I Should Have Blogged Earlier

 Memory is fallible.  Blog posts are reliable, at least recording the moment.

IIRC when GWB sent our forces into Afghanistan I was dubious, remembering the British and the Soviet failures. Had I been blogging then I might have recorded that opinion, which I could now point proudly to as proof of my prescience.

Of course, had I been blogging a few months later I might have posted my opinion that our easy success in Afghanistan showed we might have learned our lessons from the past and our new technology with  precision bombs would enable us to oust Saddam.  I think that's my memory, though I also think I was still queasy about invading Iraq.  

We'll never know. 

"Produced" Versus "Result of"

 I've dipped my toe into reading about the current controversy on critical race theory, but haven't gotten into it in any depth.  

One thing which did strike was a statement to the effect that "policy produced the 'hood'". To me that's a sequence like "Person A decided on policy B, policy B created C" with the implication that C was the intent of the person, the decider.  

Compare that to a statement that "policy resulted in the 'hood'". To me that's a sequence like "Person A decided on policy B, a result of policy B was C" with the implication that  C may or may not have been the intent of the decider.

As someone who likes Murphy's law the second version is more to my liking. I think there are a lot of cases where the decider focuses on the immediate situation and adopts a policy which she thinks will solve the problem, not realizing there are ramifications and unknown unknows also at play which will create unintended results.

The difference between intent and result.

George Washington and Bearing Arms

I ran across this quotation from George Washington's first (state of the union) address to Congress. Apparently sometimes Second Amendment advocates have modified it to make it clearly support an individual right to bear arms.

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies."

I think I've done enough reading in the period to know what he was talking about.  When he took command of the military forces besieging the British in Boston there was a desperate shortage of gunpowder and arms.  The Continental Congress was desperately searching for supplies,  within the colonies, elsewhere in the British empire, in the Americas and in Europe.  

Throughout the Revolution Washington was forced to use colonial militia forces, called up for short periods of time, often poorly armed by the local governments and poorly trained during their periodic muster days.  He did not like the militia.

So what he's calling for in this sentence is a well-armed and organized military force, equipped with American made weapons and supplied with American made gunpowder, clothing and other gear. In other words, the full meaning of the Second Amendment.

Equality and Inequity in WWII--the Bomber War

 Interesting--in WWII the RAF bomber crews were self-selected with no divisions of rank or class--they stuck the men who had finished training as pilots, navigators, gunners, etc.  in a big room and let them choose each other to form a bomber crew.  Lots of diversity, at least by country (different parts of the British Empire, plus Poles, Free French, Americans, etc.)   

In contrast America was very authoritarian, as the military tends to be, and strikingly was class-based.  College men who were officers were the pilots and navigators; the rest of the crew were enlisted men. A new crew was formed by order from Washington; preferences had nothing to do with it.

Gentrification: Disturbing a Way of Life

 Liberals seem often to express sympathy for those adversely affected by gentrification.  Over the years I've seen articles in the Post covering protests by black inner-city residents of DC over the progress of gentrification.

I've tended to have ambivalent reactions.  On the one hand, having lived in DC during some of its worst days, namely the 1970s, I want to applaud any signs of "progress", a growing population rather than shrinking, people with good incomes.  On the other hand, you can't help but sympathize with the people who've lived in an area for all their life, who are in middle age or older, and who don't have jobs and income which would give them choice and power over where they live. 

On the third hand, I remember the patterns of life in rural NY when I grew up, and I know those patterns were changing then and have changed even more in the 60 years since I left.  The fact I left aggravates my ambivalence. 

The Limitations of Vertical Farming

 To be honest, I don't know that anyone has tried to use vertical farms to grow marijuana.  They use similar technology though, and as it turns out a hell of a lot more electricity to grow green pot than to grow green lettuce. See this Politico piece.

The bottom line of the piece is: legalize marijuana at the federal level so it can be grown where it is most efficient to grow it. 

Sources of Sorting--1968 Act?

 "The Big Sort" is the idea that Americans are sorting themselves into two separate camps--based on politics, education, etc. factors., which can be seen geographically--the red and blue areas on the map.

Supposedly this is a new phenomenon.  If so, I wonder why it started?  It's easy enough to see why the sorting might continue, if people make decisions on where to live, where to buy, depending on economics and the importance of schools, etc. But why would it start?

It struck me yesterday that I should look at myself--why did I buy in Reston, in an area where today about 90 percent of my neighbors vote Democratic (per a NYTimes interactive feature)?  The answer is relatively simple.   When I decided to buy in the suburbs in late 1975 I focused on Reston.  Why? Because Robert Simon, who initiated the project, sold it as an equal opportunity town back in 1964-5.  That was when I first became aware of it, as I was stationed at Ft. Belvoir. I even visited during an early open house on a weekend. 

Simon was in advance of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, LBJ/s final achievement, which mandated equal opportunity. I can't believe EEO was a big factor in decisions by many, but it might have been just enough for some to start the snowball rolling down the hill. 

Disaster Programs

 During much of my time at ASCS/FSA the agriculture policy community was pushing the idea of moving from disaster payment programs to crop insurance, an effort which culminated in the 1996 farm bill, along with Sen. Pat Roberts' "Freedom to Farm".

Back on July 28 House Ag passed another bill deviating from that path.  As quoted by Illinois extension, Chris Clayton summarized: 

"“The bill, passed unanimously by voice vote, will expand coverage of losses under USDA’s Wildfire Hurricane Indemnity Program-Plus (WHIP-Plus) and cover losses including those from wildfires last year in California as well as the derecho that hit Midwestern producers last summer. The aid will also cover producer losses this year from the polar vortex as well as farmers whose crops are in D-2 ‘severe’ drought conditions for at least eight consecutive weeks.”

Packaged Produce

 My local Safeway is selling more and more produce in packages.  Corn is no longer on the cob, so you don't have the job of husking it.  Salad is shredded and mixed, just open the package into the bowl and put dressing on it.  

What the Safeway buyer wants is convenience, saving time by having someone back in the chain do the work. It's all part of work shifting by the upper middle class--we have money but, unless retired, not the time so we pay others to do stuff.

This trend, which has been going on for decades (think TV dinners in the 1950's), poses a big problem for the advocates of organic farming, CSA's, and similar ideas. You can't ask the farmer to do the packaging, but your market share will be limited if you don't.

Bipartisan Commisions--Watergate Version

 Finished Woodward's book, The Last Men of the President, which is mostly Alexander Butterfield's story. 

A side note--Woodward reminds that Sen. Howard Baker, the ranking Republican on the Erwin committee was initially working with the White House to protect Nixon. What was new to me, was a tidbit which Woodward interprets that Baker was still providing information to the White House, but not in person, through an aide.

So politics isn't beanbag and there wasn't a golden age of bipartisanship now lost?