The Last Mile Problem in Government--AMS

One of the problems of our government is the threads connecting national legislation to local effectiveness are often broken. 

I think I just found one such case today.  The USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service has a program called "Farmers to Families Food Box".  Briefly the concept is to buy food, mostly perishable, which can't find a market under our pandemic conditions, and provide it in boxes to needy families. I'm thinking the boxing is a new idea being pushed by Secretary Perdue.

AMS has experience buying perishable food and providing it to schools for school lunches, tribes, etc.etc. But this is a new program using money appropriated by Congress (and perhaps CCC funding, not sure).  So AMS ran a new bidding process to find more vendors capable of handling the boxing and distribution to nonprofit organizations..  (I'm not sure how much overlap between the vendors in the new program and those AMS has dealt with before.  I do know there has been some scrutiny of some vendors with allegations political influence was involved in awards to new vendors.) 

So my picture is, you've this established network of AMS procurements, intermediaries, and recipients.  But now you have new additional money, additional intermediaries, and hopefully new recipients.  Where the threat is broken in my metaphor is the last mile problem--connecting new recipients with the old or new intermediaries.

If I understand the program correctly, which is a problem, AMS and the administration are making the assumption that existing nonprofits can make the connection.  But a question on the FSA employee group Facebook page raised the question.  Checking the AMS sit they have a list of the approved vendors who are getting the food and boxing it.  But there is no national database showing which nonprofits the vendors are dealing with. So the question is, if Jane Doe in Mississippi is interested in getting a box--who does she contact?  As far as I can see, she has to use the phone book to locate a nonprofit which might be  distributing the boxes.

Race Is a Social Construct?

Political correctness these days claims that race is socially constructed; perhaps it goes further to say there is no objective, independent basis for race.

I tend to bristle at such claims because I believe groups of humans can be grouped by common genetics.  But regardless of that, things like this Tweet remind me that society does construct "races". 

Sketches used by USSR police to identify suspects based on “race” pic.twitter.com/f9qtnrYwdS

— Soner Cagaptay (@SonerCagaptay) July 1, 2020

Sketches used by USSR police to identify suspects based on “race” pic.twitter.com/f9qtnrYwdS

— Soner Cagaptay (@SonerCagaptay) July 1, 2020

New--The Phishing Call

I'm long familiar with the phishing email.  But today my wife and I dealt with a phishing phone call, which is new on me. 

Briefly someone who claimed he was from Amazon said they had an order for $359 for an Apple Watch to be sent to Dayton Ohio, which was suspicious.  When we said we didn't order it, he claimed he needed to establish 2-step verification on the account.  When challenged he was able to give an employee id number and a phone number to call.  Of course, we rejected the premise.  If it were real, we could have rejected the charge on our credit card.

But I'm impressed by the phishing.  Seems there's an arms race going on, where scam artists and merchants and customers are trying to keep up with each other. 

Contrarian on Bounties

Big hullabaloo now about the possibility  that Russia has offered bounties to Al Qaeda [Taliban] to kill American soldiers/contractors.

While I bow to no one in my low opinion of the current president, I think remember from the book/movie "Charlie Wilson's War" the degree to which the US government encouraged and aided the Afghan resistance fighters to shoot down Russian helicopters. Distinctions can be made between that effort and the Russian actions as currently reported/suspected, but the similarity is uncomfortable.

A closer example from our history is the use of rewards for [scalps of Native Americans.

Fund the IRS

That's my first wish for the next Democratic president.  Why?  See this distressing report by Pro Publica.

On Removing Statues and Renaming Names

I'm of two multiple minds on the issue, as I am on most things:

• on one hand I never give a thought to statues or names--who or what they stand for.  I just accept them as part of the environment, rather like the weather or gravity.
• on the other hand I know intellectually, if not emotionally, that some people do, at least at some times.  I really doubt that a black person who drove through Alexandria every day on the way to work gave much of a thought to the statue of the Confederate soldier which used to stand at the intersection of the two main streets.  More likely their attention was on navigating the traffic.  But I accept the idea that such a statue could, on occasion, be disturbing.
• on the third hand, my two positions above are coming from my background as a white 79 year old American male.  If I make the effort, I can imagine perhaps a German street with a statue of Hitler or an idealized Wehrmacht soldier and a Jewish person's reaction to it.  If I come at the issue from that direction, as putting myself in the place of a Jew confronting a statue or name which commemorated the Third Reich, it's a lot easier to empathize with the reaction of a black American confronting a reminder of the Confederacy or of slavery.

My contrarian side is a bit activated on the third point--some resistance to the implied comparison of the German treatment of the Jews and American slavery. But the above describes my position today.

I think in the long run the specifically Confederate statues and names will be removed.  That set of symbolic victories will be enough in the long run to reduce the feeling behind the movement.  As is usual with humans we'll end with a mixed bag of things, with no clear algorithm evident. 

A Thought for Hillary

I was struck by this in an Atlantic piece on Biden:

"It’s better to be a mystery [like Biden is to many] than to be like Hillary Clinton, who faced what amounted to a 25-year negative-advertising campaign that left even sympathetic voters suspicious. Her 2016 word cloud was dominated by liar, criminal, and untrustworthy, with strong registering a bit too."

That seems to be the way she's remembered now. But it's wrong about the way she was regarded during her political career.  Wikipedia shows that she had 22 appearances topping the "most admired woman in America" list between 1948 and now, far more than anyone else.  (Ike and Obama each had 12 as the most admired man.)

Granted this just means that she had a plurality of strong supporters, but there were years in which her favorability was quite high.  What happened in 2015-16 was the Republican publicity machine tearing her down, aided by a "both sides" media world, eager to balance Trump's real faults with Hillary's supposed ones.

You can see I'm aggrieved here.  I won't say that Clinton was a good candidate nor that she didn't open the door to some of the attacks.  I will say she would have been an above-average president, not the total disaster of the man who beat her.

Lying for Our Own Good?

Back in the day Pierre Salinger, JFK's press secretary, got into a controversy over whether it was ever appropriate to lie to the American public. That's the way I remember it, though this Daily Beast article seems to say it was Arthur Sylvester, another aide.  Anyway, it was in the context of the Cuba Missile crisis.  I thought I remembered Salinger telling the press that Kennedy had a cold which caused him to cancel a campaign trip to Chicago, when in fact the missiles had been discovered and the administration was figuring out what to do.

Anyhow, people were shocked that the government could and would lie to the public.  Again today it seems we're shocked to find out that Dr. Fauci was lying to us back in February.  He was saying don't bother with masks, they don't do much good, when the fact was the US didn't have masks enough for health professionals and the public.

As an ex-bureaucrat I often side with the bureaucracy more than most, and I do here.

Democrats may claim the people are mature and will react well to being told the truth, but I think conservatives with their suspicion of people are closer to the mark in some cases, as here.

McArdle's Question--Drawing the Line

Megan McArdle has a post which raises the question of drawing lines on statues.

It's interesting.  I'd add a question: when you evaluate a statue do you consider the intent of those who originally funded and created the statue, do you look at the current meaning of the life of the subject (if only one), or do you use the popular understanding of the subject?  How about artistic worth--is that a consideration?

Who decides--is it majority rule or what's offensive to a minority?

Are all statues fair game, or are some excluded?  For example, religious statues; statues from antiquity?

Another issue is how?  Must representatives of the original erecting body agree to removal, whoever currently has jurisdiction over the land on which it is erected? Or can an informal group, of protesters or a mob, depending on your affinity for the members, tear it down?  How about a symbolic defacing, temporary or permanent?

Did we have a problem in the Iraq War when Baghdad's residents first attacked the statue of Sadam Hussein, later to be assisted by a Marine.?  Do we have a problem with those members of the Revolution who tore down George IIi?

How about memorials--those which comprise multiple statues plus additional elements, particularly ones which commemorate events over persons? 

Personally, statues don't do much for me,

In Partial Defense of Andy Jackson

Protesters tried to take down the statue of Andrew Jackson in Lafayette Park last night.

Jackson's reputation has suffered a great decline since his salad days.  Even as late as 2007 Iowa Democrats were holding Jefferson-Jackson day dinners, and Obama made the speech which was key to winning the primary in 2008.

Let me quote a paragraph from near the closing of the speech--why is Obama running?

Because I will never forget that the only reason that I’m standing here today is because somebody, somewhere stood up for me when it was risky. Stood up when it was hard. Stood up when it wasn’t popular. And because that somebody stood up, a few more stood up. And then a few thousand stood up. And then a few million stood up. And standing up, with courage and clear purpose, they somehow managed to change the world.

 Implicitly this ties back to his acknowledgement of the occasion near the beginning of the speech:

This party -- the party of Jefferson and Jackson, of Roosevelt and Kennedy -- has always made the biggest difference in the lives of the American people when we led, not by polls, but by principle; not by calculation, but by conviction; when we summoned the entire nation to a common purpose -- a higher purpose. And I run for the Presidency of the United States of America because that’s the party America needs us to be right now.

That's my partial defense of Andrew Jackson. According to the way I was taught, the progression of America has been from:

"all men are created equal" where the definition of "men" is implicitly:

•  white men owning property, 
• almost all white men (except felons and Native Americans?)
• almost all men (except felons and Native Americans?)
• almost all adults (except felons)

Jefferson represents the first step, Jackson the second step, Lincoln the third.

Yes, I know Jackson was a slaveowner, a mean man, a bigot. Worst of all, he's the embodiment of America's first original sin (first in my mind if not in popular usage)--its mistreatment of Native Americans.

I don't mind taking down statues of whomever, but it shouldn't cloud our view of history, with all its complexities.

[Updated:  the discussions of Jackson I've seen have focused on the Trail of Tears and his populism/democratic stands, as I did above.  What we all miss is his preservation of the Union, resisting Calhoun and South Carolina over the nullification issue.. Had Jackson allowed SC to prevail, the union might have dissolved.  Definitely the advantages over the South the North had in population and industry in 1860 which allowed it to prevailed in the Civil War were not there.]