Today's news about Justice Ginsburg's pancreatic cancer comes a few days after we watched the biopic: "On the Basis of Sex".
It was better than I anticipated, or at least I was more affected by its portrayal. Ginsburg was 3 years ahead of my sister at Cornell, and she was likely in the same class as a first cousin. So at least vicariously I knew something of the situation of women in those years, although as far as Cornell was concerned things were changing, at least for undergrads. (I had one female professor in 4 years there.)
Friday, August 23, 2019
Thursday, August 22, 2019
Blast from the Past: Oswald's Rifle
I've a lot of posts which I've started but not finished. I may lose the train of thought; more often I see something which triggers a reaction, but isn't sufficient to carry me through a discussion.
This is a post which I abandoned for a while but which I've come back to. I think the trigger was the discussion of the need for semi-automatic weapons, specifically against the threat of feral hogs.
To pick up the thread, back in the day there was much discussion in the Warren Report over whether Lee Harvey Oswald would have been able to get off the shots which killed Kennedy and injured Connally. There were questions over how many shots were fired, how many struck the limousine, how many were heard.
As I remember it, tests with a rifle like Oswald's bolt action rifle (a cheap mail-order gun) showed that a good shot could easily get off the three shots the Warren Commission determined had been shot. IIRC the rate was 3 shots in about 5 seconds, maybe less.
I just did a google search, on how fast you could fire a bolt-action rifle, getting conflicting results. Obviously there are lot of variables, skill of the shooter, the weapon, scope?, distance, accuracy, etc. Bottom line seems to be you can put out a lot of lead in a short time.
This is a post which I abandoned for a while but which I've come back to. I think the trigger was the discussion of the need for semi-automatic weapons, specifically against the threat of feral hogs.
To pick up the thread, back in the day there was much discussion in the Warren Report over whether Lee Harvey Oswald would have been able to get off the shots which killed Kennedy and injured Connally. There were questions over how many shots were fired, how many struck the limousine, how many were heard.
As I remember it, tests with a rifle like Oswald's bolt action rifle (a cheap mail-order gun) showed that a good shot could easily get off the three shots the Warren Commission determined had been shot. IIRC the rate was 3 shots in about 5 seconds, maybe less.
I just did a google search, on how fast you could fire a bolt-action rifle, getting conflicting results. Obviously there are lot of variables, skill of the shooter, the weapon, scope?, distance, accuracy, etc. Bottom line seems to be you can put out a lot of lead in a short time.
Wednesday, August 21, 2019
USDA and Its Scientists
I've lost track of what I've posted about the relocation of ERS and NIFA to Kansas City.
It seems, from outside, to have been rather mismanaged. The latest problem is the reduction from $25K to $10 in the buyout payments to those who refused to move. (To be fair, the initial letter said the "maximum" payment would be $25K, but if a good bureaucrat had been involved in the drafting she would have questioned why the adjective, leading to a discussion of the fact that the pot of available money for buyouts was limited, and subsequently a rewording of the letter.
The opponents of the relocation have played their card well, wrapping the ERS and NIFA in the robes of "scientists". The story is a bit more complicated than that--ERS is social science and NIFA funds research.
It seems, from outside, to have been rather mismanaged. The latest problem is the reduction from $25K to $10 in the buyout payments to those who refused to move. (To be fair, the initial letter said the "maximum" payment would be $25K, but if a good bureaucrat had been involved in the drafting she would have questioned why the adjective, leading to a discussion of the fact that the pot of available money for buyouts was limited, and subsequently a rewording of the letter.
The opponents of the relocation have played their card well, wrapping the ERS and NIFA in the robes of "scientists". The story is a bit more complicated than that--ERS is social science and NIFA funds research.
Tuesday, August 20, 2019
Slavery and Caste Systems
Having read Ants Among Elephants (see yesterday's post) I'm musing about the similarities and differences between the caste system and slavery.
Did a google search, with limited results--I don't see a solid academic study, just some student work or summaries that can go off track. This might be the best one, throwing in "class system" and "meritocracy" as well as slavery and caste. One big problem is comparing different times and different countries.
What's striking to me from Ants is the use of force to enforce caste boundaries. As it happens, a front page article in the Post today is an account of an honor killing, a Dalit married a woman of a trading caste, her father hired men to kill him. Force obviously was used in slavery. Which one was/is more violent.
In both cases (chattel slavery and caste system), the position is inherited by child from parent. In chattel slavery the law backs the social norms; apparently in the caste system social norms were sufficient. And in India these days the law doesn't support the system.
It seems some social mobility is possible in both systems. Certainly the family described in Ants is mobile, though their upward progress seems a function of the changing laws. Their progress seems more problematic than some mobility under slavery. The key difference might be the ownership: if your owner was your father and/or enlightened, he could boost you. Since Dalits have no owner, that doesn't work.
On the other hand, there might be more unity among the caste (considering Dalits as a caste) than there was in slavery. Perhaps, perhaps not.
[Added: Other important differences:
Did a google search, with limited results--I don't see a solid academic study, just some student work or summaries that can go off track. This might be the best one, throwing in "class system" and "meritocracy" as well as slavery and caste. One big problem is comparing different times and different countries.
What's striking to me from Ants is the use of force to enforce caste boundaries. As it happens, a front page article in the Post today is an account of an honor killing, a Dalit married a woman of a trading caste, her father hired men to kill him. Force obviously was used in slavery. Which one was/is more violent.
In both cases (chattel slavery and caste system), the position is inherited by child from parent. In chattel slavery the law backs the social norms; apparently in the caste system social norms were sufficient. And in India these days the law doesn't support the system.
It seems some social mobility is possible in both systems. Certainly the family described in Ants is mobile, though their upward progress seems a function of the changing laws. Their progress seems more problematic than some mobility under slavery. The key difference might be the ownership: if your owner was your father and/or enlightened, he could boost you. Since Dalits have no owner, that doesn't work.
On the other hand, there might be more unity among the caste (considering Dalits as a caste) than there was in slavery. Perhaps, perhaps not.
[Added: Other important differences:
- there seems to be no boss, no slave driver in the caste system. That might mean more "freedom" in one's daily routine, more akin to the "task" system in rice culture than the "driver" in cotton system.
- mobility within the caste is restrcted--no house slaves versus field slaves, no chance to become a skilled artisan]
Monday, August 19, 2019
Ants Among the Elephants
Just finished the book, which I'd recommend. It's very much narrative driven, very little description or fine writing, and not much analysis. It's obvious that the author isn't writing in her first language, a fact which some reviewers on Amazon found objectionable. Essentially it's the story of the author's grandfather, uncle, and mother. They were Dalits, or "untouchables", striving to get educated and escape the life to which they were born. The uncle becomes a leader in the Naxalite/Communist rebellion, while the parents become college instructors.
It got good reviews (Wall Street Journal list of 10 best nonfiction books of 2017) for the description of a different world.
What strikes me is, although the family struggles to rise, they also accept the norms of the society.
It got good reviews (Wall Street Journal list of 10 best nonfiction books of 2017) for the description of a different world.
What strikes me is, although the family struggles to rise, they also accept the norms of the society.
E. J. Dionne Is Absolutely Right
He has an op-ed in today's Post on the importance for Democrats of winning control of the Senate.
Unfortunately that likely means defeating some Republicans I'd just as soon see stay, but given our growing partisan divisions that's the way it's going to be.
Unfortunately that likely means defeating some Republicans I'd just as soon see stay, but given our growing partisan divisions that's the way it's going to be.
Sunday, August 18, 2019
Is Trump Really Alan Ladd or Richard Boone
Daniel Drezner picks out a paragraph from Bruenig's Post piece here:
The gist of Bruenig's paragraph is many evangelicals see Trump as their defender against the evils besieging them.
I'm reminded of the Westerns which were popular in my youth. One of the themes was epitomized in the movie Shane. A similar theme was in the TV series Have Gun, Will Travel.
The plot of Shane, and many of HGWT's plots, have townspeople who are civilizing the West but whose very virtues render them helpless and inept in dealing with the pure evil of gunslingers (at one time Indians, but by my adolescence they were white). They need a gunslinger of their own, someone with a pure heart (or at least a heart better than those of his opponents) but clouded past, to defend them and defeat evil. The opponents are numerous and wily, not above stooping to the lowest of tricks and hurting the innocent.
I can't see Trump as either Ladd or Boone, the stars of the shows, but Drezner/Bruenig do help me to understand some evangelicals.
I commented on it, and I want to expand my comment here:As always, I learned many things reading @ebruenig’s exploration of why most Texas evangelicals back Trump so fiercely. This paragraph stood out. https://t.co/htyvqqC6ka pic.twitter.com/sUV4WIqx3L— Daniel W. Drezner (@dandrezner) August 18, 2019
The gist of Bruenig's paragraph is many evangelicals see Trump as their defender against the evils besieging them.
I'm reminded of the Westerns which were popular in my youth. One of the themes was epitomized in the movie Shane. A similar theme was in the TV series Have Gun, Will Travel.
The plot of Shane, and many of HGWT's plots, have townspeople who are civilizing the West but whose very virtues render them helpless and inept in dealing with the pure evil of gunslingers (at one time Indians, but by my adolescence they were white). They need a gunslinger of their own, someone with a pure heart (or at least a heart better than those of his opponents) but clouded past, to defend them and defeat evil. The opponents are numerous and wily, not above stooping to the lowest of tricks and hurting the innocent.
I can't see Trump as either Ladd or Boone, the stars of the shows, but Drezner/Bruenig do help me to understand some evangelicals.
Saturday, August 17, 2019
Needed: a Peach Cartel
I think peach growers should form a cartel and push for legislation permitting "peach" to be used as a label only for fruit marketed in the month of August.
I just finished the second of two peaches I bought earlier in the week. Both were delicious, nice yellow flesh, juicy and yielding but not soft, reminding me of the way peaches used to taste when I was a boy. I've a vague memory (vague because it's not a good one and so suppressed) of buying peaches in June and July and being consistently disappointed. The peaches were hard, reddish flesh, not the perfect yellow of August peaches. In sum, eating them discouraged me from buying peaches.
If the peach growers can't form a cartel to enforce standards of identity for their product, maybe I can file a claim for deceptive advertising with the FTC. Someone in the government has to do something.
I just finished the second of two peaches I bought earlier in the week. Both were delicious, nice yellow flesh, juicy and yielding but not soft, reminding me of the way peaches used to taste when I was a boy. I've a vague memory (vague because it's not a good one and so suppressed) of buying peaches in June and July and being consistently disappointed. The peaches were hard, reddish flesh, not the perfect yellow of August peaches. In sum, eating them discouraged me from buying peaches.
If the peach growers can't form a cartel to enforce standards of identity for their product, maybe I can file a claim for deceptive advertising with the FTC. Someone in the government has to do something.
Friday, August 16, 2019
A Contrarian Word :Steve King
Time for my contrarian side to show: Seems to me people don't understand Steve King's words, as reported in this NYTimes piece.
He's wrong, of course, but there's a bit of truth there.
The issue is, if we humans had always had the means and the will to abort all fetuses what would that mean today?
People interested in genealogy know a truism: go back far enough and everyone is related. So it makes sense that everyone has a rape, or incest, in their chain of ancestry.
Where King goes wrong is in his conclusions. He's saying, as I understand him, if fetuses which result from rape or incest can be aborted, then everyone with rape or incest in their ancestry would be/should be dead. That's wrong. Suppose King David rapes Bathsheba and she becomes pregnant, a pregnancy which is aborted. That doesn't mean that neither David nor Bathsheba will have descendants.
The answer to the issue is: while nobody today would be alive, all the people who were alive would have no rape or incest in their ancestry.
S
He's wrong, of course, but there's a bit of truth there.
The issue is, if we humans had always had the means and the will to abort all fetuses what would that mean today?
People interested in genealogy know a truism: go back far enough and everyone is related. So it makes sense that everyone has a rape, or incest, in their chain of ancestry.
Where King goes wrong is in his conclusions. He's saying, as I understand him, if fetuses which result from rape or incest can be aborted, then everyone with rape or incest in their ancestry would be/should be dead. That's wrong. Suppose King David rapes Bathsheba and she becomes pregnant, a pregnancy which is aborted. That doesn't mean that neither David nor Bathsheba will have descendants.
The answer to the issue is: while nobody today would be alive, all the people who were alive would have no rape or incest in their ancestry.
S
And Canada's Dairy Farmers Are Compensated
Prime Minister Trudeau and President Trump are similar in one way: when their wheeling and dealing on trade issues hurts farmers, they compensate them. See this article on the Canadian program.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)