Individuals Versus FEMA, Which Is Better?

The Times Oct 5 had an interesting article on an individual who did great work in reestablishing communications after Katrina, using wireless Internet networking--apparently used in rural areas using antennas and parts of the radiomagnetic spectrum. (See note below.)

The issue is why could he do so well in comparison with a bureaucracy like FEMA. I think it's related to why the Aussie's could win the Nobel in medicine by proving bacteria cause ulcers. The points are:

• some knowledge and expertise (pathology in the case of the Nobel, WISP in the case of the Katrina)
• existence outside the established networks (one's ideas aren't prestructured by being part of a job within a web of interacting people. In the case of the Nobel, the instigator was simply an observant pathologist, not an ulcer specialist. In the case of Katrina, the guy was simply an entrepreneur who had a sideline of doing wireless in rural areas.)
  
• supportive resources (the Aussies got money for their work, the Katrina guy put up his own money, then attracted support from outsiders who wanted to help).
  

FEMA probably does not have anyone whose job is to look for ways to reestablish communications. It probably does have people whose job is to work on telephones and cell phones and radio, etc. But the wireless network is new technology, so it wouldn't be incorporated into the FEMA structure (or the structure of state emergency management, either). Even if someone in FEMA had the knowledge, it didn't fit his or her job. In the aftermath of Katrina, everyone at FEMA had to do their job.



Note: This is the Times description:

In one swoop, Mr. Dearman not only connected people in crisis, but he also illustrated the power of long-distance wireless networks, an emerging technology that uses unlicensed radio-wave bandwidth to send Internet signals into rural towns and cities, where the connections are locally accessible, much like Wi-Fi hot spots. The networks typically use microwave dishes and routers to beam and distribute the information many miles in the air from an original Internet connection.

Miers Prediction

If Harriet Miers is confirmed, I predict that early results will start talking of the "Roberts twins", as in the 70's when Berger and Blackmun were appointed together. Miers will spend some time following the lead of more experienced justices, and would logically gravitate to Roberts, as they will both be newcomers to the group and probably bonded during his confirmation battle. A few years in, Miers will start to emerge as an independent voice, much as Blackmun did and Thomas has. But the conservatives should be happy--Bush is giving them a reliable conservative vote for a few years and that's all he could reasonably promise.

I observed over on Volokh.com that both Roberts and Miers seem to work well with others, which may mean they do well in attracting support for their positions on the Court. (As a nonlawyer, I'm more impressed by the small-group sociology of SCOTUS than by doctrines.)

Why I Believe in Original Sin

Why--because there's always someone who spoils things. I've just had to turn on comment verification, which requires any commenters to prove they're human by entering the correct letters in a box, because this blog was starting to get software-generated comments advertising various things/sites.

The effect is to throw sand into the machine, to slow down the interchange of ideas, and, most importantly, to diminish the likelihood of people commenting. To libertarians and free market conservatives, I suppose this is just to be expected. To me it's like tossing your trash on the ground instead of the garbage can. I'm mad.

How Do You Get to Stockholm--Keep a Certain Distance

"Network" theory says that weakly linked networks are more powerful than tight ones. For example, if you're job hunting, your casual acquaintances are more likely to come up with good leads than your close friends and family. It's the tale of the emperor's new clothes--the adults who were into the networks of power and expectations conformed to conventions, the child asked the right question.

Here's another instance--
Two Win Nobel Prize for Discovering Bacterium Tied to Stomach Ailments - New York Times:

"Dr. Marshall said that working in a 'weird' and academically obscure location aided in the discovery because he and Dr. Warren could pursue their observations without interference from the prevailing beliefs.

'If I had come up through the normal gastroenterology training schemes in the United States, I would have been so indoctrinated on the acid theory that I wouldn't have been considering anything else and might have skipped over Helicobacter, as everyone else had done,' Dr. Marshall said in a telephone interview yesterday."

Symmetry in Opposition

One of the truisms in social science is that opposites tend to mirror image each other. To put it another way: when entitities are in conflict, a change in one causes related changes in the other. When the conflict is predator/prey, or international relations, it's often called "arms race". Admiral Jackie Fisher creates the "dreadnought", all-big-gun battleship and launches an arms race with Germany that ends in millions killed. In other realms you can see a catalytic influence--add an ingredient to the mix and things start to get more organized. In the oil industry of the 1860's-80's, J.D. Rockefeller was the catalyst, organizing and rationalizing the industry, vertically integrating the flow of oil. Competitors also had to vertically integrate.

In politics, Tom DeLay may have been a similar catalyst, with impacts on both Dems and Reps, according to this analysis in the WPost:

DeLay's Influence Transcends His Title: "His take-no -prisoners style of fundraising -- in which the classic unstated bargain of access for contributions is made explicitly and without apology -- has been adopted by both parties in Congress, according to lawmakers, lobbyists and congressional scholars. Democrats, likewise, increasingly are trying to emulate DeLay-perfected methods for enforcing caucus discipline -- rewarding lawmakers who follow the dictums of party leaders and seeking retribution against those who do not."

'Virtual Card' Should Be Example for Social Security

Washington Post yesterday had an article on "virtual credit card" numbers as an antidote to credit card theft.

"Offered to holders of Citi, Discover and MBNA cards, these 'virtual credit cards,' or single-use card numbers, are designed to give some peace of mind to consumers concerned about credit card fraud. Although the system slightly differs on each card, the principle is the same: For no extra charge, consumers sign up at the credit card's Web site, often downloading software on their computers. Then, when they're ready to shop, they receive a randomly generated substitute 16-digit number that they can use at the online store. The number can be used once or, in some cases, repeatedly at the same store."

The Social Security Administration should follow this example--allow people to get one-shot SSN's that work only for a relationship with a given organization. [ed--isn't this your hobby horse for doing away with SSN's? Yes}

Cutting Bureaucracy by Making It Faceless

USDA is trying once again to reduce its field offices, as discussed in the following. The last time began under Secretary Madigan in 1992 and was finally implemented under Espy/Glickman. It's a painful process. As rural towns dwindle and dry up, every remaining employer becomes even more important, particularly if you can argue that the office draws farmers to the town. The picture is blurred when you throw in towns that are really becoming suburbs. For example, closing the office in Leesburg Virginia wouldn't affect business there at all. But closing Leesburg makes all other offices a wee bit nervous.

The mention of technology investments is also reminiscent of the 1990's effort. It's true that you can improve efficiency by these means but you also make the bureaucracy faceless.

"'FSA is an agency with a strong record of service to farmers and ranchers,' said Johanns. 'To continue that tradition we must examine our future course with vision and an understanding that producers' needs are changing. Our FSA state directors are engaging stakeholders, local, and state congressional leaders to develop proposals that will help us chart the course for the agency's future. My hope is that we can agree on a plan that will make it possible to invest in equipment, technology and our employees. We want to ensure that top notch service is provided to our farmers and ranchers long into the future.

Nationally, the agency has 2,351 county offices across the country. More than 400 of these offices now have two or fewer full-time staff. Nearly 500 offices are within 20 miles of the next nearest office. And, the cost of delivering services varies widely, ranging from less than 1 cent for the delivery of a dollar of program benefits to more than $2 in expenses for every dollar of benefits delivered."

Why I Respect Eugene Volokh

Background: There's been back and forth on the web over some legal proposals from the 1970's in which Justice Ginsburg was involved. The issue is whether the proposal intended to lower the federal age of consent from 16 to 12 or something else. Eugene Volokh has taken the first position in the past but now changes his mind:

"It Looks Like Justice Ginsburg Likely Was the Victim of a Drafting Error after all; and it looks like I erroneously failed to recognize just how likely this was to be an error."

I think I'd rate bloggers according to the following criteria:

1 How predictable are the person's opinions
2 Does the person come up with information or issues not found in other sites
3 Does the person respect his/her adversaries
4 Does the person admit errors

Professor Volokh rates high on these items and raise The Volokh Conspiracy above the ruck.

Lessons of the Hurricanes for Liberals

Some liberals have gloated after Katrina, saying in effect that the disaster proves how much we need government. I agree, but if disaster reveals some truths, there's also a lesson for liberals. Unfortunately, it's not one that conservatives are likely to highlight. The lesson: government, emergency government, is an open feast for the big shots, the influence peddlers and gladhanders. It reminds me of Madison's wisdom in Federalist No 51, commenting on the need for separation of powers:

"Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no governme nt would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. [The fact that Madison viewed government in terms of "control" shows the changes between 1789 and now]"

The evidence for the pigs at the trough is everywhere, but see Steven Pearlstein in yesterday's Post and the related on-line discussion.

Do Institutions Make a Difference?

In the MSNBC blog, the major in Iraq praised the captain who reported abuse of prisoners (Fishback?) as an exemplar of what's good in the Army. The major's fiance wrote questioning the praise, including this bit:

"Forgive me if I am being too cynical, but I b elieve the Army is only as good as the individuals that make it up. As with any institution - indeed any group of human beings. I think you'd agree. I know you believe the men and woman of our Army are the finest to have ever walked the earth as soldiers (I do not say that with sarcasm)... yet this belief brings us to the question:

Is it the individual natures of those men and women that make them the most humane (might we say?) Armed Force ever? Or is it the laws, guidelines, institutional infrastructure and ways of enforcing ethics that make them what they are?"

I'm sure she is an admirable person, but I have to come down on the side of laws and institutions. I remember reading in the late 50's in the National Review an article, perhaps by Buckley, who argued against the pending Civil Rights Act on the basis that laws could not change what's in human hearts. He made a good argument. But we learned different. Laws, and the Airborne's bayonets, could change human behavior and behavior changed human hearts. To maintain the opposite we'd have to say that Hitler was simply a representative German, reflecting the evil in the hearts of his countrymen.