The White House's site for ordering covid tests is up, a day before promised.
Given the problems with the Obamacare website, I'm glad to see it seems, so far, to be going okay (the requirements were simpler by a lot, but the media likely won't focus on it--just success or failure).
A question raised by recent reading--what constitutes "race"? Disregarding the issue of whether or not "race" is real, it seems to me our understanding is historical, lacking background. Specifically:
Fairfax county has implemented a ban on plastic grocery bags, or maybe it's plastic bags from shops? Anyway, we've invested in a nylon bag for me to use when I'm buying a few items, often during a walk, and a set of 3 foldable bags with cloth sides for the weekly Friday shopping.
But this change which seems so simple turns out to be a bit more complicated. When I'm shopping, I use the self-checkout station. It's designed so you identify/weigh each item you're buying, then place it into the plastic shopping bag above the scale. That works well. But when I try to replace the plastic bag with my nylon bag, the system detects the weight of the nylon bag and commands me to remove it. So instead of placing the id'ed items directly into the bag, it becomes two steps--one onto the scale, then after I've paid the bill, moving the items from the scale to the nylon bag.
Using the foldable bags reveals a separate problem--they're designed to fit within the shopping cart, which is fine, but that means they're just a bit too big to fit onto the stand where the checker has her plastic shopping bags, meaning it's awkward for the checker to fill the bags.
My poin is this is symptomatic of many changes--because things are designed as a system, or they evolve into a system (which I think is the case with groceries) of interrelated parts. A change in one part of a system will require changes in other parts.
Modern Farmer has a piece on John Deere's self-driving tractor, which really sounds like a package of software and sensors which can be added onto different tractors. Civil Eats has a longer piece on how the rising prices of farm land make it hard for beginning farmers, especially those of color, to set up an operation.
The two factors work together with others to make a vicious cycle. The higher the cost of entry by buying land and equipment the greater the premium for going big.
I ran across a reference to Washington's first inaugural address which roused my curiosity--specifically a reference to the prominent position he gave to what we call today the "Bill of Rights".
So I looked it up. It's interesting. I don't find there what I thought was indicated by the reference. There's a lot more attention given to God, his past guidance and hopes for future of "experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people". But there are no specific recommendations for any of the Bill of Rights. He does spend one paragraph in generalities--he's for "fortifying rights" while "promoting harmony", but that's as specific as he gets about any aspect of the new government.
Oh, and he won't take a salary or personal emolument.
We've indexed a number of parameters in government. One perennial problem is the salary of our representatives in Congress. The "out" party can demagogue the issue against those in power who raised the salary, so salaries don't get raised. And Congressional salaries tend to limit all other federal salaries (exceptions for special skills).
I've a very simple suggestion to eliminate the problem: we index the Congressional salaries. My own preference would be to pay them 10 percent of the salary of the highest paid government official in their state. In most cases this will be the coach of the college football team.
Secretary Vilsack is trying to encourage the use of cover crops by providing incentive payments.
In 1969 I was in North Carolina trying to get a little exposure to state and county operations. I remember the CED in one county took me on a visit to a sawmill operation. IIRC they were shaving the logs to create the slices of wood used in making baskets when we visited. While there he signed up a worker for an Agricultural Conservation Program practice for cover crops on his land. I think he knew the worker, his sawmill job, and his farming operation (perhaps tobacco?) well enough to make that trip.
In the 1970's the Nixon/Butz regime targeted the program using the argument that good farmers would use good farming practices which were profitable; the corollary is that a practice which isn't profitable isn't good and ignoring the issue of differing time periods.
[updated with link]
A rash of stories about the decline of our democracy and the possibility of a civil war. See this in the New Yorker.
I'm not worried. We've seen more risky circumstances in the past. We forget the level of violence associated with labor unionization and the racism of the last century. We should be able to remember the divisions and violence of the late 60's and 70's, but we don't.
Our current polarization is different than in the past, but I don't think it's that likely to lead to wide-spread violence.
If I'm to make a prediction, I'd say the level of racial/political motivated violence over the next 10 years won't rise above the level of past violence--i.e., homicides won't reach record levels.
