William Goodman said: "in Hollywood no body knows anything" about what makes for a hit movie.
One lesson from covid is the limitations of knowledge, of expertise. Over 2 years we've seen a lot of predictions, some were accurate within their frame, some were correct at the general level (i.e., the virus would mutate and the mutations would have different characteristics), but all had trouble tracking the changes over time.
Another lesson is how vulnerable we the public are to misinformation.
GAO questions USDA's approaches to calculating MFP benefits. Too long, didn't read. (i.e., too complicated for an old man.)
Here's a discussion of which election since 1945 has been the most important. Sadly, the experts omit any discussion of my favorite: 1952. (They focus on 2020, 2016, 1964, etc.)
Why 1952? What was critical was the Republican nomination: Robert Taft versus Dwight Eisenhower. Either could win, as the country was tired of the New Deal at home and of the Korean War abroad. Taft was the more conservative, with an isolationist history from before December 7, 1941. Ike was the more internationalist and the more supportive of NATO.
On paper, if Taft had won the nomination and the presidency the course of the Cold War looks very different than what happened.
I say "on paper" because Taft died in 1953 and we don't know who he would have chosen as vice president. It might have been someone from the Eisenhower wing of the party in an attempt to present a unified front against the Democrats. Or it might not.
Bob Somerby notes that the texts Donald Trump Jr. sent to Meadows (and others) show that Trump's associates didn't expect a takeover of the Capitol. Elsewhere Eric Trump said in an interview that the Trump campaign was too incompetent, too inexperienced to collude with Russians, which only confirms a Dana Milbank column of months ago.
I think that's true. Everything I've read about the former guy and his White House operation suggests he and they really didn't know what they were doing. So my assessment of Jan 6 is that it was throwing a bunch of darts at the wall, hoping that one of them would find a bulls-eye.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
