Put the Dog Out of Its Misery

 I'm not usually this harsh, but I've never ever been impressed by USA.gov.

As the spokesman in this FCW article says: 

""Right now, one of the things that happens is that people go to USA.gov and then we refer people, but it would be ideal, I think … for people to just be able to get stuff done, right there on USA.gov,"

I've always found Google to be a better search engine.  I don't see the point of spending money to improve the site.  It will be a long time before we have one access point for government that works well.  I've only to look at farmers.gov, which tries to be an access point for USDA agencies serving the farmer.  The problem is that it reproduces the silos of USDA.

Changing Views of Left and Right--Possible Images

 What sort of image do we have of our society and the left and right?  Often I think it's as if society is there, a platform or a landscape, while left and right act over time, moving one way or another. 

But is that a good image. After all society is people, as are left and right, so society can move as well. 

What's an alternative image: perhaps a crowd, some wearing red, some wearing blue, the majority, the less politically involved, wearing gray.  So you take a snapshot in 1960 of the crowd and you see the reds and blues scattered through the crowd. Take another snapshot today and you see the reds clustered together, the blues clustered-they've both become more cohesive. 

But that image doesn't reflect  a society's movement. Maybe an image is Hawaii, where the continental plate moves over a volcanic hot spot, which creates the various island.  In this image "society" would be all the people, the economy, laws, etc. So society could change because of innovations in technology, in the rest of the world etc.  Meanwhile there would be two "hot spots"; each representing a temperament which seems to be common in people at large: one conservative, one liberal.

That covers the fact there always seems to be a left and a right, a conservative and a liberal faction. And it allows for the fact that conservatives in the 1950's could be strong supporters of segregation, while conservatives today are opposed to racial segregation.

Don't know, maybe I need to think more.

Changing Views of Right and Left--Personal

Twitter activity on how left and right have changed, as here:

The thing about @NateSilver538’s argument here is that a Musk-owned Twitter would subsequently attract conservatives who have leaned way way WAY to the right, thereby refuting Musk’s original inductive generalization. pic.twitter.com/nhuJMnDF41

— Daniel W. Drezner (@dandrezner) April 28, 2022

I don't know about the national picture.  I do know I've always considered myself on the moderate left and my views have changed sometimes:

• In the 1950's liberals were still supporting public power, the path marked out by the New Deal in the TVA and Bonneville power. That's no longer the case.
• In the 1950's/60's liberals thought that ending legal  segregation and establishing things like civilian review boards would be sufficient.  No longer the case.
• In the 1970s I was called for a month's jury duty in DC.  For one case I was successful in getting off on the basis I couldn't be impartial in a marijuana possession case.  Despite that, I've never been high on legalizing pot, though by now I'm a reluctant supporter.
• Liberals used to have no opinions on legalized gambling; now I guess they support it but it's not a top issue and I still dislike it. 
• Back in the 1950's/60's liberals supported decolonization and were hot for foreign aid. 
• In the 1990's many liberals supported the "Washington consensus" on global free trade.  I still do, but that seems to put me in the minority.

To be continued, maybe.

Form Design in the Digital Age

 An experience with the Massachusetts online application for an ID (just testing) got me to thinking.

Back in the day, that is the early 1990s', we got PC's with Wordperfect 5.0 at work. One of the things I played around with then was using its table tools to create Wordperfect versions of our printed forms. A good part of the motivation was just the challenge in seeing how far I could get and what was involved in getting as close a facsimile as possible.  IIRC sometimes I was able to create a version where you could enter data.  And I think the ASCS/FSA forms shop followed a similar path for some years, replacing the IBM composers they were using in the 1960s with PCs and Wordperfect.

The next step seems (when I retired I no longer was involved on the creation side) to have been creating online forms with data entry. I don't know the software behind those forms, but over the years I've run into them.  

But when you look at that process, it's a survival, like an appendix or wisdom teeth, left over from prior times.

Currently I seem to be encountering the interview process--a series of windows which ask for data piece by piece, with "back" and "continue" options and often with the data entered determined the next sequence of windows to be displayed.  That seemed to be the case with the MA application, also with the Kaiser Permanente appointment process I just completed, and in a modified form with TurboTax's process.  TurboTax is interesting because the end result of your interview entries is a completed set of tax forms for the user, although it looks as if the data sent to the IRS and VA tax people is stripped down to the data elements. 

Perhaps 50 years from now we'll no longer be using forms? 

Essence of Decision-- II Then and Now

[I belatedly checked and saw I'd already posted on this book, so I'm changing the titles of the two posts so they make a series. ]Part of a planned series on Essence of Decision, a very interesting book using the Cuban missile crisis as the core example of three modes of analysis of how organzations work and act.  

 I'm struck by how much Kennedy got into the weeds during the crisis.  Even so, as Allison/Zelikow describe, there were still disconnects where State, Air Force and Navy were doing their thing unaware of or misunderstanding his orders and desires.

Thinking about that presidency and the one completed on Jan 20, 2021, it's like night and day.  Kennedy both by experience in the Navy and by inclination was hands-on; the former guy is hands-on only when it comes to furnishing his buildings or painting his airplane. LBJ, Nixon, and Carter would, I think, have been similarly involved, though with different perspectives, strengths, and weaknesses.  Ford I don't know well enough, but I have my doubts. Reagan and GWBush no.  

So America was lucky that the former guy never had a real crisis.

Another observation--the Soviet Union's communcation network between Moscow and Dobrynin in DC was marginally better than the 1941 network between Gen. Marshall and the Hawaii command (telegram delivered by Western Union).

And one more--Kennedy didn't have the option of a "surgical strike" on Cuba--dumb bombs on jet planes were too inaccurate.The authors say the decision to go with the blockade was due to that lack.  Maybe with today's missiles he would have quickly gone to a strike.  Then again, maybe Khrushchev wouldn't have  decided to install his weaponry.

Essence of Decision--I : Models of Decision Making

[Updated to reflect that it's the first post of a series.]  Graham Allison and Philip Zelikow published a second edition of Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisi s in 1997. Some have called the first and second editions "classics", but it's not in print.  

Anyhow, just started reading the library's copy--they described three decision making models:

• Rational decision-maker: Model 1. What strikes me here is describing the nation as the decision-maker--i.e., why might the Soviet Union have decided to install missiles, etc.
• Organizational decision making. Model 2.  Where the focus is on the organizations involved in the decision makers, their processes, etc.--for example, DOD's perspective versus the Combined Chiefs versus the National Security council.
• Political decision making.  Model 3. Where the focus is more on the political maneuvering among the parties.

It's early days--looks as if I can renew the book a time or two. A couple things strike me already.  

1. We actually need a Model 0.5--the Black Box decision maker, also known as essentialism.  The Soviet Union was aggressively taking over the world, etc.
2. Not sure how the models relate to historians' descriptions of events--the narrative model.

We'll see. 

Amish/Mennonite Dominance in Farming?

 

Read this tweet today:

Young Mennonites posh with cash from selling in high priced areas are stopping at random farms around here trying to buy the farmers out. Fastest growing sector of farmers in my area, along with young Amish.

— NYFarmer (@NYFarmer) April 24, 2022

Back in the day it seemed as if the "Pennsylvania Dutch" and Amish were the same, with the majority living in PA.  In the 60+ years since I'm aware that Amish communities have been established in many states in the Northeast and Midwest.  I assume the Mennonite pattern is somewhat similar.  I know not all Amish are dairy farmers, or even farmers of any type.  And I don't know how heavily they're represented among those leaving dairy farmer.

 So my question is--are close are the Amish/Mennonites to establishing a dominance in dairy farming above the Mason-Dixon line?  How about the organic and traditional (i.e. pasture/silage) types of dairy? 

I assume the statistics aren't readily available from the government. 

Legacy College Students

This Atlantic article pushing for colleges to stop giving priority to applications from children of their graduates had a tantalizing sentence:  "Johns Hopkins abandoned it in 2014, reducing the percentage of legacy students from 13 to 4 percent."

If we like meritocracy, we should end legacies.  

News Flash

Daniel Drezner who wrote a book on the infantile former guy, has some kind words for him: "Trump ... can move down a learning curve..."

His argument is that Trump spent most of the first term learning the basics of the government, so in a second term he could be more effective in implementing his policy goals, such as withdrawing from NATO and our alliances with South Korea and Japan.

Global Warming

 Bits from today's media: 

• Charlestown SC sees "sunny day" flooding of streets about once a week.
• Since then, temperatures in Fairbanks have shifted so much that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration officially changed the city’s subarctic designation in 2021, downgrading it to “warm summer continental.”

Rights and Duties of "Natural Persons"

 Apparently there's an environmental/legal movement to grant/recognize rights of natural features, such as rights.  I'd guess it's an attempt by lawyers to sue on behalf of such entities against pollution, etc.  There's controversy, as might be expected, including conflicts with the LBGQ community, which seems to be the subject of this politico post.

But what intrigued me was the phrase in the post--"natural persons".  I thought of the granting of rights to "legal persons"--corporations which has recently been expanded.

Why couldn't we have a constitutional amendment to the effect that nothing in the Constitution requires that "natural persons" and "legal persons" be treated the same?

Taxes Done

It's not procreastination, really, or so I tell myself.  But we finished our Federal and VA taxes today and filed them.  Our tax rate isn't as high as the Bidens or Harris/Emhoff but we're close.   What we pay for civilization.  

Inflation and Greed

 Newshour is doing a program on corporate profits now.

There was a piece in the news today that mentioned the "rockets and feathers" effect, at least with respect to oil and gas. Crude oil prices can soar--the rocket effect--because the markets for crude are pricing the future.  Gas stations are slower to raise prices because of slack in the supply chain--current inventories were bought at lower prices.  

But while crude prices can fall quickly gas stations are likely to be slower to drop prices.

The wikipedia article also used crude/gas in the example.   I wonder about whether the effect applies much more widely.

Vikings, Medicis, Rome, Marco Polo, Last Kingdom--What Next?

We've watched those TV serials on Netflix and elsewhere--all based more or less on history. If the entertainment industry is running out of history to dramatize, I'd suggest series on the conquest of Mexico and Peru--I read Prescott's books on those subjects written in the 19th century, and mentioned them in a twitter thread--here's one of the tweets: 

Steel was a far bigger advantage than gunpowder in my opinion. And yes, there was some psychological shock, but only at the start. If you read more recent work (remember Prescott was writing in 1843) then the Indigenous people were far more impressed by horses than the weapons.

— Caroline Dodds Pennock (@carolinepennock) April 7, 2022

The Dormant Commerce Clause

This Adler post at Volokh led me to this explanation of the dormant commerce clause.  The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. The question is whether that includes the ability to limit the ability of any particular state from legislating on interstate commerce. The current answer is yes, it does, in at least some instances. The next question is what instances?  Can California require Iowa hog farmers to abandon gestation crates and chicken farmers to provide x square feet per hen if they want to sell their ham and eggs in California? 

That's the issue I wrote about here. No answers here, but at least the question has a name.

Surprising Fact About India

This blog post claims IT is the biggest industry. It does it by excluding farming as an industry, which is reasonable, I guess.

The American Experiment 111 Years Later

 TR has a famous quote about the "man in the arena" but the whole speech which includes it is interesting.  He's speaking as ex-President to the Sorbonne, and appeals to what France and US share: being a republic and democracy, an experiment in government.  The year is 1911 and the world is governed by monarchies. The excerpt:

Today I shall speak to you on the subject of individual citizenship, the one subject of vital importance to you, my hearers, and to me and my countrymen, because you and we are great citizens of great democratic republics. A democratic republic such as ours—an effort to realize in its full sense government by, of, and for the people—represents the most gigantic of all possible social experiments, the one fraught with great responsibilities alike for good and evil. The success of republics like yours and like ours means the glory, and our failure the despair, of mankind; and for you and for us the question of the quality of the individual citizen is supreme. Under other forms of government, under the rule of one man or very few men, the quality of the leaders is all-important. If, under such governments, the quality of the rulers is high enough, then the nations for generations lead a brilliant career, and add substantially to the sum of world achievement, no matter how low the quality of the average citizen; because the average citizen is an almost negligible quantity in working out the final results of that type of national greatness. But with you and us the case is different. With you here, and with us in my own home, in the long run, success or failure will be conditioned upon the way in which the average man, the average woman, does his or her duty, first in the ordinary, every-day affairs of life, and next in those great occasional cries which call for heroic virtues. The average citizen must be a good citizen if our republics are to succeed. The stream will not permanently rise higher than the main source; and the main source of national power and national greatness is found in the average citizenship of the nation. Therefore it behooves us to do our best to see that the standard of the average citizen is kept high; and the average cannot be kept high unless the standard of the leaders is very much higher. [emphasis added]

I guess WWI marked the change--the German, Russian, Italian, Austria-Hungary monarchies vanished and the US became more eminent in the world.   

Is Federalism Good or Bad?

 It's hard to tell, because it depends on whose ox is gored.

For example, California seems to be leading the way on animal welfare--imposing restrictions on how hogs are reared and how much space hens are provided. The state is being sued over this.

Texas is setting new restrictions on abortion, which may or may not be upheld by SCOTUS. Its being sued over that.

Obamacare originally provided for all states to expand Medicaid, but SCOTUS said that was going too far, so a bunch of states haven't done it.

I could go on and on.  The point is that most, perhaps all, people who have political views want the entire US to adopt their view. Historically that's not worked. So the question becomes a discussion of means to enforce uniformity. 

Can California set requirements for the ham bought into the state, How about the motor vehicles--can it set tougher standards than the national ones. Can Missouri set standards for what its women do outside of the state?  Can Texas restrict what comes in the mail (ie. the morning after pills)? 

Historians may remember that the Southern states were setting restrictions on anti-slavery material being mailed into the state, while officials in Northern states often resisted enforcing the Fugitive Slave Law.

Can anyone come up with a neutral standard that reasonably navigates these issues?

Korea, Ukraine and the UN

 I remember when North Korea invaded South Korea.  Harry S Truman was often a lucky man. In 1950 the world, most of it, at least the white and western portions, believed in the United Nations.  And the Soviet Union sometimes boycotted sessions of the Security Council. The invasion happened during a boycott, so the Security Council was able to agree on the use of force to oppose it.  

(For those many people who don't know the structure of the UN, almost all "nations" are included in the General Assembly (which in 1950 also included Ukraine plus another Soviet republic as well as the USSR) but the Security Council was supposed to be the fast-acting executive body with five permanent members (the WWII allies of USA, UK, France, (Nationalist) China, and USSR plus a rotation of other members. Each of the permanent members could veto action, which during the course of 72 years has eroded the UN's ability to act.)

So the Korean War was not the US and South Korea against North Korea and eventually Red China--it was the UN against the Reds. Wikipedia says 21 countries contributed troops, though the US provided the bulk of those coming from outside Korea.

So 72 years later we have a country invading another country, one of the permanent members of the Security Council, and neither Russia nor China is boycotting, so it's impossible for the Security Council to act. If it were possible, then NATO would have had cover to provide planes and troops to war. But as it is the UN becomes even more irrelevant.

I shed a tear for the dreams of the people after WWII who thought they'd fixed the problems of the League of Nations and the UN would lead the way to a better world. 

Religion and Liberalism

 Saw a tweet saying that mainstream Protestantism had been replaced by liberalism. Looked at another way mainstream Protestantism has always been evolving into liberalism.  Back in the 1960's "God is dead" was a fad, but the liberal World Council of Churches has, in my limited view and knowledge, focused on a common denominator of "justice, peace, and the protection of creation". 

You can trace American individualism back to Luther and Calvin--with various offshoots over the years going in the liberal direction, until finally the offshoots have overtaken the original Protestant thrust. 

Holton and Constitution

 Reading Woody  Holton "Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution".  Some arguments he stresses:

• the Founding Fathers wanted to strengthen the national government more than they actually did in the constitution, because they knew they needed popular support to get it ratified, even after they reduced the required number of states to ratify it from the 13 (required in the Articles of Confederation) to 9.  
• Some debtors wanted sound money being optimistic about borrowing in Europe and the prospects for prosperity. 
• Most state taxes were tariffs (disproportionately aiding MA, NY, PA as opposed to CN, DE, NJ, etc.) and direct taxes--poll taxes and property. Founding Fathers assumed that national government would assume debts and pay using tariff revenues, which would mean a transfer of burden from the states with less import activity to those with a lot. 

Overall it's a reminder that what "history" books describe are a selection of episodes and people, but only they only represent the tip of the iceberg.  For example, the Shays Rebellion was the most visible and biggest episode of resistance to taxes levied to support the wartime debts of the states and to fund the government of the Articles of Confederation. But Holton describes a wide variety of actions in the various states with similar motives and causes for action.

Differences in Slavery in New World

 One big part of slavery in the US was the internal "migration", the movement of slaves from the Atlantic Coast colonies to the newer states of MS, AL, AL, AR, mostly it seems by sale  to slave traders.  

There are differences in the societies in different parts of the New World, partially from differences in Spain, France, and Britain, partially from differences in the crops being grown, and partially the climate/health conditions.  I know that; what I didn't think about until today was the difference in size.  The US and Brazil are big countries, while the Caribbean islands are much smaller.  So in the US slaves who gave trouble could be threatened with being sold to slave traders or "down river". On the other hand the slave population multiplied by natural increase in the US, less so or not so at times elsewhere.

So the question I have is whether historians can find a difference in what might be termed "mobility", except it connotes choice.  What was the probability that a slave born in 1770 in Virginia would die 200+ miles away versus the same probability for a slave in the sugar islands of the Caribbean?  And, if there's a difference, what impact was there on the societies?

Petroleum Reserve

 I'd support Biden's release of oil from the reserve if there was a provision for refilling it when oil prices are low.  (I'm thinking of a parallel with the old grain loan/storage program.)