Defining "Engaged": Farming Versus Selling Guns

For several days we've known that Obama was going to announce actions on gun regulation which he could take on his authority, without relying on Congress to pass new laws.  I've been curious to see what they would be.  Remember that his actions on immigration are currently tied up in court because, it is claimed, he needed to follow the rule-making process in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and didn't   So my question was: would he try the same sort of thing on guns, or could he find some other ways to affect the sale and possession of guns.

It seems that he mostly has, and partially by definition of "engaged", which I find to be a parallel with the "actively engaged in farming" issue in payment limitation regulations. (Search for "actively engaged" to see prior posts on this.)

From this Post piece (currently with 1430+ comments):

That distinction centers on the phrase "engaged in the business." Those who are engaged in the business of selling firearms, such as firearm dealers, need to conduct background checks. Those who aren't, such as individuals selling guns, don't.

 The Post piece includes an interview with a law professor, whose discussion could equally apply to the "actively engaged" issue.  To recall: as Sen. Grassley can testify, some in Congress want the USDA to interpret "actively engaged" very strictly,  others want a very loose interpretation.  Typically because the farm state legislators are more continuously involved, USDA tends to follow the loose interpretation.  This favors the farm interest: everyone actively engaged can receive payments up to the limit.  For gun control, the politics reverse themselves: everyone actively engaged in gun dealing faces the regulations on sales.

The open question at the moment is a comparison of how Obama is promulgating his interpretation of "engaged" (i.e., proposed rule under APA or simply instructions to the bureaucrats) versus FSA's use of the regulatory procedure.  More to follow.

The Past Was Different

Via Brad DeLong, from Eleanor Roosevelt, a list of some of things not available in Britain in January 1946 (Roosevelt was about to travel to the UK):

"Then came these little items among the things the traveler must be sure to take to England.

• 'Women's hose—none available.'
• 'Low-heeled walking shoes—repairing impossible.'
• 'Clothes hangers.'
• 'Soap (hand, laundry, shampoo)—none available.'
• 'Razor blades—none available.'
• 'Shaving material of all kinds.'
• 'All cosmetics, creams, perfumes, colognes, nail polish, etc.'
• 'Bath towels, face towels, wash cloths, any necessary medicines, vitamin tablets, sugar, cigarettes, matches, chocolate candy, fruit juices, flashlight, personal stationery.'

It took a long time for the Brits to get back on their feet and end rationing.  In comparison the U.S. was in good shape.

 

The Importance of Grinding, Even Today

Got an interesting book for Christmas: Cuisine & Empire, Cooking in World History.  It's a survey of different cuisines over several thousand years.  I've read part of the part.  One of the early surprises was the discussion of grinding grain.  What's really involved is a shearing action. With hand tools, like the metate, it takes a long long time for the woman to grind the grain for a family

The Times has an article on the ways in which solar electricity is coming to areas of India which don't have power lines.   It includes this quote:

"“We still have to do manual grinding of grains and spices,” Mr. Kalayya said. “It takes up a lot of time. The next loan can be for a machine that will do this.”

Love Letter to Public Services

It would be nice to know how public services operate in Turkey, but here's a love letter to public services in the US. 

Happy New Year

Season's greetings

Tipping, An Old Tradition

My newspaper delivery person(s) send Christmas cards with envelopes with their return address, as a gentle plea for a tip.  ("Person(s) because I get two papers, though in one delivery, but apparently the Times and Post have separate people, who've made a side deal to save gas by handling me in one visit.) 

That's an old tradition, though maybe I should hold out for a poem, as they did in 1766, according to this Boston 1775 post.

The Problem of Consciousness in Self Driving Cars

Technology Review has an article on why self-driving cars must be programmed to kill, which is one of their best of 2015, which attracted a whole lot of comments.    The starting point is the old philosophical dilemma: in a choice between killing one and killing many, which is the right choice?  Do you push the fat man onto the railroad tracks to derail a train bearing down on a stopped school bus, or whatever? Does a self-driving car go off the road and over the cliff to avoid killing people in the road, if it kills the driver?

It strikes me as a problem only for the self-driving car which is conscious.  What do I mean? A computer processes one bit of information at a time, it's sequential.  The philosophical dilemma is one of consciousness: because humans are conscious we know, or think we know, things simultaneously: both the fat man and the school bus and the possible different courses of action.

But how would a computer know those things?  Say its driving a car which rounds the curve on the mountain road.  Maybe it knows there's no shoulder on the side, just guard rails which it will try to avoid. At some point it starts to see something in the road. It starts braking immediately.  It doesn't take the time to distinguish between live people and dead rocks, it just does its best to stop, perhaps being willing to hit the guard rail a glancing blow.   Presumably its best is a hell of a lot better than a human's: its perception is sharper, its decision making quicker, its initial speed perhaps slower.  I suspect the end result will be better than either of the alternatives posed in the philosophy class.  

The self-driving car is going to be optimized for its capacities, which don't include consciousness.

"A Deal Deal"

One of my favorite movies is a minor Clint Eastwood film: Kelly's Heroes.  It's a weird combination of war escapade and satire, mocking both the military and the counter-culture, Westerns, and movies..   Eastwood leads a motley crew through German lines into a town to rob a bank of German gold.  However a squad of German tanks has also learned of the gold, so the good guys and bad guys face off in the town, eventually reaching an impasse.  That's the moment at which Don Rickles, playing a corrupt supply sergeant, persuades Telly Savalas that it's time to do a deal with the Germans to split the gold; as he describes it, a "deal deal".

 That's what Speaker Ryan did in the closing days of Congress, a deal deal.  That's what some Republicans, particularly Paul Hinderaker at Powerline, don't understand--politics as the art of the deal deal.

An End to Innovation: 3-D Printed Rocket Parts

Government Executive reports on NASA's development of 3-D printed rocket parts.

Discrimination in USDA

NYTimes has a piece on discrimination against Hispanics by USDA agencies.  Forest Service is mentioned.  It ends with this paragraph:

"The department’s Office of Advocacy and Outreach signed an agreement with the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities in early December to fund 180 paid internships at the agency. The association represents more than 470 schools."