Based on no expertise (when was that a prerequisite for blogging or for opinionating), I had the theory that childhood events were directly associated with adult success, that play developed skills and the brain and learning was life. Those damn scientists aren't content with the obvious truth, they have to test it. As reported by New Scientist News - Play fighters do not win in later life:
"[the scientist] found that young meerkats [those cute animals who look like cats and act like prairie dogs] who played frequently were no more likely to win play fights, adult fights or become a member of the dominant pair. Furthermore, meerkats showed no sign of improvement with extra play sessions (Animal Behaviour, DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.07.013)." So if play doesn't help in adult life, what's its purpose? The piece suggests that it may help in brain development. That would lead to the idea that meerkats with the most developed brains don't have an edge in adult life either. Ouch.
Saturday, April 16, 2005
Friday, April 15, 2005
Yelling at Bureaucrats
The hearing on John Bolton raises the question of whether bureaucrats should be yelled at, or, more precisely, should bosses yell at bureaucrats lower in the hierarchy?
As my mother would say, people should always be nice to other people. However, because I once got in trouble for yelling at a subordinate, I've a little sympathy for Bolton. He's also been criticized for sucking up to the powerful (presumably Cheney, since he was known to disagree with Powell) and bullying the weak. That's more serious, but the thing worrying me the most is whether the powerful saw that he was a sycophant--in other words, if Bolton was poor at toadying then it's okay to give him another job. The horrifying thing about Uriah Heep was that people still trusted him. Otherwise, even terrible human beings can be useful.
As my mother would say, people should always be nice to other people. However, because I once got in trouble for yelling at a subordinate, I've a little sympathy for Bolton. He's also been criticized for sucking up to the powerful (presumably Cheney, since he was known to disagree with Powell) and bullying the weak. That's more serious, but the thing worrying me the most is whether the powerful saw that he was a sycophant--in other words, if Bolton was poor at toadying then it's okay to give him another job. The horrifying thing about Uriah Heep was that people still trusted him. Otherwise, even terrible human beings can be useful.
More Positioning on Payment Limitations
Dan Morgan on the Washington Post Federal Diary does some inside farm politics:
Farm Subsidies May Not Face Limits (washingtonpost.com): "The Bush administration has signaled that it will not pressure Congress to enact limits on government payments to big farmers this year if lawmakers can come up with other ways to cut spending on agricultural programs by $5.4 billion."
The piece goes on to describe the current situation: the Secretary says USDA wants the reduction in payments, how we get there is negotiable; Ken Cook of EWG says "sellout", Sen. Grassley says USDA still supports me on reducing limitations.
Although there's a WTO deadline around July 1 that may come into play, I suspect the real deal comes at the end of the session, when appropriations have to be passed and legislating is done, bringing at least a temporary end to deal cutting. People like Lott and Chambliss can trade their votes on other issues for a compromise on payment limitation.
One thing to watch for real insiders: The President proposed a 5 percent cut in the program. One road to compromise would be to increase the percentage. The issue becomes for the agency in which order to apply the payment limitation, before or after reduction. In other words, if the limit is $300,000 and the gross payment before reduction is $400,000, if you reduce $400 K by 5 percent, it becomes $380,000, which is then reduced to $300,000 by the limitation. If you reduce the payment to the limitation of $300K, then apply the reduction of 5 percent, the net payment is $285,000.
We went through that issue in 1986, when the Gramm-Hollings-Rudman payment reductions applied across the board to civilian programs. It got tricky legally, but the attorneys okayed our applying the reduction after limitation. It's fair, but it's also a nightmare for the accountants. We, and GAO, finally decided in 1986 that our several billion dollars of payments couldn't be t properly accounted for. Just threw up our hands.
Farm Subsidies May Not Face Limits (washingtonpost.com): "The Bush administration has signaled that it will not pressure Congress to enact limits on government payments to big farmers this year if lawmakers can come up with other ways to cut spending on agricultural programs by $5.4 billion."
The piece goes on to describe the current situation: the Secretary says USDA wants the reduction in payments, how we get there is negotiable; Ken Cook of EWG says "sellout", Sen. Grassley says USDA still supports me on reducing limitations.
Although there's a WTO deadline around July 1 that may come into play, I suspect the real deal comes at the end of the session, when appropriations have to be passed and legislating is done, bringing at least a temporary end to deal cutting. People like Lott and Chambliss can trade their votes on other issues for a compromise on payment limitation.
One thing to watch for real insiders: The President proposed a 5 percent cut in the program. One road to compromise would be to increase the percentage. The issue becomes for the agency in which order to apply the payment limitation, before or after reduction. In other words, if the limit is $300,000 and the gross payment before reduction is $400,000, if you reduce $400 K by 5 percent, it becomes $380,000, which is then reduced to $300,000 by the limitation. If you reduce the payment to the limitation of $300K, then apply the reduction of 5 percent, the net payment is $285,000.
We went through that issue in 1986, when the Gramm-Hollings-Rudman payment reductions applied across the board to civilian programs. It got tricky legally, but the attorneys okayed our applying the reduction after limitation. It's fair, but it's also a nightmare for the accountants. We, and GAO, finally decided in 1986 that our several billion dollars of payments couldn't be t properly accounted for. Just threw up our hands.
Caterpillar and Israel
Turns out there's a whole web site devoted to the issue of Caterpillar and Israel. See here. It seems to have focused on yesterday's stockholders meeting, which turned down down a motion on the issue.
Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have commented on the issue. This ties to the Presbyterian divestment. (The motion was in part sponsored by Catholic nuns, somewhat undermining the idea that divestment is a strike at the religious right.)
I shouldn't make the comparison, but I vaguely remember during the civil rights movement there was a sheriff in (I think) Albany, Georgia whose tactics contrasted with Bull Connor in Birmingham. Bull used police dogs and maybe water hoses, producing pictures that mobilized support for the movement. In Albany, the sheriff did a "rope a dope" routine (tactic used by Mohammed Ali to wear out an opponent) that frustrated MLKing by not giving him something to use. Obviously Israel's tactic of bulldozing homes, whatever the rationale and justification, is one that its opponents will try to capitalize on. Of course, MLK's are notable by their absence on the Palestinian side.
Any time a government is faced with opposition, there's an issue of tactics on both sides--a subject of perennial interest to me.
Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have commented on the issue. This ties to the Presbyterian divestment. (The motion was in part sponsored by Catholic nuns, somewhat undermining the idea that divestment is a strike at the religious right.)
I shouldn't make the comparison, but I vaguely remember during the civil rights movement there was a sheriff in (I think) Albany, Georgia whose tactics contrasted with Bull Connor in Birmingham. Bull used police dogs and maybe water hoses, producing pictures that mobilized support for the movement. In Albany, the sheriff did a "rope a dope" routine (tactic used by Mohammed Ali to wear out an opponent) that frustrated MLKing by not giving him something to use. Obviously Israel's tactic of bulldozing homes, whatever the rationale and justification, is one that its opponents will try to capitalize on. Of course, MLK's are notable by their absence on the Palestinian side.
Any time a government is faced with opposition, there's an issue of tactics on both sides--a subject of perennial interest to me.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Whom Do Girls Like?
Those scientists are at it again, disturbing conventional wisdom.
New Scientist News - Risk-taking boys do not get the girls: "One idea is that risk-takers are advertising their fitness to potential mates by showing off their strength and bravery. This fits with the fact that men in their prime reproductive years take more risks. To test this idea, William Farthing of the University of Maine in Orono surveyed 48 young men and 52 young women on their attitudes to risky scenarios. Men thought women would be impressed by pointless gambles, but women in fact preferred cautious men (Evolution and Human Behaviour, vol 26, p 171)."
The piece suggests that risktaking impresses other males. That would establish a pecking order ,and we all know that women go for successful men.
(Note that at least the summary is chauvinistic--women are so stupid that they're impressed by stupidity coupled with risktaking. At the risk of being chauvinistic myself, perhaps women don't like the idea of cleaning up male messes.)
New Scientist News - Risk-taking boys do not get the girls: "One idea is that risk-takers are advertising their fitness to potential mates by showing off their strength and bravery. This fits with the fact that men in their prime reproductive years take more risks. To test this idea, William Farthing of the University of Maine in Orono surveyed 48 young men and 52 young women on their attitudes to risky scenarios. Men thought women would be impressed by pointless gambles, but women in fact preferred cautious men (Evolution and Human Behaviour, vol 26, p 171)."
The piece suggests that risktaking impresses other males. That would establish a pecking order ,and we all know that women go for successful men.
(Note that at least the summary is chauvinistic--women are so stupid that they're impressed by stupidity coupled with risktaking. At the risk of being chauvinistic myself, perhaps women don't like the idea of cleaning up male messes.)
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Your Helpful Bureaucrat??
What is the appropriate division of responsibilities between a bureaucrat and her customer/client? I raise this question because of a news report that IRS was willing to do tax returns for taxpayers, which aroused the ire of Grover Norquist (and presumably H&RBlock). The issue came up in agriculture, as well. At one extreme you could argue that the bureaucrat is a public servant, and should do whatever is needed to serve the public and get the job done, whether it's collecting taxes or making farm payments. At the other, you say that the citizen is a mature responsible adult, who should be capable of doing whatever calculations and completing whatever forms the agency designs.
In the case of ASCS/FSA, the employees in the county offices were the neighbors and friends of the farmers being served. Naturally they tended to hold the hands of the farmers, particularly in the old days when many farmers were not experienced with paperwork. (It was also sexist, farmers being too male to bother with clerical work. It probably also was an occasion for racism and favoritism in general. A bureaucrat would go the extra mile for the person she liked or had empathy with, and be more rigid with those for whom she had no positive feelings.) The problem is if the farmer takes action based on erroneous advice from the bureaucrat. We had a section of law and a whole process to handle such cases.
One of these days I'll look at what the IRS does in such cases.
In the case of ASCS/FSA, the employees in the county offices were the neighbors and friends of the farmers being served. Naturally they tended to hold the hands of the farmers, particularly in the old days when many farmers were not experienced with paperwork. (It was also sexist, farmers being too male to bother with clerical work. It probably also was an occasion for racism and favoritism in general. A bureaucrat would go the extra mile for the person she liked or had empathy with, and be more rigid with those for whom she had no positive feelings.) The problem is if the farmer takes action based on erroneous advice from the bureaucrat. We had a section of law and a whole process to handle such cases.
One of these days I'll look at what the IRS does in such cases.
Privacy and Transparency
The New York Times had an article yesterday. Seems when the police arrested demonstrators at the 2004 Republican convention there were lots of video cameras rolling. In some cases, the police testified to one thing (demonstrator resisting arrest) and the tape shows another.
Reminds me of David Brin's book, The Transparent Society. One of the paradoxes is that by depriving bureaucrats, like the police, of privacy during their work hours, we can protect values, like not convicting people of crimes they didn't do. The same principle can apply in many places. I'd argue that it could be beneficial to collect personal data, so long as the database and its use were totally transparent. More in future days.
Reminds me of David Brin's book, The Transparent Society. One of the paradoxes is that by depriving bureaucrats, like the police, of privacy during their work hours, we can protect values, like not convicting people of crimes they didn't do. The same principle can apply in many places. I'd argue that it could be beneficial to collect personal data, so long as the database and its use were totally transparent. More in future days.
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Comments on White House Farm policy proposal
: "Comments: Morgan should have done some more homework on the White House farm policy proposals because one of them -- putting a strict and harsh limit on nonrecourse loans and thus marketing loan (loan deficiency payment) eligibility would have significant implications for commercial operators who produce around 85 percent of U.S. agricultural production. Why? If the maverick Bush-USDA proposals were in effect for the 2004 crop season, around 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop would not have qualified for nonrecourse loans and would thus not have been able to qualify for marketing loans gains. Now that is a major change in farm policy and a major assault on a farm policy program (nonrecourse loans) that has been around since the 1930s."
Monday, April 11, 2005
Great Bureaucrats in History: John Kenneth Galbraith
I need to do an honor roll of great bureaucrats in history. That thought was prompted by Brookings sponsoring a discussion of The Legacy of John Kenneth Galbraith: "new biography by Harvard professor Richard Parker entitled, John Kenneth Galbraith: His Life, His Politics, His Economics. Parker shows how Galbraith, from his early championing of Keynesian economics to his acerbic analysis of America's 'private wealth and public squalor,' regularly challenged prevailing theories and policies."
Galbraith walked the very halls of USDA where I worked, and even worked in the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, predecessor of Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. He was originally trained as an ag economist. One piece of invaluable advice I took from one of his books, an early memoir I think. It was: always volunteer to do the first draft. That way you can get your own ideas in. I tried to follow that faithfully over the years. Unfortunately, the proliferation of word processing and networking software may be diminishing the effectiveness of the strategy. But still: write, write first, is the watchword for bureaucrats.
Galbraith walked the very halls of USDA where I worked, and even worked in the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, predecessor of Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. He was originally trained as an ag economist. One piece of invaluable advice I took from one of his books, an early memoir I think. It was: always volunteer to do the first draft. That way you can get your own ideas in. I tried to follow that faithfully over the years. Unfortunately, the proliferation of word processing and networking software may be diminishing the effectiveness of the strategy. But still: write, write first, is the watchword for bureaucrats.
Eugene Volokh on a Roll
Eugene Volokh is on a roll today, with three items with which I agree, of which I'll cite two
in one he cites a Burt Neuborne article in the Nation, saying that legal victories without political movements to explain and justify the victory are houses built of straw, to be blow away by the next political wind. He agrees with Neuborne from the conservative/libertarian side.
the second is a discussion of Jonathan Rauch's accusation that conservatives in the Schiavo case abandoned their allegiance to predetermined rules that they had in 2000 (Gore v Bush)
in the third he criticizes some generalizations by Jonathan Klein, Pres. of CNN, on Charlie Rose. Klein thinks Fox News appeals to irrational right-wingers who like to have their opinions reinforced, as opposed to open minded liberals. Iread the attack not as denying Klein's claims, but criticizing the "holier than thou" aspect. I'd agree we have the unreasoning partisans on the left and with this quote:
"There's a natural human tendency to see the best in people who agree with you, and the worst in people who disagree."
Liberals may believe themselves to be open minded, but it's only true if your opponents agree. Maybe when conservatives call us "wishy-washy", that's what they're getting at?
in one he cites a Burt Neuborne article in the Nation, saying that legal victories without political movements to explain and justify the victory are houses built of straw, to be blow away by the next political wind. He agrees with Neuborne from the conservative/libertarian side.
the second is a discussion of Jonathan Rauch's accusation that conservatives in the Schiavo case abandoned their allegiance to predetermined rules that they had in 2000 (Gore v Bush)
in the third he criticizes some generalizations by Jonathan Klein, Pres. of CNN, on Charlie Rose. Klein thinks Fox News appeals to irrational right-wingers who like to have their opinions reinforced, as opposed to open minded liberals. Iread the attack not as denying Klein's claims, but criticizing the "holier than thou" aspect. I'd agree we have the unreasoning partisans on the left and with this quote:
"There's a natural human tendency to see the best in people who agree with you, and the worst in people who disagree."
Liberals may believe themselves to be open minded, but it's only true if your opponents agree. Maybe when conservatives call us "wishy-washy", that's what they're getting at?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)