Quibbling with Caste

 Started reading Isabel Wilkerson's "Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents". I want to quibble with some sentences on page 29: 

"[The South] was where the tenets of intercaste relations took hold before spreading to the rest of the country..." (There follows a quote from Alexis de Tocqueville with a similar point.) 

I think this is wrong: slavery was a feature of the world before Europeans reached the Americas.  It was a part of the Old Testament, it was part of medieval times, it was an accepted feature of war. It was arguably part of many Native American societies.  There was slavery in Great Britain until the Somerset decision.

The bottom line is: we can't blame the South for slavery, which is the way I read Wilkerson.  She can argue that slavery on Southern plantations was developed into an American archetype, perhaps with some unique features.  But even there, she would need to recognize the differences between Southern slavery and Caribbean sugar plantations. 

As I said, it's a quibble.  Wilkerson's writing at a level of generality and artistry with which I'm not terribly comfortable.

Fixing the Election Process

One place where Republicans and Democrats should be able to reach bipartisan agreement is on fixing the election process. In the past Democrats have felt they do well with the biggest turnout and Republicans have mostly felt the opposite.  But in 2020 both parties did well with big turnout, although Democrats in the race for president and Republicans for Congress and the legislature.  That perspective on the facts might make it easier to reach a compromise. 

I don't see why technology can't be used to monitor the processing of ballots--put cameras in place and record everything. People should be able to agree on best practices among the states with the best records in handling mail and inperson voting.

 

On Enforcing Payment Limitation

GAO looked at how FSA is enforcing payment limitation rules.  The summary conclusion seems to be "improving, but with a ways to go".  I ran across this paragraph, which reminded me how Mike Campbell in the Sherman county FSA office in 1992/3 wanted us to make the process so simple it would put consultants out of business.  We failed to do it, and so have the people now in FSA (and Congress, especially Congress):

 Several FSA officials said that large farming operations receive assistance from consulting firms to help them comply with active personal management criteria. For example, a state office official said the documentation that consulting firms prepare for farming operations is consistently sufficient to support a determination of active personal management.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/720/710470.pdf

Happy Thanksgiving

My view of Obama's Promised Land, as portrayed back in the Grant administration.

A Good Reform on Shell Corporations?

 I saw a report today, which I've since lost, that House and Senate conferees have agreed on an important reform: requiring what we used to call in ASCS the "live bodies" who own a corporation to be identified.  Under current law if you want to hide the ownership of something, you set up a shell corporation to own it, and then set up more shell entities to own the shell corporation and so on. 

I hope the reform goes through, but there's lots of hurdles between a deal on Capitol Hill and having it in the law signed by the Presideb. We'll see.

[update--the politico article]

FSA Flip-Flops on Actively Engaged?

 Rural Blog has a post linking to a Progressive Farmer article on a change in payment limitation regulations published here. The article interprets it as a flip-flop, easing the requirements for payment limitation determinations.  I'm not sure that's right but  I'm 23+ years out of date on these technicalities, if not more, so I'll just quote the meat of the explanation:

After publication of the rule, stakeholders notified FSA of concerns regarding potential non-intended, adverse effects to farming operations comprised solely of family members. In streamlining the definitions for consistency, these revised definitions were inadvertently made applicable to farming operations solely owned by family members. This was not the intent of this rule change, and as revised, the definitions were more restrictive than they needed to be in order to provide intended consistency in the rule. Those more restrictive definitions were not intended to apply to farm operations comprised or owned solely of family members. Therefore, this document restores § 400.601 and the previous the definitions of “active personal management” and “significant contribution” in § 1400.3 that were applicable prior to publication of the final rule on August 24, 2020. The more restrictive definitions described in § 1400.601 apply only to farming operations comprised of non-family members that are subject to a limit in the number of farm managers seeking to qualify for actively engaged in farming based on a contribution of active personal management alone.

 There's a reference to a GAO study as well, which seems to be this.

National Records Act and Trump

 Jill Lepore has an article in the New Yorker on the Trump administration and official records. It's  pretty good.  For a while I was responsible for records management in ASCS.  This was pre-PC.  In those days "records management" was a component of "paperwork management", which also included "directives" and "forms".

Back then paperwork management had become rather formal, partially perhaps because of the Billie Sol Estes case.  But since then technology seems to have disrupted everything; at least it was well on the way to doing so when I retired.

Justice for Black Farmers Act--First Take

 Successful Farming has a piece discussing this bill, introduced by Sens. Booker, Warren, and Gillibrand. Warren's statement of support is here. The legislative language is here . (I'm not sure the bill has actually been introduced--the draft language doesn't have a number and I can't find it at Congress.gov.) Mother Jones has an article on it.

It includes several reforms and programs, most of which are focused on black farmers (defined as American-born).

The biggest ask is a program to give qualified applicants of up to 160 acres of farmland, representing from $400,000 to $800,000 in value (using Farm Bureau's average farmland value of $4,100) at no cost.

Other provisions seem to oust OGC from civil rights matters, to put additional layer(s) of authority and/or review over the existing civil rights structure and the FSA county committees, and call for an extensive research and statistical work by ERS and NASS. In addition to the provisions on black farmers there are changes relating to packers and stockyards, conservation, and local markets.

There's an "Oversight Board" focused on current and future USDA/FSA operations and an "Equity Commission" focused on historical and structural issues to do a report within 2 years, and a Civil Rights Ombudsman.

I'm still trying to understand everything in this.  Some things which struck me:

• while I don't see anything about the composition of the Oversight Board, the Equity Commission is specified in detail--black farmers, NGO members, and HBCU faculty.
• there's a discrepancy--the title is for "Black Farmers" but some of the language is "socially disadvantaged".
• Alcorn State's Policy Center is written into the bill.  It's headed by Eloris Spight, who seems to have moved from the HR side at NRC to policy before moving to the education world in 2014.

For now, that's what I have. 

The Right and Geography

 In this month someone on the right has:

•  mistaken the country of Georgia for the state of Georgia (tweeting that Georgia only had 3 million people so the number of votes reported for the state showed fraud
• mistaken the state of Washington and the city of Washington, DC (similar tweet to the first)
• mistaken Minnesota ("MN") for Michigan ("MI") as part of a lawsuit submission.
• at Fox, labeled Michigan's Upper Peninsula as Canada.

One might conclude there's a lack of education in geography and/or that speed makes for sloppy work. 

Drones and the Military

 The Armenia-Azerbaijan hostilities have involved extensive and effective use of drones by the Azerbaijanis which caused the Post to see the future of warfare. in this article.

I doubt that DOD will move quickly to adapt weapons and tactics for scenarios where the adversary is using drones against us--it's not a situation we've run into much up to now, so the military bureaucracy is unlikely to have focused on the threat.

I'm reminded of some discussions of the evolution of the submarine and torpedo, where you had "torpedo boats", then "torpedo boat destroyers" which evolve into the WWI-WWII hierarchy of weapons.