Allying With Stalin

Matt Glassman has a nice reply tweet this morning apropos calls for political purity: we allied with Stalin to defeat Hitler.

To me it's a two-fold reminder: 

• there's no purity in human beings, we're all a mixture of qualities. Stalin was an evil man but effective enough as a wartime leader. 
• our decisions are made in time.  As Churchill said; I'd ally with the devil to defeat Hitler.

Who Calls Whom a Bitch?

Lisa Lerer has an article in today's Times discussing the use of the epithet in politics, given Rep. Yoho's use in connection with Rep. AOC..  A lot of discussion of its use against Hillary Clinton.   But I'm old enough to remember the "grandmother of the nation" somewhat delicately using it against the first woman on a major party's national ticket.

Yes, I'm talking Barbara Boss and Geraldine Ferraro, as described in this NYTimes piece.

Reopening Schools--Possible Baby Steps

Fairfax County just announced they'll start schools 100 percent using distance learning.

I sympathize with the problems school boards and principals have in dealing with the pandemic. 

In tackling new problems I like to work with baby steps.  In that light, my idea, worth no dollars and with no experience in teaching through Zoom or whatever, would be:

• start by moving teachers into school buildings and have them do distance learning from the school, using school facilities.  I'd assume that by and large schools have things, wifi,computers,etc. than teachers have at home.  Teaching from school would also help by allowing teachers to share ideas and troubleshooting.  And having them eat lunch at the school would test that process. Having people in school would test the maintenance and support personnel.  Teachers who are leary of their exposure to the virus in a school context might be willing to try if the immediate environment--the school-- only contains their peers, not their students. 
• assuming no major problems, a next baby step would be to open the school to those students who don't have good access at home. Again, still teaching using distance learning, but in the school building using school facilities.
• other steps might be to  expand the school week, so as make more use of the facilities, but that would require more money to hire teaching assistants.

The Wrong Question: Are Algorithms Racist?

Frequently I see posts/articles which say that computer algorithms are racist.  When I bother to read them, the logic is fairly simply--garbage in, garbage out.  The algorithms are being developed using the conventional wisdom of whatever the subject is, and the conventional wisdom is racist.

I don't challenge any of that, but I'd insist the question is: so what?

Usually I take the message of the pieces to be--toss the algorithm out, it's biased, racist, undesirable.

But the true question is one of comparison: will using this algorithm instead of the existing process mean less racist results?  My guess is usually the algorithm is likely to produce more consistent results, and usually less racist results.  I see that happening because the algorithm would replace a more haphazard, variable process which evolved over time, and because the algorithm is being developed by people who are generally younger and more "woke" than those involved previously.

The second key question is: if we start to use the algorithm how likely is it that the algorithm can be improved?

Five People to Write a Times Article? (And the Past)

NYTimes has an article on how the Trump administration turned away from the coronavirus, deciding to push responsibility to the states and localities.  In part it reads to me as a hit piece on Dr. Birx, possibly with Kushner as one of the sources (he's barely mentioned, while she gets portrayed as unduly optimistic and trying to please her bosses).

But that's not really what struck me.  It's the question: how do the logistics of five people writing one article work?  Does one person do the draft and the others add comments and paragraphs?  Is it more collaborative or individualistic? 

And how did the Times (and other papers) get here?  Back when I started reading the paper (usually the Sunday version) in the 1950's there were very few bylines on articles.  Over the years they started to appear on a greater proportion of the articles until now there's hardly an article without at least one named author.

I think that's representative of a more general evolution in society: diminishing the importance and voice of institutions and raising the importance and voice of individuals.

How Soon We Forget--the White Freedom Riders

There was a good bit of commentary, some here, on the protests after George Floyd's death about the number of white faces in the crowds. 

So I was struck today by the photo in this piece on the Freedom Riders. It's easy to forget that the civil rights movement was diverse. Including whites was strategic--whites had the money, better connections to political leaders, and, when assaulted, got more publicity.

Undoing Trump's Work II

The Times has an article today on how the Democrats are planning to use the Congressional Review Act to undo Trump regulatory actions.  According to the article the Republicans are now within the period to which the Act applies so a new Congress controlled by the Democrats would be able to reverse any final rules published from here on to Jan. 19.

The piece quotes Sally Katzen as raising the issue of whether it's possible to reinstate the Obama regs which the Trump administration nullified using the CRA, but it doesn't explore it. I haven't looked at the actual wording of the act recently, but I wonder if the courts would uphold the ability of one Congress to bind a future Congress.

Trump's Expansion of Farm Payments

Here's a piece on how the Trump administration has expanded federal payments to farmers.

Undoing Trump's Work

Trump has made many changes in federal policy, issuing a lot of executive orders. Most recently, he's proposing to change the way the government does environmental policy.  There's already a lawsuit saying he's not following the Administrative Procedure Act. IMHO it's likely the policy won't be final by Jan 20, so a new Biden administration could withdraw it easily. My point here is actions like this are basically political campaign fodder, not realistic.  It's okay; the Obama administration did  much the same.  You spend 3.5 years hoping to do something,and you wake up and find you're out of time, but you might as well do it anyway--it will look good to your supporters and there's always the chance the new administration will carry on the work.

Other changes Trump has made are permanent, meaning a new administration will have to go through the rulemaking process to consider whether they want just to reverse the changes, or whether they want to take the occasion to make some modifications of their own.  I'm not sure whether a straight revocation of a final rule has a lower legal hurdle for justification or not--it's possible a new cost-benefit analysis would still be required.  Since Trump's people have changed the parameters for such analyses  the situation gets a bit more complicated.

Assuming Biden wins in November, watching the new administration navigate these hurdles will be rewarding.

Pet Peeve: Academics/Media and Naval Terms

Early on I got heavily into 20th century naval technology and history, such as the development of the torpedo, of torpedo boats, of torpedo boat destroyers (now just destroyers), etc.

So it aggravates me when, as in "A Very Stable Genius" I see a writer loosely use the term "battleship" for a significant ship of some size, whose precise description I can't be bothered with.  (Otherwise the book is very good, recommended.)

I find this in academic works as well as popular nonfiction and media writing.  There are no battleships on active duty in today's Navy.