FSA Progress on Civil Rights

This press release claims progress. This demonstration presumably counters the claim, though the news report doesn't link the two.

Every Movement Needs Its Bureaucrat: Bayard Rustin

Steve Hendrix has a nice piece on Bayard Rustin in today's Post. He was the organizer of the 1963 March, the unsung bureaucrat who put the pieces together so Martin Luther King had an audience to preach his dream to.  Just goes to show that behind every successful venture there's a good bureaucrat who worries about nuts and bolts.

A bit of personal recollection: the March occurred after I'd graduated from college, but I was home at my summer job.  As a liberal, though not personally committed to action, I shared the concerns of many white liberals, including the Administration, that the March would be a flop.  Either there wouldn't be the attendance to make an impression, or there would be but things would "get out of hand" with violence.  So my personal reaction to the March was not appreciation for King's oratory; it was just another speech on the day, although as time went it got more and more attention.  My personal reaction was relief that the day went so well; in other words that Mr. Rustin had done a good job.

Rustin was one of, perhaps the person, which J. Edgar Hoover pointed to in trying to taint the civil rights movement with both radicalism and perversion.  Which shows when the cause is right, the personal qualities are less important.

Advisory Committee Meeting

USDA blog reports on a meeting with minority farmers"More than 90 farmers, ranchers, educators, economists and civil rights professionals from across the U.S, including Hawaii, Alaska and Puerto Rico, participated in the August 11 meeting in Memphis."

The themes were the good old tunes: coordination, speed, simplicity. I heard those in the 1990's and the 1980's and the 1970's. Amazing how little progress has been made over the years.

[Updated: gave it a title--senior moment]

The Power of the Rules Committee

Farm Policy reports the likelihood the cuts to direct payments included in the House ag appropriations bill will likely be reversed, through maneuvering in the House Rules Committee.  It's a blast from the past, for those of us who supported liberal legislation in the late 50's and early 60's.  Why?

I'm glad you asked.  The House with 435 members, plus a few talking but nonvoting members, is too big to operate without some sort of management.  What happens is, once a bill is reported from a committee of the House, it goes to the Rules Committee to get a "rule".  Without a rule, it requires a supermajority to get the bill to the floor.  The rule sets the guidelines for the consideration of the bill on the House floor: how much debate, what amendments will be in order, what objections can be heard, etc.  So it seems that Rep. Lucas, the head of House ag, has gotten the Rules committee to agree that a member can object to the cuts in direct payments, presumably on grounds the Appropriations committee overstepped its jurisdiction, and if such objection is heard, the cut is dropped. 

That's probably oversimplified, but it's the way Howard Smith, of VA, used to operate in the late 50's--meant he could kill or water down any initiatives the liberals were trying to push.  JFK, if I remember, succeeded in pushing the House to expand the membership of the Rules committee to add a couple more liberals and make it harder for Smith to wield his power.  But that was only a halfway measure, meaning JFK didn't have a good legislative record when he was killed. Smith, as wikipedia reminds me, was responsible for including "sex" in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, so some good came from the most unexpected place.

2 Blocks Bad; 12 Blocks Good?

In Animal Farm, the mantra was: "4 legs good, 2 legs bad".

According to this NYTimes piece on the proposed Cordoba community center/mosque, there's currently a mosque 12 blocks away from the World Trade center site.

But using Google maps it seems there's a limited facility .2 miles away.  When I say "limited", I mean this is included on their site:

Bathroom access is limited. Please make wudu before coming to the Masjid.

 Sorry for the incovenience.
Jazaka Allahu Khyera.

The Second Amendment

As a good liberal who remembers exactly where I was (U of Rochester library) when I heard about JFK's assassination, I've always been a supporter of gun control.  And as someone who trusts authority, mostly, I bought the idea the Second Amendment related to militias.  Then, in recent years, scholars have made the argument that it really pertains to individual rights.  And enough have made that case, and as I've lived and crime has decreased, I've come to accept the idea that there might be an individual right to weapons.  (Looking at the Young Irelanders has also been interesting.) You might say I've learned a better interpretation of the Second Amendment.

But then, via Althouse, I stumbled on this site, which quotes the discussion in the House of Representatives on the Second Amendment.  Nothing there about individual rights.  (I realize that's not a clinching argument, but it certainly causes me to question my recent learning.

Race and USDA, an example of Mismanagement

From the GAO report which I noted earlier includes this:

In 2004, to overcome these conditions [customers identified by observation], ASCR published a notice in the Federal Register seeking public comment on its plan to collect additional data on race, ethnicity, gender, national origin, and age. While ASCR
received some public comments, it did not follow through and obtain
OMB’s approval to collect the data. In a January 2008 briefing document,
an ASCR work group stated that ASCR does not have the staff or financial
resources to proceed with this project. ASCR officials said, after meeting
with GAO in May 2008, they convened an interagency work group to
develop a revised notice to be published in the Federal Register. As of
August 2008, the draft notice is under review within USDA, according to
ASCR officials.

This seems inexcusable mismanagement--4 years go by without someone pushing the issue? In an office of over 100 people you don't have one or two to devote to it? No action by the head of the office, nor by the Secretary?

In partial defense of the bureaucracy, (to change my viewpoint quickly), USDA is a collection of independent agencies with tight ties to people in Congress, interest groups, and local communities, so imposing a system from the South Building, which is what GAO is asking for, would be a daunting job for the best of bureaucrats.

Civil Rights in USDA

GAO has a report out criticizing USDA. See here for Post story and here for House Ag.

A Thoughtful Thread on Pro-Choice/Pro-Life

Todd Zywicki at Volokh.com instigates a thoughtful thread by asking for narratives where a pro-life position had changed (he hadn't noticed any, but had seen a lot of pro-choice moving to pro-life). The resulting thread is thoughtful, and an example of how people can miss stuff because it doesn't fit preconceptions.

[Updated with link]

A Bad Day for First Amendment Rights in DC

A neo-Nazi march on the Mall (maybe some of Obama's bitter people from Michigan?) against immigration was subject of a protest that resulted in arrests. From the Post article, one of the protesters:

"People marching in brown shirts and swastikas is a tool of intimidation and terrorism. We came out here to oppose them so they won't feel they can do it safely," said Dan Peterson, 23, a D.C. resident who was arrested.

I enrolled in the ACLU back in the 70's when Skokie was an issue. Mr. Peterson needs an education in civics.