"An Impassable Wall" Trump? No, Lincoln

 Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them, Is it
possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.

Is it doubted, then, that the plan I propose, if adopted, would shorten the war, and thus lessen its expenditure of money and of blood? Is it doubted that it would restore the national authority and national prosperity and perpetuate both indefinitely? Is it doubted that we here--Congress and Executive can secure its adoption? Will not the good people respond to a united and earnest appeal from us? Can we, can they, by any other means so certainly or so speedily assure these vital objects? We can succeed only by concert. It is not "Can any of us imagine better?" but "Can we all do better?" Object whatsoever is possible, still the question recurs, "Can we do better?" The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.

Fellow-citizens, we can not escape history. We of this Congress and this Administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance or insignificance can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass will light us down in honor or dishonor to the latest generation. We say we are for the Union. The world will not forget that we say this. We know how to save the Union. The world knows we do know how to save it. We, even we here, hold the power and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave we assure freedom to the free--honorable alike in what we give and what we preserve. We shall nobly save or meanly lose the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just--a way which if followed the world will forever applaud and God must forever bless.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29503

Reducing Layers of Management Redux

Government executive has a piece by Howard Risher on the need to reduce layers of management in government:

"February 12 promises to be a significant day for federal employees. It’s the day the White House releases its 2019 budget request, along with its plans to restructure agencies, improve workforce management and performance, increase accountability, and reduce costs. One recommended change—the elimination of a layer or more of management—will have far-reaching implications. Such a move would reduce the workforce and expand the supervisory responsibilities of executives and managers, making continued micromanagement impractical"

It's a good thing President Trump has a short memory and no animus against Al Gore, because that was a major plank in Gore's "Reinventing Government" initiative in 1993-on.  For ASCS, it was an exercise in paper shuffing, IMHO.  Branch chiefs became "team leaders" but they had the same people reporting to them in fact, if not on paper. 

There's many reasons for multiplying layers of management, some good, some not-so.  But a diktat that eliminates a layer doesn't address those reasons and so, again in my opinion, will have minimal long term effect.

I'm Not Sane--per K. Williamson

Kevin Williamson has a column on institutions and the FBI, writing:

"And no sane person believes for a nanosecond that those “lost” communications represent anything other than willful obstruction of justice." 

Personally, I'd be willing to bet that the reasons the emails were "lost" can be traced to a long lasting gap in bureaucratic cultures.  Specifically, the records management people have always focused on paper preservation, and rarely have ranked high in the pecking in bureaucracies.  It's taken 20 years for NARA to start to accommodate electronic records, and I suspect they've yet to achieve full integration.  

The IT folks, on the other hand, have a culture focused on the future and a bit on the present, but rarely on the past.  C.P. Snow in the 1950's had a book entitled "Two Cultures", arguing that science and the  humanities didn't talk to each other, and they should.  Today's divide between archives and IT is worse.

In the middle of all this are the people who have to implement IT rules and archive requirements--the users.  These are the people who leave their passwords at the default, or use admin1234. 

Toss in Murphy's Law, and I'll bet there was no willful obstruction of justice.

The IMprint of History on EU Farms

Politico has a piece on the EU and farm  policy:

With Brexit sapping the EU’s financial firepower, European Commissioner for Agriculture Phil Hogan is under intense pressure to slash the bloc’s €59-billion-a year farm subsidies. 

In response, one of Brussels’ suggested cost-cutting measures is to set a ceiling on how much the largest farms can receive. At first glance, it’s a savvy political move that would reduce lavish payments to landed aristocrats and agricultural conglomerates. Hogan’s problem, however, is that this subsidy ceiling would also deliver a painful blow to poorer (but bigger) Eastern European farms that used to be vast cooperatives in the communist era.

Data provided by the Czech farm association show that the top 2.6 percent of the largest farms in the country manage a massive 81 percent of the country’s arable land, while breeding some 70 percent of its dairy cows.

There's a lot of variation though: Czech farms are the largest, while Poland, Hungary and Romania all are on the small end of the scale (under 10 hectares average). I think Polish farms were never collectivized, and maybe the other two?

How To Do an Immigration Deal

Ross Douthat in the NYTimes has a column arguing, if I've got it right, that any deal on immigration must have Stephen Miller at the table. Two paragraphs:

The present view of many liberals seems to be that restrictionists can eventually be steamrolled — that the same ethnic transformations that have made white anxiety acute will eventually bury white-identity politics with sheer multiethnic numbers. 

But liberals have been waiting 12 years for that “eventually” to arrive, and instead Trump is president and the illegal immigrants they want to protect are still in limbo. So maybe it would be worth trying to actually negotiate with Stephen Miller, rather than telling Trump that he needs to lock his adviser in a filing cabinet, slap on a “beware of leopard” sign, and hustle out to the Rose Garden to sign whatever Durbin and Graham have hashed out.

I think he's got a point, at least if we want a deal before November.  There might be a case for delaying a deal until after the 2018 elections, figuring the Democrats may take the House.  That runs the risk of the Trump administration deporting Dreamers.  The counter argument would be that there wouldn't be significant numbers deported between March and November and the risk is worth it.

Personally I've no big problem with the current system, either in the levels of legal immigration or in the ways they come.  The idea of spreading immigration across a variety of methods appeals to me; it minimizes the extent of problems in any one method.

Having a large number of immigrants living and working on the margins of society because they lack legal documentation isn't good, but going to draconian methods to reduce the numbers is costly.

IMHO I'd go with E-Verify (usually a no-no for liberals) and give the restrictionists money for the wall, then bash them for not getting Mexico to pay for it.  With those concessions I'd hope to get agreement for legal status for Dreamers and their parents.  And then I'd work like hell to take control of Congress in 2018 and pass a path to citizenship in 2019.

The Nuclear Alert System

Blogged about the problem of the false alert in Hawaii the other day.  Kottke has a post showing the actual screen the operator was faced with, and a discussion of some of the issues. I'm stealing the image from him:



This is obviously terrible system design.  What interests me is the haphazard combination of situations.  What I'd guess has happened is someone came up with a state/county alert system, and situations have been added to it.  What's striking is the variety of organizations which can trigger an alert: police can trigger an AmberAlert, weather bureau can generate high surf, USGS can issue the tsunanmi warning, etc.   So there seem to be a bunch of inputs to the one person who then makes the selection, each selection presumably with a different set of addressees and a preset canned message.

I wonder what happens when the person is away from her desk, in the bathroom, on leave, etc.  I have a hard time believing that the desk is manned/womanned 24 hours a day with no lapses. 

What's the Meaning of Trade Hypocrisy

From a Post piece by Roger Lowenstein reviewing trade policy:

Trump is scarcely the first president to resort to tariffs. Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama regrettably succumbed — but muted their overall effect by simultaneously pursuing trade pacts. Reagan talked free trade but — in the midst of a severe recession — protected American autos, steel and semiconductors.

Why, oh why do we elect hypocrites to the Presidency?  Why can't we elect single-minded straight forward types, who believe in one policy and act accordingly, rather than wavering back and forth like Obama and Bush and even Reagan?

My answer is it's the art of politics, trying to maintain majority support by tacking back and forth to convince people you respect their concerns and listen.  In other words, hypocrisy in a politician is good.

Molly Bloom

I seem to be falling into a pattern of short movie reviews, given my wife and I are regularly seeing movies since the holidays.  Today was "Molly Bloom", with good performances by Jessica Chastain and Idris Elba, written and directed by Aaron Sorkin.  With that talent it's a good movie, not great. Part of the problem is the male-female dynamic: Bloom fights to gain a position, and is beaten down by men, three times.  She loses her first game, she's beaten up for refusing to cooperate with Russian gangsters in laundering money, and she's arrested by FBI and has her money confiscated.  Finally her dad shows up and explains her psychology based on family trauma.  So the "arc" (any reviewer has to discuss a character's arc or have the reviewer license taken away) is failure leads to self-knowledge. 

Bottom line: it's worth seeing.

Times Changes: Veterans and Non-veterans

I was alerted to this by a blog I've lost track of, so I searched and found this.

It graphs the proportion of the male population who are veterans:

18-34 year olds:   3.48 percent

75 and older (me): 49.53 percent

You're Not Who You Were a Second Ago

Been reading Jennifer Doudna's Crack in Creation.  She's one of the scientists involved in the creation and development of CRISPR, the tool used to edit DNA without importing genes from other species. 

Towards the end she has this sentence: "Every person experience roughly one million mutations per second..."  If I understood her book, there's a natural process to correct those mutations, a process which CRISPR adapts.