The Dream of Online Access to USDA Operations

In 1992 we had the dream of permitting farmers online access to ASCS, SCS, Farmers Home applications.  In the initial Infoshare pilot we found very limited adoption.  As I've observed from a distance the different embodiments of that dream over the years, I've always been curious how many farmers were really getting online and making use of the capabilities USDA provided. But despite my suggestions over the years, I'm not aware of any Federal site which publishes usage figures, so there's no way for a member of the public to see whether progress is being made.

Recently I found a clue, at least for FSA/NRCS/RD, thanks to the requirement for public notice on data requirements.  (The first time in my life I've really seen a value for that procedural requirement.)

Here is the Federal Register document from USDA on the information collection requirement for e-Auth.

"The USDA eAuthentication Service provides public and government businesses single sign-on capability for USDA applications, management of user credentials, and verification of identify, authorization, and electronic signatures. USDA eAuthentication obtains customer information through an electronic self-registration process provided through the eAuthentication Web site. The voluntary online self-registration process applies to USDA Agency customers, as well as employees who request access to protected USDA web applications and services via the Internet. Users can register directly from the eAuthentication Web site located at www.eauth.egov.usda.gov. The information collected through the online self-registration process will be used to provide an eAuthentication account that will enable the electronic authentication of users. The users will then have access to authorized resources without needing to reauthenticate within the context of a single Internet session."

 "Description of Respondents: Farms; Individuals or Households; Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions; Federal government; State, Local or Tribal Government.
Number of Respondents: 114,256.

 There's no breakdown given for how many of the respondents are actually farmers.  My guess would be about 80,000 to 100,000, which might be from 10 to 25 percent of potential users.

What's Wrong With Old White Men?

Bernstein comments that Trump's cabinet is old, other observers have said they're white, mostly, and mostly men (particularly if you omit what I'd call the "semi-cabinet--EPA, SBA,UN ambassador). It's notable there's little attention to their religious or ethnic diversity; the days when we paid attention to those parameters is long gone.  And everyone assumes they're all heterosexual.

As an old white heterosexual male I see nothing at all wrong with his selections.  :-)  By the same token, I understand why others might justifiably criticize the narrowness of his universe.

Taxing Sugar--Hypocrisy

The Post (Wonkblog) has a piece arguing the merits of taxing sugar, that is sugar instead of soda.

I'm sure one could find in back issues of the Post an attack on USDA's current sugar program, which sets import quotas for foreign sugar, as costing the American consumer millions of dollars in added costs for their sugar.  I'm also sure you won't find the food movement backing the sugar program as an instance in which government programs make Americans healthier.

(Note: I really have no brief for the sugar program; I just note the world is more complicated than advocates realize.)

Our Blinders

Love to pick on economists:

Here's Alex Tabarrok at Marginal Revolution:

"Animal rights will be the big social revolution of the 21st century. Most people have a vague feeling that factory farms aren’t quite ethical."

 I want to point out the blindness--the "most people".  With my background I don't really buy the argument, or maybe it's better to say the issue is more complex for me than the average brown bear. Anyhow, when I read it, I resisted the concept a bit.  But when you think about it--who are the people who Prof. Tabarrok has in his head?  They're likely people like him, members of the urban elite. I venture to say that most members of American society don't think about the ethics of factory farming at all. And I venture to say that most people in foreign countries have no opinion on the issue.

My point is it's easy to slip into a generalization which isn't true, particularly when it's a binary issue: is factory farming ethical or not? IMHO it's more accurate to talk about gradations and percentages: a majority of the urban elite (especially native white elites) who have an opinion would likely have questions about the ethics of factory farming.

Mapspotting: Ithaca and Native Americans

One of the pleasures of being a know-it-all is noticing things the media/experts don't.  These days the Times, the Post, and websites display a lot of data using maps, often at the county level, enabling me to "mapspot".

For example, it's often easy to pick out Ithaca, NY, or rather Tompkins county.  It sits in the center of the state and with the presence of Cornell U. and Ithaca College it often stands out--it's an example of the "big sort", people separating themselves by money, lifestyle, and opinion.

On a darker note, there are counties in the west of North Dakota/South Dakota and around the Four Corners area of Arizona/New Mexico which stick out. Note the Vox maps on various causes and trends of mortality in this piece.  Why--because there are Indian reservations there--Sioux and Navaho.  Watch Longmire.

Trump and LBJ

I'm getting some echoes of LBJ in our current president-elect.  Like Trump, LBJ paid obsessive attention to TV, going so far as to have 3 TV's, one for each network going in his offices.  Like Trump, LBJ did a lot of feinting and faking, trying to build some drama and keep his adversaries off balance. (I'm thinking of his appointments and occasionally on policy.  He kept Hubert Humphrey in suspense for months before confirming his selection as Vice President.)  Like Trump, LBJ didn't relax, he drove himself and his staff relentlessly.  Like Trump, I don't think LBJ had many close friends. Like Trump, LBJ was unfaithful, though unlike Trump he stayed in his marriage.  Like Trump, LBJ didn't conform to the usual norms of gentility and political custom.  Like Trump, LBJ could be volatile and very thin-skinned.

Unlike Trump, LBJ's domestic policies were admirable.

The China Lobby--Traces of History

In the 50's and 60's we had something called the "China Lobby", a group of politicians and lobbyists who had long supported the Chinese Nationalists, before and after their move to the island of Formosa (Taiwan).  They had influence, ensuring the US did not recognize the existence of Communist China.  They tended to be right wing Republicans, although not completely so, and had alliances with hard-liners opposing the USSR, seeing a monolithic communist conspiracy for world domination.

Then Nixon went to China, and recognized the regime.  The China Lobby was aghast--IIRC George Will and William Safire were outraged.  Over time the outrage has diminished, partially because the members of the lobby have died (Madame Chiang Kai-shek, a fascinating woman), partly the passage of time has dulled passions.  But there's always been a group which supports more arms to China and resists initiatives of opening to China.

With Trump's tweets and phone call with the Taiwan president I'm wondering whether the China Lobby is still exerting its influence.  We'll see.

The Results of Ending Fox Hunts in Britain

That's the door of No. 10 Downing Street, according to this article.  
It only takes a few years for the foxes to take over. 

Reached from Kevin Drum's Friday cat blog post by following the link to the Sun.

Founding Fathers and Conflict of Interest

For those who believe in "originalism", a cautionary tale on the conflicts of interest between our first president.

Loving Trump

Just saw the movie "Loving".  Quite good, will be on some Oscar lists, but not up to last year's Spotlight.  That said, this thought struck me:

Richard Loving would have voted for Trump.

Why?  Because he felt powerless to take care of his wife, a feeling shared by many Trump voters.