FSA and the Last Mile Problem

 Sec. Vilsack is announcing additional programs to aid producers impacted by the pandemic.

My impression of the various programs which have authorized spending in response to the pandemic and its effect is that several of them have had big problems in getting the money out the door.  Some of the programs have struggled to get the money out; others have perhaps been vulnerable to fraud.  

Those are impressions only.  Meanwhile I'm following the FSA employee group on Facebook. I likely suffer from the old-timer's presumption that the newcomers have it easier, but I try to resist that snap judgment.  On the one hand, I'm very impressed by the variety of programs, some directed to people FSA has long served, some directed to new groups, which the counties have had to deal with.  On the other hand I remember PIK in 1983 and particulary the disaster program in 1986 (IIRC) which hit in the midst of the System/36 automation. 

I hope someday somebody, GAO or Congress, does a high level review of the government's operations, their speed, efficiency, and weaknesses.  My expectation and hope is that FSA would do well in such a review, largely because of a long history in dealing with crash programs and, most importantly, the county offices deal directly with the people, a big contrast with most of the rest of government which has to try to operate through state and county government agencies, and/or NGOs.

The Limits of Small Farms

Civil Eats has this piece on Jesse Frost, who operates a .75 acre no-till farm in Kentucky.

It all sounds good, except when he says his operation grosses $70K, and apparently uses 2+ person-years of labor--i.e., one paid employee and Jesse full time, and some contribution from his wife. 

I can accept that his out-of-pocket expenses, assuming he owns the land outright with no mortgage,  are low.  But $70K divided by 2 is $35K each, which isn't much over the minimum wage progressives would like to see.  I can also accept that food costs for his wife and him would be relatively low, especially if they freeze and/or can a lot. But I'm not convinced that the cash returns are sufficient for a lifetime supporting a family through all the ups and downs.  It may well be enough with the wife's outside income, likely providing health insurance and covering SS. 

Migrating to Opportunity

 David Brooks has an column in today's NYTimes on the question: "How racist is America?" His answer seems to be--getting less so, when you look at long range changes.  I recommend it.

But he had an observation about how immigrants are doing better than you might expect, particularly if you focus on prejudice against foreigners.  He noted that immigrants move to places of opportunity.  The implication is it gives them an advantage over native-born, who tend to live where they grew up, or at least some natives are less mobile.  You can pick holes in such a generalization: for example the Amish are notably mobile, and people flocked to North Dakota during the oil boom. 

But I buy it. By moving from one country to another you break a lot of the habits and constraints you'd have if you remained.  That's true for the vast majority of movers.  But the majority of Americans aren't moving, even within the country.

I think it's true that our mobility has decreased over the years.  I think a minor factor is the end of the draft, which broke some of the ties men had.  (Though as a creature of habit myself I may be overestimating their role in life.)

More Metaphors--Wet Wood and Poison

 I posted earlier on nuclear reactions as a metaphor possibly explaining the rise in murders recently.  The key point is the reactivity--when the population becomes younger for whatever reason (baby boom, oldsters observing lockdowns, oldsters dying from covid) the interactions among people change a bit without the cushioning effect of the older.   A similar logic could apply to the pandemic--as more people are vaccinated, the reactivity goes down.

I came across a new metaphor today in a discussion of the effects of the vaccine.  The metaphor is wood, as in forest fires.  If the wood is very dry it catches fire easily, if there's been rain it doesn't. From that perspective the vaccine has the effect of dampening the wood.

A separate metaphor was poison--in a Post story explaining vaccination, the point is that the vaccine isn't binary, like shutting the door on the virus.  It's more like a poison.  So when the body is infected, the virus attacks and is multiplying, but then it starts to encounter the poison (as the immune system ramps up).  The virus starts to be poisoned, reducing its reproduction rate.  So testing may give a positive test during the time the virus is in its struggle with the immune system, as hopefully it's in its death throes.

China and Farmland

 Once again people are getting upset by the idea of citizens of a rising Asian power buying American farmland. See this and this.

As I blogged previously, this is an old story. Back in the 1970's Congress passed  AFIDA, but back then it wasn't China which was the perceived threat.  China was a poor backwards country struggling under communism.  Instead it was Japan, which was selling us cars, not electronics, and using a few of the dollars they got to buy real estate, some agricultural land, some urban properties including Rockefeller Center.

In the long run who owns what is determined by economics.  Japan's star has faded, China's risen.  In the next 30 years it may be India or Nigeria which has the money to buy some land.  

Nation Building--Napoleon, Ataturk, Kagame, Petraeus

 Reading "The Fourth Star" by David Cloud and Greg Jaffe, which deals with the interwining careers of Generals Casey, Abizaid, Chiarelli, and Petraeus, who all were associated with the Iraq war.  So far I'm up to roughly 2004, when Petraeus has left the 101st Airborne for the States, then returned to Iraq to train the new Iraqi army.  During the division's occupation of Mosul in the north of Iraq Petraeus was a forceful presence in nation-building, or at least patching together a semi-operational local government.  

We all know the results of our involvement there.  

I got to thinking about leaders who were successful in nation-building: Napoleon's imprint on France is present today, as is Ataturk's on Turkey. Kagame's rule of Rwanda has now lasted longer than either of the foregoing and looks to be as impactful.

As best I can tell, Petraeus has a comparable big personality and intelligence as the other three, so what accounts for his failure and the success of the other three?

The obvious thing is longevity, which points to a big weakness in American nation-building efforts: rotation.  As a democracy we don't feel able to tell our generals and our troops you're in for the duration. We rotate them out after a year or so.  I wonder what would have happened if the troops who had 3 to 5 tours of duty in Afghanistan or Iraq had instead spent 3 years (with R&R) in the same area. Perhaps more importantly, if our generals had spent that time.

I'm reminded of a lesson Bob Reynolds, who was then the deputy director of the Administrative Services Division, ASCS gave me when I screwed up. It was to the effect that people, employees, cared more about consistency than charm; you can figure out how to deal with someone who's the same asshole every day, but dealing with someone who's different every day is much more difficult.

I think that's true with nation building.  Petraeus may not have had the right ideas, but he was forceful.  Reminds me of old corncob pipe Dougie, our near-fascist general, Douglas MacArthur,  who lasted 6 years in a nation building exercise which was very successful, much as I hate to admit it.

Continuums

"most things that we think of as categorical are really continuous"

That's a line in this post, What Is a Woman? at Statistical Modeling.  A lot of what they post is over my head, but enough isn't to make for rewarding reading.  The phrase captures a belief I've had. It goes along with believing that most generalizations could be rephrased statistically, as in "Americans believe..." There's a statistical phrasing for "Americans"--is it "the average American", "the young American", "white Americans", "living Americans" etc. etc.  And what they believe can also be rephrased.

The Premonition I

 About a third of the way into Michael Lewis's "The Premonition", which so far describes the development of the pandemic plan in the Bush administration, through the linking of people from different government agencies and a high schooler's science project.

On page 78 he writes:

"Inside the United States government were all these little boxes.  The boxes had been created to address specific problems as they arose.  'How to ensure our food is safe to eat,' for instance, or how to avoid a run on banks'..."  He goes on to describe the people inside the boxes as knowledgeable and talented, developing a culture around the box, but frozen inside the box with little interest in other boxes.  

For me the "box" is a "silo", which includes the "stakeholders" in Congress and NGO's as well as the civil servatns, but the description otherwise rings true. 

Changes in Society--Religion

 As I've mentioned, my paternal grandfather was a Presbyterian minister.  Recently I've been doing a little research using the newspapers.com archive of old newspapers. Before that I'd done a handful of searches in the NYTimes archive. 

There's a big contrast of course between newspapers in the 1890's through 1920's and now.  One hundred years makes a big difference. In terms of religion, the daily newspapers in Wilkes Barre and West Pittston paid a lot more attention to religious events than they do today. As you might expect the Times paid less attention than the smaller cities, but still there was considerable coverage, particularly on a controversy within the Presbyterian church over whether a minister was too liberal. There was also coverage in the PA cities of significant events: the dedicating of a church after its debt was paid off, an address by a minister returned from a visit to the "Holy Land", the departure of a minister for a church in Minneapolis.

These days I can't think of much in religious affairs which is covered in the media, except for religious leaders joining one side or another in political controversies, or splits over issues like the place of homosexuality in the church or the role of women priests.

Times have changed.

Surprising (to Me) Views on Heritability

 Below is the text of a recent tweet.  I found the data in the table surprising, since I had the impression that professors were generally disdainful of the possible influence of genes. I didn't dig into the details of the poll, so the sample might have been small and/or skewed, or maybe sociologists differ from professors in other fields.

I mean you can do the obvious, boring thing and check polls.
For example, this one from 2014, with 81.2% of sociologists granting some heritability to intellectual potentialhttps://t.co/kz0ESPest0 https://t.co/2NJQ7noBFV pic.twitter.com/xc2ahfvHWD

— Siberian Fox📎 (@SilverVVulpes) July 14, 2021