Mike Morell: The Great War of Our Time

Morell had a long career in the CIA, ending as deputy director, but also serving as the briefer to GWBush during 2001-2 and at high levels in the intelligence side thereafter.

I'm in the midst of the book, which is well-written and reads quickly.

I want to note his apology in the book to Sec Powell for the CIA's failure to supply accurate information when Powell wrote his speech to the UN.  Apologies for error should always be encouraged, and Morell's is good.  He notes a number of failures of analysis on the WMD issue.

OIG on MIDAS

OIG released an audit report on MIDAS last month.

Hat tip to this post from the Capital Press which represents what the media might make of the report.

"The federal government put a man on the moon, but 46 years later it can’t come up with a computer system for the USDA Farm Service Agency.
Such is the plight of the federal government in the 21st century. When it comes to computers, Uncle Sam is — how should we say it — a few bauds short of being online.

May have more thoughts when I read the report.

Astounding Issue: Kill All Carnivores?

From a Vox interview with philosopher Peter Singer:

Dylan Matthews:How do you think about the suffering of animals in the wild? Jeff McMahan has written a few interesting papers and essays implying that the controlled extinction of carnivorous species might be morally necessary, if it's even ecologically possible. Should we care about improving preyed-upon animals' lives, just as we care about animals in captivity?

Peter Singer: I welcome the discussion of that question. I think it's a good thing that people are taking this seriously and looking at it. What I think should be done about it at the moment is that people should keep thinking and talking about it and doing research into it. I don't think at the moment we've got to the point where we know enough about the suffering of wild animals, and I also don't think there's actually much of a constituency there for doing a lot about it at the moment. So I think that the research and discussion thing is where that issue should be at the moment.

IMHO this is an example of how reasoning without confronting opposing views and stubborn facts can lead to ridiculous ideas (I write "ideas" rather than "conclusions" recognizing that Singer applauds only the process, not endorsing the end.)

Remember Ebola?

"“Ebola has crystallized the collapse of trust in state authorities,” columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote in The Washington Post. Ron Fournier, writing in National Journal, hit the same theme. “Ebola is a serious threat,” he wrote, “but it’s not the disease that scares me. What scares me is the fact that we can’t trust the institutions that are supposed to deal with such threats, and we can’t trust the men or women who lead them.”

From American Prospect article on government successes.  I'm sure Krauthammer and Fournier now think more highly of the Federal government.

Amazing Fact of the Day--Trump

The Donald is a Presbyterian!

So he says in an article in today's paper.

I've a lot of Presbyterians in my ancestry.  I find this amazing.  The only connection I can make is that both Trump and Presbyterians think they're right.

Small Farmers in the Past

One of the frustrations of dealing with proposals like Mr. Bittman's to create more small farmers is a knowledge of history.  We've been there, done that. Our history shows small farms being consolidated into large farms, small farms going out of production and reverting to trees (see New England and New York), small farms being converted to suburbs.  Our history also shows repeated "back-to-the farm" movements, sometimes with government support, as here. 

My point is, not that small farms are bad, but they have vanished for economic reasons. Unless and until the food movement comes up with structures which change the reasons, small farms are doomed.

Now niche markets will work for some, but they don't represent an "answer" for America, just for a subset of Americans who can afford the tab.

I'm Late, I'm Late--re: Krauthammer

Read a review of a book on Lewis Carroll over the weekend, which probably accounts for the title of this piece.  But to the meat:

Last week the NYTimes had a piece on Marco Rubio's finances.  One of the bits was the fact he bought a boat for $80,000.  Now the Times, being a good Democratic paper, was impressed by that.  Then Charles Krauthammer in the Post devoted a column to handicapping the Republican candidates, including the quote which appears below.  I wanted to snark at him in a letter to the editor, thinking perhaps it could make this coming Saturday's "Free for All" page, but I procrastinated so long I've decided to use my snark here:

"With his usual insight, Mr. Krauthammer encapsulated the difference between Democrats and Republicans into less than 30 words in his "GOP Racing Form, Second Edition".  "The New York Times’ comical attempts to nail [Rubio] on ...  financial profligacy (a small family fishing boat — a “dream dinghy,” says a friend of mine — characterized as a “luxury speedboat”)."  

 So Krauthammer and his Republican friends look at an $80,000 boat as a dream dinghy; Democrats look at the same boat as a luxury speedboard.

Me, I'm a Democrat. 

We Need More Farmers

So writes Mark Bittman in the NYTimes.

Logically he's saying we need higher food prices, in order to attract more people to farming. 

That's not the way he's going. Instead, while he acknowledges beginning farmer programs which assist people to buy land, he suggests that we forgive student loans for people who farm for 10 years.  Needless to say I don't like the idea--it's bureaucratically messy and, I suspect, economically inefficient.

The Elderly and Self-Driving Cars

Vox has a piece on the problems of the elderly who must drive up driving. As someone who's more rapidly nearing that time than I'd like, I like it all, especially as I endorsed self-driving cars (see the label) though there's more to the piece than just that.

And here's a Technology Review discussion of such cars.

There is one problem I can see with such cars.  Since we know that a human is driving the other car we see on the road, we can assume the car will behave in certain ways. It's likely early on that self-driving cars won't.  An example: a cardboard box falls off a truck--from the way it falls and bounces a human will assume it's empty.  A self-driving car may have to assume it's full, and to be avoided, possibly by an emergency stop, which the human driving the car behind that car  won't anticipate.   But such problems aren't show-stoppers.

Truest Headline Ever

The man who wrote "Headless Body in Topless Bar" just died.  But I nominate this as the truest headline:

"Oldest Person in the World Keeps Dying"