Korea, Ukraine and the UN

 I remember when North Korea invaded South Korea.  Harry S Truman was often a lucky man. In 1950 the world, most of it, at least the white and western portions, believed in the United Nations.  And the Soviet Union sometimes boycotted sessions of the Security Council. The invasion happened during a boycott, so the Security Council was able to agree on the use of force to oppose it.  

(For those many people who don't know the structure of the UN, almost all "nations" are included in the General Assembly (which in 1950 also included Ukraine plus another Soviet republic as well as the USSR) but the Security Council was supposed to be the fast-acting executive body with five permanent members (the WWII allies of USA, UK, France, (Nationalist) China, and USSR plus a rotation of other members. Each of the permanent members could veto action, which during the course of 72 years has eroded the UN's ability to act.)

So the Korean War was not the US and South Korea against North Korea and eventually Red China--it was the UN against the Reds. Wikipedia says 21 countries contributed troops, though the US provided the bulk of those coming from outside Korea.

So 72 years later we have a country invading another country, one of the permanent members of the Security Council, and neither Russia nor China is boycotting, so it's impossible for the Security Council to act. If it were possible, then NATO would have had cover to provide planes and troops to war. But as it is the UN becomes even more irrelevant.

I shed a tear for the dreams of the people after WWII who thought they'd fixed the problems of the League of Nations and the UN would lead the way to a better world. 

Religion and Liberalism

 Saw a tweet saying that mainstream Protestantism had been replaced by liberalism. Looked at another way mainstream Protestantism has always been evolving into liberalism.  Back in the 1960's "God is dead" was a fad, but the liberal World Council of Churches has, in my limited view and knowledge, focused on a common denominator of "justice, peace, and the protection of creation". 

You can trace American individualism back to Luther and Calvin--with various offshoots over the years going in the liberal direction, until finally the offshoots have overtaken the original Protestant thrust. 

Holton and Constitution

 Reading Woody  Holton "Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution".  Some arguments he stresses:

• the Founding Fathers wanted to strengthen the national government more than they actually did in the constitution, because they knew they needed popular support to get it ratified, even after they reduced the required number of states to ratify it from the 13 (required in the Articles of Confederation) to 9.  
• Some debtors wanted sound money being optimistic about borrowing in Europe and the prospects for prosperity. 
• Most state taxes were tariffs (disproportionately aiding MA, NY, PA as opposed to CN, DE, NJ, etc.) and direct taxes--poll taxes and property. Founding Fathers assumed that national government would assume debts and pay using tariff revenues, which would mean a transfer of burden from the states with less import activity to those with a lot. 

Overall it's a reminder that what "history" books describe are a selection of episodes and people, but only they only represent the tip of the iceberg.  For example, the Shays Rebellion was the most visible and biggest episode of resistance to taxes levied to support the wartime debts of the states and to fund the government of the Articles of Confederation. But Holton describes a wide variety of actions in the various states with similar motives and causes for action.

Differences in Slavery in New World

 One big part of slavery in the US was the internal "migration", the movement of slaves from the Atlantic Coast colonies to the newer states of MS, AL, AL, AR, mostly it seems by sale  to slave traders.  

There are differences in the societies in different parts of the New World, partially from differences in Spain, France, and Britain, partially from differences in the crops being grown, and partially the climate/health conditions.  I know that; what I didn't think about until today was the difference in size.  The US and Brazil are big countries, while the Caribbean islands are much smaller.  So in the US slaves who gave trouble could be threatened with being sold to slave traders or "down river". On the other hand the slave population multiplied by natural increase in the US, less so or not so at times elsewhere.

So the question I have is whether historians can find a difference in what might be termed "mobility", except it connotes choice.  What was the probability that a slave born in 1770 in Virginia would die 200+ miles away versus the same probability for a slave in the sugar islands of the Caribbean?  And, if there's a difference, what impact was there on the societies?

Petroleum Reserve

 I'd support Biden's release of oil from the reserve if there was a provision for refilling it when oil prices are low.  (I'm thinking of a parallel with the old grain loan/storage program.)

What We've Lost--LWV and Local Papers

 My cousin, Marjorie Harshaw Robie, is recalling her days on the Ipswich School Committee by a series of posts Facebook page. 

Her initial run for the  committee was aided by two institutions which have faded since then: the League of Women Voters, which did two questionnaires of the candidates, and the local newspapers, which did interviews.

I assume it's not just Ipswich which has seen the fading, but general phenomena. 

EWG on Crop Insurance on Mississippi Flood Plain

When I first started working on the program side, ASCS had a disaster payment program, covering low yields and prevented planting for its then-usual crops: wheat, barley, oats, corn, sorghum, rice and upland cotton. The auditors had been critical of its administration, saying that the way the program operation ended up paying the same farm in multiple years. 

From what I remember the problem was a combination of legislation and human nature, or rather legislation and administration reflecting human nature.  Farmers are optimists, they have to be to survive the disappointments, so they remember the good years and not the bad.  That means the laws they supported provided for "Olympic averaging", ignoring bad years but usually not the great years. So the resulting payment yields were high, too high if you agree with the auditors that disaster payments from the government should be unusual.

The further problem was variability--optimistic farmers grow crops on marginal and hazard-prone land.  They've done that forever--much of the Great Plains in the 19th century.  Sometimes farmers are able to modify geography, using irrigation, levees, drainage, or terraces depending on the problem.  We're finding the limits to such measures, as now in the Central Valley of California.

Anyhow, this ramble was set off by a new EWG report on crop  insurance payments on flood prone land. 

Returning Lost Property

 Via Kottke, this article on return of lost property in Japan.  I'm reminded of some experiments done in this country--IIRC some involved leaving a wallet containing the owner's phone number with some money and seeing whether the wallet was returned, with the money. 

I think maybe it ties in with my recent reading of McManus on the Army's war in the Pacific--how was it possible to motivate Japanese soldiers to die rather than surrender--partially a concern for reputation in the community?  

The last thing I would think of if I found a wallet is whether my actions would be condemned or praised by the community. 

Commercial Airlines Using Electric Planes in 2026?

 United has contracted for such planes for 2026. At 19 seats they aren't going to be flying between major cities, but rather out to small cities.  I find that I flew in a Beechcraft 1900D which has 19 seats when I flew into Goodland, KS in 1992 or 3.  Goodland has since lost air service. 

KISS and the Constitution

 Reading Woody Holton's "Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution".

I'm about halfway through but already have a reaction.  It's KISS, meaning "keep it simple, stupid'.  And that's what the Constitution did, at least partially. Holton's describing the conditions of the 1780's, and the conflicts which led to the writing and adoption of the Constitution.  Holton describes things, but doesn't see them as follows:

• the state of the currency and of state finances was poor, meaning that state legislatures had tried many measures to obtain money to pay off the obligations from the Revolution and to maintain the government.  While Holton is a good writer, I found the overall picture very confusing.  
• Americans found it hard or impossible to borrow money from the British or on the Continent.  They blamed the devaluing of bond issues and paper currency for damaging American credit.

Seems to me that the Brits, the European bankers, might well have been as confused as I am.  After all, you had 13 different states doing things with no consistency.  I assume that before the Revolution each colony had a network of contacts in the UK government and the banking community which had the knowledge and background to assess what was happening in the colony. That network was disrupted by the Revolution.  The Revolution also meant more interaction among the colonies/states, calling for more knowledge and familiarity with events in the sister states.  The British Empire had had the effect of simplifying things; the Revolution undid things and created complexity.

The Constitution was a step to simplifying things again. We'd still have a decentralized banking system, but by 1800 the issues of the wartime debts were clarified as the federal government took over responsibility.