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, June 19, 2017
In Defense of Trump (?)
Lots of people, including my favorite blogger Kevin Drum, poke fun at our president for tweeting about his 50 percent favorable rating in the Rasmussen poll. I'd like to defend him a bit: part of the reason Rasmussen is an outlier apparently is the different universe it's polling. Rather than "all voters" or "registered voters" which other pollsters seem to be using, Rasmussen is using "likely voters". I'm guessing they are basing their judgments as to whether a respondent is likely to vote based on whether the person voted in 2016. In addition, they've tended to have a pro-Republican "house" effect. So the bottom line is Rasmussen is saying that Trump's voters still believe in him, which isn't exactly news. The other pollsters are saying that the Clinton voters and non-voters are more and more turning against Trump, which also isn't news.
Saying No to an Illegal Request
Ezra Klein has a piece on Comey and Trump. David Ignatius has another. The last paragraph:
"Comey’s personal ethical dilemmas are now interwoven with the nation’s political history. It’s the stuff of high drama — the temporizing ethicist meets the amoral bulldozer. The story didn’t have a happy ending for Comey — or, it seems, for the country."
A question, asked by Sen. Feinstein, is why Comey didn't take a stronger stand if he perceived Trump's request as illegitimate, illegal even. Comey says he wasn't strong enough.
I've sympathy with his quandry. I remember in the 1990's (1992) receiving a call from a person in my chain of command asking me to donate to the Ranchers and Farmers PAC (Jeffress Wells, now deceased). This was a violation of the Hatch Act and indeed Wells and two other people were found guilty of a misdemeanor violation for their actions--soliciting political funds using government time and facilities. But while I refused, I was weak. I said I had already given to the Dems (which may have been a lie, but I did contribute during that election season). That gave me sufficient leverage to argue my way out of giving.
So like Comey I didn't stand up and say: "that would be wrong, you're violating the law, etc." Why not? For me, I was taken by surprise and I'm rarely very good when I'm surprised. I didn't have the Hatch Act at the tip of my tongue; indeed I never thought of the law until months/years later when the case hit the papers (and a House subcommittee started investigating). I also tend to be ambivalent with authority, trusting it most of the time and fighting it some of the time. So the emotions of standing up to authority, I'd worked with Jeff for 23 years off and on, didn't like him particularly but still, undermined the ability to go further and take a principled stand rather than just an evasive one.
I don't often remember this story, because it's not one I'm particularly proud of. When I do remember it, as now, it reminds me to be a bit more sympathetic to others who were faced with an illegal request, but whose response was less than a blast on their whistle.
The rest of the story? I think Wells may have discussed, rather hinted at, the consequences of not giving, but I can't be sure. Nor can I be sure that later, after Clinton won and Wells was one of the people given power in the transition over the future organization of ASCS, there was any connection between my refusal and the proposed dissolution of the branch I was heading. Jeff and I had a couple run-ins in this general time period--I was working closely with the ASCS "trail boss", linked with the Republicans, trying to reengineer our systems and Jeff wanted to kill it--NIH. Whether the refusing donations preceded that, or not, I don't remember.
The way things came out, Jeff didn't achieve as much power in the new organization as he had hoped and my branch had impressed enough people with their work that we stayed together. Though I was worried for a good while.
"Comey’s personal ethical dilemmas are now interwoven with the nation’s political history. It’s the stuff of high drama — the temporizing ethicist meets the amoral bulldozer. The story didn’t have a happy ending for Comey — or, it seems, for the country."
A question, asked by Sen. Feinstein, is why Comey didn't take a stronger stand if he perceived Trump's request as illegitimate, illegal even. Comey says he wasn't strong enough.
I've sympathy with his quandry. I remember in the 1990's (1992) receiving a call from a person in my chain of command asking me to donate to the Ranchers and Farmers PAC (Jeffress Wells, now deceased). This was a violation of the Hatch Act and indeed Wells and two other people were found guilty of a misdemeanor violation for their actions--soliciting political funds using government time and facilities. But while I refused, I was weak. I said I had already given to the Dems (which may have been a lie, but I did contribute during that election season). That gave me sufficient leverage to argue my way out of giving.
So like Comey I didn't stand up and say: "that would be wrong, you're violating the law, etc." Why not? For me, I was taken by surprise and I'm rarely very good when I'm surprised. I didn't have the Hatch Act at the tip of my tongue; indeed I never thought of the law until months/years later when the case hit the papers (and a House subcommittee started investigating). I also tend to be ambivalent with authority, trusting it most of the time and fighting it some of the time. So the emotions of standing up to authority, I'd worked with Jeff for 23 years off and on, didn't like him particularly but still, undermined the ability to go further and take a principled stand rather than just an evasive one.
I don't often remember this story, because it's not one I'm particularly proud of. When I do remember it, as now, it reminds me to be a bit more sympathetic to others who were faced with an illegal request, but whose response was less than a blast on their whistle.
The rest of the story? I think Wells may have discussed, rather hinted at, the consequences of not giving, but I can't be sure. Nor can I be sure that later, after Clinton won and Wells was one of the people given power in the transition over the future organization of ASCS, there was any connection between my refusal and the proposed dissolution of the branch I was heading. Jeff and I had a couple run-ins in this general time period--I was working closely with the ASCS "trail boss", linked with the Republicans, trying to reengineer our systems and Jeff wanted to kill it--NIH. Whether the refusing donations preceded that, or not, I don't remember.
The way things came out, Jeff didn't achieve as much power in the new organization as he had hoped and my branch had impressed enough people with their work that we stayed together. Though I was worried for a good while.
Sunday, June 18, 2017
Types of Bureaucrats
World Bank has a piece on types of bureaucrats in developing countries, applying a typology from an old board game.
Players may select one of four lifestyles, each with its own advantages and disadvantages: lifer, over achiever, empire builder, or hustler. To be promoted from level to level, a player will need the required number of promotional prerequisites and that's where the fun comes in. All sorts of things can happen. Players may be demoted. They may be involved in scandals. They may become involved in power plays. They may have to go before a Grievance Committee. A player may even go bankrupt and have to start all over from the bottom again. There is no one sure formula for success. Players will have to stay out of trouble and use all their cunning to succeed.
Interesting Take on the South
Kevin Williamson has been getting more of my attention lately. Perhaps I'm getting more conservative as I get older?
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448630/conservatives-new-party-bill-kristol-republicans-populism-globalism
As recently as the 1960s, much of the South was in effect a Third World country within the borders of the United States, complete with corrupt and ineffective government, poverty, and the associated social pathologies. The economic rise of the South did not make New England, the Mid-Atlantic states, or the Midwest poorer — it made them richer, providing them with new markets and new opportunities for production.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448630/conservatives-new-party-bill-kristol-republicans-populism-globalism
Friday, June 16, 2017
Proof on the Ground of Global Warming
FiveThirtyEight has a post describing the NOAA and USDA climate maps. There's differences in data sources and methodology as well as aim, but they do show the gradual movement north of climate zones.
Global warming skeptics like to challenge temperature histories, claiming scientists change the data to fit preconceived ideas. I view that as highly unlikely, but the most reliable evidence of global warming is: show me the money. When people spend their money, as in cruises through the Northwest Passage or in changing what plants they raise, that's good solid evidence.
Global warming skeptics like to challenge temperature histories, claiming scientists change the data to fit preconceived ideas. I view that as highly unlikely, but the most reliable evidence of global warming is: show me the money. When people spend their money, as in cruises through the Northwest Passage or in changing what plants they raise, that's good solid evidence.
Factoid of the Day: Dutch Ag Exports
The Times has a good piece on how the Dutch combat the sea, and their efforts to sell their expertise across the world to areas threatened by rising oceans. But the amazing factoid is this:
"The Netherlands exports nearly $100 billion a year in agricultural products, second only to the United States."Of course, the reason for the ranking is the high value of their exports of horticultural products, like tulips.
Thursday, June 15, 2017
Clinton, Jackson, Trump, and Censure
The chattering classes are starting to talk about impeachment. I've seen the statement that if the Dems take the House in 2018 Trump will be impeached.
That may well be true, but I see nothing on the current horizon that says he will be convicted by the Senate. Remember the Reps are odds on to retain control of the Senate. Even if they don't, conviction requires 2/3 of the Senate. There's no way to convince that many Rep senators.
What should be considered, assuming there's substantial cause, is what the Dems offered the Reps in 1998, and what was actually passed in the case of President Jackson, a resolution of censure.
That may well be true, but I see nothing on the current horizon that says he will be convicted by the Senate. Remember the Reps are odds on to retain control of the Senate. Even if they don't, conviction requires 2/3 of the Senate. There's no way to convince that many Rep senators.
What should be considered, assuming there's substantial cause, is what the Dems offered the Reps in 1998, and what was actually passed in the case of President Jackson, a resolution of censure.
Wednesday, June 14, 2017
Irish Farming--Custom and Rentals?
Got a hint that maybe Irish crop farming has a different model than the U.S., or maybe it's just my imagination.
In the U.S. I imagine that farmers own and rent land, but own equipment.
In Ireland, I'm not sure about the land, and think maybe they do more rental of heavy equipment and/or hire custom harvesters than in the U.S.
My pictures may be distorted because I'm thinking more of MW corn/soybean than of Great Plains wheat harvesting.
In the U.S. I imagine that farmers own and rent land, but own equipment.
In Ireland, I'm not sure about the land, and think maybe they do more rental of heavy equipment and/or hire custom harvesters than in the U.S.
My pictures may be distorted because I'm thinking more of MW corn/soybean than of Great Plains wheat harvesting.
Republicans Impress Me
They got some 20+ people up and at the ballpark by 7 a.m. in order to practice for a charity baseball game? That impresses me. Hope Scalise and the others injured recover fully from their wounds.
Tuesday, June 13, 2017
Google Shows: Self-Induced Abortions Up?
From a Vox interview with a researcher who's studied Google Trends:
I'm pretty convinced that the United States has a self-induced abortion crisis right now based on the volume of search inquiries. I was blown away by how frequently people are searching for ways to do abortions themselves now. These searches are concentrated in parts of the country where it's hard to get an abortion and they rose substantially when it became harder to get an abortion. They're also, I calculate, missing pregnancies in these states that aren't showing up in either abortion or birth rates.That's factoid which fits a liberal preconception: pro-lifers are successfully restricting the operation of abortion clinics, so it seems likely good old American self-reliance would combine with the Internet to research how to do it oneself. Fitting a preconception doesn't make it wrong. Indeed, in this case the availability of a story which fits the data being reported makes me tentatively a believer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)