Government Organization

The Post has an op-ed by Max Stier arguing it's more important to get good people in government than to worry about government reorganization, because most mergers/reorganizations fail. He's got a point. I think I've noted the ASCS/FmHA reorg in 1994 still hasn't erased all past lines. But...

Back in the day, Harry Truman thought it was nonsense for us to have 3 air forces (Army, Navy, Marines), two armies (Army and Marines), etc. so he was pushing for one armed service. Of course he got shot down. For 30 years or so the Joint Chiefs were rather powerless. In 1986 Goldwater and someone else got reform legislation passed, essentially saying to the four services--if you want to hit the top ranks, you've got to spend time on the Joint Chief staff. (All my details are suspect, but the general idea is right.) That apparently has, over time, improved the coordination among the services.

The 9-11 Commission noted the divide between the intelligence and law enforcement communities, which their recommendations hoped to redress. The divide reminds me of the divides among the services.

My point is leadership needs a long range perspective. In the short term, Mr. Stier is right--focus on the people, not the organization. But for the long term it's important how you're structured, more so than who the people are. For example, look at GM. It was formed by the combination of different companies (i.e., Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac, etc.), most of which became divisions of the company, each with its own dealerships, supply chains, etc. Although GM worked toward consolidation, in the long run that organization wasn't able to compete with companies like Toyota, with just two lines. Certainly the organization wasn't the only problem, but it was a big part of it. There were good people in GM (the company, UAW, dealers, etc.), but they were handicapped by the organization.

The Grim Reaper and the Dems

Not to be gloomy on a bright June day, but I'd just note these ages, from Wikipedia:

Robert Byrd	(D-WV)	91	November 20, 1917(1917-11-20)
Frank Lautenberg	(D-NJ)	85	January 23, 1924(1924-01-23)
Daniel Inouye	(D-HI)	84	September 7, 1924(1924-09-07)
Daniel Akaka	(D-HI)	84	September 11, 1924(1924-09-11)
Arlen Specter	(D-PA)	79	February 12, 1930(1930-02-12)
Jim Bunning	(R-KY)	77	October 23, 1931

As it happens, Senator Byrd has been in the hospital for 3 weeks for a staph infection. The Reps have a crack at taking the governorship of NJ and they hold the governorship of Hawaii. But I'm relieved to find that the governor of WV is a Democrat (must have won last year).

D-Day

In the "I didn't know that" category is this" "70,000 Normans were killed or wounded during the Normandy campaign – more than the number of Londoners killed or wounded during german bombing on the capital from 1940 to 1944." From Dirk Beauregard. Interesting for those of us who grew up in the shadow of WWII.

Kudos for CDC

CDC is doing what all government sites should: publish their metrics. (Are you listening, USDA?) That's one small step for an agency; one giant leap for good government.

[Updated--Though I'd like to see more than 1 month's data, which is all CDC is showing.]

Food Poisoning at the Inaugural Dinner

Yes, and someone died! I'm sure the food system was to blame. Of course, this was in 1857, based on a couple sentences in this blog post and it was Buchanan's nephew. (Interesting cemetery in Lancaster).

Have Any Architects Ever Gardened?

Here's a sentence from a proposal for a Dallas project,which is supposed to be "economically, environmentally and socially sustainable": "Some of the unusual features to be included in the 2.5 acre block include enough garden space to feed around 300 inhabitants, 40% affordable housing, an educational element that serves all of the residents and fully renewable, off-the-grid energy." That's roughly 350 square feet per person. Not sure how you do much meat off that area, so presumably these are 300 vegans. And I personally doubt the ability of 350 square feet to provide all the fruits and vegetables for a person, much less the grain.

[Some may say I'm willfully misreading the description, that "sustainable" doesn't mean self-sufficient. That may be true, but still a reasonable modesty in claims would be fitting.)

The Amish Head West

That's the lead from this MSNBC story--driven by the rising cost of farm land, Amish are now in Colorado.

A professor is quoted as saying the average size of their families is 7 children, meaning a doubling every 20 years. (I would have thought more.)

That means:
230,000 Amish in 2009
460,000 in 2029
1 million in 2049
2 million in 2069
4 million in 2089
8 million in 2109

Organic, Inc.

Organic, Inc., Organic Foods and How They Grow, is written by Samuel Fromartz. It's an easy read, which looks at both the small organic producers and the big ones, with products from soy milk to packaged salad greens. He explores the tensions between "organic" as a business and "organic" as a movement. He seems to me to have an open mind, accepting that organic products have their advantages, particularly in their freedom from pesticide residue, while being attracted to the romance of the movement.

In a related item, ERS has a report (summary pdf here) on the challenges facing the organic people. One item I found interesting in the context of the above book, was this sentence: "According to an ERS survey of organic handlers, 24 percent of organic sales in 2004 were made locally (within an
hour’s drive of the handlers’ facilities) and another 30 percent were made regionally." That means 46 percent of organic sales were transported long distances.

Pushback on WH Garden

Slate provides a forum for conventional ag to comment on the White House garden: the spokesmen make the usual points. Organic is a niche, conventional costs less and can be less hard on the environment, locavore doesn't satisfy tastes all year round, etc. Bottom line--the big boys aren't worried yet.

Meanwhile Obamafoodorama highlights a video of Ryan Howard (Phillies) touring the garden with Sam Kass. There's a brief picture of the garden. Nice lettuce, but I heard somewhere a claim they've harvested 80 pounds from it so far; based on the video I think not. Lettuce is bulky but light. I note the whitehouse.gov site doesn't have much on the garden--just the Howard visit since April was all I saw.

Workload for NRCS?

That's what I get from this item from the letter sent to Speaker Pelosi by a set of farm organizations about the carbon cap and trade proposals:

Eligibility and offset compensation should be based upon whether a project, technique or practice sequesters carbon or otherwise reduces GHG emissions. USDA should establish an activity baseline for each offset project type in effect on January 1, 2001 with standardized methodology. We support the establishment of a static baseline of activity to measure against when determining additionality. The fixed baseline should establish which practices were in effect on a specific piece of land on a specific date; any activity that results in GHG reductions measured against that baseline should be deemed eligible/additional.

I'm not sure why they used Jan 1, 2001 as the magic date. Nor do I know if they consulted with anyone from NRCS (or FSA) as to the feasibility of doing this. I know the acreage reports submitted to FSA provide some information on the activity on the land, but I don't know whether it's sufficient to be used for this purpose.

If and when it comes to writing legislation, there are lots of issues to be addressed. For example, there's a maintenance question--if farmer Jones was doing no-till on her acreage in 2000, does she have to have continued no-till in the years since? How about shifts in practices among the fields on the farm? And how do the bureaucrats encapsulate the requirement? (See my earlier mention of "conserving base".) Might it be another layer(s) added to the GIS?

But I'm sure this proposal is causing some bureaucratic hearts in NRCS to beat much faster.