Historical Evolution

One problem with historians is the Whig interpretation of history which is really IMO two problems:

1. the belief that the course of history inevitably led to current society, usually through the actions and decisions of men--often white and elite, though there's room for the MLKs of the world, adn
2. the belief that current society is good ("the glorious present").

Unfortunately some current historians throw out no.2 but keep no. 1. This is a tweet from yesterday:

The modern concept of race was introduced to North America to make working or lower class solidarity more difficult. It is still doing that. https://t.co/SpiLOfn6QR

— Sam Haselby (@samhaselby) March 7, 2022

I think the phrasing implies there was conscious intent.  I don't believe that.  

Trustworth Stats?

I'm basically skeptical of the statistics being reported from Ukraine. Too much confusion in the early days of a war--everyone gets excited and succumbs to the temptation of believing what we want  We saw that in WWII particularly with aerial combat in all theaters. 

Willie and Joe--Showing My Age

I was born before Pearl Harbor.  After the war was over I got a compilation of Bill Mauldin's Willie and Joe cartoons, depicting GI's in a picture of combat and service life that was more realistic than anything seen before,  A tweet yesterday evoked this memory.

The Army's War in the Pacific

 Been reading the John McManus  books on the Army's role in the Pacific (so far two volumes,carrying the story through the end of 1944 and the invasion of Leyte in the Philippines).

It's good, not as good as the Toll trilogy on the Navy, with less focus on overall strategy and the home front, but it does do justice to the Army which McManus says has been overshadowed by the Marines.  The first book is critical of MacArthur, the second book not so much.  In the controversies between Marine and Army generals he usually takes the Army side, but seems to be fair in assessing the good and bad of the leaders.

I was struck by the fact that the US had overall commanders--Nimitz and MacArthur, while the Japanese apparently always separated navy and army chains of command. We had friction between Marine and Army forces which apparently didn't exist for Japan.

The Future and Ukraine

Dan Drezner had a piece in the Post on the use of sanctions. As I understand him, he's afraid that we're imposing sanctions on Russia over the invasion of Ukraine more out of emotion than a plan, whether to contain them or to coerce them, and how and when the sanctions might be lifted. I commented there:

 Do we essentially call for unconditional surrender (of all of Putin's goals) or are we willing to offer a fig leaf? More importantly, can we and Zelensky remain united--there's no guarantee that he will see things the same way we do. Are we willing to fight on until the last Ukrainian fighter is killed? Is he?

Part of the problem I didn't make clear in my comment is we've got multiple decision makers-- Zelensky on the one hand and the "West" as represented by Biden on the other.  (And that's oversimplifying--while NATO and the EU and the rest of Europe seem united now, that's not necessarily the case in the futre.)  

I think we can predict that our high regard for Zelensky today will fade as we and he come to realize we have different priorities and aims. 

Some Progress in Thirty Years--FSA/NRCS

 I don't know how to link over to a Facebook post with its comments, but here's the url of this post: 

There are a lot of comments on it. Some point to closer cooperation between the two agencies and possibly some sofware support for such cooperation.

In the fall of 1991 there was the Infoshare project, trying to accomplish the same general objective.  As things turned out, it failed, I failed.  The history of the last 30 years suggests maybe I shouldn't feel too bad about failure because getting the two agencies together was more difficult than we realized then.

Maintenance Is Not Sexy--Methane

I've blogged before about the plight of maintenance.  I learned with ASCS automation that building new systems means increasing the burden of maintenance and decreasing the time and people available to do more good things.  I've applied that learning to other things.  

One is infrastructure--we don't maintain our roads and bridges as we should. Another is pipelines, as described here.

People like new ideas, new things.  Someone has a bright idea and others join in the applause. This often results in new legislation or whatever.  The people who originated the idea/legislation/proposal move on and eventually die.  Their replacements, even those with nominal responsibility for maintenance, have no pride of authorship, no emotional commitment to the project, so devote their attention and time to other efforts.

For proof of my thesis, compare the state of the pots and pans in your kitchen after years of use with what they looked like on the day of your wedding, when you received them.

What Happened to Civil Service?

 I'm not referring narrowly to the federal civil service but to the idea of serving the society, often through working for the government as a teacher or bureaucrat.

From a Jay Mathews column on education this morning--discussing a book on how to get into the top colleges, describing the audience for the book: "college applicants who yearn for admission to undergraduate institutions that will make them attractive, when they graduate, to recruiters from private equity, artificial intelligence, management consulting, investment banking and other top-paying professions"

Amish Versus Satmars

 New Yorker has a review of a book on the Satmar, the Hasidic sect with its own town in NY. It starts with this joke, which led me to think about the distinction between the two.  

In an old joke, a secular Jew sits down on a park bench next to a man with a large black hat and a long black coat. The secular Jew turns to the darkly garbed man and says, “What’s the matter with you Hasids? This isn’t the Old Country—it’s the modern world. You people are an embarrassment to the rest of us.” The man turns around and says, “Hasid? I’m Amish.” The secular Jew immediately replies, “It’s so wonderful the way you’ve held on to your traditions!”

For some reason I have warmer feelings about the Amish than the Satmar--why?

• Amish are/were dairy farmers, therefore closer to my heart
• More generally Amish do physical work, while my understanding of the Satmar is that the culture is focused on religious study. 
• Amish have been in US as long or longer than most of my ancestors while Satmar are 20th century.
• Amish are familiar, Satmar are strange.
• Amish seem to have been more withdrawn than the Satmar--to the best of my knowledge the Amish haven't used the power of numbers to seek political power, while the Satmar got their own town/city--we don't have the draft anymore so I don't know whether they'd be conscientious objectors to military service--I think the Amish were CO's. )
• I'm human, and susceptible to tribalism/othering.

Some perspectives from others and here.

 

Trump, the Last Gasp of the Patriarchy?

 There was a sudden burst of women running and winning as Republicans in 2020. Some of them were and are supporters of the former president, but I've the optimistic suggestion: future Republican presidents will appoint significantly more women judges and women administrators--indeed I predict the pattern will be much closer to that of President Obama, if not President Biden.