A Letter from the President

 USDA and the administration are catching flak because of this:

The Agriculture Department last week began mandating that millions of boxes of surplus food for needy families include a letter from President Donald Trump claiming credit for the program.

 I'm trying but failing to remember somewhat of a parallel. Secretary Bergland signed a letter which we sent out to farmers, perhaps to all active producers associated with a farm.  This was, I think, in 1980, an election year.  The subject was something related to crop insurance.  I don't remember whether it was base on legislation or a policy decision, perhaps an expansion of the insurance program..  I do remember ASCS had been running a test of selling crop insurance, because Roy Cozart, who became DASCO when the Reagan administration came in, was working on putting FCIC directives into the ASCS system. That test was a failure.

IIRC we career bureaucrats, and possibly Roy, who was career but with political pull, raised an eyebrow on it. The differences between then and now: Jimmy Carter didn't sign the letter and I remember the content as being more informative and less propagandistic than the current letter.

No Federal Money for Tobacco, Except in Pandemic

 In 2004 when Congress provided for the ending of the tobacco program, they included a blanket provision that no CCC money could go to tobacco growers.

That was fine, except when things change.  It's 2020, an election year, and North Carolina is a battleground state, and tobacco is still important to the state, and the pandemic hit.  So USDA will provide up to $100 million to tobacco growers from the second pandemic law (CARES Act), but they'll do it bypassing CCC.   All this from here.

USDA ended most of its tobacco reporting shortly after the program was ended, but I did find it in the crop report--NC grows about half the US acreage--150,000 acres in 2018.  (Got there from a hit on a CDC publication. ) That's about a third of what we grew in 2000 and about a tenth of what China grows now.

I Feel Good

Didn't watch the debate last night, so didn't waste 90 minutes of my remaining lifespan. 

Our Schizoid History-I

 Someday I may write more on this, but here's a placeholder: Throughout our history white America has had a schizoid attitude towards slavery, possibly an attitude also found in England and elsewhere.

• on the one hand slavery is bad, the worst thing possible.  It's what Americans feared, or at least said they feared from British rule.  You can see it in the pamphlets leading up to the Revolution, and you can see it in our national anthem.  (Britain's "Rule Britannia" also claims "Britons will never be slaves" in its second line.)
• on the other hand, of course, slavery is legal in some places until 1865.

Fixing the Court

 A lot of discussion among Democrats over what to do about a Supreme Court with a 6-3 conservative majority.

I'd suggest one strategy not much discussed, which assumes Biden/Harris win and the Democrats gain a Senate majority:

• end the filibuster in the Senate (might be problematic, given their moderates who might be reluctant).
• spend time fixing the vulnerabilities in important legislation, like ACA and Clean Air, etc. 

My theory is this: over the last 4 years and more, conservatives have filed enough court cases and the Trump administration has changed enough administrative rules that good lawyers can identify the weak points.  Rather than rely on defending rules in the court, preempt the challenges by fixing them.  If the challenge is that the agency, EPA, etc., has exceeded its authority under the law, change the law to provide the authority.  If the challenge is that Congress has exceeded its authority under the Constitution, change the law to rest on a firmer basis.

What's iffy about this strategy is, of course: Roe v Wade. Although polls suggest a majority support its general outline, trying to legislate it would be like gun control.  The fierce minority would prevail over the majority.  I could suggest a compromise which appears reasonable to me, but it's a matter of principle for the opponents.  What would my hopeless compromise be?  Clinton used to say "legal, safe, and rare".  I'd think a compromise which added "early" to the formula should work, except it won't. If you had taxpayer funded abortions in the first trimester with over-the-counter of the "day-after" pill , then court-approved abortions for the next two with the basis being restricted (health and safety, rape, unusual circumstances), perhaps with a prescribed role for a voice for an advocate for the fetus, and taxpayer funding of pre-natal care for those who lose their case for abortion.

The details don't matter, because for people on both sides it's too basic an issue of rights to agree to a compromise.

My Dreams of a Self-Driving Car

 I've posted before about my hopes for a self-driving car, something which compensate for my declining physical abilities as I age. I didn't want to see the headline on this piece.

I repeat my previous suggestion of using an approach of developing a car which can memorize routes, given that many people like me do most of their driving over a limited selection of routes. Apparently from the article that's not the way companies are going--their loss.

On a personal note, I just completed my 3-year lease of a Prius with extensive safety features which saved me two or three times from likely accidents,

Do People Follow Instructions?

 Ever since I started with ASCS in its Directives Branch I've been interested in that question.  This election it is important because lots of voters will be voting by mail for the first time, and lots of county clerks will have to compose instructions and see their voters try and sometimes fail to follow them.

Anyone remember the "butterfly ballot" in Florida in 2000? I think the answer to the question is: "sometimes".  But it's often a problem to convey information from one mind to another, and often people doing something new try to figure it out themselves, only checking the manual when they screw up. 

The Power of the Past

This is a tweet from today. 

You honestly have to admire the confidence of Harvard business school grad students pic.twitter.com/HwfzTs0HpC

— Ronan (@rfitz77) September 25, 2020

 The Harvard business school students misjudged the power of the past.  IMHO the established retailers had power because they'd accumulated capital, both financial and real capital, plus the network capital of networks of suppliers and customers.  But while this present capital was enabling, it was also constricting.  In a situation where openness to the new and learning from experience was all-important, the pathways laid down in the past were no longer adequate; they were misleading.  It's called the "Innovator's Dilemma". 

The Right Question for President Trump

Lots of stuff going around on whether the losers will accept the results of the fall election.  I don't think the question to the president yesterday was well-phrased.  I think the right question for the president is whether he has designated his transition team. (He has, actually, designated Chris Liddell as you can see if you spend some time googling. But my real question is: does he know this, or has Meadows made the designation without telling Trump for fear he'll erupt. Based on everything which has come out about how the administration operates, I suspect that his staff keeps lots of stuff from him.)

[Updated: Politico just put out this piece on Liddell's work.]

The Hullabaloo Over SCOTUS

 Back in the 1960's the right was all "Impeach Earl Warren".  Part of the outrage as I remember it was over decisions on crime, part was one person, one vote, and a good part was forbidding the "Lord's Prayer" in schools. There were divisions on the Court, but they tended to be cross-cutting: Justice Black was strict constructionist on First Amendment rights, William Douglas was the epitome of the "living constitution", neither of which fit neatly into the divisions between Democrats and Republicans.

President Nixon started the process of replacing Warren (following a filibuster of Johnson's nominee for Chief of Abe Fortas) and converting SCOTUS to a Republican dominated branch of government.  Since then, in the 52 years, Republican presidents have named 14 justices, Democrats 4.  If things had worked fairly according to the amount of time each party had the presidency, the Dems would have had 7, and the Reps 11. 

Regardless, while there have been ups and downs and decisions I dislike, the country has survived.  We've made significant advances in social areas, and Roe v Wade has survived. 

I predict however the current episode works out, someone looking back 25 years from now will not see a major turning point in legal history with the filling of the current vacancy.  In the long run, the court follows the election returns and the direction of the country.