Those Were the Days--Anti-colonialism and Am. Revolution

Lots of tweets relating to the NYTimes 1619 project, almost all of them trying to assess the importance of slavery in the American revolution.

I'm reading Louis Menand's The Free World--about halfway through now.  As I lived through the period and was an aspiring intellectual (😕) I recognize most of the names even if I don't remember the books or ever admired the art.  Possibly I'll comment more on it later.  

But today I want to note the Bandung conference, which was a landmark in the anti-colonial movement of the 1950's.  The nations there represented 54 percent of the world's population, or 1.5 billion people (about 4 billion today).  Menand notes that Sukarno , who had led Indonesia's independence effort and was one of the two main sponsors of the conference gave the opening address and cited Paul Revere's ride (Menand, p. 411) as the "start of the first successful anti-colonial war in history".

It's a reminder that the Revolution had many aspects, including its influence as an example on the world stage.

"Depopulated" ?

When there's a surplus of eggs because of disruptions of supply chains, what do you do?  You "depopulate" some hens?  No, you kill them.  But either way you say it the FSA program won't cover it.

From First to Last

Early on West Virginia was leading the national in rate of vaccinations--their governor had relied on drug store chains.

Today West Virginia has the lowest rate of vaccination (lower than Idaho). 

Dieting and Human Institutions

 Tamar Haspel is one of the people I follow on Twitter.  She and her husband raise oysters in Maine, and she writes on food and diet issues, usually with the refrain that diet panaceas are just that, panaceas not based on hard science.  That's a position I can identify with.

She tweeted this about two new promising obesity drugs (more in the thread):

For all y'all dissing obesity drugs:

EVERYONE would prefer it if we could all just eat healthful foods we enjoy to be the weight we want to be.

But we can't, and if you insist that's the only possible solution you're abandoning people, often desperate, who want to lose weight https://t.co/JuvPuut4b9

— Tamar Haspel (@TamarHaspel) September 16, 2021

Her point is that we eat not because of hunger but because of temptation.  It got me thinking.  As I've written, I think, I'm a creature of habit. I'm also skinny. Are the two facts related?  I think they are: for whatever reason I have the habit of regarding food as fuel, to be consumed as soon as possible without wasting any time or energy in savoring, or in deciding what to eat.  So my meals, at least the ones I make or buy as opposed to those my wife prepares, tend to be the same from day to day.

So my decisions on what to eat don't allow much room for temptation by food.  (Nor, since I eat regularly, does feeling hungry have much to do with it--by eating at the times and with the food I'm habituated to I avoid hungry.)  

I'll jump from this analysis of me to extrapolate to human institutions--most institutions are based on habits.  That's part of what upsets us about covid-19; the pandemic has upset our habits which means undermining the foundations of some of our institutions. 

Farm Estate Taxes

There's been maneuvering in the House over how to handle the estate tax, particularly with regard to farms.  The argument is that increasing the estate tax (has the term "death tax" been obsoleted?) means that heirs of farmers will be forced to sell out to pay the tax, rather than continue to farm the family's heritage. This is regarded as obviously wrong and evil, especially by farmers. 

Saw that recently about 75 acres of Iowa farmland were sold for $22K an acre, which is incredibly high. I suspect economists might say there are benefits to forcing land onto the market, rather than passing it on from parents to children.  The alternative to selling would be to take a loan backed by the acreage to pay the taxes, which seems to be the strategy the billionaires use to get spending money from their stockholdings in their IRAs. Presumably an increased estate tax would cut the market value of the land. 

At any rate, it seems the farmers' political power remains high, and there won't be big changes in the estate tax for farms.  Here are some facts:

Under current estate tax law, $11.7 million in assets are exempt from taxes for heirs. In 2019 -- the last available year from the IRS -- the exemption was $11.18 million. That year. there were 2,570 estates that paid taxes on $77.2 billion in assets (on average about $30 million per estate). There were 269 taxable estates that reported farm assets worth $1.3 billion (on average $4.9 million per estate). With the exemption, that means those farm estates averaged about $16.1 million in value. The average overall tax rate paid that year was 17%, according to IRS statistics.

https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/blogs/ag-policy-blog/blog-post/2021/09/10/know-debate-stepped-basis-capital-2?referrer=twitter#.YTuhj6GcPjc.twitter

"Worth" Movie and FSA Programs

 Saw some publicity for the movie "Worth", a dramatization of Kenneth Feinberg's management of the distribution of the funds for relatives of 9/11 victims. The title relates to the problem of determining "worth": do you assess worth based on economic losses or regard everyone as equal?  

We see the same conflict in public assessments of some FSA farm programs: do you issue payments based on economics: the amount of production, the acreage, the losses of production due to disaster OR do you regard all producers as equal.

Judging by recent stories on agricultural programs, many people believe that farm programs should treat each farmer equally.  But a third criterion is also raised--"deserving" which might include "need" and "reparations." Very few of those who aren't farmers are willing to support programs which compensate for economic losses, which means big farmers get more.

I'll be interested to see the movie.

Logistics of Segregated Buses

 Talking with my cousin about her experience living under Jim Crow laws caused me to think about the logistics, or the daily experience.

Some things were clear and definite: separate schools, separate swimming pools (or days of availability), separate drinking fountains.  Once you knew the rules, complying with them was relatively straightforward.

But some situations were not so clear and fixed.  For example, on the bus, a bus that's heavily used by both blacks and whites. At the beginning whites sit at the front and blacks at the back. But once it gets full, if you're a 10-year white girl boarding the bus you're forcing a black to give up her/his seat, regardless of the age or condition of the black.  If it's full and a black is the next to board, she's forced to stand unless another black yields his seat.

Depending on the rearing and beliefs of the girl, she may accept causing inconvenience to the black as her right and due, or as a violation of treating people as equals. 

Lessons Learned?

 Politico has an article summarizing views of the big shots from 2001 and leaders of the security establishment thereafter o

My own views:

• we should have more confidence in ourselves--in fighting terrorism we indulged in interrogation tactics and an approach, the military commission, to providing justice which revealed our lack of faith in established norms and institutions.
• we should have less confidence in ourselves--in our ability to figure out the unknown, whether Iraq had WMD, whether  we could do nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan.
• we should always remember that we as humans don't do that well in dealing with the new and different, as we've seen more recently in dealing with covid-19.  We tend to react with emotion, with resorting to old patterns, with zeroing in on silos.  We must think anew and act anew.

Malkasian's Afghan War

 I commented earlier on Carter Malkasian's "The American War in Afghanistan". 

I've now finished the book and have some more comments:

• overall he judges our war to have been a failure.
• he notes that GWB had the most freedom to manage the war. Bush focused on Iraq and let Afghanistan slide, particularly on building up the armed forces. Rumsfeld is credited for being prescient as to the problems, but debited for resisting the mission.
• Obama felt he was rolled by the Pentagon at the beginning of his term. Malkasian agrees, suggesting with the benefit of hindsight he should have endorsed a change of goal and a smaller investment of forces. 
• Trump is credited for being able to say "enough".  He's dinged for "the Sword of Twitter (not Damocles)", being erratic in his decision making, and endorsing a one-sided peace agreement.

As for causes of our failure he touches on corruption and poor government, the existence of Pakistan as a safe haven and supporter of the Taliban, multiple missed decisions by all the presidents. etc.  His emphasis though is on the idea that the Taliban most closely represented the "real Afghanistan": Islam, and defiance of foreign influence, meaning that Taliban fighters were more inspired by jihad than the government fighters were by their paychecks.

It seems like a good analysis, though I also take from the book the idea that the government and society were never united, never resolving tribal rivalries, often with problems working with the US. Karzai was able to unite the factions early on, but he and the American forces gradually lost their unity.

I also note support for a pet idea of mine: the problems created by rotating troops and commanders through the country.  These problems diminished over time, as more troops and especially the special forces served multiple tours, and as commanders returned in higher positions.

[update--so far Malkasian's earlier book, "War Comes to Garmser", which is focused on the area in Helmand province where he worked for 2 years, seems better written.]

Individual Rights and Society

This is a good point: 

Evidently we're going to have a debate about vaccine mandates and abortion at the same time--that is, both culture war tribes are simultaneously going to take both positions on the rights to medical privacy and "my body my choice" autonomy

— Conor Friedersdorf (@conor64) September 9, 2021

I support the idea of mandating vaccines, with minimal exemptions, and with permitting abortion before viability (and after in very limited cases).  So how do I reconcile the positions?

Vaccines. People who aren't vaccinated can be infected by the virus, possibly permitting its evolution into variants, and definitely enabling its continued existence. Its existence is a danger to me and others.  Being vaccinated carries a very low risk, so in my view the danger outweighs the risk, which warrants overriding an individual's preference and the vaccine mandate.

Abortion. Every thing equal, I'm in favor of humans. Birth of an infant is, on balance, good for me and the rest of humanity.  It's one more mind and body who can improve life.  But I'm also in favor of individual freedom, of autonomy.  Strong protection of such freedoms is part of my vision of the best society.  So if the prospective mother decides that her interests and sometimes her perception of the interest of the embryo are best served by an abortion, I have to take that seriously.  

And what of the embryo?  We say "life is sacred" but in fact we recognize that's not an absolute, not something which can be applied everywhere. Notably, we don't apply it to members of other species.  (I'm not a vegan.) So I'm comfortable drawing the line at viability.