other unhealthy ingredients, and arguably are too cheap and convenient to buy and consume.
Even the idea of a tin can is a misnomer in the modern era. Almost all tin cans are steel, not primarily tin, and lined most commonly with polycarbonate which contains Bisphenol-A (BPA) that is known be harmful for human health. The BPA-free cans often have a different bisphenol in that is likely as harmful to heath. Some tins cans contain a thin layer of tin, especially if the food is acidic and would eat away the polycarbonate coating inside. That also makes it a mess for recycling, which only about 65% of cans produced in any year recycled. While the steel might be recovered, all of the polycarbonate is going up the stack of smelter and the tin is being lost as slag. Recycling is hardly a closed loop system. Not to mention all those old farm dumps you find in the woods filled up with rusted old cans.
The truth is raising the price of cans is likely only going to add a few pennies onto the cost of canned goods. But it might make people buy less of them, and that is good for everybody besides the canned good industry. There are better alternatives that have less packaging, like dried beans and lentils that can be cooked at home in the evening or morning for later use. Or fresh fruits and vegetables, especially those produced close to home in season. Or even frozen fruits and vegetables, which while packaged in plastic, are far less waste then what you get when you buy them in a can, even if the can is supposedly recyclable. Often flash-frozen fruits and vegetables are sold in large bags compared to all material and energy consumed in a smaller-canned portion.
We have to fund the government somehow. A few pennies tax on tin cans in the form of a tariff isn’t a bad way to do it. It will encourage the use and consumption of fewer throw-away cans, in favor of alternative ways of cooking that healthier for both ourselves and the planet. And the evidence is pretty clear that taxes on consumption are vastly superior to income and capital gains taxes, which discourage economic growth rather then discouraging waste.
Climate Change.
One of the problems I think there is with climate change, is it’s discussion has become fraught with self-evident truth. The assumption is that if you believe in the science of climate change, that it’s self-evident that you must believe in radical action to address it. You can’t be numb to human suffering after all, can you? Maybe so.
I am a believer in science, but at the same time, I’m a practical person. Infrastructure take decades to evolve, and while we should do more to reduce the carbon intensity of our society, and ultimately work towards the goal of reducing emissions, I don’t think the necessary reductions to fully limit the worse impacts of climate change is even realistic. Instead of planning to do what we can do to limit the worse impacts of climate change, we should look more broadly at what we can do to reduce the harm more broadly both by reductions in emissions and adapting our infrastructure.
Many of the impacts of climate change are well studied. When we are upgrading or repairing damaged infrastructure we most certainly should look at the science and work to minimize future harm. We obviously should not be building new large coal plants, and building new renewable generation were ecologically appropriate. We should continue to improve the efficiency on new automobiles and appliances, and work to expand the electric automobile and transit fleet where practical.
