Vertical Farming

So-called "vertical farming" is hot. I apply the adjective because I think the category is loose enough to apply to all envirnonments where controls are tight: maybe humans replace sunlight with Leds, replace the soil with a nutrient solution, ensure the temperature stays within optimum ranges, etc., regardless of whether there are two or more layers/stories worth of plants.   

The advantages are growing close to the market, tight control over diseases and pests, high degree of automation, more uniform quality of produce, etc.  The two big questions are the big capital investment required to start up and the continuing cost of inputs: mostly electricity for lighting and cooling and labor, especially for automation--these are questions because I don't think there's any installations which have had a long enough life to prove profitability. Perhaps a third question is the range of produce which can be grown for a profit in the most advanced setups. (After all, we've had hothouse tomatoes on the market for years.

GAO"s Farmers.Gov Evaluation

 From a GAO report evaluating the overall Technology Modernization Fund operation:

The Farmers.Gov Portal project was originally intended to update and modernize the conservation financial assistance and payment operations at the Farm Services Agency and Natural Resources Conservation Service in order to improve the services through the portal. The scope of the project was updated in August 2020 after the agency determined that additional process re-engineering would be required prior to further development of the technology solution for common enrollment processes for the two agencies. While the project developed tools to help reduce manual data entry, and developed a proof of concept for the system, the project was closed out prior to implementation in May 2021.

I wonder whether the closing of the project was due to its not meeting expectations or perhaps because of "not invented here" thinking by the new administration? I don't remember what I initially thought of the project--probably somewhat skeptical (since I wasn't involved, :-) 

GAO includes this rationale:

Agriculture leadership determined that additional process re-engineering would be required prior to further development of the technology solution for common enrollment processes.

USDA had two other TMF initiatives which seem to be continuing, although perhaps with reductions in scope and/or expectations.  

GAO's report is critical of GSA's management of the TMF; it wasn't specifically directed at the agencies with projects which received funds. 

From Estonia's Leader

I like to think I'm reasonably liberal and reasonably current with most trends, except for popular culture.  But I did a double-take when I saw the photo with this post of Estonia's leader.

So young and so blonde.

The Vietnam Morass

I happened to try to check Jill Lepore's claim that hundreds of thousands marched on April 15, 1967 in New York City to protest the war--it seemed high to me. That got me into deep waters.  The NY Times seems to say that police estimated 100,000, or possibly 125,000, although they were told to prepare for 200,000 to 400,000. Elsewhere including wikipedia the "hundreds of thousands" phrase seems to be established wisdom.  Not sure anyone has tried to estimate it as carefully as we used to do with crowds at the various inaugurals.

Elsewhere there's the question of the number of draft dodgers--Wikipedia offers different vague estimates in different places, but this site has:

For its part, the U.S. government continued to prosecute draft evaders after the Vietnam War ended. A total of 209,517 men were formally accused of violating draft laws, while government officials estimate another 360,000 were never formally accused.

That sounds so specific it must be based on some official document; unfortunately they don't provide any sources. 

It's a reminder to me of how fragile is the base of "facts" for our received version of history.

Master of the Game

 Reading Martin Indyk's "Master of the Game: Henry Kissinger: the Art of Middle East Diplomacy.  Just got through the Yom Yippur War, the one where the US went to Defcon 3 while Nixon was melting down with the Saturday Night massacre. The one where Brezhnev was apparently addicted to drugs and drink.  

A year or two ago I read a new book on the coming of WWI tracing the network of misunderstandings and wrong assumptions which led to the war. That's what came to mind as I read--the Soviets, the Egyptians, the Israelis, the Syrians--all were flawed players in the game. 

I doubt there's much chance of improving the rationality of our leaders--they're human after all. 

(After finishing the book, which covers Kissinger's successful negotiations to calm the area, and take advantage of opportunities to stablize the situation, laying the groundwork for Carter's Camp David establishment of peace between Israel and Egypt.)

I came away with an appreciation of Kissinger's abilities and even more appreciation of Indyk's approach: he's clear on the aims and tactics of the various players and their misjudgments.  Anwar Sadat comes off well as a statesman, amazingly for someone who was pro-Hitler during WWII.  The other leaders seem capable--no villains, just quirky people.

History and SCOTUS

 It's unfair that Republican appointees have dominated the Supreme Court for the last 50 years or so.  Elsewhere I've blamed LBJ for this. 

Currently liberals argue that the court is too conservative.  That's true.  But it's also true that the court has not always been a moderating influence, keeping America on a middle way. Back in the days of the Warren court it was fairly consistently more liberal than the country. IIRC there weren't majorities in the country supporting decisions like Brown, Carr, MIranda.  

It's also worth remembering that people on the right were talking about "Impeach Warren".  So far the liberals today aren't talking about impeachment.

Concerns About Republican Changes to Voting Laws

 One of the things Republicans seem to be doing in several states is changing the law so that somebody can override the count of votes.  In a way they're fighting the last war: in the firm belief that Trump lost because of illegal/fraudulent votes, they're trying to make legal what Trump asked the officials in AZ, PA, GA, and WI to do.

This effort has a lot of Democrats very concerned.  It might be justified.  But I'm in a Pollyanna mood today, so let me outline why it might not be:

• I've not tracked them, but some of the law changes are, I think, occurring in red states, states the Republicans are apt to win in most elections.
• There's a big difference between Monday-morning quarterbacking and the beliefs you develop when you're part of the action. I'm relying on that idea here. In 2022 and 2024 the officials empowered by these changed laws will be active participants in the electoral process.  Hopefully we won't have a pandemic causing late changes to election procedures and laws, which was the big problem undermining Republican acceptance of results in 20S0.  So I'm hoping these officials will feel committed to the process and thus won't be looking and finding the false fraud which would justify their actions.

That's my prediction anyway.

Another Error by Harvard Professor?

 I'm not really picking on Prof. Lepore, not much anyhow. She writes really well. But as I've said before I do enjoy finding errors.  This time it's page 109 of her book "If Then: How the Simultanics Corproation Invented the Future".  She's writing about the dance among Arthur Schlesinger, Jr (another Harvard professor who wrote well), Adlai Stevenson, and JFKennedy in 1960.  Stevenson is vacillating as usual over whether to run for president, and JFK is trying to keep him out, with Schlesinger in the middle. 

In two separate paragraphs she describes meetings between Stevenson and JFK, one on May 21, one in "late May" which was arranged by Schlesinger.  I have to believe it was one meeting, but the way it's written it sounds like two. I suspect she tried to describe the meeting in separate drafts which didn't get cleanly merged. 

I've not finished the book, but am enjoying it, as I remember the maneuvering then, much more fascinating than today's politics.

MFP and CFAP Political Effects

The bottom line of a study trying to assess whether the MFP and CFAP payments resulted in more votes for Trump in 2020:

We find the MFP and CFAP programs generated 677,512 votes for Republican candidate Trump in the 2020 Presidential Election with an estimated cost-per-vote-gained of $66,124

I say it's the bottom line, but the next sentence says the added votes didn't swing any states; rural voters were already pro-Trump. 

Vietnam Photo--Houses