What scares me the most about the Trump administration isn’t what the federal government will do to me. What scares me is my own ability to look away if the federal government does things to more marginalized segments of the population.
Blogging on bureaucracy, organizations, USDA, agriculture programs, American history, the food movement, and other interests. Often contrarian, usually optimistic, sometimes didactic, occasionally funny, rarely wrong, always a nitpicker.
Monday, March 06, 2017
What Scares You?
For Dan Drezner:
Sunday, March 05, 2017
CrowdSourcing the Self-Driving Car
NYTimes had an article on the problems of creating the very detailed map needed by self-driving cars, which led to descriptions of the use of crowdsourcing to solve the problem.
The idea is simple: have the equipment in each self-driving car update the imagery in the database that guides all self-driving cars. To me it's a similar idea to my bottom-up car, or trainable car: the data from traversing a route at time A is available to be used to help traverse the same route at time B.
The idea is simple: have the equipment in each self-driving car update the imagery in the database that guides all self-driving cars. To me it's a similar idea to my bottom-up car, or trainable car: the data from traversing a route at time A is available to be used to help traverse the same route at time B.
Saturday, March 04, 2017
Stockman and Mulvaney
This Politico piece on Republican libertarians such as Amash and Mulvaney brought back memories of another bright young congressman who knew all the numbers in the federal budget and took a job as OMB director: David Stockman, the inventor of the "magic asterisk". One can only wonder whether he too will write a memoir entitled "The Triumph of Politics, Why the Trump Revolution Failed".
Amazingly his wikipedia article doesn't mention the asterisk.
Amazingly his wikipedia article doesn't mention the asterisk.
Friday, March 03, 2017
A New Farm Bill on the Horizon
Chris Clayton has a report on Rep. Conaway, chair of House Ag, and his outlook for a new farm bill.
My initial reaction is it's likely that Trump's budget outline will call for deep cuts in farm programs. If not, people who want to defend other existing programs against Trump's cuts will start asking: "what about agriculture"?
But then I remember the Reagan administration. That's many years ago and my memory has faded. IIRC the White House didn't really like farm programs and cut back where and when they could. But their supporters, particularly conservative House Democrats whom they needed because the Republicans were still in a minority in the House, were able to make deals and fight drastic rollbacks. And the farm situation was rapidly going downhill, as farmers had overextended themselves during the boom years of the 70's and were now facing bankruptcy. That led to one of the worst years ASCS ever had--1983 and the Payment-in-Kind Program: a jury-rigged program to use CCC-inventories to finance the biggest land diversion program we'd had, perhaps in our history.
And of course there's the freeze on federal employment, something Reagan also had.
My initial reaction is it's likely that Trump's budget outline will call for deep cuts in farm programs. If not, people who want to defend other existing programs against Trump's cuts will start asking: "what about agriculture"?
But then I remember the Reagan administration. That's many years ago and my memory has faded. IIRC the White House didn't really like farm programs and cut back where and when they could. But their supporters, particularly conservative House Democrats whom they needed because the Republicans were still in a minority in the House, were able to make deals and fight drastic rollbacks. And the farm situation was rapidly going downhill, as farmers had overextended themselves during the boom years of the 70's and were now facing bankruptcy. That led to one of the worst years ASCS ever had--1983 and the Payment-in-Kind Program: a jury-rigged program to use CCC-inventories to finance the biggest land diversion program we'd had, perhaps in our history.
And of course there's the freeze on federal employment, something Reagan also had.
Thursday, March 02, 2017
A Successful Four Years? Our President Learns?
Here's how Trump has a successful four years:
Newt Gingrich said something in the paper in morning about Trump being a good learner. Others, including Gail Collins in the Times today, say he's very curious in small meetings and asks a lot of questions. So here's a hypothesis: Trump gets good reviews from acting Presidential Tuesday night. That represents the "swamp" (aka the established political order) rewarding him for conforming to its norms. If Trump truly does learn, which is to be proven, and he truly does crave praise, which seems well proven, then he will gradually alter his behavior so he's more like a conventional president. So what we're seeing now is a process where the establishment is punishing and rewarding Trump for his behavior.
I think the hypothesis is reasonable. However how likely to change is a 70-year old man? Not very, I'd say. On the other hand, he doesn't have a long history as a political actor, so maybe more likely than Nixon, who tried to change every few years. There's also incentives to stay the course, maintaining faith with his supporters, and close associates.
Conceivably if the hypothesis works, and Trump is lucky with the economy and foreign policy he'll have a successful presidency.
- give cabinet members leeway to do their own thing
- dominate the news media using his time-tested schtick
- make proposals which sound good but which may not come to fruition
- have a handful of real accomplishments
Newt Gingrich said something in the paper in morning about Trump being a good learner. Others, including Gail Collins in the Times today, say he's very curious in small meetings and asks a lot of questions. So here's a hypothesis: Trump gets good reviews from acting Presidential Tuesday night. That represents the "swamp" (aka the established political order) rewarding him for conforming to its norms. If Trump truly does learn, which is to be proven, and he truly does crave praise, which seems well proven, then he will gradually alter his behavior so he's more like a conventional president. So what we're seeing now is a process where the establishment is punishing and rewarding Trump for his behavior.
I think the hypothesis is reasonable. However how likely to change is a 70-year old man? Not very, I'd say. On the other hand, he doesn't have a long history as a political actor, so maybe more likely than Nixon, who tried to change every few years. There's also incentives to stay the course, maintaining faith with his supporters, and close associates.
Conceivably if the hypothesis works, and Trump is lucky with the economy and foreign policy he'll have a successful presidency.
Anti-Missile Defenses and Modern Ag Technology
We liberals had a long and eventually unsuccessful fight against various anti-ballistic missile systems. Back in the 60's it was the Nike-Zeus system which eventually got cancelled. Then it was Reagan's Star Wars and finally it's the system now in place. Part of the argument was that the technology couldn't work, wouldn't work, or at least could be overwhelmed by counter-measures.
These days we seem comfortable with the idea it works, perhaps because our faith in technology is greater these days? That faith is boosted by reports such as this, which describes the test of a system of cameras and laser beams for zapping insects, specifically psyllids which attack citrus. Somehow that seems more impressive to me than attacking ballistic missiles, which as the name states have a path determined by gravity (though modern ICBM's launch maneuverable warheads so are no longer solely ballistic.)
These days we seem comfortable with the idea it works, perhaps because our faith in technology is greater these days? That faith is boosted by reports such as this, which describes the test of a system of cameras and laser beams for zapping insects, specifically psyllids which attack citrus. Somehow that seems more impressive to me than attacking ballistic missiles, which as the name states have a path determined by gravity (though modern ICBM's launch maneuverable warheads so are no longer solely ballistic.)
Donal Trump Wants Me to Work
As a retiree, I'm included in the 93+ million people he considers to be unemployed. NOT.
Wednesday, March 01, 2017
Oscars and Butterfly Ballots
Vox has a good piece by Benjamin Bannister analyzing the design of the Oscar card. It, along with the infamous "butterfly ballot" of 2000, shows the importance of design. I won't say the Oscar card is a bureaucratic "form", but I won't say it isn't.
When I joined ASCS in 1968 it had a strong form design shop, with Chet Adell, Tom Sager, and Linda Nugent. I remember Chet's pride in some of the forms they'd designed, particularly the Farm Record Card (ASCS-156) which moved historical data to a farm-based form from a series of listing sheets, so the clerk, as they were known then, could refer to one document for a farm rather than several.
As someone has said, the "devil's in the details", and good forms designers sweat the details.
When I joined ASCS in 1968 it had a strong form design shop, with Chet Adell, Tom Sager, and Linda Nugent. I remember Chet's pride in some of the forms they'd designed, particularly the Farm Record Card (ASCS-156) which moved historical data to a farm-based form from a series of listing sheets, so the clerk, as they were known then, could refer to one document for a farm rather than several.
As someone has said, the "devil's in the details", and good forms designers sweat the details.
Tuesday, February 28, 2017
Why I'm a Liberal
Take two bloggers, one liberal, one conservatish, and give them the snafu at the Oscars to analyze. What happens:
- Kevin Drum, the liberal, does a failure analysis, identifying five separate failure points.
- Ann Althouse, the less-liberal, comes up with a weird conspiracy theory.
Sunday, February 26, 2017
Washing Machines and Dog-Powers
Bloomberg has a piece on the long, long history of washing machines, as in 250 years + long. (If I remember correctly, Hans Rosling credited the machines as one of the bigger improvements in our living standards.) My mother would recall that the family dog would disappear on Mondays because that was wash day and he was expected to toil on the "dog power" to run the washing machine. See this for an image and description.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)