Our illustrious president is alleged to have called people who served in the military "losers", etc. It seems consistent with his public persona, although the Atlantic article didn't have named sources.
In reaction, some are calling military personnel "heroes".
I take exception: I'm a vet, but no damned hero. I was drafted, I went, I served, I got out very happily--end of story for me.
USDA's DC area offices are working towards reopening, but catching flak from the employees according to this report.
Been a long time since I posted on this subject. Here's a recent release--the study is critical of the EU programs:
The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is the EU's largest budget item, averaging EUR 54 billion annually. It is well known that over 80% of payments are going to only 20% of farmers, but to what extent these payments support policy goals is poorly understood, due to a lack of transparency and complex reporting.
"Our analysis shows that at least €24 billion per year goes to income support in the richest regions, while the poorest regions with the most farm jobs are being left further behind.
James Rebanks had a best-selling book back in 2015--The Shepherd's Life, a memoir of raising sheep in northwestern England. More recently, as described in his Twitter account, he's diversified his operation with pigs and cows, and put more emphasis on diversified farming and conservation. And he has a new book, English Pastoral (currently only on sale in England).
It took me a little while, but my new book is now on sale (for pre orders)
— James Rebanks (@herdyshepherd1) May 28, 2020
It is about everything I care about and love and I hope you like it pic.twitter.com/kpg2u7JmZH
This week BBC America had a clip of him and his wife as they argued against the "American System" Their concern was the negotiations between the UK government and US over trade terms, as the UK leaves the EU. If there are no trade barriers/tariffs on agricultural trade, they fear that UK agriculture will be overwhelmed. (I sense a reprise of the repeal of the Corn Laws back in 1846.)
Rebanks outlines the case for a protectionist stance towards agriculture in this March article. And it's based on his book tour (NYTimes piece) of Kentucky when selling his first book.
I sometimes wonder. It's too bad we didn't have blogs in the 60's and 70's so I could trace the changes in my opinions over the years. As far as today's politicians go, I generally support the Klobuchars and Bidens of the world.
I likely am more internationalist/globalist than they. I remember the heyday of the UN, when it was still viewed by some as essential to world peace. And I remember the decolonialization movement and our concern over getting adequate foreign aid to the third world. Liberals mostly seem to have abandoned that focus, but the influence of my ancestral religion still runs strong--the "Great Mission" was to convert the world.
On some current issues:
Up to now I've been optimistic on the state of the nation's politics, saying today isn't as bad as many fear.
I may be in the process of changing my mind. I remember the conflicts in the 60's and 70's between the Weathermen and the Black Panthers and the hard hats of some unions. There was violence then, lots of bombs. But I don't remember the group conflicts then. The groups on the left were anti-establishment, and often still adhered to the ethic of nonviolence--although a few were killed, the bombings weren't intended to kill. The Black Panthers and police/law enforcement had violent clashes in which people died. But except for union hard hats disrupting anti-war demonstrations there was little left-right violence with the police caught in the middle.
That seems to be what's changing. And what's dangerous is the likelihood of escalation--paint guns and rocks and fists can move to knives and guns, first displayed, then used. That sort of dynamic is inherent in people, and it's dangerous.
I'm worried.
So under Trump's signature, before any true crisis hit, the annual price tag of government went up by $937 billion in less than four years—more than the $870 billion price hike Obama produced in an eight-year span that included a massive federal response to a financial meltdown.
I'm not sure whether "videophones" is a comprehensive enough term but I'll go with it. I'm referring to the idea of being able to see the person with whom you are talking over long distance. ("Long distance" for the young means the rest of the US beyond roughly 20-40 miles from your position which incurred a charge per minute,)
I vaguely remember participating in a test in ASCS in the 1970's--I think an innovative deputy administrator for management sprang for it. It didn't work--too expensive, too little advantage. Again in the 1980's I think there was a trial, maybe five or six managers in DC and Kansas City had special phones with the idea it would replace our trips back and forth. It didn't work--too new, too much of a change, too awkward. Again the 1990's there was a trial, but this time it was televised conference calls, with a TV camera covering a conference table with maybe 10-12 seats. Again this was for DC-KCMO conferencing. It worked better, although the facility had to be reserved at each end. It was competing against email by this time, not something that the 1970's trial had to face. I don't remember whether it was still in operation at the time I left.
Up to this point the process was using special phone/camera equipment--really "videophones". I don't know for sure whether the 1990s were using the internet to communicate, likely not. Fast forward through the 2000's and the development of Skype until you reach 2020 and the wide use of Zoom, and competing services.
Apparently it works now because almost everyone has the equipment--computer/smartphone with camera and broadband access--to participate. So there's not much hassle to setting up a call. And with the pandemic video conferencing becomes the only way to go. Email with cc's to everyone works in some situations, but when you want back and forth conversations among a group, conferencing is the only way.
In this century the term "social capital" has become popular. (For some reason I can't embed the ngram viewer from Google, so you'll just have to take my word for it.)
The idea is that people accumulate relationships and knowledge which improve the functioning of society. It's a positive term.
The other side of the coin is seeing much the same phenomena as "the dead weight of the past", as Marx did in this quote. Or, as Lincoln wrote: " 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."
One example from my lifetime: Germany and Japan recovered relatively quickly from the destruction of WWII partly because they had social captial. Their people had knowledge, and they had institutions which could operate. In the last century that was often compared with the situation in developing countries, where the people lacked the knowledge and the institutions.
However I can look at the other side of the same example: much of the social capital of pre-WWII Japan and Germany was useless or dangerous in the post-war situation. They had to discard some and keep and exploit other aspects.
I think we're finding the same thing as we exploit algorithms in automation--the algorithms are based on past experience, so they reflect the past, both good and bad.
Some 35 years ago ASCS advertised 2-year positions in DC called "SCOAPers". IIRC the acronym stood for "state and county office automation project". Leroy Mitchell was, I think the Kansas City Management Office person who pushed it. He was recognizing that the job of converting our manual and batch processing operations in the field to applications running on our new IBM System/36s couldn't be handled by the personnel on hand in DC. He had also been very impressed by the program assistants KCMO had worked with in the guinea pig counties (first one county--IIRC Osage Kansas, and then a group of 6 or so counties.
The DC office had big problems in hiring field people the way we had done in the past--i.e., hiring county executive directors for permanent positions. Typically they'd get a grade increase to GS-11 or 12, with the possibility of getting to GS-13. In the old days that may have been a good enough carrot for an ambitious type, but as DC area housing prices soared in the 70's and early 80's due to inflation and a housing boom, it just didn't work.
Another problem, which I don't think most of us realized, was CED's could be at a loss in trying to handle automation. A lot, most IMHO, were used to being the public face of the county office, relying on their clerks/program assistants to handle the nuts and bolts, the paperwork.
So the bosses worked out a deal with the Civil Service Commission and USDA's Office of Personnel to offer 2-year positions to program assistants and CED's to work on the automation from the DC side. The key to the deal was that they would technically still be county employees, not federal, so they didn't count against federal personnel ceilings.
The program turned out to be key in changing the ASCS DC workforce from almost male-only. In the end many of the SCOAPers stayed in DC, converting to GS status and advancing up the ladder to management. There was another batch in 1987-8.
It sounds to me as if FSA is taking a similar approach to staff the farmers.gov initiative, as outlined in this notice. Good luck to them.
I note some differences: it's a 2-year minimum with possible extensions up to 5 year max. And there's the possibility of relocation allowances. Despite the innovation of locality differences in pay, I suspect the problem of attracting field employees to DC remains, possibly not improving any since 1997. I also suspect management has underestimated the problems of implementing the farmers.gov.
