New York City is going to phase out its schools for gifted and talented students. That stimulates discussion on social media, discussion which is largely among the educated classes who might lean Democratic.
It strikes me as an instance where the elite discussion unconsciously disses rural areas. In such areas the schools are smaller and the opportunity to do enhance instruction for gifted and talented students is constrained. So to rural ears the discussion seems tone-deaf and irrelevant.
I gather from this post in the FSA Facebook Group that the issue of complying with the federal vaccine mandate is controversial. I ran across a post somewhere today which indicated the actual process of implementing the mandate was going to take a while.
I wonder whether with the delta surge declining will the administration actually go through with it. It sounds as if even when implemented there would be a drawn-out process for penalizing anyone who didn't get vaccinated, so it may become a dead letter. We'll see. In the meantime there's a lot of angst out there, and it may be creating conflict in small offices where there's strongly held divergent opinions.
We who support the Biden's position need to remember the human costs of how it's implemented.
Volkh Conspiracy has a guest poster writing on the "nondelegation doctrine", the idea that Congress should grant power to the executive only with strict guidelines.
For anyone interested but too lazy to go to the Reason magaizine, here's my comment:
The TV weather this morning showed rain moving into southern California. One of the blogs I follow is Foothill Agrarian, written by parttime sheep rancher and extension service employee. His most recent post was on fall, his favorite season, and the complicated planning he and his partner needed to do to plan for the upcoming year. The main complication was/is the prospect of rain or continued drought which impacts the forage available which impacts the health of ewes which impacts the lamb crop...etc. etc. So the prospect of rain, though I'm not certain exactly where in California he's located, likely cheered him.
Meanwhile, a few weeks ago another farmer I follow on twitter was concerned over the inability to harvest and store rain, given the rains which were dominating the weather in NY. I remember the years on the farm when we faced that problem, meaning we had to buy hay during the winter and/or buy molasses to put on the hay which we got in the barn only after it had been rained on (cows didn't like to eat such hay without the addition of molasses).
Back in the days when ASCS operated a disaster payment program IIRC the yields we used would be determined by averaging past years' yields, but dropping the bad years. That to me reflected farmer optimism--the normal yield was always better than the straight historic average of yields. Now I see it as a reflection of what humans do: use motivated reasoning to support their desired outcome.
A rule of thumb: whenever there's money on the table, or "new frontiers" of opportunity, there's people who will exploit the opportunity.
Recent examples:
Apparently R. Kelly had a big entourage. Other big shots, stars in various endeavors, have their own entourages, including the former guy.
People have been selling fake covid-19 vaccination certificates.
Several reports of people scamming the various pandemic-related stimulus programs.
The former guy pushed the envelope of governmental laws and norms across the board. That included the use of the Commodity Credit Corporation authority in ways which I think were unprecedented. He mostly escaped criticism and legal challenges because there was no one, no group whose interest would be served. Farm groups were receiving dollars. Conservatives were blind to Trump's efforts. Members of Congress responded to the interests of their constituents. Good government groups mostly aren't interested or informed about agriculture and USDA.
It seems the Biden administration is following in Trump's footsteps, judging by their announcement of using CCC for what to me seems like a grab bag of goodies.
Read, or skimmed, Julia Galef's book, The Scout Mindset. I'd recommend it. But what I want to write about is the mystery of "identity". The last part of the book covers how "motivated reasoning", or the "soldier" mindset as she calls it, is tied up with our sense of identity. Her repeated references to "identity" got me wondering when it became so important.
When I was young, I knew my identity was white, Scots-Irish/German, Protestant, farm boy from upstate New York. Child of John and Gertrude, sibling of Jean, with stories of ancestors immigrating to the US. But I don't recall feeling my identity was in question.
Is it possible that these older sources of identity have faded away as society has changed and market capitalism has evolved so Americans and Brits worry more about identity and start to find it elsewhere? Google Ngram viewer has been improved since I last used it; you can now search texts in languages other than American and British English. When I used it to search for use of "identity", it started to be used much more around 1960.
Some discussion this morning on the Democrats maneuvering in Congress led to this idea:
The Prisoner's Dilemma is a part of game theory where, per wikipedia: that shows why two completely rational individuals might not cooperate, even if it appears that it is in their best interests to do so. In the game, if both players trust each other they can end up with an outcome which is good for both, but if they only look to their own interests with no consideration of the other player they end up with the worst result.
I see Senators Manchin and Sinema (MS) as one player; the progressives as the other player. MS want the infrastructure bill; the progressives want the Biden "Build Back Better" bill. If the two groups cooperate they can get both; if they don't they may get neither. Partially this boils down to how much trust the two parties have in each other, but mainly it rests on whether there's a compromise on the size and contents and tax provisions of the BBB which both can live with.
A lot of media attention to China, specifically the possible bankruptcy of Evergrande due to overdevelopment of housing, triggered me.
China's economic development in the last 45 years or so seems to have been based on privatizing land, or at least selling individuals and corporations a long-term right to farm or develop on a piece of land. (I'm hedging because I vaguely remember that perhaps they used long-term leases in some cases, rather like the Brits did sometimes.)
Anyhow, how did the Chinese state get the land? My impression is that as a result of the Chinese Revolution the Communist Party nationalized land in the 1950's, which they've been privatizing since 1980's.
To me in a broad view that seems like what the English/Americans did--they nationalized the land held by Native Americans and then fueled economic development by privatizing.
Yesterday I tweeted a comment about Isaac Asimov's Foundation Series and its lack of women characters. Got a lot of adverse comments, which is fine.
Got to wondering about American literature and female characters. I couldn't think of memorable characters written by dead American authors, except for Hawthorne's Hester Prynne. Hemingway's Brett Ashley in The Sun Also Rises and Fitzgerald's Daisy Buchanan also came to mind, but I'd have to go to Cather and Wharton for better characters.
It's sort of funny--I resist the idea that authors are restricted to writing only about their own, that a white male can't write a black woman, etc. But it does seem from my self-poll that similarity between writer and character makes a difference.
Searching google results in hits for English language works, so characters from Bronte, Austen, and Rowling come up, not to mention Chaucer.
“Major policy decisions”? Do we know what that means? There’s a standard of economic impact of $100 million for regulations–but that’s been unchanged since it was first adopted in the 1970s in relation to inflation concerns, not policy.
Arguable the USDA/Trump decision to spend billions from the Commodity Credit Corporation was a major policy decision. But it wasn’t particularly controversial, because it was too esoteric and there were no significant opposing voices to make a fuss. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2020/01/21/trump-tariff-aid-to-farmers-cost-more-than-us-nuclear-forces/?sh=4fe7a4966c50
I suspect the operational definition is an issue about which there’s a big fight between the parties and/or interest groups. I think the reality is such issues don’t get resolved in legislation, just kicked down the road to the faceless bureaucrats who can be blamed if they screw up and/or offend people.