Harshaw Rule at the Olympics

From the blog of a relative, who attends almost all Olympic games and writes about them for friends and relatives:

"A lot of people over the years have asked me how I tell which are the best Olympics. I usually tell them that a lot of things just don't go well for the first few days when 7 years of planning meet the first day of reality, but the good Olympics are the ones that spot the problems and rapidly fix them. We will see whether POCOG (PyeongChang Olympic Organizing Committee) can rise to the challenge."

(The Harshaw rule is: "you never do things right the first time".  Maybe there's a corollary: spotting the problems and rapidly fixing them is essential?)

The Great Switcheroo: Republicans

A quote:
"

Second, the Republican policy reversals are staggering:

• Members of Congress who once claimed to be committed to debt reduction would increase debt by more than $2.7 trillion in just seven weeks.
• Congressional Republicans would increase government spending by 50% more than they cut taxes two months ago.
• The self-labeled fiscal conservatives in Congress, who had once insisted that all government spending increases be offset by spending cuts, would abandon that principle.
• A party that just a few years ago proposed reforming old-age entitlement spending, the principal driver of government spending growth, would have no proposals to do so. If press reports are true, this bill may even increase Medicaid spending.
• The Republican Congressional Majority, which built last year’s balanced budget plan on deep future cuts to nondefense discretionary spending, would be supporting big increases in that spending."

Who is saying all this: Keith Hennessey, CEA under Bush.

Trump's Parades and Nixon's Uniforms

Post had an article saying President Trump has told DOD to come up with plans for a military parade in D.C.  The idea is getting a fair amount of mockery among liberals.

Because it's such a serious topic :-) I want to offer a historical parallel, President Nixon's new uniforms for the White House police.  Nixon supposedly found the old uniforms to lack class, whereas uniforms on honor guards he saw overseas were classy.  The new uniforms didn't last long, because he was mocked for having a palace guard.   See Megan McArdle some years ago.  And the NYTimes on the unveiling

Imprisonment and Clemency: Two Examples

The Washington Post has two articles which offer perspectives on punishment and clemency:

This Metro article reporting on MD judges concerns about life sentences for juveniles:

A central question for the Maryland Court of Appeals is whether a young person can be sentenced to life without what prison reform advocates say is any realistic chance of release. The cases follow several Supreme Court rulings that distinguish between adult and juvenile offenders, who the court says are not as culpable and have a “heightened capacity for change.”
The high court in 2016 prohibited mandatory life sentences for juveniles without parole and has said young offenders must have a “meaningful” chance to show they have matured and to be released.

Then there's this Chico Harlan article about a North Korean spy who successfully bombed a South Korean airliner, killing 115 people, during the run-up to the Seoul summer Olympics.  She's living quietly as the mother of two teenagers.

The contrast between the situations is stark, mind-blowing in fact. 

Inflation and Rising Interest Rates

After the events of 2008, as Congress passed the stimulus bill and the Obama administration took charge, conservative bloggers such as those at Powerline started to worry about inflation.  Liberals such as Kevin Drum and the liberal economists mocked the concerns.  I have to admit that while I mostly agreed with the liberals, my memory of the inflation of the 1970's caused occasional qualms.

Turns out the liberals, and Bernanke and Yellen were right--we didn't have inflation over the Obama years.  Interest rates remained low.

But, with today's news of the stock market fall, there's more discussion of inflation.  Maybe finally inflation will hit and pass the 2 percent a year benchmark the Fed has used.  I'm no economist and I'm not panicking about the stock market.  But I do want to point out something I've not seen mentioned.

The federal deficit is projected to rise very significantly this year.  Trump's tax cut will hit revenues, and even if he's correct it will stimulate the economy, any increase in revenues will take a while to show up.  But what if it doesn't?  And what if inflation is at the door, and the Fed raises rates faster than expected?  The net result of higher interest rates is greater budgetary pressure and a larger deficit.  (We know that from Clinton's early years.)  That's not a good formula.

(A parenthetical note: I've not seen the Powerline bloggers raise any concerns about the deficit since January 19, 2018.)

Cows Don't Have Privacy Any More

The Internet for Things also applies to dairy cows.  This piece describes 4 ways in which cows are being tracked: movement and location, behavior, activity, and lactation.

140 Birds a Minute

From a Politico wrapup of weekly events in the government, on the subject of the speed of meat packing lines processing chickens:

"Under current rules, meat packers cannot exceed 140 birds per minute"

Now the image I have is of a conveyor belt with chickens hanging by the feet from it, dead, and being processed.  And there's different workers, each doing a different job.  And that means they have less than 30 seconds to, say, remove a wing.  Seems incredible to me that people can do that, hour after hour, but they do.  (Although my imagination may have significant faults in the image.)

The meat processors wanted permission to speed it up.  USDA said no.

Robots and Dairy

Nathaniel Johnson has a piece at Grist, which also links to a Bloomberg piece, discussing the increasing use of robots in dairy farming, particularly with Trump's desire to reduce immigration.

As Johnson observes, the more robots the smaller the rural population.

"An Impassable Wall" Trump? No, Lincoln

 Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them, Is it
possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.

Is it doubted, then, that the plan I propose, if adopted, would shorten the war, and thus lessen its expenditure of money and of blood? Is it doubted that it would restore the national authority and national prosperity and perpetuate both indefinitely? Is it doubted that we here--Congress and Executive can secure its adoption? Will not the good people respond to a united and earnest appeal from us? Can we, can they, by any other means so certainly or so speedily assure these vital objects? We can succeed only by concert. It is not "Can any of us imagine better?" but "Can we all do better?" Object whatsoever is possible, still the question recurs, "Can we do better?" The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.

Fellow-citizens, we can not escape history. We of this Congress and this Administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance or insignificance can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass will light us down in honor or dishonor to the latest generation. We say we are for the Union. The world will not forget that we say this. We know how to save the Union. The world knows we do know how to save it. We, even we here, hold the power and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave we assure freedom to the free--honorable alike in what we give and what we preserve. We shall nobly save or meanly lose the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just--a way which if followed the world will forever applaud and God must forever bless.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29503

Reducing Layers of Management Redux

Government executive has a piece by Howard Risher on the need to reduce layers of management in government:

"February 12 promises to be a significant day for federal employees. It’s the day the White House releases its 2019 budget request, along with its plans to restructure agencies, improve workforce management and performance, increase accountability, and reduce costs. One recommended change—the elimination of a layer or more of management—will have far-reaching implications. Such a move would reduce the workforce and expand the supervisory responsibilities of executives and managers, making continued micromanagement impractical"

It's a good thing President Trump has a short memory and no animus against Al Gore, because that was a major plank in Gore's "Reinventing Government" initiative in 1993-on.  For ASCS, it was an exercise in paper shuffing, IMHO.  Branch chiefs became "team leaders" but they had the same people reporting to them in fact, if not on paper. 

There's many reasons for multiplying layers of management, some good, some not-so.  But a diktat that eliminates a layer doesn't address those reasons and so, again in my opinion, will have minimal long term effect.