Representative Capacity and Data Sharing

 I saw this notice today. I was struck by this paragraph:

In late 2020 and early 2021, shared services were developed to make RepCap data available for use by Farmers.gov and other FSA systems through a Representative Authority for Producers (RAP) service. This means the RepCap data (which is loaded and stored in Business Partner) is now being shared with external FSA systems and in the future will be shared with other agencies. Therefore, it is critical that County Offices ensure that data is still valid and correctly loaded.

I don't remember seeing references to sharing data with farmers.gov or other agencies before.  I'm sure it's failing memory, but data sharing hasn't been very common.  

Rocky Road for Debt Relief for Disadvantaged Farmers

 Another judge, this time in Florida, has issued an injunction against FSA's implementing the debt relief program.  

I wonder if FSA employees are relieved that implementation is delayed, just from the point that their workload will be lighter in the fall and winter than now, and that DC will have more time to prepare regulations, instructions and training packages.

Pot Wins

I can still remember Mr. Youngstrom, a high school teacher (maybe science, I forget), vehemently pleading with a class of 9th graders never to use marijuana.  He didn't call it a gateway drug, that's a newish term I think, but that's what he meant.  That would have been 66 years ago.

Now Vox proclaims the victory of pot.  There's no federal legalization, but the trend is clear. 

I Differ With ACLU

 The ACLU celebrates its victory in the Supreme Court over the high school student using the f-word about school and its organizations outside of school hours by selling t-shirts with the f-word.

I use the word myself.  I have supported the ACLU since Skokie and still do. I support the SCOTUS decision.  But I have to disagree with the ACLU--IMO there's a difference between what's permissible and what's desirable.  It's permissible to use the f-word in most settings; it's not desirable to promote its use in most settings.  As with the n-word, I exclude discussion of it when it's necessary or desirable to quote it.

Memory Creep--

Mr. Bell at his 1776 blog coins a phrase: memory creep.  It's a history version of the communication problems in the "telephone game". As he does sometimes, he traces a great story, often recounted by a descendant, back to its original source, finding there's either no solid source or just a tidbit which over time through repeated telling has evolved into a much better story.

I think we see the same phenomenon in current discourse, political partisans on both sides repeat stories, exaggerating and simplifying, until the end result is simple, provoking, and wrong.

9/11 20 Years On.

 Just finished "Without Precedent: the Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission" by Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton.  Curiosity piqued by comparison with possible 1/6 commission and Ben Rhodes involvement.

It reads well as a straightforward narrative.  Some random thoughts:

• in 2004 we were still very worried about the threat of terrorism. Will historians conclude that we overreacted?  I think so--it was mostly a one-shot lucky blow.
• a couple times they note that in interviewing Afghanis the message was: "don't leave us again". In 2004 Afghanistan was looking okay, but it's rather sickening to read it now, when we're leaving in a hurry. A mistake on Biden's part, I think, though it could follow the course of Iraq--get in, get out, get asked back in.  
• on page 220 they observe that by 9/11 neither the NYC Fire Department nor the Police Department had demonstrated willingness to answer to an Incident Commander who was not a member of their own department.  I want to know if Bloomberg's reorganization of NYC government has fixed that problem.  I suspect not.
• on page 292 they decry the partisan atmosphere of DC then, the worse they'd seen in 30 years.  

I think they soft-pedal their failure to get Congress to reorganize their committee structure. 

How Is CDC Like USDA/FSA?

 An article in the NY Times mag on CDC, critically assessing it and its role in the overall health care system.  One thing which stood out to me was this:

Around half of the agency’s domestic budget is funneled to the states, but only after passing through a bureaucratic thicket. There are nearly 200 separate line items in the C.D.C.’s budget. Neither the agency’s director nor any state official has the power to consolidate those line items or shift funds among them. “It ends up being extremely fragmented and beholden to different centers and advocacy groups,” says Tom Frieden, who led the C.D.C. during the Obama administration. That lack of flexibility makes it extremely difficult to adapt to the needs of individual states.

It reminds me of USDA/FSA.  Over the years the number of programs and crops covered has grown rapidly, The reason seems similar in both cases: there is a group/organization which feels strongly and has found a representative in Congress to push for coverage.  In the case of a disease/illness, it's patients and their families; in the case of agricultural products it's the growers. In both cases, they're tapping the federal treasury and have no countervailing opponents; it's not like the old days when big business was counterbalanced by big labor.

Are We Segregated?

 Bob Somerby has griped about descriptions of various aspects of our society as "segregated".   He's not as old as I am, but we share a memory of the civil rights movement which fought "segregation".  So how can the movement be considered victorious, and the US still have segregation?

The answer is obvious--the word "segregation" now has multiple meanings.  Back in the day it meant legal segregation, usually the result of statutes or legal contracts, but always enforced by both the police and sheriffs and by informal community pressures.  That segregation was ended by the victories of the civil rights movement.

Today "segregation" means essentially disparate outcomes: residential areas, schools, or institutions which by some measure are predominately one ethnic/racial group or which don't have appropriate representation of other ethnic/racial groups; the group usually being white or black.

By changing means current day liberals are, in my humble opinion, changing the measuring stick, minimizing the gains of the past and accentuating the problems of the present. 

Critical Patriarchal Theory

 Of course, it's "critical race theory" but what if we applied the same sort of thinking to the "patriarchy", defining the term as the belief that men and women are different and must be treated differently in some or all components of society, and that history shows and ratifies such treatment. 

To me it seems that critical patriarchal theory describes reality, at least some of it.

First Amendment Questions

 BBC's Annapour & Co. had an interview with Salman Rushdie, which included some discussion of freedom of speech.  He mentioned the difference between the UK and US, with us being the most protective of speech.  He was asked about hurting people's feelings--he quoted Stephen Fry as responding: "tough".  

I've a somewhat similar reaction, I think, though I'm prone to wavering on hot issues. When the context of speech is a public forum, "tough" is appropriate, because people have the choice of avoiding or participating in a meeting, watching media program, etc. When the context is a classroom where the participant doesn't have a choice, or has less of choice, ideally I'd want to see advance warning. 

Rushdie said there's "no right to not be offended", which I think is correct.  There is a right to not be surprised. 

There's likely some situations which would undermine my position.  How about the advocate who intentionally wants to offend, uses terms or takes positions which be offensive?  Consider somebody who advocates for the expulsion of one group in contested areas: whether it's the Middle East or Northern Ireland?  

In such cases there's the question of the forum: should the person be denied a particular forum? I think they can be, possibly using an economic analysis: what's the cost of allowing participation and what's the possible benefit to the audience?