That's a phrase from Zadie Smith's recent book of essays. She's using it in the context of her body, a female black body.
I like the image. On the one hand you have the concept of "privilege", which is sort of like a backpack containing an assortment of tools, which is that your history empowers you. On the other hand you have a cage of circumstances, which is the idea that your history limits you. Both I think are true.
David Brooks on the Newshour has a rosy picture of post-1945 European history. He said last night on the Newshour that a Russian invasion of Ukraine would be most serious military action since 1945.
I don't buy it. Both Russia and the US know they will try to avoid war. The two nations have learned over the 76 years since WWII they can compete and conflict without going to armed conflict.
We and the Soviet Union/Russia didn't know that with Berlin in 1948, Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968. We didn't know we could avoid conflict, and we believed that conflict would lead to nuclear war.
Ukraine is serious because of Murphy's law and the likelihood of unforeseen events. But I think we've seen worse, though that may just reflect my advancing age.
CCC was set up in the 1930's. One of the reasons was to handle the money for entitlement programs: farm programs which established payment rates for doing or not doing things without an appropriation, a cap.
When I worked at ASCS there was still a sharp division between CCC and ASCS. CCC decisions were made by the CCC, composed of the administrators of affected agencies and the secretary's office. There were a couple bureaucrats handling the development of "dockets" for the board, which recorded the rationale for the decision and included the regulations to be published in the Federal Register, Chapter 7, secs. 1400-1499.
There were bureaucratic implications: if Congress passed a program with authority to use CCC facilities, it meant that the Printing and Distribution Branch could tap CCC funds to print forms and handbooks on an emergency basis and, I believe, bypass the Government Printing Office's time-consuming process. And the expenses weren't charged to ASCS administrative appropriation.
On the equipment side, similar logic applied. If equipment could be tied to CCC operations, then it was charged to CCC and not ASCS.
As automation came along, first with programmable calculators and then System/36, etc. the IT types were able to use CCC money.
It was in the early 1990's I think that Congress, specifically House Appropriations, woke up to this loophole. I know SCS people were jealous of ASCS ability to use CCC. Did someone blow the whistle on ASCS? Possibly. More likely the USDA IT office complained about ASCS/FSA bypassing them by using CCC.
Meanwhile the different administrations have found the ability to tap CCC funds for various programs. By now I've lost track of who has done what. The most recent announcement is this, pilot projects for climate change.
I saw Paul Krugman yesterday on Newshour admitting he'd been wrong about inflation. Today we got another bad report.
I never wrote this, so take it with some salt, but I believe back in the day, when MMT (modern monetary theory) was the hot topic that I remembered back in the middle 60's when economists believed they had solved the problem of balancing growth and inflation. They hadn't.
I'm tempted to say that it's a generational thing--humans become overcome by hubris, they push too far and meet trouble and learn to pull back, but as time goes on those with scars die off and the stage is set for another round of hubris.
I read everything in the house, almost. There were some volumes from my grandfather's library I passed on--lives of John Calvin and John Knox, Carlyle, and others. Mostly my parents allowed me to read anything.
I do recall one discussion of whether I was old enough to handle a novelized version of the Donner Party. I don't remember the author--it was a poet/novelist written in the 1930's or so, not listed in the wikipedia article. Not sure whether mom or dad was more hesitant, nor whether they came down with a decision. I think it was unresolved, so I went ahead and read the book. Not sure how old I was, young, pre-teen almost certainly.
This was sparked by the discussion of book-banning, particularly Bob Somerby's defense as in this post.
While I've some sympathy for his viewpoint, in my ideal world we'd trust kids, librarians, and teachers to do the right thing. There's a chance, a small chance, that the wrong person reading the wrong text too early in their life may be adversely affected. But the chances are small and the adverse effect small as well.
All of the above discussion relates to voluntary reading, but I think the same logic argues against against mandatory reading and for the ability of kids and parents to opt out of one reading and into another.
The way I understand this, is that $350,000 is the top salary Amazon can offer to new hires. That's twice the salary for a member of Congress.
Sunday in the print editions:
The Post had an essay by Mr. Zipper on self-driving cars, arguing they won't save lives (at least not 94 percent of current fatalities) and won't be good for the environment.
The Times has an opinion piece by Mr. Manjoo praising the Cadillac Escalade, including its self-driving package.
Both writers seem to agree that by making driving less onerous self-driving cars will encourage more driving, more time spent in cars, and therefore hurt the environment.
I'm still looking forward to more advances, though not ready to spring for an Escalade. But my need and interest in driving seems to be waning, particularly in the context of the pandemic.
Reading Johnson's book "The Broken Heart of America"--early on (page 26) he refers to the expropriation of Indian knowledge by the Lewis/Clark expedition. Somehow it struck me wrong. Checking the definitions of "expropriation" and "appropriation" it seems their meaning has been concerning property or assets.
Johnson applies it to intellectual knowledge and intangible assets. To an economist I think the distinction rests on what is "excludable", which intellectual property isn't as a rule. IP is shareable. It's appropriate to refer to the expropriation of land or the appropriation of personal property, but to my mind not appropriate to expropriation of IP or appropriation of culture.
That leaves a question of what label to use instead of cultural appropriation--imitation or emulation or copying, perhaps adding an adjective like "superficial".
A note from a biography of Josiah Wedgwood I'm reading--there's a quotation from an eminent writer in the 1760's pontificating that the classical past (which was being revealed by excavating Pompeii and the tours of Europe by young English men) should be considered the common patrimony of all, so emulation and imitation was fine.
Ross Douthat had an op-ed which interested me. He argued both conservatives and liberals have divisions, basically along two dimensions: trust in people and trust in expertise.
Conservatives have over their history distrusted democracy, the mob. That continues today in attempts to limit voting. What's newish is conservative dislike of experts, of science. Education used to be a conservative force but now both science and education are associated with change.
Liberals have a history of expanding the right to vote, which continues. But since the Progressive era they've developed a belief in educated elites, particularly science and social science.
The tensions on both sides make for instability.
(The above is what I took from the essay without going back to doublecheck my summary.)
Douthat's analysis works for me as a liberal. I don't agree with some liberal positions, but I maintain my faith in science.
Congressional Budget Office does estimates of the effects of laws and proposed laws on the economy. Such estimates get media play. What doesn't get media play is corrections:
In its March 2020 projections for fiscal year 2021, CBO underestimated revenues by 15 percent and overestimated outlays by 4 percent. CBO’s projection of the federal budget deficit in 2021 was more than the actual amount by 3.9 percent of GDP.
