The Prospects for Polygamy →

Now admittedly, that last one is an outlier: Support for plural matrimony rose to 16 percent from 7 percent, a swift rise but still a very low number. Polygamy is bobbing forward in social liberalism’s wake, but it’s a long way from being part of the new permissive consensus.
Whether it will eventually get there is an interesting question. Many social conservatives argue that it will — that the now-ascendant model of marriage as a gender-neutral and easily-dissolved romantic contract offers no compelling grounds for limiting the number of people who might wish to marry. And conservatives do have a pretty good track record (the consolation prize of cultural defeat) when it comes to predicting how the logic of expressive individualism unfolds.
At the same time, social change happens sociologically, not just logically, and as a social phenomenon polygamy is very different than same-sex marriage. It’s associated with patriarchy and sexual abuse, rather than liberation and equality. It flourishes in self-segregated communities, Mormon-fundamentalist and Muslim-immigrant, rather than being widely distributed across society. Its practitioners (so far as we know) are considerably fewer in number than the roughly 3.5 percent of Americans who identify as gay or bisexual.
And while some polygamists may feel they were “born this way,” their basic sexual orientation is accommodated under existing marriage law even if the breadth of their affections isn’t, which makes them less sympathetic than same-sex couples even if their legal arguments sound similar...
So it’s hard to imagine polygamy being embraced as a major progressive cause or hailed as the next great civil rights movement.

Major test on voter equality set for review →

The usual choice considered by legislatures is to make districts more or less equal by dividing up shares of the state’s total population, or, as an alternative, to draw lines based upon some measure of the voting members of the population — such as the numbers actually registered to vote.
Two Texas voters, who wound up in state senate districts where they say their votes will count less than the votes in another district even though each of those districts has about the same total number of people, argued that this contradicts the “one-person, one-vote” guarantee of voter equality.  Their votes would have counted equally, they contended, if the legislature instead had used voting-age population as the measure.
The voters, Sue Evenwel, who lives in Titus County in Senate District 1, and Edward Pfenninger, who lives in Montgomery County in District 4, said their votes were diluted because of the disparity between the two measures as applied to those districts, where more of the people vote proportionally.  Both districts are rural.  Other, more urban districts have proportionally fewer registered voters, so the redistricting plan based on actual population is said to give those who do vote more weight — that is, fewer of them can control the outcome.

The Rich Like "Free Trade" Because It Is Not Free Trade →

Brendan Nyhan had an interesting piece in the NYT's Upshot section in which he discussed how "free trade" policies get pushed by presidents and approved by Congress even though most middle income and lower income people are opposed to them. Nyhan refers to research showing that wealthier people overwhelmingly support "free trade," and politicians are likely to act in ways that reflect their views even when this means going against the majority.
While this is interesting and important research, it misses an important part of the story. Our trade agreements have not been about liberalizing trade in all areas, as Nyhan asserts. While trade policy has been quite explicitly designed to put U.S. manufacturing workers in direct competition with low paid workers in the developing world, it has largely left in place or even increased the protections that keep doctors and other highly paid professsionals from other countries from working in the United States.
Trade theory predicts enormous economic gains from allowing freer trade in these professionals, but because trade policy is designed largely by and for wealthy people, removing barriers to foreign professionals working in the United States rarely gets on the agenda in trade deals. Unfortunately it also doesn't get mentioned in the media's discussion of the issue either.

Water Revolution in Israel Overcomes Any Threat of Drought →

A few points worth noting from the article: water's a big deal in the Middle East, and Israel, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan have come to blows (and/or nearly so) a few times over it; desalination is looking more economically viable (though its environmental effects are still unknown; power, at least, could come from renewables, as wind and solar prices become competitive with fossil fuels); as one Israeli farmer puts it, at least the way Israeli politics have gone, the money is going to the major desalination corporation (for the next 25 years!), shifting incentives (and public scrutiny) away from the public utilities.

The Federal Reserve Board Is Much More Likely to Take Your Job Than a Robot, so Naturally the Media Are Talking About Robots →

Quoted in full:

Today's culprit is National Public Radio. The point here is extremely simple. We know how fast robots and other technologies are replacing workers. In fact the Bureau of Labor Statistics measures it quarterly, it's called "productivity growth."
Productivity growth has actually been very slow in the last decade, as in the opposite of robots stealing our jobs. But hey, why should news outlets be limited by data?
By contrast, if the Fed starts raising interest rates, it can prevent millions of people from getting jobs over the next few years. This will also keep tens of millions from getting pay raises since a weak labor market will reduce their bargaining power. But hey, why bother listeners and readers with this stuff, let's have another piece on those nifty robots.

Sunnis Fleeing ISIS Find Few Doors Open Elsewhere in Iraq →

With new waves of civilians fleeing violence in Anbar there are now more internally displaced Iraqis, nearly three million, than there were at the height of the bloody sectarian fighting that followed the American invasion, when millions of Iraqis were able to flee to Syria. That door is closed because of that country’s own civil war. And now doors in Iraq are closing, too, worsening sectarian tensions as the Shiite authorities restrict where fleeing Sunnis can seek safety.

Left Field →

Looking at the Democratic primary as a movie, a film critic might say that Sen. Bernie Sanders is a little “on-the-nose” as an antagonist to Hillary Clinton. He is her reverse. Where Hillary is well-known (and to many women, an icon), he is obscure. Where she embodies the establishment, he is on its outskirts, a self-identified “socialist” from the liberal enclave of Burlington, Vermont. Where she gives six-figure speeches, he is among the “poorest” members of the Senate with a net worth of roughly $460,000. She plans to run a $2 billion campaign; he hopes to raise $50 million.
And where Clinton is in the middle of the mainstream, Sanders has been an iconoclast for decades. As a House member, he co-founded the Congressional Progressive Caucus, opposed both wars in Iraq, and voted against the Patriot Act. As a senator for Vermont since 2007, he’s criticized the bank bailouts, voted against Tim Geithner’s nomination for Treasury Secretary, and gave a nearly nine-hour speech against a partial extension of the Bush tax cuts.
Now, as a candidate in the Democratic nomination race, he’s an advocate for the left wing of the party. “I am not running against Hillary Clinton,” he said in a recent interview with the Washington Post. Instead, he’s launching a crusade—against inequality, against Wall Street, and against the “billionaire class” that he claims dominates American politics. “Billionaire families are now able to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to buy the candidates of their choice,” he says on his campaign website. “These people own most of the economy. Now they want to own our government as well.”